On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:56:18AM +0100, Jasper McCrea wrote:
>
> In an historically interesting way it (CK) has its plusses,
So far, so good...
> but to hail it for its technical magnificence is anachronistic. We
> stand on the shoulders of giants and our accomplishments certainly
> wouldn't be possible without them (Welles is among the greats of
> cinema), but we shouldn't hang around claiming that what they did then
> was better than what came after.
Excuse me while I boggle.
Citizen Kane was put together by one of the most incredible groups of
filmmakers *ever*. Anyone who thinks it's all about Welles has a very
dim view of history. Just about everyone who worked on that film is a
giant in his/her field's history.
More to the point, they did more with less in Kane than anyone else in
90% (and I may be low on that number) of the films ever made otherwise.
To this day, people are mistaken about how most of the trick shots were
acheived (if they even realize they were trick shots).
Because of a certain sterility (IMO), Touch of Evil edges out Citizen
Kane as what I think is Welles' best film, but to say that Kane is
anything other than one of the masterpieces of cinema shows (again IMO)
a rather limited view of the history of cinema.
For a more detailed account of the making of the film I refer you to the
*excellent* The Making of Citizen Kane by Robert Carringer.
dha
P. S. If I'm starting to sound combative in any of these mails, please
forgive me. Film is my obsession, and it's late, and I'm tired from
trying to catch up on all the email you people have shoved into my
mailbox over the last couple of weeks. :-)
--
David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/
Any country that has the words "play ball" in its national anthem
can't be all bad.
- Greg McCarroll
