Citizen Kane (1 Viewer)

[Holadem]

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.

Well, I watch a movie because of the story AND how the story is visually given to the viewer.

I do agree with the rest of your post.

--
Holadem

 

[SteveGon]

Furthermore, age has little to do with appreciating this film's greatness while personal taste and acceptance play larger roles in that process.

The more I think about it, the more I agree with that statement. I know a few people - some in my own family - that won't give CK a chance simply because it's an old black & white movie. What a shame.

 

[andrew markworthy]

To paraphrase the start of this thread:

I saw King Lear for the first time the other day. To be blunt, I thought it stunk. It's so ponderous, and everyone speaks in this dumb language that nobody uses anymore.

It's not a matter of 'liking' a great work of art. On a personal level, there are lots of movies I *enjoy* more than Citizen Kane or for that matter, Seven Samurai or Rules of the Game. The point is that these are the bedrock upon which everything else is built. In a similar manner, you don't have to like Shakespeare or Ibsen. But you do need to *respect* them.

 

[Cees Alons]

Hear, hear (Andrew)!

Cees

 

[Seth Paxton]

How many of you watch C.K. and just broke down and cry, because it touched you so deep in your soul

This is not the only emotional response a film can go for, first of all. AND, how many films are heavy-handed and push the right manipulative buttons to get the "cry" from audiences, yet are regarded as cheap for that very reason.


How I measure CK (or any film) is if when I watch the film it keeps me glued to it with fluid linking from scene to scene. This can be done with dialog, images, story, soundtrack...all of these elements together at it's best.

CK starts with a very powerful set of images that tell us a great deal, or more accurately invite us in by placing mysterious images before us, and from that point EVERY scene is lean and bare, only adding what is necessary as its rung in the ladder.

Few films come anywhere close to being so free of fat or missteps. It has a story and a theme to tell and it wastes no breath in telling it.

So I measure it in it's ability to put within us a compulsion to know more, to find out what is next, to see the next step. That is the measure of great film, the particulars of the emotional response are circumstantial to that process.

And while I don't have CK at the top of my personal favs, it lingers near the top 10. And that is only because that list is based a bit more on how well the themes/style of the film apply TO ME. Doesn't make them better films, just more personal. CK easily tops my "best" films list.


- for the record, one of the other most compelling sequence of shots has no dialog, that is the opening 30 minutes of 2001. I point this out because it would seem to be fat, but the difference is that some films are mood or experience films, rather than strict narrative, and so 2001 is trying to lead you into a certain state of experience...to be there with those characters just experiencing for yourself. Being able to draw you into that state also takes a very well-chosen set of images and style. But each moment still has the goal of making you want to watch the next moment.

A good NARRATIVE comparison to CK that uses much less dialog is Lawrence's arrival in Arabia toward the beginning of LoA. Example - when the Arab drops the water bucket and both men stare off at the dot on the horizon there is a compulsion put into the viewer to want to watch this too, to know what is going on. And also it drives a facination just to be there with them at that moment.

 

[Peter Kline]

It should be noted that "Citizen Kane" was not fully appreciated nor praised when released. Part of it was because of its politics, part because it was so different in its technique and part because a new to film 24 year old director had the audacity to make it. Nevertheless, like any great work of art, it has grown in stature through the years. Two other films come to mind that are in the same category, "Singin' In The Rain" and "The Wizard Of Oz". Beware of "instant classics". Time makes that judgement I believe.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Part of it was because of its politics, part because it was so different in its technique and part because a new to film 24 year old director had the audacity to make it.

A LOT of it was politics. After all it received MANY Academy nominations, but when Kane was named for each nomination at the ceremony people BOOED. Why? Because he had awoken the wrath of Hearst and his publicity machine on all of Hollywood. Hearst held the town as hostage to stop Welles, and it almost worked.

But it did get the nominations before that. People did realize it was great, but nobody wanted to get wiped out by Hearst. The film struggled to get distributed or screened. Hearst threatened THEATERS with a no-adverts-accepted policy EVER AGAIN if they carried the film. At every level Hearst worked to destroy CK and Welles, including slander in his papers (which was how he made his fortune in the first place).

The public never had a chance to enjoy the film, and Hollywood was not allowed to embrace it.

Speaking of Bogdanovich and his love of Welles, he obviously took up the fight himself with his own Hearst-controversy film "The Cat's Meow".

 

[teapot2001]

I agree. It's one of the biggest roles in film history.

~T

 

[Mark Palermo]

Why do so many assume that the basic purpose of a film is to tell a story? Is that what we expect from painting, sculpture, or architecture? Why limit the potential of a single medium?

With that said, I'm pretty disgusted by the extreme veneration of Citizen Kane. It's as if most of the directors and critics on the Sight and Sound poll figured they could just start their lists at number 2. Don't get me wrong, I think Kane is a great, brilliant movie, but no work of art should attain such an untouchable status. Year after year, and critics are still worshipping the same greats.

Mark

 

[Jack Briggs]

Mark: If and when something comes along that can be considered qualitatively and influentially greater than Citizen Kane, then it will eventually become the more venerated film. There's no "conspiracy" in place that keeps the film "number one" in the eyes of film critics and filmmakers; the lack of anything better or as good as is what keeps the Welles film at the top of the heap. JB

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

With that said, I'm pretty disgusted by the extreme veneration of Citizen Kane. It's as if most of the directors and critics on the Sight and Sound poll figured they could just start their lists at number 2. Don't get me wrong, I think Kane is a great, brilliant movie, but no work of art should attain such an untouchable status. Year after year, and critics are still worshipping the same greats.

Before Citizen Kane, Eisenstein's Bronenosets Potyomkin (The Battleship Potemkin) was considered the greatest film of all time. This is due to the fact that up until that time, it's use of montage was the narrative form to imitate. Then came alone Citizen Kane in '41, which set the new narrative format to beat. There have been other narrative forms introduced since, for instance the non-linear narrative of films like Pulp Fiction, Memento, and to a lesser extent last year's Bandits. But until that becomes the norm instead of the exception, Citizen Kane will probably remain the top of the list. And considering the situation, I can't really argue with that.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Mark,
Judging by your latest post as well as previous ones on this subject matter, you're taking this untouchable status involving works of art a bit too seriously and personally. Furthermore, it's not going to stop so why get bent out of shape about it?




Crawdaddy

 

[Mark Palermo]

Robert, I guess I just don't believe there should be a cultural status-quo as much as some others do. Why shouldn't I speak my mind?

Mark

 

[Jason_Els]

Casablanca versus Citizen Kane! Now that's an eye-opener. The two films are almost diametrically opposed except that they're both well-acted.
Casablanca is great on many levels but the primary one is that it's the definitive movie. Definitely a "take your girl to the show" with popcorn, footlights, red carpeting, and sticky floors. The quality of Casablanca lies in its panoply of character archetypes, fast but spare dialog, virtuoso editing, absolutley 100% perfect casting, and a twist ending you simply can't guess. It has love, intrigue, humor, Nazis!, beautiful women, exotic locales, desperate people, the world-weary and the naive, and, finally, a memorable song to hum as you walk out the door. I think the strength of Casablanca is how well it entertains without being outrageous on any level. Is it the best cinema ever? No. Is it the best go-to-the-movies movie? Very likely. Every time I watch it I listen for, "I'm shocked! Shocked to find gambling..." and the genuinely moving La Marseillaise with Corinna Mura's lovely voice soaring above the strident Germans, and I marvel at the climax editing. It's masterful. Casablanca is Hollywood at its best. It oozes nostalgia for a glittering age when stars were stars and Nazis were evil and a handful of misfits could save the world damn the torpedoes and pass the champagne. It is a simple but timeless story told with such craft that the whole largely outweighs any of its individual B-movie parts.
I do appreciate Citizen Kane and think it well deserves the accolades it receives but in the end it doesn't thrill me or take me away to another world I will fantasize about living in as an underground spy, or leave me walking out of the theater 10 feet tall and reminiscing quietly about the story. My girlfriend won't mistake me for Rick and she won't be my Ilsa. The stardust and glitter and warm summer nights pretending its Paris on the eve of invasion won't fill the air.
Citizen Kane is a masterpiece of movie-making. Casablanca is a masterpiece of movie going.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Do you think beating the proverbial dead horse is going to stop this so-called cultural status-quo?





Crawdaddy

 

[Jason_Els]

It may be a dead horse for you, but keep in mind that as new people come to the forum the same topics will be revisited and rediscovered by newcomers. Some controversies or questions may never die and will be re-discussed over and over again as new people come on and go down the same paths the veterans have. Nobody likes rummaging around old threads; it's like dressing a mummy in Prada. Posters want their thoughts to be fresh and to have fresh people come and debate. A static board eventually becomes ossified because everything that's been done before gets shut-down so there's little new to discuss. Granted there will always be new movies, but some discussions and controversies will never quite leave either.

 

[Mark Palermo]

I'm not expecting to stop it, just to raise awareness in the way people think about film and critical conventions. Shouldn't the whole reason people post on these boards at all be that they have something to say?

Mark

 

[Jack Briggs]

If there were some valid crtiticisms here of Citizen Kane, then maybe something "new" or "awareness-raising" might have been said. Instead, what's lacking is a compelling, informed argument. The thread started with "it stunk," and now the issue is someone taking personal offense that the film has been so highly regarded by so many for so long.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, this is the third thread over the last two months in this same forum discussing the greatness of "Citizen Kane" and I know that others besides me think discussing this subject matter again is like beating a dead horse.
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...t=citizen+kane
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...t=citizen+kane
Crawdaddy

 

[Jack Briggs]

Crawdaddy, I know of two people who think that! The horse is dead. Wanna bury it?