|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.18.74.199
In Reply to: Re: Citizen Kane, Rashomon: am I missing something? posted by RGA on December 14, 2005 at 19:19:13:
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
Follow Ups:
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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: