›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Citizen Kane

ErwinErwin
edited October 2008 in Movies
So, after a long time I finally found some time and watch this movie. I gotta say that I knew what it was all about along time ago. Thank you very Tiny Toons!
fLb5Php-VW4
Ok, maybe not. But yeah this movie was good. Now I can't wait to watch the documentary :D
At the end I liked almost all the characters with exception of the butler and the governor.

Comments

  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    This is one of those movies that I need to see and that I want to see, but most likely won't.
  • csrjjsmpcsrjjsmp
    I tried watching it but got bored after around 10 minutes and stopped. Regardless of what other merits it might have, it lacks the most important quality I look for in a movie. It was not entertaining.
  • AprecheApreche
    It was not entertaining to stupid people.
  • LintonLinton
    edited October 2008
    It was not entertaining to stupid people.
    That reeks of arrogance and is entirely unfair.

    On a narrative level Citizen Kane just isn't that interesting. It's beautifully constructed and played out but the plot in essence is quite simple and holds little surprises. On an artistic level it is brilliant yes, and the pleasure people derive from watching it is in my experience mostly from the admiration we have for Welles' craftmanship. It is critically valid and accepted however to distinguish between film as art and entertainment.

    A work's entertainment value typically depends on the level of engagement the audience has with the central character (i don't consider Kane to be that engaging) how the plot twists and turns to generate pleasure in the viewer by surprising us, and how our emotions are effected (laughing, crying, fear etc). The plot of CK is too dry to really pull these simple emotions. This is done entirely on purpose and forgoing these more basic storytelling requirement allows the film to work on much more complicated and interesting visual levels, making it the masterpiece that it is. However, it means that it's not very entertaining.
    Post edited by Linton on
  • whateverwhatever
    That reeks of arrogance and is entirely unfair.

    On a narrative level Citizen Kane just isn't that interesting. It's beautifully constructed and played out but the plot in essence is quite simple and holds little surprises. On an artistic level it is brilliant yes, and the pleasure people derive from watching it is in my experience mostly from the admiration we have for Welles' craftmanship. It is critically valid and accepted however to distinguish between film as art and entertainment.

    A work's entertainment value typically depends on the level of engagement the audience has with the central character (i don't consider Kane to be that engaging) how the plot twists and turns to generate pleasure in the viewer by surprising us, and how our emotions are effected (laughing, crying, fear etc). The plot of CK is too dry to really pull these simple emotions. This is done entirely on purpose and forgoing these more basic storytelling requirement allows the film to work on much more complicated and interesting visual levels, making it the masterpiece that it is. However, it means that it's not very entertaining.
    I was going to type something up, but it would be pretty much this. A lot of people feel the same way about 2001, one of my favorite movies, but I wouldn't consider them stupid at all. There's a lot to dislike about films like that.
  • csrjjsmpcsrjjsmp
    It was not entertaining to stupid people.
    And stupid people live in New York.
    Both statements are true.
  • MrRobotoMrRoboto
    edited October 2008
    It was not entertaining to stupid people.
    And stupid people live in New York.
    Both statements are true.
    There is a fault in your logic, Scott makes a universal statement saying "it's not entertaining to stupid people" implying that all that didn't like it are stupid including yourself. You on the other hand are not, claiming stupid people live in New York doesn't imply that all are stupid, thus not implying that Scott is stupid, "All that live in New York are stupid" would have been more appropriate. You fail at insults. But still, there is truth to your statement, BOTH are true, there are stupid people in NY as in everywhere, and Citizen Kane was not entertaining to stupid people.

    EDIT: don't take it personal, that's how people roll down here, and even though you didn't like the movie, I don't consider you stupid.
    Post edited by MrRoboto on
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    It was not entertaining to stupid people.
    Accessibility is a factor when considering the merits of any work of art. The greatest message in the world is useless if it can't reach the audience. This might simply be part of shifting preferences in societal conventions.

    It's like this: Emperor is the best (or one of the best) black metal bands out there. Ever. They wrote extremely complex, layered, polyphonic metal that conveys a lot of emotion and a dark aesthetic. It's also extremely abrasive and nearly unlistenable. You have to want to like it in order to enjoy it. That doesn't necessarily validate or invalidate the music as an art form; it's simply another hurdle, and the consequence of said hurdle is a small fan base.

    Likewise, Citizen Kane can be unapproachable for the modern viewer. Yes, it's important as a film, but you can't rightly expect everyone to love it unconditionally. It's not a stupidity thing; it's a matter of preference.
  • WalkerWalker
    edited October 2008
    Grah, wrong thread. Sorry.
    Post edited by Walker on
  • RymRym
    Yes, it's important as a film, but you can't rightly expect everyone to love it unconditionally.
    I don't expect anyone to love it, but they had better respect it for what it is.
  • AprecheApreche
    Yes, it's important as a film, but you can't rightly expect everyone to love it unconditionally.
    I don't expect anyone to love it, but they had betterrespectit for what it is.
    I also suspect them to understand why it is so highly respected. That's not to say everyone should become a film expert, but if you're going to watch movies you should learn that much. Just as if you're going to look at paintings, you should learn why the Mona Lisa and Sistine Chapel are so respected. Just like if you're going to watch theatre, you should know why Shakespeare is the best. Without that understanding, your enjoyment of the arts is incredibly diminished.
  • TheWhaleSharkTheWhaleShark
    Yes, it's important as a film, but you can't rightly expect everyone to love it unconditionally.
    I don't expect anyone to love it, but they had betterrespectit for what it is.
    So, having your extensive knowledge of music, can you respect black metal for what it is? Just curious.

    Also, I (mostly) concur with you and Scott. You do need to study your historical arts pieces, if for no other reason than to gain perspective.
  • Li_AkahiLi_Akahi
    You do need to study your historical arts pieces, if for no other reason than to gain perspective.
    I keep telling this to my mom's boyfriend's daughter about watching Star Wars, but to no avail.
  • DaikunDaikun
    Oh, the irony...
Sign In or Register to comment.