Citizen Kane

The technical and artistic innovation of Citizen Kane had a big impact on on film making at the time. Anyone who is interested in the history of film making, will probably rate Citizen Kane as one of the most important films of the twentieth century. After nearly seventy years the film was made, it has lost most of its impact on the modern eye and it's entertainment value is almost zero.Personally, I think Orson Welles film Touch of Evil is a better film.Made only eighteen years after Citizen Kane It seems a lot less dated and overall a more enjoyable film.

It's a common criticism of the film -- technically innovative, but cold. As with 2001, I think it's definitely YMMV.

I don't know much about the history of film, but I liked it a lot. I've watched it several times purely for entertainment. Still, I don't recommend it to people much any more.

It's like the comic book Watchmen---reading it the year it came off the rack, it blew you away because it really used the medium to its fullest. But twenty years later, everyone has done the same tricks (because Watchmen showed them how to do it) so people who read it now sometimes go, "Meh, what's the big deal?" It's the same way with Kane---watching it now, so much of it has been done (and, at times done, better) that it can leave you with the same big shrug on viewing it.

Indeed, TVTropes calls this Seinfeld Is Unfunny, when something, through imitation et al doesn't have the same impact than before because it opened the door to others to push the evelope more or a lot of its traits got imitated afterwards, etc.

I think Citizen Kane is a brilliant movie, technically, historically, and story-wise.

Exir said:

I suppose so. Perhaps it is in the very uncomfortable middle territory: still contemporary enough to share the same sensibilities as modern film, but dated enough that a lot of its stuff has been done again (and sometimes better). For example, an older film like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari also blows me away, but probably because it is SOO different from anything that will ever come out these days. They don't share the same sensibilities.

Perhaps, give it another few decades, and Citizen Kane would seem very impressive once again.

Click to expand...

There are some things about CK that are just about as intense in their own way (though perhaps by cinematic accident?)
as anything in film, though perhaps not quite as striking as Caligari is in spots.
I'm always amazed by the journalistic mockery of the basic plot (go do some journalism on this monster newspaper guy), the descent through the Neon sign in the rain (flash forward to Blade Runner etc.) and the failure at opera montage (but that actually has some close competitors from Preston Sturgis or even The Gold diggers of 1933 or Footlight Parade).
Okay...really I like Cagney in the Shanghai 'Lil extravaganza more than anything in CK.
http://www.doctormacro1.info/Movie Summaries/F/Footlight Parade.htm

Sunnyside said:

It's like the comic book Watchmen---reading it the year it came off the rack, it blew you away because it really used the medium to its fullest. But twenty years later, everyone has done the same tricks (because Watchmen showed them how to do it) so people who read it now sometimes go, "Meh, what's the big deal?" It's the same way with Kane---watching it now, so much of it has been done (and, at times done, better) that it can leave you with the same big shrug on viewing it.

Click to expand...

That is an EXCELLENT comparison. My brother read Watchmen, and thought, "Gee, I guess it's a pretty decent comic, but I don't get it," until I told him when it was originally published. He thought it had just come out a few years ago!

I think Citizen Kane is a great movie. I really enjoy it by itself, and it is ground breaking for many reasons which I won't go into. I admit I get a little skeptical when contemporary filmmakers condemn this movie. It's the one film I feel that way about. While I completely understand why someone would not like it that much, I don't see how someone who wants to make movies can't at least appreciate its place in film history. It's like a musician saying the Beatles are crap.

Sunnyside said:

It's like the comic book Watchmen---reading it the year it came off the rack, it blew you away because it really used the medium to its fullest. But twenty years later, everyone has done the same tricks (because Watchmen showed them how to do it) so people who read it now sometimes go, "Meh, what's the big deal?" It's the same way with Kane---watching it now, so much of it has been done (and, at times done, better) that it can leave you with the same big shrug on viewing it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, this is the comparison I was going to make - exactly how I felt about both Kane and Watchmen.

I'm wondering if watching some other movies made the same year/decade as Kane would help put it into perspective?

BenPanced said:

I think Citizen Kane is a brilliant movie, technically, historically, and story-wise.

Click to expand...

Amen. Double amen.

I've made an effort to see all the "great" movies made over the past four or five years. I find that even with canonical lists provided through various sources like They Still Shoot Pictures, Don't They, Roger Ebert's Great Movies column, or the AFI 100 lists still can't provide a mutually agreeable set of movies for viewers. For example, I've learned that I don't like Michelangelo Antonoini's flims, even though Blow Up and L'Avventura are well-regarded. You can only hope to find more films that interest you from these lists than you would just groping through the possibilities by yourself.

I think critical acclaim for Citizen Kane is especiialy a product of the preference for autuers among film historians and critics. For Citizen Kane, Welles had autonomy that simply didn't exist in the Hollywood studio system (and which he would never again have). Because it can be considered the most uncomprimising film made in the era it represents the promise of the artistic values that directors can bring to cinema when unfettered by profit interests.

But this sort of context doesn't necessarily make it casually viewable, considering most of us have expectations defined by modern movie making which can obscure recognition of the advances Welles pushed.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't even consider Citizen Kane as watchable as two other films starring Welles: The Third Man and Touch of Evil. I could probably name ten more films that I'd personally rate ahead of Citizen Kane--Night of the Hunter, Casablanca, and Treasure of the Sierra Madre all spring to mind immediately.

Citizen Kane was most definitely a film ahead of it's time. It "reinvented" filmmaking. The first time I watched it, it blew my mind, but I feel like it doesn't have a lot of replay value simply because the formula has been applied to a lot of movies. So I understand where you're coming from.

BenPanced said:

I think Citizen Kane is a brilliant movie, technically, historically, and story-wise.

Click to expand...

Agreed, One of my favs!