Comparing Citizen Kane and Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)




     In film history, very few directors get total creative control of the projects they do.  To get this type of control, a director must be innovative, stylish, while able to tell an empathetic story to the masses.  No one in the history of film had as much control over their film as much as Orson Welles’ did with his magnum opus, Citizen Kane, even under the head of major studio RKO.  So it becomes interesting that over seventy years later, when Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu was given a very similar type of project when he made Birdman for Fox Searchlight.  Both of these films innovated what could be done with film at the time, and reversed it on its own head.  It is very obvious to see where a director like Inarritu learned a lot from the innovations of Citizen Kane, and took it forward to his own movie, as the films are very similar in themes and dynamics.  Not only are the stories similar, but some of the filming techniques that are used in Citizen Kane are even furthered in Birdman.  Just as Citizen Kane is remembered as a great masterpiece of film history, Birdman one day will be mentioned in the same history for its many innovations.
     Birdman follows a cast characters who are backstage during rehearsals of a performance of Raymond Carver’s What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.  The show is adapted, directed, and starred by former box-office star Riggan Thomson.  Thomson is trying to make a shift to dramatic theater, even though he is well known for his series of films featuring the superhero Birdman.  Thomson has been defeated in the failure of his series of roles after Birdman, and it is made evident by the tone he sets for his play that he seriously needs this comeback to keep any semblance of self-confidence.  All the way, he battles the thoughts of his Birdman alter ego, who acts as Thomson’s Mr. Hyde.  While Thomson is more reserved, quiet, and self-conscious, Birdman continues to remind Riggan of the glory days, and how Thomson is still and will always be great.  As the story develops, Thomson begins to follow Birdman’s thought process and realize that he is still just as pompous as when he was on the top of his game.  This even carries to Thomson believing he can fly, and save the world from monsters and villains.  What Inarritu projects is how Thomson’s mental illness extremely bloats his self-confidence and ego, to the point where it injures him, and those who love him.  In fact, depending on how you view the movie, his ambition and ego possibly kill him. 
     Welles has the very similar theme of a deadly inflated ego driving ambition.  One major difference is that Welles shows Charles Foster Kane’s childhood, and the psychological mindset he continued to battle.  As Kane was given away as a child to protect him, it definitely harmed his ego, and for the rest of his life, he fought the mindset that nothing he did was good enough.  It seems that throughout the various tales told about Kane by the people who were closest to him, whether this be his employees, friends, or wives, that Kane always wanted more than he already had, and was never fully content.  In a sense that is very comparable to Riggan Thomson, Kane wants to control everything that happens to him, hoping that this will make up for his harmed past.  His nonstop ambition attempts to build himself up, as he takes down everyone around him in the same swift motion.  As Kane begins to grow in his newspaper business, he realizes that he needs to take some people out who are holding him back, or do not agree with his vision of the future.  This is made evident with Kane’s attack on the man who practically raised him, Walter Parks Thatcher.  Charles begins a series of attacks on Thatcher from his New York Inquirer.  Riggan Thomson does something very similar when a supporting character in his play, Ralph, is not getting a full grasp of Riggan’s vision.  From his imagined telepathy, Riggan drops a light fixture on Ralph, making him unable to participate in the play.  This shows early on in both films how the ambition of Kane and Thomson really destroy those around them.  When this happens, Riggan is forced to hire Mike Shiner, a famed actor with an incredibly difficult working personality.  Though Shiner is ready to rehearse, he causes many problems in with the other stars, and even Riggan’s own daughter.  Mike Shiner in a lot of ways is very similar to Citizen Kane’s Jedediah Leland.  Leland, like Shiner, is someone that the main male protagonist has a strong relationships with, who at times can betray him.  Leland rises all the way to the top with Kane, feeding his ambition.  When he sees how truly egotistical Kane is, he begins to move away from Kane, even going as far as to writing a negative review of Kane’s 2nd wife’s Susan’s singing performance.  Mike Shiner is very similar in the sense of how he boards Riggan’s project.  However, Shiner begins to do whatever he wants to do to distance himself from Thomson, especially when it comes to maintaining his own acting reputation.  So even with the giant egos of the main characters, there are supporting characters who help feed the ego of each film’s protagonist, but also tear them down as well. 
     Another interesting point of comparison is the infidelity of Kane and of Thomson to their first spouse.  It is shown on screen the lengthy affair that Charles Foster Kane carries out with Susan Alexander.  This affair nearly destroys Kane as he is trying to run for New York Governor.  Once it is found out that he is cheating, Kane is never quite the same, and even quietly marries Susan.  A very similar tale is told by Riggan Thomson to his own ex-wife, Sylvia.  In his dressing room, he recounts that after Sylvia found him cheating on her that he tried to end his own life.  The very brief scene gives us a background into the way that Thomson’s ego could have been defeated in his own home life, and how that could have affected his career. He feels he has something to prove to not only his ex-wife, but his daughter Sam.  As Sam was growing up, Riggan was apparently not a good father to her, and she eventually fell into drug abuse as a coping mechanism to a selfish and absentee father.  Charles Foster Kane and Riggan Thomson both have struggles in their home lives, and lack a sense of felling loved or wanted.  Not only to both of these characters struggle with their family’s views of them, but they struggle with the public’s view of them.  As Kane is destroyed by his extra-marital affairs, Thomson’s antics of running through New York in only his underwear going viral on the internet show how much they want to be seen as someone serious, not just a laughable joke.  Both of these characters egos want everyone surrounding them to love them, whether it be critics, the masses, or even their own families.  Two quotes from each film absolutely embody this idea.  In Citizen Kane, it is when Jedediah Leland states, “"Charlie was never brutal, he just did brutal things." "He married for love -- that's why he did everything. That's why he went into politics. It seems we weren't enough. He wanted all the voters to love him, too. All he really wanted out of life was love.”  Very similar to this, Riggan’s daughter Sam states, “You're doing this because you're scared to death, like the rest of us, that you don't matter. And you know what? You're right. You don't. It's not important. You're not important. Get used to it.”  Even the character surrounding the protagonists can see how badly they want to be loved and appreciated, but their egos will not let them be.  In the end, both characters ego are what ends up killing them, whether it is Kane driving out everyone and dying alone in his massive home of Xanadu, or it is Thomson Possibly killing himself as he believes he can truly fly.  Ambition and ego are both seen as themes that can destroy not only the main characters of each of these films, but everyone around them as well.
     To get into the worlds of Charles Foster Kane and Riggan Thomson, some interesting camerawork is done in both movies.  Even though Citizen Kane is in black and white, and Birdman is in color, I would make the argument the capturing of light in both movies really shows the characters psyche.  The use of shadows vs. light in Kane shows the dreariness of not only Kane’s existence, but the people in the lives that he’s touched. This is an early predecessor the shadows that were so commonly used in film-noir. Birdman, color is used to show the mystique surrounding Thomson’s damaged psyche, as in the scene where he buys liquor and falls asleep on a stoop.  The intensity of the color signifies a sense of confusion that is currently within Riggan that is projected to his outside world.  In Kane, there were shots where the camera seemingly follows the characters from outside a building inside.  An example of this would be when the camera moves past the billboard advertising Susan Foster Kane.  The camera moves through the middle of the sign, into the skylight of the building, and into the room where the characters begin to discuss Kane.  This was an early technique that was used heavily in Birdman.  The film uses the use of editing to make several long shots strung together appear to be a film that is done in one continuous take.  There are almost no cuts, the camera continually follows the characters of Birdman through the weaving halls of the St. James Theater, and the city streets of New York.  In a way that Kane cinematographer Gregg Toland invented a lot of these techniques with Welles, Birdman cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki perfected them.


     Though made more than 70 years apart, there are an incredible amount of similarities between Birdman and Citizen Kane.  The films are not only similar in plot and themes, but in many of the technological aspects of filmmaking.  As Welles film was ahead of its times, so was Inarritu’s film.  If Kane were made in the days of Birdman, maybe it would have gotten a similar critical appeal that Birdman got, and maybe would have won more than the one Oscar it won.       
 

Comments