The flashback for this era of Kane's life portrayed him as a young rebel, with a seemingly good heart and goals to change to the world. Kane wanted to stand up to big money', symbolized by Thatcher, for the little guy. At this time, Kane wanted to be in more control of his life, so he stood up to Thatcher and would not let money control his decisions. .
The next two accounts that were given were those of Bernstein, Kane's business assistant, and Leland, Kane's best friend. Bernstein begins his interview with a reference to the fact that his memory served him as though the events had just happened. He seemed as though he also would have no reason for a biased opinion. I do not think that biasness was an issue in dealing with Bernstein's account. His account of Kane's acquisition of the newspaper and the establishment were juxtaposed in comparison to that of Leland. Leland gave the most controversial information about Charles Foster Kane and gave the viewer an insight into the personal turmoil in Kane's life. At this time in the movie, one might have assumed that we would get the information necessary to find out the meaning of "Rosebud."" Instead, we were told about Kane's affair with Suzanne Alexander and Kane's attempt to make Suzanne a great opera singer. Interpretation led the audience to the impression that he had become a full-fledged tyrant "power was his only goal. After losing in the election, Kane began to search for other means of gaining control, power, and authority. His financial endeavor to build the opera house for Susan Alexander was one way he could finally have power over something in his life. Through Leland's perspective, we saw a major chunk of information. But immediately after his recounting of events, he was wheeled away in the nursing home and once again, we could not be completely confident in his story. Leland, himself, spoke to the faultiness of the human memory and bias could have clouded the story even more.