Print

Print


I noticed those aspects of Citizen Kane right off when it was shown to me for the first time back in 1994 by my high school film
studies teacher.  I noticed it even more the same year when my college intro teacher did.

Maybe I noticed these things because I was not allowed to watch R-rated films as a teenager (except for the kind of films teenagers
don't usually like to watch), which most of the cited examples are.

Scott

----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, October 12, 2001 1:54 PM
Subject: Kane (was Re: Oliver Stone comparisons)


> >In film classes, students justly wonder why anyone raised a fuss >about CITIZEN KANE
>
> I've been wondering how students react to Citizen Kane because I've watched the DVD twice in the past couple of weeks and had
forgotten how odd it seems.  So much I think probably wouldn't be allowed in a studio film today:  scenes set in near darkness, a
fairly major character whose face is almost never shown, a scene shot almost entirely with the camera on the ground, long takes,
extensive use of deep focus (or faked deep focus) with action in several planes, dialogue so overlapping that it's not all
understandable, some subtle "violations" of the 180-degree rule, sound bridges between scenes that occur years apart, silent opening
credits, etc.  Are these just things that I and others on this list would notice or are they actually not noticed by the average
student?
>
> (& maybe I've overemphasized a bit since some recent studio films like Three Kings, Natural Born Killers, Pulp Fiction and the
underrated Knock Off are outside the norms which is of course part of their aesthetic and marketing strategies.  Kane was also a
similar prestige picture.)
>
> LT
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite