Saturday, October 13, 2018
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)
Through the piece-wise portrayal of the titular character’s life, Citizen Kane reminds the audience that despite how much power one endeavors to carry over their narrative, their legacy ultimately lies in the control of others. One of the most significant aspects of Citizen Kane is its unique narrative structure. Instead of just following Kane through his life, the film instead peers through the perspective of five individuals who each perceive Kane in distinct lights. Through dominating low angles of Kane and stark manipulation of light and shadow, Susan (Kane’s ex-wife) portrays Kane as an intimidating, even threatening figure. Thatcher, Kane’s guardian, seems him as small and childish, with his scenes showing often Kane far in the background. Leland, Kane’s associate, remembers a Kane who is misguided and selfish. Raymond, the butler, holds a Kane thoroughly frustrated. Finally, Bernstein, Kane’s longtime assistant, sees him as an idol, almost god-like and massive in every frame. Although Kane, throughout his entire life, endeavors to promote a single perfect narrative of his existence, there exists infinite versions of him in the mind of the public, many of them far from his ideal. As the head of one of the greatest media franchises in the country, Kane held more power than any other to manipulate others’ perceptions of life. Still, despite his massive influence, the truth inevitably leaked out in little pieces. Ironically, it is through the story of a man who wanted nothing more than control that the audience sees how powerless Kane truly is. The contrasts between the Kanes of each narrator are clear, yet each of them work together to form a nuanced portrait of his whole. With each story, a new Kane comes to light, more complex and more human than before. After Kane’s death, as anyone else, he only exists as how he his remembered, and it is completely up to those he has actually influenced – not hoped to influence – to shape that legacy. The jigsaw puzzle of Kane’s life remains wild and dynamic long after he reaches the point of complete powerlessness.
ReplyDeleteTadj
ReplyDeleteThroughout the film, Kane is portrayed as a man larger than life, so much so that six separate accounts are needed to scratch the surface of his eventful life. While the accounts from each narrator may seem to be presented in an objective light, repeated viewings show that just the opposite is true. Each narrator has their own individual experiences with Kane, and as such, their own biases and subjective viewpoints. Thatcher views Kane as an overgrown child, never stepping away from his juvenile tendencies. Bernstein reveres him, worshipping the ground on which Kane steps, failing to see any wrongdoing with the man. Leland resents him, seeing Kane as a power hungry opportunist. Lastly, Susan pities him, remembering their marriage with dread. All of these points of view are critical in illustrating a holistic picture of Kane. If we were shown only one point of view, we would walk away with a skewed picture of our protagonist. Each iteration has its own individual style, highlighting different techniques. For example Lighting plays a huge role in Susan’s narrative, especially scene in which their marriage is crumbling Kane steps forward, casting a stark shadow on Susan’s frightened face. Montages are used to display the crumbling of both of Kane’s marriages, such as with the dinner table scene with Emily and Susan’s descent into depression due to her failing opera career. Welles created a rich and complex narrative structure, supplemented by his choice of amazing camera work and cinematic techniques. But even without the techniques, the use of multiple narrators each recounting a drastically different side of Kane enriches the story tenfold. The audience is left piecing the story together bit by bit, slowly uncovering pieces about Kane, both good and bad. This way, the audience is not spoon-fed information about Kane. We are left to weigh each aspect of his life differently, decide for ourselves which narrator we trust, and ultimately make our final judgements on the character. This method makes more than one viewing of the film borderline mandatory, and ultimately makes for an incredibly rich viewing experience.
The structure of Citizen Kane’s odd narration style allows the viewer a much more in depth understanding of Kane’s mentality and background. The narration is primarily based on Kane, but it is from many different perspectives. The people in his life allow for a somewhat superior viewpoint, as they have their own opinions about Kane that he could never have about himself. Citizen Kane is a very real movie in that it acknowledges the deep personalities of any one person. No one can be simultaneously described with accuracy and completion if only one viewpoint is used. The multiple people who are involved with Kane allow a more complex insight into his real personality and characteristics. Towards the start of the film, when there are many soft focus scenes that show how ambiguous and mysterious Kane’s character is at the time, the flashing newspaper talks rapidly about Kane from the eyes of the media. It barely talks about his actual persona, instead focusing, with a lot of mise-en-scene, on his giant mansion of Xanadu. His wealth is shown to greatly outweigh any other mindset he has and this is the viewer’s first real exposure to opinions like this, so they believe it. He sincerely isn’t a man of materialism, but the newspaper makes it seem so. Those close to him challenge this view greatly, like Susan. Susan, who is forced to perform at Kane’s opera houses, is specifically placed to show how rude and cruel Kane can be, likely as a result of his nonexistent childhood. Kane is consistently shutting down her inputs and asserting his dominance as the camera takes a low angle on Susan, and he can be seen physically abusing her too when he slaps her and does not apologize. The theme continues; there are tons of other perspectives of people close to him that all show different stories. Thatcher shows Kane is still a rebellious child as he spends all of his investment funds, Bernstein shows how Kane is a hero to the common folk by being an honest reporter in a world of liars, and Leland shows how badly Kane wants to be loved by everyone around him. They are all different opinions, but, when combined, they put together a very complete personality of who Kane really is. Experiences tend to differ with different people, so the film uses the perspectives to show how one person’s life is always more than meets one person’s eye. The narration style is overall incredibly effective as it shows multiple sides to his character without straying from the main story.
ReplyDeleteThe greatest thing about Citizen Kane is the fact that every single component of it has a reason. The jigsaw approach is one of the largest components of the piece. At one point, Kane’s wife even offers a sort of meta-commentary towards the Jigsaw approach when she is assembling them in Xanadu. This approach is taken in order to accomplish a few things. One, to show the effect bias takes on the recollection of a man’s life be it in the way certain characters only speak highly of him while others greatly dislike him. Two, to show that you can never have the full story of a man’s life by looking through only one person’s recollection as one lens is never enough to capture a full story. Three, the jig-saw approach is an attempt to show that sometimes a puzzle is easier to solve from an outside prospective where one can see the whole picture. As we face different narratives, different aspects of Kane’s personality is brought out. We see his kind-hearted start fall to corruption and a thirst for power. Without one of the narratives, we would not have the same story. Each section is told with a new twist, be it in the actual recount of the story or the techniques used to portray it. Quicker scenes and happier music is utilized for those who respect him whereas drawn-out ones with sadder music is used during the less favorable recounts of Kane. The Jig-saw narration allows us to see the full-picture unlike anyone else. We are the “spectator” of the jig-saw puzzle and we are the only ones who can clearly see where the pieces should go. In doing so, Citizen Kane is able to greatly surpass the sum of its parts and solidify itself as a pinnacle of the film industry.
ReplyDelete