|
Post by aaroneous on Mar 29, 2007 11:44:37 GMT -5
Like JRC, I recently had my first viewing of a classic.
I netflixed Citizen Kane. Talk about an extremely well-executed movie. I was really impressed. No wonder this movie is AFI's top movie of all millenia and space and time.
In particular, I was struck by how non-1941 it was, i.e. how modern the editing and shot composition seemed. He was meticulous about every detail of every shot. And some of the imagery is SO startling and stark.
In particular I liked the shot where Kane and his buddy are talking in the office post-party. The camera is on the floor, so down left frame you get his leg, which seems to dwarf the other actor in the background on the right... then they switch places as the scene continues.
And also the zoom in and zoom out through-the-skylight shots, very well done... especially since there's not CGI to fake out the windows, etc.
The acting I thought was excellent as well... especially Bernstein. I liked watching them all as they aged, yet maintained very consistent characters.
Anyway, I too am a dope. Go Citizen Kane.
Aaroneous gives it three 1941-era mars rovers.
|
|
|
Post by pmottaz on Mar 30, 2007 0:15:33 GMT -5
If you have the time to listen to it, the commentary by Roger Ebert on the "Kane" disc is wonderful. It's what all great commentaries should be, and it helps elevate the film even more.
|
|
|
Post by Jason R. Chin on Mar 30, 2007 0:43:17 GMT -5
Not only is the film still relevant and "modern" but it pioneered all the techniques we're beating to death. Most of it in-camera stuff, but the stuff I liked the most was the combination of stagecraft and camera trick. Like the storefront that physically split in two and the camera tracks into the scene inside. So great. Gosh, I love that movie.
Ironically enough, the first time I watched it was on DVD and I watched it once, loved it and then watched again that very moment with the Ebert commentary.
Even as I write this I hear Will Ferrel's imitation of James Lipton: It is a DEElight.
|
|
|
Post by Hendo the Showman on Mar 30, 2007 13:14:56 GMT -5
If you're a fan of Citizen Kane, you should check out "RKO 281", which tells the story of the battle to get that movie released. www.imdb.com/title/tt0120801/Apparently, much of the story is pulled directly from William Randolph Hearst's life. But the most damaging bit is that "Rosebud"? It's not his sled. It's his pet name for his mistresses' vagina. Other than those fun tidbits, it also documents how many of those wonderful shots were captured. Such as digging a hole in the soundstage floor to get the camera angle right.
|
|
|
Post by edison on Apr 2, 2007 13:25:53 GMT -5
Hearst was also furious about the making of Citizen Kane, actually trying to squash the film's release/distribution.
For camera-work and film technique years ahead of it's time, check out Dr Jekyll & Mr Hyde (1932) starring Fredric March and Miriam Hopkins. Director Rouben Mamoulian starts the film from Jekyll's perspective, effectively using a traveling camera, even a shot using a framed pane of glass as a mirror (so we see March looking at himself in the mirror). There are long shots without edits, extreme angles and close-ups, transformations using special lighting, ..it's easily the best film version of the novel (despite it's age), and it garnered March a "Best Actor" Oscar for his performance. He's truly frightening.
Why this unique movie is never mentioned along with the classic Universal gothic horror films is beyond me. Maybe because it was produced at Warners, ..but it's arguably far better than Universal's Dracula, Frankenstein, or The Wolfman.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Apr 5, 2007 15:45:47 GMT -5
Yeah, Hearst is one of history's biggest douches.
Yay for this movie.
I would love to remake it, almost shot for shot, but somehow make Rosebud the vagina.
|
|
|
Post by aaroneous on Apr 8, 2007 22:58:46 GMT -5
hmm... remake with vagina instead of sled... would the young Kane clutch a vagina tightly to his chest? would they throw the vagina into the fire at the end?
don't get me wrong, i'm all for more vaginas. just curious about the technical aspects of such a remake.
oh, sorry, also: spoilers above.
vagina vagina vagina.
|
|
|
Post by wowpower on Sept 15, 2008 7:18:42 GMT -5
|
|