Along with these changes will it include making Thing look right?

[Kelly]

Well, JMAfan,

Thingy wasn't very keen in giving examples or any decent explanation of his points. In fact, he tried to stop any discussion by repeating "Yah'r nat a true FF faan!" and so forth.

If you pay attention, you'll see that I only really discuss something when people are stubborn enough to use clichés as well-known truths, or if they complain or try to stop someone giving good reasons on some problems in a movie.

I'm always respectful, unless someone goes out of his/her way. Even so, I won't dismiss the person without some explanation, and I won't call names.

As to my knowledge, or the lack of it: others say (or have someone to say for them) they know much. I just won't let anybody pass without a decent explanation of what I'm saying. And I suppose this is a form of respect.

Fair enough Mr. S....but right or wrong....and VERY POSSIBLY wrong.....my perception of your posts, and apparently the perception of a few others is that you post as though your knowledge is greater than others therefore your opinion is greater than others....as I said I could be wrong.....but also as I said before "one's perception, is one's truth".

 

[Mr Sensitive]

I think that a part of art is...yes...visceral....of course you want the emotions to be touched upon....and yes there is a part that looks at the technical part of art...is the technique correct?.....BUT

There are those that look more upon the visceral and others that look more upon the technique....who is correct? BOTH.....which is more important than the other...depends on how you look at the art....through your emotion, analytically, etc....

Things such as the Fine Arts, I tend to look more toward the emotion....when I sing, whatever it is I'm singing....I want the people listening to be touched by what I'm singing......most of those people will not know that it is technically extremely hard to hold the straight note for 4 counts at the end of the song and stay on key......some may hear if I hit it flat alittle....some may not....some may say...."ya know I don't like it when people hold a straight note, I'd rather hear some vibrato in the voice, I find that more appealing......" "Some may say, "I love it when someone holds a straight note, I don't really like vibrato...." There is technique involved in what I do.....but I would much rather someone come to me and say.....Kel that song you sang really touched my heart, rather than you sang that song technically well.....thats just me....am I wrong...I don't think so.....I can make a song sound good, and use no technique whatsoever...LOL....many singers do that.......those that know music can probably tell you exactly what was wrong in their mind with the song......BUT the main audience may absolutely love the music....who's correct in their intrepretation?????? all, they simply look for things that they ENJOYED about the music they heard....and hopefully found something....so is their technique to be looked at in art....YES....is their the emotion to be seen and felt in art.......YES.......which is more important? Depends on the individual....

JMAfan,

birds sing without culture. We don’t.

If you can sing very well (congrats, carissima, by the way), it is because we are in a culture where we hear people singing all the time. If you didn’t learn it through study, you have a good ear and have good intuition. As you said, many good musicians did an do like that.

But the technique is there whenever you sing. If you sing well, your technique is even better.

It is just like in these boards, for example. How many of us studied rhetoric? Even so, all of us are applying in a way or other the laws of persuasive discourse.

Moreover, technique is not a bunch of abstract words. A vibratto, for instance, can be used sucessfully or not. When someone comes to say “I would find it better if your vibratto etc” he is just giving an opinion, and not explaining.

Dante Alighieri was a poet. We all know that. But he also wrote a book on poetry. Was it visceral? No way. The many subtleties of the poetic discourse can be understood, as he showed us. And he wasn’t a critic, he was a poet.

There is a great number of examples just like that.

As for the audience: I suppose that the more you are educated, the better. It's not a good thing to defend the ignorance of a whole audience, is it?

Plus: if they are educated, they can choose better, they won't take all that is handed them. That's one of the definitions of freedom. You have the right to choose, and actually knows how to.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I think that a part of art is...yes...visceral....of course you want the emotions to be touched upon....and yes there is a part that looks at the technical part of art...is the technique correct?.....BUT

There are those that look more upon the visceral and others that look more upon the technique....who is correct? BOTH.....which is more important than the other...depends on how you look at the art....through your emotion, analytically, etc....

Things such as the Fine Arts, I tend to look more toward the emotion....when I sing, whatever it is I'm singing....I want the people listening to be touched by what I'm singing......most of those people will not know that it is technically extremely hard to hold the straight note for 4 counts at the end of the song and stay on key......some may hear if I hit it flat alittle....some may not....some may say...."ya know I don't like it when people hold a straight note, I'd rather hear some vibrato in the voice, I find that more appealing......" "Some may say, "I love it when someone holds a straight note, I don't really like vibrato...." There is technique involved in what I do.....but I would much rather someone come to me and say.....Kel that song you sang really touched my heart, rather than you sang that song technically well.....thats just me....am I wrong...I don't think so.....I can make a song sound good, and use no technique whatsoever...LOL....many singers do that.......those that know music can probably tell you exactly what was wrong in their mind with the song......BUT the main audience may absolutely love the music....who's correct in their intrepretation?????? all, they simply look for things that they ENJOYED about the music they heard....and hopefully found something....so is their technique to be looked at in art....YES....is their the emotion to be seen and felt in art.......YES.......which is more important? Depends on the individual....

No question, there's a HUGE amount of both technique and talent required to produce art, but the technique is a means to an end. The end is a comunication of some complex, visceral concepts from the artist to the person experiencing the art.

If those concepts were simple enough that they could be described and put into words, I don't think there'd be any need for the art.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

Ok.... Mr. S.....being completely honest and candid with you as I can......

Your bloviating sometimes comes across to me in the same way that Thingy's comment to WS did the other day...."I have more knowledge in my little pinky...."

We don't know what knowledge you have in your little pinky....it may or may not be more than Willie has in his.....but the debate over good or bad cinema has been debated on all sides.....

We GOT IT...... you have superior knowledge of cinema far greater than any of ours.....WE GOT IT!

If that comes across as disrespectful to you....I humbly apologize....but my other attempts at getting my thoughts across didn't seem to hit the target well I guess.....hopefully that did, and I won't have to repeat or regurgitate anymore....

What is actually meant.....and the perception I have of the posts....may be completely different....but my perception is my truth at the moment...

Well, JMAfan,

Thingy wasn't very keen in giving examples or any decent explanation of his points. In fact, he tried to stop any discussion by repeating "Yah'r nat a true FF faan!" and so forth.

If you pay attention, you'll see that I only really discuss something when people are stubborn enough to use clichés as well-known truths, or if they complain or try to stop someone giving good reasons on some problems in a movie.

I'm always respectful, unless someone goes out of his/her way. Even so, I won't dismiss the person without some explanation, and I won't call names.

As to my knowledge, or the lack of it: others say (or have someone to say for them) they know much. I just won't let anybody pass without a decent explanation of what I'm saying. And I suppose this is a form of respect.

 

[Kelly]

. . . no . . .


Art is visceral. It acts on the emotions. Everyones emotions are different. The nature of art defies technical analysis.

I think that a part of art is...yes...visceral....of course you want the emotions to be touched upon....and yes there is a part that looks at the technical part of art...is the technique correct?.....BUT

There are those that look more upon the visceral and others that look more upon the technique....who is correct? BOTH.....which is more important than the other...depends on how you look at the art....through your emotion, analytically, etc....

Things such as the Fine Arts, I tend to look more toward the emotion....when I sing, whatever it is I'm singing....I want the people listening to be touched by what I'm singing......most of those people will not know that it is technically extremely hard to hold the straight note for 4 counts at the end of the song and stay on key......some may hear if I hit it flat alittle....some may not....some may say...."ya know I don't like it when people hold a straight note, I'd rather hear some vibrato in the voice, I find that more appealing......" "Some may say, "I love it when someone holds a straight note, I don't really like vibrato...." There is technique involved in what I do.....but I would much rather someone come to me and say.....Kel that song you sang really touched my heart, rather than you sang that song technically well.....thats just me....am I wrong...I don't think so.....I can make a song sound good, and use no technique whatsoever...LOL....many singers do that.......those that know music can probably tell you exactly what was wrong in their mind with the song......BUT the main audience may absolutely love the music....who's correct in their intrepretation?????? all, they simply look for things that they ENJOYED about the music they heard....and hopefully found something....so is their technique to be looked at in art....YES....is their the emotion to be seen and felt in art.......YES.......which is more important? Depends on the individual....

 

[Mr Sensitive]

Pssssst. Try not to let it bug you so much. When I was 12, I knew everything. I must have forgotten a lot of it along the way, because now I don't know nearly as much as I used to . . . my 13 year old son knows everything now though.

Some people know everything and others don't, but it's all good.

Willie, this is terrible!

If the amount of what you knew (and, alas! forgot) is that of a 13 year old kid, man, what a nightmare.

It's just like, say, an episode of the Twilight Zone.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

Fair enough Mr. S....but right or wrong....and VERY POSSIBLY wrong.....my perception of your posts, and apparently the perception of a few others is that you post as though your knowledge is greater than others therefore your opinion is greater than others....as I said I could be wrong.....but also as I said before "one's perception, is one's truth".

See,

I'll give you an example: I normally agree on this matter with FieryBalrog; I appreciate both Lightning's and Herr Logan's views (even when we don't agree); I like the style of Angry Sentinel, etc.

I agreed with many posts of yours on other matters. Of course, people with whom I often disagree, and specially those that got a grudge against me will think the worst possible things of what I write, if not of me.

I like being clear, and I think it's quite honest to do so. Some things I spent a good deal thinking of, and found myself many times fighting against battered common places about art, and movies in particular.

People can be very harsh around here, and they usually do so pretending to be nice. I'm very courteous with courteous people.

 

[Warhammer]

Thing looked fine to me.

 

[w@llcrawler]

You understand me quite correctly, yes. And I’ll tell you what’s missing.

Let’s get two different examples.

The first, if you go see a movie with or without some previous knowledge of the director’s work, like, watching Jan Svankmajer’s Faust, knowing or not that he studied medieval theatre and puppet manipulation at Praga. That he is interested in the surrealist modern movement, etc.

The movie expands your sensibility, if you’re looking for more than passing fun. It presents that old conflict between two human aspirations (heavenly & earthly), but gives images never seen before, with analogy in the place of common logic. Not CGI commonplace, but very industriously handcrafted.

You leave the cinema wondering about how things in life are bound together, you consider your own experience. You start seeing the world differently by adding new forms of thought through images.

That example is valid for filmmakers like David Lynch, Jean Cocteau, Ingmar Bergman, etc.

The second, a comicbook-based movie: the ability of a director to adapt the specific qualities of the comicbook is at hand.

In great comicbook adaptations, like Sin City (directed by Rodriguez & Miller), some things of the first example apply. Everybody could see that Sin City proposed a new way to tell a story through images in the cinema. Of course, it was the first movie that did justice to the visions of Frank Miller, that made a revolution in comicbook way of telling a story two decades ago.

Bryan Singer’s X-Men (1 & 2) makes an effort to bring to great audiences some very important issues that X comicbooks always dealt with.

What is prejudice? Where to draw the line between bad and good? (read the very intelligent interviews of Ian Mackellen) and, in cases like that of movie Rogue, how teens can feel like aliens when they’re growing up. It is a metaphor, but I suppose it is very effective, like most Stan Lee’s ideas usually are, and Singer developed his vision upon these qualities.

That’s what is missing if you just pay ten bucks, sit for an hour and a half, only get your fun with some jokes and one or two cliché bruhahas, and go back home to your daily life. And that’s why audiences give huge BO to unmentionable crap.

They couldn't care less.

Well, I will present you with a third example: My son and I went to a Saturday matinee of the Spongebob Squarepants movie, we got snacks and settled in for an hour and a half of movie-going fun! I didn't discover any deeper meaning of life while watching it, just had a ball with my son watching something we both enjoyed.

Likewise, other movies that didn't expand my sensibilities but that I love are the James Bond films, The Last Boy Scout (a blast of two-fisted gratuitous violence and nasty one-liners!), True Lies, even Spider-man (which IMO was done fairly close to right but didn't leave me pondering some 'deeper' issues of life as I left the theater.)

I think you're entitled to go to a movie looking for what YOU want from it and judging it on how much of that it provided you. But I DON'T think its fair for you to tell others that their experience is 'poor' because they don't go looking for the answers to their existence in the movie theater.

Usually when I go to a movie, I just want to be entertained. If I want to learn deeper meanings of life or whatever, I'll study philosophy or the Bible. I think I understand what you're saying but to me, every movie doesn't have to hold some 'higher meaning' or deal with 'important issues' to be good, even great!

The movies I mentioned above are just good "wholesome" escapist fun and paying my $10 and watching them was anything but a poor experience. It doesn't sound as if you've had the enjoyment of such a simple pleasure.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Heh, I love the hundreds of words of analysis and debate and then:

Thing looked fine to me.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

Well, I will present you with a third example: My son and I went to a Saturday matinee of the Spongebob Squarepants movie, we got snacks and settled in for an hour and a half of movie-going fun! I didn't discover any deeper meaning of life while watching it, just had a ball with my son watching something we both enjoyed.

Likewise, other movies that didn't expand my sensibilities but that I love are the James Bond films, The Last Boy Scout (a blast of two-fisted gratuitous violence and nasty one-liners!), True Lies, even Spider-man (which IMO was done fairly close to right but didn't leave me pondering some 'deeper' issues of life as I left the theater.)

I think you're entitled to go to a movie looking for what YOU want from it and judging it on how much of that it provided you. But I DON'T think its fair for you to tell others that their experience is 'poor' because they don't go looking for the answers to their existence in the movie theater.

Usually when I go to a movie, I just want to be entertained. If I want to learn deeper meanings of life or whatever, I'll study philosophy or the Bible. I think I understand what you're saying but to me, every movie doesn't have to hold some 'higher meaning' or deal with 'important issues' to be good, even great!

The movies I mentioned above are just good "wholesome" escapist fun and paying my $10 and watching them was anything but a poor experience. It doesn't sound as if you've had the enjoyment of such a simple pleasure.

Man, you went to the movies with your son!

Come on, even I can agree that kids are not fit for certain things.

And about 007: what's the problem with it? I like that very much (especially the ones with Sean Connery or Roger Moore).

But if this kind of movie is the only one you go out to watch, think twice.

And I hate this word "escapism".

No matter what one can do, one can't escape from himself, don't you think?

Maybe fool himself till it is too late, but to "escape"? Pas possible. Not even with the help from the word of god.

 

[Malus]

Really, JMAfan,

I don't know what you are talking about. Everyone is allowed to voice their opinions in almost all fashion possible here.

Willie says he prefers to leave art alone; I say I like to think about it. One says he can't understand how to enrich a given experience, another answers; you say everything is opinion, I say no, it is not; Vartha says his favourable opinion, Wilhelm states his thoughts against the movie, etc.

Isn't it free enough?

If people want to say something, so say it. But if one doesn't agree, one must say it too.

You don't understand the grumbles...jeez...(grumbles)
It's that...
Dude, you're participating in a forum for the expression of individual opinions and ideas - in an electronic format, yes, but no different really than if we were all sitting around a table talking all this "nerdshop" over a few beers (or for some folks, maybe Kool-Aid...) - and you're basically saying "Fantastic Four is a bad movie, and that's not just my opinion, that's a fact."
And while I (and several others here) may agree with your ass-essment of the movie, I don't think anyone's going to concur with your "it's a fact, not an opinion" thing...

Y'know, before you even started dropping all the director-artiste names, I was finding myself flashing back (unwillingly) to the three years that I owned and operated an independent/cult classics video store.
Most of my customers were cool...some a little weird, of course, just like in comics shops or any other entertainment niche...and most were either college graduates, or college students...Anyway, most of the time it was a stimulating and fun place to be. It was great to be able to talk about Fellini or Woody Allen with other film buffs...and yes, there was often difference of opinion, but it was (as the kids these days ) "all good."

Except for the periodic visits by Martin.
Martin always managed to clear the place out by joining the friendly conversations and debates and turning them into arguments. To him, Bergman and Fellini were artists of a gleaming magnitude that no American director could ever hope to match. This, to him, was an undeniable statement of fact.
Martin spent a good bit of money in my shop, but he probably cost me half as much in missed sales because once he started "getting into it" with one or more of the other customers, nearby browsers would just leave.

I tried to talk to Martin about it, but to no avail.
"If they just had more knowledge of what they're talking about, they'd understand," he would say. (Martin was a would-be film maker...He's been "to school" for that.)
"You can't compare Alred Hitchcock to Dario Argento!" he exclaimed once to another patron, "That's like comparing steak and cow <excrement>."

Ah, Martin... I'm reaching for the Pepcid as I travel through the memory...
I guess if there was one silver lining about going out of business, it's that I wasn't forced to finally ban him from my shop.
Which I really didn't want to do, because I actually kinda liked Martin personally. And I agreed with just about all of his opinions.
Unfortunately, for me and all my other customers, he didn't consider them opinions.

To consider one's own opinion in art or literature absolute and irrefutable is normal. I think those kind of thoughts practically every day about one thing or another.
But to declare one's own opinion absolute and irrefutable is to discount and even demean the thoughts and sensibilities of others.

So yeah, most people don't really like that very much.
Even those who may agree with your opinion.

My heart is beating. That is a fact.

I just paid the gas bill. That is a fact.

Citizen Kane is a great film. That is an opinion.

Citizen Kane is considered by many to be a great film. That is a fact.

Y'know, I'd like to think that some of this hubbub is attributable to semantics...perhaps a language barrier of some sort...
But whatever...I'm walkin' away from this horse...
They're circling a zebra over on the Superman board that thinks Quest For Peace was a good movie...

 

[Mr Sensitive]

Well, I will present you with a third example: My son and I went to a Saturday matinee of the Spongebob Squarepants movie, we got snacks and settled in for an hour and a half of movie-going fun! I didn't discover any deeper meaning of life while watching it, just had a ball with my son watching something we both enjoyed.

Oh, and, BTW, Spongebob brings that very important notion of true friendship, and how to live successfully down the fathoms of mother Ocean.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

You don't understand the grumbles...jeez...(grumbles)
It's that...
Dude, you're participating in a forum for the expression of individual opinions and ideas - in an electronic format, yes, but no different really than if we were all sitting around a table talking all this "nerdshop" over a few beers (or for some folks, maybe Kool-Aid...) - and you're basically saying "Fantastic Four is a bad movie, and that's not just my opinion, that's a fact."
And while I (and several others here) may agree with your ass-essment of the movie, I don't think anyone's going to concur with your "it's a fact, not an opinion" thing...

Y'know, before you even started dropping all the director-artiste names, I was finding myself flashing back (unwillingly) to the three years that I owned and operated an independent/cult classics video store.
Most of my customers were cool...some a little weird, of course, just like in comics shops or any other entertainment niche...and most were either college graduates, or college students...Anyway, most of the time it was a stimulating and fun place to be. It was great to be able to talk about Fellini or Woody Allen with other film buffs...and yes, there was often difference of opinion, but it was (as the kids these days ) "all good."

Except for the periodic visits by Martin.
Martin always managed to clear the place out by joining the friendly conversations and debates and turning them into arguments. To him, Bergman and Fellini were artists of a gleaming magnitude that no American director could ever hope to match. This, to him, was an undeniable statement of fact.
Martin spent a good bit of money in my shop, but he probably cost me half as much in missed sales because once he started "getting into it" with one or more of the other customers, nearby browsers would just leave.

I tried to talk to Martin about it, but to no avail.
"If they just had more knowledge of what they're talking about, they'd understand," he would say. (Martin was a would-be film maker...He's been "to school" for that.)
"You can't compare Alred Hitchcock to Dario Argento!" he exclaimed once to another patron, "That's like comparing steak and cow <excrement>."

Ah, Martin... I'm reaching for the Pepcid as I travel through the memory...
I guess if there was one silver lining about going out of business, it's that I wasn't forced to finally ban him from my shop.
Which I really didn't want to do, because I actually kinda liked Martin personally. And I agreed with just about all of his opinions.
Unfortunately, for me and all my other customers, he didn't consider them opinions.

To consider one's own opinion in art or literature absolute and irrefutable is normal. I think those kind of thoughts practically every day about one thing or another.
But to declare one's own opinion absolute and irrefutable is to discount and even demean the thoughts and sensibilities of others.

So yeah, most people don't really like that very much.
Even those who may agree with your opinion.

My heart is beating. That is a fact.

I just paid the gas bill. That is a fact.

Citizen Kane is a great film. That is an opinion.

Citizen Kane is considered by many to be a great film. That is a fact.

Y'know, I'd like to think that some of this hubbub is attributable to semantics...perhaps a language barrier of some sort...
But whatever...I'm walkin' away from this horse...
They're circling a zebra over on the Superman board that thinks Quest For Peace was a good movie...

Malus,
let me make it clear for you: no language barrier, and no semantics involved.

"Citizen Kane is a great movie". I'm sorry, it's a fact. If you are able to speak or write the word "movie", that's a great movie beyond doubts.

An opinion (and a very frequent one): "Citizen Kane is the best movie of all times". I don't think so, but it's an opinion, good as the next one.

People don't get angry because I said that was a fact. People get angry because they can't admit it's possible to make an objective judgement of any given work of art.

And: Martin was wrong, as you already know. There are in the least 2 American (from USA) filmmakers that can match the quality of Fellini and Bergman.

What a nutjob this Martin character.

 

[w@llcrawler]

Man, you went to the movies with your son!

Come on, even I can agree that kids are not fit for certain things.

And about 007: what's the problem with it? I like that very much (especially the ones with Sean Connery or Roger Moore).

But if this kind of movie is the only one you go out to watch, think twice.

And I hate this word "escapism".

No matter what one can do, one can't escape from himself, don't you think?

Maybe fool himself till it is too late, but to "escape"? Pas possible. Not even with the help from the word of god.

Well, I'm sorry you hate the word escapism. I happen to love the word and what it entails.

Why do you like James Bond movies? There is no deep meaning hidden in them and they aren't really faithful to the Ian Fleming novels (with a few exceptions) so what is in them for you? The entertainment value? Certainly not for you!Wouldn't be worth the $10!

I don't go to the movies to escape from myself. And unlike some, I don't go to the movies to find myself

I go to the movies for entertainment! And there's nothing poor about that experience no matter what you think for yourself!

And it's the word of God.

 

[Agent 194]

Okay, I appreciate the reflective and deeply introspective observations.

Back to my original point....Let's make The THING look right.

Also as an aside. . .has anyone gotten the Sky Captain DVD and seen the behind the scenes stuff? I'd like to see these guys set lose on a Marvel project. Say, . . . .the Fantastic Four maybe.

 

[Kelly]

Heh, I love the hundreds of words of analysis and debate and then:

i was laughing about the same thing.....

 

[Mr Sensitive]

And about 007: what's the problem with it? I like that very much (especially the ones with Sean Connery or Roger Moore).

But if this kind of movie is the only one you go out to watch, think twice.

wallcrawler, carissimo,

please: read before writing down your rants. Can you see it above? Hope it helps.

Who goes to the cinema to find himself? Don't they have a mirror?

Anyway, although you've gotten that all wrong, all messed up, I think it's time to get back on track.

To Agent 194's suggestion: that's a great idea.

I've seen it in Sky Captain's DVD and it would be really really nice.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

"Citizen Kane is a great movie". I'm sorry, it's a fact. If you are able to speak or write the word "movie", that's a great movie beyond doubts.

Historic film? Yes. Interesting film? Most definitely. Great film? That can easily be disputed.



1. The film is cliché - “Money can’t buy happiness” - a very tired theme indeed
2. The film is pretentious and condescending. Clearly Welles sets out to make a “Great Film”. In doing so he overdoes everything. Camera angles and movements are extreme. Music is comically overdone. The characters become caricatures of people. Welles doesn't have enough faith in his audience to believe they will understand subtlety and understatement.
3. It panders to populist class warfare and an audience just coming out of the depression who (the film-makers trust) are quick to believe an overdone caricature of wealthy person as an evil, miserable man with little or no humanity.
4. The film-makers draw numerous parallels to William Randolph Hearst to gain publicity for the film. An act that is slimy at best and slanderous at worst (and if the rumors that “Rosebud” was Heart’s nickname for his wife’s hoo-haa are true . . . that’s just plain tacky).
5. In the end, the film is more about Orson Welles than anything else. Welles is clearly an ambitious, arrogant, spiteful man who made and starred in a film about himself. That may be interesting from a voyeuristic point of view, but is that great film-making? Many people clearly think so, but I don't.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

Don&#8217;t try to criticize what you do not understand.

Historic film? Yes. Interesting film? Most definitely. Great film? That can easily be disputed.

It can&#8217;t.
You did that because of two things, combinated: a) You did not understand certain parts; b) you mixed opinions on the film and generic broad accusations that have nothing to do with it.

1. The film is cliché - &#8220;Money can&#8217;t buy happiness&#8221; - a very tired theme indeed

This is not the film. The film is: &#8220;All the steps to power, and downfall&#8221;. With everything inside of it. You've watched Monster-in-Law and thought it was Kane

2. The film is pretentious and condescending. Clearly Welles sets out to make a &#8220;Great Film&#8221;. In doing so he overdoes everything. Camera angles and movements are extreme. Music is comically overdone. The characters become caricatures of people. Welles doesn't have enough faith in his audience to believe they will understand subtlety and understatement.

&#8220;Camera angles and movements are extreme&#8221;: this coming from who liked the perfect stupidity of Story&#8217;s cameras. Welles puts his camera where it is needed, even in these &#8220;extreme&#8221; angles you labled. That&#8217;s called cinema.

How is the music overdone? And you may start excluding moments like political campaign or the failure of the singer, in which it underlines the grotesque situations.

The characters are the complete opposite of caricature. I give you one scene: when Bernstein is talking about his vision of a girl in that ferry. If THIS is caricature, then you can forget that cinema has existed.

3. It panders to populist class warfare and an audience just coming out of the depression who (the film-makers trust) are quick to believe an overdone caricature of wealthy person as an evil, miserable man with little or no humanity.

That&#8217;s just absurd. You simply did not understand it. Kane IS NOT EVIL, but much more complex than this marxist hogwash of yours. Remember that Welles was very well-read in Shakespeare and Montaigne, masters of subtlety.

Kane, as a character, is tragic. He tried to be a critique to the omnipotence of money from inside of it, and succumbed to it.

4. The film-makers draw numerous parallels to William Randolph Hearst to gain publicity for the film. An act that is slimy at best and slanderous at worst (and if the rumors that &#8220;Rosebud&#8221; was Heart&#8217;s nickname for his wife&#8217;s hoo-haa are true . . . that&#8217;s just plain tacky).

This part is the worst of your gibberish. It doesn&#8217;t matter if it is inspired in Hearst, it doesn&#8217;t matter what Rosebud is outside the movie itself. The Rosebud name plays a totally different part in the story, and to justify your &#8220;tacky&#8221; remark with something that comes out of the work does no good to your effort of argument.

5. In the end, the film is more about Orson Welles than anything else. Welles is clearly an ambitious, arrogant, spiteful man who made and starred in a film about himself. That may be interesting from a voyeuristic point of view, but is that great film-making? Many people clearly think so, but I don't.

This part speaks more of your utter incapacity to understand and appreciate a great movie than of Welles and his movies. Plus: your ad hominem discourse against what you call an &#8220;ambitious, arrogant and spiteful man&#8221; just shows you could not find ANY argument in the movie, and started speaking evil of the man.

According to this chain of thought (and supposing your moralistic blabber is right), only virtuous men would be able to make good movies. Well, then we should wait for the Church to canonize them as saints and afterwards they could get a camera.

If you&#8217;re trying to prove that the movie is disputable with this, sincerely: watch the movie again, and start from scratch. And make a bigger effort next time. Orson Welles could have said all that just for fun, in one of his interviews when he was bored to death.

Funny: and you are one of those who came to attack me for saying some truths about a lame superhero movie. Your mind really runs backwards.

 

[Kelly]

Looks to me like 2 people simply have a difference of opinion on a movie....

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Don&#8217;t try to criticize what you do not understand.

Historic film? Yes. Interesting film? Most definitely. Great film? That can easily be disputed.

It can&#8217;t.
You did that because of two things, combinated: a) You did not understand certain parts; b) you mixed opinions on the film and generic broad accusations that have nothing to do with it.

1. The film is cliché - &#8220;Money can&#8217;t buy happiness&#8221; - a very tired theme indeed

This is not the film. The film is: &#8220;All the steps to power, and downfall&#8221;. With everything inside of it. You've watched Monster-in-Law and thought it was Kane

2. The film is pretentious and condescending. Clearly Welles sets out to make a &#8220;Great Film&#8221;. In doing so he overdoes everything. Camera angles and movements are extreme. Music is comically overdone. The characters become caricatures of people. Welles doesn't have enough faith in his audience to believe they will understand subtlety and understatement.

&#8220;Camera angles and movements are extreme&#8221;: this coming from who liked the perfect stupidity of Story&#8217;s cameras. Welles puts his camera where it is needed, even in these &#8220;extreme&#8221; angles you labled. That&#8217;s called cinema.

How is the music overdone? And you may start excluding moments like political campaign or the failure of the singer, in which it underlines the grotesque situations.

The characters are the complete opposite of caricature. I give you one scene: when Bernstein is talking about his vision of a girl in that ferry. If THIS is caricature, then you can forget that cinema has existed.

3. It panders to populist class warfare and an audience just coming out of the depression who (the film-makers trust) are quick to believe an overdone caricature of wealthy person as an evil, miserable man with little or no humanity.

That&#8217;s just absurd. You simply did not understand it. Kane IS NOT EVIL, but much more complex than this marxist hogwash of yours. Remember that Welles was very well-read in Shakespeare and Montaigne, masters of subtlety.

Kane, as a character, is tragic. He tried to be a critique to the omnipotence of money from inside of it, and succumbed to it.

4. The film-makers draw numerous parallels to William Randolph Hearst to gain publicity for the film. An act that is slimy at best and slanderous at worst (and if the rumors that &#8220;Rosebud&#8221; was Heart&#8217;s nickname for his wife&#8217;s hoo-haa are true . . . that&#8217;s just plain tacky).

This part is the worst of your gibberish. It doesn&#8217;t matter if it is inspired in Hearst, it doesn&#8217;t matter what Rosebud is outside the movie itself. The Rosebud name plays a totally different part in the story, and to justify your &#8220;tacky&#8221; remark with something that comes out of the work does no good to your effort of argument.

5. In the end, the film is more about Orson Welles than anything else. Welles is clearly an ambitious, arrogant, spiteful man who made and starred in a film about himself. That may be interesting from a voyeuristic point of view, but is that great film-making? Many people clearly think so, but I don't.

This part speaks more of your utter incapacity to understand and appreciate a great movie than of Welles and his movies. Plus: your ad hominem discourse against what you call an &#8220;ambitious, arrogant and spiteful man&#8221; just shows you could not find ANY argument in the movie, and started speaking evil of the man.

According to this chain of thought (and supposing your moralistic blabber is right), only virtuous men would be able to make good movies. Well, then we should wait for the Church to canonize them as saints and afterwards they could get a camera.

If you&#8217;re trying to prove that the movie is disputable with this, sincerely: watch the movie again, and start from scratch. And make a bigger effort next time. Orson Welles could have said all that just for fun, in one of his interviews when he was bored to death.

Funny: and you are one of those who came to attack me for saying some truths about a lame superhero movie. Your mind really runs backwards.

Most of your points are too far off the mark of what I actually posted to address without going into an endless cycle correcting and re-correcting your twisting of my words.

If Welles film was truly great, it might convince me to spend time watching and re-watching it for subtleties. It's his job to draw me in, if he fails and needs to be defended by some guy on the internet, then he didn't make a great film as it relates to me.

Over directing (as Welles did in Citizen Kane and Steven Spielberg did in The Color Purple) can be just as bad if not worse than the underdirecting of Tim Story in Fantastic Four (and despite your tactic of constantly twisting my words to suit your arguments, I have never said Story did a great job directing FF).

IN MY OPINION, a director who over-directs distracts from the film-going experience. When the viewer sees dramatic, unnatural camera angles and movements, he/she is reminded that he/she is watching a film, and the director's effort to draw attention to him/herself can distract from the story.

I'm not sure if your technique of condescencion and insisting that your opinions are fact while anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant is designed to convince me, others, or yourself that you are actually right, but I can assure you it doesn't work on thinking people.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

Okay.

Most of your points are too far off the mark of what I actually posted to address without going into an endless cycle correcting and re-correcting your twisting of my words.

Sure. If that&#8217;s so, prove it. Oh, I forgot, you can&#8217;t, can you, Willie?

If Welles film was truly great, it might convince me to spend time watching and re-watching it for subtleties. It's his job to draw me in, if he fails and needs to be defended by some guy on the internet, then he didn't make a great film as it relates to me.

He didn&#8217;t fail. You inverted it: YOU failed with his movie. That&#8217;s different, and you should admit it, for your own good. He wasn&#8217;t trying to relate to you, whatever may be your real interests. He made a great film, and that&#8217;s all.

And, by the way, I don&#8217;t know if you are aware of it, you are also a, how did you put it? &#8220;a guy on the internet&#8221;. And more: Welles is the director he is, and his films are well-known for their obvious qualities. You are the &#8220;guy on the internet&#8221; dreaming you are able to deny it with petty glossolalia. Dream on.

Over directing (as Welles did in Citizen Kane and Steven Spielberg did in The Color Purple) can be just as bad if not worse than the underdirecting of Tim Story in Fantastic Four (and despite your tactic of constantly twisting my words to suit your arguments, I have never said Story did a great job directing FF).

Again: over directing? Yes, if compared to Story&#8217;s very morbid camera anemia.

a) not twisting your words; I&#8217;ve never said you wrote he did a great job. Nonetheless, you took yourself to the two absurd troubles of: 1) baselessly defend Story, who is a bad director; 2) pour nonsense over a Welles&#8217; masterpiece.

You don&#8217;t need my twisting your words, they&#8217;re already twisted enough.

IN MY OPINION, a director who over-directs distracts from the film-going experience. When the viewer sees dramatic, unnatural camera angles and movements, he/she is reminded that he/she is watching a film, and the director's effort to draw attention to him/herself can distract from the story.

&#8220;Ceci n&#8217;est pas une pipe&#8221;, answered Magritte to those who insisted to say the picture is not like the thing. &#8220;Unnatural camera angles&#8221; is an expression void of meaning, as a camera is not a natural thing.

Your tricks are remarkable, but can be spotted, look: very righteous, you write &#8220;in my opinion&#8221; and after that states as a fact that the director &#8220;over-directs&#8221;. It is also YOUR OPINION that he over-directs, as you didn&#8217;t mention ANY example whatsoever to defend your idea.

I'm not sure if your technique of condescencion and insisting that your opinions are fact while anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant is designed to convince me, others, or yourself that you are actually right, but I can assure you it doesn't work on thinking people.

Thinking people think, and I&#8217;m very comfortable as to what they&#8217;ll think about what I said.

My words are not directed, evidently, to whom, like you, are already in this to have a quarrel with me for some personal grudge; but to those who will occasionally consider the matter for themselves, and in itself.

You firmly state your &#8220;opinions&#8221;, that you see as facts, too; and that could be called by people in ill will &#8220;condescension&#8221; also, fot it&#8217;s easy to deny things without argument, in ill will.

 

[Kelly]

You firmly state your “opinions”, that you see as facts, too; and that could be called by people in ill will “condescension” also, fot it’s easy to deny things without argument, in ill will.

You are wrong in this statement...Willie is not stating his as fact, he is using this movie to show you simply that his view (opinion) of this movie is different from yours....he's not trying to PROVE any point except that the two of you view the movie differently....YOU are the one trying to prove your view of the movie as the correct view....which means you are not getting Willie's point at all.....

His point is not to prove one way or the other about "Citizen Kane" as a good or bad movie...his point was the two of you have different opinions of the movie as do many....but as always you HAVE TO prove yourself as the one who is right...as the opinion that is fact...when in reality you are simply very eloquently stating your opinion of a movie that happens to be different from Willie's very eloquently given opinion....i'm impressed by both....but both are opinions...that happen to be stated quite well.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

I am precise in my statement. Read carefully the following.

You are wrong in this statement...Willie is not stating his as fact, he is using this movie to show you simply that his view (opinion) of this movie is different from yours....he's not trying to PROVE any point except that the two of you view the movie differently....YOU are the one trying to prove your view of the movie as the correct view....which means you are not getting Willie's point at all.....

I know you are trying to protect him, but you are wrong.

He just doesn’t realize how much he believes what he is saying is the truth. I’ll give you an example (direct quotation): “The film-makers draw numerous parallels to William Randolph Hearst to gain publicity for the film. An act that is slimy at best and slanderous at worst (and if the rumors that “Rosebud” was Heart’s nickname for his wife’s hoo-haa are true . . . that’s just plain tacky)”.

Although this is just a very raw and hurried opinion, it is stated as a fact: “if the rumors…that’s just plain tacky”. He didn’t say “I think so”, or “In my humble opinion”.

His point is not to prove one way or the other about "Citizen Kane" as a good or bad movie...his point was the two of you have different opinions of the movie as do many....but as always you HAVE TO prove yourself as the one who is right...as the opinion that is fact...when in reality you are simply very eloquently stating your opinion of a movie that happens to be different from Willie's very eloquently given opinion....i'm impressed by both....but both are opinions...that happen to be stated quite well.

Now that’s an opinion, And a very partial one, as both of us know you are sided with him no matter what, which is commonly called esprit de corps.

See: he doesn’t give 1 example, he states his doubtful and insecure diatribes in a vacuum, and uses ad hominem arguments to back his poor opinion on the movie. Was Welles arrogant, or all the other moralistic epithets he’s thrown around? Who cares?

Have you watched Citizen Kane? Do you remember it quite well? Because if you do, you know the allegation that the characters are caricature is just believable if the person has never seen it, or has a numb, blurred and distant remembrance of it.

He surely has an opinion on it, but it is just quite vague and without quality as an argument.