funny review of citizen kane on amazon (1 Viewer)

[Mike Broadman]

By calling Kane the "greatest movie ever," I think it goes a little beyond just who likes it how much. It involves its influence, technical accomplishments, and production, all within its historical context. It's the same reason The Beatles are always considered the "greatest rock band ever." This doesn't mean that everybody has to love Kane and Ringo more than anything else in the universe, it is simply a consensus of the relative achievement of these particular works within their art form. They are two totally different things.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

It doesn't matter whether you like the film or not...it's still an incredible piece of filmmaking.

This is exactly what my view of Citizen Kane is. The story just doesn't interest me. However, I can certainly appreciate Kane for the fantastic piece of brilliant filmaking that it is. And even though the story itself doesn't interest me, the way the story is told is very good!

 

[Seth Paxton]

Actually, that's certainly not fact. It is, instead, a logical fallacy called an "appeal to authority."

But it is a fact that this process is the closest we can come to finding "truth" in art, at least until some better method is brought forward.

Art is not empty and is not pointless (my assumption). But if it has substance and has a point, then certainly that substance, that value, can be measured and the meanings to those points can be understood.

What IS subjective is the measuring sticks that are used to gauge art.

Until some more certain scale or measurement process is brought forward, I will continue to put my belief in the critical consensus with a dash of general appeal added. My feelings are that any work can not be fully appreciated by those who have not studied the subject...and this is true for "factual" works like science and math as well.

Take someone without even a basic knowledge of algebra and show them an advanced mathematical proof and they simply will not be able to appreciate the quality of the proof, nor the difficulty. In fact you could have an incorrect proof and they would likely not be able to distinguish this from a valid one.

So that tells us that expertise in a subject, which comes from rigorous study and investigation of the subject at hand, does have a bearing on a person's ability to evaluate the subject. It's not just some "instinctive" idea that those who study it, know it.

And then we balance individual taste by polling across a spectrum of people. This helps take out the noise in the system and gives a more generalized measure of the appeal to a person.

I agree that it's not the end all be all, or that there might be some better process, but I fully disagree that this current process is trivial or ridiculous or something not based on solid, well-thought-out methods.


After all, it's also just "opinion" that the integrated circuit was a greater invention than the toaster. So when my neighbor tells me that his toaster is more impressive than the space shuttle, I can't really say he's "wrong" since it's all just opinion.

But if we play that game then every single thing in life becomes the trivial solution. Meaning that everything is debunked with the Lebowski "well, that's just, like, your opinion, man."

Remember, science is opinion too. There is no absolute checking device that we turn in our math and science to for verification. The very process we use to validate a theory is based on a human theory of what should make a theory valid. Logic itself being a human creation based on the human thought process.

The mistake is to think that some human perception CAN be measured by this all-mighty window of "absolute truth".

They can't. It's just that humans come up with a consensus of what seems to make sense to them, who's feedback seems to promote the ideas (like experimental measurements), and we go with that as our best guess at "truth". Remember, even the measuring devices are skewed to human perception. What we measure the world with and by is based on what we THINK is the best way to measure things. One theory is a built upon another until the foundation is so far removed that it is no longer questioned.

Why? Because it's all we've got.

The "fallacy" of this process is more evident when discussing subjects like art. But that doesn't make the effort or application less valid. It's still humans seeking truth with their limited resources of understanding of the world.

And I would say that if you invalidate that, you reduce art to a trivial, empty process.


Does this make CK the greatest film ever? No. But it DOES make the concept that CK is the greatest film ever more valid than the concept that it sucks.

You don't have to agree, just like my neighbor doesn't have to agree that the IC is a better invention than the toaster.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Art is not empty and is not pointless (my assumption). But if it has substance and has a point, then certainly that substance, that value, can be measured and the meanings to those points can be understood.

An excellent post, Seth. If I may add a conceit of my own, I would submit that, for those with the proper training (I like your math example) the reason that the integrated circuit is a greater invention than the toaster can be quantified.

So too, can much of art. What makes Bach, for example a greater composer than many of his contemporaries can (and has been) quantified by musicologists. The reasoning can be understood by those with a reasonable, though not extensive background. So too with painting, with sculpture and so on.

As Rob observes in this thread, he can understand what makes Citizen Kane great, even though he may not personally care for the subject matter, nor even the movie itself. Mike (and others) make a similar point.

Of course, some learned experts will disagree with the consensus; but as in all academic arguments, disagreements that challenge the paradigm, serve, in the end to either shift to a new view or to strengthen the current one. I would suggest that the importance of Wells and Citizen Kane is as close to artistic consensus as is possible. While this does not automatically make Citizen Kane the greatest or best or most important film ever (if, indeed such a thing were possible), it makes it very difficult to state, for example, that there are 100 better films. The more so, with no justification to substantiate that claim.

To have a view that just because some group of experts holds an opinion, does not mean that opinion cannot be successfully challenged.

But to state that all opinions have equal validity, because the discussion centers on art, not science ignores not only the technical part of art (which is easily quantifiable), but learned experience and evidence that goes back at least 2,500 years.

I have a high regard for many members of this forum who have substantially different views than mine on what makes movies great or one better than another. This is because they are able to articulate the reasoning behind their positions and reach a conclusion consistent with their position; hopefully with humor. But that respect does not come simply because they have stated a contrary position based on a ‘I may not know much about art, but I know what I like’ attitude.

 

[Damin J Toell]

But that doesn't make the effort or application less valid.

I've never said that the effort of appreciation is invalid or a useless enterprise, only that the effort fails to achieve an ultimate truth. I do not think that enterprises that fail to achieve truth are necessarily invalid; thusly, aesthetic critique and interpretation of great validity in my life.

DJ

 

[Seth Paxton]

If the closest we can come is a fallacious appeal to authority, then we can't achieve truth in aesthetics at all.

Then the bad news is that science is f***'d too.

Appeal to authority suggests no actual proof, not that some governing body has mandated a formula.

After all, what is the current temperature? And what non-human, absolute and neutral entity provided you with that measuring scale?

Not following some IEEE standard is wrong? Who says, IEEE? Who made them boss?


Appeal to authority is "This film is great because Bob the Mighty says so". True VALID debate in proving a point is to say "This film is great because no shot lasts more than 5 seconds nor less than 3" or something like that.

You can disagree with the standards being set, just as happens in science all the time. But aesthetic standards can be proven just like "scientific" ones can be. Films WILL have success or lack of, and theories about this potential success can be made prior to the experiment too.

Definitions of good can be made, and then films can be measured against those definitions quite reasonably. That is also not an appeal to authority.

You seek to discount the organizations or schools of thought by claiming appeal to authority, but if that were possible then all of science would also become worthless since that is what all of it ultimately becomes.

Christ, we can go into quantum mechanics and point out that this most fundamental of sciences, a cornerstone on which all other science rests, is based very heavily in PROBABILITY and non-measurable values. Who says any of this is then right? Some group of authority figures, that's who. How did they become that authority? By years of study and research in the field.


It kills me when people take the sciences as some deeply absolute thing and art as some totally abstract concept when the truth is that both are much closer to each other than that view would suggest. The processes used to study each subject are not nearly as different as one might imagine.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Quote:

Is this comment directed at me? Did I ever say that science is a deeply absolute thing?
DJ

 

[Max Leung]

It kills me when people take the sciences as some deeply absolute thing and art as some totally abstract concept when the truth is that both are much closer to each other than that view would suggest. The processes used to study each subject are not nearly as different as one might imagine.

They are indeed quite different. Very different indeed. Two scientists can (and will) have completely differing opinions on a physical mechanism governing the movement of stars and other heavenly objects. Yet, if one came up with a formula that accurately predicts the motion of the planets, the other scientist will have no choice but to accept it (with much work trying to disprove the theory through independent observation, maybe even go so far as use ad hominem attacks against his colleague). The scientist observes what is already present in nature, and comes up with predictions to determine if his theories are correct.
Art: Observation, subject to opinion. "The man looks like a meat pancake." "No, I disagree, he looks like a tenderized imprint of the Virgin Mary".
Science: Observation and prediction. Results independent of opinion. "I predict that he'll fall and go splat". The man jumps off the building, and goes splat. "See? I told you so!" "Yes, I agree. I concede that my opinion that gravity does not exist is wrong. Good thing I didn't jump myself to prove it like he did!"