Why do people love Citizen Kane?

[GrimTuesday]

I don't understand how you could even say that Citizen Kane is overrated. As others have mentioned, it pioneered many of the cinematography techniques that we think of as normal, every day effects and are completely overlooked. Not only that, but another thing people don't seem to like about it is there isn't any action, suspense, or even any real romance. This is a result of the movies that we see today that has to have at least one of those things in it. Citizen Kane is a story about a man and his life, his rise to power, and how it ultimately drove him to become a cold uncaring, bitter old man who died alone. If one can't appreciate the tragedy in that, they shouldn't be watching anything more complex than Power Rangers.

 

[CthulhuRlyeh]

Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works..

What the fuck are you talking about? Clockwork Orange? Considered one of his worst works?

What is this I dont even... How... I... Just... Let me quote a great movie because I cant find my own words for this. What in gods name are you blabbering about? Thats not just wrong, its so false it mindfucked me to the point where... What critics, or whatever, are you thinking of, when you state that CLOCKWORK ORANGE is considered one of his worst movies?

That was unnecessarily bileful.

Here's an example:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19720211/REVIEWS/202110301/1023

There's also the fact that with Kubrick such things are relative; a quick check on e.g. rottentomatoes.com shows that it has only 91 % as compared to most of Kubrick's works (which have > 96 %). This of course excludes EWS and Barry Lyndon in the `most'.

Wow, using Ebert as an example to prove that ACO is one of his worst works? Ebert is infamous for his ability to bash on movies just because he thinks they are "immoral". For example, he hated Blue Velvet (1 out of 4 stars).
Also, when using RT, you must also look at the average rating. ACO has an 8.3, Full Metal Jacket an 8.2 and Barry Lyndon a 7.8.

*Shrug* I was just using the results that came up when up when I googled it. I thus concede. I still think the book's much better though (and I know that shouldn't colour my opinion of the movie, but it does).

I understand. The books ending offers a lot more closure than the movie, even though I dont hold that against the movie. Like I said before, two different interesting view points on the subject matter. Great for discussions.

 

[Lateinos]

Also, the cinematography still stands out as excellent today, although it was a much bigger deal when it came out, when it truly was groundbreaking. I'm not one of the people who thinks that something being innovative when it was made is any reason to pretend to enjoy it now, but Citizen Kane really does still hold up.

Citizen Kane was no big deal when it came out. It was a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE blunder. It was barely covered by the press "which was because that Kane was somewhat based on Randolph something, he owned like EVERY newspaper, and forced em all not to write aboot it. So it didnt make alot of money. Was something like in teh 60'ies where a frenchfrog discovered it and said like "best movay evvah"

Well, yes; the movie was an enormous financial flop, but that wasn't what I was talking about. Only a few years later, Citizen Kane was an influence on Italian Neo-realism, including Bicycle Thieves, which definitely was a success, both critically and economically. In general though, even while Citizen Kane was forgotten by most people, it steered the direction of filmmaking even before it was redescovered by your "frenchfrog." (by which I assume you mean Bazin) and then long after. Although, it could conceivably be a coincidence mistakenly given meaning by Bazin, I'm pretty sure Bazin was actually onto something with his observation of the link between Italian Neo-realism and Citizen Kane.

 

[Neverhoodian]

I've watched Citizen Kane, and while I don't think it's the "best movie ever," it definitely deserves most of the recognition and praise showered upon it.

It's easy to dismiss Citizen Kane as "overrated" by today's standards, but you have to understand that the movie was groundbreaking for its time. Many of the camera angles used in the film had never been done before, and it was also one of the first films to use lighting to help establish the mood.

The main focus of the film isn't revealing the significance of "Rosebud" so much as it is a character study of Charles Foster Kane himself. Here we have a man that undertakes a dramatic life transformation, from a young idealist to a bitter old man who betrayed the same ideals he used to hold dear. He's charismatic yet enigmatic, magnanimous at times and extremely petty at others. In the end you get the sense that nobody really knew what type of man Kane was, including possibly Kane himself.

 

[LiquidGrape]

I don't consider it a masterpiece, however. It's cold, detached and void of that essential humanity which is what truly renders cinema one of our most interesting and transcendent arts.

I disagree here. Citizen Kane is very human, since one of the themes is the eventual loss of humanity.

It is a prevalent theme, absolutely, but my problem with Welles is that he overintellectualised everything. Including theme.

Now, don't take me for someone who doesn't appreciate an intellectual deconstruction of the arts. Quite the contrary in fact. But my point is that the artist should evoke, not explicate.
I do realise this is an entirely subjective area of criticism, so naturally I can only account for my own impressions as just that; personal impressions.

But to me, Citizen Kane is not a very human film, in spite of its efforts to appear as such.

 

[HaussVonHorne]

It was relevant and powerful at the time of it's release. Then it became a "classic" and the rest is history.

Personally I can't watch it. It's godawful boring and slow. I get that it's about power and blah blah. Don't care.

If you want the same story but in color with a better cast go watch There Will Be Blood.

 

[4173]

Citizen Kane was no big deal when it came out. It was a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE blunder. It was barely covered by the press "which was because that Kane was somewhat based on Randolph something, he owned like EVERY newspaper, and forced em all not to write aboot it. So it didnt make alot of money. Was something like in teh 60'ies where a frenchfrog discovered it and said like "best movay evvah"

I believe it was based off William Randolph Hearst.


OT: Yeah, he (Hearst) thought it was an attack on him (which it sort of is) so he bought out the academy voters so it wouldn't win anything and gave it so little coverage or just covered the negative press it got. Hell it was (in?)famously booed on stage during the Oscars (which is further evidence of why the Oscars in general are shit.)

How Green Was my Valley is a pretty good movie to lose to, regardless.

 

[Lateinos]

I can say without any doubt that Eyes wide shut,A clockwork orange or even Fight Club is better by far!

Eyes Wide Shut('99): 77% - Ugh. Based on a novella.
Clockwork Orange('71): 91% - Major diversion from the book. (Two Kubrick films?)
Fight Club('99): 81% - Interesting twist but has been used often. Also diversion from the original book.

All three of your films are adaptations that didn't follow the plot of the original.

Is there an inherent problem in films not following the plots of their source materials?

An inherent problem, yes. It may work as a short term fix, but earlier/later points will have to be re-written to compensate, and that will cause plot-holes to appear. (CK also has a huge plot hole) From the three films mentioned, the audience is diverted away from the main point of the novel by the secondary point which is purely for the audience's titillation.

That's a problem, but doesn't have to be a film wrecker (as I guess you're implication was). It does make the adaptation weaker though, as it's trying to tell more than one stories at once.

For the most part (at least, as far as I've experienced) adaption changes are removals, not additions. They cut out plot-points, character details, and even entire characters. This, I think, is essential for essential for nearly all adaptions. Just because a story works as, say, a television show, doesn't mean that you can stick the exact same content into a movie and expect the same result. Movies have different needs, different structures, and often, a time limit. Depending on what you're adapting, you might have no choice but to completely overhaul it. All that really matters is that you get something good in the end.

That said, when a movie adds something for seemingly no reason, it can be a bit disconcerting, but I try to give it a chance, even then. (Clockwork Orange does this apparently, although I've never read the book.)

 

[Mr Somewhere]

What is this? A once groundbreaking film has now had its punch lightened by the sheer weight of its own influence? Shock horror I would have never guessed it...
The film was groundbreaking and is now taken for granted.

I, by the by love the film. Not my favourite, not even close but I can appreciate it, it is a great movie. And, it still is a touching movie, granted it does not hold the impact it once did.
It's a nice, touching, human movie. If you can't enjoy that, or take something from it, then I pity you.

Also, here is a pet peeve I have. Please don't make sweeping statements like that. Explain why you felt the acting was "meh", please explain why you didn't like it.

Also, Orson Welles a "meh" actor... for shame, for shame...

 

[Lateinos]

To me, the legacy of Kane will be its stylistic break from traditional Hollywood. It's an important work, absolutely, and one any lover of film should give its due time.

I don't consider it a great film, however. It's cold, detached and void of that essential humanity which is what truly renders cinema one of our most interesting and transcendent arts.

Fritz Lang's M was filmed nearly a decade earlier, and I would argue it is a far more humane and resonant film than Kane.

I felt the opposite. M seemed to lack any means of making the audience care. The lack of characterization to anyone really was to the point that the people barely registered as being human to me. This, obviously, is a problem when you're trying to build tension with a serial killer. That seemed to be a serious problem with it to me.

 

[Communist partisan]

I just can't grasp it.
I saw the film minutes ago, and it wasn't that good. The plot-twist I guessed about 30 minutes befor it was revealed. The cinematography was good, but I saw flaws in it non the less. The acting was meh, not good nor bad.

So how can this be called " the best movie ever made"? I can say without any doubt that Eyes wide shut,A clockwork orange or even Fight Club is better by far!

So can anyone explain the love? (But then agian, maybe I shouldn't complain about love since it's always good ;P)

Clockwork orange is a master piece, ofc it's better than citizen Kane, which suck.

 

[Jegsimmons]

2 kubrick films followed by fight club?

i'll give you kubrick who was an artist in his purist form, but whats with the love for fight club?
THAT'S the overrated movie here (not bad but not great),
but i digress, Citizen Kane is one hell of a good movie.
(my personal favorite movie is to Kill A Mocking Bird, if anyone cares.)

 

[HotKakes]

The best movie ever made is definitely not an accurate accolade for the film but it most likely is the most revolutionary film in the medium. Films before it did not take the risks that the film did in cinematography and at first was rejected by the viewing public. It was only later on after it flopped that people started to notice the techniques it used. Besides, the term "best movie ever" is normally a subjective opinion anyway.

 

[CthulhuRlyeh]

2 kubrick films followed by fight club?

i'll give you kubrick who was an artist in his purist form, but whats with the love for fight club?
THAT'S the overrated movie here (not bad but not great),
but i digress, Citizen Kane is one hell of a good movie.
(my personal favorite movie is to Kill A Mocking Bird, if anyone cares.)

Not trying to be "that guy", but how many times have you seen Fight Club? I shared the same opinion about it the first time I watched it, but fell in love with it the second time. It is currently in my Top 5. Danny Boyle and David Fincher are truly modern masters of film.

 

[xdiesp]

Because they desperately need roots for US cinema which aren't just cheap westerns and vaudeville.

 

[oliveira8]

Also, Orson Welles a "meh" actor... for shame, for shame...

Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

Not even some sort of hybrid between Robert DeNiro and Daniel Day Lewis, could deliver those lines like Orson Welles. The man's acting, just like his directing, is unique and something to behold.

 

[LiquidGrape]

Fritz Lang's M was filmed nearly a decade earlier, and I would argue it is a far more humane and resonant film than Kane.

I felt the opposite. M seemed to lack any means of making the audience care. The lack of characterization to anyone really was to the point that the people barely registered as being human to me. This, obviously, is a problem when you're trying to build tension with a serial killer. That seemed to be a serious problem with it to me.

But don't you think that apparent lack of audience involvement was subverted in the final scenes, where...

Spoiler: SPOILERS AHOY!

...the child killer is put on trial by the assembled criminal underworld, effectively rendering the viewer complicit in an ironic and inherently immoral condemnation of the character? In a lesser film, the child killer would have been portrayed as a soulless monster, but that is not the case in "M". Beckert is strangely the single most fleshed-out character.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

Also, Orson Welles a "meh" actor... for shame, for shame...

Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

Not even some sort of hybrid between Robert DeNiro and Daniel Day Lewis, could deliver those lines like Orson Welles. The man's acting, just like his directing, is unique and something to behold.

The Third Man was also my first exposure to Orson Welles, still one of my very favourite films.

 

[FunKing]

You we're born in the wrong time frame. Citizen Kane was and in legacy is a great movie in many ways, but to today's audience it's just some old movie.

It's akin to growing up with a PS2 and wondering why everyone gives DOOM so much credit, its graphics are shit, the music is bland and its not scary in the least, but when it came out it was groundbreaking, scary and controversially gory.

that i believe is an excellent point/argument w/ a lot of posts i read of the same nature.....ive noticed there is a large "younger" crowd on this site (and no there's nothing wrong w/ that in the slightest)

as you pointed out w/ the ps2 thing.........Kings Quest, Space Quest, Police Quest (and i mean the origional ones not the revamps)for my tandy 1000 ex we're ground breaking and awsome for their time, and you just cant let that go.....i would watch old western movies w/ my dad back in the day, and yes while i was entertained and grew to like them, they didnt hold the same flame for me as they did my dad.........and for the record.....i miss txt adventures like Zork

 

[Lukeje]

Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works..

What the fuck are you talking about? Clockwork Orange? Considered one of his worst works?

What is this I dont even... How... I... Just... Let me quote a great movie because I cant find my own words for this. What in gods name are you blabbering about? Thats not just wrong, its so false it mindfucked me to the point where... What critics, or whatever, are you thinking of, when you state that CLOCKWORK ORANGE is considered one of his worst movies?

That was unnecessarily bileful.

Here's an example:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19720211/REVIEWS/202110301/1023

There's also the fact that with Kubrick such things are relative; a quick check on e.g. rottentomatoes.com shows that it has only 91 % as compared to most of Kubrick's works (which have > 96 %). This of course excludes EWS and Barry Lyndon in the `most'.

I realize that this sounds stupid coming out of my mouth, but that is a bad review. I am well aware that Roger Ebert knows more about films than I ever will. And I am also aware that people would always take his word over mine when it comes to movies, and they would be right in doing so. But that review read like something I would have expected to find on the user reviews section of this very forum, posted by some smug bastard who probably walks around with his nose so high you would think someone smeared shit on his upper lip.

Its one of those rare times a reviewer didnt miss the point of a movie, but went looking for one when he shouldnt have, pulled one out of his ass because he couldnt find one that would justify his stance on the movie, published it and waited for everyone to eat it up.

Maybe the movies rating is so low because there are so many douchebag reviewers out there.

You're probably right; it's telling that wikipedia cited only two bad reviews as evidence of controversy between reviewers: that one, and one that was more overt about a feeling that the film was `morally depraved'. This is why I added an amendment to my original post after such was pointed out by a poster above.

About the bile thing: I want to clarify im not trying to pick a fight (read: trolling) or anything, but seriously, deal with it. Some people have a harsh tone and you are more than likely to run into a lot of people like that on an internet forum. I dont really understand how you could have over 4000 posts and think my post is above average on the bile factor.

It is above average[footnote]At least in a modal average (which avoids having to provide exact numerical weights to amount of bile) when you consider that the vast majority of posts are inoffensive.[/footnote], but I appreciate that you were civil in this exchange.