Just saw Citizen Kane for the first time... (1 Viewer)

[Adam Lenhardt]

That would be The Matrix.

Is that a joke? It's a great film, no doubt, but hardly the evolution of film technique. It sole contribution to film technique would be bullet time which, while interesting, is hardly enough to mark a new era in filmmaking.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Guys, in case no one got it, I was "play arguing" with Andrew. You did get it, didn't you?

 

[Mark Philp]

"Kane" is a great film and the restoration is outstanding. I've seen it many times including a brand new 35mm print on a 50 foot screen and this still looks better. As for being "The" greatest film, there really isn't any way to judge. In order to be judged the greatest film ever made, the people judging would have had to see EVERY film ever made and that's impossible. That's why I hate all those "100 (or whatever) Greatest Anything" lists. Call it one of the great films and I'll agree, but call it the greatest and who can say.

 

[Seth Paxton]

are you sure Jack? Seemed like you missed his sarcasm. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
The number of effects shots and outright paradigm shift in narrative cinema theory thanks to Kane is why it stands so tall. Few films have every single scene so well crafted.
The film is perhaps a perfect balance between art and entertainment, between dialog and visuals, metaphor and literal meanings.
Few films are so totally filled with different techniques in filmmaking, effects, transitions, etc.
One of my favs is when Kane walks to the ordinary sized window at the back of the room (as he signs over his papers)...suddenly the window dwarfs him. The reality was that the window was made much larger than him but appeared normal sized when everyone was in the foreground. A clever effect shot that has a metaphorical underlying meaning.
Plus it also represents possibly the greatest work by probably the greatest cinematographer of all-time (Toland). That also must count for something.
It does not top MY top films list, but then I mix greatness with personal taste/connection.
Since Kane - mmm, maybe 2001 or Star Wars. Jaws if we want to talk about the creation of the summer blockbuster.
I have no problem not placing a recent film up there, but what amazes me is if you eliminate the last 20 years then it's still hard to find a film that assults Kane. That's a long period of time without competition being analyzed from a removed stance. Meaning that a 20 year buffer gives a film time to have implanted itself in society and grown to whatever status it might across the board, yet few films have done so to the level of Kane.
While I find Godfather good, I simply don't see it changing what films could be. Rather it is just a well-made film with interesting dialog/characters. Personally I prefer Apoc Now to Godfather, but that's me.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Duh! Andrew, I hope it didn't come off the wrong way! I was trying to reinforce the point you were making.

Ah, the great cultural divide in humour! I was *supporting* Jack!

I think confusion is gathering momentum in this thread re: what a 'classic' has to be. The simple fact is that a 'classic' in any genre does not necessarily have to be universally popular or liked. The important point is that the same works in the genre have tended to be continued to be liked generation after generation, whilst other works (often including the ones popular in one generation) have fallen into obscurity. Anyone watched a Victor Mature movie recently? I rest my case.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I don't believe I will ever live this thread down. Must find new ways to alienate my friends!

 

[Rain]

That would be The Matrix.

And the Joke of the Day Award is hereby presented to Will_B. Hilarious!

 

[andrew markworthy]

I don't believe I will ever live this thread down. Must find new ways to alienate my friends!

There, there, Jack, we all still love you.

 

[Will_B]

I was joking, but come to think of it, is Bullet Time any less revolutionary than Wells showing ceilings?

Or to put it another way: what the heck else is anyone else going to come up with?

If one argues that Matrix did not come up with enough original techniques, the problem is Kane didn't either. Plenty of great silent films created the narrative structure we are used to, and other films sometimes used clever camera work.

So what Kane had was cinematography that was a bit better than some. Bullet Time gave the Matrix cinematography that was similarly evolutionary to what had come before.

I winced when I saw in the Matrix documentaries that the inventor of Bullet Time dresses like a race car captain, and evidently thinks very highly of himself (so highly that he must dress up like an idiot), but perhaps it is valid (if unbecoming).

 

[Seth Paxton]

Anyone watched a Victor Mature movie recently?

Hey now...well, actually, uh, no.
It's a tough call with The Matrix. I guess what hurts it is that while aspects of it are genre defining (I truly believe this) it does not bring that "A" game to every aspect of the film.
For example, Reeves is no Joe Cotten nor Welles. And at times it plays more to it's popcorn identity than it's cyberpunk one. I don't really blame the film for doing that, but where it could have committed to full cinema art it sometimes went for entertainment only. Kane never drops into popcorn entertainment only status during any scene.
In that way Memento exceeds Matrix in having an interesting gimmick but playing the rest of the film up to the same level so that it's not just gimmick. Not that Matrix is a 1 trick pony, but it's less committed to a singular vision of art than Kane or Memento (as an example).
I don't think Memento is Kane either, but it's a lot closer IMO for the simple fact that all the techniques being used are focused on the emotional/artistic aspects of the story rather than being used just to entertain.
And for the record, I think GOOD art entertains inherently though you can also make a film with a primary focus of entertaining where the process follows established patterns rather than genuine artistry.
Kane is highly entertaining, at it's core is an interesting investigative narrative with a goal the audience wants solved...what does Rosebud mean. But its pretty obvious that while we are going along this entertaining journey that there is a lot more serious emotional/thoughtful stuff being discussed. That's the duality of great art.
And I'm no big fan of art for art's sake. Sometimes films try to push the arty buttons and totally sacrifice entertainment to do so. That is not good filmmaking to me and I find it rather tedious (mainly when it feels intentional; sometimes people just try and fail on the entertainment aspects).

 

[Seth Paxton]

Jack, maybe if you weren't such an elitist jerk we wouldn't feel so frickin alienated.
:p)
(real smart, i make a thoughtful response and then add a joke post which pushes it over to a 2nd page. now no one will read the bottom of page 1 )

 

[Andrew_Sch]

Seth, I read your post, it was good and stuff. I went out and bought Citizen Kane today, for the record. I was going to get it at Target, but I noticed that they had waaaaaaaaaay too much P&S crap, so I headed over to my Best Buy, where the ratio of wide to full screen is about 3:1 for most releases.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I was joking

That's the problem with the internet... With out vocal intonation or facial expressions to guide us, we have less of an idea of weither someone is joking.

I'd laugh, but I spend all that time typing the rant, so...

 

[Walter_S]

Citizen Kane is to film what Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 in E Flat Major (the Eroica) is to music: a paradigm-shifting statement on the art--art for art's sake in a field that had been viewed almost solely in commercial, pop-cultural terms (pretty much as music had been viewed by the elite before Beethoven rewrote the rules).

I can't resist -- how is the Eroica less "commercial, pop-cultural" than Bach's music? Are you just talking about how it was viewed by the elite?

I'm not a classical music expert really, and know even less about cinema history, but from what I've seen of Fritz Lang's work, that doesn't seem very "commercial, pop-cultural" either. Though maybe I shouldn't make that statement without knowing much about the culture he lived in (I don't).

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but couldn't one argue that Pulp Fiction was the film that created the next paradigm shift? It certainly wasn't the first to use non-linear structure, "pulp" material, or revitalize the "independent film" movement, but it was one that helped explode something else. Not sure that I think it is so, just throwing it out there.

 

[Damin J Toell]

I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, but couldn't one argue that Pulp Fiction was the film that created the next paradigm shift? It certainly wasn't the first to use non-linear structure, "pulp" material, or revitalize the "independent film" movement, but it was one that helped explode something else. Not sure that I think it is so, just throwing it out there.

I would put Blood Simple as having been more important and influential in most of those categories.
DJ

 

[Brian Kidd]

When I first saw KANE in college, I was underwhelmed. I could tell that it was different from any movie I'd seen previously, but I found it confusing and a little dull. Several years later I returned to the film and got more out of it. I was able to start noticing the little details of the film. Now, KANE has become one of my favorites. I think the sheer fact that one can revisit it time and time again and always find something new is testament to its greatness. The fact that there is a thread about the film over sixty years after its release should provide testament to its genius. For those of you who don't like it now, give it another chance. Notice the details. I think it will make all the difference.

By the way, lists are stupid. There is no way to quantify greatness. Good movies all have different reasons for their appeal and can't really be compared against each other. For example, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE is awesome! So is GONE WITH THE WIND. I dare you to try to compare the two.

 

[Andrew_Sch]

After my first viewing, I had doubts, but the thing that convinced me of Kane's greatness was that I could still recall it vividly a few days after I watched it. To me, the hallmark of a truly great movie is its ability to stick with you. For instance, while Spiderman was a fun movie, it was forgotten an hour after I saw it.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Then keep on praising, David. I loved your post. Well put.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

And I'm no big fan of art for art's sake. Sometimes films try to push the arty buttons and totally sacrifice entertainment to do so. That is not good filmmaking to me and I find it rather tedious (mainly when it feels intentional; sometimes people just try and fail on the entertainment aspects).

Can you post something totally stupid every once in a while? Damn, you're like a Morgan Freeman cliche, always playing the wiseman. For once I'd like to see Seth Paxton, Dumbass Extraordinaire.

:p)