Citizen Kane (1941) (70th Anniversary Edition)

[MrJoeKalel]

Originally Posted by P@t_Mtl

I doubt that making them in color would improve the sales. The fact is that most of these older movies do not appeal to the public of today in very high numbers. Mostly it's not about the fact that they are in B&W, it's more in the way they are made. Slower, more character and story driven that the movies made today. A good portion of today's society cannot deal with movies made pre-1980's and the older you go back the worst it become. Making them in color would still not make them interesting for today's viewers, much to their lost but that is our things are.

Couldn't have said it better. I even when I also love noisy popcorn munching blockbusters, movies like these are hard to find.

Why is it that kids can sit for HOURS at a time watching idiotic YouTube videos, but yet, would groan and moan when you are trying to have them sit and watch one of the great classics such as Citizen Kane, The General, Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, etc.?

Question to you...did you preorder the regular edition (which AMZ now has for $39.99), or the special edition that has the Ambersons' DVD (which I have preordered)?? I'm thinking of just ordering the regular version. I don't wanna wait since I thought about waiting when Ten Commandments was released hoping it would go down in price but that hasn't happened (and I doubt it will).

[TylerDurden]

Originally Posted by mvckalel

Couldn't have said it better. I even when I also love noisy popcorn munching blockbusters, movies like these are hard to find.

Why is it that kids can sit for HOURS at a time watching idiotic YouTube videos, but yet, would groan and moan when you are trying to have them sit and watch one of the great classics such as Citizen Kane, The General, Casablanca, Lawrence of Arabia, The Godfather, etc.?

Question to you...did you preorder the regular edition (which AMZ now has for $39.99), or the special edition that has the Ambersons' DVD (which I have preordered)?? I'm thinking of just ordering the regular version. I don't wanna wait since I thought about waiting when Ten Commandments was released hoping it would go down in price but that hasn't happened (and I doubt it will).

To be honest most old movies suck. Just because it was made 50-70 years ago doesn't mean automatic movie gold. Yes there are timeless classics but really those movies of ancient Hollywood were made with the intention of the viewing public of the era. No studio or director back then was trying to fill theater seats in 2011. Therefore it's harder to relate to older movies as society has rapidly advanced beyond many of the stereotypes that the characters portray. It's like watching old tv shows like Dick Van Dyke and Leave it to Beaver. What family is like any of these shows nowadays?

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by mvckalel

Question to you...did you preorder the regular edition (which AMZ now has for $39.99), or the special edition that has the Ambersons' DVD (which I have preordered)?? I'm thinking of just ordering the regular version. I don't wanna wait since I thought about waiting when Ten Commandments was released hoping it would go down in price but that hasn't happened (and I doubt it will).

I've deliberated on that same question repeatedly. This is the first time The Magnificent Ambersons has had a North American release. At Least since the LaserDisc days. I wonder is it worth $10.00? No need to answer as the question is an internal one. Here's something to add to this perplexing puzzle.

http://www.criterion.com/current/pos...cent-ambersons

Everytime I read about RKO cutting the film and subsequently burning the original negatives of footage it makes me want blood. RKO Blood!

[octagon]

Originally Posted by mvckalel

Question to you...did you preorder the regular edition (which AMZ now has for $39.99), or the special edition that has the Ambersons' DVD (which I have preordered)?? I'm thinking of just ordering the regular version. I don't wanna wait since I thought about waiting when Ten Commandments was released hoping it would go down in price but that hasn't happened (and I doubt it will).

Part of me would prefer to wait for a regular (or ideally ~$20 digibook) edition but that's likely to be a long wait so I preordered the Ambersons version when it popped up in my gold box a month or so ago.

But now that the gap between the two editions is up to ten bucks I'm thinking about cancelling and reordering. I'll wait a bit to see if the Ambersons version drops as well.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

To be honest most old movies suck. Just because it was made 50-70 years ago doesn't mean automatic movie gold. Yes there are timeless classics but really those movies of ancient Hollywood were made with the intention of the viewing public of the era. No studio or director back then was trying to fill theater seats in 2011. Therefore it's harder to relate to older movies as society has rapidly advanced beyond many of the stereotypes that the characters portray. It's like watching old tv shows like Dick Van Dyke and Leave it to Beaver. What family is like any of these shows nowadays?

No one said everything that's 60 or 70 years old is automatic gold. I think most people realize there was lots of disposable stuff made back then that's not really worth revisiting other than as an academic exercise. But I'd rather watch a hard-boiled noir film like The Asphalt Jungle or Border Incident or an epic like Lawrence of Arabia, etc etc than 99% of what populates the multiplexes today.

[Ragged_Clown]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

To be honest most old movies suck. Just because it was made 50-70 years ago doesn't mean automatic movie gold. Yes there are timeless classics but really those movies of ancient Hollywood were made with the intention of the viewing public of the era. No studio or director back then was trying to fill theater seats in 2011. Therefore it's harder to relate to older movies as society has rapidly advanced beyond many of the stereotypes that the characters portray. It's like watching old tv shows like Dick Van Dyke and Leave it to Beaver. What family is like any of these shows nowadays?

That's an extremely narrow and silly way of viewing older films, completely missing the richness, complexity, and diversity of films to be found there. And it would also suggest that modern movies are similarly alienating if they have a period setting (or a futuristic setting, or any setting whatsoever that is foreign to your own culture, background, and experience). Is it difficult to relate to the Coens' "Miller's Crossing," given the fact that it's not only set in 1929, but is also directly inspired by the films and literature of that era?

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

To be honest most old movies suck. Just because it was made 50-70 years ago doesn't mean automatic movie gold. Yes there are timeless classics but really those movies of ancient Hollywood were made with the intention of the viewing public of the era. No studio or director back then was trying to fill theater seats in 2011. Therefore it's harder to relate to older movies as society has rapidly advanced beyond many of the stereotypes that the characters portray. It's like watching old tv shows like Dick Van Dyke and Leave it to Beaver. What family is like any of these shows nowadays?

No those old movies don't suck. You just happen to think they suck. Overall, the movies of that era, even though most came through the studio system which was corrupt in many ways, had better writing, better music and better cinematography than the movies of today, because the people who made them were far more literate than many of today's filmmakers, whose only reference point is other media - which is why so many movies don't do much more than refer to other movies. In addition, films of that era trusted the audience more: they didn't have to give them the big action shot every 10 minutes to keep them interested. Considering that audiences of the past, especially before 1960, were far less formally educated than the audiences of today, that's actually quite remarkable. Think of all the classic novels and historical works that were translated to screen from the 1920s through the 1960s. Yes, the studios also made plenty of horrible movies. But the classics have stood the test of time and are amazing pieces of art in spite of the fact that they were essentially made in factories. Citizen Kane may be one of the finest films ever made. If you can't appreciate that, I actually feel sorry for you.

While I agree that it may be harder for unenlightened people to relate to older films, that doesn't make those films any less valuable from an artistic perspective any more than a novel about the Civil War is less valuable than a modern novel about teenaged vampires.

You can't compare those older films to TV shows like Dick Van Dyke and Leave It To Beaver, which were low budget shows shot in a few days. You ask what family is like that today. Well no family was actually like that then either. Those shows were there to demonstrate a middle class ideal of living so that sponsors could sell the "American dream" to a public ready to consume. They had nothing to do with real life. They had to do with corporate America. Since movies weren't sponsored, they weren't made with those intentions or limitations. (They had different intentions and limitations.)

[Strevlac]

Then:
John Huston
John Ford
Howard Hawks
Sam Fuller
Micheal Curtiz
Orson Welles
Preston Sturges
Otto Preminger
Sam Peckinpah
David Lean

All real men of the world.

Now:
Brett Ratner
Zack Synder
Christopher Nolan
David Fincher
Darren Aronofski

All boy men of film "school".

[MrJoeKalel]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

To be honest most old movies suck. Just because it was made 50-70 years ago doesn't mean automatic movie gold. Yes there are timeless classics but really those movies of ancient Hollywood were made with the intention of the viewing public of the era. No studio or director back then was trying to fill theater seats in 2011. Therefore it's harder to relate to older movies as society has rapidly advanced beyond many of the stereotypes that the characters portray. It's like watching old tv shows like Dick Van Dyke and Leave it to Beaver. What family is like any of these shows nowadays?

So you're telling me you relate to Jedis and Hobbits and superheroes and giant robots destroying Earth or to aliens invading Earth??? A good movie is a good movie no matter what year. I can tell you that The General made in 1926 (yes, 85 years ago) has entertained me more than MOST of today's blockbusters.

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

No those old movies don't suck. You just happen to think they suck. Overall, the movies of that era, even though most came through the studio system which was corrupt in many ways, had better writing, better music and better cinematography than the movies of today, because the people who made them were far more literate than many of today's filmmakers, whose only reference point is other media - which is why so many movies don't do much more than refer to other movies. In addition, films of that era trusted the audience more: they didn't have to give them the big action shot every 10 minutes to keep them interested. Considering that audiences of the past, especially before 1960, were far less formally educated than the audiences of today, that's actually quite remarkable. Think of all the classic novels and historical works that were translated to screen from the 1920s through the 1960s. Yes, the studios also made plenty of horrible movies. But the classics have stood the test of time and are amazing pieces of art in spite of the fact that they were essentially made in factories. Citizen Kane may be one of the finest films ever made. If you can't appreciate that, I actually feel sorry for you.

While I agree that it may be harder for unenlightened people to relate to older films, that doesn't make those films any less valuable from an artistic perspective any more than a novel about the Civil War is less valuable than a modern novel about teenaged vampires.

You can't compare those older films to TV shows like Dick Van Dyke and Leave It To Beaver, which were low budget shows shot in a few days. You ask what family is like that today. Well no family was actually like that then either. Those shows were there to demonstrate a middle class ideal of living so that sponsors could sell the "American dream" to a public ready to consume. They had nothing to do with real life. They had to do with corporate America. Since movies weren't sponsored, they weren't made with those intentions or limitations. (They had different intentions and limitations.)

What many people forget is that Citizen Kane ruined Orson Welles career, for socio-political reasons.

I'm always wondering why people make Citizen Kane as the film about ths significance, when it was really a total condemnation of the uber rich, often considered a promotion to socialist propaganda. This was a fictionalized story of William Randolph Hearst, who was the richest and most powerful man at the time. He started out being a writer of a pretty sleazy paper, then became an empire that fooled the nation. Hearst himself wanted to buy the film for Welles and burn it. Historians often distort the fact about Citizen Kane by calling it the greatest film; it was yes a revolutionary tour de force in film making, and one of my favorite films, but it was very strong socialist propaganda.

I bring this up to remind people why some of these films were made at the time. Many spat at the thought of the rich because many of them pretty obviously take advantage of them. Since the 50's and 60's, now it's ok to make a serious monopolization and expect people to follow.

People did like shows like the Brady bunch and Leave it to Beaver because it was a way to escape into the fantasy of the "middle class" lifestyle. Most people couldn't even touch such a lifestyle. Now we got shows like Family Guy and Two and a Half Men, which aren't at all much different from the fantasy shows of the Brady Bunch, just a little more mean spirited.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

To be honest most old movies suck.

Well of course they do. So do most new movies. And so do most books and so does most music. That's why people who can do even a half-assed job at those things can get rich and famous.

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

Therefore it's harder to relate to older movies as society has rapidly advanced beyond many of the stereotypes that the characters portray.

I have to wonder exactly which 'ancient' movies you're basing this on.

The Hustler? The Apartment? Double Indemnity? The Wizard of Oz?

And lest you be tempted to respond 'well, sure, there are a few exceptions' allow me to offer in advance...

There are quite a bit more than a few.

The classic films you see as exceptions were every bit as much a product of their respective eras as were the pretty good ones and the mediocre ones and the just plain bad ones.

[gallandro]

Originally Posted by mvckalel

So you're telling me you relate to Jedis and Hobbits and superheroes and giant robots destroying Earth or to aliens invading Earth??? A good movie is a good movie no matter what year. I can tell you that The General made in 1926 (yes, 85 years ago) has entertained me more than MOST of today's blockbusters.

QFT! Even though I do love Hobbits and Jedis, the General is far and away one of the greatest screen masterpieces ever!


Yancy

[Ragged_Clown]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

Historians often distort the fact about Citizen Kane by calling it the greatest film; it was yes a revolutionary tour de force in film making, and one of my favorite films, but it was very strong socialist propaganda.

How does naming it "the greatest film" distort anything? Many of the most famous films of the past have had propagandist elements to them. That doesn't necessarily preclude them from being great films.

But calling "Citizen Kane" socialist propaganda is a huge stretch, regardless. To reduce it to a smear campaign on Hearst (who was the film's inspiration, not its subject) or a screed against the "uber-rich" is to, at the very least, greatly oversimplify the film. The movie and the character of Kane are both far too complex and multi-faceted to function as propaganda for anything.

[Banned User]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

To be honest most old movies suck. Just because it was made 50-70 years ago doesn't mean automatic movie gold

I'd say the opposite. To be honest most new movies suck. Very little of the current movies are good enough to survive 50 years.
Most are shallow state of the art CGI firework shows that require little intelligence and are as far removed from cinema as an art form then paintings made of dung.

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

No studio or director back then was trying to fill theater seats in 2011.

That is all the studio's and directors tried to do was fill their cinemas. As far as attendence: even during the depression theater figures were larger then they are now. I can only assume you meant a director from 50 years ago isn't trying to fill a cinema today with his 50 year old movie.

Originally Posted by org.elon.edu/ipe/pautz2.pdf

In 1930 (the earliest year from which accurate and credible data exists), weekly cinema attendance was 80 million people, approximately 65% of the resident U.S. population
However, in the year 2000, that figure was only 27.3 million people, which was a mere 9.7% of the U.S. population

As far as what currently fill's theaters. Popularity doesn't mean squat in a world where a movie like Jack Ass sells out on its debut weekend and most people turn into The Real Housewives of New Jersey rather then pick up a book. There is no accounting for tastes. A movie you may find boring someone else may find fulfilling.

[AFightingPanda]

I think the fact that Citizen Kane has been number 1 on AFI's 100 greatest American movies list for so long is a joke. I say this for 2 reasons.

1. No matter how many great technical achievements and new processes were created during the making of this film it does not make this film better. This film is deserving of its historical significance in the world of film making. But lets not confuse the technical significance of the film and the film itself.

2. Shouldn't the greatest American film be timeless? Personally I think so. I honestly don't understand Citizen Kane. The story device used to tell the story is clumsy at best. The acting is at times grating and pulls me out of the movie. The story is not easily accessible to me or most people I know. I think largely due to both the period the film was made as well as the stories main character. How many of us are ultra rich media moguls? I could never invest myself into this film and frankly I think it is perhaps one of the most over rated films of all time. If we wanted to pick an older film as the greatest film of all time I would vote Casablanca. For the simple fact that that film is still enjoyable to this day. The story revolved around fairly normal people, they could be anyone you or I know. The main character dealing with something everyone has had to deal with at some point. A broken heart. It doesn't get more universal than that and that movie is a far superior film than Citizen Kane in my estimation.

[AutomaticDriver]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

No those old movies don't suck. You just happen to think they suck. Overall, the movies of that era, even though most came through the studio system which was corrupt in many ways, had better writing, better music and better cinematography than the movies of today

Its all opinions. You dont think those old movies suck, and he thinks they do. Every movie is subjective. There are movies I like and think they are great. Yet, you may watch them and think it was the worst movie ever made. But neither of us can say its a fact, either way.

I dont care if a movie won 100 awards, is in 100's of top 10 list,etc. That doesnt make it a fact that the movie is great. The only fact is, a lot of people thought the movie was great.

Maybe I misunderstood this part I quoted you on. If I did, I am sorry. But thats how I understood it.

[Banned User]

Since Amazon reduced the price of Citizen Kane Ultimate edition they should reduce the Amazon Exclusive edition by the same amount unless they want a lot of pre-orders to jump ship. At a $5.00 difference it was worth it for The Magnificant Ambersons DVD. At $10.00 I'm not so sure given its a DVD and there has been no mention of what else is on the disc.

[hedliniv]

Is there any other country that is releasing a blu-ray only version?

[charlieray1]

Originally Posted by octagon

Well of course they do. So do most new movies. And so do most books and so does most music. That's why people who can do even a half-assed job at those things can get rich and famous.

Good point. Most of everything produced then as well as now is of the moment, undeserving of being remembered. However, there are a couple of major differences that you don't point out:

1) The best of today would have a hard time stacking up against the best of the past, especially in numbers. The majority of what's made now aims low -- tons of action, CGI, little thought to character or quality writing. So, while today's best films would compare favorable with the best films of the past, there aren't nearly as many quality films being produced . . . largely because:

2) Movies in general have become much more juvenile. Robots, aliens, superheros -- generally (with exceptions of course) those subjects were serials, kids films or B movie filler. Now ALL the top money making films are nothing but that. How many more superhero films can they make?! Name 5 great dramas from the last year or 2 that are about regular people of the non-flying variety. For every King's Speech there are dozens of Thors. Nothing against popcorn movies, but a little more variety would sure be nice.

Anyone like the poster who said that "old movies suck" is merely displaying his own lack of film knowledge . . . and probably the effect of years of no-attention-span, FX-laden movies.

[Ragged_Clown]

Originally Posted by AFightingPanda

I think the fact that Citizen Kane has been number 1 on AFI's 100 greatest American movies list for so long is a joke. I say this for 2 reasons.

1. No matter how many great technical achievements and new processes were created during the making of this film it does not make this film better. This film is deserving of its historical significance in the world of film making. But lets not confuse the technical significance of the film and the film itself.

2. Shouldn't the greatest American film be timeless? Personally I think so. I honestly don't understand Citizen Kane. The story device used to tell the story is clumsy at best. The acting is at times grating and pulls me out of the movie. The story is not easily accessible to me or most people I know. I think largely due to both the period the film was made as well as the stories main character. How many of us are ultra rich media moguls? I could never invest myself into this film and frankly I think is is perhaps one of the most over rated films of all time. If we wanted to pick an older film as the greatest film of all time I would vote Casablanca. For the simple fact that that film is still enjoyable to this day. The story revolved around fairly normal people, they could be anyone you or I know. The main character dealing with something everyone has had to deal with at some point. A broken heart. It doesn't get more universal than that and that movie is a far superior film than Citizen Kane in my estimation.

Kane didn't really invent or introduce any new techniques, it synthesized and perfected techniques that were already in the air at the time. The formal mastery on display in every department remains absolutely jaw-dropping.

Re: your second point, as previously stated I can't understand the need to identify with the character or milieu of a film, but even if I could, the comparison to Casablanca seems strange. The story of Casablanca, and the characters in it, are far more extraordinary than those of Citizen Kane. Apart from his wealth and status, Kane is very clearly a normal human being (and one who, in his own way, is also dealing with "a broken heart," albeit one derived from the loss of his childhood and family life rather than a romantic love). Perhaps the reason you have trouble relating to him is simply because the film keeps him from being entirely accessible -- there are depths to him that remain hidden or obscured, as signified by the bookending shots of the "No Trespassing" sign on the fence outside Xanadu. But this is part of the design (and, frankly, part of the point) of Kane, not a shortcoming of it.