"Everybody's talking about it!": thematic lighting in Citizen Kane

A contemporary introduction of government abomination, a Gatsby-esque tell-tale of self-fulfillment, and a nod at the modern perception of media are all thematically present in Orson Welles' epic Citizen Kane. Welles used cinematic elements to enhance these themes for our viewing pleasure, and the greater good of "good" cinema. This is prevalent when your attention is shifted from the movie's non-chronological, and sometimes hard-to-follow, order of stories to the lighting of the film; when something significant or a motif is introduced, the light source is almost always pointing to or from the object, idea, or theme in mind.

In this scene, our narrator, Thompson, is reading Thatcher's memoir's of his time with a young Kane as his guardian. Here, Kane's mother pleads with him to go with Thatcher, as he has money and will be able to give him a better life than she. The aspect of high key lighting may not be as prevalent as other scenes that use low key lighting, yet the use translates into the viewer paying much attention to this scene. This is Kane's first instance of denial that he will have to face much in his years. Many themes in the film can be traced by to his unloving mother and loss of childhood (isn't that exactly what "rosebud" is?? who knows!!) due to this particular scene. An average movie would use this lighting in order to convey a basic, almost useless scene, but Welles' inclement to break this cinematic norm forces the shift to Kane's lack of acceptance from a young age. 

Right before the prior scene is when the narrator actually finds Thatcher's records and begins to read them. The light source intimidatingly beats down on the book, somewhat symbolizing it's ethereal importance in the film. When Thompson reads the memoirs, he finds Kane's depressed and unfulfilled past, where he experiences denial, neglect, and failure all for the first times in his life. The viewers' attention is put on this book and away from the subjects, who in a film at this time would be the focus of most scenes, to the book in order to hit them with a director's favorite cinematic element- "pay close attention here; this may explain the whole movie!!!!!"

Yet, Welles' (mostly) impeccable use of lighting was not as impeccable in one scene that caught my attention as mostly confusing, given the other thematic uses of lighting. Directly after the first view of Kane, the news reel at the beginning, the reporters talk about Kane's death and how they can make a story out of his infamous last words - "rosebud" - as the light from the projector beats down on them. In other light sources I analyzed in this essay and in viewing the film, when a light source is as prevalent as it is in this scene, it points to a flaw of Kane, like his narcissistic nature or obsession with media-presentation. This scene only brings the attention from the newsreel prior. Does it mean that the only view we will ever know is how the media perceives him? Is this related to Thompson's last words on Kane, where he tells us that we cannot describe a man in a single word we have heard from the media? All could be true, but this theme strays away from the film's primary thematic element of inner-loathing and self-obsessing.

This film is regarded as a breakthrough for creative minds everywhere, as most directors weren't too focused on cinematic elements when they could make the big bucks from relevant actors and large, fancy sets. 22 years later, Italian director Federico Fellini directed and wrote the ground-breaking film 8 1/2, which is known for its eccentric cinematic elements and ideology of self-revelation. In this shot, the low-key lighting highlights the anti-hero's (in photo: on the left, Guido) obsessive fascination for this woman, Claudia, whom is not apparent in much of the film. Guido spends the duration of the film in his own thoughts and memories, existentially questioning his intent for the film he is making. The light source focuses on Claudia - or the apparition he has of Claudia (see: Gatsby-esque allusion in first paragraph). In contrast to Kane, the focus is not subjective as in 8 1/2, but we see the external perception of his peers. Not only do 8 1/2 and Kane use light for aesthetically pleasing and pinnacle shots, the light source accentuates the underlying themes of rejection and narcissism.  

1935 Create a Movie: "The Night of The Looking Glass"

Imagine: the story of a man, battling the Depression in 1935. He's been laid off from his job as a postman, and he's stuck in the void of other everyday men looking for jobs that aren't there. He is still an honest man, searching to provide for his family of five - a wife and three children, all under the age of 10. In the middle of all of our protangist's dismay, as if this meeting was fate, as impeccably good-looking man shows up on  his doorstep, asking to stay the night in their small house. Our man complies, and they spend the night drinking and telling stories of their youth. The next day, our protagonist's face has turned somewhat odd; he seems older, uglier, and his personality is more smug and off-putting. His family is not able to talk to him about what has happened, but they've placed their blame on the visitor, who has strangely dissappeared before they woke. Madness is in store for this smalltown family as they attempt to solve the mystery of their father's ever-changing face.

The film would express a moralistic theme of family values. The father almost completely leaves his family for this stranger, who metaphorically and physically sucks the youth from him. By expressign this artistically, audiences would walk out of the theatre and express gratitude to their family members, in case a mysterious stranger attempts to steal them away.

The film fits into the category of mystery/horror, so Universal would be an obvious choice for the studio to engage audiences that expect to be scared. Fan-favorites Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi star as the family-man and mysterious visitor, respectively. Audiences would recognize those names and flood the theatres, as hoped by Universal. By casting those two, and by the film's dark tones and eerie cinematography, it will easily be a horror film that a small portion of audiences at this time appreciate.

To capture Karloff's transition from man to monster, makeup artist Jack Pierce would be hired for his work with Karloff on Frankenstein and The Mummy. To keep in line with the acclaimed horror film crew, Karl Freund would be hired as the director to ensure a completely unnerving set. The use of a few up-to-date cameras will work well to emphasize the film's grotesque transformation of the main character.

In the Hay's Code, there is no indication on whether or not grotesque characters are allowed in a movie if they are unsettling to the eye. So, Warner Brothers will continue to fund this film as is. The only curveball the Hay's Code may have thrown was the fact that lower standards of life are displayed in the film. After he undergoes the transformation, he is evil and terrible to his family- the script including some abuse and offensive language. To get around this, there will be no airtime of abuse, only slight bruises on his son in some uncomfortable scenes and shots of inaudible yelling while the camera is panned in front of their house, to showcase it could be happening at a house in the neighborhood, no the protagonist's.

For the box office, this film would not do as well as other films, due to its nature. A horror film, even of excellent quality, will hardly outsell a comedy or drama, especially in 1935 when Americans feared abrasive leaders (and another Stock Market Crash). The film has aesthetic appeal and an overall cult film vibe, so it would become a classic to horror fans, as The Wolfman and Creature from the Black Lagoon have become. 

MYST #1 "The Usual Suspects" Or "Fare for My Anxiety"

To whom it may concern: I have a lot of feelings (see title) after viewing this movie, particularly towards to acclaimed plot twist at the end, so if you have not seen this movie, and you tend to become very aggressive to spoiler alerts - SPOILER ALERT: Do not read this for your own good. Watch the movie.

To whom it definitely concerns: This Bryan Singer's neo-noir crime thriller starts as your run-of-the-mill heist film - a shot of a bad guy here, some explosion over there, then some text telling the viewer we're now in the present, inferring whatever crime that just happened had, in fact, already happened in this universe. Cut to Kevin Spacey, playing a dumb cripple, Verbal Kint, who's reminded how immensely dumb and crippled he is in just about every scene. Primarily, the viewer's perspective is through Verbal's interragation with special agent Dave Kujan, played by Chazz Palminteri, who demands that diabolical liar, Verbal, tell his story from the beginning.

I won't go on to the whole story, as you've (hopefully) seen this movie before.

Our main "suspects" are rounded up and proceed to take out any New York officers they can; at least, that's what I think they're doing. Roger Ebert wasn't wrong when his review of this film claimed the plot wasn't easy to follow (he actually tore it's incoherentness to shreads). Yet, I was still intrigued to see just who this myth of a man, Keyster Soze, was.

The lighting is used as somewhat of a motif in this film; we see multiple shots of Keaton illuminated, foreshadowing his possible identity as Soze. In the scene where we meet Kobayashi, Soze's right-hand man, Keaton opens a briefcase of files Soze has on each of the suspects, and there is a definite light source coming from the briefcase, lighting Keaton, alluding to the fact that he put together the file and acted terrified of "Soze" to justify to the group "hey dudes this wasn't me don't worry it's not like I'm an ex-cop and have the knowledge to gain this information or anything." The Pulp Fiction-esque maguffin proves to just a simple maguffin to my (and others) dismay.

(I couldn't find a shot of the opening of the briefcase online, so this is the best I could do.)

After some long and intense fight/chase/further interrgation scenes, Kujan antagonizes our favorite cripple with the revelation (yay!) that Keaton is, as we guessed, Soze himself. Verbal cries because him and Keaton were somehow bestest friends, but works up his dignity in a very suspicious way to walk out of the office. Then, Kujan's real (this is actually the end guys!) revelation that the stupid, idiot, provocable cripple is Soze.

At this point, I was whispering "no no no no" while my dad, who has seen the movie, laughs at me loudly. Verbal starts to walk with no limp as I let out a small and high-pitched "ahhhhhhh." Hollywood's classic gimmick of the-only-one-you-could-rely-on-is-actually-a-total-madman-and-you-should-feel-ashamed is so, so evident.

The film is a big scheme you have to devote yourself to. If I didn't completly ruin it for you (I know I did), take three hours out of a day to see it, and hour and 45 minutes to view, and the other hour and 15 minutes to feel your heart palpitate.

FOUR OUT OF FIVE JAME FRANCO'S AS OZ IN "OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL" (2013)