Well, this was a refresher − a look back at a film that I first watched many years ago when I must admit, it wasn’t memorable as an entertaining film. But, happy to say that I enjoyed it much more this time around (and not only because of my increased passion for the media industry, although this film doesn’t show the industry in the most positive light anyway). Basically the story begins with news of the death of Charles Foster Kane, million-dollar publisher. We see what is a news story about it that provides a good background to his life. However, most of the film focuses on a reporter from Kane’s own The Inquirer newspaper talking to his best friends and ex-wife and butler, etc, trying to find out what “rosebud” means to Kane. (I say “story” because there isn’t that much of a plot – it makes me think of Gilles Deleuze’s idea of the time-image and neorealist films). Rosebud is of course, the last word Kane said before he died and dropped the snowglobe on the floor in this famous scene:
The film ends when we see a sled with the word “Rosebud” on it being burned. So the whole film is kind of like a jigsaw (what second wife Samantha is seen doing near the end of the film − clearly a metaphor) full of flashbacks that are intertwined as the reporter speaks to each of the characters. We never find out the significance of Rosebud − it was on the sled which we see earlier when he’s still a young boy living with his parents (so like neorealism, there isn’t really any resolution and we just get a glimpse of what is happening, how life is unravelling). Though the fact that the audience is privy to this last clue kind of takes it away from neorealism, where both the audience and characters are living and experiencing the moment as it comes. Anyway, this makes for an interesting way of telling the story, and I would assume quite a novel technique for that time (arguably a precursor to neorealism, which would make perfect sense).
The film ends when we see a sled with the word “Rosebud” on it being burned. So the whole film is kind of like a jigsaw (what second wife Samantha is seen doing near the end of the film − clearly a metaphor) full of flashbacks that are intertwined as the reporter speaks to each of the characters. We never find out the significance of Rosebud − it was on the sled which we see earlier when he’s still a young boy living with his parents (so like neorealism, there isn’t really any resolution and we just get a glimpse of what is happening, how life is unravelling). Though the fact that the audience is privy to this last clue kind of takes it away from neorealism, where both the audience and characters are living and experiencing the moment as it comes. Anyway, this makes for an interesting way of telling the story, and I would assume quite a novel technique for that time (arguably a precursor to neorealism, which would make perfect sense).
But I can see the “realism” André Bazin points out in “An Aesthetic of Reality: Neorealism”, from his book What is Cinema? Vol II. There is use of depth of focus, such as in the scene where his second wife Samantha overdosing on medication and we see Kane enter the room in the background (in focus), as well as the bottle of medication in the foreground (also in focus). In addition, there are long takes without cutting that show what I would call the “banal”, or everyday, (well, as "everyday" as you can get for a millionaire media mogul). These include instances of individuals talking where we only get one camera angle for a while. Even though there are plenty of fades used, the scene where Samantha is putting together pieces of a puzzle can be compared to these actionless, banal moments − we still get a sense of that even though the fade is being used. It seems natural and not as manipulated in a way.
By the way, I have to say Orson Welles’ acting was really convincing − Kane is a complex yet convincing character (not too mention sort of handsome when he’s young − he ages badly). The audience kind of feels for him at moments but then again we’re repelled by his need to have everyone love him, “on his terms”. So we’re kind of like the public in the film − love him and hate him. In effect, this is a film about love as much as about power and definitely an intriguing peek at the media industry too (and all the ethics of objectivity and honesty). Classic.
4/5
No comments:
Post a Comment