Post a response to this discussion thread
Um, did it occur to you that Welles (unwittingly) set the standard by which every other film in history would be judged? Citizen Kane has also inspired and baffled more movie-makers (including a few directors I'm sure you've heard of) than any other picture. It is THE precedent for modern cinema and if you look hard enough at any picture released since 1941 (although, I doubt you'd be so inclined) you will find remnants of Welles everywhere. The non-linear narrative was his invention (which means pop-hero Tarantino owes him big-time). Every movie that starts at the end and loops back to the beginning (even recent crap like "Swordfish") is indebted to "Kane." The mockery of "The March of Time" had never been done (and done so accurately -- that's the WAY those reels actually looked and the technique was so perfect, it fooled audiences in Italy who thought they were watching the real thing). And the idea that a man's life story is never as simple as its additive parts (including Rosebud -- or did it escape you that the sled means nothing?) was revolutionary. As for mocking Hearst ... DUH! Everybody knew it, and knows it. Have you seen another rendering of a prominant public figure that was as searing in its attack? Hell, even Oliver Stone can't hold a candle to the kind of tragedy being constructed around Hearst (which, in a way, kinda complements Hearst if you think about it). And for God's sake, you philistine fuck, the media hardly glorifies this movie -- as you say in your subject line. The movie ATTACKS the media and ackowledges the fallability of journalism (recall, Thompson doesn't find the answer and the news reel hardly tells us anything important). Welles was blacklisted because of this movie and it's taken the public sixty years to give it ANY credit (which, so far, basically includes mention on a couple top-ten lists. Yipee.) So don't go championing yourself as the vigilant guard who righteously says the truth in a world of morons -- because you clearly are that moron: "media glorifying"? Wake the fuck up and dare to explore something beyond the latest Spielberg release down the block. Was it the black and white that turned off your hip modern sensibilities? or do you just get some giddy thrill being "the lone protester" to an unabashed masterpiece? hey, if you just watched Citizen Kane so you could delight in trying to debunk it, then I'm sorry. I think your problem with it is that it's old. And i say old to mean "made before 1990" -- does that bracket fit with what you consider worthwhile? or am I getting too far out of your savvy scope? Cause if your gripe is that it moves to slow, seems to stagey, or is just plain over-rated, then guess what -- most of your favorite flicks from TODAY will turn to dust much sooner, and you'll have to defend them to glib dipshits like yourself.
Good luck.
P.S. Do I give you too much credit in assuming you have movies you like? Your unctious little posting makes me think you're high on bile. I'll give that privilege to Mr. Cranky any day (he's much more interesting) but I'm really curious about what you consider good -- because Welles probably inspired it.
Post a response to this discussion thread