Hate Citizen Kane? Think The Godfather is overrated? It's okay, you're among friends

timbook2 said:
I am now living in Germany where this has become a major selling part of private tv stations. Its a fake documentary and pretends to be real documentary but its scripted, thus scripted reality. everybody hates it but the daily quotes show that its watched by millions. these millions must be the ones from the old italian saying: la mama dei imbecilli e sempre in cinta:-)
Click to expand...

Ah I see what you mean. I thought you meant any kind of film that tries to come of as realistic. Something like Before Sunrise sprung to mind.
 
kylevant said:
I've always been saying it: You need to watch the classics in-context.

I enjoyed Citizen Kane, purely because I've taught myself to watch older things in context? Possibly. But nonetheless, I still wouldn't rate it "the best film of all time". Literally, there are countless essays and articles describing it as the "best film ever made". You can't do that, not while taking into consideration what filmmakers have made over the last 70 years (curve balls aside). In fact, I don't think one can say any film is "the best film ever made"; that doesn't do justice to the many great films out there, old and new.
Click to expand...
I don't really care about context when evaluating the classics. A classic is timeless by definition, so if it doesn't stand up today, it really isn't a classic.

Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Casablanca, The Third Man, The Wizard of Oz, Jaws, Lawrence of Arabia, Singing in the Rain, It's a Wonderful Life etc are all classic films, in my opinion, that stand up perfectly well in all respects (enjoyability, emotion, humor, etc).

No context needed to appreciate them. And I was born in 1985 by the way, so those films are all long before my time.
 
agcohn said:
I don't really care about context when evaluating the classics. A classic is timeless by definition, so if it doesn't stand up today, it really isn't a classic.
Click to expand...
That argument doesn't really work though because trends come and go and come back again.

For instance, in the 1970's, a lot of exploitation films were made.
In the 1980's, slashers became trendy and hip, and what had previously been basically advanced giallos turned into what we know today as slashers. Also, macho action films with Stallone, Van Damme and Schwarzenegger became big.
By the early 1990's, everyone was sick of slashers, and Stallone & co started making films like Judge Dredd, Knock-Off and Eraser. Films that were bloated and not very fun. The Jason and Freddy films had also outstayed their welcome. You can only make so many films in one series and other genres started becoming trendy and hip.
Kevin Williamson started up a short lived wave of post-slashers like Scream, Urban Legends and I Know What You Did Last Summer, but none of these took off the way the slashers of old did.

Now all this stuff is being re-discovered through nostalgia and they're once again classics. First the exploitation wave got a resurgance and then the slashers and macho action movies.

These things come in waves, so you can't say any classic is timeless by definition. 30 years ago, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was one of the most hated films around. Today it's an absolute classic. In 30 years, A Serbian Film and Human Centipede might be classics for the same reason.
 
nickmarshallvfx said:
I watched 2001 (bought it actually) because a few people who's work i really admire and who's opinions I respect cited it as a major influence on them and their work and said it was their favourite all time movie. I found it to be incredibly slow, largely incomprehensible, and with no character development.
Click to expand...

Slow? Yes, but then it took millions of years for humans to develop, and develop intelligence.
Slow? It takes something like 7 years to travel to Jupiter (at non-light speed) as Bowman was doing.

Incomprehensible? Very possible, especially when dealing with themes and concepts (as opposed to "story"), such as (in their most literal sense) advanced lifeforms placing a monolith on Earth that would "spark" intelligence in early hominids.
And that such a monolith placed on the Moon, would emit a signal alerting the previous visitors that humans had reached the moon, were traveling in space, and figured out that the signal was sent to Jupiter and would warrant further investigation? Where the third monolith would end up sending them... somewhere?

Maybe it needs a second viewing, i dont know...
Click to expand...
Highly recommended. I would place 2001 in the top 3 of all films of all time.
It's supposed to be challenging, because what it's exploring is the incomprehensible, as seen by a bug-eyed, uncomprehending Bowman... who sees himself dying, and is then reborn, as... something else?

Come on, this isn't the world of space cowboys and light sabres, people! Use your imagination- Kubrick damn sure did!

Perfect? Of course not, but Kubrick was attempting something on the scale of the cosmos, asking why and how we're here, and where are we going...

I first saw it at age 11 when it came out. I had no idea what it was about, but knew it was breaking new territory for film, and sparked my interest in working in the field.
 
Last edited:
Jawa Ex Machina said:
That argument doesn't really work though because trends come and go and come back again.

For instance, in the 1970's, a lot of exploitation films were made.
In the 1980's, slashers became trendy and hip, and what had previously been basically advanced giallos turned into what we know today as slashers. Also, macho action films with Stallone, Van Damme and Schwarzenegger became big.
By the early 1990's, everyone was sick of slashers, and Stallone & co started making films like Judge Dredd, Knock-Off and Eraser. Films that were bloated and not very fun. The Jason and Freddy films had also outstayed their welcome. You can only make so many films in one series and other genres started becoming trendy and hip.
Kevin Williamson started up a short lived wave of post-slashers like Scream, Urban Legends and I Know What You Did Last Summer, but none of these took off the way the slashers of old did.

Now all this stuff is being re-discovered through nostalgia and they're once again classics. First the exploitation wave got a resurgance and then the slashers and macho action movies.

These things come in waves, so you can't say any classic is timeless by definition. 30 years ago, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was one of the most hated films around. Today it's an absolute classic. In 30 years, A Serbian Film and Human Centipede might be classics for the same reason.
Click to expand...
I think you are trying to call too many films "classics".

By the very definition of the word, a classic has to be timeless. It has nothing to do with trends. A classic work does not rely on trends to be understood.

Beethoven will be listened to for thousands of years, because his works do not rely on context to be appreciated. The Wizard of Oz will be watched for as long as movies exist, because it does not depend on context to be appreciated.
 
agcohn said:
I think you are trying to call too many films "classics".

By the very definition of the word, a classic has to be timeless. It has nothing to do with trends. A classic work does not rely on trends to be understood.

Beethoven will be listened to for thousands of years, because his works do not rely on context to be appreciated. The Wizard of Oz will be watched for as long as movies exist, because it does not depend on context to be appreciated.
Click to expand...
What makes you think The Texas Chainsaw Massacre won't continue to be watched? It helped not only create a subgenre, but also had such a cultural impact that it made an entire genre of films get completely banned for the better part of 20 years in some western countries. It had arguably a bigger impact on film, and censorship in film, than any film since.
Leatherface, Michael Myers, Jason and Freddy are classic icons of modern horror the way Dracula and Frankenstein became in the 1930's and later in the Hammer years. Every kid knows who Jason is without having seen any of the films.

People still watch and talk about the 1930's Universal monster films, and in 100 years if film is still around they'll still watch and talk about slashers.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
What makes you think The Texas Chainsaw Massacre won't continue to be watched? It helped not only create a subgenre, but also had such a cultural impact that it made an entire genre of films get completely banned for the better part of 20 years in some western countries. It had arguably a bigger impact on film, and censorship in film, than any film since.
Leatherface, Michael Myers, Jason and Freddy are classic icons of modern horror the way Dracula and Frankenstein became in the 1930's and later in the Hammer years. Every kid knows who Jason is without having seen any of the films.

People still watch and talk about the 1930's Universal monster films, and in 100 years if film is still around they'll still watch and talk about slashers.
Click to expand...
I never said that it wouldn't. I haven't seen the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, so I don't have an opinion on whether it is a classic or not.

I'm pretty sure that 30 years ago Texas Chainsaw Massacre wasn't hated because of its story, but because it was too graphic, the same way that audiences hated The Wild Bunch when they first saw it. But if the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre is still being watched hundred of years from now, I think it will be because of effective story-telling, not because of whatever graphic violence repulsed the original audiences who saw it (haven't seen it so I'm talking out of my ass).
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
What makes you think The Texas Chainsaw Massacre won't continue to be watched?
Click to expand...

Continuing to find an audience decades after release, and being generally accepted as being a "classic" are two very different things. I would say that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is considered a classic of its genre, but to say it's a classic when we consider American cinema in general (say the way The Wizard of Oz is), is kind of stretching it.
 
nickmarshallvfx said:
Haha, perhaps this is where I failed then, it was doomed before I ever hit play! On next viewing I will be sure to take your advice and load up on any and all hallucinogenic narcotics I can lay my hands on! ;)
Click to expand...

Just so long as it is clear I'm not advocating 'indiscriminate drug use'...

There's probably some 'PG-13' rule that I would be violating otherwise...
 
timbook2 said:
:-)))))
I just watched "Night Moves" where Hackman says "I saw a Rohmer film once. It was kinda like watching paint dry."
2001 is nowhere near that and one of my favourite movies which I saw when it came out. If you understand the idea of HAL, watch Alien and maybe find a parallel in the android....
Click to expand...

Well, "Prometheus"(2012) had a clearer HAL mirror... in the android named David...

These days most people would go 'huh?', but the One Step to the Left shift of IBM, into HAL... well it was great in its day...

These days who cares about folding, spindling, or mutilating punch cards...
 
"just as "Touch of Evil"(1958) has many elements that are worthy of 'consideration' for modern film making,"

Should be required viewing if you ever intend to use the words "noir" to describe one of your films.
 
Well for me, the first would have to be Citizen Kane. I mean, I just found it so boring that the only time I was excited was when it finally ended. Second, I recently just watched Casablanca and I really did not understand all the acclaim it received :/
 
I just don't understand how a filmmakers could not enjoy Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil. I could understand if my mother would be bored however.
 
robmneilson said:
I just don't understand how a filmmakers could not enjoy Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil. I could understand if my mother would be bored however.
Click to expand...
Because I like movies that move me, make me cry or laugh, or action films that entertain me. Citizen kane isn't one of those, I find it slow, obviously I can also think that an abstract painting costing upwards 1mil$ is boring and overrated. Can I learn something as a filmmaker from citizen kane? yes, do I like the movie? no. And It happens the same with apocalypse now, can you learn from it, sure you do! Do I like it, no! why, it is long and slow, something I hate from movies!
 
First, I want to say I've watched MANY of the classic films and ENJOYED them. I didn't see an Alfred Hitchcock film until I read a biography on him. Pretty much have seen all his work and now I am a fan.

I am not a fan of Kubrick.
Never saw the "Godfather" series (not sure why, just never got around to it).
Never saw "Gone With the Wind" (not sure why...).
Never saw "Taxi Driver" (not sure why...).

I tried to watch "Citizen Kane" because of its importance in American Film History. I turned that movie off after 10 minutes! Oh, good Lord I was bored to ever-loving tears. I totally DISLIKED that movie.

Too many movies I like but I'll name a few classics:

1. Stage Door
2. Thin Man (all of 'em)
3. Roman Holiday
4. Sisters (think that's what it was called)

@Postmaster - Have you seen these French films:

1. Entre Nous
2. My Mother's Castle
3. My Father's Glory
4. Au Revoir Les Enfants (freakin'g cried on this one)
5. My Other Husband (funny, love Miou-Miou)
6. East/West

I do like "Shamshawk Redemption" and "Die Hard" and "Terminator II" and so and so on.

We like what we like, we don't what we don't. No institution is going to TELL US that just because that movie is the BEST movie on their 100 list that we SHOULD like it too.

Did I mention I really, really didn't like "Citizen Kane?"
 
Just flicked through this French film: Le mépris [1963]
It is considered a "milestone" and Raoul Coutard - the DP - is considered a "legend".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBO6NVgQiOA

Well that milestone bored me to death - no story, just a bunch of people arguing the whole time.
The DP's work also failed to impress me - most TV series show more sophisticated camera work.

Nobody was ever able to tell me, why exactly that would be such a milestone and what
exactly Raoul Coutard did there to make him a "legend".
 
Postmaster said:
Just flicked through this French film: Le mépris [1963]
It is considered a "milestone" and Raoul Coutard - the DP - is considered a "legend".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBO6NVgQiOA

Well that milestone bored me to death - no story, just a bunch of people arguing the whole time.
The DP's work also failed to impress me - most TV series show more sophisticated camera work.

Nobody was ever able to tell me, why exactly that would be such a milestone and what
exactly Raoul Coutard did there to make him a "legend".
Click to expand...

I contemplated suicide as I watched that movie in film school, in a hot auditorium with an extremely uncomfortable chair. I'm sure it will be playing in a loop in my version of hell.
 
Postmaster said:
Just flicked through this French film: Le mépris [1963]
It is considered a "milestone" and Raoul Coutard - the DP - is considered a "legend".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBO6NVgQiOA

Well that milestone bored me to death - no story, just a bunch of people arguing the whole time.
The DP's work also failed to impress me - most TV series show more sophisticated camera work.

Nobody was ever able to tell me, why exactly that would be such a milestone and what
exactly Raoul Coutard did there to make him a "legend".
Click to expand...

While I never attended a formal 'film analysis' class my self... I did take notes for the Wife when she attended... so, that means I vicariously got the lectures as well...

Fortunately, the 'french' prof, was very much taken with Scorsese ("Raging Bull"(1980) 'recent' at the time...), and apparently didn't have much of 'un certain regard' for his own countrymen's efforts, other than some pillars... which I had already seen in the local art house years before... "Alphaville"(1965) was one.

So seeing "Raging Bull" or the 'almost Scorsese' film, "Honeymoon Killers"... was not really a problem.

There was this french porn film that one scene included a strategically placed stick of dynamite... but I can't recall the name...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top