The piece's latter stage thesis is that Citizen Kane is no longer considered the G(film)OAT, because in the more recent Sight & Sound polls it's been demoted from the its longstanding top spot position down to somewhere in the top five.
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 article suggests an inevitable fall in rankings - I mean, do you expect it to be #1 for the rest of history? In any case, these lists are tenuous, subject to vagaries of film distribution, canonization, and critic selection, as the article's questioning of such readily-made canons suggests.
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.
For a medium that is dependent on technology I’d say it’s impressive for any old movie to stand the test of time. I love old movies and I’m always impressed with their resourcefulness and heart. My favourite film is Seven Samurai but I sincerely hope that we can continue to make movies which challenge the preeminence of all time classics like Citizen Kane, Tokyo Story, The Rules of the Game, 8 1/2 .. like really take your pick of the top films on that list and you or anyone would do well to watch them many times over.
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 actually don't think film depends all that much on technology. True, contemporary audiences will have to learn how to watch, read, and understand silent, black & white, and early color (like Technicolor) films. But the essential pathos, invention, and artistry sip through the pores of their technical fabric.
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.
"Once upon a time in Hollywood" is the best movie of all time because it is completely about the career of Clint Eastwood and his uncredited stuntmen. For example the flamethrower is about Clint Eastwoods nazi role in Where Eagles Dare[0] where he is on camera with a flamethrower he holds as a gun. Cinephiles completely missed the meaning of this master piece. Watch Once upon a time in Hollywood again with Clint in mind
There is no “inevitable fall” of Citizen Kane, neither in the article itself nor in film theory circles. The closest the article gets is this, which is not exactly convincing:
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.
I thought the cinematography and set design was fantastic. The rest of the film is disorganized, lacks a coherent angle/point of view, and just kind of meanders along. Some of the acting was also off (Oldman playing a New Yorker but seems to have a slight British accent, etc.)
Overall, it felt like a worse version of Hail Caesar, without the Coen Brothers’ mastery of ‘pointlessness.’
Yea idk what he’s talking about. I thought Mank was incredible. The costume and set designs were great. Gary Oldman, like usual, gave an Oscar worthy performance. Amanda Seyfrieds portrayal of Marion Davies will probably get overlooked but I think it was one of her best performances. Great film, especially if you’ve seen Kane recently. Definitely recommended
Me neither. Coming up with a film like Mank in 2020 is nothing short of miraculous. (Yes, it's a film, it's not a documentary, it can tweak facts if it needs to).
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.
I have never particularly enjoyed Citizen Kane. To me, and this is just my opinion, it is a film where all of the component parts—acting, cinematography, sound, etc—are brilliant, but are somehow less than the sum of their parts. If you take any individual component and focus on it you are blown away by the craftsmanship, but as a cohesive film, I feel, it just doesn’t come together as well as many of the other films often mentioned as a candidate for best film, such as Casablanca.
Obviously many others, most of whom know more than me about film, feel differently.
I think it’s damn near impossible to pick a single favorite film, but if you put a gun to my head and force me I’ll say Casablanca every day of the week. I think it’s one of those films where I’d say it’s the exact opposite to your description of Citizen Kane; the individual components aren’t necessarily all that great if you start to examine them closely, but when it all comes together I think it’s pure cinematic gold.
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!
Captain Renault is such a great character, and I absolutely love the friendship/rivalry thing going on between him and Rick. Really ties the whole film together I feel, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that the ending is simply excellent!
Said and done. I made myself an old fashion and watched Citizen Kane tonight, and I have to agree with your review. It's a fine piece of art, certainly well produced for the time, but frankly I just didn't really get into the story. It doesn't feel like a cohesive whole.
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.
Glad you were able to finally watch it. It is certainly a film worth seeing. I perhaps will watch it again sometime in the near future. I always want to like it more than I do.
>In her 1971 essay, “Raising Kane,” Pauline Kael made the case for Kane not as a brazen, important directorial statement but the high-point of a rich 1930s tradition of tough-minded, satirical newspaper pictures, some of which Mankiewicz, himself a former newspaper man, had worked on. “Raising Kane” is a phenomenal work of criticism:
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.
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.