"A fellow will remember a lot of things you wouldn't think he'd remember."
--Citizen Kane, 1941.
I watched Citizen Kane for the second and third time recently. It's a fascinating movie, and the DVD edition I got from the library does a good job of providing everything you might want to know about it. I particularly enjoyed the commentary track with Roger Ebert. It's obvious that he's extremely knowledgable about film in general and Kane in particular.
While I was watching it, it reminded me of many other films and styles I've seen before. Of course, most of them are following in the path of Kane, so I guess I'm a bit turned around. The overlapping dialogue, for example, feels right out of a Robert Altman film. The actors are almost universally amazing, and the special effects required to age seven or eight of the main characters across 50 years is amazing.
It was filmed in a particular style, where everything in the frame is in focus. From the closest actor to the farthest window, everything is sharp. What this does is make everything "noticable," so the director has to plan for how to focus the audience's attention in one place. Following characters eyelines, triangular composition, or calling attention with motion all happen frequently.
The subcurrent of "acquisition" is an interesting thread to follow through the picture. As time passes, Kane basically tries to acquire (and horde) everything he's ever come into contact with. He aquires without knowing the value, however. His home contains hundreds of still-crated statues and vases. He acquires, but he doesn't seem to know what to "do" with it. Maybe "having" doesn't ultimately have a purpose; the film doesn't tell you.
Citizen Kane always manages to show up on everyone's top ten list for great films. After a little effort towards understanding it, I begin to see why.
I watched Citizen Kane for the second and third time recently. It's a fascinating movie, and the DVD edition I got from the library does a good job of providing everything you might want to know about it. I particularly enjoyed the commentary track with Roger Ebert. It's obvious that he's extremely knowledgable about film in general and Kane in particular.
While I was watching it, it reminded me of many other films and styles I've seen before. Of course, most of them are following in the path of Kane, so I guess I'm a bit turned around. The overlapping dialogue, for example, feels right out of a Robert Altman film. The actors are almost universally amazing, and the special effects required to age seven or eight of the main characters across 50 years is amazing.
It was filmed in a particular style, where everything in the frame is in focus. From the closest actor to the farthest window, everything is sharp. What this does is make everything "noticable," so the director has to plan for how to focus the audience's attention in one place. Following characters eyelines, triangular composition, or calling attention with motion all happen frequently.
The subcurrent of "acquisition" is an interesting thread to follow through the picture. As time passes, Kane basically tries to acquire (and horde) everything he's ever come into contact with. He aquires without knowing the value, however. His home contains hundreds of still-crated statues and vases. He acquires, but he doesn't seem to know what to "do" with it. Maybe "having" doesn't ultimately have a purpose; the film doesn't tell you.
Citizen Kane always manages to show up on everyone's top ten list for great films. After a little effort towards understanding it, I begin to see why.
Comments
Post a Comment