Tuesday, March 10, 2015
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)
As a result of the jigsaw narrative that tells the story of Charles Kane, the viewer gets the outside perspective on him and is then able to interpret Mr. Kane however they like. We get to know Mr. Kane from all his closest friends and co-workers point of view, but we never get to see Kane’s point of view. What this does is basically put together the border of the jigsaw puzzle while leaving the inside empty because we have never actually met Mr. Kane. The point of this type of narrative is to give the viewer freedom to decide how they want to perceive Kane. With the middle of the puzzle left empty, the viewer can insert any idea they want of Kane depending on how they interpret the outsiders point of view. For example, getting to learn about Mr. Kane from Susan Alexander’s perspective gives us the idea that he was a very horrible man because she personally does not like him. Then when we hear Bernstein’s perspective, we get the idea that he is basically the perfect man and should be adored as we see with his huge poster of Kane behind his desk. The viewer is then allowed to take these differing opinions and form their own opinion of Kane. What this type of narrative does for the overall story is allow it to be interpreted in many different ways depending on the viewer.
ReplyDeleteIn the film Citizen Kane there are multiple narrators that help to tell the story of Charles Foster Kane’s life. Telling his story this way creates a jigsaw effect of his life. Each narrator has seen and experienced a different aspect of Kane’s life and personality and the techniques of filming used during each person’s narrative assists in portraying this. For example, when Susan Alexander is narrating a part of Kane’s life the camera angle used is an extreme high angle, showing just how weak and insignificant Kane made her feel. Susan saw a side of Kane that was potentially violent and argumentative, a side of his personality that not very many other people experienced. In one scene of the film Kane and Susan are arguing about Susan’s opera career when the audience sees, from a high camera angle, Kane’s shadow completely envelope Susan. This further contributes to Susan’s piece of the jigsaw puzzle that is Kane’s life, and her potentially fearful outlook on Kane. On the other hand, Bernstein idolizes Kane, and only sees and or recognizes the good that Kane does. By putting Kane on a pedestal, Bernstein is not aware, or chooses to ignore Kane’s flaws, providing the audience with another piece of the jigsaw puzzle, one dramatically different from Susan’s. Although the audience receives multiple pieces of the jigsaw puzzle from different narrators, the one perspective that is missing from the puzzle is Kane’s. Without Kane’s output on his own life, the audience does not ever really get to know Kane as personally as desired.
ReplyDeleteIn the film, Citizen Kane, there are many different perspectives that are being told throughout the movie. Usually in movies we see the story line told through “God’s point of view” or through one narrator. However this movie is interesting because not only is it not told through just one person’s point of view but through six different perspectives. It lets the audience know what type of person he is because of what people have said about him. However, this doesn’t give us a full portrayal of the person he was entirely though. By only hearing how other thought of him we don’t know the intimate details unless we would of heard from his point of view also. That is why at the end of the movie we can see that no one really knew who he was and what rosebud meant to him. This is important because we can see that no one in this movie truly knew who he was even the closest people to him still didn’t know Kane’s true self. Due to this fact it the audience can tell that he leads a very lonely life without anyone there he can truly confine in. This whole film almost seems like a eulogy (good words) except they are showing him in an honest light instead of the type of persona he tried to portray to the people who worked for him. His entire life he didn’t let anyone get to know him and through this movie it in some ways exposes some of his traits.
ReplyDeleteThe narrative of Citizen Kane is told through multiple people and perspectives, seemingly giving the viewer a multidimensional look at Charles Foster Kane’s story. Yet, this is not the case; having multiple narrators telling Kane’s story leads to a more confusing yet insightful look at one man’s life. Each narrator tells a piece of Kane’s story with a different outlook. On one side of the spectrum, Bernstein idolizes Kane and remembers him fondly, while Susan Alexander tells tales of emotional abuse and all-consuming narcissism. Thus, the viewer is left with multiple outlooks on Kane’s life that do not add up, and the film does not attempt to fill in the gaps for the viewer. The viewer cannot be sure who is telling the whole truth, and who’s narrative may be clouded by their own faulty memories or personal vendettas. Each of the perspectives presented in the film must be taken with a grain of salt, as each person telling Kane’s story could be an unreliable narrator. Citizen Kane’s narrators can be related to Nick Buchannan in The Great Gatsby, whose story of Jay Gatsby may be entirely false and a product of his own mind, yet the viewer simply does not know. It is true that each point of view recalls different parts of Kane’s life in different settings—Bernstein and Leland tell mostly of his public and work life, while Susan Alexander and Raymond tell stories of his personal life—, yet each narrator presents Kane as a completely different person, leading the viewer to be skeptical about whose narration to truly trust. It is clear that Orson Welles chose to narrate this film through multiple perspectives to comment that one man’s life is not simply the sum of multiple perspectives, and, since each person’s perspective is vastly different, there may be no way to authentically tell an individual’s story.
ReplyDeleteThe story of Charles Foster Kane in “Citizen Kane” is told from the perspective of multiple characters and illustrates the unreliability of memories. The flashbacks in “Citizen Kane” are not a reflection of what actually happened, but rather are a reflection of each character’s recollection of what occurred. Although there are never two memories that explicitly contradict each other, the film suggests that each character’s description of Citizen Kane cannot be trusted. Susan Alexander, for instance, recounts her story to the reporter while under the influence of alcohol. The fact that she is intoxicated makes her story hard to trust. Furthermore, Leland, who lives in a nursing home, admits that he suffers from the “disease” of old age. The film is again hinting that a memory regarding Kane is faulty. Furthermore, each character describes Kane differently, and this makes the viewer whether all of their descriptions can be accurate. For example, Bernstein’s memories of Kane are biased by his great respect and admiration for the man. Even when Bernstein is describing Kane’s faults, such as his difficulty in getting along with others, he presents it in a positive light. Every person’s memory which Thompson hears in search for the meaning of Rosebud is either blurred or biased in some form, however slight. This film illustrates the idea that one must take every tidbit of information skeptically and contextually, as each narrator’s tale is skewed in some way. This unreliability of information is in fact a central theme of the film. Even a newspaper, whose job is to educate the public as unbiasedly as possible, is portrayed in “Citizen Kane” to be an unreliable source of information. Charles Foster Kane uses the newspaper for personal gain, at the expense of the truth. For instance during a Hollywood Montage, that switches between shots of Susan Alexander’s shaky singing and “Inquirer” headlines of her greatness, it is clear the newspaper is not reporting accurately. The use of multiple narrators to tell the story of Kane’s life exemplifies the theme of the film that one must always examine the source of information, as reporting, whether through memories or newspaper, is often unreliable.
ReplyDelete