Citizen Kane vs. Jackass: the movie

Elok · September 1, 2003, 09:23

Which, in your opinion, is a greater technical accomplishment, speaks more to the universal human condition, shows greater innovation and daring, and/or is generally a better movie?

Citizen Kane:
-Pioneered new camera and storytelling techniques, such as ultra-low-angle shots of characters to convey power and height.
-Made a point about the yearning for lost innocence and human contact felt by a wealthy man, and by extension the sorrows of all who succeed.
-Was supressed at first, still loved by many, but is really a pretty stupid movie if you sit down to watch it.

On the other hand, Jackass:
-Pioneered many new techniques of a very different kind. It can safely be said, for example, that never before in the history of the fine arts has a man been filmed while voluntarily inhaling a large clump of Japanese horseradish through his nose.
-Focused on the theme that it is highly amusing when people deliberately seek pain and humiliation for the entertainment of others.
-Was supressed at first, still loved by many, but is really a pretty stupid movie if you sit down to watch it.

Discuss.

FrustratedPoet · September 1, 2003, 09:27

This thread is really pretty stupid if you sit down and read it.

Skanky Burns · September 1, 2003, 09:35

Having seen neither, I vote banana.

That said, I plan on seeing Citizen Kane whenever I can be bothered renting it.

Elok · September 1, 2003, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
This thread is really pretty stupid if you sit down and read it.

As Truman Capote once said:
Well, duh!

Boris Godunov · September 1, 2003, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Elok
Citizen Kane:

-Was supressed at first, still loved by many, but is really a pretty stupid movie if you sit down to watch it.

How so? I disagree vehemently. I've sat down and watched it several times and find nothing stupid about it.

Drogue · September 1, 2003, 11:19

I thought this thread was a joke when I first saw it. Citizen Kane, a film regarded by many critics as one of the greats, and praised by many people, against a few kids beating each other up and jumping off things. Yeh Jackass is funny, but it's not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, IMHO. Are people actually serious in comparing it to Citizen Kane? I can understand the new boundaries thing, but Titanic broke boundaries, and I hope we're not going to hail that as a great film?

Elok · September 1, 2003, 14:10

I was joking and serious at the same time.
Both movies are thoroughly idiotic; Jackass because it intends to be, Citizen Kane because it takes itself too seriously and vastly overvalues the significance of its message. If you grow rich you often regret your lost innocence and find yourself isolated from the rest of humanity by your good fortune, blahblah ghost of Christmas past, blahblahblah. Okeydokey. Why the devil did it take that long of a movie to get that point across? Why was the great Orson Welles apparently incapable of making a movie that said that and was even the slightest bit interesting at the same time? Why did nobody in the studio realize that the idea of a grown man pining over a sled is so ludicrous as to destroy the gravity of any film? The invention of great cinematic techniques aside, the movie sucked. Even Eyes Wide Shut was better. It had a ridiculously unneccessary and obvious but still pretentious message too, but some people were willing to watch it anyway for the graphic sex so it had some mass appeal going for it, which Kane frankly doesn't have.

CorpusScorpius · September 1, 2003, 14:20

JackA** = Beavis & Butthead Live

monolith94 · September 1, 2003, 14:43

"Citizen Kane because it takes itself too seriously"

Sir. I refer you to the scene at the opera where on opening night, the camera tracks up from the stage to stagehands, where one of them puts his fingers up to his nose.

I laughed more during Citizen Kane than during jackass. Oh and the reason it takes along time to get the message across is because it is done with masterful subtlety, driven by an engaging mystery framework. Much like Nabokov's "The Real Life Of Sebastian Knight".

Chemical Ollie · September 1, 2003, 15:19

For the first time in the history of the fine arts has a man been x-rayed to reveal a toy car shoved deep inside him from behind.

The Andy-Man · September 1, 2003, 16:53

Citzen Kane is hardly stupid. Not to mention it is based on a REAL PERSON, who was the one that tried to supress the film.

Its a sad joke to even think of comparing the two films.

Elok · September 1, 2003, 22:54

Yes, I know about William Randolph Hearst. The film doesn't NEED masterful subtlety, is the thing. Its theme is the life and times of a reprehensible bozo who gets the consequences of his actions and not much more. He could've accomplished the same purpose by having silent-film style placards read, "being an aristocratic snot will not make you happy, so don't." That would take about thirty seconds, and he could have used the remaining time to show something more interesting, like, well, just about anything. Oh, the immense tragedy when rich people do not have perfectly happy lives. Perhaps Mr. Kane should've taken more time to stop and whip the servants. Why on earth it seems like a great film to anyone is beyond me.

Elok · September 1, 2003, 22:57

While we're at it, Catcher in the Rye is a load of crap too. There was a Holden quote after I posted my last message, and since it's much the same type of overrated artsyfartsiness I figured I'd toss that in the mix. Did anybody else here spend most of that book wanting to pimp-smack the kid and tell him to get over himself?

molly bloom · September 2, 2003, 00:41

Umm, the Eloked version of 'Hamlet'-

boy is depressed, 'cos he thinks his new stepdad killed his father who was also his stepdad's brother. And boy may have hots for his mum. Can't make up his mind what to do, kills an old scrote accidentally (who also happens to be his on-off girlfriend's dad), eventually stops whining, kills his ex-girlfriend's brother, his mother dies and his stepdad is killed. Oh, and his dad's ghost comes back and tells him to avenge him, which starts the whole thing off. I mean, why not just get counselling for his oedipal issues? And either finish the degree, or get a proper job.

'Hamlet' or 'The Young and the Restless'- which is the best soap opera?

'Oedipus Rex' or 'Coronation Street'?

'Phedre' or 'Chateauvallon'?

'Faust' or 'Kommissar Rex' ?

It's easy to trivialize any work of art by reducing it to its supposed 'message' - I mean, why didn't Michelangelo just write in real big letters 'read the Bible' instead of painting all that eyewash....

MrFun · September 2, 2003, 01:25

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
This thread is really pretty stupid if you sit down and read it.

FrustratedPoet · September 2, 2003, 04:47

Oh no!!!!

It can never be a good sign when Mr.Fun laughs at your jokes!

Elok · September 2, 2003, 13:00

No, Hamlet addresses something-several themes, actually- that are relevant to people from all walks of life and not hackneyed and overdone even for the time it was made. E.G. finding the greater truth in a world of lies, dealing with the uncertainty of all knowledge and the moral dilemmas inherent in life without sure definitions...and those are just the ones that really sounded with me. Charles Foster Kane is just a silly ass who, so far as I can recall, gets precisely what he deserves. If you can cite me an instance in which his misfortunes are not ultimately his own doing, please do. It's been a few years since I saw it, and I'm figuring that, having seen it about three times in my life, and coming to the conclusion that it was stupid each time, it would not become worthwhile from a fourth watching. I'l find out in a few weeks anyway since I HAVE to watch it for film class...

monolith94 · September 2, 2003, 13:32

"If you can cite me an instance in which his misfortunes are not ultimately his own doing, please do."

That's the element that makes him a tragic hero - the fatal flaw.

Elok · September 2, 2003, 20:00

Okay, so he's tragic. He's also a sleazewad, so what makes him a hero?

molly bloom · September 2, 2003, 22:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Elok
Okay, so he's tragic. He's also a sleazewad, so what makes him a hero?

Hamlet's a prince who is unable to sh!t or get off the pot- why should we care about an aristo who had everything handed to him on a plate, and is just unable to make up his mind?

Richard III is a sleazewad psychopath who kills one prince then marries that man's widow. And has his own brother's children killed. I mean, how low can you go?

You miss the point- Kane isn't a sleazewad as a child. The film examines what makes a man the man he is- and how does he appear to himself and to other people? He transforms himself after being taken from the secure childhood of the sled and the family home and sent to boarding school into the press tycoon and political fixer- and yet his marriage collapses and he sacrifices everything for love of a mistress.

'Kane' is hardly reducible to a plot synopsis or an inaccurate character demolition- the film is more than just those two things.

The image of 'Rosebud' the sled is a symbol used in much the same way that Shakespeare used repeated thematic imagery in his plays, images of melting and transformation in 'Antony and Cleopatra', blood, night and death in 'Macbeth' and opposites in 'Othello': it doesn't explain the film any more than the vivid imagery explains the plays, but it serves as a hook to draw us in and to lead us through the fractured chronology of 'Kane'.

I could go on about the photography of Gregg Toland, the acting of various cast members, the script, the revolutionary use of fake newsreels, experimental use of dialogue and sound effects, etc, etc. But if you think 'Citizen Kane' the film, depends simply on the alleged character of its chief protagonist, then why bother?

MrFun · September 2, 2003, 22:59

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
Oh no!!!!

It can never be a good sign when Mr.Fun laughs at your jokes!

Sava · September 2, 2003, 23:01

Citizen Kane is stupid...

FrustratedPoet · September 3, 2003, 05:55

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

Well I guess I was asking for that, wasn't I?

mindseye · September 3, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

Umm, the Eloked version of 'Hamlet'-

Eloked version of 'Tale of Two Cities':
A drunken sod who feels bad about his life sacrifices it to save a better guy who just happens to look just like him. Yeah, right. Why did no publisher realize this was completely absurd?

Eloked version of 'Mayor of Castorbridge':
A drunken idiot sells his wife, becomes successful, but then fvcks up again. You need a whole book just to tell us some guy's a loser?

Eloked version of 'Moby ****':
A guy gets on a ship. The captain wants to kill some whale, but gets killed by it. What a waste of time. Why not just write a placard saying "Don't mess with Nature"? And what's with the sperm whale biology lesson? I don't know how stuff like this even gets published.

Eloked version of 'Fall of the House of Usher':
Some guy thinks his sister is dead, and has her put in the family vault. But she's not dead, and she gets out. When he sees her, he has a heart attack and the house collapses. You call this scary? Any of the Friday the 13th movies are much interesting and about a hundred times scarier.

Ming · September 3, 2003, 11:37

Japher · September 3, 2003, 11:50

Quote:

Why not just write a placard saying "Don't mess with Nature"? And what's with the sperm whale biology lesson?

... Yet, I felt the same way about Moby ****... Not a big fan...

Elok · September 3, 2003, 13:42

Well, snide parody posts aside, I don't believe in men and women as the entire sum of their experiences and nothing more. Nothing "made" him a creep. He was given a choice and he took it. The idea of influences (and genetics in more recent years) as the whole of human nature is a disturbing trend towards the abandonment of personal responsibility.

molly bloom · September 3, 2003, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Elok
Well, snide parody posts aside, I don't believe in men and women as the entire sum of their experiences and nothing more. Nothing "made" him a creep. He was given a choice and he took it. The idea of influences (and genetics in more recent years) as the whole of human nature is a disturbing trend towards the abandonment of personal responsibility.

Sorry, but you opened the door with inaccurate character assassinations and trivializing plot summaries.

Kane chooses to risk his media empire, marriage and political career and influence for his love for a woman- not the action of a 'sleazewad'. Wouldn't a 'sleazewad' just f*ck her and chuck her?

If our experiences don't affect us, what's the point in living? You talk as if childhood had nothing to do with moulding the psyche.

Elok · September 4, 2003, 08:29

The intelligent and responsible thing to do is to take marriage seriously and not just run off to follow every desperate fancy that enters your head. If he marries a woman he wasn't prepared to spend his life with, he is still paying the consequences of his actions, plain and simple.
While our experiences do affect our minds in various positive and negative ways, they are not who we are. Childhood abuse and neglect don't make your decisions for you, and don't justify what you do any more than kleptomania makes it morally acceptable to steal. Kane is a screwup who just keeps screwing up more, and I'm not going to waste pity on him.