As someone who grew up in the 80’s and 90’s and didn’t see the Godfather Trilogy until he was 17 or 18 or so, I wouldn’t say that it’s lasted. Citizen Kane was clearly a good film, even given the flaws inherent in its making and age.
The Godfather seemed to rely on breaking taboos and showing “real” family life and “real” non-cartoon and non-melodramatic violence. Maybe at that time showing things in a realistic fashion was shocking enough to entertain people, but to me it just seemed mostly dull and “Yeah, and…?” It depended on shock value to maintain interest, and if you weren’t shocked, then it was mostly just a lot of pretty and long-winded scenes. Stylistically, I would say that they’re pretty similar to Sergio Leone’s Spaghetti Westerns, and not clearly better to a 21st Centurite. I would probably argue that the Spaghetti Westerns were more impressive for being able to accomplish the same thing with hardly any dialogue.
I think that if any film would edge out Citizen Kane, it would be 2001: A Space Oddesy and that doesn’t seem to be in the cards. (Though personally I’m relatively ambivalent towards it.)
Or maybe more Academy voters preferred How Green Was My Valley. Academy voters have usually gone for the traditional and familiar over the groundbreaking innovators. They are a conservative bunch overall.
P.S. I’ve read several books on Citizen Kane and Orson Welles.
Bambi is known for being the first realistic portrayal of the harshness of the animal kingdom, animal movements animated so well, and of course Bambi’s mother. But that doesn’t mean that most modern kids don’t find it horribly boring and slow-paced, even though kids of 50 years ago thought it was exciting from start to end.
Things can be technically proficient in make, and have been entertaining at the time they were made, and yet dull movies thirty years later. People might still find Pulp Fiction edgy in 30 years, and they might think that it’s pretty mundane. I’ll be able to say either way in thirty years time that Pulp Fiction is known for “interesting dialogue and an interesting use of retro feel”, but that won’t change that people think it’s mundane.
Ultimately, Shakespeare and Citizen Kane have lasted because every generation has been entertained. That it’s also technically proficient is what makes an entertaining work become great. Technical proficiency just gets you into the classic category, not the “great” category.
I think it will get knocked down by a newer generation of critics who will just want to “shake the system.” Perhaps by a film like The Godfather.
In other words, it was crowned by people now in their twilight or dead - it will be reevaluated by their successors and found to be “naive” because that’s what successors do.
But it will take clout and an agreement among critics to do so - and that will be hard to get.
This brings me back to one of my original points. How many folks here consider Citizen Kane to be the “best American movie they ever saw?” I’d guess the number would be fairly low, and probably outranked by one or two other pictures (2001 IMO would be a leading contender for most #1 votes). But everyone has it in their top 5, while 2001 might be omitted on a lot of lists.
It’s almost a “grudging” concession to Kane that its ranked #1. Again, I’m not saying it isn’t a very very good movie, but it seems to have been locked in at #1 despite a widespread lack of passion for the film itself (compared to, say, The Wizard of Oz or The Godfather films). In short, it’s admired, but not really loved.
I do, for one. Your point is absolutely correct though. Every time I watch Citizen Kane with someone my age, it’s the same story-- they can appreciate its achievements on a technical level, but it doesn’t excite them or resonate with them. Same with The Searchers and Rear Window for that matter. I suspect that in a few years most young people will feel that way about The Godfather. Goodfellas will be next. Our children and grandchilden will watch The Sopranos in a college class and wonder how anyone ever found it viscerally engaging.
Citizen Kane is certainly one of my favorite films, and I think it rightfully deserves to be called the greatest American film of all times. Personally, I think The Godfather is a great movie and all, but it doesn’t deserve to be number 2. Dr. Strangelove is much, much better, and more historically relevant.
As for Pulp Fiction, I really think that its reputation will only grow over time. And I don’t think it’s mundane or meaningless. I was actually just thinking about this last night as I was watching Kill Bill 2 on late-night cable. Pulp Fiction is about self-destruction. To take only one example, Jules realizes the path he is on will end in his spiritual and physical destruction and changes course. Vincent doesn’t, and he dies stupidly. It actually has a lot to say about America and life in the late 20th century. Maybe that is despite Tarantino rather than because of him, but still I don’t think it’s meaningless.
I totally agree-CK is just so dated-you are talking about a movie made so long ago, the generation that conceived it is long in the cemetary. I doubt anyone (unless they were a US history major) can appreciate the context of the movie. My daugher (19) doesn’t read newspapers-she could not understand the concpet of a newspaper mogul at all!
It’s really a matter of getting into a different mindset-- you have to adjust your expectations when it comes to pacing, speaking and acting style, special effects, etc. Even a more recent movie like The Godfather feels slow and sedate to a modern audience. That’s not to say that moviemaking is better or worse than it was in the past, just different.
The only film Joseph Cotten did before Citizen Kane was a silent slapstick film used as a prologue to Orson Welles’ production of the stage farce Too Much Johnson in 1938. The film was never used because the projection booth in the theater where the show previewed out of town wan’t fireproof. Instead, Cotten and the other actors had to learn the beginning of Act One of the play, but it was all for naught — the out of town run was a failure, and the production never made it to Broadway. Welles lost the film in a fire in 1970.
I like to imagine the prologue scenes of The Magnificent Ambersons — with a drunken Joseph Cotten trying to serenade Isabel Amberson, only to trip and crush his bass viol — were done in the spirit of Too Much Johnson.
Yes, you are correct. Cotten appeared, as did Welles in a short made by Wellles and described above. Dorothy Comingore was totally unknown to me, both before and after appearing in Kane and I just assumed she came from the mercury Theater with several of the other players. What I should have said was this was the first major film acting role for most of the performers.
My point was that most of the players were new to film, including Welles, his earlier short not withstanding, and I don’t think the fact that Comingore had several films under her belt negates the point.