Citizen Kane (film): A dangerous film to review

Comments · 11

BI<>H❝•1.🔗🖼Spoiler—

😊

Preview

Comment

• 
  @bharat273(45)· 2896d

  Hiii... Gooddream

  Great Post

  ▲Upvote

  Reply
• 
  @aydogdy(58)· 2897d

  This film is therefore called the best in the history of cinema, that it still remains unknowable both in terms of philosophical content, and in terms of art - the unity of thought and its embodiment. As in any great work, in Welles’s picture perfection is embodied in a special material substance, not material, but solely an artistic substance-the organic nature of the idea and image, the astonishing magical act of transforming the amorphous intangible fog of the author's inner world into building the space of cadres and moving them into each other. Perhaps, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the director staged such a brilliant tape at the age of only 25 years. Moreover, only a young man could achieve this. Only a fresh look and an uncontrollable, not freshened-up fantasy with an unbearable thirst to say one's words could overturn the tradition and accomplish what will be called "ahead of time" years later. Undoubtedly, the new cannot be created without a memory of the old, and here we see the techniques of the past, but in themselves, they are empty, therefore they can serve only as a means to fix creativity, which in its pure form is always original. The film buries its hero, leaving behind him a train of understatement. The final shots do not dispel the darkness of mystery and, it seems, of the incomprehensible depth of personality. The viewer remains in ignorance to the same extent as at the very beginning of the fictional chronicle, but this ignorance takes on a different form, which is more important than unambiguous clarity. After we have examined the life of the character to the smallest nuances, we realize the main thing - its fundamental unknowability, which is the true essence of human nature. Like any great work, "Citizen Kane" goes beyond the boundaries of art and continues already inside the viewer, becoming an external embodiment of self-knowledge.

  ▲Upvote

  Reply
• 
  @rodneysreviews(53)· 2897d

  "it failed to recoup the investment laid into its production"

  Yeah, Hearst was the richest man in the world, and so mean he even installed pay phones in his own house so his children would have to pay for calls. Everybody feared him (except Welles), so when he called the distributors and said, "Don't distribute it," they obeyed.

  "Find me another piece of cinematography from the 1940's that is anywhere near as captivating"

  There isn't another. There are films I find more entertaining, like Casablanca, which is more quotable and has more engaging characters, but you said "cinematography," and this movie singe-handedly invented or improved just about every trick there is.

  I remember at film school we were taken to see a camera Welles used just to demonstrate the size of it, and it was HUGE and HEAVY. The fact that Welles could move it at all, let alone do dolly shots, is a miracle.

  The reason it was so big was that Welles was going for deep focus, which even today few films bother with, because of the immense amounts of lighting and unwieldy lenses. Also, it's not really necessary, as shallow focus is a beautiful art in and of itself, where you focus on one thing then refocus on another thing. In shallow focus, you guide the eye exactly where you want the audience to look, by changing focus mid-scene. It's useful.

  But shallow focus annoyed Welles, because he was used to theater, where the audience can look at whatever they want, whenever they want, and not be restricted to one or two objects in focus. Also, he had ideas about how the size of objects in the frame would denote power structures. So once he achieved deep focus (where everything is a frame is in focus), he would arrange the objects as a power dynamic in terms of size, so the most powerful thing, such as Kane's Mom, would be massive in the foreground, and the boy Kane would be a tiny figure in the background. Or he would have Kane walk from the foreground to the background to denote fading power, or from the background to the foreground to denote increasing power. Later, Hitchcock would utilize effects like these in all his stuff. For it to work, you've first got to have deep focus.

  As a theater man, Welles said no thanks to the bright lighting of cinema of the day, and created atmospheric chiaroscuro images of light and dark. He used wide lenses and moving cameras to achieve a sense of movement through space, and he cut holes in floors to film from ultra low angles not attempted before.

  Used to the makeup techniques of theater, Welles determined to find a way for actors to age on screen, and he pioneered the use of body casts.

  Seeking to integrate music (the most primal artform) more deeply into the movie, he had musical pieces written first, so he could film images to fit to that music, which is why the music in this film seems so integral, and not the afterthought it often is. And of course, Welles tied his music to psychology, which he also integrated deep into the movie with his signature "Rosebud" intro.

  Welles had sounds overlap, from scene to scene, and in conversations, and in his desire to mix up the formula, he pretty much single-handedly pioneered non-linear storytelling, whereby he started with the present, establishing a mystery, then cut back in time to solve it. And years before 1950's "Rashomon" was acclaimed for it's use of different viewpoints to tell the same story, using unreliable narrators, Welles did it here first.

  So, yep, Welles pretty much wrote the book on filmmaking techniques and storytelling tropes that have been used ever since. And that's why this film is so highly rated by everyone in film.

  However, here's the challenging question: is Welles acclaimed for pioneering techniques and teaching everyone how to make films, or does his film stand the test of time?

  While I agree that Welles is by far the most pioneering filmmaker of the forties, I rarely re-watch Kane these days, partly because film school overdid it, but partly because there's noone really likeable in the movie. For sheer quotability, likeability and overall re-watchability, I prefer Bogart vehicles, like Casablanca, The Maltese Falcon, The Big Sleep or Key Largo.

  In truth, that's a matter of mere taste, though. Objectively, the king of 1940s movie-making was Orson Welles.

  And if you watch the end of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," you'll see the tentacles of this movie reach right into the minds of Spielberg and Lucas, and take hold of the future as well as the past. :)

  ▲Upvote

  Reply

  View 2 replies
• 
  @ikar59(54)· 2897d

  I saw it once. I understood the film but maybe I was too young to really appreciate it. Someday I will croos again with this movie and give it a second chance

  ▲Upvote

  Reply
• 
  @thecinemascene(32)· 2897d

  I was never a huge fan of Orson Welles but this movie is definitely a special one, evidenced by all the times it has been referenced through the years on other outstanding shows and movies.

  ▲Upvote

  Reply
• 
  @kwadjobonsu(61)· 2897d

  It's a difficult undertaking for someone of my generation to watch a film like CITIZEN KANE. Not because it's "too old" or "too boring", but because it has been hailed--almost universally--as the single best motion picture ever made. And while the anticipation of seeing a film with such overwhelming acclaim may be quite exhilarating, actually watching it is ultimately an intimidating and somewhat disappointing experience.

  This isn't to say that I thought CITIZEN KANE was a bad film; in fact, I thought everything about it was downright brilliant. From the enchanting performances right down to the meticulously planned camera movements and clever lighting tricks, there isn't a single element of CITIZEN KANE that isn't a stunning achievement in all areas of filmmaking.

  CITIZEN KANE's storyline is deceptively simple. Even though the plot unfolds by jumping in and out of nonlinear flashbacks, it is surprisingly easy to keep track of. The straightforwardness and relatively fast pace of the story are what make it seem intimidating. Because everything moves smoothly along without any standstill, it feels like we are being fooled-like there is something much greater that we just can't seem to grasp. As a first-time viewer, I knew from its reputation that there must be something that separates this movie from all the others; something buried within its simple plotline that everybody else has seen, but that I just could not seem to get a handle on. And then, during those final frames, that something was revealed, and it all began to make sense. To me, it was these moments of confusion and uncertainty followed by a sense of enlightenment and appreciation that made watching CITIZEN KANE such a meaningful experience.

  But no matter how great of a movie CITIZEN KANE really is, it can never live up to one's expectations. Although I do feel that it is deserving of its acclamation, the constant exposure to its six decades worth of hype and praise will invariably set most modern viewers' standards at a height that is virtually unreachable--even if it really is the best movie of all time.

  ▲Upvote

  Reply

  View 1 reply
• 
  @coolguy222(73)· 2897d

  Old movies had really involved fun in it. As it's one of oldest movies from year 1940 but still looks modern. That is fantastic .

  ▲Upvote

  Reply
• 
  @praditya(67)· 2897d

  I own a little interest in acting and dram, considering it I have recently joined a drama club of my college, They have asked me to watch and understand certain great films, this blog will definitely help me out , that's an amazing piece of information for sure:)

  ▲Upvote

  Reply
• 
  @black-horse(58)· 2897d

  This movie has been discussed, picked apart, analyzed and dissected from one end of the globe to the other for nearly one hundred years and no one really has a definitive answer.

  Wow!

  Increasingly curious about your exposure. Let me see it a little. After seeing a bit of my curiosity, it's increased and mixed with confusion, my friend.

  Can you give a little resolution?

  ▲Upvote

  Reply
• 
  @hanen(65)· 2897d

  I love old movies and every movie has a message that not everybody can understand. But they will stay always unique reminding us of the good times :)

  ▲Upvote

  Reply
• 
  @kamrankhan900(49)· 2897d

  Citizen Kane. I am not a film student and i cant be one because i dont get to understand complicated stories. Though this looks like that but i will take it as a mysterious challenge to go through the film citizen Kane and figure things out. 80 years ago! Uff! The camera must not be that good but despite that you call it good that means it sure has something special. So i will watch it.

  ▲Upvote

  Reply