BEST MOVIE EVER!
Jens Toft
>THE worst movie ever" is kind of like a blank check--Lots of choices there,
>some depending upon taste.
>How about "most disappointing movies ever"?
Or how about "BEST MOVIE EVER"?
It seems to me, we would all have more benefit from such a discussion.
I have some candidats here:
The Japan-Russian film by A. Kurosawa: "Dersu Uzala".
The French: "Bourkassa Ourbangui".
Or the swedish: "Mit liv som hund" -> "My life as dog".
I don't remember who directed the last two.
Personally I would like to know, what films to go after. There are not a lot
of good movies for the moment.
What's the best one you ever saw?
Regards
Jens Toft
Copenhagen.
Lindsey MS 04396
>The French: "Bourkassa Ourbangui".
>Or the swedish: "Mit liv som hund" -> "My life as dog".
>
My favorite three (at the moment) are:
My life as a dog (Swedish)
Jean de Florette (French)
Manon of the Spring (French)
Please see Jean de Florette before Manon of the Spring, since Manon is the
sequel of Jean de Florette.
Some other good movies are:
Hope and Glory (British)
Brazil (British)
Sugarbaby (German)
Mission (American)
If you like comedy/satire try "Serial" (American). It came out in the late
70's, but is still relevant and funny today.
"The only difference between a madman and myself is that I am not mad" S. Dali
"If the shoe fits, buy it!" Imelda Marcos.
Steve Lindsey |-) uunet!x102a!mlindsey
(407) 727-5893 :-) mlin...@x102a.harris-atd.com
Canis Nervous Rex
} >THE worst movie ever" is kind of like a blank check--Lots of choices
} >there, some depending upon taste.
} >How about "most disappointing movies ever"?
} Or how about "BEST MOVIE EVER"?
} It seems to me, we would all have more benefit from such a discussion.
Well, there are certainly more benefits to be had from discussion
"Best Movies Ever" than "Worst Movies Ever", but i'm not convinced
that it's any easier to decide what's "best" than to decide what's
"worst".
But, getting into the spirit of things, I'll list ten candidates
for best movies *I've* ever seen (in alphabetical order):
CASABLANCA
CITIZEN KANE
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT
IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE
KING KONG [1933]
THE PHILADELPHIA STORY
RAN
RASHOMON
SEVEN SAMURAI
As the last three indicate, you can hardly go wrong with Kurosawa.
In thinking about it, I'd say that there's not a single one of his
films I've seen that was anything short of brilliant. I'd be tempted
to say that he is, in my opinion, probably *the* greatest director
in film history.
"Life's 'Abyss', and then you dive."
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
UUCP: ...!decwrl!ruby.dec.com!boyajian
or asabet.dec.com
ARPA: boyajian%ruby...@DECWRL.DEC.COM
or asabet.DEC
Pierce T. Wetter
>
Pierce
--
wet...@csvax.caltech.edu | wet...@tybalt.caltech.edu | pwe...@caltech.bitnet
|----------------------------------------------------|
| Warning: Posting not checked for accuracy, spelling, or punctuation.
READ AT OWN RISK.
Jan Bielawski
<
<It seems to me, we would all have more benefit from such a discussion.
<I have some candidats here:
<
<The Japan-Russian film by A. Kurosawa: "Dersu Uzala".
<The French: "Bourkassa Ourbangui".
<Or the swedish: "Mit liv som hund" -> "My life as dog".
<
<I don't remember who directed the last two.
Welllll, it changes. If you had asked me this question 2 years ago
the list would have been different. And it'll be different next year.
So, here is my current list from the top of my head (in no particular
order):
Luis Bunuel -- The Discreet Charm..., That Obscure Object..., others
Orson Welles -- The Trial
Wim Wenders -- Wings of Desire
Andrei Tarkovski -- Mirror
Stanley Kubrick -- 2001, A Clockwork Orange
Federico Fellini -- Roma, Amarcord
Jacques Tati -- Monsieur Hulot's Holiday (by all means avoid the dubbed
version)
? -- (I forget)
<What's the best one you ever saw?
<
Oh God. I thought A Clockwork Orange was the one in early 70s.
Then Tarkovski's "Mirror" simply blew me away. It's an incredible movie
but as any true work of art it requires certain inner attitude that's
difficult to produce at will. You either understand what it's all
about instantly (even allowing for an extremely convoluted "plot")
or it bores you to tears. I kept coming back to see it again and
again for something like a week. That was 1980 and I would still go
and see it now several times if it played anywhere. "The Trial"
has this "atmosphere of greatness" that I love. Pure genius at work.
Amazing.
<Regards
< Jens Toft
< Copenhagen.
Jan Bielawski Internet: jbiel...@ucsd.edu
Bitnet: jbiel...@ucsd.bitnet
Dept. of Math UUCP: jbiel...@ucsd.uucp
UCSD ( {ucsd,sdcsvax}!sdcc6!ix496 )
Stewart
> The Japan-Russian film by A. Kurosawa: "Dersu Uzala".
> The French: "Bourkassa Ourbangui".
> Or the swedish: "Mit liv som hund" -> "My life as dog".
I liked "Forbidden Planet", 'cause it had, like, flying saucers
and guys getting killed and stuff! Real cool!
- GMS
Laurie Mann
I spent some of the weekend rating movies for Chuck's survey. I rated
about 300 movies. I gave only one 10:
To Kill A Mockingbird
This isn't a big spectacle, it has no visual effects, and the cast, except
for Gregory Peck and a bunch a character actors in small parts (Paul Fix,
f'rinstance), the actors were pretty much unknown. But the movie works
on a number of levels. You can watch it as a child and identify with
Scout and Jem, particularly since the movie unfolds from Scout's point
of view. You can watch it as an adult and understand why the children
were so confused. The acting throughout is wonderful. The script,
while hampered by the Hays "rules" which many studios were still following
in the early '60s, packs a punch.
/*Life is like a roller coaster, but I'm glad to be tall enough to ride*/
Laurie Mann ** harvard!m2c!jjmhome!lmann ** encore!cloud9!jjmhome!lmann
Work: Stratus Computer I log onto the net from Northboro, MA
Daniel Morris
>In article <47...@freja.diku.dk>, to...@freja.diku.dk (Jens Toft) writes:
>> What's the best one you ever saw?
>
>I spent some of the weekend rating movies for Chuck's survey. I rated
>about 300 movies. I gave only one 10:
>
> To Kill A Mockingbird
>
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD also has my vote as one of the best movies ever. It
remains one of the most watchable movies ever made.
===============================================================
| Daniel Morris | UUCP: |
| Atlanta University Ctr., Inc. | {gatech,emory}!auc!dam |
| Academic Computer Center | |
| Atlanta, Georgia | INTERNET: |
| | d...@auc.com |
| | |
| |"Wherever you go, there |
| | you are." - Buckaroo Banzai |
===============================================================
John Leo
little different from last time. I probably have quite different
tastes from most people and I tend not to like directors that are very
popular, such as Kurosawa, Hitchcock and Truffaut. I also generally
like newer films better than older ones, and am much more interested
in the direction of the film than any message it might try to convey.
The French seem to be way ahead of everyone else in literature and
film, and I know of no other country even close, although the Japanese
are getting better. So it's not surprising that my favorite films are
from those two countries.
FRANCE
Alain Robbe-Grillet: L'Eden et apres [Eden and After, 1971]
N a pris les des [N Took the Dice, 1971]
L'Homme qui ment [The Man Who Lies, 1968]
and everything else he's written and directed
I finally got a chance to see Robbe-Grillet's films in New York a
while ago, and they were as awesome as I thought they'd be. I'll
write up a review one of these days, but it probably doesn't matter as
they are never shown in this country anyway. Unfortunately I couldn't
see the films after "L'Eden," which may have been even better, but I
did get to see "L'Eden" twice and it's certainly the best film I've
even seen. Not because it's perfect, alas, but it does so many things
so well I can't even begin to descibe it. The opening credits alone
are a masterpiece. "N a pris les des" is the "anagram version" (the
title is itself almost an anagram) of "L'Eden" as is perfect to see
with it. It consists of outtakes of the original rearranged into
randomly ordered thematic groups, and illustrates some of the
contextual relationships R-G also explores in his later novels.
"L'Homme," his last black and white film, is also brilliant and like
all of his films extremely funny.
Jean-Luc Godard: King Lear [1988]
I must admit my opinion of Godard went down a bit after seeing R-G
since R-G does almost everything Godard does, only better, and then
goes far beyond. But Godard is still fun to watch, and much easier to
see in this country, and worthwhile in his own right. He seems to get
better with each film, and not surprisingly my favorite is his most
recent. Even though I hate Shakespeare this film is so well done
I don't mind the passages from his play.
JAPAN
Morita Yoshimitsu: Kazoku Geemu [Family Game, 1983]
Sorekara [And Then, 1987]
Morita was unscathed from the R-G viewing as he's extremely
different, and in fact the direction of these two films is completely
different from each other, and both are completely appropriate.
"Kazoku Geemu" has beautiful use of color, camera movement, and
amplified sound; "Sorekara" is almost colorless and motionless. Like
all great films, realism is suppressed in favor of beauty. Morita is
almost as hard to see in this country as R-G, although "Family Game"
is available subtitled on videotape and a friend found "Sorekara"
unsubtitled at a Japanese video store. I really hope I can see his
earlier films sometime as well.
For pure beauty, I cannot think of any better films than the two
following, both animated.
Yamazaki Kazuo: Urusei Yatsura 4: Lum the Forever [1986]
Oshii Mamoru: Urusei Yatsura 2: Beautiful Dreamer [1984]
Finally I'd like to make special mention of a Hungarian film I was
lucky enough to see which is utterly unique, certainly the most
ritualistic and artificial film I've ever seen.
Miklos Jancso: Elektreia (1975)
``/ / | | John Leo
\ / \ / | --|--
\ / --| / . | / /| l...@stark.lcs.mit.edu
/ --| / | / / | l...@athena.mit.edu
\/ --| \/ \/ / \|
Kent Boklan
favorite films;
Pandora's Box
Greed
City Lights
The Bicycle Thief
the Grand Illusion
and Citizen Kane. There are quite a few others, but, as always,
they never seem to be available when I want them.
As to the worst film, if the true measure of a bad movie is proportional
to the money wasted on it, then, for being a truly useless film, I
nominate Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
Kent D. Boklan
Kent Boklan
La Dolce Vita
Stagecoach
Grand Hotel
and
Pinocchio
And please, don't write to me about how great a movie Indiana Jones III
is...it seems that most of the people who write to this Net are
obsessed with it. I'd rather see a movie that challenges me-not insults
my intelligence.
Doug Moran
> Just thought I'd throw my hat into the ring and name a few of my
> favorite films;
> Pandora's Box
> Greed
> City Lights
> The Bicycle Thief
> the Grand Illusion
> and Citizen Kane. There are quite a few others, but, as always,
> they never seem to be available when I want them.
I have only seen Citizen Kane from that list. Indeed, outside of
books listing "Top Movies of All Times," I have never even heard
mention of Pandora's Box, Greed (isn't it 8 hours long?), The
Bicycle Thief, and The Grand Illusion.
For me, a great movie is one where I sit through it and think
things like, "I can't believe how good this movie is." Or I
just sit there and don't think at all, because I am so wrapped
up in the film. These are the films that I will always watch
again and again. They are in no particular order:
The Top Almost As Good
----------------------- ---------------------------------
Casablanca The Sting
2001: A Space Oddysey The Man Who Would Be King
Hannah and her Sisters The Untouchables
Annie Hall The World According To Garp
Gallipoli The Elephant Man
The Godfather Blade Runner
Amadeus Witness
Citizen Kane Little Big Man
Dr. Strangelove The Big Sleep
Singin' In The Rain Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Young Frankenstein Little Big Man
Monty Python / The Holy Grail Alien
A Clockwork Orange Aliens
Lawrence of Arabia The Day The Earth Stood Still
Ran Forbidden Planet
The Stunt Man
Never Cry Wolf
Star Wars
It Happened One Night
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington
The Quiet Earth
Dersu Uzala
Doug Moran "Home is where you wear your hat"
{ames,decwrl,...}!pyramid!dougm
Jan Bielawski
<Finally I'd like to make special mention of a Hungarian film I was
<lucky enough to see which is utterly unique, certainly the most
<ritualistic and artificial film I've ever seen.
<
<Miklos Jancso: Elektreia (1975)
Is it the one with 20-minute takes and so on? But no, there is
even a better one:
Sergey Paradyanov (Sarkis Paradyanyan) -- The Color of Pomegranates.
Jancso to Spielberg in comparison. BTW, I like it.
Timothy Worsley
>RAN
>RASHOMON
>SEVEN SAMURAI
>. . . you can hardly go wrong with Kurosawa.
>In thinking about it, I'd say that there's not a single one of his
>films I've seen that was anything short of brilliant. I'd be tempted
>to say that he is, in my opinion, probably *the* greatest director
>in film history.
Aha! I see you've missed out on some of Kurosawa's earlier films, the
most horrendous of which was "One Wonderful Sunday," which imitated
Capra. It was not a very good imitation. It was very boring, and ended
with possibly the worst concept in film: an appeal to the auidence
to applaud the hero in his moment of need. The only other bit I remember
from the film is a ten minuite pause as the hero sits in his apartment
and listens to the rain.
"Sanshiro Sugata(?) I & II" are not too bad, but they are nowhere
near brilliant, especially the second, which is filled with anti-american
propaganda. There are a couple of other not so good Kurosawa pictures around
if you look for them. I remember one where T. Shimura(?) walks around
drunk, sceaming "Merry Christmas!!" (in english) to everyone he meets.
I think Toshiro Mifuni is with him, but I'm not sure.
Oh, well . . . even Tarkovsky made some errors.
--- Hugh D. Brown
Peter Reiher
>In article <6...@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu>, ke...@math.lsa.umich.edu (Kent Boklan) writes:
>> Just thought I'd throw my hat into the ring and name a few of my
>> favorite films;
>> Pandora's Box
>> Greed
>> City Lights
>> The Bicycle Thief
>> the Grand Illusion
>> and Citizen Kane. There are quite a few others, but, as always,
>
>books listing "Top Movies of All Times," I have never even heard
>mention of Pandora's Box, Greed (isn't it 8 hours long?), The
>Bicycle Thief, and The Grand Illusion.
"Greed" was cut by Eric von Stroheim at 16 hours, I believe. The released
version is much, much shorter - around two hours or so. This version of
"Greed" shows fairly often in major cities, and occasionally on PBS and
cable channels like A&E and Bravo. A reasonably determined search of video
stores in fairly large cities would probably turn up a copy. The search is
definitely worthwhile. A reasonable number of film historians and critics
think that the full length version would have been one of the finest films
ever made, and the short version is regarded as a masterpiece of silent film.
"Pandora'a Box" is a German silent film starring Louise Brooks. It would be
somewhat harder to find than "Greed". Directed by G. W. Pabst, it is heavy
on doom and decadence. Brooks is excellent, and the film is quite good.
"The Bicycle Thief" is perhaps the center piece of the Italian neo-realism
movement of the late forties and fifties. I have never seen it, but it is
commonly spoken of as being extraordinarily moving and powerful.
"Grand Illusion" is one of the two most common critics' choices for "best
movie ever made". (The other is "Citizen Kane".) It was made in the 1930's,
by Jean Renoir, in France, starring Jean Gabin and Eric von Stroheim. It is a
powerful anti-war film set in a German prison camp during the First World War.
It should be easy to find at almost any video store that has a decent foreign
film section, and shows up often at revival theaters and on public TV and cable
stations that show foreign films. I personally prefer Renoir's "Rules of the
Game", but we're talking here about preferring "Hamlet" over "Macbeth", here.
Both are masterpieces of film.
>For me, a great movie is one where I sit through it and think
>things like, "I can't believe how good this movie is."
It wouldn't surprise me if you felt that way about "Grand Illusion" or
"City Lights", after seeing them. Certainly, I would rather see either of them
again, rather than re-viewing most of the films you listed. Matter of taste,
again, but you might well revise your lists after seeing these films.
Peter Reiher
rei...@amethyst.jpl.nasa.gov
(DO NOT send to rei...@amethyst.uucp)
. . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher
Kent Boklan
only twenty something reels and the audiences were generally confused).
The Studio (under the direction of Irving Thalberg) cut the film to appx.
two hours, whereupon Von Stroheim disowned it, in furor. Originally, the
film was a precise adaptation of Frank Norris' novel "McTeague"...but there
are no known original (20 or more reels) known of this masterpeice.
Judging from the quality of the present "butchered" version, the origanal
must be truly remarkable.
[Pandora's Box has recently been released on video {Janus, I believe} and
is well worth the effort to find][The Bicycle Thief is in PD].
Kent D. Boklan
the vampire
>In article <47...@freja.diku.dk> to...@freja.diku.dk (Jens Toft) writes:
>Jacques Tati -- Monsieur Hulot's Holiday (by all means avoid the dubbed
I personally thought that MON ONCLE was the funniest and best of these,
although HOLIDAY is certainly a fine film. MON ONCLE definitely receives
my vote for best movie.
--the vampire
--
"I told her, that if I resuced her from that kay...@jarthur.claremont.edu
torturous villian, I would love, cherish, kay...@hmcvax.bitnet
and treat her with a great respect. kay...@jarthur.UUCP
She laughed and ran off with the villian." or send mail by W.A.S.T.E.
s...@psuecl.bitnet
>The French: "Bourkassa Ourbangui".
>Or the swedish: "Mit liv som hund" -> "My life as dog".
>
My all-time favorite films :-
Persona (d.Ingmar Bergman)
Notorious (d.Alfred Hitchcock)
Dr. Strangelove (d.Stanley Kubrick)
A Clockwork Orange (d.Stanley Kubrick)
The Godfather (d.Francis Ford Coppola)
Pather Panchali (d.Satyajit Ray)
The recent films that I enjoyed very much include:
Red Sorghum
Au Revoir les Enfants
Wings of Desire
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Hope and Glory
The Last Emperor
My Life as a Dog
Jean de Florette
Dark Eyes
Hannah and her Sisters
Blue Velvet
Kiss of the Spiderwoman
After Hours
My Dinner with Andre
---- Venke.
Pete deVroede
>Greed was originally 40 reels long...cut to 20 by the studios (8 hrs -> 4 hrs), and then cut again as four hours was considered too long (Intolerance ran
>only twenty something reels and the audiences were generally confused).
>The Studio (under the direction of Irving Thalberg) cut the film to appx.
>two hours, whereupon Von Stroheim disowned it, in furor. Originally, the
>film was a precise adaptation of Frank Norris' novel "McTeague"...but there
>are no known original (20 or more reels) known of this masterpeice.
>Judging from the quality of the present "butchered" version, the origanal
>must be truly remarkable.
There is supposedly a book that attempts to reconstruct "Greed" using
production stills, etc. I have been considering trying to get this book and
was wondering if anyone has seen it or has an opinion of it.
As a side note, the original book, "McTeague", By Frank Norris (A UC Berkeley
grad!) is quite good if you are into somber and depressing literature. I
really enjoyed it, although I did find a lot of it quite disturbing.
PS I cant remember off hand what the book is called or who wrote/compiled
it.
--
| Information is a parody of knowledge. Peter J. deVroede |
| Knowledge is a parody of wisdom. decwrl\! adobe!devroede |
| Wisdom is a parody of truth. sun/ or |
| Oscar Wilde (?) devr...@adobe.com |
Doug Moran
This brings up something that I have been wondering about. When I was
younger, I did not watch many classic films. I felt that I wanted to
a) see them on a big screen, and b) wait until I had a little more
"life experience," so that I could appreciate them better. As a result,
I was 20 before I saw Casablanca, 25 before I saw Citizen Kane,
22 before I saw Singin' In The Rain, and so on. So, I often knew
the opinions about a film long$before I saw that film. The result
was occasional dissapointment, when a film didn't live up to the
awesome advanced billing that it had.
So, I was wondering, have other people been dissapointed by the
"All Time Greats?" Which ones dissapointed you? The only
"All Time Great" (which I *refuse* to define; let Jerry define
it, he's smarter than me, anyway) that really dissapointed me
was, ta da! Citizen Kane. I am not saying that it wasn't great;
it was. I am not saying that I didn't enjoy it; I did. It is
a beautifully acted, well-crafted piece of film, and it just
wasn't the most awe-inpiring thing I have ever seen. It didn't
fulfill my expectations, the expectations that it's huge advanced
billing had led me to have.
So, whaddya think?
John Glasscock
BLADE RUNNER
John Glasscock
Indiana University
John Glasscock Indiana University
glas...@cica.cica.indiana.edu Bloomington, Indiana
Don Porter
>So, I often knew
>the opinions about a film long$before I saw that film. The result
>was occasional dissapointment, when a film didn't live up to the
>awesome advanced billing that it had.
>
>was, ta da! Citizen Kane. I am not saying that it wasn't great;
>it was. I am not saying that I didn't enjoy it; I did. It is
>a beautifully acted, well-crafted piece of film, and it just
>wasn't the most awe-inpiring thing I have ever seen. It didn't
>fulfill my expectations, the expectations that it's huge advanced
>billing had led me to have.
>
>So, whaddya think?
I think you have exactly described my reaction after finally seeing
CK at our campus Filmboard ( so I saw it on a (sort of) big screen)
about a year ago (age 20). It was a good, well-crafted film, but
certainly not the god-like monument to the art of cinema I'd been
led to expect. One big disappointment for me was that I figured
out very early in the movie who or what "Rosebud" was, so the
mystery of the film was gone early. Maybe this is the point,
and I missed it. Oh well....
I remember when I was watching it that I noticed and was impressed
by things like camera angles and the framing of scenes and such.
(I am *not* one who usually notices such things.) The camerawork
impressed and interested me a good deal more than the story, which
was just OK in my book (Bet I get flamed for that. Oh well, there's
a first time for everything.) Maybe that's why CK is glorified so
much; I think it was a film which introduced new concepts in camera
work, and in general film as art.
That's $.02 from one who truly has only $.01.
>
>Doug Moran "Home is where you wear your hat"
>{ames,decwrl,...}!pyramid!dougm
==============================================================================
|___Don Porter, a.k.a d...@saturn.wustl.edu_|_________First .sig too!_________|
| Washington University in St. Louis (someday I won't have to say that! ) |
==============================================================================
John Leo
>So, I was wondering, have other people been dissapointed by the
>"All Time Greats?"
I've been disappointed many times by "all time greats," and I've found I
tend to dislike older films. Maybe they were revolutionary in their
time, but by now they've been completely recuperated and are rather
dull. And for many of the classics I have no idea why they are
considered great at all, except a lot of people seem to like them. I
almost gagged watching both "Casablanca" and "Citizen Kane," both of
which are shameless melodramas. Fine if you like that sort of thing,
but for the latter movie at least I expected something more. I wasn't
at all excited by the direction. I thought I'd really like Ingmar
Bergman since Woody Allen was obviously inspired by him and is one of my
favorite directors. But watching "The Seventh Seal" and some of his
other films was painful--Bergman is so into PROFOUND. "Fanny and
Alexander" was pretty good, but again unexciting. I've yet to like any
films by Hitchcock or Truffaut, and I've pretty much given up on them.
Even fairly modern "classics" I've often disliked, such as Kurosawa's
"Ran." Sure the scenery was beautiful but the Shakespeare-derived plot
was ridiculous and the battle scenes particularly bad (there must have
been at least 50 shots of someone falling off a horse). About the only
part I liked was the one thing not stolen from Shakespeare, the scene
with the woman with the dagger.
On the other hand there have been several highly-regarded directors I've
found to be remarkable. Kubrick and Fassbinder have produced
consistently imaginative and beautiful films, with very unique styles.
Although I don't like older Godard that much (I was unable to sit all
the way through "Breathless," but I'll try again someday), his later
stuff is incredible. Comparing is version of "King Lear" with
Kurosawa's literal translation is quite interesting. And recently I
finally got a chance to see Fellini's "City of Women." I saw some clips
for that when it came out but wasn't able to see it, so I saw some older
films such as "La Strada" and was unimpressed. But I was in awe all the
way through "City of Women" at how such a film could be made. If you
want to see fantasy and imagination taken to excess, definitely see this
film.
In any case, I have a feeling the only reason there is a such a thing as
an "all time classic" is that people want to believe that if something's
good, then it must be good forever. I certainly don't believe this.
Just like a joke told 100 times loses its humor, old films eventually
get integrated into the cinematic culture, perhaps eventually becomming
cliche. And on the other hand cinema certainly hasn't stagnated, and
there is much to be explored. As I've mentioned before, Alain
Robbe-Grillet has produced a series of films starting in 1961 that are
still revolutionary by today's standards and who's ideas have yet to be
incorporated into the mainstream. And there are many other
revolutionary film directors out there. So we have a lot to look
forward to.
Peter Reiher
>tend to dislike older films. Maybe they were revolutionary in their
>time, but by now they've been completely recuperated and are rather
>dull. And for many of the classics I have no idea why they are
>considered great at all, except a lot of people seem to like them.
From your previous postings of films you enjoy, it seems clear that you
have very different tastes from the vast majority of both casual filmgoers and
those who have serious interests in films. I can't say I much care for your
disdain for those who have different views of films you don't like.
Personally, I consider Fassbinder to be a vastly overrated pseudo-intellectual.
I've seen a lot of his films, the best of which was acceptable, the average
not worth the time to watch. But I'm willing to accept that they do things
for others.
> I almost gagged watching both "Casablanca" and "Citizen Kane," both of
>which are shameless melodramas. Fine if you like that sort of thing,
>but for the latter movie at least I expected something more.
The cinematography alone in "Citizen Kane" is enough to make most directors,
including those you prefer, hide their heads in shame. Fassbinder, in his
life, rarely produced a frame that could stand up to almost any random
selection from "Citizen Kane", in terms of lighting and composition.
>I've yet to like any
>films by Hitchcock or Truffaut, and I've pretty much given up on them.
Not liking Hitchcock should be a hint that you aren't squarely in the
mainstream of film tastes. I've never heard of anyone before who had a serious
interest in films and dismissed Hitchcock.
>Although I don't like older Godard that much (I was unable to sit all
>the way through "Breathless," but I'll try again someday), his later
>stuff is incredible.
I find his later work (and, for that matter, much of his earlier work) self
indulgent and vapid. Once in a while, he shows some energy and insight, but
his typical film is not extraordinary, in my opinion. His contribution to
"Aria", for instance, was utterly worthless. Would you really like to argue
that "Hail Mary" is a great film?
As far as I'm concerned, the nicest thing to be said about both Godard and
Fassbinder is that they're "fine if you like that sort of thing, but I
expected something more."
>In any case, I have a feeling the only reason there is a such a thing as
>an "all time classic" is that people want to believe that if something's
>good, then it must be good forever.
No, the reason that there are "all time classics" for most people is that they
keep going back to them and enjoying them. There are a number of silent films
that I really love, and hope to see again and again. I'm fairly sure that I
like them because I like them, rather than because I've been told that they're
great. "Casablanca" always works for me. So does "The Wizard of Oz", "The
Seventh Seal", "Citizen Kane", "Bringing Up Baby", "The Seven Samurai", and
"Rules of the Game". A lot of other people seem to feel the same way. I
suspect that your dislike of older films is much more personal than you
suggest.
>Just like a joke told 100 times loses its humor, old films eventually
>get integrated into the cinematic culture, perhaps eventually becomming
>cliche.
Or perhaps eventually become so firmly a part of the language of film that
they are practically a mythological archetype. I have no difficulty with the
idea that a good shot is a good shot no matter how often you see it, or that a
good performance remains good, or that good direction doesn't mysteriously
leach away from a film.
By the way, do you feel the same way about literature? If not, why is film
different from literature, in this sense? If so, are you seriously suggesting
that "The Odyssey", "The Divine Comedy", and "Macbeth" are dead cliches?
How about art? Should we burn up all the paintings in galleries every
twenty years, since they've become cliches and lost their power? Destroy
all recordings of music made before 1980, and burn the copies of the scores
to all pre-20th century works?
Peter Reiher
>
>younger, I did not watch many classic films. I felt that I wanted to
>a) see them on a big screen, and b) wait until I had a little more
>"life experience," so that I could appreciate them better.
>the opinions about a film long before I saw that film. The result
>awesome advanced billing that it had.
>
>So, I was wondering, have other people been dissapointed by the
>"All Time Greats?" Which ones dissapointed you?
"Breathless" disappointed me. I'd heard tremendous things about it, and found
it very conventional and uninteresting once I actually saw it. Perhaps I
had heard too much about it, or perhaps its innovations had become too
widespread by the time I saw it for me to appreciate how much of a departure
the film originally was.
"Alexander Nevsky" almost disappointed me. Most of it isn't very strong.
However, once the knights get out on the ice, the problems with the earlier
part of the film vanish, and it's pure magic.
Many silent films, especially early ones, require some slack. "Birth of a
Nation", for instance, has some dreadful parts. But the battle scenes are
superb, and the film has many other compensations. The silent version of
"Ben Hur" is a turkey, except for the chariot race. Makes you appreciate the
sound version. The films of Douglas Fairbanks are hard to watch with a
straight face, as his style of acting is far, far out of fashion. But there
are some thrilling moments and great action scenes in them. Not all silent
films require this treatment, though. The classic comedies hold up very
nicely, Eric von Stroheim's films are wonderful, Garbo's silents are radiant,
and even some of D. W. Griffith's rather corny films are tremendously
rewarding. And films like "Sunrise", "The Battleship Potemkin", "The Crowd",
and "The Wind" are among the finest films ever made, and still thrill
audiences.
>The only
>"All Time Great" (which I *refuse* to define; let Jerry define
>it, he's smarter than me, anyway) that really dissapointed me
>was, ta da! Citizen Kane.
I know someone else who felt this way about "Citizen Kane". A second viewing
made her appreciate the film more.
Canis Nervous Rex
} So, I was wondering, have other people been dissapointed by the
} "All Time Greats?" Which ones dissapointed you? The only
} "All Time Great" (which I *refuse* to define; let Jerry define
} it, he's smarter than me, anyway) that really dissapointed me
} was, ta da! Citizen Kane. I am not saying that it wasn't great;
} it was. I am not saying that I didn't enjoy it; I did. It is
} a beautifully acted, well-crafted piece of film, and it just
} wasn't the most awe-inpiring thing I have ever seen. It didn't
} fulfill my expectations, the expectations that it's huge advanced
} billing had led me to have.
This is a common problem. Hype tends to turn some people off (in some
cases, I would refuse to see something that was hyped too much).
I never approach a film with great expectations, unless, say, I'm
familiar with the director's oeuvre and expect that his or her latest
film will measure up. There have been enough times that I've not been
overwhelmed by classic works, simply as a matter of taste, that I
don't automatically assume when I watch one for the first time that
I going to be struck speechless.
Some "sacred cows" that just don't excite me much are some of the
"classic" comedians' works -- Chaplin, Keaton, Fields, Laurel & Hardy,
and the Marx Brothers, for instance, just don't strike my funny bone.
Amongst the much-heralded foreigners, Ingmar Bergman is, for me, a
Class-A snoozer (though I suspect that I was put off at too young an
age to appreciate his work, and I'm inclined to give it another try
-- there was a time when I disliked foreign films in general, and I
got over that easily enough. GONE WITH THE WIND does *nothing* for me,
and I've already gone on record here as loathing E.T. I also happen
to think that THE MALTESE FALCON is a highly overrated film -- I
thought it too drawn out and dull (Huston has made many *far* better
films).
And, with reference to SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, while I appreciate the
existence of the talents of Kelly, et alia -- and, as an aside, Astaire
and Rogers -- the art of dance generally leaves me cold, and so I'm
not especially responsive to those performances.
As for CITIZEN KANE in particular, I wasn't grabbed that much upon my
first viewing either (and, in fact, the audiences in general during
its initial release didn't respond all that favorably). It's on
subsequent viewings, when you stop paying that much attention to the
story and start looking at the individual scenes that you begin to
see the genius in the work.
Though it's often hard to do, the secret is to approach each film
without preconceptions. Opinions, after all, is just opinions, and
just because the majority of folks think something is a great work,
doesn't mean that you have to like it, too.
"Life's 'Abyss', and then you dive."
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
Kent Boklan
his comments for fear of spreading such tripe further than it belongs).
I shall start at the beginning. I like a good film. I do not like a
bad film...and to that end I define a bad film to be one which does not
say/do anything and is a waste of my time. Admittedly, a film can be
good to one person and bad to another...by the very nature of the human
beast, we have different tastes. As has been made abundantly clear, many
people do like A Clockwork Orange and many do not. I did. I thought it
quite a brilliant film. But this prattle about great films becoming
bad and trite is nonsense. You cannot judge a film from inside a bubble.
It's like condemning old films for being in B&W and, consequently, outdated-
hell, let's colorize all the films to make them more up to date.
Consider, for example, Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will"--the 1936 (?)
documentary of the rise of the Nazi Party (supporting the Nazi viewpoint).
It is one of the most strikingly awesome (and therefore frightening)
movies ever made...because of its context! If Casablanca seems overracted
and overtly melodramatic now, it is because everyone and his/her mother
has followed the form. When Citizen Kane came out, deep focus was new.
Now, so what? And, frankly, I feel obliged to respond to the few posters who,
although they didn't like Citizen Kane too much, felt obliged to say the acting
was good! Acting? Is that what you all are judging movies on? Maybe
I'm in the minority, but the direction is what I find the most relevant
and important. What would Dracula be without Tod Browning? I doubt John
Wayne could have gotten anywhere without John Ford. And it strikes me as
terribly unlikely that Tony Perkins would be famous at all if the same
guy who did all the Friday the 13th movies also did Psycho.
For God's sake, Film is a craft. Therein lies my strongest objection
to the praise for Indiana Jones. [and John isn't Ran based on both
King Lear and MacBeth [you know, the lady with the daggers?]].
I'll be the first to admit that many of the so-called classics are not
as great as history has made them sound. And, of course this is just
my opinion, many of those films have been judged in this newsgroup un-
fairly...
And there is a patent difference between Great and Important. DW Griffith's
"Birht of a Nation" was probably more Important than Great,...but that does
not diminish it any the less. Citizen Kane is both. Breakthrough films
are few and far between...lest we forget that there are so very many mediocre
and bad films from the 'Golden Age' that have vanished {perhaps luckily}
with time. Who knows what films of 1989 will eventually be judged by
the film historians of the future as great/important films? I am very
willing to wager that Indiana Jones III will not be one, and that films
like Ran will.
I am very sorry if the 'great' classics disappoint. I was not on the committee
that dubbed any film 'great.' I just do my part to reccommend films that
I consider worth seeing - for some reason. But let's, please, judge films
as individual works of art, and not be the standards that follow them.
s Thank you for allowing
this diatribe,
Kent D. Boklan
h
Kent Boklan
things. I don't think Citizen Kane has lost anything over the years.
I find it very relevant today. Perhaps the mark of a great film is that
it does not vanish. Trithfully, I find Goddard to be rather self-indulgent
to a fault (Breathless was quite good, but I cannot help getting the feeling
that Goddard has been masturbating on the screen ever since). And
you sarcastically refer to how Bergmann is Profound. Maybe he is.
But I see no problem with him...as long as his points are intellectual and
not pseudo intellectual. Need I pronounce the difference?
I prefer the days when film makers cared for their craft (even the Blue Movies
of the early 20th cent. are well made)...not the present times when it
so easy to criticize because those "shameless melodramas" don't live up to
the facile and meager standards we base our ignorant opinions on.
John Leo
to them briefly. He also misunderstands a few things I said, but that's
probably because I worded them too vaguely or simplisticly. So let me
clarify things a bit.
In article <13...@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> rei...@amethyst.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Peter Reiher) writes:
>From your previous postings of films you enjoy, it seems clear that you
>have very different tastes from the vast majority of both casual filmgoers and
>those who have serious interests in films. I can't say I much care for your
>disdain for those who have different views of films you don't like.
I'm not sure how you inferred that I have disdain for people who have
different tastes from myself. Indeed quite the opposite; I think it's
wonderful that people have different tastes and I'm certainly not trying
to convert anyone. I simply presented my opinion of cinema, and I agree
that it's very different from most people's, which is one reason I wanted
to post it. I enjoy a lot of films that have been very popular, such as
"Back to the Future" and "The Sure Thing," and probably for very similar
reasons that most people enjoy them. On the other hand the films I've
enjoyed the most have always been those with excellent direction,
something I cannot hope to define because it is indeed very personal.
It's a similar experience to listening to the best music, and music is
something else that different people have very different opinions on.
So perhaps you like Hitchcock and Wells, and I like Godard and
Fassbinder. That's great.
What I object to is this idea of "greatness" or "classic," something
that's supposed to be universal. It's because people have very
different tastes and background, and approach films in completely
different ways, that I believe there are no objective standards of
greatness for films or any other art form. Apparently some people
believe there are. I've yet to see any convincing arguments, though. I
brought up this exact topic in rec.arts.books a few weeks ago, and there
was no agreement on any objective criterion for evaluating literature.
And why should there be? Why can't people just enjoy films without
worrying whether they're "great" or not? I don't take any kind of film
criticism seriously at all. But sometimes it can be fun, and even
worthwhile, to argue with one's opinions.
It's also a little amusing to me to see that in some cases the concept
of greatness has been taken to such an extent as to become a hysteria.
Two perfect examples are Shakespeare and Hitchcock. Anyone saying they
dislike either of them is typically immediately criticized: they must
not know anything about literature or film if they don't appreciate
them, etc. etc.
Something else I mentioned in rec.arts.books that might be worthwhile to
say again is that context and experience seem to be big factors in
appreciating any kind of art. What I get out of a film (you can replace
film with book or song or paiting or whatever you like) often depends
greatly on what else I've seen or read before, including the film
itself. When I see a film multiple times each experience is different.
I wouldn't have appreciated Godard the way I did if I hadn't seen many
conventional films first. There's a lot more that could be said here,
and many other related topics that are interesting, but I'll stop for
now.
I think I've answered most everything else in your note. Obviously many
people still enjoy old movies and that's wonderful. I don't approve of
censorship of any sort and think VCRs are an extremely revolutionary
invention in that now just about anyone anywhere can see a huge variety
of old and new films. Let's let's stop worrying about what's great and
what's not and just enjoy what's out there! And I hope there's a lot
more to come.
Kent Boklan
I do feel a bit left out of your argument. Frankly, I do not
see the point in arguing for any indulgence in that sport would
seemingly be condemned by Mr Leo for its lack of universality. I
know of no one who would call Raphael a bad painter. I know of no one
who would call Shakespeare a bad writer. That some people do not enjoy
his writing is fine...I have little respect for their opinions, but that's
fine...for I must judge others by my own standards.
To deny the classification of works of art by individuals endeavouring
to enlighten others is censorship. Without the classification of art by
historians most of us would be weighed down in a quagmire of films (or
other appropriate media) of the likes of Putney Swope and Passolini's
Salo with little direction. I know of no one, whose opinion I respect
in film studies, who does not care for, for example, Alfred Hitchcock.
I am rather incensed by the letters of Mr Leo who, it seems to me,
prefers to dismiss the past in preference to spending his time and
energy studying and understanding it.
In closing, may I make innocous suggestion that you (Mr John Leo)
go to your local video store (or Purity Supreme) and get a copy of
Bergmann's "Through a glass darkly" and get a copy of Godard's
"Vent D'Est" (I saw the latter in Sweden, and was told that it was
a good example of Godard's work - perhaps you can enlighten me for
I thought it a piece of tripe of highest order). I would be very
curious as to your comparison.
Should you, Mr Leo, find my remarks insulting, I will meet you in
Lobby 7, MIT, June 24th 1989 at 11.25pm. Mr Reiher, keep up the good
work.
Hugs and kisses, Kent D. Boklan.
Peter Reiher
>different tastes from myself.
My reading of your article suggested that you felt that old films were
without value, and that those who enjoyed them were without taste. I gather
that wasn't what you meant to say. I don't seem to be the only one who
misunderstood, but I apologize for misunderstanding.
>What I object to is this idea of "greatness" or "classic," something
>that's supposed to be universal.
People's tastes don't actually differ all that much, by and large. That's
where classics come from - they're works of art that have had broad acceptance
for a long time. No classic is without its detractors, such as Shakespeare
and Shaw. But the fact that an intelligent, cultured person dislikes a
work doesn't mean that the emperor has no clothes. There's still a good chance
that the classic is a work that will appeal to most people, even if it doesn't
appeal to all.
I would not argue that there are any objective laws of cinematic greatness.
But there are indications of enduring popularity. People still enjoy watching
"The Maltese Falcon". Lots of people, and repeatedly. On the other hand, no
one much cares to see "Satan Met a Lady" more than once, even though it has
the same story, and Bette Davis. So it makes a certain sense to put a label on
"The Maltese Falcon" to show that those who haven't seen it might want to.
"Classic" is as good a label as any other, I think. Of course, even those who
love films may not like a particular film that has remained extremely popular.
jayembee doesn't care for "The Maltese Falcon". But the label still has its
uses - without it, everyone might be renting videocassettes of "Satan Met a
Lady", and, I'd guess, having a much worse time.
Of course, the whole notion of classics, in film as in literature, is limiting.
We don't know what marvels didn't survive from ancient Greek theater, since
the Romans (with the help of centuries of barbarians to burn less frequently
occurring manuscripts) pretty much did our choosing for us. Maybe some
Elizabethan dramatist wrote in a style resembling Shaw, and would have met with
his approval, had his works but survived.
Even when the works are still around, people have a limited amount of time.
Unless they devote themselves to films, they can't see even a tiny fraction of
what's available. Their best course is to rely on the judgements of others,
and the label of "classic" is a judgement that has been endorsed over many
years by many people. They may not always win, but it's a better bet than
pulling out Maltin, a blindfold, and a pin; or substituting the daily paper's
theater listings for Maltin.
>Two perfect examples are Shakespeare and Hitchcock. Anyone saying they
>dislike either of them is typically immediately criticized: they must
>not know anything about literature or film if they don't appreciate
>them, etc. etc.
No, but it does suggest that the person is using a vastly different criteria
for deciding what is good and what isn't. That doesn't make the person bad
or wrong, but it's something to bear in mind when he says something is awful
or something is wonderful. I, for instance, know that you are very fond of
recent Godard and Fassbinder. Since I think less highly of their works, I
must take any film recommendation you make with a grain of salt, as you may
send me to more Godardian or Fassbinderesque films, when I could be revelling
in Hitchcockian, Wellesish, or Bergmanic films that I would be more likely to
enjoy.
G. Levine
> I remember when I was watching it that I noticed and was impressed
> by things like camera angles and the framing of scenes and such.
> (I am *not* one who usually notices such things.) The camerawork
> impressed and interested me a good deal more than the story, which
> was just OK in my book (Bet I get flamed for that. Oh well, there's
> a first time for everything.) Maybe that's why CK is glorified so
> much; I think it was a film which introduced new concepts in camera
> work, and in general film as art.
I think the new techniques in filming is one of the major reasons
CK is prized so highly. Many of these techniques are commonplace
today, but back then they were revolutionary.
Another thing CK is known for is the storytelling technique Welles
employed. No one before had ever told a story as a series of
flashbacks. The film community pretty much thought Welles was crazy;
you HAVE to tell a story beginning to end or the audience won't
be able to follow it. Welles did not underestimate his audience's
intelligence (he never did), and it paid off.
gary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the Swiss! They have enjoyed peace for centuries and
what have they produced? The cuckoo clock--Graham Greene and
Orson Welles (The Third Man)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PMH
> his comments for fear of spreading such tripe further than it belongs).
Now, I mostly agreed with Leo's article. I generally like the old
"classics" but I'm not sure they belong on the pedestals that so
many people seem to put them on. I like happy movies and try to
avoid depressing movies. That is not to say a depressing movie is
not well acted or well directed. It's not what I'm looking for.
I've seen many depressing movies...coming away with a headache from
trying to to cry or crying a lot!
I made the mistake last weekend of renting Gorillas in the Mist.
There were several places that I struggled not to cry and it put
me in a very depressed mood the rest of the night. I guess you
could say it was a good movie because it moved my emotions but
I'd rather have an uplifting movie. The Color Purple also made
me feel bad.
My favorite movies all have the same theme.
The Raiders of the Lost Ark - adventure, mystery, romance.
Star Wars Trilogy - any of them spark the wonder of
space travel and fantasy.
Back to the Future - the only video tape I paid $80 for.
Die Hard - fast-paced adventure, humor
Top Gun - fast-paced, great music
Any recent Sci-Fi Movie - special effects & vision of future.
Most comedies - make me laugh.
- Love at First Bite
- Bachelor Party
- Top Secret
- My Favorite Year
- Victor, Victoria
I don't overanalyze, I don't even notice that Indy Jones does
impossible stuff, I just sit back and let the story entertain me.
Patti
Barbara Hlavin
nature of morality, but it contained the most erotic encounter I've ever
seen in a movie.
Babette's Feast. This movie moved me so deeply, and touched my heart so
profoundly, that I felt almost wounded by it.
Metropolis. A waking experience closer to a dream state than anything
I've seen.
And - Stevie. A Glenda Jackson movie about the British poet/eccentric
Stevie Smith. I've never met anyone who has seen this and would be very
interested in hearing from anyone who has.
Barbara
James Preston
>. . . When I was
>younger, I did not watch many classic films. I felt that I wanted to
>a) see them on a big screen, and b) wait until I had a little more
>"life experience," so that I could appreciate them better.
>. . . So, I often knew
>the opinions about a film long before I saw that film. The result
>was occasional dissapointment, when a film didn't live up to the
>awesome advanced billing that it had.
>
>So, I was wondering, have other people been dissapointed by the
>"All Time Greats?" Which ones dissapointed you?
Ok, at the risk of being fried by film buffs--or worse, being told again that
I "didn't get it"--I'll tackle "The Big One". A few months ago my girlfriend
and I rented _Citizen Kane_. The movie called by most film "experts" the
greatest movie ever made. We both found it to be a complete waste of time.
The plot was almost nonexistent, jumping from scene to scene often with no
discernible connection. The characters were totally flat. We got no insight
into Mr. Kane; I knew him no better after the movie than I did before. The
whole Rosebud thing seemed overblown, but that could be chalked up to my
having heard so much about it. My girlfriend, on the other hand, managed to
live her life and not hear about the "mystery" of this movie, so her response
could be considered more legitimate. In the first place, she couldn't tell
that that thing they burned at the end was a sled with the word "Rosebud" on
it. I must admit that if I hadn't already known, I would have been hard
pressed to catch those two facts also. When I told her, her response was,
"Yeah, so what?" Now I know that the meaning of the Rosebud bit is one of
those great topics for discussion, but in our case we both just didn't care
enough about the movie or the Kane character to care.
I could see that the camera work and lighting techniques were pioneering
for the day, but there must be _something_ else that makes people think
this bore is such a great movie. I just don't see it. Maybe if it had
been in color . . . :-)
--James Preston
What, me worry?
:
:Ok, at the risk of being fried by film buffs--or worse, being told again that
:I "didn't get it"--I'll tackle "The Big One". A few months ago my girlfriend
:The plot was almost nonexistent, jumping from scene to scene often with no
:discernible connection. The characters were totally flat. We got no insight
:into Mr. Kane; I knew him no better after the movie than I did before. The
:I could see that the camera work and lighting techniques were pioneering
:for the day, but there must be _something_ else...
Perhaps your transfer of the movie was really bad. Perhaps your taste runs
more to "Star Trek". At least I understand now how "Laverne and Shirley"
became the most popular television show in America. Sigh...
;-}
--Craig
...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good
When the Second Amendment goes, the rest will soon follow.
Rob ten Kroode
>I don't overanalyze, I don't even notice that Indy Jones does
>impossible stuff, I just sit back and let the story entertain me.
AMEN!
--
|
Rob ten Kroode (rob...@cwi.nl) | Don't read this !!
|
"When they said 'sit down' I stood up", Growing up - Bruce Springsteen
Richard Shapiro
>I "didn't get it"--I'll tackle "The Big One". A few months ago my girlfriend
>and I rented _Citizen Kane_. The movie called by most film "experts" the
>greatest movie ever made. We both found it to be a complete waste of time.
>The plot was almost nonexistent, jumping from scene to scene often with no
>discernible connection. The characters were totally flat. We got no insight
>into Mr. Kane; I knew him no better after the movie than I did before. The
>whole Rosebud thing seemed overblown, but that could be chalked up to my
>having heard so much about it. My girlfriend, on the other hand, managed to
>live her life and not hear about the "mystery" of this movie, so her response
>could be considered more legitimate. In the first place, she couldn't tell
>that that thing they burned at the end was a sled with the word "Rosebud" on
>it. I must admit that if I hadn't already known, I would have been hard
>pressed to catch those two facts also. When I told her, her response was,
>"Yeah, so what?" Now I know that the meaning of the Rosebud bit is one of
>those great topics for discussion, but in our case we both just didn't care
>enough about the movie or the Kane character to care.
>
>I could see that the camera work and lighting techniques were pioneering
>for the day, but there must be _something_ else that makes people think
>this bore is such a great movie. I just don't see it. Maybe if it had
>been in color . . . :-)
First, no self respecting "film expert" would call this or any other
movie "the greatest movie ever". There are too many kinds of movies
which do too many different things well (or poorly) for any one to be
"the best" (or "the worst"). Most "film experts" now recognize CK as a
fascinating if somewhat bombastic piece of film making, but no more
than that. Film *critics*, on the other hand, might be silly enough to
call it "the best".
Having said that, I'd have to say...you didn't get it :-). The Rosebud
thing is nothing more than a MacGuffin, to use Hitchcock's word -- a
plot device which centers the storyline but has nothing particularly
to do with what's interesting about the movie. "So what?" is exactly
the right response, just as it's the right response to the uranium in
"Notorious". The "meaning" of Rosebud is trivial and obvious; if
anything, it's importance to the movie is exactly its triviality. The
Kane character was essentially a cipher, a kind of hole at the center
of the movie. Now, to me, this is a large part of what makes CK an
interesting movie, but then again I don't watch movies to get
"insight" into characters, anymore than I look at paintings to get
"insight" into models. The usual character function is inverted in CK
in a way which was unique at the time. I find it's handling of
characters to be fascinating. Also, as you mention, the technical
aspects of this movie are equally fascinating -- the set construction,
lighting, camera work (not only deep focus, but positioning and
motion) are much more than "pioneering", they're simply beautiful to
watch. I'm not sure CK would need "something else" to be considered a
movie worth watching. But along with unusual characterization
(especially of Kane himself), and technical brilliance, the movie also
has an interesting relationship with the common genres of film which
were in place when it was made: newsreels, reporter/crime stories,
melodrama, coming-of-age stories. Welles uses bits and pieces of all
of these in an ironic and self conscious way; no earlier Hollywood
movie ever looks quite the same after having seen CK.
So that's what I like about CK. The Greatest Film Ever Made? Hardly;
not even my favorite Welles (my vote goes to Touch of Evil). But a
fascinating and brilliant movie, nonetheless. As a final note, you
really need to see high quality print on a high quality screen. That
does *NOT* mean a theater, necessarily -- I've seen awful prints in
theaters. As with all films in the old aspect ratio, video is just
fine, if you're watching something like the Criterion laserdisc on a
high resolution monitor. In most ways, the Criterion disc of CK is
actually better than seeing it in a theater. A beat-up VHS copy on the
other hand is something of an injustice...
Richard Shapiro
>It's very hard for new viewers to appreciate just how revolutionary this
>film is.... It's entirely
>possible that if I were to view it for the first time today I would not be
>as impressed, but still a comparison with a typical Warner Bros film of the
>40's would show that CK was way ahead of its time.
Just to take this as a jumping off point... I wonder if people who
watch older movies, especially older Hollywood movies, for the first
time now make an effort to understand the state of film at the time
the movie was made or released? Movie aesthetics aren't exactly
timeless -- this is obvious enough when "sophisticated" audiences
giggle at conventions which were once taken seriously (by equally
sophisticated audiences...) but have now become somewhat blatant (and
hence somewhat ridiculous). I don't see how anyone can enjoy, say, a
film noir, if s/he goes into it looking for a contemporary "thriller".
For me, at least, it took an extended period of movie-watching (as
well as some critical reading) until I could even begin to see older
Hollywood movies in something like their original context. At this
point, after watching literally hundreds of Hollywood movies made in
the period 1929 thru 1955 (or so), I think I can watch them with as
much context as I watch 1989 movies. In fact, the conventions of
current movies, which pass undetected to an audience which takes them
for granted, are now as obvious as the older styles and conventions
(feminist film theory has been a major influence in this case, as it
has exposed a sexism which is as invisible in contemporary movies as
it is blatant in earlier ones).
Seeing some of the "classics" again with this added perspective made
an enormous difference: what had looked like a period of cliches,
hackneyed plots and lack of realism became instead a period of movies
of tremendous formal beauty, with standards and conventions all their
own.
Keeping in mind the relativity of standards (of "realism", of
"adventure", of "character", of "plot") is crucial to the enjoyment of
older movies. So it seems to me.
Mr. Neutron
[disappointment with Citizen Kane]
sorry you didn't like it...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Howells | "Science does not | how...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov
Sterling Software | remove the terror | how...@krypton.arc.nasa.gov
Palo Alto, Ca. | of the Gods" | howells%k...@ames-io.arpa
Mr. Neutron
<
<First, no self respecting "film expert" would call this or any other
<movie "the greatest movie ever". There are too many kinds of movies
<which do too many different things well (or poorly) for any one to be
<"the best" (or "the worst"). Most "film experts" now recognize CK as a
<fascinating if somewhat bombastic piece of film making, but no more
<than that. Film *critics*, on the other hand, might be silly enough to
<call it "the best".
<
Sorry Richard, I have no self respect. CK is "the best" :-)
<Having said that, I'd have to say...you didn't get it :-). The Rosebud
<thing is nothing more than a MacGuffin, to use Hitchcock's word -- a
<plot device which centers the storyline but has nothing particularly
<to do with what's interesting about the movie. "So what?" is exactly
<the right response, just as it's the right response to the uranium in
<"Notorious". The "meaning" of Rosebud is trivial and obvious; if
<anything, it's importance to the movie is exactly its triviality. The
<Kane character was essentially a cipher, a kind of hole at the center
I've always felt that rosebud was a _deceptively_ simple symbol. You're
supposed to get to the end of the film and say "so the old guy misses his
sled". The rosebud "solution" comes as a deliberate anti-climax because you
already knew that rosebud was something that had been lost. It had been
hammered over and over again in the film but you weren't supposed to
believe that (is any "mystery" movie really going to give away the mystery
in the first hour?). But rosebud actually connects Kane's mother to Kane's
second wife and by extension connects with everyone who wouldn't stand by
him when he needed help. So what was lost? Everything. CK doesn't tell us
anything we don't already know. We know that without love and friendship we
are nothing. Rosebud is just the symbol for that idea. Something more than
a MacGuffin.
It's very hard for new viewers to appreciate just how revolutionary this
film is. I happened on it late one night when I was a freshman in high
school. I had vaguely heard about the film and I knew who Welles was
because I had seen him on talk shows. I just figured he was an
over-the-hill actor and nothing more. So I intended to watch about 20
minutes of the film, figuring it would be a typical dated 1940's melodrama.
As soon as the film started I realized that there was something different
about it (the stark opening title, the incredible opening sequence that
ends with the single word "rosebud", the highly detailed "News on the
March" newsreel, etc.). After 15 minutes I was hooked, partially by the
rosebud theme but mostly because of the unusual technique of keeping many
of the characters faces hidden or in darkness. More than anything else this
was intriguing to me and deepened the mystery. The fact that nothing ever
came of this hidden identity technique made the film all the more unique,
although in later years I came to believe that the reporters were supposed
to be "faceless" because they were, after all, newsreel reporters rather
than the glamourous newspaper reporters of Kane's day. It's entirely
possible that if I were to view it for the first time today I would not be
as impressed, but still a comparison with a typical Warner Bros film of the
40's would show that CK was way ahead of its time.
<So that's what I like about CK. The Greatest Film Ever Made? Hardly;
<not even my favorite Welles (my vote goes to Touch of Evil). But a
Things like "greatest film ever made" are opinions. Many people feel very
strongly that CK falls into that category.
G. Levine
> Just to take this as a jumping off point... I wonder if people who
> watch older movies, especially older Hollywood movies, for the first
> time now make an effort to understand the state of film at the time
> the movie was made or released?
>
> an enormous difference: what had looked like a period of cliches,
> hackneyed plots and lack of realism became instead a period of movies
> of tremendous formal beauty, with standards and conventions all their
> own.
>
> Keeping in mind the relativity of standards (of "realism", of
> "adventure", of "character", of "plot") is crucial to the enjoyment of
> older movies. So it seems to me.
Agreed! Its like trying to enjoy the film/play "Oklahoma!" by
today's standards. Many people who see it today remark on how
unimpressed they are. I need to remind them that this show was
the first musical that incorporated songs into a single story
(before, all "musicals" were, in fact, revues). This was one of
many things that made "Oklahoma!" such a sensation in its time.
I think it still stands up pretty well today, but one needs to keep
this in mind for full enjoyment. If we look at it strictly from
today's standards (musicals having a single storyline is the norm),
the story is simple, and the characters not too deep. This will
detract from enjoying it.
gary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Never sit down at a party because you may have somebody sitting next
to you that you don't like--Groucho Marx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Neutron
<
<"insight". How about "characterization"? This is usually regarded as
<a somewhat important part of storytelling, in any medium. The characters
<should seem real. They should have consistent, knowable motivations behind
<their actions. This is especially and absolutely true of stories that
<are _about_ a character, where the only reason for the story is to show
<us the character's life. If the character isn't made to be real, if we the
<audience don't get to know something about the character, then what the hell
<is the point? The character of Charles Foster Kane was a piece of cardboard.
<If I wrote a story for a creative writing class with a character like that
<in it, you can bet that the teacher would scrawl "two-dimensional character;
<no characterization" all over it. All the other characters in the movie
<were just as flat.
<
As a matter of fact, Kane was based on a very real character: William Randolph
Hearst. Many of the events in the film parallel the life of Hearst. You saw the
character as cardboard, I saw him as flesh and blood.
<Yeah, yeah, I can hear you already telling me that Charles Foster Kane
<was enigmatic; no one knew what made him tick; no one knew anything about
<him; the movie showed people trying to find out about him and failing.
<Right. So then what's the point?
<
You just said what the point was. No one could figure him out because they were
looking for something enigmatic when the answer was simple all along: rosebud.
Kane is the archtypal "everyman" that Joyce wrote about in Finnegans Wake. His
character lives on today. When Gary Hart was caught with Donna Rice, I kept
thinking that a good newspaper headline would read "Candidate caught in love
nest with 'actress'".
<>and technical brilliance, the movie also
<>has an interesting relationship with the common genres of film which
<>were in place when it was made: newsreels, reporter/crime stories,
<>melodrama, coming-of-age stories. Welles uses bits and pieces of all
<>of these in an ironic and self conscious way; no earlier Hollywood
<>movie ever looks quite the same after having seen CK.
<
<Well, they look the same to me. But this does bring up an important point.
<It was good _for its day_ and in the context of the times in which it
<was made. It doesn't stand the test of time because too much of what
<can be appreciated about it is lost without the proper context. Now
<in my book (he said, sticking his neck out even further) a truly great
<movie is _It's a Wonderful Life_. Populated by _real_ people, people
<that you can get to know and care about. The setting may be a little
<dated, but the _story_ and the _point_ of the movie are timeless. You
<don't need to know one damned thing about the period in which the movie
<is set or was made in order to appreciate what it has to say. And it's
<got everything: drama, comedy, melodrama, love story, mystery, suspense,
<fantasy, coming-of-age story. Sure it was sappy, but it said something.
<It had a point.
<
I, too, think Wonderful Life is a fine film, but it certainly doesn't stand as
an example of great characterization. The characters are stereotypes and more
cardboard than the characters in Kane. Wonderful Life is a good example of a
film that panders to the audience and presents little challenge outside of a
good emotional whallop. I find Kane just as emotionally powerful without the
pandering.
<Once again, what was the point of _Citizen Kane_? What did it say? There
<was no thread, no connection between the scenes. Each scene could just as
<well have been about a different person for all the relation they had to
<each other.
<
EXACTLY! That was the point. Each flashback was told from a different point of
view and each character had a different view of Kane. Notice how the tone of
the film shifts depending on who is telling the story? Bernstein saw Kane as
a wonderful man who could do no wrong. Leland, Kane's former friend, saw him
as a dishonest opportunist, Thatcher saw him as an annoying thorn in his side,
Susan saw him as a petty tyrant. It's up to the viewer to decide who Kane
really was, and rosebud is the key.
<--James Preston
James Preston
> . . .
>Having said that, I'd have to say...you didn't get it :-). The Rosebud
>thing is nothing more than a MacGuffin, to use Hitchcock's word -- a
>plot device which centers the storyline but has nothing particularly
>to do with what's interesting about the movie. "So what?" is exactly
>the right response, just as it's the right response to the uranium in
>"Notorious". The "meaning" of Rosebud is trivial and obvious; if
>anything, it's importance to the movie is exactly its triviality. The
>Kane character was essentially a cipher, a kind of hole at the center
>of the movie. Now, to me, this is a large part of what makes CK an
>interesting movie, but then again I don't watch movies to get
>"insight" into characters, anymore than I look at paintings to get
>"insight" into models.
Then what do you watch movies for? Don't get so hung up on that word
"insight". How about "characterization"? This is usually regarded as
a somewhat important part of storytelling, in any medium. The characters
should seem real. They should have consistent, knowable motivations behind
their actions. This is especially and absolutely true of stories that
are _about_ a character, where the only reason for the story is to show
us the character's life. If the character isn't made to be real, if we the
audience don't get to know something about the character, then what the hell
is the point? The character of Charles Foster Kane was a piece of cardboard.
If I wrote a story for a creative writing class with a character like that
in it, you can bet that the teacher would scrawl "two-dimensional character;
no characterization" all over it. All the other characters in the movie
were just as flat.
Yeah, yeah, I can hear you already telling me that Charles Foster Kane
was enigmatic; no one knew what made him tick; no one knew anything about
him; the movie showed people trying to find out about him and failing.
Right. So then what's the point?
>The usual character function is inverted in CK
>in a way which was unique at the time. I find it's handling of
>characters to be fascinating.
I don't know what you mean by "inverted", could you elaborate? Tell
me what you find so fascinating about cardboard.
>Also, as you mention, the technical
>aspects of this movie are equally fascinating -- the set construction,
>lighting, camera work (not only deep focus, but positioning and
>motion) are much more than "pioneering", they're simply beautiful to
>watch. I'm not sure CK would need "something else" to be considered a
>movie worth watching. But along with unusual characterization
>(especially of Kane himself),
What characterization?? Where? It's not "unusual", it's nonexistent.
>and technical brilliance, the movie also
>has an interesting relationship with the common genres of film which
>were in place when it was made: newsreels, reporter/crime stories,
>melodrama, coming-of-age stories. Welles uses bits and pieces of all
>of these in an ironic and self conscious way; no earlier Hollywood
>movie ever looks quite the same after having seen CK.
Well, they look the same to me. But this does bring up an important point.
It was good _for its day_ and in the context of the times in which it
was made. It doesn't stand the test of time because too much of what
can be appreciated about it is lost without the proper context. Now
in my book (he said, sticking his neck out even further) a truly great
movie is _It's a Wonderful Life_. Populated by _real_ people, people
that you can get to know and care about. The setting may be a little
dated, but the _story_ and the _point_ of the movie are timeless. You
don't need to know one damned thing about the period in which the movie
is set or was made in order to appreciate what it has to say. And it's
got everything: drama, comedy, melodrama, love story, mystery, suspense,
fantasy, coming-of-age story. Sure it was sappy, but it said something.
It had a point.
Once again, what was the point of _Citizen Kane_? What did it say? There
was no thread, no connection between the scenes. Each scene could just as
well have been about a different person for all the relation they had to
each other.
--James Preston
Kent Boklan
much discussion it creates, then Indiana Jones III and
Star Trek 5 (or is it 4) are masterpieces...and if one is to
base an opinion on a film by the rantings of a few
miscellaneous people over a computer, then one really does
not have much of an individual persona. Frankly, if someone
now writes in saying that they thought Citizen Kane was
a waste, fine...I don't care. I don't think it was...and,
from a few postings I have seen, some people agree...and
some people disagree. What I question is the validity
of energy expenditure convincing people of a particular
viewpoint that they are narrow-minded...it will never
work...at best, someone may (on either side) go back and
look at the film in question again...and for those of you
who have never seen that particular film,...make up your
own minds. Universal Recognition for a masterpiece is
scarcely a commonplace thing...as I have mention of before,
I thought Indiana Jones IV was a waste...in this forum,
I am in the minority...in other places, I may not be.
I don't give a toss.
I know people who have never seen a B&W film, but consider
themselves avid movie goers. Great. I see about 1 color
film every 6 months. So what. Live and let live.
Ignorance is all so damned relative that I shall no longer
take the effort to tell someone that they are watching
CK wrong. They are watching it. Fine. The world is
full of fools. Never argue with an idiot - some people may
not be able to tell the difference.
Kent D. Boklan
Mr. Neutron
<
<and on how many widely disparate opinions there can be about its content
<or meaning, _Citizen Kane_ is a big winner. I find it really interesting
<that one poster tells me that Rosebud was "just a MacGuffin" and another
<tells me that "rosebud is the key".
<
<--James Preston
The nice thing about a film like Citizen Kane is that it's open to many
different interpretations. If we all saw the movie in the same way it
wouldn't be worth seeing or discussing.
Paul T.S. Lee
[lotsa stuff deleted]
> EXACTLY! That was the point. Each flashback was told from a different point of
> view and each character had a different view of Kane. Notice how the tone of
> the film shifts depending on who is telling the story? Bernstein saw Kane as
> a wonderful man who could do no wrong. Leland, Kane's former friend, saw him
> as a dishonest opportunist, Thatcher saw him as an annoying thorn in his side,
> Susan saw him as a petty tyrant. It's up to the viewer to decide who Kane
> really was, and rosebud is the key.
Good point, John. Kane was cardboard to the people who knew him, but he
was a *different* piece of cardboard to each person. Capra's characters
evoked the same response from everyone, being true (albeit very well done)
sterotypes. Wells richly deserves the credit for his pioneering work in
CK.
Interestingly enough, the only other major film I know of which depended on
the technique of multiple viewpoints is Kurosawa's Rashomon, which is often
cited as the definitive source of the technique. I've seen the technique
used by a number of TV shows, most recently on an episode of
thirtysomething (the dinner episode from last season) and before that, an
episode of Fame a few years back (the investigation into Jesse's accident
in the auditorium). Both paid tribute to Kurosawa. Fame, more obviously
by having the hearing conducted in an art movie house showing a Kurosawa
festivel, with the feature film on the marquee being Rashomon.
thirtysomething used a slightly more subtle approach, having the last shot
pan from Michael's face to his bedroom window, where you can see the rain
falling. Subtle.
> John Howells | "Science does not | how...@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov
> Sterling Software | remove the terror | how...@krypton.arc.nasa.gov
> Palo Alto, Ca. | of the Gods" | howells%k...@ames-io.arpa
****************************************************************************
Paul Tien-Shih Lee |cth...@claris.com
Claris Corporation, SQA Division|{ames,apple,sun,portal,voder}claris!cthulhu
Disclaimer: Dis is my claimer. |AppleLink PE:Paul Lee
If Claris wants one, it can get |AppleLink: D0667
its own. All hail Discordia! |(coming soon to a network near you)
****************************************************************************
Richard Shapiro
>So rather than
>criticizing other's tastes I'd suggest trying to see things with them
>that you both enjoy, and trying to appreciate a little more how others
>approach films.
I really wasn't criticizing tastes, although my admittedly harsh
conclusions, which you quoted (somewhat out of context), might have
suggested that. I was talking about *methodology*, which is, I think,
a more objective matter. If someone applies standards from another
time and another medium to a film, isn't there something wrong? I'm
not disturbed that person X doesn't like Citizen Kane; this opinion is
obviously as good as any other. But if someone concludes that, because
CK doesn't do what a good 19th century novel does (in terms of plot
and character, especially), that it's therefore AND FOR THIS REASON a
failure as a movie, hasn't this person simply made a mistake and
applied the wrong set of criteria? Maybe he hasn't, in which case an
explanation would be helpful. But I don't see what taste has to do
with it one way or the other.
Daniel P. Barron
>What I question is the validity
>of energy expenditure convincing people of a particular
>viewpoint that they are narrow-minded...it will never
>work
Kent, Kent, Kent no one is trying to "convince" anyone. Someone wrote in
and said [paraphrased] "I don't see why everyone gets so worked up over
Citizen Kane." Others wrote in to explain why they do. Simple as that.
I don't think anyone here is naive enough to think they can argue someone
into liking a film. But there is nothing wrong with a little discussion.
I'd like to know what you think we should be doing. More "Can anyone send
me a list of every film made by everybody ever" postings? Blech. I'd
much rather see a rousing discussion about the merits and flaws of a film.
>...at best, someone may (on either side) go back and
>look at the film in question again...and for those of you
>who have never seen that particular film,...make up your
>own minds.
If people want to do this they can skip the postings. That's what subject
lines, the 'n' key and kill files are for. On the other hand, this type
of discussion might intrigue me enough to see a film I might not have other-
wise.
>Universal Recognition for a masterpiece is
>scarcely a commonplace thing...as I have mention of before,
>I thought Indiana Jones IV was a waste...in this forum,
^^
So, Kent, where did you get your time travel machine? 8-) Personally, I think
I'll have to wait until the make it to decide.
>Ignorance is all so damned relative that I shall no longer
>take the effort to tell someone that they are watching
>CK wrong.
That's the point, there is no right or wrong way, only your way, my way and
everyone else's ways. But I might be interested in hearing how someone else
approaches a film. There may be levels of subtlety I'm missing. Again, I
don't know what you think should be discussed here...
>They are watching it. Fine. The world is
>full of fools. Never argue with an idiot
Gee, maybe I shouldn't have posted this... 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)
db
"I thought I could navigate at lightspeed,
But I just can't wrap me head 'round it."
--Holly
-------
Daniel Barron bar...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu bar...@wharton.upenn.edu
bar...@DACTH01.BINET
We are remodelling our .signature for your convenience. Please excuse
our appearance during the construction.
Richard Shapiro
Obviously, Mr Preston and I have very different ways of watching and
evaluating movies; rebutting his criticisms point by point won't get
anywhere in this case. So I'll consider instead his approach as a
whole.
Reading Mr Preston's descriptions of why he didn't like Citizen Kane
is kind of like reading a review of Picasso which says "He's no good;
he can't even draw a human face accurately." Or, even more to the
point, like listening to one of Beethoven's Quartets and announcing
"It's no good, you can't dance to it and the melody is hard to follow;
in fact there isn't a melody at all." The criteria simply don't match
the work they're being applied to. Not only is danceability a
thoroughly time-relative notion, but it and simple melody are simply
irrelevant to the string quartet form. By looking for what was never
intended to be there (realistic figures in Picasso, a tune you can
whistle in Beethoven, sympathetic characters and a simple storyline in
Citizen Kane), you miss all of the greatness which is there.
The question is, how did principles like an easy-to-follow story line
and realistic characters that you care about, how did such principles
get elevated into requirements for movies? How is it that a movie
becomes no good simply because it takes another approach to movie
making? By insisting on this kind of thing, you rule out in advance
not only much of the history of film (everything from Eisenstein and
Dreyer to Bresson and Welles to Godard and Bunuel to Jim Jarmusch and
Chantal Ackerman), but you also rule out, by definition, any movie
which consciously attempts to be experimental in any important way.
What justification can there be for insisting on this kind of simple
schema when it's plainly so inadequate to so many movies and movie
makers? Why is a simple story line necessary in a visual medium like
cinema? Why is a narrative necessary at all? Why should contemporary
ideas of character realism be applied to a film that's almost 50 years
old? Why should realistic characters be demanded at all in a form
that's as much fantasy as anything else? Why should it be important to
"care" about characters, as if they were neighbors or friends? How is
it, in short, that criteria derived from the 19th century novel have
been made into essential requirements for film? Even literature
doesn't adhere to these notions anymore -- why should a very different
medium like film do so? Why do you expect it to?
Something has gone awry in your approach to Citizen Kane (and, if you
apply your ideas consistently, many other movies as well). It could be
that this is because CK is a lousy movie. But it could also be that
your approach is inappropriate, rigid, overly simple, and ahistorical.
At least you might want to consider that possibility.
James Preston
James Preston
>As a matter of fact, Kane was based on a very real character: William Randolph
>Hearst. Many of the events in the film parallel the life of Hearst. You saw the
>character as cardboard, I saw him as flesh and blood.
I know he was based on Hearst, which is why it is even more of a shame that
the movie totally failed to bring the character to life (to me).
> . . .
>You just said what the point was. No one could figure him out because they were
>looking for something enigmatic when the answer was simple all along: rosebud.
>Kane is the archtypal "everyman" that Joyce wrote about in Finnegans Wake.
Wow, I didn't realize that "everyman" ends up being a big-time publisher.
I can hardly wait for my turn. Seriously, maybe I just expect more from
movies. Or maybe more to the point, I expected more from _this_ movie
because I'd heard for so long how great it was. I expect a biography to
tell me something about the man, not just relate the facts. Once again I
say, my feeling at the end of the movie was that I knew no more about the
subject than I did before.
> . . .
>I, too, think Wonderful Life is a fine film, but it certainly doesn't stand as
>an example of great characterization. The characters are stereotypes and more
>cardboard than the characters in Kane. Wonderful Life is a good example of a
>film that panders to the audience and presents little challenge outside of a
>good emotional whallop. I find Kane just as emotionally powerful without the
>pandering.
To each his own, I guess. To me, the "enigmatic rich guy" Kane is much
more of a stereotype. And I don't think we're using the same definition
of "cardboard characters". I mean characters that have no substance, no
reality. The characters from _Wonderful Life_ are normal, real people.
They could step off the screen, pick up their lives, and be your next-door
neighbors. Maybe that's why you see them as stereotypes; because they are
just like the people you see around you everyday. If the character that I
saw in _Citizen Kane_ stepped off the screen, he'd be a cardboard cutout.
Watching _Wonderful Life_, I could believe that the characters' lives
continued between scenes; watching _Kane_, I hear the director yelling
"cut" and see the actors moving on to do the next movie scene.
And _Wonderful Life_ pandering? No way, Jose. Sappy, yes. A deliberate
tug on the heartstrings, yes. But not pandering.
--James Preston
John Leo
>evaluating movies; rebutting his criticisms point by point won't get
>anywhere in this case. So I'll consider instead his approach as a
>whole.
>Something has gone awry in your approach to Citizen Kane (and, if you
>apply your ideas consistently, many other movies as well). It could be
>that this is because CK is a lousy movie. But it could also be that
>your approach is inappropriate, rigid, overly simple, and ahistorical.
>At least you might want to consider that possibility.
As I've mentioned before, different people approach films in very
different ways. Even on usenet alone, with its rather limited
audience, the number of different approaches I've seen has been quite
large. And one of the most useful things I've learned in the four or
five years I've been reading these newsgroups is to respect other
people's approaches. Of course that doesn't stop me from loudly
announcing my opinion from time to time.
In some ideal world everyone would like every film, indeed every piece
of art ever created. Their approach to each work would be one that
allowed them to appreciate and enjoy it. Unfortunately in reality
that doesn't seem to happen. There are many things I don't enjoy, and
I've no desire (or ability) to force myself to like them. There have
been others that I didn't enjoy at first, but there was something that
made me come back them and I completely changed my opinion upon
return. Fortunately there's enough out there that I do enjoy and
doubtless much that I would if I saw it. One problem is to find such
things, and this is a place where others' opinions can be useful.
One's approach seems to be based partly on what one has been exposed
to before. This is all present when you see a new work (let's use
film as an example). At this point there are several possibilities:
you can recuperate the film into this tradition (easy if it's already
in the tradition), reject it, or expand your framework to include the
film. For me the most exciting experience is the third, but this
happens extremely rarely. By far the best was my discovery of
Robbe-Grillet, who completely changed my view of both literature and
film. Even though this was a huge leap for me and took a long time
(in fact it's still ongoing), I couldn't have done it at all without
the background I had already in literature: Pinter, Beckett, Joyce,
and the whole older tradition. To give a minor concrete example I
doubt I could have appreciated his concept of flatness without
previously being exposed to depth (for example stories within stories
within stories). Even with this background I didn't think he was that
great at first, but something pulled me back and I started to
understand what he was about. Yet on the other hand I'll bet I'd
still be living a happy life even if I'd never heard of Robbe-Grillet.
To me "Citizen Kane" falls into a sort of historical gap between
realistic and later experimental films. For people who like the
former CK will perhaps seems confusing and pointless. For someone
like myself CK seems extremely simplistic. Certainly there are many
people who can enjoy the film. One group would be film historians,
but film history to me is not interesting, nor is film analysis. I
enjoy analyzing things in math and science but film is for
entertainment. The pleasure I get from each is quite different, and I
value that difference. Of course this is just me.
So Mr. Preston and Mr. Shapiro obviously approach films quite
differently. I'd say my approach is a little closer to the latter but
still very different. And there's really no reason one way should be
better than any other. A film, once made, is a reasonably fixed
object, but everything around it is changing. Different approaches
seem to make the film more interesting rather than less. This whole
"approach" idea seems rather artificial to begin with. It seems to me
rather that a person has a certain reaction to a film. Then he or she
can try to explain why, but this very explanation oversimplies how the
person really feels. Certainly most of the postings to this and other
newsgroups (and subsequent followups) seem to be that way, my own
postings especially. I post more to try to make things concrete for
myself than to convince others that they should see things my way.
And I'd say the vast majority of the people I know approach films in
ways similar to Mr. Preston. And that's great: they have plenty of
films to enjoy and I like many of these films too. So with my friends
who like interesting characters and a good story, I go to see "Hannah
and Her Sisters" and we all have a great time. With my friends who
like more experimental films I see "Hail Mary" or "Family Game" and we
also have a great time. I was surprised to find that a friend who
disagrees with me on just about everything and I both loved "Risky
Business," although doubtless for different reasons. So rather than
criticizing other's tastes I'd suggest trying to see things with them
that you both enjoy, and trying to appreciate a little more how others
approach films.
``/ / | | John Leo
Lewis Kreme Butler
|Then what do you watch movies for? Don't get so hung up on that word
|"insight". How about "characterization"? This is usually regarded as
|a somewhat important part of storytelling, in any medium. The characters
|should seem real. They should have consistent, knowable motivations behind
|their actions. This is especially and absolutely true of stories that
|are _about_ a character, where the only reason for the story is to show
|us the character's life. If the character isn't made to be real, if we the
|audience don't get to know something about the character, then what the hell
|is the point? The character of Charles Foster Kane was a piece of cardboard.
|If I wrote a story for a creative writing class with a character like that
|in it, you can bet that the teacher would scrawl "two-dimensional character;
|no characterization" all over it. All the other characters in the movie
|were just as flat.
Well, first of all Charles Foster Kane was a real man, and well known to
the audience of the time. His real name was Hearst, founder of the mega-
line of newspapers and the founder of the Hearst Foundation. His papers
(I believe the largest chain in the country) refused to advertise CK. And
anyway, I have to quibble and nit-pick here. The characters should seem
real, yes. They whould be consistant, yes. But Knowable? No. The essence
of Kane is that he is unapproachable. He is a cold, manipulative bastard
with a head for business and a total inability to deal with his personal
life or problems. He is the American Dream in tatters and rags. He is
the Personification of Clyde Griffiths (An American Tragedy). There is
nothing to "Know" about Kane beyond these few facts. That's the point, his
life has been so focused on one dream, one element of succes, one goal,
that all else has been forsaken. He is only a shell. A failure in all
but newspapers, but a success there. The point is that the American Dream
is an illusion. An unatainable, unreachable acme to which all people
apsire but that no one can truely reach. Rosebud is the blatant symbol
of Kane's final regret at having failed, in the end, to achieve the
completness of his goal. All he got was money and power, but he surrended
his soul to attain it.
As for the flatness of the other characters, they are all dependant on Kane.
They are but refelctions of hi, and there is nothing to reflect. No need
to develope the characters. They meant little or nothing to Kane, and so
mean little or nothing to the movie. The movie is about Kane, and Kane
only.
|Yeah, yeah, I can hear you already telling me that Charles Foster Kane
|was enigmatic; no one knew what made him tick; no one knew anything about
|him; the movie showed people trying to find out about him and failing.
|Right. So then what's the point?
{ Fodder deleted }
|What characterization?? Where? It's not "unusual", it's nonexistent.
The characterization of Kane. Surely you could not have helped to feel
that he was a real person? He starts off so promising, with such
vivacity and verve. He is bright, agressive, and enjoys himself.
Granted, the film is quite detached from his joy, forshadowing the
eventual despair in which he dies, but it certainly paints an
accurate picture of a man obsessed with one goal.
|Well, they look the same to me. But this does bring up an important point.
|It was good _for its day_ and in the context of the times in which it
|was made. It doesn't stand the test of time because too much of what
|can be appreciated about it is lost without the proper context. Now
|in my book (he said, sticking his neck out even further) a truly great
|movie is _It's a Wonderful Life_. Populated by _real_ people, people
|that you can get to know and care about. The setting may be a little
|dated, but the _story_ and the _point_ of the movie are timeless. You
|don't need to know one damned thing about the period in which the movie
|is set or was made in order to appreciate what it has to say. And it's
|got everything: drama, comedy, melodrama, love story, mystery, suspense,
|fantasy, coming-of-age story. Sure it was sappy, but it said something.
|It had a point.
Well, not to knock IaWL, but I think the point of Citizen Kane is even
more universal. It isn't about happy endings. It isn't about redemtion
in the face of imposible odds. It's about failure. Something ALL of us
are more familiar with. And it isn't just the failure of a man, but the
failure of society as well. The failure of the American Dream to be the
be-all and end-all. And the failure of the individuals in society to
recognize that failure and act on it. To do something about it. Granted,
I haven't seen the movie in about 7 years (I guess I was 13-14), but the
lasting impact it made has carried with me and translated itself into
many other films and books (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenence,
An American Tragedy, Death of a Salesman). The message is universally
accesible. IaWL is a fine movie, but I don't think I could rank it in
my top ten. CZ is almost assured of a place... Some where near "The
Seventh Seal," and "Potemkin."
|Once again, what was the point of _Citizen Kane_? What did it say? There
|was no thread, no connection between the scenes. Each scene could just as
|well have been about a different person for all the relation they had to
|each other.
Well, I think I have sufficently answer what the point was. As well as
what it said. As for a scene by scene analyses I would have to see the
film againt first.
|--James Preston
Kr...@cup.portal.com
The second ammendment isn't about hunting. It's about Tienenman Square.
I just DARE teh military to shoot at "unarmed" civilians!
-me
Scott Gibson
>I "didn't get it"--I'll tackle "The Big One". A few months ago my girlfriend
>and I rented _Citizen Kane_. The movie called by most film "experts" the
>greatest movie ever made. We both found it to be a complete waste of time.
It might be interesting to note that a lot of your "`experts'" are in fact
directors, actors, and actresses of very high caliber. Presumeably, at
least some of them are people with an extensive knowledge of filmmaking.
>The plot was almost nonexistent, jumping from scene to scene often with no
>discernible connection. The characters were totally flat. We got no insight
>into Mr. Kane; I knew him no better after the movie than I did before. The
It would be pointless to debate your opinion of the "flatness" of the
characterization in the film; your opinion is as good to you as mine is to
me. However, the film certainly does not lack a plot.
Now, the real point of my posting. I am appalled that you would include
in your posting, *without warning[!!]*, spoilers regarding this film.
In fact, you chose to spoil one of the greatest story mysteries in the
history of movies.
Multiple spoilers (including the BIG one) have been deleted.....
It's too bad you couldn't enjoy it. Hopefully, the people for whom you
have spoiled this film will be able to find some enjoyment in it
anyway.
Scott
p.s. Yes, I know it is an often-discussed film, and that many people
(like yourself) have prior knowledge when they see this movie. Many
others do not - I managed to see it for the first time several years
ago in the proper state of innocence that real enjoyment requires...
John Leo
It's perhaps unfortunate that I used the word "taste" here at the end
of the article, but I was getting tired of "approach." But I'd
consider "approach" a kind of "taste" anyway.
One thing I was trying to say in my admittedly haphazard previous
posting was that approach and methodology are not really more
objective than taste at all. If a person applies a different standard
to a film than what a director intended (and who knows what the
director intended) then is that really bad? The only unfortunate
aspect I can see is that such an approach won't allow them to enjoy
the film. But as I claimed before it's really impossible to like
everything, so you might as well just try something else. Then one
could argue, well the person's going to be stuck in a sort of rut,
won't be able to learn anything new, see things in different ways and
so forth. I used to believe that's bad, and it's certainly bad for me
(I get bored), but I no longer believe it's bad for everyone. As I
mentioned before I know a large number of people, who are quite
intelligent and whom I greatly respect, who don't like to try new
things or expand their way of thinking or whatever. And that's fine
for them. Although exploring Robbe-Grillet and more recently Japanese
culture has changed me greatly in a way, I don't think I'm really a
better person for it, just different.
What is apparently upsetting though is when people who have these
different approaches complain about a movie or something, and the only
reason this can be upsetting seems to be if one is trying to argue
that the film is somehow objectively good. What does that mean,
anyway? That everyone who likes it is approaching it the right way,
and everyone who doesn't is approaching it incorrectly? Robbe-Grillet
has been recuperated, rejected, and misunderstood by most people who
have read and seen his works. He's never going to win the Nobel
Prize. To me, though, he's the greatest.
One other thing I mentioned before that I'd like to restate is that
approach seems to be something more artificial, and that what's really
going on is that a person likes certain films and dislikes other, and
this idea of approach grows out of this but is really an
oversimplification. Thus a person might say he dislikes a film
because it's unrealistic, but this is just a small simplified part of
what's really going on.
What if, on the other hand, one approaches a film in some way the
director never intended (maybe I shouldn't aways say "director" as for
example Renais didn't even understand "Last Year at Marienbad" which
he directed!) but that allows one to enjoy the film in a different
way? Is that bad too? For example to switch to plays in a seminar I
took here on Pinter, Beckett and O'Neill, most people (including the
professor) liked Pinter a lot but their approach to him was completely
different from what Pinter intended (as evidenced by his writings on
his work). My approach was actually very similar to the way he wanted
to be read, but that's because it was natural for me. So maybe I got
to enjoy him a little more than everyone else (he's my favorite
playwright), but they were able to as well in a different way. And
Pinter himself has apparently changed greatly recently as he's now
saying quite different things about even his older plays.
Let me give a couple examples, even though these really aren't
"approaches." When I saw "Urusei Yatsura 2: Beautiful Dreamer," a
Japanese animated film, for the first time, I knew almost no background
for the series, no Japanese, and was watching it on my 13" TV instead
of in a movie theater. So I obviously wasn't watching it in the way
Oshii intended. Still it was an incredible experience. Now I know
more Japanese, and know everything that's being said thanks to
translations and synopses (still haven't been able to see it on the
big screen yet, though). I like and appreciate it all the more, but I
can never recapture the feelings I had seeing it that first time.
For another example, how about some movies I hate: horror films in the
"Friday the 13th" genre. When I had cable I used to tape these and
play around with them. I'd play them in fast-forward mode, where you
can see the plot cliches all the more clearly (this can be a good way
to see how conventional a film is). Then, what turned out to be
surprisingly pleasing was watching the film in fast-reverse. This too
can be done with any film but with horror films it's especially good.
The cliches and suspense disappear in reverse, and are replaced with a
very strange flow which can be quite enjoyable to watch, different
from anything else I've seen. So once again here's a way to watch a
film that was doubtless unintended by the maker, but can for some
people be more enjoyable than seeing the movie normally.
Doug Moran
> Agreed! Its like trying to enjoy the film/play "Oklahoma!" by
> today's standards. Many people who see it today remark on how
> unimpressed they are. I need to remind them that this show was
> the first musical that incorporated songs into a single story
> (before, all "musicals" were, in fact, revues). This was one of
> many things that made "Oklahoma!" such a sensation in its time.
Actually, "Pal Joey" is recognized by most people as being the
first real "Musical". "Show Boat" also has some supporters.
Doug Moran "Home is where you wear your hat"
{ames,decwrl,...}!pyramid!dougm
James Preston
>If someone applies standards from another
>time and another medium to a film, isn't there something wrong? I'm
>not disturbed that person X doesn't like Citizen Kane; this opinion is
>obviously as good as any other. But if someone concludes that, because
>CK doesn't do what a good 19th century novel does (in terms of plot
>and character, especially), that it's therefore AND FOR THIS REASON a
>failure as a movie, hasn't this person simply made a mistake and
>applied the wrong set of criteria? Maybe he hasn't, in which case an
>explanation would be helpful. But I don't see what taste has to do
>with it one way or the other.
Well, I sort of answered this in another posting, but it's worth addressing
your specific question here. The point is that we each have the right to
chose the criteria we use to judge a work of art. if someone choses that
"what a good 19th century novel does" is important to him, how can that be
a "wrong" criteria? It is something that that person deems important. If
a movie fails that criteria, then it is a failure as a movie _to that person_.
Why should you or even the creator of the art get to tell me what is the
correct criteria to use to judge it? You can try to explain and point out
to me that, if I used these other criteria, I might gain an appreciation
for the art that I would otherwise miss. You can tell me that my criteria
are not what the creator had in mind. But you cannot tell me that my
criteria are wrong.
--James Preston
James Preston
>much discussion it creates, then Indiana Jones III and
>Star Trek 5 (or is it 4) are masterpieces
My comment about amount of discussion was meant to refer to interpretation
of content; not the voluminous continuity quibbles that are the staple of
discussions of the above two movies.
>...and if one is to
>base an opinion on a film by the rantings of a few
>miscellaneous people over a computer, then one really does
>not have much of an individual persona.
Jeez guy, where did that come from? I don't know about anyone else, but
my purpose in starting this discussion was to engage in an exchange of ideas.
I hoped to get some insight into why other people hold the opinions of
_Citizen Kane_ that they do, as well as to put forth some of the reasons
behind my opinion of it. In this way--perhaps--all parties might leave
the discussion with an increased understanding of other opinions. For
myself, the best I would hope for would be a better appreciation of why
_Citizen Kane_ is a great movie.
>... What I question is the validity
>of energy expenditure convincing people of a particular
>viewpoint that they are narrow-minded
Then perhaps you should go back and read the articles in this discussion.
Very few are trying to convince anyone of anything. Most are simply putting
forth their opinions and the reasons behind those opinions. I have certainly
not gotten the impression that anyone on the "_Citizen Kane_ is great" side
thinks I am narrow-minded. They are simply making an effort to show me the
greatness that they see in the movie. Whether or not they succeed, I
appreciate their efforts.
>...
>Ignorance is all so damned relative that I shall no longer
>take the effort to tell someone that they are watching
>CK wrong.
That's good, because there is no "wrong" or "right" way to watch it or any
movie. Appreciation of art is a purely individual, subjective thing. Your
opinion of the movie is no more "correct" than mine and vice versa.
>They are watching it. Fine. The world is
>full of fools. Never argue with an idiot - some people may
>not be able to tell the difference.
I think it's pretty sad that you find it necessary to brand someone a "fool"
and an "idiot" just because their opinion differs from your own.
--James Preston
James Preston
}Reading Mr Preston's descriptions of why he didn't like Citizen Kane
}is kind of like reading a review of Picasso which says "He's no good;
}By looking for what was never
}intended to be there (realistic figures in Picasso, a tune you can
}whistle in Beethoven, sympathetic characters and a simple storyline in
}Citizen Kane), you miss all of the greatness which is there.
}
}The question is, how did principles like an easy-to-follow story line
}and realistic characters that you care about, how did such principles
}Why is a simple story line necessary in a visual medium like
}cinema? Why is a narrative necessary at all? Why should contemporary
}ideas of character realism be applied to a film that's almost 50 years
}old? Why should realistic characters be demanded at all in a form
}that's as much fantasy as anything else? Why should it be important to
}"care" about characters, as if they were neighbors or friends? How is
}it, in short, that criteria derived from the 19th century novel have
}been made into essential requirements for film? Even literature
}doesn't adhere to these notions anymore -- why should a very different
}medium like film do so? Why do you expect it to?
}Something has gone awry in your approach to Citizen Kane (and, if you
}apply your ideas consistently, many other movies as well). It could be
}that this is because CK is a lousy movie. But it could also be that
}your approach is inappropriate, rigid, overly simple, and ahistorical.
}At least you might want to consider that possibility.
The answer to all the above questions is: Because those are the criteria
that I chose to use. Look, this may come as a surprise to you, but
appreciation of any art form is a purely subjective matter. There is no
"right" or "wrong" criteria to use in forming a judgement. If, to me,
"good" painting requires a recognizable human face, then Picasso is a lousy
artist _to me_. Does the fact that I am in a minority with this opinion
make me "wrong"? Does the fact that the "art experts" disagree with me
make me "wrong"? No. It just makes me different (and wouldn't it be
boring as hell if we all agreed on everything). You, sir, do not get to
decide whether or not my approach is "appropriate". The creator of the
art does not even get that privilege. It is mine alone, just as you
are the only one who gets to decide what _your_ approach will be.
I will relate to you something my writing teacher told me, which applies
equally to all art and which you would do well to remember: Once a work
of art leaves its creator's hands it is _no longer his_. It belongs
to the public. It does not matter what the creator intended, it only
matters what the viewer/reader sees.
Now, perhaps instead of simply chastizing me for my "inappropriate"
approach, you might take the time to put forth your approach. There is
no need to rebut my "criticisms" of _Citizen Kane_. This discussion
would be much better served by relating how and why you appreciate the
movie.
--James Preston
George Emery
10 minutes of action crammed into 2 or 3 hours. There was the great
opening sequence -- strong imagery and inviting curiousity -- but it
fizzled after that.
Historically, the acting was as wooden as most of the films of that
period. Like many of the films & mini-series made today about historical
characters, the plot was plodding. Not difficult to follow, but tedious.
When it came to Rosebud, my only response was, "So?"
My $0.02 worth.
George Emery ...!tektronix!sequent!crg3!george
(503) 257-9731 (voice, home)
the vampire
>If one were to judge the quality of a film related to how
>much discussion it creates, then Indiana Jones III and
>Star Trek 5 (or is it 4) are masterpieces...
Yes, but who will be talking about these films in a year, or even six
months from now?
The discussion on Citizen Kane has been going for over fifty years. How
many films can you say THAT about?
--the vampire
--
"Slowly, he picked himself up from under the |kay...@jarthur.claremont.edu
desk. He pried his finger of the `K' key, |kay...@hmcvax.bitnet
and stared at the screen as he read the news |kay...@jarthur.UUCP
scrolling by. He had survived...THE FLAME WARS." |kaydin@ W.A.S.T.E.
Yan K. Lau
>In article <2...@anasaz.UUCP> sc...@anasaz.UUCP (Scott Gibson) writes:
>
>>Now, the real point of my posting. I am appalled that you would include
>>in your posting, *without warning[!!]*, spoilers regarding this film.
>
>Rosebud is, simply because they live in America and are subject to
>watching things like Jeopardy. This is a ludicrous objections.
>
>-Tim
>mccl...@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu
Actually, I've lived in America over 20 years, practically born here
and don't know what Rosebud is. I don't watch Jeopardy. Why watch something
to clutter you mind with details just to show off your "intellect". Also,
since I long gave up on the discussion of CK (esp. long articles), I still
don't know what Rosebud is :-).
The real reason that I am writing is to remind people to post ***SPOILER***
warnings. This is especially important for new releases. That way I don't
have to (a) skip articles altogether for fear of spoilers or (b) read
articles until ... ack! a spoiler. :-(. The need for spoilers though is
less necessary with older films.
Yan.
---
Yan K. Lau + the last message of a newgroup will be:
)~ + a) longer than one screen &
~/~ l...@scrolls.wharton.upenn.edu + b) something you're not interested in.
/\ University of Pennsylvania + your decision, 'n' key or space bar?
Tim McClarren
>>
>>Ok, at the risk of being fried by film buffs--or worse, being told again that
>>I "didn't get it"--I'll tackle "The Big One". A few months ago my girlfriend
>>and I rented _Citizen Kane_. The movie called by most film "experts" the
>>greatest movie ever made. We both found it to be a complete waste of time.
>
>It might be interesting to note that a lot of your "`experts'" are in fact
>directors, actors, and actresses of very high caliber. Presumeably, at
>least some of them are people with an extensive knowledge of filmmaking.
I too of was the exact same opinion as James after viewing CK on AMC. I
was furious at having wasted 2 good hours of my time to sit through this drivel.
It wasn't until several months later when a there was a show on A&E about
the actual making of CK that I understood the 'experts' fascination with it.
I won't rehash the entire show, but in effect, CK was much more a technical
achievement than anything else. You see, if you rewatch CK, you'll notice that,
for a film of it's time, the effects in it are really pretty astounding,
especially the scenes from the theater (opera), the scene with the reporter
entering the building, the camera going from the top of the statue to the
base and then fading to the secretary (in actuality, the statue is only 2'
tall), the sound from the country estate scenes, especially the large room
where CK's wife is in front of the fire and they're talking (listen to the
echo), and the make-up (Orson playing CK from a young man to an old one).
Also, remember that RKO wasn't funding the movie heavily at all, and the
CoB (can't remember his name), didn't like Welles at all, because OW was
an obnoxious person. Also, RKO almost was sued prior to it's release.
>Now, the real point of my posting. I am appalled that you would include
>in your posting, *without warning[!!]*, spoilers regarding this film.
>In fact, you chose to spoil one of the greatest story mysteries in the
>history of movies.
>
>Multiple spoilers (including the BIG one) have been deleted.....
>
Oh, come now! Anyone who hasn't seen CK most certainly knows what
Sean McLinden
>In article <13...@atux01.UUCP>, g...@atux01.UUCP (G. Levine) writes:
>> Agreed! Its like trying to enjoy the film/play "Oklahoma!" by
>> today's standards. Many people who see it today remark on how
>> unimpressed they are. I need to remind them that this show was
>> the first musical that incorporated songs into a single story
>> (before, all "musicals" were, in fact, revues). This was one of
>> many things that made "Oklahoma!" such a sensation in its time.
>
>Actually, "Pal Joey" is recognized by most people as being the
>first real "Musical". "Show Boat" also has some supporters.
Agreed (except that I happen to favor the "Show Boat" side). Oklahoma
distinguished itself for having included dance which was integral
to the story (in the same way that song was to "Show Boat"). One
of the difficulties with attempts to do Oklahoma on the amateur
stage is the loss of Agnes DeMille's choreography which was, almost,
ballet.
Show Boat was also distinguished by the fact that it was the first
musical to include a song composed, specifically, for a black actor
(Old Man River).
There was an excellent tribute to the American Musical which was on
PBS a few years back (wish that I had taped it).
Sean McLinden
Decision Systems Laboratory
University of Pittsburgh
Jeff Meyer
>Many silent films, especially early ones, require some slack. "Birth of a
>Nation", for instance, has some dreadful parts. But the battle scenes are
>superb, and the film has many other compensations. The silent version of
>"Ben Hur" is a turkey, except for the chariot race. Makes you appreciate the
>sound version. The films of Douglas Fairbanks are hard to watch with a
>straight face, as his style of acting is far, far out of fashion. But there
>are some thrilling moments and great action scenes in them. Not all silent
>films require this treatment, though. The classic comedies hold up very
>nicely, Eric von Stroheim's films are wonderful, Garbo's silents are radiant,
>and even some of D. W. Griffith's rather corny films are tremendously
>rewarding. And films like "Sunrise", "The Battleship Potemkin", "The Crowd",
>and "The Wind" are among the finest films ever made, and still thrill
>audiences.
Agreed; I usually have to handicap silent films somewhat, but they really do
have their rewards. BEN HUR was shown at last year's Seattle Film Festival,
and I wish I'd skipped it (though the Western-style finish is
unintentionally funny -- "C'mon, boys, we gotta ride into town and save the
schoolmarm!" is replaced with "C'mon, boys, we gotta ride into town and save
Jesus!" The William Tell Overature would have been perfect...) On the
other hand, this year the SIFF showed two silent films which were engrossing
though the great majority of their length, the first being THE PASSION OF
JOAN OF ARC...
----
THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC
France, 1927
Director: Carl Theodore Dreyer
Screenwriter: Carl Dreyer, Joseph Delteil
Cast: Maria Renee Falconetti, Eugene Silvain, Maurice Schultz, Michel Simon,
Antonin Artaud, Ravet, Adre Berley, Jean D'Yd.
Print from the National Film Archive, Great Britain
LA PASSION DE JEANNE D'ARC is Dreyer's critically acclaimed film that used
the texts of Joan of Arc's trial to portray her inquisition and execution.
While I can't say that I was rivetted by this film through its entire
length, I was constantly amazed by camera-angles, realistic "you-are-there"
newsreel-style footage, and the restraint on facial expressions used by the
actors. (It is not completely without hammy acting, though.) Joan is
particularly impressive, as portrayed by Maria Renee Falconetti; she plays
Joan as a frightened young woman, confused by the church's hatred for her,
but courageous (and finally, courageously resigned) in her faith. This was
apparently Falconetti's only film role; she certainly made the most of it.
The film is certainly designed to make the viewer sympathize with Joan, but
it does it through lighting, music and close-ups of the characters' faces.
Again, the film is not without sneering, complacent villains, but Dreyer
tends to concentrate on their ignorance, rather than any evil stereotypes.
There are also some rather strong scenes while Joan is being weakened by
bleedings (the audience seemed to visibly shudder as one).
This film was thought to be lost for decades; the British National Film
Archive restored this print, which was recently discovered in a Norwegian
mental asylum. (!! This must have been something of an inspiration to the
inmates. One wonders if it was next to a print of ONE FLEW OVER THE
CUCKOO'S NEST...)
For general film viewers, this may well be too dry; but one doesn't have to
be a cinema scholar to appreciate how pioneering Dreyer was in many of his
celluoid story-telling.
-----
Alas, I can't name the second silent film, as it was shown at the SIFF
Secret Festival; about all I can say is that it was *fully* entertaining,
completely spooky (in a way that wheelbarrows full of Jason's slashed-up
victims could never provide)... and I'd be very surprised if this wasn't the
inspiration for a murder in a Peter Weir film... (Ooooh, I'd like to leave
a few hints to see if Peter Reiher could guess it's name, but that's too
much of a temptation.) Suffice it to say that silent films can certainly be
just as entertaining as modern sound films; more entertaining, if you're
comparing it to something like STAR TREK V...
Knicks Asst. Coach Ralph Willard on how to stop
Michael Jordon:
"I am just going to tell them to get some
kryptonite."
---
Moriarty, aka Jeff Meyer
INTERNET: mori...@tc.fluke.COM
Manual UUCP: {uw-beaver, sun, hplsla, thebes, microsoft}!fluke!moriarty
CREDO: You gotta be Cruel to be Kind...
<*> DISCLAIMER: Do what you want with me, but leave my employers alone! <*>
Harv R. Laser
>
>Actually, I've lived in America over 20 years, practically born here
>and don't know what Rosebud is. I don't watch Jeopardy. Why watch something
>to clutter you mind with details just to show off your "intellect". Also,
>since I long gave up on the discussion of CK (esp. long articles), I still
>don't know what Rosebud is :-).
>
it on tape.. so that you won't see it hacked to pieces with
commercials). It's one of the GREAT treats of American Cinema.
--
| Harv Laser | SAC-UNIX, Sacramento, Ca. |
| Plink: CBM*HARV | UUCP=...pacbell!sactoh0 |
| "The human brain is the only computer made of meat" |
Doug Moran
>There was an excellent tribute to the American Musical which was on
>PBS a few years back (wish that I had taped it).
I could probably get a tape of it for you. E-Mail me and let me know.
Doug Moran "Home is where you wear your hat"
{ames,decwrl,...}!pyramid!dougm
--
Richard Shapiro
>In article <13...@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> rei...@amethyst.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
(Peter Reiher) writes:
> [how wonderful Dreyer's _Jeanne d'Arc_ is]
Insofar as film is a visual medium, I'm not sure that the greatest
silent films have ever been surpassed, certainly not by the celluloid
plays that dominated Hollywood for so long (and still do in large
part). Jeanne d'Arc is indeed as extrarordinary as Mr Meyer claims.
But my real point is to offer a few (very few) comments on another
extraordinary silent film which has just been released on laserdisc:
Eisenstein's _October_. This is less famous than Potemkin, but is a
much more interesting film in its use of montage, camara angles, and
thematic closeups. It's also a more deliberately experimental film.
"Character", in the usual sense of psychological realism, is
completely dispensed with. There are people in this film (not actors,
as it happens), but they are anonymous and intentionally undeveloped
as "characters". The point of this should be clear to anyone familiar
with Marxism -- it's the debunking of the Great Man myth in narrative.
The October Revolution was a revolution of the people: it's a story of
classes, not of individuals (even Lenin gets minimal
individualization). The result is fascinating if a little difficult
to follow at some points: narrative films *can* work without
Characters; films are not, after all, novels or plays. This is in some
ways the most "filmic" film ever made. It couldn't even be conceived
in any other medium, and yet it comes across as an enjoyable,
thoughtful, and beautiful movie (the slight difficulty I mentioned
above has more to do with unfamiliarity of technique than with any
flaw). Of course you can't watch a movie like this casually; you do
have to pay attention more or less continuously. Silent films,
especially ones which make so much use of visuals, are definitely more
demanding in that respect.
Now the bad news: the print used for the disc is badly faded, and some
bozo has added sound effects (in the name of Social Realism, no
doubt). The music soundtrack is also new (by Shostokovich), but it's
harmless enough. Those sound effects, though, are a major annoyance.
Do we really need crowd noises dubbed in to the party meeting scenes?
Do the battle sequences really need the sound of marching feet? The
visuals work perfectly well on their own; the dubbed sound is just a
distraction. So, despite the excellence of the film, I can't really
recommend the laserdisc, which is really too bad.
Scott Gibson
>Rosebud is, simply because they live in America and are subject to
>watching things like Jeopardy. This is a ludicrous objections.
>-Tim
As I mentioned in my earlier posting [one of the parts you didn't include in
yours], I managed to see CK several years ago for the first time, without
having the ending spoiled for me. If I could, I presume others could; that
is, others who were not spoiled by James' posting.
It's interesting that you seem to think that it's okay to post spoilers
without a warning, if you can make a reasonable argument that most people
probably already know the information in question. I don't agree with
that, since your interpretation of a reasonable argument probably doesn't
match mine. I hope I'm not the only one who doesn't agree with you.
Regardless, it doesn't seem like much to ask for a spoiler warning.
Scott
Jeff Bowden
>The music soundtrack is also new (by Shostokovich), but it's
<harmless enough. Those sound effects, though, are a major annoyance.
>Do we really need crowd noises dubbed in to the party meeting scenes?
<Do the battle sequences really need the sound of marching feet?
Can't you just turn off the sound?
--
"Liberty and Security are at war. Which side are you on?"
Lewis Kreme Butler
Scott critisized James for revealing "THE BIG SECRET" about Citizen Kane.
LayOff! Jesus, the movie was ruined in that respect for all time by
Charles Schiltz years before James was even an emnreo on the Net! Anyone
in the 100+ languages Peanuts is translated into could have seen the
infamous Citizen Kane strip in a number of Peanuts collections. The
fact is, the Rosebud secret is one of the biggest non-secrets. Most
normal adults will learn Rosebud's identity long before they see Citizen
Kane. I don't think James's "sin" was so terrible as to deserve your
reply.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| kr...@cup.portal.com | "And then I realized why God had sent His beast to |
|----------------------| hound me so. He sought to weaken me. He sought to |
| The real cycle you're| tire me out before I got to Him. God was scared of |
| working on is a cycle| me -- the little wuss." |
| called 'yourself' | Eppy Thatcher, Grendel |
| Robert Pirsig |-----------------------------------------------------|
------------------------
Richard Shapiro
>In article <41...@bbn.COM> rsha...@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes:
>Can't you just turn off the sound?
Good question. The answer is "yes, but". Eisenstein's films would
*never* have been shown in true silence, they would always have an
accompanying music track. Watching a late silent film in complete
silence is just not as satisfying as hearing a decent music track
along with it. As I mentioned, the new music track on the October disc
is decent enough. It's the sound effects which are so annoying. I
tried watching with the sound muted, but decided that, as stupid as
the effects were, utter silence was worse. Two not-so-good choices.
Grant B. Geyer
> Show Boat was also distinguished by the fact that it was the first
> musical to include a song composed, specifically, for a black actor
> (Old Man River).
Well, maybe so, since he really *was* black. But I remember a film from the
mid 30s, a film I really enjoy (although it is too many things to be categorized
as merely a musical). It is an Al Jolson vehicle called "Wonder Bar," in which
he plays an American expatriot who owns a fashionable nightclub in Paris.
This film is usually panned or rated as mediocre, and I strongly suspect this
is based mostly on the amazing but incredibly tasteless scene that Sean's
Showboat comment reminded me of....A special song/dance/skit is included that
was written for a black man (not really, it was written for a blackface
role by Al Jolson [who was white, for the under 40 crowd]). Called
"Gwine ta Heaven onna Mule," the sequence features (oldtime racist stereo-
types follow)
dancing watermelons, pork chop trees, and an automatic fried chicken machine
as part of one of Al's nightclub acts. Unfortunate sequence. It has
utterly nothing to do with the 4 or 5 plots in this
comedy-thriller-musical-lovestory-murder mystery, however.
Jolson really shows you in his role why he was such a star (IMHO *much*
more talent on display than in _The Jazz Singer_) as he mesmerizes the
cast and the audience. Lots of 30s stars, and several excellent roles
by character actors and actresses, plus a terribly overdone Busby Berkeley
sequence or three. Too bad they don't just cut out the blackface and
put the rest out on video. Or, seriously, shouldn't film be accepted
as the creators intended, intact, with the context of the bias-of-the-time
as an apology for the blatant, tasteless racism? ....Grant G.
Grant B. Geyer
Grant B. Geyer
>
> The real reason that I am writing is to remind people to post ***SPOILER***
> warnings. This is especially important for new releases. That way I don't
> have to (a) skip articles altogether for fear of spoilers or (b) read
> articles until ... ack! a spoiler. :-(. The need for spoilers though is
> less necessary with older films.
> Yan.
Wellllll, maybe. But I'm not so sure. Let me give an example (I'll hide
the true identity of the older film so as to protect against, well,
spoilers! :-) :-)
1. There is a 60s film that is ranked in the high 7s in the Chuck Musciano
file. It is characterized by exceptional suspense due to the fact that
*neither the main sympathetic character nor the AUDIENCE* realizes
which of the co-stars is there to save his/her :-) life and which of them
is there to kill her/him.* :-) I mean, you DO NOT KNOW until it is
revealed (shockingly) near the end/climax of the film.
2. If, with the best of intentions, the net says, "Like everyone else,
I thought "Susie/Sam" was innocent until she took out the jackhammer..."
anyone with half a memory (say .1K :-) will forever know *in advance*
that "Susie/Sam" is the one, and, to say the least, the big bang of the
climax is, phffft, I'd say. (I *know* it's true for the example here.)
3. Since the film is excellent, and not *terribly* known to the net.public,
there is plenty of chance that the reader *will* rent the film or
see it in a re-release.
4. So, unless you are talking about "spoilers" like so-and-so's first name
is really ___________, please don't edit out or neglect to insert
spoilers and control ls. And why should a film's age guarantee the
"safety" of a spoiler?
Since I started this posting, I've already thought of *another* film of the
same era, also on the C.M. file, highly ranked, and with the same extremely
high spoiler.susceptibility. So I'm sure it ain't an isolated thing! ....GrantG
Canis Nervous Rex
} LayOff! Jesus, the movie was ruined in that respect for all time by
} Charles Schiltz years before James was even an emnreo on the Net! Anyone
} in the 100+ languages Peanuts is translated into could have seen the
} infamous Citizen Kane strip in a number of Peanuts collections. The
} fact is, the Rosebud secret is one of the biggest non-secrets. Most
} normal adults will learn Rosebud's identity long before they see Citizen
} Kane. I don't think James's "sin" was so terrible as to deserve your
} reply.
I suppose it depends on what you mean by "normal adults". I've known
scads of people who didn't know Rosebud's identity before they saw the
film. I know people even now who *still* don't know Rosebud's identity.
Hell, I'm not a "Peanuts" fan, so *I* don't even know what it is in the
strip that reveals the secret, though I have my suspicion. Does that
make me not normal?
"Life's 'Abyss', and then you dive."
--- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC, "The Mill", Maynard, MA)
UUCP: ...!decwrl!ruby.dec.com!boyajian
or asabet.dec.com
ARPA: boyajian%ruby...@DECWRL.DEC.COM
or asabet.DEC
Peter Reiher
>I remember a film from the
>mid 30s, a film I really enjoy (although it is too many things to be categorized
>as merely a musical). It is an Al Jolson vehicle called "Wonder Bar," in which
>he plays an American expatriot who owns a fashionable nightclub in Paris.
>
I thought "Wonder Bar" was OK, but not a special film. I saw it in a series
that, for some reason, featured a lot of Jolson films, so his style had
become familiar - perhaps I was not in the most receptive mood.
>A special song/dance/skit is included that
>was written for a black man (not really, it was written for a blackface
>role by Al Jolson [who was white, for the under 40 crowd]). Called
>"Gwine ta Heaven onna Mule," the sequence features (oldtime racist stereo-
>types follow)
In some ways, this sequence is the most interesting part of the film. It is
a real jaw-dropper, and makes it clear just how black people were regarded
in the thirties. I think that the film should be seen with this sequence,
for several reasons - film rhythm (it was editted with the intention of a
big musical number at this point in the film), the fact that Jolson almost
always did a blackface number (making this sequence almost a signature for
him, without which the film would seem incomplete), and to remind one of what
was.
Many people, especially younger people, don't appreciate just what racism
was like in America earlier in the century. That's one reason that I didn't
agree with critics of "Mississippi Burning", who thought it a reactionary
film because it downplayed the role of blacks themselves and whitewashed the
FBI. Despite these inaccuracies, "Mississippi Burning" provided a powerful
picture of horrendous prejudice and racism, making it clear that this was
us not very long ago, and the civil rights movement wasn't just about what
lunch counter you could sit at and Affirmative Action programs.
"Wonder Bar", in its uncut version, provides a different perspective on the
problem - how Hollywood and Broadway unthinkingly ridiculed blacks, perhaps
not even recognizing that they were doing so. Watch this sequence imagining
what it would be like to be a young black man or woman watching it in the
thirties, at a time when societal support for your ego was almost non-existent.
It may give you a new respect for the heroism of blacks who refused to sit down
and be quiet.
Peter Reiher
rei...@amethyst.jpl.nasa.gov
(DO NOT send to rei...@amethyst.uucp)
. . . cit-vax!elroy!jato!jade!reiher
Lewis Kreme Butler
quality.
G. Levine
>Then what do you watch movies for? Don't get so hung up on that word
>"insight". How about "characterization"? This is usually regarded as
>a somewhat important part of storytelling in any medium. The characters
>should seem real. They should have consistent knowable motivations behind
>their actions. This is especially and absolutely true of stories that
>are _about_ a character, where the only reason for the story is to show
>us the character's life.
>>and technical brilliance, the movie also
>>has an interesting relationship with the common genres of film which
>>were in place when it was made: newsreels, reporter/crime stories,
>>melodrama, coming-of-age stories. Welles uses bits and pieces of all
>>of these in an ironic and self-conscious way; no earlier Hollywood
>>movie ever looks quite the same after seeing CK.
>
>Well, they look the same to me. But this does bring up an important point.
>It was good _for its day_ and in the context of the times in which it
>was made. It doesn't stand the test of time because too much of what
>can be appreciated about it was lost without the proper context. Now
>in my book (he said, sticking his neck out even further) a truly great
>movie is _It's a Wonderful Life_. Populated by _real_ people, people
>that you can get to know and care about. The setting may be a little
>dated, But the _story_ and the _point_ of the movie are timeless. You
>don't need to know one damned thing about the period in which the movie
>is set or was made in order to appreciate what it has to say. And it's
>got everything: drama, comedy, melodrama, love story, mystery, suspense,
>fantasy, coming-of-age story. Sure it was sappy, but it said something.
>It had a point.
I think part of the problem here is that James' first viewing of CK was
on the small screen. Even a 45" TV would be a small screen--CK is
a BIG movie, and it needs the big screen. I'm also curious about
James' age. I first saw CK when I was in college in the early 70's--
certainly far removed from the time in which it was made. I not only
"appreciated" it--it knocked me out. Sure Its a Wonderful Life is
a terrific movie. Its also easy. CK is not. It requires a little
mental exercise. Why must movie characters have "consistent, knowable
motivations behind their actions"? Real people often don't. Charles
Foster Kane was a real person, Everyman if you will, but to those who
knew him he seemed larger than life. I'm a little surprised that THAT,
at least, didn't come across to you. Maybe its that small screen....
mary ellen
Zap Savage
>I'd like to know what you think we should be doing. More "Can anyone send
>me a list of every film made by everybody ever" postings? Blech. I'd
>much rather see a rousing discussion about the merits and flaws of a film.
Just as an aside, there is a book at the library (at least in our main library
in San Diego) in the music section. It contains listings of a lot (or all, I'm
not at all sure) of video tapes of movies available here in the U.S. It
provides lists by director, stars (very interesting to me: Michael Caine, 43
films, James Cagney, 20-something films) and title, also grouped all kinds of
ways. If you need this info, wouldn't it be easier to call the library or
trundle on down and check it out? Not to say that lists of films by a director
aren't fascinating, but...lists of films by a director aren't fascinating to
me.
There are also books there (recent, I'm sure) that list all films, not just
those released on video.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Zap Savage |
| Savage Research "Where Quality Isn't Just A Word, It's A Noun" |
| "There are three possibilities: Pioneer's solar panel has turned away from |
| the sun; there's a large meteor blocking transmission; or someone loaded |
| Star Trek 3.2 into our video processor." |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Levine
> PBS a few years back (wish that I had taped it).
No problem! Its out on video (if we're thinking of the same show).
Its released by Lorimar and its called "That's Singing!" I agree;
it was a great show!
gary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Behind every successful man, there's a proud wife and
a surprised mother-in-law--Harry S Truman
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Penovich
>
> In article <13...@atux01.UUCP>, g...@atux01.UUCP (G. Levine) writes:
>> Agreed! Its like trying to enjoy the film/play "Oklahoma!" by
>> today's standards. Many people who see it today remark on how
>> unimpressed they are. I need to remind them that this show was
>> the first musical that incorporated songs into a single story
>> (before, all "musicals" were, in fact, revues). This was one of
>> many things that made "Oklahoma!" such a sensation in its time.
>
> Actually, "Pal Joey" is recognized by most people as being the
> first real "Musical". "Show Boat" also has some supporters.
>
I think part of what made Oklahoma so inovative was the
choreography. Agnes DeMilles ballet-type dancing was a first
for Broadway musicals.
The statement about Pal Joey seems incorrect to me. I'm not
sure of dates, but I seem to remember Pal Joey being after
Oklahoma.
=> T.T.F.N., Jan Penovich (jpen...@gould.UUCP) <=
=> Encore Computer Corp., formerly Gould CSD <=
=> ...!{uunet,sun,pur-ee}!gould!jpenovich <=
=> ...!{allegra,ucf-cs}!uflorida!gould!jpenovich <=
=> NOTE: Disregard header info. Email to above paths only. <=
Canis Nervous Rex
} I think part of the problem here is that James' first viewing of
} CK was on the small screen. Even a 45" TV would be a small
} screen--CK is a BIG movie, and it needs the big screen.
Nonsense. I've seen CK *scads* of times, and not once have I seen it
on a screen bigger than 19 inches. This is not to say that it wouldn't
look *better* on a big screen, but it does indicate that it's hardly
essential to see it that way in order to appreciate it.
Scott Gibson
>This is directed to Scott Gibson's reply to James Preston's post in which
>Scott critisized James for revealing "THE BIG SECRET" about Citizen Kane.
>
>LayOff! Jesus, the movie was ruined in that respect for all time by
>Charles Schiltz years before James was even an emnreo on the Net! Anyone
I presume you mean Charles Schulz.
>in the 100+ languages Peanuts is translated into could have seen the
>infamous Citizen Kane strip in a number of Peanuts collections. The
Oh, so its the "someone else already fucked it up, so I guess I should feel
free to do the same" rationale. Thanks....
>fact is, the Rosebud secret is one of the biggest non-secrets. Most
>normal adults will learn Rosebud's identity long before they see Citizen
>Kane. I don't think James's "sin" was so terrible as to deserve your
>reply.
You can make one of two possible arguments in favor of omitting a spoiler
warning:
1. There is noone anywhere that doesn't already know this.
2. There is someone who doesn't know this, but I can't be bothered with
worrying about it.
Since I saw the movie WITHOUT its having been spoiled, and at least one
other poster claims to STILL not know the secret, the first argument is
clearly not valid in this case. This means, either the second is true,
OR, it was not intentionally done. In either case, there is no valid
argument to be made in defense of it: an unintentional spoiler should
rate an apology; an intentional one would probably lead to attempts at
justification [as we have seen].
Luckily, most people don't care what you think with regard to spoiler
warnings; they simply include them to protect casual readers.
If you are REALLY interested in my "laying off" [I presume this to mean
shut up], the one way of absolutely ensuring that I don't is to continue
arguing with me. I have made my point; you and James have protested it;
at least one other person has supported my position. I am done. I am
also prepared to continue.....
So its up to you: Lay Off!!!!
Scott
Doug Moran
>
>The statement about Pal Joey seems incorrect to me. I'm not
>sure of dates, but I seem to remember Pal Joey being after
>Oklahoma.
Pal Joey was before Rodgers and Hammerstein got together.
Oklahoma was after. I can look up the dates if you wish;
I still have my textbooks from my "American Musical" class.
James Preston
}You can make one of two possible arguments in favor of omitting a spoiler
}warning:
}
}1. There is noone anywhere that doesn't already know this.
}
}2. There is someone who doesn't know this, but I can't be bothered with
}worrying about it.
}
}Since I saw the movie WITHOUT its having been spoiled, and at least one
}other poster claims to STILL not know the secret, the first argument is
}clearly not valid in this case. This means, either the second is true,
}OR, it was not intentionally done. In either case, there is no valid
}argument to be made in defense of it: an unintentional spoiler should
}rate an apology; an intentional one would probably lead to attempts at
}justification [as we have seen].
}
}Luckily, most people don't care what you think with regard to spoiler
}warnings; they simply include them to protect casual readers.
}
}If you are REALLY interested in my "laying off" [I presume this to mean
}shut up], the one way of absolutely ensuring that I don't is to continue
}arguing with me. I have made my point; you and James have protested it;
}at least one other person has supported my position. I am done. I am
}also prepared to continue.....
Just a slight correction: Up until now, I have remained silent on this
"issue" since others went to my defense with more eloquence than I cared
muster. It was mainly Scott's misinformation on this that prompted me
to answer, but now that I've started let me just put forth my thoughts
on spoilers: I think it's a little sad that some people act as if their
lives are ruined because they learn a few aspects of a movie before they
see it. Nevertheless, it is certainly courteous to respect their desires
and say "spoiler" in front of detailed discussions of a plot. On the other
hand, I think that the bulk of responsibility falls on the shoulders of
those who fear being spoiled: They need to be cautious of what they read
and stop the minute spoilers are suspected. In the case of my infamous
spoiling of _Citizen Kane_, I can't help but feel that the spoiler was
buried far enough into what was obviously a discussion of some of the
particulars of the movie that anyone who hadn't seen the movie and doesn't
like spoilers and kept reading was just asking for trouble.
When a spoiler-transgression occurs, there is nothing wrong with a gentle
reminder that perhaps it would have been more courteous to include a
warning. But the kind of hue and cry that some folks have raised over
this is unwarranted.
As for the why, it's simple. It just didn't occur to me. I'm sorry if
I detracted from a possible experience for anyone, but I don't feel I
owe anyone an apology. As I said, I feel that the burden rests on those
who fear spoilers. I will end by pointing out that I have not yet read
anything that said, "I hadn't seen the movie, I didn't know about Rosebud;
I saw it last night, and because of you, it was ruined for me."
--James Preston