for movie fans: between casablanca and citizen of cain

[RCBH928]

Sorry of any spelling mistakes

these two movies come to be the best movies ever made on any top film list...
It made me wonder so much what these two movies can be like, being THE BEST(kind of same idea I had for OoT as best videogame)

So I got casablanca and watched it. I can hardly say the movie is entertaining, I can understand if this movie was the bomb back then, but why is it STILL on top? Its not bad movie but you can watch current day movies which are most exciting. The only thing i can see this movie that has unique is the setting, an american guy with a lounge in casablanca for Europeans looking to go to america. Its very memorable unlike the usual "LA" "Miami Beach" "current day Japan" "aliens on planet X" setting, this is unique. Otherwise I am not sure why it holds its place as top movie, I thought other movies had a lot more significance and better art to them , stuff like "forest gump" and maybe stuff like shawshank redemption or to kill a mocking bird.

So my question is , is citizen of cain(or citizen cain) is the same, will I be disappointed?

[lordofduct]

It's "Citizen Kane"

As for the allure of both Citizen Kane and Casablanca.

Casablanca is a playwright adaptation that basically is the epitome of the film industry during "silver screen" days. It had war time effort, romance, foreign exotic atmosphere, some of the biggest name actors of the time, and was Bogart's first romantic role in a film. It's not that it's a great movie in comparison to other films, it's a great film of its time.

Citizen Kane on the other hand is the first film directed by Orson Welles who also wrote the screenplay. Orson Welles is... well he's one of the original fathers of modern film. He innovated and broke ground on several ideals and formulas for film making. This first film of his portrays a lot of those original ideas, and also has a lot of mythology behind its production. On top of all that the screenplay is kind of a window at Orson Welles' auto-biography.



Both movies are highly respected films. But they are of a different time and probably won't stand to what you expect from a film. You must keep in mind, this is all during the birth of hollywood and film making in general. It was a time when we were constructing the bridge way from standard playwright drama performed live on stage over to the silver screen. It's similar to how we put certain artists in the music and even other mediums on a pedastal for recreating, reinventing, or just making ground work in an area of art.

Film has grown a lot since this time though. As for the people who consider these to be the best movies ever, they tend to be the kinds of people who don't agree with the changes that have been made to the film industry. Older film is far more story driven. At the time you were limited by a lot due to much smaller budgets, the ability to film only in a handful of sessions, and under the limitations of not even knowing how to pull certain "techniques" off (because no one had even dreamt them up yet) they are less a "visual extravaganza"... and more mirror their playwright live performance counterparts.

I for one am one of these people. A traditionalist you could call us. It's just a personal preference. Others believe the growth that has become film distinguishes it greatly in comparison to the art forms it was birthed from. This unique quality of the film industry has legitimized it.



So in the sense, are these films the "best". No, not in the sense of everyone would love them, no they aren't. They are largely popular titles the define the film industry in their time. It's like how Pac-man defines video games in the late 70's to early 80's.

Will you enjoy Citizen Kane? I'm not sure, it's less of a romantic film then Casablanca. It's far more bleak and emotionally driven. It's about a man reflecting on his life through flashback recollections of events the lead up to the opening scene of the movie and then colminates in his own demise. It's one of those films you're more expected to go into and take what you want from it... like a novel or play. The film is definitely watchable because you can get a new experience if you watch it a second time...

bar in mind, don't expect something like modern film that does the same thing. Citizen Kane is a far older film based in the late post modern era during the midst of WWII. Story telling at the time is far different from what it is today. And the "moral" openings that you peer into of the main characters in these stories are far different. So any "metaphysical" or view of the human psychy you might expect is far different... because the portrayal of mankind was a bit different at the time. They were worried about different things then we are now. The Great Depression, Hitler, the Manhattan Project, WWII... etc. Contemporary art looks into topics of today, like the Middle East. Just as film and other mediums like comics in the 50's to 70's were more about Cold War and Nuclear War. As a viewer or participant of the art, you have to understand the the topic to really attach to the moral. I for one attach well to film from the 40's because early 20th century America is one of my favourite historical time periods.

Think of it as a hollywood version of prominent contemporary writers of its time. Just as a lot of film today is a reflection of contemporary writers in this time. But in that sense, compare modern authors to the likes of Fitzgerald, Joyce, or Hemingway. The literature today differs widely!

[Droid party]

I loved Citizen Kane ,but couldn't get into Casablanca. There, that's the short answer.

However, if your looking to get into older cinema. Try out some of Hitchcocks work. Over the last week I decided to finally check em out and have fallen in love with them. So far I've seen Rear window, North by Northwest and Vertigo, with Vertigo being my favourite so far. Or if you have a spare day up your sleeve, check out Kurosawa's epic ,Seven Samurai. It goes for something like 4 hrs. But I still love it.

[Ramatut4001]

Citizen Kane is such a great film. My wife and I watched it again the other day. It's extremely well-crafted. Even if you don't have the worldliness to recognize it's innovations, I think it holds up today. It's hard to argue with those who call it the greatest film ever.

By the by, the same internet you used to create this topic is pretty useful for checking names and spellings and such...

[marurun]

I loved Casablanca and found it to be a rather spectacular movie. Modern movies rely much more on a different model of storytelling. The older model, as LoD noted, is more like the model used by plays and stage productions. The focus is on characters and dialogue and not as much on external events except as to provide backdrop. Modern movies focus much more on events than characters. Even modern character movies tend to be relatively lackluster when it comes to dialogue, because modern movies are capable of providing so much more visual stimulus on screen.

I have to admit that I prefer good dialogue to visual flash. And few recent modern films have given me much to work with for dialogue.

[MrPopo]

I haven't seen Citizen Kane, but I have seen Casablanca. I think it is a fantastic film, but as mentioned it is very different from modern movies. If you want another very direct look at the difference between the old style and the new style, compare The Adventures of Robin Hood with Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. It's the same basic tale but it's told in very different ways, depending on the era.

I think the thing I liked best about Casablanca was that it made you feel real emotion. The final goodbye scene really grips you thanks to how everything has been built up until now.

Now, I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but lately I've been seeing a new trend in filmmaking. I dub it the "real" style. These are movies like 40-Year Old Virigin or Juno that feel much more real due to the way the dialog and events are structured. The conversations sound like the ones you were having with your buddy the other day, and overall they seem like less of a structured movie and more of a guy following around some people with a camera who aren't aware of it.

[pocket]

I thought you were talking about Slumdog Millionaire.

[RCBH928]

I understand that they are from a different era, but i am trying to understand though why are they considered the best. I have seen Casablanca as i said, its not bad movie or anything I just don't understand why its considered one of the best. As relating it to its time, I think during later times other films were great for its times too(would the Titanic be as big of a hit if it was released today and not 98?)

but I kind of got the idea when you said it is like pac-man in the 80's. As for different direction and structure with old movies, I can notice they are different but i couldn't define it(I would have never figured it out that its more character and dialogue drive, and then connect that to plays)

Although I think current day films can be great, because a lot is only commercial crap, I am tired of the usual formula, It got boring. If something comes up that has nothing to do with the film story, its probably going to have an impact by the end of the movie(like the knife travolta gives to the daughter in faceoff) . If people are doing something or practicing something together, its going to come back to use it against the villain or save them selves(like the back to back mountain climbing in the emperor's new groove). starting the end first(although still can be put to great use) with narrative and stuff like (6 weeks earlier). The one I hate the most and has been abused to death is trying to make the audience think on thing during the whole movie, and by the end they show that it was only what you thought and things are not as you thought you were. I won't name films for that one so i don't spoil it for any one, but I am sure every one now gets what i am trying to say. It was great for the first few films though that used it well. Finally, no matter what happens, there WILL be a kiss in any movie. Like 99% will have a kiss in them and 90% of the time it will be a french one. I bet with myself that the movie i am watching(any 1) will have a kiss, and as much as it goes to the end I smile and I finally say there is no kiss! it has to happen at least once, even if at the end. Even in children movies like disney, which shows this is only commercial formula , and it has to have a kiss to drive sales probably.

For those who enjoy older movies, do you keep your VHS? I think a lot of the older movies are not released on dvd except for the more popular ones like Casablanca

[lordofduct]

I still have a stack of VHS tapes and a VCR for a lot of movies. I don't know which of my VHS movies have been brought to DVD, but personally I don't really feel like buying these titles again anyway. The VHS version does just fine for me.

Back to the topic though, my point was, they AREN'T considered the best of all time. They are considered a member of the greats. They're classic, people still watch them 60 years later and enjoy them a lot.

[MrPopo]

For those who enjoy older movies, do you keep your VHS? I think a lot of the older movies are not released on dvd except for the more popular ones like Casablanca

I think we're starting to see more and more of the classic films on DVD. I remember back in college we once did a submarine movie night and had to pick up a few of them on VHS, since they didn't have them on DVD in the rental store. Now I have my nice shiny copies of Run Silent, Run Deep and The Enemy Below on DVD (both of which are fantastic, by the way).