Citizen Kane

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I'm not going to change anyone?s opinion. I couldn't care less if I did or didn't.

 

And secondly I never said Citizen Kane was crap. I didn't like it in my opinion. That doesn't mean to say I'm saying it's a bad film, I can appreciate good work when I see it. "Lord of the Rings" was an amazing film. Did I like it though?? No, I didn't.

 

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?

Actually it's a HUGE advantage. People look at mistakes old films have made. They learn from there mistakes. In a way, film is evolving. Watch the film "Exorcist". When it was brought out it scared the living crap out of people. When people watch it these days, they wonder what all the fuss was about. Imagine putting "One Hour Photo" 40 years back. The technological advantages aren't huge. But the film itself is just better.

 

 

Who cares if I like the film or not.

 

I'll repeat my question for you all.

 

WHY is Citizen Kane considered one of the greatest films ever made?

 

And by the way I have mentioned this on several other boards. Including imdb.com. So far NO ONE has been able to answer it. Yet people keep bragging it's the greatest film ever made.

 

 

(Actually for people living in England, there is a program on tonight at 8. Channel 4 I think. "The Ultimate Film", can't wait to see what they come up with)

Edited November 28, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Thomas Worth]

Actually it's a HUGE advantage. People look at mistakes old films have made. They learn from there mistakes. In a way, film is evolving. The quality of films are also evolving.

Indeed technology makes artistic expression and experimentation easier, but it is only partially responsible for the overall quality of a movie. If you're talking about the quality of sound and picture, then yes. We have better film stocks and digital sound. But that has absolutely nothing to do with story, which, for most people, is the main reason to see a movie. There are plenty of recent films that have really boring plots and are not, in my opinion, an improvement on older films. A film can look beautiful and have lots of CG, but that does not automatically guarantee that people won't walk out of the theatre. Oh and while I'm on the topic of CG, I would just like to profess my objection to its overuse. Case in point: Seed of Chucky. A CG doll? What the hell? Why not just use a puppet, since they're supposed to be dolls, anyway?

 

Oh and keep in mind that history always repeats itself. In the 80s and 90s, filmmakers would have told you that using a zoom lens to change the focal length during a shot was a "mistake" of the 70s. Now, in the 21st century, we are seeing a return to that with "cinematic" TV shows like 24 and others.

 

Look, man. Appreciate Citizen Kane for what it is. Admittedly, It's rare for me to be as entertained by a profound film like Citizen Kane than by a crappy action movie (eluding to David Fincher's opinion that epic films are seldom more entertaining than typical action flicks), but despite the commitment it demands from the viewer, it is still an extremely well executed film in all respects.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

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.

Look at my original post again. It wasn't even comparing it. If I created a post saying, what?s better, Star Wars or Citizen Kane, and THEN I said I don't care what anyone else thinks, then yes that would be crazy. But that WASNT the original point.

 

Appreciate Citizen Kane for what it is.

Not that it's the point of this topic. I do.

 

It's not about the better quality stocks, sound e.t.c. It's the techniques used. The story.

 

Like you mentioned some films are now going back to old mistakes, like zooming instead of dollying. But that's only because we've learnt it gives an effect. An amateurish, realistic effect. Otherwise we wouldn't use it. 50 years ago they didn't know that.

 

Experience has taught us all. Films nowadays are built up on that experience. That's what makes them so great. We have developed new techniques, new ways of doing things.

 

I have watched many old war movies. I don't ever recall the camera shaking violently when it was running along with a group of men. It sat still. Watching everything. Now the camera itself is getting involved with the action, bringing you into the movie. But it's funny, I've only ever seen that effect on new films. And it had NOTHING to do with technological improvements. I think it?s something we?ve developed over time, over experience. There is a better quality of cinematography these days, and it will only get better.

Edited November 28, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Thomas Worth]

I have watched many old war movies. I don't ever recall the camera shaking violently when it was running along with a group of men. It sat still. Watching everything. Now the camera itself is getting involved with the action, bringing you into the movie.

You've got it backwards. I'll explain after making my first point:

 

Point 1: I'm afraid your point of reference is big studio films. You're ascertaining the progress of the motion picture based on these films. Not that you should be the subject of scrutiny for such an action as these films are the ones generally forced down people's throats, but realize that you are only seeing a small percentage of the innovation that is taking place.

 

And the final point: Filmmakers have done crazier things in movies. And most likely have been ignored for, at the time, their ridiculous interpretation of "art." The fact is, however, that it is not the filmmakers that are suddenly innovating, it is that the audience is finally accepting these innovations. For example, the audience now accepts feature films shot on camcorders because it's more common. People have been shooting movies on camcorders forever, but it is only recently where watching a DV movie is not only acceptable, it's "trendy."

 

I guess it simply comes down to a matter of taste. Watch old films, and extract what you can from them. If you don't like them, then it does not necessarily mean they are bad, nor does it mean you can't appreciate art. I, despite David Mullen's positive review of it, could not stand 8 1/2. That doesn't mean it's a bad movie. And I can still see why others would like it. And yes, I like Star Wars. ;) But it's still kind of a cheesy movie.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Point 1: I'm afraid your point of reference is big studio films. You're ascertaining the progress of the motion picture based on these films. Not that you should be the subject of scrutiny for such an action as these films are the ones generally forced down people's throats, but realize that you are only seeing a small percentage of the innovation that is taking place.

Yes I am talking about the big films. Yes they are the ones shoved down people necks, but I'm sure films like Citizen Kane were at it's time. But I don't quite understand you, the innovation is huge between modern and old films when it comes to even the basics of cinematography. That?s why I mentioned about the camera shaking as it ran with the soldiers. It may seem small, but imagine the ?Saving Private Ryan? beach scene without the shaking. It would look, well, a bit naff. That?s why films like "A Bridge too far" don't even come close with "Saving Private Ryan." But THEN imagine "A Bridge Too Far" WITH the camera shake.

 

And the final point: Filmmakers have done crazier things in movies. And most likely have been ignored for, at the time, their ridiculous interpretation of "art." The fact is, however, that it is not the filmmakers that are suddenly innovating, it is that the audience is finally accepting these innovations. For example, the audience now accepts feature films shot on camcorders because it's more common. People have been shooting movies on camcorders forever, but it is only recently where watching a DV movie is not only acceptable, it's "trendy."

Name an example that an audience hasn't taken to. Even in films like "Clockwork Orange" used weird art. But I think it intrigued the audience in a good way. They got it right from the start. It didn't take them any time at all to adapt.

 

I guess it simply comes down to a matter of taste. Watch old films, and extract what you can from them. If you don't like them, then it does not necessarily mean they are bad, nor does it mean you can't appreciate art. I, despite David Mullen's positive review of it, could not stand 8 1/2. That doesn't mean it's a bad movie. And I can still see why others would like it. And yes, I like Star Wars.  But it's still kind of a cheesy movie.

What is all this crap about me not being able to appreciate films just because I didn't like them? I never said anything like it. I respect other peoples opinions on why they like Citizen Kane. But they have to respect my opinion, too.

 

People say films don't get better, only different. I disagree by saying they DO get better. Compare "Exorcist" and "One Hour Photo". Ask yourself WHY "One Hour Photo" was so much scarier. I think you?ll find it had NOTHING to do with technological improvements.

Edited November 28, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[F Bulgarelli]

Certain movies have a way of growing on you.

When I first saw Mudholland Drive I really wasn't that impressed with it but now that I've seen it several times I think it's a great film.

Sometimes people underestimate films (including me) because they are not willing to look beyond the surface and really explore the content and the meaning. More and more people want instant grattication and thin plots.

 

As far as Citizen Kane, I think the opening scene where they come to take the kid away is one of the most powerful scenes ever made.

 

Francisco

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Certain movies have a way of growing on you.

When I first saw Mudholland Drive I really wasn't that impressed with it but now that I've seen it several times I think it's a great film.

Sometimes people underestimate films (including me) because they are not willing to look beyond the surface and really explore the content and the meaning. More and more people want instant grattication and thin plots.

 

As far as Citizen Kane, I think the opening scene where they come to take the kid away is one of the most powerful scenes ever made.

 

Francisco

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with that 100%, people don't look beyond what meets the eye. Like I didn't with Citizen Kane, but that's why I asked others that obviously have.

 

Actually the most powerful and complex scene I have ever watched is the ending scene out of "One Hour Photo". There is so much that doesn't meet the eye. But when I watched the film with the commentary from Robin Williams and the director I saw what was behind it all.

 

I could probably upload that ending scene to give an example. (But not the whole film)

 

 

He's in a plain white room, with a very quiet noise in the background, some kind of a white noise. The clothes he is wearing are also white. They have purposely blended his clothes colours to match the set, to make him less noticeable in a way. Like some nobody walking along a street no one notices. And in this particular scene it also helps attract attention to his face, and his expressions. They use slow paced editing to intensify the scene. And notice when he starts getting upset the camera moves in closer and frames his face perfectly, showing the emotion and expressions.

Now what really got me was when he started placing the photo's down on the table. They are pictures of nothing. Many people were confused by this. But if you?ll notice, the pictures are of nothing. He's just taken random shots of where he lives. Random shots of his life. He has finally gotten over his obsession with the family, and now he is concentrating on his own life. Trouble is when he sees the photos, they are of nothing. They don't have anything in them, like his life. The family he had an obsession with always used to take photos in for development, they had pictures of them in different places, having fun e.t.c. But his photos were completely plain and boring. And then it cuts to a long shot of him in a mirror, the long shot isolates him, but it's in a mirror so it's signalling that he's looking at himself in that state. It then cuts to a close up of his face showing a very plain and upset face. He has finally realised what's in his life. The film then finishes showing a picture of him with the family, showing the audience what he really wanted.

 

Now that was the greatest scene I have ever watched, it's got so much depth to it. Mixed together with Robin Williams acting it's just amazing. That film is under rated, because people just don't understand it.

 

One Hour Photo was never really considered a masterpiece, it was made just to be entertainment. However strange that sound there IS a difference. But in my opinion that film is one of the greatest out there.

 

The reason why I bring it up is because I think it may be the same case with Citizen Kane, but Citizen Kane HAS been recognized as a masterpiece.

Edited November 28, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Thomas Worth]

Name an example that an audience hasn't taken to. Even in films like "Clockwork Orange" used weird art. But I think it intrigued the audience in a good way. They got it right from the start. It didn't take them any time at all to adapt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You want an example? No problem. Natural Born Killers. I saw it in the movie theatre when it first came out with four people. All of them but me hated it. Now look at the current state of affairs -- multiple film formats (35, S16, DV), weird camera angles, music video-style editing, and alternative processes (bleach bypass) are all pretty common. But that doesn't mean the audience just "got it right from the start." On the contrary, they needed to be hand held through the evolution of modern filmmaking through repetition. The audience, typically, is not going to go to the movies in hopes of being uncomfortable. They want comfort, and they want to be able to understand what they are about to see. Most people don't want to pay $12 to watch a movie they can't understand.

 

Have you seen "Irreversible?" I think it's an absolutely brilliant film, although others would probably object to its erratic camera movement, "one take" scenes and disturbing subject matter. Many on this board probably see no need for incessant 360 degree camera rolls throughout a scene, but again -- it's an artistic, "innovative" technique that will no doubt be copied. And I know for a fact that the audience won't get it right from the start -- and probably not at all.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

On a similar note, I believe I may still be the only person on earth who really understands "The Fifth Element" - including Luc Besson.

 

Phil

Edited November 28, 2004 by Phil Rhodes

[Andy O'Neil]

Irreversible is one movie I was never able to finish. It was too horrifying.

Edited November 28, 2004 by Andy O'Neil

[Max Jacoby]

I was thoroughly bored by 'Irreversible'.

 

I didn't realize there was something to understand about 'The Fifth Element'. It's not about anything really, is it?

[Nate Downes]

Something I think a lot of people forget about Citizen Kane is that the movie was a first. The first time most of the actors were ever on the screen. A first time director. And you're comparing it to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, which were handled by seasoned actors and directors? Egads, I hope you guys aren't that cruel to me when I release my first feature.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

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!!!

 

(And for anyone that watched it, John Cleese has lost it)

[Dominic Case]

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!!!

Well apart from the fact that all these screened in UK cinemas (among the rest of the world, how do these choices reflect UK cinema? Apart from the original novel of LOTR (btw, it's 3 films not 1), and Vivien Leigh in GTWT, I don't see what this is to do with UK cinema.

Maybe the hour or two that you spent (which by your tone you seem to begrudge) watching the show let you also find out that there are many ways to define "good" movies (as well as opinions), and they will often produce different verdicts.

 

Earlier you said that technology had advanced and allowed people to make better films. Example, the shaky hand-held camera work in the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan. I can't see how this is - per se - an improvement in technology: Spielberg's intention was to emulate the look of newsreel reportage of the time. It's not the technology that has led to the effect of those shots, it's the way the filmmaker puts everything together.

 

As it was with Citizen Kane.

 

But we are going round in circles. There are countless reviews and essays on the web that analyse and discuss Citizen Kane: maybe a few of those would help to answer your question about why it is considered to be so good - if you really want it answered.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Earlier you said that technology had advanced and allowed people to make better films. Example, the shaky hand-held camera work in the opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan. I can't see how this is - per se - an improvement in technology: Spielberg's intention was to emulate the look of newsreel reportage of the time. It's not the technology that has led to the effect of those shots, it's the way the filmmaker puts everything together.

Actually I meant the other way around. We've tried, tested, and a shaky effect gave a realism effect. But they didn't know that 50 years ago, and that's why Saving Private Ryan is a better film than many of the older war flicks. That's nothing to do with the technological improvements, we were tought that through experience.

 

and Vivien Leigh in GTWT, I don't see what this is to do with UK cinema

Well not much apart from the fact that 2/3rd's of the UK have seen it. (Yeh, I know what your thinking, 2 thirds? no way. that's what I thought. but I'm am quoting from the program I watched)

 

Even Star Wars got done by Snow White!!

Edited November 28, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Wendell_Greene]

Daniel, I won't call you into question because you don't think a particular film is one of the greatest films ever made. However, I would strongly encourage you to do research, study, and watch both Snow White and Citizen Kane over again, keeping an open mind. Why? So you'll grow to have a better appreciation for their impact and ground breaking techniques that influenced not only the filmmakers that brought you Shrek and Star Wars, but on cinema and animation overall.

 

BTW, Episode IV, The Empire Strikes Back, is IMO the best of SW films.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I have done research and can see why films like Snow White are so popular.

 

It's just my personal opinion really. I mean, it sounds quite funny in a way. Star Wars was outdone by Snow White..

 

BTW, Episode IV, The Empire Strikes Back, is IMO the best of SW films.

Naaaooooo it wasn't...! :P When I was like 7 I went through a Star Wars craze, watching it almost every day, buying all the merchandise e.t.c. e.t.c. I always found Epire Strikes Back to be the boring one. Overall I liked A New Hope the best, and then Return of the Jedi.

 

I don't really have much to say for the new ones. Apart from, George was in control of one of the most famous and succesfull films in all time. And what does he go and do.. screw it all up.

[F Bulgarelli]

Personally I think Star Wars is a masterpiece and that's all I have to say about that one.

 

I just saw Alexander today. Great battle scenes and that's about it. If there is something cinema has done well in the past years is battle scenes.

Other than that it felt like you were watching one of those History Channel shows, I didn't think the writing and the acting worked, it seemed cheesy at times. The movie just didn't touch me in any deep level. I was kind of dissapointed since I expected more.

This is just my humble opinion,

 

Francisco

[Annie Wengenroth]

I must say I have a hard time not jumping down the throats of people who don't "get" Citizen Kane. This film changed my life. It made me want to make films. One of the coolest things I ever did was attend Roger Ebert's 3-day interactive discussion panel on "Kane" at the Savannah Film Festival. It was really intensive but I found it to be an amazing experience. I'm sorry, but for whatever reason, no matter how pretentious/cliche this seems, I laugh when people try to compare the greatness of "Kane" to anything else. In my opinion, it's more or less in a class by itself. I mean, I've practically lost friends over this: "What?! You'll sit through the latest 3-hour LOTR movie but "Kane" won't hold your interest for 45 minutes?! GET OUT! And take your mass-produced, shallow, shoot-em-up blockbuster culture with you!"

 

I'm kidding about that last one.

 

Seriously though, there are volumes and volumes written about this film, and for a good reason. While I don't think it's possible to choose ONE Greatest Film Ever Made, I can definitely understand why "Citizen Kane" is so often cited as one of the greats. Because it IS that great. It set the stage for so much else that audiences worldwide have grown to appreciate and even expect.

 

Whether or not everyone in the world appreciates it on the same level, is almost beside the point. Most people don't appreciate visual art much anymore, either. This isn't a crack against those people, I'm just saying, art appreciation doesn't seem to be in the cards as much these days and I think it tends to change the types of films that most people watch.

 

And for the sake of preserving "high art", I hope to g-d that every high school English course "forces" its students to watch "Citizen Kane". That was the first time I saw it and I knew it was only the beginning of a true love for the film. I sat through my slight impatience, my lack of understanding, and then I watched it again a few years later, and again, and so on...and then I saw it for about the 5th time in the theater here in Savannah over a period of 3 days for the discussion panel. I felt that through discussion and debate I could finally understand each and every shot, and it was then that I realized how hooked I was.

 

Oh boy, I sound like Roger Ebert. I'll stop now. Just be aware that I defend this film on all fronts, to the death. Not to mention, I think it's like many other good films, in that it will grow on you. So give it time. :-) Oddly enough, and maybe I was just put off by the fanatical army of Star Wars geeks at school here who fit the "nerd" stereotype a bit too comfortably, I think it took a little longer for the Star Wars movies to grow on me than for Citizen Kane.

 

On a side note, can you imagine if "Kane" became sort of a next Rocky Horror Picture Show? How funny would that be? Orson Welles creates an instant cult classic....!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> "What?! You'll sit through the latest 3-hour LOTR movie but "Kane" won't hold your interest for 45

> minutes?! GET OUT! And take your mass-produced, shallow, shoot-em-up blockbuster culture with

> you!"

 

Er. Quite!

 

Can I use that in a screenplay?

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

"What?! You'll sit through the latest 3-hour LOTR movie but "Kane" won't hold your interest for 45 minutes?! GET OUT! And take your mass-produced, shallow, shoot-em-up blockbuster culture with you!"

Actually I hate to say it but I think one of the reasons why I don't like the film is because of my age, look at what I was brought up on.

 

Having said that though, I still do like many of the old films. (I'm known to my friends as old fashioned)

 

"The Wild Geese", I think it was made in 1978. That's one of my favourites.

"The Pianist", based on an old story, I really liked it.

"Charlie Chaplin", damn that still gets me..

 

I think any one of my age is into action films. But, not all of them are shallow shoot-em ups like you say they are.

 

The Pianist is shallow?? I don't think so.

Edited November 29, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Guest fstop]

You want an example? No problem. Natural Born Killers. I saw it in the movie theatre when it first came out with four people. All of them but me hated it. Now look at the current state of affairs -- multiple film formats (35, S16, DV), weird camera angles, music video-style editing, and alternative processes (bleach bypass) are all pretty common. But that doesn't mean the audience just "got it right from the start." On the contrary, they needed to be hand held through the evolution of modern filmmaking through repetition. The audience, typically, is not going to go to the movies in hopes of being uncomfortable. They want comfort, and they want to be able to understand what they are about to see. Most people don't want to pay $12 to watch a movie they can't understand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I disagree, you are basing the "influential merits" of Natural Born Killers based on it's technological form. The reason Natural Born Killers tanked at the box office was down to the script being a bad Tarantino adaption (c'mon Oliver Stone, even TONY SCOTT got True Romance right...), it irresponsibly couldn't work out whether to glamourise violence, be ironic or make a statement (again, even TONY SCOTT of all people got this right on True Romance) with Tommy Lee Jones giving his worst ever, most hammed up perfomance which he'd recycle the following year on Batman Forever. Hardly the positive, progressive future of film content...

[Brad Grimmett]

Having said that though, I still do like many of the old films. (I'm known to my friends as old fashioned)

 

"The Wild Geese", I think it was made in 1978. That's one of my favourites.

"The Pianist", based on an old story, I really liked it.

"Charlie Chaplin", damn that still gets me..

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Old? I don't think many people would consider any of those films old. The Pianist came out two years ago!

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Old?  I don't think many people would consider any of those films old.  The Pianist came out two years ago!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I know but it was based around an old story.

 

I mean, it doesn't have Vin Diesel jumping around like a loonatic. Very much different.

 

My point is films like "The Wild Geese" and "Pianist" all are based around guns, violence. But you don't have to be an action film freak to love them. I mean I like these films, but I don't like half the modern ones that come out.

Edited November 29, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Thomas Worth]

I disagree, you are basing the "influential merits" of Natural Born Killers based on it's technological form.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All I'm saying is that Oliver Stone decided to augment the story with overly chaotic visuals, which was something that, at the time, I had never seen. I know that the concept is not uncommon these days, but I think it is to the degree that Natural Born Killers demonstrates. I don't recall any big studio pictures getting that insane with the visuals up until that point.

 

You may think it tanked because of the poor storyline, but IMHO I think that it was just plain difficult for people to watch. I think the audience needs to be slowly guided into new styles of filmmaking. Otherwise, they just "don't get it" and are immediately frustrated.

 

This is an interesting topic in that everyone is going to have their own view, and there's no right answer. I love Natural Born Killers, but then I'm also a sucker for great cinematography so I'm oftentimes willing to let that make up for other faults.