BTW: It was Sidney Greenstreet's first film role!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
BTW: It was Sidney Greenstreet's first film role!
Regarding Citizen Kane, it's got great elements, set high standards, is intriguing, great cinematography, but I ultimately, I found the story unsatisfying.
First, I would never question your personal evaluation of the movie.
I'm sure you're aware that the film was firmly based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, so there was a bit of a limitation on Welles who wanted it to be close enough to Hearst's life so no one would miss the connection.
Just a little bit of fun about "Rosebud". Mankiewicz had learned that "Rosebud" was Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies clitoris...and used it in the movie for other purposes. As you can imagine, Hearst wasn't thrilled about that, or any part of the movie, and famously tried to buy all the copies of the film from RKO to burn them. Surprisingly, RKO stood up to him, so Hearst ordered that none of his newspapers (and he controlled a massive empire) would not accept advertising of RKO films, and Luella Parson's (who along with Hedda Hopper and Walter Winchell were extremely powerful at the time) would not review RKO films.
If you've read this far, Huntn, could you talk a bit more about what you found lacking, or unsatisfying about the film. I'm really interested since it is a brave position to take in the face of almost universal praise of the film.
First, I would never question your personal evaluation of the movie.
I'm sure you're aware that the film was firmly based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, so there was a bit of a limitation on Welles who wanted it to be close enough to Hearst's life so no one would miss the connection.
Just a little bit of fun about "Rosebud". Mankiewicz had learned that "Rosebud" was Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies clitoris...and used it in the movie for other purposes. As you can imagine, Hearst wasn't thrilled about that, or any part of the movie, and famously tried to buy all the copies of the film from RKO to burn them. Surprisingly, RKO stood up to him, so Hearst ordered that none of his newspapers (and he controlled a massive empire) would not accept advertising of RKO films, and Luella Parson's (who along with Hedda Hopper and Walter Winchell were extremely powerful at the time) would not review RKO films.
If you've read this far, Huntn, could you talk a bit more about what you found lacking, or unsatisfying about the film. I'm really interested since it is a brave position to take in the face of almost universal praise of the film.
Fascinating trivia. I did know about WRH and I remember when this movie was called the greatest movie ever made. Maybe it still is. The story descended into a dark place, a place where I would not want to watch it multiple times like I do with my favorite movies. In a way similar to Schindler's List. I can call it outstanding and profound, but I only want to watch it once. So I acknowledge these are great movies, but in CK's example, I don't like where the story took me. Not saying that I can only enjoy movies with happy endings.
I feel a bit like Huntn. Since I'm much younger and don't know much about Hearst or what kind of life he led, but it's not a character I am so overtly interested in, and in the end it's a bit like a fairy tale with a moral at the end of the story, which, for me, is always a bit tedious. We see the rise and fall of a great person, American dream comes true, ultimately the Emperor with no clothes.
Brilliant movie, but nothing that touches me emotionally. Doesn't have to, though, to be a good movie of course.
Brilliant movie, but nothing that touches me emotionally. Doesn't have to, though, to be a good movie of course.
First, I would never question your personal evaluation of the movie.
I'm sure you're aware that the film was firmly based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, so there was a bit of a limitation on Welles who wanted it to be close enough to Hearst's life so no one would miss the connection.
Just a little bit of fun about "Rosebud". Mankiewicz had learned that "Rosebud" was Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies clitoris...and used it in the movie for other purposes. As you can imagine, Hearst wasn't thrilled about that, or any part of the movie, and famously tried to buy all the copies of the film from RKO to burn them. Surprisingly, RKO stood up to him, so Hearst ordered that none of his newspapers (and he controlled a massive empire) would not accept advertising of RKO films, and Luella Parson's (who along with Hedda Hopper and Walter Winchell were extremely powerful at the time) would not review RKO films.
If you've read this far, Huntn, could you talk a bit more about what you found lacking, or unsatisfying about the film. I'm really interested since it is a brave position to take in the face of almost universal praise of the film.
Wow, thank you for that fascinating piece of information. While I knew about the fact that the movie was based on the life of W. R. Hearst - and that his publishing empire 'blacked' the movie, and also refused to carry RKO advertising, I had assumed 'Rosebud' was a clever allegory on the idiocy of the media in chasing what they hope might be revealing details which are irrelevant, (often at the expense of a bigger story under their noses) and was also a sad reflection on the ultimate emotional bleakness of Kane's own life at the end, but I hadn't known that delicious detail.
Hm. It shall intensify my enjoyment of 'Citizen Kane' when I next see it. Re what moves people, and emotionally satisfying and unsatisfying movies, one of the things that does interest me is the effect of power on people, and here, Citizen Kane offers a magnificent and psychologically satisfying - if dark and disturbing - case study.
Oh, Sunset Boulevard is just brilliant. Everything works, plot, character, (use of old movie clips), drama, cinematography, epic scope of the tale, great magisterial acting. That is another movie I regard as nothing short of cinematic perfection. Sheer class.
Granted, Citizen Kane is more 'political' and deals more with issues such as power, but then, the study of politics and power are some of the things that I find hugely interesting.
I agree that "Sunset Boulevard" was an emotionally complex and extremely well done movie. Gloria Swanson's completely over the top performance was perfect...another example of the right actor in the right role. In other films, her silent era style was not appropriate in the post talkie, lower key acting style that had developed. But in this movie...just right.
Here's a little kicker...the actor originally signed to play the young man was Montgomery Clift. An interesting actor, to be sure, but much too soft and "suffering" actor to play the Holden part. I cannot imagine Clift in the role, as I cannot really imagine anyone other than Holden in the role.
As far as comparisons with "Citizen Kane"...we'll have to agree to disagree. While "Sunset Boulevard" is an excellent film, it does not have the power of Kane on so many levels. Also, Kane's direction and cinematography were historic, original, and ground breaking. Greg Toland's use of extreme depth of field photography was a first. Scene's in the gigantic room at Xanadu were breathtaking in their power and originality. The extreme camera angles were also a first. So much of the film's techniques broke cinematic ground, and became part of the visual lexicon used to this day.
Evil Dead 2. What a blast!
Re-watching a lot of favorites these days. I have 2001: Space Odyssey on tap next (followed by more Kubrick).
Re-watching a lot of favorites these days. I have 2001: Space Odyssey on tap next (followed by more Kubrick).
Not picking on anyone in particular, but including a "like" or "dislike" comment about what you saw gives us something to talk about. No offense intended.
Not picking on anyone in particular, but including a "like" or "dislike" comment about what you saw gives us something to talk about. No offense intended.
OK...I can take a hint!
I know my posts are so short, and I'm so shy about stating my opinions...I'll try to come out of my shell.
OK...I can take a hint!
I know my posts are so short, and I'm so shy about stating my opinions...I'll try to come out of my shell.
I was not thinking of you.
Even though the thread only asks "What Movie You Watching?" I think when someone says "saw Avengers" it would be more interesting and helpful to those who have not see it, if they also include a feeling about it. But it's not required or anything.
I was not thinking of you.
Just joking, of course. If my posts were any more opinionated, pedantic, boring , or longer...I'd get Edited for exceeding character limits!
I do agree with your suggestion...some expression of evaluation of what one is watching would make for more lively discussion.
Saw Star Trek Into Darkness yesterday. Compared to the first one, I was disappointed for this primary reason, the movie was too frantic, frantic action and frantic camera work.
One of the high points, surprised Kirk was not all over that.:
.
Not a deal breaker, but I did not buy Kirk going into the core to kick some equipment. I really liked Khan, but wondered why he did not have long hair.
Happy to see Robo Cop and not that sad to see Admiral Pike go as I still had not forgiven him for double crossing Ashely Judd. (actors from and other movie refs)
One of the high points, surprised Kirk was not all over that.
:
Star Trek Into Darkness Spoilers Follow
Not a deal breaker, but I did not buy Kirk going into the core to kick some equipment.
I really liked Khan, but wondered why he did not have long hair. Happy to see Robo Cop and not that sad to see Admiral Pike go as I still had not forgiven him for double crossing Ashely Judd. (actors from and other movie refs)
Last edited:
A very stupid but funny movie
Looks like it. Well, stupid at least.
Myself, an excellent old French movie called Le Corbeau / The Raven from '43. Have yet to figure out who sent all those mysterious letters...
edit: hmmm, excellent film indeed. And fascinating genesis, too.
"Le corbeau (The Raven or The Crow) is probably the most controversial film in French history. It was made in 1943, under the German occupation-and for the German-owned production company, Continental Films-by Henri-Georges Clouzot (...) Both the Left (Resistance) and the Right (Vichy) agreed in finding Le corbeau demoralizing and "anti-French": unfounded rumors were spread that the film was shown throughout Germany as a demonstration of the decadence of French society. On the contrary, the Germans understandably disliked the film for its theme of anonymous letters; ironically, it was only because it was produced by a German company that it ever got past the censors. As a result, despite its immediate box-office success, Le corbeau was pulled from the movie theaters only three weeks after its release; it has led a checkered career ever since. (...)
for a good read: http://s3.amazonaws.com/criterion-production/release_images/782/227_box_348x490.jpg?1328128328
Last edited:
Fast & Furious 6- This is eye-rolling, shut-off-your-brain entertaining. Full of corny lines and terrible acting, but amazing action sequences. Things happen that make no logical sense (how long is that freaking runway, geez), but hey, there are fast cars and hot girls. I'm not a big fan of the series, but I preferred Fast 5 over this one.
Saw Star Trek Into Darkness yesterday. Compared to the first one, I was disappointed for this primary reason, the movie was too frantic, frantic action and frantic camera work.
One of the high points, surprised Kirk was not all over that.
Image.
Star Trek Into Darkness Spoilers Follow
Not a deal breaker, but I did not buy Kirk going into the core to kick some equipment.
Happy to see Robo Cop and not that sad to see Admiral Pike go as I still had not forgiven him for double crossing Ashely Judd. (actors from and other movie refs)
Hmmm.
Actually, that image annoyed me when I saw it posed, and I had expected better from the Star Trek franchise. To me, it reeked of the usual gratuitous sexist stuff in the cinematic portrayal of women (as in women should look good, but do little; decorative but contribute little to the overall plot). Interestingly, the Guardian reported dissatisfaction with that particular scene, and also reported that writer Damon Lindelof apologised and promised to be more 'mindful' in future.
One of his followers, Kirsten McHugh, put it well when she wrote:"I kinda liked that Dr Marcus told Kirk (and the audience) to put their eyes back in their heads. But, overall: Less male gaze, more speaking and non-object roles for women please."
My apologies, but in all of the related images I found, that one held my interest for some reason. Yes, your commits have merit and I do remember my wife being irritated by that scene, however, we watched Thor the other night and she did not seem to mind Thor with his shirt off scene.
Well, yes, thank you for trying to balance the scales of this argument by posting a picture of a well muscled Mr Thor.
However, where the portrayal of women is concerned, I am really fed up of this endless cliché.
Actually, my annoyance was such that your post almost made me decide not to go to see Star Trek Into Darkness; I really dislike that sort of imagery, - it sets my teeth on edge - and seeing it on a Star Trek movie which was made this year - and not the sixties when one might overlook the unreconstructed attitudes which prevailed in society and cinema and TV at the time as typical of the era - but was made this year, really annoyed me. It is as though the makers have learned nothing, absorbed nothing of the huge changes that have taken place in society since then.
Worse, Star Trek is supposed to be about an enlightened future, rather then reflecting fatuous and deeply rooted assumptions and attitudes to women which I sincerely hoped had died out long ago.
However, where the portrayal of women is concerned, I am really fed up of this endless cliché.
Actually, my annoyance was such that your post almost made me decide not to go to see Star Trek Into Darkness; I really dislike that sort of imagery, - it sets my teeth on edge - and seeing it on a Star Trek movie which was made this year - and not the sixties when one might overlook the unreconstructed attitudes which prevailed in society and cinema and TV at the time as typical of the era - but was made this year, really annoyed me. It is as though the makers have learned nothing, absorbed nothing of the huge changes that have taken place in society since then.
Worse, Star Trek is supposed to be about an enlightened future, rather then reflecting fatuous and deeply rooted assumptions and attitudes to women which I sincerely hoped had died out long ago.
Just saw the Great Gatsby last night. Personally I liked it. It's a thrill for the eyes. But it might not be for everyone.