For a character study, I kind of felt like they did surprisingly little study of his character?
It's not a film where you watch an idealistic, audacious young man become an embittered, lonely jerk.
It's a film with an idealistic audacious young man, and then there's a montage and at the end of the montage he's an embittered lonely jerk.
What if this movie is just the ultimate case of so bad it's good?
Hardly. So Bad, It's Good is when the movie's set design, acting, plot holes, etc, wrap around to be hilarious. Say what you will about Kane, but it has no major deficiencies with its acting and sets nor is it very funny to watch.
Tuckerscreator, Citizen Kane was hated during its time, yet years later it becomes recognized as one of the greatest movies of all time. Hell yes it could very well be the ultimate case of So Bad, It's Good.
A fun fact; Welles implored against the idea of Ted Turner colourising the movie, often believed to be the reason such a version was never released.
It was a massive critical success, Yuma. It just so happened to be an open critique of one of the most powerful men in America, in a day and age where he could just threaten to destroy any theater that showed it.
That's still not what So Bad, It's Good means. What you're describing is Vindicated by History, or "So bad... oh wait it's not, never mind it was good after all." So Bad, It's Good is for films like The Room or Battlefield Earth where they're never going to be viewed as masterpieces, just lovable trainwrecks that are fun to watch.
Tuckerscreator, what if the reason that that it's considered a masterpiece is because it's such an entertaining trainwreck that the bigwigs in charge forgot that it's a trainwreck? And wasn't The Room made to be deliberately bad? Not what I heard Spectral Time. Not what I heard. I heard from my Film Studies teacher that Citizen Kane was actually hated during it's time.
Okay, I misinterpreted what he meant by that.
Citizen Kane is the prototypical Acclaimed Flop. It recieved glowing reviews, both for its then-daring use of uniquely cinematic techniques in a serious film, and for its pioneering work in modern special effects. It was snubbed at the Oscars because the Oscars has always been a good-ol'-boys club and spectacle rather than an actual serious film award.
I am sure your film studies teacher has forgotten more about the medium than I will ever know. But the evidence is against him. I have had to do research on this matter for various purposes over the years. It did poorly because it did not show in many theaters, and also because Orson Welles's ego got the better of him and the budget ballooned out of all control, to the point that it was inevitably going to lose money in the short term.
"And wasn't The Room made to be deliberately bad?"
No. It was made by a guy with very little knowledge of how to make a movie and even less self-awareness.
Spectral, you don't know crap about my Film Studies teacher so kindly not speak as if you do, would you? After all, you're judging a person based on exceedingly little information. And if not The Room then what was that bad movie that was made deliberately bad?
Anyway, given how subjective movies can and often are, yes, it could still be a case of "the audience was right for not liking this movie" (there are movies that had limited releases that succeeded financially) or the ultimate case of so good it's bad, among other cases.
I apologize if I came across as judging him, especially when I went out of my way to try to avoid doing so. Again, I don't know him or her.
Most movies considered "So Bad, It's Good" weren't intentionally made bad on purpose. "Stylistic Suck" generally doesn't run the whole breadth of a given work.
Once again, I don't think you are stupid or a bad person. I think you are wrong. The film was a super-big-budget special-effects-heavy drama. It was not designed for a limited release. Films that have succeeded despite a limited release did so because they were budgeted with the expectation that they would make less money.
And Citizen Kane was never intended for a limited release. Indeed, the creative and business forces behind it tried to conceal its subject matter from public knowledge before delayed post-production work meant that journalists got ahold of it months before the public and Hearst found out.
Citizen Kane was a big-budget movie that released to critical acclaim and good reviews that sold well in places where people could see it... but it flopped financially because it experienced a limited theatrical release. That is all empirically true, drawing not on the film's qualities but on the historical record of the time.
You are perfectly capable of saying that you, personally, enjoy the film on those grounds, that you find its execution to be so poor that it entertains you. That is what no one can prove you wrong about, and indeed I cannot. But you cannot retroject that opinion onto the past and insist that it was the general reacton when it released in 1941. It does not square with the records we have. And you certainly can't insist that it is the only valid opinion to have about the film and anyone who likes it on its own merits rather than ironically is just fooling him- or herself.
Leave a Comment:
The Greatest? No. But it's still pretty damn Great.
I get it if you don't particularly care for Citizen Kane. It's an odd film, whether you're judging it by the standards of modern or classic movies. The cinematography, the dialogue delivery, the scope of the film have held up well, though at times it feels distinct from other films of its time. I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's a film of it's time, but simultaneously not of its time. Plus, it is an EPIC film of EPIC proportions, and the grandiosity that comes with that is not for everybody.
The cinematography and sets are gorgeous. In particular, shots of the Great Hall of Xanadu come to mind. I could not believe that it was one soundstage, it seemed so HUGE. Truly, this is a film that never would have worked had it been in color.
Despite the epic sweep of the film, it's the performances of the actors that draw you in. Unlike in a lot of biopics, or in this case, psuedo-biopic films, none of the characters are one-note. Orson Welles is fantastic as Kane, going from an idealistic, audacious young man to an embittered, lonely jerk. Dorothy Comingore is riveting as his second wife, who starts out under his thumb and gradually becomes strong enough to defy him by leaving him. Joseph Cotten is funny and smart as Leland, Kane's best friend.
The reviewer below castigates the film because Kane is unlikable. Well, that's sort of the point: he's meant to be an example of what happens when you pursue power and glory at the expense of all else, and what happens when you expect love but are unwilling to give it. Just because he's unlikable doesn't make him less compelling. Also, yes, the film tells you ahead of time what the plot is, but that's not a bad thing. In this film, it's not the destination that's important, it's how we, or in the film, Kane, get there. It's a character study: the plot's not the important part.
Admittedly, the film isn't perfect. It's a little too grand at times for a story that ultimately goes nowhere, but it is still a fascinating character study that is stylishly shot. It might not be the greatest film ever made, but it's certainly one of the greats.