Using your viewing(s) of Citizen Kane, discuss the following quote from your Bazin article in at least two well-developed paragraphs:
"Citizen Kane can never be too highly praised. Thanks to the depth of field, whole scenes are covered in one take, the camera remaining motionless. Dramatic effects for which we had formerly relied on montage were created out of the movements of the actors within a fixed framework. Of course Welles did not invent the in-depth shot any more than Griffith invented the close-up. All the pioneers used it and for a very good reason."
There are many reasons to praise Citizen Kane, but what makes this movie so praisable is not so much it's story,but the way it was told through the cinematic language. The story's development was good due to the non chronological order, because you would be guessing at times and kept you interested, but the form of the movie was amazing. Irwin Welles did not rush this movie at all, everything seen was seen the specific way it was for a reason and was all precisely planned out. From the scenary in the background to the way the actors were lit.
ReplyDeleteWelles use of depth of field is something not seen so much in modern movies and explains why 70's years after original relase that people still like it. It is hard to believe that everything that happened in the shots were carefully planned, but it was. 99% of shots were landscape to show the audience so much at once, which makes this movie the kind that is to be watched more than once, because chances are that you will notice something new most times. Some examples of these in depth shots are when a reporter goes to the restaurant where Susan, Kanes second ex wife, is and the camera enters through the ceiling window while it is raining, to show you how Susan feels and sets the mood before you see anyone. The reporter angered Susan and is asked to leave, so he goes to the phone booth, but the phone booth is shown on the right side of the screen while Susan is shown on the left side of the screen in the background. Why not just get a close up of the reporter in the phone booth? It makes the scene more interesting. You can watch the background and see the depressed Susan while the reporter is making his call, it gives the audience more to look at and be interested in while the reporter does this simple boring to watch task. Another scene is when Kane is younger and has that party with the dance girls, and they're shown in the background until Kane joins in, then it shifts from Kane in the background and you seeing Kane dancing in the background through the reflection in a window. All the in-depth shots gives the audience a lot to notice and take interest in, so they pay attention and don't get bored. Also, Welles use of the actors to make the movie dramatic instead of montage is something we take for granted today, because the reliability of acting to make something dramatic is not as much, because you can edit the scene with a lot of short close ups and some dramatic music and 'boom' you have a dramatic scene. Nothing is wrong with that, but Welles use of landscape shots makes the actors have to be good to make it dramatic, not montage. This is not all thanks to Welles, because many people were involved in the movie, Welles just directed them.
I do agree with Bazin's statement to an extent. I certainly agree with him in thinking that Welles' innovative use of depth of field and other editing/cinematography techniques deserve all of the lavish praise that they receive. After reading about editing techniques and watching early films, I'm able to understand much better why Citizen Kane is so highly praised. At multiple points in the film, I was very surprised by the creativeness of some of the edits, such as the match cut between Kane receiving a present on Christmas ("Merry Christmas") and his adoptive father speaking about him fifteen years later ("and a happy new year"), as well as some of the wide shots that were achieved.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I feel like if one is criticizing the actual film, and not the innovative cinematography and editing, that the level of praise bestowed on it can vary. While anyone could appreciate the film's impact on cinema history, how much one enjoys it is much more objective, and if the viewer didn't totally enjoy viewing it, than one can certainly think that it is being praised too highly. Personally, I found Citizen Kane to be a film that I can appreciate and respect for everything that it did and changed in film, but not one that I actively enjoyed aside from a couple of scenes, and don't really feel the need to return to afterward. While I would certainly call it one of the most innovative and important films of all time, I wouldn't call it one of the greatest. So in my opinion, the film itself certainly can be too highly praised, but what it did cannot.
Citizen Kane is a masterpiece of writing, acting and directing. Orson Welles's magnum opus was a groundbreaking film in many regards. Its intricacy and direction was a revelation for the art of film, a challenge to Hollywood to step up its values and ambitions and attempt to make bigger, more enveloping movies. Its use of in-depth shot contributed to the beauty of the film as well as the intricacy of action it kept up in its scenes.
ReplyDeleteIn one scene, Kane is finishing the review that Jed Leland had begun before passing out drunk. In the scene, Kane is shown in the left as, in the background, Jed gets to his feet and stumbles over to apologize to Kane. The shot is wide and perfectly placed, so that we are able to see all the action in the scene happening simultaneously. In another movie, Kane would be shown typing, and then Jed would be shown getting up and walking over, and then it would cut to the two talking. In Citizen Kane, however, all of this plays out at once. The movie makes great use of this technique.
Citizen Kane is an excellent filmed the undoubtedly revolutionized the way films are made to this day and for this it deserves it's high praises. The film was superb - the editing, the acting, the cinematography, and static camera all added to that mood of nostalgic sorrow when remembering someone who's tremendously impacted your life, but you're not sure if it was good or bad. I can relate to this concept ,but I can't relate to the film. Other than in a few scenes in passing such as after Susan leaves because she realizes Kane merely thought of her something to add to his collection things he never plays with, but simply has so others can't, the look on his face after destroying her room of complete loss and regret I can relate to, however most of the film is not. I very much enjoyed watching this highly original boundary breaking film, but I just couldn't connect to it.
ReplyDeleteThe cinematography and the editing in this film were outstanding as can be seen while the scene is shifting from Kane's butler recalling a memory of Kane to the actual memory and a parrot appears on the screen and screeches, and the scene resumes as nothing happens. Welles does this in an attempt to grab your attention in an imaginative way due to the film becoming more slow towards the end.This catches you completely off guard, yet works with the film perfectly. That scene would be awful and unnecessary in most films, but Welles makes it unforgettable with perfect editing and a great choice on where to place that scene. I think this bold scene defined a new way of always keeping the audience "on their toes".
Anent the innovations of Citizen Kane there can be no doubt that it revolutionized the medium of film through its popularization of certain techniques and is laudable if solely for that reason. I appreciate what Bazin said in his article because watching the film with a new awareness of its importance certainly helped me respect it more.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that while it is remarkable for its influence it may not necessarily be the greatest film of all time. As Bazin cited Griffith I’ll also use him as an example: Griffith introduced filmic methods that resulted in a groundbreaking shift in the future of film. But despite the fact that Birth of a Nation may be an even more influential Citizen Kane and was even esteemed as the greatest film in the world at one time, one could easily critique its asinine melodrama, the flimsiness of its narrative, the shallowness of its characters, and of course its blatant racism. Doing so would completely miss the significance of the film but these qualities are clearly what hinder it from being considered a popular modern classic, but rather one typically watched for didactic purposes. And so similarly Citizen Kane may certainly be regarded for its influence but to label it as the greatest film ever made simply out of an appreciation for its originality would be to ignore better and more memorable (if slightly less influential) films.
And so returning to Kane’s innovation, I very much liked what Bazin had to say on that subject. It’d be difficult to really respond to his assertions without simply reiterating them so I won’t pose to do anymore than that: I like the idea of deep focus further drawing the viewer into the film and creating a more thorough sense of realism, like in Kane as when watching one adopts the role of an objective observer, not so much a manipulated viewer (though Bazin also points out that Welle’s style was very baroque so paradoxically there was a certain level of deliberateness to it). Montage panders to an egregious simplicity, presenting elements to the viewer in the dramatic exposition characteristic of silent films. Deep focus presents a scene with a measure of ambiguity, giving it a literary quality and allowing for a realm of symbolism, subtlety, and intellectual exercise that would further open the door for film to rank among the other great mediums of art rather than solely as a form of entertainment. So while Bazin states that there may certainly be an appropriate time and place for the archaic montage structure, with the introduction of sound-film, deep focus is a more expedient method.