- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Citizen Kane
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:13 am
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:13 am
Watched it in class last night.
I think Casablanca is better and the true "Best American Film".
Better story. To me that says it all.
Opinions?
I think Casablanca is better and the true "Best American Film".
Better story. To me that says it all.
Opinions?
5
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:18 am to magildachunks
I think it says a lot that while both are great movies nether are even my favorite Welles or Bogart movies respectively from that decade.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:21 am to magildachunks
Not one of my favorites, but still a simply great film. Its a better directed and written story than it is engaging, and I heavily respect it for those two aspects, but its difficult for me to truly love the film. Plus it basically wrote the rule book on great cinematography.
3.5 out of 4 stars.
3.5 out of 4 stars.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:26 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Not one of my favorites, but still a simply great film. Its a better directed and written story than it is engaging, and I heavily respect it for those two aspects, but its difficult for me to truly love the film. Plus it basically wrote the rule book on great cinematography.
this is true. Everybody just talked about the cinematography during the discussion, but when the story was brought up, they all just kind of shrugged their shoulders.
To me, story trumps cinematography every time. If it was the other way around, I could see Titanic as being in the top five movies ever made, but the story sucks.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:28 am to OMLandshark
quote:I think this more than anything is why it is so revered. It rewrote the book on how to shoot a movie. Before that, movies were set up like plays with a camera in front of them. Look at stuff like Wizard of Oz and try to tell me you don't feel like you are sitting in an auditorium watching a play.
Plus it basically wrote the rule book on great cinematography.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:31 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Plus it basically wrote the rule book on great cinematography.
I used to think that but then I saw more 30s movies and there are some that have amazing cinematography.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:33 am to alajones
quote:
I think this more than anything is why it is so revered. It rewrote the book on how to shoot a movie. Before that, movies were set up like plays with a camera in front of them. Look at stuff like Wizard of Oz and try to tell me you don't feel like you are sitting in an auditorium watching a play.
Moving cameras is essential to film. A lot of early movies, you'rte right, are just performing a play to the camera (well, the popular ones).
But I'll stand up for the story -- which was insanely controversial. He took on William Randolph Hearst, the most powerful media magnate in the world. That alone makes the story notable.
But I do like the story that as he becomes more and more successful, he become less and less fulfilled. He is the classic tale of rags to riches, but then in a sudden reversal, the film shows that Horatio Alger is full of shite -- the only time he was satisfied was when he was a poor boy playing in the snow.
The movie says that our American values of "success" are completely wrong. Sure, that's a bit of a cliche now, but it was a radical story for a mainstream Hollywood film. The story directly attacks the American mythos.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:38 am to constant cough
a touch of evil is better than Citizen Kane!
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:41 am to Tiger Ryno
quote:
a touch of evil
Came out on blu-ray like last week! Or at least the internet rips of it did.
This post was edited on 11/30/11 at 10:43 am
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:43 am to constant cough
quote:
I used to think that but then I saw more 30s movies and there are some that have amazing cinematography.
True. Plus there were a lot of foreign films that used great cinematography.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 10:48 am to magildachunks
quote:
True. Plus there were a lot of foreign films that used great cinematography.
We also had a massive wave of foreign filmmakers and cinematographers from Europe flocking to Hollywood in the 30s to escape Nazi persecution.
German Expressionism and French Poetic Realism were big influences on American Cinematic visual style.
A couple of my favorite 30s movies for cinematography:
The Informer
Shanghai Express
Port of Shadows
This post was edited on 11/30/11 at 10:49 am
Posted on 11/30/11 at 11:06 am to Baloo
quote:
But I'll stand up for the story -- which was insanely controversial. He took on William Randolph Hearst, the most powerful media magnate in the world. That alone makes the story notable.
He didn't write the story to take on Hearst. Sure the character was loosely based on Hearst, but it could have been any tycoon.
Hearst is the one who started the controversy by trying to get the movie destroyed. If he wouldn't have done that nobody would have given the fact that it was based on him a second glance. Welles wasn't attacking the man, but the power and wealth.
Really, the movie does not put Kane in a bad light. Just that he grew sadder and more alone as he got richer and more powerful.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 11:46 am to magildachunks
I really enjoy both of those movie. I'd rank Citizen Kane higher on my list though. It's longer so there's more for me to enjoy. Not by much but I'm weird like that. I love long movies.
The into to Citizen Kane is great. First time I saw it I was like "wtf is this? Are they telling the whole movie?" Then by the end I was like "omg that intro was amazing!" Great story. Good looking movie. Orson Welles was great.
The into to Citizen Kane is great. First time I saw it I was like "wtf is this? Are they telling the whole movie?" Then by the end I was like "omg that intro was amazing!" Great story. Good looking movie. Orson Welles was great.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 11:52 am to constant cough
I would go so far as to say that Touch of Evil has better cinematography than Citizen Kane. The opening shot in Touch of Evil is amazing.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 11:56 am to magildachunks
Well I want to say red dawn, but citizen Kane is pretty much up their in the list of the best. Oh! and if anyone didn't know it was his sled when he was a kid. I just saved you 3 hours of sitting their
Posted on 11/30/11 at 12:03 pm to patrick10203
Never liked this movie. Saw it a few times but not my cup of tea.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 12:50 pm to magildachunks
Caddyshack II
Posted on 11/30/11 at 12:52 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:
I'd rank Citizen Kane higher on my list though. It's longer so there's more for me to enjoy
I don't understand why everybody keeps bringing up the length of the movie. It's only 17 minutes longer than Casablanca, and under two hours.
It just seems like three hours.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 1:01 pm to magildachunks
Yeah you're right I just looked it up too. Though it is only one minute under two hours 
I always thought it was about 30 minutes longer. Either way, I love long movies.
I always thought it was about 30 minutes longer. Either way, I love long movies.
Posted on 11/30/11 at 1:40 pm to magildachunks
quote:
To me, story trumps cinematography every time. If it was the other way around, I could see Titanic as being in the top five movies ever made, but the story sucks.
The difference is, the cinematography in Citizen Kane really did advance the story and add texture and nuance to it. Titanic was more just "that looks badass".
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News