Understanding documentary film can be complicated. It is an understudied form of film that has large differences than its sister product – fiction films, or movies. In this digital essay, I use Nichols book, Intro to Documentary, specifically chapters four, five, and six to analyze documentaries and explain common documentary themes brought up by Nichols in his book.

In chapter four, Nichols brings up the triangle of communication, which is the intertwining stories of the filmmaker, the audience, and the film (Nichols, 2010, p. 94). First is the filmmaker’s story, which is “how the filmmaker might understand and explain his or her intentions or motives, and how these considerations relate to the general social context” (Nichols, 2010, p. 95). This is different than the film’s story, which is a combination of what the filmmaker sets out to tell the audience and the way the audience perceives the message. Finally, there is the audience’s story, which is the pre-conceived notions we bring in to a film before watching it. Each plays an important part in how a film is created and received. We can use 13th as an example. The filmmaker’s story in 13th is to expose a crooked criminal justice system. The audience’s story could range anywhere from someone who has been convicted and avoided trial court to someone who believes strongly that the jail system is just. Both of these viewpoints would influence the film’s story, which would be a mix of the film maker’s viewpoint as well as the viewer’s. In this sense, the audience’s story is almost as important as the filmmaker’s story, since the way the audience receives the film determines how effective the filmmaker’s message is.

Most documentaries are made to persuade the audience. This makes understanding what makes a documentary so persuasive an important topic to discuss. Nichols mentions three main categories of persuasion: Narrative and Poetics, Logic, and Rhetoric (Nichols, 2010, p. 103-104). Narrative and Poetic persuasion is used in terms of creating a mood or evoking emotions. Logical persuasion is a collection of rational facts and thoughtful ideas. Rhetoric persuasion is mainly for winning the argument the documentary brings up. We can visualize these persuasion methods through the film Stranger With a Camera. In the film, we see Narrative and Poetic persuasion in the way we are presented the profiles of the people in the film. We can sympathize with both sides, since they are humanized. This is the Narrative and Poetic persuasion in the film. Logical persuasion in the film is shown in the court readings and interviews about the official events. These present the facts of the case: the frustration of the locals from being categorized as poor and helpless as well as the intrusion of the filmmakers. The rhetoric persuasion is harder to spot, but Elizabeth Barret still puts it in the film. Rather than constructing arguments for one side, she builds arguments for the actions of both sides. This is partially shown in the Narrative and Poetic persuasion of the film, but deeper than just making an emotional connection, Barret makes justifications for both sides. This allows for Rhetorical persuasion without choosing one side over the over; she allows the viewer to align with either side of the argument.

Documentary filmmaking’s origins are an important topic to discuss. Originally, documentaries were created to capture realism. The three types of realism Nichols discusses are physical or empirical, psychological, and emotional. Physical realism is what you would expect: it captures what is physically in front of the camera. Psychological realism, on the other hand, captures the “inner state of characters…in plausible and convincing ways” (Nichols, 2010, p. 134). Emotional realism references the emotions stirred in the viewers rather than the people captured in the documentary. Early forms of documentary film mostly focused on capturing physical realism. This is shown in The River which was released in 1927. This film discusses the physical changes to the ecosystem and man’s role in causing it. The shots used in the film all focus on the physical changes happening to the forest. This is an example of physical realism Nichols mentions.

Chapter six of Nichols’ book delves into the different models used to differentiate films from each other. This chapter sheds an interesting light on documentary film, since documentary is a category that devolves into several subcategories. One such subcategory lies between fiction films, or movies, and non-fiction films, which are documentaries. Some of these categories in-between those include mockumentaries, which are fiction films made to look like documentaries, and docudramas, which are feature film that “draw much of their plot structure and character depiction from actual events” (Nichols, 210, p. 145). An example of a mockumentary is the show The Office in which the fictional world is filmed and recorded through interviews and observational footage, thus inclining the viewers to believe it is a documentary. Shows like this and Parks and Recreation can create compelling, realistic stories and shots, but since they are fictional, they fall just outside of the documentary film category.

Nichols also mentions the six modes for classifying documentaries in chapter six, which include differentiating them from their non-fiction counterparts. Using Nichols modes, we can break down where a film such as Life Animated fits in these categories. With the expository mode, while we do not get a Voice-of-God narrator, we still have the interview footage overlaid on other visuals such as animation or old photos. In this way, the film speaks to the viewer and would be classified as expository. With the poetic mode, the film stresses patterns and visuals, such as the recurring theme with Owen’s necklace or the “protector of sidekicks” story line. These stories help form the film, making it poetic. With the participatory mode, it would be hard to argue that Owen’s family does not participate in this film, since their interviews are what drive the film. In regards to the performative, observational, and reflexive, it would be hard to argue that Life Animated fits any of these boxes. It is not observational because the filmmakers directly interact with Owen, yet it is not performative because the interaction is not emphasized. It also would not fall under reflexive, since the filmmakers make no attempt to reflect on the act of film making.

Trying to figure out documentaries can be complicated. Movies have been the dominant form of study for film analysis, but documentaries are an important . Nichols book is an interesting tool used to analyze documentaries from categories to persuasive means.

An often underrepresented form of film, documentary film is one of the most prominent forms of storytelling. Its focus on capturing life unscripted captivates the audience. But what is a documentary? How is it created? In this essay, I will argue the five divisions of a films voice brought up in chapter three of Intro to Documentary by Bill Nichols are vital to the creation of a film.

Before we begin discussing how documentary film is created, we must discuss what documentary film is. Nichols describes documentary as having three assumptions; it must be about reality, real people, and tell real stories (Nichols, 2010, p. 33). These assumptions  are intrinsic to what makes a documentary, and therefore, should be considered carefully. The first assumption is that documentaries are about reality. For most people, this seems pretty obvious, but this still needs to be stated. If this were not the case, recreations of historical events would be considered documentaries, since they are about real people and real events. Obviously, these are not documentaries, since the events filmed are staged. The second assumption is that documentaries are about real people. This goes hand in hand with the first assumption, since it would be hard to tell a story about reality while still using fake people. The third assumption is that documentaries tell real stories. This is important because an event in reality involving real people can be scripted and not capture real human essence. This element also brings validity to documentaries; we are inclined to believe their message because they film is about “real life” rather than a scripted story.

The first division Nichols mentions is invention. Nichols states that invention “refers to the discovery of evidence or ‘proofs’ in support of a position or argument” (Nichols, 2010, p. 78). What does he mean by this? Invention is the collection of evidence in a documentary. This could be interviews, areas relevant to the story, or anything that proves the point that the director is trying to make. This is similar to a newscast, in that the director must prove their argument. This division has to be strong for documentary to succeed, since contradictory views will rise no matter what side the director airs their opinion on. If the evidence isn’t strong, then the film won’t be either.

The second division Nichols discusses is arrangement, which he describes as “organizing the parts of a rhetorical speech or, in this case, film, to maximize effect” (Nichols, 2010, p. 85). Nichols mentions a speech, and this is important because crafting a speech and a documentary both require planning and structure. A director needs an order for his evidence as much as a speaker. Many documentary film makers use a chronological-like style to tell their story: We begin with a teaser about the issue at large, then the events are retold up to the large event covered. This is done in the same way movies use a narrative structure, in which they craft action up to the climax. An example of this would be the 1970 documentary Gimme Shelter. This film follows the exact structure laid out above by giving the viewer a glimpse of the end, then building up the events that lead to this. Arrangement is important because even strong evidence can be overshadowed by poor arrangement.

The third division is style. Nichols describes this division as what “facilitates the documentary voice” (Nichols, 2010, p. 89). This mostly discusses the actual creation of the film, containing techniques such as camera angles or editing. The way the director chooses to use these tools helps tell the story. One example of these choices would be the 2016 memoir Cameraperson. In the film, Kirsten Joyner explores different camera angles of a Muslim cemetery. Joyner also shows these stylistic choices when she keeps the anonymity of the young mother who had a unplanned pregnancy. These choices are exactly what Nichols means when he mentions style.

The fourth division brought up by Nichols is memory. Since documentaries are about real people, oftentimes, these films can serve as a way to remember events. They can shape and even distort our perception of the event if the director isn’t careful. Nichols describes memory as serving two functions: “film itself provides a tangible ‘memory theater’ of its own…Second, memory enters into the various ways by which viewers draw on what they have already seen to interpret what they presently see” (Nichols, 2010, p. 91). In the first function, this “memory theater” brings to life the past and eases the struggle for people to remember how things happened. In its second function, memory creates reflection and contemplation on issues, and it can help us compare what happened in the past to what is happening now. In both of these ways, memory serves as a vital part of the documentary process.

The fifth division is delivery, which is the act of showing the documentary. If there is no delivery, then the work will not make it to an audience, and all the work will be in vain. Although Nichols describes delivery in terms of a speech, he notes that there are “ways of ‘saying things’ without reliance on words” (Nichols, 2010, p. 92). This applies directly to documentary and agrees a lot with style. One of the most important parts of style is camera angles, which is a way to say things without relying on words, as Nichols stated before. Other ways would be editing cuts, body language, or pauses in dialogue for example. Understanding how to say things without using words is a key part to the delivery of a film, and the delivery of the film is a vital part to any way of measuring success on the film.

Nichols’ five divisions in reference to a film’s voice all are vitally important to the film. Invention lays the footing, arrangement begins to stand, style creates a film’s dialect (to keep with the voice metaphor), memory servers as the remembrance it brings, and delivery is everything put together in one cohesive unit. Each division has a crucial role, and missing any would take away from the power of a film altogether.

What is a narrative? Barsam and Monahan describe narrative as “a cinematic structure in which the filmmakers have selected and arranged events in a cause-and-effect sequence occurring over time.” In layman’s terms, the narrative is the story we see on camera, including all the events that cause it. The narrative not only drives storylines; it is the story. Therefore, it is essential to understand the narrative to understand a film. This digital essay will look at Once Were Warriors and analyze the narrative, specifically, the protagonist and antagonist of the film, and how they drive the narrative.

Once Were Warriors is a film directed by Lee Tamahori in 1994 that follows an urban Maori family who struggle with alcoholism and domestic violence. The movie focuses on the Heke family, consisting of Jake the father, Beth the mother, and their children – Nig, Boogie, Grace, Polly, and Huata. Throughout the movie, we watch as the family fights through obstacles, mainly Jake’s violent tendencies and alcoholism, to try to find happiness. In the end, the family leaves Jake behind to reclaim their true Maori lifestyle.

Most movies begin in a state of equilibrium, in which the world is normal. Usually, these worlds start before the conflict that drives the film. In Once Were Warriors, the world is already thrown out of whack. Even though the first scene begins with the family as a unit, the story really begins with Beth leaving her family to live with Jack, the man she loves. Normally, a girl running away to be with the man she loves is how directors end films, but this movie begins with it and shows that Beth has made a mistake. Her world is already in disequilibrium. The rest of the movie is devoted to getting her world, as well as her children’s world, back into a state of peace.

In many movies, viewers are able to align themselves with a single person as the protagonist. In Once Were Warriors, however, there is not one person who plays the protagonist; instead, the protagonist is the entire family. We follow each family member’s development as a group rather than one person’s inward transformation. Although each family member grows as a person, the changes are more important in the context of the family dynamic than their change as a person.

For example, look at Nig Heke, the eldest son of the Heke family. His biggest character change is joining a gang to leave his family life. We are shown his external changes, such as getting face tattoos, as a representation of him changing. We see him trying to separate himself from his family because their alcoholism and blatant hate towards each other infuriate him. In the first party scene, he asks his mom for money. After she drunkenly hits him, he leaves for good. His ties with his family feel severed. We even see him originally refuse to go with his family to visit Boogie in the boy’s home.

He comes back to the family after Grace’s death as a new person. He has found an identity in being a member of this gang, but this identity only matters in terms of the family dynamic. Instead of being frustrated with his mother and feeling powerless to change the situation, he can stand up to his father and protect Beth during the final bar scene. Although Nig changed as an individual, his most important change comes in the family dynamic.

For any protagonist to succeed, they must first defeat an antagonist. So who or what is the antagonist of this film? Although Jake is a part of the protagonist, which is the family, he also plays the role of the main antagonist. Although there are other forces pushing against the family, such as poverty or trouble with the law, his alcoholism and abuse hit the hardest. At the end of the party scene, we not only see Jake brutally beating Beth, but we are shown the kids curled together, with the youngest ones crying. Jake is physically abusive due to his anger problems, which he openly admits to having, which in turn causes emotional abuse towards his children.

Apart from the physical abuse, Jake’s emotional neglect and abuse is most likely why both Nig, Boogie, and Grace all openly express wanting to leave their home. We see Jake constantly ignoring the thought and feelings of his children, to the point where he seems to not care about them at all. One example of this is when Jack yells at Grace and Beth for waking him up. Obviously, he is showing no remorse for either his child or his wife, and by yelling at Grace, he is only pushing her farther away. We also see his emotional neglect in the scene where she refuses to kiss Bully. In this scene, since she refused to do something for one of Jake’s friends, she was screamed at and then physically assaulted, which ended up pushing her to suicide.

In both aspects, Jake is the antagonist. So how can he be the antagonist and a part of the protagonist? It is because he is the only one to not have an inward change in the family. In the movie, we watch Nig, Boogie, Grace, and Beth all go through some sort of change. Nig joins a gang and learns how to stand up for himself, Boogie goes to a boy’s home and realizes his Maori heritage, and Beth becomes empowered by the loss of Grace to leave Jake. Jake, however, refuses to change, and we see this in the final scene of the movie. His anger and alcoholism are on full display, and they are implied to be his downfall, as we hear police sirens coming to presumably arrest Jake. While the other members of the family are fighting an outward force to achieve an inward journey, Jake is fighting himself, and he doesn’t win.

Once Were Warriors builds a story that makes it easy to empathize with the characters. The struggle for the family is against Jake’s alcoholism and anger, and everyone escapes it except for Jake. The complicated protagonist/antagonist dynamic, as well as the compelling character development makes this movie a must-see for any film junkie.

All photos were taken by Mason Smith

Who is the most important character in a film? Is it the daring protagonist? The evil villain the hero must conquer? The people that set the two against each other? While those are all important, one character is even more important: the camera. The camera tells the viewer the entire story, minus a few details told through audio. Sometimes, the camera tells us more than what is on the screen. In that, the editor becomes important as well, since they are the camera’s voice, displaying the most important parts of what the camera captured. In this essay, I will analyze what the camera and the editing tell us in the opening scene of Apocalypse Now by performing a deep reading of the scene.

Apocalypse Now opens very slowly. We don’t get to an image until we are 13 seconds in, and we don’t have any real action till 76 seconds in. The scene opens up with a slow fade onto a tree line, which we sit on for 13 seconds. The faint sound of helicopters can be heard as the tree line fades into view. We sit on this shot another 13 seconds until a helicopter, accompanied by the sound of the rotary blades, flashes by our screen. As the helicopter flies by, it brings with it a non-diegetic song: The End by The Doors. A yellow dust trail sneaks up from the bottom of the screen, almost acting like a precursor to the fire that will soon engulf the tree line. Until the 1:15 mark, we only have a windy jungle, some rising dust, and the faint sound of a helicopter. The camera doesn’t track the helicopters or  look at the sky or anything else. Why? Because something important is about to happen, and the camera tells us that by focusing on it a full 75 seconds without any action.

The End continues to build, and we receive the first line of the song right as a napalm strike engulfs the tree line. This is the end beautiful friend plays as we receive our first camera movement. The camera pans to the right, following the tree line, showing the viewers a mound of smoke and fire when that smoke clears. At the 1:45 mark, we see Captain Benjamin Willard’s face fade into the shot, but it does not obstruct the trees burning in the original shot.

This shows that, instead of the napalm bombing being a current scene, it is a memory in his head that he is replaying. A fan blade also faded into the shot, but, similarly to Captain Willard’s face, it stays transparent. This is a form of glance-object-glance, as it appears Willard is laying down and staring at the ceiling fan. This also reinforces the previous notion that the napalm strike is a memory.

As the ceiling fan fades out, we see Willard take a drag from his cigarette while the view of the napalm blast changes. We are now much closer; instead of seeing the strike from an establishing shot, we are in the middle of it.

The camera pans left as a totem pole appears on the far right side. The viewer won’t know that the totem pole is from Colonel William Kurtz’s palace till the end of the movie, so, in this way, the editing is priming us for the future. Willard is placed on the opposite side of the screen from the totem pole to show the two will be at odds.

Both fade out, first the totem pole, then Willard as two helicopters cross, once again accompanied by the rotary blades; however, the sound of the blades stay, even once the helicopters leave. In their place, the fan returns, symbolizing how everything reminds Willard of the war. Willard comes back on screen, much less transparent this time, and the camera uses a tracking shot to swing around him. The camera then cuts to a tracking shot going across some of Willard’s letters and a picture of his wife. The camera moves across Willard while the opening establishing shot bleeds into the picture and continues to track right, finding both Willard’s alcohol, cigarettes and gun. The fan and helicopter rotary noises come back, but this time, with no shot of the helicopter, reinforcing the idea that Willard’s mind is attributing real life things to memory noises. Everything fades to black except a still shot of Willard, unconscious. After a brief pause, he wakes up.

The camera turns to a Point-Of-View (POV) shot, from Willard’s eyes, looking up at the fan blades. We follow his eyes as he gazes down to view his entire apartment. The camera cuts back to Willard, then back to the POV shot. From Willard’s view, we stand up, walk to the blinds, and pull them up, viewing a regular day in Saigon. The camera cuts to a close up of Willard, in which we hear him as the narrator say “Saigon. Shit. I’m still only in Saigon.”

The shot cuts to Willard sitting down, staring up seemingly at the fan again. As he narrates overhead, we cut again to Willard lying down in his bed. Suddenly, he snaps awake and grabs at nothing, however, we presume he is grabbing at a mosquito from his time in the jungle. He is out of focus in this shot, however, the bedside table next to him is in focus.

The viewer notice the difference in focus immediately once Willard grabs his wife’s picture. This is the camera telling us that the things on the table are now Willard; his personality and life has been replaced with reminiscing over old letters and getting drunk, both of which are displayed on his bedside table. The old letters remind him of being in Vietnam and Cambodia, which he reaffirms as the narrator, saying “When I was there, all I could think of was getting back into the jungle.” The camera cuts again to a close up of Willard sitting up, absorbed in his own thoughts, as the fan fades in slightly, but never enough to be prominent.

Another cut reveals a high angle shot of Willard crouching as the narration discusses becoming weak. A medium shot of him practicing martial arts fades in, followed by a fade in, low angle shot of Willard looking at the floor, lost in thought.

As he thinks, the viewer is shown a clip of the ending, with Willard’s face painted right before he kills Kurtz. We then get a fade in of his eye surrounded by black, only illuminated by the napalm. This quickly fades out and back into him practicing martial arts again, but this time, from a straight-on viewpoint. He moves as if he is about to pass out, then the scene cuts to a shot from the same angle only Willard is much closer to the camera now. He stares directly at the viewer as he holds out his fist. The camera follows him up from his crouching position before cutting to him farther back in his original position, where he punches his mirror.

The rest of the scene is a combination of quick cuts where Willard rolls over his bed, looks at his newly cut hand, drowns his pain in alcohol, and leans back against his bed sobbing. From here, the camera fades to black.

The opening scene in Apocalypse Now sets up the entire theme of the movie. Without it, we wouldn’t know how broken Willard is, the fact that he’s located in Saigon, or the fact that he can’t get the jungle out of his head. In this scene, the camera uses many tricks, such as pans, tracking shots, and still shots. Combined with the fades, long cuts, and transposition of images into the scene, the camera and the editor work together to build a beautiful scene.

Mise-en-scene is a french concept that means, according to Dartmouth “the staging of events for the camera.” This includes everything from the setting to character placement and clothing choices. In this digital essay, I will be analyzing the mise-en-scene of two movies: Hero, a 2002 Chinesse Martial Arts film directed by Zhang Yimou, a member of China’s Fifth Generation of filmmakers, and Moulin Rouge!, a 2001 musical that was nominated for eight Oscars, and took home two. These movies both show a strong sense of mise-en-scene, displaying important scenery, clothing, choreography and world realism choices.

We see the importance of mise-en-scene immediately through symbolism in the world.  In Hero, we see Snow and Broken Sword standing on top of mountains, symbolizing the chasm between each of their goals. Snow is looking to kill the emperor as revenge, while Broken Sword wants to spare the emperor in the name of peace. By putting the warriors on top of the mountain, we can visualize the emotional distance. The mise-en-scene in this scene gives us extra reinforcement into the scene at hand.

We also see the mise-en-scene clue us into emotions in Moulin Rouge by showing different scenery for Satine and Christian’s relationship, as opposed to Satine and The Duke’s relationship. When Satine and Christian first get to know each other, they are surrounded by walls with heart-shaped doors and red tapestry, to symbolize love. The environment is warm and inviting. However, when The Duke tries to meet with Satine, he invites her to his tower: a black, solemn, empty room that shows the lack of their emotional connection. The mise-en-scene in these scenes show the lack of real emotional connection between the different lovers and Satine.

Another important aspect in mise-en-scene is the color; namely, the color in character’s clothing. In Hero, during a flashback, we see Snow and Broken Sword clothed in green; however, they are not wearing the same green. While Snow wears a lighter green, Broken Sword dons a darker green. This symbolizes that, although they appear to be on the same side, their hearts are in two separate areas, as Broken Sword does not kill the emperor, while Snow wants to.

 

Clothing is also important in Moulin Rouge, as it reflects character change. In the final show scene, Satine sports black clothing for a majority of the performance. She only changes to white in the scene that features Christian in the play, rather than the Unconscious Argentinean. This symbolizes the inner change we see displayed later in the production. Before, Satine had lied to Christian, saying she didn’t love him and loved The Duke instead. While she was in the middle of the lie, she wore black. She is put in a white dress to proclaim her love for Christian to symbolize a cleansing of heart. In this way, the mise-en-scene shows a physical representation of an inward change.

It is important to notice the world of a film because, although it may seem standard, there may be crazy exceptions to some normal rules. In Hero, we see this in the way gravity works. One example is the water fight scene between Broken Sword and Nameless. In this scene, both Nameless and Broken sword are able to propel themselves off the water by merely tapping the surface of the lake. The warriors can also hold themselves for incredible amounts of time as if gravity does not affect them. This shows that the world in the Emperor’s flashback does not follow the rules of a standard ruler, making him an unreliable narrator if the world is the same as ours.

 

The choreography of both films cannot be overlooked in the mise-en-scene, as it directs where the actors exist, which reveals a lot of what the movie wants to tell us. In Moulin Rouge, one scene that sticks in my mind is the “Like a Virgin” scene between The Duke and Harold Zidler. In this scene, multiple servants move gracefully around our two stars as Zidler tries to convince the Duke to wait for Satine. The amount of work that goes into coordinating two people is already impressive, so the addition of the servants makes it even more impressive.

 

The choreography is incredible as well, with multiple battles requiring tactical precision. The most notable battle is between Sky, one of the wanted assassins, and four guards. All four guards are swinging swords and jumping, while Sky is spinning his staff to hit every swing towards him. Choreography like this is hard to conceive, let alone execute. The amount of work that went into these dances shows why Zhang Yimou is one of China’s best.

 

Mise-en-scene is imperative to understanding what a movie is trying to say. In both Hero and Moulin Rouge, different aspects of setting, clothing, choreography, and realism in their respective worlds gave us hints into understanding characters. These details are not left up to chance, they are placed intentionally as visual cues and insights into the movie. These are the things that make a film great.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a German film from 1920 in which Francis, our protagonist, goes insane trying to solve a murder mystery involving Caligari and his Somnambulist – or sleepwalker – named Cesare. Film critic Roger Ebert described it as “the first true horror film” and as “the first example in cinema of German Expressionism” – a style where mise-en-scene is often exaggerated in unusual ways. We see this in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari with all of the world being construed in different angles and directions. In this essay, I will discuss German Expressionism and the way it is portrayed in the movie, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, 

This movie, in Barsam and Monaham view, is the epitome of German Expressionism, which they describe as something that “presents the physical world on the screen as a projection.” Expressionism films tell the story as a distorted landscape from the protagonist’s point of view, which is what we see in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. The world’s angles jut out in sharp edges and nothing is quite right. This represents the set telling us that what we are seeing is distorted.

The film follows the ideas of the 1920s by primarily filming from a tableaux angle, often taking time to establish a place within that shot. There are a few angles in which the viewer receives a close up, and even one panning shot across police officer’s faces while they accused the wrong murderer; however, the most important and most common shots are tableaux. These shots serve an extra interest in German Expressionism, since the world is as important as the protagonist. In The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, seeing the world as distorted is a critical plot point.

In the movie, the world seems mostly normal until Frances’ friend, Alan, dies. After that, the only place that seems normal is the insane asylum. Until now, the world was dramatically tilted; however, in the lobby, everything stands straight. The doorways are open and perpendicular to each other. This is a direct contrast to the world before, as everything from doors to walls stand any way except normally. This indicates that, even though we still see through Frances’ eyes, we are now witnessing the world as it really is. Since Francis sees this room as normal, the film is telling us that he has been here multiple times, most likely before he went insane.

Another way the story conveys meaning is through the tinting of the film. Throughout the film, we become used to an orange tint representing light or day time, while a blue tint represents darkness or night time. There is another tint used in the movie though. A pink tint is used twice, but only around Jane and in her room. The pink tint could represent femininity in the film, since it is shown around Jane, the only woman who plays a significant role in the film. This could be to reinforce her femininity, since she is the only female worth noting in the movie.

German Expressionism also affects the way we see the actors. Characters can easily be identified as good or bad by their facial make-up. When an attempted murdered is arrested, we can tell he is evil by the deep lines in his face and the over dramatization of his features. He has creases that run through his face and tell us about his character, even more than his scowl. We also see this portrayal from Dr. Caligari, as his make up accentuates his features to make him hideous. He has dark eyeliner underneath his eyes, making his eyes seem angrier.

This make up also helps realize that, in the end, Dr. Caligari doesn’t exist and Francis has demonized the director of the mad house, possibly for being the one keeping him there. In the end, he does not have the same make up he wore before; instead, his face is clean and he looks like a regular citizen.

The faces of characters do more than just hold make up; in the film, to make up for the lack of sound, characters over exaggerate emotions. One example is when Jane first encounters Cesare. Instead of screaming in fear and running away, we receive a 17 second pause where her body stiffens, her face drains of color, and her eyes bulge out at the horrific monster in front of her. She is compensating for the lack of sound by accentuating her body language to drive the point home: she is terrified.

We also see this reaction when Frances learns that Alan has died. Francis stares speechless, then slowly stumbles towards the bed that holds his dead friend. He slowly turns to the camera in a moment he can’t believe is real. This overacting makes up for the lack of sound in the movie, helping us feel the emotions that need to be conveyed. This is especially important in The Cabinet of Dr. Caliagri, since the whole world is altered to project Francis’ point of view, and, if we don’t understand his emotions in this scene, it will be harder to understand why the world is so off.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is a magnificent example of German Expressionism, warping the world to show how our protagonist has gone insane through distinct world views, heavy character make up, and over dramatic acting. As the prime example of German Expressionism, Dr. Caligari’s story should rank near the top of most movie watcher’s lists.

Citizen Kane is a movie from the Hollywood golden age, premiering in 1941. Its plot revolves around one word: Rosebud, the mystery of a dead millionaire. The movie has been regarded as one of, if not the best, films produced. A large part of this is the way the camera narrates the movie. The camera work of this movie is incredible. From capturing the power dynamics between characters to the creation of deep focus, Citizen Kane delivers on all levels. In this blog, I will be discussing how the camera work makes the movie brilliant.

From the very start, the film opens up with a dramatic setting. The establishing shot shows us Xanadu, Kane’s own castle. In the distance, you can see a small light coming from a window in the castle. The following shots all dissolve to closer shots, yet they all show this single light. By focusing on the light, the camera sets up intrigue. Each camera movement is a footstep towards solving its mystery. But once the viewers are on the doorstep of unraveling the mystery, the light is blown out. As soon as we think the mystery is solved, another light emerges, resulting in a match cut, moving us inside

the castle. This sets up the expectation of mystery for the rest of the movie, and the camera tells us this with the dramatic opening.

Another instance of the camera telling us information is when Charles Kane’s mother signs him away to Mr. Thatcher. In this scene, the camera does an impressive tracking shot, which starts by focusing on Charles Kane playing outside in the snow, but gracefully pulls back to follow Mrs. Kane as she walks across her house, accompanied by Mr. Thatcher and Mr. Kane, to sign the documents. In this shot, the people are arranged very precisely; Mrs. Kane closest to the camera,

Mr. Thatcher the next closest, and Mr. Kane farther in the back. This reflects the current power dynamic. Mrs. Kane has all the control over her son, so she is closest to the camera, making her larger. Mr. Thatcher is being given power by Mrs. Kane signing her son over to him; therefore, he has some amount of power. Mr. Kane in this shot, has no power, which is also displayed by his desperate plea to keep his son in Colorado. The camera tells us this by positioning itself in a way that highlights the characters in terms of their power.

 

The camera also tells us about power dynamics through their choice of shot angles. A low shot typically represents power, as we are looking up at the character. A high shot, on the other hand, indicates a powerless state, because the viewers are looking down at the character. We see this used in Citizen Kane during the divorce scene between Charles and his wife, Susan. In this scene, we see a high shot directed at Susan’s face, indicating that when Charles walks over to her, she is in a state of powerlessness. We see this reinforced by Charles slapping her. The camera angle gives us an insight into the power dynamic between the two. We see this also in the movie Juno, when Juno runs into Vanessa in the mall. When Vanessa crouches down to talk to the baby, we are treated to mostly eye level shots. However, towards the end, we get a high shot of Vanessa followed by a low shot of Juno to remind us that, although Vanessa has money, Juno is in control since she has the baby. Through the angle, the camera is subtly reminding us of the power dynamics that lie hidden and would be harder to pick up if a different angle was chosen.

The use of deep focus in this film is absolutely astounding for a film released in 1941. Greg Toland, who designed the idea for a lens that could create deep focus, unveiled his

product with Citizen Kane, allowing everything in the frame to be in focus. A wonderful example of this is the scene I just mentioned, where Mrs. Kane signs away Charles Kane to Mr. Thatcher. In this scene, both Charlie Kane and Mrs. Kane are in focus, even though they exist in two separate plains, with Mrs. Kane being much closer to the camera, and Charles existing outside the window. Another great example of the deep focus is when Charles Kane finishes the bad review for Jed Leland. In this scene, we see Jed start in the back of the room and walk forward to where Charles is working without he or Charles ever being out of frame. Bernstein even stays in the doorway in the back and still remains in focus. The ability to have this depth of focus put Citizen Kane above other movies of its time.

Citizen Kane still stands out as one of the most brilliant films today for its camera work. Everything from tracking shots to actor placement to deep focus feels intentional, like there is more to read into with every scene. Because of the barriers it broke, such as the ability for deep focus, I believe it will be known as one of the most brilliant films in cinema history for a long time.