That's it? This is the greatest movie of all time. It's just a life of some rich guy.
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
That's it? This is the greatest movie of all time. It's just a life of some rich guy.
That's it? This is the greatest movie of all time. It's just a life of some rich guy.
|
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Yeah? How many movies about rich guys did you make at age 26?
It was a thinly disguised hit piece of a living person, William Randolf Hearst. Who was a powerful newspaper baron at a time when newspapers defined reality for a majority of people. They were full of bias and misinformation like today's commercial media. At the time this movie was made Hearst's power was declining due to increasing competition and Orson Wells thought he could get away with it but then WWII came along and revived Hearst's newspapers and his political power.
And yet these days not a single person remembers anything Hearst wrote, and we're still talking about Citizen Kane on a Taiwanese basket-weaving forum.
He made up some shit about a Spanish ship attack to start a war and to sell more papers.
Welles has grown into a more enduring myth than Hearst. IDK why he's never that interesting in talking Kane, cos Welles' young age + as pop culture figure on TV/commercial later made him more interesting than newspapers that kept merging. American writers enshrined Welles to match French critics' clout. Like Hearst who? Movies about Patty all flopped.
Frick the Hearst guy, but the greatest movie ever isn't a fricking thinly veiled hit piece. That's gay as shit. That's like someone making a political movie today. It's cringe.
Welles triumphing over Hearst in the long run gives me hope for humanity yet. The two things people remember about Hearst was his literal fake news and his autistic spergout over Citizen Kane which if anything showed sympathy for him while Welles will be remembered as a true American artist and fearless innovator
Not enough special effects or things to keep your attention, zoomie? Get off of TikTock for once and maybe you'll be able to appreciate the technical aspects or understand the themes.
what other movies are apart of the citizen Kane multiverse?
>apart of
You mean "apart from"?
no a part of
It's all that you needed to appeal to the average American back then.
Contemporary US cinema isn't any better though, with its capeshit and other franchise slop.
At least Citizen Kane looks kinda nice. 3DCG shit won't age as well.
moron
Capeshitter detected.
society owes me my own Xanadu
Did you miss the part at the end where Citizen Kane had to defeat Alien Titan Man by making a magical metal mitten with enchanted israeliteels on it? That's the moron version you needed to watch. There's talking raccoons in it and everything.
Yeah it's way oversold. Like it's moderately good, but it could never live up to the hype society gives it (imo).
What I wonder is if it was ever as good as boomers pretend. Maybe back in the day there was a deep desire for an artistic all American Hollywood movie, and Citizen Kane came along. We are not living in a world where there are almost no independent weirdos or serious cinema now.
>Maybe back in the day
>Space Jam
The logo…
>>What I wonder is if it was ever as good as boomers pretend.
It wasn't any better or worse than it is now. We're not talking about a wine here: Quality does not change with the years.
>Maybe back in the day there was a deep desire for an artistic all American Hollywood movie
There wasn't. But Citizen Kane was a marvel of camerawork, set building and editing, combining many techniques for visual storytelling that weren't common back then (but are today), and doing it on a larger scale and arguably better than others had done before. You could say it pushed technological motivation in mainstream cinema. You coud somewhat compare it to Avatar and the 3D technology hype it caused.
>Citizen Kane was a marvel of camerawork, set building and editing
it's 2024, the entirety of cinema is open for you freely explore, guys like Murnau were already doing whatever Welles did in the 20s
>guys like Murnau were already doing whatever Welles did in the 20s
Erm ... no. Murnau did some of the things Welles did. Welles was the first to combine all of those things.
And, I should note, I'd rather watch any Murnau than Citizen Kane, which is simply doesn't offer an interesting or meaningful narrative. But to deny its status as a technological accomplishment is ridiculous.
no you wouldn't and you clearly haven't
You're not as educated as you are pretending to be, child. If you want to have a discussion about the history of visual storytelling in cinema, we can have that. But you need to stop acting like a prick and actually start making a proper argument.
>boomers
It came out in 1941.
"Boomer" just means anyone 5 or more years older than them. There's no gen x, no millennials, no greatest gen, no silent gen. Just zoomer and boomer. You must be a boomer for being so un-hip as to not know. I must be a boomer because I'm explaining it. And boomer are BAD; they "took" and they "have" and it's not FAIR!
It's a movie that is difficult to fully appreciate without chronologic knowledge of the history of film. It was innovative in so many ways from framing, to camera work. Films were largely linear up to Citizen Kane; jumping to various points in the timeline was new. We also aren't told how to feel about Kane. It is left to the audience to form their own opinion. It's been so imitated that it can be hard to see its brilliance if you seen all the movies copying it first.
>We also aren't told how to feel about Kane. It is left to the audience to form their own opinion.
Just because American cinema was often overly preachy and lacked nuance, that doesn't mean this was a new thing. Literature, including dramatic literature (stageplays), all over the world had been written in this more "open" way for over two millenia. European cinema, as it started to tell stories, usually left a lot open to interpretation.
Why do stupid viewers like this expect the director to shove the message and meaning down their throat? It’s the same with Scorsese like him having to tell critics that Jordan Belford was bad in wolf of Wall Street, do you not have ears and eyes?
I definitely won’t rewatch the film however the filmmaking was great for that time.
t. based zoomer bumparino
>It's a movie that is difficult to fully appreciate without chronologic knowledge of the history of film.
Also watch more movies then you pleb how on earth is that Welles fault or a critique on the film itself ??
>greatest film of all time
>built on a plot hole
It's undoubtedly a great movie, and anyone that says otherwise is either being disingenuous or has shit taste. It was very innovative in terms of its narrative structure and the way it was filmed (camera shots/framing techniques). There wasn't really anything else like it at the time. I can appreciate it as an objectively great movie, but it's definitely not one of my favorites, or one I want to rewatch that often.