Citizen Kane (1941) (70th Anniversary Edition)

[Trogdor2010]

Originally Posted by 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.

That was what it was about, and what I was trying to get to. Hearst was that evil man you see. Kane could have been any rich and powerful man, capitalist or socialist. Hearst was the relevant subject. Socialism became the big scare during that time. The media spatted on what the film was about (probably linked to Hearst), and it was rumored why it never won the academy award for best picture because of that.

If you watch enough televison or films, you can see there is alot of glamorizing of royal families and the rich and powerful, even distorting the vision of the "everyday person", and comparing beauty to wealth, and the people that look "beautiful" are the rich and powerful.

[stanleykubrick]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

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

that's a great quote for a framed motivation poster!

[octagon]

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

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

You're kidding, right?

The wealthy and the powerful are stereotypes that will go away with passing generations but Ikea and Starbucks are forever?

Seriously???

(Don't get me wrong, I think Fight Club is a great film but I really don't expect it to age very well - its 'consumer culture' schtick is already starting to seem a bit dated and it's only been a little more than ten years)

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

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.

[bluskies]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

That clip has great depth background.

[garyrc]

Originally Posted by Strevlac

That the shot just posted has such great composition, lighting, depth, and -- yes -- acting -- is a testament to quality of the movie and the talents of Wells and Toland.

As to the opinion that Kane is socialist propaganda, Sight and Sound started listing it as the best film ever made when the Cold War was still raging (1962, I believe), and magazines like S & S had reason to fear censure if they promoted anything to the Left of center. This was the time that Archibald McLeish's essay "To Make Men Free" was removed from my college English reader! Besides, if Citizen Kane is socialist, I'll eat it and get my year's allotment of cellulose!

[ilovenola2]

Originally Posted by lkmg

Would there be a colorized version of this movie like what was done for It's A Wonderful Life and A Miracle On 34th Street...? Maybe then I will purchase this great movie.

On his deathbed, Orson Welles is said to have stated, "Tell Ted Turner to keep his goddamned hands OFF MY MOVIE."

[jacksonwalker]

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 honestly don't understand Citizen Kane.

I think that says it all. Thanks for playing.

[Falconer]

Citizen Kane's cinematography is ridiculously impressing even by today's standards...and it's 70 years old! Quite simply one of the most beautiful, perfectly-shot films ever made. The script is water-tight and the acting is also very strong. The film honestly has not aged. At all. It looks and feels just as fresh today as it ever did.

[grundy]

I owned the 50th anniversary Laserdisc. Saw it in shitty 16mm in film school. Sold the DVD. Cannot wait for this blu.

I'm wondering if the DVD master for Ambersons was already done & then shelved because WB decided it wasn't profitable, then was pulled off the shelf for the Amz exclusive. It will have to suffice, the original cut of Ambersons is probably in a scrap heap in California. If Robert Wise had ANY horse sense, he should have made a dupe negative of Welles' first cut for posterity. And for Welles.

[MrJoeKalel]

Originally Posted by AFightingPanda

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.

The problem then lies with how this new generation perceives characters and their 'coolness' so that they can be liked. Both old and new movies try to make people care for their characters, and some fail some don't. But, how can one take this new generation seriously when they care about 'The Situation' and the Kardashians?

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

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.

Originally Posted by grundy

I owned the 50th anniversary Laserdisc. Saw it in shitty 16mm in film school. Sold the DVD. Cannot wait for this blu.

I'm wondering if the DVD master for Ambersons was already done & then shelved because WB decided it wasn't profitable, then was pulled off the shelf for the Amz exclusive. It will have to suffice, the original cut of Ambersons is probably in a scrap heap in California. If Robert Wise had ANY horse sense, he should have made a dupe negative of Welles' first cut for posterity. And for Welles.

Again, anyone thinking of cancelling the AMZ exclusive and just ordering the 'regular' blu-ray edition which is $10 less? To be honest, I've never seen Ambersons.

[Falconer]

Originally Posted by mvckalel

The problem then lies with how this new generation perceives characters and their 'coolness' so that they can be liked. Both old and new movies try to make people care for their characters, and some fail some don't. But, how can one take this new generation seriously when they care about 'The Situation' and the Kardashians?

A character doesn't have to be "cool" in order for today's generation to relate to them. It's all about the situation they are in and the universal struggles they have to deal with that allow today's viewers to see themselves in the position of the hero.

Sorry, but anyone who can't enjoy a film without seeing the latest trendy wardrobe and hearing the latest hip slang just doesn't like movies. Period.

[Ragged_Clown]

Originally Posted by mvckalel

Again, anyone thinking of cancelling the AMZ exclusive and just ordering the 'regular' blu-ray edition which is $10 less? To be honest, I've never seen Ambersons.

I highly recommend spending the extra money. Ambersons is a beautiful film, one of Welles' best. It's hampered by Tim Holt's very disappointing lead performance and, of course, by the insensitive studio cutting, but it's still a stunner. Until Touch of Evil's relatively recent canonization, it was generally considered second only to Kane among Welles' work. The only DVD releases it's had in the past (a UK edition and a French edition) have been pretty poor, so there's little doubt that this will be the best the film has looked on home video. So $10 is a bargain for it. It's unfortunate that the studio is dumping it like this, after years of promising a superlative special edition, but at least we're finally getting it.

[Kenny_Powers]

i want to get this but not at that price it needs to come down alot b4 ill bite

[TylerDurden]

Originally Posted by octagon

You're kidding, right?

The wealthy and the powerful are stereotypes that will go away with passing generations but Ikea and Starbucks are forever?

Seriously???

(Don't get me wrong, I think Fight Club is a great film but I really don't expect it to age very well - its 'consumer culture' schtick is already starting to seem a bit dated and it's only been a little more than ten years)

Fight Club will forever be in the cult classic genre of films. And I'm really not sure why we are even talking about the movie. Just because it's the character name of my user handle doesn't mean I'm going to defend it to death.

[AddemFlood]

Sorry to crash the thread, but is there any info of this being released in the UK or that it is Reg A locked?

Sucks, as I love the film.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by lkmg

Would there be a colorized version of this movie like what was done for It's A Wonderful Life and A Miracle On 34th Street...? Maybe then I will purchase this great movie.

One of the reasons those particular films got colorized was because the copyrights weren't renewed and they fell into the public domain. So they were released on home video by many different companies and to stand out, they were colorized. That's not the case with Kane.

And while Ted Turner did go ahead and colorize many films for play on his networks, have you noticed that they haven't played the colorized versions in years (although Turner has nothing to do anymore with the company that has his name)?

In Turner's defense, one of the thing he said at the time was that in the process of colorizing the films, he was also preserving the originals. That shouldn't be taken lightly. 50% of all films released before 1950 are lost forever.

But I am very glad that it's become very rare to see a colorized film broadcast.

[nametag]

Originally Posted by AddemFlood

Sorry to crash the thread, but is there any info of this being released in the UK or that it is Reg A locked?

Sucks, as I love the film.

I'm sure it'll happen, but no news as for yet as far as a UK release is concerned. The UK DVD releases were Paramount (who presumably have the rights here), this US release is Warners. If Warners had worldwide rights then I'm sure we'd see them release it over here soonish.

On the plus side, it's very likely to be region free as it's a Warner release. Might want to wait for extra confirmation though because there have been a few instances (Deadwood comes to mind) where they haven't held worldwide releases on things and have region-locked as a result.

[AddemFlood]

Originally Posted by nametag

I'm sure it'll happen, but no news as for yet as far as a UK release is concerned. The UK DVD releases were Paramount (who presumably have the rights here), this US release is Warners. If Warners had worldwide rights then I'm sure we'd see them release it over here soonish.

On the plus side, it's very likely to be region free as it's a Warner release. Might want to wait for extra confirmation though because there have been a few instances (Deadwood comes to mind) where they haven't held worldwide releases on things and have region-locked as a result.

Thanks mate.

BTW off-topic, is your avatar one of the posters for Eternal Sunshine?

[Boob-Ray]

Originally Posted by Kenny_Powers

i want to get this but not at that price it needs to come down alot b4 ill bite

Me too. While $40 is steep for one movie, this is an "Ultimate Collector's Edition." Nevertheless, it's too steep for me to blind-buy without some eyewitness reviews. This is Warners we're talking about, not Sony or Criterion.

If it were Universal, it would be easy: no buy. 40 bux is too much to waste on a wax facsimile of a great film.