Ryner Viray

2016-89940

BA Film

FILM 153: Citizen Kane, Modern Times

The usage of the cinematography in the age of silent cinema is very evident as a cinematic
language in through the use of shots due to the reasons that there are no sounds and dialogue
compared to now, that some films relay on sounds and dialogue in telling their film.

In the study of cinematography as a language, there are three aspects in telling a film. These are
the shot, the cut and the movement. The two films listed below shined the most in terms of using the
three aspects in telling the language of film. The visual representation on how they frame each shot,
how the shots are interrelated with one another, how the camera moves in the films correspond to the
situation or characterization of the subject or character involved. Orson Welles’ & Charlie Chaplin’s
direction of cinematography is character oriented since they are both narratives. This is an excellent way
on how we could maximize the use of cinematography in the film. However, in terms technique in the
usage of shots, both directors have its own way or interpretation in telling their stories in film. Let’s
examine each film.

In Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane, he focused more on what we call as the deep focus shot. It is a
technique in which the foreground, the middle-ground and the background scenario’s are clearly framed
and visible in the shot. Orson heavily depended his film through the use of cinematography. Every
object that you see in the shot tells a lot in terms of the characters’ state, thinking and emotions. Let’s
dissect on how he used cinematography as a language through usage of shot, cut and movement.

Examining Orson Welles’ shot, tells a lot on the perspective of the character’s world on which
they are playing. The shot focuses more on hyperrealism and sometimes it approves or contradicts on
what the character believes. However, what I meant by realism here is not really on what is based on
reality as is. The realism being depicted is being aligned on what is the “truth” and “right” in terms of the
characters’ decision of the film. Orson well focuses more on what is the real truth in terms of the
problems being depicted by the characters in the film. It presents different types of classes in terms of
ruling, social and even the degrees of satisfaction in terms contentment. It is also a good avenue to
check on where are the characters now in their state. The shot focuses more on other theories in terms
of the things or objects being portrayed in the film which makes the film subject for argument and
discussion. But what is constant throughout the film, the shot serves as the depicter of truth, examiner
of reality and the checker of narrative throughout the film. It is mostly on the third person perspective
on how some shots on what they semiotically meant, will be the realization of the characters on the
next scene of the film. The film portrays more on this on the scene of Kane as he was talking to Thatcher
about New York Inquirer wherein on the background are a group of people working under Thatcher
which sooner or later will work under Kane.
 In terms of Orson’s cut, the film progresses on how he used cut as a subject on how the
interrelation of the character’s perspectives intercorrelate with one another. What good reflection that
we can draw upon this, is that the cut serves as the narrative in telling on how the perspectives of the
character with the help of the shot, form together to synthesize and combine a new whole of
perspective. Since this is a mystery film (although you cannot box Citizen Kane into one genre only)., the
usage of cut is very principal however, throughout the film, Kane uses less cuts throughout the film. He
only uses this whenever extremely necessary. The cut serves as the progress of development in the
story and jumps from one’s character point to another. This is what makes Citizen Kane cinematography
different from others, through the camera work, you could really tell the shift of narrative from one
character to another in one shot. The cut from the shadow and light is also one technique that Welles’
also used in his film. I get the continuity on how shadow and light was used to present the characters in
the film. In the end, it is just a matter of being open and secretive on what the directors want us to see.
This is dangerous in a way that maybe through continuity, through the usage of lighting, the film only
manages to show one perspective only. Orson Welles serves an innovative way that through cut, we can
able to show both and of course, on how the cinematographer frames each shot.

The movement of the camera in the film heavily focused upon the character’s emotion. The shift
of the characters’ emotion in a shit is heavily emphasized in the movement of the camera. The use of
zoom ins and zoom outs used to refer to the shift of the characters’ emotions and the movement from
one perspective to another. This was shown in the movement of the camera from outside of Kane’s
home to inside of his home making the shot from the perspective of the mother. What I like also is the
use of the tilt shot to describe the passage of time in the narrative. The up to down shot used to refer to
past shots while the down to up used to show to present shots. The movement is heavily disciplined
throughout the film. The camera only moves if there is a strong emphasis or progress in the narrative.

Lastly, in Charlie Chaplin’s Modern Times, what makes his cinematography different from others
is that it serves as an innovation in terms genre comical conventions. When we compare the typical
genre cinematography convention, comedy films heavily rely on the use of extreme closeup shots to
portray the characters’ emotions with the intention of eliciting laughter among audience. In the film,
Chaplin succeeded in the usage of static shots and focusing more on movement, in showing the comedic
side of his film. However, Chaplin did not only use this form of cinematography to show only one
comical side of a person. He managed to use different forms of shot in showing different levels of
perspectives of the character. This is mostly done by the pan technique to reveal to us Chaplin’s
character. It is also fascinating on how the shot was used to display the character more human. As a
film, it didn’t only succeeded in making the audience laugh, but to show different levels of the character
which makes the film more humane than it was expected on. Semiotically reading the film, the film’s use
of static and two dimensional shots innovated the film’s context of political issues on the date the film
was made. For example, the shot of Chaplin on the factory when we was being abused by the machine.
The factory could connote the hegemonic structure between technology and humanity this element also
conforms to the typical conventions of the genre. The film focuses more on the usage of production
design and movement, on how these things were being used in the context of political and social
situations in the film.