Citizen Kane

[user1471565182]

AIBU thinking Citizen Kane's reputation as one the greatest films ever is complete inexplicable?

Watching it now and its full of complete cheese, terrible acting, weird sound editing, out of place lines, actors rushing lines out over each other, editing giving me a migraine and I have no interest at all in the character of Kane, which is the whole point of the film surely?

Is it because critics can easily pull out one of those 'hypocrisy of the american dream' cliches English teachers used to use to sound clever and deep about Arthur Miller 's stuff and Catcher in the Rye (also awful)at school?

I find this with a lot of old really well rated films (watched Paths of Glory last night though and that was brilliant tbf)

it's obviously not your kind of film.
doesn't mean it's not a good film
leave it alone.
i can't see the point of most modern films, all full of violence and explicit sex and hideousness.
by the way, did you notice any similarities between kane and a certain well-known present day first lady's husband ?

Oh lord weird you should say that I just found this-Its supposedly Trump's favourite film.

www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/trump-files-donald-has-weirdest-reaction-citizen-kane/

Never seen it but i thoroughly enjoyed the catcher in the rye. Dont understand its bad rep.

The insanely unlikable Holden Caulfield and all that 'phoney' stuff did it for me. Wish we had got to do more Steinbeck.

I agree, it’s dreadful.

I had to watch it for a class at university. I tried 3 times. Fell asleep every single time. This was before I could just go online and find a synopsis. Finally just decided to risk missing those questions on the exam.

I think it's an awesome film. I appreciate that people like different things though.

It was good for its time and very influential. People go overboard with the praise these days though. Its in that weird category that everyone must love and so it can't be criticised, like The Beatles.

The problem with labelling something the "best ever" is that has to be appealing to everyone in some amount. Everyone has different tastes however, so other films will can be loved more but only by select groups. "Best ever" is more like an average of ratings.

I see it's merit in filmmaking of it's time but find it dull. Kane is based on a real person, William Randolph Hearst, who does have a few similarities with a certain businessman turned politician

I started to watch it simply because it kept topping the 'best film ever' lists. I found it unengaging and gave up watching part way through.

As pp said, different tastes.

One of the reasons it gets praised so much is because it poineered so, so many film techniques that had never been seen before, but are still used today. There has rarely been a film that has been so influential.

For instance, it was the first film to show ceilings in a room. I know that sounds like a minor thing, but ceilings had never been seen on film before, because the cameras were so large, they could get them low enough to the ground to show a ceiling. But on Citizen Kane, they devised a fake, raised up floor, that allowed the camera to move through "trenches". The point wasn't because Orson Wells especially wanted to see the ceiling, but he wanted a low down shot, looking up at the actors for dramatic effect. A shot like that had been seen before.

There are also a whole bunch of subtle special effects, that again, were the first of its kind. It really was a trailblazer, and the fact that it was conceived and created by one man is all the more impressive.

The film may seem twee and little dull by todays standards, but without it, films today would look very, very different.

@dontwantamirena

I think the comparison with The Beatles is a good one. Yes, many people will say they were the best band ever, because of their subjective liking of the music. But I think the reason The Beatles have endured, and are so revered, is because, like Citizen Kane, they invented so many techniques that were never heard before in music.

Before Revolver, you could say that The Beatles were just a standard pop group. They had nice tunes that some liked, and some didn't. But with Revolver, and every album after, what they were doing became less about the melodies and harmonies, and more about the production techniques. They experimented with pitch-shifting, multi-tracking (so that they wree no longer limited to just recording as a live band), and basically invented distortion. Without distortion, there would be no punk, no heavy metal etc etc. Again, like Citizen Kane, their influence has spread far and wide, to places that it's very easy to forget these days orginated with them.

So whilst on a very surface level, preference for The Beatles or Citizen Kane (and many others) is entirely subjective, but their experimentation, poineering, and influence that still resonates today is objective.

@BadgerBrush I was just about to mention the ceilings! Totally agree with you, had to watch this for my film studies A level and while the plot may not be to my tastes to have to admire the techniques and effort gone into the the film to create it.

Im going to try Casablanca later on, I have seen it a long long time ago in the background and it seemed much better. The Great Gatsby is another one of a similar theme I cant get into that much (the book and film versions) although I love Fitzgeralds writing in other books.

Whats that other really rated Orson Welles one set in Vienna I think? I'll give that a whirl.

@BadgerBrush has it. The cinematography is awesome and broke new ground.

Agree the cinematography is beautiful. the plot is plodding and overlong by today's standards though. We watched the original King Kong too - I was impressed with that. Mind boggling to think it was made in 1933.

Orson Welles is quite amazing though. Co-writer, producer, director and leading role, aged 25. I was impressed by it.