Saturday, March 8, 2014
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 equal to or greater than the sum of its parts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The structure of this film is truly remarkable because instead of telling the story of Charles Kane’s life through a single fluid and complete narrative, Citizen Kane depicts Charles Kane’s life through stories, such as from his second wife Susan Alexander or his butler Raymond. The point of telling the story in this manner is that it allows the viewer to see all perspectives of Kane’s life. Rather than having a single bias if the story was told from one character’s perspective, the viewer is provided multiple different perspectives all with different biases, therefore making a more three-dimensional Kane character. In each anecdote about Kane’s life, there is a specific spin each character is trying to portray, and an example of this is the second time the viewer meets Susan Alexander, Kane’s second ex-wife. In her account of Kane’s life, she describes how Kane forced her to become an opera singer, even though she had no desire or talent to do so. After telling Kane she wanted to quit because of this reason, Kane overpowered her and made her continue the pursuit. The use of an extreme high angle shows her lack of power in comparison to Kane. This camera angle and narrative all show how Susan Alexander was trying to depict Kane as evil and manipulative, rather than putting him in a good light. Similar to Susan, each character had a particular spin, some much more positive than this but some also equally negative, therefore showing the reader every aspect of Kane which the viewer otherwise could not have gotten if his life was depicted as a straight narrative from only one character’s perspective.
ReplyDeleteThe point of telling this story is to help the viewers develop their own opinion on the character Charles Foster Kane. Instead of starting the film from the very beginning when Charles is a little kid and following him all the way to his death, Orson Welles begins the movie with Kane’s death and tells his life story through multiple interviews. This helps viewers from being blinded by other characters' biases. With each story Orson Welles chooses different ways to depict the life of Kane through the camera for each of Kane's stories. When Susan gives her account we see a lot of scenes or images of Kane being shot from an extreme low angle shots which makes Kane appear ginormous but the audience can still see a ceiling above him which infers that Kane is not as powerful as he think he is. For example during the scene when Susan leaves Kane we can see Kane destroying Susan's room from a low angel but we can also see Susan's ceiling above him. When he watch the montage of Kane's first marriage there is a lot of shots of him and his wife interacting with each other from a distance or them wearing clothing that is the complete opposite of each other to symbolize that their relationship stands on rocks.
ReplyDeleteThe piecewise story structure is not only beneficial to the story of Citizen Kane, but it is actually essential. We begin the story at the end. Charles Foster Kane has just died and said his final word, “Rosebud”. The scene then cuts to a newsroom where the reporters are running a clip for Kane, celebrating his life, and the man who seems to be in charge demands to know what “Rosebud” actually means. And thus the narrative is presented through a series of interviews with important people in Kane’s life; his second wife, his old friend and his old business partner. This presentation shows extraordinarily important details about Kane himself. It shows how no one person new everything about him, but everyone had a different piece to add to the puzzle. It allows the viewer to understand the plethora of facets possessed by the confounding gem that was Charles Foster Kane. The narration also allows the view to see the stages of life that Kane went through. From the rebellious, headstrong up stander seen in Thatcher’s memoirs to the angry, bitter old man as portrayed in Susan Alexander’s portion. This kind of transformation could only be told through the “pieces parts” storytelling that Welles chose. This kind exploration into Kane’s character can only be achieved through this type of narration and is absolutely required in order to fully appreciate Orson Welle’s story. In short, the story is much greater than the sum of its parts and is the only way to tell the story of Charles Foster Kane.
ReplyDeleteBy telling the story of Charles Kane the way that is done in the movie, it allows to show many different perspectives of the same person. Each person does have their own “spin” to Kane because each person has their own different experience and interaction with him. These different interactions give each respected person their own opinion on Kane as a person, which determines how they will portray him in their stories. If they didn’t believe that he was a great man, then the story gave a different feel than that told by a person that believed he was a great man. Based on their relationship with Charles Kane, each person saw a different and distinctive side of him. Some stories were shown differently in terms of the cinematic techniques. Take for example the camera angles of the movie. If the person telling the story thought of Kane as being a powerful man, then there was a low to extremely low camera shot on him or a high angle on them, like when Kane talked down to his wife. If they told the stories of Kane in which he was vulnerable, there was a high angle on Kane to show his lack of power in that situation, like when Kane was a child when he first learns that he is leaving with Mr. Thatcher. From this jigsaw narration, it allows the viewer to piece together the pieces of the puzzle, the pieces being the stories, to figure out the mystery that is Charles Kane.
ReplyDelete