Citizen Kane

[Matt Pacini]

Regarding Natural Born Killers, I think this is a good case of how human logic gets twisted:

Reality, is what something ACTUALLY IS, not necessarily what it is described as, and I think this is why there are so many bad films, (& bad art, for that matter).

 

All the explanations about how the different looks were supposed to mean this, that & the other thing, blah, blah, blah, are just intellectual interpretations of how what HOPED it would do.

Verbal interpretations.

That does NOT mean that this is what was actually conveyed to the audience watching the film. It was just simply confusing and irritating.

It was a grand example of the tecnhique calling attention to itself to the point where it completely pulls you out of the story (which was really thin, by the way).

 

Nobody "got" what this was all supposed to mean, without first reading interviews that Stone gave, explaining all this.

Fact is, most moviegoers do not pay attention to this stuff before they go to a movie.

Filmmakers do, and that's why these silly arguments come up.

 

The film was just crap. All the over-explaining of what the shitty mixed-media technique was all about, does not magically "make it happen".

It just didn't work.

 

Sounds great in a discussion.

Doesn't work in actual execution.

 

Matt Pacini

[Matt Pacini]

By the way, I saw the old German B&W film "M" a couple weeks ago (with Peter Lorre).

 

THAT is a great film!

Much better cinematography than Rashamon, in my opinion. (really beautiful sharp images)

They did a wild FX shot that rivals anything in Citizen Kane.

 

The camera is dollying through this group of people in a deli, then it cranes up to a second story, and slowly moves into a segmented window that has a room full of people inside.

It slowly moves towards... and RIGHT THROUGH the window, then starts dollying around inside that room of people!

I feel really silly now, for being so impressd when I saw the same move in "Contact" (when she's a little girl in her room with her dad & the camera comes through the 2nd story window).

 

I think part of the fun of watching some of these old films, is in figuring out how they did some of these shots, how they lit them, etc.

Now, you see a great FX shot, and just say "oh, they must have done that in CG" and yawn a couple times.

 

Matt Pacini

 

P.S. I think I figured out how they did that shot in "M".

If you look closely as it goes "through the window", you will see a strange faint blurry line move across the frame from right to left.

I think they actually had the windows come apart at the frame (just right of the lens), and pulled the windows out to the sides, camera left & right, so the camera could come through.

You can easily see the dissolve earlier, right before they complete the crane up to the window too.

Edited November 29, 2004 by Matt Pacini

[Max Jacoby]

Now I am really annoyed. Spent about an hour today, and and hour yesterday watching "The Ultimate Film" on channel 4.

 

Only to find out the following:

Citizen Kane wasn't even listed in the top 100

 

Lord of the Rings got beaten by Snow White

 

And the top film was Gone with the wind

My god whats happened to UK's cinema!!!

 

The show you are referring to listed the most popular movies (i.e. those who attracted the biggest audience). This is a popularity contest, it has absolutely nothing to do with quality.

 

You need to realize that in the 40s and 50s cinemas attracted a much bigger audience than nowadays, which explains why some British films of that period that I haven't even heard of made the top ten.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

The show you are referring to listed the most popular movies (i.e. those who attracted the biggest audience). This is a popularity contest, it has absolutely nothing to do with quality.

 

Still makes them better films though.

 

The films everyone here refers to have been shot well, good acting e.t.c. But it's nothing to get excited about, because at the end of the day it was still a boring film that fails to entertain.

 

The Sound of Music probably isn't a scratch compared to Citizen Kane technologically, but it was still a much better film. And that?s why it was one of the most popular films ever made.

 

I don't like to judge a film by its tech side; I watch it as a film. DID I like it or not.

 

When I make films I don't make them to get appraise from tech bods, other filmmakers e.t.c. I make films that entertain.

 

Because at the end of the day, that?s all a film is. Something that people watch, and leave the cinemas thinking "wow what a great film, I really liked that". Not, "that was one of the most groundbreaking films ever made, it has amazing cinematography, lighting and sound."

 

A film conveys a story, if it's art you want to see then go to an art museum.

 

And the story is much more powerfull. Citizen Kane has art. But what story.

Edited November 30, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Keith Mottram]

The Sound of Music probably isn't a scratch compared to Citizen Kane technologically, but it was still a much better film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Daniel are you trying to tell us something here? Do you like Garland movies? What about wrestling pictures?

[Jon Allen]

Daniel are you trying to tell us something here? Do you like Garland movies? What about wrestling pictures?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You mean like "Man in the Moon"?

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I haven't seen the film in years. 10 years ago I seemed to like it, not quite sure what I'd make of it now though.

 

Either way it's a classic, and one of the greatest films ever made. If I like it or not, those are the facts.

[John Sprung]

a shaky effect gave a realism effect. But they didn't know that 50 years ago,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The shakes and short shuttering they used on "Ryan" will soon come to be regarded as silly affectations. In the more distant future, they may come back into fashion again -- probably only for a short time.

 

Per a History Channel documentary, there's only a little bit of real film of D-day. Most of what was shot was gathered up in a duffel bag, and dropped overboard by the guy who was taking it back to a ship to go to the lab. There was a sgt. Taylor who was wounded, but never let go of his eyemo. His film is what you see most often on TV.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Max Jacoby]

A film conveys a story, if it's art you want to see then go to an art museum.

 

Too bad that some great artists choose to work in cinema.

 

You have a very narrowminded approach there. You should not expect films to conform to your taste, but you should try to see each film for what it is. Otherwise you will never evolve.

[Keith Mottram]

Daniel, does Top Gun make you feel warm inside?

[Guest fstop]

This is all going to be COMPLETELY unrelatable, hyper-cringe-inducing and unreadable to Daniel in five years times, "Did I really say that???!!! Must've been another Daniel Smith... :ph34r: "

 

Daniel of 2009: DON'T LOOK BACK!

 

Keith, I owe you a drink! Thanks for the laughs :D

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Daniel, does Top Gun make you feel warm inside?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, it doesn't get any better than turning on the TV at 11 at night and spotting a good film on channel 5 (with a beer, naturally) I think last night it was Rambo. I'm more into the older films than newer ones. (I know this sound a bit sad but it's best around christmas, got the atmosphere)

 

Some of my favourite films (the old ones):

 

Edge of Darkness

Independence Day

Commando

Die Hard 1, 2 and 3

Any Van Damme shoot-em up, there all good!

Dumb and Dumber (yes, it's old now)

Full Metal Jacket

Water World

Top Gun

James Bond (Any James Bond apart from Tomorrow Never Dies and Dr. No)

Home Alone 1 and 2 (3 was crap, only found out last week there was a 4)

Terminator 1 and 2 (I liked 3, but it doesn't quite get on the list)

 

But yeh you get the idea, famous films of the 80's/90's. The ones everyone has seen, everyone loves. They were the best.

 

I know the effects weren't too good, like Arnie dodging loads of bullets and taking out a whole army, but I tend to separate that bit. I prefer those type of films to the new ones. The new ones just aren't any fun.

 

This is all going to be COMPLETELY unrelatable, hyper-cringe-inducing and unreadable to Daniel in five years times, "Did I really say that???!!! Must've been another Daniel Smith...  "

 

Daniel of 2009: DON'T LOOK BACK!

Haha. I know what I' trying to say, and it's not all that bad. But I'm useless when it comes to writing it down. I often screw things up, make stupid remarks and generally make a prat of myself. I really gotta think through what I write in future. :blink:

Edited December 1, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Max Jacoby]

But yeh you get the idea, famous films of the 80's/90's. The ones everyone has seen, everyone loves. They were the best.

You realize of course that you are making a fool of yourself here, arent'y you?

 

I don't mean to offend you, after all you are only 16, but it seems that in regards to cinema you have no bloody clue what a good film is!

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

No I can see good films, but they aren't always the ones I like to watch.

 

Lord of the Rings is a good film, but personally I wouldn't want to watch it.

The films that I listed are just films that I like to watch. My personal taste in film.

 

I mean Top Gun wasn't exactly a piece of art, still a brilliant film to watch though.

 

Heres a question for you Max. Would you rather watch Citizen Kane, or Top gun?

 

I think they are good films because they entertain. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is the idea of a film.

 

Anyway this is starting thin, and I'm starting to sound like an even bigger idiot, so I'll stop now.

Edited December 1, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Max Jacoby]

I have never seen 'Top Gun' nor do I intend to. I understand your current attitude towards films, I think everyone felt that way when they were growing up. You like films to be exciting and entertaining. What happens to most people as they get older is that after a while you start noticing how formulaic these pure entertainment films are, and you just grow bored of them, because they all resemble each other. These films create emotions in audience by using shematic devices (such as revenge) and by simplifying the world they are are set in (good vs evil).

 

But there always comes a point where this button pushing doesn't work anymore and then hopefully you start looking for other films. Films that try not to entertain, but to create something more honest. Films that get better the more one watches them, because they are not just about a 'story'. Films that reflect the complexity of lifeand therfore stay with you even after you leave the theatre.

 

I still watch a lot of films, but I've come to a point where I find that most films are not very good anymore. Only films that are really something unique excite me these days. Of all the films newly released in any given year, there are only about 1 or 2 that I would describe as 'great'. This year it was 'Memories of Murder' and 'Capturing the Friedmanns'. Last year it was merely 'Elephant'. I still enjoy the occasional blockbuster (I thought T3 was quite alright, for an action film), but in general these films leave me cold. You might think it is sad that I lost this ability to enjoy 'regular' films like most people do, but the result of this is that now I appreciate true greatness in a film.

[Dominic Case]

I can see good films, but they aren't always the ones I like to watch.

Daniel, you seem to be shifting ground a little on what you call a good film. AS people come to consider more deeply why a film is good, they move on from their own personal appreciation of the film, to issues such as plot, character, cinematography, editing, sound, etc.

 

Of course if you don't enjoy the film then you aren't ever going to class it as good. So I guess you have to care a little about the subject matter. If you are fascinated by singing Austrian children, you might go on to look at the cinematography etc and find merit (or not) in The Sound of Music. If you are interested in what makes people powerful, you are more likely to get through CK and care about why it has kept its reputation for so long.

 

Without wanting to sound patronising, you have many years in front of you to learn about some of these aspects and how they all play together. Other people have touched on a few of them in this chat. I think you've done well to stick to your arguments (more or less), which have caused a few others to have to defend theirs. If you've progressed in your knowledge of what makes cinema work, then it's been a good exercise all round. I hope you have. Perhaps others of the 1088 people who've viewed this topic have gained as well.

[Brad Grimmett]

The Sound of Music probably isn't a scratch compared to Citizen Kane technologically, but it was still a much better film. And that?s why it was one of the most popular films ever made.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're confusing yourself here. What it seems you mean is that, "It's more popular so it must be better". Again, "better" is subjective. Can you prove that The Sound of Music is better than Citizen Kane? And I'm not asking if everyone you asked said that they liked it better. That proves nothing. I could tell you that everyone I asked said that The Sound of Music was a piece of crap and that Citizen Kane is the best film ever, but would that make you believe it? On the other hand, if you can find some quotes from respected film critics saying, "The Sound of Music is a better film", then I might start to think that you were onto something. But saying that's it's popularity proves it's quality is a cop out.

 

One more thing....and I'm not trying to be patronizing, but of the "old" films you listed (which of course are not old at all) there are only one or two that I even consider good. Full Metal Jacket is one that I can agree with you on, although I think our reasons for liking it our COMPLETELY different. Most of the others you mentioned are what I would call "movies", not "films". They were never intended to to inspire thought. They were made purely to be entertainment and to make money. Hey, if that's what you like.....fine. I can't argue with you on that point. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I agree with Max's post. There are only a few REALLY good films every year, and the rare "great". Elephant is on my list as well. But Daniel, don't get too attached to what you like right now. Keep yourself open to new kinds of films, because as you get older your tastes will probably change. In ten years I think you will probably look back on this time and still enjoy those films you've mentioned, but you'll have a new appreciation for films with more heart and meaning, such as Elephant and Citizen Kane.

Edited December 1, 2004 by grimmett

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

What happens to most people as they get older is that after a while you start noticing how formulaic these pure entertainment films are, and you just grow bored of them, because they all resemble each other.

Yeh.. I see your point.

 

One thing I'm getting confused about here is, what does a good film mean.

 

I guess it depends what grounds you are talking from. Popularity, Sound of Music wins. Art and depth, Citizen Kane.

 

But what I'm saying is the majority of movie go-ers will only look at the surface of films. Hence why people loved Top Gun so much, because it was just a simple entertaining film. (I'm not exactly sure why people loved that film, didn't have much of a story line to it)

 

So when I create a film, I am directing it at the majority of movie go-ers. And in doing that it will make a very popular film that a lot of people will like.

 

I think Lord of the Rings was brilliant because it included both, the mindless violence and awesome battle scenes, AND an amazingly shot film with an amazing story. So it will attract both audiences.

 

I have an amazing plan for a film I want to shoot when I?m older. But come to think of it now, it is quite formulaic when comparing it to other typical action films. (I gotta work on a better script, I want this film to be a masterpiece) But, looking at Lord of the Rings, I think I can have both. An entertaining film, and a unique film with a lot of depth to it. Although I have some good artistic ideas for the film that should attract people.

 

Without wanting to sound patronising, you have many years in front of you to learn about some of these aspects and how they all play together.

Nope. I won't be a complete ass about it. I'll admit it. I probably am too young to appreciate films like Citizen Kane. But, my opinions will probably change over the years. And I still have A LOT to learn about film. But, best start learning about it now, and by the time I'm older I should be quite knowledgeable and should get off to a good start in the industry. (Well, that?s my plan anyway)

 

I think the one film I have opened myself up to recently is "One Hour Photo". It's such a unique film, with unique ideas used. I was watching the directors commentary and I noticed a lot that didn't hit me before. To the average movie-go-er it would probably seem a little boring. But when I looked into the depths of it, I thought it was an amazing film.

Edited December 2, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Annie Wengenroth]

Well Daniel, I know I already chipped in here but I will say this: I would argue that it's HARD to know what makes a "Truly Good Film" in this day and age. Why? BECAUSE LOOK AT ALL THE CRAP OUT THERE! I mean really! So don't feel bad for asking such a thing, and don't ever beat yourself up about your personal choices, because sometimes it's all you've known, so how can you possibly do better? When you've got people out there trying to sell you on a bunch of bullsh*t, little wonder that you have to dig around to find something decent. To an extent, we're all products of our times, and to truly progress, we have to expand outward from what we know. The fact that you understand the difference between making a film for the people and a film for the sake of making art, is very good.

 

A few years ago, my tastes in films were somewhat similar to what they are now, but overall, I'd say they've evolved since then. And this comes from watching tons and tons of movies and forcing myself to think outside the box. Watch the bad ones too. Decide for yourself what you enjoy. Eventually you'll find common ground with others.

 

When I was about 17, I took a foreign film class at my high school. It was great. I developed a whole new taste for these films that I hadn't even heard of before. Then a few years ago in college, I took a class on the films of Alfred Hitchcock with Hank Moonjean, which was also really cool. Not that classes are necessary to appreciate good films, but I think finding people to talk with about film can be an incredibly valuable experience. (Hence why I am on this board!)

 

So keep at it. Don't worry about sounding like you don't know what you're talking about, or not having the "right" idea about films. You'll get there.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Yeh, well thanks for the support. I guess it is just an age thing.

 

Actually I have an example of this. Although it's not to do with film, it's music. A few years back I used to be into the general punk rock that you can expect every teenager to like. A few years later (Now), I can't stand that type of music. It's just all the same, standard watered out teenage rock. A load of crap. But now I'm into other bands like "Muse", they are amazing and are completely unique. They have basically created a whole new genre of music. Songs like "Hysteria" are masterpieces; god knows where they came out with the guitar riffs. I've never heard anything like it before.

 

Reason why I bring it up is because I think it's the same thing with film. Once you have seen enough of these films, you get slightly fed up of seeing the same damn thing. So you move onto something slightly different.

[Matt Pacini]

... god knows where they came out with the guitar riffs. I've never heard anything like it before....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you want to hear some incredible guitar licks, and music that you've never heard anything like before, check out Yes' - Close To The Edge, or perhaps some Alan Holdsworth.

 

Oh, by the way, that Yes album is from 1973...

If you give it a play, I guarantee you'll be much less impressed by some of the guitar licks you're hearing today, 'cause it's all been done before, and much better too!

 

Anyway, in art of any kind, there's no such thing as "the best", because personal taste always comes in.

And you can't use what a film grosses (i.e. how many people liked it) as a reliable guide, because there have been some amazing films, and some "classics" that tanked at the box office.

Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, and Blade Runner all were box office bombs.

(Yes' Close to the Edge didn't sell that well either, come to think about it!)

 

Matt Pacini

[Dominic Case]

But what I'm saying is the majority of movie go-ers will only look at the surface of films.

But Daniel, you aren't the majority of moviegoers. You are on this list, talking to professionals about what makes a good movie (or film). That's a difference to start with. You will, gradually, learn to watch films with a deeper sense of appreciation. And make your own mind up about what is good filmmaking, instead of being guided by the crowd.

 

Anyway, you are going to make a masterpiece - that a lot of people will like. And the rest of us will say "we knew this director when he was only 16". (Just kidding.)

 

Good luck!

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Tnx. The film won't be made for years to come though, I want to get a lot of experience first before I go ahead and make my dream film (after all I'll only get one shot at it)

 

Btw Matt I checked out some of that band "Yes". Not my personal taste in music but not bad at all. "Hold On" was good. (I still say Muse is my favourite band though.. check this Muse - Hysteria , feel the power of that bass riff and the outro B) )

 

And the rest of us will say "we knew this director when he was only 16". (Just kidding.)

Haha yeh.. Well, when I'm a rich billionaire and stuff I won't forget you guys :D

 

(My god how big headed did that sound.. :o :lol: )

[Matt Pacini]

Ah, you were listening to the "new" Yes.

You need to get some "pre-Trevor Rabin" Yes and give it a spin.

Amazing stuff...

 

Matt Pacini

[Annie Wengenroth]

I think if we mute the sound on "Kane" and play Yes albums, we might be onto something. :lol: