Tuesday, 12 February 2013
Tuesday, 22 January 2013
Monday, 26 November 2012
Wednesday, 24 October 2012
Is Citizen Kane the Greatest Film Ever Made?
The film Citizen Kane is about a detective in search of the meaning of Charles Foster Kane’s final words – which were “Rosebud”. During his detective work, he visits various people who knew Charles Kane very well. Each time he visits one of the people, they share a story about Kane. Each story tells the tale of Kane’s life and how he rose to fame and gained his fortune. It also reveals how he was received by other people, and reveals how his closest friends thought of him. Towards the end, we finally find out who/what “Rosebud” actually is. The story of the film was quiet simplistic when you really think about it, and easy to follow viewing the first couple flashbacks.
There were multiple negative and positive moments in the film that I found. I found that the use of deep focus, the news reel and the lighting were positive moments of the film. Also, even though the film was groundbreaking and innovative for its time, I found some negatives moments, such as the flashbacks.
There were quite a few positives I found about this film. For example, I liked the way in which the film used the lighting, considering the fact that the film was in black and white. The film uses lighting in the film to add to the effect. For example, in the scene where the reporters finish watching Kane’s video about his life, the room is very dark, with two key lighting coming through two small windows. This makes it hard to see the characters properly. The director may have done this to hint to the fact that they are trying to uncover a mystery, and the fact that they are “in the dark” suggests that they do not know the answer just yet. Also, the fact that the film is filmed in black and white further makes the scene appear to be very dark. The use of lighting is again used in the scene where Kane is reading a newspaper with Jedediah and Bernstein. The lighting is relatively light for a black and white film. This connotes that they are on path to success and they know what they are doing. It also suggests that all is well and they are on track.
I also found that the use of the news reel was a positive for the film. The use of the news reel acts as a narrative device. The news reel acts like a narrator would do. It acts like a summary of the film, by summarizing his life, and basically tells the story of Charles Foster Kane’s life. The use of the news reel also raises enigmas with the audience, as they will be wondering why it is part of the film, and what they represent to the film.
I also liked the fact that the film used deep focus. Deep focus is where nothing is blurred in the shot. This means that everything can be seen visibly, even if they are far back and nearly out of shot. Deep focus throughout the sequence. For example, when Charles Foster Kane is walking up from the distance, we are able to see him clearly, due to the fact that they have not blurred him out. The use of the deep focus at the point, connotes that Kane is not as relevant to the scene as the other character, but by not blurring him out, suggests he has some importance to what is happening in that particular scene. There was also a significant use of deep focus, when Kane's mother gives him up for money. While the parents are discussing money, Kane is playing in the background. The use of deep focus here makes the audience feel sympathy towards Kane and it even makes the attention focus more on Kane - due to the deep focus.
There were also some negatives I found about Citizen Kane. At first, I thought the flashbacks were clever, but over time, I felt that there was too many in the film, making it for me, a negative for the film. It got to the point, where I was hoping that there would be no more flashbacks. The flashbacks are used as a narrative device. The use of the flashbacks allows the audience to understand Charles Foster Kane’s life one little bit at a time, as it reveals different parts in his life, from the point of view of his friends. By making the views coming from people close to him, makes their views more believable, as they would be personal. It also allows the audience to form their own opinion on Kane and it has ultimately used to see if the audience can work out what or who “Rosebud” represents.
There were multiple characters in the film. The main ones were Charles Foster Kane, Jedediah Leland, Mary Kane, Susan Alexander Kane and Mr. Berstein. Firstly, I liked the way Orson Welles portrayed his character Kane. I thought the way he made Kane seem popular and likeable at the start, contrasted with the ending, where we find out that he did not really have anyone, and just wanted to be loved by everyone. I also liked the way he played the character so well, it was as if he had been in a similar situation to Kane. Also Kane's mother, Mary Kane played by Anges Moorehead was also portrayed very effectively, as she was represented as cold-hearted and evil, as she sold her son for money. The wasy Moorehead revealed no emotions during this time made it clear that she is not a nice person. Also Susan Alexander Kane played by Dorothy Comingore was played very well, as she came across quiet dumb, and she also made me feel sympathy for her when she was forced to keep singing. I did not really like the way Joseph Cotton played Jedediah Leland played the character, as I felt no connection towards the character. Finally, I liked the way Everett Sloane portrayed Mr. Bernstein as he came across as the busy and slightly dumb character which makes him a likeable and come across as slightly humorous.
Ultimately, I do not think Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made. The reason for this decision is that, even though it was an excellent film for its time, there are more films that are coming out now, that are truly and have far superior plots and much more advanced technology, that should not be shunned out because Citizen Kane did not have this kind of technology. Also, just because Citizen Kane was good for its time, does not make it better than the films coming out now. Nevertheless, I unexpectedly enjoyed the film, as I normally tend to hate black and white films and, sometimes find them unbearable due to being used to films coming out nowadays, but I would most definitely recommend for people to watch the film, and maybe even watch it again.
Wednesday, 17 October 2012
New Spanish Cinema
Summary
The article is about how Spanish cinema has changed over the years. It was published on the 29th of September, 2002. The article goes into a lot of detail about how it has changed, by giving references to the early years of Spanish film making, and giving a detailed account on the history of Spanish cinema. The article also shows how Spanish cinema is not adapting as fast as European and American cinema, but still maintaining a strong following from the audiences. The article also reveals how Spanish cinema has come since the late 1800s to the late 1900s. It was clearly wrote to informal an audience in which are interested in the history of Spanish cinema, and how much it has changed over a period of time.
The main ideas in which the author is trying to communicate is how much the Spanish cinema has changed, due to influences from their culture, other cultures cinema such as American and European. It also continues to reflect on the matter that Spanish cinema has been lagging behind in the advancements in new cinema technology, as the American and European continue to make such substantial progress. Even the article subheading hints at the authors opening that Spanish cinema used to be slow in progress, with the use of the word "after" when it says "After 100 years of pulp, politics and melodrama, Spanish moviemakers have fashioned a cinema where".
Overall, the article discusses the authors thoughts and feelings on Spanish cinema and their moviemakers, and also shows a deep understanding with the references to the very first Spanish films.
Interesting points
I found the article somewhat interesting due to the fact that I take Spanish as an option. It would also add towards my knowledge towards Spanish culture - which will be needed for the near future when studying Spanish. It also gives me an insight into some famous Spanish people.
I also enjoyed how the article goes into depth about the Spanish cinema history. For example, they mention the first actual fiction film made in Spain, by Fructuoso Gelabert with the film "Café Brawl" made in 1897. It also tells how "The Mystery of the Puerta de Sol" made in 1929, was the first sound picture produced in Spain - which I find interesting because it came such a long time after the the first know public exhibition of sound in a film took place in Paris in the 1900s. It also mentioned about the first actual film made in Spain, which is said to be Eduardo Jimeno's "People Coming out of the Noontime Mass at the Cathedral of the Virgin of Pilar in Zaragoza" made in 1897.
I found it interesting when it said that Spanish cinema continued to make silent films, whereas European and American cinema continued to make massive amounts of progress with films with dialogue, where it said "But while American and other European [...] made significant leaps in sound technology, Spanish films continued [...] as silent works" It also stated that "It was Hollywood that gave Spanish audiences their first good sound films", which I find interesting as I would like to know why Spanish cinema did not do so for their own market, and if there was any social, political or any other reason for the fact that the just did not introduce good sound films before Hollywood did.
Another interesting thing I found in this article how it stated that "The Spanish film industry was producing about 60 pictures a year at this point" which seems like a lot for back then, but by today's standards, comparing to how many movies Hollywood makes a year, does not seem a lot, since there seems to be a new film by Hollywood every week.
Overall, I quiet enjoyed the article, which I would not tend to say about an article like this, due to the fact that I rarely enjoy news articles of this type. I liked it because it gave me a better understanding of Spanish cinema, and how they have adapted over the years to what they have become, and it would contribute to one of my courses, as we are going to learn about films in Spanish. I also liked the reference to the olden day movies made in Spain and how there was so much detail about the history and some cultural information on Spanish cinema and the filmmakers. Also, the way in which in maintains a credible source of knowledge, yet appears to be addressed in an informal manor makes the article nicer to read and comprehend.
Unknown words
* Commencement - the beginning / the start of something
* Pseudonym - a name that is false: such as a stage name
* Melodramatic - a film that is highly dramatic and emotional
* Opulent - being wealthy or indicating wealth
* Penchant - a strong preference or liking
* Liberalization - making something less strict
* Mavericks - unorthodox or independent minded person
The article is about how Spanish cinema has changed over the years. It was published on the 29th of September, 2002. The article goes into a lot of detail about how it has changed, by giving references to the early years of Spanish film making, and giving a detailed account on the history of Spanish cinema. The article also shows how Spanish cinema is not adapting as fast as European and American cinema, but still maintaining a strong following from the audiences. The article also reveals how Spanish cinema has come since the late 1800s to the late 1900s. It was clearly wrote to informal an audience in which are interested in the history of Spanish cinema, and how much it has changed over a period of time.
The main ideas in which the author is trying to communicate is how much the Spanish cinema has changed, due to influences from their culture, other cultures cinema such as American and European. It also continues to reflect on the matter that Spanish cinema has been lagging behind in the advancements in new cinema technology, as the American and European continue to make such substantial progress. Even the article subheading hints at the authors opening that Spanish cinema used to be slow in progress, with the use of the word "after" when it says "After 100 years of pulp, politics and melodrama, Spanish moviemakers have fashioned a cinema where".
Overall, the article discusses the authors thoughts and feelings on Spanish cinema and their moviemakers, and also shows a deep understanding with the references to the very first Spanish films.
Interesting points
I found the article somewhat interesting due to the fact that I take Spanish as an option. It would also add towards my knowledge towards Spanish culture - which will be needed for the near future when studying Spanish. It also gives me an insight into some famous Spanish people.
I also enjoyed how the article goes into depth about the Spanish cinema history. For example, they mention the first actual fiction film made in Spain, by Fructuoso Gelabert with the film "Café Brawl" made in 1897. It also tells how "The Mystery of the Puerta de Sol" made in 1929, was the first sound picture produced in Spain - which I find interesting because it came such a long time after the the first know public exhibition of sound in a film took place in Paris in the 1900s. It also mentioned about the first actual film made in Spain, which is said to be Eduardo Jimeno's "People Coming out of the Noontime Mass at the Cathedral of the Virgin of Pilar in Zaragoza" made in 1897.
I found it interesting when it said that Spanish cinema continued to make silent films, whereas European and American cinema continued to make massive amounts of progress with films with dialogue, where it said "But while American and other European [...] made significant leaps in sound technology, Spanish films continued [...] as silent works" It also stated that "It was Hollywood that gave Spanish audiences their first good sound films", which I find interesting as I would like to know why Spanish cinema did not do so for their own market, and if there was any social, political or any other reason for the fact that the just did not introduce good sound films before Hollywood did.
Another interesting thing I found in this article how it stated that "The Spanish film industry was producing about 60 pictures a year at this point" which seems like a lot for back then, but by today's standards, comparing to how many movies Hollywood makes a year, does not seem a lot, since there seems to be a new film by Hollywood every week.
Overall, I quiet enjoyed the article, which I would not tend to say about an article like this, due to the fact that I rarely enjoy news articles of this type. I liked it because it gave me a better understanding of Spanish cinema, and how they have adapted over the years to what they have become, and it would contribute to one of my courses, as we are going to learn about films in Spanish. I also liked the reference to the olden day movies made in Spain and how there was so much detail about the history and some cultural information on Spanish cinema and the filmmakers. Also, the way in which in maintains a credible source of knowledge, yet appears to be addressed in an informal manor makes the article nicer to read and comprehend.
Unknown words
* Commencement - the beginning / the start of something
* Pseudonym - a name that is false: such as a stage name
* Melodramatic - a film that is highly dramatic and emotional
* Opulent - being wealthy or indicating wealth
* Penchant - a strong preference or liking
* Liberalization - making something less strict
* Mavericks - unorthodox or independent minded person
Friday, 12 October 2012
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)