Monday, March 7, 2016
Jigsaw Narrative
Multiple narrators tell he story of Charles Foster Kane's life. We see his life in a newsreel format, in Thatcher's memoirs, and as told by Bernstein, Leland, Susan Alexander, and even Raymond, the butler. What is the point of telling the story in this way? Does each narrator give a specific "spin" or have a particular bias? Does each see a distinctive aspect of Kane's personality? Is each section told in a different way, utilizing different techniques of filming (such as camera angles, deep focus, lighting, or even choice of music)? What" bang for our buck" do we get from this jigsaw narration? Is it equal to or greater than the sum of its parts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The narrative style of Citizen Kane serves the purpose of telling the complex and often contradictory story of a polarizing character in Charles Kane. No biography can be completely objective and so instead we see how each significant person in Kane’s life viewed him. Each narrator could be describing a different person in their views of Kane. Thatcher’s memoirs depict Kane as an arrogant, childish man while Bernstein sees him as a champion of the common man, and Susan Alexander views him as cold and intimidating. From this, we are left wondering who the real Charles Kane is. But the structure of Citizen Kane may make the point that there is no ‘real’ Kane – each representation of his character is true in the eye of the beholder, and therefore as a whole. These different sections of the film utilize different cinematographic techniques to heighten how each person views Kane. For example, low camera angles and shadows accentuate Susan Alexander’s fear of Kane, as she is often cast in his looming shadow or looking upwards at him. From this style of storytelling, we do not experience the life of Kane in a straightforward way; rather the viewers must put together the pieces and decide for themselves. This may be the most objective way to learn a person’s history because in a conventional biography, the author has interpreted that person’s life through a lens of his or her own. The jigsaw narration style offers a story that is certainly biased and often inconsistent, but the true story of Kane’s life. In this way, the film is greater than the sum of its different narrative sections.
ReplyDeleteDue to the narrative style used in Citizen Kane, the viewers get to experience the different aspects of Kane’s personality. Since the whole story is being told using flashbacks and third-person accounts, we never truly know what Kane is thinking. All we know is the life that he had and how he got to the current state in his life. As the story progresses and the view point changes from character to character, the way that the audience perceives Kane changes as well. We feel as though Kane is an incredible and passionate man while being terrible at the same time, depending on the view point. Since the characters have different relationships and history with Kane, all of their perceptions of him differ. For example, due to the relationship that Kane and Susan Alexander had, she is scared and uneasy around him. Since each character sees Kane in a different light, each character also incorporates a different filming technique. Susan Alexander is always portrayed as smaller than Kane, sometimes involving a deep focus shot with Kane in the foreground. This proves that Kane was the dominant one in their past relationship. From this jigsaw narration, the viewers never fully grasp their feelings about him, since the perception is constantly changed. Due to this narration, we never get the full story about Kane since it is not being told by Kane himself. Although this is a negative aspect, the overall film is greater than the sum of its parts.
ReplyDeleteKane’s life in Citizen Kane is told by many different people who played a significant part in his life. The different perspectives and techniques demonstrate that Kane himself had many different sides to his character than can be viewed and interpreted from many different angles. This allows for a more nuanced and complicated understanding of Kane’s personality and character arc. For example, if the narrator had not been an actual character, the film would not have been as interesting or as personal. Having those close to Kane speak about his life also shows how different people viewed him throughout his life. Thatcher, Susan, and later in Kane’s life Leland did not like Kane. Their perspectives showed the side that the public did not see and how controlling and cruel Kane could be. Bernstein on the other hand worshipped Kane which is seen because Kane was not mean to him during the time Bernstein knew him. However, Kane used and abused many others. The use of different perspectives allows the audience to see how his “friends” faired after Kane left their lives. Thatcher died, after taking care of Kane for most of his life. Bernstein is an old man who no one cares about nor does he have any power even after working so hard for Kane. Leland lives to be older than Kane and seems to be happier than he had been when he left the Inquirer. Susan on the other hand is as miserable as she had been with Kane because she lost all her money and no longer could live a wealthy life style. Raymond sees him when he is all alone and is not affected much with Kane’s death since he is not very close to Kane, he only worked for him. The use of a “newsreel” format with different perspectives and witnesses is also appropriate for the life of a man who made his fortune in newspapers. It is both ironic and appropriate that the Kane’s journey to becoming a newspaper magnate is portrayed in a newsreel format that provides both sides of the story. This format is greater than the sum of its parts because the truth about Kane is not found in any particular part – it is found somewhere in between the different broken pieces of his story.
ReplyDeleteI think that the way that the movie depicted Charles Foster Kane, through the multiple narrative structures, brought an extra dimension to the viewing experience. Many modern films that we will see that will often give us a front to end telling of a story from a one sided perspective that attempts to frame the character in one light. Citizen Kane on the other hand allows us to analyze his life from an outsider perspective, the media, as well as through an inside perspective, the stories of those who personally knew Kane. Every single perspective that we receive has a different attitude towards Charles, which allows each section of the story to be told differently. For example, Bernstein, who loved Kane and basically rode his tail to success, adored Charles and had mainly positive things to say about the man. Many of the filming techniques reflected this that there were ways in which the camera was positioned, the light of the scene, and the music were more jovial and allowed the viewer to receive a sense of admiration. However, when we hear from Leland we see the disgust of a former friend who despises Kane. During these scenes our eyes are opened to some of the more negative aspects of Charles’s life, including affairs and Kane’s endless pursuit to attain the love of the people. The audience in response is supposed to dislike the character we are presented with for how he conducts his life. The other characters provide other views with their own bias included that leaves the viewed trying to figure out for themselves how they should view the grand and marvelous Kane. This puzzle that is left for the audience is what makes this movie one of the best of all time, because there is no conclusive ending. We are left only to ponder to ourselves and create our own view of Kane. The jigsaw narration style allows us to go more in depth, despite not receiving every detail, which elevates the movie to become better than the straight story it could have provided.
ReplyDeleteThe way that the story of Charles Foster Kane's life is told gives us a different perspective on his life depending on who is telling the story. For example the opening newsreel gives the audience a glimpse into how the general public would view Kane if they didn’t personally know him. The public only gets to know the information about him that he chooses to release or big interesting stories about his life. This information may or may not be true but it gives the viewer an idea of how Kane was known to the public. After the newsreel the film goes on to give an account of Kane from different important people in his life. These people represent different phases and the different sides of Kane throughout his life. The different narrators allows for the viewer to get a more real story because everyone changes throughout their life and different people will always have different views on who you are. People are always constantly changing and growing so by giving the perspective of different people who know the person you get a greater view of who the person was during different points in their lives. A person may also act differently or be perceived differently depending on who they are interacting with so if just one person is narrating it is impossible to get a complete idea of who the person was. Many modern films only give us the story from one perspective but having the different narrators allowed for the viewer to gain a more complex idea about who Kane was.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative structure of Citizen Kane serves to provide the viewer with different views and aspects of Charles Foster Kane’s life. This is because a person’s life cannot be told by one person since each different narrator gives us different aspects of Kane’s life that are often inconsistent with the other narrators. Two examples of polar views are how Susan views him as a selfish and intimidating man while Bernstein views him as an idol and has a lot of admiration for him. The film uses different cinematographic techniques for each narrator. For example both Bernstein’s and Susan’s views use low angles. In Bernstein’s case that shows that Bernstein looks up to Kane and admires him. It also shows that Bernstein sees Kane as a man who is above him due to everything he has compared to him. Susan’s view is the polar opposite yet still uses the low angle. However, this angle mixed with shadows gives a completely different effect. In most cases Susan is seen in Kane’s Shadow looking up at him, this shows that Kane is in control of her and she is intimidated by him. This particular way of telling the story is very effective as it shows the viewer different aspects of Kane and it is up to the viewer to decide who the real Kane was. The film is greater than its narrative parts as it shows that a person’s life cannot be told by a single person because what that person tells is only a small part the jigsaw puzzle that is Kane’s life.
ReplyDeleteThe jigsaw narrative style in which Citizen Kane is composed of is representative of the multiple sides of Charles Foster Kane himself. This style of composition is used to show the different characteristics of a person throughout their lifetime. The montage of Charles Kane’s life, complied of five different perspectives, depicts the complex man that he was. Beginning even with the clips of his childhood, the audience is never given Kane’s viewpoint, but rather the only suggestion of his emotions comes from outsiders’ opinions. The purpose of this style of cinematography is to demonstrate not only the intricacy of one person, but to also add to the enigma that is Charles Foster Kane. In recounting the story of Kane’s life the audience is exposed to versions of him which depict him as distant, revered, arrogant, and even sensitive. For example, when he is a child he is shown in a deep focus shot which displays the ranking of power beginning with his mother and ending with the inexperienced and unsure child version of Kane. Conversely, to show his arrogance and his confidence in himself, he is shown in one of the most famous and most extreme high angle shots. These various perspectives lead the viewers to wonder, how is one man capable of this many emotions? When Charles Kane and his second wife Susan Alexander move into Xandu, out of boredom she picks up the hobby of puzzles. However, consistently throughout the film the audience is never exposed to a fully completed puzzle. This is a direct metaphor for the mysterious Charles Kane. Through accounts of the various interviewees the viewers are exposed to almost every perspective of Charles Kane, expect for the one of how he views himself. In this sense the enigma of his character is perpetrated and reinforced throughout the multiple perspectives in the film.
ReplyDeleteThe story of Citizen Kane is so special because of the multiple narrators giving us different perspectives of his character. Looking at specific examples of people telling his story such as Susan Alexander and Bernstein, we can tell more about his character. Susan Alexander originally won’t even talk about him, which definitely shows what she thinks of Kane. Also the fact that she has lived in a stupor of alcohol for the last years of her life can tell us what effect Kane had on her. As we learn later, Susan Alexander was almost forced by Kane to do opera, so our early perspective of him that she gave us early in the movie was helpful. Looking at Bernstein, when the reporter comes to visit him there’s a huge photo of Kane. This obviously shows how Bernstein felt about Kane his whole life. Bernstein tells us the story about the opening of the newspaper, so that tends to put Kane in a good light. This is especially interesting because throughout the movie we see Bernstein being put down by Kane, such as having to travel with all the luggage instead of in the nice car, and being ignored sometimes. These two perspectives are integral in understanding Kane because it shows that the strength and attitude of the people he has relationships with matters. Even though he may treat two characters similarly, how they think of him can be very different.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Kane was told through the perspective of many different characters in order to truly capture the essence of Charles Foster Kane, the protagonist. Unlike most films today, the story is not told chronologically, which is an attempt to tell the story through important events in his life that to reflect his character. Additionally, the concept of telling someone’s life story through the lens of other characters allows the viewer to get an accurate portrayal of that person, rather than a perspective that is influenced by the viewer’s bias toward the person telling the story. If the story of Citizen Kane had been told by Charles Foster Kane, then the viewer would lose power insight into Kane’s life that highlights both his strengths and his flaws. An example of insight one might not have obtained through the lens of Kane, is that of Bernstein. Bernstein was a friend and colleague of Kane who thought extremely highly of him. Bernstein’s story of Kane made it so that Kane seemed larger than life, which is also reflected through the extreme low angle shots of Kane. One would not be able to see the level of respect and influence Kane had if not for the stories of others. Conversely, one would not be able to see accurate portrayal of the flaws in Kane’s character if it were not for the story told by Kane’s wife: Susan Alexander. She tells the story of how Kane would not always think of others, and he would make others do what he thought was best for them and not what they thought was best for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe Jigsaw Narrative style of Citizen Kane gives the viewer a specific spin for each perspective of Kane’s life, allows the viewer to see different personality traits of Kane, and the different camera angles and levels of focus used from each perspective gives unique insight into what kind of man Kane was. The jigsaw narrative of Citizen Kane gives the viewer more bang for their buck than the typical linear, one narrator story line of films of its era. A primary example of how the jigsaw narrative works for the film is when the perspective shifts to Bernstein, a man who idolized Kane. The multiple uses of low angle shots from Bernstein’s perspective make Kane out to be more so of a hero than it would be if these were just regular shots. Not only do the different camera angles change our perspective of Kane , but also the massive portrait of Kane in Bernstein’s office demonstrates to the audience that Kane is likely a great man. In contrast to Bernstein’s godlike perspective of Kane, when the perspective shifts to his ex-wife Susan, the audience sees a whole new side of Kane they wouldn’t have if it was solely the perspective of one character throughout the film. When Kane slaps Susan, the camera makes use of a high angle shot, which represents Kane losing control of his life and Susan’s inevitable departure. Without the jigsaw narrative of Citizen Kane, the viewer could never be able to see such drastic contrast in perspective of Kane, giving the viewer less bang for their buck.
ReplyDeleteIn watching Citizen Kane, I was particularly excited based off it’s reputation as one of - if not the best achievements in cinema of all time. From the beginning, I think it was easy to spot it’s unique cinematographic style, rich in mesmerizing optical effects, creative transitions, and “jigsaw narration”. In nature, I think that Citizen Kane offers somewhat of a biographical element, and that in analyzing the enigmatic, complicated character that is Charles Foster Kane, the development of his character is fortified by the different narrations from different characters all of whom perceive him in very different ways. While Bernstein looks up to Kane, and often overlooks his shortcomings out of admiration, Kane’s estranged widow Susan Alexander is able to tell a very different story. In order to understand a person’s character, it’s important to capture the entire spectrum of personality viewed by many different people, and the jigsaw narration absolutely aids that pursuit. With each perspective, the different filming techniques create a different story, to strengthen and differentiate the stories of each narrator. In terms of assessing “bang for our buck” I think that the unique, all-encapsulating storytelling techniques employed in Citizen Kane add up to a masterpiece of cinema. However, by the end of the movie, have we seen enough to fully understand Charles Foster Kane? I’m not so sure. And just as the reporters surmise at the end of the film that no man’s life can be summed up by any one word (in this case, ‘Rosebud’), I don’t think any person’s character can entirely be summed up through the span of two hours of film. But for that matter, Citizen Kane certainly puts up a strong argument.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Kane has a very unique narrative structure that gives the audience a better understanding of Charles Foster Kane’s life. We hear about his life from the perspectives of many people in his life. This is enhanced by camera angles, lighting, and how the shots are framed. In reality, all people are far too complex to describe from a single perspective, so seeing Kane in varying ways gives us better insight into his life. In the beginning of the film, a news reel describes Kane from the perspective of the general population. The report shows his immense wealth, embodied by Xanadu. However, his character is much deeper than material wealth alone. From Susan, we see him as an angry bully. He physically abuses her, and he is typically shown from low angles to appear powerful in her mind. In contrast, Susan is shown at low angles because she is the victim of his abuse. Her perspective on Kane is completely different from Bernstein, a reporter who admires Kane and sees him as a hero of the common people. When Bernstein is talking about Kane, he describes how he helped the city by reporting honestly. Thatcher, on the other hand, sees Kane as a childish and arrogant boy who won’t listen to anyone and rebels without a cause. Leland gives the audience insight into Kane’s insatiable desire to make people love him. Each of the characters talks about Kane in a different way because in life, each of them had mixed experiences with him. It is far more accurate to show a man’s life by describing how the people around him reacted to him rather than just through facts. This method of narration effectively allows the audience to see Kane’s development as a character, but also how he was perceived by different people at the same time.
ReplyDelete