4 ms·

There is no “inevitable fall” of Citizen Kane, neither in the article itself nor in film theory circles. The closest the article gets is this, which is not exac

There is no “inevitable fall” of Citizen Kane, neither in the article itself nor in film theory circles. The closest the article gets is this, which is not exactly convincing: But one thing seems sure. The idea of a consensus pick, and for that matter the need for any kind of consensus, is a thing of the past. Citizen Kane, the ultimate canon title, has itself become proof that canons are there to be exploded. The recently released Mank is the reason for a renewed interest in Kane, and in an ironic twist of fate, it’s a disaster of a film, probably Fincher’s worst, and it makes Welles’ cutting hand and firm direction seem like the actual genius behind the picture. In any case, if you ever have a few free hours, I recommend listening to some interviews with Welles. He had to be one of the most entertaining and erudite conversationalists we’ve ever had. With all the names and situations referenced in his (probably embellished) stories, it’s like listening to a recording from a lost world. https://youtu.be/oQYazeJA-Oo https://youtu.be/oQYazeJA-Oo https://youtu.be/1LnuQZ6VD_Y https://youtu.be/1LnuQZ6VD_Y

parenthesis 6y ago
> The recently released Mank is … a disaster of a film, probably Fincher’s worst Could you elaborate on this? The general critical reception of Mank seems positive.
- creyes 6y ago
  Yea idk what he’s talking about. I thought Mank was incredible. The costume and set designs were great. Gary Oldman, like usual, gave an Oscar worthy performance. Amanda Seyfrieds portrayal of Marion Davies will probably get overlooked but I think it was one of her best performances. Great film, especially if you’ve seen Kane recently. Definitely recommended
  - mnl 6y ago
    Me neither. Coming up with a film like Mank in 2020 is nothing short of miraculous. (Yes, it's a film, it's not a documentary, it can tweak facts if it needs to). While I was watching it in awe, gleeful at the I don't have the time nor I will spoonfeed here, if viewers don't know the references nor what we're talking about, that's their problem attitude, I couldn't help wondering what fraction of potential audiences today could possibly get it. Just the sequence where Oldman and Seyfried as confidants, roam utterly extravagant San Simeon/Xanadu's gardens in an ethereal evening after this politics/business/class faux pas of the Brooklyn mistress... That's the old magic of the moving pictures, people. This one tells you why Citizen Kane happened (that's spelled out in that sequence BTW). It doesn't have to be accurate, only tell you the story, and this it does beautifully.
- keiferski 6y ago
  I thought the cinematography and set design was fantastic. The rest of the film is disorganized, lacks a coherent angle/point of view, and just kind of meanders along. Some of the acting was also off (Oldman playing a New Yorker but seems to have a slight British accent, etc.) Overall, it felt like a worse version of Hail Caesar, without the Coen Brothers’ mastery of ‘pointlessness.’

parenthesis 6y ago

> The recently released Mank is … a disaster of a film, probably Fincher’s worst Could you elaborate on this? The general critical reception of Mank seems positive.

creyes 6y ago
Yea idk what he’s talking about. I thought Mank was incredible. The costume and set designs were great. Gary Oldman, like usual, gave an Oscar worthy performance. Amanda Seyfrieds portrayal of Marion Davies will probably get overlooked but I think it was one of her best performances. Great film, especially if you’ve seen Kane recently. Definitely recommended
- mnl 6y ago
  Me neither. Coming up with a film like Mank in 2020 is nothing short of miraculous. (Yes, it's a film, it's not a documentary, it can tweak facts if it needs to). While I was watching it in awe, gleeful at the I don't have the time nor I will spoonfeed here, if viewers don't know the references nor what we're talking about, that's their problem attitude, I couldn't help wondering what fraction of potential audiences today could possibly get it. Just the sequence where Oldman and Seyfried as confidants, roam utterly extravagant San Simeon/Xanadu's gardens in an ethereal evening after this politics/business/class faux pas of the Brooklyn mistress... That's the old magic of the moving pictures, people. This one tells you why Citizen Kane happened (that's spelled out in that sequence BTW). It doesn't have to be accurate, only tell you the story, and this it does beautifully.
keiferski 6y ago
I thought the cinematography and set design was fantastic. The rest of the film is disorganized, lacks a coherent angle/point of view, and just kind of meanders along. Some of the acting was also off (Oldman playing a New Yorker but seems to have a slight British accent, etc.) Overall, it felt like a worse version of Hail Caesar, without the Coen Brothers’ mastery of ‘pointlessness.’