Using the word "improvement" when comparing Velvet Goldmine to Citizen Kane can be problematic, however in this instance it does seem apt. The question that Citizen Kane asks is not about the word "Rosebud" neither is Velvet Goldmine about the shooting of Maxwell Demon. What these two films are about is the construction of a character's life through the alinear reminiscences of those closest to them. Essentially, this basic plot structure challenges the medium of film, as well as the notions of journalism, investigation, and subjectivity and objectivity.

What Citizen Kane failed to do was to further cloud the issues, to up the ante, and underline the fact that we can never know the whole story. Orson Welles' investigator is rather objective--he is a good journalist, his personal investment in the life of Charles Foster Kane (Fostercain?) is limited. Haynes, on the other hand thrusts his journalist right into the mix of things.

Outside of clouding the mystery and upping the sexual content of the film, it seems that the character of Arthur Stuart, masterfully played by Chrisitan Bale, is a substitute for Haynes. Although Haynes was younger than Arthur Stuart during Glam Rock's reign, Arthur Stuart seems the common man obsessed with the world of fame, and the identity questions this persona and Warhol era raised.