solved Borrowing from Fabe’s discussion of Citizen Kane, look for examples

Borrowing from Fabe’s discussion of Citizen Kane, look for examples in Spellbound of the same kinds of things – the same, but different.  In other words, how does Spellbound display its own compelling examples of deep focus, narrative innovation, sound design, expressionism, realism, and classical continuity–? (not necessarily all of these, but at least a select few)
Using both the Dirks web pages, and the Visions of Light documentary clip as starting point, comment on some Film Noir aspects of both Citizen Kane and Spellbound—emphasizing similarities and differences.  Think not just on cinematography, but also mood, plot, themes.
.Write a simple reply to others post

Example post:Both films explore the mental states of characters at particular points in their lives and incorporate more distinct and differing perspectives to present the story. In Citizen Kane basically, the whole movie is told in flashbacks from several points of view and an interviewer. Spellbound uses a more unique point of view a bit more sparsely with its use of a very literal first-person perspective of scenes that don’t involve the main leads. Both films incorporate unique on-screen filming techniques to convey information. As Fabe analyses in the writing on a scene in Citizen Kane, the introduction to Ms. Alexander the camera doesn’t follow the reporter/investigator but rather goes over the building through a skylight framing her similarly to the framing of the snow globe in order to create a connection between the two. In Spellbound near the end, the film offers the final first-person perspective which heightens the tension and leads to Murchison killing himself as the gun that the audience sees pointed at Peterson is suddenly turned toward the audience and fired. The presentation keeps the violence regulated, maintains the prior first-person shots in the film, and gets the point across in an atypical way. The film also has a rather short example of deep focus around the one-hour mark in which Peterson moves behind some characters toward another all-in-focus. While the maintenance of focus is unilaterally used in Kane it is not as present in Spellbound.

While I wouldn’t necessarily classify either film as being part of the Noir genre they can present certain characteristics that are similar to the genre as a whole. Their overall themes and plot can be seen as a bit more dreary than your average classical Hollywood film in a similar manner to the Film Noir style of a dreary atmosphere and story. There are examples of both films utilizing a limitation of light to frame their characters as the primary focus. However, in stark contrast to the Film Noir style, Kane has primary use of deep focus maintaining basically everything on screen in focus. In Film Noir there is not only an emphasis on the use of light and shadows but also strong silhouettes and depth of field
Dirks: 1940s, Parts 2, 3, 5

example reply:thank you for sharing to us about how both films used the limitation of light. That was specifically stated in Visions of LIght. The usage of darkness was actually shown in a way to better empshaize the mood and plot of the movies. At first, that’s why i didn’t like Citizen Kane (just at first) because the beginning was so dark, and i coudln’t see! i didn’t understand what was happening. But towards the end of the movie, i see why it was used in that manner, because it revealed SO MUCH, which is almost contradictory because darkness usually hides. 

Watch: Citizen Kane, Spellbound

Post 1
here is the second one:Fabe mentioned that Citizen Kane was highly praised due to its sound design. Fabe states “the richness of the imagery…is further enhanced by the film’s intricately structed sound track, which opened up fresh possibilities of combining sound and image”. I watched Citizen Kane first, and throughout the entirety of the movie, with it’s lows (even at the moments where there would only BE SOUND that plays) to the high crescendos of the movie, it really brings the audience member along the moods throughout the history of Charles Kane. I noticed HOW HUGE the sound was for Spellbound. The soundtrack was so well done, that there were moments that I was SO SCARED watching it but I was watching it in the middle of the day. Especially towards the end in the scenes where we’re trying to figure out if fake Edwardes was trying to figure out; there was the scene they were skiing down TOGETHER, and his EERIE look AT DR. PETERSON with the sound, I was ready to jump out of my seat, because I swore at that moment that “Edwardes” was gonna kill her, but really he saved her right at the end of the cliff. Sound was HUGE for both of tehse movies, and they did fantastic jobs in the soundtrackAs well, the narrative innovation so very intriguing. Honestly, I didn’t think that I would like these two movies right at the beginning, but they both got so juicy during it solely because of the perspectives that the audience has. Fabe states, “the way the story is told, in flashback through the eyes of SIX NARRATORS, brought complexity and ambiguity to film narrative”. It’s so different from the previous Hollywood films, because the audience would have that “omnipotent” understanding of what was happening in the movie, like His Girl Friday. but because we have different “narration perspectives”, in CItizen Kane it was all of the people who told stories about Charles Kane and his life, and even in Spellbound, it was interesting to hear fake “Edwardes” stories (like his weird dreams), and even to see towards the end how Murchison killed himself, with the view point of the gun (firstly pointing at Constance then back at him). So very eerie to me, because when the gun shot (essentially, it was pointing at us), i got so scared. 
Post 2
second one exampe reply: I thought the choice to tell the story of Citizen Cane through the perspectives of so many different characters weaving the tale of his life together was awesome! It’s so different than a lot of other films, especially older films up until this point. I’ve seen it done in some things in the past but this was maybe the first time it was done on film, and probably the inspiration for the other films I’ve seen that took this approach with its storytelling. Having an unreliable narrator really opens up a story, it makes it feel more up for interpretation and it makes it easy for the filmmakers or storytellers to mislead the audience or surprise us with certain truths or perspectives we may not expect as we might if the story was being told from a more omnipotent point of view. Throughout the film, we are lead to believe that Rosebud must be so important, that we have to find out what it means from one of these people, and that somehow that will be the climactic moment of the film, the “big reveal”. We are able to find out what it means, and we do get a reveal, but it happens in such a way where we have already been told that, in fact, it doesn’t matter, or shouldn’t matter; that in the end the story was really about the complexities of a life, or life itself, and how you no one can ever really know someone truly, except themselves.