Rating: 20/20
Plot: A rich guy dies, and newspapermen investigate why he would have said "Rosebud" as he passed away and broke his snow globe.
It's hard to believe that this could be anybody's directorial debut. It's also hard to believe that anybody can roll into the movie game and be this pretentious, and if one isn't in the right mood, this would seem bloated and empty. The visuals and fragmented story-telling technique are way ahead of his time, predicting so many other pretentious masterpieces that would follow this. The death montage at the beginning of all this (or the end depending on how you look at it) sets up all of this so nicely, and if that was the only thing that survived from Orson Welles' career as a director, it'd be enough to make cinemaphiliac snobs jizz into their popcorn buckets. Actually, forget I typed that because a movie snob isn't going to lower himself to holding greasy popcorn buckets in their laps. This movie actually does feel a lot like a warm--but not excruciating--metallic popcorn bucket pressed right up against the junk. And there are some people who like that kind of thing a lot, probably too much, while others would rather do something else with both their time and junk. There's no way I was mature enough to grasp this the first time I watched it at my dad's house when I was six, but even then, the look of this thing floored me. You get jaw-dropping visual flair around each black and white corner, and while it often feels like a pointless exercise, the camera tricks and angles are always more interesting than the film's plot, often overshadowing it. I love the way the camera captures these characters; they're filmed in a way that adds as much to the characterization as the dialogue does. I don't think that's a problem at all. The acting's phenomenal, Welles especially. I especially love the scene where he destroys a room like a rock star in a hotel and an extended shot of his face while he watches his wife butcher music on the stage. The physical changes the character goes through are also impressive. This might be a movie that I admire way more than I feel, but that's not stopping me from giving it a 20/20.
Jen fell asleep during this. She claims she saw it in high school, but she also claims that she read Moby Dick.
6 comments:
Its a 20, and I like it more than Vertigo. (Which has my favorite actor and probable favorite director going for it)
Its just a stunning film, that is fresh and modern no matter when you see it. Since its a period piece its never going to be dated, and also since its so well lit and filmed its always going to look clean and crisp. One thing that is completely underrated is the make up used on Welles to age him in this movie. The guy was TWENTY THREE years old, and he is entirely convincing as 33, 43, 53 63 or 73. There is no moment in this film where you think you are watching Orson Welles play dress up. He IS Charles Foster Kane, and its a shame that old Orson liked food and his ego too much to not act a lot more in his career.
There is nothing I can say that hasnt been said a hundred times about this movie. Its the classic that other classics are judged against for a reason. Its just that good.
Oh and I looked it up...Welles was 25-26 when he made Kane. So I guess we should all be slightly less impressed now.
Good point about the lighting. It's not something I usually think about, I guess. I don't know how much restoration work has been done or whatever (also not something I really think about) but this just looked so good on my television screen.
Well, I like 'Vertigo' better, but I don't know if I'd argue that it's a better movie.
I have a lot in common with Welles. I like food and my ego too much. I just can't act. Or do anything else very well.
I like Vertigo a lot......its just I think this is a better movie. That is not a slap in the face to Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Stewart, since this is an all time great film. I never have it on my top ten list, mainly because its on everyones top ten list, so I discount it. Pretty stupid actually, since it really is flawless. Ah well...that Kane ego.
Besides being groundbreaking and original on almost every level, the thing I like best about "Kane" is that it is both giant in scope, but also very intimate. The ease in which it tells the story of an entire life is genius. If I were nitpicking, I would say the acting gets a little hammy and broad a few times between Cotton and Welles, but other than that, it is a perfect movie. It's extra fun knowing the Hearst connection. A personal grade of 18 or 19, but objectively this is a 20 and one of the 10 greatest of all-time (which puts it a little ahead of "Vertigo").
That's a good point about how it's simultaneously grand and intimate.
Post a Comment