Why do people love Citizen Kane?
- Thread starter Pontus Hashis
- Start date
I disagree here. Citizen Kane is very human, since one of the themes is the eventual loss of humanity.LiquidGrape said:
People love it because it's a damn good film. If guessing the plot twist is so important to you, you approached it the wrong way because the story is about the character Kane, not any riveting plot twists. It's very well made and in my opinion is quite timeless; it doesn't seem dated to me at all and I still enjoy it whenever I watch it again.
I can see how it may be hard to watch if you're used to something on the screen exploding every other minute whilst character archetypes regurgitate lines meant to sound badass ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it overrated, it just means you need to broaden your horizons beyond current hollywood drivel.
I can see how it may be hard to watch if you're used to something on the screen exploding every other minute whilst character archetypes regurgitate lines meant to sound badass ad nauseum, but that doesn't make it overrated, it just means you need to broaden your horizons beyond current hollywood drivel.
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.
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.Lukeje said:
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.Dr Jones said:
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.
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.
It is a prevalent theme, absolutely, but my problem with Welles is that he overintellectualised everything. Including theme.CthulhuRlyeh said:
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.
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.
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.
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.The_root_of_all_evil said:
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.)
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...
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...
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.LiquidGrape said:
Clockwork orange is a master piece, ofc it's better than citizen Kane, which suck.Pontus Hashis said:
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.)
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.)
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.