Why do people love Citizen Kane?
- Thread starter Pontus Hashis
- Start date
Yeah pretty much this. Consider the death bed scene, look at what the camera does, how everything sits in the frame perfectly. No-one had shot a film like that before. There is a tracking shot from outside a building on a rainy night that tracks into and then through a solid window. Film makers were blown away by that one sequence. The camera moves through the window. There is a tricky edit hidden in a flash of lightning that combines two shots into a seemingly unedited take.RastaBadger said:
You may not like the story, (I do, I love the story) but the film making stands up today. Oh and there are no plot twists in Citizen Kane, unless you weren't paying attention, everything is laid out in the open.
I've seen Citizen Kane. I watched it mostly so I could say I've seen it. I got it, I understand, but I don't like it. I'm not one who absolutely needs a lot of action, and really, I love character-central stories, but I found Kane to be a bit dull and uninteresting.
I really couldn't understand why everyone raves about it. It may have done a lot of new stuff, but I still think it's overrated.
Edit: I will say that I understand it was influential. I'm not denying that. However, there is a difference between "most influential movie of all time" and "best movie of all time."
I really couldn't understand why everyone raves about it. It may have done a lot of new stuff, but I still think it's overrated.
Edit: I will say that I understand it was influential. I'm not denying that. However, there is a difference between "most influential movie of all time" and "best movie of all time."
It is a good movie, but I don't think it's as much of a huge-ass deal as everyone makes it out to be. The symbolism was pretty heavy-handed in a few places, and it's not like the basic "decent guy becomes evil" storyline hasn't been done before.
Orson Welles was a pretty awesome guy, and yeah it was pretty groundbreaking at the time. But I think people calling it the best movie ever made, and especially the people who say it's timeless, are just stuck in the past. Particularly when they use it to complain about how wonderful everything was in the past and how terrible it all is now.
Semi-off-topic rant, but I hate it when people think that the first game/movie/book/whatever to do something should be the only one to do it. If someone else comes along and does the same thing, just as well or even better, people hate on them and say they're just stealing from the original work. Originality shouldn't be the only thing we look for. Quality is more important.
(I mostly went off on this tangent because I knew a guy who liked bringing up how much he hated Avatar and loved Citizen Kane every goddamn conversation, and his only arguments were "stuff in Avatar was done before, and stuff in Citizen Kane was never done before." If that's your sole basis for deciding whether something is good or bad, then ur dum. Just about everything has been done before.)
Orson Welles was a pretty awesome guy, and yeah it was pretty groundbreaking at the time. But I think people calling it the best movie ever made, and especially the people who say it's timeless, are just stuck in the past. Particularly when they use it to complain about how wonderful everything was in the past and how terrible it all is now.
Semi-off-topic rant, but I hate it when people think that the first game/movie/book/whatever to do something should be the only one to do it. If someone else comes along and does the same thing, just as well or even better, people hate on them and say they're just stealing from the original work. Originality shouldn't be the only thing we look for. Quality is more important.
(I mostly went off on this tangent because I knew a guy who liked bringing up how much he hated Avatar and loved Citizen Kane every goddamn conversation, and his only arguments were "stuff in Avatar was done before, and stuff in Citizen Kane was never done before." If that's your sole basis for deciding whether something is good or bad, then ur dum. Just about everything has been done before.)
Because the entire film is so well done in nearly all aspects. Sure, the acting and directing are dated themes and tricks, but that movie was a huge precedent in film making, especially American Hollywood film making.
Like I said it's dated at this point, but the good stuff doesn't become crappy over time. No one expects you to LOVE it, I don't, it's not one of my favs, but I can't argue against it.
I would say Vertigo is a better movie as far as directing goes, Shutter Island is better as far as acting goes, and Mullholland Dr. has better symbolism...those are my opinions.
I'm glad you actually sat down and watched it to find out for yourself if it connects with you or not. But the reason why the AFI and SAG love it is because there's nothing wrong with it from Hollywood's perspective.
Like I said it's dated at this point, but the good stuff doesn't become crappy over time. No one expects you to LOVE it, I don't, it's not one of my favs, but I can't argue against it.
I would say Vertigo is a better movie as far as directing goes, Shutter Island is better as far as acting goes, and Mullholland Dr. has better symbolism...those are my opinions.
I'm glad you actually sat down and watched it to find out for yourself if it connects with you or not. But the reason why the AFI and SAG love it is because there's nothing wrong with it from Hollywood's perspective.
It may be a little overrated but it's still a very good movie.
So is Fight Club.
A Clockwork Orange is also very good but loses out by omitting the 21st chapter which drastically alters the end of the story.
Eyes Wide Shut? Meh. Kubrick's worst by a long way.
So is Fight Club.
A Clockwork Orange is also very good but loses out by omitting the 21st chapter which drastically alters the end of the story.
Eyes Wide Shut? Meh. Kubrick's worst by a long way.
Totally hear ya on that one, except (arguing against your friend) the stuff in CK was done before, just not as well or in front of such a wide audience. But the Avatar thing is annoying to me. I still highly dislike that movie, but you're right you gotta take things for what they are, not what they were inspired (or highjacked) from.EmperorSubcutaneous said:
The movie is not about the twist. Stop thinking about the twist or Rosebud. It's just a tool to get things moving. Rosebud is not central to the life of Kane, it was just a part of it. Like the reporter at the end says "A piece of the puzzle".Ursus Buckler said:
See Kane's life as a whole, and not just the twist. The interesting part is how at the end of the movie, the viewer, the reporter, the people who were part of Kane's life and Charles Foster Kane himself, find out how little they actually knew about the him. Everyone has their own sort of view of who the man was. Every individual flashback, shines Kane in a different light, some view him as an egotistical man, a ladies man, a cynical, an idealist, a rotten bastard, a sell out a lost soul, etc.
The point of Citizen Kane is, you don't get to know who an individual is based on one act or a moment in his life, but the sum of all his acts and moments define and shape the individual. That's why Rosebud in the end is pointless. The reporter was looking for it's meaning cause he believed that was the key to unlock Charles Foster Kane, but in truth it wasn't. It was just another part of Kane's life. Rosebud didn't shape Kane. It was just his sled, a memory of a long lost life.
There are a lot of other things that make Citizen Kane good, and the greatest movie of all time. It was a movie that changed everything about cinema, since the camera work, the editing, narrative and story. It's not exactly an easy movie to fully understand, I recommend watching the movie with the commentary by Roger Ebert, it gives a whole different perspective on the movie. It also shows that there was a lot of silly stuff in it, like Pterodactyls flying in the background of one scene.(Really)
Edit: Orson Welles did better movies by the way. Touch of Evil, F for Fake and The Trial for instance. Though Citizen Kane was a groundbreaking movie and changed everything. The most recent example of a movie that changes the laws of cinema is There Will Be Blood by PT Anderson.(Which funny enough, is considered the Citizen Kane of the new generation)
A Clockwork Orange regarded as one of Kubricks worst works? First time I have heard that one. It is usually considered one of his best, alongside 2001 and Dr. Strangelove. Usually, his worst works are considered to be Full Metal Jacket (the second half), Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut, from what I have gathered.Lukeje said:
As for Eyes Wide Shut, it is funny that his "weakest" film was seen by him as his greatest achievement.
Also, read up on what Citizen Kane pioneered. You will be surprised. Citizen Kane made exposition scenes interesting, FFS.
That doesnt make it a flaw. Going by that logic, The Shining sucks.slackboy72 said:
I like that there are two endings of A Clockwork Orange (the book and the film). It offers two viewpoints on the subject.
That was unnecessarily bileful.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
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'.
Seen it. It was on one of those lists of films that you have to see in your life time. Was mostly bored by it. Not quite to the level of wanting to gouge my eyes out with a melonballer (Gone with the Wind did that) but definitely bored and keen for it to be over so I could tick if off my mental list and never bother again.
I believe it was based off William Randolph Hearst.Dr Jones said:
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.)
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).Lukeje said:
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.
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 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.
