I am not thru with the exciting Arnheim page turner as of yet. So I am not totally familiar with what he would say. And I am not convinced that the entire movie is art. But the scene I feel deserves to be called art is after Sue leaves him and he trashes the room and walks out where you see mirrored reflection after reflection that is a beautiful piece of filmmaking right there in its own. Looking down that hall he sees himself getting smaller and smaller all the way back to a simpler time just Kane and Rosebud. I will read more of "Film as Art" and have a discussion from the book but in my opinion that one scene is art.
I as well am not finished with his book yet, but there seems to be a pattern in his book. This pattern seems to be all about perception. According to the book, if the film director shoots only certain angles that he/she so chooses then we percieve whatever he/she wants us to percieve in the movie. In addition to utilizing angles, he explains how the lack of color in a film will alter how we view the film. We simply take certain things to be true in a colorless film. But for partial reading, it would appear to me that deception and tricking the human eye are key point in making a truly magnificent film. Tricking our eyes in itself is an art. Therefore the movie Citizen Kane with all of its different camera angles and close-up shots should be considered artistic. Although some may disagree art is in the eye of the beholder, and I believe that Citizen Kane is artistic.
Citizen Kane is a film consisting of different elements of art. The film is black and white, which in my opinion, already plays a big role on our visual perspective of the film. The opening sequence of shots used in the film shows us that the film will be gloomy in a sense that it wont end well. In the opening shot, it shows us Kane's palace, then skips to his death. The film plays with our mind in many ways. It uses a lot of perception tools, such as the angles, jump cuts, and real life. Citizen Kane uses jump cuts throughout the entire film, every time a new person is interviewed. Using jump cuts, Welles shows us what he wants us to see, in the perspective of others. I will have to agree with Tracy, the shot that caught my attention in the movie was when Kane walked by the mirror. The angle was placed just right, and captured the moment very well. For the time period, the film in my opinion, revolutionized the industry and made directors think outside the box. I liked the film.
I thought this film was a good pice of work. I especially like how the people were made to look like giants and then shot were made to meke the people look small. The rooms were very big and then they were small. It was like when Kane was doing his evil works, he was made small but most of the time the shots were made really big. I thought it interesting that when there were 2 people in the room, you could only see the person speaking and hardly ever saw both people together when it was a one on one conversating sitting down. Overall it was a good movie.
I have not finished reading Film as art yet but as others have stated this movie is art. The lack of color makes the audience believe things to be true more easily than a film with color. The closing shots of all of Kane's clutter and his rosebud being burned were my favorite shots of this movie. I also feel that the director used depth perception in a very revolutionary way. Such as in the scene when he is giving his speech before election day.
I have been doing some reading other than the text for our class. A lot of wonderful things have been said. Francoia Truffaut was quoted as saying "Everything that matters in cinema since 1940 was influenced by Citizen Kane". Greg Toland the camera man (I am sure that is not the correct term) created new ways to shoot film that were not being done in America at least. The deep focus which can be seen through out the film. One example of the deep focus is when young Kane is playing in the snow and you can continue to see him even after they have went into the house to discuss his adoption. Once again the deep focus was seen when Susan attempts her overdose. Toland uses the film to make Welles seem larger than other characters standing around him. The lighting in this move was fantastic. The seen where they have just ran the news real stating that Kane was dead was very low lighting. Nothing was really defined in that scene faces everything was in shadow but the smoke that filled the room. The slow fade outs from monologue of individual talking to the scene were just beginning to be used in films. The overlapping of shots such as the Cockatoo in the scene towards the end. The overlapping dialogue in the movie was new at the time of this film.That is seen in several scenes but once again where the news real ends about the death of Kane is the scene I noticed that in where everyone is talking at once. Also in the opening and closing the extreme close up of the fence a peek into Xanadu. For a film that is still number 1 on the AFI's top 100 greatest films, it must be art. I can see that in several shots but my favorite is the mirror that is striking. Critics have picked shots stated that this was revolutionary film making. I do agree with Arnheim that the use of black and white film delivers a better picture with more texture than color. Lighting used to highlight or low-light the characters and the objects gives film depth that is sometimes lacking in today's cinematic attempts. of course like our other two movies this movie also history. With Hearst trying to shut the movie down. I am not sure that the glory of this picture goes to Orson Welles as much as it does to the talents of Greg Toland.
I think that PhiTubbs, pretty much hit it on the head. Arnheim's thesis seems to be that when one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of reality it is, but since it therefore; is not reality, it is art. This is explained by excepting the black and white replication as truth, the elimination of depth perception due to being displayed on a flat surface and angles used, disruption of the space time continuum, and finally how our field of vision is controlled and limited by the director. Citizen Kane used all of these 'tricks' to visually represent a story, with use of angles and flashbacks to another time very frequently. I think Arnheim would consider it art, as many people today do.
I, like some others here, have yet to finish the book. But from what I can tell and have read, I definitely agree with blakewood and PhiTubbs. I feel like they have said everything that I would have said, or have gathered from the book thus far. I especially like blakewood's statement that: "when one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of it really is, but since it therefore;is not reality, it is art." -- That's pretty much what I was thinking... only perhaps more eloquently put.
In the interest of having a nice plethora and diversity of comments, I just want to speak to the overall impression and feelings I have towards the film, Citizen Kane. I'm honestly not sure I agree with all the acclaim this movie seems to get. I don't feel like it really lives up to titles like "The Best Movie Ever", or things of that nature. Now, I do understand that most of the acclaim and accolades this movie has earned comes from its being the archetype for films of its kind, for the innovation and donations made to the progression of film as and art form, and a beloved form of entertainment. I can definitely appreciate that. But as a movie itself, I felt it was a bit lacking, and a tiny bit frustrating. I feel like the movie just wasn't all there, what it had in inventive shots and creative angles/effects was not made up for in story. There was this long drawn out interview process of multiple people, and a cinematic back story for very little result. I feel like the huge build, build, and build this lengthy movie makes is not justified in the ending scenes. But hey, maybe that's the beauty of it. Maybe I'm just missing it.
The film is artistic on many levels first being in black and white giving it a different style especially with the lighting, and the first scene being a death hooking you into it making you want to know more. Also it sets the tone for the story. The most artistic scene would have to be the scene where he realizes he has everything but nothing proving a point that has been around for a long time being money doesn't buy happiness. Like a painting this movie is based on mood, dreams, and perceptions of the artist and there ideas coming out to a final project. However i would not claim it to be the best movie of all times even though they experienced with shots, crossfades, and focusing on certain parts to blend in. It was I think a huge turning point for film though.
In order to answer the topic question one must know what the thesis is.I have yet to figure this out but I don't think it will completely take away from my first comment about the film. I felt as a film it's storyline was not as exceptional as it is an art, if that makes sense. To be honest I was lost most of the movie about what was going on and what direction the movie was going. This was my first time seeing the film and clearly I need to watch it again because few things actually stood out in my mind. As far as the film making goes like everyone else said the on going mirror scene was quite interesting to see executed being the film was made in the 1940's. Another aspect of the film that did stand out to me was the aging process. With the decline of Citizen Kane's popularity, you began to take more notice of his age and could almost feel the toll that his life was taking on him body and spirit. I'm still not sure with the significance of "Rosebud" was. I know it was the name of the sled he had when he was a boy....but that's about all I got out of it.
I, too, have yet to finish this book but have come to the same general consensus as Blakewood. "Arnheim's thesis seems to be that when one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of reality it is, but since it therefore; is not reality, it is art. This is explained by excepting the black and white replication as truth, the elimination of depth perception due to being displayed on a flat surface and angles used, disruption of the space time continuum, and finally how our field of vision is controlled and limited by the director."
Citizen Kane used a lot of different cinematic techniques including: • Deep-focus shots, a technique of cinematography and staging with great depth of field. An example of this was in the scene where Kane's parents discuss his future while, as seen through the window, the child plays outside in the snow. • Depth of field, where there are several planes, a foreground, middle-ground, and background. In this film depth of field heightens dramatic value. An example of this was when Susan overdosed and the cinematographer used bright lighting and wide-angled lens to make objects or people close to the frame’s foreground seem huge, while other objects in the background seem smaller. Wide-angle shots, exaggerates the distance, depth or disparity between foreground and background planes. An example of this is in Mrs. Kane’s boardinghouse that kept all objects in the shot in sharp focus. • Flashback/Flash-forward, a cinematic technique that alters that natural order of the narrative. Citizen Kane is mostly composed of flashbacks and flash-forwards. • Dissolve/Lap Dissolve, an editing technique between two sequences, shots, or scenes, in which the visible image of one shot or scene is gradually replaced or blended. A great example of this is when someone in the movie is having a flashback or a dream; the clip begins with a close up of the character and then dissolves into their flashback or dream. • Film within a film, to have one film within another. An example of this is at the beginning of the film the newsreel of Kane's life "News on the March" in Citizen Kane, homage to the real "The March of Time" newsreel. • Audio Bridge, an outgoing sound in one scene that continues over into a new image or shot. Audio Bridge is used extensively with the flashback scenes to denote the interval of time within related scenes. A character will begin a sentence and complete it weeks, months, or years later in a different location. On occasion, one character will begin the sentence and another will complete it in the same manner. I can say I was not a fan of this movie the first time I watched it, yet after doing a little research on cinematic terminology, I decided that I should re-watch the film. Ultimately ending in my approval. I didn’t notice all of the different types of art expressed in this film. I enjoy the way the American Dream is depicted in this film, the bitter irony of an American success story that ends in futile nostalgia, loneliness, and death.
Citizen Kane is more than just a film that is art, it created the benchmark on what it means to be art, let alone an incredible film. Citizen Kane used, at that time, revolutionary techniques in its filming, which just provides more emphasis on, and appreciate of, Citizen Kane's aesthetics. As we have read in our text, film by itself is not art, for it's merely a mechanical process in which rays of light show what is on the celluloid. In other words, a camera is a recording device, so by itself, it cannot be art. But, the actual movie, is kind of like an artist's painting, the way the movie is filmed, and all the techniques etc, definitely show how the director views the world, and in that respect, a film can be art. Art is defined as expression, and art diverges from mechanical recording, and each art form must diverge from mechanical recordings in terms of the peculiar limitation of its medium, are Arnheim's three central aesthetics tenets for a film to be art. Orson Welles' use of metaphorical power in his shots are almost intoxicating, it was something never before seen in American cinema. The incredibly smooth flashbacks never once disrupt the story or the audience's following in any way, in fact they are brilliantly done. And those are just a couple of reasons that Citizen Kane is art, and an incredible piece of American history and cinema.
I questioned why Citizen Kane was said to be "The greatest move of all time," throughout the entire film. After thinking about it for awhile, I understand now, why it was. Citizen Kane brought about a new way of film making. Films before Citizen Kane were no where near as artistic as it was. Welles really put effort into the film to make it like no other. Citizen Kane set the bar for future film makers. In my opinion, that is why it it's the greatest movie.
According to the thesis that "to the extent the film fails to accuratly represent reality, it posses artistic potential" this film is very artistic. It follows the progression of a child who was adopted into position of power at childhood and eventually regressed bach into the child he was never allowed to be. Furthermore, the fim is told in a series of flashbacks starting with his death, then the story of his life. I, however, foud the most unrelistic part the creation of his mansion xanado the most unrealistic part. It serves as a material representintion of the character Kane's eccentricities. Thus the film was many pieces of art that serve to represent that film character of Charles Foster Kane.
Another aspect of Citizen Kane that makes it remarkable is its powerful metaphors, really showing reality through Orson Welles' unique perspective. For example, the almost identical characteristics between Charles Foster Kane and William Randolph Hearst. But besides the metaphors, the technical aspects that make Citizen Kane an incredible film and piece of art, really set this film apart, and show Orson Welles as a complete revolutionary. Unusual/unconventional lighting is one thing that really jumped out at me while watching Citizen Kane, also creative use of camera angles, shadows, and incredible deep-focus shots, also low angled shots, revealing the ceiling, were also very innovative. These things together, and presented as flawlessly as they were, make Citizen Kane a work of cinematic art.
This was the first time i had seen Citizen Kane, and honestly before i saw it this time i didn't really think I would appreciate it very much just because of how dated I figured it would be. I was very surprised, though, because it showed a beautiful type of film-making that i was not used to seeing from films in that era. You could tell from the very beginning that it wasn't just going to be a story and events strung together for entertainment. It was true artistic expression from the beginning, slow-panning shots of the foreboding NO TRESPASSING sign and fence outside the abandoned Xanadu to his lost childhood burning away as we watch "rosebud" wither in the fire at the end, which was one of many symbolic shots in the film, i think. Welles did a terrific job in not just presenting us with a story in a real-life fashion, but presented it in a fantastical way that makes us feel that we were following this larger-than-life character of Kane. It made me feel as if i was watching the memoirs of some god-like being and parts of the movie were actually awe-inspiring, which i'm sure was Welles' intention. I can definitely understand the hype surrounding this film at the time and even still today.
I had never seen the film before and I liked it, but I failed to see why so many people regard it as the greatest film of all time. Perhaps if had seen it when it came out and many of the effects were new I would have a better appreciation for it. It just seemed kinda cheesy at parts. I will certainly see the movie again and after reading Arnheim perhaps I will see more in it.
Adam Castellarin seems to pretty much have the same idea as me about Arnheim's thesis, like most people here are getting at, the thesis of Arnheim's book is essentially that film is art when it fails to represent reality. Or perhaps film grows artistically as it increasingly does not represent reality. I'm unsure which side of the argument to support concerning whether Citizen Kane is art according to this thesis or not. I, like the other Adam has mentioned, find Kane's palace, Xanadu, to be such an abstract representation of part of Kane's personality that the film is art in this aspect. The film also seems to be art in the fact that Kane is the most wealthy and powerful man in America. Such a fictitious character seems to misrepresent reality enough to be art by Arnheim's thesis.
Also, I find the fact that in this movie media is portrayed as such a tool for telling the masses how to think. It is impressive to me how Orson Welles picked up on this in his day and age, and I wonder whether or not he had any idea of what an informational, and media run society America would develop into. And because this idea from the movie, that people are directly influenced by the media, so closely resembles reality, does that make it inartistic according to Rudolph Arnheim?
According to Arnheim's thesis, film is an art form and it is art because it does not reproduce reality exactly. Since film did not reproduce reality it had the same potential for artistic expression as paintings and sculpture. One of the ways Citizen Kane fulfills this requirement is the fact that this film was shot in black and white. Just a simple decision like this makes this film art in Arnheim's world, because that's not how we live our everyday lives. Welles innovative of camera angles and low-angled shots were also groundbreaking. Most films, up until that time, were standard shot-cut-shot sequences. Welles broke the mold his style of film making.
While Citizen Kane isn't my new favorite film, I understand and respect that it was a Genesis into an era and way of creating film. Particularly artistic parts of the film that jumped out at me include the montage where Kane and his first wife are happy newlyweds and he talks of putting off work, then by the last shot they're barely speaking. There were also unique camera 'tricks' and lighting that were used to emphasize key points in the film. While I know I don't understand a great deal of what is significant in the film, but I think what makes it truly great is that even someone who knows nothing about film can appreciate its magnificence.
Having read several comments and looking at Citizen Kane from different peoples perspectives I could see how some people may disagree with the notion of this film as art. I agree on the grounds that the story of Citizen Kane was missing some sort of ingredient that wouldve made that movie much better. But on the opposite side of the spectrum being one of the first films to utilize the techniques like flashbacks, deep focus, and having a film within another film; that truly makes this one of the best films of all time. This is simply because of originality. Citizien Kane also laid the groundwork for other films for many years to come.
Similar to paint on a canvas or words on a page, film can't automatically be art simply for existing. There are standards for art. According to Arnheim, film becomes art when it fails to represent reality. I was fascinated by the parallel between a film that showed the media as having an agenda (almost vilifying it) and the power that entails and the fact that Citizen Kane is another form of media. It almost seemed like it questions itself. Of course, it being about a fictional character, it was not hypocritical. While Citizen Kane does not attempt to be realistic or trick us about factual events, it is a fabulous portrayal of a man that had everything, which was never enough. Even at the end of his life, his only true possession and love was his first sled, Rosebud. Kane seemed to be distracted by everything in his life (women, business, etc.) that took him further away from who he originally was. The shot where Kane first meets his second wife and states that he is on his way to a storage facility to try to find some things from his past implied to me that he was looking for Rosebud even then. Yet, he was distracted by another woman and his political aspirations, which ultimately took him further from his roots.
I have not finished the book yet, but I thought the movie would definitely be considered art. I had no idea how it could live up to actually being called the greatest movie of all time, but the concepts Welles had where ahead of his time. He broke away from the norm with the deep focus shots, depth of field, and numerous others. The black and white film had an impact on how people view the film, however, Arnheim states that "not only has a multicolored world been transmuted into a black-and-white world, but in the process all color values have changed their relations to one another: similarities present themselves which do not exist in the natural world" and that "everyone who goes to view a film accepts the screen world as being true to nature". These observations make me believe that the black and white of the film had some contribution to setting this movie apart from others but didn't play as much of an important part as the various shots. Welles went beyond the standards for normal films of his day to create a work of art.
Going back on what Blakewood said "Arnheim's thesis seems to be that when one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of reality it is, but since it therefore; is not reality, it is art." That statement i have to agree with. It loosely shows reality and takes you to a special occasion something that does not really happen to your average person making it a fantasy and a piece of art. It shows a different side to most people do not have and exposing people to something not really seen and into the directors mind and visions.
Citizen Kane set the standard for movies to come, but when told it was the greatest film of all time I was comparing it to more recent films. After reading some of Arnheims book, I had a more open mind about it. Welles used shots that are still used today, and that brought out emotions which, to me, is one of the greatest forms of art. Arnheim says that he views film as being a unique experiment in the visual arts which took place the first three decades of this century and that it survives in the private efforts of a few courageous individuals. Citizen Kane was Welles courageous experiment and was viewed as a work of art for others to live up to.
The thesis of Arnheim's book does seem to express that film is art when it does not accurately represent reality. In this case, black and white movies like 'Citizen Kane' fail to portray reality because people live in a world of many different colors. Also, the many flashbacks throughout this film are very appealing and fluid, yet in reality people are not capable of showing a perfect replay of a memory to a listener. Even though obtaining a mansion the size of Kane's mansion is possible, to most people that is a rare notion. This sense of disconnection with Charles Foster Kane lays ground for artistic possiblities. 'Citizen Kane' definitely paved the way for future films to prosper.
I think the largest abstraction that this movie had that made it a piece of art was the inclusion of modern filming techniques such as flashbacks, camera angles etc. While watching it I felt like I was watching a modern movie, just in Black and white and because Welles crated this style of fimling it should be classified as art.
Despite the many visually attractive film techniques like deep focus and depth of field shots, this film does represent reality in many shots and sequences. Everyone can relate to wanting to acquire a hefty income and have a nice, powerful job title. This idea is very real to the audience. Hence, this film might be considered less of art. Also, the plot of trying to figure out Kane's life is very relatable to most people. This film is mostly art, but there are aspects of it that are just reality.
Going from the thesis many others are using, Film is art because it does not represent reality exactly, Citizen Kane is a very artistic movie. Some of the shots are outstanding even for today's cinema. The picture for this blog os a perfect example of one of these shots. The was the huge Kane picture dwarfs the actual people is a way Welles artisticly chooses his shots. This intro scene is one of my favorite scenes in the movie. The way it scans through gives the audience a sense something dark is going to happen. Many shots were used as a type of double meaning, which I find to be a very inteligent was to shoot this movie.
As well as some others, I am not done reading Arnheim's book. So far his book seems to be about perception and how we view things. Like Citizen Kane is a black and white movie. To an audience black and what is not realistic because we see everything in color. In this movie we can relate to a lot of the shots and cuts, but we can not relate to the black and white. Citizen Kane is an artistic film because we can relate to the characters and what is happening like the shot where you go from the palace to a shot of death.
I totally agree with Reid Mounts, the movie seemed to be lacking and was very drawn out. Since I am a new commer to film and had never heard of Citizen Kane, I was expecting to see a wonderful movie and was let down. The movie was far too drawn out for my taste. Maybe since I am a new commer to film I could not appricate the beauty of the shots, angles, ect. but I felt like the only really good scene that got me interested was when his second wife left Kane and he distroyed her room. Hopefully after further reading into "Film as Art" and going into a more in depth study of the movie, I will be able to understand why Citizen Kane is considered a Great movie.
Citizen Kane is a very artistic film in my point of view. This movie is a landmark in direction and keeping the viewers attention. The transitions and shot seen in this movie are truly inspiring. Orson Welles has provided the viewers with directing that is still being used today. Welles begins by showing a little boy and how he is to be the next millionare to society. A little boy with a sled not wanting to be bothered is all we see in this seen. Little did we know that this seen was the theme of this entire movie. I find this to be truly amazing and would watch this movie over and over. Kane is a smart arrogant man who has or can get anything he wants-except for Love. Melles uses a simple newspaper repoter to help the audience find the mystery about "Rosebud." In this mystery we find by the interviews and journals of Kane's friends just what kind of man he really was. Through this great movie we are left at the end still wondering what rosebud means. Melles uses a great shot of the burning of all Kanes possessions. In this scene we finally see the sley and what is wrote on it- Rosebud. This ending was truly a work of art and very inspiring.
Arnheim's thesis states, "To the extent film fails to accurately represent reality, it possesses artistic potential." I haven't finished Film as Art yet but we briefly talked about the thesis in class one day. I believe that according to Arnheim's thesis, Citizen Kane is very much a piece of art. Like several people have mentioned, the fact that it's a black and white film aids in the distortion of reality. Also, the different shots and depth of field shots trick the eye to see a scene a certain way. There was one shot after Kane's death that was made to look like the camera was zooming in from the sky through a crack in the glass roof and down onto Kane's wife, or ex-wife, I can't remember. But the buliding looked fake to me, like it was a small model of a building and a camera zoomed in over it, and then that shot was followed by a one from the cieling of the real building zooming in on Kane's wife. I don't know why this shot struck me because it's not an important part of the movie, but it bothered me how fake it looked. I think shots like this and the mirror shot mentioned by several people are examples of how the film is a piece of art.
I have not yet mastered the ideas and thesis of Arnheim's book, and this was my first time to experience Citizen Kane in its entirety. However, I do agree with Blakewood's earlier comments on the idea of Arnheim's theory being, "When one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of reality it is, but since it therefore; is not reality, it is art." After watching Citizen Kane and reading the comments I understand that Citizen Kane is an artistic film because it stretches reality to show how easily our society can be molded by what we hear or read in the news and newspapers.
From the other comments posted it seems the general consensus about Arnheim's thesis is that film is art when it does not represent reality, or something of that nature. Perception in the film was what the director wanted us to take notice of in order to conclude a truth about the story. This was done through the shot techniques, as Jamie superbly discussed like deep focus,depth of field etc. So a new question that comes to me is how is the film not representing reality? I agree with the rest of the class about the black and white aspect of it having a purpose. I looked up when the first color feature film was made and the earliest date I found was 1908. So the technology for color film making was definitely already established.I'm piggy back off what I previously touched on about the aging in the film, there really was no calender or dated material telling us the years that had passed. Maybe it is considered and artistic film because of the usefulness of the shots to alter or lead us to believe a truth which is far from the reality of the story.
I thought the film was okay, I plan on watching it again so I can grasp the storyline better and get a better look at the different shots. At some points I didn't know what was going on when it changed to a different time period of Kane's life. As for the whole Rosebud ending, I was expecting something a little more shocking than his childhood sled. I didn't really get the ending, but I think it connects back to when Kane says he would have been a better man had he never been rich.
I enjoyed Citizen Kane and was able to understand why is has been acclaimed as one of the greatest films of all time. This black & white mysterious thriller is filled with shots and cuts that help us follow and create our own assumptions on who or what "Rosebud" could truly be. Orson Wells used many jump cuts to switch quickly to another character or story to help us figure out the whole picture. I am appreciative of this film and now understand and agree that Citizen Kane set the standard for the film industry.
In response to the very first post from Tracy, I definatly belive this film, as with almost every other film I have ever seen, to be "art". It uses angles and lighting to express emotion and elements of suprise, which Arnheim believed made films art. Also I interpreted the scene where he is in between the 2 mirrors a little diffrently than you did. I imagined the many reflections of himself to reinforce the idea of his solidarity and lonliness in his huge mansion, despite all his riches and conquests, he is alone and unhappy.
Film As Art, in my opinion, strongly emphasizes art being based on the audiences perceptions by using by using contrast and clever cinematography. First, as an audience, we need to focus on the fact that this is a black and white film. This point alone changes the way one must view the film because color creates and enhances it's own story. A black and white film uses contrast to depict conflict or resolution. The use of two colors portraying so much can only be discribed as art. For example, the beginning scene where we see Kane in the chair, grunting "Rosebud" would have been less dramatic if their was color because the edgy black and white of the room caused the audience to feel tension. Secondly, the camera angles plays a huge part in one's perception of a scene. Towards the end of the film, Kane is walking away right after his wife leaves him. In this scene, the camera shows Kane walking away through mirrors that protray him gradually getting smaller. It would be a lot less dramatic and depressing if the camera was directly behind him, showing him walk away. This scene was one of my favorites for its originality and I would definately discribe this as art.
I believe Arnheim would point to several key scence that make this film a piece of art. One very intersting shot is the worms-eye view of Kane's gaurdian as the unhappy, childhood Kane recieves a christmas present (the present being a sled). This particular angle distorts the size of his gaurdian and represents his power over the boyhood Kane, as well as Charlie's fear of him. Another aspect which make this film a work of art is the use of highly contrsted lighting in a single shot. For insance when Charlie Kane is telling his second wife she must continue preforming in the opera, he suddenly becomes very agitated and stren with her, and as he leans in toward his now docile wife, his shadow covers her face. One of the most inresting shots in the entire film, for me, was when the camera is looking at a photograph of the writing staff from a competing newspaper as Kane and one of his colleagues are discussing their need for a staff as talented as them. Suddenly, the picture appear to come to life, and Kane is posing for photos with the very same staff a few years later. This is a very creative way of showing that Kane eventually got what he wanted, the competing papers writers. This was not only visully pleasing, suprising and intreging, but also an important point in the movies plot.
I think that this movie can definately be considered art. Even though, I must say, the story line was somewhat of a bore to me. I felt like the meaning of "rosebud" just HAD to be something more interesting. But then...it just wasn't.
Other than the plot (which I think should be very important when judging a film), I thought the shots themselves were beautiful. I loved how the filming tricked my perception of reality. As a person who loves viewing and taking pictures, I absolutely loved the point of views and how you had to guess which angle you were looking at at all times. From the beginning, the mood was set so perfectly. I loved the darkness of the black and white. It was a beautiful movie, definately art. But the story line was not my favorite.
I have not finished the book that we are reading in class but i do agree with Jamie on the thesis of the book. Arnheim does say that when examined one finds how fake and transparent a film is when compared to reality. Citizen Kane although a good movie had a sense of illusion. This was brought on by the camera angles and lighting. For instance at the very beginning of the movie when a very old Charles Kane dies in bed and is holding some kind of container full of liquid. In this scene Charles drops a snow-globe and the timing of the fall and drop followed by the actual breaking of the glass container was off. It was almost like the glass burst and then the water splashed on the floor, I feel like the added a water burst for more dramatics. Additionally the setting of this place named Xanadu looks like a set propped up for the movie. The black and white coloration of the film really makes the setting in the first part of the movie where Kane dies look fake, perhaps it is because the lighting portrays all the buildings as very dark and in effect they look like cut outs or a back drop. Another cool transition throughout the clips in the first scene of the movie is when the palace Xanadu is portrayed for the first time there is a window that is constantly beaming and when it transitions to a new shot the light is constant still but every time a transition to a new sequence is made we get closer to the actual building. I believe that this transitional constant with the light is very interesting and artistic
I'm going to respond to what Adam said: Also, I find the fact that in this movie media is portrayed as such a tool for telling the masses how to think. It is impressive to me how Orson Welles picked up on this in his day and age, and I wonder whether or not he had any idea of what an informational, and media run society America would develop into. And because this idea from the movie, that people are directly influenced by the media, so closely resembles reality, does that make it inartistic according to Rudolph Arnheim?
Me: I think that what makes it artistic is the fact that it isn't realistic. If the movie portrayed reality perfectly, then it would just look like real life. And it wouldn't be represented in an artistic way.
I believe that Arnheim, focuses on the film and how the audiences precieve it. In a funny way Citizen Kane tried to incorporate the audience into the scene in some sequences. For instance, when Kane gets engaged to his first wife and he returns to the office and all of his employees are around this giant trophy, the trophy is posistioned to where the audience can read it and the crowd is positioned to where the audience should feel like they are a part of the crowd in some way. I believe this is a very crafy artsy way to involve the audience in this movie. Additionally the deep shot tecnique used throughout the movie really added extra detail which was im guessing an attempt to duplicate reality because in reality you soak up the details of your life. Ultimately Arnheim want people to be able to distinguish illusion from reality but still be able to enjoy films as art, and though some scenes in Citizen Kane could be classified as unrealistic I still felt a connection to the characters and their reality in some little way, and that I believe is when film becomes art.
This film is a piece of art for a few different reasons. The fact that it follows the life of such an important man through media and stories of friends, in a usually negative tone is breaking the norm and opening eyes to a new way of viewing a praised person. Another way it is artistic is visually. There were many scenes and shots in the film that played tricks on my eyes in such a subtle but beautiful way. I loved the fading transitions where it showed two scenes fading together. It gave you a real vision of the present and the past being shown on the screen together, one fading out and the other fading in. I also loved the transition from real life then the same shot on the front of the newspaper. I think it might be that way to shine light on the fact that his life is the newspaper, whether that be a good or bad thing. Another artistic thing about this film is the emotions it conveyed. The acting was so belivable at times. One scene that pops in my head is where Emily sent their son home alone with the driver and Kane got really mad and sad, thinking of when his parents sent him away. In all, this film really was a piece of art, in so many different ways.
Like many of the others, I haven’t entirely finished Arnheim’s thrilling piece of work, but I’m getting there. . Things of that magnitude really take time, as well as unyielding patience. :) Thus, I cannot provide numerous examples of how this film is art, but I hope what I do provide is adequate enough.
In all honesty, and solely in my opinion alone, this movie irritated me 95% of the time. This could partially be because I was extremely ill with a cold, and had a difficult time keeping my head up. But I did in fact force myself to watch the movie. I see WHY this film COULD be considered art, and I believe it is a piece of art, but like paintings, not everyone has to like it to deem it “art”. Maybe I should just watch it again.
I agree with all whom have said that because the film itself is in black and white, it allows us to view things from a more realistic perspective. It allows us to feel somber, thus it allows us to relate to each character on a more emotional level. However, the director didn’t film it in black and white intentionally; color films were virtually unheard of in the early 40’s. Granted, yes the first film in color can be debated upon, but there is still many misconseptions. When people claim “colored films” pre 1950’s were usually only tinted, bi-colored, and maybe tri-colored, but even by the mid 50’s only half of every film made was in complete color. Regardless, whether or not Welles intended for the black and white to strike the viewer in the ways that it did, it does.
Like Blakewood said, “Arnheim's thesis seems to be that when one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of reality it is, but since it therefore; is not reality, it is art”. Orson Welles used many film tricks beautifully to trick the viewer’s eye. Like many have mentioned, the jump cuts allowed Welles to show the viewers what HE wanted US to see.
I believe the depth of field, like the jump cuts kept things in the perspective Welles wanted us to view. Objects looked smaller or larger depending on the perspective Welles wanted us to view the film from.. People were larger when we were supposed to focus solely on them, sets were larger and people were smaller when we were supposed to focus on the settings. An example of this would be towards the end of the movie, when Kane’s wife was sitting at a table next to the fireplace doing a puzzle. Kane and his wife were filmed from a longer distance which in turn makes them look smaller and the House larger. This shows the magnitude of their wealth, in a sense, by showing the enormity of their “palace”.
Another artistic trait that I found to make the movie was the use of flashbacks and flashforwards. The entire movie transcended actual time-space reality. It was not filmed as one lateral timeline of events. The film jumped from the end of the story (Kane dying) to the early beginning to the middle, to the beginning, to the end. Basically it was all over the place. Welles used characters and their interviews to create this “flashback” system.
In conclusion to my ramblings, I believe the film is artistic, because it allowed us to break away from the reality of the situation. The movie was not laterally fluid like reality is, it jumped from scene to scene via cuts, yet we still believed everything we saw. The use of depth perceptions and lighting/shade allowed Welles to hypnotize the viewer into believing what he wanted us to believe. The use of these movie “jedi-mind tricks” as I call them, deems this film as a form of art.
I'm not sure if i agree with this movie being the greatest of all time. Naming the greatest movie of all time seems to be an impossible task considering all the different views and types of movies. Difficulty aside, I simply was not breathtaken by this movie. I may not have caught the deaper meanings or symbollic ideas expressed that made this movie "the greatest". I did enjoy the movie though, don't get me wrong. I believe that for its time this movie was incredibly advanced. However these advances were simply not enough to conivince me.
• Although I have not entirely read the book, I have read other books on Citizen Kane and I know that this film used groundbreaking and long lasting filming techniques that, in my opinion, qualify it as art. The unconventional lighting, chiaroscuro, unusual backlighting and contrasting make the film look very different from other films of the time. I noticed many different strange camera angles and noticed the way the cameramen used shadows to bring out different parts of the scene and hide others. Just like someone said earlier, I noticed the deep focus shots such as the one where Kane was a child playing outside. The weird focusing and angles allowed the cameramen to reveal larger parts of the scene like ceilings and such. One thing I noticed that, while it doesn’t show the film is artistic, the weird way that the characters talked over each other bothered me. You sometimes couldn’t understand what they were saying and I felt as if they were interrupting each other all the time. I didn’t like that one aspect of the movie. There are plenty of other things I noticed in the movie but will comment on later after I see what people have to say about everything.
This film used deep focus in the most creative and random ways. The one scene I loved was with the window in the office and how it looked normal size, but as he walked up to it his head only came up to the window sill. Another cool thing they did in this movie was working with the angles. One example that comes to mind is an angle from Kane's feet, making him appear more powerful in my eyes. Another great scene was working with the lighting to get a reaction from the audience. During the fight scene with Susan there were so many shadows that gave it that extra eerie feeling to the already uneasy scene. Orson Welles used the many tricks of cinematography to his best advantage to get the exact reaction he was looking for in every scene.
i was pleasently impressed with Citizen Kane for the era in which it was made. This film qualifies as artistic because some parts of the film seemed extremly unrealistic, for example the gradure of Xanadu. Another example of how this film can be veiwed as artistic is due to the fact that the film started at the end of his life and the veiwer would jump from past to present.
In my personal opinion i don't think that Citizen can would be considered art just because it had a story line and it was entertianing. Also, other than the exagurated wealth, most of the story seemed pretty realistic.
According to Arnheim, one of the aspects of an artistic film is obvious play with reality, or exaggeration. Citizen Kane does a lot of that, in my opinion. While I'm aware that people of incredible wealth existed in the 1940s, Charles Kane's life was glamorized before our eyes as this great spectacle whom everyone (for the most part) loved. He was thrust into Walter Parks Thatcher's lap of luxury as a child when his parents sold him away to give him a better life. So it's basically this rags-to-riches fantasy, which makes it artistic by Arnheim's definition. Also, we always saw him so happy all the time and passionate about his newspaper, which I'm not saying isn't realistic, but when we see at the end that he really wasn't happy, it sort of messes with our heads a bit.
Going along with what Kristian said, I do think that this film isn't for everyone. I think that you have to be in the mood for a black and white film for starters, and you also have to focus from the beginning or you will become lost in the story and want to give up watching it. Had I not had gratuitous amounts of coffee prior to the class meeting, I might not have been able to get into it as much as I did.
Citizen Kane is an artistic film for the simple fact that this movie alone changed the art form of filming. Welles employed great film techniques that were rarely used at the time. It was revolutionary how he used angles in the film; he made the powerful characters look down and the weaker characters always looking up. An example of this is after Susan reads her review in the Inquire about her first opera performance. She is always shown lower in the screen and looking up to Kane. This is showing how he controlled her and her singing career because he wanted to transform her into an actual singer not just a “singer”. He pioneered extreme angles and integrated ceilings as part of the shot, which no one had done to that point. An example of this is when Kane and Leland talk after Kane’s love triangle scandal has been released and Leland tells Kane he is leaving. This scene is shot showing the full length of the body from floor to ceiling. I read that Welles thought angles should tell the story. He believed that if there was no sound, the viewer should still know what’s going on. And I believe that Welles did a great job accomplishing this. Another technique that Welles used was overlapping dialogue and sound. The breakfast scene is an example of the mastery of the overlapping technique. He showed well over a few years of the Kane’s life in a total of 2 minutes, while overlapping not only the many different shots of them at the breakfast table but also overlapping the music and their dialogue. A fun overlapping shot to watch was in the beginning of the film during the Time of the March, showing all the different newspapers’ circulating after Kane’s death. Something that caught my eye was all the different lighting shots. He had high contrast shadow lighting shots that were very unique and interesting to watch. My favorite technique Welles used in this film was deep focus shots. By having deep focus he was able to fill the entire screen with meaning. An important deep focus shot was at the beginning of the movie when Kane’s parents were discussing why he was going to live with Mr. Thatcher, and in the background is little Kane playing in the snow being oblivious to how his whole life will be changed in the matter of minutes. Another reason this film can be considered artistic is because the story is told backwards, starting at his death and then telling flashbacks of Kane’s life throughout.
To my disbelief, I surprisingly enjoyed this film. Normally I don’t like classic movies that are black and white, but this movie opened my eyes to exploring other films past my time. As Arnheim stated in his book, the way from reality to the picture lies via the artist’s eyes. Orson Welles numerous techniques that he used to distort our perception of reality were constructed in a way for Citizen Kane to be an artistic film.
Citizen Kane is an artistic movie due to the way the movie was put together and the way the viewer sees the movie. Christie, I agree with the scene. That is the exact scene that stuck out to me. The background was very unrealistic/artistic.
Arnheim's thesis states film's failure to accurtely represent reality provides artistic potential. After watching the movie and reading over the comment that the class has posted up I understand that Citizen Kane is an artistic film because it distorts reality.
Citizen Kane can be consider an artistic film due to the fact the different techniques that were used in this movie. One of the techniques used was deep focus, were the foreground and background of a shot are equally in focus at the same time. The different angles of the camara also made Welles' film a piece of art.
I am not thru with the exciting Arnheim page turner as of yet. So I am not totally familiar with what he would say. And I am not convinced that the entire movie is art. But the scene I feel deserves to be called art is after Sue leaves him and he trashes the room and walks out where you see mirrored reflection after reflection that is a beautiful piece of filmmaking right there in its own. Looking down that hall he sees himself getting smaller and smaller all the way back to a simpler time just Kane and Rosebud. I will read more of "Film as Art" and have a discussion from the book but in my opinion that one scene is art.
ReplyDeleteI as well am not finished with his book yet, but there seems to be a pattern in his book. This pattern seems to be all about perception. According to the book, if the film director shoots only certain angles that he/she so chooses then we percieve whatever he/she wants us to percieve in the movie. In addition to utilizing angles, he explains how the lack of color in a film will alter how we view the film. We simply take certain things to be true in a colorless film. But for partial reading, it would appear to me that deception and tricking the human eye are key point in making a truly magnificent film. Tricking our eyes in itself is an art. Therefore the movie Citizen Kane with all of its different camera angles and close-up shots should be considered artistic. Although some may disagree art is in the eye of the beholder, and I believe that Citizen Kane is artistic.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Kane is a film consisting of different elements of art. The film is black and white, which in my opinion, already plays a big role on our visual perspective of the film. The opening sequence of shots used in the film shows us that the film will be gloomy in a sense that it wont end well. In the opening shot, it shows us Kane's palace, then skips to his death. The film plays with our mind in many ways. It uses a lot of perception tools, such as the angles, jump cuts, and real life.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Kane uses jump cuts throughout the entire film, every time a new person is interviewed. Using jump cuts, Welles shows us what he wants us to see, in the perspective of others. I will have to agree with Tracy, the shot that caught my attention in the movie was when Kane walked by the mirror. The angle was placed just right, and captured the moment very well. For the time period, the film in my opinion, revolutionized the industry and made directors think outside the box.
I liked the film.
I thought this film was a good pice of work. I especially like how the people were made to look like giants and then shot were made to meke the people look small. The rooms were very big and then they were small. It was like when Kane was doing his evil works, he was made small but most of the time the shots were made really big. I thought it interesting that when there were 2 people in the room, you could only see the person speaking and hardly ever saw both people together when it was a one on one conversating sitting down. Overall it was a good movie.
ReplyDeleteI have not finished reading Film as art yet but as others have stated this movie is art. The lack of color makes the audience believe things to be true more easily than a film with color. The closing shots of all of Kane's clutter and his rosebud being burned were my favorite shots of this movie. I also feel that the director used depth perception in a very revolutionary way. Such as in the scene when he is giving his speech before election day.
ReplyDeleteI have been doing some reading other than the text for our class. A lot of wonderful things have been said. Francoia Truffaut was quoted as saying "Everything that matters in cinema since 1940 was influenced by Citizen Kane". Greg Toland the camera man (I am sure that is not the correct term) created new ways to shoot film that were not being done in America at least. The deep focus which can be seen through out the film.
ReplyDeleteOne example of the deep focus is when young Kane is playing in the snow and you can continue to see him even after they have went into the house to discuss his adoption. Once again the deep focus was seen when Susan attempts her overdose.
Toland uses the film to make Welles seem larger than other characters standing around him.
The lighting in this move was fantastic. The seen where they have just ran the news real stating that Kane was dead was very low lighting. Nothing was really defined in that scene faces everything was in shadow but the smoke that filled the room.
The slow fade outs from monologue of individual talking to the scene were just beginning to be used in films. The overlapping of shots such as the Cockatoo in the scene towards the end. The overlapping dialogue in the movie was new at the time of this film.That is seen in several scenes but once again where the news real ends about the death of Kane is the scene I noticed that in where everyone is talking at once.
Also in the opening and closing the extreme close up of the fence a peek into Xanadu.
For a film that is still number 1 on the AFI's top 100 greatest films, it must be art.
I can see that in several shots but my favorite is the mirror that is striking. Critics have picked shots stated that this was revolutionary film making. I do agree with Arnheim that the use of black and white film delivers a better picture with more texture than color. Lighting used to highlight or low-light the characters and the objects gives film depth that is sometimes lacking in today's cinematic attempts. of course like our other two movies this movie also history. With Hearst trying to shut the movie down. I am not sure that the glory of this picture goes to Orson Welles as much as it does to the talents of Greg Toland.
I think that PhiTubbs, pretty much hit it on the head. Arnheim's thesis seems to be that when one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of reality it is, but since it therefore; is not reality, it is art. This is explained by excepting the black and white replication as truth, the elimination of depth perception due to being displayed on a flat surface and angles used, disruption of the space time continuum, and finally how our field of vision is controlled and limited by the director. Citizen Kane used all of these 'tricks' to visually represent a story, with use of angles and flashbacks to another time very frequently. I think Arnheim would consider it art, as many people today do.
ReplyDeleteI, like some others here, have yet to finish the book. But from what I can tell and have read, I definitely agree with blakewood and PhiTubbs. I feel like they have said everything that I would have said, or have gathered from the book thus far. I especially like blakewood's statement that: "when one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of it really is, but since it therefore;is not reality, it is art." -- That's pretty much what I was thinking... only perhaps more eloquently put.
ReplyDeleteIn the interest of having a nice plethora and diversity of comments, I just want to speak to the overall impression and feelings I have towards the film, Citizen Kane.
ReplyDeleteI'm honestly not sure I agree with all the acclaim this movie seems to get. I don't feel like it really lives up to titles like "The Best Movie Ever", or things of that nature. Now, I do understand that most of the acclaim and accolades this movie has earned comes from its being the archetype for films of its kind, for the innovation and donations made to the progression of film as and art form, and a beloved form of entertainment. I can definitely appreciate that. But as a movie itself, I felt it was a bit lacking, and a tiny bit frustrating. I feel like the movie just wasn't all there, what it had in inventive shots and creative angles/effects was not made up for in story. There was this long drawn out interview process of multiple people, and a cinematic back story for very little result. I feel like the huge build, build, and build this lengthy movie makes is not justified in the ending scenes.
But hey, maybe that's the beauty of it. Maybe I'm just missing it.
The film is artistic on many levels first being in black and white giving it a different style especially with the lighting, and the first scene being a death hooking you into it making you want to know more. Also it sets the tone for the story. The most artistic scene would have to be the scene where he realizes he has everything but nothing proving a point that has been around for a long time being money doesn't buy happiness. Like a painting this movie is based on mood, dreams, and perceptions of the artist and there ideas coming out to a final project. However i would not claim it to be the best movie of all times even though they experienced with shots, crossfades, and focusing on certain parts to blend in. It was I think a huge turning point for film though.
ReplyDeleteIn order to answer the topic question one must know what the thesis is.I have yet to figure this out but I don't think it will completely take away from my first comment about the film. I felt as a film it's storyline was not as exceptional as it is an art, if that makes sense. To be honest I was lost most of the movie about what was going on and what direction the movie was going. This was my first time seeing the film and clearly I need to watch it again because few things actually stood out in my mind. As far as the film making goes like everyone else said the on going mirror scene was quite interesting to see executed being the film was made in the 1940's. Another aspect of the film that did stand out to me was the aging process. With the decline of Citizen Kane's popularity, you began to take more notice of his age and could almost feel the toll that his life was taking on him body and spirit. I'm still not sure with the significance of "Rosebud" was. I know it was the name of the sled he had when he was a boy....but that's about all I got out of it.
ReplyDeleteI, too, have yet to finish this book but have come to the same general consensus as Blakewood.
ReplyDelete"Arnheim's thesis seems to be that when one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of reality it is, but since it therefore; is not reality, it is art. This is explained by excepting the black and white replication as truth, the elimination of depth perception due to being displayed on a flat surface and angles used, disruption of the space time continuum, and finally how our field of vision is controlled and limited by the director."
Citizen Kane used a lot of different cinematic techniques including:
• Deep-focus shots, a technique of cinematography and staging with great depth of field. An example of this was in the scene where Kane's parents discuss his future while, as seen through the window, the child plays outside in the snow.
• Depth of field, where there are several planes, a foreground, middle-ground, and background. In this film depth of field heightens dramatic value. An example of this was when Susan overdosed and the cinematographer used bright lighting and wide-angled lens to make objects or people close to the frame’s foreground seem huge, while other objects in the background seem smaller. Wide-angle shots, exaggerates the distance, depth or disparity between foreground and background planes. An example of this is in Mrs. Kane’s boardinghouse that kept all objects in the shot in sharp focus.
• Flashback/Flash-forward, a cinematic technique that alters that natural order of the narrative. Citizen Kane is mostly composed of flashbacks and flash-forwards.
• Dissolve/Lap Dissolve, an editing technique between two sequences, shots, or scenes, in which the visible image of one shot or scene is gradually replaced or blended. A great example of this is when someone in the movie is having a flashback or a dream; the clip begins with a close up of the character and then dissolves into their flashback or dream.
• Film within a film, to have one film within another. An example of this is at the beginning of the film the newsreel of Kane's life "News on the March" in Citizen Kane, homage to the real "The March of Time" newsreel.
• Audio Bridge, an outgoing sound in one scene that continues over into a new image or shot. Audio Bridge is used extensively with the flashback scenes to denote the interval of time within related scenes. A character will begin a sentence and complete it weeks, months, or years later in a different location. On occasion, one character will begin the sentence and another will complete it in the same manner.
I can say I was not a fan of this movie the first time I watched it, yet after doing a little research on cinematic terminology, I decided that I should re-watch the film. Ultimately ending in my approval. I didn’t notice all of the different types of art expressed in this film. I enjoy the way the American Dream is depicted in this film, the bitter irony of an American success story that ends in futile nostalgia, loneliness, and death.
Citizen Kane is more than just a film that is art, it created the benchmark on what it means to be art, let alone an incredible film. Citizen Kane used, at that time, revolutionary techniques in its filming, which just provides more emphasis on, and appreciate of, Citizen Kane's aesthetics. As we have read in our text, film by itself is not art, for it's merely a mechanical process in which rays of light show what is on the celluloid. In other words, a camera is a recording device, so by itself, it cannot be art. But, the actual movie, is kind of like an artist's painting, the way the movie is filmed, and all the techniques etc, definitely show how the director views the world, and in that respect, a film can be art. Art is defined as expression, and art diverges from mechanical recording, and each art form must diverge from mechanical recordings in terms of the peculiar limitation of its medium, are Arnheim's three central aesthetics tenets for a film to be art. Orson Welles' use of metaphorical power in his shots are almost intoxicating, it was something never before seen in American cinema. The incredibly smooth flashbacks never once disrupt the story or the audience's following in any way, in fact they are brilliantly done. And those are just a couple of reasons that Citizen Kane is art, and an incredible piece of American history and cinema.
ReplyDeleteI questioned why Citizen Kane was said to be "The greatest move of all time," throughout the entire film. After thinking about it for awhile, I understand now, why it was. Citizen Kane brought about a new way of film making. Films before Citizen Kane were no where near as artistic as it was. Welles really put effort into the film to make it like no other. Citizen Kane set the bar for future film makers. In my opinion, that is why it it's the greatest movie.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the thesis that "to the extent the film fails to accuratly represent reality, it posses artistic potential" this film is very artistic. It follows the progression of a child who was adopted into position of power at childhood and eventually regressed bach into the child he was never allowed to be. Furthermore, the fim is told in a series of flashbacks starting with his death, then the story of his life. I, however, foud the most unrelistic part the creation of his mansion xanado the most unrealistic part. It serves as a material representintion of the character Kane's eccentricities. Thus the film was many pieces of art that serve to represent that film character of Charles Foster Kane.
ReplyDeleteAnother aspect of Citizen Kane that makes it remarkable is its powerful metaphors, really showing reality through Orson Welles' unique perspective. For example, the almost identical characteristics between Charles Foster Kane and William Randolph Hearst. But besides the metaphors, the technical aspects that make Citizen Kane an incredible film and piece of art, really set this film apart, and show Orson Welles as a complete revolutionary. Unusual/unconventional lighting is one thing that really jumped out at me while watching Citizen Kane, also creative use of camera angles, shadows, and incredible deep-focus shots, also low angled shots, revealing the ceiling, were also very innovative. These things together, and presented as flawlessly as they were, make Citizen Kane a work of cinematic art.
ReplyDeleteThis was the first time i had seen Citizen Kane, and honestly before i saw it this time i didn't really think I would appreciate it very much just because of how dated I figured it would be. I was very surprised, though, because it showed a beautiful type of film-making that i was not used to seeing from films in that era. You could tell from the very beginning that it wasn't just going to be a story and events strung together for entertainment. It was true artistic expression from the beginning, slow-panning shots of the foreboding NO TRESPASSING sign and fence outside the abandoned Xanadu to his lost childhood burning away as we watch "rosebud" wither in the fire at the end, which was one of many symbolic shots in the film, i think. Welles did a terrific job in not just presenting us with a story in a real-life fashion, but presented it in a fantastical way that makes us feel that we were following this larger-than-life character of Kane. It made me feel as if i was watching the memoirs of some god-like being and parts of the movie were actually awe-inspiring, which i'm sure was Welles' intention. I can definitely understand the hype surrounding this film at the time and even still today.
ReplyDeleteI had never seen the film before and I liked it, but I failed to see why so many people regard it as the greatest film of all time. Perhaps if had seen it when it came out and many of the effects were new I would have a better appreciation for it. It just seemed kinda cheesy at parts. I will certainly see the movie again and after reading Arnheim perhaps I will see more in it.
ReplyDeleteAdam Castellarin seems to pretty much have the same idea as me about Arnheim's thesis, like most people here are getting at, the thesis of Arnheim's book is essentially that film is art when it fails to represent reality. Or perhaps film grows artistically as it increasingly does not represent reality. I'm unsure which side of the argument to support concerning whether Citizen Kane is art according to this thesis or not. I, like the other Adam has mentioned, find Kane's palace, Xanadu, to be such an abstract representation of part of Kane's personality that the film is art in this aspect. The film also seems to be art in the fact that Kane is the most wealthy and powerful man in America. Such a fictitious character seems to misrepresent reality enough to be art by Arnheim's thesis.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I find the fact that in this movie media is portrayed as such a tool for telling the masses how to think. It is impressive to me how Orson Welles picked up on this in his day and age, and I wonder whether or not he had any idea of what an informational, and media run society America would develop into. And because this idea from the movie, that people are directly influenced by the media, so closely resembles reality, does that make it inartistic according to Rudolph Arnheim?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Arnheim's thesis, film is an art form and it is art because it does not reproduce reality exactly. Since film did not reproduce reality it had the same potential for artistic expression as paintings and sculpture.
ReplyDeleteOne of the ways Citizen Kane fulfills this requirement is the fact that this film was shot in black and white. Just a simple decision like this makes this film art in Arnheim's world, because that's not how we live our everyday lives.
Welles innovative of camera angles and low-angled shots were also groundbreaking. Most films, up until that time, were standard shot-cut-shot sequences. Welles broke the mold his style of film making.
While Citizen Kane isn't my new favorite film, I understand and respect that it was a Genesis into an era and way of creating film. Particularly artistic parts of the film that jumped out at me include the montage where Kane and his first wife are happy newlyweds and he talks of putting off work, then by the last shot they're barely speaking. There were also unique camera 'tricks' and lighting that were used to emphasize key points in the film. While I know I don't understand a great deal of what is significant in the film, but I think what makes it truly great is that even someone who knows nothing about film can appreciate its magnificence.
ReplyDeleteHaving read several comments and looking at Citizen Kane from different peoples perspectives I could see how some people may disagree with the notion of this film as art. I agree on the grounds that the story of Citizen Kane was missing some sort of ingredient that wouldve made that movie much better. But on the opposite side of the spectrum being one of the first films to utilize the techniques like flashbacks, deep focus, and having a film within another film; that truly makes this one of the best films of all time. This is simply because of originality. Citizien Kane also laid the groundwork for other films for many years to come.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to paint on a canvas or words on a page, film can't automatically be art simply for existing. There are standards for art. According to Arnheim, film becomes art when it fails to represent reality. I was fascinated by the parallel between a film that showed the media as having an agenda (almost vilifying it) and the power that entails and the fact that Citizen Kane is another form of media. It almost seemed like it questions itself. Of course, it being about a fictional character, it was not hypocritical. While Citizen Kane does not attempt to be realistic or trick us about factual events, it is a fabulous portrayal of a man that had everything, which was never enough. Even at the end of his life, his only true possession and love was his first sled, Rosebud. Kane seemed to be distracted by everything in his life (women, business, etc.) that took him further away from who he originally was. The shot where Kane first meets his second wife and states that he is on his way to a storage facility to try to find some things from his past implied to me that he was looking for Rosebud even then. Yet, he was distracted by another woman and his political aspirations, which ultimately took him further from his roots.
ReplyDeleteI have not finished the book yet, but I thought the movie would definitely be considered art. I had no idea how it could live up to actually being called the greatest movie of all time, but the concepts Welles had where ahead of his time. He broke away from the norm with the deep focus shots, depth of field, and numerous others. The black and white film had an impact on how people view the film, however, Arnheim states that "not only has a multicolored world been transmuted into a black-and-white world, but in the process all color values have changed their relations to one another: similarities present themselves which do not exist in the natural world" and that "everyone who goes to view a film accepts the screen world as being true to nature". These observations make me believe that the black and white of the film had some contribution to setting this movie apart from others but didn't play as much of an important part as the various shots. Welles went beyond the standards for normal films of his day to create a work of art.
ReplyDeleteGoing back on what Blakewood said "Arnheim's thesis seems to be that when one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of reality it is, but since it therefore; is not reality, it is art." That statement i have to agree with. It loosely shows reality and takes you to a special occasion something that does not really happen to your average person making it a fantasy and a piece of art. It shows a different side to most people do not have and exposing people to something not really seen and into the directors mind and visions.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Kane set the standard for movies to come, but when told it was the greatest film of all time I was comparing it to more recent films. After reading some of Arnheims book, I had a more open mind about it. Welles used shots that are still used today, and that brought out emotions which, to me, is one of the greatest forms of art. Arnheim says that he views film as being a unique experiment in the visual arts which took place the first three decades of this century and that it survives in the private efforts of a few courageous individuals. Citizen Kane was Welles courageous experiment and was viewed as a work of art for others to live up to.
ReplyDeleteThe thesis of Arnheim's book does seem to express that film is art when it does not accurately represent reality. In this case, black and white movies like 'Citizen Kane' fail to portray reality because people live in a world of many different colors. Also, the many flashbacks throughout this film are very appealing and fluid, yet in reality people are not capable of showing a perfect replay of a memory to a listener. Even though obtaining a mansion the size of Kane's mansion is possible, to most people that is a rare notion. This sense of disconnection with Charles Foster Kane lays ground for artistic possiblities. 'Citizen Kane' definitely paved the way for future films to prosper.
ReplyDeleteI think the largest abstraction that this movie had that made it a piece of art was the inclusion of modern filming techniques such as flashbacks, camera angles etc. While watching it I felt like I was watching a modern movie, just in Black and white and because Welles crated this style of fimling it should be classified as art.
ReplyDeleteDespite the many visually attractive film techniques like deep focus and depth of field shots, this film does represent reality in many shots and sequences. Everyone can relate to wanting to acquire a hefty income and have a nice, powerful job title. This idea is very real to the audience. Hence, this film might be considered less of art. Also, the plot of trying to figure out Kane's life is very relatable to most people. This film is mostly art, but there are aspects of it that are just reality.
ReplyDeleteGoing from the thesis many others are using, Film is art because it does not represent reality exactly, Citizen Kane is a very artistic movie. Some of the shots are outstanding even for today's cinema. The picture for this blog os a perfect example of one of these shots. The was the huge Kane picture dwarfs the actual people is a way Welles artisticly chooses his shots. This intro scene is one of my favorite scenes in the movie. The way it scans through gives the audience a sense something dark is going to happen. Many shots were used as a type of double meaning, which I find to be a very inteligent was to shoot this movie.
ReplyDeleteAs well as some others, I am not done reading Arnheim's book. So far his book seems to be about perception and how we view things. Like Citizen Kane is a black and white movie. To an audience black and what is not realistic because we see everything in color. In this movie we can relate to a lot of the shots and cuts, but we can not relate to the black and white. Citizen Kane is an artistic film because we can relate to the characters and what is happening like the shot where you go from the palace to a shot of death.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with Reid Mounts, the movie seemed to be lacking and was very drawn out. Since I am a new commer to film and had never heard of Citizen Kane, I was expecting to see a wonderful movie and was let down. The movie was far too drawn out for my taste. Maybe since I am a new commer to film I could not appricate the beauty of the shots, angles, ect. but I felt like the only really good scene that got me interested was when his second wife left Kane and he distroyed her room. Hopefully after further reading into "Film as Art" and going into a more in depth study of the movie, I will be able to understand why Citizen Kane is considered a Great movie.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Kane is a very artistic film in my point of view. This movie is a landmark in direction and keeping the viewers attention. The transitions and shot seen in this movie are truly inspiring. Orson Welles has provided the viewers with directing that is still being used today. Welles begins by showing a little boy and how he is to be the next millionare to society. A little boy with a sled not wanting to be bothered is all we see in this seen. Little did we know that this seen was the theme of this entire movie. I find this to be truly amazing and would watch this movie over and over. Kane is a smart arrogant man who has or can get anything he wants-except for Love. Melles uses a simple newspaper repoter to help the audience find the mystery about "Rosebud." In this mystery we find by the interviews and journals of Kane's friends just what kind of man he really was. Through this great movie we are left at the end still wondering what rosebud means. Melles uses a great shot of the burning of all Kanes possessions. In this scene we finally see the sley and what is wrote on it- Rosebud. This ending was truly a work of art and very inspiring.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteArnheim's thesis states, "To the extent film fails to accurately represent reality, it possesses artistic potential." I haven't finished Film as Art yet but we briefly talked about the thesis in class one day. I believe that according to Arnheim's thesis, Citizen Kane is very much a piece of art. Like several people have mentioned, the fact that it's a black and white film aids in the distortion of reality. Also, the different shots and depth of field shots trick the eye to see a scene a certain way. There was one shot after Kane's death that was made to look like the camera was zooming in from the sky through a crack in the glass roof and down onto Kane's wife, or ex-wife, I can't remember. But the buliding looked fake to me, like it was a small model of a building and a camera zoomed in over it, and then that shot was followed by a one from the cieling of the real building zooming in on Kane's wife. I don't know why this shot struck me because it's not an important part of the movie, but it bothered me how fake it looked. I think shots like this and the mirror shot mentioned by several people are examples of how the film is a piece of art.
ReplyDeleteI have not yet mastered the ideas and thesis of Arnheim's book, and this was my first time to experience Citizen Kane in its entirety. However, I do agree with Blakewood's earlier comments on the idea of Arnheim's theory being, "When one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of reality it is, but since it therefore; is not reality, it is art." After watching Citizen Kane and reading the comments I understand that Citizen Kane is an artistic film because it stretches reality to show how easily our society can be molded by what we hear or read in the news and newspapers.
ReplyDeleteFrom the other comments posted it seems the general consensus about Arnheim's thesis is that film is art when it does not represent reality, or something of that nature. Perception in the film was what the director wanted us to take notice of in order to conclude a truth about the story. This was done through the shot techniques, as Jamie superbly discussed like deep focus,depth of field etc. So a new question that comes to me is how is the film not representing reality? I agree with the rest of the class about the black and white aspect of it having a purpose. I looked up when the first color feature film was made and the earliest date I found was 1908. So the technology for color film making was definitely already established.I'm piggy back off what I previously touched on about the aging in the film, there really was no calender or dated material telling us the years that had passed. Maybe it is considered and artistic film because of the usefulness of the shots to alter or lead us to believe a truth which is far from the reality of the story.
ReplyDeleteI thought the film was okay, I plan on watching it again so I can grasp the storyline better and get a better look at the different shots. At some points I didn't know what was going on when it changed to a different time period of Kane's life. As for the whole Rosebud ending, I was expecting something a little more shocking than his childhood sled. I didn't really get the ending, but I think it connects back to when Kane says he would have been a better man had he never been rich.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Citizen Kane and was able to understand why is has been acclaimed as one of the greatest films of all time. This black & white mysterious thriller is filled with shots and cuts that help us follow and create our own assumptions on who or what "Rosebud" could truly be. Orson Wells used many jump cuts to switch quickly to another character or story to help us figure out the whole picture. I am appreciative of this film and now understand and agree that Citizen Kane set the standard for the film industry.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the very first post from Tracy, I definatly belive this film, as with almost every other film I have ever seen, to be "art". It uses angles and lighting to express emotion and elements of suprise, which Arnheim believed made films art. Also I interpreted the scene where he is in between the 2 mirrors a little diffrently than you did. I imagined the many reflections of himself to reinforce the idea of his solidarity and lonliness in his huge mansion, despite all his riches and conquests, he is alone and unhappy.
ReplyDeleteFilm As Art, in my opinion, strongly emphasizes art being based on the audiences perceptions by using by using contrast and clever cinematography. First, as an audience, we need to focus on the fact that this is a black and white film. This point alone changes the way one must view the film because color creates and enhances it's own story. A black and white film uses contrast to depict conflict or resolution. The use of two colors portraying so much can only be discribed as art. For example, the beginning scene where we see Kane in the chair, grunting "Rosebud" would have been less dramatic if their was color because the edgy black and white of the room caused the audience to feel tension. Secondly, the camera angles plays a huge part in one's perception of a scene. Towards the end of the film, Kane is walking away right after his wife leaves him. In this scene, the camera shows Kane walking away through mirrors that protray him gradually getting smaller. It would be a lot less dramatic and depressing if the camera was directly behind him, showing him walk away. This scene was one of my favorites for its originality and I would definately discribe this as art.
ReplyDeleteI believe Arnheim would point to several key scence that make this film a piece of art. One very intersting shot is the worms-eye view of Kane's gaurdian as the unhappy, childhood Kane recieves a christmas present (the present being a sled). This particular angle distorts the size of his gaurdian and represents his power over the boyhood Kane, as well as Charlie's fear of him. Another aspect which make this film a work of art is the use of highly contrsted lighting in a single shot. For insance when Charlie Kane is telling his second wife she must continue preforming in the opera, he suddenly becomes very agitated and stren with her, and as he leans in toward his now docile wife, his shadow covers her face. One of the most inresting shots in the entire film, for me, was when the camera is looking at a photograph of the writing staff from a competing newspaper as Kane and one of his colleagues are discussing their need for a staff as talented as them. Suddenly, the picture appear to come to life, and Kane is posing for photos with the very same staff a few years later. This is a very creative way of showing that Kane eventually got what he wanted, the competing papers writers. This was not only visully pleasing, suprising and intreging, but also an important point in the movies plot.
ReplyDeleteI think that this movie can definately be considered art. Even though, I must say, the story line was somewhat of a bore to me. I felt like the meaning of "rosebud" just HAD to be something more interesting. But then...it just wasn't.
ReplyDeleteOther than the plot (which I think should be very important when judging a film), I thought the shots themselves were beautiful. I loved how the filming tricked my perception of reality. As a person who loves viewing and taking pictures, I absolutely loved the point of views and how you had to guess which angle you were looking at at all times. From the beginning, the mood was set so perfectly. I loved the darkness of the black and white. It was a beautiful movie, definately art. But the story line was not my favorite.
I have not finished the book that we are reading in class but i do agree with Jamie on the thesis of the book. Arnheim does say that when examined one finds how fake and transparent a film is when compared to reality. Citizen Kane although a good movie had a sense of illusion. This was brought on by the camera angles and lighting. For instance at the very beginning of the movie when a very old Charles Kane dies in bed and is holding some kind of container full of liquid. In this scene Charles drops a snow-globe and the timing of the fall and drop followed by the actual breaking of the glass container was off. It was almost like the glass burst and then the water splashed on the floor, I feel like the added a water burst for more dramatics. Additionally the setting of this place named Xanadu looks like a set propped up for the movie. The black and white coloration of the film really makes the setting in the first part of the movie where Kane dies look fake, perhaps it is because the lighting portrays all the buildings as very dark and in effect they look like cut outs or a back drop. Another cool transition throughout the clips in the first scene of the movie is when the palace Xanadu is portrayed for the first time there is a window that is constantly beaming and when it transitions to a new shot the light is constant still but every time a transition to a new sequence is made we get closer to the actual building. I believe that this transitional constant with the light is very interesting and artistic
ReplyDeleteI'm going to respond to what Adam said: Also, I find the fact that in this movie media is portrayed as such a tool for telling the masses how to think. It is impressive to me how Orson Welles picked up on this in his day and age, and I wonder whether or not he had any idea of what an informational, and media run society America would develop into. And because this idea from the movie, that people are directly influenced by the media, so closely resembles reality, does that make it inartistic according to Rudolph Arnheim?
ReplyDeleteMe: I think that what makes it artistic is the fact that it isn't realistic. If the movie portrayed reality perfectly, then it would just look like real life. And it wouldn't be represented in an artistic way.
I believe that Arnheim, focuses on the film and how the audiences precieve it. In a funny way Citizen Kane tried to incorporate the audience into the scene in some sequences. For instance, when Kane gets engaged to his first wife and he returns to the office and all of his employees are around this giant trophy, the trophy is posistioned to where the audience can read it and the crowd is positioned to where the audience should feel like they are a part of the crowd in some way. I believe this is a very crafy artsy way to involve the audience in this movie. Additionally the deep shot tecnique used throughout the movie really added extra detail which was im guessing an attempt to duplicate reality because in reality you soak up the details of your life. Ultimately Arnheim want people to be able to distinguish illusion from reality but still be able to enjoy films as art, and though some scenes in Citizen Kane could be classified as unrealistic I still felt a connection to the characters and their reality in some little way, and that I believe is when film becomes art.
ReplyDeleteThis film is a piece of art for a few different reasons. The fact that it follows the life of such an important man through media and stories of friends, in a usually negative tone is breaking the norm and opening eyes to a new way of viewing a praised person. Another way it is artistic is visually. There were many scenes and shots in the film that played tricks on my eyes in such a subtle but beautiful way. I loved the fading transitions where it showed two scenes fading together. It gave you a real vision of the present and the past being shown on the screen together, one fading out and the other fading in. I also loved the transition from real life then the same shot on the front of the newspaper. I think it might be that way to shine light on the fact that his life is the newspaper, whether that be a good or bad thing. Another artistic thing about this film is the emotions it conveyed. The acting was so belivable at times. One scene that pops in my head is where Emily sent their son home alone with the driver and Kane got really mad and sad, thinking of when his parents sent him away. In all, this film really was a piece of art, in so many different ways.
ReplyDeleteLike many of the others, I haven’t entirely finished Arnheim’s thrilling piece of work, but I’m getting there. . Things of that magnitude really take time, as well as unyielding patience. :) Thus, I cannot provide numerous examples of how this film is art, but I hope what I do provide is adequate enough.
ReplyDeleteIn all honesty, and solely in my opinion alone, this movie irritated me 95% of the time. This could partially be because I was extremely ill with a cold, and had a difficult time keeping my head up. But I did in fact force myself to watch the movie. I see WHY this film COULD be considered art, and I believe it is a piece of art, but like paintings, not everyone has to like it to deem it “art”. Maybe I should just watch it again.
I agree with all whom have said that because the film itself is in black and white, it allows us to view things from a more realistic perspective. It allows us to feel somber, thus it allows us to relate to each character on a more emotional level. However, the director didn’t film it in black and white intentionally; color films were virtually unheard of in the early 40’s. Granted, yes the first film in color can be debated upon, but there is still many misconseptions. When people claim “colored films” pre 1950’s were usually only tinted, bi-colored, and maybe tri-colored, but even by the mid 50’s only half of every film made was in complete color. Regardless, whether or not Welles intended for the black and white to strike the viewer in the ways that it did, it does.
Like Blakewood said, “Arnheim's thesis seems to be that when one really examines film they see how fake and how transparent a representation of reality it is, but since it therefore; is not reality, it is art”. Orson Welles used many film tricks beautifully to trick the viewer’s eye. Like many have mentioned, the jump cuts allowed Welles to show the viewers what HE wanted US to see.
I believe the depth of field, like the jump cuts kept things in the perspective Welles wanted us to view. Objects looked smaller or larger depending on the perspective Welles wanted us to view the film from.. People were larger when we were supposed to focus solely on them, sets were larger and people were smaller when we were supposed to focus on the settings. An example of this would be towards the end of the movie, when Kane’s wife was sitting at a table next to the fireplace doing a puzzle. Kane and his wife were filmed from a longer distance which in turn makes them look smaller and the House larger. This shows the magnitude of their wealth, in a sense, by showing the enormity of their “palace”.
Another artistic trait that I found to make the movie was the use of flashbacks and flashforwards. The entire movie transcended actual time-space reality. It was not filmed as one lateral timeline of events. The film jumped from the end of the story (Kane dying) to the early beginning to the middle, to the beginning, to the end. Basically it was all over the place. Welles used characters and their interviews to create this “flashback” system.
In conclusion to my ramblings, I believe the film is artistic, because it allowed us to break away from the reality of the situation. The movie was not laterally fluid like reality is, it jumped from scene to scene via cuts, yet we still believed everything we saw. The use of depth perceptions and lighting/shade allowed Welles to hypnotize the viewer into believing what he wanted us to believe. The use of these movie “jedi-mind tricks” as I call them, deems this film as a form of art.
I'm not sure if i agree with this movie being the greatest of all time. Naming the greatest movie of all time seems to be an impossible task considering all the different views and types of movies. Difficulty aside, I simply was not breathtaken by this movie. I may not have caught the deaper meanings or symbollic ideas expressed that made this movie "the greatest". I did enjoy the movie though, don't get me wrong. I believe that for its time this movie was incredibly advanced. However these advances were simply not enough to conivince me.
ReplyDelete• Although I have not entirely read the book, I have read other books on Citizen Kane and I know that this film used groundbreaking and long lasting filming techniques that, in my opinion, qualify it as art. The unconventional lighting, chiaroscuro, unusual backlighting and contrasting make the film look very different from other films of the time. I noticed many different strange camera angles and noticed the way the cameramen used shadows to bring out different parts of the scene and hide others. Just like someone said earlier, I noticed the deep focus shots such as the one where Kane was a child playing outside. The weird focusing and angles allowed the cameramen to reveal larger parts of the scene like ceilings and such. One thing I noticed that, while it doesn’t show the film is artistic, the weird way that the characters talked over each other bothered me. You sometimes couldn’t understand what they were saying and I felt as if they were interrupting each other all the time. I didn’t like that one aspect of the movie. There are plenty of other things I noticed in the movie but will comment on later after I see what people have to say about everything.
ReplyDeleteThis film used deep focus in the most creative and random ways. The one scene I loved was with the window in the office and how it looked normal size, but as he walked up to it his head only came up to the window sill. Another cool thing they did in this movie was working with the angles. One example that comes to mind is an angle from Kane's feet, making him appear more powerful in my eyes. Another great scene was working with the lighting to get a reaction from the audience. During the fight scene with Susan there were so many shadows that gave it that extra eerie feeling to the already uneasy scene. Orson Welles used the many tricks of cinematography to his best advantage to get the exact reaction he was looking for in every scene.
ReplyDeletei was pleasently impressed with Citizen Kane for the era in which it was made. This film qualifies as artistic because some parts of the film seemed extremly unrealistic, for example the gradure of Xanadu. Another example of how this film can be veiwed as artistic is due to the fact that the film started at the end of his life and the veiwer would jump from past to present.
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion i don't think that Citizen can would be considered art just because it had a story line and it was entertianing. Also, other than the exagurated wealth, most of the story seemed pretty realistic.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Arnheim, one of the aspects of an artistic film is obvious play with reality, or exaggeration. Citizen Kane does a lot of that, in my opinion. While I'm aware that people of incredible wealth existed in the 1940s, Charles Kane's life was glamorized before our eyes as this great spectacle whom everyone (for the most part) loved. He was thrust into Walter Parks Thatcher's lap of luxury as a child when his parents sold him away to give him a better life. So it's basically this rags-to-riches fantasy, which makes it artistic by Arnheim's definition. Also, we always saw him so happy all the time and passionate about his newspaper, which I'm not saying isn't realistic, but when we see at the end that he really wasn't happy, it sort of messes with our heads a bit.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with what Kristian said, I do think that this film isn't for everyone. I think that you have to be in the mood for a black and white film for starters, and you also have to focus from the beginning or you will become lost in the story and want to give up watching it. Had I not had gratuitous amounts of coffee prior to the class meeting, I might not have been able to get into it as much as I did.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Kane is an artistic film for the simple fact that this movie alone changed the art form of filming. Welles employed great film techniques that were rarely used at the time. It was revolutionary how he used angles in the film; he made the powerful characters look down and the weaker characters always looking up. An example of this is after Susan reads her review in the Inquire about her first opera performance. She is always shown lower in the screen and looking up to Kane. This is showing how he controlled her and her singing career because he wanted to transform her into an actual singer not just a “singer”. He pioneered extreme angles and integrated ceilings as part of the shot, which no one had done to that point. An example of this is when Kane and Leland talk after Kane’s love triangle scandal has been released and Leland tells Kane he is leaving. This scene is shot showing the full length of the body from floor to ceiling. I read that Welles thought angles should tell the story. He believed that if there was no sound, the viewer should still know what’s going on. And I believe that Welles did a great job accomplishing this. Another technique that Welles used was overlapping dialogue and sound. The breakfast scene is an example of the mastery of the overlapping technique. He showed well over a few years of the Kane’s life in a total of 2 minutes, while overlapping not only the many different shots of them at the breakfast table but also overlapping the music and their dialogue. A fun overlapping shot to watch was in the beginning of the film during the Time of the March, showing all the different newspapers’ circulating after Kane’s death. Something that caught my eye was all the different lighting shots. He had high contrast shadow lighting shots that were very unique and interesting to watch. My favorite technique Welles used in this film was deep focus shots. By having deep focus he was able to fill the entire screen with meaning. An important deep focus shot was at the beginning of the movie when Kane’s parents were discussing why he was going to live with Mr. Thatcher, and in the background is little Kane playing in the snow being oblivious to how his whole life will be changed in the matter of minutes. Another reason this film can be considered artistic is because the story is told backwards, starting at his death and then telling flashbacks of Kane’s life throughout.
ReplyDeleteTo my disbelief, I surprisingly enjoyed this film. Normally I don’t like classic movies that are black and white, but this movie opened my eyes to exploring other films past my time. As Arnheim stated in his book, the way from reality to the picture lies via the artist’s eyes. Orson Welles numerous techniques that he used to distort our perception of reality were constructed in a way for Citizen Kane to be an artistic film.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Kane is an artistic movie due to the way the movie was put together and the way the viewer sees the movie. Christie, I agree with the scene. That is the exact scene that stuck out to me. The background was very unrealistic/artistic.
ReplyDeleteArnheim's thesis states film's failure to accurtely represent reality provides artistic potential. After watching the movie and reading over the comment that the class has posted up I understand that Citizen Kane is an artistic film because it distorts reality.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Kane can be consider an artistic film due to the fact the different techniques that were used in this movie. One of the techniques used was deep focus, were the foreground and background of a shot are equally in focus at the same time. The different angles of the camara also made Welles' film a piece of art.
ReplyDelete