The awful truth...

[alexpgp]

When pressed, I can carry on a fairly adequate conversation about Citizen Kane. I can explain to you how the story represents a roman à clef, in which the title character is a fairly transparent stand-in for the rich and powerful William Randolph Hearst. I can also tell you how, upon the film's release, Hearst prohibited the film from being mentioned in any of the newspapers he controlled. If pressed further, I can make a pretty good argument to the effect that the real subject of the roman à clef is not Hearst, but Welles himself.

Then there is that big, huge MacGuffin: "Rosebud..." Unlike Chekhov's gun, which must be fired in the second act after having been introduced in the first, Hitchcock's macguffin (I prefer to drop the capitals) is a device intended to drive the story, and in Citizen Kane, the utterance of "Rosebud" does just that. It is, after all, one thing to be a reporter researching a famous man's life, quite another to be chasing down an enigmatic utterance at the same time.

When, at the end of the movie, we in the audience glimpse the name on the sled just a few moments before it is consigned to the fire, we feel that we've been let in on a big secret that is now forever lost to the world, except that - despite that internal "Aha!" - it's well-nigh impossible to put a finger how this revelation is significant. In a way, it's almost like watching a stage illusion.

How does one approach viewing a film that has been called "the greatest film of all time"? Does one wear something formal, or is it okay to show up in one's underwear? Should one watch the film on a holiday weekend, and if so, what holiday? Should the film be viewed alone, or with company? And what of refreshment? Is it apropos to munch a bowl of popcorn while watching?

The fact is, knowing that the film was at the top of the American Film Institute's list of "Top 100" films - twice in ten years - has been enough to keep me from popping in the DVD I bought some years ago and planting my bulk long enough to view this acknowledged masterpiece.

That's right. In addition to all of the things I can tell you about this film, the stone cold truth is, the film - its reputation, really - has intimidated me for years.

So, as it turns out... I've never actually seen it.

* * *Written for, but not actually posted as my "free topic" offering for this past week's LJ Idol.

Comments

[agirlnamedluna.livejournal.com]

Hahahaha I studied Citizen Kane in school, can tell you quite a bit about it, but never completely saw it. And I don't really plan on doing so either, unless it would come up somewhere.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Interesting observation.

So what, in your studied opinion, is the Best Movie Ever?

Cheers...

[agirlnamedluna.livejournal.com]

To be entirely honest, I don't know. I can tell you this or that film is excellent for this or that characteristic, but I haven't come across anything I'd consider the best film of all times.

[egofood.livejournal.com]

I've watched it on TCM a few times. It's a good movie, but greatest ever? I'll take Casablanca instead or even The Third Man or Othello or Touch of Evil if you want to stick to just films Welles had any involvement with. Its reported greatness probably has to do with zeitgeist and moviemaking innovation which has faded in impact over the years much as the shock value of Psycho has. So yes, pop the corn and enjoy it as a movie and be done with it.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Well, Casablanca came in at #2 in both AFI lists (and I happen to consider it the greatest film ever, but that's me). And I came to love The Third Man, mostly because my stepfather enjoyed watching it (and also because of Harry Lime's curious remark upon quitting the Ferris wheel in the Prater).

On the other hand, I had a great deal of trouble watching Welles' version of Kafka's The Trial, and never finished it.

One of these days, though...

[furzicle.livejournal.com]

Interesting.

I have watched perhaps about one movie per year throughout my life. That's probably an underestimation, but it is accurate, at least in spirit.

But I find myself contemplating watching the greatest movie ever and feel I have to fall back on the greatest movie of my life as opposed to someone else's life. None of them would fall onto any critic's most important list, but they were momentous to me.

When you're not a regular movie goer, any movie attains specialness simply because it is really, REALLY larger than life. And so I remember seeing something when I was a kid, which may or may not have been called Topkapi. It was a spy/thief movie about stealing art or jewels or something from a palace in Turkey. It was fun and exciting.

I recall seeing the first Star Wars, which, as you know, is now known as the fourth Star Wars. It was very memorable. I remember coming home and looking up and seeing jet liners cruising 30,000 feet overhead and feeling like they were giant battlestar space vehicles.

I just saw Avatar and had the same feeling of having just seen something historic. I just plain liked it better than Jurassic Park or all the other Star Wars movies that came after the "first." Whatever "holes" were in the plot were perfectly fine with me. It gives you something to talk about and I don't mind putting my critical mind on hold to enjoy a movie that has fanciful images and plot.

But perhaps I should go see something that is critically acclaimed by the experts. I'm usually one of the minority who actually "gets" the symbolism, etc, in any given movie. Then I have to explain it all to the husband.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

I haven't attended too many first-run movies over the past few years, but I have avidly watched televised films (say, on TCM) and prefer them, generally, to anything else on the tube.

The problem, of course, is that there are so many of them, and in this regard, I don't mind taking a cue from self-styled "experts" as to what films may be worth watching; in the end, I'll decide if they're right.

I remember the New York ad campaign for Topkapi, which consisted of the word on the same billboard as a cityscape (presumably, of Istanbul). I don't recall ever seeing the film.

Star Wars was the first film that I paid to go see more than once in its first run, but in my defense, I did so in company with various friends. I never could understand what would drive anyone to go see the film a dozen times, as was commonly the case (or claimed as the case) among the folks with whom I worked.

I am trying to work up the energy to go see the new Sherlock Holmes movie, but just can't seem to generate the requisite critical mass. Galina's not interested, which doesn't help.

I've always been poor with symbolism. I've always thought Shakespeare was driven to write Hamlet because he had to pay rent on the Globe Theater, and therefore came up with a story about kings, queens, and princes (but not British) involved in a sex scandal (but not of the naked-people-in-bed variety) intermingled with and resulting in treachery, murder, insanity, the appearance of ghosts, murder, treachery, suicide, murder, deceit, treachery, and - have I mentioned this already? - murder, murder, and murder.

Cheers...

[furzicle.livejournal.com]

O and I have traditionally been huge Sherlock Holmes fans, thanks to the PBS series. I only fear that the movie may not live up to our expectations.Might have to give it a try anyway.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Are you referring to the Granada Television productions with the late Jeremy Brett? Those were excellent, and hewed closely to the Canon to boot.

What sort of spooks me about the current movie is how the trailers convey so much of the look and feel of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which is not something that I want to sully my Holmes memories.

I'm sure I'll see it eventually, however. Certainly after it comes out on DVD.

Cheers...

[furzicle.livejournal.com]

Jeremy Brett: yes, those are the ones I am referring to. Yes, excellent!

League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: not familiar with. With your "recommendation" I begin to wonder if I should?

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

What to say about LoEG? I'm not sorry I saw it, but it had an extraordinarily "heavy" look and feel to it, IMAO.

Cheers...

[alycewilson.livejournal.com]

What list puts it at the top? I can see putting it in the Top 100, but the top? Nah.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about the purported "real" meaning of the word "Rosebud."

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

The American Film Institute put together a "top 100" list back in 1998 (if memory serves) and revisited the list 10 years later.

The "real" meaning of "Rosebud..."? I don't think I could answer that one even if I had watched the film! (And such an assessment wouldn't consider the extensive analysis and documentation of the film and the relationship between the co-writers, Welles and Mankiewicz.)

Cheers...

[alycewilson.livejournal.com]

According to many sources -- quoting here from this page (http://www.filmsite.org/citi.html) -- "Gore Vidal - a close friend of Hearst, wildly claimed in 1989 in a short memoir in the New York Review of Books that 'Rosebud' was a euphemism for the most intimate part of his long-time mistress Marion Davies' female anatomy."

Which, if it were true, could explain part of the reason Hearst was so angry about the movie! The page I referenced also includes a chart that shows comparisons between Hearst and Kane.

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

Well, seeing "Gore Vidal... wildly claimed" in a sentence is not all that surprising to me, especially considering how outlandish this particular claim sounds to my ears.

Cheers...