The Rise (and Inevitable Fall) of Citizen Kane
vulture.com
vulture.com
This seems to me an unimportant and un-insightful observation. To suggest it's indicative of an 'inevitable fall' in the film's standing and legacy is tenuous in the extreme, so much so that it's more likely the author's conclusion is tongue in cheek... I'd hope.
The true insight of the piece is how it got there in the first place. And I don't think any serious cinephile will give you an answer to "the best movie of all time" without qualifications.
Anyone who doubts citizen Kane really needs to check out what kind of films were being made before it. CK was bold and experimental, an astounding picture. It’s still fresh in many ways and moving, dated too for sure but a definite classic. Orson Welles is legitimately one of my artistic heroes and he got screwed by the powers that be at the time. I kind of hate to see his work presented this way when he himself loved many of the film makers with movies on the sight and sound list.
Honestly I’m very take it or leave it with Hitchcock’s Vertigo which is the current #1 and it will probably maintain the stop spot on the critic list during the next polls. I also don’t get Sunset which always places super high. It’s good and the running in the field scene is a thrill but that’s the thing about these lists anyways, they are just a statistical average of what everyone thinks but we all have our personal dark horse favourites. One day, Battle Royale will get the credit it deserves.
I’ve been drinking if this seems disjointed.
I like Battle Royale, and Seven Samurai is good, for an action movie. I hated Citizen Kane and Tokyo Story, and consider both to be highly overrated.
I'd say there's probably hundreds of films that can reasonably compete to be in the top spots. Most films aren't given that chance since they aren't widely seen by critics. For example, the 1985 Soviet film 'Come and See' is an utterly stunning example of film's power to document trauma, convey another's pain, and do so in formally and visually inventive ways. It takes pathos to the extreme. I do believe it should be considered one of the greatest films for these reasons. But it only came out 35 years ago and simply has not been shown enough, so it doesn't have the canonical heft it deserves yet.
I do think the canon is important, even if it's just because it forms the foundation on which contemporary films sit (at least those with artistic pretensions). But it's important to have your own voice when watching them. I, for example, like Tokyo Story, but think Floating Weeds is the greater Ozu film, not least for it's beautiful images - it is perhaps the best-looking color film.
But one thing seems sure. The idea of a consensus pick, and for that matter the need for any kind of consensus, is a thing of the past. Citizen Kane, the ultimate canon title, has itself become proof that canons are there to be exploded.
The recently released Mank is the reason for a renewed interest in Kane, and in an ironic twist of fate, it’s a disaster of a film, probably Fincher’s worst, and it makes Welles’ cutting hand and firm direction seem like the actual genius behind the picture.
In any case, if you ever have a few free hours, I recommend listening to some interviews with Welles. He had to be one of the most entertaining and erudite conversationalists we’ve ever had. With all the names and situations referenced in his (probably embellished) stories, it’s like listening to a recording from a lost world.
Could you elaborate on this? The general critical reception of Mank seems positive.
While I was watching it in awe, gleeful at the I don't have the time nor I will spoonfeed here, if viewers don't know the references nor what we're talking about, that's their problem attitude, I couldn't help wondering what fraction of potential audiences today could possibly get it.
Just the sequence where Oldman and Seyfried as confidants, roam utterly extravagant San Simeon/Xanadu's gardens in an ethereal evening after this politics/business/class faux pas of the Brooklyn mistress... That's the old magic of the moving pictures, people. This one tells you why Citizen Kane happened (that's spelled out in that sequence BTW). It doesn't have to be accurate, only tell you the story, and this it does beautifully.
Overall, it felt like a worse version of Hail Caesar, without the Coen Brothers’ mastery of ‘pointlessness.’
Obviously many others, most of whom know more than me about film, feel differently.
I must’ve seen Casablanca a hundred times at this point, and I still laugh at the snappy exchange at the bar between Rick, Sasha and Yvonne[1], gleefully grin when Rick rigs the roulette game in favor of the young Bulgarian couple[2], get goosebumps and damn near cry when the whole place erupts in an impromptu rendition of the Marseillaise to drown out the nazi’s singing[3] etc. etc.
I’ve never actually seen Citizen Kane, but I think I’ll do so tonight prompted by your comment. I’d love to see if I agree with your assessment. Thanks!
[1]: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=14ZnZ4-aGi0
The prologue was so long and on the nose that it was pretty clear from the get go that rosebud was (spoiler alert!) the sled, and then I felt the rest of the movie was just an overly pretentious attempt to convey that it doesn't matter how rich you are if you never get to have your childhood, or something.
I quite enjoyed Welles performance though, and in fact I quite enjoyed the performance of most of the characters, especially Bernstein and Leland. The scenes when they arrive at the inquirer we're brilliant.
Well, I'm glad to have finally seen this movie but – fully appreciating that I probably have no clue what I'm talking about – I wouldn't place it in my top 10 favorite movies. Probably not even top 100 to be honest.
Except "Raising Kane" is a long-discredited hatchet job, having been thoroughly debunked by Peter Bogdanovich (or, if rumors are to be believed, Welles himself) in the 1972 Esquire article "The Kane Mutiny", film scholars such as Robert L. Carringer in "The Making of Citizen Kane" or Jonathan Rosenbaum in various books and articles, and even Kael's own biographer Brian Kellow. Not to mention the credible accusation that Kael stole credit for much of the research for the piece from fellow UCLA faculty member Howard Suber. It's unfortunate that Kael's fame and prominence means that her worthless falsehoods stay in print and are much better known to the public (or even casually interested film fans) than all the later work showing its errors.
Any article that only discusses "Raising Kane", and not the response and scholarship showing it to be bunk, is garbage.