Citizen Kane, Part 2

‘A labyrinth with no center’, this was the phrase Jorge Luis Borges, a film critic, used to describe ‘Citizen Kane’. ‘Kane’ is a maze, a puzzle that the viewers can lose their ways so easily thanks to its complexity. Indeed, this is the reason why I am impressed by this film. This is a film that everyone can generate their interpretations endlessly, upon repeated viewing and philosophizing. After all, film criticism, or any art criticism, should be seen as an organic unity. The ideas are built up and challenged repeatedly, yet it always remains intimate in our minds.

Style, and mise-en-scene, are the attributes what makes ‘Citizen Kane’ stand out from its peers. ‘Kane’ is a film that has achieved an eternal coolness, no matter what era you look at this film, you will still be easily captivated by its stunning visual style. Certainly, it was one of the key films that provide foundations for the genre known as ‘Film Noir’, which was one of the most significant genres during the period 1940s-1950s. Heavily inspired by German Expressionism, ‘Citizen Kane’ used extensively an expressionistic lighting style, coupled with low-key / high contrast lighting scheme, to reflect the disorienting minds experienced by Kane and the other characters. After all, human character is not a ‘black-or-white’ issue, and this  particular style can enrich the perspectivism shared by many of the characters in the film.

Expressionistic and high contrast lighting, deep focus and also the 'triangle rule' are all employed in this scene. The aesthetic is reminiscent of many 'Film Noirs' that come after.

A high contrast style can be seen in this scene. Half of the scenes is relatively brightly lit, while the other is relatively under-lit. That achieves a visual tension for the scene.

Yet if there is an idea that can easily associate with Citizen Kane, that is ‘deep focus’. This is the film that becomes almost synonymous to this photographic style, and Welles’ extensive use of this technique indeed contributes so much to the theme of the story. In my article on Renoir’s ‘The Rules of The Game’, I have outlined 3 reasons how a deep focus style can contribute to the narrative- holism, dialectic, and alienation. ‘Dialectic’ and ‘Alienation’ are far more relevant to the plot in ‘Citizen Kane’, and henceforth will be described here.

When 2 objects are separated by a rather long distance, a deep focus can provide a visual tension between the 2 objects, as if there is a ‘tug-of-war’ between the 2 parties. Take the scene when Kane and Bernstein were celebrating with the other officials at the party, and both Kane and Bernstein were situated on one side of a long table respectively. Of course, this deep focus shot made the whole event look grand, yet at the same time it also illustrated a possible power struggle between the 2 big brasses. Welles seem to be reminding us not to place sole focus on Kane, do not forget Bernstein is also there. The fact that Bernstein is not shown out of focus presents an intense visual tension in this scene.

An even more significant use, however, is to present alienation, which is abounding in ‘Citizen Kane’. Interestingly, in many cases, Welles also achieved a compositional tension in many of these scenes, which I would coin the term ‘triangle rule’. In many of these scenes, the composition of the frame usually involved 3 characters, when 2 were closer to the viewers and a third one was situated rather far away. Since all 3 characters are photographed in sharp focus, it was very hard for the viewers to ‘abstract’ away the character standing at a distance, and they would easily arrive at the conclusion that the character was an outlier, one that could not be grouped to the other 2 members due to the distance. In many cases, this symbolized a sense of alienation, because the distant character could no way participate in the actions of the other members,  and hence the actions were beyond his control. The most famous example was of course the scene when Kane’s parents were making arrangements to send the young Kane away from home. When the parents were signing papers inside the room, outside the window, we could see the distant Kane playing with the snow. With the deep focus shot, we were totally aware of his presence and therefore could easily lament his plight that he could not control his destiny. In another one, the presence of a third standing character implied a diffusion of power. Since the characters in many of these scenes were arranged in a triangular manner, it generated a compositional tension, as if the conflicting interests regarding the characters would pull things apart. Indeed, this formalism has become commonplace therefore, with examples as diverse as Akira Kurosawa’s ‘Rahsomon’, Charles Laughton’s ‘The Night of the Hunter’, Nicholas Ray’s ‘Bigger Than Life’, and of course Sergio Leone’s ‘The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly’.  Thus, ‘Citizen Kane’ really serves as an aesthetic model for many.  

From Rosebud to Rose

The attempt to fully understand a human character is often futile, and in many case like solving a puzzle, because what makes us human is the entanglements of goods and bads. Citizen Kane serves as the prime example to illustrate this notion. 

A Wellesian character is a particular brand of personality, who is always present in a Welles picture (often portrayed by Welles himself). A Wellesian is smart, talented, and capable. But the big problem is, he often has serious character flaws, and makes false judgments such as a moral judgment, and they are destroyed by their bad deeds. Therefore, a Wellesian character is sort of a tragic hero, very much originated from Greek tragedy and Shakespearean plays. Kane is the quintessential Wellesian, and this influence can be easily felt in many later film characters,  such as Lawrence of Arabia and even Darth Vader in Star Wars. 

Kane started from a humble beginning, but he was motivated and was confident enough to realize his potential. He had a strong sense of duty at the start of his career, as he wanted his newspaper to act as the voice for the common people. He might have a good heart, yet that was his character flaws that bent the trajectory the other way round. He was always egotistical, and he believed he ruled above the law. When he started smelling success in his media empire, he was power hungry enough to exert all power and control towards himself, and by committing to all these deeds, it corrupted his precious soul. He started to manipulate public opinions through sensationalism, yellow journalist tactics, even black mail, to pay back on his rivals and opponents, both private and public. Indeed, Kane’s antic was pretty ‘modern’, and foreshadowed the attitudes of journalism nowadays.

To have all the power also means to control everything around him, including his environment and associates. With his wealth, Kane acquired numerous possessions and built his ‘dream house’ – Xanadu. Yet, at the same time, he was disillusioned by the endless wealth and power he has been able to achieve, and was dehumanized at the same time. He could not feel, or respect, those he was intimate with, and that led to their estrangements from him.

His two loves were the true victim of his wildest dream, and two scenes were particularly illustrative. The first one was a montage sequence, about how Kane and his first wife’s relationship turned sour. I was impressed by the fact, while the sequence lasted no more than a mere two minutes, the five key scenes in the sequence showed how their relationships gradually changed from passionate to that of cold and indifferent, all happening on both ends of a long dinner table.

 

Actively 'engineering' Susan's opera career.

Susan Kane, just one of the 'possessions' in Xanadu.

Kane did not know how to respect women, yet it was his second wife, Susan Alexander Kane, who really took all the heaviest blows. At that point, Kane’s ego has reached such a horrendous height that he actually wanted to ‘engineer’ success in Susan’s life. He wanted to make Susan a successful Opera singer, but that was something that Susan had no talents or motivations in. He could not appreciate Susan’s free will, and that tormented her to the point of an attempted suicide. In one of the film’s most memorable scene, Susan was seen playing a jigsaw puzzle. What a first rate mise-en-scene. The composition was unbalanced, while half of the screen was occupied by Susan and her game, the other half was very empty. This illustrated a loneliness and alienation experienced by Susan, as she knew that Kane was disappointed by her failure to go further in her opera career. Susan was working hard in solving the pieces of the jigsaw. Yet what was she trying to piece together? Was she trying to piece together Kane’s true self, to find out what Kane really was?   Well, if that’s the case, she was doomed to failure. Because Kane was blinded by power, and a strong sense of fetishism. Kane treated woman as if they were possessions , like all the dolls that accompanied him to his death. Susan was merely one of the packs, albeit a really vulnerable and unhappy one. When she knew she has had enough, she abandoned Kane and left. The hollowness of wealth and power was reflected by Kane’s emptiness of existence.

The young Kane not too happy about the patriarchal arrangements. 

Kane did know when to stop. After Susan has left him, in a furious fit he demolished almost everything in Susan’s room. He left one thing alone – the snow globe, and uttered ‘Rosebud’. The snow globe was the distilled essence of Kane’s regrets and frustrations. ‘Rosebud’ was the name of the sledge Kane played merrily with when he was a kid. It was the stage before the bud blossomed into a rose, and that was the age when Kane was innocent and free of any corruption. He could not control his destiny, because his parents have made arrangements for him, certainly against his will. From a psychoanalytical perspective, we could certainly say that the monster Kane has eventually become could be predicated from the damages he has received from the adults when he was young, and it was a reaction against the Fatherly figures – Thatcher and Kane’s incapable father. When Kane was finally alone, the lost memories from the snow globe enhanced his disappointments of loss –the loss of innocence, and the loss of compassion. At the final moments of his life, he lost the grip of his snow globe, and it shattered to pieces on the floor. It could be the only thing he could still find solace with. It was a very moving scene for me – no matter how nasty Kane has become, he just wanted to keep his personal memories, the good old times when he was really happy and did things according to his own will. His last words neatly confirmed this sentiment...

Rosebud - the childhood sledge.

Final Words

Citizen Kane sounds like a big name, it is his flaws that make him really small. Given the tremendous amounts of insights about human nature one can gain from this film, ‘Citizen Kane’ will stand at the top of the list!

-END-

(2/2)

by Ed Law

21/6/2015

Film Analysis - 47

Citizen Kane, Part 1

That is an old question, that has troubled many since the dawn of humanity. Why does a fulfillment of unlimited wants often lead to an unhappy life, or even solitude? In other words, why are rich people often unhappy? There was once a fictional character in cinema, Charles Foster Kane. He was a big brass in the newspaper industry, he had a large manor known as 'Xanadu', and he literally had everything. Yet, his end was one of lonesome and senseless existence, and with the abandonment from his wife and comrades, he died alone, in his vast ocean of automatons and possessions in his cold palace. The making, and unmaking, of Kane is certainly one of the most fascinating stories about human nature in cinema. This is the plot of probably cinema's greatest masterpiece - Orson Welles' 'Citizen Kane' (1941)!

What can a 25-year-old achieve? You better ask Mr. Welles for advice! At the dawn of his 25th birthday, Welles was already directing, writing, and starring in his very first film. 'Citizen Kane', his first work, was some sort of a 'Big Bang' for cinema. The film was so innovative and original that it has challenged all the perceptions about film art until that stage. 'Citizen Kane' is always the straight-A student in the world of films. It came out No. 1 in the AFI's 100 greatest films, and it was on the Sight and Sound Magazine's Critics Top 10 List for 6 consecutive times, 5 times being No. 1. It was described as a 'labyrinth of meaning', as the film was so complex that we could always come up with new insights and perspectives when we watched it every time. 'Citizen Kane' is the proudest moment of film art, as I am always captivated by the wonder that Welles can achieve so much for a single film, at such a young age? What was Welles' take on this? Well, he simply stated that the reason why he succeeded was because he knew nothing about film! Don't jump to conclusion about this statement, though. It did not mean that Orson was such a genius that he could make a masterpiece without even minimal knowledge in cinema, indeed Orson was passionate about films! As I will mention later, the birth of 'Citizen Kane' can be traced back to a number of artistic origins, for which Orson highly admired. And to be honest, it was inappropriate, or even unfair, to say that Orson has invented any new techniques in 'Citizen Kane'. Orson did not invent deep focus photography (although deep focus is almost synonymous to 'Citizen Kane'), he was not the first one to utilize montage editing style, and he was not the pioneer in expressionistic lighting. What Orson has achieved, however, was that he had the insightful vision and courage to synthesize all these ideas and techniques together, and the sophisticated applications of these approaches were way beyond mere technical achievements, it actually contributed to the narrative and set stages for modern film styles to emerge. That is why Orson is a genius!

Before we start to look at Citizen Kane, two questions have to be addressed. First, what are Welles’ influences? And second, who is really responsible for Citizen Kane’s success (the auteur theory issue)? For the first question, Welles’ style was influenced by no less than 4 famed directors – Griffith, von Stroheim, Renoir and Ford. Indeed, before the shooting of Citizen Kane, Welles has watched John Ford’s Stagecoach (1939) for more than 40 times, as he wanted to be inspired by the filmmaking style. Always an admirer of Jean Renoir, he has cited ‘The Grand Illusion’ (1937) as one of his favorite. Welles was likely to be influenced by ‘The Rules of The Game’ (1939), as the 2 films were so similar in style and themes, although this could not be verified. Another key player was the famed cinematographer Gregg Toland, who has assisted Welles a lot through his first stint as a director. Toland was iconic for his extensive use of deep focus photography, and he has worked with many major America directors throughout the 1930s and 1940s. Indeed, briefly before the start of production of Citizen Kane, he has served as the photographer in John Ford’s ‘A Long Voyage Home’, and this film has since been compared to Citizen Kane, due to the observation that Toland has adapted a lot of techniques he was experimenting with in ‘Voyage’ to Citizen Kane, such as deep focus, unusual camera angles, and high-contrast lighting. So, we can see the influences are from all directions, and Orson was able to bring all the positive aspects together into Citizen Kane. In terms of style, the film was clearly inspired by German Expressionism (it did look like some sort of a Film Noir), and Modernism (the episodic, non-linear narratives and also perspectivism in the film).

The second question is more contentious, and indeed it has nursed animosities among many critics and cinephiles. The issue is, whose story is this? This is indeed embedded by 2 questions – who was / were this film based on, and who was /were ultimately responsible for its achievements? For the first question, it was widely believed that the story of Kane was ‘loosely’ based on the newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (and some other influences from other big brasses). It was likely because once Hearst was aware of the existence of this film, he prohibited all his newspapers to mention or advertise about Citizen Kane. Evidently, Mr. Hearst was not too happy about a dark film based on him. Some also believed that the film was based on the personal experiences of co-writer Herman J. Mankewicz, or even Welles himself. For the later case, it was one of a tragic irony – because after ‘Citizen Kane’, Orson was marginalized and succumbed to the clutches of the Hollywood studio system, and he could never make another movie that would surpass, or at least on equal terms with his first work.  The second question is important because it very much challenges the nature of film art itself. Through the 1960s, the more radical stance by many critics (e.g. the French New Wave) was predicated on the distinction between artists / auteurs (French for ‘author’, the ‘mise-en-scene’ artist) and craftsmen (the ‘metteur-en-scene’ craftsman).   The critics championed any directors who were willing to deliver their original ideas and styles into their work, and it was not surprising that Welles were among one of the prime examples. To the critics, the success of an artistic film could be attributed to the director himself, so that he was the soul of the film. While we could in no way undermine the paramount contributions from a director, with the exception of the director-for-hire archetype, this notion was indeed one-sided. The truth is, film production is term-work, it is an engagement where different personalities contribute their expertise to generate the final product. Indeed, the famous critic Pauline Kael has disputed the ‘auteur’ idea in the 1960s, stating that Mankewicz, or even Toland, should deserve a reputation, as least as much as Welles. That is the reason why she and Andrew Sarris, another critic in favor of the French New Wave, engaged in a lot of debates and feuds on the pages of the magazines at that time. To me, the quarrels involving this ‘auteur or not’ issue are futile. We should never undermine the contributions by any individuals towards a film, even if he/she is not sitting in the director’s chair or a big Hollywood star. And, the word ‘craftsman’ should not be seen as derogatory, or inferior to ‘artist’. The two types of directors only place their focuses in different areas, and there are so many metrics to measure a film’s success! Though it would be a sweeping statement to state Orson was solely responsible for all the success, let’s be honest to note that he has contributed significantly to ‘Citizen Kane’, as an actor, a director, and a writer. This is the reason why we should admire him!  

'Rosebud.' - such was the very last word of the newspaper tycoon Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), before he lost his grip on a snow globe he was holding, and most important, his life. No one understood the meaning of this word, yet all the same, no one understood Kane. He was an enigma, which fascinated many investigative journalists after his death. So, some reporters decided to piece together the ultimate meaning of 'rosebud', and at the same time, to construct, from scratch, the personality of this 'Citizen Kane'.

The reporter came to visit many of Kane's closest associates, all under different circumstances. They each had their unique experiences and perspectives about Kane, and the audience's  perceptions of this larger-than-life character were constructed from these differing views. Kane did not have a blue-blooded birth - like any protagonist of the 'American Dream', his life began in poverty. Circumstantially, a gold mine (!!) was discovered where his family lived, so Kane's parent decided to live with a banker, Thatcher, so that Kane could have a better education and a brighter future. Yet as a child, Kane was obviously not too happy about this arrangement, and the hard feelings were pretty evident! After Kane has grown up, he began a stint in the newspaper publishing business, and he was ready to play rough in this game! He got the top journalists, wrote controversial articles about current affairs, and manipulated public consensus and opinions (that IS modern!!). He was climbing up the power ladder, and married the blue-blooded girl Emily. Soon, however, he had second thoughts. He fell to Susan Alexander, an amateur singer. This had consequences - while Citizen Kane was attempting to transform himself into 'Governator' of New York, his rivals were more than content to blackmail him with this scandal. Politically on the line, Kane married Susan anyway, and his ego pushed her to become an opera singer. She hated the idea, and she was plain bad at that. It was a total failure, and Susan was so humiliated that she attempted suicide. She was the prisoner of Xanadu, with the other dolls and possessions as her fellow inmates. She eventually had enough and abandoned Kane once and for all. Kane was furious and he in a sense destroyed every single piece of possessions of Susan's room, except one thing - the snow globe.

'Rosebud', the reporter concluded, was a word of mystery, as no one would ever walk out of the maze of Kane's inner psyche. Indeed, 'Rosebud' did have a meaning - it was the name of the sled the young Kane was playing with when his parents made the fateful arrangements (THE most iconic deep focus shot in the history of cinema). Rosebud represented Kane's lost dreams, the dreams that would never come true...

Next time, we will look at the style and theme of ‘Citizen Kane’!

(1/2)

by Ed Law

13/6/2015

Film Analysis -46

Rules of the Game, Part 2

‘Everyone has their reasons.’ Such was the painful revelation that Octave (Jean Renoir’s character) delivered in ‘The Rules of The Game’. All of our actions are governed by our subjective motivations, and in order to stick to the rules and customs, we put on masks and façades to hide our true and bestial desires, and then we said we did it out of courtesy. The few ones, who did not observe these rules, who acted spontaneously, were labeled as outsiders. What connected us all, could be nothing more than a web of lies. Renoir had the wisdom to understand this humanistic dimension, and he portrayed it fearlessly in many of his works, in particular ‘The Rules of The Game’.  Like Zarathustra, Renoir knew he has gathered too much honey, and he was handing that out to his audience. Renoir wanted us to look through all the façades and mined into the deepest corners of the human condition.

In order to explore these themes, Renoir used his unique mise-en-scenes to instill an original touch to his masterpiece. To me, two of those served crucial purposes. The first one was the prevalence of mechanical toys and automatons present in the first half of the film. The automatons seemed to be associated with Robert, who was portrayed rather negatively throughout the film, but to me there were 3 significances for this mise-en-scene.

First, this symbolized a ‘mechanical’ nature of the storyline and the theme. Robert was seen as ‘mechanical’ because he was more than happy to accept the ‘Rules of the Game’, which was the customs and manners that could ensure one to be courteous. He was committing hypocrisies throughout the film – he was not honest to his wife, Christine, and he didn’t know what he could do to come to terms with his mistress, Genevieve. He could not feel the plights of the two ladies, and he was dehumanized by the rules he wanted to cling to. Robert was certainly smart - he knew that if he committed to the rules, he would get the ‘right answers’, and at least he would experience a peace of mind in short term. That meant he had to deliver an ultimate fabrication of Andre’s death, when he was clear what scenarios would lead to such a disappointing endpoint.  Another interesting observation, to me, was a ‘clockwork analogy’ of the plot. The different storylines in the film seemed to represent different wheels in a mechanical system, and they had different properties. The dynamics of each storylines could vary, but they affected each other in an intricate manner. Actions in the films were overlapped, especially in the second half of the film. Such an arrangement indeed enhanced the fluidity of the whole plot.

Second, this was a commitment to naturalism. Influenced by Zola, Renoir aimed to deliver a naturalistic style to many of his work. And this implied that Renoir’s movie universe was deterministic – which meant the possibility of free will was futile. This was why Andre and Octave were considered tragic heroes – they were the two characters who could not, or did not, want to commit to the ‘Rules of the Game’. Andre did not care whether his rant on the radio show would embarrass anyone, he just wanted to channel out his frustrations and passions. Octave seemed to act awkwardly through the film, and he failed to accustom to the atmosphere in the chateau (he dressed up as a bear in the evening party). What was worse, Andre’s death was highly tragic, because that was predicated on a double mis-identification. Octave, in a sense, was the culprit Schumacher should go after, and then Schumacher made a mistake, thinking Andre was the ‘wife-stealer’. It was Andre’s character flaw that projected him to such a fate, and a strong sense of fatalism could be felt – all the characters were just pawn pieces on Renoir’s chess board.

Third, it represented a reduction, and this argument synthesized the first two. In order for Renoir to deliver his ideas, a reduction would be useful for him to model on. Like Zola, who reduced all his characters to their primitive desires, Renoir reduced his characters to the mechanized components, which were pieces in his deterministic moral universe. Judging from the number of filmmakers inspired by ‘The Rules of The Game’, Renoir’s world was a convincing one.

The other mise-en-scene, which was important in the film, was theatre. The key event in the evening was a party, where everyone had to dress up into different roles. The theatricality aspect was more than evident – all the characters dressed up to whatever they wanted the others to perceive themselves as. That were brutally honest depictions – Octave’s bear costume was a legend – but almost everyone fabricated themselves, so that they could cover up their moral blemishes, and more important, their true intentions. This was not an event that would cement further understanding, this was just a performance show that would tear everything apart at the end.

The hunting sequence at the middle part of the film was intriguing. First, the tone and rhythm were very different from the acts before and after this scene.  While long takes and gliding camera movements were of preponderance in those parts, the hunting sequence was bombarded by fast-cuts, reminiscent of montage-style editing. It gave the viewers an awkward feeling because the tone was so different from the other parts of the film.  If we look at this scene in a contextual manner, it is not hard to understand that it is allegorical to the impending WWII. The rabbit hunt not only foreshadowed Andre’s death, it also provided a chaotic and disorienting feeling to the viewers. The rabbits were like the innocent bystanders, which were ripped apart by the few selfish parties. They were lining up to be eliminated, and could not act to prevent this disaster from happening.

To me, this scene also served a meaning beyond context. The devastating actions committed by the characters illustrated that they could not co-exist with the natural world. This was due to the lack of self-knowledge. The design flaws of human being meant that they could not unravel all the secrets in the universe, and they had no way to come close to any universal truths. On the other hand, they could not have enough introspection to understand the workings of their inner psychologies. Due to these, humans had to establish circumstantial, and ephemeral rules, so that they could have some solid foundations to base on. This was indeed melancholic -  the fact that they could not be in harmony with the world suggested that they could not understand their positions in the universe, and they could easily commit to all sorts of actions that would only result in destruction. This is the timelessness of Renoir’s ‘Rules of the Game’. Human’s lack of understanding of the ultimate universal knowledge would only reduce to a false impression of a circumstantial existence. After all, the rules of the game are really the awful truths of human nature.

So, are you ready to embrace the 'Rules of The Game'?

-END-

(2/2)

by Ed Law

6/6/2015

Film Analysis - 45