| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 07/03/2008 : 12:37:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
I have always found Sight & Sound's list, updated every ten years since 1952, of interest.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/
I prefer the Director's list (from 2002) to the Critics list. 
But I still fail to see what's so great about Citizen Kane. Is it that it's generally agreed Kane is the 'greatest' movie ever, or could it be that critics/directors don't have the balls to drop it down the list a few places? 
Personally, I would vote it #1. I have two balls. |
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 12:46:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
I have always found Sight & Sound's list, updated every ten years since 1952, of interest.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/
I prefer the Director's list (from 2002) to the Critics list.
But I still fail to see what's so great about Citizen Kane. Is it that it's generally agreed Kane is the 'greatest' movie ever, or could it be that critics/directors don't have the balls to drop it down the list a few places?
Personally, I would vote it #1. I have two balls.
 Well I'll just have to concede that I missed what it was about it that makes it No. 1. I've only seen it once (I'm not intending to see it again), and was underwhelmed. It is a very good film. I'd put it about in the middle of the 250 very good to excellent films in the IMDb Top 250 (I've seen them all). |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 12:56:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
...what basis would you choose for trying to objectively find the best film, if you think any attempt can be made at all?
There are numerous ways. The best method I've seen involves large participation surveys where people give qualitative scores. IMDb is the best one I know of, thousands of people (participation is open) give qualitative rankings and they're averaged. The large level of participation prevents elitism, and there's no increased weighting for widely known movies.
That poll that's the subject of this thread was a popularity test, not a quality test. It may have been perfectly valid (I don't know, as they failed to mention method or say anything about it at all), but if they'd called it "Most popular British movie of all time" then I wouldn't have argued with it. |
Edited by - Sean on 07/03/2008 12:57:39 |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 13:09:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
So a cohort can be taken to be approximately representative of a larger group?
No, not that either.  The correlation I suggested is not from a sample to the whole population. (Practically, it would necessarily involve that, but I haven't mentioned that at any point and it is not in theory essential.) The correlation is from favourite film status to enjoyment in general. I don't know why I am even restating this as I put it quite unambiguously in the first place.
I don't quite understand how "favourite film status" or "enjoyment in general" can exist outside of groups of people. Don't you need a cohort to obtain "favourite film status" and don't you need a society to experience "enjoyment in general"?
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 13:32:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
I have always found Sight & Sound's list, updated every ten years since 1952, of interest.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/
I prefer the Director's list (from 2002) to the Critics list.
But I still fail to see what's so great about Citizen Kane. Is it that it's generally agreed Kane is the 'greatest' movie ever, or could it be that critics/directors don't have the balls to drop it down the list a few places?
Personally, I would vote it #1. I have two balls.
Well I'll just have to concede that I missed what it was about it that makes it No. 1. I've only seen it once (I'm not intending to see it again), and was underwhelmed. It is a very good film. I'd put it about in the middle of the 250 very good to excellent films in the IMDb Top 250 (I've seen them all).
I think part of its glory is the substantial number of innovations it achieved: ceilings on sets, story told sideways, perfect focus in foreground and background, and many, many more. You have to go back to other contemporary movies to see the awe-inspiring difference. It still gives me a giddy feeling: nobody told this neophyte that such things were impossible, so he and his crew just bloody did them. Not to mention the groundbreaking naturalistic performances by a cast of absolute unknowns coming from stage and radio, and then by Welles himself.
I saw it at an impressionable age, in graduate school in film studies [I also was agog at INTOLERANCE in the same class], so part of my appreciation has to be technical, and admittedly less evident to anyone who doesn't care about those things, just pass the popcorn, which is most of us, after all. I've probably seen it 15 times; I find it rich enough to discover something new in every single screening.
But that's just my opinion. Yours is every bit as valid. I only wanted to speak up for the flick and point out that it does have its thinking, informed devotees -- we're not all crowd-following sheep. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 13:44:54
|
I'm with Randall here. What always got me about Citizen Kane were the unusual camera angles he used, and how he didn't always put the actors in the middle of each and every frame, but placed them in such a way as to give significance to some of the things (objects, scenery, etc.) in the scenes as well. And as Randall says, these things were unheard of back then, and some of what he did hasn't been successfully copied to this day. That's why I bought it on DVD - so I could be constantly amazed whenever I get pissed off at some of the crap they pass off as movies these days.
(Mind you, I can't stop giggling at some of the makeup, but that's the only problem I have with that film, so I forgive it for that.) |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 13:54:07
|
Ah, fair enough. I think my main reason for being underwhelmed by Citizen Kane was my relatively low level of interest in the actual story being told. I've never found characters like Kane interesting at the best of times (in real life or in fiction), so found it hard to be drawn into the movie. For me to put this movie on a pedestal I'd have to have enjoyed watching it a lot more than I did. I'm aware of it's significance at the time and effect on later cinema though.
I'm similarly disinterested in anything Woody Allen has ever starred in, I'm simply not interested in the kind of character he plays (himself) and would also have no interest in such a pathetic character in real life. That doesn't mean that I can't see how some could enjoy his movies though.
To be perfectly honest, I actually 'enjoyed' Monsturd more than Citizen Kane (although I'm not going to claim it's a 'better' movie  ). There, I've said it.  |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 13:58:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
To be perfectly honest, I actually 'enjoyed' Monsturd more than Citizen Kane (although I'm not going to claim it's a 'better' movie ). There, I've said it.
 ! Now there's an opinion! |
Edited by - randall on 07/03/2008 13:59:16 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 13:59:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
...whenever I get pissed off at some of the crap they pass off as movies these days.
I'd guess half of the last 400 movies I've watched are from 1920-1960, and I'm constantly aware of how much better they are than so much of the modern crap. I'd be screwed without old movies to watch on a regular basis. But, Kane would probably not make it into the top half of my favourite 100 pre-1960 movies. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 14:08:04
|
The appreciation of CK is much enhanced by historical and technical understanding. For example, if you don't appreciate that a shot is taken from an unusually low viewpoint you won't appreciate that Welles had a hole dug in the studio to achieve it, nor that this had never been done before.
Also, although CK is high up my list of "Best Films" its not as high on my "Favourites" as, at heart, its a cold work. It's like an autopsy - I can almost smell the formaldehyde just thinking about it.
More puzzling for me is why many people just don't understand that "Vertigo" is incalculably superior to "Psycho[babble]" or "[Strictly For The] Birds".
|
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 14:10:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
Ah, fair enough. I think my main reason for being underwhelmed by Citizen Kane was my relatively low level of interest in the actual story being told. I've never found characters like Kane interesting at the best of times (in real life or in fiction), so found it hard to be drawn into the movie.
That would indeed be hard to overcome. I found Kane a fascinating, heartbreaking asshole -- heartbreaking because of the pathetic humanity shown by the famous reveal at the end. So I was drawn in by the character as well -- and as Pixar has proven time after time, it's the story that we watch movies for. |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 14:13:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
More puzzling for me is why many people just don't understand that "Vertigo" is incalculably superior to "Psycho[babble]" or "[Strictly For The] Birds".
Because it's harder to understand. By the way, I disagree. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 14:45:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
More puzzling for me is why many people just don't understand that "Vertigo" is incalculably superior to "Psycho[babble]" or "[Strictly For The] Birds".
Because it's harder to understand. By the way, I disagree.
That's OK. You have every right to be wrong if you want to.
|
|
|
|
lemmycaution
"Long mired in film"
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 15:23:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
To be perfectly honest, I actually 'enjoyed' Monsturd more than Citizen Kane (although I'm not going to claim it's a 'better' movie ). There, I've said it.
! Now there's an opinion!
Albeit a shitty one.  |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 23:14:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by lemmycaution
quote:
Originally posted by Randall
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
To be perfectly honest, I actually 'enjoyed' Monsturd more than Citizen Kane (although I'm not going to claim it's a 'better' movie ). There, I've said it.
! Now there's an opinion!
Albeit a shitty one.
I was waiting for it... 
Perhaps it was a crappy comparison... |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Best British film of all time
