Friday, February 27, 2009

Citizen Kane - Memorable Shots

So we are halfway through Citizen Kane (I think) and I thought this would be a good time to write down all of the shots I considered to be interesting. Since we aren't done with the film yet, the list will probably grow and I'll create another post for them.

A man shrouded in darkness- Just after the newsreel in the beginning ends, the chief newspaper guy (I do believe that was his professional title) stands in complete darkness except for the light from the projector hitting him. This particular image is imprinted on my mind and regardless of whether I end up liking this movie or not, that shot will always be one of my favorites. The entire room is filled with men who are both literally and figuratively "in the dark". The small glints of light represent the little amount of knowledge they have about their subject.

Building on fire?- I wasn't sure if I was over-analyzing this but a short chat with Mr. Bennett convinced me that I was on to something with this one. Just before the scene where C.F. Kane writes out the "promises" he plans on keeping at his newspaper, there is an interesting transition. First we see an exterior shot of the building, and then as it fades, fire from an oil lamp is clearly visible in one of the windows. This proves to be from an oil lamp in the next scene, but if you freeze the picture during the transition, it really looks as though the building is on fire. I felt that this was foreshadowing of how very soon, Kane's life is going to be pulled from under his feet and he will begin to suffer.

Knock off that racket!- The scene where Kane's mother is signing off her son to be taken away, you can see a young Kane playing in the snow through the window. You can hear his joyful cries of glee even from far away. His father, then shuts the window that is housing his son, and the noise stops. When I first saw this, I knew it was probably important. I could go through what it means, but I feel it would be redundant since we have already gone over it in class and it is even up on Jimmy Cassidy's blog.

Come a little closer, you look so small from back there- This is another one we went over in class, but I'll mention it anyway. The scene where Kane is signing over his newspaper and he slowly walks to the back of the room, suddenly seeming so tiny in comparison to the two men in the foreground. This is just something I took notice of as being important, and when it was mentioned in class I felt happy because I was right. Yayyyyy.

Ah crap.- In a scene we watched today, Kane's alleged love affair with "singer" Susan Alexander was brought to his wife's attention by Boss Gettys. As Gettys, Susan, and wife Emily are having an obviously heated discussion, Kane can be seen in the background, smaller than everyone else, face covered by shadows. Previously in the movie, the news men covered in darkness represented how little they knew. This darkness I felt represents what Kane was feeling about being caught. Think about when you were a kid and you did something bad, and you knew you were going to get in trouble for it. You'd think about staying away from the people who could yell at you and just kind've hide so maybe they won't find you. Seeing Kane standing in the background, looking so small and with his face covered (possibly in shame), this was the picture that came to mind.

That's all I got for now. See ya.

3 comments:

  1. All excellent points, well articulated. Your last observation was of particular interest to me. I think your specific analysis is on target, but regardless of what conclusion we come up with, it is hard to argue that a lot of time and effort went into the placement of characters within the screen, especially in this scene, but really, in all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very nice post Nick! I agree with all of your points and are glad you mentioned the building on fire and the scene about the affair as I missed both of those but thinking back on them, completely agree with both of your conclusions. Also, I apologize for stealing one of your points but thank you for the credit. You put alot of time and effort into your posts and it clearly shows. They are well thought out and in depth.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I was thinking about how my appraisal of certain films has changed as I got older. There are a host of films that I really raved about when I was your age or a bit older, but when I saw them 20 years later, I couldn't quite figure out what all the fuss had been. Up to now, I attributed it, not to a change in me, but to a change in the zeitgeist, or whatever. Anyway, I wonder if you'd like to participate in a little experiment. I'll give you the title of some films that didn't age well. If you're game, here's one. It's called "The Stuntman." It stars Peter O'Toole. I really liked it when it came out in 1980, when I was 20 years old. I saw it a decade ago, or so, and it didn't do much for me. Another film is "Zardoz." Loved it when I was 18, thought it was a bit outlandish at 30. Same thing has happened with books. Loved Catcher in Rye at 22, thought it was whiney at 33. Who knows, maybe it will come around for me at 50. If I can think of some other titles, I'll let you know.

    ReplyDelete