The use of perspective and ‘deep focus’ in Citizen Kane
Created | Updated Sep 3, 2009
The use of perspective and ‘deep focus’ in Citizen Kane
François Truffaut has said “everything that matters in cinema since 1940 has been influenced by Citizen Kane” . This film, the masterpiece of Orson Welles’ is often considered to be the greatest American film ever made. It has been praised for both its artistic and technical qualities which have often been regarded as being highly innovative and original. Such innovations are, for example, the specially constructed ceilings which hide the microphones and other normally visible equipment, so that the actors can be shot from a lower perspective. Even with such cinematic achievements, at the time of its release in 1941, it was one of the most criticized films done, even to the extent of catching interest of the FBI and fuelling investigations.
It was the collaboration of Herman J. Mankiewicz , Orson Welles and Gregg Toland that resulted in such inventive and experimental cinematic and narrative techniques. Moreover, cinematographer Toland’s breathtaking use of ‘deep focus’ allowed actors and objects to be in focus both in the foreground and background at the same time. Andre Bazin argues, that the “depth of focus reintroduced ambiguity into the structure of the image” by transferring “to the screen the continuum of reality”, in regard to both time and space . These innovations, with the help of effective shadows, gave Welles and Toland the possibility to construct very special arrangements of people and objects within the frame. To understand how, and to what effect, Citizen Kane uses these arrangements, it is necessary to examine some of the film’s scenes in more depth.
The story of the film follows the life of Charles Foster Kane, a newspaper mogul, and his rags-to-riches life but interestingly enough, backwards and through various perspectives and points of view, as when we enter the film, Kane has died and his story is being examined through others. Citizen Kane and C. F. Kane have openly been linked, even claimed to have caricaturized, the life of William Randolph Hearst , a newspaper mogul though with notable differences, one of such being that whereas Hearst had been born rich, Kane had followed the American Dream and made all his richness himself. These previously mentioned various points of view are somewhat unreliable, as the story unfolds after the death of the protagonist through others’ recollections and flashbacks that seem to more confuse the viewer rather than clarifying aspects of Kane’s life.
Two central themes in the film are portrayed with the use of perspective and ‘deep focus’: the power and authority of Charles Foster Kane, and the distance – literally and symbolically – between characters. There are many similarities between different scenes as well as numerous scenes with a medium shot from a low perspective. Most often it is Kane himself who is in the frame, standing like a giant whose head is almost touching the ceiling. Another similarity in many scenes is the use of ‘deep focus’; actors are put into two or even three different depths. Usually the closest actor to the camera is either on the left or right hand side of the frame. The person furthest away – usually Kane – is placed in the middle of the frame. These specific arrangements, as can be noticed from many scenes, have, in many cases, a significant meaning. The scene in which Kane – who has just failed to become the governor – encounters his only real friend, is fully shot from a low camera angle. This special viewpoint is used because it gives the scene “an exaggerated sense of perspective that allows the figure nearer the camera to appear unnaturally large and the distant figure unnaturally small”. To shoot a character from a low camera angle also gives him a sense of power and control. Of course, this is what Kane wants. There is a powerful continuous shot (a shot without cuts) which tells a lot about the character of Kane and the relationship between him and Leland. The shot begins with Charles so close to the camera that only a small part of his leg can be seen on the right hand side of the frame. This shadowy and oppressing figure takes so much space within the frame that Leland, who is standing under a window in the background, seems miserably small compared to it. This difference in size shows how the two characters are emotionally distant from each other. However, Leland takes a step forward and grows both in size and stature and soon afterwards, Kane walks to Leland and loses his stature. Bruce F. Kawin argues in his book that by letting go of his absolute power, Kane is finally able to be equal to someone. Indeed, after “descending to the level of the working man” Kane finds himself next to his friend, where they are now both in the middle of the frame. The window in the ceiling symbolizes the relief and freedom of being connected to other people.
However, Kane is unable to remain equal to his friend; he wants to have power and control. Therefore, he leaves his friend and walks back towards the camera. This time the camera follows him so that instead of his legs, it is Kane’s upper body that seems gigantic. Finally he has his grand stature but he is all alone in the frame. The window has disappeared and been replaced by the pressure of the ceiling. As Kawin argues, Kane has slowly begun to retreat into the isolation of Xanadu , and as indicated by the perspective of the shot, it is the need for power that makes Kane isolated. Tragically, as can be noticed from other scenes, Kane never acquires his absolute control. This is best shown in the scenes involving the use of ‘deep focus’.
The scene, which sets the rule for the use of ‘deep focus’, comes early in the film. Charles is only a small child who is about to be taken away from his childhood. He is outside in the snow, playing with his sledge, while his parents – or mother, really – are talking with Mr. Thatcher, the man who is going to take Charles with him. There is a long continuous shot, which sees the mother and Mr. Thatcher discuss the fate of Charles. The father tries to interfere with their discussion occasionally, but he is always silenced. After the camera has followed Mrs. Kane and Thatcher who sit down next to a table, the arrangement is already clear. Mrs. Kane and Thatcher are sitting on the right hand side of the frame. The father is standing a bit further away, on the left. Charles is still playing outside, but at all times, he can be seen from the window at the back of the room, which is in the middle of the frame.
There is a peculiar sense of a three dimensional coordinate axis. First of all, Mrs. Kane and Thatcher are both willing to send Charles away – therefore they are both to the left from Charles. The father, however, who wants Charles to stay, stands on the right side of the frame. He does not sit down because he tries to object to what is about to happen. Charles is positioned in the middle because he is the one of whom the three adults are talking about – he doesn’t yet know whether he will be pulled to the right or to the left. However, what gives this scene another dimension is the ‘depth-axis’. The mother and Mr. Thatcher are closest to the camera – Mrs. Kane even closer – because they are most in control of the situation. The father has less control, and therefore is left into the ‘middle-ground’. If the shot hadn’t begun and ended with the mother looking at Charles through the window, it could be said that the father is spiritually closer to Charles. And maybe, during the discussion between Mrs. Kane and Thatcher, he is. Charles himself is obviously in the far background, having no control whatsoever over his own fate.
The theme of Charles Foster Kane being in the middle of two opposing forces is echoed many times later in the film. During the party scene, Leland, who is on one side of the frame, is expressing his worries about Kane having ‘bought’ the Chronicle staff. Bernstein, who is on the other side of the frame, tries his best to make Leland feel better. And once again, Kane, during the whole conversation, can be seen dancing and having fun in the middle background. This time he is not outside, but his reflection can be seen from the dark window. He has finally become powerful and respected, yes, but he is still the small child outside, who does not know about the forces pulling him into different directions. The similarity to the earlier scene is clear; once again Charles is left in the dark. He can probably see that Leland and Bernstein are talking and he probably even knows they are talking about something that concerns him, and yet, he is powerless and unable to control the situation. Further variations of this scene can be seen, for example, during the fateful meeting of Kane and his political enemy, Jim Gettys, at Susan Alexander’s house, and even during the short scene in which Susan is practicing her singing. These scenes differ from each other, but the basic theme remains the same.
It seems paradoxical that Charles Foster Kane is portrayed both as a powerful and frightening figure, and, at the same time, as a weak and fragile person who cannot have power even over small issues. But maybe this is the whole point. Maybe there is a big difference between what Kane wants to be and what he actually is. Ultimately, he is unable to accept the fact that others might have control as well. He has been ‘in the middle’ on so many occasions for such a long time, that he has finally decided to stay there. He does not want to be pulled into any direction. He does not want other people to have control over him but wants to walk his own path. He wants to have control and is willing to sacrifice his Rosebud and retreat into isolation so that the world can look at him from a lower perspective.
