 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Saw it again last night... and again couldn't help but wonder - why would some consider it one of the best pictures ever made?I am inclined to believe this is just an American phenomenon - that would easiy explain the fascination.
Being exposed to the great world masters before getting the chance to see Kane, I simply can't understand that love affair. Do those who share my experience also share my feelings here? Are we seeing just a naive nationalism here?
I honestly dunno... I am not sure I would include it among the best 100 films ever made.
Follow Ups:
Camera angles...the use of the newsreel at the beginning of the movie...the way the investigating reporter's face is never seen...jumping around in time, telling Kane's story from different points of view.
And the complex characterization of Kane himself. He's not all good, not all bad, very human.
It's always been one of my favorite movies.
Have you read her take on the film? Pretty much the same as your's: it's a solidly good film, but it doesn't warrant the status accorded to it, and can't compete with the best films of the European masters.For my money, Touch of Evil is the superior film, even with the untenable pretense of Charlton Heston's hispanic-ness.
_____________________________"What is this, a freak-out?"
- Violet Beauregard
...though I also liked CITIZEN KANE. I have been moved to see TOUCH OF EVIL about 3 or 4 times, but one viewing of KANE was enough.But please don't put me down as a P. Kael fan. I've always had it in for her ever since I found out these two things:
a) she didn't like Ken Russell (this, I will concede, simply means we have differing tastes); however--
a) she praised FIDDLER ON THE ROOF, but panned THE SOUND OF MUSIC. One of the most illogical positions on any art form I've ever encountered.
About the only matter on which I ever agreed with Ms. Kael was her assessment of FORREST GUMP, the movie--"I hated it unreservedly" (or words to that effect)
djprobed
She also wrote audio reviews under a few pseudonyms. Died a couple of years ago.
Some consider it superior to Kane, and I would probably lean that way too. It is far less bombastic effects driven, a more chamber type of presentation, if you will, but has more subtlety.
...which is getting very large these days!
djprobed
I have the book here, but haven't read it yet, being pushed back by... OK, OK, watching films sometimes, sometimes work.Between the Fiddler and The Sounds... if I had to make a choice I would have selected the Fiddler, but ideally I would like to keep both, although I can see why one might find the Sounds much more superficial than the Fiddler - that comes after all with a tremendous baggage attached, both good and bad... but certainly something that is bound to move the viewer far more than a pretty story of the Sounds. I know, there IS that small part the Nazi regime playes in the Sounds, but it is just a decoration, and in the Fiddler all the horror is far more palpable, so little wonder many were *moved* by it, while many *liked* the sounds.
Both films are terribly dated.
But Fiddler has the better music, and by far.
...Mourned it's loss? ...Ever decided to reconnect with it? ...If you found it, would it mean anything to anyone but you?These are some of the issues about the nature of being human woven into the subtext of Citizen Kane; it's a much deeper and more significant film than you're willing to credit it.
AuPh
I first wanted toanswer to Victor yesterday but after a good party and one or two glasses two much..I report ...
The last Victor post on C.Kane is absolutly true, but yours, recapture the very essence to it. In a few words, Victor is the spectator which is analysing it with his brain, from a distant way..and his remarks, all true in my understanding spoiled his fun too look at and more severly, hide to him what you found out to be the moving point.
Both are right, and the synthese would have been the perfect critic.
The first scene and the last one ARE this film, the in between are just pictures who led to the final sequence or if you get it wrong for critizing the cooldness and lack of human warmth.
But it let in you an indelible mark of the vanity and the vain in our life.
A film for adult who never forgot his some times bitter childhood.
Citizen Kane is an extremely thought provoking film. I couldn't stop thinking about it, so we saw it again, on the large screen this time, where the beautiful imagery of that release truly came to life.The film's many achievements are very obvious, but also so are its many faults.
I will not burden you with the list of those, some minor, some significant, that kept the film from raising to the truly high level... well, maybe I'll just mention the horrible scene of Kane's rage after his lady's departure... here too Kane was ahead of its time, this time of Hollywood's poor taste.
What do I find most disturbing about this film? Its dehumanization.
Being a humanist by nature, I can never consider a movie that stomps on the best that exists in human beings, as great.
In that vein I shall never nominate the Salo for Great film award either, as good as it is.
As we know, the character of Kane is extremely autobiographical. And I mean - auto... as it is hard to tell which character - that of Hearst or Welles contributed more to Kane's. Certainly many people who have known Welles agree he put a lot of himself into his hero.
There is something unappealing about a director with, shall we say, unpleasant character, making a movie about another unpleasant person in a rather grotesque way. That unpleasantless is capable of killing many good aspirations, and Citizen Kane is an outcome of this fateful mix.
Two parting toughts. One - I do believe Welles owes a lot to Leni Riefenstahl - that was inescable in more than one place.
And second - by all means, rent the compy of Battle Over the Citizen Kane - an extremely informative documentary.
All in all, an extremely interesting film that all of us should be greatful exists.
This is a fictionalized account of the making of CK and takes its title from the RKO project name. I say fictionalized because there are two encounters between Hearst and Welles that never took place. Aside from those, this is a highly enjoyable and re-watchable film with excellent writing and acting. It is available on DVD. Along with "The Battle...", RKO 281 serves as an excellent introduction to Kane.
IMO, no. I saw it for the first time, recently, and was completely dumbfounded at all the praise this film his gotten. Unlike Rico, I was not identifying all the "firsts" being captured in the film that probably help it garner accolades. But, that is part of the test of time, isn't it? What was innovative then is humdrum now.I have no desire to see it again.
that the first couple of times I saw Citizen Kane I was underwhelmed and wondered what all the fuss was about. After a few more viewings and some reading it dawned on me just how good it is and I have loved it ever since. I have it on Criterion Laserdisc and also the stunning recent DVD.
Never look then, again in a mirror.
nt
n
The movie has never made me feel anything or caused me to care much for or about any of the characters.I always felt like I was supposed to like it and ooh and ahh at it, but it never evoked much in me and never felt genuinely compelling.
...but for me, it's right up there with The Third Man, Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, The Killing, Paths of Glory, etc that I can watch any time, anywhere and never hit the stop button.
I do not think Paths of Glory and Casablanka belong in the same category. And even more so the Maltise Falcon - they are the representatives of very different groups. Paths of Glory is one of the best films ever made, bar none, but the Falcon is just a very well crafted entertainment piece.
Movies today wouldn't exist as they are without the innovations (which Rico already mentioned) brought about by Kane. Basically, Kane reinvented the entire medium.But putting all that aside, the subject of "art" is missing for you in Kane? I am just at a loss. The cinematography and treatment of light in Kane is gorgeous. Subtle. Elegant. Natural, yet surreal and dramatic. Gregg Toland was an absolute genius/artist cinematographer.
The acting . . . ? Maybe a bit stilted by the standard of modern method acting, yet still captivating, humorous and nuanced. Welles's depiction of a frustrated megalomaniac is right on the money. No art here, Victor? Well, maybe you are a product of a different time.
There's sheer ballsy art in the use of newsreels to tell a story. There's art in the way the story is told in non-linear flashback. This film had so many firsts. There's IS art in innovation. And there is art is in the details. You just take it all for granted.
You can so easily fall on your usual anti-American "naive nationalism" crutch if you like, but I see it the opposite way. Just like Kane, Americans are much more subtle, varied, culturally important and sophisticated than you think.
It's so fashionable for young rock fans to dismiss the Beatles these days too. But like young film lovers dismissing Kane, it only shows a lack of perspective and insight.
It's ok to that Kane's not your favorite, but it is a mistake to think it's not one of the most important films ever made.
... that in contrast to our differences over Lord of the Rings/RoTK (i.e., both semantic & literal impressions), we DO share similar views about Citizen Kane. IMHO, Kane is a film with few flaws & fewer peers made under very difficult circumstances and almost surpressed and destroyed in spite of it's artistry. Having watched this film numerous times over the past 30 years in film classes, private screenings and on home video and analyzed it thoroughly, the one unequivocal conclusion reached is that film history would certainly be the poorer if this film didn't exist.In many ways Kane changed the way Americans view cinema, but NOT only Americans! One irony that seems to have elluded Victor is that many of the European filmmakers who he admires so much for their artistry worship at Welle's doorstep, rhetorically speaking; some post-WWII European directors were greatly influenced by Kane and other American films which were also inspired by Citizen Kane; one is left to ponder which of those famous European directors might've chosen other careers without the inspiration provided by Welle's masterpiece.
AuPh
AuPh, I think we have more in common on myriad subjects than we don't . . .
That's why I didn't think you'ld mind a little added ribbing at the bottom of the now lengthy RoTK thread.If you review my contributions to the Film Asylum you'll notice a fairly broad range of film interests, but I can be at least as stubborn and eclectic as our foo-foo foreign film guru Victor, which is pretty darned stubborn and eclectic! 8^D
AuPh
...I never separate the films into American and Foreign... just The Good, the Bad... plus some Ugly.
The reality is that you talk incessently about European films, and not just Sergio Leone's Eastwood flicks! Warmed over spaghetti westerns aside, you've become one of this forum's preeminent foreign film-foo gurus, which might be considered a compliment, except when your overbearing opinions sprout forth like Vesuvius on Pompeii. In fairness, there are quite a few foreign films I like and others that I respect even though I personally find them difficult to appreciate, but there are also foreign films I dislike strongly, films which were a waste of time for one reason or another. BTW, when I break films down to more language/cultural status it isn't because I hate foreign films, but rather because I recognize distinct differences between foreign product and American.AuPh
The fact is this forum is largely attanded by American audience, and to an average American movie goer the world is roughly 90% US-made.I see my perspective as a far more balanced... natch!... but being more balanced it will definitely strike some as pro-foreign.
To that I must say that of great films produced in the world, the majority did not originate in this country - as the world is as big as... well, as the world.
I am not attached to any one country and its product. To me a bad Russian movie is a bad movie, and a great Polish one is great film.
I do check all movie cable channels every night - not the premium ones, mind you! And among those I watch regularly are the AMC and TCM.
Unfortunately, it does seem to be true that the proportion of American films in the world production of good films had shrunk substantially since the 1950's perhaps. The two parts of the world took different roads, and it is quite obvious.
;^)
***the one unequivocal conclusion reached is that film history would certainly be the poorer if this film didn't exist.I already said that earlier.
Influence is though one tricky thing: it flows both ways.
No one is denying that Welles, in addition to being an extremely rotten person (that is undenyable), was also an incredibly talented one - his whole life (especially the early one) cries of that, but one would be extremely foolish, or else, ill-informed, to proclaim that every good thing in the film was invented by him and his crew.
His greates contribution was not in those small things that he created or borrowed, but in building the huge monument. Unfortunately this is also his failure, as that monument is too overblown, to the point of becoming burdensome both to the director and the viewer.
One would also be foolish to uverlook the fact that the film had the same missguided drive behind it as some other "scandalous" films in the world history - namely things like Salo, where the director is not being solely guided by his internal desire to investigate new things, but to a large degree by the intention (almost evel one in case of Pasolini) to shock and unpleasantly surprise.
Pasolini was already bitter at the whole world, and all his talent got wasted on his ugly "monument", and there IS thatelement in Kane as well, as Welles was just too absorbed in his personal misfortunes and failures at the time, being driven to "show them". That is never a good guide.
So life is usually much more complex than a few simple proclamations.
Citizen Kane indeed deserves to be examined carefully, and it does represent a significant even in the world cinema development, but one should not be wearing blinds when looking at it.
I hope you are not.Regards
BF
I have seen each film once.Both are allegories.
Both had iconoclastic directors whose bodies of work are considered important and are the object of scholarly study.
Both confront the viewer with some of the more unpleasant aspects of human behaviour. Neither is particularly optimistic.
Both are filmed with a high degree of technical proficiency.
Both continue to provoke strong reactions both pro and con.
Both are thought-provoking and ultimately memorable.
djprobed
I think Salo is a curiosity and it has a political aspect.
But I won´t defend it because I am too lazy..today.
.
Was that quick stab your whole contribution to this discussion?
He was probably withdrawing further investment. ;^)AuPh
Absolutely Victor in the desert of real film making the " Kane " is and will remain a masterpiece.
The biggest influence in films, comes from the Germany.
The strong ones are present in Kane: the German one I already mentioned, and also the unmistakingly clear influence of Eisenstein. There is strong Eisenstein's imprint in the party scene, and even a more pronounced one in the use of light and sharp shadows - one just needs to look at the Ivan the Terrible to see where many Kane's shots came from.Not knowing what has been happening in the rest of the world is never a good idea.
Welles himself said (paraphrase): "We study the old masters: John Ford, John Ford, and John Ford". He watched "Stagecoach" many times prior to making Kane.
there are NO word enough to praise " Stagecoach "!
Yes, particularly Greg Tolland's cinematography.
Everything. Not even the Duke...
Max Reinhardt ( née Goldman ) was the father of impressionism for the theater and movie, his influence and role goes far beyond any thing done till there.
Of course all the Murnau´s & Lang & Einsenstein.. ecetera.. had they own strong expression .
Of course a sort of synergy did have to happen above all frontiers and I am not really keen to says who started first as in my understanding there is NO copyright as everything belong to THE people...in a perfect world, of course, so I give to cesar what belongs to him, in one word, Max Reinhardt!
I don't recall seeing any of his films (although I might have during my early years...), and the only one available here is his last work - the Midsummer Night's Dream... but I presume you were talking about the earlier ones - right?
It was his ONLY / co / film with Diterle!
No, his influence came directly from his theater, you must read the books from Lotte Eisner!
You will see the power of Max Reinhardt on actors, scenes, lightning.. ecetera.
One word: immense!
Just who do you consider the 'great world masters' of cinema? Why?Later
D
Believe me, it's out of rudeness that I shall not answer your question - but simply because I had written on that dozens of times already.I think when it comes to the lists of the Greatest there are rarely any significant variations. Most of the time it is the relative placement that is individual: is that Kubrick above Fellini or the other way around?
Welles is among the Great, there is little doubt. My question concerned his placement at the very top - that is what I disagree with. I would certainly not consider Kane the "Best talking piecture ever made" as some call it.
Your response is duly noted as is your rudeness. Your answer, however, gives no satisfaction, as I simply wondered about your individual taste in movies and directors. You are so verbose and quick to dismiss anything American, at the same time promoting all sorts of obscure [mostly Eastern European] films, it just made me wonder.After all, this is simply an exercise in personal taste, is it not? I like to know something about the critic's personal taste, in order to better understand the whole context and personal validity of his comments.
Later
D
I've seen your posts here for a long time. I've never seen you list your "great world masters of cinema". C'mon, give us 5.Fellini certainly wouldn't make my list. Talk about your "naive nationalism"!
Yes, you should be spanked!
It is not naive nationalism*..it poesie. Pure.* If I did it get it right in your own meaning, your answer was an intelligent ( for me ) one.
But utterly wrong.
***Fellini certainly wouldn't make my list.Do I feel the rebelion going on here? Is Beethoven next?
Do you really think Fellini is as important as Beethoven?Freddy Fellini sure created some striking imagery, but as narrative films, they are a mess. His attention to detail and general craft is suspect. I feel like I keep seeing the boom mic popping in from the top of the frame. His movies play like he is a gifted amateur.
Rebellion? Yes, down with euro-centric artistic tyrany!
You still haven't mentioned any of your favorite fim makers. How can we know where your tastes are without knowing where you're coming from?
nt
what remains is a fascinating (to me, anyway) story of a wealthy playboy-to-be who becomes "serious"--and how his entire life was underscored by sadness buried deep within his childhood. It is also a biting comment on how immense power and wealth alone cannot enrich a life. Similarly, the hubris of power is painfully communicated.
The thundering performance of Welles is also amazing...he was, in a way, portraying his career (as well as that of Hearst, of course).
If all else fails: Think of it, Vic, as an elegy to Bush! Yep, the bon vivant turned president has admitted that he has never fully gotten over the death of his sister when she was a 3-yr. old.
(to name only a few reasons) of its non-linear narrative, its sound, its many creative jump cuts, its deep focus cinematography, its writing, its acting, its Bernard Herrmann musical score, its camera angles, and many other things that were done here FIRST.
...a giant step towards theatrical realism in the movies.clark
You didn't answer my question. I can find all those attributes in any writeup on that film.Being first doesn't make thing great... and good films can be viewed and enjoyed without regard to their period.
But maybe... maybe you did answer my question - there IS that American fascination with Firsts... I think.
Technology over art.
We had witnessed another FIRST recently - the Sokurov's Ark. And while I gladly give him the nod for a tremendous technical achievement, his First, as you would put it, I still rate the film as a mediocre fake.
The many Firsts found in the Kane are good indeed, and they all add up to the movie's goodness, but all together they still fail to raise it into the world best 100, I think.
I dunno... it simply fails to draw me in. I find it very easy to get up and go to the bathroom, or to get a cup of tea while watching it.
And this is what I usually consider the indicator of the movie's greatness. With the great ones you cringe when the phone rings and you are thankful for the intermission, as your bladder is bursting, but you just wouldn't go.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
