Why do people love Citizen Kane?

[Ghengis John]

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)

It was the first movie to do a lot of things. In that, it was quite innovative, in it's day. Your mind has been conditioned by watching thousands of movies that have imitated it, such is the curse of it's success and the impact it made upon the public. You have to look back upon the film with an eye to it's innovations. You saw the twist coming because you have seen it's like before. I suppose to put it another way, imagine how much harder it would be for you to fall prey to the Trojan Horse. We all know the technique and so it would be unlikely to have such an impressive result a second time. Yet if you'd never dreamed of such a thing before the impact would be devastating and would become quite renowned, and deservedly so. Would it not?

 

[Mayonegg]

Welles was a theatrical director, so he brought with him a very stylised look.

The script was the first to use a non-linear narrative, particularly one based on subjective viewpoints of the principal characters (as Rashomon would later).

The acting is good, nothing stellar and the comedy and light moments seem awkward at best.

Mainly I just re-watch certain moments to remind myself how a master does deep-focus photography (just watch the scene of Kane as a child in the cabin again).

 

[SillyBear]

Citizen Kane('41): 100%. No-one, repeat NO-ONE, of the film critic studios gave it less than a stellar review. (Bergman famously called it boring, but his view on things is..interesting)

Lol, what?

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.

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

 

[Spade Lead]

In the end you get the sense that nobody really knew what type of man Kane was, including possibly Kane himself.

From a Psychology standpoint, I think he might have been Bi-Polar... I know I have mood swings like that some days. And that is just another point in this movies favor. He was such a DYNAMIC character.

 

[docSpitfire]

I think Citizen Kane has lost a lot of it's effect because as time passed it lost it's context, because aside from classes where I learned about Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wasn't ever mentioned in school.

I think if you want to do film school that it retains it's "must view" status because of it's technical brilliance.

 

[Henkie36]

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)

I think it's more of a ''it was great at the time'' movie, because I doubt that you saw it in movie theaters in 1941 when it was new. I don't know, maybe it'si just one of those movies which has aged well up to a certain point, but that point is now behind us and it was downhill from there on in. I've watched because everyone who likes movies has to watch it at some point, But in the, it didn't feel like anything special. Good, but not amazing. If it had been made today, I doubt whether or not it would be regarded better or worse then The Dark Knight.

 

[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.

 

[Lukeje]

Long story short, is this an attempt at trolling?

Of course. Anyone disagreeing with a popular opinion is always trolling. There's no way someone could actually dislike a movie, after all.

Did you actually read my post, or did you just jump to the word `trolling' and draw your opinions from there?

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.)

Clockwork Orange misses something vital out though. Alex repents in the end. He rejoins society.

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...

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.

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

Even though I would imagine Kubrick not using the last scene nevertheless.

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.

That's not something that's really provable now, is it?

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?

In regards to your edit, what list are you going by?
Really it doesn't matter what some list online says, it's what you think when you watch the films.

I think my original thoughts are evident from the post.

 

[Throwitawaynow]

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.

 

[Mr.Tophat]

It is considered the greatest movie ever because every movie you have seen in your whole entire life drew at-least one thing from it.

Citizen Kane revolutionized film making and made it what it is today. That... and it is a DAMN good film.

I'd go into finer detail if I wasn't certain you could find a better explanation than any I could provide with a Google search.

 

[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.