According to AFI (American film institute), "Citizen Kane" is the greatest american movie of all time. Some will say the greatest movie of all time. Yet hardly anyone I know ever gave it a second watch. "Casablanca" and "The Godfather" (2nd/3rd place on the list) are far more popular and admired by the average viewer, but the list isn't based on popular vote.

Critics and film buffs may come up with lists of reasons why Kane is the finest film, but it will not convince most of you and it will not convince me as well. On paper, you can argue all bits and pieces to perfection. But unlike "Casablanca" and "Godfather", Kane fails to make the viewer care. Or maybe we are the ones who fail to care?

I can't tell you how many times I've heard people complaining, that Kane was the most boring movie they've ever watched.

Should we rank a movie based on how much we enjoyed it?

Does personal taste matter?

Can art be appreciated if no emotions are involved?

How come people usually list "Citizen Kane" as one of the greatst movies, if they personally can't stand it?

I think the movie is conscious about the lack of chemistry with most viewers. More than that, I think "Rosebud" was carefully chosen to serve as glue between you and your seat. The info which is out in the open is interesting but spiceless, despite the high quality. Only through mystery, the hidden secret, the desire to find out the meaning of Rosebud, only throught that can we care and not only appreciate.

Over the years we've had endless discussions about why we make a list of "best movies" in addition to "favorite movies", or why we should only have one list. And there we usually find everyone listing Kane in "best movies" yet never in "fav movies".

How many can truly explain why they think it is one of the best? would you still list it had you not learned of its reputation?

But I'm not one against two lists; I don't think I'd love to rewatch every movie I appreciate. They don't have to be my favs.

Die Hard is a movie I'd love to rewatch again and again, but it's pretty simple and light. It is fun, it is entertaining. But artistically it doesn't offer much. There's no real content to work with.

Kane has more content; but it fails to connect to most viewers like Die Hard.

Or maybe the audience should not be part of the equation?

--

What do you guys think?

also, please mention how many times you've watched "Citizen Kane". That should be interesting. I saw it three times; I've no desire to watch it again anytime soon.

Absolutely. Intrinsic to that is figuring out what makes us enjoy it.

There's no other taste to aspire to, and we should always aspire to broaden ours.

I wouldn't think so.

I'd be very surprised if anyone who "can't stand" Citizen Kane lists it among the greatest ever made.

It's one of the best for its formal innovations, its ambition, its harmonious, uniform strengths, its balance of individual vision and collaborative creativity (its script, its score, its cinematography, and so on), its argument that in America the expansion of one's private property ("no trespassing") is at the expense of those threads that connect one to the rest of humanity. This last point is telling of Welles's political and artistic maturity; the film is remarkable by any account.

It's at the very high end of my favourite films - which means it's among the very best I've seen.

You might find this of interest: a piece I wrote last April on the film(s) I always go back to. "For me, revisiting a film seems less about giving it 'another chance' [...] than wanting, for whatever reason, to re-confirm or reassure an (old) outlook. [...] There might be something conservative at work here, of course; but it might also be progressive, cathartic."

There's plenty of content to go at in Die Hard. I think it also offers a lot artistically: one of the reasons it is so fun and entertaining is through its formal control. As I wrote here, "I have the film down as one in which the cops are relentlessly bumbling, the Feds are thirsty to re-live "fuckin' Saigon", journalists are parasitic and, in one brief scene, an academic shows up to tell the world how the hostages are feeling, though he's never met any of them (all swipes pleasurable, for me)"; "the film is beautifully shot by Jan de Bont, who makes much use of anamorphic lenses and a shallow depth of field to create meaning (tension, space, power relations, even spectacle) in creative and economical ways."

I think saying the film is fun and entertaining but doesn't offer much implies that anybody could have shown up on set to make it and its unique qualities would have still been there. But the film is directorially precise, editorially exciting, has wonderful performances and a complex look at Reagan-Era finance capitalism in a thrilling way.

It too is on the high end of my favourites list.

That's a bold statement without some kind of survey to back it up.

Die Hard is also very highly regarded critically.

I'm not sure. Four? The most recent viewing was August 2011.
__________________________________

FWIW, here's the Top 100 Favourites list I compiled last summer: Some observations on a Top 100 Films list.

Also, here I discuss some parametres in considering a film a favourite: When all before you is barren...

And, some thoughts on the process of making of a favourites list: Top 100s and why we make them.

First of all, thanx for replying!

I think we recognize art everyday. We appreciate concepts and delivery based on our world view. Emotions come into play if we find it enjoyable. Ballet is very artistic in my eyes but it doesn't touch my heart. I do not enjoy watching ballet unless my girlfriend is dancing.

As far as films go, there are movies like "Citizen Kane" which embody artistic vision through cold, almost un-artistic approach. What you describe as "harmonious" and "uniform strenghts" is exactly why I fail to connect on a personal level. All the movies I rank as masterpieces have one thing in common: contrast.

I believe the average viewer seek contrast in every movie. In every novel and every song. Concepts are best delivered through contrast. We wouldn't have this great discussion here were we one and the same. Unity is boring.

"Citizen Kane" is not a friendly movie. And I'm not that clever. I had to "study" the movie in order to fully appreciate what is offered. But why should I care in the first place? how do you think the movie seduces its audience to unfold its greatness? why should I care about "Rosebud" more than any other unknown word, name, or concept?

---

Thanx for all the links. I think lists are important, but I think long lists need to be categorized. I find it impossible to throw in 100 names, then compare every name with 99 other movies. There is too much room for uncertainty. I'll post a top 30 if you want.

What do you mean by "almost un-artistic"? In what way is it nearly not artistic?

Those were subjective observations pertaining to its quality value; to me the film is harmonious in its flawlessness; I can't think of any scene I'd take away, or any that I'd add. It's pretty perfect in that sense.

Of course the film has contrast: aural contrasts (that cut to from Kane idealising a speech among friends to him carrying on the same speech through speakers at a political rally; oof!), visual contrasts, contrasts in performances, in spatial compositions... also, my last point of praise in the previous post demands a contrast between individual progress and a regression from social interaction.

It's a pretty well-balanced film all in all.

The film might leave you cold, of course; you'll have to tell me in what way its makers' approach was cold, though...

I guess he thought CITIZEN KANE was made "cold" because the protagonist stays an enigma, a cold unlikeable dick of an enigma.

(Of course I say bullshit. The movie pours with emotion. I mean jesus the Rosebud reveal is about as subtle as a kick to the balls.)

Ronnie - nice try, but no cigar. I wasn't talking about Kane the character, or how chilly or dark the movie might be. By 'cold' I meant lifeless. I wasn't moved. I didn't care what was going to happen next.

I'm not sure about it, but it seems like Welles was a stubborn perfectionist. I'm not sure he made movies "for the people". More likely art for art-sake; pure, uncompromising approach. The result is a highly complex and intelligent piece, which is not very accessible to the common viewer. That's what I mean by cold approach. And that's why my last question was whether we, the audience, should be part of the equation when art is on the table.

"Citizen Kane" offers much in the details, but I wonder what's the basic attraction to it? that's my question to both of you: what makes you want to watch the next scene? what are you looking for? what do you want to find out? (except for "rosebud")

Those contrasts you list, Capo, are numerous. What I'm looking for is the lead contrast, under which they all group together. Is there one controlling argument in the film, and if so please name it. Is it a biography of Charles Foster Kane?

A masterpiece for me, is a movie where great details are built on great basics. You take Shakespeare for instance, his plays are remarkable in their most simple form as well. Every simpleton would enjoy the story of "Romeo and Juliet" or "Henry V" even if that simpleton fails to realize all the great and complex details of Shak's writing. The basic story is wonderful. A close reading will make it even much more wonderful.

Do you think "Citizen Kane" will work in the form of a simple story? maybe the answer to this question is the answer to why so many viewers fail to connect.

I was about eleven or twelve when I first saw "Citizen Kane". Perhaps that is too young to fully understand the movie BUT I do know I was intrigued by the idea of going back to find out the significance of a dying man's word. The story, going backwards, was done in a stylish manner and that is enough for me.