 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
192.192.16.226
Board,I'll be inviting all accusations of "troll" with this post (so *sacred* is this movie), but I can't see its greatness EXCEPT in historical terms, the proverbial "1st film to . . ."
Kindly name SOLID reasons (of artistic/literary merit) why this film deserves to be called great. Also, if applicable, name your 'prejudices' in favor of the film (i.e., going INTO the movie-viewing biased in favor of going to see an acclaimed classic, etc.)
Respect,
Guy* Verbatim and not Verboten *
Follow Ups:
....just turn off the volume and just LOOK at this film. Practically every film you've ever seen since this one was made stole the techniques originated in this film. Decades ahead of its time as far as cinematography goes. C'mon......shooting up from BELOW the floor? That's an angle only a theatrical director could have conjured up.
...
.........was insignificant. I just wanted to emphasize the films ground-breaking photography. That alone makes this a significant film.
secondary to technique.
***Practically every film you've ever seen since this one was made stole the techniques originated in this film.Oh, yeah? That's a VERY tall statement, man. Or you simply have not seen anything made before that time?
> Or you simply have not seen anything made before that time?Are you talking about the beautifully shot epics and European films of the 20's and 30's, with the laughably bad vaudevillian acting and clunky directing?
I consider Citizen Kane to be the maturation point of filmmaking, until then nobody got the complete package of a film quite right. Either it had fine acting and amaturish cinematography, or throwback, theater-style overacting with lovely visuals. Welles got it all correct.
Sounds like you need to get an account with Netflix.
I'm a big fan of Metropolis, I own both the cheesy 80's release and the new cut with the extra footage they've found, as well as the excellent Alloy Orchestra soundtrack and interesting anime remake. It's a groundbreaking film, but in many respects it's relatively primitive compared to Kane. M is superior in many ways to Metropolis, but lacks the intricate plot and character dynamics of Kane.I don't think that all the films before Kane were crap, they were just, for the most part, unsophisticated in one way or another.
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
Kane's multi-faceted approach in story telling e.g., voice-overs, flash-backs, expanded the powers of cinema. Your examples are fine films however they don't approach the cinematic gestalt of Kane.
*
Guy,For a starter, consider the photography. Lots of use of large depth-of-field shots in interiors with aesthetically pleasing lighting.
As a contrast, compare the interior settings with practically all Hollywood movies of the late 50s through the 60s. Good depth of field with sickeningly bland, fake-looking lighting.
And no, it's not just B&W versus color.
As I say, just a starting thought.
Bill
...
Hmm, I should've known better.....Sorry to have posted here. I didn't realize you folks were in the middle of a forum hissy-fit.
Had I scrolled down further and seen the previous posts, I would not have dared sugggest anything at all.
Look, it was just a passing thought. I haven't seen this movie in many years. At the time I saw it I was quite impressed with this photographic "technique". (It's very hard to do, you know. Try it.)
So I thought I'd make a passing comment. Sheeesh. Don't get your knickers in a twist. You'll wind up like Victor.
...
*
...
Can you REALLY say CK is ahead of Lang's work of fifteen years earlier? Not a chance. Eisenstein? Vigo?
Victor,> > Can you REALLY say CK is ahead of Lang's work of fifteen years earlier? Not a chance. Eisenstein? Vigo?
Huh? When did I say that?And why should I not compare it to "just Hollywood movies" when I am suggesting a starting thought to someone?
Please mind your mannerisms...:)
***And why should I not compare it to "just Hollywood movies" when I am suggesting a starting thought to someone?Your call - be muy guest, but to most of us stating Max Planck was great physisist because he could add numbers better than some six year old is hardly a worthy praise.
1. It explodes the conventional narrative in its loopy flashbacks within flashbacks.
2. Its cinematography is creative and gorgeous.
3. Its use of sound is highly effective.
4. Its use of overlapping dialog is highly effective.
5. Its acting is of the highest level.
6. It holds up under repeated viewings.
7. It is highly influential.
8. It is an interestin character study.
9. It does not pander to the audience.
10. It is beautifully written and paced.
...I'm serious. The story is so black-and-white that it's like a CHILDREN'S TALE (and I doubt it was less simplistically moral IN ITS DAY). Do you really-and-truly view the 'moral tale' as anything more than a children's moral story?I wonder: what adult literature do you read?
Respect,
Guy* Verbatim and not Verboten *
s
.
nt
If you can't find it's meaning in the film, and can't find it in your heart, then you'll never understand why many considered it the greatest film of all times.Joseph
...
It was the clitoris´s name of Hearst lover.
I, of course do not know how great it was.
your French passport.
Well, at least you didn't say it was Jean Marais' nickname for his anus...
I got my French passport because a " C " is the most romantic thing in the world.
As for the " A " of JM....ask Cocteau....
Actually it was " Jeannot " but does it fit to a hole? I could not tell....
as
Do a google search for "citizen kane analysis" or check on amazon for one of the few dozen books made about it. Take any intro to film class and the textbook will have a section dedicated to it, and you'll, at least, watch sections from the movie, if not the whole thing.
/*Music is subjective. Sound is not.*/
of interactive discussion with 'live' individuals in a forum such as this. Your answer answers little. It surely doesn't tell me what you, as an individual viewer, believe you see in this film. It almost lends belief to the idea that you might not know for yourself.Why would a intro textbook on film have a chapter on this film? Would the textbook, ITSELF, justify its inclusion? Doubt it.
Respect,
Guy* Verbatim and not Verboten *
.
a
.
as
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
