What's the meaning of the cockatoo in "Citizen Kane"

I've seen "Citizen Kane" countless times but watching the new blu-ray tonight reminded me that the inclusion of the screeching cockatoo image preceding Susan's leaving and Kane's subsequent meltdown has always baffled me. Peter Bogdanovich states in his commentary that Welles told him it was simply a device to wake up the audience, but i'm not so sure I really buy that considering the countless subtle thematic nuances that Welles puposely injected into the film. In other words, it seems that a "cheap" (although noteworthy) jolt without any greater thematic meaning doesn't ring true... or should I take Bogdanovich at his word?
Any ideas?

Thanks,
Aaron

 

I believe the Welles account above. If any meaning at all, the shreiking bird is simply an alarm that something bad is happening (i.e. Susan leaving).

BTW, the transparent eye of the bird is a mere technical snafu. Some people in the past have attributed to it a deeper, symbolic meaning it doesn't possess.

 

I agree with Jack and would go with what Welles told Bogdanovich. I see no reason for him to have been coy with Peter about that detail given everything else they discussed.

 

Sometimes a cockatoo is just a cockatoo.

I once brought this up in a film class discussion on Kane, and asked whether the cockatoo was "a symbol of Charles Foster Kane's impotence." The class disintegrated into a fury of arguments for 20 minutes, and I just sat back and laughed. Some of these theories are such BS...

 

Some people just read symbolic allegory into everything, Marc...

 

I think I have just about every radio show Welles did that's become available and I'd speculate it was driven as a sound as much as a picture. Welles frequently did scene changes with a sudden sound. This isn't much different than the earlier explanation and maybe just reinforces it.

I agree that I see no powerful allegory or symbolic point. Maybe at most it's that a cockatoo is a rich man's rooster, since he had this zoo on his estate, but even that's just a fun guess.

Fun film though. I never tire of it.

 

It's fun in that I can watch it and still get new things out of it. Sometimes I watch for the film technique, sometimes for the acting, sometimes for how the story is laid out, sometimes just to watch it as entertainment. Each time I thoroughly enjoy it. A similar experience to listening to pet sounds for example.

 

My poor choice of words.

Better than I said it. I have to admit i was being a bit sarcastic too. It's fun but it's also depressing. Perhaps more fun for a filmmaker who distances himself from the story and admires it. Another film I feel similarly about is Glengarry Glen Ross.

 

You know, I think it kind of runs the emotional gamut. I think there are very funny things in it -- "I assure you, gentlemen... there'll be no war!" ... "Sing-Sing, Gettys! SINNNNNG SINNNNNNG!" ...or the two stage-hands watching the wife sing in the opera house, and one holds his nose -- but it's ultimately a story about a very rich, self-absorbed man who never could get what he wanted most.

I think it's a very poignant, moving story about a terribly flawed person, but I don't think it's depressing per se. I think you can watch the film on many levels: looking at the editing, the performances, Greg Toland's photography, Bernard Herrmann's music, as well as the story, and I think it's not what I'd call depressing. [Oooops -- and I see Guidedbyvoices made the same comment. My bad.] I'm with Kevin: I never tire of Kane.

You want depressing, check out Human Centipede (or the sequel). You don't have enough money to pay me to watch that.

(Hey, did I just mention Citizen Kane and Human Centipede in the same forum message? I'm going bonkers...)

 

I don't really find the movie depressing at all.

 

To paraphrase Woody Allen from "Stardust Memories", "I think it represented his bird."

Jeff

 

Well, I guess I came to the right place to ask! Thanks for all of the thoughtful responses. As Vidiot said, "Sometime a cockatoo is just a cockatoo." I guess that's what i'll take from it.
I think it's one of the most enjoyable films of its era, however that may say more about the film geek in me than anything else because I also seem to notice something new every time I see it. (The "Pet Sounds" analogy is spot on.) I can see how one might find it depressing with respect to the character arc, but the joy of watching filmmaking this assured always trumps the emotional involvement I may have with the story. Just my two cents, of course, but it's cool that a film 70 years old can still affect people on so many levels.

Thanks,
Aaron

 

I don't find it depressing but it's a deeply sad movie. I never tire of watching it but unless I show it to family or friends, I really have to be in the mood for it these days.

 

Yes, the story in it is depressing. My wife dislikes it. I used to work for Chuck Sellier (director of among other things, Silent Night, Deadly Night) and he hated the film's story. He claimed it failed with the public, not because of a media campaign orchestrated by Hearst or his minions, but rather due to its dark depiction of selfishness. I'm not sure I agree with him, but it challenged me. I admit it's an easy film to enjoy for its craft, but it hardly depicts the good side of anyone, much less Kane.

I still pull it out at least once a year and marvel at its technique.

 

Okay... I'm know I'm reaching but indulge me for a moment, for I just saw the film again. When Kane meets Susan and visits her apartment for the first time he engages in shadow play with an image that looks (vaguely) like... a cockatoo. Based on Welles own words and the general consensus, the shrieking cockatoo at the end is a shock effect. I get that. Still, I find the timing of the similar images (their first meeting and then her leaving him) interesting.
Man, I love this movie! I've seen it more times than I can recount and still find stuff that makes me think deeply about it, wild theories or not.

Aaron

 

I think that's exactly what it was.

I think that's the point of the movie: a very selfish man lives his life, desperately trying to get the love and attention for which he was deprived as a child, and is unable to ever really get it despite vast wealth and fame. Disliking Citizen Kane because it doesn't show people's good sides is kind of like disliking The Walking Dead because there's Zombies and violence in it.

I think the second theme of Kane is that when you examine one person's life, you never really get the whole story unless you can sift through several different points of view and then put the pieces together (like a jigsaw puzzle). The fact that they did a Rashomon treatment on Charles Kane shows you how different the story becomes once you understand the background from the women who loved him, the people who worked for him, and the political and business opponents who hated him.

"Sing-sing Gettys! SIIIIIIIIING SIIIIIIIING!"

 

When I was a kid in the 50's, I watched Citizen Kane on TV. In those days, the expression "flew the coop" was much more common than it is today. When I saw the cockatoo, I thought it was a (lame) visual metaphor for Susan escaping from Kane. I think Welles was too embarrassed to admit that's what it was.

 

Naw, Welles has commented about it before:



Go about 6 minutes into the Dick Cavett interview, and Mr. Welles will reveal the secret of the cockatoo in Citizen Kane. And Pauline Kael cited this story in her 1971 work The Citizen Kane Book, which is a terrific read and highly recommended. Orson often had very little regard for people who had grand, complicated explanations for deep meaning in films.

 

This brings up a question-- I've never read any Comments that I can recall of Welles commenting on Hitchcock's work and vice versa. I'd be curious about Hitch's opinion of Citizen Kane and what they thought of each other. Hitch likewise seemed to have little patience with grand, complicated explanations of things.

 

"Orson often had very little regard for people who had grand, complicated explanations for deep meaning in films."

Guilty as charged. Thanks for the link, Vidiot!

Aaron

 

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

One of my favorite lines from Hitchcock, when an actor questioned the motivation for her character: the great director sighed and said, "It's only a movie!"

Not a problem. Kane is a very deep, multilayered, complicated film and I can see why anybody would want to look for deeper meaning than what's there on the surface. "People will think... What I tell them to think!"