 
|
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 |
24.18.74.199
I rented both of these movies based on the neverending stream of positive reviews that I have read both here and elsewhere online. I can understand how these were exceptional movies for their time, but... is there something I am missing that is hindering my appreciation of these two films? Should I watch them again after having a little bit of extra knowledge? I enjoyed watching both of them, but I'm not sure that I would rush to buy them... or even rent them again, for that matter. Maybe I'm too young. Help me appreciate!
Cheers,
Chris
Follow Ups:
As I suspected -- most of the people poo-pooing your view have no insight themselves into any film other than to re-word what they read from some OTHER film critic. Indeed, this is not unlike most posters on Audio asylum who regurgitate views of critics or equipment reviewers.Film art, like any other art, has to work in a layering level. Viscerally it MUST engage you pure and simple. I can respect many films for their ideas and attempt but the bottom line is the result. On the flip side there are many films that have outstanding execution of rather paper thin depth of purpose. The latter can be far more enjoyable to watch on multiple viewings. barbara Streisand is a far better Singer than Madonna will ever be -- I recognize that but I still would FAR rather listen to Madonna because her tunes while thin as onion paper are toe tapping fun while Streisand puts me to sleep. Bob Dylan may be a great song writer but because his enunciation is so horrendously awful I can;t make out what it is he is trying to get across -- and if I have to read the liner notes -- then you suck (learn to sing).
Films like Kane are to be frank boring. The cinematography is interesting but many shots pander to the "see look how cool this shot is" crowd and don;t in the least bit serve the story -- (I was distracted from the plot by most of the cinematography). There is an old saying that many American films don;t seem to get then or now that sometimes err most times LESS is MORE. If I am consciously noticing the cinematography then the film maker has failed the audience. An exception would be a film like a Run Lola Run where the camera is taking us on the journey.
Another overrated film with what is by today's standards an utter laughable joke in terms of remotely credible dialogue is Casablanca. The lesser mentioned The Third Man had a point, effective cinematography, above average acting, and involving pacing. If it was not for the crappy score that grated on my nerves like finger nails on a chalkboard it would have made it higher on my top 100 list.
*
I don't like Schubert, Rembrandt, or Hemingway. I think they are boring. Does that make them any less great in the scheme of things?I am "viscerally engaged" by Faure, Picasso, and Dumas. They excite me. Does that make them better than those mentioned above?
at least to you...and umm isn't that all that counts?I like Vivaldi more than Mozart -- therefore for me Vivaldi is BETTER than Mozart. It is SUBJECTIVE.
The reason we have to cowardly walk the line priovided by self-appointed experts is that they will shout you down if you DARE to say that one of their faves is merely mediocre in your view.
There is little objective way to assess most art --saw the Mona Lisa and as a piece of art big deal -- it is ONLY hyped because of the back story surrounding the piece -- not by any objective standard in art about why it is superior or more difficult piece to paint. If you create art and build up a following and then do weird crazy things -- today being a junkie would help, and then die early you'll be a "great artist." Just don;t be a gifted artest who is an accountant because you'll be a nobody.
I'm not a huge Mozart fan because the harpsichord is nuisance to me generally. There's no denying his talent but what makes it on to my player is Vivaldi. I can;t say whether Vivaldi is a better composer -- he may be worse for all I know -- but I like his music better.
But hey Britany Spears probably outsold with one album last year more copies than Mozart and Vivaldi sold in the last 30 years world wide. Of course that's not bad considering that Mozart and Vivaldi will be selling (if we still have a money system) 300 years from today and Brittany Spears will be footnote in album sales.
He never wrote anything major for the harpsichord.He is the supreme master in opera.
"Film art, like any other art...""Viscerally it MUST engage you, pure and simple."
"The bottom line is the result."
These are quite simple-minded generalizations. What does the third one mean, if anything? You imply the only legitimate result is for a film to be immediately and completely comprehensible on a purely visceral level...even if there are other vague ideas hoving in the vicinity. You reduce thousands of years of varied creative work to a few astonisingly thin principles.
Your post is essentially an ad hominem attack asserting that "most posters" simply regurgitate ideas they get from others. This rejects what they say without having to engage it in any substantive way.
I suppose your "evidence" comes down to the fact that they don't agree with you; the only available explanation for such a horrifying fact is that the ideas they put forth aren't their ideas at all.
Weird post!
eb
No I have posted here many times in the past and ask for more than the usual Victor and peter response of one sentence It stunk or it was great without any real argument to support the case.I posted something on the Constant Gardner and corrected someone who obviosly missed some of the points of the film and the response was to stop critiquing the films on these boards?
Shakespeare is timeless on a visceral level -- one does not need to know anything about Shakespeare or his time beyond an elemntary level to get and appreciate his themes.
And please do not invent my arguments by creating a strawman. A horror movies job (aside from Romero like horror movies) are supposed to scare you pure an simple -- if it does that it did it's job and on that level it will get a high mark from me.
Clearly films have different purposes -- film for eye candy entertainment and film as art.
My contention is that eye candy entertainment such as Raiders of the Lost Ark is the best film of its genre that I have seen therefore for its genre it gets a top mark. Where one ranks that genre in the bigger schema of the entire filmography will be up to the critic, movie goer. Film Art for me is less impressive compared to the stage or literature and so films made to be "arthouse" don't impress me as much unless they also entertain. That is a big problem because it is now in the world of the subjective. If Kane creates a truly cathartic experience for a person then by all means I won't debate whether you should have it high on your list -- I think a piece of art should move you to your soul. If Kane GENUINELY does that (without needing to be told by a professor what to feel and what to think) then I take no issue - how can I since it is totally subjective.
But just like English Literature - what is great may be canonized by a minority body of slef appointed lit experts but objective it ain't - beowolf is great because it's old -- but really let's be honest it's a pretty lame ass written story - but it's a relic and therefore overblown to something it just isn't -- great literature.
I think I'll stop here on this thread...Too much work for too little reward.
I can find points of agreement for both sides. Many forms of art necessitate background knowledge for full appreciation. But more often than not (call me boring and mundane), I prefer to have a movie which can be understood without any additional knowledge. Don't get me wrong: I like movies that make you think. However, I'm not sure about movies that make you think AFTER having mapped out the entire history of film until (and after) the point when that particular film was made...
Cheers,
Chris
Well I agree with you. My degree is in English (you'd never guess by my grammar on these forums) and it bothers me when the entire success of a piece of literature rests on the background knowledge of the reader. The Rape of the Lock is nonsensical unless you know the background of why it was written. When you know it it is utterly hilarious. The difference is Movies are HARDLY equivelant to great literature or even in the same league as the theatre. As most films steal from great literature - Kirosawa and Welles certainly did.Shakespeare does not require any pre-knowldege to "get it."
There is nothing really to get about Citizen Kane except that it was based on, at least in part, the life of William Randolph Scott - paper mogul. It is heralded for basically being a rip-off of Shakespearian tragedy -- read Shakespeare it;'s a helluva lot better -- take any of the BBC production DVD's (free at many libraries) -- you won't get the visuals but the story is better - and so is the acting.
Don't get me wrong I gave Citizen Kane a positive rating **** out of 5 so I consider it a very good film. Best film ever? No. It's not in my top 100 and some films that are would probably make people cringe.
But like I said - the thinner story executed very well is IMO a better film than grandiose ideas that ultimately bore.
The made for TV film "Death of a Saleman" which comes at the American dream differently IMO is a vastly superior film -- despite being made for TV and without grand cinematography. The difference is Arthur Miller is a master of the stage and Welles was not.
Shakespeare? You should go farther back than that for any themes of tragedy/catharsis. You're accusing one of ripping off something which has already been stolen.
Hearst yes sorry...but many great men in American history are viewed great by their dollar collection. I mean henry Ford is often sighted as a "great man" in American History --- pretty bankrupt group of people to call him "great"Shakespeare's ideas go back to nearly the very first plays - The difference is Shakespeare did it way better than what preceded it and it can be argued has done it better than what has come after.
Kane's main fame to glory is cinematography as setting standards(which I'm told it didn't but that's another debate). This claim to fame rests on spectacle issues of movie making and with the technological advancements you gotta have more than visuals. If Rosebud speaks to audiences then the film will speak to you and it will last in your heart and mind. If you saw it coming a mile down the road and felt Kane deserved what he got and tough luck as I did then it's not going to hold much resonance. heck for that I could watch "A Christmas Carol" also a better film.
*Hearst yes sorry...but many great men in American history are viewed great by their dollar collection. I mean henry Ford is often sighted as a "great man" in American History --- pretty bankrupt group of people to call him "great"*THERE lies the crux of Kane. Did he become spritually bankrupt in his pursuit of material objects? Are WE bankrupt, the people who elevate people like Kane in the first place? If these lines are blurred, then where is the catharsis? It doesn't end with the sled for what does THAT represent, a continuation of the same pursuit or a renewal? As the audience we don't know. Kane's dream-like walk at the end in front of the mirror where several "Kanes" come into view underscores this thematic concern. Great cinema...
Ok I discussed this with a literature PHD student who brought up some intriguing points starting with what you note that WE are the ones who elevate such people to greatness and therein lies our (America's) fundamental problem.It could also be argued that the off putting cinematography was intended to do just that and have Kane presented in "off" angles. I shall give the film another go when I get some time.
Sometimes a film just needs to be seen for it to work for me. A Clockwork Orange I gave no stars to on first view and it now sits number 2 on my all time viewed list. Kane is already way better than my first Clockwork Vieiwing.
*I shall give the film another go when I get some time*Excellent. Post again with a specific scene in Kane that worked or didn't work for you. Same with Clockwork. I would like to discuss.
I find the discussion of specific scenes helps most in understanding films as a whole.
and cardboard acting, to boot.
Would you care to tell us what film(s) you consider better than CK?
to be a classic (NOT historical reasons as in "1st film to..."). I mean *meritorious* reasons. Don't give me reasons it IS a classic (though I'm sure I could learn from that) BUT reasons it *deserves* to be a classic, ahistorically.Respect,
Guy* Verbatim and not Verboten *
Explain.
R 66,Well, a little bit of a disclaimer, here:
a) haven't seen the movie for some time b) didn't see it 'critically'However, I did see it more freshly than most folks as I was UNfamiliar with the fame of the director and the film's classic reputation (so I'm *less* prejudiced in its favor . .)
Having said that (both virtures & vices in my opinion):
1. the good/bad sanctimoniousness of the film is off-putting and simplistic
2. who gives a shit about Rosebud [childish use of props, in my opinion]
3. black-and-white film WITH black-and-white treatment of morality (at least the two go together!!)
4. Big bad corporation against the Little Guy. I think even when the film was made, it was a trite theme. Can't be sure of that, not having grown up in the era/time period.
Appreciate your response.
Respect,
Guy* Verbatim and not Verboten *
The Sistine Chapel and the Belvedere Apollo... am I missing something?
On our very own music forum: Brahms 4 and Beethoven's 9th... what am I not hearing?
But Tin !
There are aspects of Beethoven's music that I find a bit heavy handed . Does that make me ignorant and deserving of contempt?All that said , I'm not afraid to ask a more enlightened or *TRUSTED* peer "Hey , what's the big deal about ..." Hopefully they can shed some light that can unlock a door or an idea. Unless we have another "Guy" in our midst I think TopPop's question was good and valid. Why do you think those films are as great as "Beethoven" ? Lay it on me Tin.
Most importantly, it's better (and more creative) to enlighten another to a perspective then to criticize the question as silly or sacraligious.
Maybe you should read
"The Emperors New Clothes"
CK has so much buildup that it IS a letdown the FIRST time through. A good way to approach it is to watch "RKO 281", about the making of CK. Then watch the documentary "The Battle Over citizen Kane". Then go through CK with Ebert's commentary. I'll bet you end up with a real appreciation of why many of us consider it the greatest film eve made.The commentary and documentary on "Rashomon" will yield similar results.
Please don't give up on these two masterworks.
(nt)
You'll come back to them eventually, especially Kane. We all start thinking about a "Rosebud" sometime in our lives.
Unless you have 96" at home...clark
...
.
You, patrick & Victor in The Three Amigos, the unrated version; Aha! Now, patrick's rude posts make sense! ;^)Just kiddin', Clark!
FTR, I agree that CK works better on the big screen; with a DLP and 6' screen the Warner's restoration it looks pretty impressive and the larger the projected image the more impressive this film will be.
AuPh
I'd say come back to it after a few months or even years. It's not a film that jumps out at you immediately. There are many subtle elements to the film, both in the story and the production. It was groundbreaking in many ways, and it influenced future filmakers worldwide.IMHO, it is one of the best (if not THE best) American films out there. It is certainly better than 99% of anything else Hollywood has managed to produce in the past century---so it does at least belong on the short list of great films. That's not to say you should LIKE it, as much as you should appreciate it for what it is.
Of course, opinions are just opinions, and I'm sure that there are plenty of people here who feel strongly one way or the other on this one.
Well I have managed not to have seen Rashoman but no you are not crazy for not loving Citizen Kane and no being young has nothing to do with it. Young or old a GOOD movie should reach most audiences.Kane is rated highly because it was a visual masterpiece for its day and is said to have paved the way for future filmmaking -- that may be true as a historical footnote but great it does not make it.
If you are American it probably should speak to you more - as it is about the American Dream.
If you want to see a film about the failing of the American dream (and the downright LIE perpetrated by the powers that be then the film to watch is the Dustin Hoffman version of Death of a salesman -- it's a MUCH better film in every regard to Citizen Kane. John Malkovich stars as Biff. That play is probably the finest piece of Literature to come out of the States -- maybe ever. And it's no suprise that conservatives generally hate Arthur Miller for letting the secret out of the bag.
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 ]
