Jump to content

Films Thread


juddling

Recommended Posts

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 03:51 PM)
I hate when people don't believe you like citizen kane or other movies of the like, and are just trying to seem knowledgable, etc.

 

It's apparently poor form to like older classics.

Same goes the other way around. If you DON'T like some classic film, people seem to assume you just don't know anything about films.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 08:52 PM)
Same goes the other way around. If you DON'T like some classic film, people seem to assume you just don't know anything about films.

 

well whatever find new friends.

 

i just love polar movies. Really bad ones and really good ones. Have no time for wishy washy crap.

 

There's no part of me that regrets seeing the happening. That was by far the worst movie i've ever seen. And because of that, was way better than most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 04:54 PM)
There's no part of me that regrets seeing the happening. That was by far the worst movie i've ever seen. And because of that, was way better than most.

 

I actually get that pretzel logic. I'm much the same way with films — at least in certain genres.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 03:54 PM)
well whatever find new friends.

 

i just love polar movies. Really bad ones and really good ones. Have no time for wishy washy crap.

 

There's no part of me that regrets seeing the happening. That was by far the worst movie i've ever seen. And because of that, was way better than most.

If you like bad. Go see Gamer. It was a classic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 03:51 PM)
I hate when people don't believe you like citizen kane or other movies of the like, and are just trying to seem knowledgable, etc.

 

It's apparently poor form to like older classics.

 

Where did you get that? Unless you are talking about people in general, I admitted that the movie was revolutionary and great for its time. I just wasn't very into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 19, 2009 -> 05:13 PM)
Where did you get that? Unless you are talking about people in general, I admitted that the movie was revolutionary and great for its time. I just wasn't very into it.

 

i was intending it at no poster here...

 

although in the music thread there have been "you guys are elitists because you like bands i've never heard of and don't like my music!", etc.

 

I wonder what the lag is on movies coming to Brazil. I know when my friend went to scotland last year they were still quoting anchorman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 21, 2009 -> 03:57 PM)
i was intending it at no poster here...

 

although in the music thread there have been "you guys are elitists because you like bands i've never heard of and don't like my music!", etc.

I wonder what the lag is on movies coming to Brazil. I know when my friend went to scotland last year they were still quoting anchorman.

 

I must say I think this is what you like and want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 01:54 PM)
I watched Citizen Kane for the first time last night. Granted I was tired, but the movie didn't do much for me. It's considered one of the greatest films of all time. Can someone go into some detail on why it is so good?

 

HOLY CRAP I agree with the Milkman.

 

Very few people can explain it or go into detail as to why it supposedly is so great. Most people just feel like they have to like it because they've been told it's the greatest film of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (LosMediasBlancas @ Sep 28, 2009 -> 02:12 PM)
HOLY CRAP I agree with the Milkman.

 

Very few people can explain it or go into detail as to why it supposedly is so great. Most people just feel like they have to like it because they've been told it's the greatest film of all time.

 

I'll take a stab at this, but you have to take yourself back to 1941 and the technical limitations of cinema at the time to fully appreciate how innovative Kane was.

 

Subject matter: The film is a thinly-veiled critique of the life and legacy of William Randolph Hearst, who was a very powerful newspaper magnate of the day, and who prohibited any mention of the film in his publications upon its release. That's a pretty daring target to satirize/criticize, and it is roman à clef at its best as far as American cinema goes.

 

Narrative device: The use of flashbacks to tell Charles Foster Kane's story was inspired, because it allows us to see each of the contributing storytellers (Leland, Bernstein, Raymond, Susan, etc.) both as they were when they interacted with Kane and as they are in later life after his death. The duality of Kane (social crusader and idealistic newspaper publisher versus ruthless power monger and megalomaniac) is fully explored and is reinforced by the conflicted opinions that each of the main characters has about the man. The use of "Rosebud" as the vehicle by allowing Reporter Jerry Thompson to track down Kane's acquaintances, ostensibly to solve the mystery of the man's dying words is easy to giggle at as a film world inside joke, but it was genius. It did not matter at all the Thompson never figured out what Rosebud was, didn't matter that it was boy Kane's sled that got incinerated in the last scene (other than to reassert the lost childhood aspect of Kane's tragic character, with the wealthiest man in America keeping this seemingly worthless possession all those years). What mattered was that the need to solve a mystery propelled the story by giving the reporter a reason to track everybody down.

 

Tragic Story: The idealist who loses everything he loves as a result of his own blind ambition is not a new story at the time teh film was released, but it is a timeless tale of a tragic hero that is told to perfection here.

 

Cinematography: Citizen Kane marks the first time deep focus is used to any extent in cinema, and that is the accomplishment of cinematographer extraordinaire Greg Toland. Toland also used in-camera matte shots and also an optical printer to create the appearance of deep focus in those scenes where he couldn't actually achieve it with lighting and lenses. Layering film was done by others at the time to achieve specific special effects, while here the filmakers are doing it just to achieve the visual they want in an average scene. Additional touches like extensive use of low-angle up shots and contrasting light and shadow scene compositions were used to better effect than any other film of the day.

 

The use of miniature models (Xanadu, the opera house rafters, etc.) were seemless to the rest of the film.

 

Music: The use of the same theme — "There was a Man" — throughout the film but in so many different modalities was brilliant. Played vaudeville-style by a live band when he was on the campaign trail, contrasted with the slow, non-diagenic bombast at the beginning and end of the film, and performed differently according to the mood of the scene throughout was not necessary to tell the story — and it's never even noticed by 98% of the viewers. But it's one of the extremes the filmmakers went to to make a perfect film.

 

That's it off the top of my head. Great film. Period.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...