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.