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?
The 1941 film, Citizen Kane, was one of the first of its time. The story of the life of Charles Foster Kane is not told in a linear, chronological order, but rather through the perspectives of others one at a time. The format of the film was reminiscent of a book where one story is told through the eyes of multiple characters chapter by chapter. The film focuses on the perspectives of a few characters, Bernstein, Leland, Susan Alexander, and Raymond. Each know a different side of Kane, which help, present his complex life. Even the film itself is framed in an unusual manor. Everyone story is unraveled through the work of a journalist working to discover the meaning of Kane’s last words. Through his investigative work, the audience creates its own narrative for Kane. While Susan Alexander describes Kane with words of anger, selfishness, Bernstein remembers only his ambition and determination. Alexander remembers her time with Kane as a low point in her life, while Bernstein continues to admire Kane to this day. This narrative order breaks down the seamless, perfect life Kane displays to the media. Everything the audience learns about Kane conflicts the next creating an unreliable character. The vast differences in the narrators make each of them unreliable because they only know one part of him. Maybe the people that know the most is the public, the ones who can see everything from the outside perspective. The truth is unless the movie had the perspective of Kane, no one know the truth behind his life. This movie has the bones of a simple biography of Kane’s life, but becomes a complex movie deserving of the designation of one of the greatest movies of all times partly due to the narrative structure.
ReplyDeleteOrson Welles’ “Citizen Kane” used multiple perspectives of people who interacted with Charles Foster Kane to display the complexity of people’s perception of Kane. The perspectives ranged from people who knew Kane as a child and idolized his work to people who viewed him as abusive and manipulative. One of the main narrators is from the perspective of Mr. Bernstein, Kane’s manager. Bernstein views Kane as a driven business man with a bright future. The movie depicts his love for Kane by showing a massive portrait of him above Bernstein’s desk. The scene takes place after Kane’s death, emphasizing the fact that even after Kane’s downfall, Mr. Bernstein respected him and ignored his faults. However, on the other hand, Susan Alexander views him as someone who craves attention from other people, but does not return the favor. She also experiences his aggressive side. She is seen to be hit by him during an altercation. Similarly, before Foster Kane married Susan Alexander, he was married to Emily Kane until he cheated on her. The scandal brought to light Kane’s true priorities which consist of popularity and power rather than family. Emily is viewed to be heartbroken as Foster Kane protects his image rather than consider the consequences the scandal will have on his family. Instead of the audience viewing Kane as the protagonist of the story, we see a darker, more manipulative side of his journey to power. The diverse selection in narrators provides different perspectives to his main aspects of life including his romantic, business, and familial relationships. “Citizen Kane” strategically uses different narrators so that the audience does not only view one side of the complex story of Foster Kane’s life.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCitizen Kane directed by Orson Welles is a film that was shot in a very different style than typical films did during that era of movies. Rather than doing a chronological or montage cinema, it was much like a jigsaw puzzle where the movie showed parts of Charles Foster Kane's life but in chunks from different peoples' perspectives. The reason this movie was filmed this way was because Kane was thought of as a successful newspaper publisher but the news reporter wanted more details of his life to make sense of what he was really like. Another point is that the different perspectives truly gave a fuller picture of Kane's life due to not one single story or view dominating and telling the whole story. If this happened the news report later would not be accurate because of a bias the person had towards Kane. For example, two polar opposite people who knew Charles Foster Kane when he was the publisher of The Inquirer newspaper have given the news reporter two very different opinions of Kane. Mr. Bernstein who saw Charles Foster Kane as a mentor and idol gave the news reporter a rather typical gilded look and didn't say anything really bad about Kane. And Susan Alexander who Kane was originally attracted to but later experiences hardships in their marriage which makes her feel abused. This led to her telling how horrible of a husband Kane was. Although this might cause some confusion towards the reporter, it should give a better sense of how "fake" or two-faced Kane was as a person. This film technique gives a sense of how someone truly is not only on the outside where everyone can see, but also on the inside or private life where things might not be the same; which gives each section of the jigsaw puzzle its own merit and value, making the whole story greater than the sum of its parts.
ReplyDeleteOrson Welles’ Citizen Kane is often lauded by critics as one of the greatest films of all time, and a main reason why it is held in such high esteem is the creative way in which the story is told. Welles chooses to recount the life story of a man named Charles Foster Kane through the eyes of several different narrators, such as his wife, Susan Alexander, his former legal guardian, Thatcher, and even his butler, Raymond. The purpose of this jigsaw puzzle-like narrative structure, I believe, is twofold: to give the viewer a more complete picture of Kane’s life but also to make a statement about the danger of bias in authorship. Charles Foster Kane lived a very complicated life filled with marriage problems, childhood trauma, fluctuating fortune, and more. As a result, the newsreel at the beginning of the film, which is supposed to sum up Mr. Kane’s life in about five minutes, is insufficient in telling his full story. While it does provide context and framework, as well as the public information known about Mr. Kane, it fails to take personal interactions and perspectives into account. That is why the movie then turns to several narrators to recount their own individual experiences with Mr. Kane, since their unique roles in his life naturally cause them to have very different perspectives of who he was. Susan Alexander, for example, saw the aggressive and constraining side of Charles Foster Kane, whereas Mr. Bernstein continues to admire everything about who he was. By offering up this multitude of perspectives on this one man, it allows the viewer to decide for themselves who Mr. Kane really was, and that idea is likely to be much more accurate in comparison to the narrative told in the newsreel. Still, this jigsaw narrative calls into question the idea of authorship in general. Can a narrative, particularly a biography, be accurately represented from the perspective of a single author? I believe Orson Welles’ answer would be “no.” Every author has a bias shaped by past experiences, even if they are unaware of it, and they will tell the narrative through the lens of that bias (like the characters in the film). They are also bound to have an incomplete view of the individual in question since they did not live that person’s life first-hand. Therefore, the only way to overcome these challenges, as Welles found, is to include a variety of perspectives so that the viewer/reader can decide for themselves where the real “truth” lies, and it is this ingenious narrative structure that makes Citizen Kane one of the most profound and clever movies ever made.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIn the film Citizen Kane, we learn a lot about Charles Foster Kane. We knew his beginnings, his supporters, his wrongdoings, and his death. We do not only learn about Kane’s through his perspective, but through the lens of multiple people. That is the primary purpose of what the Jigsaw Narration is doing. It is hard to get a complete picture of Charles’s life through one or two people, and Orson Wells knew this. He knew that Leland would think of Kane as a distasteful person, while Susan Alexander would think of him as a controlling and loving man.Each narrator will give a different answer to what his personality and morals were; each different answer adds complexity to Kane’s life in the viewers eyes. The biases of each narrators also help to explain their emotions in regards to Charles. The mise en scene was also an important factor to the jigsaw narration. The lighting and background of Susan Alexander helped to express that she was more appreciative Kane. The newsreel use of transitions and time for each newspaper had an effect on how the news viewed Charles. They would change the time and transition for negative connotations vs positive connotation of Kane. These little details and variety of different narrators helps to understand the impact that Kane had on people’s life. Orson knew that in general, all of narrators would give a complete and indepth depiction of Kane’s life that the audience to truly understand everything. All in all, the jigsaw narration took Citizen Kane from great to legendary and was revolutionary in the way we fim movies surrounding someones trials and tribulation in life.