Citizen Kane- A Triumph of Cinematography

The film Citizen Kane is possibly the best film I have ever seen. The quality of the film is outstanding and everything looks to have been detailed to precise parameters. Having said that, the film is only moderately interesting and it’s not something I would go back and watch for its entertainment value. However, this problem is negligible, in my opinion, when it comes to determining the quality of the film.  The one problem trying to do a backchannel to Citizen Kane is that nearly every shot can be stopped and analyzed to decipher the meaning and intricacies behind it. The photography played such an important role in the film that Orson Welles included Gregg Toland, the director of photography, alongside himself on the final credit slide. I can’t really stress how much each shot added to the film and, since I have some background knowledge of the movie, I know that Welles and Toland spent hours trying to make the perfect shots. Framing, contrasts, lighting, proxemics; everything was taken into account and everything is as it is for a reason. In fact, the film might have been shot without dialogue and we may have understood what was happening in the film without it.  Welles and Toland do an excellent job of showing us rather than telling us the life of Charles Foster Kane.

However, to make the movie work it needed good actors. Orson Welles who directed the film and starred in it as Charles Foster Kane, was outstanding and the way his personality changed over time was wonderful acting. Furthermore, the supporting actors who portrayed people like Jed Leland, Bernstein, (the ever annoying) Susan Alexander, and Kane’s first wife played their parts very well.

The story was fairly interesting and since I know what the film was based on, the life of newspaper magnate Randolph William Hearst (Charles-Foster-Kane, Randolph-William-Hearst; see the similarities), it makes for a good comparison. Orson Welles did well to bring down the reputation of Hearst (although incidentally engaged in a battle that hurt his own brimming reputation) with the scandal surrounding the events portrayed in Citizen Kane.

All in all the film was a master class in many different areas, cinematography being the biggest one. Although, I’ll admit that it wasn’t the most compelling, edge-of-your-seat thriller that would make me re-watch it time after time. But if it was on, I probably wouldn’t switch the channel. The film Citizen Kane is possibly the best film I have ever seen. The quality of the film is outstanding and everything looks to have been detailed to precise parameters. Having said that, the film is only moderately interesting and it’s not something I would go back and watch for its entertainment value. However, this problem is negligible, in my opinion, when it comes to determining the quality of the film.  The one problem trying to do a backchannel to Citizen Kane is that nearly every shot can be stopped and analyzed to decipher the meaning and intricacies behind it. The photography played such an important role in the film that Orson Welles included Gregg Toland, the director of photography, alongside himself on the final credit slide. I can’t really stress how much each shot added to the film and, since I have some background knowledge of the movie, I know that Welles and Toland spent hours trying to make the perfect shots. Framing, contrasts, lighting, proxemics; everything was taken into account and everything is as it is for a reason. In fact, the film might have been shot without dialogue and we may have understood what was happening in the film without it.  Welles and Toland do an excellent job of showing us rather than telling us the life of Charles Foster Kane.

However, to make the movie work it needed good actors. Orson Welles who directed the film and starred in it as Charles Foster Kane, was outstanding and the way his personality changed over time was wonderful acting. Furthermore, the supporting actors who portrayed people like Jed Leland, Bernstein, (the ever annoying) Susan Alexander, and Kane’s first wife played their parts very well.

The story was fairly interesting and since I know what the film was based on, the life of newspaper magnate Randolph William Hearst (Charles-Foster-Kane, Randolph-William-Hearst; see the similarities), it makes for a good comparison. Orson Welles did well to bring down the reputation of Hearst (although incidentally engaged in a battle that hurt his own brimming reputation) with the scandal surrounding the events portrayed in Citizen Kane.

All in all the film was a master class in many different areas, cinematography being the biggest one. Although, I’ll admit that it wasn't the most compelling, edge-of-your-seat thriller that would make me re-watch it time after time. But if it was on, I probably wouldn't switch the channel.  


*All of my "outside/previous knowledge" came from the documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane

95% Pure The Silence of the Lambs

            The film adaption of The Silence of the Lambs was a critical and box office success and is still regarded as one of the scariest films of all time. Upon its release in 1991, it went on to receive 5 academy awards for: Best Picture, Best Actress (Jodie Foster), Best Actor (Anthony Hopkins), Best Director (Jonathan Demme) and Best Adapted Screenplay. Therefore as a commercial and critical product it was very well regarded; however, does it stay true to the original spirit of the novel? I would contest that the movie does stick true to the “spirit of the novel” very well and is just about a transfer from written work into visual entertainment.

            After watching the film, and successfully sleeping through the next couple nights, I was surprised at my lack of anxiety or fear that came from watching the movie. In actual fact, I thought the book was scarier than the movie. While Hannibal Lecter’s character was expertly played by Anthony Hopkins, I felt that he still could have inspired a bit more blood-chilling terror like in the book. One thing that stood out for me was the lack of shots of his “maroon” eyes (which weren’t actually maroon in the film) and his six-fingered left hand. These were things that added to the creepy factor in the novel, and the fact that they weren’t given much precedence in the film did upset me a little, because I felt like they detracted from the character. Although, having said that, Hannibal’s bizarre face mask and his escape from the lower-security prison were very sinister and did justice to the novel by leaving me with the same pounding sense of dread and terror in my stomach that the book did. Therefore, Hannibal’s character was well portrayed and excellently performed, yet I still think that there was a little bit more that could have been done to seal his reputation and convey his full book persona, such as giving his abnormalities more precedence and screen time.

On the other hand, the villain, Jame Gumb a.k.a “Buffalo Bill” (Ted Levine), was also portrayed well. His violent, freaky, sex-confused, transsexual persona was well transferred from the novel to the silver screen; however, he didn’t inspire too much fear in me either. Other than the scene where he freaks out when Catherine doesn’t “put the lotion in the basket” and chases Clarice in his dark basement, he doesn’t really make me afraid of him. It’s difficult to explain why, but reading the book I was much more afraid of Buffalo Bill, possibly it was the style that Thomas Harris described him in the book, full of detail and powerful words, compared to the film which mainly portrays his actions and does little to actually describe the character. Perhaps the director and film crew meant for it to be like that, but I definitely was less scared watching the film than reading the book.

           Other than that, I felt that the psychology, behavioural science part of the film was well done in accordance with the novel. The dialogue was at times verbatim and the emotional inflections of Clarice and Lecter were as I would have expected having read the book. Although, I was slightly annoyed that they cut out some of the interaction between Lecter and Clarice, so that it is Clarice who solves the mystery, with less “help” than Lecter had given her in the book. I’m sure that is fine for those who haven’t read the book, but I feel that the whole mystery, puzzle, crime-solving part of the film could have been padded out a bit further. Otherwise, everything else, other than the plain differences which I shall not delve into, was pretty much in accordance with the spirit of the novel.
            In conclusion, I believe the film was a very accurate depiction of the “spirit of the novel”; however, I felt that it lacked in the creepiness aspects and I think that I would prefer to read the book over the film given a second chance. Although, I did have to give a coarse, half-laugh to Dr Lecter’s final line from the film, “I do wish we could chat longer, but I'm having an old friend for dinner.” which was both mildly humorous and thoroughly scary as it left the rest up to our imaginations.

The Inescapable World of Crime

One of the clearest messages that I got from The Godfather was that: once you get involved with crime and criminal activity, it is difficult to escape. The film demonstrates this via the transformation of Michael Corleone from an honest, hard-working war veteran to underworld mafia boss. Unfortunately, Don Vito’s favorite son and the only child (Connie aside) to become a respectable, legitimate, law-abiding citizen, turns away from his American lifestyle when his family is threatened and begins to engage in the family business which he had earlier claimed “wasn’t him”. Through a series of unfortunate events, the one man that could make the Corleone name more respectable and help them assimilate into American culture, is turned into the monster he eschewed. This illustrates the volatile nature of gang warfare and how hard it is to cut oneself away from the life once he or she has become even remotely involved. However, it is not a simple matter of choosing to not join in any gang or crime related behavior, because the gangs and the crime have greater influence over someone than they can ever realize. Even doing a simple favor for a gang or gang member makes you into their ally and an enemy to the gang’s opposition. There’s no way of just leaving because you have impacted a very complex web and your presence will never be forgotten by others. This makes someone liable for helping a gang or participating in criminal activity and that fact can never be wiped off of your slate. Therefore, Michael’s inclusion in the family business is by no means something that he actively chose to do. Instead he was almost forced into it. First the Tattaglia’s attacked his father; his family; which he holds very dearly. This is a step over the line for Michael and he extracts revenge upon those involved in the attempted assassination. This makes him liable for gang activity and even though he is subsequently sent into hiding in Sicily, old wounds are not forgotten. Despite spending lots of time there, he is eventually tracked down and his wife is accidentally killed by those looking to murder Michael. This type of occurrence is precisely why it is so hard to escape and leave gangs, because even if you run away from it someone or something will find you and bring you back in. This was the case for Michael, no matter how hard he tried to break away from the family business, he couldn’t stand by and let his family die, and once he extracted his vengeance, he had a gang stain that would be impossible to get rid of. 

Thinking through a Rear Window

I thought the film was pretty good. Certainly the ending was suspenseful and thrilling, but also the whole plot of the film was quite different and well worked. I found it interesting and cool how the film seemed very realistic insofar as the potential for something similar to it to occur in real life.  A handicapped man “spying” on his neighbours, learning all about them and their love interests, all through his apartment window.  It’s quite a thought-provoking concept, and is thankfully done justice by the film.

However, the style that the director and cinematographers were going for limited the variation of shots that could be used in the film. For instance, there must have been more than 150 medium-close shots (torso up) of Jeff in his wheelchair, another 50+ of the two sections of the Thorwald’s house; Ms. Lonelyheart, the composer, and Ms. Torso were also frequently photographed from similar angles. This means that the shot’s themselves weren’t so important in this film, but rather the movement and actions within each shot that made each one what it was.  Having said that, at times variety was lacking in even that, with Jeff being in a similar position in numerous of the same shots. Furthermore, Ms Torso is consistently dancing; the composer is consistently playing his piano, etc. Therefore, the editing takes precedence over the movement in this film.  

The editing in the film was very good; it needed to be. With little much else to go on the camera and what goes on behind it was critical into making this a good film. As I mentioned earlier there were hundreds of shots of Jeff, in his room, either alone or with Stella, Lisa, or Doyle. However, the lack of variety in all these shots is still surprising; although, this isn’t a bad thing. What makes up for this is the precise timing of each cut and the length of each shot. While we observe Jeff in his flat so many times, it doesn’t come across like we’re being flooded with images of him. There is enough interaction with the other characters and shots of the other neighbours, scattered throughout and carefully placed within the final product, so that we still feel like a story is at work here, not a biography or narration by Jeff. Although, it is still surprising to notice that all the shots of the respective neighbours were almost exactly the same for each one. However, we subconsciously understand that to be what Jeff sees, obviously he’s not going to be inside their apartments getting intimate looks at all, or even some, of them. Therefore, the style still pays off and we feel satisfied with the shots, the sequence of them, and the number of them.

To end with some other last notes, I was rather amused at the end, as Jeff fell from his window, to see startling lack of subtlety with the way Jeff fell. It’s obvious to us that, when shooting, they didn’t drop him a couple of floors into the arms of his friends, because the image of him dropping doesn’t fit the rest of the frame, and unfortunately gives the ending a bit of a comical aspect to it. Also, the way the film ended, while suspenseful and thrilling, came out a little anti-climatic. After Jeff drops, the policemen have interrogated Thorwald and he has confessed to multiple things within seconds of being captured, which seemed a little bit odd and too forward. I feel that they could have padded that out a bit longer, and possibly even have Jeff interview Thorwald to get the confession. Lastly, while I understand how all the neighbours were worked into the film, with the whole “love and marriage” aspect, I was a tad disappointed that we didn’t really get to know them, much more than that. The characters, from the suicidal Ms. Lonelyheart, to the waiting, dancing Ms. Torso had potential to add an extra element to the film. However, I suppose under the constraints of making the film and the continuity of the plot and such, it would have been impractical to attempt to introduce them too much more.

Silencing the Lambs

Thomas Harris’ novel, The Silence of the Lambs, tells the story of a young FBI trainee, Clarice Starling, and her attempt to uncover the identity of a serial killer...by infiltrating the mind of another.  Only by studying the mind of the brilliant and cunning, cannibal, Hannibal Lecter, can she hope to catch the notorious Buffalo Bill, as the time ticks down on the life of another of the deranged killer’s victims. Thus, is born one of creepiest and most captivating books I have ever read. From the unforgettable, terror-inspiring villain, Dr. Hannibal Lecter, to the sharp, yet detailed prose; everything Harris has done in creating and developing the novel is top-notch. While each chapter is scarier than the last, the book is incredibly enthralling and even through the worst parts, it was difficult for me to put the novel down.   Overall, it is difficult to find a true “spirit of the book”; however, other than just trying to creep out the readers and write a thrilling novel, possibly the theory that the book is about the tragedy of the death of innocents holds some value.

            The theory does have a strong relationship to the name of the book, which gives the theory some fairly substantial backing, and compares young lambs to the victims of Buffalo Bill, which gives the theory some fairly substantial backing. Toward the end of the book, it is revealed that Clarice is sometimes woken during her sleep, by the memory of screaming lambs awaiting slaughter, as she is running away from her Uncle and Aunt’s slaughterhouse ranch. This is drawn out of her by Dr. Lecter during one of their many discussions, and he indicates that if she can successfully capture Buffalo Bill and stop more innocents from dying then, perhaps, in her memory of the lambs they would stop screaming. Thus, Clarice takes it upon herself to use the information Dr. Lecter has given her, and at times only her, to track down Buffalo Bill and save his latest kidnapped victim, Catherine Martin, a senator’s daughter. In the end, Agent Starling does indeed find and kill the notorious criminal and as the novel concludes the audience finds out that she does indeed rest within the silence of the lambs, and yet a note, the now on-the-run, Dr. Lecter sends to her suggests that the silence is only temporary and it will only come when she earns is again and again. I’m not entirely sure how that can be affirmed with any evidence; however, it may be due to her profession in law enforcement. Perhaps, all those innocents who have died in the novel and will die in the future are just like the helpless, screaming lambs that she ran away from, and she connects between them. Therefore, every time she has a case in the future she will once again be awoken by the piercing cries of the lambs, until she has subdued the criminal and brought peace to everyone else and herself. Then, perhaps the message that Harris is trying to convey is that lambs primed for slaughter are just like victims of serial killers. It’s seems like quite a stretch but it could be an animal rights protest. That theory could be furthered by the Buffalo Bill character, who skins his victims in a similar way that someone would skin a Buffalo. To us it would be inhumane and disgraceful to do that to a person, living or dead, but with the Buffalo, if it’s dead, why let its pelt go to waste? Also, Clarice’s last name is Starling, which is a species of Bird; maybe just a coincidence or possibly more symbolism.

            Other than the possible theory of animal rights and the tragedy of the unnecessary death of innocent creatures (animal or human), the book does an excellent job to spook out the reader. Especially reading this late at night, I couldn’t help but think lay in bed, jumping at every little movement, thoughts of Hannibal Lecter and Buffalo Bill parading through my fragile mind. Hannibal Lecter the charming and incredibly intelligent psychiatrist, is made all the worse by his murderous and cannibalistic instincts, even though he is imprisoned for most of the book. From his maroon eyes and six fingered left hand, to the descriptions of him licking his lips and teeth, and the knowledge that he has to be securely bound up with every type of restraining mechanism every time somebody enters his cell, inspires such terror and fear that is impossible to forget. And when the Doctor escapes from the low security prison by killing the two guards in such brutal ways, and then cutting off pieces of the guards faces and placing them on top of his own so that he could escape, sent a severe chill through my body.  

            Then there was Buffalo Bill, the deranged sex-confused serial killer determined to make a costume out of parts of the women’s bodies that he had killed. Buffalo Bill or Jame (misspelling of James) Gumb is an insect-fanatic and a seamstress with a fetish for the dark; a strange and by no means normal character.  For a man that killed his grandparents, while aged only 12, just for the spite of it, he immediately suggests a messed-up character is someone that Lecter has fun revealing because of his numerous quirks and irregularities. His character isn’t helped by the fact that he has a freaky obsession with watching his mother on a tape recording every morning and evening, and his Gollum-esque integration with his puppy which sometimes borders on just creepy.  Lastly, he hunts larger women, because he himself is on the bigger side and he needs a woman-suit that will fit, and he has a dungeon well in his basement.......sort of reminiscent of Josef Fritzel.     

            

A Touch of Attention

Simply put. A little attention would be nice. Thanks for your courtesy, and have a pleasant day.