LostInAnomie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 03:36 AM
Original message |
Is Citizen Kane as good as people say it is? |
|
It's coming on in about a half hour and I am trying to decide if I am going to watch it or not.
|
soothsayer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 03:38 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I was really disappointed in it, but I guess I missed something. |
|
I suppose it's worth a try, but I felt gypped. But there's a good chance that I'm an ignoramus.
|
autorank
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 03:40 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Better. It's highly relevant to our current situation. |
|
Orson Welles was a fucking total genius!
|
Bouncy Ball
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 03:40 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I can NEVER get past the first 45 minutes. |
|
I always, always, ALWAYS fall asleep. And it bugs me, because it's number one on that AFI list of the greatest all time movies so I feel like I really should see it, but dammit, it's like the cure for insomnia for me.
In fact, I should watch it now so I can go to sleep.
Good luck! :hi:
|
Bucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 03:42 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Yes, it's good. But if you expect too much from it, any movie... |
|
...any movie can be disappointing. It's just a movie, so enjoy it.
|
Must_B_Free
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 03:51 AM
Response to Original message |
|
the greatest fil of all time.
|
RadicalMom
(734 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 03:55 AM
Response to Original message |
6. YES! Orson Welles was amazing and the film is historically |
|
signifigant from the standpoint of filmmaking. A must see.
|
6000eliot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 04:30 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Yes. Are you watching it?
|
Khephra
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 05:03 AM
Response to Original message |
8. It helps to know about the background of the film |
|
Hearst was current when the film was made so background wasn't needed for the audiences back then but he's not so well known today, so you might miss out on a few things here and there.
IIRC, Kane was the first American film that dealt with the idea of several characters seeing reality from from different angles.
|
Cooley Hurd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #8 |
13. Hearst tried desperately to keep the film from opening... |
|
Edited on Sun Dec-26-04 07:33 AM by Cooley Hurd
...including an offer to buy all of the movie prints (because it made his girlfriend, Marion Davies, cry).
A great movie on the subject (of the battle for Citizen Kane) is RKO 281, staring Liev Schreiber as Welles...
|
AngryOldDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
23. Manipulation of events by the media |
|
Is what makes Kane relevant to today's audiences.
It is a very complex film, which makes it more remarkable. It's worth it.
|
mr blur
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 05:41 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Visually, artistically and even "historically". There were so many daring, new things done in that film and Welles deserves all the praise he gets for it. Just compare it to the all the bland crap that comes out of Hollywood (and elsewhere) these days, full of bad acting, "faces" from lousy TV programs and appalling writing.
|
elperromagico
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 05:46 AM
Response to Original message |
10. If you ignore all of the praise, yes. |
|
No film - no matter how great - could live up to the level of acclaim Citizen Kane has had.
Just sit back and enjoy the story.
|
Jeebo
(362 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 05:50 AM
Response to Original message |
11. The first time I saw it, it bored me silly for two hours. |
|
The second time I saw it, it bored me silly for two hours.
The third time I saw it, I think I had grown somewhat in film-appreciation sophistication, and I actually enjoyed it a little. But only a little.
I guess it's a pretty good movie, but I never have understood what all the fuss is about. Some years ago I watched Siskel and Ebert raving about "Citizen Kane." They went on and on about THIS reason why the movie was so great, and THAT reason why the movie was so great, and with every point they made, I wanted to ask them, "So effing WHAT? WHY does that make the movie so great?" They were describing individual trees in a forest, but when I watch that movie I see the whole forest.
Maybe that movie is just way over my head. Or maybe it's just that it's not where my film tastes lie.
To give you some sense of my film tastes, if you're interested, here's a list of my top ten all-time favorite films:
1. Ben Hur 2. Schindler's List 3. A Tale of Two Cities (the 1935 version with Ronald Colman) 4. National Velvet 5. Forbidden Planet 6. The Graduate 7. A Tree Grows in Brooklyn 8. Dr. Strangelove 9. Spartacus 10. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (the 1956 version)
Ron
|
Cooley Hurd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 07:12 AM
Response to Original message |
|
...and it's w-a-y ahead of its time (in plot, as well as cinematography).
I watch it every time its on.:thumbsup:
|
no_hypocrisy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 08:21 AM
Response to Original message |
14. "Charles, people will think . . . " |
|
Edited on Sun Dec-26-04 08:22 AM by no_hypocrisy
"WHAT I TELL THEM TO THINK!!!"
How relevant is that for today with regard to the media being a toothless dog protecting democracy?
|
terrya
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 08:34 AM
Response to Original message |
Kahuna
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 10:28 AM
Response to Original message |
16. Yes it is! Watch it and let us know what you think about it.... |
|
You can also post your thoughts in the Classis Films Group.
|
Boswells_Johnson
(526 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 10:33 AM
Response to Original message |
17. It's very good, but as with any "critical success" |
|
reputation can overshadow the work itself.
|
robbedvoter
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 11:47 AM
Response to Original message |
18. Yes. Better. memorable. Food for thought. |
Orangepeel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 12:02 PM
Response to Original message |
19. It bored me, but then again, I'm not a film buff |
|
with a lot of art, when you see something that was revolutionary long after the fact, it can be hard to appreciate. Art that had an enormous impact, by necessity, tends to look mundane after you have seen everything that was impacted by it.
I assume this is the case with Citizen Kane, although I don't know enough about film and film history to be sure.
|
BrklynLiberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 01:01 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Watch it and decide for yourelf.... |
DinahMoeHum
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 01:53 PM
Response to Original message |
21. ". . .quote, singer, unquote. . ." |
nicolemrw
(263 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 01:55 PM
Response to Original message |
|
as long as no one tells you the secret of rosebud before you see it.
|
yellowdogintexas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 02:04 PM
Response to Original message |
|
maybe for its time it was worthy of all the hoopla, but not now.
|
Lydia Leftcoast
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 05:14 PM
Response to Original message |
25. You have to look at it in its historical context |
|
The reason it's disappointing now is that the film techniques it pioneered are commonplace today, but in its time, its use of jump cuts, odd camera angles, and fake newsreels, among other things, was highly innovative.
The first time I saw it was in a film class with an instructor pointing these things out, so I guess I have a fondness for it. I do like seeing it every few years.
|
GRLMGC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 05:17 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I'm a film buff and will probably be reviled by other film buffs for my opinion. I love the visual style. It's ahead of its time. However, I didn't find it entertaining in the least and I, personally, think that's what a film is supposed to do.
|
Placebo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
27. I wasn't that impressed with it either. |
|
Visually, it was great, especially when you consider the time it was filmed, but the story and the acting did nothing for me.
|
Rabrrrrrr
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 05:21 PM
Response to Original message |
28. YES YES YES YES YES YES!!!!! |
henslee
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 05:27 PM
Response to Original message |
29. The film is an encyclopedia of cinematic language esp. camera techniques |
|
like deep focus and tracking shots that still stupify today. Still, a bit of a snore by today's standars -- better off watching Big Daddy or Old School.
|
DerekG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 05:29 PM
Response to Original message |
30. Yes, but it isn't #1... |
|
Hitchcock's Vertigo, Lean's Lawrence of Arabia, and Coppola's The Godfather are *better* films (Pauline Kael once called Citizen Kane a "shallow masterpiece") but Welles gets points for innovation.
|
48pan
(957 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 05:33 PM
Response to Original message |
31. I'll Have to say no... |
|
It bored me terribly. Rent Run Silent, Run Deep instead.
|
mahatmakanejeeves
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Dec-26-04 06:16 PM
Response to Original message |
32. When you watch it on TV |
|
you're watching a video of "Citizen Kane." When you see it in a theater, you're watching "Citizen Kane" itself. The two experiences are entirely different. The only time I've seen the film itself was when it came back for its fiftieth anniversary. It wasn't at all like seeing the video on television.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat Apr 20th 2024, 09:29 AM
Response to Original message |