Film Analysis

October 21st, 2010

Citizen Kane was released in the year 1941. Its production was began in 1940 and was completed by 1941. It was produced and released by RKO Pictures. It remains one of the greatest movies ever made and is known as the masterpiece of all the movies directe by Orson Welles. There is no doubt that the movie is loosely based on the live of William Randolph Hearst, who during the late 1800s and early 1900’s was  a leading newspaper publisher and a magnate much like the main character of the movie Charles Foster Kane. I choose to analyze the scene where Charles Foster Kane is having a conversation with Thatcher.

The scene is shot in a medium shot as well as a mise-en-scene. At first sight the scene seems to be focused on Thather and Kane, but on closer  inspection we can see that there is action going on in the backround. Being the audience we have the choice of watching the individual in the background or focusing on Kane and Thatcher. Orson Welles collaborated with Greg Toland in making the unique cinematography in this movie, this scene is not as obvious but nonetheless is an example of Tolands modified lense which allowed for a greater depth of field. Another thing to notice in the scene is that Kane remains sitting at the center and doesn’t move, rather the individual aroung him are moving. The individuals being, Thatcher who is speaking to Kane, later on in the scene Kane’s best friend Jedediah Leland and business manager Bernstein enter the scene.  Kane is then seen surrounded by Thacther, Leland and Bernstein, but neither of them is seen on the same plane that he is in, even Thatcher who is in front of Kane is at an angle to Kane not face to face with him.

The scene portays Kane at the center of the scene and one gets the feeling that he is surrounded by them. This is prominent theme in the movie as Kane is always surrouned by his friends, fame and success. Regardless of all this he is alone and has no one is in the same plane as him, this is literally shown as everyone moves around him incessantly and he stayed seated. No one seems on the same plane as him due to the camera angle. In the beginning of the movie he is shown to be taken away from his mother. Later on he gets married, but he that relationship breaks as well. He has a good friend but he loses him as well. He is involved in an affair which like his other relationships also breaks regardless of his desperate atttempt to keep it together. All throughout the movie he has never had a lasting relationship and this is very prominently shown in the  stark  yet subtle cinematography by Toland. In the conversation two notable things are mentioned. One being that Bernstein informs Kane that the reporter, Wheeler, they sent to Cuba telegraphed saying that “Girls delightful in Cuba. Stop. Could send you prose poems about scenery, but don’t feel right spending your money. Stop. There is no war in Cuba, signed Wheeler,” and Kane replies “Dear Wheeler: you provide the prose poems. I’ll provide the war.” William Randolph Hearst was known to have said something similar and was also known as inciting the Spanish-American War. Another notable dialogue that occurs in this scene is when Thatcher tells Kane “still the college boy aren’t ya” to which Kane replies “Oh no Mr.Thatcher I was expelled from a lot of colleges.”  This is another instancce where Orson Welles ties the Hearst to his character Kane, as Hearst was also expelled from Harvard.

The theme of the story of Kane losing everything he has and always being alone, even when with friends and loved ones he is always seperated is a ongoing theme in the story and this scene like a few other portray this theme , forming an interesting analogy between theme and visual effects. The historical significance is also evident in the scene as it ties the fictional character Charles Foster Kane to whom he is loosely based on, William Randolph Hearse. The Cuba event occured in the late 1800’s due to Hearse shrewd use of yellow journalism. In this scene there is also an foreshadowing of Kane losing his assets as when he argues with Thatcher that if he loses 1 million dollars a year on his newspaper he could run it for sixty years. 

This scene does an excellent job in accomplishing the theme, historical reference using the formal elements as well as dialogue. Orson Welles has done a superb job in putting so much detail and significance in one scene and making scenes like this and others memorable and filled with ideas when scrutinized.

Early Summer

October 21st, 2010

I loved this movie. The director Yasujiro Ozu does a remarkable job in placing the audience with the Mamiya family. The director was known to be someone who believes in eliciting the emotions of the audience without unnecessary drama and it is clear from seeing the movie how he applies his ideals into the making of the movie. Coming to Japenese cinema I was hoping to see a samurai action movie because I know Japenese Cinema from that perspective, but coming to class I was surprised and shocked that we would be watching this movie which not only has no action but ALSO has no drama!

Well I am glad we watched this. Throughout the movie I felt anxious as to what would happen to Noriko. Seeing her we know that she is a good, kind, loving women who isn’t married but is being encouraged by everyone around her to get married. I almost felt like her brother hoping and praying that she gets married to the right person! The director is the person to blame for setting forth this inexplicable emotion. We grow to love and care about the family and we feel like we are with them. The main reason I believe that this is the case is because of the unique camera placement. The cameras in the movie are never moving, they are always in plane with the characters and don’t attempt any sort of movement in an in order to create drama as opposed to the other movies we have watched so far that have amazing camera effects and shooting angles.

The lack of drama is really evident in the ending when the much anticipated wedding occurs, but we are clearly not invited to it as the scene is skipped altogether, which I found a bit dissapointing. I was hoping to see the family happy one last time before they split up, but this was not the case. The scene skips to Noriko’s parents having moved in with the elder uncle and they see a married couple passing by an remember their daughter.

 Now jumping to antoher topic, historical references. There were several interesing historical references in this movie which referred to the time period in which this movie was made. One was obviously the war, which was mentioned in a very subtle manner, as I guess the American army did not want any harsh feeling of the Japenese towards them. Another prominent reference was of the changing role of women in society. Whereas previously women were mainly housewives who placed all trust on prominent male figure in the house either he be  father, brother or husband. Here we see that women are slowly gaining equal rights as they now work outside ( Noriko for example) and also demand more rights. This is seen when Noriko is having dinner with her friend and they have an arguement regarding etiquette towards women and how the term’s meaning has changed from the time of the war.

Anyways sorry for jumping around from one topic to another, so many things to say so little time. Saio nara(Bye)!

Public Enemy

October 12th, 2010

This was definately a great movie. I really enjoyed it. There were several things about this movie that made it so fun to watch, not to mention the fact that it had action and was a ganster themed movie to say the least.

One of the things that I noted was the stark contrast of the two brother Michael and Tom. They could have been portrayed as good and bad, but it seemed that the director had purposely made them almost exaggerated good and bad. We never see Michael do anything bad whatsoever throughout the movie. He is always the good one, as we see from childhood, the scene where Tom steals roller blades and Michael is angry at  him. Another thing made obvious was how different both their occupations had been. Michael was shown to have worked at an auto shop whereas Tom was a thief in his free time, stealing and selling the items off.

We are shown this later on as well as Michael goes to fight in the army and Tom has continued his trend of mischief. The movie leads us to the conclusions of both. Having been made during the great depression, I loved the fact that there was no happy ending. As good as Michael was he never became rich and made a modest living througout the movie. Tom on the other hand made a lot of money but was killed. No one wins in the end as the family is still as poor as it was in the end as it was in the beginning.

One thing that came my mind after reading the post was Tom’s love for his brother. Regardless of their differences Tom never hit his brother as he was perfectly capable of doing. He loved his family in spite of his misdoings and I thing that he wanted them to fare well. That is why he gives some money to his mom when he comes home as he knows that Michael makes a modest living and would not accept the money, so gave it to help his mom out.

Lady Eve

October 5th, 2010

GREAT movie. Yet another fun movie we watched. Loved the acting of all the characters specially Barbara Stanwyck’s acting of the con artist Jean Harrington. She definately put life into the film and was the central character of the film. There were definately some really funny scenes in the movie for example when Charles Pike keeps getting his coat dirty by tripping into something or having food thrown on him.

Henry Fonda’s portrayal of a naive Pike was really great. He seems like a child next to Jean who at first tries to exploit him then later on grows to love him.  Being an earlier film realeased in 1941, it is amazing how women aren’t biased against and shown to be housewives. Surprisingly a woman is the main character and you actually grow to like her more than the male character because she seems like a more developed character as opposed to Pike, who seems a bit too naive.

There were some scenes in the movie that were far fetched and some people thought that was bad, but what is comedy but a far fetched portrayal of truth. Like for example when Jean meets Pike as the English Lady Eve and he fails to notice that it was her, even after they get married and he has had ample time to observe her behavior and notice that she is the same Jean that he had dumped earlier. But I goes the comedy effect would not  be there as he trips over things and messes up his clothes trying fruitlessly to discern whether or not Lady Eve is Jean, while at  the same time Jean is laughing at his antics, but with a sense of subtle admiration directed at him as she loves him.  Another scene like that being when Pike loses money against “Colonel” Harrington around 20,000 dollars but still fails to realize that something is amiss. It is these farfetched scenario that make this film a fun light hearted movie to watch.

HI everyone. I am Khan

October 5th, 2010

This is quite late for an introduction being the third week of class but. its better late than never as they say:).  I am a pre-med student and currently a sophmore. My major is undecided but am thinking of either economics or accounting. What am I doing in this class? Simply put, I love movies and have always loved them! This is a great chance to watch movies and better yet discuss them with peers, something I love to do with my friends any ways. So there you have it, I love movies, and hope that this class will make me love them even more. So far I am really enjoying the class and hope you guys feel the same.Take care and have fun!

Citizen Kane… A Masterpiece?

October 5th, 2010

The Best movie we have seen so far in my opinion, maybe that is because I am interested in movies that show the dark side of money and fame. I loved the movie in its entirety including the special effects and the acting was AMAZING. I can’t believe that someone can be both and extraordinary actor and director at the same time and specially at such a young age. To talk more about the special affects, the scene where he is making a speech to a huge crowd of people to me was amongst the most amazing scenes. You feel a sense of enormity and feel dazzled. Another such scene was when in the ending they are packing out things from his house and you see a man perched up on stairs on the upper floor. You truly feel a sense of how huge the home truly is. I loved the movie and admired the acting and both the theme of the movie. To me the lesson of the movie was that love can’t be bought and no amount of money or fame can replace that feeling, as Kane tries to do throughout the movie and regardless of his riches dies a lonely death with no loved ones at his side and with the regret of not attaining love regardless of his attempt to find it. Citizen Kane is officially on my all time favorite movies list. Before I end this blog one of my favorite scenes from the movie where Orson Wells displays yet again his amazing acting.

Citizen Kane Celebration Scene