There is a reason this film won 1 Oscar
-
theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff — 9 years ago(November 01, 2016 03:16 PM)
Short answer: It should have won more.
Long answer: OK, I'll bite. Not because I think this will change your mind, but because I actually want to discuss my favourite film for once.
Bceause it's just not very good. Nostalgia and passage of time made it seem that way to certain people
Most of the people who would feel nostalgia for this film are dead, and considering its reception when it was released I'd say most of the people who crowned it the "best" didn't see it in 1941. "Nostalgia" argument doesn't work for this film.
because the film has so many themes that are applicable to any time period and any position in society.
And this is a bad thing because?
Anyone can watch it and pat themselves on the back saying "Ahasee?"
Kind of presumptous to think that you know what everyone who saw this film thought after watching it, isn't it?
The fact that there's a riddle to solve also enhances this sense of being "in the club"
The answer to that riddle has been known for decades. Most people who watch this film probably already know what "Rosebud" is.
But a film needs supsension of disbelief to be good.
Not necessarily. One can consider, say, "La Dolce Vita" a good film without believing the story that is depicted, because it has plenty of interesting ideas to think about, or even enjoy "The Mirror" on a purely visual level without understanding the story (not that I'd recommend either of these takes, both films are great on every level). And let's not even talk about "Man with the Movie Camera", which doesn't even have a narrative.
Still, a moot point, because this film doesn't really stretch suspension of disbelief.
There is not one moment in the film that lets you forget that you are watching a film. The camera draws attention to itself more than your annoying neighbour
Untrue, both from personal experience (most of the people I've shown this film to didn't find the camera angles distracting) and on principle (what, exactly, is supposed to take you out of the film? Low angles? Deep focus? The only moment I can think of is when Susan attempts suicide and only the pill bottle is focused on).
(and not just because the pompous cinematographer thought he was the director and introduced his name into the end-credits in a way that no one in history has done)
Welles endlessly praised Tolland and decided to share credit space with him because he believed he was just that important to the film. It wasn't Tolland who gave himself that credit.
The sound, the vocals, the direction, the staging, acting: all ineptly in your face.
All used to add to the story and themes of the movie, instead of just being there because they have to be.
It's one thing to be original and imaginative, but another to show the scaffolding or strings. If Shakespeare had made it seem like his characters aren't truly alive and showed his writer's hand, he would not be celebrated.
When showing the scaffolding allows the director to more effectively make points that he/she wouldn't have been able to make on a more conventional way, it might not be a bad thing.
And, again, a moot point since this film isn't particularly distracting with its techniques.
Citizen Kane is inept misunderstanding what film is. Film is an an escape to a world where you forget you are watching a film.
Again, this implies the only thing that can be good on a film is the story. Films can be appreciated for the ideas they offer or on a visual level. What you are describing here is not even a narrative (indeed, plenty of narrative would want you to apply what you learned from them into your life), but escapist fiction. Which is not bad, on principle, but shouldn't be the only thing a movie can be.
Not only is the film horribly transparent, but proud of it: it screams "Look at me, look what I'm doing" like a toddler showing off a new crayon drawing to their mother. Not only is the film accidentally showing itself as a fake film, it is proudly flaunting it!
Again, what did you find particularly distracting about the techniques used here? The fact that it uses the entire filmmakers arsenal of techniques, with such enthusiasm for its posibilities, in an
organic
way is the reason why this film is so praised.
It is not just an inept fluke in film-making, it is a dangerous attempt to influence it.
Thank God that other directors have not followed its footsteps
and believe in suspension of disbelief.
You do realise this is considered one of the most influential films of all time, and plenty of directors have said they were inspired by it, right?
Escapist films such as Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, and any number of amazing biograhical films that make you believe you are watchign a person's life unfold, would it have been utter rubbish of Orson Welles had made them.
Irrelevant, not only because Orson didn't make them and probably wouldn't have wanted to make them, or because you are once again reducing films to their story when they can be so much more than that, but because plenty of peop -
Synthia7 — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 01:51 AM)
And this is a bad thing because?
I agree with you. It's not a bad thing. The best themes are timeless and universal.
The themes at the heart of this story are well executed.
The answer to that riddle has been known for decades. Most people who watch this film probably already know what "Rosebud" is.
I really don't know if most people know what Rosebud is. However the figurative expression of Rosebud is done so well that it never gets old.
I hate when people reduce stories to a twist or answer to a riddle. Because it's not about the pat answer, but about the marvel of how the whole story fits together.
The story is well done so I can see why it's your favorite, but I agree with both sides really. It is a well crafted tragic story but not that engaging.
"I thought you were class,like a high note you hit once in a lifetime."- Young Man With a Horn(1950)
-
MsELLERYqueen2 — 9 years ago(November 01, 2016 11:47 PM)
Tonight I watched
The Case of the Howling Dog
(1934). Not the sort of film which would have been considered for an Oscar, but it's a terrific film - fast paced, suspenseful, well acted, etc. (Too bad that the other Perry Mason films filmed in the 30s weren't as good as this first film.) The ending of
Howling Dog
is far more complicated - and more interesting - than what
Rosebud
stands for.
Now I'm posting and listening to some of my favourite performers: The Beau-Marks, Jack Scott, Nana Mouskouri. I wonder how long before some
Citizen Kane
fan comes along and criticizes me for not listening to classical music?Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = -
amyghost — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 02:27 AM)
Re: There is a reason this film won 1 Oscar
image for user MsELLERYqueen2
by MsELLERYqueen2 2 days ago (Tue Nov 1 2016 23:47:31) Flag | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2004
Tonight I watched The Case of the Howling Dog (1934). Not the sort of film which would have been considered for an Oscar, but it's a terrific film - fast paced, suspenseful, well acted, etc. (Too bad that the other Perry Mason films filmed in the 30s weren't as good as this first film.) The ending of Howling Dog is far more complicated - and more interesting - than what Rosebud stands for.
Now I'm posting and listening to some of my favourite performers: The Beau-Marks, Jack Scott, Nana Mouskouri. I wonder how long before some Citizen Kane fan comes along and criticizes me for not listening to classical music?Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = The only criticism 'Citizen Kane fans' have been making to you are the ones regarding the sort of stupid generalizing statements you make about both that film, and classic film viewers overall. Why don't you quit with the 'toddler peeing on the rug to get the grownups' attention' act already? Are you really that needy for applause? Isn't there anything you have going on for yourselfapart from the Jim Hutton fetish, and the same dozen films you've watched to shredsthat you think might make people take notice of you in a positive manner? Do you really believe your 'reverse film elitism' routine makes you look like anything other than the attention starved brat you give every indication of being? 50 Is The New Cutoff Age. -
Boomer-Baby — 9 years ago(November 04, 2016 07:48 AM)
The reason it didn't win any more Academy Awards is because everyone was afraid to go against Hearst. Three cheers to Orson Welles for being such a brave man.
Back to MEQ, the logical, sensible thing for her to do would be to post on The Howling Dog board. It would be the reverse if someone would go to The Howling Dog board & post that they should be watching Citizen Kane. People would think such person was as mad as a bag of frogs.
And she wonders why people consider her a troll? -
Howlin Wolf — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 12:04 PM)
But a film needs suspension of disbelief to be good.
Why? It's just as possible to passively appreciate something as it is to actively appreciate it "It doesn't stir me, but it's put together well; I appreciate the craftsmanship". There is nothing wrong in admiring something without being entranced by it.
'Technique' obviously sufficed well enough for SOME people - just not you.
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!" -
Synthia7 — 9 years ago(January 11, 2017 01:40 AM)
The film is well conceived and can provide countless hours of rumination/analysis.
However, it definitely is hard to lose yourself in it. So, I agree that is very hyper aware of itself. There's a lack of heart and humanity to it, but then that fits the theme so that might have been done on purpose.
The design is brilliant though. Reminds me of Inarritu's movies in that I intellectually consume them but can't really enjoy the experience of them.
"I thought you were class,like a high note you hit once in a lifetime."- Young Man With a Horn(1950)
-
fud-slush — 9 years ago(January 12, 2017 08:31 AM)
But a film needs supsension of disbelief to be good.
Says who? What absolute garbage. 100s of excellent films outside the realms of the fantastical.
Didn't read much after that. You write very poorly, & are clearly clueless as to the possibilities of cinema, preferring action to script, & sfx to great cinematography. You sound like a 9 year-old.
You're ignorant too. 'Thank god other directors haven't followed its footsteps (sic)', you say (how can anyone follow in a film's footsteps?), but Spielberg, that ultimate hater of escapist cinema, somewhat strangely thinks differently from you:
And here's the uninformed opinion of another exponent of dull cinema:
Perhaps you could say why they're wrong to think as they do.
Could you name some of these endless biopics that you find so amazing, please? I'm curious. -
archibald14 — 9 years ago(January 16, 2017 08:46 AM)
The expression has nothing to do with genre. "suspension of disbelief" means what the above poster wrote. Surely when you're immersed in a movie you're viewing it as if it was real, no ? It wouldn't be enjoyable if you were constantly reminding yourself that it's a movie.
-
fud-slush — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 05:28 AM)
No I don't, as I don't with novels, paintings or opera. It doesn't prevent me from getting involved, but it's possible to be both involved & conscious of the fact that one is being entertained.
If the OP was being that general then he's even more of a cinematically ignorant twat for not being able to see the brilliance of Welles' vision. He also thinks Oscars are a mark of quality - double twat. -
archibald14 — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 11:09 AM)
The OP was certainly being general. He said "a movie needs", and used an expression that applies to pretty much any kind of movie.
I think a movie puts you in a certain state of mind where you're experiencing the story as if that was real, while also at the same time being in a position to enjoy its artistry. It's a very unique artform in that sense. Music for example is all about the latter. Literature generally veers more toward the former.
Suspension of disbelief is broken when for some reason you stop buying that the story you're watching is real and all you're seeing is actors saying their lines on a set. In many amateurs movies for example suspension of disbelief never really takes off. -
fud-slush — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 06:56 AM)
Ok, re suspension, but I have to add that the music I listen to is certainly not all about artistry; you need artistry to be able to play, conduct or sing it, but the depth of story in, say, Wagner's Ring Cycle or Tristan & Isolde, or Strauss' Elektra or Bach's B minor Mass, are more likely to take me into suspension territory than many a film would.
Much classical music takes you on a musical journey, but one which has a story-like feel, complete with moments of tension, joy &, normally, a satisfactory ending. Music, for me, is the ultimate art-form, as it communicates without a vocal language or visuals, somehow digging into our emotional cores purely through melodies, themes, rhythms, harmonies or discord. All art-forms - cinema, painting, sculpture, writing, music - are unique in their own ways, though cinema is unusual in that, more often than not, more than one artistic element is needed to create the whole.
The OP is still an idiot, however, & no matter what he said or meant to say.