The Searchers

            John Ford’s The Searchers is an engaging, action-packed film which the New York Times review calls “a rip-snorting Western, as brashly entertaining as they come”.  I would have to agree with this assessment.  Ford’s use of the typical Western-style narrative coupled with Indian battle scenes and beautiful scenery make for a riveting experience of Hollywood’s old west.  The on-site shots of Monument Valley were not only realistic what with dust flying and establishing shots showing large expanses of hills and desert, but also gave the viewer a sense of the experiences of the characters who took it upon themselves to travel across these expanses in order to achieve their respective goals of revenge (for John Wayne’s character Ethan Edwards) and finding Debbie (for Jeffrey Hunter’s character Martin Pawley).  The one unfortunate aspect of shooting was obviously fake scenery, as noted by the New York Times as well.  I found this to be most noticeable in the backdrop of the campfire scene when Ethan kills Mr. Futterman.  In-studio shooting not only detracted visually, but aurally as well.  I cannot be entirely sure, but at some points when the shooting was clearly in-studio, there was an unfitting echoing quality to the sound.  This may have been due to the use of synchronous sound when shooting and the lack of technology available for audio recordings (as well as the creation of realistic set) in the early 1950’s.  Aside from these faults, the other technical aspects of the film appear to have been good, or at least adequate for the time.

            John Wayne’s portrayal of the brusque Ethan Edwards fits well into the typical persona of the leading character of a Western.  His go-it-alone attitude and persistence in his goals certainly make him an admirable character, while his insistence on seeking out revenge for the kidnapping of his nieces and the murder of his brother’s family present a character flaw which presents some difficulties in his interactions with other characters throughout the film.  At the beginning of the film, Ethan returns home after many years’ absence.  He does not seem to have a complete understanding of himself; he denies the surrender of the Confederate Army by refusing to ever surrender himself.  His anger and blood thirst for his nieces’ captors leaves him with very little true care for the welfare of himself or others, rather he is focused on his sole goal of revenge which is most likely a manifestation of his racist sentiments and loss of himself.  Debbie is the only blood relative that he has left after Chief Scar’s tribe kills the rest of the Edwards family.  Because he has lost himself, he needs to find Debbie in order to find a missing piece of himself, perhaps one that even he is unaware of.  When he eventually does find Debbie, and (to the surprise of Martin and the audience), takes her into his arms rather than killing her, he embraces not only his niece but a lost piece of himself, one that was buried deep under his many years of warring and revenge-seeking.

            In addition to Ethan’s need to find himself and his desire for vengeance, his blood thirst for the Indians stems from strong racist sentiments.  For much of the film, Native Americans are portrayed as the subhuman, bloodthirsty savages that one might expect in a Western film.  This is closely paralleled with Ethan’s understanding of them.  We see his hatred most clearly in two specific instances.  We learn early on that Martin is part Cherokee and although Ethan was the one who discovered him as a child, and Martin was raised by Ethan’s brother, Ethan seems to despise Martin and attempts to disconnect himself from him in all ways possible, refusing to allow Martin to call him “uncle”.  The second instance is that of Debbie.  On multiple occasions, Ethan proposes that they invade the Indian camp and simply massacre it, ignoring the fact that it is likely Debbie would be killed.  He believes that since she has become one of the Commanches, she is more likely better dead than living as an Indian.  Although certainly prevalent in the film, there is some sympathy shown, such as when Martin questions the morality of the killing of Native Americans, wondering why the cavalry needed to kill Look when she had done nothing wrong.  This pro-Indian moment in the film was intriguing because it goes against the typical portrayal of such issues.

            The New York Times review states that there is another fault in addition to that of in-studio shots.  It states that, “Episode is piled upon episode, climax upon climax and corpse upon corpse until the whole thing appears to be taking a couple of turns around the course”.  It is true that this can become tiring, but when one considers that this is the mark of an epic journey (for me, The Odyssey came to mind when I read this criticism), rather than the tireless repetition of bloody battle sequences, the story’s continuation is more a strength in relation to Ethan’s persistence than a weakness.

            Finally, I want to make note of something interesting that I learned after viewing the movie.  At the end of the film, I particularly noticed that John Wayne is framed in the doorway of the house, the viewer looking out at him standing on the porch, seemingly reluctant to enter.  This is a further representation of his character, and especially of the typical protagonist in a Western.  Apparently, this shot represents Ethan as an individualist, still rebelling against the constraints of society as a loner, while those inside of the house are collectivists, valuing community and interdependence (I wish I could claim credit for this, but my friend mentioned it to me when we were talking about the film, and I thought it was noteworthy).  I think that it is interesting that the sense of community is returned to the collectivists by the efforts of the individualist, and also Ford’s suggestion that we, too, are collectivists because of our placement looking from the inside out.

The Panama Deception

The United States’ invasion of Panama in 1989 was an event, like many of its kind, which was surrounded by a great deal of controversy and tragedy.  Barbara Trent, the director of The Panama Deception presents it as such in her documentary, and works to convince the viewer to agree with her views on the issue.  Trent uses testimonies of victims, political figures, and public officials as well as film footage of political events, rallies, and tragic events in order to give the viewer a realistic image of what took place.  She also adds in scenes of Panama and other striking images such as those of newspaper headlines, weapons, casualties, and destruction which also serve to evoke an emotional response from the viewer in order to further her purpose.

The historical style of the film lends credibility to the story which it presents because it takes on a didactic and informational tone.  The stern, no-nonsense voice of the female narrator serves to create a sense of dependability, and present the necessary information.  The film begins with a description of the invasion and an account of a victim of the event who expresses the great fear she felt at the sight of the helicopters dropping bombs on the city.  The fact that an upbeat Panamanian Christmas song accompanies the early scenes of the country also help bring to mind the emotion and human aspect of what exactly is being described.  This mode of description for the attack serves to grab the viewers attention and immediately involve them with the Panamanian victims.  After the description serves this purpose, the film backs up to give the back-story and sequence of events leading up to the invasion, then continues to describe the invasion and the events following it.

General Manuel Noriega was a member of the Panamanian Armed Forces who was paid by the United States government, primarily for his work allowing the U.S. to remain in the Panama Canal Zone.  In exchange, President George Bush increased his pay for more services, and defended the fact that Noriega was involved in drug trafficking by making it unnecessary for information on narcotics trades to be included in Noriega’s reports on the country.  When Noriega was unwilling to help the U.S. expand their military presence in Panama, he was indicted for his involvement with the drug trade by his former employer.  The United States, seeking a new puppet, turned to Guillermo Endara for support, backing he and his running mates Calderon and Ford with financial support in Panama’s presidential election.  To the dismay of the U.S., this attempt was unsuccessful and Noriega was appointed Head of State.  After a failed attempt at a coup, the U.S. sent a great number of troops into Panama, along with a special task force, which was assigned the task of provoking Panamanians into beginning an incident in order that the U.S. might have an excuse to attack.  The task force succeeded and the U.S. implemented “Operation Just Cause,” launching the controversial attack on Panama with the alleged goal of capturing Noriega because of his indictment.  The United States claimed this as their reason, when, according to the film, Endara and his running mates were known to be involved in drug trafficking as well.  In addition, the U.S. claimed that with Noriega’s capture would come a restoration of democracy—in a country that had never been democratic.

The film describes the sequence of events in Panama as is done above, and aims to vilify the United States.  As if defending the itself, there is a mention in the middle of the film of the great restrictions placed on media in Panama by U.S. forces.  Media from many different countries was prohibited, and most reporters were imprisoned or fired.  Very little evidence exists on film except for that shot by the United States Army’s own film crews, because they destroyed everything else.  The United States was clearly very conscious of its image in Panama.  According to the information presented in the film, though, it seems almost as if many U.S. officials have very little idea of the “truth” of what happened in Panama, especially as presented by this film.

The film presents an unfavorable image of many U.S. power figures in this regard, further serving to vilify the country.  Pete Williams, a Pentagon Spokesperson at the time the film was made, is shown several times making apparently incorrect statements about the invasion of Panama.  For instance, he says that he has no knowledge of any accounts of U.S. forces burning cities, house by house, and at the same time, the image on the screen is one of devastation and the very fact of what Williams has just denied.  The viewer sees a great number of charred houses in Panama City, which have allegedly been destroyed by the U.S. invasion.  Williams also mentions that there have been no reports of murders of civilians, and that alleged reports of mass graves are “imprecise,” yet the film reveals that many accounts of both the murders and graves exist.  The film also criticizes President George Bush when he is talking about the value of human life.  At one point, Bush speaks about the death of a marine and says, “that’s real bad,” revealing a positive value for American life as well as an apparent disregard for the grammatical conventions of his language, making him appear sympathetic, but unintelligent.  At another point, the film shows Bush giving a speech and addressing the same subject, this time saying, “Every human life is precious, and yes…it was worth it”.  In this case, Bush is again recognizing the value of American lives, but seems to belittle the value of the Panamanian lives lost in the invasion.  The film also shows an interview with a military officer who says, “We were trying to minimize collateral damage…and it worked”.  This interview is juxtaposed with images of destruction in Panama, refuting the statement which is being made.  Finally, the United States estimated that about 250 lives were lost, while estimates from other organizations around the world ranged from 2500 to 4000, giving the viewer the impression that the United States was not only uninformed about the costs of its own invasion, but also irresponsibly careless in its understanding of the event.

                As stated by the New York Times review, The Panama Deception utilizes many helpful methods to lend credibility to its argument.  While many people with different viewpoints, both American and Panamanian, for and against the invasion are interviewed, Trent makes it clear that there is one correct opinion concerning what happened.  Her choice of photos, found film footage, and of course the interviews and excerpts which she chooses to include in the film help to clearly demonstrate her point of view concerning the U.S. invasion of Panama in 1989.  While the film is certainly convincing and does present some viewpoints from United States officials in favor of the invasion, its message is very one-sided.  Trent believes that the invasion was a mistake, unfairly causing thousands of civilian casualties with very little justification, and results that were both catastrophic for many and unproductive for the goals of the U.S.

Citizen Kane

            Citizen Kane is an incredibly fascinating and thought-provoking film, which calls one to consider the intricacies of not only the plot, but the way that the story was filmed as well.  Orson Welles’ use of different shots, lighting, and sound helps to convey the story and other concepts to the viewer.  Because of these aspects of filming, the viewer is able to note the mood, tone, and style of the film.  In viewing Citizen Kane, it is clear that there are many deeper questions to be asked, such as that mentioned by the New York Times review concerning the value of one’s soul.  Welles’ use of the aforementioned techniques clearly helps to pose this question as well as cause a timeless interest in this 1941 film.

            The film begins and ends with some of the same images: a close-up of a “No Trespassing” sign and a long shot of the great Xanadu.  These images certainly convey a sense of continuity which brings together the entire movie, but they also provide the initial and final insights concerning the film’s protagonist.  Charles Foster Kane is a man who never truly lets others in.  His thoughts and motives are his own, and no one else has his permission to be privy to them.  The great distance between the camera and the palace demonstrates also the great personal distance between those observing Kane and Kane himself.  The self-obsessed man maintains his distance, while longing for the reciprocation of a love that he never gives.  When Leland and Kane fight about this very concept in the newspaper office, the camera is tilted upwards from a point near to the floor.  In this conversation, the two men discuss the public, referring to them as “the people,” and Leland comes to the realization that Kane feels some sense of ownership of the public through his influence, and what Kane believes to be his own philanthropic tendencies.  It is possible that we, as viewers, see this particular scene from so low a position to give us a sense of the position of “the people” in Kane’s mind.  Likewise, at the end of the film, the camera is tilted downwards from an elevated position and pans over an immense mass of statues, junk, and crates containing other items from Kane’s collection.  In using this view, Welles may have meant for the viewers to survey Kane’s collection possibly as Kane might have, with an incredible sense of wealth, but an underlying and insatiable emptiness.  As the camera zooms in to a close up of the sled with the elusive “rosebud” painted on, we sense Kane’s longing for something other than what he had, perhaps with an unexpected sentimentality.

            Orson Welles did not only understand how best to shoot a film, but also how to use the sounds in a film to convey the mood and contribute to a sense of continuity as well.  His impressive use of sound encompasses the use of both diegetic and extra-diegetic sound of voices, music, and other noises in the film.  For the first few minutes of the film, the viewers watch a newsreel about Kane’s life which is narrated by a bold and expressive classic television voice of the 1940’s.  When Kane gives his speech at the political rally, he uses similar intonation which serves as a connection between the two and also a method of setting the tone to remind the viewer that these are media performances meant to excite and interest, further demonstrating the intriguing character that Kane is.  Shortly after Kane’s political speech, Kane engages in an argument with Gettys, his political opponent.  As Gettys is leaving the building, Kane shouts after him continuously until Gettys shuts the door, transforming Kane’s voice into a car horn of a similar tone.  This change indicates a change of scenery, of course, but also represents Kane’s political defeat, as his previously booming politician’s voice is now reduced and drowned out by a simple car horn.  All of these are examples of diegetic sound, whereas there are some musical examples of extra-diegetic sound as well.  In order to demonstrate the passage of time and Kane’s rise to great wealth, influence, and fame, there is a series of his newspapers shown to the sound of an upbeat extra-diegetic soundtrack which is closely followed by the diegetic use of the song praising Kane which has a similar sound and also serves the purpose of praising the man.  Another diegetic musical example occurs when Kane and Susan fight inside of the tent.  There is upbeat music outside which contrasts their heated argument.  Near the end of the argument, when Kane slaps Susan in the face, the music stops and is replaced by what seems to be screaming.  The source of the screaming woman is not explained, but serves to demonstrate the danger of the situation and its argumentative nature.

One characteristic of Welles’ use of lighting that I found interesting was the lack of fill lighting to even out the light in a particular scene.  Many of the scenes were full of shadows, perhaps conveying the nature of Kane himself; much is hidden to all those who know him, and only select aspects of his character are brought to light.  In most cases, the lighting used is closest to low key lighting; although it is not so dark that it is difficult to see, there are many shadows.  One very interesting use of key light takes place when Thatcher reads Bernstein’s diary.  There is a window high in one corner of the room, through which shines a bright, supposedly natural, light that shines directly onto the table and the diary, illuminating primarily that which is most crucial to the scene as if to emphasize its importance.  Later on, Welles uses backlighting in Susan’s room during the discussion between Kane and Gettys to show that both men, quite literally, are somewhat shady and are willing to perform underhanded acts in order to achieve their political goals.  After her premiere at the opera, Susan is sitting among newspapers and reading reviews in a noticeably well-lit room.  This is emphasized further when she is arguing with Kane who stands over her, casting a very dark and overbearing shadow which poses as a great physical threat and imposition.  These, among many other examples, demonstrate Welles’ brilliant use of lighting to express information about characters and the storyline, which might not be conveyed otherwise.

            Orson Welles certainly undertook a great challenge when creating Citizen Kane, but performed incredibly in doing so.  While Kane’s character remains somewhat of a mystery, the New York Times is correct in saying that the film is “cynical, ironic, sometimes oppressive and as realistic as a slap”.  Welles makes sure of this with his brilliant use of shots, sound, and lighting.  Citizen Kane is a striking and fascinating film which will remain timeless for its ability to truly capture an audience.