Thursday, February 28, 2019
Jigsaw Narrative
Multiple narrators tell he story of Charles Foster Kane's life. We see his life in a newsreel format, in Thatcher's memoirs, and as told by Bernstein, Leland, Susan Alexander, and even Raymond, the butler. What is the point of telling the story in this way? Does each narrator give a specific "spin" or have a particular bias? Does each see a distinctive aspect of Kane's personality? Is each section told in a different way, utilizing different techniques of filming (such as camera angles, deep focus, lighting, or even choice of music)? What" bang for our buck" do we get from this jigsaw narration? Is it equal to or greater than the sum of its parts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Throughout Citizen Kane, the story’s narrator switches between different characters and even the news itself. By using this technique the audience is able to getter a more wholesome look into who Kane really was. When a story is told from one perspective, or even from the perspective of the main character, a lot of bias comes along with the story. By using multiple people, the different sides of Kane are exposed showing how different people felt about him. When Thatcher narrates the movie the technique of deep focus is implemented to make Kane seem smaller than life. He is shown playing outside the window while the much larger characters, Thatcher and Kane’s parents, spoke about Kane. This gives the feeling that the other characters have more power than Kane and that he was not a strong individual. When the narration role switches to Bernstein an entirely different tone takes over due to Bernstein’s love of Kane. The camera angle is lower to seem as if we are looking up to Kane, as Bernstein did. We hear stories about his successes in the newspaper. The story is fast passed and energetic to show Kane in a more positive light. When Susan narrates the tone changes again to a more negative and anti-Kane feel. As Kane’s ex-wife, her view of him will clearly be less praising than that of Kane’s coworker. She shares the stories of their failing marriage. The film using the technique of a Hollywood Montage to show their marriage deteriorating over time. It begins with them excitedly chatting together, practically sitting on top of one another. As the montage continues they begin to sit further and further away from each other’s and more objects are placed on the table as barriers from each other. The wife is even seen reading a different newspaper than the one that Kane works for. Each character sees Kane differently so their narrations look and feel unique as well. Through filming style and story plot, they all paint separate pictures of what Kane was truly like.
ReplyDeleteThe jigsaw narrative that is used in Citizen Kane allows the viewer to create their own image of who Kane is by hearing and seeing the two different sides of Kane’s personality. The audience learns about the negative side to Kane’s personality through the interview with his ex-colleague, Leland. Leland talks down on Kane as he feels that Kane’s actions within the Inquirer, as well as in his personal life were unethical and manipulative. Kane did things for his own benefit, despite his misleading attitude toward many of his fellow citizens, wives, and colleagues. Leland even recollects on the time when he asked Kane to go to Chicago in order to become the honorable journalist that he believes the public deserves to hear news from in an attempt to escape Kane’s dehumanizing control. During this interview we get to see how the camera angles deliver a message that Kane was an overpowering individual as the camera looks up to Kane with low shots. On the other hand, when we see the interview with Bernstein, another colleague of Kane, we get a more positive view of who Kane was. Bernstein paints a pleasant picture of who Kane was as Bernstein was the type of person to accept Kane’s ridiculous behavior without question, and respected him. Bernstein shared stories of Kane’s romantic life, but never commented on it with his personal opinions. During this scene we can see that high camera angles are used to show Kane’s appropriate amount of dominance; sharing a completely opposite message of the angles during Leland’s scenes. Therefore, these two completely opposite opinions of who Kane was as an individual in society tell the viewer that some people, like Bernstein, fell for Kane’s deceiving personality, but people like Leland saw right through Kane. Moreover, the viewer gets reassurance that Leland’s ideas about Kane are accurate, as we can see that in Kane’s own personal life his wives fall for his charming personality, like Bernstein, but after a while they see he is delusional and living in his own fabricated reality, which is what Leland believes. So this shows the audience how someone could be misled by Kane, but if they read into him like Kane’s wives and Leland, then they will see him for who he really is; unfaithful and controlling.
ReplyDeleteBy using multiple different narrators to tell the story the audience is able to see the entire progression of Kane’s life. Not every narrator has been with Kane at every point in his life. Raymond the butler was not there in the snowy fields of Kane’s childhood nor was Thatcher there in the vacuous halls of Xanadu. Raymond has really only seen Kane as an older gentleman who wants people to love him even if he does not love them back. Thatcher knew Kane as a boy and subsequently was with him as he grew up into a young adult. But even when Kane first started the Inquirer, he was much more idealistic and in favor of protecting “the people” than he is in his later years. The scene when he first writes the declaration of principles juxtaposed with the scene when he rips it up after firing Leland demonstrate this change in character perfectly. Having a single narrator throughout the entirety of the film would cause much of Kane’s depth and personality to disappear. There’s a very famous painter named George Seurat who is known for using a style called pointillism where the entire painting is made up of tiny dots. Up close, the picture is fuzzy and unclear, but when you step back, the larger picture is revealed. In Citizen Kane, each different story told by a different person or newsreel is like a dot, a fraction of the larger story of Kane’s life. All together, the various narrators and stories they tell create the entire film and show Kane’s evolution from an innocent, hopeful child to a power hungry, controlling man.
ReplyDeleteThe style of telling the story from multiple narrators gives a holistic view of Charles Foster Kane’s life because people who loved him and hated him tell it. It is obvious in the way that the story is told that the people who loved him idealize his story. The use of the camera angle is a powerful tool to show how admiration or disgust for Kane. One example of this is when Kane’s business manager Bernstein tells the story. The use of low angles make Kane look larger than life. This view represents how Bernstein sees Kane for all the good things Kane did for the newspaper. However, this is a sharp contrast to how Leland tells the story. Leland used to be one of Kane’s friends, but their friendship turned sour throughout the movie. Leland also uses low angles, but his extreme low angles show how Kane was egotistical and full of himself. In one shot, the floorboards of the set are taken out so that the camera can be placed low enough to achieve this effect. It is a way to make fun of the fact that Kane thinks that he walks on water and is better than everyone else is. These multiple narrators are superior to only having one narrator tell the story because if, for example, only Bernstein told the story, we would never see some of the flaws that make Kane who he is. The narrative structure in this movie was crucial to its success because the audience got to see as much of Charles Foster Kane that was possible
ReplyDelete