Citizen Kane

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I am going to rent this film out again soon for a closer inspection.

 

But can anyone here tell me WHY this film is so great?

 

I can see this leading into a -

"If you?re not mature enough to appreciate this film then you?re certainly not mature enough to make a film"

But if people could leave that out and refrain turning this from a civilised debate into something personal against me, that would be great.

 

APPARENTLY, this film is regarded among film makers to be one of the greatest films ever made. I saw it once. And I never watched it again. (It was THAT boring)

 

And no it's not a biased opinion from modern day films; I like the old ones too. Infact if you want I'll post a list of all my favourite films, and you?ll see that quite a few of them are old.

 

Any thoughts?

Edited November 23, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Jon Allen]

I think a lot of the hype about this film is the quality of the cinematography. The lighting, framing, sets, etc were all amazing. Everything about this movie was deliberate- orson wells was very detailed when he planned out this film.

A book I just read this week said that every shot was made like it could be a painting in a gallery, except they're moving pictures.

I tend to agree, but again, if you find the plot boring, there's only so much time you can stare at good movie framing.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Yeh, remembering back it did look somewhat "well set up".

 

For a start there is no "greatest film", it's whatever takes your fancy. Even if you were going by popularity, barely any of the people I asked had even seen that film.

 

 

Actually one thing I've always been confused with is why films like "Star Wars Ep. 2" hardly get any credit. Here we are talking about some 50 year old film, when there are other films out there today that have actually been better in all ways going.

 

Perhaps it's just because of the age of the film, they did a great job for what technology they had.

[Jon Allen]

I don't know if it was better in "all ways" but the special effects was by far more impressive. The acting however...

Just because the tools change, that doesn't necessarily mean that the quality changes. Lucas has basically reinvented on-site filmmaking with his use of digital effects and recording. However, I still see things in Ep2 that I can't stand.

For instance, in the big battle scene on Geonosis (sp?), what's up with the campy zooms to some of the flyers? His effects are simply amazing, but the camera movement still seems amateurish at times.

I think we should all rediscover that just because you have a lot of people working on a movie and on set doesn't mean you're going to get a great movie. We're forgetting some of the most important aspect of moviemaking: storytelling. Really, that's what it boils down to, if you don't have a good story/script, you don't have a good movie.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

The acting however...

Ah.. yeh. I think Star Wars Episode 2 was a bad example to choose from..

 

the most important aspect of moviemaking: storytelling

Yeh. Although we can't blame the cinematographer on Star Wars, the script wasn't his field. I'd say regardless of how the film turned out, he did a brilliant job.

 

 

You ever found that the DP seems to always be the most knowledgable person there on set? It's happened so many times, when working on films the DP seems to be doing everyones elses job at the same time as his.

[Matt Pacini]

I've heard that "..every shot was made like it could be a painting in a gallery" line for years, and it's just really overstating things to the point of hype.

Sure, there's some amazing cinematography in that film (as there is in others) but there's no movie in history that you could literally grab any frame at random from the film, blow it up and hang it on your wall.

Well, you could, but it would simply be silly to think that any DP was actually intending that during the shooting.

 

I think when you watch old films like this, you have to consider it in the context of its time, with all the limitations in technology, etc.

However, I do think many films are highly overrated, just because at some point, some film professor declared such and such film to be a masterpiece, and this view takes on a life of its own.

An example for me, is Roshamon.

When I finally saw it (after hearing for eons how.. "you could take any frame and hang it on your wall.. blah blah), I thought "this is what people have been ranting and raving about all these years?".

I honestly did not think it was that good of a film, even considering the time it was made.

Sure, it was pretty good, but a masterpiece?

I didn't see that the cinematography was much, if any better than countless films I've seen from the 30's-on (B&W films).

 

Matt Pacini

[Justan Zimmerman]

I always thought ?Citizen Kane? was great because it?s so much fun.

 

Yes, the cinematography helps. And the directing. And the acting. And the music. And the editing and sound and sets and? well, you know the rest.

 

But it?s just about the most fun two hours I?ve ever spent in a movie theater.

[David Mullen ASC]

Sometimes, films called "great" -- like "Citizen Kane", "Rashomon", "8 1/2" -- actually ARE great. These lists of greatest films are often done by polling movie critics; I think it was the reoccuring Sight & Sound critics poll where "Citizen Kane" began emerging in the late 1960's at the top of the best films of all time. Francois Truffaut said it was the film that made more people want to be filmmakers than any other film -- it's filled with a certain joyousness at the possibilities of cinema that it's infectuous. You feel the same way watching early Truffaut, Spielberg, Fellini, etc. So I am somewhat at a loss to understand why some people seem oblivious to their merits, other than they perhaps had unrealistic expectations before watching it, making the film seem LESS than it really is. Or they may not be of an age yet where they can appreciate the themes discussed, I don't know. A friend in freshman college warned me off of "8 1/2" because it was "boring, stupid" so I never watched it until I was thirty -- and was blown away.

[Dominic Case]

You can't single out any particular aspect of Citizen Kane that makes it great - it's the sum of all its parts and then some more. Cinematography, performance, direction . . . the actual story as a character study . . . the concept of the flashback structure of the storytelling . . . it is strong in every one of these aspects.

 

It's foolish to dismiss it as "some 50-year-old film when there are other films out there today". Since when was recency an automatic advantage?

 

One of the difficulties in understanding the greatness of an older film is when its greatness comes from its originality or its innovation. If an innovation works, then it is copied - and sometimes but not always improved on - so that the original seems less breathtaking to an audience some years later.

 

But to take just one example, Gregg Toland's cinematography. His deep focus wasn't just a matter of skilled lighting and small apertures: every shot he uses it in, gains meaning from it. There's a scene where the child Kane's parents discuss his future while he plays happily in the snow outside the window. He's the subject of the discussion, you couldn't not have him in focus: but the parents are the subject of the image - they have to be sharp too. Then there's the low camera angles, and the choice of lenses and perspective to make Kane seem more, or less, important, overbearing, powerful, or alternatively, diminished by his surroundings.

 

Other films have used these devices since then - not always for any particular purpose. Kane is just such an enormously rich film - it communicates its story (which is almost a Shakesperean tragedy of a man who can achieve almost anything but is ultimately unable to love) on so many levels.

 

Anyway, that's why I think its good (no, great). I can't beleive that this thread can have attempted to compare it with Star Wars ep 2. Kane is essentially a completely original character-driven script: SWEP2 is a highly derivative and predictable narrative-driven script. If you want to compare CK with any of them, go to EP 4 (the original 1979 one) at least that created a whole new genre. Or as David Mullen suggested, Rashomon, which established a fascinating storytelling style that was about levels of truth, ambiguity, and whether there is any single, objective truth. Films are more than narrative and technique.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I'd still never call it the greatest film ever made though. There isn't such thing.

 

Actually however crazy this may sound I'd say "Shrek" is a better film.

 

It attracted HUGE audiences, of all ages. Well shot frames, AND a good story.

It can entertain a much wider audience than "Citizen Kane".

 

I don't care what anyone says, "Citizen Kane" doesn't even come close to the original Star Wars.

Edited November 25, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[David Mullen ASC]

If you don't care what anyone else says, then why in the freakin' hell did you bring it up in the first place???

[Dan Salzmann]

Oh Daniel...

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

If you don't care what anyone else says, then why in the freakin' hell did you bring it up in the first place???

In relation to Star Wars??

Edited November 25, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[David Mullen ASC]

Anyone who prefaces a remark with "I don't care what anyone else says..." in a discussion forum should ask himself why he's there. I was hesistant to even get involved in this topic because I suspected you wouldn't really listen to anyone and you confirmed my fears.

 

And saying that "Star Wars" is better than "Citizen Kane" is like saying a cheeseburger is better than a roasted chicken. They are not even similar enough to begin to compare to each other. Personally BOTH are on my favorite films of all-time list but they are different types of movie experiences. It's like saying that "12 Angry Men" is a better movie than "Lawrence of Arabia", or "Bringing Up Baby" is a better movie than "The Seventh Seal."

[Dominic Case]

It's like saying that "12 Angry Men" is a better movie than "Lawrence of Arabia", or "Bringing Up Baby" is a better movie than "The Seventh Seal."

The trouble is, that's exactly what all these "100 best films of all time" lists set out to do - they rank Lord of the Rings against Casablanca or Vertigo against Schindlers List.

 

But perhaps Daniel should be saying "I liked xxxx better than yyyyy when I saw them", rather than "xxxxx is better than yyyyy".

 

After all, his opinion is what matters to him, however much anyone else might despair;-)

[David Mullen ASC]

This is why I am loathe to rank films as "better" or worse and prefer the less debatable term "favorite".

 

It's not debatable when someone says "I like 'Shrek' more than 'Citizen Kane'" but it's highly debatable when someone says "'Shrek' is a better movie than 'Citizen Kane'". But IF they want to get into a debate about which is BETTER, fine, but don't end the debate with the phrase "I don't care what anyone else says" because that's not in the spirit of debating. Then you're just acting like a child, or someone who wants a soapbox to tell everyone their lofty opinions on things with no dissent allowed.

 

Not that we don't spend our time thinking about which films are truly noteworthy and important as a way of learning, but ranking them on a list is always bound to be an inaccurate way of thinking about movies because it often compares unlike items.

 

Anyway, I'm always amazed that some people are unafraid of sounding foolish by announcing that they just "don't get it" why so many people think some great art is great. It's like saying "opera is SOOO stupid" -- you sound like idiot, not because you don't enjoy opera (many don't, no big deal) but that you're willing to pass judgement so easily on a subject you are probably ill-qualified to talk about.

 

If a bunch of people said "Tarkovsky's 'Andrei Rubelov" is one of the greatest movies ever made!" and I didn't have that reaction when I saw it, my FIRST response would be there might be something lacking in me, not in the film. I would try and see things from their perspective and hold off judgement until enough years had passed, I had matured more, learned more, had revisited the film, etc. to see if perhaps now I could "get it." Rather than to be so arrogant as to say "stupid movie, stupid Tarkovsky! He's no Lucas!" or something to that effect and write-off the movie. If a lot of smart people I respect tell me something is good, I have the courtesy to give them the benefit of the doubt and qualify my reactions until I had investigated further. Not to mention that I hold the possibility that they may be right.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

but don't end the debate with the phrase "I don't care what anyone else says" because that's not in the spirit of debating

I wouldn't debate Star Wars. I think it's a better film, and thats my opinion that no one can change. Ofcourse, there are other films though. Shrek?

 

Well heres a better way to put it then.

 

I liked Star Wars much better than Citizen Kane. I found Citizen Kane to be very boring, and can't see why people consider it to be the greatest film ever made.

 

(Which of course there is no such thing)

 

I think that's just about argue-proof.

Edited November 27, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Max Jacoby]

Yeh. Although we can't blame the cinematographer on Star Wars, the script wasn't his field. I'd say regardless of how the film turned out, he did a brilliant job.

 

I don't think the cinematography on the new Star Wars movies is anything to write home about. Let's be honest, it's boring and flat. Visually totally uninventive.

[Max Jacoby]

If a bunch of people said "Tarkovsky's 'Andrei Rubelov" is one of the greatest movies ever made!" and I didn't have that reaction when I saw it, my FIRST response would be there might be something lacking in me, not in the film. 

 

Same here.

 

But when I watched it again, I really loved it.

[Max Jacoby]

I wouldn't debate Star Wars. I think it's a better film, and thats my opinion that no one can change.

 

Star Wars are merely pocorn movies, there is no point comparing them to films that are art.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I don't think the cinematography on the new Star Wars movies is anything to write home about. Let's be honest, it's boring and flat. Visually totally uninventive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well the cinematography may not have been that inventive directly.

 

But the way you say "Visually totally uninventive". Star Wars was visually inventive. Perhaps not through cinematography directly, but it had incredible SFX.

 

Anyway I wouldn't lie to compate the new star wars to it. The new star wars was a pretty poor film. But the original Star Wars.

 

Star Wars are merely pocorn movies

That is strictly NOT true. There are many aspects what made Star Wars so popular.

 

 

 

Just tell me this. People say Citizen Kane is quite possibly one of the greatest films ever made. Then.. how is it that everyone that I asked hadn?t even seen the film or thought it was boring?

 

(P.S if your really into this subject, then head over to imdb.com on the citizen kane board.)

Edited November 27, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Max Jacoby]

That is strictly NOT true. There are many aspects what made Star Wars so popular.

 

Star Wars are movies for children. They are meant to entertain. There is nothing deep about them. They are fun to watch, but in my mind they don't qualify as art.

 

I'm not a particular fan of Citizen Kane, but let's face it, it has different aspirations that Star Wars, so there is no point in comparing them.

[Dan Salzmann]

I agree with Max. "Star Wars" is just film entertainment fodder. Lots of people like this kind of movie much the same as McDonalds is popular. IMHO that does not make McDonalds a good restaurant. Matter of fact I have trouble attaching the word restaurant to those places.

I don't boycott them either. Sometimes (not very often) I feel like having a Big Mac and so I do.

I as well am not a "Citizen Kane" fanatic but I can recognize it as an important film.

Perhaps you will see it in a different way when you are older and have a different perspective on things. This happened to me with certain Bergman films. There are other Bergman films I can not sit down and watch because they escape me though the cinematography is interesting so I let them play as "ambient" visuals while i'm doing other things.

[Brad Grimmett]

Just tell me this. People say Citizen Kane is quite possibly one of the greatest films ever made. Then.. how is it that everyone that I asked hadn?t even seen the film or thought it was boring?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just because certain people haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not an important film. That goes the same for people that thought it was boring.

I'm not a big fan of any of the Star Wars films. Does that mean it's crap? No. It means that that's my opinion. Many people are huge fans of the films, but that doesn't mean I have to agree, but I can certainly respect their opinion.

Citizen Kane is considered one of the greatest films of all time for good reasons. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you're right.....or wrong. If you think it crap, that's fine. But I fail to see why you're so intent on convincing other people that some other film is better. It's not as if you're going to change anyone's opinion. And why would it matter if you did?

[Dominic Case]

how is it that everyone that I asked hadn?t even seen the film or thought it was boring?

Well who did you ask, Daniel? When you asked people on this list, you found some who had seen it, and didn't find it boring.

 

By the same token, some of your friends might have read The Da Vinci Code and enjoyed it, but may not know - for example - Great Expectations, or Gormenghast, or Solzenytsin's August 1914, or even The Shipping News. All of which I have read and thought about and enjoyed. Does that invalidate anyone's argument that any of them are good books?

 

There is a lot in this world to have opinions about - it takes time to learn about enough to form those opinions. Hold your judgement!