Citizen Trump
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Citizen Kane
Aticusfinch — 9 years ago(November 11, 2016 01:52 PM)
Life imitates art, it seems; its weird that very few people so far have observed that Donald Trump is pretty much Charles Foster Kane come alive; a multimillionaire who displays demagogic rants, only accepts the legitimacy of the system as long as he wins - if not its "fraud at polls" - who pretends to defend the interests of the underdogs, with whom he has so little in common, and to oppose the establishment, to which he pretty much owes all that he has and that he is. And who ultimately wants to be loved by everybody , but its got to be love "on his own terms". It was also quite fascinating to see, that like, Kane, Trump also threatened to bring his opponent to jail, and curiously, using a very similar choice of words "I will appoint a special prosecutor to judge, accuse and condemn Boss Jim Gettis". The only thing that Welles didnt get right was that this guy has actually won.
-
KubricksSeal — 9 years ago(November 15, 2016 08:44 AM)
You are not the only one. I came here esentially to write this. Trump's win has surpassed art and anything that could be expected out of reality. Before his win, the idea Trump winning the election would have made a bad movie, now it can be compared to classics and legendary character studies, like Citizen Kane.
-
MissGoldHeart — 9 years ago(November 15, 2016 04:51 PM)
A few others have picked up on it. I've seen some articles on Trump and his relationship with Citizen Kane. It's supposedly one of his favorite movies, though he apparently never got that Orson Welles didn't mean for people to want to emulate Charles Kane. Although I've heard some people call Kane a monster and I don't think he meant him to be that way either.
There's an interview with Welles that can be found on youtube. It's from 1960 I believe. Welles is asked about his motives behind the movie and says that he loathes having to give this type of answer, but he did consciously make Citizen Kane as a type of social commentary and specifically as an "attack on the acquisitive society" and on "acquisition in general." Donald Trump is pretty much the very embodiment of the acquisitive society that Welles was criticizing in the film.
So whether you love Trump or loathe him, I don't think one can argue that he did miss the point of the film. At least the point that Welles was trying to make. Unless you subscribe to the "Death of the author" theory or in this instance, the "Death of the writer/director". In that case you can place any meaning and motivation you want on the movie and it's characters and you wouldn't be wrong.
BTW, There is one scene that totally makes me think of Trump. Thatcher has written to Kane that he is due to inherit and become responsible for a massive fortune. Kane responds that he is interested in only one small part of this vast empire: "I think it would be fun to run a newspaper".
I imagine Trump mulling over his acquisitions,his many properties, homes,cars, businesses and realizing that none of them are interesting to him anymore. Suddenly a light bulb blinks on in his head and he says, "I think it would be fun to run a country." -
cheapfrill — 9 years ago(December 28, 2016 12:55 PM)
I knew this would come up sooner or later. The simple reason I don't see the comparison Even a 21 year old JFC speaks with more intelligence and eloquence than Trump could comprehend in a lifetime. Trump's statement alone about "having the words", "great words" sums it up. Kane may have been an unethical gasbag but showed a sophistication and an understanding of life in general that a child like Trump can only marvel at.
-
planktonite — 9 years ago(January 07, 2017 11:55 PM)
Thought the same thing but with a slight tweak - to me Kane felt like a mixture between trump and rupert murdoch.. i.e. rupert murdoch running the australian news paper at a loss year after year for the prestige and to manipulate the public.
I was gobsmacked by the special prosecutor line. Crazy. -
Synthia7 — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 01:35 AM)
Except for the fact that they are both materialistic tycoons, Trump and Kane are nothing alike.
Kane is a sympathetic figure who had a lot of potential.
"I thought you were class,like a high note you hit once in a lifetime."- Young Man With a Horn(1950)
-
phelpsg1 — 9 years ago(January 23, 2017 07:14 AM)
Yes, we watched this yesterday and the similarities were absolutely eerie! Bogus populism, false news (aka "alternative facts"), even Trump's trademark catchphrase "You're fired!". And both Trump and Kane got their start with a lucky inheritance to play with. Weird.
-
AndrewGS — 9 years ago(February 12, 2017 08:37 AM)
Life imitates art, it seems; its weird that very few people so far have observed that Donald Trump is pretty much Charles Foster Kane come alive; a multimillionaire who displays demagogic rants
They may have ranted but Kane ranted about genuine problems (arguably so does Trump even if you disagree with his solutions). Even people who despise Kane usually don't want to pretend the Jim Gettys of the world didn't really exist or were harmless.
who pretends to defend the interests of the underdogs, with whom he has so little in common, and to oppose the establishment, to which he pretty much owes all that he has and that he is. And who ultimately wants to be loved by everybody , but its got to be love "on his own terms".
That describes most politicians, including or especially Franklin D. Roosevelt, unless you think they're more sincere.