Why do people love Citizen Kane?

[IvoryTowerGamer]

Read the Wiki on it, take a film class, understand how movies are made and what went into that film in particular.

I watched Citizen Kane for a film class I was taking. I found it really boring. It was extremely hard for me to immerse myself in the movie. Different tastes.

You seem to have missed his point. Sure, you might personally think the movie is boring, but do you at least realize why people (particularly those in the film industry) hold this film in such high regard? It's not necessary to like a work of art in order to understand what makes it great.

 

[Dr Jones]

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.

If we're thinking of the italian classic "The Bicycle Thief" im pretty sure it came some time before Citizen Kane.

 

[oliveira8]

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.

If we're thinking of the italian classic "The Bicycle Thief" im pretty sure it came some time before Citizen Kane.

"Ladri di biciclette" was released in 1948(or 49).

 

[Neo10101]

Its because you weren't there when it came out. The scenes and new tools and ideas that were used were completely groundbreaking and revolutionary that when people saw it they were so taken back, and the story was new and fresh, very mysterious and hard to grasp. It made people think, unlike the other movies at the time which were practically obvious jokes.

 

[Dr Jones]

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.

If we're thinking of the italian classic "The Bicycle Thief" im pretty sure it came some time before Citizen Kane.

"Ladri di biciclette" was released in 1948(or 49).

Ah, indeed it was, sorry my mistake.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

You guessed the plot twist? That doesn't really make any sense.

As regards your other suggestions for best movie, they seem flawed. I can't testify to Fight Club, having not seen it, but Eyes Wide Shut and A Clockwork Orange are regarded as Kubrick's worst works...

Long story short, is this an attempt at trolling? I found the movie fresh and original even though I watched it 60-odd years after it was filmed...

Edit: apparently A Clockwork Orange is considered on a par with the rest of Kubrick's good works. Who knew?

Well, to be fair, Anthony Burgess did say it was his worst novel so you do have a point there.

 

[CthulhuRlyeh]

Here's a fun fact people, film, like any other medium, is totally subjective. For example...

You know what was arguably more innovative than Citizen Kane? This:

Yeah.

Also: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/birth_of_a_nation/

Nobody is denying its innovation.

And the new testament is a little different if Jesus isn't nailed to the cross.

The fact is Kubrick knew of the final chapter and chose to ignore it.

So? He felt that it wasnt organic to the plot. Kubrick wasnt some studio director, he was an auteur. If he didnt feel that the scene would work, then why should he have used it?
Complaining that Kubrick wasnt 100 % faithful means nothing, considering he made The Shining. Is The Shining faithful? No. Is it one of the best horror films? Undoubtedly.

I totally disagree with this. The Shining is not only one of Kubrick's weakest film, but I don't even feel it should be considered amongst the best of horror canon. Sure it's lovingly shot, but, do I care about the characters? No, not one iota. The Shining is a terrible adaption which seems to totally miss the point of the novel and fail to make one for itself. The film seems to propagate that loathsome characteristic of modern horror films having anti-characters or just loathsome characters. In the film, what reason have I to care for Jack Torrance? His character is turned into a simple 'drunken Dad'.

The Shining has no place among more affecting, personal horror stories such as Don't Look Now.

Considering that Kubrick showed Eraserhead to his crew before making The Shining, I think that was the point. The coldness of the film is a part of the atmosphere.
Dont Look Now is good, but dont compare it with The Shining as if an affecting, personal horror story was Kubricks goal. Horror doesnt have to have just 1 palette.

 

[CthulhuRlyeh]

to clear up the Clockwork Orange argument. The movie was based on the version of the book published in America which for whatever reason did not include the last chapter that was included in the British publication. Kubric read the American book and based the movie on that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange#Omission_of_the_final_chapter

Kubrick was aware of the last chapter, he just decided not to use it.

One of Kubrick's "auter" visions was to give the audience a character arc, but he did so often by ignoring the main protagonist's arc. This made the film more emotionally contesting but weaker overall.

How did it make it weaker overall? The point is still there: You cannot force someone to change. The film never denies the possibility of redemption.

 

[slackboy72]

to clear up the Clockwork Orange argument. The movie was based on the version of the book published in America which for whatever reason did not include the last chapter that was included in the British publication. Kubric read the American book and based the movie on that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange#Omission_of_the_final_chapter

Kubrick was aware of the last chapter, he just decided not to use it.

One of Kubrick's "auter" visions was to give the audience a character arc, but he did so often by ignoring the main protagonist's arc. This made the film more emotionally contesting but weaker overall.

How did it make it weaker overall? The point is still there: You cannot force someone to change. The film never denies the possibility of redemption.

Because the story is about the journey of maturing from boy to man.
Without it Kubrick just says people can't be changed whereas the book says the exact opposite.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

In all honesty, it can get quiet boring. I had to watch it in two parts to keep my sanity going.

But after watching it, I can say that it's a very well made film. There's nothing really bad about it thatnI can point out.

Hey, it's a good film.

 

[LadyMint]

I would argue that it's simply a matter of personal preference. I hated A Clockwork Orange. Normally I don't fault movie versions for detracting from the novels they came from, but Kubrick had such an attitude about how he thought his ending was better for the story than the original author's. He prettymuch changed the point of the story with how he presented it.

On the subject at hand: Citizen Kane is a good story, in my opinion. It's told from many different perspectives but it reveals so much about what made Kane eccentric. It also does this without shoving it all in your face in a series of dull monologues. It presented a lot of his issues--mostly in flashbacks--but I'd rather watch a series of well-designed flashbacks than watch some character sit in a bar and tell the bartender about how they were mistreated as a child. If nothing else, I find it to be a good example of how a biographical movie should be made.

 

[Pearwood]

Citizen Kane is brilliant more for its time, it's been an inspiration to so many other films since then it can't hold up on its own. I recommend everyone should watch it just for the experience because it's enjoyable but go into it knowing that you probably won't get the full effect.

 

[CthulhuRlyeh]

to clear up the Clockwork Orange argument. The movie was based on the version of the book published in America which for whatever reason did not include the last chapter that was included in the British publication. Kubric read the American book and based the movie on that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange#Omission_of_the_final_chapter

Kubrick was aware of the last chapter, he just decided not to use it.

One of Kubrick's "auter" visions was to give the audience a character arc, but he did so often by ignoring the main protagonist's arc. This made the film more emotionally contesting but weaker overall.

How did it make it weaker overall? The point is still there: You cannot force someone to change. The film never denies the possibility of redemption.

Because the story is about the journey of maturing from boy to man.
Without it Kubrick just says people can't be changed whereas the book says the exact opposite.

That doesnt make it inferior. It is just another viewpoint.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

How did it make it weaker overall? The point is still there: You cannot force someone to change. The film never denies the possibility of redemption.

Because the story is about the journey of maturing from boy to man.
Without it Kubrick just says people can't be changed whereas the book says the exact opposite.

What he said.

That doesnt make it inferior. It is just another viewpoint.

It does make it inferior because you've altered the viewpoint mid-stream. You've added a new viewpoint which hasn't been established. That weakens it because the final outcome is second hand information.

Citizen Kane actually got a pretty mixed reception when it came out. Quite a many influential people didn't like it and it infamously lost out on the Oscars.

You mean influential people who were terrified of Randolf Hearst threatening to run negative articles about them? Gee, wonder why that was.

Oh, and all the bloc voting in the Oscars, the complete annhilation of coverage and the ransom money of $805,000 to destroy it?

Don't think there was any impropriety there at all.

Oh wait, are you just basing this off Rotten Tomatoes? I see.

Yeah, you see there wasn't any internet multi-rating sites back in the Forties. It would have been quite hard otherwise.

 

[Mr Somewhere]

Here's a fun fact people, film, like any other medium, is totally subjective. For example...

You know what was arguably more innovative than Citizen Kane? This:

Yeah.

Also: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/birth_of_a_nation/

Nobody is denying its innovation.

And the new testament is a little different if Jesus isn't nailed to the cross.

The fact is Kubrick knew of the final chapter and chose to ignore it.

So? He felt that it wasnt organic to the plot. Kubrick wasnt some studio director, he was an auteur. If he didnt feel that the scene would work, then why should he have used it?
Complaining that Kubrick wasnt 100 % faithful means nothing, considering he made The Shining. Is The Shining faithful? No. Is it one of the best horror films? Undoubtedly.

I totally disagree with this. The Shining is not only one of Kubrick's weakest film, but I don't even feel it should be considered amongst the best of horror canon. Sure it's lovingly shot, but, do I care about the characters? No, not one iota. The Shining is a terrible adaption which seems to totally miss the point of the novel and fail to make one for itself. The film seems to propagate that loathsome characteristic of modern horror films having anti-characters or just loathsome characters. In the film, what reason have I to care for Jack Torrance? His character is turned into a simple 'drunken Dad'.

The Shining has no place among more affecting, personal horror stories such as Don't Look Now.

Considering that Kubrick showed Eraserhead to his crew before making The Shining, I think that was the point. The coldness of the film is a part of the atmosphere.
Dont Look Now is good, but dont compare it with The Shining as if an affecting, personal horror story was Kubricks goal. Horror doesnt have to have just 1 palette.

I'm very well aware of that. But Eraserhead had a rhyme or reason to it, it did have a sense of symbology. The Shining throws imagery from the novel. It's a basic story, sure, it portrays a cold film, sure it has atmosphere, but it pales in comparison to Eraserhead. Eraserhead's imagery has a direct link to the neurotic main character, it had a sense of reason, symbology, I have no reason to care for the flash imagery in The Shining. Kubrick just took imagery from the novel which, without the heart of the novels story does not have any purpose other than chills.

The lead in Earserhead is at least somewhat sympathetic, even if it is due to the fact that he is so pathetic. I don't think Kubrick looked to Eraserhead for much more than the manner it is shot. The Shining simply fails to produce a memorable result. It has nothing to call its own.

 

[tseroff]

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.

This is a good example, but I would compare it more to Star Wars. Many of the kids growing up now think it's boring, especially compared to the prequels (Isn't Jar-Jar awesome?), but they don't understand how life-changing Star Wars was before the overuse of special effects (*cough* green screen *cough*). (Sorry, btw, your example was great. I just felt compelled to compare it to a movie.)

OT: One of CK's best points is its use of dramatic irony, which is really accentuated by the cinematography. It's not overdone, either. We know what's going to happen, but he doesn't, so as we identify with this character, we're also watching his downfall. He is a tragic character, in the most traditional sense.

Orson Welles also portrays the irony quite clearly with his cinematography, also. Using techniques that are now trope, but were then unheard of, he allows us the privilege of knowing things that the characters don't, seeing things that they miss. He uses the "unmotivated close-up" to great success, allowing our minds to make connections. While some of the things may seem boring, were you ever taken out of the world he created? Personally, I thought he did a wonderful job convincing the audience that these were real people, with real ambitions, real flaws, real emotions, and real connections.

But that's the key, isn't it. Personally. It's an opinion. Maybe a commonly held one, but an opinion nonetheless. You've heard my reasons for liking it.

 

[Lionsfan]

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

Can't say I've seen it, so I can't argue otherwise, but it's still known more for beating Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon[footnote]Which are 2 movies that are always topping lists of GOAT movies[/footnote], Sergeant York, and Suspicion at the Oscar's than for being a great film.