Showing posts with label 1941. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1941. Show all posts

Thursday, 6 December 2012

Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)


"I guess Rosebud is just a... piece in a jigsaw puzzle... a missing piece"

Introduction

After analysing every film in the Sight & Sound Top 10, we finish on Citizen Kane. Of course we do. Only now has the film been “dethroned” from the top spot, after residing there for 50 years. Truly, it earned its place. Should it remain untouchable? Surely it shouldn’t remain at the top of the poll forever, should it? I would be happy if it did. If, as all the films swapped and interchanged – many vanishing from the Top 10 completely – I would firmly, indefinitely and concretely ensure Citizen Kane remains. Ground-breaking, profound and personal and created by a genius; I support its immovability. What a shame then, that it moved down a spot in 2012.

Orson Welles

The starting point is always Orson Welles. Akin to Leonardo Da Vinci’s ‘Mona Lisa’, Citizen Kane has become mythic in its status in history partly due to the creator, and the many talents he had. We are fascinated by writer-directors – and we often laugh at the audacity of their self-casting within films like Reservoir Dogs and Signs. Orson Welles chose not-only to write, direct and produce the film; he also took the titular role; portraying a man from his young-twenties through to old-age. This brave decision is the type of choice that oozes genius – supreme confidence and, crucially, the correct casting.

Welles has a cherub-like charm that carries the film on his shoulders alone – and features that remain when he is made-up to look like an old man. The film covers the rise and fall; life and death of Charles Foster Kane; a shrewd businessman; a political force; a paranoid recluse. Partly influenced by the life and times of the media-magnate William Randolph Hearst, it was a film of its time that, through Hearst’s influence, newspaper coverage was slim – and it failed at the box-office. But, a good film doesn’t hide away and positive reviews kept the film known. Bit-by-bit, Citizen Kane became the masterpiece as it is known today. It’s also worth noting that Welles was only 24 years old he made the film – and to think that he achieved all this at such a youthful age adds to his genius status.

Writing, Direction … and Innovation

But Welles was not alone in creating the film. He co-wrote the script, and the story is broken-up, told from the perspective of a reporter investigating the final word Kane stated on his deathbed: “Rosebud”. We are told about Kane through his friends, family and lover – and the different perspectives reveal a different side to him. He was a public figure – a showman. But, socially and personally, he had identity issues – isolating himself from the world in an incomplete fortress - Xanadu. He pines after his childhood, symbolised by his precious sled; the aforementioned “Rosebud”.

Pauline Kael argued that this story is what certifies Citizen Kane as a masterpiece – and, rather than crediting Orson Welles with this, she supported a popular opinion that co-writer Herman J. Mankiewicz is the real master behind the film.

But, the story alone is not what separates this film from the rest of the pack. Technically, the film is almost a how-to use-a-camera tool-kit. Dissecting each scene, you can find numerous techniques that were ahead of their time – everything from the ground-breaking use of deep-focus (though Mizoguchi used it before 1941) through to the continuous shot from behind a gate and, despite the instruction to not trespass, we do, by hovering over and into Xanadu. One shot, revealing a lover of Welles manages to pass through a glass roof and another shot is situated in the ground, looking at such an angle that Welles had to adjust the flooring to get so low. Gregg Toland is attributed to the majority of these techniques – but again, it was Welles that managed to include the young Toland in his production crew.

Bernard Herrman’s score is simply fascinating – changing completely as the scene adapts to suit the different perspective discussed. The casting includes the scene-stealing Joseph Cotton, who would go on to appear in Shadow of a Doubt and The Third Man. The make-up to give the impression that 24-year old Welles would look like an aging man – inspired by Make Way for Tomorrow – is flawless, still standing the test of time today. The list goes on and on.

So much more…

Barry Norman writes how the film “speaks afresh to each succeeding generation” and this truly is Orson Welles crowning achievement. It is no surprise that people compared this to The Social Network (not that it compares that much) – but I’m sure you could find countless biopics and life-stories that owe a debt to Citizen Kane. Indeed, most films owe a debt to Citizen Kane. This is a film that has influenced almost every successful or critically-acclaimed director – Spielberg, Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson … and everyone else. This short analysis is not enough – and indeed, there are many books available to support every different aspect which has established this film amongst the very best. I cannot think of a film amongst the Top 10 that is accessible and yet technically ground-breaking, and also created in such a unique set of circumstances that it could never be remade. It is the film you would use as an argument to prove that films from the 1940’s are incredible. It is a film you would use to convince someone that these lists matter. And it is a film that, despite its shift from the top spot in the poll, will never be truly removed. As it remains the Greatest Film of All-Time in virtually every other poll in the world. And I whole-heartedly agree.

Epilogue: This brings to a close an analysis of every film in the 2012 Top 10 Greatest Films of All-Time. I hope you attempt the same challenge and, when you do, read the previous analysis linked below:


2. Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)

Large Association of Movie Blogs

Monday, 16 April 2012

Dumbo (Various Directors, 1941)

"Did you ever see an elephant fly?"

Introduction

Like my assumption that Pinocchio was merely a story-about-a-puppet-with-a-long-nose (it is anything but...), I could not really recall the story of Dumbo. I could remember a circus ... and the bit when he jumps out the fire-house ... and I knew the song "When I See An Elephant Fly" very well from a Disney cassette I had as a child. The first thing I noticed before watching was how short it is - only 1-hour 4-minutes! The Disney Studio lost money on Pinocchio and Fantasia, and to make matters worse, strikes hit California. The hey-days of the Hyperion Studios - whereby artists would work into the early hours of the morning - were over. In addition, a number of artists had joined the studio from the East Coast and they didn't have the same work ethic as Walt Disney.

A Stork Delivers Dumbo

A wholly American story, the film was an adaptation of a story by Helen Aberson and Harold Pearl, and adapted by long-term Disney-writer Joe Grant. It also featured something Disney himself adored: trains. The story begins as a Stork delivers a new baby to Mrs Jumbo (Hardly the most imaginative name there!) and the baby Elephant - though incredibly cute, has enormous ears and is nicknamed Dumbo. He is taunted by the other Elephants and, due to his large ears, he is mocked by visitors to the Circus. Mrs Jumbo gets angry, bordering on madness, and is isolated. Dumbo though, with the help of his mouse-friend, manages to literally break-free from the constraints of the circus and manages to reach his full potential.

The story is so tragic - we witness a child being bullied by adults, before losing his mother. Walt and Roy had lost their own Mother in 1938, whilst their Father passed in 1941. To imagine Walt and Roy observing the artists portray Dumbo losing his Mother is difficult to imagine ... but conisder how they were working on Bambi too must have been truly unsettling.

 
Modern American Tale

Thematically, it is a very American story. There is excessive colour with a vibrant landscape - nowhere near as dark as Pinocchio. There is a capitalist-edge, as Dumbo - and all the elephants - are effectively employees working for the Circus. The Circus does not treat them well - isolating his Mother and humiliating Dumbo by dressing him as a clown.

But the look of the film is 'cartoony', it ignores the more classical and European elements of the previous three films. In fact, one of the stand out sequences is the surreal dream-sequence when Dumbo gets a little tipsy and see's dancing pink elephants - defined outlines and neon colours dominate the screen as characters dance across the screen. Elephants morph into snakes and morph again into a belly-dancer, and then again, into a floating circle before opening as an eye. A parody on Surrelism maybe, but it clearly was 'of its time' as the 1940's became a point whereby Surrealist artist Salvador Dali began promoting himself moreso - before working with Disney on the only-recently-finished Destino. Despite this interesting use of animation, the film had to save money on its animation by using large watercolour back drops and cutting back on the special effects - indeed, compare the animation of water in Pinocchio with the animation of water in Dumbo and you can see a significantly 'cheaper' quality. Disney knew that this film was all about the story - and it is indeed what makes the film unforgettable.

 
Flawed but Memorable

More caricature than realism, the film primarily used artists who worked on the Silly Symphonies and therein lies the importance of this film. The animators working on Dumbo, in many cases, decided to cease working for Disney after the film - despite their work in the previous decade. Some of the greatest animators, referred to as the 'Nine Old Men', were genereally working on Bambi, but the animators and artists who taught the 'Nine Old Men' were working on Dumbo. Specifically, Art Babbit, Bill Tytla and Walt Kelly - all of which worked on the first three-feature Disney films.

The crows are a very small part, but their characterisation and song, are definately one of the films highlights. I would argue the film is flawed - a little too 'loose' for me in its animation - but it has a beautiful story, with an incredibly cute elephant at the centre of it. And I guess that is why it was so successful, and crucially, a financial success for the Disney studios...

Large Association of Movie Blogs