A Friend wrote:
>Ian J. Ball <IJB...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>On 2019-07-20 03:44:58 +0000, The Horny Goat said:
>>>On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 09:29:55 -0700, Ian J. Ball <IJB...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>'Citizen Kane' (1941). 'Stanley Kauffmann called it ''the best serious
>>>>>>picture ever made in this country".'.
>>>>>>New York TImes - Oct 11, 1985
>>>>>>--
http://movies2.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0506.html
>>>>>I'm unclear why you're posting a 40 year old review today.
>>>>>As for best ever my vote would be for Doctor Strangelove.
>>>>That's not a "serious" picture.
>>>I understood 'serious' to mean "as opposed to an art school project'
>>>such as my daughter's IMDB credit.
>>>I gather you mean "non-comedy" to which I'd offer The Wizard of Oz,
>>>Casablanca, Hard Times, Ben Hur, The Godfather I, Gone With the Wind,
>>>One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Psycho just for starters as a 'top
>>>non-comedic' list. Just for starters.
>>>Admittedly many love Citizen Kane for the reveal of Kane's last words
>>>at the end.
>>That's what I thought... until I saw it. The film is so much more than
>>that. For one thing, it's beautifully shot.
>>Yes, I agree that "Casablanca" is #1. But "Kane" or GWTW are pretty
>>much equal contenders for #2.
>I agree that Casablanca is #1.
That's interesting. The film gets the emotion and sentiment absolutely
right in a film that should have been an absolute disaster, given that
dozens of writers worked on that script. It's got the greatest group of
character actors ever assembled, and came out with absolute perfect
timing as the American public's attitude toward WWII was changing from
isolationist to support for America's involvement in the war.
Ingrid Bergman turning Humphrey Bogart into a Hollywood romantic lead
was pure movie magic. Hell, if she looked at me on film as she did at
him, I'd be a leading man too.
But I don't think of that movie as having great art direction as some of
the other movies mentioned had.
>GWTW isn't a great film at all, it's just big. Selznick's daughter once
>called it "not a great film, but a great show," and I think she's right.
Oh yes it is. I mentioned a few years or so ago that I rewatched it after
many years and it held my interest throughout. The comedy really worked.
>I think Citizen Kane is a fine film, but I don't worship at its altar.
>It doesn't make my personal Top Ten list. (I'm sure that would have
>broken Orson's heart.)
Did the New York Times overpraise it as it was about a rival newspaper
publisher?