CITIZEN KANE... what crap!

Hehe...true, although I'm reading a book that suggests that auteur theory was more applicable to producers than directors, at least during the studio era. Quite controversial...and boring....

Anyhow, Casablanca should not be dismissed so sorry if I sound like I'm dismissing it. It rocks! Curtiz is great, too.

Oh, and speaking of Ingrid Bergman, I touched one of her Oscars. That sounds filthy somehow.
 
About Casablanca, I really did think that it was very over rated. I couldn't see anything appealling in it at all. Very dull and false IMO.

I hate William Shakespeare the most though!

About the judge thing, I originally put it in "speech" marks, but IE buggered up and I had to re-type the post, and couldn't be bothered to do it again - that's why I wrote a formula instead of typing :)
 
I don't see CK as being all that groundbreaking in it's technical aspects, to be honest. Look at Bride of Frankenstein (1935). I think that was leaps and bounds beyond Kane in all aspects.
 
I am a big fan of Welles, yet CK is not my favorite Welles film, I like Touch of Evil and The Trial better. Though don't get my wrong I like Kane. Even beyond the technical innovation aspects. I think that it an interesting story. Trying to understand a person's life, especially a person as complicated as Charles Foster Kane, in context of their last word is such a great framework for a film. In many ways, CK redefines the Tragedy, and may be more influencial in it's redefining a dramatic form than as an example of great cinema. Of course, the politics of the film are more than a tad bit simplistic, but that is where you have to place the movie in context of the times it was made.

My favorite scene in the movie is where Everett Sloane, as Mr. Bernstein, describes seeing a girl in a white dress on the ferry in 1919. He says that he never goes a week without thinking about that girl. I think that this is a tremendous insight in to the nature of the human character.

Of course you have to love a film that uses the pet name William Randolph Hearst's had for his girlfiend's female genitalia as it's primary plot device. That's right, "rosebud" was Marion Davies p***y!. You gotta love that.
 
hey mmm, in the final analysis maybe you're right. but i think that method for judging films might put movies like vin diesel's "pacifier" and stallone's "cliffhanger" ahead of movies like "fargo".
 
Good Will Hunting was worthy of many of it's accolades....but it was and still is a *tad* overrated. Was Titanic better? :grin:

~reservoir~
 
The first time I saw Citizen Kane was at a theatre in LA when it was rereleased in the early 90's and I was blown away. Fantastic movie, hard to believe he was 25.
 
I saw the restored version on the big screen at about the same tiime at the Michigan Theatre in Ann Arbor Michigan. I was with my fiance at the time. She fell asleep. We did not get married. Wow, that was a close one!!!
 
brianluce said:
it's one of the movies you feel compelled to be in awe of because everyone tells you how great it is.
Click to expand...

You should never feel compelled to be in awe of anything because of what others think. Particularly if what makes it great to others is non-comprehensible to you.
 
I can't agree with the art reference since you may love Piccaso and someone else prefer Monet. Art is subjective. I am not dissing Welles or Citizen Kane. I just don't like the movie. It was I am quite sure revolutionary in its time. I look back on films I loved growing up and they seem silly to me now including Leone's westerns. Times change.

I understand Citizen Kanes value as a work of study to film schools but how often are you putting it your dvd and playing it? In twenty years Pulp Fiction may be tough to sit thru and the students of craft may rise to its defense in the same manner.

ON ART:
I would not ask someone to not call themselves a musician because they play jazz by ear. Is B.B. King an artist? He barely knows any chords after all. Some of you may not like Jazz, that doesn't mean it isn't art. Artists are found everywhere by those willing to open their eyes and ears. Somewhere in the wilds of Africa a great musician is beating out a rythmm and somewhere some kid with a camcorder is becoming the next Steven Spielberg. A 25 year old Orson Welles made a movie that will be talked about for centurys after he is gone and many of our little films will be quickly forgotten. That doesn't make him any more artist than anyone else just a better one.
 
brianluce said:
hey mmm, in the final analysis maybe you're right. but i think that method for judging films might put movies like vin diesel's "pacifier" and stallone's "cliffhanger" ahead of movies like "fargo".
Click to expand...

I dunno, try and find the figures, you'd be surprised! Remember you are dividing by the advertising budget... not just minusing, that makes all the difference. To be honest, I probably enjoyed Cliffhanger more than Fargo anyway. Both good films. The Pacifier played very well to its target audience as well.
 
"However, if all of the films that influence your craft are popular culture vehicles and you do not introduce the influences of drama, literature or art and you do not strive to use these elements, please, do not call yourself an artist."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

this is wrong from nearly every angle. aesthetically, logically, every which way. and who put you in charge of who gets to call themselves an artist? you cannot bottle art--apply a bunch do's and dont's cans and can'ts. art absolutely can exist in a vacuum or it can spring from the influences of anyone from orson welles to pauley shore--from gabriel garcia marquez to cheech marin.
 
wouldn't it be more fair to subtract the marketing budget rather than divide by it? what's the thinking there?

what does mofr stand for?
 
brianluce said:
wouldn't it be more fair to subtract the marketing budget rather than divide by it? what's the thinking there?

what does mofr stand for?
Click to expand...

No, you have to divide, otherwise Titanic is the best film ever...no but seriously, it then removes inflation from the question. ALSO, if you only subtract, you are suggesting than $1million marketing will only give you $1million more in gross - if that was the case, marketing would be a complete waste of time! Try a few films with it and you will see how well it works! It is hard to get it to work with classics, because you need to find the total gross of all their sales over time.

MOFR = Mmm's Objective Film Rating :cheesy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top