Citizen Kane

[Legendary]

After all the hype about the film, I decided to watch it on BBC4 last night.

The film was good and interesting to see with kind of person Citizen Zane are.

But I can't understand why the film was so special and win best film ever I have see hundred of better films.

[Narshty]

It's the way you tell 'em.

[tiger33]

If you rent the film from the video shop it talks about the techniques that were used in the film that were ahead fo their time. thats what made the film so special.

Its only when you watch the documentary about the film that you realise how special it was.

[Legendary]

Do you mean they had introduce a lot of new film making method and technique which is ahead of their time. Just like Star Wars in 1970s.

[Roberto]

Mods, is tiger33's sig against T&C's?

EDIT - And i don't just mean the size of it

[threadkiller]

yup tis a bit large

tiger33 images should be no more than10k in size 150 X 100 pixels please

[Assilem23]

I don't think there are many better films than Citizen Kane. I'd have put it in my top 10 for Sight And Sound. Just like lots of other people polled did.

My enjoyment and awe of it is simply because I'm an old movie fan. The thirties, in particular 1939, were the best decade. Citizen Kane, when compared, is a masterpiece.

[Michael Brooke]

The reason <I>Citizen Kane</I> keeps topping these polls is that there is probably no other film in cinema history that was quite so innovative in <U>every</U> department.

True, few of the techniques were used for the first time, but no other film (with the possible exception of Abel Gance's <I>Napoleon</I>) had ever consciously tried to encapsulate everything that had been done in cinema up to then - and I can't really think of any film that's tried the same thing since, and certainly not within the Hollywood mainstream.

<B>Subject</B> - it took huge risks by presenting a thinly-disguised biopic of William Randolph Hearst, the Rupert Murdoch of the time, and although no mention of this is made in the film proper, pretty much everyone knew what was going on. This is the kind of risk-taking Hollywood generally shied away from, which remains the situation today. As it happens, Hearst tried to buy the negative from RKO at cost to try to have it destroyed, but they commendably refused.

<B>Structure</B> - multiple flashbacks, including the same events from different points of view. The fact that all this seems pretty normal today is largely thanks to its influence.

<B>Acting</B> - Welles deliberately worked with his Mercury Theatre team, who had no experience in film. However, they had huge experience in radio, and brought to the film numerous techniques that had hardly been tried before - overlapping, highly "realistic" dialogue, for instance.

<B>Cinematography</B> - a combination of German Expressionism, deep focus and startling camera angles, all blending together to create something wholly new and massively influential. <I>Citizen Kane</I> is probably single-handedly responsible for the entire look and feel of 1940s <I>film noir</I> and by logical extension virtually every dark, shadowy thriller that came afterwards. I also don't think there's a precedent for the "News on the March" sequence, which made use of deliberately aged and scratchy footage to create a fake representation of reality, anticipating postmodernism by some forty years.

<B>Design</B> - probably the most underrated element of the film, but designer Perry Ferguson (who actually did all the work, even though it was credited to RKO design head Van Nest Polglase) worked miracles on a relatively small budget, creating the impression of vast spaces by cunningly hanging huge sheets of black velvet to hint at deep shadows where they couldn't afford full sets.

<B>Music</B> - Bernard Herrmann's first film score went completely against the accepted Hollywood grain, replacing the conventional lush late-nineteenth century romantic orchestral score with a much sparer, starker, much more conspicuously modern (and indeed "cinematic") approach to film music. Herrmann had twelve weeks to write the music, which was virtually unheard of - most composers, even today, are lucky to get three or four.

<B>Sound</B> - here the film was absolutely revolutionary: up to this point, with hardly any exceptions, the sound very much played second fiddle to the images. But in <I>Kane</I> Welles used his radio training to create by far the most complex, multi-layered soundtrack that anyone had attempted up to then.

<B>Special effects</B> - far more than most people realise, and the mere fact that most people don't spot how many there are is a testament to their effectiveness!

Incidentally, I thoroughly recommend Roger Ebert's commentary on the R1 edition, which crams an encyclopaedic amount of research and highlights elements so subtle that I hadn't spotted them before in multiple viewings.

[Narshty]

Whenever I watch Citizen Kane, the constant thought running through my head is: "How the **** did you come up with that?!"

I am quite prepared to believe that Citizen Kane is the greatest film of all time (even though, scene for scene, The Magnificent Ambersons is superior, though suffers mightily from all the cutting and reshooting) because it's so dazzlingly inventive and fresh and simply a great deal of fun.

He manages to fit what could quite easily fill a film twice as long into two hours and it doesn't feel remotely rushed because Orson Welles tells the story using every possible technique and technical innovation that existed at the time or that he just invented himself.

It's an incredible piece of filmmaking that has only ever been bettered by his follow-up The Magnificent Ambersons, though the heavy cutting and reshooting of that picture by the studio means that it will always remain like a Greek statue with arms and nose broken off, unless the full-length original version is miraculously found one day.

[jimto]

thats what makes it so special for me is that its never uneventful to watch, there's always something that makes my jaw drop on top of the list Michael has given above.
in other words not only is it innovative and technically superb, its also damn enjoyable to watch.

[LouBarlow]

Its one of those 'classics' that I'd only ever watch once.

There is a vast diference between admiring a film and liking it, and I certainly do not like Citizen Kane.

Though critics continue to jerk their gherkin over it.

[jimto]

Originally posted by LouBarlow
Its one of those 'classics' that I'd only ever watch once.

There is a vast diference between admiring a film and liking it, and I certainly do not like Citizen Kane.

Though critics continue to jerk their gherkin over it.

gets my gherkin everytime man;)

[Narshty]

Shut your face, it's ace!

[Narshty]

Originally posted by jimto
gets my gherkin everytime man;)
:confused:

I've got an extremely filthy mind, but even I don't get that!

[jimto]

Originally posted by Narshty

:confused:

I've got an extremely filthy mind, but even I don't get that!

check the post before. he's insinuating that its just critics that "jerk their gherkin" over CK, I was merely proving him wrong!

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Narshty

:confused:

I've got an extremely filthy mind, but even I don't get that!

Its not brain science mate -

gherkin = cock
jerkin = erm...jerkin'

I like the direction this thread is taking - anything but more Citizen Kane talk :zzz: :lol:

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by LouBarlow


Its not brain science mate -

gherkin = cock
jerkin = erm...jerkin'

I like the direction this thread is taking - anything but more Citizen Kane talk :zzz: :lol:

Oooooh i quoted the wrong dude - sorry Narshty

[Narshty]

Yes, but WHY would he want to masturbate over Citizen Kane? That's all I want to know!

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Narshty
Yes, but WHY would he want to masturbate over Citizen Kane? That's all I want to know!

Because some critics get creaming over just the mention of its name - it has earned its reputation through the long-standing tradition among critics.

2 critics meet, they fall madly in love, they have a child - they teach that child to respect the very mention of the name Kane. After attending some poncy art-school, young junior becomes a critic too and carries on the tradition.

Its the way it works mate.

[GrossePointeJack]

I thought that the film wasn't actually based on Randolph Hearst, but people just believed that it was? I'm pretty sure i read this recently.

[Roberto]

dispite MB's great analysis of the movie, it doesn't stop it being inane drivel that i always fall asleep at when i try to watch it

[Narshty]

I thought that the film wasn't actually based on Randolph Hearst, but people just believed that it was? I'm pretty sure i read this recently.

Yeah, right! I think that's what Orson Welles half-heartedly claimed to everyone, but there's no way in hell that it wasn't.

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Roberto
dispite MB's great analysis of the movie, it doesn't stop it being inane drivel that i always fall asleep at when i try to watch it

You are not the only one mate.

[Walrus Man]

The fact that the film features many innovative techniques doesn't make it a great film (or even a good one) even though it may be the most important and influentual film of all time.

I really wanted to watch it, but got totally bored after half an hour, and decided not to waste any more of my valuable time with it. It just did absolutely nothing for me. :(

[jimto]

Originally posted by Narshty
Yes, but WHY would he want to masturbate over Citizen Kane? That's all I want to know!

metaphor for enjoying:zzz:
obviously not meant to be taken literally:zzz:

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by LouBarlow
Because some critics get creaming over just the mention of its name - it has earned its reputation through the long-standing tradition among critics.

Not true - the film's reputation dates from the moment the first reviews appeared. With the notable exception of James Agee ("A quite good film"), they weren't just foaming-at-the-mouth raves, they were calling it the greatest film ever made right from the start. Its international reputation was relatively slow to build, thanks to the film's relative lack of success and the difficulties of distributing it internationally just after America entered the war, but it was greeted equally enthusiastically when it was finally shown in Europe.

2 critics meet, they fall madly in love, they have a child - they teach that child to respect the very mention of the name Kane. After attending some poncy art-school, young junior becomes a critic too and carries on the tradition.

Its the way it works mate.

Or, alternatively, someone avoids seeing a so-called "classic" because of all the hype, finally catches up with it because he doesn't have anything better to do, is totally blown away by it and recognises that, for once, the hype was justified - which was rather closer to my experience.

Then again, I simply cannot fathom the mind of someone who sincerely thinks a film that's so demonstrably inventive and imaginative on so many levels as <I>Citizen Kane</I> is "boring" - which suggests that they have no real desire to engage with the film at all and have somehow managed to mutate this lack of interest into a criticism of the film itself.

Sorry, Lou - this isn't a personal attack: it's just that your comments seem so wilfully and nihilistically negative that I feel you're reacting to the film's reputation rather than the film itself.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
I thought that the film wasn't actually based on Randolph Hearst, but people just believed that it was? I'm pretty sure i read this recently.

There was never any doubt about this - as Narshty says, Welles tried to play this down, but I suspect this had more to do with the very real threat that the film might never be distributed than anything else!

The film is crammed to bursting with Hearst references which any reasonably informed viewer at the time would have picked up with no trouble - though they might have missed one of the subtlest and funniest: "rosebud" was apparently Hearst's pet name for his mistress Marion Davies' clitoris (though how the hell <U>that</U> leaked out into the public domain I have no idea!)

[Cirrus888]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke


... though they might have missed one of the subtlest and funniest: "rosebud" was apparently Hearst's pet name for his mistress Marion Davies' clitoris ...

Son of a gun! I learn something new everyday! :D :lol: :notworthy :nuts:

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
Or, alternatively, someone avoids seeing a so-called "classic" because of all the hype, finally catches up with it because he doesn't have anything better to do, is totally blown away by it and recognises that, for once, the hype was justified - which was rather closer to my experience.


Or alternatively todays critics hear so much about the films reputation, their first viewing is tainted by preconceptions. Why can't films simply be judged on enjoyment value in the 'now' rather than having to rely on its standing in the 'history of film' which doesn't make me enjoy a movie any more frankly.


Sorry, Lou - this isn't a personal attack: it's just that your comments seem so wilfully and nihilistically negative that I feel you're reacting to the film's reputation rather than the film itself.

"These men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of. "

:lol:

Probably is a little negative - though I have had the 'pleasure' of watching the film twice now - first time when I was earning my critical spurs myself - I hated it. Then I saw interviews with Scorsese, Friedkin, et al proclaiming its brilliance, so I gave it another go - and guess what - I still hated it.

Whether that makes me negative, or even worse unintelligent, I care not a jot - I won't fake enjoyment of a film to fit into the 'critic crowd'

[Vinyl-Pants]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
Then again, I simply cannot fathom the mind of someone who sincerely thinks a film that's so demonstrably inventive and imaginative on so many levels as <I>Citizen Kane</I> is "boring" - which suggests that they have no real desire to engage with the film at all and have somehow managed to mutate this lack of interest into a criticism of the film itself.


Or does this suggest YOU have no real desire to acknowledge people who's justifiable opinions differ from yours. For all its innovation and ground-breaking techniques off and on camera of all the different 'departments' of a film you outlined you omitted the most crucial, the most fundemental aspect of a film - an engaging story, which is what Citizen Kane sadly lacked.

Im also sorry Brooke - this isn't a personal attack; it's just that your comments seem so wilfully and panegyrically positive that I feel you're reacting to the film's reputation rather than the film itself.

[GAmbrose]

Like a true film critic.........

Gary A

[Cirrus888]

I have seen Citizen kane ... twice but I prefer gone with the wind.

...yeah I know were not supposed to compare movies but on a purely entertainment level ...

[Tiffany Bradford]

Originally posted by Vinyl-Pants
the most fundemental aspect of a film - an engaging story, which is what Citizen Kane sadly lacked
I believe I have very good taste in films and am open to any genre, but despite its romanticized history and innovative filmmaking techniques, I have never been a fan of the film - I guess that makes me critically-challenged - or maybe an individual...

[oscar]

thanks for all the info, just ordered mine as well

:lol:

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by Vinyl-Pants
Or does this suggest YOU have no real desire to acknowledge people who's justifiable opinions differ from yours.

My problem with a lot of these contrary opinions is that while they may be justifiable, they're rarely justified - in that the naysayers don't usually bother to explain why they're going against the critical grain, seemingly under the impression that the mere fact that they're doing so is worthy enough of comment.

"I didn't like it", "I hated it", "I'm not a fan", "it's boring" - fair enough, they may be sincerely-held opinions, but they tell us next to nothing about the film itself.

For all its innovation and ground-breaking techniques off and on camera of all the different 'departments' of a film you outlined you omitted the most crucial, the most fundemental aspect of a film - an engaging story, which is what Citizen Kane sadly lacked.

It certainly engaged me, and one of the great things about this particular film (unlike, say, <I>Battleship Potemkin</I> or <I>Man with a Movie Camera</I>, which are very much of their time) is that every time I watch <I>Citizen Kane</I>, I watch it out of genuine pleasure, not because I feel the urge to revisit some stuffy museum piece. In fact, I keep forgetting just how sheerly entertaining it is - one of the drawbacks of being weighed down by decades of "greatest film ever" adulation!

Im also sorry Brooke - this isn't a personal attack; it's just that your comments seem so wilfully and panegyrically positive that I feel you're reacting to the film's reputation rather than the film itself.

Not at all, Pants - I'm normally the first to slaughter sacred cows, but in the case of <I>Citizen Kane</I> I don't have a particularly good reason to be negative about the film, which for me works on pretty much every level: art, entertainment, technical achievement, you name it.

There's plenty to be negative about in terms of its history - its relatively poor box-office reception caused a nervy RKO to irretrievably butcher <I>The Magnificent Ambersons</I>, setting in train Welles' long decline - if he'd had the same resources throughout his career that he had on <I>Kane</I>, who knows what the past sixty years of film history would have looked like?

And the other depressing thing about the film is that it reminds us that it's practically the last time Hollywood ever entrusted a single film-maker with complete creative control and guaranteed not to interfere - another reason this particular film is singled out by film-makers above all: it's not only a supremely great film, but a symbol of everything they aspire to but have very little realistic hope of achieving.

[Roberto]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
not because I feel the urge to revisit some stuffy museum pieceBut when i try to watch it, this is excatly how it feels

[Raphph]

Since no one else has linked to it I may as well plug my R1 review (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/index.cgi?page=Review&id=748&story=3000)! ;)

[Gromit]

Well, whenever this film rears its head or, more precisely, whenever critics are asked for their top ten films, this one is usually in it. It often looks as though they feel the HAVE to say it's one of the best or their fellow critics will suspect they know nothing about films :eek: To rate something else? :nono:

Why did the film flop? Was it poor marketing? People didn't actually think the film was any good? Fear of being sued?

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Gromit
Well, whenever this film rears its head or, more precisely, whenever critics are asked for their top ten films, this one is usually in it. It often looks as though they feel the HAVE to say it's one of the best or their fellow critics will suspect they know nothing about films :eek: To rate something else? :nono:


Couldn't agree more with this comment - its exactly why I gave it another chance, but why should I be forced to class a movie as a classic because a critic tells me it is so ?

[Nick Laslett]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke


And the other depressing thing about the film is that it reminds us that it's practically the last time Hollywood ever entrusted a single film-maker with complete creative control and guaranteed not to interfere - another reason this particular film is singled out by film-makers above all: it's not only a supremely great film, but a symbol of everything they aspire to but have very little realistic hope of achieving.

Michael,

It is really good that you are taking the time to defend Citizen Kane, but isn't this last comment going a little to far.

Wouldn't you say that directors like Stanley Kubrick, Terence Malick, David Lean, Woody Allen, Client Eastwood and Steven Spielberg had earned the same level of autonomy during their careers?

I agree that it is this level of freedom that they all aspire to have. Some achieve it through the use of their own money - Francis Ford Coppola with Apocolaypse Now, some with immense power they possess for a brief moment - Kevin Costner with Dances with Wolves.

Some only seem close enough to have their dream ripped apart in front of them, like happened to Welles on many occasions. I think of Terry Gilliam especially in the respect, where he always seems to be able to kick-start dream projects, but then has them taken away from him - see Brazil, Baron Munchausen & Don Quixote.

Ridley Scott produced a made for TV movie called RKO231 (??) which was about the making of Citizen Kane. This is a very good companion piece and a good introduction to Citizen Kane.

The film is so tied up in its own myth and reputation that it is hard to view it in an pleasurable way. It reminds me of when I showed my wife and brother-in-law The Godfather. They had asked to see the film, in response to the fact that they had recently learned that it was their deceased grandfather's favorite film.

So I showed them my DVD copy. After the film had finished and the lights went up there was silence. I knew that they had not got why this was a great film, but they did not want to say anything, for fear of appearing stupid. It was the Emporer's new clothes in reverse.

Film is such a democratic medium that we all expect to be able to enjoy every film we see. But this is simply not the case. With some films there is an element of work which you have to do, before you can reap any enjoyment. The is especially true of some of the classics, where it is wise to approach them in a series of steps, rather than leaping straight in. Something akin to reading ages on childrens books needs to be applied. Anyone coming upon "Last Year at Marienbad", without any preparation shouldn't be surprised if they come away, dazed and confused.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by Nick Laslett
Wouldn't you say that directors like Stanley Kubrick, Terence Malick, David Lean, Woody Allen, Client Eastwood and Steven Spielberg had earned the same level of autonomy during their careers?

My point was that Welles managed to achieve that level of autonomy <U>within the Hollywood studio system itself</U>, and he was allowed complete creative freedom regardless of any commercial imperative.

I don't think that's necessarily true of the other names you've cited, most of whom worked outside Hollywood in a bid to avoid direct interference, and virtually all of whom were compelled to cast name actors as a condition of funding. True, they had to compromise less than others - but they still had to compromise nonetheless.

Film is such a democratic medium that we all expect to be able to enjoy every film we see. But this is simply not the case. With some films there is an element of work which you have to do, before you can reap any enjoyment. The is especially true of some of the classics, where it is wise to approach them in a series of steps, rather than leaping straight in. Something akin to reading ages on childrens books needs to be applied. Anyone coming upon "Last Year at Marienbad", without any preparation shouldn't be surprised if they come away, dazed and confused.

I agree - and of course you have to take cultural and historical factors into account as well. You've already cited one Alain Resnais film, and I'll cite another: I'd say it's pretty much impossible to appreciate <I>On connait le chanson</I> in the way it was intended unless you're a middle-aged native French speaker, as much of the pleasure of the film (so I've been told) comes from specific recognition of certain songs, designed to trigger off certain memories. Of course, if you don't share those cultural memories, it's going to be meaningless, which is why the film sank like a stone outside France, where it was a surprise box-office hit.

But I've never regarded <I>Citizen Kane</I> in the <I>Last Year in Marienbad</I> class - I went to it expecting some kind of self-conscious art movie, and what I most loved about it was its sheer playfulness: as with Abel Gance in <I>Napoleon</I> and Bernardo Bertolucci in <I>The Conformist</I> (just about the only post-<I>Kane</I> film I can think of that attempts a similar one-film encyclopaedia of film technique), Welles seems utterly intoxicated by the sheer potential of film as a medium, and I just get completely carried away by that every time I watch it.

Granted, some background knowledge helps, but unlike most "great films", it's perfectly enjoyable even if approached completely blind, which may be a major reason for its across-the-board appeal.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by LouBarlow
Couldn't agree more with this comment - its exactly why I gave it another chance, but why should I be forced to class a movie as a classic because a critic tells me it is so ?

You shouldn't be forced to hold any opinion you disagree with - but if your opinion goes radically against the prevailing grain, I think at the very least you need to ask yourself "OK, I didn't get much out of it - so why do other people rate it so highly?" instead of just dismissing it out of hand. After all, in the case of <I>Citizen Kane</I>, it's hardly just being championed by <U>one</U> critic!

I know exactly where you're coming from, though - for instance, I notice that a lot of people have cited <I>Being John Malkovich</I> as a candidate for potential greatness - which is a film that left me absolutely cold: apart from the undeniable brilliance of picking John Malkovich as a subject (I honestly can't think of another actor who would have been as effective), it seemed to me merely a rehash of the already oft-filmed <I>Vice Versa</I> with a few self-consciously "wacky" moments thrown in, not helped by virtually all the characters being deeply dislikeable to the extent that I really didn't care what happened to them.

But at least I'm taking the trouble to explain <U>why</U> I felt it left me cold - if you just fall back on the "it's boring" line, that says absolutely nothing about either the film or your reasons for feeling like that.

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
But at least I'm taking the trouble to explain <U>why</U> I felt it left me cold - if you just fall back on the "it's boring" line, that says absolutely nothing about either the film or your reasons for feeling like that.

But its the same situation. 'Being John...'left you cold, fine (and I agree with you about this movie totally), 'Citizen Kane' left me feeling the same way.

I don't feel I should have to go into details as to why I don't like something - "oooh that camera angle was all wrong!!" etc etc

If a film doesn't give you that buzz thats enough reason in my book.



You shouldn't be forced to hold any opinion you disagree with - but if your opinion goes radically against the prevailing grain, I think at the very least you need to ask yourself "OK, I didn't get much out of it - so why do other people rate it so highly?" instead of just dismissing it out of hand. After all, in the case of Citizen Kane, it's hardly just being championed by one critic!



The thing is I haven't dismissed it as such - I can see why it gets the critics whipping their love truncheons in appreciation - but like many other so-called classics, my admiration for it doesn't transmit into enjoyment, which is the primary factor in film-watching I believe.

It is possible to make classic, enjoyable pictures - Scorsese is the master of this, and to a lesser degree Kubrick. Taking the AFI top 100 list for example, there are many films there on that critic-devised list, that I wouldn't dream of watching again, but some of them are my favourite ever films :

Godfather
Apocalypse Now
French Connection
Raging Bull

etc, etc all movies with critical respect, but are able to offer enjoyment too.

[stigdu]

I'm not a big fan of Welles sadly. I watched The Third Man about a week ago - heralded as a classic by most - but utterly long-winded, slow-moving and plain dull in my eyes.

At least with Citizen Kane, although again, I'm not a big fan, you could see the artistic vision and pioneering effects work that Welles put into the film - his heart and soul basically, and for that I applaud him.

I just don't find his films particularly enjoyable. :(

[Narshty]

Have you seen Touch of Evil? Films don't really get more enjoyable or gripping.

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by stigdu
I'm not a big fan of Welles sadly. I watched The Third Man about a week ago - heralded as a classic by most - but utterly long-winded, slow-moving and plain dull in my eyes.


We can't really blame him for that one though.

[Hendrik]

"I'm not a big fan of Welles sadly. I watched The Third Man about a week ago - heralded as a classic by most - but utterly long-winded, slow-moving and plain dull in my eyes."

...erm... Give back that cigar!!!... that (British!) movie was directed by Carol Reed...

...Orson Welles only appeared in it as an actor, and for a few minutes only...

...to see what Welles the Director was capable of I suggest you take a look at the restored Othello (available on an image DVD) or The Lady From Shanghai and, of course, Touch Of Evil... and (perhaps?) (some day?) in a decent 'restored' version, my personal favourite (...because OW does not appear in it...) The Magnificent Ambersons...

. . . :o . . .

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Hendrik
Give back that cigar!!![/SIZE]... that (British!) movie was directed by Carol Reed...


Hence my post above :thumbs:

[Narshty]

You can complain and moan all you like, but there's no denying that Orson Welles was a genius and one of the most brilliant men ever to call the word "Action!".

One can barely imagine what kind of films he'd have made had he had Kubrick's working conditions throughout his career.

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Narshty
One can barely imagine what kind of films he'd have made had he had Kubrick's working conditions throughout his career.

How do you know the conditions Kubrick filmed in ? By all accounts his sets were as stressful as any other - not that a lot of footage exists of him at work, apart from his daughters short documentary.

What makes you think Kubrick had it easy ? :confused:

[jimto]

Originally posted by LouBarlow


How do you know the conditions Kubrick filmed in ? By all accounts his sets were as stressful as any other - not that a lot of footage exists of him at work, apart from his daughters short documentary.

What makes you think Kubrick had it easy ? :confused:

Kubrick had virtual autonomy from Warners because they thought he'd win them an Oscar one day. whereas after CK, Welles had no chance to do exactly what he wanted.

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by jimto


Kubrick had virtual autonomy from Warners because they thought he'd win them an Oscar one day. whereas after CK, Welles had no chance to do exactly what he wanted.

Ah right - sorry I didn't realise you were referring to studio interference.

[Mario Gauci]

I have read the numerous posts in this thread with great interest and not a little disbelief. Michael Brooke hit the nail squarely on the head when he mentioned his surprise at just how entertaining a film CITIZEN KANE (1941) could be. Of course, one needs to understand that entertainment, not art, was the order of the day in the early years of cinema, indeed even where the so-called “message” pictures like I AM A FUGITIVE FROM A CHAIN GANG (1932) and DEAD END (1937) were concerned.

I won’t go into the merits of the film (a quick search on the Internet would doubtlessly yield as many results as one could wish for and, in any case, Brooke and Narshty have already made a fair stab at it, I think, on this very board). But I would like to say how surprised I am at the fact that anyone could fail to be moved by Orson Welles’ performance as Charles Foster Kane, a man so thoroughly blinded by his own implicit sense of right in everything he does that he proceeds to alienate everyone for whom he cared.

In this sense, it is not dissimilar to RAGING BULL (1980) – a film Lou Barlow says is one of the few AFI Top 100 candidates that he admires – but, then, Robert De Niro’s Jake LaMotta never really moves us, thus making his obstinate self-destructive urge seem hollow in comparison to Kane. Another famous character of modern cinema that could bear comparison to the figure of Charlie Kane is Al Pacino’s Michael Corleone in the GODFATHER trilogy, but once again here we have a character who exudes, in my opinion, all the charm of a rattlesnake (perhaps intentional in his case?) but this only goes to prove the infectious charisma of the young Orson Welles, “Boy Wonder”!

But really, I cannot quite understand how a film so brilliantly made – and if you just can’t see it, I’m sorry but you’ve still to catch up on a lot of what constitutes great film-making – can divide public opinion so much. I don’t mean the general public who watches movies at the cinema, on DVD/VHS, or on TV just to kill a couple of hours but people with genuine feeling for the medium – and you who seem to dislike the film so much I take it belong to the second category, because otherwise you wouldn’t be posting in this Forum!

I think Narshty remembers a spar we had recently concerning John Moxey’s ‘horror comic’, THE CITY OF THE DEAD (1960): I mean it’s to be expected that a merely average film will hit two persons a different way. While I thought it was quite well done (the look of the film, if not the overused plot), Narshty saw it as too silly to be taken seriously and went on to refer to it as a “guilty pleasure”.

Still, on another Forum, I had an argument similar to the business being discussed here about James Whale’s BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), generally acknowledged as the greatest horror film ever made – a view I happen to share. While the person who proposed it as a good example of “smouldering excreta” tried to pinpoint what he hated about the film, I merely reiterated that I did not feel it was perfect myself, but once again I could not fathom how a film so rich (in every sense of the word) and so purely entertaining could be so “misunderstood”! This guy then went on to say that he did not feel it lived up to its reputation, and even proclaimed to taking the “biting social commentary” of George A. Romero’s DAWN OF THE DEAD (1979) – a sickening and absurdly overblown piece of boring crap, if you ask me – over BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN any time!

I would like to conclude with a piece I had written (but did not post for some reason) about Welles, as a reaction to what Ingmar Bergman had said about his films and those of other important film-makers, and which was reported some time ago in this same Forum.

Quote:

“About Orson Welles:

Bergman: For me he's just a hoax. It's empty. It's not interesting. It's dead. CITIZEN KANE, which I have a copy of - is all the critics' darling, always at the top of every poll taken, but I think it's a total bore. Above all, the performances are worthless. The amount of respect that movie's got is absolutely unbelievable.

Aghed: How about THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS?

Bergman: Nah. Also terribly boring. And I've never liked Welles as an actor, because he's not really an actor. In Hollywood you have two categories, you talk about actors and personalities. Welles was an enormous personality, but when he plays Othello, everything goes down the drain, you see, that's when he's croaks. In my eyes he's an infinitely overrated filmmaker."

I may be a little biased towards Orson Welles since I consider him one of my favourite film directors. He may have tended to repeat himself once too often in later years, with both CONFIDENTIAL REPORT (1955) and THE IMMORTAL STORY (1968) being essentially retreads of themes already dealt with in the far superior CITIZEN KANE, for example, but there is no denying the importance of both KANE and THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS (1942) with their incredibly innovative cinematic style which is still fresh and invigorating sixty years on. Besides, Welles is to be applauded for the fact that he managed to create such personal and artistically triumphant pieces while working under the then prevalent Studio System. Indeed both films are shining examples of Hollywood studio film-making at its very best and deserving of their unassailable reputation as two of the greatest films that ever came out of America or anywhere else for that matter. A total bore they are most definitely not, now more than ever when the product that Hollywood churns out is so superficial, insignificant and inept.

But one cannot underestimate the undeniable skill with which Welles made such seemingly routine Hollywood products like JOURNEY INTO FEAR (1942), THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI (1948) and TOUCH OF EVIL (1958), which, despite repeated studio interference, still repay countless viewings with undiminished entertainment value. Which is more than can be said of some of Bergman’s self-important, heavy-handed existential melodramas which were all the rage in the arthouse circles in the Sixties and Seventies, when Bergman was considered (along with Federico Fellini and Stanley Kubrick) as the leading film-maker of the time. At the same time, Orson Welles was demeaning himself by appearing in increasingly disparate ventures in his attempts to gather the financial resources required to complete his bevy of uncompleted or unrealized projects.

Welles’ Shakespearean adaptations may have been less popular than Laurence Olivier’s in the eyes of the literary purists but, in spite of their shoddy appearance due to Welles’ perennial financial woes, they qualify as highly cinematic renditions in that they do not seem burdened by their stage origins. While I have yet to watch CHIMES AT MIDNIGHT (1966) myself, I find both MACBETH (1948) and OTHELLO (1952) to be not only highly satisfactory Shakespearean adaptations, but also extremely interesting visual experiments in their own right. Welles’ other major screen adaptation, Franz Kafka’s THE TRIAL (1962) is, admittedly, not for all tastes: an extremely stylized version of Kafka’s bleak dystopian visions, spearheaded by a superb cast of actors who are dwarfed by the magnificently atmospheric settings. Welles himself considers it the best film he has ever done, which may come as a surprise to some, but this little-seen masterpiece provided Welles with his only chance (since CITIZEN KANE a full twenty years earlier) to make a film on his own terms, without any kind of hindrance from concerned studio executives. And for that alone, it deserves far more recognition that it has been getting (or rather not getting) lately.

About Orson Welles’ acting ability, I have just this to say: Bergman must not have seen his turn as Harry Lime in Carol Reed’s THE THIRD MAN (1949) – in my opinion one of the all-time great performances in film history - which despite its overall briefness, steals the film away from under the noses of a splendid ensemble cast of character actors. Also, Welles’ technical innovations in CITIZEN KANE have more often than not overshadowed his marvelous central performance. And quite how Bergman can call the acting in that film “worthless” is beyond me! Besides, Welles’ presence has enlivened more moribund film productions than practically any other actor I care to mention.

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Mario Gauci

But really, I cannot quite understand how a film so brilliantly made – and if you just can’t see it, I’m sorry but you’ve still to catch up on a lot of what constitutes great film-making – can divide public opinion so much. I don’t mean the general public who watches movies at the cinema, on DVD/VHS, or on TV just to kill a couple of hours but people with genuine feeling for the medium – and you who seem to dislike the film so much I take it belong to the second category, because otherwise you wouldn’t be posting in this Forum!


Oh for the love of !!!

I thought maybe we had dispensed with these high-brow digs at people not appreciative of certain movies.

I class myself as a member of the general public who enjoys watching film, with the emphasis on the 'enjoy' - the thing you may fail to understand is that despite my tastes not agreeing with yours, I see no reason why this should mean I don't have 'feeling for the medium'.

Yes we all appreciate the technical proficiency of Citizen bloody Kane, but it is perhaps notable that the film never features as highly in polls of film watchers (yes the lesser people like myself) than it does in critic polls when deciding on their favourite film.

Would this be because its just not an enjoyable film to watch and that its reputation stems from people listening to opinions of critics rather than their own experiences ?

[Gromit]

But really, I cannot quite understand how a film so brilliantly made – and if you just can’t see it, I’m sorry but you’ve still to catch up on a lot of what constitutes great film-making – can divide public opinion so much. I don’t mean the general public who watches movies at the cinema, on DVD/VHS, or on TV just to kill a couple of hours but people with genuine feeling for the medium – and you who seem to dislike the film so much I take it belong to the second category, because otherwise you wouldn’t be posting in this Forum!


I'm sorry but even I take offence at that statement. What are you trying to say about people who watch and enjoy films but don't happen to agree that Citizen Kane is the best thing since sliced bread?

So all forum members must recite these Hallow'd words:

Citizen Kane is great


thrice at moning noon and night?

[GrossePointeJack]

Just to sidetrack for a mo' does anyone know what the most complete version of 'The Maginficent Ambersons' is? I've yet to see the film but i know of the history behind it, just wondering what footage (if any) has been restored over the years.

[Assilem23]

Originally posted by GrossePointeJack
Just to sidetrack for a mo' does anyone know what the most complete version of 'The Maginficent Ambersons' is? I've yet to see the film but i know of the history behind it, just wondering what footage (if any) has been restored over the years.

I maybe wrong, but I'm under the impression that missing footage is lost at the moment - though it might turn up in the eastern block of Europe, or in someone's cupboard (ala the colour footage of Charlie Chaplin on The Great Dictator). It really is one of the great losses of cinema history.

[Assilem23]

Originally posted by LouBarlow


it is perhaps notable that the film never features as highly in polls of film watchers (yes the lesser people like myself) than it does in critic polls when deciding on their favourite film.

Would this be because its just not an enjoyable film to watch and that its reputation stems from people listening to opinions of critics rather than their own experiences ?

It is not because Citizen Kane is not an enjoyable film - it's fantasically entertaining in my opinion - it's because people who approach it now are coming to it with a point of view and expectation of cinema that is garnered from their movie going experience. Things like Star Wars, The Matrix, The Shawshank Redemption etc... movies that have a different pace to older films. Citizen Kane is an old film. It has old values and an old pace.

When I saw The Third Man I fell in love with it - it's perhaps the closest thing I have to a favourite movie - and I raved about it for weeks until some of my friends watched it - and were bored stiff. I really enjoyed it because I'd had years of watching old films, of getting a frame of reference for this type of film.

Back when all I used to watch were post 1975 movies, I tried to sit through CK knowing it was "the best film ever made" and I couldn't get through it. Only when I had developed a more significant understanding and appreciation for that type of film was it that I watched CK again and saw what all the critics had been saying.


Oh, and as to those film polls of movie goers - they're generally polls I find that are filled with the last five films viewers saw that were half way decent. If Total Film were to do one at the moment, I think it would look something like: 1) Star Wars 2) LOTR 3) Spiderman with Star Wars only holding the top spot because it's the commercial movie equivielent of Citizen Kane. Incidently, I find Star Wars an overhyped piece of junk that I get very little enjoyment out of.

[Vinyl-Pants]

Originally posted by Assilem23

It is not because Citizen Kane is not an enjoyable film - it's fantasically entertaining in my opinion - it's because people who approach it now are coming to it with a point of view and expectation of cinema that is garnered from their movie going experience. Things like Star Wars, The Matrix, The Shawshank Redemption etc... movies that have a different pace to older films. Citizen Kane is an old film. It has old values and an old pace.


Im afraid I have to disagree with you here - classics such as Casablanca, Red River, Vertigo, Seven Samurai and Bridge On The River Kwai (although I suppose some of these are relatively modern being in colour and ONLY 45 years old) are all films infinately more worthy of their status and popularity - although with the exception of Seven Samurai I suppose the rest are all mainstream pap going on what certain Citizen Kane fanatics claim. The fact of the matter is, and this is what the 3 outspoken Citizen Kane fan boys won't let rest, that the vast majority of the individual responces to this thread have been against Citizen Kane and that, to me, speaks volumes.

[GrossePointeJack]

I think it all has to do with a deeper appreciation of the 'art' of film to be honest, you show CK to a film class and they will lap it up. Same goes for critics, i think it depends on what you know about film as to whether or not you can enjoy it - most film-makers cite it because of the influence it had on them, just like musicians cite the Beatles as an influence on them. So to go with that analogy, as the film-world sees it, Citizen Kane is the Beatles of the film industry.

[Paul2]

/Alan Partridge mode on/

'I've seen it-every episode. 'Power to the people''

/Alan Partridge mode off/

[Vinyl-Pants]

Oh please, that is about a patronising a sweeping generalisation as I've ever read. Just because I, like many others, contest that Citizen Kane actually isnt 'all that' (on an entertainment level - which is ultimately what film is all about) we're branded as niave pop-corn flick lovers or something. I also hate the Beatles, so I guess that makes me a Hear'Say fan.

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Vinyl-Pants
Oh please, that is about a patronising a sweeping generalisation as I've ever read. Just because I, like many others, contest that Citizen Kane actually isnt 'all that' (on an entertainment level - which is ultimately what film is all about) we're branded as niave pop-corn flick lovers or something. I also hate the Beatles, so I guess that makes me a Hear'Say fan.

You sir speaketh the trutheth :thumbs:

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by Assilem23
I maybe wrong, but I'm under the impression that missing footage is lost at the moment - though it might turn up in the eastern block of Europe, or in someone's cupboard (ala the colour footage of Charlie Chaplin on The Great Dictator).

It won't, sadly - there's virtually no doubt that all the surplus footage was destroyed, on the specific orders of the incoming regime at RKO after Welles' great protector George Schaefer was ousted.

Robert Wise, who edited both the original film and the altered version, would have been in the strongest position to have saved any footage - and if he had done, surely he'd have come forward decades ago when the film was definitively established as a mutilated masterpiece?

The closest we'll get to the original is Robert L Carringer's book-length reconstruction, based on detailed research and conversations with surviving participants and those lucky enough to have seen the full version - and it's well worth a read, not least because of Carringer's healthy scepticism about whether or not the full version was really the flawless jewel that its champions so fervently claim. Apparently even its supporters at the time thought it was overlong and that subsequent editing was needed - it's just that RKO's surgery turned out to be slightly more drastic than they envisaged!

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by Vinyl-Pants
The fact of the matter is, and this is what the 3 outspoken Citizen Kane fan boys won't let rest, that the vast majority of the individual responces to this thread have been against Citizen Kane and that, to me, speaks volumes.

What speaks rather greater volumes to me is that the defences have been considerably more eloquent, better informed and more convincingly argued than the attacks.

If you don't believe me, re-read your own posts - what have you actually contributed to the discussion about the film itself, besides a vague (and demonstrably inaccurate) comment that it lacked an engaging story and an equally vague and sweeping comparison between it and other acknowledged classics?

And why do certain people find it impossible to get it into their heads that just because <u>they</U> didn't enjoy a film for whatever reason, anyone who claims that they did must be adopting some kind of pseudish pose?

You can attack specific aspects of the film by all means, but saying, as LouBarlow does above, that "it's not an enjoyable film to watch" is plainly and simply untrue as an absolute statement, since a huge number of people would clearly disagree, and with good reason.

I don't personally enjoy <I>Star Wars</I> - the last time I saw it I cringed every time Alec Guinness opened his mouth to deliver what both he and I thought were some of the most Godawful lines ever penned - but you won't catch me making similarly emphatic "it's not enjoyable" claims, as I'm well aware that a great many people would strongly disagree - again, with good reason.

[gary191265]

I saw it for the first time on Sunday :o and thought it was great.

Disregarding the technical aspects of the film (which, not being an expert or film-student, I don't see anyway, until they're explained to me...), I just thought it was a good story, well told.

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Michael Brooke
You can attack specific aspects of the film by all means, but saying, as LouBarlow does above, that "it's not an enjoyable film to watch" is plainly and simply untrue as an absolute statement, since a huge number of people would clearly disagree, and with good reason.


Well going by the responses in this thread, it would seem that my opinion is that of the majority.

People don't enjoy watching the film, why do you find that so hard to understand ? Are they all fibbing ?

Some of the arguments defending the film have been eloquent, sure, but have contained some of the most snobbish attitudes to film watching I have heard for some time.

Another reason why all critics should be lined up and shot, frankly.:lol:

[Vinyl-Pants]

How is the FACT I think that Citizen Kane lacks an engaging story a 'demonstrably inaccurate' comment? Whilst watching the film I was looking at the clock every 10 minutes or so - never a good sign - thinking 'when will this finish'. You don't emphaise with the protagonist one iota but then nor do you care about anyone else either. You just feel bored as the story slowly and predictably unfolds into a spiral of decline...*yawn*...excuse me, this is almost as boring as the film itself having to endlessly justify my opinion (due to the pedantic nature of its defenders) about this utterly over-rated film. Tell me, Brooke, do you hold Bergman's comments and opinions in such contempt also? Afterall, there is hardly much explaination or justification of his comments...maybe they are 'demonstrably inaccurate' also?

I found the documentary infinately more enjoyable, watching the scene where the camera goes through the sign which has to be mechanically pulled apart for the shot to work - facinating, more engaging that the film itself.

[Paul2]

Originally posted by LouBarlow
Well going by the responses in this thread, it would seem that my opinion is that of the majority.

Overgeneralisation number 1. In fact, a count of people who've stated their opinion on the film thus far in this thread suggests that those who like it are in a slight majority. It just appears to be the other way around because more of the anti-Kane group are repeat-posting more than those defending Kane. In any case, even if it were the other way around, this thread hardly constitutes a valid poll of people's opinion. Oh, and for the record, I like the film too!

People don't enjoy watching the film, why do you find that so hard to understand ? Are they all fibbing ?

He doesn't necessarily. You seem to have misunderstood the point of his you've quoted, though.

Some of the arguments defending the film have been eloquent, sure, but have contained some of the most snobbish attitudes to film watching I have heard for some time.

Overgeneralisation number 2 (only one of 8 people posting trying to explain Kane's enduring appeal has made a remark that could be reasonably interpreted thus). If anything, those of the anti-Kane camp who dismiss all critics and film watchers who enjoy this film as pseuds, snobs etc. without justifying why it doesn't merit this high regard are displaying more snobbishness than those who accept that not all people like it, but nonetheless make a genuine attempt to explain its popularity.

Another reason why all critics should be lined up and shot, frankly.:lol:

Overgeneralisation Number 3.

[Noel M]

I also like Citizen Kane, although I personally don't think it is the greatest film ever made. I can see why a lot of people would think this though.

I find it strange however that those who are posting here that they don't like it are taking more time criticising the people who like it and have little to say that is constructive or critical of the film itself.

Apparently, because they didn't enjoy it, they can't possibly conceive of anyone else enjoying it. As Michael is often quoted as saying, this says more about them than it does about the film.

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Noel M

Apparently, because they didn't enjoy it, they can't possibly conceive of anyone else enjoying it. As Michael is often quoted as saying, this says more about them than it does about the film.

Yes it says about us - 'we didn't like this movie'

[Noel M]

Originally posted by LouBarlow


Yes it says about us - 'we didn't like this movie'

Exactly! It doesn't say it was a bad movie.

[Foxy Slamdangle]

Well going by the responses in this thread, it would seem that my opinion is that of the majority.

OK, well to redress the balance. I personally love and enjoy Citizen Kane. You can +1 to the pro-Kane camp.

People don't enjoy watching the film, why do you find that so hard to understand ? Are they all fibbing ?

I don't find it hard to understand. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. I'd rather cut my toenails than watch Gone With The Wind, Three Kings and Braveheart but I don't go on a constant tirade against those who do watch the aforementioned films.

For the record, even if you don't like Citizen Kane you can still acknowledge that it's probably inspired the actors and directors of many of your favourite films. Even if it is boring ;)

Some of the arguments defending the film have been eloquent, sure, but have contained some of the most snobbish attitudes to film watching I have heard for some time.

I haven't seen any snobbery thus far, just differing opinions. I get the same sort of 'snob' comments for having the audacity to read The Guardian and watch subtitled films. Obviously I'm a bleeding heart liberal who thinks he's cultured. ;)

[CLH]

I have not enjoyed watching many movies considered classics. Citizen Kane is one of them. Another (recent film) is O Borther Where Art thou.

On the other hand I would never dismiss any entertainment medium because I don't like it. I rarely stray into the music discussion forum because there appears to be an all pervading, "How can you possibly like that" attitude.

Surely the answer to this is more about tolerance than anything else. I have enourmous respect for Kane as a movie, Welles as a filmaker etc but I don't enjoy watching it on a Saturday evening with a beer. I do however respect those who do enjoy it and who do take something out of it.

Can't we all just accept that we all see different things in different movies and our own minds tell us what we like and don't like. I severley doubt whether the Kane PR machine has been able to brainwash millions of people and many critics which must mean that it DOES have an appeal which misses me. Further, people like Michael Brooke have enough (if not a surplus of intelligence) to be exactly the type of people not to be swayed by popular opinion.

Just my two pence!

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Noel M


Exactly! It doesn't say it was a bad movie.

I don't think anybody has said it's a "bad" movie, just that it's not a "great" movie.

Enjoying a film is possible on different levels. I think Michael has been very eloquent defending why HE thinks it's a great film. This viewpoint is held by a number of other people and particularly film critics. I can appreciate that it was "innovative" but that does not necessarily make it a "great" film. For me, the story line is so-so (I think there are better newspaper based films out there). So it sails close to the wind allegedly about a real life character. Well, so what? This still does not make it a great film.

Some people think I might dislike it because it's black and white - well, no. One of my favourite films is Seven Samurai which is black and white and subtitled :eek:

Innovative camera angles and sound is just not enough. Granted film students will appreciate this more but I'll bet there are countless films out there with "innovative" styles that haven't got anywhere.

What I fail to understand is why people defending CK want a frame by frame analysis of why we don't think it's a great film! Why do people have to defend it at such great length?

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by CLH

Surely the answer to this is more about tolerance than anything else. I have enourmous respect for Kane as a movie, Welles as a filmaker etc but I don't enjoy watching it on a Saturday evening with a beer. I do however respect those who do enjoy it and who do take something out of it.


I have been saying that all along mate.

For the umpteenth time - Yes, I respect Citizen Kane and understand why it makes critics go weak at the knees, but I don't enjoy it - I don't like it. Period.

If that makes me not a fan of film, then so be it. If it takes my social status down a notch, then fair enough.

[Noel M]

Originally posted by Gromit


I don't think anybody has said it's a "bad" movie, just that it's not a "great" movie...

What I fail to understand is why people defending CK want a frame by frame analysis of why we don't think it's a great film! Why do people have to defend it at such great length?

Well in that case I fail to understand what the point of this thread is. Some people like Citizen Kane, some people think it is great and some people don't like it. Fair enough. What is there to discuss?

It is not a "great" movie in your opinion, but it is in the opinion of others. The reason why it has been described as "great" has been well documented and those who think so have taken the trouble to back-up their opinions.

No-one is expecting those who didn't like it to defend it "frame-by-frame". What is being asked is why people who don't like the film don't seem to be able to accept that an awful lot of people do think it is great.

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by Noel M
What is being asked is why people who don't like the film don't seem to be able to accept that an awful lot of people do think it is great.

Where has anyone said we don't accept it ? :confused:

[Noel M]

Originally posted by LouBarlow


Where has anyone said we don't accept it ? :confused:

What? You want quotes? OK -

Originally posted by Lou Barlow –
2 critics meet, they fall madly in love, they have a child - they teach that child to respect the very mention of the name Kane. After attending some poncy art-school, young junior becomes a critic too and carries on the tradition.

Its the way it works mate.

Originally posted by Lou Barlow -
Or alternatively todays critics hear so much about the films reputation, their first viewing is tainted by preconceptions.

Originally posted by Gromit -
It often looks as though they feel the HAVE to say it's one of the best or their fellow critics will suspect they know nothing about films

Originally posted by Lou Barlow -
Would this be because its just not an enjoyable film to watch and that its reputation stems from people listening to opinions of critics rather than their own experiences ?

Originally posted by Gromit -
So all forum members must recite these Hallow'd words:
Citizen Kane is great
thrice at moning noon and night?

...All of which say that you can't possibly watch Citizen Kane and think it is great - you have to be told by critics and mindlessly believe it. Who is being the more patronising?

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Noel M

. . . . What is being asked is why people who don't like the film don't seem to be able to accept that an awful lot of people do think it is great.

Noel, if you go to the start of the thread it began by somebody saying they didn't like it and thought it was highly over-rated. Its supporters then defended it, and very well too. However, you tend to find the film is enthused over by "critics" and you have to wonder if any of that is an element of "Emperor's New Clothes" where they feel they must include it to be considered a "real" critic. But perhaps that's just my cynical mind :)

Of course there are people who like it and nobody has said they were wrong in thinking it great. It's their choice and opinion. But I find that people who defend CK give the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are 1 short of a 6-pack when you don't see it as a great film.

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by Vinyl-Pants
You don't emphaise with the protagonist one iota but then nor do you care about anyone else either. You just feel bored as the story slowly and predictably unfolds into a spiral of decline...*yawn*.

Why are you writing in the second person since this doesn't remotely describe my reaction or that of many other people contributing to this thread?

Tell me, Brooke, do you hold Bergman's comments and opinions in such contempt also?

Well, Pants, since you ask, there's an obvious difference between Bergman's comments and yours since however superficial Bergman's comments may be (at least in the out-of-context excerpts quoted above), you can at least relate them to his own body of work - and since it's clear that Bergman and Welles have very little in common when it comes to their approach to directing, acting and film-making in general, it's hardly surprising that Bergman wouldn't be much of a fan.

But then again, Bergman thought that Tarkovsky was the greatest director in cinema history, and quite a few people would take issue with that as well!

[Cirrus888]

Well I believe a little alien bashing and a southern crane attack intermingled with an explosion here and there would have livened it up no end! :nuts:

[Noel M]

Originally posted by Gromit
Noel, if you go to the start of the thread it began by somebody saying they didn't like it and thought it was highly over-rated. Its supporters then defended it, and very well too. However, you tend to find the film is enthused over by "critics" and you have to wonder if any of that is an element of "Emperor's New Clothes" where they feel they must include it to be considered a "real" critic. But perhaps that's just my cynical mind.

Well, as a reviewer for DVDTimes I suppose I must be considered a 'critic', but I have never felt the need to 'over-rate' Citizen Kane. In a recent poll we are current compiling on the site it doesn't make my top 50. That doesn't mean I will disparage anyone who thinks it is "great".

Of course there are people who like it and nobody has said they were wrong in thinking it great. It's their choice and opinion. But I find that people who defend CK give the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are 1 short of a 6-pack when you don't see it as a great film.

That's where I disagree with you. Not one defender of the film in this has given any such impression as far as I can see. All the quotes I have made have come from the anti-Citizen Kane group who clearly think anyone who thinks it is great is "1 short of a 6-pack".

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Noel M


Originally posted by Gromit -
So all forum members must recite these Hallow'd words:
Citizen Kane is great
thrice at moning noon and night?

...All of which say that you can't possibly watch Citizen Kane and think it is great - you have to be told by critics and mindlessly believe it. Who is being the more patronising?

Noel, if you're going to quote me out of context then I politely suggest that you read the post I was responding to which amounted to a load of high-brow :nono: at a view held by Lou and myself that we didn't think CK a great film.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Noel M
Originally posted by Gromit
In a recent poll we are current compiling on the site it doesn't make my top 50. That doesn't mean I will disparage anyone who thinks it is "great".


I'm just slightly confused by the "we" and "my" on this. Are you saying that dvdtimes is conducting a poll and CK isn't on your top 50 the the poll's top 50? Just not sure :)

[Noel M]

Originally posted by Gromit


Noel, if you're going to quote me out of context then I politely suggest that you read the post I was responding to which amounted to a load of high-brow :nono: at a view held by Lou and myself that we didn't think CK a great film.

Sorry you think this is out of context Gromit, but it merely re-iterates what you said earlier - "It often looks as though they feel the HAVE to say it's one of the best or their fellow critics will suspect they know nothing about films", or am I reading that out of context as well.:confused:

[Noel M]

Originally posted by Gromit


I'm just slightly confused by the "we" and "my" on this. Are you saying that dvdtimes is conducting a poll and CK isn't on your top 50 the the poll's top 50? Just not sure :)

Yes, that is correct. It is a poll between all the reviewers on DVDTimes and Citizen Kane is not on my list. It's a good film, but I can think of 50 that I like more.:)

[Michael Brooke]

Originally posted by Gromit
However, you tend to find the film is enthused over by "critics"

So why did it top the BFI's directors' poll as well?

and you have to wonder if any of that is an element of "Emperor's New Clothes" where they feel they must include it to be considered a "real" critic. But perhaps that's just my cynical mind :)

I think that nominating a single film as Best Film of All Time is a fundamentally ludicrous exercise - but, as I said many posts ago, I can see why <I>Citizen Kane</I> keeps getting singled out, as it's very hard to think of an alternative title that shows a similar level of invention and innovation covering virtually every aspect of the film-making process. And it's this "encyclopaedic" aspect that makes it stand out from the crowd - and pretty much guarantees it will be championed by critics and film-makers alike (as its topping of both <I>Sight & Sound</I> polls rather demonstrates).

It's actually quite instructive looking at the directors who voted for it - do you really think that people as independently-minded and iconoclastic as John Boorman, Nick Broomfield, Roger Corman, Alex Cox, Joe Dante, Bryan Forbes, Milos Forman, Michael Mann, Sam Mendes, Alex Proyas and Paul Schrader simply went with the herd because they felt they should?

But I find that people who defend CK give the impression, rightly or wrongly, that you are 1 short of a 6-pack when you don't see it as a great film.

Well, this really depends on your definition of "great" - though I'd certainly claim that if people genuinely can't recognise at the very least that it shows a level of film-making inventiveness of a very rare order, and that it's demonstrably been a gargantuan influence on umpteen generations of subsequent film-makers, then I probably would have to question just how deeply they bothered to engage with it before dismissing it.

And this has nothing to do with whether or not one personally enjoyed it!

[Noel M]

I actually find this interesting. Why do people have such an objection to Citizen Kane topping a poll made by critics and directors? Hitchcock's Vertigo came second by a margin of 5 votes in the Critics poll. Do the people who dislike Citizen Kane hold Vertigo with the same contempt. Is it only there because critics think they ought to vote for it to appear knowledgeable? Why do people think that is the case with Citizen Kane and not Vertigo?

[Narshty]

Originally posted by Vinyl-Pants
Citizen Kane actually isnt 'all that' (on an entertainment level - which is ultimately what film is all about).
That comment may be far more revealing than your dismissal of Kane as "boring".

Film is far too potent and powerful a medium to be reserved for the sole purpose of entertainment. Hearts and Minds, Triumph of the Will, Salo, The War Game and Cries and Whispers could be reasonably described as riveting, thought-provoking, wrenching, provocative, fascinating and relevant but certainly not entertaining. If you think a film automatically fails because it doesn't merely provide you with a certain fun quota, then that really is a sadly narrow-minded view of cinema to take.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Noel M


Sorry you think this is out of context Gromit, but it merely re-iterates what you said earlier - "It often looks as though they feel the HAVE to say it's one of the best or their fellow critics will suspect they know nothing about films", or am I reading that out of context as well.:confused:

Nope. That's what I said :)

That was just my thoughts on the thread but the other quote from me was when somebody seem to imply we were pedants for not agreeing with others that it was great. It just looks strident when not with the quote I was responding to.

[Gromit]

Originally posted by Noel M
I actually find this interesting. Why do people have such an objection to Citizen Kane topping a poll made by critics and directors? Hitchcock's Vertigo came second by a margin of 5 votes in the Critics poll. Do the people who dislike Citizen Kane hold Vertigo with the same contempt. Is it only there because critics think they ought to vote for it to appear knowledgeable? Why do people think that is the case with Citizen Kane and not Vertigo?

I like Vertigo :)

and for the record, I (personally) don't hold CK in contempt. And like you, it wouldn't be in my top 50 (or 100 for that).

[Gromit]

So the real question is "what makes a film great?". I would certainly agree with Narshty that film is very potent. It can help to win wars, it can make you uncomfortable, etc. There is no doubt that CK made many technical breakthroughs & achievements but when a lot of people think the actual film itself isn't so hot, I can't see how it is "great". I can certainly understand why directors would go for it - first to do this, that etc. - that's at a technical level. It can certainly be applauded for that. In fact, I can actually understand why directors like it more than all the critics going for it. For critics to like it, they should also be considering the acting, storyline etc. and I guess that's where I begin to differ. For me, the acting and storyline don't work. It's not the subject matter or "entertainment value". But that's my opinion I guess :)

[LouBarlow]

OK a few reasons why I don't think Citizen Kane is so hot (apart from my general lack of enjoyment) :

1) Many of the performances are wooden at best, including Welles' own - but thats ok, he managed to bring in actors of even less talent so he doesn't come across quite so poorly. Though his over-acting in parts was embarassing in my opinion.

2) The ending defies logic in my view. Without descending into spoiler territory, certain events which are key to the entire plotline simply couldn't have happened. Plot-holes are all well and good - but when the entire premise of the movie rests on this one event, it would seem a major oversight.

3) The innovative techniques employed, while no doubt unique, are simply innovation for the sake of innovation. Certain scenes look hoplessly dated now and others didn't even look good at the time. Its all well and good trying new things, but when something looks poor, it is poor, with its originality proving irrelevent. I mean crikey - Sam Raimi used innovative camera techniques in his debut feature - If someone with no film-making knowledge can point a camera in a different way, then surely this is nothing to get excited about ?

4) ...and don't get me started on the singing :lol:

...anyway whatever, none of the above would bother me if it were an enjoyable piece to actually watch, but when you are confronted by people believing the movie is flawless, its nice to nit-pick.

[John Hodson]

Originally posted by LouBarlow
Certain scenes look hoplessly dated now and others didn't even look good at the time.


I've been watching this thread and stopping myself diving in...until now. Citizen Kane is a film that was ahead of its time in many, many ways, but must be viewed in context, by dint of the fact that it was made with equipment that was, by todays standards, primitive and clumsy. But by people who, 60 odd years ago, that were determined to overcome these obstacles and create something genuinely new.

If you can't allow yourself to view it in that context, it is going to look (narrative aside) a little like a bad retread of Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid (well, a poor comparison, but you get my drift), dammit, many films made a mere decade ago look dated now; all movies must be looked at in the proper context surely.

It's witty, intelligent, brilliantly acted, superbly scripted, photographed, directed and edited. It was, above all, an immensely commercial vehicle with intended to launch the glorious Hollywood career of Welles; but the trick backfired...

And all that is only my humble opinion. I'm not influenced by anyone else, I don't love it because I'm supposed to, I just love it.

You can hate it, and good luck to you, to each his own (so does my wife, and my daughter refuses to watch it because it's monochrome, but she's young and she'll learn that b&w doesn't always equal bor-ring).

But which particular time machine has allowed you the view that 'others didn't even look good at the time'? Certain critics lambasted Kane because they were employed by Hearst, not because it wasn't a breathtaking piece of cinema.

Dammit, I knew I should have stayed out of this...

---
So many films, so little time...

[Assilem23]

Originally posted by Vinyl-Pants


Im afraid I have to disagree with you here - classics such as Casablanca, Red River, Vertigo, Seven Samurai and Bridge On The River Kwai (although I suppose some of these are relatively modern being in colour and ONLY 45 years old) are all films infinately more worthy of their status and popularity - although with the exception of Seven Samurai I suppose the rest are all mainstream pap going on what certain Citizen Kane fanatics claim.

Take Casablanca out of that mix and you have types of film that belong to a different camp to Citizen Kane. CK comes from the old talkies tradition - I'm sure if you tried to get a modern cinema audience to sit through something like The Bachelor And The Bobby Soxer, or Foreign Correspondent, or The Toast Of The Town, or something such like they would find it terrible boring drivel, much like most modern audiences find Citizen Kane. When they trawl back to the classics, just to see, I find they tend to go back to about 1950, and no more. Black and white can be a put off, slower development of character and plot dissuades people. Look at something like Seven Samurai - it's a film in which a lot happens, and in that respects it resembles a more modern feature. Same for Bridge On The River Kwai. They have something modern audiences can relate too. Citizen Kane does not.

Citizen Kane, and other films from that time, quite often do not have that hook new audiences can find. Like someone said before, if you come to some films without a grounding for their style, tone and mood then they can really throw your enjoyment for them off. Like with Last Year At Marienbad, or any of the Tarkovsky films - you need some grounding in their birth to completely appreciate them. Critics tend to have this because they have such a wide knowledge of cinema.

I'm an old film fan, and I often come to new films and feel overwhelmed by their speed. I can't stand most new films for this reason. I think the same thing works backwards too.

Citizen Kane is a slow film. There's no denying that. It has that stilted, stagey qualities many old films have. It can be off putting. If you understand this is how they made films, and you look at CK, it immedietely becomes something extra because it seems to transcend those roots.

But one can get bogged down in all this, for isn't this just another "I like this, and if you don't you must be mad!" threads. If this were, say, Reign Of Fire we were talking about, would the debate have gone on this long?

[LouBarlow]

Originally posted by John Hodson

But which particular time machine has allowed you the view that 'others didn't even look good at the time'?


By comparing films made in the same era.

[RT]

For anyone that wants to check it out it's repeated tonight at 23:55 on BBC4.