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.

North by Northwest

                Alfred Hitchcock’s North by Northwest is an engaging chase film that incorporates elements of suspense, intrigue, romance, and danger.  These qualities, as well as others, help to make the film an interesting and engaging one for viewers of any time.  It is not only Hitchcock’s narrative style, but the cinematic elements which he incorporates as well, which serve to make North by Northwest of interest to a wide variety of viewers.  The first technique that Hitchcock uses is that of the establishing shot.  He uses this for nearly every new setting that is introduced.  The very first shot of the movie is of the side of a glass building, in which the viewer can see the reflection of cars driving down a busy road.  This shot is intriguing because it alerts the viewer that the following action will take place in some city, yet it is not yet the city itself that the viewer sees, but simply a reflection.  Other crucial establishing shots are that of the Townsend mansion, the U.N. building’s exterior and interior, the bustling insides of the train station, many shots of the train’s journey, the barren country road where Roger is supposed to rendezvous with Kaplan, the face of Mount Rushmore, and more.  These establishing shots, which give context to a scene, are helpful in allowing the viewer to understand the plot by identifying the setting.

                In addition to providing a context for the following scene, establishing shots also lend a sense of continuity to help the viewer to understand that which follows.  One other notable example of continuity is the scene where Roger leaves the auction room escorted by the police, and disappears screen right, only to reappear on screen left, walking the same direction in the lobby.  Many cases of continuity are also paired with elements of discontinuity to express changes that have occurred, or similarities between two different situations.  One example of this is the transition from the bottle of Bourbon, which Roger is forced to consume, to the Mercedes on winding road next to the ocean.  The setting is entirely different in both, showing discontinuity, but several important things remain the same.  Roger is the principal character in both scenes and is still accompanied by Vandamm’s henchmen in the second.  The viewer also notes that Roger is now noticeably intoxicated as a result of the Bourbon which the viewer now understands him to have consumed.  Another such example is at the very end when Roger is holding on to Eve in an attempt to save her life on the edge of Mount Rushmore, and the scene changes to the drawing room of a train, where Roger is also holding his hand out to Eve, but this time to help her onto the bed.  Hitchcock employs match editing in this case to show the maintained connection between the two characters, but also the discontinuity in their attire and setting.  One final, but very important example of continuity editing is one that reoccurs throughout the middle of the movie and incorporates the transition between establishing shots of the train on its course and shots of events occurring inside of the train.  This serves to show that the train is still travelling, but they also show the passage of time, notable by variances in the light outside.

                Another important method through which Hitchcock demonstrates both continuity and a context for the viewer is that of shots during conversations such as eyeline, point-of-view, and over-the-shoulder.  In Eve’s drawing room, when she has hidden Roger in the compartment reserved for her bed, she looks up at the compartment, but the viewer, who does not see Roger, becomes aware of his location because of this.  Another interesting instance of this is at Vandamm’s home in South Dakota, when the maid looks at the television, and then the viewer sees that Roger is reflected in the screen.  In addition to these point-of-view shots, Hitchcock shoots many important conversations with an over-the-shoulder view, and makes sure to abide by the 180-degree rule and keep each character on their own respective half of the scene so as not to confuse the viewer.  Some of these important conversations are the first between Roger and Eve in the dining car, their conversation before their first romantic encounter, then in her hotel room, and in the forest near Mount Rushmore.  Shots such as these make it possible for the viewer to understand what is taking place while offering different views and perspectives.

                In a review posted by the New York Times, A. H. Weiler notes that the film has a “witty and sophisticated style” and appears to have some of the most enjoyable qualities of a chase, being “scenic, intriguing, and merr[y]”.  This part of Weiler’s critique on the film is certainly true.  The film is executed with taste and class, entertaining and ensnaring the viewer and providing enough interest and intrigue to keep the viewer’s attention, while still not revealing too much all at once.  Also, in accordance with Weiler’s perception, Cary Grant portrayed his character quite well, and was especially amusing when called to act drunk and angry.  Eva Marie Saint also performed quite well, aptly portraying a lovely seductress as well as remaining an intelligent character as both an accomplice and an agent.  One thing that was also quite favorable about her character was the fact that she was not entirely helpless and dependent on the male characters to dictate her behavior.  In a manner that is somewhat surprising for the time, but wonderfully refreshing, Hitchcock does not cloud his portrayal of Eve Kendall with misogyny.  Finally, Weiler believes that the film has a brisk nature, but is somewhat slowed by an overdrawn climax.  For a viewer of this time who is accustomed to a faster pace in modern film, this final assertion is most certainly true.  As for the film being “brisk,” the modern-day viewer would likely disagree, but find it quite agreeable and perhaps even consider Hitchcock to be a visionary for his time.