Week 1 Giannetti, Chapter 1; Citizen Kane; Children of Men In these written lect

Week 1
Giannetti, Chapter 1; Citizen Kane; Children of Men
In these written lectures, I will attend more heavily to certain assigned chapters and provide shorter commentary on the others. Here, I draw most of your attention to Chapter 1 of Giannetti. Not only is this the kickoff chapter in which Giannetti demonstrates his approach to “understanding movies,” but he begins with photography, which is the most central and elemental feature of cinema. As such, it requires our full and active attention. I will bring Citizen Kane into bearing fairly consistently, as I hope this will help you make connections between the written content of this class and the screenings. I will only make a few passing comments about Children of Men, since I want you to use this film as an exercise in independent, critical thinking, an opportunity to apply what you’ve learned to a different film. This is the nature of the first assignment, which I’ll come back to later.
In the first chapter, Giannetti begins by presenting a basic distinction between two kinds of cinema: “realist” and “formalist.” He later goes on to acknowledge that these two approaches are not really clear-cut, but they exist on a spectrum (see p. 4), with “classical” cinema smack in the middle. According to Giannetti, “realist” cinema is best represented by documentary film while “formalist” is best exemplified by “avant-garde” film. (“Avant-garde” film is also known as “experimental” film, and it’s often described as being abstract, confusing, and devoid of a central storyline.) If you know a little about the history of the movies, you already know that Giannetti’s breakdown is a bit simplistic. While this is a helpful starting point to think about the different modes of motion pictures, plenty of famous films blur the distinction between “realist” and “formalist” (e.g., Dziga Vertov’s avant-garde “documentary” Man with a Move Camera).
By putting “classical” cinema in the middle of these two extremes, Giannetti seems to be emphasizing the way that classical Hollywood cinema (as it’s often identified) uses formalist tools in order to convey a realistic world within the film (the world within the film is otherwise known as the film’s “diegesis”). When you see terms like “classical cinema” or “classical Hollywood cinema,” you can generally think of the popular mode of Hollywood filmmaking seen at mainstream movie theaters. This has been far and away the most popular approach to filmmaking since the early 1930s. This isn’t to say that exceptions don’t exist, only that this has been the historically dominant way to make movies in Hollywood. Think of it as a formula designed to attract the biggest audience (and therefore make the most money). Classical cinema is designed for maximum palatability and mass accessibility, films that abide by a particular formula of style, narrative, and genres in order to allow audiences to know roughly what they’re getting and have just the right amount of surprises in order to entertain them without confusing them. The style of classical Hollywood cinema (which, by the way, is not restricted to Hollywood; it’s been adopted all over the world) has sometimes been called “invisible.” The idea here is that classical cinema is set up not so that you are impressed with things like deep focus and editing, but so that you become so absorbed in the story that you aren’t likely to pay attention to how the story is told. You can also think about it in terms of language. For many people, the easiest and most enjoyable conversations are those that don’t attract attention to the actual words being used. If you’re talking with someone and constantly wondering about their word choice, not understanding their vocabulary, talking past each other, etc., you can’t be as absorbed in the conversation. Similarly, classical cinema intends to use cinematic language in such a way that your attention can remain focused on story and (maybe) themes.
If you’re wondering, what is a textbook “classical Hollywood” film, then that’s a harder question to answer. I selected Citizen Kane for our first screening in part in order to challenge the idea that these distinctions are easy or clear. Citizen Kane’s reputation as being one of the “greatest” films of all time establishes it not as a “normal” film but a potentially extraordinary one. You may wonder why we aren’t watching a more textbook movie to start out this course. I think, however, that Citizen Kane is a productive first film for us precisely because it’s so complex. I’d like to suggest to you that calling Citizen Kane “realist,” “classical,” or “formalist” would be simplistic, because it exhibits tendencies toward each of these very strongly. I encourage you to have a strong grasp of these categories before watching the movie. Do the first assigned reading in the textbook, then go back and review these specific terms before you watch Citizen Kane. If you’ve seen Citizen Kane before, even recently, I strongly encourage you to rewatch it after studying the assigned reading.
At this point, I recommend you pause reading this lecture and watch the film, then return and finish reading.
In terms of realism, you hopefully noticed that Citizen Kane heavily uses images that masquerade as documentary footage, when in fact they’re just constructed to look like documentary. Did you notice actual documentary footage being used? What makes you think it’s documentary footage and not, like certain examples in the textbook, footage shot to look like documentary? What is the function of this footage in the film? Why is it there? What purpose does it serve? If any of you are aware of this film’s connection with the real-life historical figure of William Randolph Hearst, that may tip you off as to how realism is working in the film.
In terms of formalism, you hopefully saw the way that low-key lighting was used in certain scenes, like when the reporter is given access to the archive while researching Kane. Some of these scenes are almost entirely black, with relatively little light illuminating the shots. Consider, too the scene of the various men talking in the projection room with light pouring into the small openings at the top of the wall. Why shoot the scene this way? What does it add to the narrative content (what’s going on in the story)? These techniques required a lot more work than using standard-style lighting, so there must be a reason for it.
Also in terms of formalism, you may have noticed the way that deep space photography was used. There is a particularly famous example in Citizen Kane of a “long take” (a long, unbroken shot that goes on for awhile before cutting) in the home of young Charles Foster Kane. His parents discuss Charles’ future with the bank man while Charles plays outside. Strikingly, we see all of this action on multiple spatial planes in the same shot. Note the shot composition, the way that the filmmakers choreographed or staged it. Some characters are closer to the camera, some not so close, and young Charles quite far away. How does the shot begin? How does it end? Again, how does it function? What is at work here? This was a complex move on Welles’ part, so why take the risk and waste a lot of film stock if an actor flubbed a line, or waste lots of time planning the young actor’s position in the distant background to ensure that he remained visible through the window?
Although Giannetti attempts to define the “shot,” I think it’s a little unclear, so let me try to clarify. A “shot” is a moving image (or stream of images) unbroken by editing. Editing, properly speaking, is what begins and ends shots. (The “cut” is the most commonly used editing technique.) Now that you know what a “shot” is, let me clarify something that can be confusing. A “long shot” is a shot that features enough spatial depth within the frame that the main object is rendered (almost) whole. For example, if you’re looking at a person in a long shot, that person’s body is entirely (or almost entirely) visible, from head to foot. A “long shot,” therefore, has to do with how far you see in a given frame (a “frame” is any single image in a film; e.g., what you see when you press pause). If you think about it, you may realize that a “shot” can start out with a “long shot” and then end in a close-up. All this would take is for the character to walk closer to the camera or for the camera to zoom/track. You can tell how this “long shot” is different from the “long take,” as I defined it in the last paragraph. Whereas the long shot is about framing space within the shot, the long take is about extending the time of the shot.
On page 5, Giannetti suggests that the artist doesn’t intrude into realism in the way that artists tend to do in formalist films. Remember, Giannetti aligns realism with documentary, so that’s a springboard for interrogating this idea. Have you ever seen documentaries in which the artist/director does seem to intrude? Does this impact the “realism” of a documentary? Michael Moore has directed a number of high-profile documentaries (e.g., Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11), and his presence in those films is fairly clear and consistent. In Citizen Kane, do you get the impression that Orson Welles the artist/director is present? Obviously, he plays the starring role, so there’s a sense in which Welles is front-and-center. Does Welles the artist subsume himself into the role, or do you get the sense that Welles makes himself visible as an artist (or “intrudes,” to use Giannetti’s term) within Citizen Kane?
As the chapter goes on, Giannetti makes other claims that are worth your attention. On page 11, he writes that close-ups convey more emotion than non-close-ups. Do you agree? What close-up shots can you recall in Citizen Kane? Note: a close-up would be a shot in which a character’s face or head fills up most of the frame. An “extreme close-up,” on the other hand, is when you can’t even see all of the character’s face. Consider the early shot of Kane’s mouth when he utters the enigmatic line, “Rosebud.” This is an extreme close-up, and by Giannetti’s account, it should convey a lot of emotion. Does it? How? Or why not? The very name of this kind of shot may remind you of something Giannetti says on page 12, that realist filmmakers tend to avoid extreme angles. This may be another argument for considering Citizen Kane more formalist than realist. What do you think Giannetti means on page 14 when he writes that angles like these can be “manipulative” and “judgmental”?
The section beginning on p. 34 (“The Digital Revolution”) is particularly important in our present moment. It is no exaggeration for Giannetti to refer to this moment as revolutionary, as the very “stuff” of cinema is fundamentally changing. Here’s a question for you: is it still fair to call a movie a “film” if it’s not actually shot on film? In what ways does the change of the medium alter our experience of movies and how we think about them? You can think about the differences (and similarities) between Citizen Kane and Children of Men in this context. Although I believe that Children of Men was shot on celluloid, a great many images in the film were digitally enhanced. As such, the film stands as a liminal example of the shift from celluloid film to digital technology. Certain directors, like Michael Mann and David Fincher, have been shooting digitally for longer than most. And since Giannetti doesn’t mention it, I will: the chemistry of celluloid favors lights over darks. Here’s what this entails: the traditional medium of cinema is predisposed toward captures images of white skin over dark skin. This being the case, we can consider the shift to digital a step in the right direction in at least this sense. As many people decry this change and lament the loss of true “film,” keep in mind that digital technology does a better job of representing people of color than celluloid could do. Further still, the low cost of digital technology (relative to that of celluloid) has allowed filmmakers all over the world, often from less wealthy nations, to make movies. Celluloid had previously made this next to impossible.
I don’t know about you, but some choices of language toward the end of this chapter confused me. (I will note here that our updated edition of the course textbook actually removes some of the problematic language.) On page 43, Giannetti describes a film as being “a piece of garbage.” To me, this kind of hyperbole is out of place in a course textbook, which should work at being objective and critical without necessarily criticizing or praising. That being said, these are helpful reminders that the author of this book is a human being with particular biases and opinions. No matter how hard anyone works at being objective and professional, we all experience the world through our own unique lenses. Our lenses might be quite valid, but it’s always helpful to see things through different perspectives. Giannetti has his perspectives, and we have ours. As you continue to study this textbook, I encourage you to keep out a sharp eye for these types of moments. Read critically, even as you read in order to gain information you may not yet know.
I have a few thoughts and questions to add to chapters 2 & 3, on mise-en-scène (heretofore m-e-s) and movement:
-On p. 47, Giannetti notes that the aspect ratio“remains constant throughout the movie. I can think of at least one recent movie for which this isn’t true. Can anyone name it?
-I agree with Giannetti on p. 48 that m-e-s is inseparable from cinematography. If you find yourself getting tied up between these categories, don’t worry too much about it. Make sure you’re being specific about your observations and doing your best to fit them into the best framework.
-On p. 52, Giannetti says that the iris “was rather overused” during the silent era. I wonder if a silent cinema fan would agree. Was it “overused,” or was it simply a popular technique during that time, perhaps with industrial or technological motivations?
-Starting on p. 53, Giannetti describes different ways that the movie frame has been described. Let me add a few for your consideration: frame as window (into another world), frame as spyglass(voyeuristic intrusion), frame as canvas(art/painting), and frame as mirror (reflection of our own desires, fears, etc.). Depending on the film you’re watching, these different approaches can affect what we think of cinema as a medium and how various films approach their stories, themes, etc.
-I commend to you Giannetti’s thoughts on p. 55 about significant elements that exist off-screen. Particularly when we get to films like M (dir. Fritz Lang, 1931), take note of how various pieces of m-e-s can be present through their absence/invisibility.
-Starting on p. 74, Giannetti lists the “five basic positions” at which an actor can be photographed. These are worth understanding, but don’t put too much stock in them. They’re helpful terms insofar as they give us language for describing our observations, but I think Giannetti makes too many generalizations about what each of these inherently “means.”
-As with my last comment, take what is helpful from the section on “proxemic patterns” (81) and don’t spend too much time trying to memorize the details.
-In the example from Persona on p. 83, Giannetti shows how directors can use space to communicate their ideas. I challenge you to remember this point and watch all of our films closely to see how space is conveyed meaningfully.
-On p. 82, Giannetti claims that extreme close-ups are aligned with intimacy. Reconsider the extreme close-up of Kane’s face in Citizen Kane. In my view, this shot conveys uncertainty, enigma, and ambiguity rather than intimacy. Do you agree or disagree?
-Giannetti’s section on “open and closed forms” is quite interesting and potentially very constructive for us. Note on pages 86 and following how these categories are broken down. Open forms are simple, unselfconscious, spare, immediate, familiar, intimate, spontaneous, direct, free, and continuous. Closed forms, on the other hand, are unfamiliar, complex, contrasting, controlled, stylized, and are defined by contrasts, visual effects, artificiality, visual improbability, and saturation of visual information. Think about Citizen Kane in relation to these. Maybe look for stills from the film online and determine how they fit into this schema. And keep open and closed forms in mind as we head into Children of Men.
-On pages 92 and following, Giannetti helpfully breaks down how to do a m-e-s analysis. For your first assignment, I am asking you to pick 10 out of the 15 elements and perform a m-e-s shot analysis on a frame from Citizen Kane or Children of Men. See the assignment description posted to Blackboard as well as the different screenshots from which you may choose. Note that Giannetti’s example (p. 87) refers to a shot from M, one of the films we will screen next week.
-Shifting gears to “movement,” I want to endorse Giannetti’s exhortation to pay close attention to movement in films. Know exactly where you stand in relation to the film’s action, and allow yourself to “be moved” by it. I mean this both in terms of affect/emotions as well as the kinesthetic feeling of motion, as if your body moves when the camera or characters move. In general, you can watch a film and align your point of view with the camera’s. Giannetti also talks about “psychological movements,” which are real, even if they vary from person to person. How a director/cinematographer chooses to photograph movement is significant. They could have done it in a hundred (or more!) different ways, so the choices they do make are meaningful and deserve our attention. Here’s a thought: when you feel a particular affect or emotion during a film, ask what techniques (not just what story element or character) are contributing to that response.
-I appreciate the point Giannetti makes on p. 100 (3-3a) about Agnes de Mille. Men are typically privileged in film history as well as the film industry. Many, many examples of important and prominent women exist that deserve our attention. De Mille is one of them.
-Giannetti writes on p. 99 that “the true content of each shot is its form.” I commend this to you. Think about it carefully.
-On p. 101, Giannetti says that movement depends on shot choice/type—treatment matters more than material. Continue to ponder this. It’s not only what happens that’s important (story/narrative), it’s how it happens (form/style).
-I would warn you, apropos to p. 109, to be careful about reducing certain kinds of movements to a single, generalizable meaning: scary, feminine, happy, etc. This type of equivocation can oversimplify the complexity of a particular movement and shut out the possibility of multiple meanings.
-Similarly, I’m not comfortable with a (probably false) generalization that Giannetti makes about Japanese viewers on p. 111 regarding their distaste for overt sexuality. While this may have generally been true at a certain point earlier in Japanese film history, examples abound of the Japanese New Wave in the 1960s and other movements into the present that problematize this oversimplification.
-It may be a fair generalization, but it’s still a generalization on p. 114 for Giannetti to associate films with a moving camera (and less propensity for cutting) with slowness. Keep this in mind as you watch Children of Men, a film with multiple ultra-long takes that, in my view, are anything but slow.
-The seven different moving camera shots on p. 114 are worthy of your attention. These are crucial vocabulary terms for film analysis.
-Take note of the relationship between handheld camera and documentary on p. 121, and consider this as you watch Children of Men.
-P. 123 features yet another example of Giannetti giving you the inherent meaning or effect of a given technique, and I want you to resist his conclusions. He associates aerial shots with a feeling of freedom. Do you find this to be true? I advise you to wait until you see an aerial shot in a film and then determine how it’s used. Don’t let Giannetti tell you what an aerial shot means! Context is everything. The aerial shot that ends the film Easy Rider, for example, may convey the exact opposite feeling of freedom.
As you approach the discussion (due by 11:59 p.m. Thursday), choose some specific issue, theme, or question from the above lecture and relate it in writing to Citizen Kane. The point here is not for you simply to regurgitate things that Giannetti, Corrigan, and I have written, but rather to put into dialogue what you have read with what you have screened. Think critically and carefully, working to develop your own idea on a topic and incuding specific techniques, themes, elements, and/or scenes in your discussion. You will notice that I used bold-faced type to highlight particularly important terms and help with readability. It is from these terms, as well as my comments and the readings, that questions on the final examination will be drawn.
This week contains multiple discussion questions that you are required to consider as you write your discussion response. Each student should have his/her own thread for each week’s discussion. Be sure to respond to at least two (2) posts from your classmates. I also invite you to add any other responses to the film you might have.