American Movie (1999, dir: Chris Smith)

In his book Life the Movie, Neal Gabler argues that reality no longer exists in America, that instead we all live a movie.

Without going too deep into the scholarship, Gabler argues that this happened because of an all-consuming and willing disbelief of reality (reality, that is, by any historic, longstanding, rational definition), and a simultaneous absolute belief in the reality of the media which permeates our waking moments.

With this blurred line between reality and cinema in mind (as well as Arnheim's theories of cinema's artistic potential), discuss American Movie and its attempts to define reality in America.

Sample Answer for the Vicious Midterm Exam

Okay, folks, here's the seven-sentence answer, based on the shot in the prior blog post:

1. By exploiting film's inability to accurately represent reality in in order to communicate artistic meaning, CITIZEN KANE satisfies Arnheim's definition of film art.
2. At the height of his run for governor, Kane stands in front of a giant smiling portrait and delivers a fiery speech condemning the villainy of crime boss Jim Gettys.
3. Low angle shots emphasize Kane's power, and deep focus keeps the monstrous visage clear and dangerous behind him.
4. Just as Kane's portrait dominates the frame, almost devouring the man himself, Kane's ego threatens his life.
5. Had the shot structure of this scene avoided superimposing the man in front of his giant portrait, we may take Kane at his word, interpret his motives as selfless and altruistic.
6. Instead, the composition of the shot informs us that Kane's ambition had not only outgrown his immense wealth, but threatened his humanity.
7. Such a distortion of reality satisfies Arnheim's definition of film art.

And here, for the more verbose and rebellious amongst thee, is a longer, equally acceptable version of the same answer, including adverbs and multiple instances of "to be":

The visual language of CITIZEN KANE distorts factual reality to convey artistic meaning, particularly about its protagonist, Charles Foster Kane. As the story depicts the destruction of Kane's innocence due to an excess of ambition, certain shots and scenes in the film represent him not only as a man of a certain height, weight, age, and so on, but also as an innocent, ambitious and deeply flawed American. By exploiting film's inability to accurately present reality, and using those shortcomings to imbue the film with artistic meaning, CITIZEN KANE satisfies Arnheim's definition of film art.

A scene in which the artistic meaning of the film particularly exceeds the factual reality of the visual data occurs when Kane runs for Governor of New York. The supposed cornerstone of his platform is to destroy the crime syndicate of Jim Gettys, but some particular visual techniques used to depict Kane during the campaign question the veracity of his political agenda.

During a speech to a crowd of supporters, Kane delivers a fiery, polemical speech condemning the trespasses of crime boss Gettys. Behind Kane looms a monstrous portrait of his own smiling face. Shot from particular angles so as to impose the man over his giant likeness in the background, Kane himself appears minuscule in comparison his idealized visage. Though Kane stands frontmost on the stage and commands the attention of his political audience, deep focus keeps his monstrous smiling face clear and dangerous.

Kane now hungers for the attention of throngs of people, not just a few close friends; he craves power now, not just wealth or simple respect. As the manufactured, public image of Charles Foster Kane grows, the mere human being diminishes.

To listen only to the words of Kane's speech and accept the passion of its delivery—that is, to arrange shots in such a way that they diminish or exclude the ominous portrait behind him--could easily lead viewers to believe that Kane had been reinvigorated by the thrill of campaigning, the fight against a notorious crime boss, and that perhaps the altruism of social politics could accommodate his great ambition. 


Instead, these shots inform the audience that Kane's political ambition is more fueled by avarice and ego than a yearning for justice, and furthermore, that his greed threatened to devour him.


Good luck, exclamation point.

Citizen Kane (dir: Orson Welles, 1941)

Let's use this discussion as a practice for the midterm.

According to Arnheim's thesis, explain how Citizen Kane is an artistic film.

BE PRECISE.

Titicut Follies - dir: Fred Wiseman, 1967

What does this film want us to believe?

How exactly does this film convince us of that belief?

How does this film exploit gaps in our perception to slant our conclusions in its favor?

Be sure to use specific examples (i.e., shots, cuts, sequences, etc.) in your comments.