Citizen Kane Blu-ray

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

Citizen Kane is so jam-packed with stuff that it makes it really hard for the first-time viewer to process what they are seeing and get involved in the narrative. It's so dense that everything seems to cram together and it comes across as a bit of an incoherent mess, and the novice viewer's eyes glaze over about 2 minutes into the film and they proceed to struggle mightily to make it to the end. That was my experience anyway.

After having seen it a dozen or so times I can't understand how I ever felt that way. It's clearly a masterpiece where everything came togther just as it should have. With a movie this brilliant sometimes it takes a while for the viewer to catch up.

I don't think it's as much that is at is the current state of movies. They are so simple these days, especially mainstream fare, that people don't know how to even watch or comprehend a film with so many layers and depth (that also doesn't have an action sequence or CGI every 10-15 minutes). Which is a sad thing indeed.

[bruceames.]

Originally Posted by IronWaffle

Check out the Ebert commentary on the disc. You may not like the movie more, but it offers lots of food for thought.

This. The Ebert track showed me why this movie is great. Before that I didn't know how to appreciate it for what it is.

[Extremis]

Originally Posted by retablo

I don't think it's as much that is at is the current state of movies. They are so simple these days, especially mainstream fare, that people don't know how to even watch or comprehend a film with so many layers and depth (that also doesn't have an action sequence or CGI every 10-15 minutes). Which is a sad thing indeed.

Look who's talking.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by The Rainmaker

Look who's talking.

Yes, and? More personal attacks?

It says a lot, though, that you're attacking me for LIKING movies with depth.

[dougotte]

Originally Posted by retablo

I don't think it's as much that is at is the current state of movies. They are so simple these days, especially mainstream fare, that people don't know how to even watch or comprehend a film with so many layers and depth (that also doesn't have an action sequence or CGI every 10-15 minutes). Which is a sad thing indeed.

I think your explanation is overly facile. Most movies of any era are not like Kane. That's what makes it stand out. It is much more sophisticated, and requires active attention from the viewer, than most other movies.

However, there are a few movies with this level of sophistication in any era. For example: Brazil.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by dougotte

I think your explanation is overly facile. Most movies of any era are not like Kane. That's what makes it stand out. It is much more sophisticated, and requires active attention from the viewer, than most other movies.

However, there are a few movies with this level of sophistication in any era. For example: Brazil.

I disagree. I don't think Kane is any more sophisticated (and in many cases, less so) than the Ozu or Rosselini films of that same era, or the Fellini and Bergman pictures later... But for Hollywood, yes, it's more sophisticated than many. Which goes back to my post. Hollywood films have always been more "dumbed down" than foreign films, and as a result - especially compared to the majority of sophomoric films today - newer audiences to the film find it difficult and challenging, because their cinema language isn't well-developed enough to follow it easily.

It's the same as comparing the writing of, say, Shakespeare to the writing in the Twilight books. Shakespeare isn't hard to read or understand, if you're well-versed in language. But for people who only read simpler books, it can definitely be hard to digest. Same goes for cinema.

Even the themes of Hollywood pictures like The Lost Weekend and even Casablanca are just as dark, they are just more hidden under the surface. I'm not knocking Kane - I think it's a marvel - but because of the unconventional (for the time) narrative, it appears to be much more complex than (I think) it really is. It's really just the story of a guy who wants the world, realizes he can't buy happiness, and it corrupts him.

[Extremis]

Is this a satire?

[Blu-Velvet]

Originally Posted by The Rainmaker

Is this a satire?

You mean the movie CITIZEN KANE, or the previous post?

The film actually is a strong satire that audiences in 1941 would have recognized immediately, with its sendup of movie newsreel style (before mockumentaries became fashionable), its cynical look at political campaigns and scandals, its depiction of a privately-funded vanity stage career, its heavy parody of William Randolph Hearst, and its less-than-glowing portrait of tabloid-style journalism and reporters' approaches to get a story that will scoop some other paper or newsreel.

Some critics consider the CITIZEN KANE at its heart to be a comedy.

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

You mean the movie CITIZEN KANE, or the previous post?

The film actually is a strong satire that audiences in 1941 would have recognized immediately, with its sendup of movie newsreel style (before mockumentaries became fashionable), its cynical look at political campaigns and scandals, its depiction of a privately-funded vanity stage career, its heavy parody of William Randolph Hearst, and its less-than-glowing portrait of tabloid-style journalism and reporters' approaches to get a story that will scoop some other paper or newsreel.

Some critics consider the CITIZEN KANE at its heart to be a comedy.

Pauline Kael refers to it as a "shallow masterpiece" and in her excellent essay that was printed with the shooting script she makes a strong case for the fact the film is indeed a satire not just of the press but of then-recent films, but that many of those films it's knocking are lost to the ages; for that and other reasons, the film is viewed with a kind of austerity that misses much of the Kane's shrewd script. Hearst was a starting point, but not unlike PT Anderson's The Master, the titular characters are not simply analogues or simplistic adaptations. In fact, if I recall correctly (and its been years since I read seriously about Kane, so take this with a grain of salt), some of the script and much of the revision was based more on Welles's hubristic nature than Hearst's.

This is a film I would LOVE to see with an audience that is familiar with it because I think the theater would frequently be filled with laughter, whereas home theaters and freshmen film classes are often filled with underwhelmed silence.

[Archedamian]

Originally Posted by IronWaffle

This is a film I would LOVE to see with an audience that is familiar with it because I think the theater would frequently be filled with laughter, whereas home theaters and freshmen film classes are often filled with underwhelmed silence.

I'd sit in that audience for sure.

[Blu-Velvet]

Originally Posted by IronWaffle

This is a film I would LOVE to see with an audience that is familiar with it because I think the theater would frequently be filled with laughter, whereas home theaters and freshmen film classes are often filled with underwhelmed silence.

It's really fun to watch Preston Sturges' SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS (which was released later the same year) right after seeing CITIZEN KANE. While completely different in overall plot, character, and subject, the opening few minutes, especially, seem to be too close to KANE to be coincidental. Sturges certainly seems to have seen CITIZEN KANE before he planned the setup to his movie, both in its concept, lighting style, and dialogue delivery, and made part of his satire of the Hollywood industry a direct satire of CITIZEN KANE.

[Archedamian]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

It's really fun to watch Preston Sturges' SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS (which was released later the same year) right after seeing CITIZEN KANE. While completely different in overall plot, character, and subject, the opening few minutes, especially, seem to be too close to KANE to be coincidental. Sturges certainly seems to have seen CITIZEN KANE before he planned the setup to his movie, both in its concept, lighting style, and dialogue delivery, and made part of his satire of the Hollywood industry a direct satire of CITIZEN KANE.

I've seen Sullivan's Travels but never noticed that before. I will have to revisit it.

[IronWaffle]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

It's really fun to watch Preston Sturges' SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS (which was released later the same year) right after seeing CITIZEN KANE. While completely different in overall plot, character, and subject, the opening few minutes, especially, seem to be too close to KANE to be coincidental. Sturges certainly seems to have seen CITIZEN KANE before he planned the setup to his movie, both in its concept, lighting style, and dialogue delivery, and made part of his satire of the Hollywood industry a direct satire of CITIZEN KANE.

What a great idea for a double feature! I've been planning on spinning Kane for the last week or so and this seals the deal. It's a shame I can get a small horde of friends over for the Avengers but will have to hoard this to myself.

[retablo]

Originally Posted by Blu-Velvet

It's really fun to watch Preston Sturges' SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS (which was released later the same year) right after seeing CITIZEN KANE. While completely different in overall plot, character, and subject, the opening few minutes, especially, seem to be too close to KANE to be coincidental. Sturges certainly seems to have seen CITIZEN KANE before he planned the setup to his movie, both in its concept, lighting style, and dialogue delivery, and made part of his satire of the Hollywood industry a direct satire of CITIZEN KANE.

Considering that Kane was released in Sept 1941, and Sullivan's Travels was released only 3 months later, in Dec 1941, I doubt that's enough time to see a film, write it, shoot it, edit it, and release it.

It's possible, though, he may have seen a script, or an earlier premiere. Or just re-tailored the opening after Kane came out, but that's cutting it close.

[Blu-Velvet]

Originally Posted by retablo

Considering that Kane was released in Sept 1941, and Sullivan's Travels was released only 3 months later, in Dec 1941, I doubt that's enough time to see a film, write it, shoot it, edit it, and release it.

It's possible, though, he may have seen a script, or an earlier premiere. Or just re-tailored the opening after Kane came out, but that's cutting it close.

According to the American Film Institute Catalog, CITIZEN KANE was released nationwide on September 5, 1941 but actually had its World Premiere in New York back on May 1, 1941, which was also its copyright date. SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS they report as being in production from May 12 through July 22, 1941, copyrighted on December 4, 1941, and opening in New York on January 28, 1942.

We may never know for sure, but it's quite possible Sturges may have seen an early New York or Los Angeles screening of KANE and could easily have revised his opening scene (or certainly redesigned the lighting) to give a knowing wink at CITIZEN KANE on several levels, as it's the kind of film that fits right into the "serious" filmmaking Joel McCrea's character would prefer to be doing. After seeing the opening sequence, it's hard to believe that SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS was not influenced by CITIZEN KANE (although it would have been more obvious and possibly funnier if Sullivan had mentioned Orson Welles by name, like he does with Frank Capra).

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by dougotte

It is much more sophisticated, and requires active attention from the viewer, than most other movies.

Yes, but I don't get why that more active attention doesn't happen automatically with a movie as compelling as Kane. I'm not saying that everyone should like it, but I would think that the opening shots, and then the simulated newsreel footage would wake anybody up.

[dougotte]

Originally Posted by retablo

I disagree. I don't think Kane is any more sophisticated (and in many cases, less so) than the Ozu or Rosselini films of that same era, or the Fellini and Bergman pictures later... But for Hollywood, yes, it's more sophisticated than many. Which goes back to my post. Hollywood films have always been more "dumbed down" than foreign films, and as a result - especially compared to the majority of sophomoric films today - newer audiences to the film find it difficult and challenging, because their cinema language isn't well-developed enough to follow it easily.

It's the same as comparing the writing of, say, Shakespeare to the writing in the Twilight books. Shakespeare isn't hard to read or understand, if you're well-versed in language. But for people who only read simpler books, it can definitely be hard to digest. Same goes for cinema.

Even the themes of Hollywood pictures like The Lost Weekend and even Casablanca are just as dark, they are just more hidden under the surface. I'm not knocking Kane - I think it's a marvel - but because of the unconventional (for the time) narrative, it appears to be much more complex than (I think) it really is. It's really just the story of a guy who wants the world, realizes he can't buy happiness, and it corrupts him.

Eh? I was responding to your post where you asserted that movies today are much more simplistic than movies during Kane's era. My point was that there have always been, and always will be, a majority of simplistic movies; but a sprinkling of sophisticated complex movies has always been in the mix as well. Your post stated nothing about US vs. foreign films.

[mzupeman]

Originally Posted by dougotte

Eh? I was responding to your post where you asserted that movies today are much more simplistic than movies during Kane's era. My point was that there have always been, and always will be, a majority of simplistic movies; but a sprinkling of sophisticated complex movies has always been in the mix as well. Your post stated nothing about US vs. foreign films.

Personally, I think you're both right. There are still gems that pop about today, no doubt, but the 'simplistic' films of today... oye. They're pretty horrendous. It's hard to deny the 'dumbing down' of certain Hollywood mainstream stuff over the decades.