Citizen Kane

[books]

So, who has seen it? I'm 20 years old and I just watched it about a month ago. It was a good movie, very funny and entertaining for an older movie. Loved how it opened with the news feature.

What did you guys think?

[bassguitar115]

I've seen Citizen Kane a few times, and there's no question that it is a really good movie. However, I don't think it deserves the greatness it has been bestowed. I understand some of its innovations, but overall I don't see it as what some people do.

I'd like to add that I'm a really big fan of old movies. So, don't think I'm some guys who only watches modern action flicks. . .

This thread got me thinking about some "older" movies that I love. If you haven't seen City Lights (Charlie Chaplin) or Singin' in the Rain, do yourself a favor and netflix'em.

J.C.

[doowttam]

It was actually the first movie I rented when I got Netflix. It was the first thing on my queue because I knew I "had" to see it, and frankly I relate a lot to what Alex has said about it.

They told the story in interesting ways (the news reel is a great example). They did awesome things with lighting (more specifically shadows). And the ending is great.

But, the problem is, that movie was made 70 years ago and many people have used those techniques since then because they recognized how awesome they were. So, I've gotten really use to them. You just have to tell your self that Citizen Kane did it first, and thats what makes it cool.

[ariastar]

To say negative things about Citizen Kane will practically get you flogged. it's the best movie of all time because it's supposed to be, and saying anything else is blasphemous. Perhaps it was innovative for the time. So was Disney's Snow White or Phantom of the Opera with Lon Chaney. Doesn't necessarily make either one absolutely fantastic.

What is the best is subject to personal opinion, which is why I ignore critics who say this movie is must-see, that tea sucks, you gotta try this beer. I like what I like, especially if the reviewer comes from such a different world. I can identify more with Alex and the guys than with Ebert and Roeper. E&R are considered to be more "refined," so their word is generally given more weight, but the typical person isn't on the same plain.

What is innovative is a bit more set. Either there was a pre-existing, known way to do something or there wasn't and the maker devised a method to do what needed to be done (for instance, the graphics in the original BSG really sucks by modern standards, but was incredible for 1979).

I think what bothers me most about these lists is that if you see a movie and think it's good, but not spectacular, and it's supposed to be one of the best, you're left wondering what's wrong with you that you don't agree, or what did you miss.

For myself, I haven't seen this movie, and probably won't unless it comes around to the Stanford Theater again, though I think Bette Davis movies are currently on the marquee.

[ryan79]

Yeah, I know I'm in the minority, but I really didn't like the movie. I think the reasons why have already been mentioned. Mostly because the innovative-for-the-time effects are now standard practice in Hollywood. Nothing stood out to me and I was bored by the story. I get that it's an important movie but I don't think it's aged well. Unlike, say, Casablanca, which still holds up.

[mysteriousblueliquid]

I get that it's an important movie but I don't think it's aged well. Unlike, say, Casablanca, which still holds up.

Interesting. I felt the opposite about Casablanca. Maybe I should watch Citizen Kane again. It's been a few years.

[damnedeyez]

...


my god, I've found my people... :: sniffle ::




I said basically this same thing on a forum about five years ago when I watched one of those "top 100 films of all time" thing, and Citizen Kane topped (or was near the top of) the list. I can understand the historical significance, but I argued that it shouldn't be up there solely because of that. Obviously, I didn't get much agreement.

[zaphod81]

Have to agree...

Personally I find Gone with the Wind to be a much more epic and entertaining "old school" movie.

[stubadub]

I quite enjoyed Citizen Kane, though I don't put it in my list of favorite films of all time. I imagine I'd like it even more had I grown up during that time and was more directly wowed by the technical achievements. My appreciation definitely increased as I listened to the Ebert commentary on the DVD. It is fascinating to hear someone point out all of these special effects firsts and to think of it as a special effects film. It's been a few years since I've seen it, and I've been thinking about revisiting it again in the near future.

I think when you are dealing with "top 100 films of all time" the historical significance is exactly the reason it SHOULD be on such a list. To me that list doesn't mean "My favorite 100 films", instead it says the films are the most important films in history. Whether we agree that it was a good film or not, I think most of us can see how it could be considered historically significant.

Having said that, all such lists are on some level subjective bullshit that are influenced by someone else's list that was created earlier. Citizen Kane has its position on these types of lists pretty much locked up for eternity at this point.

[az0madman]

stubadub pretty much said what I feel about the whole subject of Citizen Kane.

I personally did enjoy it, though it could be from my love of film noir, or for the fact that one of my favorite Simpsons episode did a parody of the film.

[aerodash84]

I thought Citizen Kane was an alright movie. It definitely feels a bit like a sleeper to me, like it can be hard to get through. However, I do give it a lot of credit for being innovative in the sense of film making. The story was also interesting that it was told from other personal accounts rather then following the events, which leaves the main character up to interpretation. The editing and production techniques were also innovative for its time. Now most of what that movie did for its time is almost used in every film. I think it will hold its place in history for a lot of those reasons, but it may not be for everyone though. I enjoyed it, but it did seem real slow. I think why modern movies don't seem regarded in that sense is that anything new to come along might become parodied. My biggest example would probably The Matrix. It did some great things that seemed just all brand new almost like the bullet time or brought the wire kung fu to new audiences. However many movies around that time started to mock it or use it commonly and now it doesn't seem as impressive. So I'm not defending Citizen Kane completely, because there were many other movies that were important for one reason or another. Either you enjoy a movie or you don't, but I'd say don't be dismissive till you actually see it.

[marty993]

I really love Citizen Kane. I'm not gonna say it's the best movie of all time, because it's not - it doesn't even have dinosaurs - but I genuinely enjoyed the story in a sort of Walk The Line/Buddy Holly Story way and felt it was presented in a unique way. I can totally understand if people can't get into it, though, and I understand if someone were to come at it with cynicism after all the critical fiddling it's gotten. I think what makes the movie more entertaining than your average technical achievement is the cast. Orson Welles, say what you want about him as a director, is a damn charismatic actor. To be honest, I'd probably recommend someone watch The Third Man over Citizen Kane, because it's just infinitely more fun.

[crescentfresh]

I'm seldom in the right mood to watch Citizen Kane. Everytime I get the classic movie bug I wind up watching Rita Hayworth's "Gilda" with someone who's never seen it (to vicariously relive the fun of my first viewing). Still it was a great movie to watch from a pure filmaking 101 standpoint.

[MaxTheSilent]

IMO, 'All-time Greatness' is measure in influence. And CITiZEN KANE basically invented every cinematic technique that went on to become standard film story-telling.

For that reason alone it deserves to be recognised as the most innovative and ground-breaking movie in the history of the medium.

Sure, there's been better films in the years since. I mean, I consider THE SEVEN SAMURAI to be the greatest movie of all time. But without the influence of CITIZEN KANE, it's literally inconcievable to imagine film-making without its innovations.

[filmgeek84]

I think as a audience, we have became spoiled by many other Directors learning and using Orson Welle's techniques. It seems that Citizen Kane, furthered along film techniques, similar to Jurassic Park's influence, on computer animated special effects in 1993. Yes, Jurassic Park and Citizen Kane are two completely different movies, but both brought something new to Cinema.

[masherscf]

"Citizen Kane" is one of those movies that has to be appreciated in historical context. There are a lot of movies like that. I think "Star Wars" is similar. "Cirizen Kane" simply looked different than every other movie that came before. So, it blew people away. Removed from that context and appreciating it as 'the Best Movie Ever" is a stretch.

[pilot3033]

Few things:

1. Recognize that Kane was panned by many when it was released (mostly due to W. R. Heast...however...), and was by no means a runaway success. In fact, it was not thought of as the greatest anything until a bunch of French critics started to pump it up in the 60s and 70s. Orson Wells, now a certifiable genius, peaked in his mid-20s with this film, and was never given funding or control to the extent he had on Kane ever again. In fact, Wells ended up supporting himself by doing campy commercials so he could scrape together funds for his projects (which if you ever get the time, are actually pretty brilliant)

2. What we take for granted now, Kane pioneered. As others have said already, the use of long-takes, deep-focus lenses, extremely low-angels, among other things, all stemmed from Kane, especially when it was revisited in the 60s and 70s (about the time people 'got' it). Perhaps this is why some are not so thrilled about it...the techniques Kane used are fairly common today, but despite that, watch Kane with all this in mind and you will realize that even today nobody was mastered the art the way Wells did. Pay close attention to the lighting as well, a complete revolution from films of the time.

3. Beyond the simple technical aspects, Kane's narrative, and method of delivering that narrative, is something special. Period audiences were rather confused at first because the entire film, the whole puzzle is never present. Kane's life is perceived via anecdotes from characters that witnessed it, and interpreted by a reporter with a bias and a mission. This was simply unprecedented for the time. Flashback had been used before, but it always remained linear. With Kane, the story does some jumping, and while it maintains a linear timeline, periods of Kane's life are visited more than once, by different people, offering different perspectives. People like to cite the technical aspects of Kane as reasons for it's place as #1, but always keep in mind how the story is told, especially in conjunction with the technical parts, and how the two interact.

the running for the top spot is tough, but I must throw in "Birth of a Nation" if we are going on technical and foundation aspects. As a silent film, it paved the way for both poly-hour epics, and continuity editing.

;)

[marty993]

Yes, Jurassic Park and Citizen Kane are two completely different movies, but both brought something new to Cinema.

And Jurassic Park has dinosaurs, so it is actually the best film ever made. Scientifically proven. By scientists!

[masherscf]

the running for the top spot is tough, but I must throw in "Birth of a Nation" if we are going on technical and foundation aspects. As a silent film, it paved the way for both poly-hour epics, and continuity editing.

;)

All things being equal, the blatant racist tones of "Birth of The Nation" spoil any other historical significance. That being said, do "infamous" films deserve a place in the discussion also?