Free fall market mechanisms in Citizen Kane and Chinatown.

Minimal gains to the public under free fall market mechanisms in Kane and Chinatown.

Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) and Chinatown (Roman Polanski, 1974) can both be

examined using the Milton Friedman doctrine which asserts that the responsibility of a business

is to increase its profits (Friedman, 1970). Friedman believed in free-market capitalism and most

of his opinions were based on criticism of Keynesian-style economic models where the

government closely monitored economic metrics (CFI, 2021). Free market capitalism encourages

minimum to no government interference in economic matters. In his 1970 paper, Friedman

argues against corporate social responsibilities because businesses are to make as much money as

possible while conforming to the basic rules of society. In the two films, we learn that it is

difficult for this to happen, we see both Cross (John Houston) and Kane (Orson Wells) crossing

moral and legal boundaries to satisfy their needs to gain more. They are consumed by a darkness

that comes with the desire to make profits no matter the path taken. We see the harm caused to

society by the Inquirer newspaper as it spreads propaganda and also the Power company as it

diverts its water supply to the ocean. Friedman also believed that corporates should reflect their

owners’ desires and this naturally takes shape in Citizen Kane and Chinatown as Kane’s and

Cross’s corporations take that path. The two films are also a critique of leaving market

mechanisms on a freefall, as individuals will acquire too much power.

Cross and Kane are relentless in their pursuit of gain and power and do not have any

strict guiding principles. Both films depict perfect examples of businesses and their stakeholders

who fulfilled Friedman’s objectives of a business, which generally will be to make as much

money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law

and those embodied in ethical custom. In both films, thin lines are drawn between the

businessmen and criminals, ethics are shown to be compromised as the stakeholders, Kane and

Cross seek to maximize their personal gain through whatever means possible. In Citizen Kane,

Kane consistently manipulates the media to paint him in a positive light for his own benefit, he is

also very selfish and acquires a large percentage of the world’s art. This demonstrates the

autonomy he has to use his profits for whatever he desires, a normative theory Friedman supports

in his doctrine. In the same way that Kane seems never satisfied, Cross also keeps expanding his

wealth and trying to benefit himself. At 02:02:47, when asked what in the world he cannot

already buy with the money he already has, Cross claims he wants to buy the future. This can be

interpreted as a metaphor for Cross wanting to acquire power and certainty of possible outcomes.

Kane also tried to grab this influence through his newspapers and by entering into politics,

becoming a larger-than-life figure as depicted in the frame at 01:01:36.

Both Chinatown and Citizen Kane show the darkness that arises from letting individual

stakeholders accumulate too much power, they are still left craving for more which eventually

leads to the destruction of obstacles or the killing of people who stand in their way. Cross was

implicated in the death of Ida Sessions(Diane Ladd) and Hollis Mulwray (Darrell Zwerling), in a

bid to establish his power and maintain and accumulate more wealth. The filmmakers express

Cross’s darkness in his dialogue and confrontation with Gittes at 2:01:49, he moves from a

well-lit area close to the house to the darker pool area, which had been a murder site, creating

suspense about whether he was going to murder again. Here Cross tells Gittes that people are

capable of doing anything given the right time and place, this is an echo of the privileges

excessive wealth has instilled in him. In Citizen Kane, Kane destroyed his long-term friendship

with Leland (Joseph Cotten), as he watered down the principles they had begun the newspaper

business with, “The Declaration of Principles”. At 38:08 just when the “Declaration of

principles” was made by Kane, we see a deep shot in which Kane’s face is covered in darkness,

this nullifies his positive words and intentions for keeping his promises. He later tears the

Declaration of principles apart and breaks his first promise before gaining more power.

Chinatown and Citizen Kane show an absolute failure of market mechanisms to benefit

society as there is an invasion of moral and legal principles. In the two films, we see that when

capitalists are left unchecked, they can accumulate enough power to manipulate the political

mechanism (including government institutions). We see this with the several incidents of

obstruction of justice in Chinatown, as Cross commits rampant crimes ranging from abusing his

daughter to murder and misappropriation of water resources, without any grave repercussions.

Citizen Kane shows us a very flawed man, who excessively and selfishly acquires art, on his way to

the presidency largely due to his influence through media companies. The films seem to suggest the

necessity of government regulations and requirements for social responsibilities. The reason why

Friedman critiqued the doctrine of “social responsibility” was that it involves the acceptance of

the socialist view that political mechanisms, not market mechanisms, are the appropriate way to

determine the allocation of scarce resources to alternative uses (Friedman, 1970). Political

mechanisms largely result from elections, therefore represent the needs of the majority of people

whereas market mechanisms can be easily controlled by individuals. Chinatown offers us a clear

image of a political mechanism alternative as Hollis Mulwray intended to have the Power

company belonging to the public, a situation which would have prevented or presented difficulty

to Cross using the water for himself.

The two films can therefore be used to critique of Friedman's doctrine that social

responsibility does harm to a free society. Citizen Kane and Chinatown support executives to act

on social responsibilities as it ensures that the businesses stay on their written down objectives

and principles. The two films speak about the harm done to society when there is a lack of strong

political mechanisms that give guidance and perhaps even superintend large corporations. Would

the stockholders become too powerful and corrupt, both Citizen Kane and Chinatown provide

Leland and Hollis Mulwray as examples of executives of their respective companies whose

powers to act on social responsibilities were stripped away, only for the stockholders (Kane and

Cross) to either divert from the founding principles or harm society through their selfishness.

Hollis Mulwray sacrificed his life and Leland sacrificed his job, trying to stand up for society

and principles respectively. Friedman believed that “In a free society, it is hard for ‘good’ people

to do ‘good’, but that is a small price to pay for making it hard for ‘evil’ people to do ‘evil’,

especially since one man's ‘good’ is another's evil. ” However, Chinatown proves this to be

wrong as it is difficult for ‘good’ people (Hollis Mulwray) to do ‘good’ and easy for ‘evil’ people

to do ‘evil’ as they have acquired power. This would leave the stooping question: why not make

it easy for ‘good’ people to do ‘good’ and make it difficult for ‘evil’ people to do ‘evil’, a

metaphor for allowing the duty of social responsibility to executives?

The failure of the justice system to capture Cross in Chinatown and Kane's unregulated

accumulation of possessions and influence in Citizen Kane shows how stockholders can become

dangerously wealthy and therefore to some extent, the need to assign reasonable social

responsibilities to their company’s executives so they can act to dampen individuals’ power and

also act as moral beacons in the interests of the society. The two films prove that assigning social

responsibilities to executives is different from the government directly influencing the company

and therefore these social responsibilities do not work against the core principles of a free

society.

Works Cited:

1. Friedman, Milton. “A Friedman Doctrine - the Social Responsibility of Business Is to

Increase Its Profits.” The New York Times. The New York Times, September 13, 1970.

https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibil

ity-of-business-is-to.html.

2. “Milton Friedman.” Corporate Finance Institute(CFI), February 22, 2021.

https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/milton-friedman/.