Citizen Kane (1941) (70th Anniversary Edition)

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by Ragged_Clown

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.

Using the term "Grestest film" is an objective term usually and that is an distortion of opinion based on the individual, but I'm not that interested in talking about that. You might as well call Gone with the Wind the greatest film about a selfish little *****, which I would agree to. I will comment about why it can be socialist propaganda, which I agree it is a bit of a stretch.

If you remember the scene where

[Show spoiler]we enter into his childhood?

[Show spoiler]It brings us to a happy child riding on his snowboard (we later realize is rosebud), when a company decided to take him to a bording and he will be educated and inherit a nice fortune. He was terrified and saddened of this decision, despite his father being a mean drunk who beats him. Then we enter into another christmas living in a nice home, where he gets the snowboard that is even better built than Rosebud, but he appears clearly very bitter.

The use of Rosebud is obviously a reminder of a childhood and his family he never seen since he left. He became consumed in little, redudant things wealth was suppose to promise, and even the greatest of wealth cannot slake his lust. This is the argument that socialist and communist often criticize about capitalism and it's lesser systems (like monarchs, plutocracy, despotism, theocracy, etc.); men become consumed by the power of power (wealth is it's topic) because it is temptation, which is actually a very common trait in storytelling, it's even written in the Bible, although it is apparently politically correct to call it socialist propaganda if it was to criticize the uber rich.

Kane isn't that complex of a character really, he is a man consumed by wealth, and fooled the world, and his humanity sucked out of him, like any king would. He IS AND the people that let him be are the villains of the whole thing.

[stanleykubrick]

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?

and in 2040, someone will post your exact same post, arguing why Fight Club is "old" and sucks.

[MrJoeKalel]

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 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.

1. It was both.

2. Again, so you're telling me that you relate to Hobbits? To Jedi? To Superman? Spider-man? Thor? Aliens? How many times has Earth been invaded by aliens? Your perfect and most liked movie could be The Dark Knight, so you identify yourself because you're a vigilante? Because you're rich??

[TylerDurden]

Originally Posted by stanleykubrick

and in 2040, someone will post your exact same post, arguing why Fight Club is "old" and sucks.

Multiple personality disorder is not a stereotype that will go away with passing generations. Unlike marrying a millionaire.

[Ragged_Clown]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

Using the term "Grestest film" is an objective term usually and that is an distortion of opinion based on the individual

I don't disagree with that, but I'm not sure I see the connection between this and the main point you were offering in your post.

[Show spoiler]
Kane isn't that complex of a character really, he is a man consumed by wealth, and fooled the world, and his humanity sucked out of him, like any king would. He IS AND the people that let him be are the villains of the whole thing.

[Show spoiler]
I think this is a major misreading of Kane, the character. There remains an ambiguity about him, which allows for readings such as this, but I don't think it's well-supported by Kane's behavior throughout the picture. He never really appears to be "consumed by wealth" or to have an insatiable hunger for wealth. This can be seen in the very first scene with the "adult Kane," in which he, as an idealistic youth, seems perfectly content with his paper losing him a million dollars per year.

Power is another matter, of course, but the film -- and several of the characters who give their perspective on Kane -- makes the point numerous times that the reason Kane behaves as he does isn't because he's hungry for power or wealth so much as because he's hungry for love, stemming from the feelings of abandonment that resulted from the loss of his childhood/family. The reason Rosebud was on his mind at his death is because that day is the pivotal moment of his life. The fact that he still looks back longingly and with regret on that moment at the very end of his life should suggest, despite his alienation from the world, that he's still filled with humanity.

[TylerDurden]

Well at least the Writer's Guild got it right and gave the #1 screenplay of all time to Casablanca.

[octagon]

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.

I don't really put much stock in exactly where a title lands on the AFI list (a list I love, btw). Winnowing all American film down to a 'top 100' is tricky enough without putting those 100 films in some precise 'this is better than that' order.

Originally Posted by AFightingPanda

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.

Films like Snow White and Star Wars and Kane weren't simply innovative - they changed the way films were made. That's pretty rare. Is that kind of innovation alone enough to render a film great? Probably not. But it's certainly relevant.

Originally Posted by AFightingPanda

2. Shouldn't the greatest American film be timeless? Personally I think so.

[Show spoiler] 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.

What aspect of Kane isn't timeless? The manipulation of the media? Betrayal? Redemption? The rise and fall of a classically tragic figure?

I'll grant you Casablanca is probably more accessible in a lot of ways but that's not because CK hasn't aged as well. I think it's held up and then some.

[blonde_devil]

just one word on the coloring of b/w movies - remember that coloring them can cause issues. the blood in Psycho was not really red - it was chocolate syrup or something like that. because they were filming in b/w, they could do things that they could not do in color film simply because the color wasn't important but if you try and colorize it now, you could have some real work to do to make it look right. i am not 100% against colorizing b/w films simply because for older films it was not a choice but the standard. who is to say that if they could have use color film they wouldn't have? i think if it was the director's choice then it should be respected but i think there were very few cases like that and it was more just a matter of technology at the time. i know there are people who won't watch b/w movies because they associate it with old so if colorizing then would get people to watch it, i don't have a huge issue with it. i just think both options should be available and not have the color version become the only one out there.

on a side note, the theatre here is doing a classic movie night in September and this is it (2 nights actually). looking forward to seeing it.

[Douglas R]

Originally Posted by 3DForLife

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.

One person's opinion is subjective but 100 people's opinion against one is not. There are certain convergencies of opinion which provide us with an objective standard against which films can be judged.

[enzolt]

Well we learn more about Kane from his close friends and associates though. The whole movie is about recollections about Kane. And as with word of mouth, nothing is truly concrete in that memories can fade. There were certain scenes where the obscurity and uncertainty is shown both from dialogue and the cinematography.

It's been a while since I watched Citizen Kane though; not to mention I only watched it once. But I remember a bit from having to write a paper about it for film class.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Trogdor2010

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 don't know whether I agree that it was socialist propaganda (no character in the film proposes anything of a socialistic nature), but even if it was, that's what made it a great film - it was ABOUT something. In addition, regardless of what it was about, it was great storytelling and it had incredible cinematography with wonderful sets, lighting, shadows, use of deep focus and other stylistic elements borrowed from German expressionism.

The fact that Hearst wanted the film burned makes it an even more interesting film. And the fact that it ruined Welles career is besides the point - all that means is that he didn't make the usual commercial Hollywood film and that he was considered hard to work with, not that it wasn't a great film.

[AFightingPanda]

Originally Posted by mvckalel

1. It was both.

2. Again, so you're telling me that you relate to Hobbits? To Jedi? To Superman? Spider-man? Thor? Aliens? How many times has Earth been invaded by aliens? Your perfect and most liked movie could be The Dark Knight, so you identify yourself because you're a vigilante? Because you're rich??

I am saying the films that have true staying power have relate-able characters. The dark knight is pure escapism as well as most superhero films. But I would take exception to the idea of spider-man not being relate-able. I mean who cant relate to Reter Parker? a kid in high school who never gets noticed except to be harassed and who has a crush on a girl who is way out of his league? I think everyone has felt that way at some point. The loss of a loved one, I think most people have lost someone at some point. These are very good anchor points to hang the rest of the film around. Now granted large sections of the film are just spectacle but the core character is someone we all know and can relate to.

Honestly though a huge part of understanding a character is being brought into their situation and their world. No matter how outlandish a characters situation may be if you can show their humanity in a real tangible way through the film you can make people care about that character. Now maybe the point of citizen kane was to keep the audience an outsider but the fact is that it has a polarizing effect on the audience. By the time the film ends I don't care about what rosebud is because I am not invested in the character.

[Banned User]

So any movie that shows the folly of a rich person or the shallowness of his life due to pursuit of power is anti Capitalist propaganda? It could just as easily been a condemnation of the ruthless pursuit of power or the destructiveness of ones own elevated ego. There are just as many powerfully rich aristocrats and/or politician's in socialist countries. Matter a fact the character inherits his wealth through his dead mothers land holdings where a apparently worthless piece of property is found to have the "world's third largest gold mine". Not through traditional capital ventures.

I see the movie as more an assault on Hearst from a young provocative Welles who probably despised Hearst on many grounds. The idea of the movie as "A biography about a man's life shown after his death through the memories and people who knew him best" was decided long before Hearst was chosen as the subject. Screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz said they at first were going to use Howard Hughes. Obviously if the film was about a powerful man living a lonely existence it had to be someone who was wealthy and powerful. Only the screenwriter and Welles knew the exact motivation behind the story. I highly doubt their motivation was purely political or so single layered and simplistic. The characters longing for 'Rosebud' was even more a slap in the face of Hearst considering the rumored meaning of the word.

Hearst was probably the most manipulative and ruthless person in that age. Changing public opinion in his papers how he saw fit. Even causing a war. A man absorbed with his own meglomania.

IMO your argument seems to suggest any character study of a wealthy person is automatically a attack on capitalism.

[Ragged_Clown]

Originally Posted by AFightingPanda

Honestly though a huge part of understanding a character is being brought into their situation and their world. No matter how outlandish a characters situation may be if you can show their humanity in a real tangible way through the film you can make people care about that character. Now maybe the point of citizen kane was to keep the audience an outsider but the fact is that it has a polarizing effect on the audience. By the time the film ends I don't care about what rosebud is because I am not invested in the character.

Kane remains something of a riddle at the end of the film, but I don't think it's fair to say the audience is an outsider. The film refuses to give a pat, simplistic psychological portrait of Kane, but there is enough information imparted to allow the audience to speculate about him, much like the characters in the film do. But the characterization is far more subtle than in most pictures. In Casablanca (a film I love, btw, so don't misinterpret this comparison as a criticism), Rick is established as a wounded romantic by obvious exposition (such as Claude Rains helpfully going over his backstory for the audience and calling him an idealist). Everything there is to know about the character is available to the audience with no effort and no ambiguity. Kane is a more complex character and Welles observes him with more subtlety. Note the scene where he first meets Susan -- he mentions he was on his way to a warehouse that was storing some of his childhood belongings. Notice also his reaction when Susan casually says something about "You know how mothers are." Kane is visibly affected by the remark, replying "Yes..." before quickly changing the subject. Incidents like this say a great deal about the character if the audience puts forth the effort to notice and interpret them.

[TylerDurden]

The innovations Welles made with narrative, as well as the dark message at the heart of the film (that the pursuit of success is ultimately futile) meant that a popular audience could not appreciate its merits.

The Chief: The Life of William Randolph Hearst, David Nasaw.

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by Ragged_Clown

I don't disagree with that, but I'm not sure I see the connection between this and the main point you were offering in your post.

[Show spoiler]
I think this is a major misreading of Kane, the character. There remains an ambiguity about him, which allows for readings such as this, but I don't think it's well-supported by Kane's behavior throughout the picture. He never really appears to be "consumed by wealth" or to have an insatiable hunger for wealth. This can be seen in the very first scene with the "adult Kane," in which he, as an idealistic youth, seems perfectly content with his paper losing him a million dollars per year.

Power is another matter, of course, but the film -- and several of the characters who give their perspective on Kane -- makes the point numerous times that the reason Kane behaves as he does isn't because he's hungry for power or wealth so much as because he's hungry for love, stemming from the feelings of abandonment that resulted from the loss of his childhood/family. The reason Rosebud was on his mind at his death is because that day is the pivotal moment of his life. The fact that he still looks back longingly and with regret on that moment at the very end of his life should suggest, despite his alienation from the world, that he's still filled with humanity.

[Show spoiler]You made some very good points. I found that is his consumption of power blinded him from what he really want, which was love. He was a scarred man, but he ended up turned into the monster no one wanted.

[stanleykubrick]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

Multiple personality disorder is not a stereotype that will go away with passing generations. Unlike marrying a millionaire.

nice to see you have a crystal ball on 21st century genetic medicine. don't tell anyone what you know!! just invest and make $$$ on it!!!

[Kamdan]

Originally Posted by prkprkprk

‪Assault on Citizen Kane‬‏ - YouTube

Skip to 5:41 to see how horrible the colorization of Citizen Kane would've been.

Oh, my God. The last reel of Citizen Kane was actually colorized? I thought it was never done.

[TylerDurden]

Originally Posted by stanleykubrick

nice to see you have a crystal ball on 21st century genetic medicine. don't tell anyone what you know!! just invest and make $$$ on it!!!

No medication will stop the human mind from imagining what it wants to.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by 3DForLife

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.

I don't agree with the view that everyone's opinion is equal just as I don't agree that everyone argues with equal legitimacy. There are opinions ("I think this whatever sucks") and there are opinions backed by persuasive arguments, facts and hundreds of years of intellectual history as to what constitutes legitimate criticism of the arts. That's the difference between some barely literate idiot writing a web review and the film criticism of a James Agee (who also wrote The African Queen), Andrew Sarris or a Pauline Kael, among others. There's a reason why some journalists are just hacks and others win the Pulitzer Prize. And I say that even though I've frequently disagreed with the top critics.

While one can still disagree with the experts in the field, when a preponderance of qualified reviewers and historians who have spent years studying film maintain with persuasive arguments that Citizen Kane is among the best movies ever made, I think it's reasonable to accept that as "fact", just as I think that when a preponderance of legitimate art critics and historians feel that Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel or Da Vinci's Mona Lisa is among the greatest art ever created, we can accept that as fact as well.

That doesn't stop anyone from saying, "Well, I hate the Mona Lisa; I think she's ugly and I wouldn't want that painting in my house," but without other arguments, I would think that person is a moron.

If someone says, "in spite of the accolades for Citizen Kane, I don't think it's a good movie" and backs that up with arguments (for example) that demonstrate flaws in the plot, scenes that are over-acted, editing that doesn't work, cinematography that emphasizes the wrong characters, etc., then they have a legitimate argument that I will listen to, even if I disagree. But to say that an acclaimed film "sucks", simply because someone can't relate to older black & white films that weren't designed to be viewed by violent video game addicts with attention-deficit disorder and who don't read literature or history (and I'm not saying that the person I responded to fits that description), I don't consider that a legitimate argument and their opinion is not as valid (in my opinion LOL) as someone who presents legitimate arguments that express a knowledge of art and the history of film.

There are times when someone posts an opinion of a film and I disagree and I'm inclined to post my opinion. But unless I can express a persuasive argument as to why I think I'm correct, I don't bother posting.

We live in a democratic society where we want to believe that everyone's opinion is equal. That's how we wind up with politicians who don't even know what's in the Constitution. But IMO, everyone's opinion is not equal.