Again I would disagree. I love both films but Kane especially as the only time we really see Kane for ourselves is the opening sequence when he says “Rosebud”. All other knowledge of Kane is from the recollection of each of the characters interviewed, and each depiction of Kane is subtlety different based on the character telling the story at that point. Each scene is not in so much about Kane himself, but of the character that tells that part of the story. Kane is merely a cipher through which we see a distillation of each narrator through how each viewed him. The only truth about Kane that we see with our own eyes are the opening and closing sequences, making Kane an intriguing enigma. Was everything said of him in this movie true? Which narrator could be considered unreliable, if not all of them? What we have is a patchwork man shown to us via the memories of others, and no first hand knowledge except for the two scenes mentioned. It’s unconventional story telling and highly effective.
Now while I love Casablanca, the story and characters aren’t some new revelation. It’s a story told in many similar ways before and after. What makes Casablanca so amazing is the performances themselves. We are not talking ground breaking cinema here. It was a movie produced by the B-Unit at Warner Bros, and they changed the script everyday. A hurried production to take advantage of the invasion of North Africa in WW2 by the allies. What makes Casablanca so amazing is that they made a film like it, under the the extreme stresses that was B Unit production under the old studio system. That sorta of “knock em out” production line mentality.
Story and character are very important to me. I love Rick and Ilyssa as much as anyone, but Kane is far more compelling a character for the reasons I noted.
Glad that tidbit helped expand the character of Kane for you.
And the spreadsheet is greatly appreciated!