Citizen Kane

Citizen Kane is a 1941 American drama film directed by and starring Orson Welles. Over time the film has been described as one of the greatest films of all times and highly praised for its innovative cinematography, music and narrative skills. Although the film was not so well received when it was first released, its reputation has become very strong and influential over time.

The story line is considered to be a ‘roman a clef’, which is a story with a key message, about Charles Foster Kane, which was played by Welles himself. Who is considered to be a character based upon newspaper giant William Randolf Hearst. The film follows Kane’s employment from the beginning, when it was considered to be an ‘idealistic public service’ to when it became a struggle and desire for power, therefore ruining his career and his social appeal.

The plot of the story that is featured in the film begins with a portrayal of Kane’s death where he is alone. The news quickly spreads throughout the world and comes to be one of the biggest pieces of sensational news of its time. The death of the leader of newspaper sparks a young writers interest and he goes on to find out as much as he can about the life of the newspaper tycoon. Through his investigation, he discovers that Kane lived his childhood in poverty until the “world’s third largest gold mine” was discovered on the land that he lived on. This opened up many opportunities and also led him to be able to entered the newspaper world at the age of twenty-five. He did this with the sensational yellow journalism (that that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead of uses bold and attractive headlines and exaggerated stories in order to capture attention). He then goes on to take over the New York Inquirer and hires all the best journalists. New York was already a revolutionary land mark in terms of the new modern idea of print, but the fact that Kane was taking it over seemed to spell that the city was heading for even greater things as far as the printed new was concerned.

However, as time went on, it was becoming clear that Kane was not as a positive figure was everyone first thought him to be. On the outside it seemed as if he was doing a lot for the news industry but it was becoming clear that his acts were selfish. Much like Hearst, it was becoming that Kane was manipulating the public’s opinion, most specifically in the Spanish American War. His rise to power was documented including his short following downfall. ‘A love nest scandal’ ends both Kane’s marriage and political aspirations – he could be better described as the man that got everything and then lost it again. At the end of the film it was revealed that Kane was happiest when he was a child, when things were simple and when he was in fact living in poverty. This brings about the question and highlights one of life’s most important philosophies – does money really buy happiness? When Kane was a child with no money he was clearly a lot happier and had a dream. When it came to achieving his dream, his goals grew selfish and power oriented, which coincidentally led to a complex life, bring about many miseries.

Welles never revealed who the main inspiration for the character of Kane was. It was believed that Kane was a synthesis of many characters although the main inspiration was most commonly perceived to be Hearst. If this were to be true, then the film Citizen Kane can be seen to be a hostile parody of Hearst’s life. There are a few evidences within the film that suggest this could be true as many mannerisms that Kane featured were also often to be noted as some of Hearst’s traits. As well as this, some of the speeches were also historically similar to those of Hearst’s.

Hearst clearly thought the same, as he was thoroughly outraged upon the release of the film. He publically banned any advertising, reviewing or any mention of the film in his papers and told his journalists to openly slander Welles. Together with Metro-Godwin-Mayer, Hearst also tried to make an offer to the film producers RKO to destroy all prints and burn the negative of the film. This is hardly surprising as if the story of Kane is based upon Hearst, then the portrayal is openly negative and critical and overall comments that Hearst led a selfish driven life. I think this highlights especially the brutal yet substantial lives that were being led in the set up of modern press, especially in New York where most of the innotive began however I also feel that it is a correct comment on how massive corporatist saw the job at the time and were easily de-moralised by their surroundings.

The Communist Manifesto

The communist manifesto is a document published on 21 February 1848 by Karl Marx and Friederich Engels, commissioned by the communist league and laid out the league’s purposes and program.

The manuscript was very influential in it’s time, acting as an attempt to explain the aims and ideas of communism. Although it was Engels who first pursued the piece when he was elected into the communist league in 1847, the manuscript itself was mainly the works of Marx. The manifesto was first known to the Uk when it was first published in London by a group of German political refuges in 1848.

The main claim of the manifesto is that across Europe, communism is feared, but not understood and thus communists ought to make their views known with a manifesto, in order for those opinions to made with a fair judgement – with the theory of freedom of speech, you can’t complain can you?

So the communists began their pursuit and outlined their main values. One of the most infamous discussions that take place in the manifesto is the debate between the Proletariat and the Bourgeois, which in all fairness sums up what the communist league is all about.

The proletariat is a lower social class – their only wealth being their sons. This represents a capitalist society that does not have ownership of the means of production and whose only subsistence is to sell their labour power for a wage or salary.

The Bourgeois on the other are a social class characterised by their ownership of capital and their related culture. Unlike the proletariat, they own their means of production. Marxism views this group as emergent are from wealthy urban classes and also constantly exploiting the proletariats for their manual labour and cheap wages. However, Marxists also believed that proletariats would rise to a greater power. Although even in this century we have not seen this come to play straight away, the modern day proletariats and bourgeois are seen more as equals and having their own special way of contributing to society, despite the idea that we do not live in a communist society.

I personally thought that I would never agree with a communist party but I am defiantly supporting the rise of the proletariat, maybe because out of the two, I would place myself into this category, much like other students would!

Birth of Feminism

Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Women is one of the earliest forms of feminist philosophy. The main aim of the piece is act as respondent to the educated population in the 18^th century who believed that women shouldn’t have an education. Wollstonecraft quite boldly countered this idea by saying that women needed education because it was their job to educate the children (as men were clearly too “busy” to do so) but also so that they were a suitable companion for their husbands.

She wrote initially in response to many opinions that were voiced during the French Revolution. At this time, the educated Frenchmen were batting around some very high class philosophic ideas that are still present today. It was also common for Englishmen to come back with arguments to these ideas too. However, Wollstonecraft entered this fray not only as one of the English people who were arguing against the French, but also as a woman which in context was especially unheard of.

Her most famous piece of literature, A Vindication of the Rights of Women is a satiric piece. Not only was it almost unheard of that women would have published works in this century, her works also came as a shock because of the level of sarcasm and humour that it featured. Focusing on her fourth chapter; Observations on the State of Degradation to which Woman is Reduced by Various Causes, this explores the common perception that women are weaker than men. Furthermore, once Mary Wollstonecraft argues her point of view on the matter, she then fights for a re-assessment of women’s perception in her 18^th century society.

This isn’t the only time that she is negative towards men in her works; in fact it is a very common theme. There have been many ideas as to why this opinion of hers is so apparent but one that I personally believe would have a great impact is the fact that the main male role model in her home, her father, was an abusive drunk. This childhood event would mot likely cause her to have such strong opinion of men and effect her own perceptions of them.

A Flock of German Philosophers.

Kant was a German protestant who was famous for believing that if anyone used their God given reasoning of situations then everyone would come to the same conclusion to a situation. I think that as an entire Journalism class we used our God given reasoning to conclude that Kant along with his rival Hegel were two of the most complicated men if the history of philosopher. However, there points to Kant’s philosophy that I did understand proved to be significant to western philosophy therefore I should at least justify them with a space on the blog.

I get the feeling that Kant didn’t believe in the idea of uniqueness as along with the universalisation of reason, Kant also believed that if one person did something, everyone else would have to. For example if someone were to have an abortion then everyone else would have to. It’s clear that Kant wants the world’s population to be a herd of sheep.

One of these sheep is Hegel, another German philosopher. The reason behind my possibly harsh judgement of him is when I did understand Hegel, (although this was rare as even Bertrand Russell describe him as the ‘single most difficult philosopher to understand’) I was also seemingly hearing an echo of what I just battled through with Kant.

Although Hegel did manage to get something which can be considered as his – the Hegelian Dialect. This is the idea the there are three dialectic states of development:

1. Thesis: an intellectual proposition

2. Antithesis: a negation of the thesis, a reaction to the proposition

3. Synthesis: solves the conflict between 1 and 2 by reconciling their common truths and forming a new proposition

We studied further theories from both philosophers such as Kant’s categorical imperative, priori/posteriori and his take on realism and from Hegel, his idea on thought and progress. However, I did struggle with both philosophers and their theories and this is my understanding of them both.

Jonathan Swift

Jonathan swift was born in Dublin but during his life he switched between living in Ireland and England with his mother, as his dad died before he was born. During his time of living with his mother, Swift often saw her encounter many financial issues, which of course affected him and caused him to move in with his paternal uncle in Ireland. Obviously this lifestyle was distressing and like most people this affected his attitude and works later on in life.

However, Swift turned out to be a very competent person academically and placed his strengths into getting a BA degree. However, his troubled past could not be forgotten. This became obvious as he went into his main track of life. Although Swift had many jobs such as becoming secretary for Sir William Temple, and other interests such as poetry, Swift was most famous for being a prose satirist. This alone includes a lot of sarcasm and includes a lot of bitterness towards something, mostly towards a piece written by someone that the satirist does not agree with. This shows that Jonathan Swift’s upbringing and life caused him to be a rather cynical person but on the other hand it’s hard to blame him when he had to deal with a fatherless lifestyle in Ireland that was experiencing so much poverty at the time.

Swift wrote many satirical pieces however the one that he is most noted for is ‘A Modest Proposal’. Basically this proposal, one of many written by Swift, is his way of describing his opinion on the Irish society and how the state deals with poverty, especially among families with children. The Modest Proposal is in element what it says it is in my opinion, a dry and subtle way of Swift expressing his passionate opinion and is in some places rather humorous.

At the beginning of the proposal, Swift is clearly compassionate for the condition that Ireland’s mothers and their children are placed in, but by the second sentence, Swift enters into judgmental views. Swift drives the image of Irish mothers who are “forced to employ all their time” begging for food along with their children. He puts a heavy negative tone on these situations and focuses on it throughout his paper to later reinforce his point that anyone who can come up with an effective and true way that these children can be used to be productive members of society would be doing the nation a massive favour.

It is clear to me that the bitterness of Swift’s upbringing is being filtered into this piece of prose, however it is exaggerated in order for it to serve it’s purpose. In essence, this piece is to be a social comment on economics, which most would agree is usually a dry and dull area to cover, however Swift uses ludicrous and strange ideas as to how to solve many issues. After claiming that the current “problem solvers” of his time were rather inadequate, Swift forms an idea much more adequate – that the Irish should eat their children. In detail, Swift claims that a one year old child is a “most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food; whether stewed, roasted, baked or boiled” and by eating their children, parents neither have to pay for food, poor children are not placed onto the streets so they do not become a nuisance to society, but also from a religious point of view, it also helps to prevent abortions. He furthers this whole idiotic idea by suggesting that “one male can serve four females” and that the others should be fattened and given away so they can be farmed into becoming a delicacy. He goes into further specifics that say that by harvesting children, Ireland can have some food that would be available all year round (unlike Potatoes, which many people were bitter towards at this time as it was during the Irish famine). The irony of this is that the way Swift puts ideas across makes it seem that he is assuming his audience automatically agree with him that eating children is the obvious and most ethical way to dealing with the social issue that Ireland were experiencing at the time. He also suggests that by this method, not only does the family benefit, but the landlord and the nation also benefit economically.

However, the audience needs to look past the ridiculousness of his suggestion as in essence, Swift is commenting on Ireland’s social and political issues. Not only this but it revealed to the reader of Swift’s past. I think that this is a very brave thing to do. Because of this, Swift’s audience gain a sense of why he feels the way he does and why he is so cynical towards the Irish’s ability to solve issues sensibly. This sense of honesty possibly makes the reader sympathetic to Swift’s views, and takes his views on, when he is satirising his nation’s attempt to deal with social issues.

It is generally understood that Swift offers a selfless and quite a humble opinion. However he makes it clear that other more selfish ideas are deemed to be wrong in contrary to his. An example of this is that Swift often satirises the work of Adam Smith, a well know empiricist and ‘founder of economics’. Smith was under the opinion that society had little impact on human nature. This view is satirised by Swift who thinks that society is clearly the foundation of human behaviour. As well as this, Jonathan Swift clearly empathises with the poorer end of society so when Adam Smith clearly shows favoritism for the more wealthy and insists that ‘wealth’ is those who appreciate art and have a good education; there is obviously clear confrontation between the two views.

In conclusion, although at times Jonathan Swift provides a very unique yet obviously unpractical view of how to improve a situation, his intensions are truly honorable. At times I do honestly think that he is going down wrong roads of how to deal with such problems but have found them entertaining nevertheless and they especially encourage me to read on further. It is by doing this that I realise that I am reading material from a man who has been truly affected by poverty in his country, whatever poverty is considered to be, and that he is trying to defend the type of people of whom he grew up with.