Citizen Kane (1 Viewer)

[Seth Paxton]

Well, while we sprial away from Kane at full speed let me add.

2 of my top 5 comedies are:

Animal Crackers

Arsenic and Old Lace

the others

Holy Grail

Life of Brian

Blazing Saddles

Ghostbusters

Caddyshack

Stripes would all be nearby as well.

So my comedy list leans a bit more toward the classics. I also love the "Road to" series. Hope in him prime was one of the best, and great opposite Crosby.

 

[Eve T]

I must confess that I have never had the pleasure of viewing Citizen Kane. I do plan on watching it soon thanks to this very informative thread. Even though I am a younger person well if you call your 20's young ... I still enjoy older movies.
I find myself going back to the older horror films and finding myself really scared! I watch the newer horror flicks as well but something about an old black and white horror flick really frightens me in a way I cannot explain. I loved Mr. Stuart in It's a Wonderful life and that is one of my all time favorite movies. I think I'll go watch the other ones that were mentioned in this thread as well. Thank you for the info.
Peace
Eve

 

[Seth Paxton]

Eve, my g/f had one complaint about Kane. Keep in mind that she's no big film lover (she doesn't have the patience for film that a film nut does), but she does have decent taste.

Her complaint was that the dialog was too snappy and fast, that it wasn't realistic.

Actually that's probably very accurate. This is before Brando brought method acting to the screen which has changed what we expect from cinema. But in the Kane era the key was snappy, clever dialog delivered in a lively, yet non-real manner.

So, like always, YMMV. But few are let down by Kane. It's a very interesting film to watch. Just neat to see that cinematography and directing at the very least.

The shot of Kane in front of his huge face while campaigning is just one of many great shots in the film.

 

[Eve T]

Thank you for the info Seth, I'll take that into account and I'm sure I'll love it.

Peace,

Eve

 

[Joe D]

Doesn't anybody know whether the Touch of Evil DVD was shot widescreen or not? Please, I want to purchase this.

 

[Greg_Y]

The DVD wasn't "shot" anything, but the film is approximately 1.85:1.
Here's the back cover, so you can see for yourself
http://images.dvdempire.com/gen/movies/16798bh.jpg

 

[Jack Briggs]

Re pre-1970 comedies. A title: A Night at the Opera. There are no films that are funnier.

Another topic: Scariest film of all time? Try 1963's original version of The Haunting, directed by Robert Wise. Shot in widescreen black-and-white and containing zero special effects. It's based on the premise that we're more afraid of what we don't see. And it sure works.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Classic Comedies, eh. Don't forget a hefty dose of Ernst Lubitsch & Howard Hawks (in screwball mode) with your Marx Brothers & Preston Sturges.
Regards,

 

[Seth Paxton]

I believe Touch of Evil is simply soft-matted to 1.85 but was shot at 1.33. That's why IMDB lists it as "intended ratio" 1.85.

Maybe the studio did release it at 1.33 against Welles wishes? I don't know the Touch of Evil scoop as well as other people. But the way IMDb lists it is sort of odd.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

The dialog and scripts were generally so much better on the "old" movies (at least the more acclaimed ones) than what we get from most high-budget films today.

I think you just countered your own argument; there were a ton of poor "old" movies as well, we just don't remember them

 

[Allen Hirsch]

Adam-
OK. Let's try it this way. Is there another 3-year period anytime in the past 15-20 years to compare to 1939-1941:
Gone With The Wind, 1939
Goodbye Mr. Chips, 1939
Gunga Din, 1939
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, 1939
Only Angels Have Wings, 1939
Stagecoach, 1939
The Wizard of Oz, 1939
Fantasia, 1940
The Grapes of Wrath, 1940
His Girl Friday, 1940
The Mark Of Zorro, 1940
The Philadelphia Story, 1940
Pinocchio, 1940
Rebecca, 1940
Citizen Kane, 1941
How Green Was My Valley, 1941
The Lady Eve, 1941
The Little Foxes, 1941
The Maltese Falcon, 1941
That's 19 films, all close to classic status, only 8 that are on the AFI 100 list. So 11 of these are from the AFI 400 list, and I don't think there's a "dialog groaner" in the bunch.
Can you find any recent 3-year period richer in acclaimed films than that list?
No? I didn't think so .

 

[Agee Bassett]

Not to mention:

• Of Mice and Men, 1939
• Wuthering Heights, 1939
• The Letter, 1940
• The Great McGinty, 1940
• Foreign Correspondent, 1940
• The Devil and Daniel Webster, 1941
• Sullivan's Travels, 1941*
• Kings Row, 1941*
  * - Saw limited engagements in late 1941.

I've had this argument before, and I've found that those which hold sentiments to the contrary invariably fail to account for the fact that the cinemas of yesterday shared screens with material which would later find a home in a medium called "television." In the days before a boob-tube graced every living room and bedroom, the public's appetite for entertainment was not slaked by the occasional trip to the local movie house to see the next "event" picture. Consequently, a significant portion of the studios' production line was geared specifically for cranking out "B" amusements of all genres. What later was "Father Knows Best" was the Blondie franchise of the '30s and '40s. An earlier generation's John Wayne six-reeler was the baby-boomers' "Gunsmoke" and "Wagon Train." "Gilligan's Island" or "I Dream of Jeannie" was once the "Road" series or the films of Abbott & Costello.
Moreover, considering this proportion of intentionally modest creations, the overall cinema product or yore should not be held to the same standards as today's consistently blockbuster/multiplex-oriented, big-budget spectaculars. More prudently, one should qualify a balance of comparison by including only the "A" list productions of yesteryear. And when one, say, considers the list above, it shouldn't be difficult to see where today's studio product comes up woefully lacking.

 

[Jason_Els]

Odd you should mention Agnes Moorehead. As I was watching Kane the last time I was struck by what a great performance she had for such a small part. Fear, rage, sorrow, determination, loss; these all worked their way into just a few lines of dialog. Then I realized her voice, her expression, her carriage, and just the slightest changes in them brought far more than just the dialog. This is Agnes Moorehead as a serious actress and probably the best performance in the movie.

There is another part of Kane that we never see these days: ensemble acting. These players knew each others acting style inside and out from their years together as a radio troupe. They play off each other and fit together as a whole. There aren't any trailing interruptions that don't sound natural, they aren't standoffish from each other, they fill their dialog with a natural rhythm. They act with, not at each other and none of them pull star stunts. I guess I'd say that the characters treat each other as people in ordinary life. This kind of acting you find in reperatory companies and it is, by every means, a blessing not only to the viewer, but to the players as well. It means you know the other characters as you know your own. You see deeper into them because you already know from whom they are born; thus each character has more background, is more complete.

Every time I see Kane something else appears. I love it and miss it. They may not make them like "Now Voyager" any more but they sure as hell don't make them like this anymore either. Pity.

Thanks,

Jason

 

[Seth Paxton]

Jason, that's a very good point regarding the ensemble acting for Kane.

Again, it doesn't sound "real" but it sounds good. It has a rhythmic beat to it that is very pleasing.

Thus the snappiness that my g/f complained about. It's a lost art in most modern circles of film.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Since we're talking about Citizen Kane here (screw proper English, I'm bold-facing my movie titles thank you very much), I think I'll share my experiences with it as well. If you don't give a rat's ass about me, don't read it.
I think it was about the first quarter of 1997 (age 17, a junior in high school, and beginning to become overweight) when I first heard of Citizen Kane. Of course, the first thing you ever hear about Citizen Kane is that "it's the greatest movie of all time". You don't throw aroud phrases like that unless you were being serious (or pretty obnoxious and stupid, but that's another story).
So I set to find out more about the movie. I'd gather bits and pieces here and there (eg. spoofs involving snow sleds, a reference in the Simpsons that had to a tribute to Burns a la some guy named Charles Foster Kane). I finally came to learn the name of Orson Welles. My only previous exposure to Orson Welles was Transformers: The Movie. Keep in mind here that I still haven't a clue what the movie was all about. Then a movie called Citizen Cohn? with James Woods came out. I'm mentioning this as an interesting anecdote because at that time, I'd always wondered if the two Citizen movies had anything to do with each other. Due to the fact that I lived and went to school in a small Eastern Kentucky town, researching resources were rather limited. So I still didn't have a clue about Citizen Kane.
Now here's where my memory gets extremely hazy. All I remember is that one of two things (or both) motivated me to buy Citizen Kane "site unseen": 1. The AFI Top 100 American Movies list came out and help support the claim that Citizen Kane is one of the greatest movies or 2. Citizen Kane was re-released on video. So on some opportunistic trip up to Cincy, I bought Citizen Kane.
I must admit that 1997 was a magical year for movies with me. I got to see for the first time films like Patton, The Godfather, Army of Darkness, and Lawrence of Arabia. And for better or worse, I got to revisit my favorites with Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi. And of course, the point of this story, Citizen Kane.
Let's see where was I, overweight, 17, junior year of high school, oh yes, Citizen Kane was one of the best movies I'd seen in a long while. I remember this long stretch where I'd seen some stinkers (Crow 2: City of Angels anyone?), and Citizen Kane was a breath of fresh air. The drama that is Charles Foster Kane was one hell of an interesting story to follow. From his childhood to a scene in Xanadu where Kane pausies and sees his tired self in the multiple reflections, the audience is always kept at attention to the mystery of "Rosebud". Of course we later learn what Rosebud is and simply feel sad about the tragedy that was Kane's life and how eerily closely our own lives can come to it. Oh no, not me, I have a heart of stone.
Fast Foward to four months ago. I took my first (and probably last since I'm graduating) film class. I got to learn the basic terms such as mise-en-scene and better understand the subtleties of editing and cinematography. After receiving my DVD copy of Citizen Kane, I watched it for the first time since 1997, and can better appreciate the film. I can understand why film lover's (minus Orson Scott Card) go gaga over this film. The low angle shots that make Kane seemingly tower over every other character, and the low-lighting that sets the mood and tone of most scenes. Gregg Toland did a fascinating job with the cinematography. To me at least, the cinematography worked extrememly well hand in hand with the narrative of Kane.
Fast Foward to today. While attempting to finish the AFI Top 100, I got to watch other cinematographic gems such as The Best Years of Our Lives and Wuthering Heights. I thought, "Gee, the films are so different, yet the cinematography is beautiful in both films." Of course, due to the amazing nature of my inability to put two and two together, I never realized they were both done by Director of Photography Gregg Toland. Man, I wonder about myself sometimes.
Give yourelf a beer and a pat on the back Mr. Adam. You've discovered for yourself a pretty good movie.

 

[John Knowles]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned how incredible the musical score for Kane is! This score, while being great music on its own, fits the film well and has the depth that more than matches the other great aspects of Kane.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Amen to that, John. Which just goes to show how each discreet element of this film is integrated into one seamless whole that works brilliantly.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Let's face it, when a great film has all it's elements come into perfect harmony it's magical.
Taste still affects how we feel about that, but I know that I have at least 20 films that nail every single aspect of cinema.
It's the fix that keeps us coming back after things like Freddie Got Fingered (cause otherwise I'd stick to reading after that ).

 

[Dome Vongvises]

As the old saying goes, "count your blessings".
Well, one of my blessings is that I've never met this girl named Gina. Anybody interested in that story, reply to this.
Can I count never having seen Freddie Got Fingered as the other?

 

[Holadem]

I though I would resurrect this thread instead of creating a new one. I am ashamed to admit that I still didn't get Rosebud until I read about it here :b. I listened to the end of Ebert's commentary, but something just didn't click. I left thinking we were never meant to know!
Even if I had not liked the movie, I would have kep t it for the commentary. Like said above, it is like film school.
Great movie, much better than I expected (backlash).
--
Holadem