Citizen Kane: A Review

Although I’ve always heard people talk about the much acclaimed Citizen Kane, I hadn’t actually seen it until last night. In the beginning of the semester, I was only really curious to see whether the all the hype about Citizen Kane was true. And I admit that was still one my goals last night. However, after watching the documentary last week about Orson Welles and William Randolph Hurst, I was really looking forward to watching Citizen Kane with or without the hype.

Well, now that I’ve seen it, I can say that I really did enjoy the story. I think having the background information from the documentary aided in my reasonably high opinion of the story but even without the background, it would be pretty decent. When the movie first started I was pretty skeptical because all the clips I had seen were well into the story and so I was not prepared for the loud voice over narration or the flashing images which were made to look like stock footage. Although I am a fan of the use of the whole flashing stock footage style, I found the narration jarring and I was glad when the film actually got into the story.

I also found Citizen Kane stylistically, very impressive. I particularly liked the scene in which Kane walks past the wall of mirrors as well as the scene when Susan leaves Kane, walking through the long hallway and out the two doors. Although Orson wells didn’t know the rules of cinematography, he certainly broke them well and this adds to the success of the film.

In the end, however, I do think that Citizen Kane’s acclaim is mostly hype. I know that’s a big statement to make considering that it’s topped a number of “greatest films of all time” lists. I also know that a lot of people say it is a film that has to grow on you but I just don’t see that happening to me. I didn’t hate it but I didn’t love it, end of story.



Image From: http://upload.moldova.org/movie/movies/c/citizen_kane/thumbnails/tn2_citizen_kane_4.jpg

The Quest to Define Film Noir

Is film noir a distinctively American cinematic drama? Initially I was inclined to answer yes to this question, however as I took a deeper look at film noir over course of our “genre” unit, I now know a great deal more about the origins/history of this period in cinema. Thus, I think this definition needs to be adjusted in order to be more accurate. Instead, I would propose that film noir is an American style of cinematic drama as opposed to a genre. I think it would even be fair to argue that film noir is a subgenre but style still seems like a more accurate description. This is made evident by the wide range of films that fall under the label of film noir One example of this is Blade Runner, which is really more of a Sci-Fi that is stylistically film noir. Another example is Brick, which while it is a modern film noir, would also fall into the crime genre.

I do think that it is fair to define film noir as a distinctively American style of cinema since it started as a response to the disillusionment experienced by Americans after World War II (Schrader). They were tired of “feel good” films that presented an idealist image of life in America. Still, I think it is important to remember that, while film noir is an American style of cinema, it did not just emerge without any outside influences. Film noir was influenced by German Expressionist cinema, a style which moved away from realism by using images or montage in order to convey the internal (i.e. emotion and the human condition) rather that realistic portrayal. (Corrigan and White) This gave German Expressionist cinema a mythic quality; its emphasis was on telling a story in a symbolic manner in order to capture the emotions caused a real event or period in history. Thus, while the emotions conveyed are realistic, the images themselves usually are not.

Film noir also has this mythic quality; the narratives tend to be very dramatic and, at times, farfetched, but the purpose of film noir, the dark style, was more about capturing the cynicism and disenchantment that American’s were attempting to cope with.

Because of its origins, film noir may seem very culturally contextual. Thus, one might wonder why the style keeps coming back in modern films. One would guess that the subsequent generations have experienced similar feelings of disillusionment and cynicism. As a result, they also want films that more accurately represent their experiences.




Corrigan, Timothy, and Patricia White. Film Experience: An Introduction. Boston: Bedford/Saint Martin's, 2004

Schrader, Paul. "Notes on Film Noir." Film Genre Reader III. Ed. Barry Keith Grant. New York: University of Texas P, 2003.

Film Noir

Definition: Film Noir is a style (and arguably a subgenre) of American Cinema, which reached the height of popularity in the late 1940s following WW II. Film Nior tends to include the following stylistic and thematic characteristics:

•Rich Color Contrast (Shades of Black and White)
•Shadow and Light
•Smoke and Fog
•Dark Mood
•Narration and Voice Overs
•Poetic/Dramatic Style of Speech
•Nonlinear Plot: Often Told in Flashbacks and Flash-forwards
•Themes of Disillusionment and/or Corruption
•The Flawed Hero
•Messy Love Stories
•Cigarette Smoking as an Art Form

Film Nior Unit: Touch of Evil

So I’ve been mulling over Touch of Evil for the past few days and I’m still not exactly sure what to think of it. Initially, I wanted to say that I liked Double Indemnity much better, then I thought maybe it was not fair to compare the two since they seem so different—even though they are both film noirs—and now, I'm just not sure at all. If you really put me to it, I guess that I would have to admit that I liked Double Indemnity better. That aside, however, I still think Touch of Evil was a decent film. What I first noticed about Touch of Evil was Welles’ use of interesting camera angles. The low angle shots of Hank Quinlan (Orson Welles) perfectly captured the larger than life presence of Quinlan’s character. I was also very impressed with the rich contract of black and white colors in Touch of Evil. I know this is a signature feature of film noir, but I think the colors in Touch of Evil were among the richer examples I’ve seen in this genre. Touch of Evil had a pretty good story, although I have to admit that I found it quite muddled. In some cases—especially mysteries or perhaps I should say detective movies, such as this one—a muddled plot can add to the suspense and keep the audience guessing. However, in the case of Touch of Evil, I feel that the muddled plot was merely confusing and detracted from the story. I also found Touch of Evil a bit too gimmicky for my liking, particularly, the socially awkward motel night manager. Since this film also featured Janet Leigh, his character made me feel like I was watching a frighteningly bad adaption of Psycho (yes, I do know that Touch of Evil came out two years before Psycho, but still...). His character definitely detracted from an otherwise serious plot. The film would have been much better off without him. So, while I did say that Touch of Evil is a decent film, I think the only thing that really saved it is that I have a ridiculously big place in my heart for hard boiled detective stories.

Image From: http://filmsnoir.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/touchofevil2.jpg

Film Nior Unit: Double Indemnity

Since I was one of several in the class who voted film noir for our genre unit, I was definitely looking forward to watching Billy Wilder’s Double Indemnity. While I had not seen this film before, I am such a fan of film noir that it was not likely that I would be disappointed…and I wasn’t. Double Indemnity had all the elements you could ask for from a great film noir piece. Obviously Double Indemnity had the amazing visual style, that is, the sharp contract between light and shadows which is central to film noir. Then of course there is the very distinctive style of storytelling and use of language. Although the linguistic style of film noir tends to be very dramatic, which requires a greater level of suspended disbelief I think there is still something honest and realistic in the way the story is told. Sure no one really speaks so figuratively as the characters in a film noir but I think the protagonists use of poetic speech as s/he narrates the story, gives the impression that they are telling letting the viewer in on their most intimate thoughts and feelings. Much of Walter Neff’s narration had this self-disclosing quality. Admittedly a number of his lines were laughably over the top but for the most part I found that the narration allows you to connect with his character and even hope that he will get away with his crimes. I also love way the story is told in a fragmented manner, often revealing the narrative bit by bit through the use of flashbacks. I think this too very realistically captures the way people tell a story. That said, Double Indemnity, as with the other film noirs I have seen, this narrative style makes for a suspenseful story that had me hooked from the start.


Image From: http://pixhost.ws/avaxhome/big_show.php?/avaxhome/2007-09-25/Double_indemnity_R1944U_orig.jpg

Great Film

So what are the vital components to a “Great” Film? I’ve come up with a list which may continue to grow but here it is for now…

•The Story: first and foremost, a great film must start with a good story. Even some initially unlikable films have majorly redeemed themselves in my eyes just based being a compelling story. In saying that however, that doesn’t mean the story has to be ultra unique. In fact, if we’re really honest with ourselves most stories are draw from a collection of well-known, accepted scripts. Still, a good story is more than just a basic formula; it is the other elements of good storytelling that build on that foundation.

•Attention to detail: in my opinion, one of the elements of a well told story is attention to detail. The difference between a mere movie character and a character who is believable—one that the audience develops an interest in their fate—can be largely based on minor details such as the mannerisms actors employ to get into their characters. An actor could simply go through the script acting out only the behaviors and emotions meant to be conveyed to the audience. However, some go beyond this and add details which may seem nonessential to the plot. My favorite example of this occurs in The Godfather when Don Corleone smells the boutonniere he’s wearing. This action may seem strange and nonsensical to some views but when you consider the juxtaposition of this action to his statement about not being a bunch of murders, the action adds depth to his character. We could just see him as a heartless Don but this action might compromise this assessment of him. Besides the symbolic significance of this action—if you accept it at all—are that it simply makes his character more real because it demonstrates an absent minded behavior, something real people (not characters confined to a script) engage in.

•Good Characters: when I say good characters, I’m referring to a well created/developed character and definitely not referring to his/her moral valor. In fact, I would say that the strength of a great character is far more apparent when the character is flawed—maybe even to the point of being despicable—and yet we still want to everything work out for him/her or at least we find them compelling enough to see the film to the end. The best example of this from the films we’ve watched in class would be Jake LaMotta from Raging Bull. LaMotta is hardly what you’d call a noble character and yet his acting and the fact that he was presented as a real man and not just a boxer made him a compassionate character. Much of the reason I disliked Ran goes back to this same principle; the way Lord Hidetora is betrayed by his sons is very sad but his character didn’t seem to be as well developed as Jake LaMotta. Thus, it was difficult to feel compassion for him though out the entire film. I think the Mise-en-scene in Ran was stunning but Lord Hidetora’s character killed the film for me.

•Quantity vs. Quality: I have no problems watching a long, involved film. In fact, some of my favorite films certainly fit this description. I don’t even mind if some films are a bit slow moving at times. However, there’s nothing worse than a film where the length and/or pace does not reflect how much the filmmaker has to say. Again, this is why I could not get into Ran; I felt that it was unnecessarily draw out. I feel that Ran could have been a great film had Kurosawa be a just a bit more judicious with his editing. Apocalypse Now, on the other hand, seemed to have achieved this balance. Although some people would consider this film just as tedious as Ran, I think that the length of the film brought home Coppola’s message on the insanity of war.

•Emotional Connection: This may sound cheesy (and it kind of goes along with the “good characters” criteria but in my opinion, a great film is one that the audience feels an emotional connection to. A film that allows the audience to forget they are just watching a made up story and really get into the plot, to have a vested interested in the outcome.

•Significance that stands the test of time: For a film to be great, it must have some sort of lasting significance such as a historical or cultural significance. If you look at the AFI’s 100 Years, 100 Movies list, a list that I consider to be quite good, you will see that many of the films have not only made the list, but held their place because there are significant to a large number of people over a long period of time. Casablanca, for instance is one of these great films. Not only is it historically significant in terms of being an archetype of Classic Hollywood film history, but also because its plot deals with significant happenings/issues in world history (ex. Nazi invasion and American neutrality).

•Cinematography, Mise-en-scene, and editing: Good cinematography is a vital component of a great film. Good cinematography can be difficult to define and it tends to be something we notice more when the quality isn’t there than when it is. However, I know just saying “good cinematography” is very ambiguous, so I’ll elaborate: quality lighting is definitely at the top of my list when it comes to quality because it can mean the difference between a film that looks professional and one that looks like a home movie. Seriously, I would be willing to bet that even those horrendous Hallmark, Holiday films would benefit from better lighting. Interesting camera angles are another important element of quality cinematography.
Mise-en-scene: mise-en-scene is something I always considered an important element of a great film and yet I never know there was a word to capture all these features until I took this class. When you break it down that mise-en-scene is the stuff in a scene (scenery/actors/costumes/makeup/props) and cinematography is how that stuff looks, you understand how a perfect marriage of the two is vital in making a great film. From this class, Daughters of the Dust was one of the films that truly made me recognize the importance of these elements, particularly mise-en-scene. As I said in my review of the film, the footage of the island was so beautiful and peaceful that it conveyed how difficult it would be for the family to leave.
Good editing is another element whose absence is more noticeable that its presence. In fact, many people don’t know that editing determines how a story is told including how we feel about particular characters or the story as a whole.

•Finally, a great film is one that is thought provoking; a film that you think about long after the credits roll.


Image From: 1001moviez.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/train1.jpg

So I would have to say that Ran is exceptional in that it was the first film we have watched in class this year that I really disliked. When I do not particularly like a film, I usually try to find some aspect of it that I can appreciate but I just could not get into Ran. Early into watching Ran, I thought that I was enjoying it because I found the plot really gripping. Then I remembered that it Ran is an adaptation of King Lear, a story I already enjoy, so it is no wonder it was engrossing. Still, the adaptation was well done, so my overall impression of Ran is that I would have loved it had the film not been so prolonged. However, my main issue with Ran is not simply that it was long—some of my favorite movies are over two hours—but that was so unnecessarily long that it detracted from the film. In my opinion, it is such a shame because Kurosawa’s impressive use of mise-en-scene—especially his use of color in costumes and scenery—was lost as a result of the painfully draw out story.

I feel that Akira Kurosawa tried too hard to emphasize the suffering which resulted from Lord Hidetora’s hubris. Initially I felt a great deal of compassion towards his character. However, as the story drug on, I became so fed up with the film that I ceased caring. I could not feel a connection to his character, only extreme annoyance that he made all the wrong decision. I also felt that I would bash my head against the wall if his jester had one more emotional break down or starting waxing philosophical one more time before the end of the film. Although the theme of the wise fool might work for King Lear, I did not find Kyoami’s speeches profound, only infuriating.

I was also very disappointed by the battle scenes. For the most part, they were well choreographed but they were themselves so draw out that I lost interest. I remember at one point actually laughing because it seemed as though Kurosawa used the same footage of a soldier being shot off his horse over and over for one scene. In any case, I felt battle weary after all these scenes rather than impressed by the choreography.

In saying that, I still have to admit that Kurosawa is a great film maker. His idea to make an adaptation of King Lear was a clever one and his use of colors was brilliant. I only wish I could have appreciated these aspects more but they just could not make up for an overworked story.


Image From: http://www.geocities.com/nobukaze23/nomura_mansai_ran_2.jpg