This may have already been said (I haven’t read the foregoing posts) but it took me at least four attempts to make it all the way through the movie. Each previous attempt ended with my nodding off somewhere and awakening to whatever came on after the movie. I always tried to see it on TV, never in a theater.
I may have started trying to see it decades ago, and probably on the basis of its reputation. I guess I was expecting a different level of entertainment from what it delivers. I kept waiting for “something to happen.”
Having seen it all the way through once now, I can accept the hype about all its technical achievements and innovations. But it’s a dull movie.
I think it has its share of humorous moments. Leland trying to get the reporter to sneak some cigars into the old age home he’s in or the reporter asking the matron at the library “You aren’t Rosebud, are you?” One of my favorite lines is when the reporter thanks Mr. Bernstein for taking the time to see him and Bernstein replies, “Eh, I’m the chairman of the board. I got nothing but time!”
I wouldn’t watch it for fun the same way I’d watch The Simpsons, but I do think it’s entertaining and I’ve enjoyed it each time I watched. I think it’s a fascinating look at its main character and what drives him, and visually I think the movie is incredible.
Just this morning, I was thinking about the final scene, which is one of the best endings in any movie I’ve seen.
Rosebud is… A COOKBOOK!
No, actually I mean what comes after, with that long look at all of the crates of art and things Kane accumulated in his lifetime, while you get to consider how he was always looking for something else he didn’t find and this mess is all that’s left.
Yes. Ray Bolger is exactly the way a talking scarecrow acts. And Bert Lahr’s Cowardly Lion is perfectly natural; talking lions always behave that way. :rolleyes:
And, yes, most of the actors in the 30s seem perfectly natural to me, especially those in Warner Brothers films, which stressed naturalistic situation. Your problem is that your definition of “natural acting” is merely just another unnatural convention.
Other than the actors who were playing stereotypes for comic effect, the acting in the 30s and 40s was no less “natural” (a completely meaningless term) than they are today.
Another yes vote. Put aside the reputation and the technical innovations and blah blah blah; the movie just tells a damn good story. The characters are deep, the plot is gripping, and there’s enough humor thrown in to keep it fun. And Kane’s visualpanache puts most other movies to shame, no matter what year they were made. IMO, the hall of mirrors scene in particular is one of the most striking images ever put to film; it bowls me over every time.
There are some films that can leave you puzzled until you learn more about them.
You’ll end up thinking “I wish I knew that BEFORE I watched it.”
Before watching “Citizen Kane” you might rent the documentary “The Battle Over Citizen Kane.” It aired a few years ago on PBS.
This “American Experice” episode is very interesting and watchable and can provide a background that will put the film into perspective. Plus it provides a twist of irony at the end.
I majored in film so I’ve seen Kane maybe a dozen times - maybe more.
I’ve always found it uncompelling as a plot. The sound on every copy I’ve seen (and I’d have been watching 16mm film) was always bad - scratchy - and like the Foley was off, which made it difficult to follow. Of course, watching it more than once means I eventually caught the plot. It may have been cleaned up with DVD release, which would help.
But its beautiful and pivotal - which makes it compelling, but not as a “oh, I think I’ll entertain myself with Citizen Kane today” sort of way.
The movie is “entertaining” only if (1) you watch it as a movie, not on TV (at least watch the DVD on a wide-screen TV with full-screen video, rather than pan & scan) and (2) you don’t know who or what Rosebud is. Remember, the movie is ostensibly one man’s quest to decipher Kane’s dying word. So, beginning with that bit of suspense, we are quickly caught up in the groundbreaking cinematography, the brilliantly acted characters (they look a little hammy by today’s standards, but they were pretty good back then) and the tragic story arc. Only at the very end, when we finally see Rosebud, do we recognize the tragic emptiness that Charles Foster Kane’s life has become.
There are movies and plays I avoided seeing for a long time because I was intimidated by their reputation. Piffle. Sit down and watch **Citizen Kane **and decide for yourself whether it’s great or not.
It’s a *roman à clef *about William Randolph Hearst. This could be lost on modern viewers, but everybody in 1941 knew full well who Hearst was, a two-fisted media demigod the likes of which no longer exist; this guy would’ve had Rupert Murdoch for breakfast and picked his teeth with Donald Trump. The movie was written by and starring someone who hated Hearst’s guts, and used this as a forum against him.
I have lowbrow tastes and I love this movie! Beautiful to look at, fun to suss out the petty subtexts, shocked that the genius who made it was reduced to wine commercials and a Transformers cartoon at the end of his career instead of being unleashed by timid Hollywood studios.
Hell, you caught my goof – your credibility’s a lot higher than mine right now, not that that’s any real accomplishment.
I’m waiting for Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet to arrive in the mailbox (for a summer Shakespeare class – haf’ta write a review, and the only movie I’ve ever seen of it is the 1996 gangsta version) I didn’t see *Casablanca * until just about two years ago. I’m a big *Kane * fan primarily because, when I teach masscom 101 at the local junior college, I force the students to watch it when we’re covering the history of the big newspaper barons (Ochs, Pulitzer, Hearst, etc.)
Mmmmm, I dunno – either Hearst’s reputation has outgrown the man or Murdoch’s hasn’t caught up with him. I’m not saying Murdoch’s fingerprints have been found in Iraq, but I wouldn’t be stunned if they were at some point in the future. I mean, the guy is getting ready to rape the Wall Street Journal, for chrissake. Absolutely nothing is sacred to him except his own worldview. Yeah, Trump’s a lightweight, but Murdoch? Nah, I’d say he could stay in the ring with Hearst.
I am not going to launch into a rant because this is a bit of a hijak, but there are some that would argue that today’s modern “realistic” style of acting is the downfall of modern drama.
That being said, there is some freakin’ amazing acting in Kane. And I personally think it is very entertaining for the story alone. On top of that it holds up very well to repeat viewings. I have watched it a many times and see something new every single time. And if you are into film history at all Kane is a totally groundbreaking and historically relevant film.
It’s an entertaining movie, and it gets more entertaining with each watching. I see something new every time. And I’m always seeing things in other movies that are descended from Wells and Toland’s riffs.
Would you be interested in launching all the way into another thread? Because I’ve never heard this opinion before, am pretty sure I disagree with it, but would very much like to hear more about it.
It’s at the top of my Netflix queue, honest!