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
