Citizen Kane: Is it the Greatest Film Ever Made?

The first time I was introduced to the famous movie Citizen Kane was in our textbook, The Film Experience. The chapter about cinematography uses the first flash back to Kane's childhood as an example of reframing. The authors quote, "one extreme and memorable example of reframing is an early shot in Citizen Kane. Here, the camera pulls back from the boy in the yard to reframe the shot to include the mother and the men observing him from inside the window; it then continues backward to reframe the mother as she walks toward a table" (Corrigan and White 91). The ironic thing about this scene is it says a lot about the type of character Kane is in this film. Even though he is outside playing, he is still the center of attention and the same is true throughout the whole movie. In general, Citizen Kane is acclaimed as a visual master piece and after seeing it I would agree. Orson Welles uses cinematography, mise-en-scene, and editing in an innovative way in order to tell the story of Kane's life. He used film techniques like flashbacks to represent the complexity of Kane's life, crane shots to add to the search-like feeling in the film, deep-focus to represent the largeness of Xanadu or to fit as many people into the scene as possible, low lighting to place Thompson, the reporter, in the shadows, and a realistic newsreel to begin his film to display Kane's power and wealth. These are just a few examples of techniques that makes Citizen Kane stick to many . But is this what makes Citizen Kane the greatest movie ever made?

At this point in my film class I do not think I have enough knowledge of film to say that this is the greatest movie ever made. Firstly, I have not seen enough movies that critics have acclaimed in order to have some idea of comparison. Secondly, a scale of greatness is quite relative and not very helpful in my book. Perhaps this is my dislike of competition coming out, but in my opinion, a more effective tool for viewers to gain appreciation for atypical films like this one is knowledge about what makes a film acclaimed. For example knowing the history of film making as well as what all goes into making a film (mise-en-scene, cinematography, editing, genres, narratives) has helped me appreciate the older movies. This knowledge has also helped me see beyond the entertainment, beyond the bowl of popcorn, and helped me see what makes a movie sad, happy, scary, depressing, and or funny. If I have to rate it, I would say it is one of the top ten greatest movies, but not just for its technical aesthetics. In class we created a list of criteria for greatest films including: the structure of the story has a mix of coherency, complexity and at the same time is followable; the film form itself is beautiful and striking; there is some aspect of emotional depth/ impact; transitions are visually pleasurable; a great movie also takes risks without being distracting; a great movie demands a viewers involvement; there is some aspect of re-watchibility of the film; cultural relevance, but also some universality. All these things from a movie critics perspective makes up a great movie and although all of these things are characteristics of Citizen Kane, this criteria is not why I would rate it top ten.

Before I saw Citizen Kane I saw a documentary on the film about the history behind it and the political uproar it caused. For me the movie was brilliantly intriguing because of it's story behind the plot and its making. The fact that Kane is modeled after William Randolph Hearst, a powerful man who at some point in history controlled over 30 newspapers across America and owned an estate that today is considered the most expensive private homes in the U.S.A., makes it even more brilliant. Basically, the most powerful producer of Hollywood took on the most powerful man in the media and Orson Welles not only produced the movie he stared in it as Kane. During the time when this movie was first released Hearst was still alive and when he saw this he did everything in his power to put it back in the warehouse. Welles had to have known what he was coming up against when he decided to make this film and seemed willingly to take the risk. For example you can tell from the movie's portrayal of Hearst that Welles was deliberately attacking Hearst's love for money and material possessions. In the film Xanadu, Kane's estate, seems very similar to Hearst's mansion that he often called 'the ranch', which is still standing in California today. Even Kane's open love affair with Susan Alexander seemed to mirror Hearst's love affair with Marion Davies. I just love how honest and culturally relevant it is. From Welles meticulous creation of a realistic newsreel to the way Kane's story is told from "the peoples" point of view. Citizen Kane truly represents what would happen if Hearst were to have died when this film was released. With a person so powerful and well known as Hearst head lines on newsreels would be about his death and everyone would be wondering who he "really" was. The irony of it all is they would look to the media, the very source that has steered them wrong all along, to find out.

I would definitely recommend watching this movie, but I would also recommend you do some sort of research or watch the documentary about the movie so you go in with some knowledge of the movies history. Keep in mind a common theory that Citizen Kane became so big because of the political uproar that followed its original release. Just like everyone wants to read a banned book, everyone wanted to see Citizen Kane to see what all the controversy was about. It just so happened that Citizen Kane was also was the most aesthetically pleasing film critics laid their eyes on. If your like me, once you see this movie you will want to know everything about Hearst and the other powerful business men Welles modeled Kane after.

What is noir?

After reading Paul Schrader's article, "Notes on Film Noir" and watching four different noir movies, I have come to the conclusion that I am not completely sure what noir is. A mantra someone in our class came up seem to sum noir up in one sentence: "If it looks like noir and it smells like noir it is not noir". The reason this mantra holds true is because noir is more a tone and a style then a specific theme or a genre. Some of these stylistics that Paul Schrader lists in his article include: majority of scenes lit for night, oblique and vertical lines, actors and setting often given equal lighting, compositional tension is preferred to physical action, Freudian attachment to water, romantic narration and a complicated order chronological order is common to add to create the feeling of hopelessness and lost time (235-236). Besides the stylistics and tone, Schrader also defines noir as a specific period of time between 1941-1958. The important thing to note here is that there is no agreed upon definition of film noir, so although Schrader seems to think that film noir is a style, not a theme, many people think otherwise.

Before I share my own definition of film noir I should clarify that film noir is a very broad style/ sub-genre. According to Schrader's article there are three phases of film noir and each one is quite different. For example a film noir from the first phase (1941-1946) is not going to look anything like a film noir from phase three (1949-1953). Keeping this in mind here is my definition of film noir: Overall film noir is a specific period of time that can be recreated but outside of the specific effects of the forties and fifties. In other words noir movies from the forties and fifties are genuine noir where as movies from outside of that period are more or less neo noir or nior-esque (for lack of a better word). When it comes to looking for characteristics of noir films an investigation or search of some type is usually present, whether it be to solve a case or explore ones inner self. During this investigation some type of crime is committed and at least one character dies during the duration of the movie. In general, noir films are shoot in the dark and instead of the protagonists being emphasized by filler lights the main characters lurk in the shadows. More often then not the protagonist works alone, separate from the local police force, as a private detective and is quite confident. In addition to the typical private detective, there is a femme fatale; a woman who plays the damsel in distress, but at the same time ends up being a trouble maker. In film noir the femme fatale and the protagonist usually becomes sexually involved or at least share a steamy, dramatic kiss. When it comes to props that are common within film noir money, alcohol, and a cigars are a must. General themes of film noir range from moral ambiguity, shifting alliances, corruption and selfish motives.

Another controversial question about film noir is whether it is mainly an American cinematic genre/sub-genre/style (whatever you want to call it). Based on Schrader's article it seems that film noir was originally overlooked by the American critics due to the fact that "they have been traditionally more interested in theme then style" (241). He also mentions that "film noir, with its emphasis on corruption and despair, was considered an aberration of the American character. The western, with its moralprimitivism, and the gangster film, with its Horatio Alger values, were considered more American than the film noir" (241). From my perspective film noir is not purely American genre due to the fact that it was mainly inspired by German film. Although today film noir is almost completely American, it is important to remember where film noir originated from. Some specific things Schrader points out as genuinely German are the oblique vertical lines as well as the typical noir lighting. The ironic thing about calling noir American is the fact that American Hollywood jumped on the band wagon late in the game. It was not until recently that American critics are taking an interest in film noir. In other words American culture was not interested during the genuine noir period from the forties to the fifties. I think the only reason noir is considered American by most is because of the recent trend of interest in this specific sub-genre.

Chinatown: My personal favorite

Taking place in the 1930's, around the time of the historical water and land disputes in Los Angeles, Chinatown is a movie about a private investigator named Jake Gittes who is hired to investigate Hollis Mulwray, the chief engineer for the local water company. A women who claims to be Hollis' wife hires Gittes, but when Hollis' body is found dead in a near by reservoir Gittes becomes suspicious. Once the real Mrs. Mulwray comes forward Gittes makes it his goal to find out who killed Hollis and how the women who posed as Mrs. Mulwray is involved. As Gittes gets closer and closer to finding Mr. Mulwray's killer he digs up a lot of the past which continually makes the investigation more complicated. Like other film noirs, money is the motivator, the femme fatale (Mrs. Mulwray) is the trouble maker and corruption is the name of the game, but the only difference in Chinatown is the fact that it was made in the 1970's.

Not surprisingly this movie was one of my favorites out of all the noir movies we watched. Reason being this movie is in technicolor and made in way that reflects the movies of todays time period more then the period of film noir (1941-1958), even though it is supposed to take place during the 30's. I felt like this movie was definitely less linear then the other films thus making it less predictable. I will not spoil the ending, but the fact that the movie ends without the investigation being resolved makes Chinatown more realistic then the other four film noirs.

Sunset Boulevard: Insanity

Norma Desmond, a forgotten silent-film movie star, lives in a vast mansion on Sunset Boulevard where she lives with her Butler Max (a man of few words). Fifty year old Desmond has gone off the deep end and has convinced herself that hollywood cannot go on with out her. She obsesses day in and day out on a script which will allow her to gain a comeback in the movie industry and in her spare time reads fan mail that her butler Max sends to her without her knowing. Mean while Joe Gilligis is on the run from his creditors who have threatened to take his car if he doesn't pay off his debt. In an attempt to get some money he tries to sell a script to paramount studio, but he gets shot down. Joe needs money fast and as fate has it Gilligis happens to pull into Norma Desmond's drive as a way to escape from his creditors during a vehicle pursuit. Once Desmond finds out that Gilligis is a writer she offers him a place to stay and endless amounts of money to look over her script. This is just what Gilligis needed, but as he learns of Desmond's state of insanity and depression things become more complicated. Gilligis quickly learns that Desmond gets what she wants, when she wants it just like any other overly dramatic legendary movie star, but the real question to ask is how far will she go to get her way?

Prepare yourself for pure insanity. Sunset Boulevard will make you scratch your head in disbelief and Norma Desmond's deathly stare will give you chills from head to toe. Although this movie is not as suspenseful as other film noirs, it has a unique ability to make the audience fear Desmond due to her uninhibited devilish demeanor. I for one did not think this movie was anything special, but with that being said it was nothing like I was expecting from a film noir. Perhaps if I watched the movie with a mindset that Sunset Boulevard is different then the other noir's then maybe I would have appreciated it more. I will say this much Desmond's character instilled fear in me more then any movie character I have seen in a long time.

Touch of Evil: hard to watch, but well worth it

What starts off as a romantic honeymoon for newly weds Mike Vargas and his wife Susie quickly takes a turn for the worst when they witness a car explode as it was crossing the Mexican border into the U.S. Vargas, a Mexican narcotics official, gets involved with the case due to the suspicion that a native Mexican is to blame. Mean while Vargas encourages Susie to go back to the hotel to get some sleep, hoping not to get her involved, but little does he know she would have been safer at the scene of the crime. It turns out the case Mike is investigating involves Grande, a local drug lord, who is looking to protect his families name. Knowing Mike's weak spot, Grande plans to go after Susie to scare Vargas off the case. In addition to his wife being harassed by Grande's sons and simultaneously trying to solve the case, he is also up against Hank Quinlin, a crooked U.S. cop who plants evidence to sway the investigation in his favor. Between Grande, Quinlin, and Susie, Vargas has his hands full and sets out to bring justice where there is deceit.

In comparison to The Maltese Falcon, I liked this film noir better because of its in depth and more developed story line. Although it was confusing at times, it was not as distracting as the plot was in the prior movie. It challenged my thinking in a way that made me feel uncomfortable, but I think this was necessary for me to leave the movie understanding the point of the film; I think you are supposed to feel uncomfortable. This movie is meant to make you question the law and the supposed clarity between good and evil. I appreciate how blunt and direct the movie is about the overall effects of corruption. I would encourage you to give Touch of Evil a chance.

The Maltese Falcon; worth seeing, but nothing special

Humphrey Bogart plays a corrupt, cynical detective in another film noir motion picture movie about two detectives, Sam Spade, played by Bogart, and Miles Archer who are not as legitimate as they may seem. Spade and Archer are hired by Miss. Wonderly to shadow a man by the name of Thrusby, who she claims ran off with her sister and won't allow her to go back home. Although it seems like her story is honest and sincere, Wonderly's, or should I say Brigid O'Shaughnessy's, lie is revealed when Sam's partner Miles is shot while supposedly tailing Thrusby. Once Thrusby is found killed a baffling case begins to take form and all evidence points to Spade as the murderer. As the bodies continue to pile up and new potential suspects are introduced, Brigid O'Shaughnessy admits the real reason she hired Spade and Archer. Watch and see why Brigid O'Shaughnessy, Joel Cairo, Kasper Gutman and Thrusby will do anything in their power to get their hands on the Maltese Falcon. There are no rules, money is mans best friend and everyone is corrupt.

In my opinion this movie was all over the place, although they did solve the mystery, or what was left of it, by the end of the movie I had trouble following what was happening in specific parts of the film. I understand that the point of this movie was to be baffled by the content, but I felt like I was baffled to a point where it distracted me from the movie itself. It was hard for me to enjoy, but I should admit that I am not as comfortable with these types of movies as I am with melodramas or comedies. Perhaps I feel this way because I am not used to watching crime films, especially film noir. Overall, I think Maltese Falcon is a creative representation of crime during the forties and presents a thoughtful explanation of how corruption could be helpful, but this movie was definitely not a favorite of mine.

Conventional Vs. Unconventional Narratives

There are definite differences between conventional films like Casablanca versus alternative movies like Daughters of the Dust or Monsoon Wedding. When comparing Daughters of the Dust and Monsoon Wedding to Casablanca there is a completely different feel. A classical film narrative is usually "centered on one or more central characters who propel the plot with a cause-and-effect logic, develops plots with linear chronologies directed at certain goals, and employs an omniscient or a restricted narration that suggest some degree of realism" (Corrigan and White 248). Where as alternative film narratives "deviate from or challenge the linearity of the narrative, undermines the centrality of a main character, and questions the objective realism of classical narration" (Corrigan and White 249). The most basic difference is the lack of distinction of main characters and secondary characters in the two alternative movies versus the conventional Hollywood film. Monsoon Wedding and Daughters of the Dust do not focus on one specific character, but rather introduce a hand full of characters. It is not a coincidence that all the women from the Peazant family in Daughters of the Dust are wearing white or that Aditi, the bride in Monsoon Wedding, has just as much screen time as the other family members do. Both these movies give a balanced perspective of each character rather than narrowing in on one or two specific characters. In contradiction, Casablanca's two main characters, Rick and Ilsa, are obviously the focus of the movie. The next question is what makes this basic difference in narrative characters between the three films evident?

Returning to my first few blog entries about technical aspects of film, it is obvious that mise-en-scene and cinematography play a big role in determining who is a main character and who is a minor one. Specifically, the way the characters are filmed, the lighting, their make-up, their costumes and the way they are staged are all things that enhance or diminish the characters importance. For example Ilsa in Casablanca has a radiance about her that is created from her make-up, which acts as a character highlight of her beauty and in return is emphasized by a soft, highlighting lighting technique used to make her stand out. In addition to make-up and lighting, shallow focus and close-ups also play a role in making Rick and Ilsa main characters. In opposition though Monsoon Wedding is filmed very differently. The staging of the Verma family is most often in social blocking to display the importance of the family as a whole. And even when the camera is focusing on Aditi and her husband to-be Hemant Rai, the camera is not necessarily focusing on their faces. For example the scene where Aditi meets Rai at the diner the camera focuses on their hands to say more about their relationship rather than their faces. Similarly in Daughters of the Dust social blocking is common. A perfect example of this is the family meal where the characters hands are the only things in view and the food is the focus of the scene. Unlike Hollywood conventional filming, alternative films highlight things that may seem arbitrary, but have deeper metaphorical meaning. In other words, there is a reason the characters in Daughters of the Dust are shoot from the feet up rather than the other way around and through this process the audience is forced to question why.

After comparing these three films in depth it seems fair to say that Hollywood style movies are biased by the main characters point of views, where as alternative movies tend to give a more balanced and well rounded perspective from a group of people. When comparing which type of movie is more realistic to everyday life, alternative movies come out at the top. It is not realistic for someone to take sides or judge a persons actions knowing only one side of the story and this is exactly what classic Hollywood films do. Although I will admit I like to root for the heroine and hate the antagonist, real life is not black and white and no one is as linear as the Hollywood style makes people seem. It may be true that Hollywood convention is easier to watch and maybe even more entertaining to some, but it ignores a lot of characters that could effect the story being told. Granted all sides of a story can not be included in one film even when using the alternative style, but at least conventional movies make an attempt to shed light on the grey areas of the characters lives. I am not saying that Hollywood movies are not worth watching because personally I love the escape from reality that I receive from movies like Casablanca, but what I am saying is that there is something to be said and looked at in alternative style movies which challenge the norm of film.