Citizen Kane masterfully employs both restricted and unrestricted narration to create a fragmented yet deeply personal portrait of Charles Foster Kane. While the film initially presents itself as an objective investigation, relying on a largely unrestricted narrator to piece together Kane’s life from multiple perspectives, it simultaneously utilizes restricted narration to limit the audience’s knowledge, mirroring the incomplete understanding each character has of Kane and ultimately challenging the very notion of a definitive biographical truth.
Understanding Restricted and Unrestricted Narration
Before diving into Citizen Kane’s specific application of these techniques, it’s crucial to define them. Restricted narration, also known as subjective narration, limits the audience’s knowledge to what only one character knows. We see the world through their eyes, experience their emotions, and are privy only to their information. This creates suspense and encourages empathy. Conversely, unrestricted narration, also known as objective narration, provides the audience with access to information that no single character possesses. We can see multiple perspectives, access flashbacks, and understand the broader context of events. This allows for a more comprehensive, though potentially less emotionally connected, view of the story.
Citizen Kane is not simply one or the other; it’s a dynamic interplay between these narrative modes that contributes to its groundbreaking nature. The film opens with a detached, almost documentary-style approach, showing Kane’s death and the mystery surrounding his final word, “Rosebud.” This sets the stage for an unrestricted investigation. However, as the film progresses and Thompson, the reporter, interviews various individuals, the narrative becomes increasingly fragmented and restricted to each character’s subjective recollection. We never truly know Kane; we only know him through the distorted lens of others.
Kane’s Life: A Mosaic of Perspectives
The genius of Welles’s direction lies in how he uses each interview to present a different facet of Kane, simultaneously adding to and obscuring the truth. Bernstein’s reminiscences paint Kane as a young idealist, Thatcher’s as a ruthless businessman, Susan Alexander’s as a needy and controlling partner. Each perspective is restricted to their own experiences, their own biases, and their own limitations in understanding Kane.
This constant shifting of narrative perspective prevents the audience from forming a definitive opinion of Kane. Is he a hero or a villain? A visionary or a tyrant? The answer remains elusive, much like the meaning of “Rosebud” itself. The film’s brilliance is in its refusal to provide easy answers, forcing the audience to actively participate in the construction of Kane’s character.
The Role of Thompson: The Unseen Narrator
Thompson, the reporter tasked with uncovering the meaning of “Rosebud,” acts as a conduit for these restricted perspectives. He is the unrestricted force driving the investigation, yet he remains largely unseen and unheard. We only hear his questions, prompting the memories and opinions of others. Thompson’s anonymity is crucial. He is not meant to be a character in the traditional sense but rather a stand-in for the audience, our surrogate in the search for understanding.
His failure to definitively solve the mystery of “Rosebud” underscores the film’s central theme: the inherent limitations of human understanding. Despite gathering all the available information, Thompson acknowledges that he can only present a collection of fragments, each offering a partial truth. This further emphasizes the dominance of restricted narration within the larger framework of an unrestricted investigation.
Why is Citizen Kane considered narratively innovative?
Citizen Kane’s use of fragmented narrative structures, incorporating flashbacks, multiple perspectives, and a non-linear timeline, was revolutionary for its time. The film broke away from the traditional, straightforward storytelling conventions and embraced a more complex and ambiguous approach. This innovation profoundly influenced subsequent generations of filmmakers and continues to be studied and admired for its narrative audacity.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What are some specific examples of restricted narration in Citizen Kane?
Throughout the film, the interview sequences are the prime examples of restricted narration. Each character, from Bernstein to Susan Alexander, recounts their experiences with Kane from their specific point of view. We only know what they choose to reveal, colored by their own emotions and motivations. For example, when Bernstein describes Kane’s early idealism, we are seeing it through the rose-tinted glasses of a loyal friend and colleague.
How does Citizen Kane use flashbacks to manipulate the narrative?
Flashbacks are crucial in Citizen Kane’s narrative strategy. They are not presented as objective realities but rather as subjective memories, adding another layer of restriction to the narration. Each flashback is filtered through the character’s perception, potentially distorting the truth. The order in which these flashbacks are presented also contributes to the film’s non-linear structure and its challenge to traditional storytelling.
What is the significance of Thompson’s anonymity?
Thompson’s anonymity reinforces his role as a vehicle for gathering information rather than a character with his own agenda. By remaining largely unseen and unheard, he allows the restricted narratives of the other characters to take center stage. His presence facilitates the unveiling of these subjective perspectives, but he himself remains a neutral observer.
How does the ending of Citizen Kane impact the overall narration?
The ending, revealing the physical object of “Rosebud,” provides a moment of unrestricted insight for the audience that the characters within the film never achieve. While it explains the literal meaning of the word, it doesn’t fully unlock the mystery of Kane’s life. The emotional significance of “Rosebud” remains largely restricted to Kane’s own internal world.
Does Citizen Kane ever present a truly objective perspective on Kane’s life?
No. Citizen Kane consciously avoids offering a single, objective truth. Every perspective is inherently biased and restricted by individual experiences. The film’s brilliance lies in its acknowledgement of the impossibility of capturing a complete and unbiased portrait of a human life.
How does the use of deep focus photography contribute to the narrative?
Welles’s innovative use of deep focus photography allows multiple planes of action to be in focus simultaneously, providing the audience with more visual information and potentially influencing their interpretation of events. While not directly related to restricted/unrestricted narration, it supports the film’s complex and multi-layered storytelling approach.
In what ways does Citizen Kane’s narrative structure resemble a puzzle?
The film’s fragmented structure, with its flashbacks and multiple perspectives, resembles a puzzle that the audience must piece together. Each interview and flashback provides a new piece of the puzzle, but no single piece offers the complete picture. This encourages active engagement from the viewer, forcing them to consider the various perspectives and draw their own conclusions.
How did Citizen Kane influence subsequent films in terms of narrative techniques?
Citizen Kane’s innovative narrative techniques, including its use of flashbacks, multiple perspectives, and unreliable narrators, have had a profound influence on subsequent films. Its legacy can be seen in countless films that have adopted similar approaches to storytelling, challenging traditional narrative conventions and exploring the complexities of human experience.
Can “Rosebud” be interpreted as a symbol of Kane’s lost innocence?
“Rosebud” is often interpreted as a symbol of Kane’s lost innocence and the childhood he was deprived of. It represents a time of happiness and security that he was never able to recapture in his adult life. This interpretation is consistent with the restricted narrative provided by the ending, which reveals the physical object but leaves the emotional resonance open to interpretation.
What makes Citizen Kane’s ending so controversial and debated?
The ending provides a clue, but not a resolution. While the audience knows what “Rosebud” is, they still don’t truly know Kane. This ambiguity is intentional, reflecting the film’s exploration of the unknowability of the human soul. The controversy stems from the fact that it doesn’t offer easy answers, forcing viewers to grapple with the complexities of Kane’s character and the nature of truth itself.
How does the newsreel at the beginning of the film fit into the restricted/unrestricted narrative framework?
The newsreel offers an ostensibly objective overview of Kane’s life, presented in a documentary style. However, even this seemingly unrestricted perspective is inherently biased, shaped by the political and social context of the time. It provides a surface-level understanding of Kane’s public persona but fails to delve into the complexities of his inner life. It’s ultimately a carefully constructed image rather than a truthful account.
What are some modern examples of films that use similar narrative techniques to Citizen Kane?
Films like Rashomon, Pulp Fiction, Memento, and The Social Network employ similar narrative techniques, utilizing flashbacks, multiple perspectives, and non-linear timelines to explore the complexities of their characters and narratives. These films owe a debt to Citizen Kane’s groundbreaking approach to storytelling, demonstrating its enduring influence on the art of filmmaking.