 
|
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 |
In Reply to: The mystery of Citizen Kane posted by Victor Khomenko on December 28, 2003 at 07:10:08:
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.
Follow Ups:
... 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!
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 ]