OK, I’m in way over my head here!
[wanders off to pick a fight in MPSIMS]
I don’t know about downfalls, but it does seem like, in recent years, there’s been a return to this more stylized, deliberate kind of acting. I’m thinking in particular of The Departed, Quentin Tarantino’s recent movies, maybe Viggo Mortensen in A History of Violence. Maybe it could be called a more ‘theatrical’ style of movie acting, where the goal is to be larger than life instead of as close to real life as possible.
Sure, start the thread and PM me a link. I like being able to put my theater degree to use. 
Let’s put it another way. 4:3 is the aspect ratio of your TV set and was the standard aspect ratio for decades in the movie business. But with the advent of “widescreen” films in the mid-50s, it was slowly being phased out theatrically.
So Welles’ films post-1955 (which includes Touch) would’ve been in one “widescreen” format or another.
70mm refers to the film gauge (actual size of the celluloid frame) and not the aspect ratio, so that’s another matter altogether.
I first saw Kane in college and was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Aside from the technical innovation and general brilliance, I found it was a compelling story and worked well as a movie to just watch and enjoy. That’s what is so great about it; it’s not just two hours of “ooh, check out our fancy camera angles!” The technical aspects served the story, not the other way around. Whenever you watch a movie with great special effects and lots of bells and whistles that’s also boring and stupid, that movie is the exact opposite of Citizen Kane.
However, like with every story ever told, the plot and characters will appeal to some people more than others.
NO need to hurry unless you just can’t wait to see Charlton Heston play a Mexican lawman.
I really don’t know what you mean by “hoity toity.” Do you mean that a lot of movies from that period had characters from the uppercrust like “Philadelhpia Story” or “Bringing up Baby?” Do you mean the actors were effeminate? Could you offer some examples?
I first saw CK on tv in the late 60s when I was in high school. I was definitely more impressionable at that age (and compared to those of similar age today), but the film was utterly compelling. The final shots as Kane’s possessions are being disposed of hit me like a ton of bricks.The sled, thrown into the incinerator, then the close-up revealing its name, Rosebud; then its paint peeling and finally catching fire; and last the shot of the smoke pouring out of the stack.
Meh. Touch of Evil is a mediocre B-grade exploitation film elevated to greatness by the famous continuous shot opening (originally butchered by in the studio release, against Welles’ direction) and Welles’ portrayal of corpulent venality. It’s definitely worth seeing, but it’s not much for rewatchability. Citizen Kane, on the other hand, is a dense, layered work full of nuance. It moves quickly, demanding attention, and can be best appreciated if you understand the history of the Hearst empire (which it models in part), the battle over the film, and Welles’ tragic, self-destructive egotism which is curiously paralleled by the film (Welles’ first, and made at the beginning of his career when he was 25). It’s also great to pair it up with Terry Gilliam’s Brazil; despite the manifest differences, there are a lot of thematic similarities, and the conflicts in personal vision of the respective directors in making the films, as well as groundbreaking effects and cinematic techniques are fascinating.
I totally agree. Casablanca is popcorn entertainment with a health dose of pre-WWII American optimism, and some great dialogue. It’s an archetype for how to make a film that panders to the audience’s desire for humor, easy pathos, and feel-good solutions. (Rick’s supposed sacrifice in the end is nothing like; despite the alleged allure of Ilsa, she’s pretty much a dim bulb, a moth to the flame, and it’s hard to see Rick being all that taken with her in the long term. Sending her off with Lazlo was the good move on all parts.) I think The Third Man is a vastly superior film, though admittedly it is not as pleasantly enjoyable and doesn’t end with a rousing orchastral movement. It also has what I consider one of Welles’ best performances as the charmingly depraved Harry Lime.
Stranger
I’m hugely ignorant of film history, yet the first time I saw **Citizen Kane ** in its entirety, I was vastly entertained. Admittedly, this was on the big screen at the Tampa Theatre, a restored classic movie palace built in 1926, so the experience felt more akin to “time travel” rather than mere “moviewatching.” I suppose the film might come across differently, if you were to see it for the first time on Turner Classic Movies at 2 AM while eating a bag of microwave popcorn.
I agree wholeheartedly about Casablanca, but there’s a lot more to Touch of Evil than you give it credit for.
Apparently I’m alone in this, but I’ve always found Citizen Kane to be a hilarious fuliginously black comedy; the unlikeable characters are part of what make it such a scream.
Perhaps. I watched the the first time to satisfy my desire for completeness at covering the high points of film noir, and thought it was modestly enjoyable. I watched it a second time and just found it lacking, except for the previously mentioned bits. More viewings might expose more depth to it, but I’ve been pretty meh on film-watching for a while, and it just doesn’t appeal to me. But I’m willing to accept that there’s more to it than I’ve absorbed in my couple of viewings.
Stranger
In case anyone else was interested, linky
Which version did you see? The original release version or the newer re-edited version.
I ask mainly out of curiosity. I have seen both and don’t find one version to be staggeringly brilliant and the other crap, but on the whole the re-edited version is a better film.
The restored version. I’ve never seen the original release, but based on what I’ve read about it I can understand Welles’ reported rancor when he discovered the studio tampering.
Stranger
Casablanca belongs. Right where it is.
Throw in a big plate of pork rinds and a gallon of California wine and I’m sure Welles would have approved.
The only minor sour note (heh) for me is that mocking trumpet riff after “I may have to close this place… in sixty years.” It’s straight out of the Bugs Bunny sound-effects catalog.
I loved it.
But hate it or love it, you won’t forget it.
No. I saw it once and it was great, but not something I need to see again. Something you do or watch over and over is wants truly entertaining.