Citizen Kane: A Cinematic Argument

**CosmicPal** · 05-07-2006, 11:27 AM

OK...I have to admit, I've never seen this classic film- regarded by some honchos to be the greatest film ever. I did have my chance in high school journalism class when the class was forced to watch it. I, ahem, fell asleep during the movie. (Hey, high school, vaps a lot of energy out of you.)

Anyways, I am thinking of watching it again. But, before I do, I wanted to know what those who have seen it- think of it. Why is it such a great film? Please, share your thoughts and arguments. I'll get a bowl of popcorn.

Demonpenz · 05-07-2006, 11:28 AM

I would watch the tiny toons version of it.

4th and Long · 05-07-2006, 11:28 AM

Rosebud.

jspchief · 05-07-2006, 11:35 AM

Jenson will be here shortly to jack off to this thread.

'Hamas' Jenkins · 05-07-2006, 11:39 AM

It's considered great b/c Orson Welles was 24 when he made the goddamned thing. He does a lot of experimental cinematographic techniques like distressing the film stock, and always showing Kane in low angle shots to make him seem larger and more ominous. It's "shot" very well, but in all honesty it doesn't hold up over time.

FAX · 05-07-2006, 11:41 AM

I've watched this film many, many times, Mr. CosmicPal. It's been in my library forever.

Although it is always only found in the eye of the beholder, the film is awash with symbolism. These connotations and references are established by every means including the storyline, the soundtrack, and the visual representations (including lots of specials which most people rarely notice) used throughout. It can also be viewed and interpreted as allegory.

I think those are some of the reasons that film schools study the film so much. But, I like it because it’s a good story. Basically, the fat guy had plenty of money and creative freedom on this film and he put both to good use.

I hope you enjoy it.

FAX

**cdcox** · 05-07-2006, 11:44 AM

You have to bring some perspecitve to CK if you are going to appreciate it. If 99% of the movies you've seen were shot in the last 30 years, you're not going to think its anything great. Even more so if you prefer comedies and action movies to dramas. If you've liked Casablanca, some Hitchcock, and a few other movies from that period, you'll probably like CK. To appreciate what an achievement it was, realize that the non-linear approach to telling a story had never been done before, nor the use of specific camera angles to achieve dramatic effect. Read Ebert's review (either before or after) to get additional background on these aspects.

milkman · 05-07-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

You have to bring some perspecitve to CK if you are going to appreciate it. If 99% of the movies you've seen were shot in the last 30 years, you're not going to think its anything great. Even more so if you prefer comedies and action movies to dramas. If you've liked Casablanca, some Hitchcock, and a few other movies from that period, you'll probably like CK. To appreciate what an achievement it was, realize that the non-linear approach to telling a story had never been done before, nor the use of specific camera angles to achieve dramatic effect. Read Ebert's review (either before or after) to get additional background on these aspects.

I like Casablanca and Hitchcock, and many other movies from that period, but to Cosmic Pal I say, have a pillow handy, cause I've tried to watch CK several times, and it might well be the greatest nap inducer of all time.

**cdcox** · 05-07-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SideWinder

I like Casablanca and Hitchcock, and many other movies from that period, but to Cosmic Pal I say, have a pillow handy, cause I've tried to watch CK several times, and it might well be the greatest nap inducer of all time.

Based on your past experiences I doubt you will give CK another try. But if you do, read some reviews from Film Industry Experts® to get a better idea of what you are looking at. When I go to an art museum, if I just stroll through my evaluation of the paintings is whether I like it or not. If I get one of those self-guided audio tour handsets, I end up enjoying the exibit much more. Similar to watching CK. CK is not a great story, and not for everyone, but worth while if you have an interest in movies as something beyond entertainment and put some effort into it.

teedubya · 05-07-2006, 12:09 PM

The cinematography of the movie is phenomenal... its the first film that was able to focus on the foreground and be able to also focus on the background, I believe.

The angles, the lighting, the mood set in certain scenes... the way they make you look at certain things... very artistic.

Its also about William Shitbag Hearst... and he didnt like the rendition, so he wouldnt put ads for the movie in his newspaper.

OVerall, its a great flick because it was so groundbreaking.

Halfcan · 05-07-2006, 12:14 PM

This movie was almost destroyed several times. Just getting it to theaters was a win. Great movie.

Ultra Peanut · 05-07-2006, 12:18 PM

DELS A SI DUBESOR

BucEyedPea · 05-07-2006, 12:24 PM

Studied it in art school, while studying filmaking.
It's in ALL filmaking classes it seems.
What FAX and Hamas Jenkins says applies.
But to be honest I was bored watching it myself...as well as Potemkin.
I think, if I rewatched it today, I'd feel differently.

SLAG · 05-07-2006, 12:25 PM

I guess if i was to watch it I would get alot more jokes on the simpsons- ony the Season 2 DVD of the simpsons if you watch the episodes with the Director's commentary they state they stole a ton of matierial from CK

milkman · 05-07-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdcox

Based on your past experiences I doubt you will give CK another try. But if you do, read some reviews from Film Industry Experts® to get a better idea of what you are looking at. When I go to an art museum, if I just stroll through my evaluation of the paintings is whether I like it or not. If I get one of those self-guided audio tour handsets, I end up enjoying the exibit much more. Similar to watching CK. CK is not a great story, and not for everyone, but worth while if you have an interest in movies as something beyond entertainment and put some effort into it.

The primary reason I've given CK more than 2 tries is because of the reviews I've read over the years.

It doesn't matter for me to know what I'm looking at, I simply can not fathom why it is so highly acclaimed.

05-07-2006, 11:27 AM
CosmicPal Learn it. Know it. Live it. Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Casino cash: $10004900	Citizen Kane: A Cinematic Argument OK...I have to admit, I've never seen this classic film- regarded by some honchos to be the greatest film ever. I did have my chance in high school journalism class when the class was forced to watch it. I, ahem, fell asleep during the movie. (Hey, high school, vaps a lot of energy out of you.) Anyways, I am thinking of watching it again. But, before I do, I wanted to know what those who have seen it- think of it. Why is it such a great film? Please, share your thoughts and arguments. I'll get a bowl of popcorn.
Posts: 10,840

05-07-2006, 11:28 AM	#2
Demonpenz I got Rice cookin in the micro Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Apartment "G UNIT!" Casino cash: $3082136	I would watch the tiny toons version of it. __________________
Posts: 54,279

05-07-2006, 11:28 AM	#3
4th and Long Wheeeeee!!! Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: In a house Casino cash: $9294925	Rosebud. __________________
Posts: 19,791

05-07-2006, 11:35 AM	#4
jspchief BAMF Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Your Face Casino cash: $9998710	Jenson will be here shortly to jack off to this thread. __________________ Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something is more important than fear. The brave may not live forever but the cautious do not live at all.
Posts: 27,207	1 0

05-07-2006, 11:39 AM	#5
'Hamas' Jenkins Now you've pissed me off! Join Date: Jan 2006 Casino cash: $8009572	It's considered great b/c Orson Welles was 24 when he made the goddamned thing. He does a lot of experimental cinematographic techniques like distressing the film stock, and always showing Kane in low angle shots to make him seem larger and more ominous. It's "shot" very well, but in all honesty it doesn't hold up over time. __________________ "When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read 'all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.' When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”--Abraham Lincoln
Posts: 74,829	1 0

05-07-2006, 11:41 AM	#6
FAX testing ... 1, 2, 3 Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Tennessee Casino cash: $6753759	I've watched this film many, many times, Mr. CosmicPal. It's been in my library forever. Although it is always only found in the eye of the beholder, the film is awash with symbolism. These connotations and references are established by every means including the storyline, the soundtrack, and the visual representations (including lots of specials which most people rarely notice) used throughout. It can also be viewed and interpreted as allegory. I think those are some of the reasons that film schools study the film so much. But, I like it because it’s a good story. Basically, the fat guy had plenty of money and creative freedom on this film and he put both to good use. I hope you enjoy it. FAX
Posts: 44,492

05-07-2006, 11:44 AM	#7
cdcox www.nfl-forecast.com Join Date: Sep 2000 Casino cash: $2291769	You have to bring some perspecitve to CK if you are going to appreciate it. If 99% of the movies you've seen were shot in the last 30 years, you're not going to think its anything great. Even more so if you prefer comedies and action movies to dramas. If you've liked Casablanca, some Hitchcock, and a few other movies from that period, you'll probably like CK. To appreciate what an achievement it was, realize that the non-linear approach to telling a story had never been done before, nor the use of specific camera angles to achieve dramatic effect. Read Ebert's review (either before or after) to get additional background on these aspects.
Posts: 45,541

05-07-2006, 12:09 PM	#10
teedubya Most Valuable Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Casino cash: $9480002	The cinematography of the movie is phenomenal... its the first film that was able to focus on the foreground and be able to also focus on the background, I believe. The angles, the lighting, the mood set in certain scenes... the way they make you look at certain things... very artistic. Its also about William Shitbag Hearst... and he didnt like the rendition, so he wouldnt put ads for the movie in his newspaper. OVerall, its a great flick because it was so groundbreaking.
Posts: 36,652	1 0

05-07-2006, 12:14 PM	#11
Halfcan In Search of a Life Join Date: Aug 2005 Casino cash: $7327995	This movie was almost destroyed several times. Just getting it to theaters was a win. Great movie.
Posts: 43,200

05-07-2006, 12:18 PM	#12
Ultra Peanut v^V^v^V^v^V^ Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Holland* Casino cash: $10005177	DELS A SI DUBESOR __________________
Posts: 39,518

05-07-2006, 12:24 PM	#13
BucEyedPea Gimme My Berries Back! Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: None of your business Casino cash: $3389963	Studied it in art school, while studying filmaking. It's in ALL filmaking classes it seems. What FAX and Hamas Jenkins says applies. But to be honest I was bored watching it myself...as well as Potemkin. I think, if I rewatched it today, I'd feel differently.
Posts: 161,929

05-07-2006, 12:25 PM	#14
SLAG Superbowl MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: OOOOOOOOOOOOOLATHE Casino cash: $9910252	I guess if i was to watch it I would get alot more jokes on the simpsons- ony the Season 2 DVD of the simpsons if you watch the episodes with the Director's commentary they state they stole a ton of matierial from CK __________________ Ad astra per aspera
Posts: 11,177