Sequence Analysis of Citizen Kane - Kane Meets Susan

Sequence Analysis

Susan as a Part of Kane’s Collection

In Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941) the audience is introduced to a man through the flashbacked remembrances of the people that knew him.  The multilayered character study – motivated by the mystery of Kane’s last words – explores the importance of perspective in narrative storytelling.   The titular character of Kane is seen to be a complex collection of ambition, sadness, vanity, and anger and one of the more telling sequences of his nature involves his introduction to the character of Susan whom he has an affair with.  This sequence is noteworthy because it is told through the eyes of Kane’s old friend Leland who did not personally witness the events, and thus the audience is left to consider if this flashback can be trusted as fact.   The sequence is most effective in demonstrating the opinions of who Kane was through its use of suggestive dialogue, motivational editing, framing, and establishment of patterns that appear later in the film.

Leland begins the lead up to the sequence by saying, “according to Charlie,” letting the audience know that what they are about to see is the version that Kane told his friend and not an eyewitness retelling of events.   This tool of perspective allows the film to offer suggestive dialogue and imagery without explicitly showing the affair between Kane and Susan – which was not shown in Classical Hollywood films.   Susan’s delivery of the repeated line “hot water,” is told with a slight sensual flair implying that asking Kane up to her room may not be as wholesome as the words suggest.  This is followed by the next scene where a slight moan in the transition sounds suggestive but is accompanied by more groans to go along with the toothache that Susan is dealing with.  “What you need is to take your mind off it,” Kane says as he shuts the door to the audience, giving the impression that he has less than wholesome plans on how to accomplish that.  The non-diegetic music accompanying the sequence up to this point – as it started just as they entered the apartment building – has been melancholy, suggesting again that what is happening is not good.   When the door opens on Kane and Susan the music takes on a sweeter sound.  The suggestive nature is driven home by the final shot of the sequence, which shows a bed fully lit in the background.

If the audience is to trust Leland’s telling as what Kane had told him, then it can be assumed that the editing offered at the end of the shadow puppet sequence can give some insight into how Kane viewed Susan.  As revealed by his sentimentality for his sled “Rosebud” the audience is aware that Kane has a longing for his childhood, and his mother.  During this scene he starts telling Susan about how he was collecting some of his mother’s belongings, and talking about his “youth,” upon that word there is a cut to Susan – who is framed in close-up with flattering lighting and a bubbly look upon her face – demonstrating the youth that Kane sees in her.   Kane becomes seemingly agitated by Susan in that same moment when she seems to not react to what he’s saying, he drops his smile, and says, “I run a couple of newspapers, what do you do,” the shot then cuts to the medium shot that had established the characters earlier.  This shows that he has a disconnect from her, and that perhaps he realizes she is sort of daft but, she begins talking about her mother and Kane once again begins to take interest.  This establishes that he is still attached to the idea of his mother, and all mothers are a conduit for his, because it was not Susan’s dream that she be a singer but her mother’s and Kane ignores that fact.   “You know how mothers are,” Susan tells Kane, and he smiles knowingly, and agrees that yes, he does, the camera has cut back to his close-up at that point, again emphasizing the importance of Kane’s mother.

The most effective framing of the entire sequence is Susan’s perfect reflection in the mirror atop her vanity.  She is, in effect, a photograph, just as those that border her vanity.  Strong light shows on her face, her winning smile, and charm as she giggles at Kane.  She must look up to him, and his close-up is shot at a low-angle to make him look larger than life.   The framing in the mirror solidifies her as a memento, the photographic imagery suggesting that this is the permanent way that Kane will see Susan for the rest of their relationship – as an idealized youthful girl.  The knowing snow globe/paper weight sits atop the vanity as well, there is no “close-up emphasizing” the snow-globe but by coupling it with a shot of Susan the film, “evokes not only her [later] departure and the sled……but the whole cluster of [Kane’s] childhood...[emphasizing that] Kane has lost everything” (Bordwell, 321).

The continued use of strong shadows echoes the rest of the film, and Kane himself is often seen dressed in strong black that often bleeds into the shadows around him.  He is presented primarily as an ominous and giant figure, even in this sequence where he is shown towering over Susan in the mirror scene.   They eventually move to be on the same level after the shadow puppets but in the dissolve to the parlor he sits creepily behind and below her.  It is evident that he has power over her even in that framing which echoes her opera performance, particularly his clapping at the end.  There is a teddy bear stealthily inserted in the second parlor shot, and Susan, seen by Kane as a vibrant child is permanently kept in that light.  The later scene, involving “the childish décor of [her] room in Xanadu reveals Kane’s attitude toward her,” filled with toys and nick knacks, and he lords over her singing lessons, and won’t let her go like a parent rather than a lover which adds to his dark presence (Bordwell, 320).

Thought its conception existing in the era of Classical Hollywood Citizen Kane creates an affair sequence with strong suggestive storytelling aided by its use of perspective to alter the story slightly while still offering the needed drama to create a strong emotional arc without upsetting the censors.  It also contributes strongly to Kane’s search for happiness and meaning by adding another statue to his collection: Susan.  By clearly establishing that what Kane loves about Susan is her youth, it adds to the drama of later scenes and makes the tragic arc of their romance even more potent, and Kane even more deplorable but tragically sympathetic.

Works Cited

Citizen Kane.  Dir. Orson Welles.  Perf. Orson Welles.  RKO Pictures, 1941.  Film.

Bordwell, David, et al.  Film Art: An Introduction. 11^th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, 2017. pp. 320-321.

Shot Breakdown – Kane Meets Susan Sequence – Citizen Kane

	Transition	Description	Length
1.	Dissolve in	Shot down at street Tracks up to shot of store front Camera moves in toward Susan framed in doorway as S enters mid-ground Camera tracks right with S Camera pans right to K Camera focuses on K S crosses frame Camera tracks in on pair Camera is static as K and S enter apartment	1 min. 23 sec.
2.	Dissolve	Camera is static Action is framed in the lit doorway all else is black Camera tracks in quickly as door shuts to total darkness S and K are now in a close-up sharing the screen Camera is static as S exits shot to focus on her reflection in the mirror	29 sec.
3.	Cut	Medium shot of S in the mirror Objects around the mirror are in the foreground	7 sec.
4.	Cut	Close-up of K	3 sec.
5.	Cut	Medium shot of S in the mirror	5 sec.
6.	Cut	Close-up of K	8 sec.
7.	Cut	Medium shot of S in the mirror	5 sec.
8.	Dissolve	Medium shot of wall as S’s body is replaced by a shadow	6 sec.
9.	Cut	Medium shot of K and S Camera tracks in as shadow puppets end Both figures fill the space	52 sec.
10.	Cut	Close-up of S	3 sec.
11.	Cut	Close-up of K	5 sec.
12.	Cut	Close-up of S	4 sec.
13.	Cut	Close-up of K	11 sec.
14.	Cut	Close-up of S	2 sec.
15.	Cut	Close-up of K	3 sec.
16.	Cut	Medium shot of K and S from before	36 sec.
17.	Cut	Close-up of K	6 sec.
18.	Cut	Close-up of S	4 sec.
19.	Cut	Close-up of K	5 sec.
20.	Cut	Close-up of S	6 sec.
21.	Cut	Close-up of K	6 sec.
22.	Dissolve	Medium shot S is sitting higher than K as he looms behind her	25 sec.
23.	Dissolve	Medium shot Same location later time as evident by the costume change, bed is now in shot, and K faces toward the camera rather than in profile	18 sec.
	Dissolve out

Sequence Analysis – Citizen Kane (Welles, 1941)

Kane Meets Susan

1.     Mise-en-scene:  Shot in a studio

a.      Chiaroscuro, just as in the rest of the film, heavy shadows.  Opening of sequence is on a stoned street.  Susan is framed in the doorway of the shop.  Faces are well lit during the opening.  Kane is dressed in all black, Susan at first also wears black but white shows prominently in her outfit, until the next cut where she remains in white entirely.  Framed in doorway once inside, from a distance, covered in blackness.  Faces obscured in shadow once camera moves in, and until Susan sits to be framed by mirror.  Lots of pictures are framed around her vanity, as she too is framed in the mirror.  The snow globe/paper-weight is clearly visible on her vanity as well.  She is framed so that she looks up at Kane, and his shots are shot at low angles which make him look bigger.  Shadows in the next scene come from a natural source – the lamp.  This shot they are framed so that they sit level to each other.  His use of the pipe makes him look even older.  In the close ups the shadows cover about half of their faces.  Bordered by heavy shadows.  In the parlor as she sings Kane sits below and behind her but looms, creating an ominous appearance.  The light is provided by the lamps, there are statues on a shelf, and a curtain that looks like it is framing a window.  The dissolve shows that not only has Kane moved positions but that they are now wearing different clothes.  A statue sits next to Kane, a Teddy bear sits in the foreground.   In the background the bed is clearly lit by the overhanging lights.  Kane blends into the shadows even more.  A clock pendulum swings over his head.  Kane applauds her, which echoes a scene later in the film.

2.      Cinematography:

a.      Camera Movement: crane shots for the opening, moving up from the ground to the framing of Susan in the shop doorway, then camera tracks in toward her and then pans to see what she was looking at.  We see Kane then the camera tracks in towards him, and then tracks in toward him and Susan before staying as they enter the house.  Crane tracks in when Kane closes door in the next scene so that the action that was framed in the foreground by the door now takes up the entire frame.  Camera mostly remains still for the rest save for a tracking shot after the shadow puppets to remove the lamp from the frame and center the camera on the two characters.

b.     B & W photography

c.      Opening shot is a longer take and has the most camera movement.

3.     Editing:

a.      Dissolves are used to show passages of time:  intro to sequence from Leland, passing of a few moments to shadow puppets, another few moments to Parlor, and then again, in Parlor for a passage of at least days or weeks before dissolving out to next sequence.

b.     Shot/Reverse Shots for dialogue, that follow the 180 rules.

c.      Dialogue and Actions that are important to editing:  Susan’s giggles segue into shadow puppets.  Key words cut to different close ups.  Kane’s words “Youth,” cut to show the youthful Susan.  “I run a couple of newspapers,” cuts back to medium shot when Kane realizes Susan isn’t reacting to his words, and Susan’s line, “you know what mothers are like,” cuts to Kane.

4.     Sound:

a.      Galloping horse is crisp and loud, there’s the sound of the splash of mud that we don’t see save for its appearance on Kane.  The sounds of Susan’s footsteps help create a sense of reality as she walks across the sidewalk.  Door slam on the line, “take your mind off of it,” is very prominent to create foreboding.  Piano is loud and helps the time transition be subtler later.  Kane’s clapping dissolves into next scene to blend in with the applaud of the crowd.

b.     The non-diegetic music begins when Kane accepts Susan’s proposal to go inside his house.  It is a melancholy song suggesting that this isn’t good.  The music stops abruptly when Kane slams the door, and then starts again when the door is reopened with a more romantic flare to it.

c.      There is a suggestive moan from Susan at the moment of transition from entering the apartment to the shot of her at her vanity, where the moan is added to the groans of the toothache, adding to the sexual undertones of the sequence which include her delivery of the line “hot water.”  Being old Hollywood explicit sexuality was not shown.

5.     Narrative Structure:

a.      Use of diegetic sound (horse galloping, and footsteps) help create a grounded reality.  Non-diegetic sound is melancholy at first and then becomes romantic as we watch Kane fall for Susan

b.     Characters played by relative unknowns, Welles was famous but not as a film actor.   Susan’s delivery of the word “hot water” is delivered suggestively, the line “take your mind of it,” is delivered in a way that is also suggestive of sexuality, which is carried home by the shot of the bed that ends the sequence.

c.      We are told from the outset that this is the story according to Kane as told through the eyes of Leland, who did not personally witness the events.  Can we trust what is shown?  Does Leland see Susan as a floozy that Kane took advantage of?  Susan is framed in the mirror like a photograph, in strong lighting, so is she just another memento for Kane.  Dialogue editing, “youth,” close-up of Susan, “mother,” close-up of Kane.  Kane is shown always in black, and Susan in white.

d.     Plot:  Kane meets Susan a girl who is young, and youthful and a little bit daft who shows him great attention, and who reminds him of his youth, and his mother.  It’s not so much love as possession, she is a snapshot of youth, that he tries to preserve as evident by her room near the end that is filled with toys and looks like a child’s.

(Spoiler) Review of Infinity War

Avengers: Infinity War Review (Spoiler Review)

The Weeping Hero Movie

            I could have started this off by deciding not to spoil any of the movie, but then I figured those of you who want to see it will see it no matter what kind of review you happen to read, and most of you won’t even bother with reviews.   That’s fair enough, reviews should only be an educated suggestion on the quality of a movie.  The artistic critic should never walk into a popcorn flick at the start of the summer season and bemoan that the quality of what their seeing is not on par with a Citizen Kane.  Even if popular entertainment is given its credit – I’m looking at you Inception – I feel there is still a general resistance for crowning it as art.   I digress though, I suppose that’s a discussion for another day.

            The Avengers was a pipe dream, an eventual nirvana for the comic/blockbuster crowd who had wet dreams that there favorite heroes might one day join forces in a circling dolly shot back to back and waiting until their cinematic flourish was through before jumping out there and saving New York City.   When the first Iron Man came out I was as impressed as anybody, but that same year we got The Dark Knight (arguably a better film, but that doesn’t mean the other is bad, at all.)  In it we got a second-hand hero who spends most of his time as a glib and dickish playboy and only truly dawning his “real” suit in the last half hour of the film.   I honest think Iron Man must look rather tame and slow compared to the action littered sequels it sprouted – and not just the Iron Man films.   I say that with love.  I am not a detractor of the superhero genre, nor do I (as this film kind of proves with its record-breaking grosses) believe in “Superhero fatigue.”  Although, I do believe eventually there will be fizzling out of the run, and more subpar films before it’s just another trend of movies, I for one am loving this ride while it lasts.

            As Infinity War opens we are left with utter devastation.   It wastes not one second and the Russo brothers have been given high-praise – justifiable – for getting right into the nitty gritty of our chief protagonist, the villain, Thanos.    I loved that throughout the interviews the Russo brothers made clear that this was going to Thanos’ film, it is his goal we are watching, his backstory that we are getting the most of, and whether we like it or not we want that finger snap to happen.   Sure, in those last agonizing minutes you think well, maybe he won’t make it, maybe the Vision will survive and his darling Wanda will save the day (a character given her due this time around) and if you’re like me you were ready to be tricked back into that wrapped up world-saved ending.  Then that turn of the wrist, and if you’re like me, you smile big because holy crap, they went there.

            Our protagonist wins.  Of course, for only one movie, but what a movie it is.   That first devastating moment of witnessing the survivors off Asgard butchered after a rip-roaring good time in Thor: Ragnarok (a movie I fear probably isn’t as funny after this movie).   My favorite moment happens here: Hulk attacking Thanos occurs and in one of the most brutally filmed fights in the MCU, it has weight, and it has consequence and you can just feel it – sadly the rest of the action doesn’t carry that same brutal weight, but in a way, I’m glad they don’t, I don’t think I could stand it (though it does reach that moment with the stabbing of Stark near the end).  That isn’t to say the rest of the action doesn’t have any narrative weight, I was all in for every scene, and it was filmed so that we could for the most part, at least 85% of the time, know what was happening at any given time, but that first scene was grounded.  And Thanos was immediately terrifying.

            But then what does this movie do.  It goes and makes us sympathize with him.  It turns a maniac into a level-headed psychopath (if that is possible).  He’s got an agenda, it makes sense, its brutal, but it makes sense in his warped mind.   Who else gets a ton of sympathy from us, Thor, for once.   He’s definitely had a story we could follow, and understand, and feel for but he’s never been the emotional glue of the MCU.  I must give credit to Chris Hemsworth who was phenomenal in this film, his speech with the verbal-sparring of Chris Pratt’s Star Lord where they compare tragedies was epically written, as most of this film, both comedic and tragic.  It is probably one of the best pieces of writing (that entire scene with Star Lord and Thor) in the entire MCU.

            My first gripe comes in.  The re-introduction with Tony Stark and Pepper Pots was sloppy by comparison with the rest.  Is that a nit-picking gripe, you bet it is, but if all I can do with a film is nit-pick you know it’s damned good.   The only other nit-pick is that there were just so many storylines.  Before I get the usual response to that, no I wasn’t lost, and yes, I still felt the emotional satisfaction in each, but like it or not this film is bloated.   It doesn’t take away from anything gargantuan it’s just the nature of the beast, and my personal preference for smaller scale (which is probably why Winter Soldier is still the best film in the MCU).  For what it does, with how much it has going on, is a miracle, and testament to the knowledge of the writers, and directors of the entire MCU that they can make such full characters that can translate so well.

            Speaking of translations, the Guardians move into the Avengers fold was one of the most satisfyingly perfect moves I’ve ever seen.  James Gunn’s version of these character was not lost in one story beat, these are his Guardians with even the satisfying awkward moment for Drax to truly bring it home.   That was my favorite part of this film, and the biggest surprise for me.   Which makes the death of Gamora that much more brutal.

            Other highlights for me are the planet Titan fight where our gang of mismatched heroes creatively and amusingly pretty much take down Thanos.   Mantis’ fall on the top of his head through a Strange portal was the icing on the cake.  It was that nice payoff that everyone got a chance to be useful in some important way.   The reaction of Quill to the news of Gamora’s death seemed a little false to me to be honest, not that he wouldn’t react, and its function was fine, and I knew where the scene was going but it seemed a little to “the plot needs this to happen” for me.  Again, a nit-pick, I loved it, I just think it could have been done a little better.

            One of the most disappointing things for me, and the writers have already said that Captain America will have a bigger part in Avengers 4.  I am looking forward to seeing the soul of MCU have his hero moment because as this phase of the MCU wraps up I feel our original avenger’s members, namely Steve Rogers and Tony Stark (the soul and heart of this universe) are ready for their dramatic end.  (I was banking on Stark biting the big one, but he must see Cap again first.)   I hope the promise of the next film as even bigger and better than this one is true, because I am ready for the MCU’s Dark Knight, because they are inching closer and closer to the iconic elevation.

A Statement About the Movies or how I rant about why movies are doing just fine in todays "superhero" world.

It has been a common thread all of my life, beginning since I can remember in the mid-90's, "movies keep getting worse," "there's no good movies anymore," "it's all Hollywood tentpole pictures," "
it's all superheroes and explosions."  All of my life this refrain that we somehow keep moving away from quality films and that somehow the past, oh that sparkly past with never a shade of gruff was always so bright.  That is not the case.  We are over-saturated, but hasn't that been a common trend as technology has advanced.  It isn't new to the twenty-first century.  It became easier for people to make movies as time went on, and thus we had an increase in the quantity of movies.  So, isn't it just a ratio thing, "adjusted for inflation," of our ease of access?

I've always hated that argument, that there just isn't anything good anymore.  I guess it just got accentuated sitting in a film class while a slew of would be filmmakers bemoaned a studio, or a streaming service for putting out a ton of crap.  As though filmmakers didn't make crap since the dawn of time.  This isn't even to mention the overall subjectivity of art in general, or film as art, or if that is its only purpose.

I suppose I should qualify my own measurement for what makes a good film.  I have one word for that, and its dirty and filthy and not exactly a concrete and concise word, in fact its probably a word that my fellow film student bemoan as the fall of the motion picture - and that is hardly to account for the odd draw of filmmaking if people think its hopelessly going to be shit.  That word is: Entertainment.

My own priority one of any film is, is it entertaining?  But that is a broad word to apply to anything.   I can be entertained just as easily by a well choreographed action sequence, as I am by a silent and stunningly meditative piece of acting.  Entertainment is broad.   That is my first goal of watching anything, its a surface appreciation of the film I am watching, and for many that is where the qualification ends.   I am also entertained by: fiery dialogue, beautiful and silent/epic/subtle/broad cinematography and/ or set design and/or special effect, etc. etc.   What I find as I watch a film is that upon second or third or fourth viewing, I gather more and more why that acting, or action was so entertaining, and I find that my initial draw for something was there because someone just put together a damn enjoyable movie.

You must confine a film in its genre.  You have to look at horror for its qualification as good amongst other horror films, such as you have to judge adventure alongside other adventure, and so on and so forth, not to mention the dangerous task of labeling films that fall through kaleidiscoped eye of mixed and mashed genres. 

Maybe I am digressing too much.  The superhero movie has been extremely prominent since the dawn of the twenty first century, particular with the onset of Sam Raimi's idealized Spider-man movies, and the hit and misses of a string of X-Men, and a Daredevil, and so on and so forth.  (yeah I know X-Men technically came first before Spider-man, but let's be honest the train didn't truly leave the station until Raimi hit us with that vibrantly colored red suit.)   Then we got Iron Man, and an interconnected universe and what started out as one Marvel movie a year, ballooned into two, and then to three, and so on and so on.  Its not like that was it, or that there was no innovation in the superhero genre.

One of the most influential movies of the twenty-first century was a superhero film: The Dark Knight.   We got a Batman movie, again, after Tim Burton gave us one amazingly dark piece in 1989, and then a twistedly dark piece a couple years later, and then lost the trust of the people, and tossed Batman into a gutter of misguided nonsense.   Christopher Nolan gave us a superhero/big budget extravaganza with an Oscar caliber performance and breathtaking visuals that seemingly appeared practical.   And, as if to spoil us he made another big budget money-making extravaganza just a couple years later, Inception, and I don't understand how anyone can say that you can't make a great film and still appeal to the  masses. 

I believe James Gunn mentioned it on a tweet aimed at Jodie Foster who cried fowl because she didn't want to have to make a superhero movie, and Gunn pondered, and I'm paraphrasing here:  why don't we transform this money-making beast and explore it, and make it better, and be artists and tamper with the formula, because it appeared for the most part Marvel Studios was letting its directors do that, save for a falling out with  say Joss Whedon and Edgar Wright.  This may be a digression but I studied Jaws in film class because its a classic, and it wasn't just because it was a monster shark movie that thrilled the hell out of people, its because Spielberg and company figured out a way to make a damn effective film, and explored their medium, and delivered something spectacularly beautiful.  It had blood, it had chills, but it had amazing cinematography and an iconic score and great performances.

There have always been shit movies.   We just remember the greats because they lasted the test of time.  They did something new, or had great performances or great dialogue, or spoke to a generation.   That still happens today.  "But there's no originality anymore," people will say, and I'm like (even if in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter,) "A movie just won best picture that features a woman having sex with a fish-man." 

I for one embrace all films.  The ones that are made well in their particular modes.   Superhero films can push technology, they can push what is possible to be seen on screen, and they can also recycle the same old crap over and over again.  But most of the time, they are just plain fun, why is that a crime, even if you are a movie snob, like I probably consider myself, I can still watch movies with child like wonder, I wish more people could still do that.

Innovation and chance taking is not dead to the "Hollywood system," filmmakers still take chances, the best film of 2017, to me, was Blade Runner 2049, and it was a big bloated sci-fi masterstroke, that cost two arms and two legs, and didn't regain enough of its box-office back.  It failed in a way but it was still a chance in the system, even if it was a "sequel."  There was an example of a film that could have cashed in on audience nostalgia but that was made by filmmakers who loved the original and who wanted to truly expand upon it, it was a gamble.    Then, we move to that tried and true, and the starter of the blockbuster wildfire, Star Wars.   Disney (love it or hate it) let Rian Johnson (love him or hate him) take a billion dollar franchise and screw with the audience by giving us a challenge to our expectation of a sequel, and in my opinion that paid off, we got a deeper story, plot holes and all, but something different within the system, and I don't know, that gives me hope for the future.

Fret not you haters of box-office returns, there are plenty of films to love since the dawn of film until now that never got the recognition they deserved, and that didn't have mass appeal.  They still get made, so shut up, and watch them, and stop worrying about what the general audiences are watching because as far as I'm concerned with the exceptions here and there a lot of the big movies are moving to taking chances and I think that's cool.