Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

I thought it was a tad harsh, too. Let's hope poor Kunsisarah isn't completely put off or bewildered by the sarcastic responses.

Still, you'd think anyone who cares enough about *Citizen Kane* to want to discuss it would know it was spelt *Citizen Kane* , with a "K".


Sorry, Kusisarah, I suspect this internet forum is a little more judgmental about spelling mistakes than most.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The hype with Kane was it's similarities to the life of William Randolph Hearst. Was Wells "after" Hearst? The negative reviews in all Hearst's papers may have backfired on him by driving viewers to the movie. I think over the years I've come to appreciate The Third Man better. Toutch of Evil is just strange as hell to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Misspelling. Even the best do it now and then, like writing Wells instead of Welles, or lamb instead of lam when on one.


Anyway, The Third Man is not a Welles-directed or written movie, he only acted in it, but yes it's a good one.


Is Kane the best of all time? I don't know, but if it isn't what would be?


One misunderstanding about it involves the character of Susan Alexander, Kane's mistress and second wife. She was not based on Marion Davies, as many assumed over the years, but probably on a woman named Ganna Walska, the wife of business tycoon Harold Fowler McCormick, who arranged voice lessons for her at great expense and arranged for her to appear as the lead in a 1920 production staged at the Chicago Opera.


Welles was said I think by Peter Bogdanovich to have regretted the misunderstanding involving Marion Davies, whom he believed was quite talented.


Touch of Evil is strange but loads of fun - and Janet in that sweater is worth the price and the time alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}

> Wow, you folks really gave the newbie a caning, just for a misspelling. But, okay, it's a film 101 question. Anyone who knows Welles' films knows that *Touch of Evil* is his best film.


I prefer The Magnificent Ambersons and Chimes at Midnight. : )


It doesn't matter if Citizen Kane is the best movie of all time or not. Most of us wouldn't consider it so anymore (most of us consider it futile or wrong to even name one film as the best ever.) This is the story of Citizen Kane's rise: In the post-war period, it became a beacon for Andre Bazin and other French critics as a pinnacle of modernism in film. It was viewed as a turning point by them, a model of the direction they believed film needed to move in. Thus its elevation. Ever since, more general film critics (and that's the majority of them - let's call them the "Crowther-ites") took up the hype when the film became a success on TV in the 50s. Ever since it has been placed in the same league as Gone With the Wind, Casablanca, and The Wizard of Oz, sold in the same manner, when it doesn't really fit in with them.


ABC just ran a godawful Best in Film program last night, voted on by 500,000 Americans, that didn't feature Citizen Kane or any of Kane's contemporaries/descendants in film modernism for that matter. As bad as I thought the selections were, I applaud the fact that voters didn't give Kane lip service (the other usual suspects were present.) Citizen Kane is great, greater than the films featured on this show, but its legacy is misunderstood.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...