The MoFo Movie Club Discussion: Citizen Kane [Archive]

Powdered Water

02-07-10, 01:03 PM

mark f

02-07-10, 02:15 PM

I'll get back to this later, but I have one word for you... plastics. No, I mean three words... William Randolph Hearst.

Powdered Water

02-07-10, 03:02 PM

Interesting.

Harry Lime

02-07-10, 05:34 PM

Yeah, I'm gonna have to get in on this one too, after I watch it again that is. So hurry up and watch it Plainview so I can get it back from you.

iluv2viddyfilms

02-08-10, 01:50 AM

I'll get back to this later, but I have one word for you... plastics. No, I mean three words... William Randolph Hearst.

Benjamin

And Citizen Kane is great and I enjoy it far more than Casablanca.

More later, because now it's late.

mark f

02-09-10, 07:12 AM

This isn't going to be my big discussion of Citizen Kane because I want to save that for mainly discussing the content of the movie itself, but I also don't want to do one of those enormous posts dissecting every single element of the film to the point that nobody else has anything to share. There are books written about Kane, and I don't want to regurgitate those. There have also been movies about it (The Battle Over Citizen Kane, RKO 281), and I may actually be covering some of the material in them but it's been quite awhile since I've seen either one, so I don't specifically recall.

http://beachhouse.smgov.net/beachstories/resources/html_content/scene_3/group_1/lmi_image_02.jpg http://bernardschopen.tripod.com/images/kane1.jpg
...................William Randolph Hearst and actress Marion Davies..................Charles Foster Kane and "singer" Susan Alexander

Citizen Kane was well-known in and outside of Hollywood before it was ever released in spite of all the effort Orson Welles took to keep the subject matter hush hush. But Louella Parsons (who basically worked in Hollywood as a spy for William Randolph Hearst and his newspapers) and Hedda Hopper told Hearst that Charles Foster Kane was indeed Hearst and only a thinly-veiled version of him at that. The more that Hearst learned, the more he decided to use his extreme wealth to try to buy the master negative (and failing that, all prints made from it) and have them all burned before they could ever be shown to the public. So, PW, if you hate Kane the character, what do you think that Welles thought of Hearst the man? And what do you think that Hearst thought of himself since it's amazing how completely Welles represents Hearst here, no matter how much Welles denied all the connections.

Kane and Hearst both were born in 1863.
They both got rich from mines, although Hearst's parents were wealthy.
They were both expelled from Harvard.
They both had a publishing/media empire.
They both wanted a war in Cuba and voila, the Spanish-American War.
They both unsuccessfully ran for Governor of New York.
They both had affairs with women in show business while being married.
They both were avaricious collectors of art and historical objects.
They both built a humongous "castle" to house said objects and live much of their lives there.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6gZO9WW7l6k/SPTDQyZEXII/AAAAAAAADQA/NL3bIoW6Fqw/s400/Hearst+Castle.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_umfxV1bqzno/St9gmnS2o7I/AAAAAAAAAcA/lHsYn-IUy4A/s400/xanadu.jpg
...................................Hearst Castle.......................................................................................Xanadu

So sure, feel free to hate Charles Foster Kane without knowing anything about William Randolph Hearst. I mean, Welles was so damn successful by the age of 25 that there were plenty of people back then who would have wanted to see him fail after "The War of the Worlds" and his successful Broadway directorial efforts, so every one has a right to hate Kane if that's the overwhelming emotion you get from the film. Most of the characters interviewed during the course of Citizen Kane don't think much of him either, so if you hate Kane, then you are probably seeing him clearly.

...........http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/files/2009/06/orson-wells-mtota-war-of-the-worlds.jpeg.......http://i161.photobucket.com/albums/t203/bejmaf/wellesjuliuscaesar.jpg
Orson Welles doing The War of the Worlds on radio, Halloween, 1938...Orson Welles in Julius Caesar, Broadway, 1937

On the other hand, since Hearst was successful at having all of his papers and radio stations never advertise Citizen Kane, the film wasn't seen by many people and failed to earn a profit at the box office. Citizen Kane and the happenings earlier were actually Welles' last hurrah in the Hollywood spotlight because afterwards, Welles had a difficult time ever creating a film which a studio either didn't tamper with or which didn't take him extreme lengths of time to shoot due to constantly running out of funds. It's only after WWII, when the film played in Europe for the first time that French critics began to look at the film as being highly-influential and incredibly-complex in multiple ways.

http://metavideogame.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/medium_welles-citizen-kane.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Wb7gmBhM3z4/STU_l0RwdKI/AAAAAAAAA10/2W7cOAh5nfs/s400/citizen_kaneRosebud-766723.jpg http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y93/chrisoliver/CitizenKane6.jpg
............................................................................"Rosebud".......................................................................

The film begins with the death of the main character and then segues into a long newsreel about his life story. The beginning is so audacious that it throws a lot of first-time viewers for a loop. Not only that, but as you begin to get your bearings, the film introduces a number of elderly characters who all reminisce about Kane, so now we see him from many different perspectives, but they aren't always in chronological order and some of them are contradictory. So, once again, the narrative is completely unusual, and Welles and his fellow artists continue to catch you off guard by using overlapping dialogue, deep focus photography, special effects to make things seem larger than they are, extensive makeup work on almost every actor seen in the film during various times in their lives, an intense and haunting Bernard Herrmann score, which coupled with bizarre sound effects and strange editing (the scene where the bird cackles, the scene where the photograph comes to life, the photographic journey up to the opera house rafters during a particular "aria", and hundreds more). All these directorial choices just make the film more enjoyable and dense for the watcher, but once again, some people do not like films where they do not like the characters. I don't know. It seems to me that several modern directors have become famous for highlighting some of the most unlikable characters ever, and among those I would include Martin Scorsese and Christopher Nolan.

http://titirangistoryteller.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/kane-3.jpg
............................................................Special F/X, anyone?.................................................

OK, that's probably enough background material which might help people to get into the movie and the character. But if that doesn't totally work, you can think of Citizen Kane as the Brazil (1985, Terry Gilliam) of its day. Brazil wasn't going to get a formal release in the U.S. at all because Universal and Sid Sheinberg wanted a shorter film with a happy ending. Gilliam took out an ad in the L.A. Times and snuck copies of his original cut around Hollywood until a group of critics (The Los Angeles Film Critics Association) lionized the film and awarded it their Best Picture Prize. Universal subsequently released the film in its full cut. Is that a stretch or does that make sense if you go back about 65 years ago to see what the French did for the "revival" of Citizen Kane?

Tacitus

02-09-10, 10:00 AM

I'll hopefully get a chance to watch Kane fresh again tonight. It's been a few years. ;)

Yoda

02-09-10, 11:45 AM

Ditto. I'm still kinda stuck where I am at the moment so it might be a few more until I can get my hands on a copy of this and drop by, but hopefully this week. :)

mark f

02-09-10, 01:06 PM

Hey, my copy is coming in the mail tomorrow. :cool:

Iroquois

02-09-10, 01:21 PM

Oh, Lordy. I'm trying to figure out if I want in on this or not - wouldn't be averse to another viewing, though, it's just a question of finding anything to say. It's like what Mark said already, there's already so much that's been said about Kane so far that trying to do a discussion about it would be - hmm. Although I suppose that's what the extra questions at the end of the OP were about.

I might come back to this one.

Yoda

02-09-10, 01:24 PM

I like it when the Movie Club forces me to get off my butt and a) revisit a classic I haven't seen in awhile, and b) forces me to buy a copy of a movie I should have owned already. Two thumbs up. :up: :up:

TheUsualSuspect

02-09-10, 01:36 PM

Was forced it watch this for Film Theory 4 years ago. I knew I wasn't head over heels for it, but admire and respected it for everything it did.

Revisit it? If I have the time I will and I'll post my thoughts.

honeykid

02-09-10, 03:58 PM

It's odd. This is one of the few classics that I completely understand the kudos it recieves. An absolute cornerstone of cinema, (and I mean world over, not just American or the English speaking world) a film that has been loved by and inspired generations of filmmakers since the late 40's/early 50's and the great and the good have been wondering whether or not they can be bothered to watch it/saying they don't like it.

I don't want to start anything outside of discussing the film (as that's the point of this thread) but I get the feeling that if the film had been Casablanca, (which was one of the choices) The Bridge On The River Kwai, Bladerunner or something like that, anyone who seemed to be less than 100% behind it or 'into' it would be looked at as a bit strange or a troll or something. But Citizen Kane seems to be fair game. Maybe it's a trend.

theoneinred7

02-09-10, 07:11 PM

It's a flamboyant film, and Welles's exuberance sometimes overlaps with a tendency to show off, in my opinion. On the other hand, it takes risks and has an energy. Citizen Kane is several movies, and I've always thought the movie about unriddling rosebud was overshadowed by the movie that was the cinematography.

honeykid

02-09-10, 07:43 PM

I've always thought that the 'Rosebud' mystery was a bit of a red herring.

Powdered Water

02-09-10, 10:22 PM

This isn't going to be my big discussion of Citizen Kane because I want to save that for mainly discussing the content of the movie itself, but I also don't want to do one of those enormous posts dissecting every single element of the film to the point that nobody else has anything to share. There are books written about Kane, and I don't want to regurgitate those. There have also been movies about it (The Battle Over Citizen Kane, RKO 281), and I may actually be covering some of the material in them but it's been quite awhile since I've seen either one, so I don't specifically recall.

I think I'll have to go and look those up, thanks Mark.

Citizen Kane was well-known in and outside of Hollywood before it was ever released in spite of all the effort Orson Welles took to keep the subject matter hush hush. But Hedda Hopper (who basically worked in Hollywood as a spy for William Randolph Hearst and his newspapers) told Hearst that Charles Foster Kane was indeed Hearst and only a thinly-veiled version of him at that. The more that Hearst learned, the more he decided to use his extreme wealth to try to buy the master print (and failing that, all others made from that print) and have them all burned before they could ever be shown to the public.That's really interesting Mark. Fascinating almost. I'm glad Welles was able to still get the film out.

So, PW, if you hate Kane the character, what do you think that Welles thought of Hearst the man? And what do you think that Hearst thought of himself since it's amazing how completely Welles represents Hearst here, no matter how much Welles denied all the connections.Well, I can't claim that I really have any idea of what Welles thought of Hearst. I can turn my cynical, magic, magnifying mind on it though and I reckon he may very well have felt a lot of the same things about Hearst that I did about Kane.

So, I'll throw it back into your corner since you know a lot more about this than I do. Do you have any reason to believe that Welles harbored some kind of personal vendetta against Hearst? Has Welles ever stated publicly that he felt his portrayal of the man was justified? Has Welles ever given any reason whatsoever as to why he apparently decided to dissect this man's life and try to lay him bare? If the one and only point was to make a film about how evil a powerful man with money can be, then obviously he succeeded.

So sure, feel free to hate Charles Foster Kane without knowing anything about William Randolph Hearst. I mean, Welles was so damn successful by the age of 25 that there were plenty of people back then who would have wanted to see him fail after "The War of the Worlds" and his successful Broadway directorial efforts, so every one has a right to hate Kane if that's the overwhelming emotion you get from the film. Most of the characters interviewed during the course of Citizen Kane don't think much of him either, so if you hate Kane, then you are probably seeing him clearly.Thanks, I think. :cool:

On the other hand, since Hearst was successful at having all of his papers and radio stations never advertise Citizen Kane, the film wasn't seen by many people and failed to earn a profit at the box office. Citizen Kane and the happenings earlier were actually Welles' last hurrah in the Hollywood spotlight because afterwards, Welles had a difficult time ever creating a film which a studio either didn't tamper with or which didn't take him extreme lengths of time to shoot due to constantly running out of funds. It's only after WWII, when the film played in Europe for the first time that French critics began to look at the film as being highly-influential and incredibly-complex in multiple ways. OK, fair enough, but now I'm going to play Devil's advocate here with you. Do you have any direct knowledge that Hearst had anything to do with this? A man like Hearst could muster up one hell of a propaganda machine I'm sure. But like you said. Welles was already quite successful and probably had a little bit of his own money to boot. How am I to know for sure that the reason Welles had such a hard time finishing another film afterwords wasn't due in large part to his own tinkering around with his other projects. The guy obviously liked to fool around with everything. I know he had an unbelievable attention to detail. I've read the bulk of his notes on Touch of Evil. I couldn't help but think albeit, however briefly it was; perhaps he just has too much to do with his films. Maybe he's just one of those guys that can never stop tinkering no matter how long it takes him to do it. I think that picture you posted below may be a good example of what I'm talking about. How long do you think it took Welles and Co. to get that shot from the balcony?

Maybe I'm completely off base, but if I am then why is this film so hard for me to watch? I haven't seen as many movies as you have, but I've seen plenty and there's tons of movies that I would recommend to someone before this one.

The film begins with the death of the main character and then segues into a long newsreel about his life story. The beginning is so audacious that it throws a lot of first-time viewers for a loop. Not only that, but as you begin to get your bearings, the film introduces a number of elderly characters who all reminisce about Kane, so now we see him from many different perspectives, but they aren't always in chronological order and some of them are contradictory. So, once again, the narrative is completely unusual, and Welles and his fellow artists continue to catch you off guard by using overlapping dialogue, deep focus photography, special effects to make things seem larger than they are, extensive makeup work on almost every actor seen in the film during various times in their lives, an intense and haunting Bernard Herrmann score, which coupled with bizarre sound effects and strange editing (the scene where the bird cackles, the scene where the photograph comes to life, the pan up to the opera house rafters during a particular "aria", and hundreds more). All these directorial choices just make the film more enjoyable and dense for the watcher, but once again, some people do not like films where they do not like the characters. I don't know. It seems to me that several modern directors have become famous for highlighting some of the most unlikable characters ever, and among those I would include Martin Scorsese and Christopher Nolan.I appreciate what you're trying to do here; and I'm trying to be open minded. But all throughout this constant barrage of all of the things you mentioned above. I just kept losing interest. All the unusual narrative completely turns me off. And once I get turned off you can have all the fancy camerawork in the world, but I'm still just not into it. Movies are supposed to be about stories. The better the story the more I like the movie. The story in this film is completely all over the map. If Welles really had something to say about how evil (or whatever) he thought Hearst was. Why the smeg couldn't he just come out and say it at some point?

OK, that's probably enough background material which might help people to get into the movie and the character. But if that doesn't totally work, you can think of Citizen Kane as the Brazil (1985, Terry Gilliam) of its day. Brazil wasn't going to get a formal release in the U.S. at all because Universal and Sid Sheinberg wanted a shorter film with a happy ending. Gilliam took out an ad in the L.A. Times and snuck copies of his original cut around Hollywood until a group of critics (The Los Angeles Film Critics Association) lionized the film and awarded it their Best Picture Prize. Universal subsequently released the film in its full cut. Is that a stretch or does that make sense if you go back about 65 years ago to see what the French did for the "revival" of Citizen Kane?That's a great comparison but for me, Brazil had likable characters and maybe that's all it really boils down to. I couldn't stand Charles Foster Kane and if in fact that's all Welles was trying to get across then he succeeded.

mark f

02-09-10, 11:02 PM

OK, PW, here's the thing. You cannot tell me that you hated Kane just from watching the beginning of the film or the fractured narrative. It had to have kicked in somewhere later on, especially when he was older and probably involved the scenes with Susan Alexander. Now, the point obviously is that Kane is something of a self-made man, but I've always found him quite charming and likable, especially when he was a young man. It's only near the end when he actually comes to understand what a loathsome person he is. Kane does realize himself all the bad things he did and which are testified to by all the witnesses the newsreel investigator interviews. But here's where you and I disagree; the ending is tragic. Nobody ever knew Kane because he always let his money, power and media do the talking for him. For all of that, he has not one friend in the world who even knew what the one thing he loved the most from his childhood was. His Mother probably knew but she was dead before he died. "Rosebud" is Kane's way of trying to relive his life and maybe actually changing it to something much more innocent. Think of it as Kane's life flashing before his eyes at the moment of his death. Whatever else you think of Kane, he has to be one of the loneliest men in the world. Now, could that be true also of Welles? I bet that it could, but if Welles already knew that by the time he was 25, then he must have had a much-tougher time than Kane ever did.

As far as those notes about Touch of Evil, you have to remember that Universal had already butchered Welles' original version of that flick and that he just made some thorough notes about how he would like to see it actually saved for posterity. All those changes were made after Welles died.

I'm not really sure what the deal is with Hearst. Pauline Kael claims that she read a first draft copy of the script to Citizen Kane and that the only name on it was Herman J. Mankiewicz. She claims that it's 99% of what the shooting script was. It was only later that Welles' name was added to the credit. Maybe somebody else knows about this, but since I've been to Hearst Castle five times, I do know a lot about the man, and he's obviously a fascinating subject.

Powdered Water

02-09-10, 11:19 PM

That's true, I really enjoyed the first 30 minutes or so. As I'd assume you probably already guessed.

And actually, I agree with you. I too, think the ending is tragic. The whole movie is really. I think that's what bugs me about it. I will never understand why people that have so much, choose to live their lives this way. This guy collected... well, pretty much anything and everything and all of it meant nothing to him. It was just something to do.

While we're talking about the ending a bit. What did you think of his Mother? I found her to be a completely cold fish. And I wish it was fleshed out a bit more as to why it was that she just decided that young Charles was to go away from the family home. It almost seemed like she was hinting that there was something untoward happening between the Father and Charles, but again the story never really gives us a real explanation and I found that to be pretty infuriating.

mark f

02-09-10, 11:46 PM

Yeah, I think the thing with his Mom (Agnes Moorehead) was that she knew first-hand that his father was an abusive drunk. It's not that he was sexually-abusive to Charlie, but he was abusive and she wanted to get her son as far away from him as possible so that the Dad wouldn't be able to get ahold of any of Charlie's wealth.

Also, to answer your first post about the "alleged amateurishness" of the cast of Citizen Kane. It's got one of what would turn out to be the greatest casts of any film, at least based on how most of their careers panned out and the way they performed in the flick. Remember, the Mercury Theatre was basically a group which Welles and John Houseman formed and they were already veterans at stage and radio before Citizen Kane introduced most of them to the cinema world.

mark f

02-11-10, 07:53 AM

http://www.tigulliovino.it/rotfl/NO-TRESPASSING.jpg

Well, I did watch the first 20 minutes of Citizen Kane for the first time in a decade. I loved the way the silent title of the movie segued into the fence outside Xanadu and focused on the "No Trespassing" sign; it basically tells you right up front that Kane does not want you meddling in his personal affairs but then the film attempts to do so. The camera climbs the fence and proceeds to get closer to the main building, passing the remnants of a zoo (Hearst Castle had a zoo) and a golf course. Eventually we get close to the one light on in the main building which goes off and then comes back on. Cut to the snow globe, Kane's lips, "Rosebud", globe gets dropped and broken as the nurse walks in and finds that Kane is dead.

http://filmyear.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/05/16/citizen_kane_1941_2.jpg

After that we get the News on the March newsreel which delineates Kane's life and shows many views of the man. I especially like the scene on the balcony where Kane is with Hitler and the implication that Kane supported him before he knew any better. After the newsreel ends, the director seems to want to find a hook into Kane's life and focuses on the great man's final word Rosebud to try to find out what made him tick. However, the first few people seem to have no idea of what Rosebud is. However, Gregg Toland's photography highlights the use of saturated rear lighting and the way it causes people's extremities to darken and extend that light. [Brenda said, "It reminds me of (the scene where Sally sings "Maybe This Time" in) Cabaret."]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3rkLRJ0m0k
Check at about 3:15 for the "Citizen Kane Effect".

Mrs. Darcy

02-11-10, 08:54 AM

I stopped watching Citizen Kane after 15 minutes my first viewing. It was too strange. Then, I had to watch it for film analysis, and because I was looking for certain things, I enjoyed it very much. I've seen it twice more since, and I keep finding new things to marvel at and dissect. It really was full of surprises.

beelzebubbles

02-11-10, 01:08 PM

Ah, l'enfant terrible against le monstre sacre.

This film proves only one thing: if you want to get a guy's goat, go after his girl.

Rosebud, indeed!

Complex story telling, fabulous cinematography with a film noir feel, excellent character actors, the sensibility of a sardonic joker and the insane need to avenge the smallest slight made this film great art.

Mind you this recipe doesn't always work, but in this case it did.

thracian dawg

02-14-10, 01:07 PM

This film proves only one thing: if you want to get a guy's goat, go after his girl.

Rosebud, indeed!

Rumor has it, Rosebud was Willlian Randolph Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies' clitoris. Which could explain some of his fury at Orson.

mark f

02-15-10, 08:18 PM

I've watched Citizen Kane all the way through quite a few times now recently, but I'm not posting anymore until somebody else adds something. The only thing I'll add is that my rating is 3.5+, but that's because I'm jaded.

Yoda

02-15-10, 08:22 PM

Should finally get my hands on a copy in the next few days, if only so I can jump in and get Mark to say more. :D

Swan

02-15-10, 08:30 PM

Can I just say Ebert's commentary on the 2-disc is a real eye-opener for those who don't 'get it'.

:)

Yoda

02-15-10, 08:31 PM

Yeah, I'm buying the 2-disc because I've heard tons about Ebert's commentary. I can't wait!

Swan

02-15-10, 08:34 PM

:up:

Nothing

02-15-10, 11:11 PM

I only made it half way through this movie on my first viewing about 5 years ago. I was overwhelmingly bored by it. However, reading through this thread (particularly Mark's contributions) has made me think about giving it another shot. Thanks a lot, Mark. As if I dont have enough movies to watch. ;)

jet57

02-16-10, 01:14 AM

And so here we are again one and all. We are here to dissect the greatest movie of all time as some would have you believe. Where does one begin such an undertaking? Well, first off let me remind you (even though I find it a little ridiculous to do so for a 71 year old film) that this is a spoiler free zone. So if you've never seen this classic and plan to do so then; READ NO FURTHER.

Citizen Kane (Orson Welles - 1941) 3

Is this the greatest film that no one wants to see? I'm not to sure about that. I can say however in truth. This film leaves me cold. It has always left me cold and most likely (if I can ever be bothered to watch it again) will leave me cold once again in the future. That being said, I realize and freely admit that I understand very little about how a film is made and what it takes to make a shot "work" and so on and so forth. And from everything I have ever read about this film, I am constantly told how innovative and how marvelous the editing is and the camera work and etc, etc...

Does that make it a great film though? Seems to me that a lot of us are having the very same discussion about a little movie called Avatar right now. Avatar is pretty much all special effects and low on story and yet the majority of us love it. So, does that mean that Avatar could go on to become one of the greatest movies of all time? Maybe. Maybe not.

See, I just watch movies. I either love them, hate them, sort of like them. What have you. I can see that there were some very cool shots done in this film because I've seen a lot of 40's movies so I know what a lot of those films tended to look like but that still doesn't necessarily make for a great film. What really holds back this film for me is the story. I hated Charles Foster Kane. Yeah, hated him. People like this are the reason the world is the way it is today. Am I painting to broad of a generalization? Maybe, maybe not. I have my own ideas about the world and where its heading and films like this tend to make me worry about that. But I digress... I'll try to set my tangents aside.

I have to wonder aloud if I would have liked this film a lot more if Bogey played the lead role? I mean, I've only caught a handful of Orson Welles movies and I think he may be a fair actor. I thought he was really outstanding in Touch of Evil, but he also had a rather limited part in that film. Could Bogey have warmed up this cold fish of a film for me? I doubt it. I tend to believe that Welles was directly responsible for how dark and depressing the film is and I believe that's how he wanted it. Well, it worked, he got it.

So, what do you all think? Is this film all about the man Welles? Or was he honestly trying to "say" something about the world in general? What was the point of this film? Did Charles Foster Kane have any redeeming qualities? What were they? I missed them. See, I'm a simple guy for the most part. If he would have left his vast fortune to a puppy shelter or something at the end of the film I might have an entirely different outlook on the guy. Instead you see the staff throwing a bunch of his crap into the furnace which to me lends even more credence to the lack of point to it all. I don't know. I have to admit, the film does make you think about things and (obviously) can send a guy like me off on a tangent. But again, does that mean its a great film?

If I can compare this to what I truly think is a great film for a moment. I'm sorry if this bothers you, but it's just how I talk about movies. Casablanca, to me, is a great film. Why? The story is simple, elegant and well acted by some terrific players. Citizen Kane even (almost boastfully) admits at the end of the film that the majority of the actors in the movie have next to no experience. Why? Is this an example of Welles being Welles or is it a brilliant move on his part.? For the record, I really don't know enough about the man to say whether or not if I think he was some kind of egomaniac. The movie, at times, can certainly take one down that road (if you have a similar view of things as I do I expect) but, I may be completely missing the point too.

So what do you think? What was the point? Why is this movie so hard to watch? If it isn't. Why is it so easy for you to watch?

Sorry about not including your pictures: the site said I din't have enough posts to make the reply (with links): <shrug>

Yeah. So I read your enquire and review with interest. I have seen the picture, I dunno ten times? This picture has a lot of inside meaning: Wells acted out the life of William Randolph Hearst. “Rosebud”: I’m convinced, represented some secret that Hearst must have had. It certainly was a secret with Kane. (A secret memory, a pleasure that he has never had again: an innocence . . .) Who knows? Rosebud obviously did.

Kane’s staff throws everything in the fire after he dies, simply because, nobody liked him. Nobody respected him. Nobody wanted to remember him. Yet everybody feared him: he made sure of that. He was an abusive person from the beginning. Just – like - Hearst.
Well’s innovations in filmmaking, at that time, and even now, go over like Stanley Kubrik’s work: nobody had command of a camera and what went into that frame better than Kubrick. And nobody has been able to duplicate it. Wells was an innovator: nobody had put a roof on a set until Wells. And such a simple concept, so overlooked, and so missing from reality set design. Let alone the lighting opportunities.

Because you don’t know much about filmmaking, you can’t observe the detail that Wells put into this picture. The picture itself, as I recall didn’t make that much money. But for people into movie making, at that time up until this, it was “zounds” ahead of it’s time.
Not using well known actors is a great trick for helping an audience believe the characters: they are more real if you don’t know who they are. Kubrick did it a lot: saves money and separates good direction from bad direction.
The picture ruined Wells: Hearst took all of his money and went after Wells with both feet. First trying to get the picture shelved, and then in shelving Wells: he died broke.

I would suggest that if you are really into it: you seem to want to be . . . Then read up on Wells, read up on Hearst and then Read up on Citizen Kane. And then, in front of no less than a 52” screen: watch it again. And before you read all of that; take a good long look at the best photography you’ve ever seen. Why do those pictures effect you? What makes them good? Do they communicate? The apply what you learn to Well’s photographic style in picture.
See what happens.

rufnek

02-17-10, 03:52 PM

I've always thought that the 'Rosebud' mystery was a bit of a red herring.

I disagree--it was the motivation and final explanation of Kane's life. The newsfilm staff had an inkling with their guess that it was something Kane lost. Later Joseph Cotton's character says something about Kane was always looking for something in himself, that probably even he didn't know what was driving him. And the simple truth was that, to protect him, to give him the best in life, to show her love for him, his mother sent him away from the only place where we ever see him carefree and completely happy. As she makes her decision, we see young Kane in one of those famous shots where the foreground, midground and background are all in focus happily playing with his sled. And when he leaves, the camera cuts to his snow-covered sled tossed aside. The final scene brings the film full circle and connects everything to its beginning. That final shot is absolutely vital in connecting all the dots of what drove Kane.

rufnek

02-17-10, 04:44 PM

Citizen Kane even (almost boastfully) admits at the end of the film that the majority of the actors in the movie have next to no experience. Why?

Oh, my. You missed the message on this one, PW. The cast was relatively new to movies, but they had lots and lots of acting experience both on stage and on radio in the same Mercury Theater productions in which Welles and John Houseman cut their acting and directorial teeth (Houseman never broke into movies as an actor until many years later in The Paper Chase.) All of the major actors and even some of the supporting actors in Kane went on to become longtime stars and outstanding character actors in the movies! What you're witnessing in that film is the start of several brilliant careers.

Why is this movie so hard to watch? If it isn't. Why is it so easy for you to watch?

I dunno. Why do I love escargot and oysters on the half shell and shucking boiled crawfish, but it gags my wife? All I know was that I was in my mid-20s when I first saw a screening of Citizen Kane, and it was like I was seeing a motion picture for the first time--everything filmed before or after was like finger puppets on the wall. It grabbed me from the getgo and carried me on one of the most fasinating voyages of discovery I ever had. Everyone talks about how fabulous the photography is, and they're right. But then there's also the use of backlighting and other lighting effects. The multiple reflections of Kane in the hallway mirrors and surreal nature of the mass picnic on the Kane estate with the black staff and muscians are like looking at impressionist paintings. And the use of dialog to transition to the next scene and illustrate the passage of time in the breakfast table meetings between Kane and his first wife was extremely innovative and was copied by others afterward. Plus the daring perspectives with cameras placed on the floor or dollying in through a broken skylight to pick up the characters below. There's a world of wonderful eye-candy in that film. So great cast, great photography, great sets and great use of special effects (with those giant fireplaces), great make-up in the aging of Kane and others. And it's a great story, telling of a man's fall from Grace like a Greek tragedy. It wonderfully and authentically depicts the various historical periods, which is vital to me. But best of all, it's a story of a newsman told from a newsman's point of view. I love the back-lit scenes of the news staff conference where you can't make out the features of the nameless reporters and editors picking apart and coming up with new angles to tell Kane's story. The editor's complaint that the newsreel doesn't tell "the story behind the man" is spot on. And the way the reporters fan out trying to run down all sorts of clues and interviewing everyone who might know something about Kane and their irreverent, smart-alec remarks in the process is exactly the way reporters always have been and the way we still are today. You see Kane's story from various viewpoints as the reporters dig it out. But it's a complicated story because people have complicated lives and Kane even more so because of his wealth and power, and in the end the reporters can't tie it together because they're missing the one vital fact--the Rosebud connection that explains it all.

The thing I like most about Kane is its complexity. It's not the kind of film where you can chat with your friends and eat popcorn while you're watching it. It demands your attention, your partipation, it forces you to think about what you're seeing on screen. And some folks just don't like to do that

rufnek

02-17-10, 04:50 PM

Rumor has it, Rosebud was Willlian Randolph Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies' clitoris. Which could explain some of his fury at Orson.

Geeze, that old story has whiskers. Think a minute--who would know this other than Hearst and Davies????? It was one of those silly jokes that made the rounds back then.

rufnek

02-17-10, 05:03 PM

I'm not really sure what the deal is with Hearst. Pauline Kael claims that she read a first draft copy of the script to Citizen Kane and that the only name on it was Herman J. Mankiewicz. She claims that it's 99% of what the shooting script was. It was only later that Welles' name was added to the credit. Maybe somebody else knows about this, but since I've been to Hearst Castle five times, I do know a lot about the man, and he's obviously a fascinating subject.

I read something somewhere that Mankiewicz modeled his original story on some personality he hated but it wasn't Hearst. In fact, as I remember it, the main character at first had no connection with newspapers and radio. It may have had something to do with the evangelical preachers who were doing a big business back then with traveling tent shows and radio programs, but I may be dis-remembering that. Anyway, at some point they kept the basics of Mankiewicz's original character and made him into a newspaper owner, so it really wasn't based on Hearst at all, as Welles always claimed. But apparently it was the Marion Davies connection that seemed to be paralleled in Kane with the untalented singer that everyone, including Hearst, focused on. The funny thing is that Davies actually wasn't a bad actress if you look at some of her pictures.

honeykid

02-17-10, 06:03 PM

rufnek

02-17-10, 07:00 PM

I just meant that, for me, the film is about more than finding out what "Rosebud" is. That's what the characters in the story are looking for. It is, as you say, what joins the dots, but if that's all you get from the film I think you've missed a lot. A bit like only being concerned about the mystery of The Maltese Falcon.

Like the Maltese Falcon, Rosebud was "the stuff dreams are made of." And in both it's the telling of the story that unravels the mystery and establishes that truth that make those such great films.

gohansrage

02-17-10, 08:09 PM

Every art form has its "required material." If you consider yourself a fan of a particular art, you must be familiar with some or all of these works. Sculpture has The David. Painting has Mona Lisa. Music has Beethoven's Ninth Sympony. Theatre has Hamlet; writing has Ulysses.

For film, that work is Citizen Kane.

http://titirangistoryteller.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/citizen-kane.jpg

This is my favorite scene. This is the culmination of his personal mission--at this point he is loved by all. He is their savior. Kane is central on the screen--his giant visage behind him, a gargantuan example of his ego and inflated self worth. His arms outstrecthed in image of a crucified Christ--for CFK so loved the world he sent his only begotten self. The hubris displayed in this scene is his tragic flaw.

Citizen Kane is my favorite movie. A classic. It is the greatest American Film, and certainly makes a case as the greatest film. Beautifully shot. Well acted. Well directed. I cannot say too many good things about it.

mark f

02-19-10, 09:58 PM

Awesome.

I'm going to get back into this thread very slowly, at least until others have participated (and you know who you are...)

Who else saw Susan Alexander's eye (Dorothy Comingore's) dissolve into an eye on a stained glass window eye at Xanadu? That happened near the ending with the cut from Susan's interview to... no, you guys try to find it for now, although I'm sure that plenty have it memorized. I'll give you more clues, but it's not like you really need any...

Yoda

02-22-10, 12:10 AM

Should finally be getting this on Tuesday or so. Can't wait. :)

rufnek

02-23-10, 10:22 AM

As a journalist and a historian, I love the way Kane captures the spirit of Yellow Journalism of the late 19th-early 20th century when papers were as apt to print hoaxes as to expose them. There were cases of newspapers starting up with a bold declaration of principles and pledges to fight for the common man only to become entrenched representatives of the status quo as time went along. I love the way the story is told from the viewpoint of reporters trying to run down a story--I know those people. Hell, I am those people.

Tacitus

02-23-10, 12:19 PM

I'll get round to this in the next couple of days, I promise. :blush:

Yoda

02-23-10, 12:27 PM

This one's worth the wait, I'm sure.

My copy's coming today! Woohoo! :D

Project Steel

02-24-10, 05:12 AM

mark f

02-24-10, 05:38 AM

honeykid

02-24-10, 06:37 AM

When I hear people saying they can't get into Kane, I feel the way you guys must feel when I say the same about The French Connection or something like that. So, I understand it, but can't understand how you can't be captivated by Citizen Kane. The script alone is worthy of a nomination for Best Screenplay Ever.

Project Steel

02-24-10, 02:22 PM

So, you couldn't even find ONE thing to like about it? Not even "Rosebud"? You do realize that that fake newsreel at the beginning is all made just for the film, right? You don't like history? One last thing: you do understand that in all those lists you clicked off there under "Movie Lists" that Citizen Kane is ranked #1 in the very first one, don't you? It's not just "us", afterall, who think it's worth discussing.

Oh well, give it a shot later on is about all I can say.

I didn't say it wasn't worth discussing. I'm just saying that it didn't catch my interest, but that's just me. I understand that different people are interested in different things. I gave the movie a shot, and I didn't like it. I was just sharing my opinion.

Of course, I realize the newsreel at the beginning was fake, but I had to fight to keep my eyes open through it. I do like history, but only if it is a topic that I find interesting.

Just because it is on the top of movie lists doesn't meant that I will like it. I wish that was true, because then it would be really easy to find movies that I enjoy, but that isn't the case. I'm willing to give any movie a chance, but there are a lot of movies on the lists, that I don't like, and a lot that I do.

So of course, I think it is worthy of discussion. I believe all movies are, that is why I'm on these forums. I may give it another shot, but it probably won't be anytime soon.

rufnek

02-24-10, 03:21 PM

I got a hold of this dvd, so that I could watch it for the first time and join in on this discussion. I know that a lot of you love this movie, but I personally couldn't get into it. The first time that I tried watching it, I got so incredibly bored, that I had to cut it off about 20 mins into it. I felt like I was being forced to watch an old history film back in my school days. I really wasn't even interested in giving it another try, but after a week, I put it back in. I still couldn't get far into it.

So I realize that a lot of people enjoy it, but for my personal taste it just doesn't work. If I have to force myself to watch a movie from beginning to end, then that means I don't like it.

Nobody should be "forced" to watch a film--not even by himself. :) Look, I'm one of the millions who think Kane is the greatest film ever. To me there's Kane and then there's everything else ever filmed. Kane is the champ, all the rest are just also rans. But I'm constantly getting flamed in the forum for downing Die Hard and "kung phooey" martial arts and Saving Pvt. Ryan and DiCaprio and Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise and the 3:10 to Yuma remake, plus other things that just roll off my knife. So if you don't like my favorite film, that's hunky-dory with me. Stick to your guns. Maybe someday you might get what others like me see in the film. But if you never do, so what? It's only a movie, not the Second Coming. No law says you have to love every film that comes along. I damn sure don't.

Project Steel

02-24-10, 03:30 PM

Nobody should be "forced" to watch a film--not even by himself. :) Look, I'm one of the millions who think Kane is the greatest film ever. To me there's Kane and then there's everything else ever filmed. Kane is the champ, all the rest are just also rans. But I'm constantly getting flamed in the forum for downing Die Hard and "kung phooey" martial arts and Saving Pvt. Ryan and DiCaprio and Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise and the 3:10 to Yuma remake, plus other things that just roll off my knife. So if you don't like my favorite film, that's hunky-dory with me. Stick to your guns. Maybe someday you might get what others like me see in the film. But if you never do, so what? It's only a movie, not the Second Coming. No law says you have to love every film that comes along. I damn sure don't.

Thank you. That was exactly what I was trying to say.

rufnek

03-03-10, 01:56 PM

Man, the world's greatest film draws only 47 comments??? What happened to all you folks who were about to see it for the first time? Did it live up to your expectations? Or did we fans oversell it to you?

Yoda

03-05-10, 12:29 PM

That's partially my fault; I didn't get my hands on a copy for awhile, then decided to go ahead and buy it, and saw it last week. I already started Ebert's commentary on the film, as well, but only got about halfway through. I haven't read most of the other posts in this thread; I wanted to put some thoughts down relatively unmodified first. :)

http://nighthawknews.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/citizen_kane_4.jpg

First thing's first: I loved the deep focus. Something about it makes the film seem so very modern. Many classic films, as good as they are in so many other ways, still feel so utterly telegraphed. I'm particularly turned off by an excessive number of closeups on faces to ensure that we don't miss a crucial reaction shot. It's so much more passive.

Kane gives you options, and forces you to make choices about where to look and when, even though it subtly guides you to the "correct" place. In other words, it feels like something you have to earn, and subsequent viewings can grow and change along with your understanding of the film.

What strikes me most about Citizen Kane isn't so much what it gets right, but what it doesn't get wrong. To be sure, it does a great many things right, but I wouldn't stay the raw story is of the quality one might expect from the Greatest Film Ever Made. It is a good story exalted by the tenacity of its scope and the competence of its execution. In other words, I feel that the technical expertise has wrung out one of the best of all possible adaptations of whatever was on the page.

http://sbccfilmreviews.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/welles_citizenkane_2-325x253.jpg http://usesoapfilm.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/citizen_kane_6.jpg

If the sets ever felt as small or unrealistic as they actually were, or if the makeup ever looked unconvincing, the movie would have an entirely different feel. When your task is to create an epic, fictional human life and cause people to forget that it isn't real, a single seam could spoil all. But none of them show.

Orson Welles really does look like three different versions of himself throughout the film, and he adjusts his voice and mannerisms accordingly. What's more, his more youthful incarnation is every bit as charming as his older incarnation is not. I suspect George Lucas was taking notes; Anakin's story is almost Kane-esque in that we get to see the spoiled end result before we see the young and vigorous version of the man, and half the fun is seeing how the two will eventually converge. The film's non-linear structure allows Kane to be the hero and the villain simultaneously.

http://twitchfilm.net/mastheads/uploads/citizen_kane_2.jpg

I like that Citizen Kane continually resists a single answer or interpretation. Its titular character is a complicated man, and Thompson (the reporter charged with tracking down "Rosebud") comes to realize that, whatever Kane meant by his dying words, it would not explain a life that defied description. For all the focus on the film's final shot, the ones just before it are far more important:

Female reporter: If you could've found out what Rosebud meant, I bet that would've explained everything.
Thompson: No, I don't think so; no. Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn't get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn't have explained anything...I don't think any word can explain a man's life. No, I guess Rosebud is just a...piece in a jigsaw puzzle...a missing piece.I can't say much more without devolving into superfluous gushing, I suppose. It really is as brilliant as they say.

Now, to read the other contributions here! :)

rufnek

03-05-10, 05:18 PM

I like that Citizen Kane continually resists a single answer or interpretation. Its titular character is a complicated man, and Thompson (the reporter charged with tracking down "Rosebud") comes to realize that, whatever Kane meant by his dying words, it would not explain a life that defied description. For all the focus on the film's final shot, the ones just before it are far more important:

I can't say much more without devolving into superfluous gushing, I suppose. It really is as brilliant as they say.

Now, to read the other contributions here! :)

I agree the scene you describe is important. And there's a lot of truth in Thompson's summary and if the film had ended with that shot it would be a whole different picture, taking for granted the apparent truth that a man's life can't be summed up in one word.

But the next shot that reveals Rosebud makes it a different story because it ties back to the beginning when Kane was happy the way he was. At that moment he has no ambition of greatness or public service or running a newspaper. As far as he knows, he hasn't even any prospects of going to college or ever wandering far from his current home.

Obviously Rosebud has meaning to Kane--when he picks up the glass figurine it distracts him from his rage and he's still holding it at the moment of his death, and "Rosebud" is the last word he utters. So while it does not fully explain Kane's life, I think that particular ending raises the question--in my mind, anyway--of what might have happened if Kane as a boy had not lost Rosebud, had not had his happy world disrupted. Would his life have been better or worse if his mother had not done what she "thought was right" for him. Did her action for what she thought was best for her son set in motion circumstances that led to his unhappy end? What would have been his future if he had remained in that idyllic environment? How was his future altered by his new environment of private schools and colleges and life in the big city? Did the banker who his mother placed in charge of Kane's upbringing have a better or worse effect on the boy than his real father who the mom wanted to get him away from? If he had remained poor would he have done more or less for society? He was anxious to help and represent the masses when he started his newspaper but was satisfied later to manipulate them--did he do more good or harm in the process?

The revelation of Rosebud seems to me doesn't explain his life so much as open all sorts of questions about how Kane might have been.

Or have I devolved into superfluous gushing? :)

tramp

03-06-10, 11:38 AM

Rumor has it, Rosebud was Willlian Randolph Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies' clitoris. Which could explain some of his fury at Orson.

I am so sorry I read this! :eek: That has a way of ruining the whole Rosebud theme, doesn't it?

PW, I've always felt this film left me cold, too. Yet, just last night, we were discussing it at dinner. I was telling Matt, my son, all about the amazing shots, explaining deep focus, and talking about Rosebud and what it meant. So it seems that even if the film leaves one "cold," there is a lot to talk about. I even get why people are "bored" with it.. there's something about it that seems antiseptic. It's like its too "perfect."

This is a great discussion here. I am very surprised to read rufnek's statement about Welles saying it wasn't really based on Hearst. Is that true? I've always thought that. Does Ebert address that?

Sedai

03-10-10, 01:02 PM

I agree the scene you describe is important. And there's a lot of truth in Thompson's summary and if the film had ended with that shot it would be a whole different picture, taking for granted the apparent truth that a man's life can't be summed up in one word.

But the next shot that reveals Rosebud makes it a different story because it ties back to the beginning when Kane was happy the way he was. At that moment he has no ambition of greatness or public service or running a newspaper. As far as he knows, he hasn't even any prospects of going to college or ever wandering far from his current home.

Obviously Rosebud has meaning to Kane--when he picks up the glass figurine it distracts him from his rage and he's still holding it at the moment of his death, and "Rosebud" is the last word he utters. So while it does not fully explain Kane's life, I think that particular ending raises the question--in my mind, anyway--of what might have happened if Kane as a boy had not lost Rosebud, had not had his happy world disrupted. Would his life have been better or worse if his mother had not done what she "thought was right" for him. Did her action for what she thought was best for her son set in motion circumstances that led to his unhappy end? What would have been his future if he had remained in that idyllic environment? How was his future altered by his new environment of private schools and colleges and life in the big city? Did the banker who his mother placed in charge of Kane's upbringing have a better or worse effect on the boy than his real father who the mom wanted to get him away from? If he had remained poor would he have done more or less for society? He was anxious to help and represent the masses when he started his newspaper but was satisfied later to manipulate them--did he do more good or harm in the process?

The revelation of Rosebud seems to me doesn't explain his life so much as open all sorts of questions about how Kane might have been.

Or have I devolved into superfluous gushing? :)

Far from it - I think you distilled the film down to it's most basic concepts quite elegantly. I was sitting here trying to come up with the right way to word these concepts, but I shan't bother now, as it can't get better than your description. These are the concepts in the film that interested me the most, aside from the brilliant technical achievements.

I do want to watch it again, so I can focus more attention on the character study, now that I know the score in regards to story and production a bit more - I just kept getting distracted by the innovations Welles has packed into this piece form the first frame to the last.

I mean, I picked up on the importance of him being sent off with some stranger right away, and I knew it would play an important part in the story, but I think on subsequent viewings, I will have more time to mull things over.

Yoda

03-11-10, 02:48 PM

I agree the scene you describe is important. And there's a lot of truth in Thompson's summary and if the film had ended with that shot it would be a whole different picture, taking for granted the apparent truth that a man's life can't be summed up in one word.

But the next shot that reveals Rosebud makes it a different story because it ties back to the beginning when Kane was happy the way he was. At that moment he has no ambition of greatness or public service or running a newspaper. As far as he knows, he hasn't even any prospects of going to college or ever wandering far from his current home.

Obviously Rosebud has meaning to Kane--when he picks up the glass figurine it distracts him from his rage and he's still holding it at the moment of his death, and "Rosebud" is the last word he utters. So while it does not fully explain Kane's life, I think that particular ending raises the question--in my mind, anyway--of what might have happened if Kane as a boy had not lost Rosebud, had not had his happy world disrupted. Would his life have been better or worse if his mother had not done what she "thought was right" for him. Did her action for what she thought was best for her son set in motion circumstances that led to his unhappy end? What would have been his future if he had remained in that idyllic environment? How was his future altered by his new environment of private schools and colleges and life in the big city? Did the banker who his mother placed in charge of Kane's upbringing have a better or worse effect on the boy than his real father who the mom wanted to get him away from? If he had remained poor would he have done more or less for society? He was anxious to help and represent the masses when he started his newspaper but was satisfied later to manipulate them--did he do more good or harm in the process?

The revelation of Rosebud seems to me doesn't explain his life so much as open all sorts of questions about how Kane might have been.
I'm really of two minds about the whole Rosebud thing. On one hand, it really doesn't technically explain much, as (I think) we agree. On the other hand, it's clearly meant to be important, as the timing of it, and the swell of music that accompanies it, both tell us.

The fact that it's meant to be important makes me think that well-worn cliches about money not buying happiness and people feeling nostalgic for their childhood is too simple a message to take from it, though perhaps I only feel this way because I was raised post-Kane and these things have become tired memes because of this film's fame. I feel like it has to be subtler if it's going to be the final element in such a thoughtful film.

The closest I can come to an explanation or interpretation that feels satisfying is to think that the word itself is not the significant part; what's significant is that nobody knows what it means. Kane is supposed to be one of the most most famous men who has ever lived; his entire life was spent under a microscope, and yet somehow nobody knows what "Rosebud" means. That says far more than the word itself.

Either way, it fits the metaphor nicely; the world at large will never find out what "Rosebud" was because it was literally buried in a sea of expensive collector's items, just as Kane's own pain and regret were buried under his decadence. His used these things to avoid opening up to anyone or confronting any of these issues psychologically, but they also physically stopped the same sort of thing after he died. It's a really lovely bit of symmetry.

rufnek

03-11-10, 03:39 PM

Either way, it fits the metaphor nicely; the world at large will never find out what "Rosebud" was because it was literally buried in a sea of expensive collector's items, just as Kane's own pain and regret were buried under his decadence. His used these things to avoid opening up to anyone or confronting any of these issues psychologically, but they also physically stopped the same sort of thing after he died. It's a really lovely bit of symmetry.

"It's a really lovely bit of symmetry" just about says it all.

Most of the really great films--Kane and Elmer Gantry just to name two we've recently discussed--invite audience participation. We bring our own experiences, our own beliefs, our own interpretations, and try somehow to work them into the story in a satisfying manner, with the result that we sometimes come away with different takes on the same scenes we both saw.

Kane never says, "Gee, I had such a great childhood." He never says he misses his mom or dad--never really mentions them once he goes away. The cold deliberate banker becomes his family, and for awhile Kane seems like the black sheep, never respecting or pleasing the stiff-necked banker, always treating him as something like a joke. Yet at the end, Kane and the banker become another piece of symmetry. The banker loves money too much; Kane if anything loves money too little likely because he has so much of it and no need to "invest wisely" as the banker would do. Yet in the end, they are both joyless and loveless bitter old men.

I also like the ironic symmetry of the concept of the mom, in trying to "save" her son and give him the best of her good fortune, sets in motion the very things that lead to his ruin. Like they say about good intentions paving the way to hell.

I thnk one thing that makes the final Rosebud scene so meaningful to me is having raised three children. Now that they're grown, we sometimes talk about how it was when they were growing up and I'm often surprised to learn that some of the things that they remember best and treasure most are not always the big events I remember, but sometimes something simple and small but still a precious memory to them. Rosebud reminds me of that.

mark f

03-11-10, 04:41 PM

I believe that Rosebud's use is two-fold. It's obviously meant to humanize Kane at the end of the film. At the beginning, we have no idea what Rosebud could be although we are given the clue of the snow globe falling out of Kane's hands when he says it. The beginning uses Rosebud as the entire basis of what turns out to be the "plot" of the movie. How are we going to go about trying to find out the soul of this dead man who the world knows a lot of but cannot really understand what makes him tick. Therefore, Rosebud is the clothesline from which the various witnesses are strung in an attempt to crack the nut of Citizen Kane. The fact that no one surviving or studied is able to illuminate Rosebud's meaning is significant but actually fades well into the background for a while until the film reaches its conclusion. It's only in the film's final moments, after we've seen Kane at his most-selfish-and-despotic, that Rosebud returns as something important to show that the man may truly have been just a child at heart. Rosebud certainly relates to Kane's innocence and is also somewhat explainable as the reason why he initially runs his newspaper as if he were a kid in a candy store. Kane did start out as someone who just seemed to have fun with all the things he inherited but eventually he thought of them and all his friends and employees more as possessions rather than toys or things for him to entertain himself, his cohorts and hopefully the world.

You see, I don't believe that Kane ever lost "Rosebud". After all, it was at Xanadu and he could have found it if he truly desired that. What he lost was the meaning of Rosebud and he only recalled it on his deathbed. It's as if Kane's life flashed before his eyes (sort of like the newsreel which immediately comes on directly after his death) and the thing which made him happiest of all was Rosebud. At the end of the movie we see that Kane and Rosebud are both going to the same place -- to ashes. It's tragic, yes, but what it really means is that Kane is just another man. No matter how rich and influential you are during life, you can't take it with you and you'll never really separate yourself from the simplest, humblest soul on Earth, except that perhaps that person may live a life filled with his/her Rosebud and not need to try to find a substitute by collecting objects and people. It may not be profound but it still turns the movie and the man into a tragic figure. Think about it. If we never learned what Rosebud was, most people wouldn't think as highly of the film. At least that's my opinion.

rufnek

03-12-10, 03:54 PM

Rosebud returns as something important to show that the man may truly have been just a child at heart....What he lost was the meaning of Rosebud and he only recalled it on his deathbed. It's as if Kane's life flashed before. . . It may not be profound but it still turns the movie and the man into a tragic figure. Think about it. If we never learned what Rosebud was, most people wouldn't think as highly of the film. At least that's my opinion.

I don't think I've ever heard or read a description of Kane as "a child at heart," but it makes sense. He's a spoiled child, an over-indulged child in his early adulthood, dancing with chorus girls, using his newspaper to push the country into war, indulging himself with any desire of the moment, which is what leads to the binge-buying on his European trip, his plunge into a race for political office, And like a stubborn child, he refuses to take the out his political opponent offers him--withdraw from the race and he'll bury the scandal with the girlfriend. Kane refuses and is subjected to both scandal and his first major defeat. Still, he owns the most toys and if anyone wants to play, they must play by his rules, so his wife must humilate herself as an opera singer and visitors at Xanadu end up on those surreal safari "picnics" and such. That's an interesting concept, Mark.

I agree, too, he lost the meaning of Rosebud, may not have realized himself what it meant to him until at the end of his life when he's driven away his wife and friends and has only the things and people his money can buy. It's not the Rosebud object itself, of course, but the joy and innocence it represents. And the realization comes as suddenly to the audience with that final scene as it must have come to Kane himself at the end of his life.

Sedai

03-12-10, 04:13 PM

I think that fact that he collects statues plays into the concepts you gents are elaborating on, as well, and the line "Who would pay x amount of dollars for a dame without a head" is also quite significant. Kane only understood the shell of people, the superficial, because his entire life was based on such concepts. For a man that had everything, I doubt he owned anything "real" his entire life.

When the "singer' first crooned for him - he was touched, but he didn't what had happened, so he tried to capture the feeling in the only warped way he could, destroying his marriage and the people involved (including himself) in the process.

Boss alert - back later

L .B . Jeffries

03-12-10, 04:33 PM

I'd argue that. He did own at least one real thing in his life Rosebud, of course. If you never learnt what rosebud is, it would impact the film. You wouldn't think of him as a "child at heart" or for that matter a human being. He would never have had anything to become recoginazable as something not far from you and me. We all have are Rosebuds it's what makes Kane human at the end of it all.

I've always like this film from a more technical achievement point of view.

hawk2618

03-14-10, 11:48 PM

At 48 years old.Im ashamed to say I JUST saw this movie this year for the first time,and OMG I'm so glad I watched it.Since viewing this movie,I've got on a kick of watching older movies.Heres a list of just a few movies I had the privilege of watching for the first time this year in my deprived movie life :(.... From here to Eternity,In the Heat of the Night,Gaslight,Reds,and Bugsy.After Bugsy,I have got to say Warren Beatty made a huge jump in my favorite actors list.A MUST SEE to appreciate him!!

rufnek

03-15-10, 04:17 PM

Yoda

03-16-10, 02:56 PM

Yoda

03-16-10, 03:38 PM

Since I came in late, I hope no one minds (least of all PW) if I go back and reply to a few things from the initial post. Apologies in advance for anything which was covered earlier; I read the entire thread, but might have forgotten a thing or two.

Does that make it a great film though? Seems to me that a lot of us are having the very same discussion about a little movie called Avatar right now. Avatar is pretty much all special effects and low on story and yet the majority of us love it. So, does that mean that Avatar could go on to become one of the greatest movies of all time? Maybe. Maybe not.
*shudder*

See, I just watch movies. I either love them, hate them, sort of like them. What have you. I can see that there were some very cool shots done in this film because I've seen a lot of 40's movies so I know what a lot of those films tended to look like but that still doesn't necessarily make for a great film. What really holds back this film for me is the story. I hated Charles Foster Kane. Yeah, hated him. People like this are the reason the world is the way it is today. Am I painting to broad of a generalization? Maybe, maybe not. I have my own ideas about the world and where its heading and films like this tend to make me worry about that. But I digress... I'll try to set my tangents aside.
Aye, but surely we're all supposed to hate him a little bit.

That said, I am sympathetic to anyone who suggests (though I'd probably disagree) that Kane loses something now that its effects are fairly old hat. Any pioneering film has this problem, though; creating something transcendent, and you'll be so often imitated that you'll look like you were derivative of the very things that derived from you. And you can only get so much enjoyment out of trying to empathize with how difficult it must have been to get this shot or that 60-odd years ago.

So, what do you all think? Is this film all about the man Welles? Or was he honestly trying to "say" something about the world in general? What was the point of this film? Did Charles Foster Kane have any redeeming qualities? What were they? I missed them. See, I'm a simple guy for the most part. If he would have left his vast fortune to a puppy shelter or something at the end of the film I might have an entirely different outlook on the guy. Instead you see the staff throwing a bunch of his crap into the furnace which to me lends even more credence to the lack of point to it all. I don't know. I have to admit, the film does make you think about things and (obviously) can send a guy like me off on a tangent. But again, does that mean its a great film?
Not necessarily, no. But surely we can find examples of films you enjoy with characters you just flat-out didn't like. Is the problem that Kane isn't treated like a straight-up villain, even though you responded to him as if he was? Honest question.

And another: what did you think of Kane when he was younger? I was kind of taken with that incarnation of him, though in order to feel this way you'd certainly have to take him as he is at that point, and not as we know he's going to become.

So what do you think? What was the point? Why is this movie so hard to watch? If it isn't. Why is it so easy for you to watch?
Well, I confess that it wasn't really "easy" to watch. I am still of a very different generation than the one that saw Citizen Kane with all the necessary context of the time, so I (sadly) know exactly what it feels like to be bored by an alleged classic. But I honestly wasn't bored with Kane, and it was only difficult to watch because I was acutely aware of just how chock-full of details it was, and was on the lookout for many of them.

King Aaron

03-17-10, 09:02 AM

I'll get round to this in the next couple of days, I promise.

rufnek

03-17-10, 03:37 PM

Agreed. Great observation; he collects statues of people in the same way he collects people. Like Mark's observation that he becomes ashes, just like his belongings, as well.

I know I already said something like this in my initial post, but talking about these things just solidifies that earlier impression, that Citizen Kane is such an impressive film, among other reasons, because it demonstrates that you can take a good (though not great) story, and turn it into something tremendous and living with the force of the medium.

There's also a scene when the reporter is interviewing the elder Joseph Cotton that Cotton's character comes close to explaining Kane when he says something to the effect that Kane had everything but what he really wanted or needed. I can't recall the exact words, but it puts me in mind of that old adage about the man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. That was Kane's biggest problem--he didn't value anything or anyone.

Sedai

03-17-10, 04:15 PM

I see where PW is coming from, but I also have to kind of echo what Ruf is always saying in that Kane makes many other films look like also-rans, even if they have polished some of the technical stones to a new level.

I watched Mission Impossible III last night, which I had a ton of fun watching, but i must say I was reminded of Kane several times. The themes of the films were not similar, but many of the cinematic mechanics were.

In MI:III, most of the characters are trying to figure out what "the rabbit's foot" is. This Macguffin is presented in almost the same way, with some characters talking about it at the start of the film, and their conversation is of the "Who or what could Rosebud be" variety. The first scene of the film is chronologically at the end of our characters journey in the film, similar to Kane himself, and we are then whisked away by the flashback mechanic to fill in what has happened before the first scene shown.

The film concludes with a conversation about the Macguffin, but the characters don't find out what it was. Unlike Kane, but perhaps taking a page from Meeker's Kiss me Deadly (which inspired the case in Pulp Fiction), the audience is never told what the Macguffin actually was.

I think this is what Ruf means when he talks about Kane breaking the mold, in so many words. This film nailed down many of the cinematic mechanics film makers of today rely on as rudimentary building blocks for their films. The story is important, but not what Welles was revolutionizing when he made Citizen Kane.

will.15

03-17-10, 04:29 PM

There's also a scene when the reporter is interviewing the elder Joseph Cotton that Cotton's character comes close to explaining Kane when he says something to the effect that Kane had everything but what he really wanted or needed. I can't recall the exact words, but it puts me in mind of that old adage about the man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. That was Kane's biggest problem--he didn't value anything or anyone.
That's the problem with Citizen Kane. The dialogue is over explanatory and repetitive. Welles may have gotten into that habit because of the documentary format, but he does it in the dramatic scenes as well. It simplifies Kane. Would Hamlet be as great if the other character faced the audience and pointed out Hamlet's character flaws?

Yoda

03-17-10, 06:12 PM

Well, the equivalent to that would be Kane himself going on about all his regrets and flaws, so it's not quite the same. Cotton is clearly speaking of events he witnessed and experienced, but he's still expressing an opinion. We still have to consider the source and put it into context with the other things we hear about him.

rufnek

03-17-10, 06:31 PM

That's the problem with Citizen Kane. The dialogue is over explanatory and repetitive. Welles may have gotten into that habit because of the documentary format, but he does it in the dramatic scenes as well. It simplifies Kane. Would Hamlet be as great if the other character faced the audience and pointed out Hamlet's character flaws?

Well, see, that's where I differ, maybe because of my own experience as a reporter. We're seeing Kane's story from the reporter's point of view--he goes out and talks to lots of people about Kane. Some remember an incident one way, some another. Some of it is repetitive in that it cocerns the same incident, but all of it is explanatory in that each person interviewed is explaining the Kane he or she knew. The "dramatic scenes" are just acting out what the interviewee is telling the reporter. Like the reporter, the audience is being fed scraps of information that we also have to fashion together to discover which of those versions of Kane is true. Rather than simplifying Kane, it makes him more complex because you see him through so many other people's point of view.

Yoda

03-21-10, 01:06 PM

Gotta get PW back in here. :) I'll watch it again if you do, bud! :)

Anyway, I prettied up the main Movie Club (http://www.movieforums.com/movieclub) page in honor of this film, and the discussion therein. Should've done it earlier, but, you know, I'm pretty lazy. :D

Powdered Water

03-21-10, 01:12 PM

I've been crazy busy lately and of course that means I've been pretty damn tired as a result and haven't been able to really get up the stamina to write up some long posts. This is a great thread though and I hope to be able to get back into it pretty soon. I am actually planning on watching the film again at some point with the wife so maybe some of my thoughts will change a bit.

Yoda

03-21-10, 01:14 PM

No sweat. I think I might, too, even though I've kinda watched it twice counting the Ebert commentary. But this feels like the kind of movie worth saturating oneself with.

The Good

04-08-10, 03:49 PM

I need to go back through all the comments here but in my opinion it's considered the greatest film of all time largely because of how innovative it was. The temporal aspect, (The story unfolds in a circular fashion, doubling back on itself etc) was ground breaking, as was cinematography, (which i wont go into because everyone and their mom has heard about it a million times).

Now my personal experience with the film is mostly negative, I understand why it's considered the best film ever, and I respect that moniker. However, I don't personally enjoy the film as a film; though I do enjoy it as a cinematic exercise. If i sound conflicted thats because I am. I respect this movie to death but I don't like it, hope that makes sense.

Major T.J. Kong

04-21-10, 12:51 AM

It's striking to watch Citizen Kane after watching a few movies made prior to it. Much of what was unique at the time has become commonplace in films made since.

Although I don't have it in my "heavy" rotation, I love this movie. I was moved by the sense of failure and loneliness at the end of his life, his entrapment in a zoo of his own making surrounded by his collection of things that failed to bring happiness (I can really relate when I go to my packed garage). I think most people buy things that they are convinced will make their life happier. In the end, it is relationships that count, all of which have slipped through Kane's grasp. And in the end, Kane is true to himself. His final thought is of another "thing". Rosebud. Not his Mother, Father or the girl that got away. Not to take away from it's significance as a symbol of his lost childhood, but it does reinforce that he is utterly alone.

As a bonus, very few movies (if any) have a "making and aftermath of" story half as fascinating as Citizen Kane.

mark f

07-08-10, 02:12 PM

I just came across an interesting review of Citizen Kane written by Erich von Stroheim in 1941. Here (http://www.fredcamper.com/M/VonStroheim.html) it is. :cool:

Yoda

07-08-10, 02:53 PM

Great link, Mark. Some random thoughts:

I love getting the immediate perspective. It reminds us to keep things in context, like hearing about how a fair number of people despised Lincoln in his own time. It's a good reminder of how complicated these things are when we're looking at them too closely, be it politics or film. And, annoyingly, it's a reminder of how highly influenced each of us are by peer pressure, even in its subtler forms.
1
It's funny how he reveals the meaning of "Rosebud" so carelessly a few paragraphs in.
1
Some of his points are difficult to argue -- such as the point that many films have been made about heartless, ambitious men. I think you can probably make some pretty defensible generic arguments against most great films. There's a fine line between a "classic tale" and a retread, I suppose.
1
It's interesting that von Stroheim takes issues with Welles' non-linear form of storytelling. He doesn't merely dislike it -- he seems genuinely annoyed and perplexed by the decision, as if it's inherently a mistake, rather than something that could have worked and didn't.
1
All that said, he still has to concede that the direction is "superb."1

It's also interesting that it seems very much like a negative review at points, but ends in a fairly positive way. von Stroheim seems to think it perfectly fine to have major problems with the film -- enough to actually suggest that the topic is tired and a complete reordering of the narrative is needed! -- and still praise the film as a whole.

Cries&Whispers

07-08-10, 03:03 PM

Awesome! I've heard Erich von Stroheim wrote a pretty scathing review of the film upon its release, but I didn't think there was any surviving print of it. This is great, mark. Thanks. :up:

I find it interesting that von Stroheim would criticize the movie's story structure, when he himself starred in Sunset Blvd., a film that is both stylistically and contextually so similar to Citizen Kane. He writes of Kane, "I do believe that the story might have been so arranged that Kane's death could have been shown in the old traditional way — at the end." In Sunset Blvd. the main character is dead in the first scene, the story is told more or less framed around this event, the central character is larger than life and observed through other characters, and so on... In criticizing Welles and Mankiewicz, von Stroheim may as well have been criticizing Billy Wilder for something he'd write seven years later.

To be fair, one story revolved around a person who died in the first scene while the other centered on a character who would not meet her end (not death) until the film's conclusion. Still, I think the story structure is one of the best parts of Citizen Kane. It's an ingenious way to learn about a newspaperman by using a reporter gathering information from his contemporaries. Throughout the film, Jerry Thompson, the reporter, is filmed from behind in shadow, listening to the people he interviews. He becomes a member of the audience and we become reporters collecting clues about Kane's life.

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/citizenkane/17.28-r1.jpg

Also, in opening the film with Kane's death, we get a better sense of the impact his life had on the world. The events of a man's life take on a completely different and endlessly more interesting perspective when we already know he's dead. Then, the story becomes not so much where will he go with his life, but what did he do with his life. Think of Gene Tierney in Laura. With her, the great mystery was what did she do to make someone kill her? With Kane, it's what touched him so deeply that he thought of Rosebud above everything else in his eventful life? Also, the mystery surrounding Rosebud throughout the film takes on a much more compelling meaning when we know it's the last thing this man said. A newspaper entrepreneur, a powerful politician, a man of many affairs and infidelities, an eccentric billionaire dies, and the thing that's on his mind is this mysterious word none of his friends knew about.

At least von Stroheim liked Gregg Toland's cinematography. If he didn't, then I'd seriously reconsider liking his movies Greed and Queen Kelly.

Cries&Whispers

07-08-10, 03:05 PM

It's also interesting that it seems very much like a negative review at points, but ends in a fairly positive way. von Stroheim seems to think it perfectly fine to have major problems with the film -- enough to actually suggest that the topic is tired and a complete reordering of the narrative is needed! -- and still praise the film as a whole.

That's just a testament to how inarguably great this movie is. It's a technical masterpiece, and anyone with a background in film like von Stroheim couldn't ignore this.

will.15

07-08-10, 04:08 PM

As an actor Stroheim wasn't very choosy about the parts he played. It appears he wasn't all that fond of Sunset Boulevard, calling it, "That dumb butler part."

linespalsy

07-08-10, 06:42 PM

that stroheim review was interesting.

it reminded me of something i had meant to post earlier in the thread, jorge luis borges's kane review (http://www.wellesnet.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=1584) from 1941.

i think it's generally more postive but it also opens with this line:

Citizen Kane (whose title in Argentina is "The Citizen") has at least two arguments. The first, of an almost banal imbecility, wants to bribe the applause of the very unobservant.

mark f

07-08-10, 07:28 PM

The Borges review came across as more-negative to me because it implied that it was the kind of film which will be remembered but not loved (sounds like PW's opinion too). He argued it was basically "too full of itself" although it contained worthy moments of psychological truth which he said weren't presented as concisely as some other works of fiction had in the past. Borges certainly did namedrop throughout the "review".

Although von Stroheim had plenty of problems with Kane's structure and continuity, he finished up with a statement worthy of a film advertisement: "Citizen Kane is a great picture and will go down in screen history. More power to Welles!"

will.15

07-08-10, 07:51 PM

Von Stroheim was a realist. Welles wasn't. Stroheim's masterpiece, Greed, has some thematic similarities to Citizen Kane. He tells his story about a man's degeneration with conventional storytelling, but the accumulation of detail gives it a dramatic intensity that makes it feel fresh and different even today.

linespalsy

07-09-10, 12:50 AM

hey mark, you may be right about the borges review being overall more negative, i haven't read it in a while and i only skimmed it again before posting it. after i read von stroheim's i thought that he just didn't get all the novel formal elements of kane. looking at it again he does talk about the appropriateness of the newsreel style for the story but other than that he doesn't "get" the nonlinear sequence. i think borges does get it but it's interesting that the moral aspect of the story seemed to leave both cold.

will.15

07-09-10, 01:13 AM

Having just read both reviews, I thought the von Stroheim one was much better written. Borges is a little too pedantic for my taste. They are both mixed reviews, but Borges' review ends on a negative note while Stroheim ends by praising the film despite the qualifiers, so I would consider his to be the more positive review.

The Strohem review is significantly longer and comments on and praises things not mentioned by Borges such as the uniform strong performances by the cast.

mark f

07-09-10, 02:46 AM

I think the point is that von Stroheim was commenting on his first viewing of Citizen Kane, and when he says that "I may be dumb" or you, lines, say that he "doesn't get it", he's telling you his initial reaction. He believes that Mankiewicz and Welles made a mistake in making the structure and continuity too-unorthodox, and in the context of box office, von Stroheim was correct. It took awhile for Kane to turn a profit. But von Stroheim certainly made a film which just about killed his directorial career, Greed, and nowadays, it's recognized as his greatest no matter if more than half of it is missing. Von Stroheim dared to tell a story quite different from most that came before, but his sin was not that of convolution but of overlength. Von Stroheim basically made the first mini-series and expected people to sit through it because it was so great that they had no choice. Of course, the execs at M-G-M, with their eyes on box office thought otherwise. The incredible thing about Greed is that it was both M-G-M's first feature film and allegedly the first film shot entirely on location, so I would cut von Stroheim some slack because he probably understood Citizen Kane far better than we do, and he was coming at it from a very personal perspective. Maybe I can find a followup commentary on Kane from von Stroheim.

will.15

07-09-10, 03:30 AM

I don't know if this has been brought up, but Welles gave many interviews over the years where he denounced the ending of Citizen Kane regarding Rosebud and blamed it on Herman Mankiewicz who may have based it on a childhood bike. I have my own reservations about parts of Citzen Kane, but I like the ending and without it you couldn't have the movie's structure, which is basically a quest to discover the key to Foster Kane. Maybe if Welles could have remade the movie he would have taken a chronological approach as von Stroheim suggested. Or maybe Welles was just being spiteful toward Mankiewicz because of their feud regarding authorship of the screenplay.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI3eBTMXSiU

mark f

07-09-10, 03:35 AM

I'm pretty sure that I already posted here that when Pauline Kael saw an alleged copy of the original screenplay that it only had Mankiewicz's name on it, so when Welles later claimed that he was responsible for certain things, Kael actually called him on it. Of course, I used to hang out with Bill Warren, and he claims that he saw an original copy of the Young Frankenstein script, and it only had Gene Wilder's name on it. Even though I know Warren better than most, I still tend to believe him. :cool:

will.15

07-09-10, 04:52 AM

Gene Wilder has never denied that Mel Brooks contributed to the script. Wilder started it alone and it is known the early sequence at the train station where Frankenstein is trying to kiss his fiance and she keeps putting him off was written by Wilder. But it's quite obvious a lot of the jokes in the rest of the film are Mel Brooks jokes. As to that Citizen Kane thing, I'm no acolyte of Orson Welles who lied like crazy about how Lady from Shanghai got made, but I really do believe he contributed to the CK screenplay. But HM wrote the first draft then Welles rewrote it. Welles was incapable of shooting a script written by someone else without fooling around with it. He mostly wrote his own dialogue for The Third Man, including the famous cuckoo clock speech. If he had the audacity to rewrite Graham Greene on a movie he was only supposed to act in, there is no way he left untouched a script where he had full creative control.

Cries&Whispers

07-09-10, 05:00 AM

I agree with will.15 on the basis of that The Third Man factoid. The guy insisted on writing his own scenes with a Graham Greene screenplay in a Sir Carol Reed movie, and he was also known for writing his own dialogue in much of his other work. I just can't believe he would make Citizen Kane, which is obviously a labor of love which he controlled with dictatorial authority, without tinkering with the script.

Plus, the cuckoo clock speech is regarded as one of the best monologues in movie history, so there's no denying his writing chops.

BTW, mark f, You know Bill Warren? As in the Evil Dead book guy? That's pretty cool.

will.15

07-09-10, 05:20 AM

Also the Writers Guild determined whose names went on the writing credits and to do so they would have read all the drafts. That meant, according to their rules, they determined Welles contributed at least 30% to the screenplay.

Here is another famous director expressing his view of Citizen Kane, rather harsh, but this was after Welles had panned his pictures.

http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=432

mark f

07-09-10, 05:34 AM

BTW, mark f, You know Bill Warren? As in the Evil Dead book guy? That's pretty cool.

If you met him, you might not think it was that cool. :p

Anyway, my points about Citizen Kane and Young Frankenstein aren't that the directors stole credit, it was that the scripts were basically complete and not all that different from the shooting scripts which ended up with shared credits. Obviously the directors added their own personal goodies, but if you want to claim the so-called 30% rule, I have sources who say that was not the case. I don't personally vouch for the sources; I just pass on their claims. I also have internet info but who can trust the internet?

Powdered Water

07-09-10, 09:58 PM

It's interesting where this conversation has gone. I'll try to get to your questions at some point Yoder, I promise.

I can't help but continue to have a lot of the same opinions that I have had from the very beginning about this film. And Welles in particular. I just think the guy meddled... and meddled. He was a meddler. Some meddlers meddle in a good way, but I think that most meddle in a bad way and maybe even meddle just for meddlings sake.

Citizen Kane. Great technical achievement. No doubt. Bizarre story telling that completely ruins it for an ignoramus such as myself.

It is what is is.

I do still plan to watch this movie again with the wife someday soon I hope.

will.15

07-09-10, 10:46 PM

Cries&Whispers

07-09-10, 11:58 PM

In the case of Young Frankenstein, I can't find it on the internet, but I read Wilder had only started the screenplay and most of it was written with Wilder and Mel Brooks together, which is definitely not what happened with Citizen Kane.

In the case of Kane, a lot of the scenes are written cinematically: The scene with Kane at the breakfast table with quick scenes as he gets older, the debut of the opera singer and the stagehands' thumbs down reaction, and so forth. None of this is anything like Mankiewicz's other screenplays, which are cinematically inert and heavy on dialogue. It is consistent with Welles' other screenplays, so I really have no doubt he transformed a more conventional first draft into what is up there on the screen.

I totally agree with you. This movie's plot moves forward very visually, with montage, editing, etc... As Welles was the director, I imagine he would be setting up the logistics of every scene, and every scene moves the story along. And that's the beef I have with von Stroheim's beef with the movie. The way the story was told was almost more important than the story being told. I can't see Mankiewicz writing out these scenes.

mark f

07-10-10, 01:04 AM

Well, that's the difference between a script and the direction. The script may say that she sings and the reaction is poor. What you see can be what is in the finished movie. That doesn't mean it was ever actually in the "screenplay".

will.15

07-10-10, 01:12 AM

That had to be written out because it was an elaborate pan/tracking shot. It would have been story boarded as part of the art direction.

mark f

07-10-10, 01:23 AM

Here (http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Citizen-Kane.html) is the Citizen Kane script. It may well be in there but I couldn't find it. Ignore the pop-up; the script will show soon enough.

will.15

07-10-10, 02:01 AM

Pop-up never showed up. It was blocked and kept making noise with notification to unblock it which I ignored. Very persistent. That scene isn't in that screenplay. Instead is a much longer, lees interesting scene I don't recall being in the movie that focuses on the audience and Kane's reactions to the tepid applause. That doesn't mean the scene in the movie wasn't written out, just it was probably added after shooting started.

Reading the early part of the early screenplay, it is very cinematic.

Reading vaeious sources about who wrote Citizen Kane is like that movie, Rashomon, what is truth? Every source tells it differently. Below is an excerpt from the Writers Guild West:

• Welles drew from his personal life for the script, and Mankiewicz drew from publishing tycoon William Randolph Hearst's life, to flesh out the character of Charles Foster Kane. It was long rumored that what enraged Hearst most was the use of the word “Rosebud,” which some have claimed was Hearst's nickname for his mistress Marion Davies' private parts. –multiple sources

http://www.movieforums.com/uploadedImages/news_and_events/101_screenplay/Kaneprod.jpg• Mankiewicz wrote the first draft of the screenplay in about six weeks, and wrote much of his work from a hospital bed. –IMDB

• Budd Schulberg on Mankiewicz: “Mankiewicz claimed credit for the concept, and in truth had talked to my father, the producer B. P. Schulberg, about doing a film on William Randolph Hearst before Welles's dramatic arrival in Hollywood.” –The New York Times, “The Kane Mutiny,” 5/1/2005

• Schulberg: “Welles rewrote scenes to define Kane as less a monster than a many-faceted public relations genius, as creative as he is finally self-destructive.” –The New York Times, “The Kane Mutiny,” 5/1/2005

• Welles claimed that William Randolph Hearst was not the only inspiration for Kane. Among others, Chicago financier Harold Fowler McCormick was also a model for the character, in particular his promotion of his mistress and second wife, Polish opera singer Ganna Walska, who was considered a dreadful singer, despite the thousands of dollars McCormick paid out for her musical training. Another model was Samuel Insull, a Chicago utilities magnate and one of the founders of General Electric, who built what is now the Lyric Opera of Chicago for his singer/mistress. Howard Hughes was reported to be yet another model for the character, as was Time magazine founder Henry Luce. –multiple sources

Me again:
It is well known that the scene of Kane's childhood resembles Welles' childhood, not Hearst's, as Welles lost both parents in his youth as happens to Kane.

rufnek

07-13-10, 03:17 PM

It was long rumored that what enraged Hearst most was the use of the word “Rosebud,” which some have claimed was Hearst's nickname for his mistress Marion Davies' private parts.

Yeah, I've heard that ol' tale and always wondered who exactly aside from Hearst and Davies would know what he called her private parts? Could just as easily been how she referred to him, but who would know unless they were in the habit of making such references in public? Hearst was so full of himself and such thin-skinned that he could have resented Welles' film for less reason than that.

At any rate, Welles always denied it was based on Hearst.

will.15

07-13-10, 05:12 PM

Yeah, I've heard that ol' tale and always wondered who exactly aside from Hearst and Davies would know what he called her private parts? Could just as easily been how she referred to him, but who would know unless they were in the habit of making such references in public? Hearst was so full of himself and such thin-skinned that he could have resented Welles' film for less reason than that.

At any rate, Welles always denied it was based on Hearst.
Welles may have denied it, but I don't think Mankiewciz did. He apparently had a real interest in Hearst. But it is true the stuff about a millionaire subsidizing his mistress as an opera singer had factual roots with someone else.

PumaMan

10-06-10, 02:25 PM

I definitely got a belly laugh when Leland said this about Kane:

"I suppose he had a private sort of greatness, but he kept it to himself."

I told my wife that from now on I was going to use this to describe myself. :p

Yoda

10-06-10, 02:31 PM

It's a funny line, also, because once you've called his greatness "private" it's not really necessary to indicate that he kept it to himself.

PumaMan

10-06-10, 02:59 PM

BTW, CK is on TCM (the cable station) this evening. It is followed by The Third Man.

Yoda

10-06-10, 03:00 PM

Sounds like an Orson-athon.

I think it'd be amusing to air all his classics in order of weight gain. Start with Kane, end with Touch of Evil. And maybe that wine commercial, just for the heck of it.

will.15

10-06-10, 03:11 PM

Johnny Carson gag about Welles' wine commercial:

"He wiill eat no cow before its time."

Yoda

06-01-12, 12:40 PM

Stumbled across a quasi-interesting essays on this film: Citizen Kane: Biography and the Unfinished Sentence (http://sensesofcinema.com/2010/feature-articles/citizen-kane-biography-and-the-unfinished-sentence/). It's okay, if a little pretentious and needlessly dense, with sentences like "His struggle is characterised by the anonymity imposed on individuality by the contingencies of the objective world, and an autonomous sense of interiority." Yeow. I wish that sentence had been unfinished.

Anyway, might be of interest to some of you guys.

Reading it also made me think of something that might have been said already: the disparity between the number of people who had something to say about him, and the number who actually knew him well enough to know what "Rosebud" meant. Obviously, the idea that nobody really knew him is a well-tread one, but I feel it's painted a bit brighter when juxtaposed with the idea that so many people had something to say about him. As if the way he was known--very little by many--was completely backwards from the more meaningful way of being know--very much by few.

UncriticallyAcclaimed

06-01-13, 08:01 AM

What is your greatest desire? What is your purpose? These are just some of the elements of your being that Citizen Kane sets its scopes on before leaving you with the ever fleeting, 'What if?'. A powerful original soundtrack guides you through the life of one of the wealthiest men on Earth who acquires everything he has ever wanted (or so it seems). The cinematography is exceptional for the time period. Orson Welles utilizes some very unique camera shots. Some sets were quite beautiful, there were lots of cool doors. The star door was my favorite.. Orson was a true visionary to be able to Write/Produce/Direct and star in his own vision. I feel this movie has more to be soaked up out of it by my brain in a future dunk.

7.5/10

will.15

06-01-13, 08:06 AM

After all that praise you only gave it a c plus rating?

Masterman

06-01-13, 09:02 AM

You can put all your reviews under one thread.

mark f

06-01-13, 12:10 PM

A 7.5 is a B+ for me. We have several threads about Kane.

Yoda

06-01-13, 12:51 PM

I merged this review with one of our Movie Club discussion threads. :) And yeah, most of the classics have at least one thread about them already.

UncriticallyAcclaimed

06-02-13, 05:13 PM

After all that praise you only gave it a c plus rating?

In the 1940's, yeah I probably would have given it a 10, but in 2013, 7.5 ;) which is good that it can still score that high in the newer generation.

will.15

06-02-13, 05:21 PM

We need neg rep for the previous post.

I am not actually a huge fan of Citizen Kane, but what contemporary movies are so superior to Citizen Kane?

will.15

06-02-13, 05:24 PM

A 7.5 is a B+ for me.
My reply appears to have been lost in the transistion so I will repeat the essence.

Is this the way you grade as a teacher?

Cobpyth

06-02-13, 05:28 PM

In the 1940's, yeah I probably would have given it a 10, but in 2013, 7.5 ;) which is good that it can still score that high in the newer generation.

I don't know what to say. This is just plain ridiculous.

Why should older movies automatically be rated lower in the present?

mark f

06-02-13, 06:01 PM

I don't want to defend someone using a Guapo (:)) argument, but a lot more movies (at least 35,000 American ones alone) have been made since Kane, so the average movie from 1941 would deserve a lower comparative rating. For example, the 50th best of all-time back then probably wouldn't place in the top 250 now. However, the closer the movie was rated to #1 then, the better chance it has of being rated higher now (taking into consideration how people's tastes change and their knowledge of many movies). Just sayin'. :) But if you look at my ratings you'd say I'm prejudiced towards older English-language films, so what do I now?

Cobpyth

06-02-13, 06:32 PM

mark f

06-02-13, 06:41 PM

I think those would have to go down also the more movies you see and are made. Perhaps the very best won't go down, but most will. They certainly have for me, and I've been using my system and tweaking my ratings for almost 40 years. :)

I realize that I may actually be arguing a different point than the other poster.

Mr Minio

06-02-13, 06:47 PM

In the 1940's, yeah I probably would have given it a 10, but in 2013, 7.5 ;) Yeah, let's rate it 0/10 because it's black'n'white. -_-

mark f

06-02-13, 06:56 PM

Is this the way you grade as a teacher?
I've answered that in detail too many times to do it again, but no, the numerical system I use for both have completely different uses and meanings. The letter grade ratings are comparable though. For example, 7.5 does not equal 75%, but a B+ film is comparable to a B+ paper.

ThomasP

06-02-13, 06:58 PM

It's the first place I know of to start thinking about movies, although it is no longer my favourite Welles film (I'd take Ambersosns, Chimes at Midnight or The Stranger).

honeykid

06-02-13, 08:21 PM

Yeah, let's rate it 0/10 because it's black'n'white. -_-
Ah, you've met my sister, then.

The Gunslinger45

06-02-13, 08:23 PM

Ah, you've met my sister, then.

No he is referring to the idiot friend I have!

will.15

06-02-13, 08:49 PM

Well, I don't try to list every movie i have seen in numerical order of quality.

I will say this. Very few comedy movies from the last twenty years are as good as the best comedy movies from the thirties and forties. We got no Billy Wilder or Preston Sturges or Frank Capra or Leo McCarey or Ernest Lubitsch or Rene Clair or George Cukor or Gregory La Cava or Howard Hawks equivalents these days

Nostromo87

06-03-13, 12:12 AM

it's been a delight to read over the posts here this evening. doubt i'll be able to match some terrific entries in the thread from mark f, rufnek, yoda, etc.. quite articulate and poignant

but my thought is, i believe the more i go on about this movie, the dumber i will sound.. so i will try and stay on point. the movie simultaneously covers some of the most simple truisms of life, and yet you can find so much to talk about the closer you look

i believe Citizen Kane will always be an enigma of a movie. new generations will hear its hype "the greatest movie ever" and go in expecting to be more enthralled than they were when they watched Star Wars (1977) or Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy, or -insert other widely loved movies here- and come away frustrated, even bored.

and yet, there's something so simultaneously simple yet profound about Citizen Kane... about rosebud.. basically, i think Kane is Orson Welles' troll job on the entire movie community. it's been 72 years since this movie was released, and it's still talked about..

to think Welles produced, directed, starred, and also had a hand in writing the screenplay... at 25 years old..

where this movie comes through most is in the subtle execution of its message, to me. some like to be hit over the head like a ton of bricks.. with what they're supposed to be understanding while watching a movie. if Kane had been executed that way, it would've been quickly forgotten and i doubt we'd be talking about it

quite plainly, i think it is a stellar movie. one where i feel that my words fall short

UncriticallyAcclaimed

06-03-13, 03:38 PM

I don't know what to say. This is just plain ridiculous.

Why should older movies automatically be rated lower in the present?

Because there are so many more movies to be compared to now, the standards have changed and the scale has shifted. You can have a 10/10, but then what happens when somebody makes an 11? I gave it a 7.5 because it didn't blow MY mind, yet I found the subject matter interesting and could appreciate orsons advanced directing, back in the 1940's the general public was a lot less exposed, so the ideas introduced I imagine were mind blowing for a lot of people. I really didn't think that would need an explanation. You and silly Willy 15 are strange dudes ;P But I can't hold that against you, most older generations are closed minded. I wuld also like to remind you and Willy that people have different tastes in movies just like anything else. We all have different minds that appreciate different things for different reasons. There is no definite, universal opinion, do not forget this :)

will.15

06-03-13, 03:57 PM

Name the fantastic movies of today that are so much better than Citizen Kane.

Yoda

06-03-13, 03:59 PM

I think part of rating older films means stepping outside of your own experience and giving the film credit for the fact that it may have spawned the kinds of things you now find cliche. If it's all just about your reaction now, without appreciating the context of the film in cinematic history, then all your highest rated films would be ones you saw a kid, back when everything was mind-blowing. Nobody has trouble stepping outside that part of their lives later and judging it differently; why should older films be any different?

If someone can't account for this sort of thing, or just doesn't want to, then I don't think it makes sense for them to try to rate older films at all.

Cobpyth

06-03-13, 04:00 PM

Because there are so many more movies to be compared to now, the standards have changed and the scale has shifted. You can have a 10/10, but then what happens when somebody makes an 11? I gave it a 7.5 because it didn't blow MY mind, yet I found the subject matter interesting and could appreciate orsons advanced directing, back in the 1940's the general public was a lot less exposed, so the ideas introduced I imagine were mind blowing for a lot of people. I really didn't think that would need an explanation. You and silly Willy 15 are strange dudes ;P But I can't hold that against you, most older generations are closed minded. I wuld also like to remind you and Willy that people have different tastes in movies just like anything else. We all have different minds that appreciate different things for different reasons. There is no definite, universal opinion, do not forget this :)

I wasn't attacking your opinion about Citizen Kane. I was attacking the fact that you were saying that 7.5/10 is "REALLY good" for an older film. Like newer films are automatically better?

I think that the 2000s, for example were way worse than the 90s, the 70s or the 40s when it comes down to the quality of movies. You seem to think newer films are superior. I don't believe that, personally.

So, yes, that DOES need an explanation. Why do older films automatically get lower grades from you? It's not because the 'scales are shifted' and 'the standards have changed' that there aren't any films from the 40s that can be seen as a 10/10.

7.5/10 for Citizen Kane is not a great score, because it's old.
It means that it has the same quality as a 7.5/10 film that comes out today (in your opinion).
I don't know which movie of the present you would rate a 7.5/10, but that would mean that that movie and Citizen Kane have the same quality for you personally.
You seem to think I'm strange because I rate a film from the 40s higher than a good film from the 2000s...

In the 1940's, yeah I probably would have given it a 10, but in 2013, 7.5 which is good that it can still score that high in the newer generation.

This quote just seemed like a HUGE insult to the great films of the past. You seem to assume here that their quality is less than most of the movies of this 'newer generation'.
Yes, that's ridiculous, in my opinion. Quality does not age. I stand by my opinion.

I can understand that you're personally not a fan of older movies, but stating it as a fact that older movies are worse than today's movies, is absolute nonsense.

mark f

06-03-13, 05:18 PM

I give Citizen Kane 7.5. I've seen it over 20 times, and the first time I gave it 10. :eek::cool: I used to give lots of films 10 which I rate lower now, but it's more that I've changed than newer films have supplanted them. By the way, this is just a coincidence.

will.15

06-03-13, 05:46 PM

I have been more critical of Citizen Kane than you and I wouldn't rate it that low.

I don't care how you spin it 7.5/10 is seventy five percent.

TONGO

06-03-13, 05:59 PM

Rating Citizen Kane at all is somewhat preposterous. Lets pretend it wasnt released 100 years ago and was for viewing pleasure today. It would be some completely unknown art house film. So does that mean it sucks? Well for most casual movie watchers today it would plain suck.

Citizen Kanes importance doesnt lie in its story, but how the story was told. Its like the rosetta stone for all thats great in cinema. How stories are told, directors thinking outside the box, the use of certain camera angles to achieve effect, and it even showed the ending first. Imagine Tarantinos films if all were told in chronological order? :sleep:

Citizen Kane was ahead of its time, and thats why it was able to advance movies overall. What would I rate Citizen Kane?! Id give you a smack just for thinking of comparing it to anything. Its not the greatest story ever told, but it just told us how to tell stories in film. With no limitations.

Cobpyth

06-03-13, 06:01 PM

will.15

06-03-13, 06:24 PM

There is the story someone to see what would happen submitted the screenplay for Casablanca to all the studio readers with the title changed and they all rejected it and only one recognized it.

Daniel M

06-03-13, 06:32 PM

I will copy this other from another review thread I posted in, it's definitely relevant.

I think people that praise Citizen Kane for its innovation and contribution to cinema due to techniques used are missing a hell of a lot from the film, it's much more than that, like Cobpyth says.

Even without the wonderful techniques, fantastic shots, great physical metaphors (window illusion, Kane's huge figure, shadow etc.) it is still a wonderful film. And that is because of its story and characters.

It is definitely entertaining, but even if you disagree on that I'm not sure how you can say it's not intelligent. It's an absolutely fantastic character study, and they way we are told about the life of the character is so superb and intelligent, we know nothing about him at the start, his character is mysterious, and every person has something different to say about his life.

The use of flashbacks and the way narration is used to tell the story of this guy's life is fascinating, here's a character with many layers yet no matter how many layers we feel so distance from him, did you not want to find out more about this enigma? I think Martin Scorsese says it best about this film, something along the lines of "No matter how many viewings of the film you have, and how much you continue to learn about Kane, we still feel we know nothing and barely know this guy", that's the beauty of his character.

If this film was released today, I would still hold it in such high regard, and it would still be one of the greatest films made, for me. It's not just influential because of cameras, lighting, direction etc. but because of it's fantastic plot, structure and writing, depth of characters etc. I don't really understand why people don't seem to appreciate these things.

mark f

06-03-13, 06:33 PM

I don't care how you spin it 7.5/10 is seventy five percent.
According to your twisted logic, all ratings below 6 are an F. That means you have more ratings available for F than you have for A through D-. Movie ratings have nothing to do with school work. If you used ratings, you could make them whatever you want, but you apparently don't have a system that I'm aware of. Coming in here to say I'm wrong because you don't understand what I've been doing and explaining here for over five years is the act of a troll. Yes or no?

TONGO

06-03-13, 06:50 PM

Do you really believe that?

I think it would get a huge amount of praise.

Nope. What was innovative back then would be ho-hum with todays cinematography, acting, and even directing presented today in films. It doesnt stand the test of time, but thats a good thing really otherwise movies never would have "caught on" to Kane and advanced film storytelling overall. Dont know if I explained that clearly, hope I did.

will.15

06-03-13, 08:13 PM

Personally. I think a person who receives 55% on a paper should be considered differently than someone with 23%. How? By averaging for their final grade the percentages from all their graded work instead of the letter to achieve their final letter grade. 55% is a low quality movie, but a movie with a single digit rating would be a total bomb. So, yeah, I think the percentages still matter and 7.5 would be just slightly above average as a 7 is average.

mark f

06-03-13, 08:23 PM

So that's a "Yes" to the troll question.

will.15

06-03-13, 08:29 PM

You're the troll with the inane grading system that thinks 7.5 is a good rating.

Even if a movie is bad, there are levls of bad and a point system reflects that.

Yoda

06-03-13, 08:40 PM

There is absolutely zero reason to treat movie rating grades as if they were school rating grades. The two have no connection to one another.

And even if you want to compare them, you wouldn't do it with percentages. A C is "average" not because it's 70%, but because it's in the middle of the five letters: A and B above it, D and F below. It's in the center of the scale. And the center of Mark's scale isn't 7, it's 5.

will.15

06-03-13, 08:55 PM

If you were to say a persons looks' was 5/10 nobody but you would know you were saying their looks was average.

will.15

06-03-13, 09:03 PM

There are just five movies from 1941 with a rating of 5. I don't think these obscurities would qualify for most people as average.

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?countries=us&release_date=1941,1941&title_type=feature&user_rating=5.0,5.0

Daniel M

06-03-13, 09:03 PM

If you were to say a persons looks' was 5/10 nobody but you would know you were saying their looks was average.

Mark is one of the most frequent posters on here, constantly uses the Movie Tab, and happily explains any of his ratings. As a frequent Movie Tab user I would say I now have a very good understanding of his system.

When I first joined I thought Mark was harsh, but that's because I was using a more relaxed, easier to gain higher ratings system, that I still do to a degree where achieving 5* ratings is easily possible if I think the film is great, and I hadn't realised how Mark used his system. I'd much rather see Mark give a film a 3.5 and talk about how he liked it, than see someone give it a 5 as they have every other film.

Everyone rates films in their own, personal way, there's no right or wrong system and you can't convert between them. I don't really understand why people, often quite frequent posters still struggle to understand Mark's rating system, do they not see all the posts he makes in the Movie Tab and many other threads? I've seen him explain his ratings and his system numerous times, and he's always happy to explain his ratings/thoughts on a film. Labelling a rating of 7.5 bad seems a bit disrespectful towards Mark, at least for me.

Cobpyth

06-03-13, 09:11 PM

Everyone has his own rating system. That's not even the issue here. If Mark wants to rate an average movie a 5/10 and I want to rate an average movie 7/10, then that's perfectly fine.

It's about the fact that older films don't deserve to be seen as less 'absolute' accomplishments than movies of the present. I don't see why they have to be rated in a more stringent way, just because they are older.

I still believe that if we compare Citizen Kane with (for example) The Dark Knight, the former can still be seen as the best movie "objectively". I don't see why not. It's not because they now have all this CGI stuff and all these equipments to make excessive action scenes that we have better movies. Cinema is much more than just technology (in my opinion).

It's like some of you guys compare cinema to car racing or something. Film is not about setting a new record, but about creating a feeling. Some older films are never quite surpassed in that respect, (in my humble opinion).

will.15

06-03-13, 09:19 PM

Mark is one of the most frequent posters on here, constantly uses the Movie Tab, and happily explains any of his ratings. As a frequent Movie Tab user I would say I now have a very good understanding of his system.

When I first joined I thought Mark was harsh, but that's because I was using a more relaxed, easier to gain higher ratings system, that I still do to a degree where achieving 5* ratings is easily possible if I think the film is great, and I hadn't realised how Mark used his system. I'd much rather see Mark give a film a 3.5 and talk about how he liked it, than see someone give it a 5 as they have every other film.

Everyone rates films in their own, personal way, there's no right or wrong system and you can't convert between them. I don't really understand why people, often quite frequent posters still struggle to understand Mark's rating system, do they not see all the posts he makes in the Movie Tab and many other threads? I've seen him explain his ratings and his system numerous times, and he's always happy to explain his ratings/thoughts on a film. Labelling a rating of 7.5 bad seems a bit disrespectful towards Mark, at least for me.
All I know is he gave the absolute worst Billy Wilder movie, the truly awful Buddy Buddy, three popcorn bags. Does that translate into 7.5 or better?

Daniel M

06-03-13, 09:26 PM

All I know is he gave the absolute worst Billy Wilder movie, the truly awful Buddy Buddy, three popcorn bags. Does that translate into 7.5 or better?

I don't really know you to well, but you're not coming across well here. It's all well and good disagreeing with people's ratings, but no need to mock or belittle them is there?

And anyway, so what if he likes one film that you don't, everyone has films they like that you don't or the other way round, it doesn't mean they are any less or more qualified than yourself to judge a film. And I believe 3 roughly translates to 6/10 with Mark which is seen as a 'good film' and something others will probably give about 3.5/4- popcorn, his 7.5 rating of Citizen Kane I believe translates to 3.5+ which is a very strong rating, something you'd realise if you paid attention/respect to his posts, or bothered to engage/ask him about what he thinks of a film, which I have only seen him as happy to do. Arguing over one decent rating he gave to a film you dislike is pathetic anyway, I'll reiterate my first paragraph where I say there is no need to personally attack and belittle someone just because you don't have the same rating system or tastes as them.

will.15

06-03-13, 09:30 PM

Yoda

06-03-13, 09:36 PM

If you were to say a persons looks' was 5/10 nobody but you would know you were saying their looks was average.
That's because telling people how attractive they are is fraught with all sorts of social complication. It's not remotely comparable.

This is pretty simple: if the scale is 1-10, 5 is average. It's average because it's in the middle. You know, like something is when it's average. That's all there is to it.

If people in general don't always follow this, that means their ratings don't make a lot of sense, logically. So you should go harass them, instead of giving Mark flack for actually having a sensible rating system that uses the entire scale. Which, incidentally, he's explained at length, which you'd know if you'd cared to learn about it rather than offer a completely uninformed critique.

will.15

06-03-13, 09:44 PM

I don't really know you to well, but you're not coming across well here. It's all well and good disagreeing with people's ratings, but no need to mock or belittle them is there?

And anyway, so what if he likes one film that you don't, everyone has films they like that you don't or the other way round, it doesn't mean they are any less or more qualified than yourself to judge a film. And I believe 3 roughly translates to 6/10 with Mark which is seen as a 'good film' and something others will probably give about 3.5/4- popcorn, his 7.5 rating of Citizen Kane I believe translates to 3.5+ which is a very strong rating, something you'd realise if you paid attention/respect to his posts, or bothered to engage/ask him about what he thinks of a film, which I have only seen him as happy to do. Arguing over one decent rating he gave to a film you dislike is pathetic anyway, I'll reiterate my first paragraph where I say there is no need to personally attack and belittle someone just because you don't have the same rating system or tastes as them.
Buddy Buddy is the movie that ended Billy Wilder's film career. He lived a long time after it. He wanted to make another one, but that one's reputation kept him from getting studio backing to make one. Using your logic, that means Mark thinks Buddy Buddy is only slightly inferior to Citizen Kane, which despite its flaws, is one the most historically important and technically innovative movies ever made.

If you are going to use a skewed, idiosyncratic rating system, then it is best to explain it every time you use it.

I never attacked him until he used the word I never use myself, troll, and even then i just threw the word back at him. I challenged his bizarre notion 7.5 is considered by the average person a good rating for a movie like Citizen Kane.

Cobpyth

06-03-13, 09:48 PM

You evaluate Citizen Kane for what it is and you evaluate The Dark Knight for what it is. You can't compare them. Citizen Kane, a character study, you going to fault it because it doesn't have huge action scenes like The Dark Knight?

That wasn't the point I was making. They can perfectly be compared by the way, in terms of feeling, but that's another discussion. ;)

I'm saying it should be perfectly possible for an older film (or even a cheaper film, if you want; it doesn't have to be about time, it can also be about money), made with less technological options to be seen as better than a newer or more expensive film that does have the acces to all those equipments.

Therefore older films shouldn't be rated as lower than more recent features, just because the images are of worse quality, for example. For me, it's all about the art and bringing emotions to the audience. I don't see why older films wouldn't be able to do this as strongly as newer ones.

This is the last post I'm writing about this subject, because I'm starting to repeat myself now. I think I made a very clear point.

will.15

06-03-13, 09:50 PM

That's because telling people how attractive they are is fraught with all sorts of social complication. It's not remotely comparable.

This is pretty simple: if the scale is 1-10, 5 is average. It's average because it's in the middle. You know, like something is when it's average. That's all there is to it.

If people in general don't always follow this, that means their ratings don't make a lot of sense, logically. So you should go harass them, instead of giving Mark flack for actually having a sensible rating system that uses the entire scale. Which, incidentally, he's explained at length, which you'd know if you'd cared to learn about it rather than offer a completely uninformed critique.
if 5 was average getting half the answers on a test should get you an average grade of C. It is absurd.

will.15

06-03-13, 09:55 PM

That wasn't the point I was making. They can perfectly be compared by the way, in terms of feeling, but that's another discussion. ;)

I'm saying it should be perfectly possible for an older film (or even a cheaper film, if you want; it doesn't have to be about time, it can also be about money), made with less technological options to be seen as better than a newer or more expensive film that does have the acces to all those equipments.

Therefore older films shouldn't be rated as lower than more recent features, just because the images are of worse quality, for example. For me, it's all about the art and bringing emotions to the audience. I don't see why older films wouldn't be able to do this as strongly as newer ones.

This is the last post I'm writing about this subject, because I'm starting to repeat myself now. I think I made a very clear point.
I wasn't challenging your point, but was assuming the 7.5 rater was downgrading CK because it lacked things he expects to see in a contemporary action movie. It really is the only area where an older movie might be inferior. It can't be for the writing or acting.

Guaporense

06-03-13, 10:37 PM

Because there are so many more movies to be compared to now, the standards have changed and the scale has shifted. You can have a 10/10, but then what happens when somebody makes an 11? I gave it a 7.5 because it didn't blow MY mind, yet I found the subject matter interesting and could appreciate orsons advanced directing, back in the 1940's the general public was a lot less exposed, so the ideas introduced I imagine were mind blowing for a lot of people. I really didn't think that would need an explanation. You and silly Willy 15 are strange dudes ;P But I can't hold that against you, most older generations are closed minded. I wuld also like to remind you and Willy that people have different tastes in movies just like anything else. We all have different minds that appreciate different things for different reasons. There is no definite, universal opinion, do not forget this :)

Well, my top 5 favorite live action movies are from 1949, 1952, 1953, 1968 and 1979, most are not far from Citizen Kane's date.

Statistically speaking, the film industry peaked in activity in the 1950's. In Japan, USA and Europe, more films were made and more tickets were sold in the 1950's than today and in every subsequent decade, so the density of great films made per year peaked in the 1950's.

Around 1955-1960, most households in US, Europe and Japan got TVs and so the revenues of the film industry began to decline, the studios began to lose money and green-light fewer films, soon the number of films produced began to decline and the degree of artistic freedom allowed also began to decline. Great movies still got made after the 1950's but I guess their density per year declined.

I also think it makes sense to rate newer films higher on average because they reflect more closely contemporary culture. Since we are the product of our contemporary cultural environment we tend to like more things that fit better into our modern culture, thus modern films tend to generate a more positive reaction, all things being equal.

Yoda

06-03-13, 10:49 PM

if 5 was average getting half the answers on a test should get you an average grade of C. It is absurd.
No it shouldn't. It's a function of how the average student does. It has literally no relationship whatsoever to movie rating scales. You might as well compare it to someone's free throw percentage.

I think you're confused about the distinction between rating and performance. The percentage of answers correct is performance. The C is the rating--and it's smack dab in the middle of the available letters. That's the equivalent of the 5.

will.15

06-03-13, 11:05 PM

The same principle applies otherwise why are five rated movies on the imdb consistently bad movies, not average ones.

will.15

06-03-13, 11:16 PM

Is this your idea of an average movie?

White Chicks (2004 (http://www.imdb.com/year/2004/?ref_=tt_ov_inf))

109 min - Crime (http://www.imdb.com/genre/Crime?ref_=tt_ov_inf) | Comedy (http://www.imdb.com/genre/Comedy?ref_=tt_ov_inf) - 23 June 2004 (USA) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_ov_inf)
5.0
Your rating: 1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=1;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 2 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=2;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 3 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=3;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 4 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=4;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 5 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=5;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 6 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=6;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 7 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=7;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 8 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=8;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 9 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=9;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 10 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=10;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMj LGDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) -/10 X (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=X;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A)

Ratings: 5.0/10 from 59,745 users (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt) Metascore: 41/100 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/criticreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt)
Reviews: 232 user (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/reviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt)| 96 critic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt)| 31 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/criticreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt)from Metacritic.com (http://www.metacritic.com/)

Two disgraced FBI agents go way undercover in an effort to protect hotel heiresses the Wilson Sisters from a kidnapping plot.

Yoda

06-03-13, 11:26 PM

The mere fact that you're asking that question suggests considerable confusion about the topic. For one, not everyone rates on a curve; they may rate objectively. For another, not everyone rates consistently. And that's the real issue. If someone's scale is ostensibly 1-10, then an average rating would be 5. The fact that most people don't really bother to apply their scale consistently is beside the point.

UncriticallyAcclaimed

06-04-13, 03:38 AM

Name the fantastic movies of today that are so much better than Citizen Kane.

The Matrix > Citizen Kane (IMHO :p)

I also rate Before Sunrise and its great sequel Before Sunset higher. I can relate to the characters more.

And a lot of IMDB's ratings are so ridiculous, they are hardly anything to go off of.

Also, Cobpyth, I don't automatically give older movies lower ratings, in fact 7.5 is a good rating in my book. But, again this is all hypothetical, if I was alive in 1941 it may have been the best movie I had ever seen, but then I would also have been exposed to different things and thought differently and been an entirely different person, so on second thought maybe I shouldn't suppose. However, I can't think of any movie I have seen even this day before 1941 that I would rate higher.

Mr Minio

06-04-13, 07:24 AM

Apparently you haven't seen anything from Murnau, Lang and/or Dreyer.

will.15

06-04-13, 07:40 AM

Before Sunrise is better than Citizen Kane?

I would say even Philadelphia Story with its conventional technique is far superior to Before Sunrise.

Daniel M

06-04-13, 12:50 PM

Buddy Buddy is the movie that ended Billy Wilder's film career. He lived a long time after it. He wanted to make another one, but that one's reputation kept him from getting studio backing to make one. Using your logic, that means Mark thinks Buddy Buddy is only slightly inferior to Citizen Kane, which despite its flaws, is one the most historically important and technically innovative movies ever made.

If you are going to use a skewed, idiosyncratic rating system, then it is best to explain it every time you use it.

I never attacked him until he used the word I never use myself, troll, and even then i just threw the word back at him. I challenged his bizarre notion 7.5 is considered by the average person a good rating for a movie like Citizen Kane.

That doesn't mean there aren't people who like Buddy Buddy, and that everyone has to dislike it. I haven't seen it, but people can change opinions over time, didn't Peeping Tom destroy Michael Powell's career but people now regard it as a brilliant classic?

And no it doesn't necessarily mean that it's only slightly inferior to Citizen Kane. Mark uses his rating system as a good measure of enjoyment, and admits that sometimes he feels he is a bit biased towards old English language films when it comes to rating for enjoyment, and that if people want to add a popcorn to his ratings for certain things they can do so, for example art house ratings, camp ratings, or classic ratings. Whilst Mark can often appreciate the film from an artistic level, for example, he still didn't find it as enjoyable or good as something less artistic but better for him.

And by your own twisted logic, as you would probably put it, Buddy Buddy actually has a 6.4 rating on IMDB, which means Mark actually thinks its worse than the majority of people, this is going by your logic here.

Is this your idea of an average movie?

White Chicks (2004 (http://www.imdb.com/year/2004/?ref_=tt_ov_inf))

109 min - Crime (http://www.imdb.com/genre/Crime?ref_=tt_ov_inf) | Comedy (http://www.imdb.com/genre/Comedy?ref_=tt_ov_inf) - 23 June 2004 (USA) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/releaseinfo?ref_=tt_ov_inf)
5.0
Your rating: 1 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=1;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 2 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=2;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 3 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=3;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 4 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=4;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 5 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=5;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 6 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=6;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 7 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=7;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 8 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=8;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 9 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=9;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) 10 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=10;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMj LGDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A&ref_=tt_ov_rt) -/10 X (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/vote?v=X;k=BCYladkkzWaouz7Iz1g0DQar6l2jfbHBDNPjCUoGl50vbs49XBS1QOxE5pn3oNL4TSNdAEU7xKZS%0D%0AaaaGMjL GDHsxo0ebjaXF0BS9F5XUwEOG7Lw2mgyPFg4NQvKr4zLUWoLa%0D%0A)

Ratings: 5.0/10 from 59,745 users (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt) Metascore: 41/100 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/criticreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt)
Reviews: 232 user (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/reviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt)| 96 critic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/externalreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt)| 31 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381707/criticreviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt)from Metacritic.com (http://www.metacritic.com/)

Two disgraced FBI agents go way undercover in an effort to protect hotel heiresses the Wilson Sisters from a kidnapping plot.

When will you understand that PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN RATING SYSTEMS. Does everybody who rates a film on IMDB use the same system as Mark? NO.

People, myself included, tend to be more generous to films on IMDB and follow your idea of 6/7 being decent, 8 good, 9/10 great etc. but you get a lot more films rated 7+ this way, and films are divided strangely. When you go on IMDB you judge films relative to other films on IMDB, when you judge films that Mark's rate you judge films relative to other films he's rated. Giving films high ratings all the time makes your ratings lose value in a way to, and means that you rarely use 1-5, so what's the point having those scores, Mark's system gives more value and prestige to those films he genuinely thinks are special and important to him.

I honestly don't get how you find this so difficult to comprehend, do you genuinely not understand how this works or are you just trying to annoy Mark and the rest of us with your constant ignorance? Seriously now.

will.15

06-04-13, 01:15 PM

That doesn't mean there aren't people who like Buddy Buddy, and that everyone has to dislike it. I haven't seen it, but people can change opinions over time, didn't Peeping Tom destroy Michael Powell's career but people now regard it as a brilliant classic?

And no it doesn't necessarily mean that it's only slightly inferior to Citizen Kane. Mark uses his rating system as a good measure of enjoyment, and admits that sometimes he feels he is a bit biased towards old English language films when it comes to rating for enjoyment, and that if people want to add a popcorn to his ratings for certain things they can do so, for example art house ratings, camp ratings, or classic ratings. Whilst Mark can often appreciate the film from an artistic level, for example, he still didn't find it as enjoyable or good as something less artistic but better for him.

And by your own twisted logic, as you would probably put it, Buddy Buddy actually has a 6.4 rating on IMDB, which means Mark actually thinks its worse than the majority of people, this is going by your logic here.

When will you understand that PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN RATING SYSTEMS. Does everybody who rates a film on IMDB use the same system as Mark? NO.

People, myself included, tend to be more generous to films on IMDB and follow your idea of 6/7 being decent, 8 good, 9/10 great etc. but you get a lot more films rated 7+ this way, and films are divided strangely. When you go on IMDB you judge films relative to other films on IMDB, when you judge films that Mark's rate you judge films relative to other films he's rated. Giving films high ratings all the time makes your ratings lose value in a way to, and means that you rarely use 1-5, so what's the point having those scores, Mark's system gives more value and prestige to those films he genuinely thinks are special and important to him.

I honestly don't get how you find this so difficult to comprehend, do you genuinely not understand how this works or are you just trying to annoy Mark and the rest of us with your constant ignorance? Seriously now.
I guarantee you Buddy Buddy is no Peeping Tom.

This whole discussion wasn't about his grading system, but rather his belief 7.5, which wasn't his rating in this thread, was a good rating for one of the most important American movies ever made, which according to you, mark f. thinks is just a little better than a stinker like Buddy Buddy.

How does mark f, think Buddy Buddy is worse than the people on the imdb since he gave it three popcorn bags? Three out of five usually means good, then after that fair for 2, and 1 bad. And if anyone thinks 6.4 must be an above average grade, go see Buddy Buddy and tell me you think that is even a movie of average quality.

Daniel M

06-04-13, 01:19 PM

This whole discussion wasn't about his grading system, but rather his belief 7.5, which wasn't his rating in this thread, was a good rating for one of the most important American movies ever made, which according to you, mark f. thinks is just a little better than a stinker like Buddy Buddy.

Okay you seemed to have completely ignored this bit:

And no it doesn't necessarily mean that it's only slightly inferior to Citizen Kane. Mark uses his rating system as a good measure of enjoyment, and admits that sometimes he feels he is a bit biased towards old English language films when it comes to rating for enjoyment, and that if people want to add a popcorn to his ratings for certain things they can do so, for example art house ratings, camp ratings, or classic ratings. Whilst Mark can often appreciate the film from an artistic level, for example, he still didn't find it as enjoyable or good as something less artistic but better for him.

3.5+ is a great rating for any film for Mark, nobody says he has to like Citizen Kane, nobody says he has to dislike Buddy Buddy, he says he gives Citizen Kane a classic rating of 5 and used to regard it as a 10 but his own personal tastes - for films he enjoys - has developed since, or something along those lines, why do you choose to ignore so many points, you ignored the Buddy Buddy imdb score thing too conveniently.

will.15

06-04-13, 01:50 PM

Daniel M

06-04-13, 01:54 PM

Here are two excerpts from Buddy Buddy. Doesn't it look dire? I guarantee you the whole movie is like that. The only reason this clip isn't from youtube I couldn't find a clip there in English. This is the only English language clip I could find.

http://www.videodetective.com/movies/buddy-buddy/5046

Now I am 99% sure you are trolling, why are you ignoring all my other points.

And no it doesn't necessarily mean that it's only slightly inferior to Citizen Kane. Mark uses his rating system as a good measure of enjoyment, and admits that sometimes he feels he is a bit biased towards old English language films when it comes to rating for enjoyment, and that if people want to add a popcorn to his ratings for certain things they can do so, for example art house ratings, camp ratings, or classic ratings. Whilst Mark can often appreciate the film from an artistic level, for example, he still didn't find it as enjoyable or good as something less artistic but better for him.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/3.5box.gif+ is a great rating for any film for Mark, nobody says he has to like Citizen Kane, nobody says he has to dislike Buddy Buddy, he says he gives Citizen Kane a classic rating of http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/5box.gif and used to regard it as a 10 but his own personal tastes - for films he enjoys - has developed since, or something along those lines, why do you choose to ignore so many points, you ignored the Buddy Buddy imdb score thing too conveniently.

will.15

06-04-13, 02:17 PM

So a movie you now say he gave five popcorn bags to, the highest rating, is actually a 7.5 movie rated under a different system? Does that make sense to you?

Daniel M

06-04-13, 02:35 PM

So a movie you now say he gave five popcorn bags to, the highest rating, is actually a 7.5 movie rated under a different system? Does that make sense to you?

Yes, perfect sense, if you took the time to actually read his posts, or what I am trying to say, it might help you in understanding this, instead you seem to keep skipping past points in order to continue your pointless tirade against Mark.

will.15

06-04-13, 02:48 PM

Daniel M

06-04-13, 04:34 PM

It doesn't make sense to me that a 7.5 movie could get five stars. How many movies would get the full five stars under that system? So many the grade would seem meaningless? Oh, and while this is off topic, I think he amazingly gave a low popcorn bag rating to the fantastic The Long Goodbye, which means he thinks Buddy Buddy was superior to it.

No, the rating is 7.5 and that is 3.5+ just Mark often uses additional sort-of bonus ratings for films that he feels deserve to be appreciated in a different way. Examples I can think of off the top of my head is Days of Heaven he gives 4 rating but 5 art house rating, although 4 seems low its a great rating but it just shows that he feels that even if you don't appreciate the film it deserves to be appreciated on that level, and I think he gives The Passion of Joan of Arc a 5 classic rating too (if not 5, then something high, I'm sure), although a lower actual rating, just because something is a great classical film doesn't mean that it has to hold any special, significant personal meaning to himself, he reserves 4.5+ ratings for those very special meanings of significance to himself, ones that he really loves, not just great films that other people feel he should like.

And I have seen you have moved on to your next film taste of his to attack after a few posts of Buddy Buddy (which is actually a decent film, if you go by your IMDB logic, and is one which Mark actually underrates according to your grading logic), so I think I am going to stop arguing with you from here on in if your just going to go down the route on attacking him for films you disagree with ratings on. I disagree with Mark on a lot of his ratings, but I respect every single one of them, Mark's rating is not the be all and end all rating for that film, everyone likes different films, Mark justifies his thoughts and explains why he likes/dislikes films normally, and definitely if you ask him (like I said before), I sometimes find it a lot more educational and interesting to read a respectful opinion on why someone disliked a film you like rather than simply see everyone love and give 5* ratings to the same films as you, if it was always like that it would be boring, wouldn't it?