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
*All of my "outside/previous knowledge" came from the documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane
This is really good as you share a lot of your insights in the film. However, you contrast yourself in terms of your opinion on the film.
ReplyDeleteYou say "the film is only moderately interesting and it’s not something I would go back and watch for its entertainment value." Yet at the end you said "But if it was on, I probably wouldn't switch the channel." These two thoughts are like they came from two different people.
Other than that, the fourth paragraph could probably be cut in half since its too big and it covers more than one topic. Overall well done
Looks like the blog's posted twice, you might want to edit that out.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that there is a contradiction in what you said – you don't really like the plot of the movie but still love the film because of the cinematography. I will say that I'm a bit surprised by that though since storyline is typically more important to me.
I'm not sure if that third paragraph about acting is needed; maybe you can take that out and explain more about why the cinematography is so great? I agree with you, but would like to see more examples of what's so good about it.
@Josh Thanks bro!
ReplyDelete@Josh Thanks a lot man. I agree that the fourth paragraph should be cut in half and hopefully by the time you read this it will have been fixed.
ReplyDeleteLike Ariq noted when I talked about the film being moderately interesting but not watching it unless it playing on the channel I was watching, I simply meant that I would watch it as a classic and to admire the quality of the film. Otherwise, I don't think I would go out of my way to look for it because the story wasn't the strongest or most compelling.