CITIZEN KANE v LOLA MONTES
...eese. Both are innovative but on the screen one comes across as a show of exuberant exhibitionism and the other as a piece of subdued superiority. So both films are important stylistically. And there are many similarities. Both films use flashback and narration. Both boast larger than life performances (Welles and Ustinov). Both contain innovative camerawork. But they are very different nevertheless. Welles is young, all-American and it shows. In ‘Citizen Kane’ he shows off his box of tricks; he announces to the world that a new talent has emerged, a genius. By putting all his eggs in one basket, he is, almost literally, showing off. ‘Lola Montes’ is the opposite; here Ophuls just relies on his camera; subtly, sublimely – in total contrast to Welles’ brashness. Ophuls demonstrates a French flair for understatement. ‘Citizen Kane’ was directed by Orson Wells at the age of 24. It was his first film as a director (or as an actor and writer come to that). On the other hand ‘Lola Montes’ was directed by Max Ophuls at the age of 53 – it was his last film. The ages are important: Welles has to announce to the world that a new talent has arrived, and Ophuls has done it all – he has no need to show off. Also important to any analysis of the films is to remember that Welles was American and Ophuls French – some of their respective countries’ sensibilities undoubtedly appears on screen. Citizen Kane was released in 1941. Although it received good reviews (every good in some papers) it was not a box-office success. What marked new ground in the film was Welles’ use of relatively new cinematic devices. Critics sometimes make the mistake of crediting Welles with discovering new techniques. This is a falsehood – don’t forget feature films had been in production for 32 years before. What Welles cleverly did was put these daring techniques in one movie The first thing that strikes one about ‘Citizen Kane’ is the photography especially ‘deep focus’; this technique (the depth of field of the shot enabling each character, no matter how far away, to appear close and tangible) had already been experimented with by the same cinematographer, Greg Toland, 10 years earlier in ‘Mad Love’. The other main feature of ‘Kane’ is the sequence shot (long take). He toys with the viewer, testing our patience. Where’s the cut? we all cry. It certainly breaks with the classical form of editing which was prevalent in American cinema before. The tracking shots are legendary – who can forget the camera pulling away from Ruth Warwick in the night-club and seeming to go straight through the glass light shaft and appearing outside? Or the shot at the end where we see the camera track along all of Kane’s possessions and then pull away from them until they appear as a tiny dot? How high did the camera go? It seems it reached the moon! In terms of style and narrative then, ‘Citizen Kane’ is a film of remarkable complexity and depth but it is also, in thematic terms, a hymn to failure: Kane’s failure to put his remarkable energy to real use and the failure of the viewer to find any real meaning in Kane’s life. ‘Lola Montes’ was released in 1955. Like ‘Citizen Kane’ it failed at the box office. In fact during its release some audiences jeered so rowdily that police were called. Ophuls mustered all of his expertise in mounting this, his final film. The film, like ‘Kane’ is told in flashback, and considering it is his first one in colour and cinemascrope, what Ophuls achieves is stunning. Each flashback is set off by a dominant hue to suggest Lola’s psychological state. These range from the blue of the episode of Lola as a young girl to the autumnal yellow of her stay at the court of Ludwig. Again like ‘Kane’, the first thing that grabs you about ‘Lola Montes’ is the photography. The use of the camera here shows a master of the craft. In fact in his use of the moving camera he is without peer. All aspects of the film are designed to turn the viewers gaze back on itself. The framing device of the mammoth circus serves to distance the spectators from the events in Lola’s life. As well as a colour preceding each flashback, there is also a short mime show. The effect of this is to undermine the suspense of the episodes. Ophuls’ use of irony is prevalent throughout the movie: no more so than when Lola’s entrance in the circus is proceeded by a procession of clowns representing a caricature of a parade of Lola’s lovers. The things that stick in my memory are: the circular tracking shot which opens the film; the camera’s plunge which copies Lola’s at the end of her performance, and the final track back revealing the line of the men queuing up to meet Lola. All of these still take the breath away. The abid...