I was confused watching the very first scenes of “The Naked City”. A camera was slowly moving while a third-person narration commented on different aspects of the city life. And I could not figure out what were I watching and why. It seemed that a regular documentary was unfolding on a screen. It felt that a director composed the whole thing from different New York City’s scenes, sometimes unrelated and spontaneous. However, as the movie progressed and a plot with characters was revealed to a viewer, I gradually shifted my opinion from “confusion” to “admiration”.

What captured my mind? What was so special about this movie? What made it different from contemporary movies? I think it is a narration that iis not common in modern cinema. In this movie, the voice of a narrator was walking me throughout the whole film, serving as a guide and commentator.

.

This narration coupled with the black and white shots and metaphors is unusual to us, viewers who are used to special effects rather then words. And here is an interesting thing, while some words such as “summer pavements, the children at play” joined with the camera shots can fit in a framework of a documentary style, a smooth literary transition

“the buildings in their naked stone”

makes the whole commentary unique, less official and interesting to listen.

Sarah Kozloffs observes in her essay, “The Voice of God: Narration in the Naked City” that “This narrator imparts background information, provides data on city life and police procedures, cuts around the metropolis at will and reads character’s thoughts”. It is true yet there is one more thing that makes this narration special; it adds an element of tension. Although, at the time when this movie was made, special effects that could create dramatic shots were not available however, the narrators voice and authentic city’s scenes perfectly substituted.

I remember the scenes when the police is chasing the murderer, Willie Garzah, throughout the city. The narrator, following camera’s shots of the crowded streets, adds a dramatic element by saying: “The cops on a manhunt, Garzah. Take it easy Garzah, do not run! Do not call attention to yourself!” And then, there are camera shots of the Williamsburg Bridge, a huge and monumental steel structure. We can realize its size and scales by watching the police chasing Willie Garzah. And as they run, a viewer gets an impression that it will never end.

The shots are fired, Willie is tired but he still tries to escape police. However, the Bridge is taking its toll and Willie does not have any power and jumps from it to face his death. The last scenes show us a panorama of the city and narrator’s words conclude the pursuit.

I think that it was fun to watch this movie and New York City’s life in the 1948. The movie has a very interesting narration that is broken into part and seamlessly fused with the movie style. The shots of the different places in New York City were accompanied commentaries that made this black and white movie more colorful and truly unique. And while some critics might argue that a third person voice over narration is authoritarian, oppressive and offensive, this movie is not good case for them because “The moral and political questions concerning voice-over revolve around how filmmakers use it” and in this particular movie, filmmakers use it as a powerful addition that makes this movie a brilliant work of cinematography.

This entry was posted on Thursday, September 22nd, 2005 at 9:56 pm and is filed under Movies. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.