Citizen Kane's Orson Welles
 

Introduction

I have been fascinated with the art of movie making since I was old enough to be allowed to see anything but G-rated films. I try to see many movies, and as varied in type as my tastes will allow (I shy away from the mindless Steven Segal types). I keep up with the awards that are given in the movie industry and the news about it. This is all a result of my first love in life: acting. I suspect many of the people in this class are focusing their papers on a creator in their chosen major. I'm bored with studying psychologists, so I thought I would turn to someone more intrinsically interesting to me.

I asked myself: Who is the most novel moviemaker or actor that I know of? Citizen Kane immediately came to mind. There are many great and even superb things about this movie, but the aspect of it that really go tot me was the visual effects. In this aspect Citizen Kane was unlike any movie I've ever seen, before or since. As Orson Welles was known to me to be the writer, director, and star actor in the film, I figured he would be a good person to target as the creative genius of this marvelous motion picture.

It turns out Welles is something of a renaissance man. He is talented in many different disciplines, all of which relate to the dramatic arts. Acting requires good bodily/kinesthetic intelligence. Effective direction is a strain on the interpersonal intelligence. Coming up with material that will shock or capture the attention of the audience is also an aspect of the interpersonal intelligence. Writing of scripts and screenplays is the domain of the verbal/linguistic intelligence. The aspect I find extraordinary in Welles is his visual/spatial intelligence in his ability to create unique and astonishing visuals.

The Life of Welles: A Short Biography
An Eclectic Foundation

Orson Welles was born on May 6, 1915 in Kenosha, Wisconsin as George Orson Welles. His father was an inventor of quirky gadgets and made a comfortable living from these ventures. His mother was a concert pianist. He essentially had a third parent, however, Dr. Bernstein. "Dadda" as Orson called Bernstein, was the local doctor and was thought to have his eye on Mrs. Welles. In addition, both Orson and his mother were prone to illness. Bernstein is said to have declared Orson a genius at the ripe old age of 18 months and dedicated himself to helping the child reach the height of his genius. He put himself in charge of the child's education and showered Orson with multitudes of educational gifts.

In 1919, when Orson was four, the Welles family moved to Chicago. When the good doctor followed soon after, the marriage between mother and father was over. Orson stayed on with his mother and "Dadda" Bernstein while his father took off to travel the country. Orson traveled with his father over holidays, giving him a wide range of experiences to draw on from an early age. Also, Orson was not healthy enough to go to school on a regular basis until he was 11 years old. We can imagine his schooling was unlike any other, with Bernstein presiding over his genius. Both his mother and the doctor were very supportive of Orson stretching his talents to different domains and experimenting with new ideas and knowledge. This very personal education and variety of experiences provided Orson with a very strong sense of self. In addition he didn't have to face the stressful situation of trying to fit in with peers until this eclectic foundation had already been established.

Testing the Creative Waters

At the age of eleven, Orson's "parents" sent him off to a prestigious boarding school named the Todd School for Boys. Here he soon displayed his talents at entertaining people, and the director of the school, "Skipper", essentially gave him control of the drama department. In his five years at the Todd school he organized and starred in at least eight plays, many of which were heavy plays for children to tackle, such as Shakespeare and Dr. Faustus . At this point he really had a chance to work on his acting skills (bodily/kinesthetic) and had some positive feedback for his burgeoning creative efforts. Additionally, in Skipper he had a caring mentor to facilitate his explorations in ways that the conservative Bernstein could not. Despite his positive reputation with the students, Welles did not form relationships with his peers. Instead, he spent his time with the adults around campus, including Skipper and his wife. Taylor comments, "it was difficult to imagine what this small, chubby, amazingly knowledgeable adult could be doing in a place like this" (4).

Upon graduation Welles decided to be an actor. As his now-guardian Dadda Bernstein was unhappy with the decision, Orson decided to try out a trip to Europe where he would be far enough away from home to get away with what he wanted. He got a job with an Irish theatre company at the age of 16. Through this company he achieved some press; his abilities as an actor were already being recognized. After that he thought he would try his luck in New York. At this time he married his first wife, Virginia Nicholson, however the relationship was not very serious. Orson claimed that "they decided to get married only so they could live together in a New York hotel" (Taylor, 13). He got various minor acting roles around Broadway, but wasn't satisfied with his amount of control over the productions or the sizes of his parts. After some time and much frustration passed, he set up the Mercury Theatre Company in 1935 so he could do the plays and parts he wanted to do. This was the time that he really worked on his directing and producing skills (interpersonal). Also going on at this time, Orson was funding his company and himself on a radio job that he had. This is the job that led to the famous War of the Worlds show on Halloween, 1938. This job also gave him more practice at his kinesthetic ability through his acting voice.

Welles first got a chance to experiment with the visual aspects of the art of theatre at this point in his life. The first job that his theatre company got off the ground was a Haitian version of Macbeth, produced in Harlem with an all-black cast. Welles was widely applauded for his ingenuity and excellent portrayal of a Black Macbeth. He was commended for his ability to create the creepy and savage feeling of native Caribbeans. His other major visual/spatial achievement with the Mercury Theatre Company (at least on the stage) was Julius Caesar , first opened in 1937. Taylor illustrate "the upward beams of light from spots in the floor...and the bare blood-red wall at the back...[went] straight to the instincts and emotions rather than filtering its message through the mind" (27). These tactics employed by Welles have been compared to the propaganda of Nazi Germany.

The Chance of a Lifetime

After all the publicity from the War of the Worlds event, Hollywood was very interested in Welles. He felt that he was just getting into the swing of things in New York, however, and was reluctant to leave. This reluctance turned out to be very fortuitous. The studios in Hollywood were so anxious to bring this headline into their pockets that they offered him an opportunity that has probably not been offered to anyone before or since. Orson was to make two movies in two years with half a million dollar budget apiece. The kicker was that Orson was to direct, act in, produce, and write out the movie without any interference from the studio. This offer in and of itself was enough to hit Hollywood banners. Little did anyone know how many more headlines would be made before this contract was over.

This agreement between Welles and Hollywood is what became Citizen Kane . Being a newcomer to the movie scene, Welles was not caught up in convention, nor was he interested in the established people in a field. He set out looking for people with creative ideas who hadn't had a chance to put them to use. He brought in coworkers from his New York theatre company in addition to workers he signed on in California. Soon he had a full team of collaborators to help with this well-publicized project, the only one of which who had ever been heard of in Hollywood was Welles himself. Welles now had a group of people around him to bounce ideas off and lean on for support. In a sense he was more supported than many of the creators studied by Gardner. In another sense, his position was similar to Freud's group of disciples, as Welles had the final say on every decision and was obviously the leader. In his position as leader, Welles did not have a peer on which to rely or to solicit help from.

The Chef d'Oeuvre: Citizen Kane
Welles as Master: Realism

As Welles took on the immense project of Citizen Kane he decided to develop the film within a framework of realism. "Talkies" had recently appeared in Hollywood, and this newfound ability to add the aspect of voices was not lost on its community. In the silent films realism was so impossible that it was fully abandoned. With the advent of the "talkie" moviemakers suddenly had an opportunity to explore concepts and techniques of realism. As far as Welles (and his team) was concerned, this had not been done to satisfaction. That is what the Mercury Theatre Company set out to do. And boy did they do it.

To characterize Kane Welles used a plot technique in his script of jumping back and forth in time through the use of flashbacks. In an effort to discover the true character of Kane and the secret to his final words, "Rosebud," we hear from many different people who knew Kane. We see new elements of his life from some witnesses, but we also see many events repeated in the eyes of different observers. Belfrage says, "the repetitions do more to build the whole structure of the character and his environment than new scenes could do," this makes Kane, "the most three-dimensional human being who ever walked and talked on the screen-I would almost say the only one" (57). Welles has (verbal/linguistically) stretched beyond the convention of relying on acting to present a character as three-dimensional to making that the point of the script. Welles himself stated, "I wished to make a motion picture which was not a narrative of action so much as an examination of character" (23). Welles presents the most realistic characterization of an individual in the movies to date. As Belfrage comments, "[Welles] comes not to praise nor to indict Kane, but to reveal him" (57). In life, we often have to face the reality that people are not all-bad or all-good-that there are gray areas in our judgments of others. Welles has been criticized for lack of true definition of Kane's character, of failure to deem him good or bad. Crowther gives us good advice on this one, "After all, nobody understood him. Why should Mr. Welles?" (48).

Many critics at the time of the release of the film praised its acting, if in passing. John O'Hara calls Welles the best actor in the history of acting no less than four times (46). In an essay published later, Fowler declares, "Welles has amazing power over his players, drawing from them performances they never give under another director," and goes on to say that the acting, "gives a most amazing impression of reality" (95). Leigh Woods wrote a whole essay on the acting in the movie wherein she details the precise elements that made the acting great, in addition to how Welles brought out those abilities. On all accounts, the acting in this film was applauded as strikingly realistic. In addition, on more than a few occasions specific references were made to Welles' ability to bring about this quality of acting. Welles must have retained a very strong interpersonal intelligence to pull this off.

The remaining aspects of Welles' command of realism fall within the visual domain. Welles included ceilings in his set design because he felt that the un-enclosed sets of the thirties were annoyingly obvious. Even today, the practice of using ceiling-less sets is common. We have become so used to this convention, which as Gregg Toland (Kane's cinematographer) says, "are accepted by audiences because of their frequent use" (74). This is true to the point that when we have the off chance to see a movie or TV set for what it is, we are astonished that it not only has no ceiling, but only two or three walls. As we can see in Figure 1, the ceiling visible in the background is acceptable to us as a photograph, but when thought of as a clipping from a movie, it seems quite out of place.

Figure 1: Ceiling Included

Welles' inclusion of ceilings also lends itself to some other effects. He was fond of filming a person from a low angle (this will be discussed in more detail later), which required a ceiling as part of the background. Also, including ceilings allowed for more realistic sound quality, and an easy way to hide the shadow of the microphone. Taking all this into consideration, having a top to his sets added much to the realistic feel of Welles' movie.

Another aspect of contemporary movies that Orson saw as fake was the positioning of light sources. Especially with the advent of Technicolor technology, lighting had been placed on a catwalk or grid that hung above the set. As Welles and company decided to include a ceiling as part of the set this was not an option. They decided to experiment with realistic sources of light. A great example of this is the scene in the screening room where the journalists are watching the "News on the March" obituary for Kane. The only source of light in the room is that coming from the windows behind the men, casting the men in silhouettes. Welles stuck to this element of realism even when it meant plunging his own face into darkness for an entire scene.

Welles and Toland experimented with new photographic techniques to get a depth of focus that was realistic. The issue at hand was that of the Hollywood close-up where the actor focused-on would be clear and sharp, with everything in the background looking fuzzy. Welles and Toland contend that this is not the way the human eye works. Even though we can only focus on one area at a time, the surrounding images are not fuzzy or blurry; they are just not currently our object of focus. The following clip is an example of how this technique was used. As the scene comes up we see the medicine bottle and spoon in the immediate forground, then a bed with Susan wheezing in it, and in the background a closed door, all perfectly resolved. Then, as Kane bursts through the door we see him come up to the bed in perfect focus, as well as objects in the room behind the door. That is a lot of depth to have in focus at one time.

Using this depth of focus technique, we feel that what we are seeing is more real in that we can look at any part of the screen at any time. We can search the environment for clues; we are not simply relegated to what the director chooses to let us see. Well, ultimately we only see what Welles wishes us to see, but we feel like we have more freedom to pick up minor clues and thus we feel a heightened sense of reality. This led to another trial for Welles, making sure that every item picked up by the camera was realistic and meaningful.

Welles also uses a sustained camera shot as an element of realism. Instead of jumping from close-up to close-up as dialogue would dictate (and as was common at the time), Welles often chooses to leave the camera in one spot and let the people move around the room as need-be. This adds to the feeling of realism because it is a stationary perspective such as we would have if standing in the room, or even looking trough a peephole. A good example of this is when Thatcher comes to Kane's childhood home to appropriate the child. The adults go inside the house and move about while they fight over Kane's future. Throughout the scene the camera doesn't move, affording us a close up of Mrs. Kane's face, the agitated movements of the two men, and carefree Kane outside playing with his beloved Rosebud.

Welles as Maker: Symbolism

I assert that Welles was a maker in the visual/spatial intelligence in how he brought symbolism to cinema. Welles borrowed from his experiences in the theatre on how to evoke emotions with a single image, as was discussed in reference to Julius Caesar . Welles looked for elements that he could use in a realistic way that would give him the ability to influence the audience in a way other than the dialogue or sets could. Crowther notices these efforts and notes, "Mr. Welles and Mr. Toland have used the camera not only to record a story but to comment upon it, to compose by visual contrasts and sharp glimpses caught from unusual points an overpoweringly suggestive film" (50). The techniques that Welles utilizes have become common in the movie industry today.

A very convenient way of affecting the audience's perception of the action without disrupting the reality of the viewing is by controlling and changing the angle of the camera. Some may think that Welles' use of extreme camera angles are unrealistic, because it is not likely that we would be laying at Kane's feet at any point, but one is unlikely to notice these extreme angles consciously until someone points it out. Welles uses two basic variations on the classic camera angle: from below and from above.

The camera angle from below has gotten much publicity. It is the more apparent of the two, as it is not unusual for someone to be tall, or to be standing on something looking down, while it is unusual for someone to look up from the floor. Fowler gets into this aspect of the cinematography in detail:

To photograph a person from below inevitably distorts, be it ever so slightly, that object. It appears to elongate a person, making him, therefore, seem more important. Conversely, it in a sense intimidates the audience, since it is in the inferior position of looking up. (94)

Another reason for the effects of these below-the-belt angles is that they are how a child sees the world. In essence, they give the audience the sense of looking through a child's (powerless) eyes. It makes the person in the image appear almost monstrous. There are countless examples of this type of shot in Citizen Kane . One example is in Figure 2. Occasionally, Toland even had the sets built above the floor so that he would be able to get a low-enough shot.

Figure 2: A View of Kane from Below

The converse of this technique is that of showing someone from above. It flips the role of the audience and the selected individual from that just described. The person on the screen looks childish and powerless, in addition to appearing shorter than normal. In the meantime, we as the audience feel powerful and in control of the situation. We may even feel monstrous when the person in the view of the camera's lense is feeling hurt in some way, as in the scene when Kane has just been ripped from his family and is given a new, more expensive-looking sled. Kane is feeling alone, sad, and helpless, so we see him from the extreme above. Then it changes to Thatcher, Kane's guardian, who is seen from the extreme below, because he is responsible for young Kane's unhappiness (at least in Kane's eyes). Another example of this technique is shown in figure 3. Here we see Susan from above, as Kane would likely see her. She is powerless to leave Kane's palace at Xanadu and powerless to make her life better, so we see her from above, as if she were a child.

Figure 3: Susan from Above

Another technique Welles employs is a use of lightness and darkness as a judgment of good and bad. This is what Crowther is referring to with, "visual contrasts." Welles uses light to represent things and people that are good, and darkness or shadow to represent those that are bad, evil, or who have poor intentions. This manifests itself in two major themes: the pursuit of knowledge and the character of Kane and those around him.

Figure 4: The Vault Illuminated and Thompson in Shadow

The pursuit of knowledge is presented as a noble endeavor. This is mainly represented when Thompson, the newspaperman trying to uncover the secret to "Rosebud", locates Thatcher's diary. Both the table in the vault and the book itself are illuminated in such a way that they seem to glow. This gives us the impression that we are viewing sacred material, something akin to the Bible. Conversely, Thompson himself is always shown in very low light and/or long shadows. From this we get the impression that the pursuit of knowledge in order to make money is not dignified. We can observe these features in figures 4 and 5.

Figure 5: Thompson and Book

The other major way Welles uses light is as a commentary on the character of an individual. People who are good at heart and/or have good intentions are illuminated by the light while those who do/are not are riddled in darkness and shadows. We can see this as Kane himself changes. In the beginning of the movie, Kane is an idealistic young man, publishing declarations of principles and using his paper to help the workingman. Likewise, we see Kane bathed in light, as in figure 6.

Figure 6: Idealistic Kane is Bright

Throughout the movie we see Kane evolve, slowly gathering more darkness and shadow around him. Consistent with his character development, he moves in and out of darkness on his gradual decent into a miserly old unhappy man shrouded in shadow. An example of one of these occurrences is when he meets Susan. At this point in the movie he has already started to gather some gloom, but when he meets Susan, he becomes happy and well intentioned again, and likewise shines more brightly. Also, towards the end of the movie Kane descends into a darkness that he doesn't come out of, as is exemplified in figure 7. All this lighting is done with respect to realistic lighting sources, accomplished through marvelous staging.

Figure 7: Greedy Kane is Dark

Kane's wives are also incorporated into this symbolism. Emily, his first wife, is consistently showed in the brightest of lights, while Susan, the mistress-turned-wife, starts out in mostly darkness, and evolves into the light at the end of the movie. A good example of this is the scene when Emily takes Kane to confront Susan. At this point Kane is portrayed as a very cruel man, for Emily is very hurt by his actions. Therefore, Kane is presented in the extreme dark, even though in general he is not viewed as a horrible man at this point. In addition, Susan is shown as a split between light and dark, showing that she is viewed as good by Kane and evil by Emily, as can be seen in figure 8.

Figure 8: Emily Confronts Kane and Susan, in Varying Levels of Brightness

Life After the Masterpiece: Criticism
Published Criticism

Citizen Kane stirred up a lot of controversy. Not only was the agreement Welles made with R.K.O. pictures unheard of, but also prior to it's release information about the plot leaked out. Newspaper moguls such as William Randolph Hearst were not pleased with the possibility that Kane was based on one of them. They tried to keep the movie from being released at all, and as we can see from the movie itself, these newspapermen have a lot of power. Needless to say, there were many reporters anxious to write a review of this already-famous film when it premiered in 1941.

There were a variety of comments made about the play, both at the time of its release and since. It has been called the best movie ever made, nothing special, a hoax, and everything in between. For the most part the initial reviews of the movie were positive, with many newspapers, and even the same reviewers, printing a retraction of their earlier comments and claiming that they didn't think the movie was that good after all. Perhaps it is a testament to the movie that even as recently as 1999 new critiques of this movie were being published. In addition, such famous people such as Jean-Paul Sartre and Welles himself have published criticisms.

As far as peer evaluation and community acceptance are concerned, Citizen Kane won some awards. At the academy awards for 1941 it was nominated for 9 awards, four of which were for Welles himself, including Best Movie of the Year, Best Direction, Best Male Actor, and the only one it won: Best Original Screenplay. Also, in 1970 the Academy presented him with an honorary award for his years of good work in the field. In 1975 the American Film Institute awarded Citizen Kane the award of the Best Movie of All Time, which it renewed in 1998 with its 100 years of movies.

Criticism of Orson Welles

Many of the people who saw and reviewed Citizen Kane felt that Welles had a bright future ahead of him in Hollywood. Lean comments, "Orson Welles is twenty-six, with say forty years of work ahead of him" (64). Not only were they wrong about him having a bright future, they were wrong about him working in Hollywood too. Welles never again completed a movie for a Hollywood company. In addition, in 32 more years of making movies Orson never again achieved the quality he reached with Citizen Kane . In fact, despite his continuous attempts at creating movies and fame as an actor, barely any more of his movies were worthy of noticing. In 1952 he made his only other applauded film, Othello . Hard-core Welles fans also enjoyed 1957's Touch of Evil , but critics attacked it. Like some of the creators studied by Gardner, such as Stravinsky and Einstein, Welles was never again capable of producing a work that reached the level of his masterpiece, Kane.

Fitting into Gardner's Model: A Conclusion
10-year Cycle

It is hard to pinpoint when Welles started working in his domain. Some of that is due to his renaissance-man attributes, and some due to his genius-like childhood. It seems he first got involved in training for the theatre when he was 16; this is when he started working with his first professional theatre group in Ireland. This is consistent with Gardner's 10-year cycle of creativity, as Citizen Kane was made when he was 26. Also, 10 years later, when he was 36, Welles made his only other commendable movie, Othello . This fits well with Gardner's model.

Marginality

Welles definitely qualified as a marginal individual. He was marginal from early on in his childhood, when he was home schooled. Then, when finally enrolling in school, he remained outside the circles of friends that his peers engaged in. Later, in Hollywood, he was the radio star who was given unlimited decision-making power and all the funds needed to make his own movie from the ground up. Also, despite his apparent charm, he never seemed to have a close friend that was on his level. Instead, his friends were always in the context of some kind of mentoring relationship, such as Skipper.

Faustian Bargain

Welles didn't seem to accept that he had lost his edge. He continued trying to make great movies until he was too old for all the stress. He never seemed to lament that his greatest accomplishment was at the age of 26; he thought that his subsequent movies were wonderful. And if, for some reason, someone had found reason to criticize his work, Orson would find some external cause to blame it on, such as a studio cutting up his work, or insufficient funds. Welles never exibhited the behaviors of a faustian bargain.

Conclusion

Orson Welles used the techniques that were available at he time to an extent that they had not been used before. In addition, he invented some new ones that became part of movie convention in years to come. As Belfrage says, "the things that seem miraculous in Kane could, taken individually, have been equalled by many othe craftsmen in the departments concerned. But the unique quality he has is the ability to lead and to coordinate the skilled work of others" (58).

Works Cited

Belfrage, Cedric. "Orson Welles' Citizen Kane ." Focus on Citizen Kane . Ed. Ronald Gottesman. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1971. 54-9.

Citizen Kane . Dir. Orson Welles. Perf. Orson Welles. R.K.O., 1941.