Why do people love Citizen Kane?
- Thread starter Pontus Hashis
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm glad and not a little bit relieved that someone said it. With the lack of great modern tragedies in recent mainstream movies (the best fucking movies these days seem to be whatever Pixar releases that doesn't involve talking cars), it's easy to call Kane an old movie that doesn't live up to its billing if one has never seen or been exposed to tragedy before, but it's probably a better excuse to figure out what all those writers were raving about the last couple millennia than to write off a classic tragedy as a movie who's critical appeal you "don't get."GrimTuesday said:
EDIT: Also, referring to a conversation in the thread, I think Kubrick improved on the book with A Clockwork Orange. It didn't need the last chapter and the movie made more sense without it.
I knew CO and FC were based on books, but not EWS... Good to know =DThe_root_of_all_evil said:
Anyways, I don't think it's a bad thing when something gets addapted. Wasn't Hitchikers guide to the galaxy a radio-drama at first?
Clockwork Orange misses something vital out though. Alex repents in the end. He rejoins society.Lateinos said:
The film makes him succumb to his darker desires. That totally alters the entire story.
Fight Club also makes Tyler accept his alter-ego rather than struggle with it.
Eyes Wide Shut? Acceptance rather than struggle. That's indicative of the film audience rather than the basis of the books.
Citizen Kane? Struggle right to the end.
It's a better film, imho, because it doesn't take the comforting "heroic" way out. Charles Kane suffers due to his excesses, rather than revels in them - like Alex, Tyler or Bill Harford.
The Picture of Dorian Gray wouldn't be the masterpiece it is without Dorian's decline into madness. Same with Frankenstein, Gone with the Wind, Bladerunner, 2001,Dr Jekkyl and Mr Hyde...
I'm not trolling, guess I just had to high hopes... And EWS is a great experience.Lukeje said:
Also, didn't mean they were best movies ever (That would be MP: Holy Grail) , just top of my head best movies I've seen.
It's not always a bad thing, but the original message is usually lost. That can turn it into a vanity project.Pontus Hashis said:
God, H2G2 was originally part 3 of "Ways the World Ended" (I think), then it grew into the radio play, then the stage play, then the novels, then the TV series, then the computer game, then the extra novels, then the extra radio, then the film, then the final novel...I think.
There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another theory which states that this has already happened.
And WOE betide you say that one version is better than the others - mainly because Douglas Adams didn't even agree on which was the best.
But, if we're talking Adams, the BBC's version of Dirk Gently was bloody awful - which goes back to my original point - don't try and re-write what the author's sweated blood over.
I'm not sure if OP is also in Sweden, baecause it might explain why I also just saw Citizen Kane with my Grandmother (I semi-watched while playing Hitman: Blood Money on my laptop).
The main problem I have with the movie being called "the best movie ever" as it was presented here on Swedish state television, is that it's NOT timeless or universal. I found it to be heavily american, with dated ethics and rationale (Attitude towards women, non-whites, poor/uneducated) Along with a very unlikable central character.
I get that it is very well filmed. The atmosphere and cinematigraphy is something that we unfortunatley don't see much more of today (Am I the only one who hates the current trend of shaky close-ups of actors faces during fights?). I get the point of the story that tells about the life of a man from the outside, post-mortem. It would have been great if I hadn't seen similar things done better (Probably inspired by this movie), and if the character they centered on was actually likeable or even interesting.
Like several ppl on this thread have said: it was groundbreaking at the time, and very well filmed. Unfortunatley the story is NOT timeless nor universal, which, as far as I'm concerned, makes it impossible to even nominate it as a candidate for "best movie ever". But it is clear throughout this thread that I'm not the only one who thinks that this movie has lost it's relevance and "greatness" as time has moved on.
Also, like the OP I got the "Rosebud" thing before they revealed it at the end. The "complex" character of Kane was summed easily by my grandmother and me: "A boy torn away too early from his mother, the only one who showed him love, was always searching for that love from someone, anyone, throughout his life."
Eh, if you want a good character-driven movie, that will affect you deeply both emotionally and psychologically, then watch Rainman. I have been unable to watch it again, but I don't think I will ever forget it (unlike Citizen Kane).
The main problem I have with the movie being called "the best movie ever" as it was presented here on Swedish state television, is that it's NOT timeless or universal. I found it to be heavily american, with dated ethics and rationale (Attitude towards women, non-whites, poor/uneducated) Along with a very unlikable central character.
I get that it is very well filmed. The atmosphere and cinematigraphy is something that we unfortunatley don't see much more of today (Am I the only one who hates the current trend of shaky close-ups of actors faces during fights?). I get the point of the story that tells about the life of a man from the outside, post-mortem. It would have been great if I hadn't seen similar things done better (Probably inspired by this movie), and if the character they centered on was actually likeable or even interesting.
Like several ppl on this thread have said: it was groundbreaking at the time, and very well filmed. Unfortunatley the story is NOT timeless nor universal, which, as far as I'm concerned, makes it impossible to even nominate it as a candidate for "best movie ever". But it is clear throughout this thread that I'm not the only one who thinks that this movie has lost it's relevance and "greatness" as time has moved on.
Also, like the OP I got the "Rosebud" thing before they revealed it at the end. The "complex" character of Kane was summed easily by my grandmother and me: "A boy torn away too early from his mother, the only one who showed him love, was always searching for that love from someone, anyone, throughout his life."
Eh, if you want a good character-driven movie, that will affect you deeply both emotionally and psychologically, then watch Rainman. I have been unable to watch it again, but I don't think I will ever forget it (unlike Citizen Kane).
I loved Citizen Kane within the first few minutes, the music that was written for it stirs something up inside me.
The character of Kane is far more complex than what I'd been used to from watching modern Hollywood films. He's very witty, and the odd combination of forceful but guarded...perhaps hiding behind humour. I kinda liked the character, but I didn't feel like I ever got to know him or what made him tick, I get the feeling that the other characters in the film didn't really have deep relationships with him either, his relationships with women seeming particularly baseless.
I dunno...it was completely engrossing though.
The character of Kane is far more complex than what I'd been used to from watching modern Hollywood films. He's very witty, and the odd combination of forceful but guarded...perhaps hiding behind humour. I kinda liked the character, but I didn't feel like I ever got to know him or what made him tick, I get the feeling that the other characters in the film didn't really have deep relationships with him either, his relationships with women seeming particularly baseless.
I dunno...it was completely engrossing though.
Think of it as letting someone who has only played Wolfenstein his entire life play Condemned: Criminal Origins. The sheer jump in quality when compared to it's predecessors was what made Citizen Kane so famous. Yes it's nostalgia got stale by the 90s when better cinematography and scripts were available, but if you hold it against the other movies of it's time it earns it's praise.
...mostly. It certainly doesn't belong at the top position of AFI's Top 100 Films List.
...mostly. It certainly doesn't belong at the top position of AFI's Top 100 Films List.
I'm not going to even get into the tiny details. I'm simply going to say, that you don't have to like it (as we all have a right to our own opinion), but you do have to understand its significance. It's fabulous use of cinematography and editing set the standard during that period and even today.
It was the best 'back in those days'. Same with Gone with the Wind and Casablanca. I saw them all a while ago so I can't really go into detail but they were all original in some way (which is a big deal) and back then the acting was considered the best.
Also, usually when they say greatest, they mean by how much it effected the industry (in a good way), not that it was the most entertaining, so it's a fair judgement. Same with music, games, blah blah blah.
Also, usually when they say greatest, they mean by how much it effected the industry (in a good way), not that it was the most entertaining, so it's a fair judgement. Same with music, games, blah blah blah.
having skipped through the thread a little, the primary reason it's so highly touted is the innovations it brought to cinematography at that time. A lot like how Star Wars had to invent a whole lot of technology to make their movie, CK did sort of the same thing.
I love the movie. I can see why some don't but I think it is perfect.
The reason why people universally regard it so highlights because it almost rote the manual on cinematography. If you look closely you will realize that every shot and composition in Citizen Kane has been the influence for every movie to come. the only movie imo that is on the same level as Kane from a cinematography standpoint is 2001 a space odyssey.
another major factor can bee seen when you look at all other films from the time it came out. back in the day actors were "owned" by studios and studios woul build movies around actors ( Humphrey Bougart would always be the Film Noire hero) This led to a stale environment where movies had sort of their own language. the way people talked and acted was off just because thats how it was done back then. Citizen Kane used unknown actors and had dialog that was in the vernacular of the time which made it the most believable movie to date. also the plot is amazing.
in summation it is so widely regarded because of its undeniable influence on just about every movie to follow it.
The reason why people universally regard it so highlights because it almost rote the manual on cinematography. If you look closely you will realize that every shot and composition in Citizen Kane has been the influence for every movie to come. the only movie imo that is on the same level as Kane from a cinematography standpoint is 2001 a space odyssey.
another major factor can bee seen when you look at all other films from the time it came out. back in the day actors were "owned" by studios and studios woul build movies around actors ( Humphrey Bougart would always be the Film Noire hero) This led to a stale environment where movies had sort of their own language. the way people talked and acted was off just because thats how it was done back then. Citizen Kane used unknown actors and had dialog that was in the vernacular of the time which made it the most believable movie to date. also the plot is amazing.
in summation it is so widely regarded because of its undeniable influence on just about every movie to follow it.
I can explain why it disappointed you. Because every movie since then, and dozens of cartoons and comedians have spoiled it. Everything "good" is "the 'Citizen Kane' of x". It's so incorporated into our culture that it's no longer amazing. It doesn't feel new, or even "classic", it feels banal; commonplace.
There's a comic somewhere on the internets... something about kids saying Lord of the Rings wasn't very good because it "ripped off other movies" (movies that specifically stole from the novels). If I find it I'll post it. [sub]*grumble* kids today... *grumble*[/sub]
There's a comic somewhere on the internets... something about kids saying Lord of the Rings wasn't very good because it "ripped off other movies" (movies that specifically stole from the novels). If I find it I'll post it. [sub]*grumble* kids today... *grumble*[/sub]
It gets better through nostalgia goggles.
Also, the cinematography, atmosphere and pacing was almost perfect, which goes a long way in film.
Also, the cinematography, atmosphere and pacing was almost perfect, which goes a long way in film.
Actually, the narrator in Fight Club suffers because of excesses. At first he was a slave of consumerism, and then he was a slave of anti-establishment.The_root_of_all_evil said: