Citizen Kane

I like Laura Mulvey's approach to analyzing Citizen Kane a lot. She addresses quite a lot of topics concerning the film, such as production history or different analytical approaches. This shows not only how much material and information you can gain from this outstanding film, but also how you can make meaning of a film by looking at it from different perspectives. I, for example, was never really interested in production history, but especially with films such as Citizen Kane or even The Big Sleep, it gives an explanation to how decisions made beyond the camera influence the actual work. With Citizen Kane, the question of authorship and the fact that Orson Welles was given this extraordinary creative freedom was intriguing, because it certainly attributes to the myths about the films and it's reputation as one of the best films ever made.

Carringer/Mulvey- Citizen Kane

If you're into movies, you might be aware the Citizen Kane regularly ranks in the top 3 of the greatest movies of all time. When I first saw it, I was 15 or so, and while I liked it, I didn't think it was better than The Godfather or The Empire Strikes Back or Casablanca or Shawshank Redemption or any other all time classic. That is because I could not appreciate it completely. I simply did not have the knowledge and competency to fully grasp its importance and effectiveness. What these two readings have done, in addition to reading the relevant section in Film Art and seeing the film again as a 21 year old, is given me a much better understanding and greater appreciation for Citizen Kane as a film.

When I saw this movie for the first time, about it seemed different from the other few movies I had seen from the 1940s. I couldn't say what it was that made it different. It was black and white and that's all I could really see. What I know now is that there are many things that set this film apart from almost all others. It is a masterpiece in the strictest sense of the word. Orson Welles masterfully created this piece of art. It is totally innovative. Welles' creative streak was evident in Carringer's review of the Heart of Darkness debacle. Welles sought to do things that had not been done before. Things that had previously seemed technically impossible. Things that would obviously be very expensive. That did not stop Welles from doing them, instead he would end up thinking of even more creative ways to accomplish what he wanted to. Welles was a man of the theater and a star of the radio. He was one of the most highly regarded names in entertainment. It was only natural that he would play an important part in the history of cinema as he played an important part in the history of live visual performance and auditory performance. It seemed like the natural conclusion for him to eventually have a career in the arena where technology, sound, and performance meet, which is film. The most impressive part to me is his high level of involvement on every single level of the film. He is an excellent example of an auteur. He was a perfectionist and knew exactly what he wanted. He was probably unbearably difficult to deal with but also probably undeniably a genius. He was so focused on detail and meaning that there does not seem to be a single shot in the entire film that was not thought thoroughly planned out in every facet of filmmaking. Composition, staging, framing, editing, mise en scene, camera angle, camera movement, lighting, narration, narrative structure, and just about every other formal element of film is so carefully constructed in this film it is a wonder that Welles did not go crazy. In fact, he probably already was to a degree. Most geniuses are. The meaning he creates with every shot is so deep and there are so many layers. In our shot exercises in class I was under the impression I could look at one shot and just peel back layer after layer and find more and more new and different meanings. Some of it could have been a reach, but there are so many things to think about in Citizen Kane. It is no surprise to me that Laura Mulvey was able to write this book from just one perspective of film analysis. As we discovered in class, there are a number of different ways to analyze a film and the best way to practice these approaches is to take a look at Citizen Kane. I remember times in English classes where I felt as though my teacher was reaching for a meaning in the text that probably was not there. I cannot say Mulvey was doing a lot of reaching.

I really enjoy reading about the production history of films. I have always thought about getting involved in film production myself. Carringer's reading made it seem pretty intimidating in a lot of ways. The amount of work and thought Welles put into this film himself is astounding and overwhelming. The amount of practical and technical efforts that had to be made in order to successfully produce this film is incredible. The fact that they got so creative in order to come in at a reasonable number on their budget that they actually innovated and did fantastic things is amazing. It is truly a work of art and imagination. There are so many more things I would like to say about this film but I simply do not have the time to go through them all. I feel as though I have written so much and yet said so little of what I wanted to say.

Citizen Kane

In reading Laura Mulvey's "Citzen Kane," I thought the most interesting approach was to compare how things occurred surrounding the production of Citizen Kane, versus what would probably have occurred if it were to be filmed now. Mulvey states that prior to this film, Orson Welles had had a series of production blunders, including his filming of Heart of Darkness (which never made it past pre-production). Despite this trend, studio owners decided to stick with Welles, and give him and William Randolph complete say over how the film was done. As a result, both filmmakers were able to complete a masterpiece film which creates a labyrinth like structure, in which the viewer is constantly trying to decipher. They also broke conventions in creating a film that mixed "technology, style, and the aesthetics of cinema." If this movie were to be made today, however, the studios probably would have abandoned Welles long ago, and instead focused on a filmmaker who would be able to gain a profit. This juxtaposition, I feel, fully demonstrates the stranglehold the studio system has over creativity in Hollywood. While I do feel that Hollywood does still put out some fantastic films, I think the overall output of quality films has significantly decreased, as studios attempt to value profit over creativity.

Wollen Article

In his article, "From Signs and Meaning in the Cinema," author Peter Wollen discusses the progression of auteur theory in international film discourse. He does so, especially, by emphasizing the career of Howard Hawks, an American auteur from the 1930's to the 1960's. Hawk's seperated his films into two seperate categories, the drama and the comedy. "[His] dramas show the mastery of man over nature, over women, over the animal and childish; the comedies show his humiliation." Hawks, as a result from his repetition of motifs, Hawks became considered as an auteur during his a career, a filmmaker whose works were considered to be masterpieces. What I found most interesting about this article, however, was the discussion of the early development of auteur theory. Wollen makes it seem as if American filmmakers were only considered by their peers due to a lucky coincedence of two seperate factors. The first was the history of France. France had banned American films during the Vichy governemnt era. After the war, however, American films flooded the market with more emotional impact than most films, thus taking advantage of the weakened spirit of France. On top of this, a cine-phile club had sprung up in France, which sought to analyze films. This club eventually gave American filmmakers the time of day they deserved, and ultimately led to the appreciation of works which otherwise would not have been.

Bazin Article

Since I would like to pursue a career in sound editing for film, Andre Bazin's article, "The Evolution of the Language of Cinema," actually made me angry as I read it. His main argument is that montage is the most effective means of emotional conveyence within film itself, and all other elements are subordinate. In making this argument, I felt as if Bazin severely downplays the signifigance sound can have in film, and especially in conveying the films emotional state. He states himself that, "the cinema has at its disposal a whole arsenal of means whereby to impose its interpretation of an event on the spectator." My argument is that these means are not more important than one another, but rather, to use Eisenstein's metaphor, bricks making up a wall. Each piece, from music, to montage, and even what Bazin refers to as the "plastic" play a role in the overall meaning of the film. My best example is where would suspense or horror films be without sound? Everyone knows the sound of films like those are one of the most important aspects, and I felt as if Bazin fails to recognize this. This is only represented by his line, "sound could only play at best a subordinate and supplementary role: a counterpoint to the visual image."

Mulvey book

I enjoyed this book, as it provided a different perspective than the other readings we've had on Citizen Kane. The Film Art textbook talked mostly about concrete formal elements and structure in the film and the Carringer excerpts discussed the film production history - both of these were interesting but it was nice to have the psychoanalytical insight as well. I had not thought about Kane's separation from his mother and rebellion against Thatcher, his surrogate father, in an Oedipal context before, but it does make a certain kind of sense the way Mulvey lays it out. Additionally the idea of Susan as a part of his collection was interesting, I had not thought of her in those terms before. I found the political tie ins interesting but felt like I did not have quite enough historical background to completely understand all of Mulvey's points about Hearst, Welles and Kane's political stances. Overall it was a good read with many interesting ideas.

Mulvey

I really thought that Mulvey’s writing was very insightful and I enjoyed reading it more than Carringers. I thought it was interesting bow Mulvey talked about the musical motifs that were used throughout Citizen Kane. This is something that I noticed while watching the movie but didn’t really think too much about it. I thought it was so interesting that these motifs were supposed to represent Kane’s power and personality, because it is something that resonates implicitly with the audience but I think its also a very unconscious understanding. She states “Bernard Hermann wrote about the necessity for musical leitmotivs in Citizen Kane. There are two main motifs. One- a simple four-note figure in brass- is that of Kane’s power. It is given out in the first two bar scenes of the film. The second motif is that of ‘Rosebud’; heard as a solo on the vibraphone, it first appears during the death scene at the very beginning of the picture. It is heard again and again throughout the film under various guises, and if followed closely, is a clue to the ultimate identity of the ‘Rosebud’ itself” (18).

Mulvey also talks a lot about psychoanalytic theory and feminism and how it was a main influence on her analysis of the film. She speaks a lot about how the film used unconventional approaches that challenged the viewer to think in a different way and causes the viewer to “construct a language of cinema that meshes with the language of the psyche” (16). I am not sure exactly what the full implications of this statement are and I look forward to discussing it further in class.