CITIZEN KANE

I found some time to visit the forum, school is busy but I am enjoying myself (I love art so many times more then film to be honoust)...

I have to admit that I didn't read the entire discussion (because it's seven pages long), but I wanted to throw in two arguments that I hope havn't been said yet... Mainly because I want to hear your thoughts on the subjects...

1. I've noticed that a lot of "BEST FILM EVER"-lists not only list Citizan Kane, Casablanca and The Godfather near the top... They also seem to exlude any non-American (or foreign language) film... Shouldn't a REAL best film also include films like La Strada, The Bicycle Thieves, Rashomon, Der Himmel Über Berlin, any Sergei Eisenstein-film and many others (a lot of which I probably never saw)? It's one of the reasons why I never trust those lists... I always had an idea that there is a cultural bias in favor of American films (not only in America)... Image if Citizen Kane was made in the Czechoslovakia instead of the States... Would people still put it in their top 10 or 100 if this were the case....

2. I believe that Hearst wasn't the only factor why the film did so badly at the box office... It was simply the right movie made in the wrong time period.... I heard somewere that Kane, while being succesfull in the big cities, attracted little visitors in the more rural areas.... and who can blame them... My grandfather (at age 90 now) was still living in poverty caused by the great depression around that time (of course it didn't help that Holland was recently invaded by Germany)... and I asume that a lot of Americans also were slowly recovering from it... I might be wrong but I don't think these people would have wanted to see a movie about the rich and privileged around that time (no matter how good the movie was)..... Any disagreements?

I wouldn't disagree that The Godfather was deserving of Best Picture that year. In any one of many other years, Cabaret probably would have won. I've always thought that giving out a Best Picture every year might be a mistake. Perhaps the Oscars should only be held once every 5 years, and they could honor the 5 Best movies, performances etc etc for that time period. There are years when there truly are more than one really worthy movie followed by periods of 2 or 3 years where nothing is deserving. That is one good thing about the Razzies...we always have at least one truly deserving movie every year.

They should poll a bunch of film critics for years to redo. I'm sure 1998 would be at the top of the list as well as 1941, 1952, 1979, 1980, and 1990 to start with. 

well 1990 would be a do-over because Goodfellas has aged so much better than DWW so is the second half of your list films that most people feel shouldn't have won that you agree with the win?

Ah yes the '97 Superbowl one of the bigger upsets in Superbowl history. As a fan of the winning team, the Broncos, I can say that it is indeed better to have gone and lost than not gone at all. Not so much with the Oscars. The Superbowl is actually based off of talent. the winning team worked their butts off to get there. With the Oscars, a few simple payoffs and a giant smear campaign and you will have it regardless of whether or not you deserve it. case and point, Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan which is widely regarded as one of the biggest f*** ups in Oscar history.   

Originally posted by Head RAZZberry Gotta disagree with you about SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE vs SAVING RYAN's PRIVATES -- I have seen both films multiple times and, while RYAN is one of the best war films ever made, SHAKESPEARE is a brilliant satire that actually expects its audience to be educated enough to get subtle references to several of Shakespeare's classic plays and favorite plot devices. While RYAN is indeed a fine film, SHAKESPEARE is a movie that respects audiences enough not to talk down to us -- an all too rare vote of confidence in movie-goers' intelligence in an age when most of Hollywood thinks we're all complete cretins!

Originally posted by saturnwatcher I agree that the Oscars are the Super Bowl of the movie industry, but the NFL doesn't have to look back on several of their past champions with a degree of embarrassed throat clearing. I don't think anyone who played for the Green Bay Packers in the '97 Super Bowl would speak of the accomplishment with anything but pride. But seriously, would you ever come out and publicly admit that you were one of the guys who voted for Forrest Gump?

  .

I don't think it SHAKESPEARE a satire at all. Satire uses ironic sarcasm to make a statement, something SIL lacked. It was an homage film. Plus the references were anything but subtle. The priest saying "A plague on both of your houses," not subtle. In another year I might not have minded (although I don't know which). My big problem is that Harvey Weinstein lied his butt off about what kind of film PRIVATE RYAN was. 'Historically Inaccurate?!?' Give me a break! SIL had even less that was actually accurate about it. Not to mention that it managed to take other Oscars away from people who gave performances of a lifetime (such as Cait Blanchett in Elizabeth, who kicked the ever- loving crap out of Gwyneth Paltrow in terms of performance).