|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: What About The Story?
|
|
|
|
|
Julie Lucero
Film Handler
Posts: 37
From: Valencia, California, USA
Registered: Sep 2008
|
posted 10-07-2008 04:45 PM
quote:
“Citizen Kane” voted the best picture ever made by the AFI was shot in black & white, a 133:1 ratio and mono sound.
In my opinion, that's a weak argument considering at the time of the production of CITIZEN KANE, the three technological features you cited were the standard techniques of the day. Had other technological options been introduced sooner (widescreen, stereo, 3-D, anything digital, etc.) who's to say the filmmakers involved with CITIZEN KANE and other classics wouldn't have used them?
I agree, though, that Hollywood these days has "lost the plot" when it comes to good storytelling...at least on a mass scale.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galen Murphy-Fahlgren
Master Film Handler
Posts: 405
From: Canton, MI, USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 10-07-2008 05:42 PM
Julie, that isn't the point he's making. What he means is that even without modern features like surround sound, anamorphic widescreen, color, etc., it still kicks the crap out of most movies because it has a better story than ANYTHING coming out these days. I think a lot of the best movies are so great not in spite of comparatively limited technology but because of it. Movies like Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil, Psycho, and possibly my personal favorite classic Nosferatu (I could go on and on), were made by people who did not have a crutch to lean on. These guys were hardcore about storytelling with whatever tools they had available, and they were awesome. Directors like Michael Bay, on the other hand, have every possible gizmo and almost infinite money and they produce crap consistently.
Basically, good directors can tell their story well with extremely limited tool sets, and bad directors work in Hollywood these days.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-07-2008 07:46 PM
If I had $100m, I wouldn't "invest" it in movies (which are almost invariably really terrible investments).
If I had to, however, I'd fund a bunch of low-budget ($500k-$5m) films, rather than one explosion-fest. If one were to invest in, say, 50 $2m films, it would only take a couple of hits to recoup the money, and the risk would be far less than blowing $100m on one feature.
Two more points:
- there have always been terrible films; I'm willing to bet that the proportion hasn't changed much over time and that there were more terrible films made in 1941 than in 2007 (of course, there were more total releases in 1941); of course, the good ones are what people remember
- terrible films get made because people buy tickets to see them; over the weekend, people spent nearly $30m to see "Beverly Hills Chihuahua" and under $70k to see "Man on Wire"; guess which type of film is more likely to be made in the future?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
David Stambaugh
Film God
Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002
|
posted 10-07-2008 09:35 PM
Lifted from Wikipedia's writeup on "Citizen Kane":
quote:
Despite its status, Citizen Kane is not entirely without its critics. Boston University film scholar Ray Carney, although noting its technical achievements, criticized what he saw as the film's lack of emotional depth, shallow characterization and empty metaphors. Listing it among the most overrated works within the film community, he accused the film of being "an all-American triumph of style over substance... indistinguishable from the opera production within it: attempting to conceal the banality of its performances by wrapping them in a thousand layers of acoustic and visual processing". Of its director, he went on to state, "Welles is Kane — in a sense he couldn't have intended — substituting razzle-dazzle for truth and hoping no one notices the sleight of hand". He also criticized critics and scholars of allowing themselves to be pandered to, stating "critics obviously enjoy being told what to think or they'd never sit still for the hammy acting, cartoon characterizations, tendentious photography, editorializing blockings, and absurdly grandiose (and annoyingly insistent) metaphors....When will film studies grow up? Even Jedediah Leland, the opera reviewer in the film, knew better than to be taken in by Salammbo's empty reverberations." The Swedish director Ingmar Bergman once stated his dislike for the movie, calling it "a total bore" and claiming that the "performances are worthless". He went on to call Orson Welles an "infinitely overrated filmmaker".
Similarly, James Agate wrote, "I thought the photography quite good, but nothing to write to Moscow about, the acting middling, and the whole thing a little dull...Mr. Welles's high-brow direction is of that super-clever order which prevents you from seeing what that which is being directed is all about."
Good movies still get made. Once in a while we get a great movie. And anyway wouldn't it be boring if every movie tried to be "Citizen Kane"?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-07-2008 10:09 PM
Nobody and nothing is without some positives and some negatives.
As to the filmmaking of Citizen Kane...there can be no denying...look at all films prior and most films after...it changed the style of film making forever...Wells' depth of field and how the shots were composed, how lighting was used. Technically, it is masterpiece of a pioneering level...regardless of one's impression of the story. You'll find a great many more people that like the story than those that don't like it.
My favorite film, "2001", is certainly scorned by many as boring...but again...technically it is certainly a masterpiece on many levels...I happen to like the story too.
I think some people scorn somethings just to be different. Nobody likes to be told what they should like.
Then again...look at the Star Wars series....The original film was technically the weakest in the effects department...but remains the most popular (my favorite was "Empire"). Every time I've run the Star Wars films...Star Wars (Episode IV: A New Hope)...ALWAYS outdraws the others. Why...it has to be the story. Not that it was necessarily new or phenominal...but it is hard to deny...that film is sure a lot of fun! You have heros, villians, action, love, music, effects...its got it all, with a feel-good ending that does not result in complete victory. And to think, it got made $9.8mil...even low cost in its day.
American Grafitti....made for about 3/4 of a million...captured a moment...or should I say a feeling that really resonated with its audience. Where were you in '62? I'll bet the bulk of its original audience remembered. That film certainly captured the feel of that era in many ways...again a very enjoyable film.
I remember seeing/hearing a David Lean speech shortly before his passing...he had words to the effect of "we must try to stop going to the same well for ideas." Which I think Hollywood is VERY bad at, nowadays. Sure, remakes can be found throughout movie's history...though normally, technology tended to be the excuse for the remake (silent versus sound or even perhaps B/W vs color). However, with rare exception, is the remake ever regarded as being as good or better than the original.
In my personal opinion...the story has to be the main thing...the music and effects (visual and audible) can then augment that to make something that was already great, even greater.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Potts
Expert Film Handler
Posts: 159
From: Anderson, SC, USA
Registered: Sep 2008
|
posted 10-07-2008 10:56 PM
Referring to the original post... end of the day, it is about the story.
Soon, you'll have reviewers walk the streets of any film festival and instead seeing booths of film cans you'll see the starving artists with hard drives.
Prices will change, digital will be the new medium, shit movies will still be made, and you'll still have to search for the good stuff.
Many actors have left the right coast "Hollywood" for more substance films.
If you're looking for when $200 million films are not action, popcorn scares, replacing well known with better actors, and gross exponentially more than their cost... don't hold your breath.
What other blockbuster '41 films can you rattle off? Honestly, talent will out. Despite the media it's produced on, the good will be remembered in 80 years and taught in sophomoric film classes and the mediocre and lesser will be forgotten.
It might be the "blow-'em-up and bloody ‘em up special effects" movies now that make Entertainment Weekly this week. But quality cinema will still be remembered by our grandchildren. Sorry, Adam Sandler.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic