CITIZEN KANE: The Great American Film

Why would I ever write any kind of essay on CITIZEN KANE, a film that’s been analyzed to death and is considered to film what Shakespeare is considered to literature?  I actually have a good reason: in recent years, I’ve noticed more and more people seem to dislike the film, mostly because of its hype.  Supposedly Ingmar Bergman called it boring.  Now I happen to be a Bergman fan, but considering the dude made some pretty slow-paced movies, those are strong words!  I can understand why many might feel let down by the story.  The hype “Greatest Movie of All Time” implies that you are in for a great, sweeping GONE WITH THE WIND-style epic.  Instead it’s a smaller film about an unsavory character.  It also focuses a lot on the newspaper business, which may not seem very relevant to modern audiences.  My friend Zelda summed it up quite well:

“I think that at this point, the film is more appreciated by directors than it is by general audiences.  I know that what Orson Welles was doing with the camera, with angles, lighting, whatnot, was revolutionary - but I know this because I've been told this. As a plebian when it comes to such things, those aspects don't stand out for me as much, and I understand they're big factors in what make that movie a classic. Instead what I have is a puzzle of a story, which, while interesting, is not compelling emotionally enough for me to place it in my top films list.”

This is a fair point, so here is what I propose.  I will write a blog about Kane where I will not ONCE mention the technical breakthroughs of the film.  Forget about the cinematography, score, editing, etc.  I will simply analyze the film’s Story and why I feel that it is actually a very powerful and heartbreaking story.


[I'm not going to waste time summarizing the film.  I assume you know the story if you're reading this]
 
CITIZEN KANE can be summed up easily: it’s the story of a man who can never get over having been rejected by his mother and is incapable of feeling love. 

This point might only be fully clear on repeat viewings.  Mrs. Kane only has one scene in the movie, but we linger on her a bit, allowing her to dominate the scene.  After that she is only mentioned in passing.  Kane talks about her death on the same night that he meets Susan for the first time.  We never know exactly how Kane feels about her, and what exactly he is thinking when he tears the room apart is left to our imaginations, but we feel the weight of it.  We observe him cheat on one wife with the next and we’re not told why.  Yet when analyzing the facts, we do know why.  We also see him observe him alienate his friends.  On the surface this may seem to just be a petty drama, but only after we get the full story are we able to understand why this man so desperately needed to be loved.

Kane remains elusive; he is ultimately the protagonist of the Story, but he is always a mystery to us, and he is portrayed both positively and negatively.  This moral ambiguity applies to most of the supporting the characters as well.  If you notice, we remain on a last-name basis with almost every character in the film: Kane, Leland, Bernstein, Thatcher, and Thompson.  With Thompson it is taken a step further in that we never even see his face properly, making it clear that although we are following this reporter around, he is more a symbol than a character, and it is Kane’s story that should be our focus.  Developing the characters in this way makes them seem like regular people, occupying a story rather than starring in it.
 
Finally, there’s the issue of the ending.  Rosebud is obviously a MacGuffin and perhaps people were expecting some sort of big reveal.  The film has the confidence to end on a puzzle; Rosebud is revealed not in the style of a detective solving the case with a big “Aha!“ gimmick, but as a subtle artifact that rewards us for paying attention and makes us think about how it fits in.  Had the film ended in a different way, perhaps we wouldn’t be talking about it today, but the fact that only moments after Rosebud is revealed it is then destroyed are perhaps the saddest moments of the story and what have caused the tale to resonate.

I don’t think any film deserves the title “greatest ever made” because that’s obviously going to be subjective.  Here it is has perhaps done more harm than good.  If CITIZEN KANE were a novel, it would not be a great sweeping epic like War and Peace, which is perhaps what too many people expect.  It would be a very short and quiet novel.  It is about a person’s life, but it only observes it rather than embellishes it.  It is not a melodrama but a voyeuristic study.  At the end of the film, we see Kane’s entire lifetime reduced to boxes and boxes of scrap, and we are asked whether or not a man’s life can be summed up so simply.  Or maybe we know that such a collection of junk is all any of us will ever have.

"And That's For My Old Gaffer!"

Have you ever noticed how, in a film’s credits, the cinematographer is given a major billing while a gaffer is listed all the way near the bottom?  It made me realize that while most any cinematography-enthusiast in the world can easily tell you that the DP on APOCALYPSE NOW, one of the most visually interesting films ever made, was Vittorio Storaro, I don’t think any of them would know the name of the film’s gaffer!!  (Incidentally, it‘s Luciano Galli, who also gaffed LAST TANGO IN PARIS, and was a chief electrician on NOVECENTO).

I bring this up because in working on my new film HAVANA IN BUSHWICK, I’ve come to see the role a gaffer plays in a film‘s overall cinematography.  The use (or, in some cases, absence) of lighting plays such a key role in the shot composition and image clarity that, in truth, I feel that a camera operator and gaffer share equal importance in the role of Cinematographer.  And one thing a gaffer needs is breathing space to be his own artist!

I’ve always been open about the fact that I’m a writer more than I am a director and not really a visual stylist.  My first film, FIGHTING NIRVANA, is a very visually boring film.  Of course I want to improve and learn how to do everything, but I'm not there yet.  I just automatically tend to think of a script in terms of the story, not how to make it visually interesting.  My advice to any novice filmmaker out there is to give your crew semi-complete creative freedom in order for you to learn.  Of course, there are exceptions: your DP may not have talent worth shit and, without being given direction, will give you a film that looks like a badly-shot reality show (I‘ve been there).  But, assuming you have a crew with talent, as I would say for my team, give them room to shoot interestingly, make their own decisions, and experiment.  In a sense, they are actors too, and they are doing a little bit of improvising.

Both CITIZEN KANE and THE GODFATHER, two indisputable masterpieces, are notable in that their respective directors gave their cinematographers complete carte-blanche to do whatever they wanted.  Gordon Willis has claimed full authorship for the visual structure of THE GODFATHER TRILOGY, and Coppola confirmed this, saying the only creative input he had on the cinematography was just hiring Willis.  And Welles of course has cited his own ignorance in filmmaking as being what allowed him to discard conventions and do new things with Gregg Toland. 

In my own experience, you can have a film shoot where the director doesn’t get along with the cast, or with the producers, or with the composer, and still they somehow forge a masterpiece.  But the relationship between the director and the cinematographer MUST be good or a film will suffer.  And having a DP who will give you amazing shots, and a gaffer who’ll say “Hey, you know what, let me use a different color gel than I’ve used before” will strengthen your masterpiece all the more.  In the end, the quality of a film’s look is a reflection on its direction.

The Work of Jack Feldstein

For over a year now, I’ve been good friends with filmmaker Jack Feldstein, who I consider a true artist with integrity.  I first met Jack at a film festival where he mentioned he had a film playing that was a “neon animation.”  I had no idea what that meant, and so as I sat through the block of short films featuring his work.  Every time an animated film came on, I wondered if this was the “neon animation.”  Then, finally, when his film started, I had zero doubt in my mind that this was it.  You could not mistake the neon look!  The film was THE ECSTASY OF GARY GREEN, which tells a story about a young man who finds himself in the world.  The visuals of the film consisted of pre-existing bits of animation that had been manipulated and “diluted” to have a neon-sign look, and been put together to form a new narrative, narrated to us by a Woody Allen-esque stream-of-conscious voice (Jack himself) that gives the whole film a “free-flowing” feel.  I interpreted the film as being a celebration of life, but underneath all that, a celebration of animation.  Since then, I have seen several of Jack’s films and I recommend them to everyone. 

Of the ones that are narrated by Jack himself, these are the essentials:
    -THE ECSTASY OF GARY GREEN
    -A WONDROUS FILM ABOUT EMMA BROOKS
    -THE LOSER WHO WON
    -RESCUING OEDIPUS REX
    -THE FANTASTICAL WORLD OF SCRIPTWRITING

Of those featuring voice-work by other actors, these are my favorite
    -HOW TO BE ROMANTIC IN NEW YORK
    -MANAHATTA

Jack doesn’t need me to promote his work; he has played in festivals all over the world, especially in his native Australia, and here in New York he’s been screened at different film forums at the Bowery Poetry Club, Millennium Workshop, and FilmWax.  He’s also a playwright and does a lot of videos for the fashion world.

It was Jack who helped develop The Subway Film Series and brought it to my attention.  While I made Q TO THE 6 TRAIN, based on a poem by Cheryl Dumesnil, he made SUBWAY SERVICES, based on a poem by Philip Dacey.  What an honor that one year after we meet, we are standing on stage together, having our films play side-by-side!  There are so many short films out there, but I find the collective neon animations of Jack Feldstein to be among my favorites.  Jack has invented a new language of cinema, and that takes talent!

Looking At Cinema As Art

Most of us have an art that we connect the most to.  For example, while I may enjoy listening to poetry and looking at paintings, I have to admit I’m not someone who spends his free time going to poetry readings or new museum exhibits.  Now I know a lot of people who love going to museums and make it a regular hobby.  That’s fine; I’m just not someone who connects with that art-form as much or can explain what I like or dislike about it.  On the other hand, I absolutely love to go to a block of short films!  Living in New York and knowing of different film forums, I am happy to spend two hours just sitting back and watching eight short films, followed by Q&A’s given by the filmmakers.  And I realize this doesn’t appeal to everyone.  Some people just go to the movies as simple distraction and have no interest in this artistic element.  But to me, film was always my dominant interest. 

It really is amazing to think how young this art is and how it came about.  Prior to the birth of Cinema, you had the art of Photography and the art of Theatre, which were two very separate art forms, but had both existed for centuries.  And suddenly, they were fused together.  And by editing images together, you could manipulate the impression of sequences occurring in a narrative.  Audiences were initially just satisfied to see anything be filmed, but before long, Cinema became a storytelling device, which says a lot about the human condition.  Consider the fact that cinema is a combination of several other art forms, in particular:

    -Storytelling, which has obviously existed for centuries,

    -Cinematography, which follows the principals of Photography

    -Acting, which overlaps with the theatre, but is slightly different.

    -Musical Score, a humongous part of experience, which sadly many amateur filmmakers ignore.

    -Costumes, Set Design, etc

    -Editing, which is an original creation and only exists within the greater art of Cinema.

Of course now we begin to split hairs over what art is.  Does Sound Mixing count as an art?  You might not think so, yet it’s one of the most vital things in the film; a movie that looks great but has horrible sound will be a failure, while a film that’s shot horribly but has clear audio will still hold an audience’s attention.  So perhaps the answer is that the art is only in the final product and what the film itself has to say.  And in that case, I do believe that it all comes down to Story. 

Consider the television production I, CLAUDIUS, which is generally regarded as a masterpiece and the single finest of BBC productions.  The low budget shows as the scenes are cheaply shot and almost every single scene is just dialog.  There’s not a single sweeping shot of Rome.  Yet the story still feels epic, because our minds are engrossed in the sweep of the story and fill in the gaps on their own.  The bottom-line is this: no one may ever talk about the shot composition, sound mixing, or even the directing of I, CLAUDIUS, but you can bet they talk about the writing and the acting!  Because when film conveys a story properly, then it succeeds!

That’s why all that really matters is what’s up on the screen.  THERE WILL BE BLOOD, for example, is a great movie not because of what went on on set, what time the call sheets went out, what kind of catering they had for the crew, if the gaffer was union or not, how much the actors were paid, or how many production assistants got up at 5AM.  It’s a great movie because of what we see on the screen.  The combination of visuals, performances, music, and, of course, writing, all come together to offer a Storytelling experience that is very effective.

And sometimes, only at special screenings or film forums do you see filmmaking at its most raw and get that experience of art!

Film Review: ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984, dir. Sergio Leone)

So after reviewing the worst film I've ever seen, PROBLEM CHILD 2, it seems only natural I should discuss my favorite film of all time!

The first time I saw ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, I thought it was just okay. The childhood sequences were great, but the story was long, and I guess I felt it lost its way as it went on.

A year passed before I saw it again. I had only meant to watch a little bit, and soon found myself sucked into watching the whole thing again. Something just clicked that second time, and the first 40 minutes in particular held a lot more weight. That is why I feel this film, more than any other, NEEDS to be seen multiple times to be understood.

This movie is not really about gangsters, or prohibition, or unions. This is all the window-dressing. This movie is about three characters: Noodles, Max, and Deborah. Or rather, it is about one man's life, the two people he loves, and the choices he makes. It is one of the few films that really seems to capture an entire life on screen. And, while this may sound clichéd, it's a story of the American dream, of wasted potential, of the mistakes we make in our lives, of what it is to be an old man. It tells an interesting story in its flashbacks, but then wraps a "modern-day" story around it that is built on its own mystery. Indeed, the movie is one big puzzle; it's probably the best example of flashback structure ever done on film. Yes, even better than CITIZEN KANE.

The movie has some flaws, mostly because it was conceived on such a vast scale. As you watch it, you definitely get the sense some scenes are missing, and that some characters (Patsy, Cockeye, and Eve, in particular) feel underdeveloped. However, the movie is able to get away with this because what it DOES offer is so strong, and Robert DeNiro's performance, so unstated, is so good. Despite its long run-time, it's actually a very tight story; nearly every scene is about Noodles, and that's why it is so intimate a portrait.

From a technical standpoint, you also have excellent art direction, costumes, and Ennio Morricone's best score. "Deborah's Theme" is one of the finest pieces ever composed. Also, no one ever mentions the cinematography, which is so rich, particularly in the childhood scenes.

It's interesting that I've never been a fan of Sergio Leone's westerns. Here is a film so different from most of his main body of work, not only in physical setting, but in structure and tone. ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA, along with FANNY AND ALEXANDER, is one of the few films that truly makes me think of a novel in film form.

My Top Ten Favorite Comedies

Comedy is the most subjective genre; everyone's list is always so different, and obviously they tend to go with sentimental choices or comedies they grew up.  Also, it's hard to decide what defines comedy.  I only wanted to include films that are purely comedies, so that means I'm not counting romantic comedies (so no MOONSTRUCK or ANNIE HALL) or fantasy comedies (so no PRINCESS BRIDE).  So what does that leave us with?  Let's see...



10. THE PRODUCERS (1968, dir. Mel Brooks)

Actually, I like both versions!  The musical version did a pretty decent job at streamlining the story, taking out all the beatnik material that was dated to the '60's, and added some funny songs.  But still, the original is just such a dark, enjoyable bleak film, and Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder had a chemistry with one another that was never duplicated.  What makes this a great comedy is all the stuff in there.  The central premise of dishonest producers wanting to put on a flop is already amusing.  Then a subplot about romancing little old ladies is thrown in there.  Then Nazis join the party.  Then cross-dressers.  It's really a very creative screenplay, albeit a little weak in the third act.  You could argue that there are other Mel Brooks films that are better in quality, but I find this to be his most original comedy.

Interestingly, the next film on our list is ALSO a 1960's film that was turned into a stage musical and then remade on film...


9. LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS (1960, dir. Roger Corman)

Unlike THE PRODUCERS, where both versions had the same basic story, the two versions of LITTLE SHOP are so different starring radically different characters that they really are two entirely different works.  As much as I enjoy the Howard Ashman musical, and the 1986 film version directed by Frank Oz, the original Corman film is such a unique beast.  The comedy is so dark and original for 1960.  Dead prostitutes, a mother addicted to prescription drugs, a woman who's relatives keep dying...I was amazed at how much I laughed at this film.  The original Seymour and Audrey are nothing like their later interpretations.  I knew as soon as I saw this movie that it had to be one of the most unique works I had ever seen.


8. MY COUSIN VINNY (1992, dir. Jonathan Lynn)

A lot of people my generation list this among their favorite family comedies.  This is one of those movies everyone loves and that still gets quoted often.  I think a major reason for its success is that, despite having just about every negative stereotype of the south and of Italian New Yorkers, the script really likes its characters and treats the situation seriously.  The movie is actually quite education in showing how the legal process works.  Vinny is the classic fish out of water as the lawyer in a murder trial...where his cousin's life is at stake.  Maris Tomei deservedly won an Oscar as his wise-cracking girlfriend; she could have just been a caricature, but she turns out to be the smartest person in the film.  Fred Gwynne is also given some great moments as the judge.  The movie also features so many great character actors, including Lane Smith, Austin Pendleton, and Bruce McGill.  The best moments of course are the "Imagine you're a deer" and "Biological clock" monologues.  Oh, and by the way, LEGALLY BLONDE, despite having a very different kind of humor, clearly drew a lot from this film's premise.
 
7. THIS IS SPINAL TAP (1984, dir. Rob Reiner)


This frequently gets cited on a lot of people's favorite comedies ever list, so I don't think I need to elaborate why.  The many iconic moments in this (mostly improvised) film and classic lines still resonate to this day.  I often think Christopher Guest and Michael McKean do not get enough credit for their performances; watch the film again and you'll see little subtleties you didn't see before.

6. FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL (2008, dir. Nicholas Stoller)


I know I said "No romantic comedies" but I debated whether or not this even qualifies as one.  To me, this is by far the best of the Judd Apatow movies, and one with a lot of heart.  Jason Segel gives us a very heartfelt screenplay where he, both literally and figuratively, becomes naked before us.  What I like best about this film is that it is told from a male point of view, yet portrays its female characters very sympathetically.  In fact, some people even criticized that Kristen Bell's character was TOO well-developed, to the extent that she was too sympathetic for a "villain."  Of course that's exactly the point!  This is a lighthearted film that loves its characters, even the wacky side ones played by Russel Brand, Jonah Hill, and Paul Rudd.  The best scene is when Peter performs his Dracula musical, which is funny, bizarre, and touching.  There is such pathos in that scene.  When we see the full musical performed at the end of the film, we finally "get" it, and it's very rewarding. 

5. A FISH CALLED WANDA (1988, dir. Charles Chrichton)

This is just a perfect movie!  It's so funny, so well-written, so filled with little moments.  Who can forget Kevin Kline's orgasm-face?  Or the way he keeps yelling "Asshole!" Or Michael Palin (in a very underrated performance) accidentally killing the old lady's dogs?  This is a movie that, much like LITTLE SHOP, really has no shame and just goes out there.  For any fans of FAWLTY TOWERS, this movie was the closest thing to a film version of that show we could ever have gotten.  It's a film that finds the humor in anything, and then blows it up!


4. VACATION (1983, dir. Harold Ramis)


The Griswalds are going to Walley World!  There is something so endearing about this film that it's no wonder it turned into a long-running franchise, though none of the sequels were ever able to match this original.  I first saw this with my own parents when I was the same age as the kids in this film, and it REALLY hit close to home.  Chevy Chase is so great as a father who really does genuinely love his family and really wants what he thinks is best for them, but is just such a dope that he fails.  Bevery D'Angelo is great as the supportive but frustrated wife who has her own dorky moments.  I love Anthony Michael Hall, especially in the scene with his first beer (which he chugs down).  The dialog is brilliant, especially in any scene with Aunt Edna, who's ultimate fate is so brilliantly dark.  Some people have claimed they are disappointed by what happens when we finally get to Walley World, but looking back on it, I don't think there was any other way to end it!

3. WOMEN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN (1988, dir. Pedro Almodovar)


So not only is this the only foreign film on my list, but it's one of the most iconic films of Spanish cinema.  Almodovar's screwball comedy with its flaring melodrama, bright colors, mambo cabdrivers, Muslim terrorists, and gazpacho resonates with many today.  At a time when Madrid was recovering from the repression of Franco, the arts really began to emerge.  This movie is crazy and shows all kinds of women at all stages of sanity.  It also uses brilliant devices, such as having the womanizing man be a voiceover artist, thus featuring films within the film.  Antonio Banderas, Rossy DePalma, and Carmen Maura are all ideally cast.  And on a final note, I seem to be the only person alive who actually enjoyed the Broadway musical adaptation, which did so badly that is closed almost immediately.  Glad I saw it when I did.

2. DR. STRANGELOVE (1964, dir. Stanley Kubrick)

Often cited as the greatest of all American comedies, or at least the most important one.  Of course this movie is a masterpiece that also happens to be shot excellently and features so many great moments.  I've always loved that it starts out serious and then only gradually becomes a comedy.  It's easy to praise Peter Sellers in his three performances, but I actually think George C. Scott gives the best one.  Slim Pickens is also great, as is Peter Bull, and then there's Tracy Reed, the only woman in the film, as the sexy secretary.  Her scene may actually be the funniest in the film.  Oh, yeah, and this also happens to be James Earl Jones's debut!  This movie is so funny because it reminds us how much power we have places at the hands of our government politicians, who are very flawed people, and that we all do juvenile things.  Consider the way Keenan Wynn's character keeps mispronouncing the word "preverts."  It's a simple little touch, but it shows the incompetence of those in charge.  To see this scene during the years of the Bush presidency was actually quite chilling.

...and the winner is...


1. CLUE (1985, dir. Jonathan Lynn)

As with MY COUSIN VINNY, also directed by Lynn, this is a movie that many of my generation grew up watching and think of as a family favorite.  Why is this my all-time favorite comedy?  I think because it really does have everything: slapstick, double entendre, political commentary.  Although Tim Curry definitely steals the film, everyone else is so well-cast: Eileen Brennan, Martin Mull, Madeline Kahn, Leslie Ann Warren, and then there's Michael McKean again.  My one criticism is that, on first viewing, the way that Mr. Green is presented might come off as homophobic, but if you watch it to the end then it's no longer an issue.  Then there's Christopher Lloyd, who I sometimes call "the American Tim Curry."  Ironically the one movie they do together is the one where he's so low-key that you almost don't recognize him.  There are so many great lines, from "Communism is just a red herring" to "Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage" to "Ah, he wasn't a very good illusionist" to "Can I interest you in fruit or desert?" to "I'm gonna go home and sleep with my wife!"  And what a brilliant screenplay (co-written by John Landis) that manages to simultaneously be based off a classic board game, make commentary on McCarthyism and blackmail, and also have three different endings, all of which are compatible!  CLUE is just my favorite comedy ever!

Film Review: PROBLEM CHILD 2 (1991, dir. Brian Levant)

For God so hated the world that he sent down this film, and those who watched it would not experience the joy of art, but perish in self-indulgent flatulence.

-John 3:16, really loosely translated.

Everyone has their choice for "worst movie they've ever seen." Some like to pick on Gigli or Battlefield Earth. Some pick on classics like Plan 9 From Outer Space. Ever since I was 14 I have been very vocal in saying that to me, it is Problem Child 2, and all these years later, I feel the exact same way. It's not "one of the worst," it's not just an expression. It is THE ACTUAL worst movie I have ever seen.

How much farting, shitting, pissing, and puking can you put in a single movie? I don't need to see a dog take a dump that goes up to my waist! Why is it that I'm so hard on this filth? I have nothing against bathroom or gross-out humor. Heck, I like the American Pie movies. Having such an excess of it within 90 minutes is a bad idea, but the true tipping point is to do it with kids! Having little kids call each other dickheads and urinate and puke on each other just makes the whole thing feel dirtier. Worst line in the movie: "I guess I should fart in more people's offices."

What other film has: urination into lemonade, dynamite sticks exploding toilets, a little boy filming his babysitter having sex and projecting it on the side of the house, and a little girl joking about scratching testicles?

However, my absolute favorite moment has to be when the same little girl is on a carnival ride, says: "I'm gonna puke," opens her mouth, and fake looking puke shoots straight out of her open mouth in a perfect 90 degree angle! The puking scene in Scary Movie 2 looked more real than that.

I suppose the only redeeming element in the movie is Gilbert Gottfried. You get the impression that he didn't even have a script, but was just being his usual self. Too bad he has to act stupid while pizza gets thrown on him.

You know what? Thinking about the movie this much has just made me have to go to the bathroom. Goodbye!