MovieChat Forums > Citizen Kane (1941) Discussion > Can the "average" modern movie goer fair...

Can the "average" modern movie goer fairly evaluate Citizen Kane?

posted 9 years ago by DarkLordBrannon
89 replies | jump to latest

I'm not by any means a critic, or an art-house snob, but it seems to me that most movie goers simply aren't equipped with the proper tools to evaluate movies like this. Modern mainstream films, for all the technical improvements, are extremely shallow. We live in a world where The Avengers (Which I liked. It was fun. I'm even a long-time comic fan.) is considered to be a "great movie" and superficial cool moments, directed by ex-MTV music video directors, are what millennials are impressed with. You also have to factor in the short-attention spans of most people between the ages of 18-40, which even though some sociologists are trying to spin as a positive, I think is clearly an example of regression in an overall state of societal progression. (I won't get into this. You're welcome!)

I saw this movie for the first time when I was about 20, and even then, without much knowledge of the period or the subject matter, it was clear to me that the movie was a great work of art and a masterpiece. I was entranced by its quality and how it seemed so superior to other great movies of same area, like Casablanca, in depth and acting. I was just flat out ignorant of a lot of the context, but my quality detector was fully functioning. I've long had an awareness that there is greater world of art out there that I'll gradually be learning about, so I wonder if the problem is that a lot of people simply don't have this ability? We run into this problem a lot with literature, where the books that most critics praise, old and new, are unknown and unread by the general readership in favor of mild entertainments with little depth.

Could it be that the average person, or movie goer as the case may be, is simply lazy and unsophisticated and their opinions simply aren't worth much compared to the overwhelming weight of educated consensus? After all, we're not entitled to an opinion, we're only really entitled to an informed opinion.

One closing thought I had was on the constant, banal, critique that people use for "old things" the world over: It's dated. Oh, really? Something created in 1941, firmly set in the era of 1941, including the politics, doesn't fully reflect 2015? What a meaningless critique. What this really is, is an example of people trying to make a virtue of their own ignorance of history and inability to comprehend context and universality.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I've seen (and enjoyed) hundreds of pre-1970 black and white film, but since I don't like Citizen Kane, I guess I'm just not smart enough to evaluate it or any of those other classics.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] Jwink72 9 years ago

Who ever said because you didn't like something you can't evaluate it?

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I said that I'm just not smart enough to evaluate a film which is clearly meant for the highly intelligent film buffs.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

It's not that you aren't smart enough, you're just not applying yourself. Do a Youtube search. :)

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Applying myself? Geez, I haven't heard a teacher say that to a student in over 20 years! 

I graduated from high school in 1994, and college/university instructors don't use these kinds of phrases as a general rule.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] amyghost 9 years ago

As a general rule of what? It's a commonplace phrase, I've no doubt there are as many professors who use it as there are people on the average who do.

And stop fishing for compliments. No one on this site is going to call you a genius--one would think you'd have long since pieced that out for yourself.

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

So what if I used an outdated phrase -- it's not a difficult movie to understand. All you need to do is a little bit of research into Orson Welles, William Randolph Hearst (his newspaper empire, penchant for collecting works of art and keeping them away from the public, and his efforts to shut down Citizen Kane), and the groundbreaking cinematography of Gregg Tolland to better understand and appreciate this GROUNDBREAKING masterpiece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Toland

Innovations on The Long Voyage Home and Citizen Kane

"Toland's techniques have proved to be a revolution for the art of cinematography. Before him, shallow depth of field was used to separate the various planes on the screen, creating an impression of space, as well as stressing what mattered in the frame by leaving the rest (the foreground or background) out of focus. With Toland's lighting schemes, shadow was a much more interesting tool, dramatically as well as pictorially, to separate foreground from background and thus to create space within a two-dimensional frame while everything was in focus. This technique was also, according to Toland, more comparable to what the eyes see in real life, since our vision does not blur what we look at, but what we do not look at.
On "The Long Voyage Home" he leaned more heavily on back-projection to create his deep focus compositions (such as the shot of the island women winging to entice the men of the SS Glencairn), while continuing to develop the technologies that would allow for him to create his images on Kane."

Deep focus technique and lighting schemes

"Toland innovated extensively on Citizen Kane, creating deep focus on a soundstage, collaborating with set designer Perry Ferguson so ceilings would be visible in the frame by stretching bleached muslin to stand in as a ceiling, allowing placement of the microphone closer to the action without being seen in frame. He also modified the Mitchell Camera to allow a wider range of movement, especially from low angles. ″It was Toland who devised a remote-control system for focusing his camera lens without having to get in the way of the camera operator who would now be free to pan and tilt the camera.″[3]

"The main way to achieve deep focus was closing down the aperture, which required increasing the lighting intensity, lenses with better light transmission, and faster film stock. On Kane, the cameras and coated lenses used were of Toland's own design working in conjunction with engineers from CalTech. His lenses were treated with Vard Opticoat [4]to reduce glare and increase light transmission. He used the Kodak Super XX film stock, which was, at the time, the fastest film available. Toland had worked closely with a Kodak representative during the stocks creation before its release in October of 1938, and was one of the first cinematographers using it heavily on set. [5]
Lens apertures employed on most productions were usually within the f/2.3 to f/3.5 range; Toland shot his scenes in between f/8 and f/16. This was possible due to several elements of technology coming together at once: the technicolor three strip process, which required the development of more powerful lights, had been developed and the more powerful Carbon Arc light was beginning to be used. By utilizing these lights on a B&W shoot with the faster stock Toland was able to achieve apertures previously unattainable on a stage shoot. [6]"

Optical print shots and in-camera composites on Citizen Kane

Gregg Toland collaborated on a number of shots with special-effects cinematographer Linwood G. Dunn. Although these looked like they were using deep focus, they were actually a composite of two different shots. Some of these shots were composited with an optical printer, a device which Dunn improved upon over the years, which explains why foreground and background are both in focus even though the lenses and film stock used in 1941 could not allow for such depth of field.
But Toland hated this technique, since he felt he was "duping", (i.e. a copy of a copy) thereby lowering the quality of his shots. Thus other shots (like the shot of Susan Alexander Kane's bedroom after her suicide attempt, with a glass in the foreground and Kane entering the room in the background) were in-camera composites, meaning the film was exposed twice—another technique that Linwood Dunn improved upon.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Thanks, but it would be best if I continued watching Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. Those are aimed at my intelligence level.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

How odd to view ones self as having high enough intelligence to watch Citizen Kane and then make comments on IMDB about the experience, and yet low enough intelligence that to even make an attempt to understand it is beyond ones capability. I am baffled.

But I do love me some Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse. I can't fault you on that.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amyghost 9 years ago

Re: Can the 'average' modern movie goer fairly evaluate Citizen Kane?
image for user MrsElleryQueen1976
by MrsElleryQueen1976 » 19 hours ago (Sat Oct 10 2015 11:44:14) Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2004
I think that those who praise Citizen Kane to high heavens should be required to say which other pre-1970 films they have seen. In fact, they should be asked to prove that they have actually seen Citizen Kane.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

LMAO at that statement, and anyone who knows your history on these boards will understand why.

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

Well, considering that I grew up watching classic films and old B movies with my father, I'd have to produce a very long list. How about I list just a few of my favorite pre-1970s films?

1. All of the Marx Bros. movies, but especially Horse Feathers ('30s) -- which reminds me of YOU. As Groucho Marx sang, "Your proposition may be very good, but whatever it is -- I'm against it." LOL!

2. Most of Kubricks old classics including Paths of Glory (with Kirk Douglas!), Lolita, Spartacus (I AM SPARTACUS), 2001: A Space Odyssey (I've read the book, as well), and Dr. Strangelove with Peter Sellers as the president of the United States, the British solider, and as Dr. Strangelove himself! Dr. Strangelove may even be my favorite film of all time.

3. And speaking of Peter Sellers, how could anyone not love the original Pink Panther? Are you crazy thinking anyone could not name beloved films that predate the arbitrary value you set as some sort of measuring stick? Really very odd...

4. George A. Romero's classic Night of the Living Dead came out in 1968, even if I prefer Dan O'Bannon's Return of the Living Dead. What can I say? I really like the '70s and early '80s.

5. All but one or two of Alfred Hitchcock's movies were made before 1970. When I was making student films in high school and college, I watched nearly all of his movies for inspiration, including his silent films. Too numerous to list for you (and really I dislike you for the meaningless challenge) one movie that stands out to me from 1929 called Blackmail in which the female killer (how rare) slowly becomes deranged as the movie progresses. After some time all she can hear in a conversation is the word 'knife' and when she looks outside the shop displays all say knife instead of their respective words. Such a memorable early film by Hitchcock (I several box sets of his movies) maybe you haven't seen the movie? Here's a glimpse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvlyQaJbJgs

6. While reminiscing on Hitchcock I remembered something that we're all missing in the modern days: Cary Grant. I love this man's movies. North By Northwest, Arsenic and Old Lace, Charade, An Affair to Remember -- must I go on?

7. Speaking of Charade. Someone else we're all missing: Audrey Hepburn! My god, the suspenseful Wait Until Dark about a blind woman who is terrorized -- that movie gives me goosebumps... Just like Cary Grant, I don't need to go through with the chore of listing out all of the great films she was in.

8. Let's go back to the '30s and discuss the formation of one of you beloved Looney Tunes characters: Bugs Bunny. It Happened One Night starring none other than the dashing Clark Gable. This movie is a contender for my favorite movie of all time, mostly because I like films about people traveling the countryside and getting into quirky slapstick situations. Without Gable, there would be no carrot munching Bug Bunny. And likely no Dumb and Dumber (a silly '90s movie).

9. And speaking of the director Frank Capra, what would any Christmas be like without the box office failure, syndication revived It's a Wonderful Life? True story: The movie did so poorly that it fell into public domain and was snatched up to become our Christmas classic. Similarly, a post-1970s Bob Clark movie was another box offce failure revived in syndication, becoming an alternative (perhaps revisionist) Christmas classic. My challenge: Which movie am I talking about?

10. Bob Clark may be known for his '70s and early '80s college slasher Black Christmas, Christmas Story, and teen sex comedy Porky's, but he also made a movie in the '60s which I very much enjoy called She-Man, about a man on estogen blackmailed by a trans woman. I really like this movie, but I also like dressing up in women's clothing.

11. Which brings me to Ed Wood. LOL! I can't say I like Glen and Glenda or Plan 9 from Outer Space, but the are terrible movies worth watching. Also the subject of one of Tim Burton's few great works of cinema. (Burton's overrated, but he did add to the line up of Christmas classics.)

12. Gone with the Wind -- Clark Gable again; Vivien Leigh. I love this movie. Who could not love it? More cinematic genius.

13. I was trying to remember who I'd forgotten: Humphrey Bogart!!! Casablanca, The African Queen, Treasure of Sierra Madre, and another contender for my all time favorite movie, failing from the '40s: The Maltese Falcon, playing Sam Spade. I absolutely LOVE private dick movies and this one set the stage AND set the bar, which I dare day has not been surpassed. Except for perhaps in the realm of comic books and choose your adventure video game series Sam & Max, and the adventure game icon Tex Murphy, which pays homage to all of our favorite gumshoes Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe.

14. My mind is running wild at the moment, and there are FAR TOO MANY classics before 1970 to list... film noir gems Kiss Me Deadly and Double Indemnity, another Dashiell Hammet movie called The Thin Man -- OH, and Humphrey Bogart reprises his role as Sam Spade in the Big Sleep with Lauren Bacall. I LOVE THAT MOVIE!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! TOO MANY GOOD MOVIES BEFORE 1970. My head explodes!!! (Also, dpes I Love Lucy count? I've seen every episode multiple times. Love the episode with Harpo Marx! But I also love Harpo Marx so that may be i.)

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

As it's easy to leave off great films: Sergio Leone made most of his great works of cinema before 1970. Including his Fist Full of Dollars trilogy starring Clint Eastwood and Once Upon a Time in the West, starring Charles Bronson and Henry Fonda.

Holy cow, Henry Fonda is sooooo good as the villain in Once Upon a Time in the West. His cold blue eyes starring daggers into you.

And Charles Bronson's harmonica theme. Chills...

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

Oh, and 'that'll be the day' I forget John Wayne classics such as The Searchers (John Ford), The Shootist (Co-starring our own Ronnie Howard and directed by Don Siegal -- another one of Clint Eastwood's mentors along with Sergio Leone) and The Quiet Man, also directed by the heavy weight himself, John Ford. I just love that epic fight at the end of the Quiet Man where they punch each other senseless, busting up half the town. Such a great movie.

Funny thing I noticed in one of the Dollar Trilogy movies (I forget which one), Clint Eastwood uses John Wayne's line "that'll be the day". Made me laugh so hard. I watched most of John Wayne's classic films before ever setting sight on the Eastwood revisionist western films.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Terrific. Lots of great choices listed. So why is it necessary to think that Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever when there are so many other good classics out there?

As for me, I'm very fond of mysteries from the 20s, 30s, and 40s. Also film noir from the 40s and early 50s. Lots of great comedies came out in the sixties. I'm not a huge fan of 1970s films. I prefer TV shows from that decade. I even enjoy the occasional "important" film, like All About Eve and The Best Years of Our Lives.

To me, Citizen Kane will never have the same relevance as an episode of You Can't Do That on Television.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] IamYeezus 7 years ago

It's called an opinion.... I know you probably have never heard of it.

"My greatest pain in life is that I will never be able to see myself perform live"

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 7 years ago

I only understand Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. My intelligence doesn't stretch much further than that.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen = 

[–] amyghost 7 years ago

Re: Terrific.
image for user MsELLERYqueen2
by MsELLERYqueen2 » 1 day ago (Thu Dec 8 2016 12:07:46)
IMDb member since June 2004
I only understand Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck. My intelligence doesn't stretch much further than that.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen =

Keep saying that and people will start believing it.

50 Is The New Cutoff Age.

[–] Jwink72 9 years ago

Mrs queen is a hipster. She hates CK only because its popular among critics and top lists. And she loves to hate it everyday and every chance she gets on IMDb.

Don't give her the time of day, let her waste her life if she wants.

But don't, by any means, ask her to give any reasonable explanation as to why CK deserves hate, or doesn't deserve praise. Don't insult her intelligence.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I just didn't like it. Period.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] Jwink72 9 years ago

That's fine, wonderful.

But I think it's childish and pitiful to return to a board time after time to spend half your life talking about a film you don't like.

Contribute at least something other than how annoyed you are by fans. You may want to get the film banned (not saying you do), but at least contribute why you do. Don't you have films you love you can discuss, or other threads on IMDb? I have nothing against people who don't like it, but you have a strange obsession and it gets annoying. There's a word for people who continue to talk about how you don't like a film, contributing nothing except annoying fans. It's on the tip of my tongue, I think it starts with a t.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

*shrug*

I've been called a troll plenty of times on the CFB (classic film board). Sticks and stones....

Now I'm off to watch episodes of Sesame Street, Mr. Dressup, and The Friendly Giant. I'm still trying to understand the finer points of the plots of these shows.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] amyghost 9 years ago

Re: I just didn't like it. Period.
image for user MrsElleryQueen1976
by MrsElleryQueen1976 » 12 hours ago (Sat Oct 10 2015 18:12:03) Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2004
*shrug*

I've been called a troll plenty of times on the CFB (classic film board). Sticks and stones....

Now I'm off to watch episodes of Sesame Street, Mr. Dressup, and The Friendly Giant. I'm still trying to understand the finer points of the plots of these shows.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

You've been called one because you are one. Witness your repeated behavior on the Citizen Kane board, and your frequent performances on the Classic Film Board.

And as for your project, give it up. It's doomed from the outset.

[–] Boomer-Baby 9 years ago

I just didn't like it. Period.

Well that's it, Everyone. God has spoken.

[–] amyghost 9 years ago

Well that's it, Everyone. God has spoken.

PERIOD.

[–] TREATsize 9 years ago

Well I have watched it at least three times completely and a couple of aborted attempts. I was very bored. The plot was thin and the acting especially by Wells was dismal.
But if you like it then great!

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

God must be an idiot for challenging people to name movies they enjoy before 1970. Eras don't define greatness. Great films define eras! I can't think of a single decade without great directors and great films. I don't think oldness or newness is good enough to define art. But it certainly is good enough for some people: PERIOD. *snicker*

[–] Boomer-Baby 9 years ago

Eras don't define greatness. Great films define eras! I can't think of a single decade without great directors and great films. I don't think oldness or newness is good enough to define art.

Well said! Look forward to reading more of your posts.

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

Why thank you!

As a bonus, here's what I'm currently listening to -- National Lampoon Radio Hour:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1NAwlepnSs&index=3&list=PL649F2BA40CE69DE9

Great playlist if you like '70s era comedy (Chevy Chase, John Belushi, etc.). Deteriorata was written by Christopher Guest, best known for his role as Nigel in This is Spinal Tap and the six fingered man in Princess Bride, both Rob Reiner movies; and performed by Norman Rose -- the voice of GOD.

National Lampoon itself was established in 1970 -- right when Mrs Ellery Queen stopped being relevant. I listen to National Lampoon Radio to remember the great authors of comedy that came to dominate our lives from 1970 until today.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I stand by what I wrote here earlier. I didn't like Citizen Kane and that's that.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] amyghost 9 years ago

Re: I just didn't like it. Period.
image for user MrsElleryQueen1976
by MrsElleryQueen1976 » 3 hours ago (Mon Oct 19 2015 00:24:30)
IMDb member since June 2004
I stand by what I wrote here earlier. I didn't like Citizen Kane and that's that.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

And when you come back over and over again to a board, or boards, to simply repeat that same statement over and over again, you become a troll--which is precisely what you are at this point.

[–] zargmatt-73661 9 years ago

Who cares what you think on the subject of Citizen Kane: Only you do. You've provided nothing other than your opinion and self admitted lack of intelligence as proof. Period.

There's absolutely no need to convince a stubborn person of the validity of a work of art. Anyone worth convincing of its validity will have already recognized the facts in the face of pure ignorance. Art on some level is almost always subjective, but in the case of Citizen Kane it's greatness (even if you disagree with the storytelling) is established both historically and technologically as fact.

That's your loss in failing to recognize this.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I'll try to live with the shame.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] amyghost 9 years ago

I'll try to live with the shame.
image for user MrsElleryQueen1976
by MrsElleryQueen1976 » 17 hours ago (Thu Oct 22 2015 13:19:34)
IMDb member since June 2004
I'll try to live with the shame.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

You've had enough years to get good at it, I'm certain.

[–] TheUglyCasanova 8 years ago

Aren't you another pretentious one!

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 8 years ago

It's a result of watching too many episodes of The Road Runner, I'm afraid.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I'll leave the evaluation of Citizen Kane to you. I'm just simply not smart enough to evaluate it.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] lazlopanaflex 9 years ago

All things are a question of taste-you don't like it that's your privilege. I personally hate Star Wars but acknowledge the influence it has on film. With Kane it's a writer/producer/actors first film there has not been anything since to surpass it in that category.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

So what? That doesn't have anything to do with what the OP is asking.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] amyghost 9 years ago

So what? Your responses have had precious little to do with what the OP is asking, but that hasn't stopped you from posting them.

You're like a blowfly with a decomposed corpse on this board--you can't stop buzzing around it. Which looks peculiar as hell, considering it's a film you claim to have no interest in.

People who constantly hang around boards which cover subjects they have no interest in, only to disparage the subject can often enough be spelled out in one word: T-R-O-L-L. Since you graduated from high school in 1994, I feel fairly confident you can identify that word.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

That lets me out. Despite the fact that I've seen hundreds of classics, I'm just not smart enough to grasp such an important movie.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amyghost 9 years ago

Don't feed the attention-craving troll. She simply wants someone to validate her intelligence, without having to be put to the inconvenience of having to display any.

Despite the fact that I've seen hundreds of classics

Drop by the CFB sometime, and watch her preface nearly every film-related comment she makes (out of the many OT ones) with "I couldn't get through ten minutes of that film" or "Great film, I don't remember anything about it".

[–] Boomer-Baby 9 years ago

Drop by the CFB sometime, and watch her preface nearly every film-related comment she makes (out of the many OT ones) with "I couldn't get through ten minutes of that film" or "Great film, I don't remember anything about it".

People need to boycott posters that say those words. Watch the whole thing or keep your mouth shut. That should be between you & your cat only.

[–] TREATsize 9 years ago

I watched the whole thing. Just was not impressed or captivated.

[–] Boomer-Baby 9 years ago

You gave it a fair shot. Kudos to you.

It was a film of its time, with Hearst and his control of the media. And Orson Welles used very innovative camera shots. I got to see it in the massive Thalia Theater & it was an experience I'll never forget. We went out afterwards with theater people & discussed it at a coffee bar. Do I want to see it again? No, I've done the Citizen Kane experience. It was fab, & I enjoyed watching how the light played around on the huge screen, enjoyed the story of a man with too much power, his newspaper, the politics, the ending with "Rosebud", laughed at his choice of mistress, his castle, the art, enjoyed the swanky people in the coffee bar afterwards, but it is filed away under 'good experience but enough.' (I did watch it on TCM later, to catch Alan Ladd in the film. Yes, he's very obvious, but I never noticed him on the big screen, oddly.)

However I do respect its place in movie history. I've had friends who were studying film making at NYU, and who take this film quite seriously. There is a reason for its legend. However I do think a person needs to be well rested before seeing it, as it is very long, and quite involved. Same as with Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, etc. :-)

[–] TREATsize 9 years ago

Thanks for the feedback. I never viewed it in a theater just on a flat screen. Glad you liked it.

[–] Boomer-Baby 9 years ago

It did make a great difference seeing it as it was meant to be seen. We tried to get there as early as we could & still we were fairly back in the line. Pretty soon the line reached back a city block. Those poor souls had to wait for us to watch Citizen Kane, then a showing of Silk Stockings before they could get in for the next Citizen Kane showing!

People are really dedicated to this film to stand for four hours to get in to see it. That says it all, really.

Thank you for being happy that I saw it & liked it. Very kind of you. That is what film is supposed to be all about, enjoying the experience, isn't it? Cheers to you.

[–] Jwink72 9 years ago

I think a huge, tragic situation with classic films such as citizen Kane is it's now stuck on a stupid computer or 40-60'' tv screen.

I recently watched psycho in theaters and now it feels like a crime to watch it any other way. Most people now who have their first time viewings of classics experience them in a very underwhelming, useless environment. There's nothing like a black and white on a giant screen. Although I came in too late for those days, I appreciate when I have the chance to see them.

[–] Xator_Nova 9 years ago

I think that the average moviegoer wont be able to understand everything that makes the film so great, but it is enjoyable if one keeps an open mind. It has quite some sense of humor, the story is large in scale, and there is an emotional core with a devastating resolution.

"Citizen Kane" fan, "Frozen" fan, and "Boyhood" fan. ;)

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tomatish 9 years ago

Oh, that's it. I'm too pea-brained to get what a fantastic movie this was. It's not like people can have different tastes or anything of the sort. Thanks for letting me know!

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Oh, that's it. I'm too pea-brained to get what a fantastic movie this was. It's not like people can have different tastes or anything of the sort. Thanks for letting me know!



By the way, I've had people annoy me because I have said that I dislike this movie. In response, I'll usually say something like, "I'm just too stupid to understand this film. I should really stick to the Bugs Bunny cartoons" or something along those lines. Works every time...they get off my back.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

[–] amyghost 9 years ago

the "average" modern movie goer fairly evaluate Citizen Kane??
image for user MrsElleryQueen1976
by MrsElleryQueen1976 » Thu Oct 8 2015 00:00:53 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since June 2004
Oh, that's it. I'm too pea-brained to get what a fantastic movie this was. It's not like people can have different tastes or anything of the sort. Thanks for letting me know!

By the way, I've had people annoy me because I have said that I dislike this movie. In response, I'll usually say something like, "I'm just too stupid to understand this film. I should really stick to the Bugs Bunny cartoons" or something along those lines. Works every time...they get off my back.

~~~~~
Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen 🎇

Really? A look at your post history says otherwise.

[–] TwoThousandOneMark 9 years ago

I think Kane deserves at least 2-3x viewings, spaced out, to fully absorb & appreciate.

Ebert's dvd commentary doesn't hurt either.

...top 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/

[–] steelysunshine 9 years ago

No, the average movie goer can't fairly evaluate any movie. Evaluating things isn't an activity for average people. I think that the average viewer can understand the movie and enjoy the movie. But, I don't think they are nor am I prepared to go into the history of the thinly disguised main character, the history of the era, learning what all the camera shots were all about, taking a psychology class or two, and watching the movie no less than 3 times, but really it should be more than that to fully appreciate it.

I think part of the genius of Citizen Kane is that while it is dense with ideas and it's slowly paced at times. That it is something that appeals to a wide audience. I just don't expect that appeal to translate into the said audience actually being able to tell me all about the technical aspects, if I want that information I will have to find someone who has been through film school as I don't know anyone currently that is in or has gone through film school.