Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?

[S.B.G]

Based on the recommendations of Shrink and Scepticalscribe's reviews of Citizen Kane (1941) in one of these other movie threads of ours, I decided to rent it from iTunes yesterday.

I had never seen it, nor really knew what it was about. I do like those older black & white films where one has to actually pay attention to the story line in order to follow and understand the film. Though there is a place for the no-brain needed, all action flicks too - but I don't watch too many of those anymore. I enjoy a little mind stimulation with thought and concentration a bit more as I begin to age.

Citizen Kane was an excellent film and I thoroughly enjoyed it's cinematography and choice of settings and use of darkness contrasted to lit rooms and stages. One thing that I certainly took notice of was the lack of technology as we know it today. What came to mind was the times when a storm would come though and knock the electricity out. At home or work when that happens, things get very, very quiet (save for the storm of course), there are no TV's, no computers, no radios and no refrigerators running which makes things a little eery sometimes. But that's mostly how it appeared to be back in the early 20th century before electricity was widely distributed.

With minimal distractions, folks were able to really communicate with each other in settings that promoted concentration. There was a scene or two where they were in an office and I noticed his desk was big and only had a lamp on it with some papers - no computer monitor, no iPhone or anything. I wish my desk was like that and I just ordered an ATI graphics card for my office computer so I can go from 2 monitors to 3 or 4 now.

I really enjoyed the overall simplicity of life of that time compared to the way it is today. It's sort of a minimalism that I crave for.

The plot line of trying to get to know and understand who Charles Kane was and how they laid the storyline out for the film was great. I liked how the reporter went to the different people in his life and heard the story as from their point of view and yet no one, not even the reporter could piece together who or what Rosebud was. My theory would be that Rosebud was just something that Kane never could possess despite all his money and power. That being the ability to love and keep a good woman with him. He was able to entice them enough to marry him, but it didn't appear he had the substance to keep them and physical belongings certainly aren't enough to keep or gain true love.

 

[Shrink]

Based on the recommendations of Shrink and Scepticalscribe's reviews of Citizen Kane (1941) in one of these other movie threads of ours, I decided to rent it from iTunes yesterday.

Image

I had never seen it, nor really knew what it was about. I do like those older black & white films where one has to actually pay attention to the story line in order to follow and understand the film. Though there is a place for the no-brain needed, all action flicks too - but I don't watch too many of those anymore. I enjoy a little mind stimulation with thought and concentration a bit more as I begin to age.

Citizen Kane was an excellent film and I thoroughly enjoyed it's cinematography and choice of settings and use of darkness contrasted to lit rooms and stages. One thing that I certainly took notice of was the lack of technology as we know it today. What came to mind was the times when a storm would come though and knock the electricity out. At home or work when that happens, things get very, very quiet (save for the storm of course), there are no TV's, no computers, no radios and no refrigerators running which makes things a little eery sometimes. But that's mostly how it appeared to be back in the early 20th century before electricity was widely distributed.

With minimal distractions, folks were able to really communicate with each other in settings that promoted concentration. There was a scene or two where they were in an office and I noticed his desk was big and only had a lamp on it with some papers - no computer monitor, no iPhone or anything. I wish my desk was like that and I just ordered an ATI graphics card for my office computer so I can go from 2 monitors to 3 or 4 now.

I really enjoyed the overall simplicity of life of that time compared to the way it is today. It's sort of a minimalism that I crave for.

The plot line of trying to get to know and understand who Charles Kane was and how they laid the storyline out for the film was great. I liked how the reporter went to the different people in his life and heard the story as from their point of view and yet no one, even the reporter could piece together who or what Rosebud was. My theory would be that Rosebud was just something that Kane never could possess despite all his money and power. That being the ability to love and keep a good woman with him. He was able to entice them enough to marry him, but it didn't appear he had the substance to keep them and physical belongings certainly aren't enough to keep or gain true love.

A very nteresting theory on "Rosebud". As it was the name on his childhood sled, the symbolism is often explained as the sled representing his lost childhood, his lost innocence, and ultimately, his lost idealism and ultimate corruption by power.

There is a wonderful story about Rosebud, and why William Randolph Hearst (upon whom Kane was based) was so enraged at the making of the film, aside from the fact that it didn't portray him in a particularly nice light. The writers had found out that "rosebud" was Hearst's pet name for Marion Davies' (his lover) clitoris. You can imagine he was not thrilled about that.

Hearst controlled hundreds of papers and radio stations, and he forbad them from accepting advertising for the ANY RKO movies, and that his very influential columnist, Luella Parson, from ever mentioning RKO films, and especially Kane. He went so far as to go to the RKO brass and attempt to buy all the negatives and prints of the film so he could destroy them. Much to everyone's surprise, they turned down his massive monetary bribe.

I'm really glad you enjoyed the film. I don't know if it is your habit, but the film gets better with multiple viewing.

 

[S.B.G]

A very nteresting theory on "Rosebud". As it was the name on his childhood sled, the symbolism is often explained as the sled representing his lost childhood, his lost innocence, and ultimately, his lost idealism and ultimate corruption by power.

Interesting. Was the part about his childhood sled in the movie? If it was, I totally missed that part of it.

I may have ended up with a different theory of Rosebud than I did had I picked up on that.

I'm really glad you enjoyed the film. I don't know if it is your habit, but the film gets better with multiple viewing.

Yes, if a film ranks high enough on my likability meter, I will and do watch them over again. Some flicks, once or even less than once is more than enough.

 

[Shrink]

Interesting. Was the part about his childhood sled in the movie? If it was, I totally missed that part of it.

I may have ended up with a different theory of Rosebud than I did had I picked up on that.



Yes, if a film ranks high enough on my likability meter, I will and do watch them over again. Some flicks, once or even less than once is more than enough.

In the very first scenes of the film, when he is a child, he is playing with the sled. He even hits George Coulouris' character with it. At the very end of the film, when his stuff is being burned, you see the sled burning, and as it is being charred, you see the name "Rosebud" on the sled. So Rosebud was his childhood sled, thus the interpretation of his lost childhood. It is at the VERY end that you find out what Rosebud actually is. Very easy to miss...I only saw it the first time I saw the film because I was cued to it's existence.

 

[S.B.G]

In the very first scenes of the film, when he is a child, he is playing with the sled. He even hits George Coulouris' character with it. At the very end of the film, when his stuff is being burned, you see the sled burning, and as it is being charred, you see the name "Rosebud" on the sled. So Rosebud was his childhood sled, thus the interpretation of his lost childhood. It is at the VERY end that you find out what Rosebud actually is. Very easy to miss...I only saw it the first time I saw the film because I was cued to it's existence.

Okay. I did see the sled in the fire and the word Rosebud being burned, but I didn't realize it was a sled in the fire. I did not put that together with the opening scenes of the film.

This is one that I would watch over again and perhaps I will again another day. I can see how the other theory of his lost childhood is symbolized in the sled. But did he shout Rosebud as his second wife was walking out and after he tore apart the room?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Okay. I did see the sled in the fire and the word Rosebud being burned, but I didn't realize it was a sled in the fire. I did not put that together with the opening scenes of the film.

This is one that I would watch over again and perhaps I will again another day. I can see how the other theory of his lost childhood is symbolized in the sled. But did he shout Rosebud as his second wife was walking out and after he tore apart the room?

Re 'Rosebud', yes, the sled features at the beginning, when Charles Kane is a child, and Everett Sloane appears with news which will change his life, and later, is seen to be on the fire at the very end. Like Shrink, I was cued to it, and so was aware of it. In fact, I recall that I was completely alert the whole time I watched the film (this is a movie where you cannot switch off - every scene matters, and it is a magisterial example of how to tell a thought-provoking and complex story through the medium of film). I loved the way the passing of time was seamlessly portrayed - remember, this movie was made barely a decade after sound movies had become the norm.

Actually, 'Rosebud' is usually taken as an example of witless media pursuit of the trivial, (there was no actual person called 'Rosebud' in the life of Kane as depicted in the movie), and as an example of how they completely - and effortlessly - missed the point when researching his life story. Of course, it is also, as Shrink says, usually seen as a reference to Kane's lost childhood, lost innocence, lost love, too, (as he was attached to his childhood toy, and is seen to have had a fairly loveless life) and lost idealism as well as a symbol of how he had become consumed by corruption and power.

Earlier, elsewhere, I think (or maybe earlier on this thread) Shrink had posted about the true meaning of 'Rosebud' - a delicious insider joke (which ultimately cost Welles dear but the very fact that he insisted on including it in the movie said a lot about his character); until then, I hadn't known the story behind it, either, but it is another fascinating snippet to add to the lore surrounding the movie.

In any case, I'm really glad you liked the film, too, as it has long been a favourite of mine and remains a crowning achievement of cinematography.

 

[Huntn]

I really enjoyed Book of Eli and never saw the twist coming.

How could you? It was ridiculous!

I did not see that twist coming either. But, now that I've watched the movie several times, there are subtle hints, that would be ignored, because he functioned as he had sight, excellent sight for the entire movie.

On AMC for the last couple of nights, they have been running The Mummy and The Mummy Returns, the 1999/2001 Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz vehicles. I really enjoy these although I find I can't take Brendan Fraser all that seriously as a tough macho guy. I heard the 3rd movie was a rip off.

 

[S.B.G]

In any case, I'm really glad you liked the film, too, as it has long been a favourite of mine and remains a crowning achievement of cinematography.

I did enjoy it and after yours and Shrink's comments after my initial review, this will be a film that I must watch again whereby I can pay closer attention to the details surrounding Rosebud and the sled.

 

[S.B.G]

I finished watching Day of the Falcon with Antonio Banderas on Netflix. It was a decent flick, I found it under the genre of Foreign Films and didn't realize Antonio Banderas was in it until I looked it up in the IMDb after thinking that it was him in it.

It was a film about two kings who fought a bloody war over neutral land when an American came in and found oil in the "Yellow Belt." One kind wished to keep things simple and traditional while the other was more progressive and used the money from the oil to improve the lives of his people. The children of the the two kings married and put the prince in a tough situation, being torn between his father and his father-in-law.

I enjoyed the setting with it's beautiful cinematography and crisp and purposeful dialog. It wasn't anything like the traditional Hollywood films and had a different touch on it which was nice.

 

[Rorque]

Been in a western mood these past two weeks ... watched three old favourites that I hadn't watched for longer than I care to recall:

Bend of the River - Masterpiece.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - Masterpiece.

3:10 to Yuma - Masterpiece!

.
Genuinely, all three are masterpieces of cinema, not simply three of the best westerns ever made.
And yes, the original Yuma. The remake shall never pass before these eyes!

 

[mscriv]

Watched Blade Runner for the first time last night. I know some consider this movie to be a classic in the sci fi genre, but I must say that I wasn't all that impressed. Maybe my expectations were too high.

 

[Shrink]

Watched Blade Runner for the first time last night. I know some consider this movie to be a classic in the sci fi genre, but I must say that I wasn't all that impressed. Maybe my expectations were too high.

Interesting to read your impressions.

As a huge fan of film noir, I felt that "Bladerunner" is the only true post 50's neo-noir, and the only color film that I consider a noir film. (I just read that sentence over...so snotty!) For me, it was an homage to the film noir genre.

I thought the use of the 40's noir structure and the cinematography was excellent.

I'm curious as to what you found disappointing about the film. Or if not disappointing, what was it that you found less than impressive?

 

[S.B.G]

Watched Blade Runner for the first time last night. I know some consider this movie to be a classic in the sci fi genre, but I must say that I wasn't all that impressed. Maybe my expectations were too high.

Interesting to read your impressions.

As a huge fan of film noir, I felt that "Bladerunner" is the only true post 50's neo-noir, and the only color film that I consider a noir film. (I just read that sentence over...so snotty!) For me, it was an homage to the film noir genre.

I thought the use of the 40's noir structure and the cinematography was excellent.

I'm curious as to what you found disappointing about the film. Or if not disappointing, what was it that you found less than impressive?

I watched Bladerunner for the first time about one or two years ago and I recall not being overly impressed with it and actually fell asleep during it.

I may have to give it another view and see if my opinion changes.

 

[Shrink]

I watched Bladerunner for the first time about one or two years ago and I recall not being overly impressed with it and actually fell asleep during it.

I may have to give it another view and see if my opinion changes.

Give it a shot, but please know that I am not selling it.

I liked it very much, but it is possible that is because it is an homage to film noir, and for those who may not be as enamored of film noir than I won't find it as impressive as did I.

The dark, wet streets, the use of chiaroscuro, the voice over narration, the tough guy detective...all are reminiscent of such films as "Murder, My Sweet"...an early tough detective noir film.

So it's possible that my very positive reaction had to do with it's structure and cinematography...although I honestly thought is was very well done standing on it's own merits.

 

[S.B.G]

Give it a shot, but please know that I am not selling it.

I liked it very much, but it is possible that is because it is an homage to film noir, and for those who may not be as enamored of film noir than I won't find it as impressive as did I.

The dark, wet streets, the use of chiaroscuro, the voice over narration, the tough guy detective...all are reminiscent of such films as "Murder, My Sweet"...an early tough detective noir film.

So it's possible that my very positive reaction had to do with it's structure and cinematography...although I honestly thought is was very well done standing on it's own merits.

Trying to recall my mindset at the time, I believe that my expectations were different for the film that it actually was. I was expecting some kind of futuristic action film and not a slower investigative, thought provoking one.

 

[twietee]

Which version of Blade Runner did you see?

I only know the Final Cut, but in my understanding the differences are quite important (maybe that is if you consider it important that Han shot first! ).

Personally, it is among my Top 5 movies ever. I want to get the ultimate edition which features bonus material, edited in a way to re-tell the whole story via completely different perspectives (Deleted and Alternate Scenes - Including introduction by Ridley Scott). Unfortunately I missed to pre-order at 29 Pounds, now it's about 75GBP...

 

[S.B.G]

Which version of Blade Runner did you see?

If you're asking me; I don't know. It was whatever version was on Netflix.

 

[Shrink]

Which version of Blade Runner did you see?

I only know the Final Cut, but in my understanding the differences are quite important (maybe that is if you consider it important that Han shot first! ).

Personally, it is among my Top 5 movies ever.

I, too, don't recall seeing Final Cut or not. My sense is that I saw the "regular" version, but I'm not sure.

As I posted on another thread, it's on my Top Movie list, too.

Originally Posted by Shrink
Citizen Kane
The Third Man
The Maltese Falcon
The Big Sleep
Key Largo
Little Caesar
The Asphalt Jungle
Sweet Smell Of Success
White Heat
The Stranger
Bladerunner
Ride The High Country
The Wild Bunch
Sunset Boulevard
The Treasure Of The Sierra Madre
High Sierra
The Bad And The Beautiful
The Petrified Forrest

for openers...

BTW: Sorry, I didn't get the "Star Wars" reference.

 

[twietee]

Although I'm also big, big fan of Noir movies myself too- and this one defines TechNoir among The Terminator imho (and I know that Shrink, well, strongly disagrees here ) - I just found it perfect in every possible aspect. Story, design (highly innovative and influential especially in terms of architecture and fashion design too) and actors. I mean Sean Young and Rutger Hauer?!! Also the (young) Harrison Ford is highly appreciated, although I read somewhere that he hated the production.

I, too, don't recall seeing Final Cut or not. My sense is that I saw the "regular" version, but I'm not sure.

BTW: Sorry, I didn't get the "Star Wars" reference.

Since I haven't seen - consciously at least - other versions, I can't tell the differences. But I always read a good deal about it being kind of crippled because of the 'deep' story, also the hero being somewhat complex. I think there are about four versions of this film. One American Cut, one for the rest of us, one director's cut and the final one (which I like storywise, but would have preferred it without some of the added CGI effects - very minor effects though).

re Star Wars reference: just wanted to point out that those changes may appear as a very minor impact for some, while others may see it as a vast change of meaning and manipulates strongly the overall reception (for me, it makes a difference for example wheter Han Solo shot first or not during his introduction > tells a lot about character).


re: Sandbox General, since I've followed your Sled discussion earlier, if you ever watch Blade Runner again and manage to stay awake, pay attention to the unicorns. If you didn't notice them already, of course.

 

[Shrink]

Although I'm also big, big fan of Noir movies myself too- and this one defines TechNoir among The Terminator imho (and I know that Shrink, well, strongly disagrees here ) - I just found it perfect in every possible aspect. Story, design (highly innovative and influential especially in terms of architecture and fashion design too) and actors. I mean Sean Young and Rutger Hauer?!! Also the (young) Harrison Ford is highly appreciated, although it I read somewhere that he hated the production.

I don't really know much about the genre of TechnoNoir, so any comment would be ill informed (not that I usually let that bother me!). I don't see "Terminator" as fitting the film noir genre as I see it...but then, what the hell do I know.

"Bladerunner" was the only film in which I enjoyed Sean Young. IMO, not much of an actress, but this is one of those "right part, right actor" things.

 

[S.B.G]

I may just rent the Director's Cut of Bladerunner from iTunes tonight - if I remember to.

 

[twietee]

I don't really know much about the genre of TechnoNoir, so any comment would be ill informed (not that I usually let that bother me!). I don't see "Terminator" as fitting the film noir genre as I see it...but then, what the hell do I know.

"Bladerunner" was the only film in which I enjoyed Sean Young. IMO, not much of an actress, but this is one of those "right part, right actor" things.

I agree in so far as those two movies are quite different in some central aspects, so I can understand your point. But for me they also represent somewhat the dystopian and fatalistic 80s in general, while operating at the opposing ends, they are still based upon the same sentiment imho. If that makes sense for you. The Terminator doesn't really fit within a cononical view of Film Noir, I agree, but that doesn't necessarily exclude it from TechNoir (imho, of course). I may add that I only talk about the first installment. The second comes nowhere near. Edit: I might also add that I'd chose Blade Runner over The Terminator any day.

They too have in common, that Sean Young and Schwarzenegger may have found the perfect role to play for them. Brilliant!

 

[twietee]

I actually fell asleep yesterday while watching a '39 british spy thriller The Spy in Black with Conrad Veidt. Was quite interesting at the beginning and then...I couldn't tell...tbc

 

[S.B.G]

Okay, I need your help. Which version of Bladerunner should I watch (rent)? iTunes has two of them; the director's cut from 1982 and the 30th anniversary edition from 2007.

 

[Shrink]

Okay, I need your help. Which version of Bladerunner should I watch (rent)? iTunes has two of them; the director's cut from 1982 and the 30th anniversary edition from 2007.

The version I saw was the 1982 version. I don't know what there is in the Director's cut that is missing from the theatrical version. Just for the sake of staying with the "original"...maybe the 1982 is a good idea.