Peanuts 12/9 (Rosebud)
JGMcLean0
( http://groups.google.com/groups?q=peanuts+rosebud+kane&hl=en )
shows that this strip has been discussed here and in groups ranging from
alt.movies.kubrick to alt.games.final fantasy about every six months for the
entire google historical range. *This* is a comic with some cultural
resonance.
It's interesting that this comes just weeks after the heralded release of
Citizen Kane on DVD, meaning that a whole new generation of people is either
laughing at the joke or becoming victims of Sparky's Spoiler from Beyond the
Grave.
JGM
MEPeterson
(JGMcLean0) writes:
>Citizen Kane on DVD, meaning that a whole new generation of people is either
>laughing at the joke or becoming victims of Sparky's Spoiler from Beyond the
>Grave.
I was sorry to see it run again. I spend a lot of time trying to persuade young
people that you can actually dip into material from the past -- including
(GASP) black-and-white movies -- and really enjoy it. I never understood why
someone as intelligent and obviously interested in young people as Schulz
appeared to be would have done such a mean-spirited, obnoxious thing.
Oh well. As you say, it's been discussed ad infinitum.
But that only makes it more annoying that the syndicate re-ran it.
Mike Peterson
Glens Falls NY
(PS -- If you have not seen this strip, or watched Citizen Kane, rent the movie
but skip the strip, which will ruin the impact of seeing it for the first time
without knowing the key mystery at the center of the film.)
Bill Bickel
what Lucy was doing?
Bill Bickel
--
Crime marches on... at http://crime.about.com/
Comics I Don't Understand: http://www.crimeweek.com/cidu.html
zezeSciFi: http://scifi.zezenetwork.com
JGMcLean0 <jgmc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011209102111...@mb-md.aol.com...
Laurent Lehmann
message <20011209132533...@mb-cg.aol.com> :
> (PS -- If you have not seen this strip, or watched Citizen Kane, rent the movie
> but skip the strip, which will ruin the impact of seeing it for the first time
> without knowing the key mystery at the center of the film.)
I already knew the answer when I first saw Citizen Kane, and I
appreciated it all the same... one of the best movies ever, IMO.
There's so much more to it than just this little "mystery" that it
doesn't matter at all whether it's "spolied" or not...
--
Laurent
Alan Hamilton
The whole "Rosebud" thing was more a contrivance to drive the rest of
the film. In the end, what it really meant was not that big of a
deal. A nice comment on loss of innocence, etc., but that's it.
I have to believe, though, that there's a statute of limitations on
spoilers.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@arizonaroads.com
Anthony Dean
sled spoiler" joke (in various other places besides the comics pages)
probably way too many times by now for it to be much of a annoying
"spoiler"...still, hope to actually get around to seeing the film one
of these days...
Anthony
--
"I forgot my wallet!! *Currrrses*...."
--- Mojo Jojo en route to the supermarket, "The Powerpuff Girls"
Chris Lee
I've never understood the anger people have over this cartoon. I can see if it
had been a film in current release when the strip was first published, but Kane
was already 3 decades old. The point of the cartoon wasn't to spoil the ending,
it was to show how mean Lucy is...that she would do that to Linus. And
ultimately Rosebud isn't the "key mystery" of the film at all. The ending mocks
the significance that had been placed on it throughout the rest of the movie.
It's Welles's Shaggy-Dog Joke from Beyond The Grave.
Christopher L.
http://members.aol.com/ezclee4050/spareroom/home.htm
George Harrison 1943-2001
MEPeterson
(Chris Lee) writes:
>I've never understood the anger people have over this cartoon. I can see if
>it
>had been a film in current release when the strip was first published, but
>Kane
>was already 3 decades old. The point of the cartoon wasn't to spoil the
>ending,
>it was to show how mean Lucy is...that she would do that to Linus. And
>ultimately Rosebud isn't the "key mystery" of the film at all. The ending
>mocks
>the significance that had been placed on it throughout the rest of the movie.
>It's Welles's Shaggy-Dog Joke from Beyond The Grave.
I've never understood why people think the fact that the movie was 30 years old
is relevant. The movie appeals to people who are, at the very youngest, 15 to
20. So the argument is:
1. Nobody under 45 reads Peanuts. Everyone who reads Peanuts was at least 15
years old when Citizen Kane was released and saw it in the theater when it was
new.
2. Nobody under 15 reads Peanuts. And anyone who will ever see the movie will
see it as soon as they are marginally old enough to appreciate it.
3. Nobody should bother seeing a movie that is more than a few years old. After
the movie has been out for a few months, maybe a year, it is a dead movie.
As for the argument that it doesn't ruin the movie to know the central mystery,
I said it ruins the first watching. The movie is finally crafted enough that,
yes, you can appreciate it for any number of reasons upon future watchings. But
to argue that knowing the identity of Rosebud does not spoil the impact of the
first viewing is simply silly. Of course it spoils the impact -- it may not
spoil the movie entirely, but it spoils the impact.
Certainly, Citizen Kane is not a mystery, nor is it a "trick" movie like The
Sixth Sense. Knowing the central conceit is not totally fatal to enjoyment of
the movie.
But the bottom line is this: To spoil the impact of another artist's work is
simply mean-spirited, and totally out of character for Charles Schulz. I think
if this joke had run in a lesser strip, it wouldn't have stood out so much.
It's certainly the reason I continue to steam over it, all these years later --
I expected so much more of Peanuts.
Invid Fan
<mepet...@aol.com> wrote:
> I've never understood why people think the fact that the movie was 30 years
> old
> is relevant. The movie appeals to people who are, at the very youngest, 15 to
> 20.
So should it be taboo to make any cultural references to plot points of
movies/stories? Should I hit the next persion I see who makes some sort
of "I am your Father" reference around small children who haven't seen
the Star Wars films yet?
--
Chris Mack "I'm Mr. Gone! A student of the mystic arts! Unfortinitly,
'Invid Fan' an untalented student, or I wouldn't have to keep
shooting fools like you!" Mr. Gone, 'The Maxx'
Thomas Galloway
>Sixth Sense. Knowing the central conceit is not totally fatal to enjoyment of
>the movie.
Actually, it is a trick movie, for a reason that no one seems to realize,
including myself. Well, except for one person, who I'm blanking on. Who
realized and pointed out that, at the beginning of the film, when Kane says
"Rosebud"...there's *no one in the room with him to hear it*. Thus, there's
no way for any other character to know that that was his last word.
tyg t...@panix.com
Artie5
historical newsgroup thread :) ?
I can't say if the movie is a mystery, a trick or what, but I also think giving
out the ending of the movie plain as plain as day in the comic is pretty darn
cruel. I would say that this act would only be justified if Peanut's readers
were all sterilized by radiation from the Cold War, so no more little ones can
get their hearts torn out.
The best example of film secret maturity I can think of is Psycho and how its
ending has been kept. From DiGornio's commercials (spelling?) to comic strips,
I never knew the ending until I saw it. You think that people all over the
world would be overdoing the ending to Psycho. Too bad Peanuts couldn't treat
Citizen Kane better than a pizza company treats Pyscho.
Laurent Lehmann
message <20011209210828...@mb-mq.aol.com> :
> to argue that knowing the identity of Rosebud does not spoil the impact of the
> first viewing is simply silly.
Ok, I'm silly, then. But my point still stands : even if there was
some element of surprise missing on the first viewing, it's still one
fine movie people of all ages should see at least once, to know what
can be done with medium...
> Of course it spoils the impact -- it may not
> spoil the movie entirely, but it spoils the impact.
...but I'm still not convinced that being aware of the McGuffin's
identity is any kind of spoiler.
--
Laurent
Joseph Nebus
>So should it be taboo to make any cultural references to plot points of
>movies/stories? Should I hit the next persion I see who makes some sort
>of "I am your Father" reference around small children who haven't seen
>the Star Wars films yet?
Pretty much, yes.
There is a sort of person who absolutely, positively, cannot
under any circumstances take hearing any sort of information about a
movie, TV show, book, record, whatever, in advance of experiencing it
for themselves. There are also people who cast off spoilers and pop
cultural references, whether appropriate to the situation or not, as
if they were the hybrid son of Dennis Miller and Yakko Warner.
There is *no hope* of reasoning between these two groups. There
will be peace in the Middle East before they come to any agreement. The
baseball owners and players will love one another before these groups
get together. The debate between letterboxing movies versus showing
them pan-and-scanned will be settled before this is. The debate between
phonics and whole-word spelling will be forgotten before this is. The
folks who prefer "crunchy sweet" and those who prefer "tasty wheat" will
make their peace before these guys do. The argument among the New Math,
the New Old Math, the New New Math, and the New Old Old Math, will be
long since passed before the "spoilers?" debate is resolved. Those who
got peanut butter on my chocolate and those who got chocolate on my
peanut butter will lay down their arms before the sides in the "spoilers"
wars do.
Do *not* try to argue your position. You are -- this should go
without saying -- completely and brilliantly right, but you will *never*
in a million jillion bazillion whomptillion gadzillion years convince
the lunkheads who disagree with you. You have a better chance of getting
a rational, un-flaming debate by discussing how gun controls would prevent
circumcisions from happening on the hijaked airlines on September 11 if
Bill Clinton hadn't gone back in time to get the Income Tax passed than
you do of getting a sensible discussion of when you can "spoil" a movie.
But, hey, you want to try, go wild.
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Kimmel
"Anthony Dean" <ade...@yacrudhoo.com> wrote in message
news:091220011951292307%ade...@yacrudhoo.com...
> I've never seen "Citizen Kane", but I've heard the "Rosebud was his
> sled spoiler" joke (in various other places besides the comics pages)
> probably way too many times by now for it to be much of a annoying
> "spoiler"...still, hope to actually get around to seeing the film one
> of these days...
At the World Science Ficition Convention in Chicago last year I was
moderating a panel on the movies of the year and a discussion came up on
"The Sixth Sense." Someone was trying to make a point about the trailer for
the film and another person kept interrupting saying that the first person
shouldn't spoil it, and after a few rounds I put a stop to it by saying,
"All right, *I'll* spoil it. It was the sled."
It was nice to see that a roomful of SF fans got the reference.
In any case, as a film critic and someone who has taught "Citizen Kane" in
the college classroom, I have to agree with people who note that "Rosebud"
is merely Welles's maguffin -- it's the device that pulls the characters
through the story but is actually a minor part of what the film is about.
And sixty years after a movie came out (well, less when Schultz did the
strip) should allow people not to walk around on eggshells about "spoliers."
Now about Norman Bates...
Dan Kimmel
"Invid Fan" <in...@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:091220012213287048%in...@localnet.com...
> In article <20011209210828...@mb-mq.aol.com>, MEPeterson
> <mepet...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I've never understood why people think the fact that the movie was 30
years
> > old
> > is relevant. The movie appeals to people who are, at the very youngest,
15 to
> > 20.
>
> So should it be taboo to make any cultural references to plot points of
> movies/stories? Should I hit the next persion I see who makes some sort
> of "I am your Father" reference around small children who haven't seen
> the Star Wars films yet?
Uh, oh, there goes "Toy Story 2."
Dan Kimmel
"Joseph Nebus" <neb...@rpi.edu> wrote in message
news:nebusj.1...@rcs-sun1.rcs.rpi.edu...
> Invid Fan <in...@localnet.com> writes:
>
> >So should it be taboo to make any cultural references to plot points of
> >movies/stories? Should I hit the next persion I see who makes some sort
> >of "I am your Father" reference around small children who haven't seen
> >the Star Wars films yet?
>
> Pretty much, yes.
>
> There is a sort of person who absolutely, positively, cannot
> under any circumstances take hearing any sort of information about a
> movie, TV show, book, record, whatever, in advance of experiencing it
> for themselves. There are also people who cast off spoilers and pop
> cultural references, whether appropriate to the situation or not, as
> if they were the hybrid son of Dennis Miller and Yakko Warner.
Indeed. These are the same people who will insist that a TV discussion
group participant add several screens of "spoiler space" lest their eyes not
be able to avert quickly enough when scanning messages. These people should
either live in cocoons or else make sure they're the first ones to read
every book and see every movie/TV show/play.
Dan Kimmel
"Artie5" <art...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011210003435...@mb-ch.aol.com...
Don't know about the pizza commercials, but the "secret" to "Psycho" hasn't
been kept at all. I even saw Anthony Perkins spoof it on "Saturday Night
Live."
MEPeterson
Nebus) writes:
> There is a sort of person who absolutely, positively, cannot
>under any circumstances take hearing any sort of information about a
>movie, TV show, book, record, whatever, in advance of experiencing it
>for themselves. There are also people who cast off spoilers and pop
>cultural references, whether appropriate to the situation or not, as
>if they were the hybrid son of Dennis Miller and Yakko Warner.
>
> There is *no hope* of reasoning between these two groups.
Well put -- especially as to the extremes in both camps. I'd certainly admit
that those who feel absolutely compelled to see a movie before they hear about
it should make an effort to catch it when it opens, while those who feel
absolutely compelled to show off their hipness are probably obnoxious in other
ways that also make them bad company.
Good manners and sensible co-existence live somewhere in the middle, in that
zone where dog owners keep their pets from leaping up on strangers, and where
neighbors turn down the stereo at night -- and where nobody screams over leash
laws or calls the police over a little noise.
(And I agree with the premise of the cartoon -- "Citizen Kane" is worth seeing
about ten times, but giving away the central conceit of the movie seriously
detracts from the pleasure of that first viewing. Which leaves us to ponder the
irony of his treating countless readers in the same detached, insensitive way
Lucy treats her little brother!)
JGMcLean0
>Don't know about the pizza commercials, but the "secret" to "Psycho" hasn't
>been kept at all.
There was a recent special on "AFI's 100 Most Suspenseful Movies" (or
something like that) that managed to show the endings of about 50 of them,
including Psycho.
JGM
Nick Theodorakis
Dan Kimmel wrote:
>
[...]
>
>At the World Science Ficition Convention in Chicago last year I was
>moderating a panel on the movies of the year and a discussion came up
on
>"The Sixth Sense." Someone was trying to make a point about the trailer
for
>the film and another person kept interrupting saying that the first person
>shouldn't spoil it, and after a few rounds I put a stop to it by saying,
>"All right, *I'll* spoil it. It was the sled."
>
>It was nice to see that a roomful of SF fans got the reference.
>
I think it's the kind of popular reference that people seem to know even if
they hadn't seen the film (so I'm not really sure that Schulz "spoiled"
anybody's enjoyment of the film).
But with that crowd, you might have had a bigger laugh if you said:
"It's MADE from PEOPLE!!"
Nick
PS I agree that "The Sixth Sense" would have been really spoiled by
knowing the, well, the spoiler.
--
Nick Theodorakis
nicholas_t...@urmc.rochester.edu
Elisabeth Riba
> Well put -- especially as to the extremes in both camps. I'd certainly admit
> that those who feel absolutely compelled to see a movie before they hear about
> it should make an effort to catch it when it opens, while those who feel
> absolutely compelled to show off their hipness are probably obnoxious in other
> ways that also make them bad company.
For me, there were several movies that I decided I didn't want to see on
the small screen until I saw them on the big screen first; the list
included such films as Gone With the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, Casablanca,
and Citizen Kane. In all these cases, I tried to avoid learning anything
about them, so I could see them fresh.
Anyway, for GWTW's 50th anniversary, the Brattle theater announced they'd
be running the full film on their big screen. I was excited that I'd
finally get to see the film.
A few days before the rerelease, the Boston Globe did an article on why
the film was such a classic. This was the FIRST paragraph, with the
spoilers ROT-13'd to protect the innocent:
The last time I saw Scarlett O'Hara, she was orange. That was in the
1970s. She's changed since. Now she's a bit green, especially around the
hairline. Possibly it has to do with her envy of Melanie's claim on
Ashley Wilkes. The new print that Ted Turner has struck from the 1939
"Gone with the Wind" Technicolor negative (at the Brattle Theater in
Cambridge tomorrow through Thursday) is welcome, but, you will gather,
not Technicolor, and not perfect. The coloration is subtler, but darker
than that of earlier prints I remember. Sometimes the tonalities seem
muddy. Still, Scarlett and Rhett Butler have undeniably shed what I had
begun to think of as the melted-crayon look. Some of the flesh tones are
perfect. Rhett's, for example, jura ur yrnaf bire gur penqyr pbagnvavat
uvf naq Fpneyrgg'f fubeg-yvirq qnhtugre.
Okay, while I had been exposed to some of the pop-culture references, like
"Frankly my dear..." I had purposely avoided learning about the plot. That
sentence was a massive spoiler for the ending. I didn't know that:
N) Eurgg & Fpneyrgg npghnyyl tbg zneevrq, O) gung gurl unq n qnhtugre, be
P) fnvq qnhtugre qvrq lbhat
It may have been a 50 year old story, but at least the reporter should've
provided some warning. Had I known that's where the article was going, I
wouldn't've read it. But the writer started out talking about the quality
of the print -- the plot spoilers were completely out of left field.
I'm still somewhat ticked about that.
[Oh, and for those whose newsreaders can't ROT13, I used
http://www.pflock.de/rot13.htm ]
--
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>It may have been a 50 year old story, but at least the reporter should've
>provided some warning. Had I known that's where the article was going, I
>wouldn't've read it. But the writer started out talking about the quality
>of the print -- the plot spoilers were completely out of left field.
Forbidden Broadway (a comedic revue which celebrates and lambastes
current trends in New York theatre) did a wonderful show-stopper song
from the (non-existent) musical version of _Anna Karenina_ which could
not have been half as funny if it hadn't given away the ending of the
novel. I was annoyed, but damn it was a funny song.
(Gur fbat jnf "Gur Nfgenxuna, Goyvfv, naq Xvri Rkcerff" gb gur ghar bs
"Gur Ngpuvfba, Gbcrxn, naq gur Fnagn Sr".)
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Pat ONeill
>And sixty years after a movie came out (well, less when Schultz did the
>strip) should allow people not to walk around on eggshells about "spoliers."
>
Absolutely. Some things simply become part of the cultural milieu.
Am I spoiling anybody's enjoyment of Romeo and Juliet if I discuss the fate of
the "star-crossed lovers"? Is the first Superman movie spoiled by virtually the
entire audience knowing that little Kal-El will grow up to be a superhero?
Best, Pat
Jym Dyer
> it throughout the rest of the movie.
> It's Welles's Shaggy-Dog Joke from Beyond The Grave.
=v= Except he wasn't dead yet. ":^)"
=v= Citizen Kane was a thinly-disguised attack on William
Randolph Hearst. It's rumored that "Rosebud" was the nickname
that Hearst gave to his mistress' naughty bits.
<_Jym_>
Bill Bickel
creep Lucy was for mentioning it. If Schulz didn't realize he was doing
something wrong, then what was the point?
Reminds me of 20-odd years ago when we were visiting London... we saw Ian
McKellen on stage in some context, and he told an amusing anecdote about a
cab driver driving an American tourist to see Mousetrap, The tourist was
going on and on about how much better America was than England and finally,
as he stepped out of the cab, the driver said, "Oh, and sir? The ****** did
it".
We had tickets to see the play the next day. Great little story, schmuck.
Bill Bickel
--
Crime marches on... at http://crime.about.com/
Comics I Don't Understand: http://www.crimeweek.com/cidu.html
zezeSciFi: http://scifi.zezenetwork.com
Alan Hamilton <al...@arizonaroads.com> wrote in message
news:UwTQ7.840$dW2.4...@news.uswest.net...
Anthony Dean
<441R7.289986$W8.97...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Dan
Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Well, I don't have a problem with the idea of "spoiler space" for
newly-released items.... but I guess that's just me.
There's also, as I said, the idea that to me, revealing that "Rosebud
was his sled" has pretty much become a cliched "spoiler" joke I've
heard repeated in way too many places (besides "Peanuts") to work up a
fuss about. Along with various aspects of older movies' key moments
becoming heavily-repeated pop culture jokes (on the presumption that
"everyone" has seen said film already given the length of time
passed)---see: "Luke, I am your father" for "The Empire Strikes Back"
(released 20 years ago)...
Kyjada
>sled spoiler" joke (in various other places besides the comics pages)
I believe one of the first references I came across was an old Ghostbuster
cartoon where a ghost was crying for Rosebud and then took off on a sled. And
I heard about it on other shows later.
ShadZ
>
> Am I spoiling anybody's enjoyment of Romeo and Juliet if I discuss the fate of
> the "star-crossed lovers"?
Well, since the ending of the play (at least, the fact that they both die)
is "spoiled" in the first few lines of the play, I would say "no"
ShadZ
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>Am I spoiling anybody's enjoyment of Romeo and Juliet if I discuss the fate of
>the "star-crossed lovers"? Is the first Superman movie spoiled by virtually the
>entire audience knowing that little Kal-El will grow up to be a superhero?
Well, as your friend Peter David pointed out in his review of the
recent film, the deaths of Romeo and Juliet are mentioned *in the
prologue of the play*--the same prologue from which we get the phrase
"star-crossed lovers":
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whole misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
Dan Kimmel
> There's also, as I said, the idea that to me, revealing that "Rosebud
> was his sled" has pretty much become a cliched "spoiler" joke I've
> heard repeated in way too many places (besides "Peanuts") to work up a
> fuss about. Along with various aspects of older movies' key moments
> becoming heavily-repeated pop culture jokes (on the presumption that
> "everyone" has seen said film already given the length of time
> passed)---see: "Luke, I am your father" for "The Empire Strikes Back"
> (released 20 years ago)...
One of the few classic films I try not to spoil for people who haven't seen
it -- in other words, asking if a person has seen it before discussing the
punchline -- is "Some Like It Hot." The last line is one of the GREAT
punchlines of American film comedy (so much so that director/co-writer Billy
Wilder *insisted* that credit for it go to is collaborate I.A.L. Diamond).
Anyone here who hasn't seen the film, make it the next thing you pick up at
the video store.
Michael Meissner
I recall reading that in one of Spider Robinson's later Callahan/Jake books (or
his NO FREE LUNCH book), and came up with several ways for Kane to die
seemingly alone but have his last word still heard (tape recorder, intercomm,
somebody unknown to Kane in the room). I suspect it wasn't an original
observation.
--
Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc. (GCC group)
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work: meis...@redhat.com phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meis...@spectacle-pond.org fax: +1 978-692-4482
PENNENINC
even seen this film.
I may be whistling into the wind, but I seem to recall it as having been ranked
the number one film of the 20th century. It was required viewing (for many,
many reasons cinematic) in the film history class I attended in the early
1980's. I'm sorry if I've strayed off topic here, but if you haven't seen
Citizen Kane yet, you owe yourself a trip to your local Blockbuster. There's a
reason it's still on their shelves.
Michael Meissner
Whether it is really true or not, I dunno, but one of the guides at the Hearst
mansion says that the Kane co-author Herman Mankiewicz had been a guest of
Hearst and Marion Davies, got rather publically drunk, was tossed out, and
later writes the script. I ran across the following web site:
http://alt.tcm.turner.com/essentials/essential/trivia_citizen.html
that lists other things about Kane (though I must admit, I have never seen the
movie).
Invid Fan
<penn...@aol.com> wrote:
> I'm simply aghast at how many very intelligent posters on this topic haven't
> even seen this film.
One thing you have to realise is that it's possible for someone to just
not like a certain type of film. I've seen most of Citizen Kane,
probably all of it if you count the times I tuned in near the end. I
agree it's a great movie. I just don't care for it, and can't see
myself renting it any more then I'd read some classic novel that bores
me to death.
>
> I may be whistling into the wind, but I seem to recall it as having been
> ranked
> the number one film of the 20th century. It was required viewing (for many,
> many reasons cinematic) in the film history class I attended in the early
> 1980's. I'm sorry if I've strayed off topic here, but if you haven't seen
> Citizen Kane yet, you owe yourself a trip to your local Blockbuster. There's
> a
> reason it's still on their shelves.
There's a reason Porky's is still on Blockbuster shelves too :)
Peter B. Steiger
>I'm simply aghast at how many very intelligent posters on this topic haven't
>even seen this film.
So the lesson here is, don't judge people by whether they have any
interest in a film someone else decides is of great cultural
significance. One man's Picasso is another man's pointless and
meaningless waste of canvas.
>I'm sorry if I've strayed off topic here, but if you haven't seen
>Citizen Kane yet, you owe yourself a trip to your local Blockbuster. There's a
>reason it's still on their shelves.
This is the same company that makes a point of keeping "Bill and Ted's
Excellent Adventure" on their shelves. Again, why should I be
impressed by what someone else deems "important"?
If it makes you feel any better, I have no better luck convincing
people that "Being There" is the best movie in the entire universe
(even if you know the surprise ending).
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
----
If you reply by email, send it to pbs at com dot
canada (or vice-versa). All advertisements will be
returned to your postmaster, eh!
Dan Kimmel
"Michael Meissner" <meis...@redhat.com> wrote in message
news:sy3d2ij...@tiktok.cygnus.com...
> Jym Dyer <j...@econet.org> writes:
>
> > > The ending mocks the significance that had been placed on
> > > it throughout the rest of the movie.
> > > It's Welles's Shaggy-Dog Joke from Beyond The Grave.
> >
> > =v= Except he wasn't dead yet. ":^)"
> >
> > =v= Citizen Kane was a thinly-disguised attack on William
> > Randolph Hearst. It's rumored that "Rosebud" was the nickname
> > that Hearst gave to his mistress' naughty bits.
>
> Whether it is really true or not, I dunno, but one of the guides at the
Hearst
> mansion says that the Kane co-author Herman Mankiewicz had been a guest of
> Hearst and Marion Davies, got rather publically drunk, was tossed out, and
> later writes the script. I ran across the following web site:
>
> http://alt.tcm.turner.com/essentials/essential/trivia_citizen.html
>
> that lists other things about Kane (though I must admit, I have never seen
the
> movie).
So what are you waiting for? I've taught "Kane" many times in film classes
and I learned that if you introduce it as "one of the greatest movies ever
made" it falls flat. No movie can live up to that expectation. So what I
do is point out that it was the first film by a 25 year old kid trying to
impress everyone by using every trick in the book and inventing a few new
ones along the way.
JGMcLean0
> I've taught "Kane" many times in film classes
>and I learned that if you introduce it as "one of the greatest movies ever
>made" it falls flat. No movie can live up to that expectation. So what I
>do is point out that it was the first film by a 25 year old kid trying to
>impress everyone by using every trick in the book and inventing a few new
>ones along the way.
Perfect. "Kane" is best appreciated after seeing a couple of other movies
from the same timeframe. Welles was creating the primer for everything that
came after. I compare it to Robert Johnson's recordings -- play them for a
casual listener, and, what's the big deal? -- he's playing the same licks
everybody else plays. Except they *didn't exist* before then (and few ever
played them as well afterwards).
JGM
MEPeterson
>One thing you have to realise is that it's possible for someone to just
>not like a certain type of film. I've seen most of Citizen Kane,
>probably all of it if you count the times I tuned in near the end. I
>agree it's a great movie. I just don't care for it, and can't see
>myself renting it any more then I'd read some classic novel that bores
>me to death.
Starting with the premise that this group consists of people who take great
pleasure in art that comes in three and four panel snippets ... sigh ....
"Seeing" a movie means sitting down and watching it from beginning to end, not
dipping in here and there. As an old fart with some respect for my children's
generation, I will admit to having dismissed some of their movies without
seeing them in their entirety -- but not the ones they value, even for small
reasons.
For example: "Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure," mentioned in another post, is
not a great movie, but it's a very well-made film within its own genre. My kids
wouldn't defend it as great, but they would say, "Come on, Dad, give it a
chance." I did, and I liked it, though, no, it's not a great film, just a funny
one. Had I just tuned in to parts, I might have dismissed it as another dumbass
"duuuude" movie. By contrast, another film mentioned here, "Porky's" is
something of a landmark in the teen-sex comedy genre, and I watched it from
beginning to end, but without much enjoyment -- It's not only not "Diner" but
it isn't "Animal House" either. Still, watching the entire thing let me see
what it was all about.
Nobody is going to force anyone to enjoy a "great" movie, but it's foolish to
dismiss art without making an attempt to appreciate it. We're talking about 90
minutes of your life. There are many films I would rather put that time into --
"Unbearable Lightness of Being," "Jules and Jim," "Pulp Fiction," "Ran," "It
Happened One Night" -- but I don't begrudge the time I spent watching Kane
because it was an interesting study of technique.
And, dammit, part of that is watching how he builds suspense and interest
around the Rosebud question. If you already know about it, you've been removed
from the process. It's as if someone sketched the various levels of a Dali
painting separately and showed them to you before you saw the painting -- part
of the experience is in finding them for yourself and enjoying the perceptual
shifts. Knowing ahead of time what to look for won't diminish Dali's art, but
it will certainly diminish your experience of it.
To bring it on topic, Kane is perhaps something like "Little Nemo" (at the risk
of getting on topic here) in that its impact on a new viewer may be less today
because of imitation and influence on other works in the meantime -- just as
that of Psycho and much of Hitchcock's other work has been. And yet going back
to the master is worth the investment.
Heck, it's worth the 90 minutes just to be able to comment intelligently on it.
Even Bill and Ted came across as smart guys by the end of their exposure to
other smart guys, y'know?
Elisabeth Riba
> I learned that if you introduce it as "one of the greatest movies ever
> made" it falls flat. No movie can live up to that expectation. So what I
> do is point out that it was the first film by a 25 year old kid trying to
> impress everyone by using every trick in the book and inventing a few new
> ones along the way.
Yup; I saw it for the first time at the Wang Center big screen several
years ago. The ending had been spoiled for us years ago by the Peanuts
joke.
Honestly, I wasn't overly impressed by Kane itself, but we could
definitely see how many other things were clearly inspired *by* it.
Anthony Dean
<cmfR7.158080$WW.98...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Dan
Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Too late....the punch line of that film's been spoiled for me, as well
(watching IIRC that "American Film Institute" top 100 comedies TV
special awhile back, where they played the end scene of the film;
though I'd heard the joke first in an old "Foghorn Leghorn" cartoon
[and thought that the cartoon makers had made the joke up on their own,
not knowing it was apparently a film reference])...
ronniecat
news:9hn71u0ish5aemim9...@4ax.com...
> I already knew the answer when I first saw Citizen Kane, and I
> appreciated it all the same... one of the best movies ever, IMO.
> There's so much more to it than just this little "mystery" that it
> doesn't matter at all whether it's "spolied" or not...
I was just about to post the same thing. It does not surprise me that
Citizen Kane is frequently cited as being the "Best Movie of All Time".
Although since I knew what "Rosebud" was, I will always have to wonder
whether, if I had seen it 'unspoiled', the final revelation would have had
an emotional wallop for me which I will never know ("Rosebud was his *sled*?
God, in the great sweep of his life that symbolizes everything he lost...
It's so profound!"), or if I would have had the opposite reaction. ("Rosebud
was his *sled*? God, in the great sweep of his life that's so insignificant
I can't believe it would resonate with him on his deathbed. What a
letdown.")
ronnie
ronniecat
news:101220011720533629%ade...@yacrudhoo.com...
> There's also, as I said, the idea that to me, revealing that "Rosebud
> was his sled" has pretty much become a cliched "spoiler" joke I've
> heard repeated in way too many places (besides "Peanuts") to work up a
> fuss about. Along with various aspects of older movies' key moments
> becoming heavily-repeated pop culture jokes (on the presumption that
> "everyone" has seen said film already given the length of time
> passed)---see: "Luke, I am your father" for "The Empire Strikes Back"
> (released 20 years ago)...
A more obscure one but one that made me laugh while channel surfing was some
sitcom where one guy says to another, "She's a really special girl!" and his
companion says, "You mean 'special' special? Or 'Crying Game' special?"
ronnie
ronniecat
news:20011211065104...@mb-fc.aol.com...
> Heck, it's worth the 90 minutes just to be able to comment intelligently
on it.
> Even Bill and Ted came across as smart guys by the end of their exposure
to
> other smart guys, y'know?
Like So-crates and Beeth-oven and Mr. The Kid?
I reluctantly watched "Bill & Ted" at the insistence of a really brilliant
man I was dating whose kids made *him* reluctantly watch it. I was
surprised. He was one of these guys who *refused* to own a TV. Culture snob.
"Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"? Really! They were right and so was
he - I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Another, even better, movie of the allegedly-teen genre is "Ferris
Buehller's Day Off", which has some important things to say about life.
ronnie
Dan Kimmel
to
> dismiss art without making an attempt to appreciate it. We're talking
about 90
> minutes of your life. There are many films I would rather put that time
into --
> "Unbearable Lightness of Being," "Jules and Jim," "Pulp Fiction," "Ran,"
"It
> Happened One Night" -- but I don't begrudge the time I spent watching Kane
> because it was an interesting study of technique.
I agree with you, but many of the movies you mention are over 90 minutes.
"Citizen Kane," for example, is two hours.
Dan Kimmel
"Elisabeth Riba" <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote in message
news:9v4uts$qps$2...@news.panix.com...
> Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > I learned that if you introduce it as "one of the greatest movies ever
> > made" it falls flat. No movie can live up to that expectation. So what
I
> > do is point out that it was the first film by a 25 year old kid trying
to
> > impress everyone by using every trick in the book and inventing a few
new
> > ones along the way.
>
> Yup; I saw it for the first time at the Wang Center big screen several
> years ago. The ending had been spoiled for us years ago by the Peanuts
> joke.
The ending isn't "spoiled." Even knowing the ending I'm still moved -- on
my umpteenth viewing -- with the closeup of the furnace as Bernard
Herrmann's scores comes up on the soundtrack.
> Honestly, I wasn't overly impressed by Kane itself, but we could
> definitely see how many other things were clearly inspired *by* it.
It is a film that rewards repeat viewings. Sometimes I watch it for the
technique (do you realize how much of the film is *special effects*) and
sometimes for the story and sometimes for the characterization. Did you
ever wonder why Bernstein -- of all the characters -- seems to be successful
and well off at the end of the story?
Dan Kimmel
"ronniecat" <ronn...@mycollar.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d7qR7.4467$ud.6...@news-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Welles himself called it "parlor Freud." It was a gimmick to set up the
motivation for the reporter to get Kane's life story. It's the fictional
biography that matters, not the final revelation. After all, Kane has
already told us what most esteems in life: "Love on my terms, the only terms
anyone knows." Rosebud simply represents the first of many times he would
find out that life wouldn't be lived out on his terms.
Invid Fan
<mepet...@aol.com> wrote:
> Zonker Harris's nephew Zip wrote:
>
> >One thing you have to realise is that it's possible for someone to just
> >not like a certain type of film. I've seen most of Citizen Kane,
> >probably all of it if you count the times I tuned in near the end. I
> >agree it's a great movie. I just don't care for it, and can't see
> >myself renting it any more then I'd read some classic novel that bores
> >me to death.
>
> Starting with the premise that this group consists of people who take great
> pleasure in art that comes in three and four panel snippets ... sigh ....
>
> "Seeing" a movie means sitting down and watching it from beginning to end, not
> dipping in here and there.
I started to watch Citizen Kane. Enjoyed the camera work, saw it was an
interesting story, but after awhile decided it wasn't the type of movie
I like so turned it off. Over the years I've caught other parts of it.
I'm not one to sit all the way through something I don't like, just to
prove to myself that yes, I don't like it.
Jym Dyer
if you're into comics. The movie's composition and use of black
and white borrowed from the comics and improved on them, and in
turn the comics borrowed back.
<_Jym_>
P.S.: Since we're talkin' other media, read Michael Chabon's
_The_Amazing_Adventures_of_Kavalier_&_Clay_. It's about a comic
book writer/artist duo in the "Golden Age," when comic books
were just starting to be something other than reprints of comic
strips. There is some mention of classic comic strip artists
and their wonderful artwork, and _Citizen_Kane_ is in there, too.
Jym Dyer
> who take great pleasure in art that comes in three and four
> panel snippets ... sigh ....
=v= This does not necessarily mean a short attention span ....
What were talking about again?
=v= Just "kidding." Ha-ha. :-)
=v= In my eyes, absolute mastery of the comic strip form is a
daily strip that holds one's interest every day and also holds
up when collected in a book. I realize that the form was not
originally designed for book (or magazine) collections, and yet
those have followed in the wake of the comic strip. What the
book does is substitute space for time.
=v= The best at this was E.C. Segar.
<_Jym_>
DD DEGG CO
>daily strip that holds one's interest every day and also holds
>up when collected in a book.
>
>=v= The best at this was E.C. Segar.
> <_Jym_>
>
One of the best, Jym, one of the best. Don't make me shove Roy Crane's Captain
Easy, Gottfredson's Mickey Mouse, and Caniff's Terry and the Pirates into your
face. The soon-to-be-released Zorro dailies in book form had the advertising
line of something like: "now, as it was meant to be read". Which explains why
it is no longer a daily strip.
D.D.Degg
Brent McKee
Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote in message
news:3c159623...@netnews.attbi.com...
> On 11 Dec 2001 04:10:50 GMT, PENNENINC sez:
> >I'm simply aghast at how many very intelligent posters on this topic
haven't
> >even seen this film.
>
> So the lesson here is, don't judge people by whether they have any
> interest in a film someone else decides is of great cultural
> significance. One man's Picasso is another man's pointless and
> meaningless waste of canvas.
>
> >I'm sorry if I've strayed off topic here, but if you haven't seen
> >Citizen Kane yet, you owe yourself a trip to your local Blockbuster.
There's a
> >reason it's still on their shelves.
>
> This is the same company that makes a point of keeping "Bill and Ted's
> Excellent Adventure" on their shelves. Again, why should I be
> impressed by what someone else deems "important"?
>
> If it makes you feel any better, I have no better luck convincing
> people that "Being There" is the best movie in the entire universe
> (even if you know the surprise ending).
Maybe because it isn't. I for one found it boring and pretentious when I
saw it in a first run theatre and it led to a life long loathing (mine not
his) of virtually everything that Peter Sellers did.
--
Brent McKee
To reply by email, please remove the capital letters (S and N) from the
email address
"If we cease to judge this world, we may find ourselves, very quickly, in
one which is infinitely worse."
- Margaret Atwood
Dan Kimmel
"Brent McKee" <bSm...@the.link.caN> wrote in message
news:JDFR7.1312$tlDf.2...@tomcat.sk.sympatico.ca...
>
> Peter B. Steiger <see...@for.email.address> wrote in message
> news:3c159623...@netnews.attbi.com...
> > If it makes you feel any better, I have no better luck convincing
> > people that "Being There" is the best movie in the entire universe
> > (even if you know the surprise ending).
>
> Maybe because it isn't. I for one found it boring and pretentious when I
> saw it in a first run theatre and it led to a life long loathing (mine not
> his) of virtually everything that Peter Sellers did.
Aargh! (To put this on topic.)
First, "Being There" is a great film -- but it's not for every taste.
Second, it is a very atypical Peter Sellers movie. Instead go see the "Pink
Panther" movies, "Dr. Strangelove," "The Mouse that Roared," "The World of
Henry Orient," and "The Ladykillers."
ronniecat
news:QzHR7.292157$W8.99...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> First, "Being There" is a great film -- but it's not for every taste.
> Second, it is a very atypical Peter Sellers movie. Instead go see the
"Pink
> Panther" movies, "Dr. Strangelove," ...
... which just *might* be the best movie of all time. If you haven't seen
this one, run do not walk to the video store and rent it.
ronnie (who wonders if it will resonate with a post-cold-war audience?)
--
"The Stones would keep going even if they all died."
- Mick Jagger, confirming our worst fears.
*Return address munged to foil spambots. Remove my collar to reply.*
JGMcLean0
>> > "Being There" is the best movie in the entire universe
>> > (even if you know the surprise ending).
>>
>> Maybe because it isn't.
>Aargh! (To put this on topic.)
I think you mean "Aaaugh!".
>First, "Being There" is a great film -- but it's not for every taste.
Yes, it's for those who "like to watch" <g>.
I would also dispute that it has a "surprise ending", at least in the sense
we are talking about here.
>Second, it is a very atypical Peter Sellers movie. Instead go see the "Pink
>Panther" movies, "Dr. Strangelove," "The Mouse that Roared," "The World of
>Henry Orient," and "The Ladykillers."
However, do anything you can *not* to see "The Legend of Fu Manchu", which is
quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen.
JGM
Anthony Dean
<ronn...@mycollar.hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, in that case, the fact that said film was spoiled on "Siskel and
Ebert" (don't remember which one inadvertently spoiled it) was pretty
big news some years back (the resulting brief fight between the two
reviewers, said spoiler becoming rapidly a sitcom/late-night-talk show
host joke, etc.)....even an old "Ren and Stimpy" comic I have used it
as a punch line...
Anthony
who's never seen "The Crying Game"
MEPeterson
(JGMcLean0) writes:
>However, do anything you can *not* to see "The Legend of Fu Manchu", which is
>quite possibly the worst movie I've ever seen.
Stay tuned. They're currently working on a collaboration between the estates of
the late Lee Falk and the late Hank Ketchum to make a movie about this
obnoxious little blonde kid who runs around Africa in purple Spandex fighting
crime and annoying his neighbor. Mason Gamble plays him as a child, then Billy
Zane plays him as an adult.
Please don't make me tell you the title, but it's sure to be the worst movie
you've ever seen.
Phil
mepet...@aol.com (MEPeterson) wrote:
That wouldn't be
Dennis the Phantom Menace
would it?
Phil
Invid Fan
<ade...@yacrudhoo.com> wrote:
It was thier annual Oscar review, done before a live audience. Siskel
spoiled it, arguing that it was imposible to talk about why the actor
should or shouldn't get the award for acting without talking about the
character, which naturaly involved talking about the "surprise". Ebert
and the crowd booed him :) I can see Siskel's point, and it wasn't even
a spoiler to some who hadn't seen the movie but had seen the actor
before and thus knew certain "things" about them.
D Olz
saw it in a first run theatre and it led to a life long loathing (mine not
his) of virtually everything that Peter Sellers did.
--
Brent McKee >>
Please try to forget you ever saw that (and I'm using the term loosely) film
and give Peter Sellers another chance. When he did "Being There" he was a
very sick man and a shadow of himself. I would recomend "The Mouse That
Roared" as one of his best films. If you don't like that one, then you can
safely say that Mr. Sellers isn't to your taste.
Olz
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety”
Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)
Dan Kimmel
"D Olz" <do...@aol.commsn> wrote in message
news:20011213214515...@mb-fn.aol.com...
> << Maybe because it isn't. I for one found it boring and pretentious when
I
> saw it in a first run theatre and it led to a life long loathing (mine not
> his) of virtually everything that Peter Sellers did.
>
> --
> Brent McKee >>
>
> Please try to forget you ever saw that (and I'm using the term loosely)
film
> and give Peter Sellers another chance. When he did "Being There" he was
a
> very sick man and a shadow of himself. I would recomend "The Mouse That
> Roared" as one of his best films. If you don't like that one, then you
can
> safely say that Mr. Sellers isn't to your taste.
>
>
Peter Sellers was not "very sick" when he did "Being There." He considered
it one of his proudest achievements and, in fact, had fought to get the film
made for a number of years.
Robin Netherton
> Please try to forget you ever saw that (and I'm using the term loosely)
> film and give Peter Sellers another chance. When he did "Being There"
> he was a very sick man and a shadow of himself. I would recomend "The
> Mouse That Roared" as one of his best films. If you don't like that
> one, then you can safely say that Mr. Sellers isn't to your taste.
I was unable to watch very much of "The Mouse That Roared" because it did
such a hash job on a perfectly wonderful book. I do understand the need to
change a story when adapting it to the film medium from the written
medium, but changing the Duchess (an ingenue in the book) into an older
woman threw all the relationships into a completely different focus, and
near as I can determine, it was done only so that the Duchess's role could
be a comic vehicle for Sellers. If he really felt the need to do a movie
in which he played multiple parts, I would rather he have chosen a story
in which there were multiple appropriate characters, instead of warping
this one.
I suppose if you hadn't read the book, this issue would be irrelevant, and
maybe the movie has merits of its own. But "The Mouse That Roared"
deserved to be made into a movie in its original form, and it could have
been a delightful one. Thanks to Sellers, the proper job will never be
done.
And I'm trying desperately to think of some way to bring this back to
comics (of the strip variety, not the acting variety). And not succeeding.
--Robin
Eva Whitley
<snippage, but I appreciate the joke and wish I had been at that panel>
>
> In any case, as a film critic and someone who has taught "Citizen Kane" in
> the college classroom, I have to agree with people who note that "Rosebud"
> is merely Welles's maguffin -- it's the device that pulls the characters
> through the story but is actually a minor part of what the film is about.
> And sixty years after a movie came out (well, less when Schultz did the
> strip) should allow people not to walk around on eggshells about
"spoliers."
>
> Now about Norman Bates...
>
>
And furthermore, the love interest in THE CRYING GAME is a boy! Yeah, I
would say about a year and then you can spoil away. --Eva Whitley
Chris Clarke
"Eva Whitley" <e...@evawhitley.net> wrote:
ET dies.
--
Chris Clarke | Editor, Faultline Magazine
www.faultline.org | California Environmental News and Information
Bill Bickel
Eva Whitley <e...@evawhitley.net> wrote
> And furthermore, the love interest in THE CRYING GAME is a boy! Yeah, I
> would say about a year and then you can spoil away.
Also, during that year's Oscars, didn't Billy Crystal do a song-and-dance
routine with a giant penis?
Bill Bickel
Crime marches on... at http://crime.about.com/
Comics I Don't Understand: http://www.crimeweek.com/cidu.html
zezeSciFi: http://scifi.zezenetwork.com
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>Date: 12/14/2001 5:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <cclarke-B63F22...@netnews.attbi.com>
"It's a cookbook! It's a cookbook!!"
- Vaughner
"Oh sweet baby Jesus, I'm a female anime-type character and I'm being atacked
by tentacles!!! That means there's only one thing that could happen next!!"
- Bimbo Moneymaker, (www.)Exploitation Now(.com)
Dan Kimmel
"Eva Whitley" <e...@evawhitley.net> wrote in message
news:K%wS7.15035$_Y6.1...@news2.news.adelphia.net...
Well of course Stephen Rea is a boy. Where's the spoiler there? :)
Rich Carreiro
If only!
--
Rich Carreiro rlc...@animato.arlington.ma.us
Brent McKee
D Olz <do...@aol.commsn> wrote in message
news:20011213214515...@mb-fn.aol.com...
I
> saw it in a first run theatre and it led to a life long loathing (mine not
> his) of virtually everything that Peter Sellers did.
>
> --
> Brent McKee >>
>
> Please try to forget you ever saw that (and I'm using the term loosely)
film
> and give Peter Sellers another chance. When he did "Being There" he was
a
> very sick man and a shadow of himself. I would recomend "The Mouse That
> Roared" as one of his best films. If you don't like that one, then you
can
> safely say that Mr. Sellers isn't to your taste.
I liked "The Mouse That Roared" ... mostly. My problem with it was that I
read and enjoyed the book long before I saw the movie and thought that the
movie should have stuck closer to the source material. Some of his early
work is fine with me (particularly the Ealing comedies such as "The
Lady-Killers" and "I'm Alright Jack"), although I have never really warmed
to things like "What's New Pussycat" or "The Party". I have had a real
problem with some of Sellers' later work. The only redeeming feature of
"There's A Girl In My Soup" is a naked Goldie Hawn. The Pink Panther films
were funny but with the later ones I always had the feeling that he was just
in it for money to support his drug oriented life style. Another breaking
point for me was his appearance on "The Muppet Show" which I really found
uncomfortable to watch. In it he says that there really is no Peter
Sellers -- I believe him.
Paul L. Madarasz
<ronn...@mycollar.hotmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things...:
>Laurent Lehmann <lleh...@club-internet.fr> wrote in message
>news:9hn71u0ish5aemim9...@4ax.com...
>
>> I already knew the answer when I first saw Citizen Kane, and I
>> appreciated it all the same... one of the best movies ever, IMO.
>> There's so much more to it than just this little "mystery" that it
>> doesn't matter at all whether it's "spolied" or not...
>
>I was just about to post the same thing. It does not surprise me that
>Citizen Kane is frequently cited as being the "Best Movie of All Time".
>Although since I knew what "Rosebud" was, I will always have to wonder
>whether, if I had seen it 'unspoiled', the final revelation would have had
>an emotional wallop for me which I will never know ("Rosebud was his *sled*?
>God, in the great sweep of his life that symbolizes everything he lost...
>It's so profound!"), or if I would have had the opposite reaction. ("Rosebud
>was his *sled*? God, in the great sweep of his life that's so insignificant
>I can't believe it would resonate with him on his deathbed. What a
>letdown.")
>
>ronnie
>
Of course, we all know what "Rosebud" really was, and one of the major
reasons that Hearst was so honked off at the movie:
Vg jnf Urnefg'f crg anzr sbe Znevba Qnivrf' pyvgbevf.
And now you know... the REST of the story.
--
Paul L. Madarasz
Tucson, Baja Arizona
"How 'bout cuttin' that rebop?
-- S. Kowalski
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Paul L. Madarasz
perhaps among other things...:
>Dan Kimmel wrote:
>
>>> > "Being There" is the best movie in the entire universe
>>> > (even if you know the surprise ending).
>>>
>>> Maybe because it isn't.
>
>>Aargh! (To put this on topic.)
>
> I think you mean "Aaaugh!".
>
>>First, "Being There" is a great film -- but it's not for every taste.
>
> Yes, it's for those who "like to watch" <g>.
>
> I would also dispute that it has a "surprise ending", at least in the sense
>we are talking about here.
>
>>Second, it is a very atypical Peter Sellers movie. Instead go see the "Pink
>>Panther" movies, "Dr. Strangelove," "The Mouse that Roared," "The World of
>>Henry Orient," and "The Ladykillers."
Don't forget "The Naked Truth" (aka "Your Past is Showing"), an early
British release with Terry-Thomas.
Paul L. Madarasz
wrote, perhaps among other things...:
>In article <K%wS7.15035$_Y6.10...@news2.news.adelphia.net>,
We win World War II.
Dan Kimmel
"Paul L. Madarasz" <pl...@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
news:e5rm1ukqvlibpdr12...@4ax.com...
Just used that one at the press screening for "Charlotte Gray" (a very
mundane WWII drama to be released shortly).
Neil Robinson
the one I've always liked was in a 'zine out of Minneapolis a few years
ago, in a Harper's-style index:
Percentage of teenage girls who saw Titanic: 84%
Percentage who cited Leonardo DiCaprio as the reason they like it: 68%
Percentage who cited teh surprise ending where the ship sank: 21%
BTW, does anybody know what happened to Taste it!?
Yngvar Følling
> Actually, it is a trick movie, for a reason that no one seems to realize,
> including myself. Well, except for one person, who I'm blanking on. Who
> realized and pointed out that, at the beginning of the film, when Kane says
> "Rosebud"...there's *no one in the room with him to hear it*. Thus, there's
> no way for any other character to know that that was his last word.
I thought it was the butler. He was the one who late in the movie told
that he knew what "Rosebud" was, though his tale didn't really reveal
much more than that Kane had said it once before. But he also said that
the second time he heard it was when Kane died, implying that he *was*
in the room, only outside the picture, which was mostly of Kane anyway.
It's been a few years since I last saw it, so I don't remember the
exact details.
Yngvar
Yngvar Følling
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, dan.k...@worldnet.att.net says...
> First, "Being There" is a great film -- but it's not for every taste.
> Second, it is a very atypical Peter Sellers movie. Instead go see the "Pink
> Panther" movies, "Dr. Strangelove," "The Mouse that Roared," "The World of
> Henry Orient," and "The Ladykillers."
I wouldn't include "Ladykillers" on the list for the sake of Peter
Sellers, though it is a great movie. Sellers pales when compared to
Alec Guinness, who has one of the most hilariously funny roles I've
ever seen him in.
Yngvar
Dan Kimmel
"Yngvar Fųlling" <yngvar....@c2i.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1685e46cc...@127.0.0.1...
Raymond claims to have been in the room, but we do not see him there.
Eva Whitley
"Chris Clarke" <ccl...@faultline.org> wrote in message
news:cclarke-B63F22...@netnews.attbi.com...
> In article <K%wS7.15035$_Y6.10...@news2.news.adelphia.net>,
> "Eva Whitley" <e...@evawhitley.net> wrote:
>
> > "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> > news:141R7.289984$W8.97...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > >
> > > "Anthony Dean" <ade...@yacrudhoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:091220011951292307%ade...@yacrudhoo.com...
> >
<snip>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > And furthermore, the love interest in THE CRYING GAME is a boy! Yeah, I
> > would say about a year and then you can spoil away. --Eva Whitley
>
> ET dies.
Tyler Durden isn't real. --Eva Whitley
Eva Whitley
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:03:21 GMT, "ronniecat"
> <ronn...@mycollar.hotmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things...:
>
> >Laurent Lehmann <lleh...@club-internet.fr> wrote in message
> >news:9hn71u0ish5aemim9...@4ax.com...
> >
<snipped> >
>
> Of course, we all know what "Rosebud" really was, and one of the major
> reasons that Hearst was so honked off at the movie:
>
> Vg jnf Urnefg'f crg anzr sbe Znevba Qnivrf' pyvgbevf.
>
> And now you know... the REST of the story.
It's interesting that pyvgbevf needed to be ROT-13 but penis doesn't. --Eva
Whitley (and the finest movie of all time is CASABLANCA, btw)
Paul L. Madarasz
wrote, perhaps among other things...:
>
>"Paul L. Madarasz" <pl...@dakotacom.net> wrote in message
>news:0rqm1u8egdcrme2m5...@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001 16:03:21 GMT, "ronniecat"
>> <ronn...@mycollar.hotmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things...:
>>
>> >Laurent Lehmann <lleh...@club-internet.fr> wrote in message
>> >news:9hn71u0ish5aemim9...@4ax.com...
>> >
>
><snipped> >
>>
>> Of course, we all know what "Rosebud" really was, and one of the major
>> reasons that Hearst was so honked off at the movie:
>>
>> Vg jnf Urnefg'f crg anzr sbe Znevba Qnivrf' pyvgbevf.
>>
>> And now you know... the REST of the story.
>
>It's interesting that pyvgbevf needed to be ROT-13 but penis doesn't. --Eva
>Whitley (and the finest movie of all time is CASABLANCA, btw)
>
I didn't ROT13 the magic word because it was crucial to the secret,
and it's something definitely *not* revealed in the movie. Besides,
penises (penes?) have been in the news much more than the distaff
analog. Remember, this is a culture that consistantly misuses vagina
for vulva, so go figure...
Steven Rowe
<pl...@dakotacom.net> writes:
>Of course, we all know what "Rosebud" really was, and one of the major
>reasons that Hearst was so honked off at the movie:
We do?
This was a story started by Jospeh M. and frankly is not too likely.
Nice story, and one that I am sure he enjoyed telling..
but no confirmation from another source.
steven rowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Don't forget to Delete "Unspam" if you wish to e- mail me.
join the FelixTheCat list at www.egroups.com
.
ronniecat
news:cclarke-B63F22...@netnews.attbi.com...
> ET dies.
They kill Kenny.
ronnie
--
"Love to eat them mousies, Mousies what I love to eat. Bite they
little heads off, Nibble on they tiny feet."- B. Kliban
*Return address munged to foil spambots. Remove my collar to reply.*
Yngvar Følling
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, dan.k...@worldnet.att.net says...
> Raymond claims to have been in the room, but we do not see him there.
I know we don't, but does that mean that nobody could have been, as tyg
seemed to say? I thought I remembered that it cut straight from an
outside view of the Kane mansion to Kane in his bed. Was it really
impossible for anyone else to be in the room, but outside the frame?
The whole "Rosebud" plot depends on the fact that someone *did* hear
it, though we don't learn who until later, so I don't see a trick.
Yngvar
Kevin J. Maroney
<ronn...@mycollar.hotmail.com> wrote:
>They kill Kenny.
You bastard.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
William H. Hathaway
The cameraman?