Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Citizen Kane Wouldn't Have Been as Good Had it Been Released Today
I've waited until the end of the film to post this blog, and then some unfortunately, so i hope the idea is still original. The era in film which Citizen Kane was released was ideal for one very simple reason: the movie was in black and white. Certainly unintended by the producers since color was a method more tried than true at the time, B&W is part of what makes the movie so great. One of the things we've always noted in class is how critical the camera angles are or how the lighting plays into the stories' undertone. In photography, the artist takes into account where a viewers eye is draw within the image frame. (Or stupid french word Mr. Bennet uses) this can be done using other objects in the foreground or by using shadow and light. The movie Citizen Kane uses light to frame its subjects very often and it is here that the movie is only as good as it is in B&W. Had it been shot in color, the viewers eye may have been drawn to something more striking somewhere else in the frame, or worse, nowhere specific at all. Shooting B&W makes it much easier to dictate what the human eye focuses on in the frame since all colors are rendered neutral. Citizen Kane owes much of its lasting appeal to thought put into each camera angle and my verdict is that each camera angle was only as great as it was because it wasn't shot in color. You could argue that such a film would still be a hit today because of a good story-line or something else like that. Maybe but i would hesitate to say so because shooting it exactly the same way would still lack what i just talked about and a black and white film today needs to be actiony to make money. Movie fanatics probably cringe at that thought, but movies aren't about the viewer anymore, only the viewer's money
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sherif, I must sadly disagree although your comments are very well-written and thoughtful. First of all, the "stupid French word" is mise-en-scene but that is not important. Secondly, the skill of a great cinematographer is to bring attention and light to the part of the scene that they want the viewer to focus on. That is a cinematographer's only job and they seek to be as precise as possible, and many of them do a good job. In this film, Black and White may be a reason that it was done so brilliantly, but I believe that it could still be done in spite of that. That is strictly my opinion and I have not yet checked with my brother, who is currently studying to be a cinematographer. I will ask him his opinion when I can. Very thoughtful comments, however. Come back to school!
ReplyDeleteNo Sherif. Stay away. (The class should know that I am having a terrible time adhering to my own rule that we cannot 'flame' one another. It's really not in my nature to be so kind and loving. I do sarcasm, biting wit, the raised eyebrow, all the accoutrements of the serious bully.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think Sherif has an excellent point. There's a cold beauty to B/W that creates a world of darkness and light. Color tends to soften things up a bit, and there is a lot of trouble creating that harsh universe in color. Many directors bemoan the loss of b/w for that reason. It enabled them to create a Manichean world. Of course, color provides other benefits, so it's a trade-off, of sorts. Think of how Coppola uses color to create the beautiful scenes in the Godfather. Talk about creating a beautiful universe out of filth.
Haha I laughed at Mr. Bennett's 1st paragraph but in all seriousness Sherif hopefully you feel better my friend. I completely agree with you Sherif that the black and white aspect of the film helped me see the film in a new light. Watching Midnight Cowboy very often I get drawn to something at random then the thing we should focus on that Mr. Bennett woudl discuss. With CK I actually caught some of the symbolic things and images. More often many things go over my head or simply I see it as over-analysis but Welles got everything down pat. Your last sentence I think sums up the general audience's opinion very well. Serious film is not what it used to be nor is the general viewer
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I still think that there is a way for a movie to not be only about a viewer's money and still about a story. (i.e. The Wrestler). In many cases to make money, films must be "actiony" but I still think there is room for art in film, but it can't be worried about making money. Many independent films are still very artful, you just need to find them. (See my last 2 posts). And I apologize if I was too harsh in my original comments, I hope you realize that that was not my intent.
ReplyDeleteOrson Wells worked wonderfully with what he had. He clearly mastered films in black and white. However thats not to say that if the movie was in color it wouldn't have been as good Orson Wells being such a good director I'm sure would of used different techniques that would have made the film just as much if not more of a success in color
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Sherrif, and i also think the seventh seal is also a prime example of this because there are a number of shots in it that wouldn't have shown such a dramatic lighting contrast in color
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point, my opinion is that most films are better off sans color. Unless you're a particualarly good director, color is the less artistic way to go. The quality of the camera shots has to be considered though, in a film like Signs, black and white would come out poorly because the quality of the picture, it has to be on a certain par.
ReplyDelete