Citizen Kane (1 Viewer)

[Steve_Ch]

>>Cititzen Kane just has it all...doesn't lack in any department.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

I do rank Kane at the top, maybe not THE best film of all time, but close

and don't forget, no collection is complete without Mr. Welles' final role

Unicron in Transformers: The Movie

 

[Ken Seeber]

C.K. is a great film, but it's great in the context of all the technical achievements and intellectual manuvering, but it does NOT have it all, it is NOT a white knucle film (as some of the best of Hitchock), NOT a heart warming tale (as in It's a Wondeful Life), NOT a great action drama (as in Seven Samurai), Not a great large ensemble movie (almost any Robert Altman), Not a great Romance (as in Casablanca), NOT a comedy with heart (as in the Apartment), and NOT a take no prisoners laugh you heart out (as in It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World).

I think you misunderstood what Roland meant when he wrote that "Citizen Kane" "has it all."

He clearly didn't mean that the film manages to cover every imaginable film genre. I believe he meant the film succeeds on every level a film can be judged upon --- writing, direction, photography, acting, editing, storytelling, etc.

 

[Al B. C]

Why not? It's his opinion. I particularly don't care for the movie myself. I don't think it stinks. It's visually amazing for it's time, and broke some new ground, that doesn't mean I have to think of it as the best film that I ever saw. Far from it.

And by the way, I think "Gone With The Wind" stinks.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Steve:

What touches you "so deep in your soul" may not correspond with touches mine. But one way in which Citizen Kane achieves its unquestioned greatness is by speaking to so many facets of the human experience so compellingly. It's an adult drama that enlightens the viewer while entertaining her or him.

I get shivers up and down my spine when screening Citizen Kane--and, as Michael notes--repeat viewings reveal even more nuances. Incredible.

JB

 

[Steve_Ch]

That's why I think it's sad that a film has to be ranked "number one" or "the best ever".

Being a frequent reader in the forum, I can say there are certainly no lack of serious film students and watchers in here that thinks 8 1/2, Seven Samurai or Lawrence or Arabia (Grand Illusion, Casablanca, ...) being the best ever made, and certainly, to quote from Ken, all of the above can be said to be "succeeds on every level a film can be judged upon --- writing, direction, photography, acting, editing, storytelling, etc.". On the other hand, there are also many that thinks Seven Samurai being incredibly boring, LOA boring with aweful script, and 8 1/2 totally incomprehensible.

And of course there's the all elusive emotional content, personally, I think CK is a great intellectual and technical film, and it's not just a causal comment, as all the literature you read about CK are about screenplay, camera work, story telling (all of which are important), but I can't remember a single writing about emotional appeal (say, something like Casablanca, anything you read, you cannot aviod the talk of the magic of Bergman and Bogart). Now it does not mean the movie does not touch anybody, but it's not something the movie has wide spread acclaim for.

Personally, I like CK a lot, and I think it's definitely one of the greatest ever made, but I do not at all buy into the concept of "Best Ever", and, if somebody said it's boring, can't get involved with the characters, etc, I say fine. I said the same to people that did not like Seven Samurai or LOA or any of the "among the greatest ever", as not every movie appeals to everybody, even if it's voted the "Best".

 

[Michael Taylor]

I think several of you have neglected to mention that not only did Citizen Kane do everything well, it also did a lot of them first! A filmmaker, today, has achieved a victory if he innovates or moves cinema forward even one step. For example, The Matrix wowed audiences with its innovative use of hundreds of cameras to pause the action and swirl around the actors before continuing. Citizen Kane was the first film to have dialog for one scene begin over the action of the previous scene - we take that for granted today. Several types of camera work made their first use in this film (My memory fails me exactly what they are, so I hope some of you will help me on this). I remember hearing Roger Ebert discuss several aspects of the film that had never been done before but now are commonplace.

Ok, so I am not a film historian, but what I am trying to say is that Citizen Kane propelled the craft of film farther than most other films combined. It did everything well and then some. I shudder to think what this film would have become of Orson Welles did not have total control. How many ways would it have timidly stepped back from greatness to shrink back into obscurity?

 

[Roland G]

I think that with those lists it is really all about, which movie did what FIRST.

Just because Kane is supposed to be the best achivement on film. Doesn't mean it is the greatest story ever told.

It's just that they invented a lot of stuff with this one.

It's just a big landmark on the film history map....one of the first big landmarks.

Would Star Wars be considered such a great Scifi film without its effects....i think not.

 

[TheoGB]

it also did a lot of them first!

Should that matter, though? I'm not being facetious here.

The musical analogy is there. The Beatles or Hendrix, etc. might well have done something first, but if someone else uses that and does it better, isn't that the point.

They might have been shown the way but judging (say) by how different countries list different people as the inventor of a device, it's clear that just because you had the idea first, doesn't mean there isn't anyone else out there with it.

The point is that I don't think any great significance should be given to CK or any movie being the first to do something except for the fact that it was the first. After that it's got to be compared to the current situation...

 

[Steve Christou]

Citizen Kane is a great movie, not in my top 10 favorites, but I've seen it many times over the past 20 years, the most infamous bit of trivia concerning this film is Kane's dying word "Rosebud" which opens the film, no one is in the room to hear him whisper that word, but the whole film revolves around what that word meant to Kane (unless ofcourse it was a very loud whisper).

 

[Tom Rhea]

Citizen Kane is a great movie, not in my top 10 favorites, but I've seen it many times over the past 20 years, the most infamous bit of trivia concerning this film is Kane's dying word "Rosebud" which opens the film, no one is in the room to hear him whisper that word, but the whole film revolves around what that word meant to Kane (unless ofcourse it was a very loud whisper).

It's true that no one is shown in the room with Kane when he says Rosebud, but the butler says he was in there when he's being interviewed near the end of the movie.

 

[Lew Crippen]

But at the same time, I would like to add that although I do consider it the best film ever made, it is not my favorite film.

I think that you would have a lot of company with that statement. It was Ebert (I think) in his commentary who said that while, when asked his opinion on the best film ever, always said Kane, his favorite Wells movie was The Magnificent Ambersons. I may have mistaken Ebert for someone else, making a similar comment. Still, I find this illustrative.

As for me, the best ever of anything is a bit difficult. What difference does it make if Kane is better than the Seven Samurai or not. And many others. I enjoy them all and would probably change my opinions as to a ranking, depending on how I felt on the day, or hour, or instant.

 

[Mike Broadman]

but I suggest you watch the DVD with Roger Ebert's commentary. He points out many many great things about this film that all add up together to give it the praise it rightfully deserves.

I already own and love this film, and it still sounds like a good idea.
I haven't checked out Ebert's commentary because I generally don't like commentaries nor film critics. However, maybe this would prove interesting on a lazy afternoon one day.

The scope of this film is just marvelous. I dunno... it's just a very engaging experience.
The complaint of "slow paced" sometimes irks me a little. Yes, it is slow paced. So what's wrong with that? A good story often takes it time to develop. Characters don't just magically appear on a screen, we have to get to know them. By today's standards, most older dramas are "slow paced," and thank God for that.

 

[Michael Taylor]

I strongly encourage you to listen to Ebert's commentary. In it, he is not so much a film critic, but a student of the film. He brings up many good points about the it that I never would have known, or maybe even noticed. I found the Bogdanovich commentary less interesting, and redundant as well, since he said most of the same things Ebert said, only less engagingly.

The point is that I don't think any great significance should be given to CK or any movie being the first to do something except for the fact that it was the first. After that it's got to be compared to the current situation...

I actually agree with you. The point is that CK did several things first and did them so well that it *does* hold up to films that do them today. The innovations in CK have not been bested by the films that imitated them.

The abyss was James Cameron's first film to use the CGI liquid creature effect. He bested that by a long shot, however, when he created Terminator 2. I wouldn't steadfastly say that The Abyss was superior to T2 because it was the first to do something when it was trumped by T2. Most of CK's innovations have not been significantly moved forward by the films that followed.

 

[Tom Rhea]

As for me, the best ever of anything is a bit difficult. What difference does it make if Kane is better than the Seven Samurai or not.

Ultimately, none. As it happens, although I enjoy Kane tremendously (I truly don't understand why people say it isn't entertaining and can only be enjoyed on some intellectual level that, I assure you, I do not have access to), I enjoy Seven Samurai even more. I think the difference is, when you are talking about "best" as opposed to "favorite" movies, that you have to take into account a movie's influence on others. In that respect, I think Kane probably has been a lot more influential than Seven Samurai, and is properly considered to be a better movie.

 

[David Tallen]

John Gates, don't feel that there must be sometning wrong with you if you don't personally rate C.K. as a "great" film. Usually it is the young people who don't don't fully appreciate certain films; some movies take time and repeated viewings. However, at age 55, I have seen C.K. several times (I own it on DVD, of course) and I do not think it is a "great" film. I do think it is a very important film, but not great. When I listened to Roger Ebert's commentary, I was struck by the extent to which Ebert extolled the film-making innovations but had little else to say. As far as I'm concerned, technique alone does not a great movie make. Welles may have been a movie genius of sorts, because he was the first to do certain things, but that does not mean that the movie in which he did these things is, therefore, great.

Give me Casablanca any day. Movie-making may require great technique, but the true test of a movie (for the viewer) is how it tells the story. Movies are made to be watched, not simply studied.

 

[John Gates]

David,

I think you have expressed my feelings very well. I'm intrigued by all the discussion, however, and I think I will rewatch the film with Ebert's commentary. I'm sure I will learn something and I may grow to appreciate the "greatness" of the film. I was unaware of the technical innovations of the film at the time I first watched it. The problem for me was the story never "hooked" me like so many other stories do. That said, I'm eager to see if I can discover the magic that others see in the film.

Cheers,

John G

 

[Robert Crawford]

Just because the telling of that story didn't work for you doesn't necessarily mean that Welles wasn't successful with many others in telling Charles Foster Kane's story. Furthermore, age has little to do with appreciating this film's greatness while personal taste and acceptance play larger roles in that process.





Crawdaddy

 

[Holadem]

Movies are made to be watched, not simply studied.

I liked the movie a lot, and can appreciate it's greatness on an intellectual level.
But it really does baffle me that it should have such a supreme status. Far more compelling stories have been told in 100+ years - albeit with perhaps less technical innovations but close enough.
--
Holadem

 

[Morgan Jolley]

If you want a good story, you can read a book. You watch a movie because of how the story is visually given to the viewer.

If a film can be watched and enjoyed, it's a good movie. If it can be examined, studied, ripped apart, and still be good, then it's a GREAT movie. This is what makes Citizen Kane so good: it can be enjoyed for what it is at face value, but when you think about it more and look further into it, it just gets better.

For example, the story of the movie is told through the people who were big parts in Kane's life. They are approached by reporters (or it may be one reporter, I don't remember) to tell their thoughts on Kane. So in a sense, the reporters are the one's who are in charge of transferring the story from the interviewees to the viewers. But what's interesting is that we never see their faces. Why? Because in news papers, you are told a story by a faceless reporter. The way that the film was shot (hiding the faces of the reporters) is symbolic of how the story of Kane's life would have been told in newspapers.

This makes the film a little more interesting. The fact that it can be broken down and then be made a better film with this knowledge is what makes it a GREAT movie.