identifier stringlengths 1 43 | dataset stringclasses 3
values | question stringclasses 4
values | rank int64 0 99 | url stringlengths 14 1.88k | read_more_link stringclasses 1
value | language stringclasses 1
value | title stringlengths 0 200 | top_image stringlengths 0 125k | meta_img stringlengths 0 125k | images listlengths 0 18.2k | movies listlengths 0 484 | keywords listlengths 0 0 | meta_keywords listlengths 1 48.5k | tags null | authors listlengths 0 10 | publish_date stringlengths 19 32 ⌀ | summary stringclasses 1
value | meta_description stringlengths 0 258k | meta_lang stringclasses 68
values | meta_favicon stringlengths 0 20.2k | meta_site_name stringlengths 0 641 | canonical_link stringlengths 9 1.88k ⌀ | text stringlengths 0 100k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3393 | dbpedia | 2 | 15 | https://www.footalist.com/edinho-7827.html | en | Edinho (Grêmio) :: footalist | [
"https://media.footalist.com/footalist-logo-h.png",
"https://media.footalist.com/joueurs/player-default.png",
"https://media.footalist.com/clubs/100/Gremio.png",
"https://media.footalist.com/pays/64/BR.png",
"https://media.footalist.com/joueurs/player-default.png",
"https://media.footalist.com/pays/BR.png... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Profile of Edinho, football player (Brazil). Currently in Grêmio. Born on 15/01/1983, 1.83m, 84 kg | en | null | |||||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 17 | https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Edimo_Ferreira_Campos | en | Category:Edimo Ferreira Campos | [
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Edimo_Ferreira_Campos.JPG/230px-Edimo_Ferreira_Campos.JPG",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg/16px-Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg.png",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/Wikidata-logo.svg/20... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | /static/apple-touch/commons.png | https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Edimo_Ferreira_Campos | Member of sports team
US Lecce (0, 31, 2009–2009)
Sociedade Esportiva Palmeiras (1, 30, 2010–2010)
S.C. Internacional (1, 172, 2003–2008)
Fluminense F.C. (1, 100, 2011–2013)
Boavista Sport Club (2001–2002)
Grêmio FBPA (2014–) | ||||||
3393 | dbpedia | 3 | 18 | https://kids.kiddle.co/Fluminense_FC | en | Fluminense FC facts for kids | [
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/wk/kids-robot.svg",
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/wk/kids-search-engine.svg",
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/thumb/1/1d/FFC_crest.svg/240px-FFC_crest.svg.png",
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/2/29/Kit_left_arm_fluminense24h.png",
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/thumb/7/7f/Kit_l... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Learn Fluminense FC facts for kids | en | /images/wk/favicon-16x16.png | https://kids.kiddle.co/Fluminense_FC | Fluminense Football Club (Brazilian Portuguese: [flumiˈnẽsi futʃiˈbɔw ˈklubi]), known as Fluminense or more commonly as Flu, is a Brazilian sports club best known for its professional football team that competes in the Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A, the first tier of Brazilian football, and the Carioca Championship, the state league of Rio de Janeiro. The club is based in the neighbourhood of Laranjeiras since its foundation in 1902. Fluminense is the oldest football club in Rio de Janeiro.
Fluminense have been crowned national champions four times, most recently in the 2012 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A; the team have also won the 2007 Copa do Brasil and the 1952 Copa Rio. In 1949, Fluminense became the only football club in the world to receive the Olympic Cup, awarded annually by the International Olympic Committee to an institution or association with a record of merit and integrity in actively developing the Olympic Movement. Its best international performances are finishing champions of the 2023 Copa Libertadores, and reaching the 2008 Copa Libertadores finals.
Fluminense is the gentilic given to people born in the state of Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil.
Fluminense's traditional home kit consists of an iconic combination of three colors: burgundy, white, and green, disposed in vertical stripes, since its adoption in 1904. White shorts and white socks, an outfit which has been in use since 1920, complement the home kit for O Tricolor.
The club holds several long-standing rivalries with other clubs, most notably with Flamengo (Clássico Fla-Flu), Botafogo (Clássico Vovô) and Vasco da Gama (Clássico dos Gigantes). The Clássico Fla-Flu in particular is widely considered one of the greatest football derbies in Brazil and South America, having eventually set the world record for the highest attendance in a match between football clubs (over 200.000 spectators in the stadium of Maracanã).
The club is the birthplace of the Brazil national football team, which played its first game amidst the club’s 12th anniversary celebrations. In Fluminense's ground, the Estádio de Laranjeiras, the “Canarinhos” held their first match, scored their first goal and lifted their first trophy. To this day, the club has contributed the fifth-most players to the national team among all Brazilian clubs.
History
Fluminense Football Club was founded on 21 July 1902, in the neighbourhood of Laranjeiras, in the city of Rio de Janeiro, by a group of young football enthusiasts led by Oscar Cox, an English citizen born in Brazil, who had come into contact with the sport whilst studying in Europe, and Cox was subsequently elected as the first president. Therefore, it was the first football club to be founded in the city, whose most popular sport at the time was rowing.
The first official match was played against now defunct Rio Football Club, and Fluminense won 8–0. The club's first title came in 1906, when Fluminense won the state championship (Campeonato Carioca).
In 1911, disagreement between Fluminense players led to the formation of Flamengo's football team. The so-called Fla-Flu derby is considered one of the biggest in the history of Brazilian football. Three years later, in Fluminense's stadium, the Brazil national football team debuted, against touring English club Exeter City. It was also there that they won their debut title, in 1919.
By 1922, Fluminense had 4,000 members, a stadium for 25,000 people, and facilities that impressed clubs in Europe.
Construction of Maracanã
The 1950 World Cup strengthened football in the country, and as a result, the country's biggest teams, which basically only competed in state tournaments, began to measure their strength in tournaments and matches against teams from other states. To hold the competition, the Maracanã was built, the largest stadium in the world at that time, and which became the main stadium for Fluminense's games.
In the context of the World Cup held in the country in 1950, CBD, accompanied by FIFA and IFAB, decided to hold a competition that pitted the champion clubs from the main FIFA-affiliated countries against each other, thus creating the International Champions Club Tournament, better known as Copa Rio. The competition brought together the Champion clubs from countries in South America (Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) and Europe (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland and Yugoslavia), its first edition was in 1951, being won by Palmeiras.
In 1951, Fluminense won the Carioca championship, which meant that the team qualified for the 1952 Copa Rio. The team had great players who represented the Brazilian team, such as Carlos Castilho, Píndaro, Pinheiro, Didi, Orlando Pingo de Ouro and Telê Santana.
In the first phase of the competition, the teams were divided into two groups, the first played their matches at Maracanã, and the second played their matches at Pacaembu, Fluminense was in the first group and faced Grasshopper (Switzerland), Sporting Lisboa (Portugal) and Peñarol (Uruguay), and qualified in first place. In the semi final they beat Austria Wien (Austria), and in the final they defeated Corinthians.
From the 1950s, with the creation of the Rio-São Paulo Tournament, the forerunner of what eventually would become the national championship, Fluminense established itself regionally by winning the tournament title in 1957 and 1960.
National Achievements
From the 1960s onwards, the first national championships were played in Brazil, so that the country could send representatives to the Copa Libertadores. Fluminense's first national title came in 1970; At that time, Brazil had the best players in world football, and they all played for Brazilian clubs. Its squad was among the main candidates of the season in Brazil, Fluminense won the Brazilian Championship overcoming other major opponents of the season in Santos, Palmeiras and Cruzeiro.
In the 1970s, Fluminense signed several famous players such as Carlos Alberto Torres, Dirceu, Gil, Narciso Doval, Pintinho and Roberto Rivellino. This team, called "Tricolor Machine", won the state championship in 1975 and 1976. In the national championship, Fluminense lost in the semifinals to Internacional in 1975 and Corinthians in 1976.
Fluminense became Brazilian champions again in 1984, playing in the final against Rio rivals Vasco da Gama. During the decade, they also won three state championships in a row, in 1983, 1984 and 1985, defeating their main rival Flamengo, in the final of the first two. These titles were won by great players such as Branco, Delei, Edinho, Ricardo Gomes, Romerito and the “Casal Vinte”: Assis and Washington.
At the end of the 1980s, Copa do Brasil was created, inspired by the Cup tournaments played in European countries. Fluminense reached the final of the Copa do Brasil for the first time in 1992, but lost to Internacional in a penalty shootout, in a controversial match in Porto Alegre.
A disastrous campaign led to Fluminense's relegation from Brasileirão Série A in 1996. However, a set of off-field political manoeuvres not performed by the club allowed them to remain in Brazil's top domestic league, only to be relegated the next year. Completely out of control, the club was relegated from Série B to Série C in 1998. In 1999, Fluminense won the Série C championship and were to be promoted to Série B when they were invited to take part in Copa João Havelange, a championship that replaced the traditional Série A in 2000. In 2001, it was decided that all clubs which took part in Copa João Havelange's so-called Blue Group should be kept in Série A.
2000s: Copa do Brasil title, first Libertadores final
Fluminense had good campaigns in the 2000, 2001, and 2002 Serie A, finishing in the top four each of these times. Fluminense's first title of the 21st century was the 2002 Campeonato Carioca. In 2005, Fluminense won the Campeonato Caroica and the Taca Rio, and finished fifth in the Brasileirao. Later that year, they reached the final of the Copa do Brasil again, but lost to Serie B club Paulista 2–0, marking one of the few times that a Serie B club won the Copa do Brasil.
In 2007, Fluminense won the Copa do Brasil beating Figueirense in the final, and was admitted to the Copa Libertadores again after 23 years. In the 2007 Serie A, the club finished fourth, and Thiago Neves won the Golden Ball for the league's best player.
The club's 2008 Copa Libertadores campaign saw them reach the finals and included a remarkable 6–0 victory against Arsenal de Sarandí in the group stage, winning both games against Colombian club Atlético Nacional in R16, a comeback against São Paulo in the QF, and disposing of defending champions Boca Juniors in the SF with a 3–1 victory. Fluminense eventually finished runner-up, losing the finals to LDU Quito on penalties after a 5–5 draw on aggregate, despite a hat-trick from Thiago Neves in the second leg. Fluminense had already faced LDU in the group stage, winning 1-0 and drawing 0-0. The club finished fourteenth in the Serie A that season, and only finished one point away from relegation, but curiously still qualifying for the following years Copa Sudamericana.
After signing 27 players and going through 5 different managers in 2009, Fluminense found themselves struggling to avoid another relegation from Série A. With less than one-third of the championship left, the mathematical probability of the club's relegation was 98%. At this point, manager Cuca decided to dispense with some of the more experienced players and gave Fluminense's youngsters a chance. That, along with Fred's recovery from a serious injury and substantial support from the fans, allowed not only a sensational escape from relegation with five matches remaining, but also placed Fluminense in the Copa Sudamericana finals, having eliminated rivals Flamengo. For the second year in a row, the club contested a continental cup. In a repeat of the previous year's Copa Libertadores, Fluminense lost the finals to LDU Quito.
2010s: Two-time Brazilian championship
For 2010, manager Muricy Ramalho replaced Cuca. His first task was in the 2010 Copa do Brasil quarter-finals against Gremio, where Flumiense were eliminated 5–3 on aggregate. However, this elimination was not considered a "failure", in part because with this elimination the club was not participating in any other competitions and could fully focus on the Brasileirao. Eventually, the elimination helped the club, and that year, with Ramalho's effective defensive block conceding the least amount of goals in the league, Fluminense won the Brazilian championship for the third time in their history after 26 years, securing it with a 1–0 victory at home to already relegated Guarani. It was also the fourth title for coach Ramalho in a decade: Ramalho had won the title three times in a row with São Paulo from 2006 to 2008. Darío Conca was named the Brazilian Championship's Player of the Season, playing all 38 league matches, while Fred, Washington, and Deco were decisive players in Fluminense's title-winning campaign.
For the 2011 season, the new manager was Abel Braga, who led the team to a third-placed finish in the Serie A and qualification for the following year's Copa Libertadores, despite being eliminated in the round of 16 of the aforementioned competition by Club Libertad. The club decided to keep coach Abel Braga for 2012, and made big investments for the squad, bringing back Thiago Neves and signing youngster Wellington Nem. On 13 May 2012, Fluminense won the Campeonato Carioca, beating Rio rivals Botafogo 5–1 on aggregate for their first title of the 2012 season. In the Copa Libertadores, Fluminense was eliminated in the quarter-finals by powerhouse Boca Juniors, losing 2–1 on aggregate. Later that year, on 11 November, they won their fourth Brazilian championship after defeating near-relegated Palmeiras 3–2, with three matchdays left. Striker Fred was also the competition's top scorer, with 20 goals, and received the CBF Best Player award. Goalkeeper Diego Cavalieri had a phenomenal season and won the Bola de Prata as the league's best goalkeeper, and Abel Braga was chosen as best coach.
In 2013, the team was eliminated in the Copa Libertadores quarter finals again, this time to Olimpia. In the Serie A, the team began poorly, losing six of their first nine matches, which caused the sacking of coach Abel Braga. Seven undefeated matches in September steered the club away from relegation, but an eight-match winless run put the club back into the relegation fight, mainly due to the absences of stars Deco, Fred, Thiago Neves, Carlinhos and Wellington Nem, and in December 2013, a 2–1 victory away to Bahia in the last round of the 2013 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A had Fluminense mathematically relegated to Série B. However, rule-breaking lineups by Portuguesa and Fluminense's main rivals Flamengo in their matches against Grêmio and Cruzeiro respectively caused Portuguesa and Flamengo to lose 4 points after a trial in STJD (Brazil's governing football jury). The points lost by Flamengo and Portuguesa allowed Fluminense to stay in Série A, with Portuguesa being relegated and Flamengo ending the championship as the lowest-ranked non-relegated club.
In 2014, Fluminense brought back club idol Conca among other signings such as Walter and Cícero. Coupled with Fred's and Carlinhos’ recoveries from injury, Fluminense spent the majority of the 2014 Série A in the top five and fighting for one of the berths at the 2015 Copa Libertadores, ultimately failing to reach its goal after an unstable final stretch and finishing 6th. In December, Fluminense ended its partnership with its main sponsor, Unimed. For fifteen years, the health insurance company was the main investor in signing players, especially after the team won the 2007 Copa do Brasil, bringing to the club athletes such as Darío Conca, Deco, Diego Cavalieri, Fred, Rafael Sóbis, Thiago Neves and Washington. From 2015 onwards, Fluminense underwent a remodeling, with the departure of some of its main players. The club's youth categories became fundamental for its maintenance in the first division in the following years, and the sale of young players became the club's main source of income.
In 2019, the club hired Fernando Diniz, a young coach with innovative ideas within Brazilian football, but political conflicts within the club and a technically limited team caused the coach to be fired, with the team in the relegation zone, the team managed to escape relegation and reorganize. The following year the team brings back Fred, one of the greatest idols in the club's history, and in the 2020 season the team manages to qualify for the Copa Libertadores, with coach Odair Hellmann, but he leaves the team to coach Al Wasl, from the UAE.
2020s: Copa Libertadores title
The team returns to compete in the Copa Libertadores after eight years out of the competition, and with consistent campaigns in the Brazilian championship it manages to secure places in the competitions in consecutive editions of the Libertadores. However, after Odair's departure, the club has difficulty maintaining a coach, with Marcão, Roger Machado and Abel Braga taking over the position. In 2022, after winning the Campeonato Carioca against rivals Flu, their first trophy in a decade, with Argentine striker Germán Cano being the star of the team, and being eliminated from the Libertadores, Abel Braga retires from his coaching career, and Fluminense decides to give Fernando Diniz another chance.
In 2022, Fluminense achieves its best place in the Brazilian Championship in the last ten years, a third place, with an offensive team that is noted for its fluidity and ball possession, and the team qualifies for the group stage of the 2023 Copa Libertadores. In the beginning of the season, the football played by the team is considered by many to be the best in South America, and the team reaches the Campeonato Carioca finals against Flamengo; in the first match the red-black team wins 2–0, but in the second game Fluminense achieved a 4–1 victory, winning the Campeonato Carioca for a second year in a row against its main rival, and Diniz clinching his first trophy with the club. In the 2023 Libertadores, Fluminense falls into group D, along with River Plate (Argentina), The Strongest (Bolivia) and Sporting Cristal (Peru), despite being considered one of the most difficult groups in the edition, Fluminense ranks first, inflicting the biggest defeat in River Plate's history in the competition, 5–1 at Maracanã. In the final stage of the dispute, the opponents were Argentinos Juniors, Olimpia (Paraguay) and Internacional, the team defeated all opponents without suffering any defeat.
Flu's home stadium, Maracanã, was previously chosen to be the stage for the final; on the other side the opponent would be Boca Juniors, who sought to become champions of the competition for the seventh time, and with this become the greatest champion of the competition, tied to Independiente. In the final, striker Germán Cano opened the scoring for Fluminense, but Peruvian right-back Luis Advíncula tied the match for Boca; the match then went into extra time, when youngster John Kennedy, coming from the youth team, came off the bench and scored the team's second goal. The match ended 2–1 for Fluminense, who lifted the Copa Libertadores trophy for the first time.
Season statistics
Fluminense have taken part in 57 of the 68 official Serie A championships organized in Brazil since 1959.
Taça Brasil
Year Position Participants Year Position Participants 1959 - 16 1964 - 22 1960 3º 17 1965 - 22 1961 - 18 1966 4º 22 1962 - 18 1967 - 21 1963 - 20 1968 - 23
Roberto Gomes Pedrosa Tournament
Year Position Participants 1967 13º 15 1968 12º 17 1969 9º 17 1970 1º 17
Brazilian Championship
Year Position Participants Year Position Participants 1971 16º 20 1981 11º 44 1972 14º 26 1982 5º 44 1973 23º 40 1983 18º 44 1974 24º 40 1984 1º 41 1975 3º 42 1985 22º 44 1976 4º 54 1986 6º 48 1977 26º 62 1987 7º 16 1978 22º 74 1988 3º 24 1979 52º 94 1989 15º 22 1980 11º 44 1990 15º 20
Year Position Participants Year Position Participants 1991 4º 20 2001 3º 28 1992 14º 20 2002 4º 26 1993 28º 32 2003 19º 24 1994 15º 24 2004 9º 24 1995 4º 24 2005 5º 22 1996 23º 24 2006 15º 20 1997 25º 26 2007 4º 20 1998 19º (Série B) 24 2008 14º 20 1999 1º (Série C) 36 2009 16º 20 2000 3º 25 2010 1º 20
Year Position Participants Year Position Participants 2011 3º 20 2018 12º 20 2012 1º 20 2019 14º 20 2013 15º 20 2020 5º 20 2014 6º 20 2021 7º 20 2015 13º 20 2022 3º 20 2016 13º 20 2023 7º 20 2017 14º 20
Records
Highest attendances – Maracanã
According to the RSSSF, these were the highest attendances in Fluminense matches:
1. Fluminense 0-0 Flamengo (1963): 194,603
2. Fluminense 3–2 Flamengo (1969): 171,599
3. Fluminense 1–0 Botafogo (1971): 160,000
4. Fluminense 0–0 Flamengo (1976): 155,116
5. Fluminense 1–0 Flamengo (1984): 153,520
6. Fluminense 1–1 Corinthians (1976): 146,043
Highest average attendance at public competition for Fluminense
Largest average attendance in the Copa Libertadores (RJ): 59,759 (54,912 paying, 2023)
Largest average attendance in the Copa Sudamericana (RJ): 29,357 (27,318 paying, 2009)
Largest average attendance in international tournaments (RJ): 48,797 (37,541 paying, Copa Rio, 1952)
Largest average attendance in national championships (RJ): 43,541 paying (1976)
Largest average attendance in the Tournament Roberto Gomes Pedrosa (RJ): 40,408 paying (1970)
Largest average attendance in the Brazil Cup (RJ): 27,123 paying (2007)
Largest average attendance in the Rio-São Paulo Tournament (RJ): 33,018 paying (1960)
Largest average attendance in the state championship: 47,814 paying (1969, all stages)
Largest average attendance in the state championship in the Maracana Stadium: 93,560 paying (1969, 10 matches)
Support
The supporters of Fluminense Football Club are usually related to the upper classes of Rio de Janeiro. However, the popularity of the club reaches beyond the city limits. Recent polls have estimated the number of supporters to be between 1.3% and 3.7% of the Brazilian population, and between the 11th and 15th most popular club in the nation, falling behind Rio rivals Vasco, but slightly above Botafogo. Considering a population of 203 million people, that would account for numbers between 2.6 and 7.5 million. According to the club's official website, Flu has over 5 million supporters worldwide.
The best attendance ever observed in a Fluminense match was registered on 15 December 1963 in a derby against Flamengo. On that day, an impressive number of 194,603 people showed up at Maracanã stadium. This occasion remains as the stadium's record for a match between clubs.
Notable supporters of Fluminense include composers Cartola and Chico Buarque, musicians Elis Regina, Ivan Lins, Pixinguinha, Renato Russo and Tom Jobim, actors Breno Mello, Chico Díaz, Dalton Vigh, Hugo Carvana, and Thiago Fragoso, and actresses Deborah Secco, Fernanda Torres, Leticia Spiller and Sheron Menezzes, poet Mário Lago, journalist and songwriter Nelson Motta, dramatist, journalist and writer Nelson Rodrigues, modernist architect Oscar Niemeyer, FIFA president of honor João Havelange, 1970 FIFA World Cup winners Gérson and Carlos Alberto Torres, Chelsea central defender Thiago Silva, Left-back legend Marcelo, racing driver Cacá Bueno, sailors Maertine Grael and Torben Grael, former Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil, inventor and aeronaut Santos Dumont, Silvio Santos, the owner of SBT, the second largest Brazilian television network, and the Academy Award nominee Fernanda Montenegro.
Honours
INTERNATIONAL Competitions Titles Seasons Copa Rio International 1 1952 CONTINENTAL Competitions Titles Seasons Copa Libertadores 1 2023 Recopa Sudamericana 1 2024 NATIONAL Competitions Titles Seasons Campeonato Brasileiro Série A 4 1970, 1984, 2010, 2012 Copa do Brasil 1 2007 Campeonato Brasileiro Série C 1 1999 STATE Competitions Titles Seasons Campeonato Carioca 33 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1911, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1924, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1940, 1941, 1946, 1951, 1959, 1964, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2012, 2022, 2023 INTER-STATE Competitions Titles Seasons Torneio Rio – São Paulo 2 1957, 1960 Primeira Liga 1 2016 Taça Ioduran 1 1919
Others
Olympic Cup (1): 1949
Carioca Champion of the 20th Century: 1906–2000
Copa Rio (1): 1998
Taça Guanabara (12): 1966, 1969, 1971, 1975, 1983, 1985, 1991, 1993, 2012, 2017, 2022, 2023
Taça Rio (4): 1990, 2005, 2018, 2020
Torneio Municipal (2): 1938, 1948
Torneio Extra (1): 1941
Torneio Aberto (1): 1935
Torneio Início (9): 1916, 1924, 1925, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1954, 1956, 1965
Other Campeonato Carioca rounds (6): 1970, 1972, 1973, 1976, 1980, 2012
Capital Championship (1): 1994
Taça Eficiência (14): 1935, 1941, 1948, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1957, 1959, 1963, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1976, 1984
Taça Disciplina (7): 1946, 1948, 1956, 1958, 1963, 1972, 1977
Chronology of main titles
Competition Season N.º Carioca Championship 1906 1º Carioca Championship 1907 2º Carioca Championship 1908 3º Carioca Championship 1909 4º Carioca Championship 1911 5º Carioca Championship 1917 6º Carioca Championship 1918 7º Carioca Championship 1919 8º Taça Ioduran 1919 9º Carioca Championship 1924 10º Carioca Championship 1936 11º Carioca Championship 1937 12º Carioca Championship 1938 13º Carioca Championship 1940 14º Carioca Championship 1941 15º Carioca Championship 1946 16º Carioca Championship 1951 17º Rio Cup (International) 1952 18º Rio–São Paulo Tournament 1957 19º Carioca Championship 1959 20º Rio–São Paulo Tournament 1960 21º Carioca Championship 1964 22º Carioca Championship 1969 23º Brazilian Championship 1970 24º Carioca Championship 1971 25º Carioca Championship 1973 26º Carioca Championship 1975 27º Carioca Championship 1976 28º Carioca Championship 1980 29º Carioca Championship 1983 30º Brazilian Championship 1984 31º Carioca Championship 1984 32º Carioca Championship 1985 33º Carioca Championship 1995 34º Carioca Championship 2002 35º Carioca Championship 2005 36º Brazil Cup 2007 37º Brazilian Championship 2010 38º Carioca Championship 2012 39º Brazilian Championship 2012 40º First League (Brazil) 2016 41º Carioca Championship 2022 42º Carioca Championship 2023 43º Copa Libertadores 2023 44º Recopa Sudamericana 2024 45º
Source:
Rivalries
According to the fluzao.info site, the average paying public at the principal classicos of Fluminense played in the Estádio do Maracanã is 60,107 against Flamengo, 43,735 against Vasco da Gama, 34,359 against Botafogo, 25,127 against America and 22,527 against Bangu (1950-2010). These statistics could be about 20% higher, given the issues of the distribution of gratuities at Maracanã.
Grandpa Derby
Grandpa Derby or Grandfather Derby (Clássico Vovô), played with Botafogo. The name comes from being the two oldest practicing football clubs among the great clubs of Rio de Janeiro, and this is also the oldest classic in Brazil, because its first game was on October 22, 1905, friendly that Fluminense won by 6–0. Along with six other clubs, they were responsible for creating the Carioca Football Championship in 1906.
Fla-Flu
Fla-Flu Derby, also called Derby of Crowds (Clássico das Multidões), played with Flamengo. It is considered by football experts and much of the sports media as one of the greatest classics in the world. According to writer Nelson Rodrigues, the classic was generated by resentment. On the tricolor side, the fact that their starting players deserted and went to form Flamengo's football department, and on the red-black side, the fact that Fluminense still won the first match, circumstances that would have been fundamental in generating the derby mystique;
Giants' Derby
Giants' Derby (Clássico dos Gigantes), played with Vasco da Gama. The derby gets its name because of the "giant" matches that have been played between the two, these being the final for the 1984 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, which was won by Fluminense, and the 1985 Copa Libertadores, which had two draws, in addition to several decisions Carioca Championship: 1949, 1956, 1970, 1972, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1993, 1994 and 2003.
Corinthians vs. Fluminense, interstate derby
The derby against Corinthians is perhaps the most representative among the various confrontations with big Brazilian clubs played by Fluminense, given the fact that these clubs often intersect at decisive moments in their seasons.
Statistics
This is a list of statistics and records of Fluminense.
Players with most appearances
Name Matches 1st Castilho 699 2nd Pinheiro 603 3rd Telê Santana 556 4th Altair 549 5th Escurinho 490 6th Rubens Galaxe 462 7th Denílson 433 8th Gum 414 9th Assis 424 10th Waldo 403
Top goalscorers
Name Goals Years 1st Waldo 319 1954–61 2nd Fred 199 2009-16 / 2020-22 3rd Orlando Pingo de Ouro 184 1945-55 4th Hércules 165 1935–42 5th Telê Santana 164 1950–61 6th Henry Welfare 163 1913–23 7th Russo 149 1933–44 8th Preguinho 128 1925–39 9th Washington César 124 1983–89 10th Magno Alves 121 1998–2002 / 2015-2016
Coaches with most games
Name Matches 1st Zezé Moreira 467 2nd Abel Braga 354 3rd Ondino Viera 300 4th Renato Gaúcho 202 5th Tim 166 6th Fernando Diniz 160 7th Nelsinho Rosa 156 8th Carlos Alberto Parreira 146 9th Sylvio Pirillo 138 10th Luís Vinhaes 137
Correct as of October 4, 2023
Companies that Fluminense Football Club currently has sponsorship deals with include:
Sports Equipment
Years Kit manufacturer 1976–1980 Adidas
Rainha
1981–1985 Le Coq Sportif 1985–1994 Penalty 1994–1996 Reebok 1996–2015 Adidas 2016–2017 Dryworld 2017–2019 Under Armour 2020– Umbro
Years Sponsor(s) 1984 Mondaine
Banco Nacional
Kodak
1985 SulAmérica Seguros 1986 Heart Line 1987 1001 Turismo 1987–1994 Coca-Cola 1995 Ame o Rio 1995–1996 Hyundai
SporTV
1997 SporTV 1997–1998 SporTV
Oceânica Seguros
MTV Brasil
1999 Sonrisal
MTV Brasil
1999–2014 Unimed 2015–2017 Viton 44 2017 Universal Orlando Resort 2018 Valle Express 2021– Betano
Stadiums
Laranjeiras Stadium
The Manoel Schwartz Stadium is better known as the Laranjeiras Stadium, or also the Álvaro Chaves Street Stadium, due to the name of the street where its main entrance is located. It was the place where the Rio team played its games for decades, however, for security reasons, due to the high demand for attendance at its games, it no longer does so, currently playing at Maracanã.
Flu's first match at the Laranjeiras Stadium was the 4–1 victory over Vila Isabel, in the 1919 Carioca Championship, with the Tricolor goals having been scored by Harry Welfare (3) and Machado. Opened in 1919 with a capacity for 18,000 people and having had its capacity expanded to 25,000 people since 1922, in some games this stadium had estimated audiences greater than its capacity.
The record for paying audiences was in the Fluminense 3-1 Flamengo match, on June 14, 1925, when 25,718 spectators paid for tickets, although today the audience for Fluminense's match against Sporting, held on July 15, is unknown. 1928, in the Vulcain Cup dispute, with the stadium full and over 2,000 chairs being placed on the athletics track to accommodate the public present.
Currently, Fluminense does not play its games at its stadium, at the club's option, as it would no longer have the security conditions and capacity to host large events, and is currently only used for training, small commemorative events, social and educational projects, games of the women's football team and the youth teams. The last time an official match for Fluminense's main team took place at Laranjeiras Stadium was in 2003, where Flu drew 3–3 with Americano, in the Carioca Championship.
The renovation of the stadium has been a long-standing demand of the club, however a series of problems make this difficult, such as technical issues linked to the historical preservation of the building, the small area for the construction of a modern stadium and the opposition of the surrounding residents. The current project, at a more advanced stage, foresees a revitalization of Laranjeiras, with the stadium remaining with a small audience capacity, being able to host lower demand games, such as the first phases of the state championship and women's football.
Maracanã Stadium
Since its construction for the 1950 World Cup, the Maracanã has primarily served as the home ground for the four biggest Rio de Janeiro clubs. The stadium was officially completed in 1965, 17 years after construction began. In 1963, more than 194,000 people attended a match between Flamengo and Fluminense at the Maracanã, Rio Championship final.
At the stadium, Fluminense won some of the most important titles, such as the 1952 Copa Rio, for many the most important in its history, it won its first Brazilian Championship in 1970, the Tricolor Machine was twice champion of Carioca (1975–76), led by Roberto Rivellino, it was Brazilian champion over its rival Vasco da Gama, in 1984, was three-time Rio champion against Flamengo (1983–85), he was Carioca champion in 1995 with Renato Gaúcho's belly goal, against Romário's Flamengo (at the time named FIFA World Player of the Year). In this century he won the 2007 Brazil's Cup and the 2023 Copa Libertadores.
Following its 50th anniversary and aiming to hold the 2000 FIFA Club World Cup in Brazil, the stadium underwent renovations which would increase its full capacity to around 103,000. After years of planning and nine months of closure between 2005 and 2006, the stadium was reopened in January 2007 with an all-seated capacity of 87,000. For the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Olympics and Paralympics, a major expedition project was started in 2010. The original stand, with a two-level configuration, was demolished, making way for a new single-level stand, and the stadium had its capacity reduced to 78,838 seats.
From 2013 onwards, the stadium was managed by the Brazilian conglomerate Odebrecht. Corruption scandals, the high rents charged by the company and the abandonment of the stadium, meant that Flamengo and Fluminense came together to manage it. Although clubs have kept the stadium in good condition since 2016 and covered its maintenance costs, it was only in 2019 that the government canceled contracts with Odebrecht. Flamengo and Fluminense then created a joint company, "Fla-Flu S.A." opened especially to manage Maracanã and its entire sports complex.
Players
See also: List of Fluminense Football Club players
Current squad
Reserve team
No. Position Player 13 DF Felipe Andrade 19 FW Alexandre Jesus 28 MF Arthur 31 DF Calegari 32 FW Isaac 34 DF Davi 36 DF Júlio Fidelis 37 MF Wallace 39 FW Kauã Elias 41 DF Kayke Almeida 42 DF Jhonny 46 DF Lucas Justen 47 DF Rafael Monteiro
No. Position Player 48 MF Gustavo Apis 50 GK Gustavo Ramalho 51 DF Marcos Pedro 52 MF Dohmann 53 MF Thiago Henrique GK Kevyn DF Esquerdinha MF Freitas MF João Lourenço FW Matheus Reis FW Agner FW Jan Lucumí (on loan from Boca Juniors de Cali)
Other players under contract
Out on loan
Staff
Current staff
As of 13 August 2024
Position Name Nationality Head coach Fernando Diniz Brazilian Assistant coaches Wagner Bertelli Brazilian Eduardo Barros Brazilian Marcão Brazilian Cadu Antunes Brazilian Technical assistant Marco Salgado Brazilian Fitness coaches Marcos Seixas Brazilian Flávio Vignoli Brazilian Igor Cotrim Brazilian Goalkeeper coach coordinator Flavio Tenius Brazilian Goalkeeper coaches André Carvalho Brazilian Josmiro de Góes Brazilian
Head coaches
See also
In Spanish: Fluminense Football Club para niños | |||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 2 | https://boo.world/database/profile/485084/edimo-ferreira-campos-edinho-personality-type | en | Edimo Ferreira Campos "Edinho"'s Personality Unveiled: MBTI, Enneagram and More | [
"https://boo.world/boo_logo.png",
"https://boo.world/boo_logo.png",
"https://boo.world/boo_logo.png",
"https://boo.world/boo_logo.png",
"https://boo.world/boo_logo.png",
"https://boo.world/boo_logo.png",
"https://boo.world/boo_logo.png",
"https://boo.world/boo_logo.png",
"https://boo.world/boo_logo.... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | What 16 personality type is Edimo Ferreira Campos "Edinho" from Brazil? Find out Edimo Ferreira Campos "Edinho"'s 16 type, Enneagram, and Zodiac sign in the Soulverse, the comprehensive personality database. | en | /icon.png | Boo | https://boo.world/database/profile/485084/edimo-ferreira-campos-edinho-personality-type | Edimo Ferreira Campos "Edinho" Bio
Edimo Ferreira Campos, popularly known as Edinho, is a well-known figure in Brazil's sports industry. Born on February 27, 1970, in Santos, São Paulo, Edinho made a name for himself as a professional football player and later ventured into coaching. He is the son of the legendary Brazilian footballer Edson Arantes do Nascimento, famously known as Pelé, and has carved out his own successful career in the sport. Edinho began his football journey as a goalkeeper for Santos Futebol Clube, where he played from 1985 to 1991. Following his departure from Santos, he played for various clubs in Brazil, including São Bento and Portuguesa Santista. However, it was during his time as a goalkeeper for Ponte Preta that he gained significant recognition and established himself as a reliable player. After retiring as a player, Edinho transitioned into coaching, following in his father's footsteps. He worked as an assistant coach for Santos before taking charge of various lower-division clubs, such as Mogi Mirim and Atlético Sorocaba. Despite facing challenges along the way, Edinho's determination and passion for the sport have been evident throughout his coaching career . Notwithstanding his achievements and associations with prominent sports figures, Edinho has also faced legal issues. In 2005, he was arrested on drug trafficking charges and subsequently sentenced to 33 years in prison. Edinho has maintained his innocence, claiming that the accusations against him are baseless. After several legal battles, his sentence was later reduced to house arrest and community service, allowing him to partially resume his coaching career . Edimo Ferreira Campos, aka Edinho, has left a lasting impact on Brazil's football landscape. While his achievements on the field and coaching successes are noteworthy, his legal battles have also drawn attention to his personal life. Today, Edinho's journey serves as a reminder of the complexities of fame and the challenges that can arise even for individuals born into football royalty.
What 16 personality type is Edimo Ferreira Campos "Edinho"?
Edimo Ferreira Campos "Edinho", as an ENFP, tends to focus more on the big picture than on the details. They may have trouble paying attention to details or following instructions. This personality type like to live in the now and go with the flow. Boxing them in with expectations may not be the greatest solution for their development and maturity. ENFPs are also optimistic. They see the best in people and situations, always looking for the silver lining. They don't judge people based on their differences. They may like exploring the unknown with fun-loving friends and strangers due to their active and impulsive nature. Even the organization's most conservative members are captivated by their enthusiasm. They'd never give up the adrenaline rush of discovery. They appreciate others for their differences and enjoy exploring new things with them. They are excited by the prospect of discovery and are always looking for new ways to experience life. They believe that everyone has something to offer and should be given a chance to shine.
Which Enneagram Type is Edimo Ferreira Campos "Edinho"?
Edimo Ferreira Campos "Edinho" is an Enneagram Seven personality type with a Six wing or 7w6. They have a full tank of spontaneous energy day and night. These personalities seem to never run out of new fun stories and adventures. However, don’t mistake their enthusiasm with incompetence, for these Type 7s are mature enough to separate playtime from actual leg work. Their personable optimism makes every effort light and easy. | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 56 | https://observer.ug/news/headlines/77823-pele-s-gilded-tomb-opened-to-public-in-brazil | en | Pele's gilded tomb opened to public in Brazil | [
"https://observer.ug/images2/death/Peles-mausoleum.jpg",
"https://observer.ug/modules/mod_news_pro_gk5/cache/stomer.www.observer.ug.public_html.images2.environment.Bugoma_forest_reservensp-785_links.png",
"https://observer.ug/modules/mod_news_pro_gk5/cache/stomer.www.observer.ug.public_html.images2.disasters.Ki... | [] | [] | [
"football",
"pele",
"tourism"
] | null | [] | 2023-05-18T02:06:42+03:00 | football | en | https://observer.ug/templates/gk_news2/images/favicon.ico | The Observer - Uganda | https://observer.ug/news/headlines/77823-pele-s-gilded-tomb-opened-to-public-in-brazil | It is a final resting place fit for "The King": six months after the death of the man widely considered the greatest footballer of all time, Brazil opened Pele's gilded, football-turfed burial chamber to the public Monday.
Pele, who died on December 29 at age 82 after a battle with cancer, was laid to rest at the Ecumenical Memorial Cemetery in Santos, Brazil. It is a high-rise, 14-story mausoleum that holds the Guinness world record for the tallest cemetery on earth.
Fans were greeted by two life-size golden statues of the player nicknamed "O Rei" — The King — whose remains rest inside a large golden vault displayed in the middle of a 200-square-meter (more than 2,000-square-foot) room carpeted in artificial turf.
"It surpassed my expectations. It's a really beautiful place," said Ronaldo Rodrigues, 44, a businessman who was first in line to visit the tomb, along with his wife.
"I hope lots of tourists will come visit and get to know a little about Pele's story, what he represented for Santos, Brazil and the entire world."
Born Edson Arantes do Nascimento, Pele is the only player in history to win three World Cups (1958, 1962 and 1970). He scored a world record 1,281 goals during his more than two-decade career with Santos (1956-74), the New York Cosmos (1975-77) and the Brazilian national team.
In tears, Pele's son Edinho told reporters who flocked to the southeastern port city that the family was still struggling to cope with their loss.
"But we're also very proud and happy at all the affection and reverence that's kept pouring in," he said.
For now, entries to the tomb are limited to 60 people a day, via a sign-up form on the cemetery's website. Topped with a cross, Pele's golden vault has black etchings on its sides, depicting his 1,000th goal and his famous raised-fist goal celebration. The room is wallpapered with images of fans in a football stadium.
The resort-like cemetery also features an auto museum that now includes the Mercedes Benz S-280 the company gave Pele in 1974 to commemorate his 1,000th goal.
"It's a place that's rich in detail, all lovingly assembled in tribute, as the 'King' deserves," cemetery manager Paulo Campos told AFP. | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 57 | https://kids.kiddle.co/Fluminense_FC | en | Fluminense FC facts for kids | [
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/wk/kids-robot.svg",
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/wk/kids-search-engine.svg",
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/thumb/1/1d/FFC_crest.svg/240px-FFC_crest.svg.png",
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/2/29/Kit_left_arm_fluminense24h.png",
"https://kids.kiddle.co/images/thumb/7/7f/Kit_l... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Learn Fluminense FC facts for kids | en | /images/wk/favicon-16x16.png | https://kids.kiddle.co/Fluminense_FC | Fluminense Football Club (Brazilian Portuguese: [flumiˈnẽsi futʃiˈbɔw ˈklubi]), known as Fluminense or more commonly as Flu, is a Brazilian sports club best known for its professional football team that competes in the Campeonato Brasileiro Serie A, the first tier of Brazilian football, and the Carioca Championship, the state league of Rio de Janeiro. The club is based in the neighbourhood of Laranjeiras since its foundation in 1902. Fluminense is the oldest football club in Rio de Janeiro.
Fluminense have been crowned national champions four times, most recently in the 2012 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A; the team have also won the 2007 Copa do Brasil and the 1952 Copa Rio. In 1949, Fluminense became the only football club in the world to receive the Olympic Cup, awarded annually by the International Olympic Committee to an institution or association with a record of merit and integrity in actively developing the Olympic Movement. Its best international performances are finishing champions of the 2023 Copa Libertadores, and reaching the 2008 Copa Libertadores finals.
Fluminense is the gentilic given to people born in the state of Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil.
Fluminense's traditional home kit consists of an iconic combination of three colors: burgundy, white, and green, disposed in vertical stripes, since its adoption in 1904. White shorts and white socks, an outfit which has been in use since 1920, complement the home kit for O Tricolor.
The club holds several long-standing rivalries with other clubs, most notably with Flamengo (Clássico Fla-Flu), Botafogo (Clássico Vovô) and Vasco da Gama (Clássico dos Gigantes). The Clássico Fla-Flu in particular is widely considered one of the greatest football derbies in Brazil and South America, having eventually set the world record for the highest attendance in a match between football clubs (over 200.000 spectators in the stadium of Maracanã).
The club is the birthplace of the Brazil national football team, which played its first game amidst the club’s 12th anniversary celebrations. In Fluminense's ground, the Estádio de Laranjeiras, the “Canarinhos” held their first match, scored their first goal and lifted their first trophy. To this day, the club has contributed the fifth-most players to the national team among all Brazilian clubs.
History
Fluminense Football Club was founded on 21 July 1902, in the neighbourhood of Laranjeiras, in the city of Rio de Janeiro, by a group of young football enthusiasts led by Oscar Cox, an English citizen born in Brazil, who had come into contact with the sport whilst studying in Europe, and Cox was subsequently elected as the first president. Therefore, it was the first football club to be founded in the city, whose most popular sport at the time was rowing.
The first official match was played against now defunct Rio Football Club, and Fluminense won 8–0. The club's first title came in 1906, when Fluminense won the state championship (Campeonato Carioca).
In 1911, disagreement between Fluminense players led to the formation of Flamengo's football team. The so-called Fla-Flu derby is considered one of the biggest in the history of Brazilian football. Three years later, in Fluminense's stadium, the Brazil national football team debuted, against touring English club Exeter City. It was also there that they won their debut title, in 1919.
By 1922, Fluminense had 4,000 members, a stadium for 25,000 people, and facilities that impressed clubs in Europe.
Construction of Maracanã
The 1950 World Cup strengthened football in the country, and as a result, the country's biggest teams, which basically only competed in state tournaments, began to measure their strength in tournaments and matches against teams from other states. To hold the competition, the Maracanã was built, the largest stadium in the world at that time, and which became the main stadium for Fluminense's games.
In the context of the World Cup held in the country in 1950, CBD, accompanied by FIFA and IFAB, decided to hold a competition that pitted the champion clubs from the main FIFA-affiliated countries against each other, thus creating the International Champions Club Tournament, better known as Copa Rio. The competition brought together the Champion clubs from countries in South America (Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) and Europe (Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland and Yugoslavia), its first edition was in 1951, being won by Palmeiras.
In 1951, Fluminense won the Carioca championship, which meant that the team qualified for the 1952 Copa Rio. The team had great players who represented the Brazilian team, such as Carlos Castilho, Píndaro, Pinheiro, Didi, Orlando Pingo de Ouro and Telê Santana.
In the first phase of the competition, the teams were divided into two groups, the first played their matches at Maracanã, and the second played their matches at Pacaembu, Fluminense was in the first group and faced Grasshopper (Switzerland), Sporting Lisboa (Portugal) and Peñarol (Uruguay), and qualified in first place. In the semi final they beat Austria Wien (Austria), and in the final they defeated Corinthians.
From the 1950s, with the creation of the Rio-São Paulo Tournament, the forerunner of what eventually would become the national championship, Fluminense established itself regionally by winning the tournament title in 1957 and 1960.
National Achievements
From the 1960s onwards, the first national championships were played in Brazil, so that the country could send representatives to the Copa Libertadores. Fluminense's first national title came in 1970; At that time, Brazil had the best players in world football, and they all played for Brazilian clubs. Its squad was among the main candidates of the season in Brazil, Fluminense won the Brazilian Championship overcoming other major opponents of the season in Santos, Palmeiras and Cruzeiro.
In the 1970s, Fluminense signed several famous players such as Carlos Alberto Torres, Dirceu, Gil, Narciso Doval, Pintinho and Roberto Rivellino. This team, called "Tricolor Machine", won the state championship in 1975 and 1976. In the national championship, Fluminense lost in the semifinals to Internacional in 1975 and Corinthians in 1976.
Fluminense became Brazilian champions again in 1984, playing in the final against Rio rivals Vasco da Gama. During the decade, they also won three state championships in a row, in 1983, 1984 and 1985, defeating their main rival Flamengo, in the final of the first two. These titles were won by great players such as Branco, Delei, Edinho, Ricardo Gomes, Romerito and the “Casal Vinte”: Assis and Washington.
At the end of the 1980s, Copa do Brasil was created, inspired by the Cup tournaments played in European countries. Fluminense reached the final of the Copa do Brasil for the first time in 1992, but lost to Internacional in a penalty shootout, in a controversial match in Porto Alegre.
A disastrous campaign led to Fluminense's relegation from Brasileirão Série A in 1996. However, a set of off-field political manoeuvres not performed by the club allowed them to remain in Brazil's top domestic league, only to be relegated the next year. Completely out of control, the club was relegated from Série B to Série C in 1998. In 1999, Fluminense won the Série C championship and were to be promoted to Série B when they were invited to take part in Copa João Havelange, a championship that replaced the traditional Série A in 2000. In 2001, it was decided that all clubs which took part in Copa João Havelange's so-called Blue Group should be kept in Série A.
2000s: Copa do Brasil title, first Libertadores final
Fluminense had good campaigns in the 2000, 2001, and 2002 Serie A, finishing in the top four each of these times. Fluminense's first title of the 21st century was the 2002 Campeonato Carioca. In 2005, Fluminense won the Campeonato Caroica and the Taca Rio, and finished fifth in the Brasileirao. Later that year, they reached the final of the Copa do Brasil again, but lost to Serie B club Paulista 2–0, marking one of the few times that a Serie B club won the Copa do Brasil.
In 2007, Fluminense won the Copa do Brasil beating Figueirense in the final, and was admitted to the Copa Libertadores again after 23 years. In the 2007 Serie A, the club finished fourth, and Thiago Neves won the Golden Ball for the league's best player.
The club's 2008 Copa Libertadores campaign saw them reach the finals and included a remarkable 6–0 victory against Arsenal de Sarandí in the group stage, winning both games against Colombian club Atlético Nacional in R16, a comeback against São Paulo in the QF, and disposing of defending champions Boca Juniors in the SF with a 3–1 victory. Fluminense eventually finished runner-up, losing the finals to LDU Quito on penalties after a 5–5 draw on aggregate, despite a hat-trick from Thiago Neves in the second leg. Fluminense had already faced LDU in the group stage, winning 1-0 and drawing 0-0. The club finished fourteenth in the Serie A that season, and only finished one point away from relegation, but curiously still qualifying for the following years Copa Sudamericana.
After signing 27 players and going through 5 different managers in 2009, Fluminense found themselves struggling to avoid another relegation from Série A. With less than one-third of the championship left, the mathematical probability of the club's relegation was 98%. At this point, manager Cuca decided to dispense with some of the more experienced players and gave Fluminense's youngsters a chance. That, along with Fred's recovery from a serious injury and substantial support from the fans, allowed not only a sensational escape from relegation with five matches remaining, but also placed Fluminense in the Copa Sudamericana finals, having eliminated rivals Flamengo. For the second year in a row, the club contested a continental cup. In a repeat of the previous year's Copa Libertadores, Fluminense lost the finals to LDU Quito.
2010s: Two-time Brazilian championship
For 2010, manager Muricy Ramalho replaced Cuca. His first task was in the 2010 Copa do Brasil quarter-finals against Gremio, where Flumiense were eliminated 5–3 on aggregate. However, this elimination was not considered a "failure", in part because with this elimination the club was not participating in any other competitions and could fully focus on the Brasileirao. Eventually, the elimination helped the club, and that year, with Ramalho's effective defensive block conceding the least amount of goals in the league, Fluminense won the Brazilian championship for the third time in their history after 26 years, securing it with a 1–0 victory at home to already relegated Guarani. It was also the fourth title for coach Ramalho in a decade: Ramalho had won the title three times in a row with São Paulo from 2006 to 2008. Darío Conca was named the Brazilian Championship's Player of the Season, playing all 38 league matches, while Fred, Washington, and Deco were decisive players in Fluminense's title-winning campaign.
For the 2011 season, the new manager was Abel Braga, who led the team to a third-placed finish in the Serie A and qualification for the following year's Copa Libertadores, despite being eliminated in the round of 16 of the aforementioned competition by Club Libertad. The club decided to keep coach Abel Braga for 2012, and made big investments for the squad, bringing back Thiago Neves and signing youngster Wellington Nem. On 13 May 2012, Fluminense won the Campeonato Carioca, beating Rio rivals Botafogo 5–1 on aggregate for their first title of the 2012 season. In the Copa Libertadores, Fluminense was eliminated in the quarter-finals by powerhouse Boca Juniors, losing 2–1 on aggregate. Later that year, on 11 November, they won their fourth Brazilian championship after defeating near-relegated Palmeiras 3–2, with three matchdays left. Striker Fred was also the competition's top scorer, with 20 goals, and received the CBF Best Player award. Goalkeeper Diego Cavalieri had a phenomenal season and won the Bola de Prata as the league's best goalkeeper, and Abel Braga was chosen as best coach.
In 2013, the team was eliminated in the Copa Libertadores quarter finals again, this time to Olimpia. In the Serie A, the team began poorly, losing six of their first nine matches, which caused the sacking of coach Abel Braga. Seven undefeated matches in September steered the club away from relegation, but an eight-match winless run put the club back into the relegation fight, mainly due to the absences of stars Deco, Fred, Thiago Neves, Carlinhos and Wellington Nem, and in December 2013, a 2–1 victory away to Bahia in the last round of the 2013 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A had Fluminense mathematically relegated to Série B. However, rule-breaking lineups by Portuguesa and Fluminense's main rivals Flamengo in their matches against Grêmio and Cruzeiro respectively caused Portuguesa and Flamengo to lose 4 points after a trial in STJD (Brazil's governing football jury). The points lost by Flamengo and Portuguesa allowed Fluminense to stay in Série A, with Portuguesa being relegated and Flamengo ending the championship as the lowest-ranked non-relegated club.
In 2014, Fluminense brought back club idol Conca among other signings such as Walter and Cícero. Coupled with Fred's and Carlinhos’ recoveries from injury, Fluminense spent the majority of the 2014 Série A in the top five and fighting for one of the berths at the 2015 Copa Libertadores, ultimately failing to reach its goal after an unstable final stretch and finishing 6th. In December, Fluminense ended its partnership with its main sponsor, Unimed. For fifteen years, the health insurance company was the main investor in signing players, especially after the team won the 2007 Copa do Brasil, bringing to the club athletes such as Darío Conca, Deco, Diego Cavalieri, Fred, Rafael Sóbis, Thiago Neves and Washington. From 2015 onwards, Fluminense underwent a remodeling, with the departure of some of its main players. The club's youth categories became fundamental for its maintenance in the first division in the following years, and the sale of young players became the club's main source of income.
In 2019, the club hired Fernando Diniz, a young coach with innovative ideas within Brazilian football, but political conflicts within the club and a technically limited team caused the coach to be fired, with the team in the relegation zone, the team managed to escape relegation and reorganize. The following year the team brings back Fred, one of the greatest idols in the club's history, and in the 2020 season the team manages to qualify for the Copa Libertadores, with coach Odair Hellmann, but he leaves the team to coach Al Wasl, from the UAE.
2020s: Copa Libertadores title
The team returns to compete in the Copa Libertadores after eight years out of the competition, and with consistent campaigns in the Brazilian championship it manages to secure places in the competitions in consecutive editions of the Libertadores. However, after Odair's departure, the club has difficulty maintaining a coach, with Marcão, Roger Machado and Abel Braga taking over the position. In 2022, after winning the Campeonato Carioca against rivals Flu, their first trophy in a decade, with Argentine striker Germán Cano being the star of the team, and being eliminated from the Libertadores, Abel Braga retires from his coaching career, and Fluminense decides to give Fernando Diniz another chance.
In 2022, Fluminense achieves its best place in the Brazilian Championship in the last ten years, a third place, with an offensive team that is noted for its fluidity and ball possession, and the team qualifies for the group stage of the 2023 Copa Libertadores. In the beginning of the season, the football played by the team is considered by many to be the best in South America, and the team reaches the Campeonato Carioca finals against Flamengo; in the first match the red-black team wins 2–0, but in the second game Fluminense achieved a 4–1 victory, winning the Campeonato Carioca for a second year in a row against its main rival, and Diniz clinching his first trophy with the club. In the 2023 Libertadores, Fluminense falls into group D, along with River Plate (Argentina), The Strongest (Bolivia) and Sporting Cristal (Peru), despite being considered one of the most difficult groups in the edition, Fluminense ranks first, inflicting the biggest defeat in River Plate's history in the competition, 5–1 at Maracanã. In the final stage of the dispute, the opponents were Argentinos Juniors, Olimpia (Paraguay) and Internacional, the team defeated all opponents without suffering any defeat.
Flu's home stadium, Maracanã, was previously chosen to be the stage for the final; on the other side the opponent would be Boca Juniors, who sought to become champions of the competition for the seventh time, and with this become the greatest champion of the competition, tied to Independiente. In the final, striker Germán Cano opened the scoring for Fluminense, but Peruvian right-back Luis Advíncula tied the match for Boca; the match then went into extra time, when youngster John Kennedy, coming from the youth team, came off the bench and scored the team's second goal. The match ended 2–1 for Fluminense, who lifted the Copa Libertadores trophy for the first time.
Season statistics
Fluminense have taken part in 57 of the 68 official Serie A championships organized in Brazil since 1959.
Taça Brasil
Year Position Participants Year Position Participants 1959 - 16 1964 - 22 1960 3º 17 1965 - 22 1961 - 18 1966 4º 22 1962 - 18 1967 - 21 1963 - 20 1968 - 23
Roberto Gomes Pedrosa Tournament
Year Position Participants 1967 13º 15 1968 12º 17 1969 9º 17 1970 1º 17
Brazilian Championship
Year Position Participants Year Position Participants 1971 16º 20 1981 11º 44 1972 14º 26 1982 5º 44 1973 23º 40 1983 18º 44 1974 24º 40 1984 1º 41 1975 3º 42 1985 22º 44 1976 4º 54 1986 6º 48 1977 26º 62 1987 7º 16 1978 22º 74 1988 3º 24 1979 52º 94 1989 15º 22 1980 11º 44 1990 15º 20
Year Position Participants Year Position Participants 1991 4º 20 2001 3º 28 1992 14º 20 2002 4º 26 1993 28º 32 2003 19º 24 1994 15º 24 2004 9º 24 1995 4º 24 2005 5º 22 1996 23º 24 2006 15º 20 1997 25º 26 2007 4º 20 1998 19º (Série B) 24 2008 14º 20 1999 1º (Série C) 36 2009 16º 20 2000 3º 25 2010 1º 20
Year Position Participants Year Position Participants 2011 3º 20 2018 12º 20 2012 1º 20 2019 14º 20 2013 15º 20 2020 5º 20 2014 6º 20 2021 7º 20 2015 13º 20 2022 3º 20 2016 13º 20 2023 7º 20 2017 14º 20
Records
Highest attendances – Maracanã
According to the RSSSF, these were the highest attendances in Fluminense matches:
1. Fluminense 0-0 Flamengo (1963): 194,603
2. Fluminense 3–2 Flamengo (1969): 171,599
3. Fluminense 1–0 Botafogo (1971): 160,000
4. Fluminense 0–0 Flamengo (1976): 155,116
5. Fluminense 1–0 Flamengo (1984): 153,520
6. Fluminense 1–1 Corinthians (1976): 146,043
Highest average attendance at public competition for Fluminense
Largest average attendance in the Copa Libertadores (RJ): 59,759 (54,912 paying, 2023)
Largest average attendance in the Copa Sudamericana (RJ): 29,357 (27,318 paying, 2009)
Largest average attendance in international tournaments (RJ): 48,797 (37,541 paying, Copa Rio, 1952)
Largest average attendance in national championships (RJ): 43,541 paying (1976)
Largest average attendance in the Tournament Roberto Gomes Pedrosa (RJ): 40,408 paying (1970)
Largest average attendance in the Brazil Cup (RJ): 27,123 paying (2007)
Largest average attendance in the Rio-São Paulo Tournament (RJ): 33,018 paying (1960)
Largest average attendance in the state championship: 47,814 paying (1969, all stages)
Largest average attendance in the state championship in the Maracana Stadium: 93,560 paying (1969, 10 matches)
Support
The supporters of Fluminense Football Club are usually related to the upper classes of Rio de Janeiro. However, the popularity of the club reaches beyond the city limits. Recent polls have estimated the number of supporters to be between 1.3% and 3.7% of the Brazilian population, and between the 11th and 15th most popular club in the nation, falling behind Rio rivals Vasco, but slightly above Botafogo. Considering a population of 203 million people, that would account for numbers between 2.6 and 7.5 million. According to the club's official website, Flu has over 5 million supporters worldwide.
The best attendance ever observed in a Fluminense match was registered on 15 December 1963 in a derby against Flamengo. On that day, an impressive number of 194,603 people showed up at Maracanã stadium. This occasion remains as the stadium's record for a match between clubs.
Notable supporters of Fluminense include composers Cartola and Chico Buarque, musicians Elis Regina, Ivan Lins, Pixinguinha, Renato Russo and Tom Jobim, actors Breno Mello, Chico Díaz, Dalton Vigh, Hugo Carvana, and Thiago Fragoso, and actresses Deborah Secco, Fernanda Torres, Leticia Spiller and Sheron Menezzes, poet Mário Lago, journalist and songwriter Nelson Motta, dramatist, journalist and writer Nelson Rodrigues, modernist architect Oscar Niemeyer, FIFA president of honor João Havelange, 1970 FIFA World Cup winners Gérson and Carlos Alberto Torres, Chelsea central defender Thiago Silva, Left-back legend Marcelo, racing driver Cacá Bueno, sailors Maertine Grael and Torben Grael, former Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil, inventor and aeronaut Santos Dumont, Silvio Santos, the owner of SBT, the second largest Brazilian television network, and the Academy Award nominee Fernanda Montenegro.
Honours
INTERNATIONAL Competitions Titles Seasons Copa Rio International 1 1952 CONTINENTAL Competitions Titles Seasons Copa Libertadores 1 2023 Recopa Sudamericana 1 2024 NATIONAL Competitions Titles Seasons Campeonato Brasileiro Série A 4 1970, 1984, 2010, 2012 Copa do Brasil 1 2007 Campeonato Brasileiro Série C 1 1999 STATE Competitions Titles Seasons Campeonato Carioca 33 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909, 1911, 1917, 1918, 1919, 1924, 1936, 1937, 1938, 1940, 1941, 1946, 1951, 1959, 1964, 1969, 1971, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2012, 2022, 2023 INTER-STATE Competitions Titles Seasons Torneio Rio – São Paulo 2 1957, 1960 Primeira Liga 1 2016 Taça Ioduran 1 1919
Others
Olympic Cup (1): 1949
Carioca Champion of the 20th Century: 1906–2000
Copa Rio (1): 1998
Taça Guanabara (12): 1966, 1969, 1971, 1975, 1983, 1985, 1991, 1993, 2012, 2017, 2022, 2023
Taça Rio (4): 1990, 2005, 2018, 2020
Torneio Municipal (2): 1938, 1948
Torneio Extra (1): 1941
Torneio Aberto (1): 1935
Torneio Início (9): 1916, 1924, 1925, 1940, 1941, 1943, 1954, 1956, 1965
Other Campeonato Carioca rounds (6): 1970, 1972, 1973, 1976, 1980, 2012
Capital Championship (1): 1994
Taça Eficiência (14): 1935, 1941, 1948, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1957, 1959, 1963, 1964, 1969, 1970, 1976, 1984
Taça Disciplina (7): 1946, 1948, 1956, 1958, 1963, 1972, 1977
Chronology of main titles
Competition Season N.º Carioca Championship 1906 1º Carioca Championship 1907 2º Carioca Championship 1908 3º Carioca Championship 1909 4º Carioca Championship 1911 5º Carioca Championship 1917 6º Carioca Championship 1918 7º Carioca Championship 1919 8º Taça Ioduran 1919 9º Carioca Championship 1924 10º Carioca Championship 1936 11º Carioca Championship 1937 12º Carioca Championship 1938 13º Carioca Championship 1940 14º Carioca Championship 1941 15º Carioca Championship 1946 16º Carioca Championship 1951 17º Rio Cup (International) 1952 18º Rio–São Paulo Tournament 1957 19º Carioca Championship 1959 20º Rio–São Paulo Tournament 1960 21º Carioca Championship 1964 22º Carioca Championship 1969 23º Brazilian Championship 1970 24º Carioca Championship 1971 25º Carioca Championship 1973 26º Carioca Championship 1975 27º Carioca Championship 1976 28º Carioca Championship 1980 29º Carioca Championship 1983 30º Brazilian Championship 1984 31º Carioca Championship 1984 32º Carioca Championship 1985 33º Carioca Championship 1995 34º Carioca Championship 2002 35º Carioca Championship 2005 36º Brazil Cup 2007 37º Brazilian Championship 2010 38º Carioca Championship 2012 39º Brazilian Championship 2012 40º First League (Brazil) 2016 41º Carioca Championship 2022 42º Carioca Championship 2023 43º Copa Libertadores 2023 44º Recopa Sudamericana 2024 45º
Source:
Rivalries
According to the fluzao.info site, the average paying public at the principal classicos of Fluminense played in the Estádio do Maracanã is 60,107 against Flamengo, 43,735 against Vasco da Gama, 34,359 against Botafogo, 25,127 against America and 22,527 against Bangu (1950-2010). These statistics could be about 20% higher, given the issues of the distribution of gratuities at Maracanã.
Grandpa Derby
Grandpa Derby or Grandfather Derby (Clássico Vovô), played with Botafogo. The name comes from being the two oldest practicing football clubs among the great clubs of Rio de Janeiro, and this is also the oldest classic in Brazil, because its first game was on October 22, 1905, friendly that Fluminense won by 6–0. Along with six other clubs, they were responsible for creating the Carioca Football Championship in 1906.
Fla-Flu
Fla-Flu Derby, also called Derby of Crowds (Clássico das Multidões), played with Flamengo. It is considered by football experts and much of the sports media as one of the greatest classics in the world. According to writer Nelson Rodrigues, the classic was generated by resentment. On the tricolor side, the fact that their starting players deserted and went to form Flamengo's football department, and on the red-black side, the fact that Fluminense still won the first match, circumstances that would have been fundamental in generating the derby mystique;
Giants' Derby
Giants' Derby (Clássico dos Gigantes), played with Vasco da Gama. The derby gets its name because of the "giant" matches that have been played between the two, these being the final for the 1984 Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, which was won by Fluminense, and the 1985 Copa Libertadores, which had two draws, in addition to several decisions Carioca Championship: 1949, 1956, 1970, 1972, 1975, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1993, 1994 and 2003.
Corinthians vs. Fluminense, interstate derby
The derby against Corinthians is perhaps the most representative among the various confrontations with big Brazilian clubs played by Fluminense, given the fact that these clubs often intersect at decisive moments in their seasons.
Statistics
This is a list of statistics and records of Fluminense.
Players with most appearances
Name Matches 1st Castilho 699 2nd Pinheiro 603 3rd Telê Santana 556 4th Altair 549 5th Escurinho 490 6th Rubens Galaxe 462 7th Denílson 433 8th Gum 414 9th Assis 424 10th Waldo 403
Top goalscorers
Name Goals Years 1st Waldo 319 1954–61 2nd Fred 199 2009-16 / 2020-22 3rd Orlando Pingo de Ouro 184 1945-55 4th Hércules 165 1935–42 5th Telê Santana 164 1950–61 6th Henry Welfare 163 1913–23 7th Russo 149 1933–44 8th Preguinho 128 1925–39 9th Washington César 124 1983–89 10th Magno Alves 121 1998–2002 / 2015-2016
Coaches with most games
Name Matches 1st Zezé Moreira 467 2nd Abel Braga 354 3rd Ondino Viera 300 4th Renato Gaúcho 202 5th Tim 166 6th Fernando Diniz 160 7th Nelsinho Rosa 156 8th Carlos Alberto Parreira 146 9th Sylvio Pirillo 138 10th Luís Vinhaes 137
Correct as of October 4, 2023
Companies that Fluminense Football Club currently has sponsorship deals with include:
Sports Equipment
Years Kit manufacturer 1976–1980 Adidas
Rainha
1981–1985 Le Coq Sportif 1985–1994 Penalty 1994–1996 Reebok 1996–2015 Adidas 2016–2017 Dryworld 2017–2019 Under Armour 2020– Umbro
Years Sponsor(s) 1984 Mondaine
Banco Nacional
Kodak
1985 SulAmérica Seguros 1986 Heart Line 1987 1001 Turismo 1987–1994 Coca-Cola 1995 Ame o Rio 1995–1996 Hyundai
SporTV
1997 SporTV 1997–1998 SporTV
Oceânica Seguros
MTV Brasil
1999 Sonrisal
MTV Brasil
1999–2014 Unimed 2015–2017 Viton 44 2017 Universal Orlando Resort 2018 Valle Express 2021– Betano
Stadiums
Laranjeiras Stadium
The Manoel Schwartz Stadium is better known as the Laranjeiras Stadium, or also the Álvaro Chaves Street Stadium, due to the name of the street where its main entrance is located. It was the place where the Rio team played its games for decades, however, for security reasons, due to the high demand for attendance at its games, it no longer does so, currently playing at Maracanã.
Flu's first match at the Laranjeiras Stadium was the 4–1 victory over Vila Isabel, in the 1919 Carioca Championship, with the Tricolor goals having been scored by Harry Welfare (3) and Machado. Opened in 1919 with a capacity for 18,000 people and having had its capacity expanded to 25,000 people since 1922, in some games this stadium had estimated audiences greater than its capacity.
The record for paying audiences was in the Fluminense 3-1 Flamengo match, on June 14, 1925, when 25,718 spectators paid for tickets, although today the audience for Fluminense's match against Sporting, held on July 15, is unknown. 1928, in the Vulcain Cup dispute, with the stadium full and over 2,000 chairs being placed on the athletics track to accommodate the public present.
Currently, Fluminense does not play its games at its stadium, at the club's option, as it would no longer have the security conditions and capacity to host large events, and is currently only used for training, small commemorative events, social and educational projects, games of the women's football team and the youth teams. The last time an official match for Fluminense's main team took place at Laranjeiras Stadium was in 2003, where Flu drew 3–3 with Americano, in the Carioca Championship.
The renovation of the stadium has been a long-standing demand of the club, however a series of problems make this difficult, such as technical issues linked to the historical preservation of the building, the small area for the construction of a modern stadium and the opposition of the surrounding residents. The current project, at a more advanced stage, foresees a revitalization of Laranjeiras, with the stadium remaining with a small audience capacity, being able to host lower demand games, such as the first phases of the state championship and women's football.
Maracanã Stadium
Since its construction for the 1950 World Cup, the Maracanã has primarily served as the home ground for the four biggest Rio de Janeiro clubs. The stadium was officially completed in 1965, 17 years after construction began. In 1963, more than 194,000 people attended a match between Flamengo and Fluminense at the Maracanã, Rio Championship final.
At the stadium, Fluminense won some of the most important titles, such as the 1952 Copa Rio, for many the most important in its history, it won its first Brazilian Championship in 1970, the Tricolor Machine was twice champion of Carioca (1975–76), led by Roberto Rivellino, it was Brazilian champion over its rival Vasco da Gama, in 1984, was three-time Rio champion against Flamengo (1983–85), he was Carioca champion in 1995 with Renato Gaúcho's belly goal, against Romário's Flamengo (at the time named FIFA World Player of the Year). In this century he won the 2007 Brazil's Cup and the 2023 Copa Libertadores.
Following its 50th anniversary and aiming to hold the 2000 FIFA Club World Cup in Brazil, the stadium underwent renovations which would increase its full capacity to around 103,000. After years of planning and nine months of closure between 2005 and 2006, the stadium was reopened in January 2007 with an all-seated capacity of 87,000. For the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2016 Olympics and Paralympics, a major expedition project was started in 2010. The original stand, with a two-level configuration, was demolished, making way for a new single-level stand, and the stadium had its capacity reduced to 78,838 seats.
From 2013 onwards, the stadium was managed by the Brazilian conglomerate Odebrecht. Corruption scandals, the high rents charged by the company and the abandonment of the stadium, meant that Flamengo and Fluminense came together to manage it. Although clubs have kept the stadium in good condition since 2016 and covered its maintenance costs, it was only in 2019 that the government canceled contracts with Odebrecht. Flamengo and Fluminense then created a joint company, "Fla-Flu S.A." opened especially to manage Maracanã and its entire sports complex.
Players
See also: List of Fluminense Football Club players
Current squad
Reserve team
No. Position Player 13 DF Felipe Andrade 19 FW Alexandre Jesus 28 MF Arthur 31 DF Calegari 32 FW Isaac 34 DF Davi 36 DF Júlio Fidelis 37 MF Wallace 39 FW Kauã Elias 41 DF Kayke Almeida 42 DF Jhonny 46 DF Lucas Justen 47 DF Rafael Monteiro
No. Position Player 48 MF Gustavo Apis 50 GK Gustavo Ramalho 51 DF Marcos Pedro 52 MF Dohmann 53 MF Thiago Henrique GK Kevyn DF Esquerdinha MF Freitas MF João Lourenço FW Matheus Reis FW Agner FW Jan Lucumí (on loan from Boca Juniors de Cali)
Other players under contract
Out on loan
Staff
Current staff
As of 13 August 2024
Position Name Nationality Head coach Fernando Diniz Brazilian Assistant coaches Wagner Bertelli Brazilian Eduardo Barros Brazilian Marcão Brazilian Cadu Antunes Brazilian Technical assistant Marco Salgado Brazilian Fitness coaches Marcos Seixas Brazilian Flávio Vignoli Brazilian Igor Cotrim Brazilian Goalkeeper coach coordinator Flavio Tenius Brazilian Goalkeeper coaches André Carvalho Brazilian Josmiro de Góes Brazilian
Head coaches
See also
In Spanish: Fluminense Football Club para niños | |||||
3393 | dbpedia | 3 | 19 | https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/pele-coffin-brazil-football-news-29990501 | en | Fans left in tears as Pele's coffin in world's tallest cemetery opened to the public | [
"https://i2-prod.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article29990530.ece/ALTERNATES/n615/0_FBL-BRA-PELE-MAUSOLEUM.jpg"
] | [] | [] | [
"Brazil football team"
] | null | [
"Fraser Watson Sports",
"(Image: Andre Penner",
"Fraser Watson",
"www.mirror.co.uk",
"fraser-watson"
] | 2023-05-16T10:49:07+00:00 | The legendary Brazilian footballer Pele died on December 29 last year, aged 82, with fans all over the world continuing to mourn the three-time World Cup winner | en | https://s2-prod.mirror.co.uk/@trinitymirrordigital/dragonfly/681c218376982a0097c50913d5824a6b617d7bd3/img/mirror/favicons/favicon.ico | The Mirror | https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/pele-coffin-brazil-football-news-29990501 | It's been five months since Pele's death pulled on the heartstrings of football fans around the world - and the Brazilian legend is still reducing people to tears.
One of the greatest players of all time - if not the greatest of them all - the 82-year-old passed away on December 29 after spending more than a year battling colon cancer. But now, the only footballer to win three World Cups has been transferred in his final resting place - and adoring fans can visit him.
Pele, real name Edson Arantes do Nascimento, is now at the Ecumenical Memorial Cemetery in Santos. Like the former forward himself, it's a place not small in stature, a 14-story mausoleum that currently has a place in the Guinness world record books for being the tallest cemetery on Earth.
Pele's body is at rest rest inside a huge golden vault, displayed in the middle of a 200-square-meter room which is supplemented by artificial turf. Upon entry, people are greeted by two golden life-size statues of him with his a football at his feet, alongside a Santos flag and Brazilian flag.
And his career is also reflected by the vault itself, which has black etchings on its sides to represent his 1000th career goal and his trademark fist celebration. The wall depicts images of football fans celebrating his feats, and the Mercedes Benz S-280, given to him has a present when he reached four figures, is also on show - along with Brazil national shirts to reflect his time with the Selecao.
His son, Edinho, has told reporters that whilst the impact of his father's death on the family continued to be profound, the clamour from the public to pay their respects had proved heartening: "We're also very proud and happy at all the affection and reverence that's kept pouring in," he said, via Citizen Digital.
And images have emerged of visitors in tears amid visits to pay tributes to the former Santos star. Indeed, entry numbers to the tomb have been restricted to 60 people a day, with citizens and visitors having to book online via the cemetery's official website.
The mausoleum is less than am mile away from the Santos stadium, Vila Belmiro, the stage where Pele showcased his unbelievable talent for 18 years. And cemetery manager Paulo Campos told AFP: "It's a place that's rich in detail, all lovingly assembled in tribute, as the 'King' deserves."
Ronaldo Rodrigues, who was first in line for the tomb, lauded his visit: "It surpassed my expectations. It's a really beautiful place. I hope lots of tourists will come visit and get to know a little about Pele's story, what he represented for Santos, Brazil and the entire world." | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 2 | 43 | https://www.voanews.com/a/pele-s-gilded-turf-lined-tomb-opens-to-public-in-brazil/7095049.html | en | Pele's Gilded, Turf-Lined Tomb Opens to Public in Brazil | [
"https://ssc.voanews.com/b/ss/bbgprod,bbgentityvoa/1/G.4--NS/4071706?pageName=voa%3aeng%3aw%3aarticle%3apele%27s%20gilded%2c%20turf-lined%20tomb%20opens%20to%20public%20in%20brazil&c6=pele%27s%20gilded%2c%20turf-lined%20tomb%20opens%20to%20public%20in%20brazil&v36=8.33.0.0.279&v6=D=c6&g=https%3a%2f%2fwww.voanews.co... | [
"https://voa-video-hls-ns.akamaized.net/pangeavideo/2022/12/0/03/03370000-0aff-0242-5d35-08daeaae2ad6_master.m3u8"
] | [] | [
"Americas",
"football",
"soccer",
"Pele"
] | null | [
"Agence France-Presse"
] | 2023-05-16T01:42:20+00:00 | For now, entries to the tomb are limited to 60 people a day | en | /Content/responsive/VOA/img/webApp/favicon.svg | Voice of America | https://www.voanews.com/a/pele-s-gilded-turf-lined-tomb-opens-to-public-in-brazil/7095049.html | It is a final resting place fit for "The King": six months after the death of the man widely considered the greatest footballer of all time, Brazil opened Pele's gilded, football-turfed burial chamber to the public Monday.
Pele, who died on December 29 at age 82 after a battle with cancer, was laid to rest at the Ecumenical Memorial Cemetery in Santos, Brazil. It is a high-rise, 14-story mausoleum that holds the Guinness world record for the tallest cemetery on Earth.
Fans were greeted by two life-size golden statues of the player nicknamed "O Rei" — The King — whose remains rest inside a large golden vault displayed in the middle of a 200-square-meter (more than 2,000-square-foot) room carpeted in artificial turf.
"It surpassed my expectations. It's a really beautiful place," said Ronaldo Rodrigues, 44, a businessman who was first in line to visit the tomb, along with his wife.
"I hope lots of tourists will come visit and get to know a little about Pele's story, what he represented for Santos, Brazil and the entire world."
Born Edson Arantes do Nascimento, Pele is the only player in history to win three World Cups (1958, 1962 and 1970).
He scored a world record 1,281 goals during his more than two-decade career with Santos (1956-74), the New York Cosmos (1975-77) and the Brazilian national team.
In tears, Pele's son Edinho told reporters who flocked to the southeastern port city that the family was still struggling to cope with their loss.
"But we're also very proud and happy at all the affection and reverence that's kept pouring in," he said.
For now, entries to the tomb are limited to 60 people a day, via a sign-up form on the cemetery's website.
Topped with a cross, Pele's golden vault has black etchings on its sides, depicting his 1,000th goal and his famous raised-fist goal celebration. The room is wallpapered with images of fans in a football stadium.
The resort-like cemetery also features an auto museum that now includes the Mercedes Benz S-280 the company gave Pele in 1974 to commemorate his 1,000th goal.
"It's a place that's rich in detail, all lovingly assembled in tribute, as the 'King' deserves," cemetery manager Paulo Campos told AFP.
SEE ALSO: A related video by VOA's Edgar Maciel
The mausoleum sits less than a kilometer (0.6 mile) from the Vila Belmiro, the stadium where Pele played most of his storied career. | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 41 | https://musicabrasileira.org/artists/marcela-biasi/ | en | Marcela Biasi – Música Brasileira | [
"https://musicabrasileira.org/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/960-mb-border-logo.png",
"https://i0.wp.com/musicabrasileira.org/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/mbarrastando.jpg?fit=370%2C379&ssl=1"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Kees Schoof"
] | 2013-09-01T12:52:43-05:00 | en | Música Brasileira | https://musicabrasileira.org/artists/marcela-biasi/ | A Splendid Debut It seems everything is just happening to Marcela Biasi, composer, vocalist and guitarist. She’s always at the right place at the right time. Born in Niterói, RJ, Marcela Biasi (1981) enjoyed and absorbed the rich musical … Continued | ||||||
3393 | dbpedia | 2 | 80 | https://en.prothomalo.com/sports/cricket/4hlr6uebqe | en | Pele's gilded, turf-lined tomb opens to public in Brazil | [] | [] | [] | [
"Pele",
"Brazil",
"Football"
] | null | [] | 2023-05-16T10:50:22+06:00 | It is a final resting place fit for "The King": six months after the death of the man widely considered the greatest footballer of all time, Brazil opened Pele's gilded, football-turfed tomb to the public Monday. | en | /en-favicons/favicon-16x16.png | Prothomalo | https://en.prothomalo.com/sports/cricket/4hlr6uebqe | It is a final resting place fit for "The King": six months after the death of the man widely considered the greatest footballer of all time, Brazil opened Pele's gilded, football-turfed tomb to the public Monday.
Pele, who died on 29 December at age 82 after a battle with cancer, was laid to rest at the Ecumenical Memorial Cemetery in Santos, Brazil. It is a high-rise, 14-story mausoleum that holds the Guinness world record for the tallest cemetery on Earth.
Fans were greeted by two life-size golden statues of the player nicknamed "O Rei" -- The King -- whose remains rest inside a large golden vault displayed in the middle of a 200-square-meter (more than 2,000-square-foot) room carpeted in artificial turf.
"It surpassed my expectations. It's a really beautiful place," said Ronaldo Rodrigues, 44, a businessman who was first in line to visit the tomb, along with his wife.
"I hope lots of tourists will come visit and get to know a little about Pele's story, what he represented for Santos, Brazil and the entire world."
Born Edson Arantes do Nascimento, Pele is the only player in history to win three World Cups (1958, 1962 and 1970).
He scored a world record 1,281 goals during his more than two-decade career with Santos (1956-74), the New York Cosmos (1975-77) and the Brazilian national team.
In tears, Pele's son Edinho told reporters who flocked to the southeastern port city that the family was still struggling to cope with their loss.
"But we're also very proud and happy at all the affection and reverence that's kept pouring in," he said.
The resort-like cemetery also features an auto museum that now includes the Mercedes Benz S-280 the company gave Pele in 1974 to commemorate his 1,000th goal.
"It's a place that's rich in detail, all lovingly assembled in tribute, as the 'King' deserves," cemetery manager Paulo Campos told AFP.
The mausoleum sits less than a kilometer (0.6 mile) from the Vila Belmiro, the stadium where Pele played most of his storied career. | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 3 | 23 | http://soccerfootballwhatever.blogspot.com/2021/01/ | en | Soccer, football or whatever | http://soccerfootballwhatever.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | http://soccerfootballwhatever.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | [
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif",
"https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif",
"https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ4OlW2MJWaRHkwlDTPQHmD3vS_mBql5RAj0bDl_vzUjuNoA147oK8sIgxhmUQfan9NHYVEeop2aytVXQZX658qWrOL2vsVOWoyhjHuwsR0oL7vEAWeTjVVKBDEkk4gEBw... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"football or whatever",
"View my complete profile"
] | null | I am Lincoln W Chan from Hong Kong also aka Excapegoat at bigsoccer. This blog is mainly about all-time teams. | en | http://soccerfootballwhatever.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | http://soccerfootballwhatever.blogspot.com/2021/01/ | Brazil is the best footballing nation in the world. They won 5 World Cup titles in 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994 and 2002. In addition, they have great teams at the World Cup in 1950, 1982 and 1998. They never failed to appear in a World Cup Finals.
Brazilians also produced a large numbers of footballers throughout history. It is probably true that most leagues around the world must have a single Brazilian footballers. Their talent levels are very high. This is my ranking of the Top 50 players from Brazil and followed by two lists of the next 300 greatest Brazilian players.. I actually do not believe in ranking of individual players. I tried many times to do a ranking on various topics, but I changed my mind each time I edited the list. The topic is subjective. I can never ever create a conclusive ranking. Thus, I am only ranking the top 50 players for the sake of ranking. This list does not really mean or reflect much. Then, I divided the rest of the 300 players into two different tiers or clusters. Even that is very hard to do an incontestable list. For example, Zito (43rd) can easily make it to the top 25 or even fall out of the top 50. Brazil or most nationals can produce so many footballers with similar preeminence that the task of a ranking is impossible. | |||
3393 | dbpedia | 0 | 21 | https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/diego-from-brazil.html | en | res stock photography and images | [
"https://s.alamy.com/logos/1.68.0/alamy.svg",
"https://s.alamy.com/logos/1.68.0/alamy-black.svg",
"https://s.alamy.com/logos/1.68.0/alamy-black.svg",
"https://s.alamy.com/logos/1.68.0/alamy.svg",
"https://s.alamy.com/assets/latest/footer/mastercard.svg",
"https://s.alamy.com/assets/latest/footer/visa.svg"... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Alamy Limited"
] | null | Find the perfect diego from brazil stock photo, image, vector, illustration or 360 image. Available for both RF and RM licensing. | en | Alamy | https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/diego-from-brazil.html | Alamy and its logo are trademarks of Alamy Ltd. and are registered in certain countries. Copyright © 13/08/2024 Alamy Ltd. All rights reserved. | |||||
3393 | dbpedia | 2 | 38 | https://www.bdfutbol.com/en/j/j97421.html | en | Edinho, Edimo Ferreira Campos - Footballer | [
"https://www.bdfutbol.com/img/logo16w.png",
"https://www.bdfutbol.com/img/icons/arrow_down_16-5.png",
"https://www.bdfutbol.com/img/icons/arrow_down_16-5.png",
"https://www.bdfutbol.com/img/icons/arrow_down_16-5.png",
"https://www.bdfutbol.com/img/icons/arrow_down_16-5.png",
"https://www.bdfutbol.com/img/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | /img/favicons/apple-touch-icon.png | null | |||||||
3393 | dbpedia | 3 | 1 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Santos_FC_players | en | List of Santos FC players | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/icons/wikipedia.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-tagline-en.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/PEL%C3%89_-_1963.jpg... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Wikimedia projects"
] | 2010-08-31T23:06:12+00:00 | en | /static/apple-touch/wikipedia.png | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Santos_FC_players | Santos Futebol Clube is a football club based in Santos,[1] that competes in the Campeonato Paulista,[2] São Paulo's state league, and the Campeonato Brasileiro Série A or Brasileirão,[3] Brazil's national league. The club was founded in 1912 by the initiative of three sports enthusiasts from Santos by the names of Raimundo Marques, Mário Ferraz de Campos, and Argemiro de Souza Júnior, and played its first friendly match on June 23, 1912.[4] Initially Santos played against other local clubs in the city and state championships, but in 1959 the club became one of the founding members of the Taça Brasil, Brazil's first truly national league.[5] As of 2010, Santos is one of only five clubs never to have been relegated from the top level of Brazilian football, the others being São Paulo, Flamengo, Internacional and Cruzeiro. [6]
Santos enjoyed a successful start in the Brasileirão, finishing runners-up in the competition's first season.[7] In the period from 1956 to 1974, the "Peixe" team won the Brasileirão six times, including a record-consecutive five titles from 1961 to 1965, and the Campeonato Paulista 11 times.[7][8][9] The club did not win the league again until 2002.[10] In 1978 Santos had finished 23rd, which remains, as of 2010, the club's lowest finishing position.[11] Santos became the first club in the world to win the continental treble during the 1962 season consisting of the Paulista, Taça Brasil, and the Copa Libertadores.[12][13][14] In 1955, Lula was appointed manager and assembled what would later be known as the Os Santásticos. In 1961 he led the club to its first league title and repeated the feat the following four seasons when the club also won the Copa Libertadores for the first time and successfully defended the trophy once.[7][15]
Santos has employed several famous players, with eleven FIFA World Cup, six Copa América and one FIFA Confederations Cup winners among the previous and current Santos players. Arnaldo da Silveira was the first Santista player to participate with the national team during the 1916 Copa América. Araken Patusca was the first player from the club to participate with Brazil at a World Cup in 1930. The first Peixe to participate with the national team at the Confederations Cup was Léo at the 2001 FIFA Confederations Cup.
Pelé was voted South American footballer of the year in 1973, won the FIFA World Cup Best Young Player award in 1958 and FIFA World Cup Golden Ball in 1970. Pepe is considered one of the greatest wingers of all time and the player who won the most Brasileirãos with seven titles in total. He has also won the most Campeonato Paulistas with 13 titles in total and the only player to spend his entire player career with Santos. Coutinho, considered one of the greatest forwards in the sport, was the top scorer during Santos' victorious campaign during the 1962 Copa Libertadores and scored Santos' 5000th goal in a 10–2 rout of Guarani in 1961.
Key
[edit]
≈ Club record holder ¤ Played their entire career at Santos Name in bold Currently playing for Santos
List of players
[edit]
Further information: Category:Santos FC players
See also: Santos FC § Current squad
Name Nationality Position
[NB] Santos
career Apps Goals Notes Refs Adaílton Brazil Defender 2007–2010 50 3 [16][17][18] Adiel Brazil Midfielder 1997–2000 28 0 [19][20] Adolpho Millon Brazil Forward 1915–1923 111 39 [21][22] Adoniran Brazil Midfielder 2007–2008 19 0 [23][24] Adriano Brazil Midfielder 2006–present 134 0 [25][26] Agne Blokeuns Sweden Goalkeeper 1923–1927 55 0 [27] Agustín Cejas Argentina Goalkeeper 1970–1975 73 0 [28][29] Airton Pavilhão Brazil Defender 1960 Aílton Lira Brazil Midfielder 1976–1979 Alan Patrick Brazil Midfielder 2009–2011 20 4 Albeiro Usuriaga Colombia Forward 1996 3 3 Alberto Brazil Forward 2002 24 8 Alberto Dell'Occhio Argentina Goalkeeper 1950 1 0 Alcindo Brazil Midfielder 1971–1973 22 5 Alemão Brazil Forward 2008–2009 0 0 Alessandro Brazil Defender 2007 23 1 Alessandro Brazil Defender Alex Brazil Midfielder 1964–1972 Alex Brazil Defender 2001–2004 103 20 Alex Sandro Brazil Defender 2010–2011 30 1 Alex Willian Brazil Midfielder 2008 1 0 Alexandre Brazil Midfielder 2005 1 0 Alexandre Alves Brazil Midfielder 2002–2003 34 0 Alcides Brazil Defender 2004 2 0 Alfredo Brazil Defender 1977–1978 9 0 Amaral Brazil Defender 1981–1982 0 0 Amendoim Lebanon Midfielder 1930 Anderson Carvalho Brazil Midfielder 2011–present 4 0 Anderson Salles Brazil Defender 2008–2009 1 0 Andrade Brazil Midfielder 2000–2002 0 0 Andradina Brazil Forward 1998 0 0 André Brazil Forward 2009–2010 18 7 André Brazil Midfielder 2006 13 0 André Brazil Goalkeeper 2010–present 0 0 André Astorga Brazil Defender 2009 9 0 André Dias Brazil Forward 2000–2002 4 0 André Luís Brazil Defender 2000–2004 94 6 André Oliveira Brazil Midfielder 2006 25 1 Antoninho Brazil Forward 1941–1954 400 145 Antonio Capuano Argentina Goalkeeper 1942 1 0 Antonio de Nigris Mexico Forward 2006 5 1 António Siccand Uruguay Midfielder 1944 8 1 Antônio Carlos Brazil Defender 2004–2005 7 0 Antônio Dumas Brazil Aparicio Vega Uruguay Forward 1942–1943 Araken Patusca Brazil Forward 1920–1924
1926–1929
1934–1937 193 177 Argel Brazil Defender 1997–1998 21 2 Armandinho Brazil Forward 1941 Arnaldo Silveira Brazil Forward 1912–1921 122 64 Arthur Zwane South Africa Midfielder 1995–1996 7 1 Arturo Sainz Uruguay Forward 1988 7 0 Athié Brazil Goalkeeper 1924–1934 142 0 Athirson Brazil Midfielder 1998 25 1 Augusto Brazil Midfielder 2004–2008 0 0 Axel Brazil Midfielder 1990–1994 66 3 Ávalos Brazil Defender 2004–2007 15 0 Ânderson Brazil Midfielder 2000–2001 18 1 Ânderson Lima Brazil Defender 1996–1999 51 5 Baiano Brazil Defender 1996–1998
2000
2007 51
0
11 1
0
0 Bechara Brazil Midfielder 1998–1999 5 1 Bernardo Brazil Midfielder 1992 0 0 Bernardo Brazil 2010–present 0 0 Bernardo Filho Paraguay Midfielder 1948–1950 28 1 Betão Brazil Defender 2008 5 0 Borges Brazil Forward 2011–present 31 23 Bruno Agnello Brazil Midfielder 1994–2001 0 0 Bruno Moraes Brazil Forward 2002–2003 2 0 Bruno Rodrigo Brazil Defender 2010–present 40 1 Caio Brazil Forward 1997
2000 25
11 6
0 Careca Brazil Forward 1997 0 0 Cabralzinho Brazil Forward Caetano Brazil Forward 2004 0 0 Camarão Brazil Forward 1923–1932 273 147 Carlinhos Brazil Defender 2005–2008 45 2 Carlos Alberto Brazil Defender 1966–1974 445 40 Carlos Frontini Argentina Forward 2005 9 1 Carlos Galván Argentina Defender 2000–2001 75 7 Carlos Germano Brazil Goalkeeper 2000 11 0 Carlos Miraglia Uruguay Forward 1989 8 0 Ceará Brazil Defender 1999 4 0 César Luis Menotti Argentina Forward 1968 1 0 César Sampaio Brazil Midfielder 1986–1991 82 2 César Tristão Brazil Clederson Brazil Midfielder 1999 0 0 Chicão Brazil Midfielder 1981–1983 14 1 Claiton Brazil Midfielder 2004 9 1 Claudio Maldonado Chile Midfielder 2005–2007 85 1 Claudiomiro Brazil Defender 1998–2001 Cléber Brazil Defender 2001–2002 22 3 Clodoaldo Brazil Midfielder 1966–1979 510 13 Constantino Mollitsas Brazil Forward 1921–1926 Cosa Brazil Goalkeeper 1979 0 0 Coutinho Brazil Forward 1958–1967
1969–1970 457 370 Crystian Brazil Defender 2011–present 1 0 Cuca Brazil Forward 1993 9 2 Daniel da Silva Brazil Defender 1996–1997 9 0 Daniel Paulista Brazil Midfielder 2003–2005 25 1 Danilinho Brazil Midfielder 2005 10 0 Danilo Brazil Midfielder 2010–2011 31 5 Deivid Brazil Forward 1999–2001
2004–2005 129
48 66
26 Dejan Petković Serbia Midfielder 2007 21 1 Desmond Armstrong United States Defender 1991 3 0 Dênis Brazil Defender 2006–2008 43 2 Dido Brazil Midfielder 1984–1986 2 0 Diego Brazil Midfielder 2002–2004 64 21 Diego Ângelo Brazil Defender 2005–2006 0 0 Diego Ayala Paraguay Midfielder 1941–1947
1953 111 0 Diego de Lima Brazil Forward 2005 12 1 Diego Faria Brazil 2010–present 0 0 Diego Monar Brazil 2009–present 1 0 Díonísio Brazil Midfielder 2007–2010 20 0 Djalma Dias Brazil Defender 1969–1970 Dodô Brazil Forward 1999–2001 45 23 Domingos Brazil Defender 2004–2005
2006–2009 20
88 1
33 Doni Brazil Goalkeeper 2004 0 0 Douglas Brazil Goalkeeper 2008–2009 24 0 Dunga Brazil Midfielder 1985–1987 16 1 Dutra Brazil Defender 1997
2000 13
0 1
0 Edinho Brazil Goalkeeper 1990–1991
1994–1998 0
60 0
0 Edgar Báez Paraguay Forward 1996–1998 28 7 Edmar Brazil Forward 1992 0 0 Edmílson Brazil Midfielder 2006 6 1 Edmundo Brazil Forward 2000 20 3 Edu Brazil Forward 2000 2 0 Edu Dracena Brazil Defender 2009–present 125 10 Edu Marangon Brazil Midfielder 1990–1991 24 3 Eduardo Marques Brazil Forward 1997–2000
2002 39
0 4
0 DuPlessis Brazil Forward 1966–1976 584 183 Elano Brazil Midfielder 2001–2004
2011–present 129
52 34
15 Eliodoro Cáceres Paraguay Forward 1969 4 2 Eli Sabiá Brazil Defender 2009 22 1 Elmo Bovio Argentina Midfielder 1950 1 1 Emerson Brazil Midfielder 2009 6 0 Erwin Ávalos Paraguay Forward 2005 17 1 Evaldo Brazil Defender 2008 8 0 Evando Brazil Forward 2005 9 1 Éder Brazil Midfielder 1987 0 0 Élder Brazil Midfielder 1996–1999 38 0 Élder Granja Brazil Midfielder 2000 Élton Giovanni Brazil Midfielder 2004–2006 30 3 Del Vecchio Brazil Forward 1954–1957 180 105 Fabão Brazil Defender 2008–2009 40 1 Fabiano Brazil Forward 2005–2010 11 2 Fabiano Eller Brazil Defender 2008–2009 47 1 Fabiano Pereira Brazil Midfielder 2002–2003 34 10 Fábio Baiano Brazil Midfielder 2005 Fábio Costa Brazil Goalkeeper 2000–2003
2006–present 63
86 0
0 Fabinho Brazil Midfielder 2004–2005 62 1 Fabinho Brazil Midfielder 2006 23 2 Fábio Santos Brazil Defender 2008 5 0 Feitiço≈ Brazil Forward 1927–1933 151 206 Felipe Brazil Goalkeeper 2006–present 43 0 Felipe Anderson Brazil Midfielder 2010–present 19 1 Felipe Azevedo Brazil Midfielder 2009 16 1 Fernandes Brazil Forward 1998 8 1 Filipi Souza Brazil Defender 2008–present 8 0 Flávio Brazil Defender 2003–2005 28 0 Flávio Minuano Brazil Forward 1977 0 0 Francisco Melchior Uruguay Midfielder 1952 Freddy Rincón Colombia Midfielder 2000 54 6 Fricson George Ecuador Defender 1999 2 0 Fumagalli Brazil Midfielder 1997–2001 7 1 Gallo Brazil Midfielder 1992–1996 Galvão Brazil Forward 2006 8 0 Ganso Brazil Midfielder 2008–present 148 32 Geílson Brazil Forward 2004–2006 27 10 Germano Brazil Midfielder 2009–2010 23 1 Gérson da Silva Brazil Forward 1983–1984 14 5 Gilmar Brazil Goalkeeper 1961–1969 266 0 Gilmar Silva Brazil Midfielder 2006 1 0 Giovanni Brazil Forward 1994–1996
2005
2010 36
27
8 18
4
1 Guga Brazil Forward 1992–1995 60 24 Guilherme Choco Brazil Defender 2009–2010 0 0 Harold Cross Ireland Forward 1913 7 4 Haroldo Brazil Forward 1917–1927 44 55 Heleno Brazil Midfielder 2005–2006 Hemetério Diez Uruguay Midfielder 1944 4 0 Herrera Uruguay Forward 1935 1 0 Hugo de León Uruguay Defender 1986–1987 0 0 Jair Brazil Midfielder 1956–1960 196 34 Jair da Costa Brazil Midfielder 1972–1974 19 3 Jamelli Brazil Forward 1995–1996 41 13 Jardel Brazil Defender 2006 0 0 Jaú Brazil Defender 1944 Jean Brazil Defender 1995–2000 71 5 Jean Carlos Brazil Forward 2008–2009 5 1 Jefferson Luiz Brazil 2009–present 3 0 Joel Camargo Brazil Defender 1963–1971 Jonas Brazil Forward 2006–2007 20 1 Jonathan Brazil Defender 2011 17 2 Jorginho Brazil Midfielder 1989 10 1 José Agnelli Argentina Defender 1940 2 0 José Dacunto Argentina Defender 1946–1947 62 0 José Caballero Spain Goalkeeper 1938–1941 67 0 [30][31] José Lengyl Hungary Goalkeeper 1941–1942 11 0 José Ramos Delgado Argentina Defender 1967–1973 324 2 Juan Carlos Henao Colombia Goalkeeper 2005 4 0 Juan Echevarrieta Argentina Forward 1942–1944 25 20 Juan José Negri Argentina Midfielder 1955–1956 17 4 Juan Soler Argentina Defender 1944 10 2 Juary Brazil Forward 1976–1979
1989–1990 41
6 18
0 Julien Fauvel France Goalkeeper 1912–1913 4 0 Julio Manzur Paraguay Defender 2006 51 1 Juninho Brazil Forward 2006–2008 1 1 Juninho Brazil Defender 2005–2007 0 0 Júlio Pereyra Uruguay Midfielder 1988–1989 11 0 Júlio Sérgio Brazil Goalkeeper 2002–2004 41 0 Júnior Moraes Brazil Forward 2007–2009 16 2 Kazuyoshi Miura Japan Midfielder 1986
1990 0
11 0
3 Keirrison Brazil Forward 2010–2011 13 4 Kennedy Nagoli Zimbabwe Midfielder 1995–1996 35 4 Kléber Brazil Defender 2005–2008 105 8 Kléber Pereira Brazil Forward 2007–2009 93 76 Leandro Machado Brazil Forward 2004 4 0 Leandro Rodrigues Brazil Forward 2006 10 1 Leonardo Brazil Defender 2004–2005
2007 17
2 0
0 Leopoldo Luque Argentina Forward 1983 5 0 Leonardo Manzi Brazil Forward 1988–1989 14 3 Léo Brazil Defender 2000–2005
2009–present 219 12 Léo Lima Brazil Midfielder 2006 11 0 Lima Brazil Defender 1961–1973 696 65 Lima Brazil Forward 2008 21 0 Lopes Brazil Forward 2004–2005 Lucas Brazil Defender 2009–2010 9 0 Luciano Brazil Midfielder 1994–1995 0 0 Luciano Castan Brazil Defender 2010 0 0 Luciano Henrique Brazil Forward 2005–2008 21 2 Luis Bolaños Ecuador Forward 2009 0 0 Luis Menutti Argentina Forward 1938 3 2 Luiz Alberto Brazil Defender 2005–2006 47 5 Luiz Henrique Brazil Midfielder 2008 0 0 Luizão Brazil Forward 2005–2006 5 0 Luizinho Brazil Defender 2008–2009 10 0 Luizinho Brazil Forward 2006 0 0 Lúcio Bala Brazil Midfielder 1998–1999 Lúcio Flávio Brazil Midfielder 2009 0 0 Madson Brazil Midfielder 2009–present 55 9 Magnum Brazil Midfielder 2005 5 0 Magon Argentina Forward 1939 1 0 Maikon Leite Brazil Midfielder 2008–2011 36 9 Manga≈ Brazil Goalkeeper 1951–1960 404 0 Maranhão Brazil Defender 2010–present 18 2 Marcel Brazil Forward 2010 13 5 Marcelinho Carioca Brazil Midfielder 2001–2002 15 5 Marcelinho Paraíba Brazil Midfielder 1994–1995 7 0 Marcelo Brazil Defender 2007–2008 41 2 Marcelo Silva Brazil Midfielder 1998–2002 23 1 Marcelo Tolomeotti Brazil Forward 2003 Marcelo Torres Argentina Midfielder 1934 14 0 Marcinho Brazil Midfielder 2004 28 0 Marcinho Guerreiro Brazil Midfielder 2008 3 1 Pará Brazil Defender 2008–present 184 2 Marcos Assunção Brazil Midfielder 1995–1997
1998–1999 33
0 3
0 Marcos Aurélio Brazil Forward 2007 69 23 Mariano Trípodi Argentina Forward 2008 15 1 Marinho Peres Brazil Defender 1972–1974 17 1 Marolla Brazil Goalkeeper 1980–1984 282 0 Marquearema Argentina Midfielder 1952 2 0 Masakiyo Maezono Japan Midfielder 1998–1999 5 1 Matt Okoh United States Midfielder 1995 0 0 Mauricio Molina Colombia Midfielder 2008–2009 41 8 Maurício Copertino Brazil Defender 1993–1995 8 0 Maurinho Brazil Defender 2002 22 0 Mauro Ramos Brazil Defender 1960–1966 354 1 Mazinho Brazil Forward 1985–1988 9 0 Márcio Careca Brazil Defender 2004 Márcio Santos Brazil Defender 2000 0 0 Mengálvio Brazil Midfielder 1960–1967
1969 371 28 Michael Quiñónez Ecuador Midfielder 2008 16 1 Musashi Mizushima Japan Forward 1988 1 0 Moisés Brazil Forward 2010–2011 1 0 Molina Argentina Forward 1940 26 13 Müller Brazil Forward 1997–1998 27 10 Narciso Brazil Midfielder 1994–1998
2003–2005 111
4 5
0 Nelsinho Baptista Brazil Defender 1977–1981 66 1 Nelson Cuevas Paraguay Forward 2008 17 2 Nelson Tapia Chile Goalkeeper 2004 18 0 Nené Brazil Midfielder 1960–1963 54 24 Nenê Brazil Midfielder 2002–2003 22 8 Neto Brazil Forward 1994 16 3 Neto Brazil Defender 2006–2007 7 0 Neylor Brazil Defender 2006 0 0 Neymar Brazil Forward 2009–2013 176 101 Nunes Brazil Forward 1985 0 0 Odair Titica Brazil Midfielder 1943–1952 225 134 Odvan Brazil Defender 2001–2002 0 0 Ondigui Adams Cameroon Midfielder 2006 0 0 Orestes Brazil Defender 2001 6 0 Orlando Brazil Defender 1965–1969 Oséas Brazil Forward 2000 0 0 Otavio Braga Brazil Forward Overath Breitner Venezuela Midfielder 2009–2011 18 2 Pagão Brazil Forward 1955–1963 345 159 Palhinha Brazil Forward 1982 11 4 Patrik Brazil Midfielder 2008–present 0 0 Paulinho Kobayashi Brazil Forward 1994 22 7 Paulinho McLaren Brazil Forward 1989–1992 65 36 Paulo Brazil Defender 2006–2007 1 0 Paulo Almeida Brazil Midfielder 2001–2004 46 0 Paulo César Brazil Defender 2004–2005 70 2 Paulo Isidoro Brazil Midfielder 1983–1985 40 8 Paulo Rink Germany Forward 1999–2000 12 0 Paulo Roberto Brazil Defender 1985 9 0 Pedrinho Brazil Midfielder 2007 29 10 Pedro Alves Brazil Defender 2007 0 0 Pelé Brazil Forward 1956–1974 1106 1091 Pepe Brazil Forward 1954–1969¤ 750 405 Pereira Brazil Defender 2001–2004 28 2 Peter Timko Czech Republic Goalkeeper 1952 1 0 Piá Brazil Midfielder 1996–1998 10 0 Picot Argentina Midfielder 1954 Pita Brazil Midfielder 1976–1984 95 16 Pitbull Brazil Forward 2005 11 2 Rafael Cabral Brazil Goalkeeper 2009–present 114 0 Rafael Caldeira Brazil Defender 2010–present 14 0 Rafael de Andrade Brazil Goalkeeper 2000–2004 5 0 Ramón Mifflin Peru Midfielder 1974–1975 34 1 Reginaldo Araújo Brazil Defender 2003 38 0 Reinaldo Brazil Forward 2006 28 18 Renan Mota Brazil Forward 2011–present 1 0 Renan Rocha Brazil Goalkeeper 2001 0 0 Renatinho Brazil Forward 2005–2008 41 6 Renato Brazil Midfielder 2000–2004 122 12 Ricardo Bóvio Brazil Midfielder 2004–2006 48 0 Ricardo Oliveira Brazil Forward 2003 34 22 Ricardo Rocha Brazil Defender 1993 15 0 Ricardo Romera Argentina Goalkeeper 1976–1978 57 0 Ricardo Soares Brazil Defender 2001 19 2 Rildo Brazil Defender 1967–1972 19 0 Rivaldo Barbosa Brazil Midfielder 2004–2006 2 0 Robert Brazil Midfielder 1996–1997
2000–2002
2002–2003 44
56
16 2
12
2 Roberto Orlando Affonso Júnior Hong Kong Midfielder 2005 0 0 Roberto Brum Brazil Midfielder 2008–2010 36 0 Robgol Brazil Forward 2004 Robinho Brazil Forward 2002–2005
2010 111
2 46
0 Róbson Brazil Midfielder 2008–2011 33 4 Rodolfo Rodríguez Uruguay Goalkeeper 1984–1988 255 0 Rodrigão Brazil Forward 1999–2001 9 2 Rodrigo Costa Brazil Defender 2002 0 0 Rodrigo Possebon Italy Midfielder 2010–present 31 1 Rodrigo Souto Brazil Midfielder 2007–2009 93 7 Rodrigo Tabata Qatar Midfielder 2006–2008 154 42 Rodrigo Tiuí Brazil Forward 2007 29 6 Rodriguinho Brazil Midfielder 2010 18 2 Roger Gaúcho Brazil Midfielder 2011–present 7 0 Roger Silva Brazil Goalkeeper 2006–2007 5 0 Rogério Brazil Defender 2004–2008 Ronaldão Brazil Defender 1997 38 2 Ronaldo Guiaro Brazil Defender 2006–2007 20 0 Roni Brazil Goalkeeper 2005–2008 Rôni Brazil Forward 2009 3 1 Ruben Aveiros Paraguay Forward 1945 16 1 Rubens Cardoso Brazil Defender 2000–2001
2003 24
13 0
0 Rychely Brazil Forward 2011–present 7 2 Samuel Brazil Goalkeeper 2008–present Santana Brazil Midfielder 2006–2007 35 3 Saverio Lepore Italy Defender 1980–1986 6 0 Saulo Brazil Goalkeeper 2004–2006 24 0 Sebastián Pinto Chile Forward 2008 7 1 Serginho Chulapa Brazil Forward 1983–1984
1988
1989–1990 36
5
13 32
1
2 Sergio Santín Uruguay Midfielder 1986 16 0 Sérgio Brazil Goalkeeper 2009 9 0 Sérgio Manoel Brazil Midfielder 1989–1992
1993–1994 62
25 2
1 Silva Batuta Brazil Forward 1967 8 Silvio Brazil Forward 2005 0 0 Siriri Brazil Forward 1923–1929 113 80 Somália Brazil Forward 2005 Sosa Argentina Midfielder 1940 17 1 Sócrates Brazil Midfielder 1988–1989 5 2 Tcheco Brazil Midfielder 2005 2 0 Thiago Carleto Brazil Defender 2007–2008 10 0 Tiago Alves Brazil Forward 2011–present 7 1 Tiago Bernardini Brazil Defender 2002–2003 0 0 Tiago Luís Brazil Forward 2008–present 18 2 Tinga Brazil Defender Tomo Sugawara Japan Midfielder 1999 4 1 Toninho Guerreiro Brazil Forward 1963–1969 373 283 Triguinho Brazil Defender 2009 22 3 Tuta Brazil Midfielder 2004–2005 Urbano Caldeira Brazil Goalkeeper 1913–1933 Val Baiano Brazil Forward 2003 6 0 Valdo Brazil Midfielder 2000–2001 19 1 Vasconcelos Brazil Forward 1953–1958 175 111 Velloso Brazil Goalkeeper 1993 20 0 Vicente Rojas Argentina Forward 1939 2 1 Vinícius Brazil Midfielder 2007 2 0 Vitor Júnior Brazil Midfielder 2007 27 1 Víctor Aristizábal Colombia Forward 1998–1999 11 2 Vladimir Brazil Goalkeeper 2009
2010 0
0 0
0 Walace Brazil Defender 2011–present 1 0 Weldon Brazil Forward 2000–2002 11 1 Wellington Brazil Midfielder 2002–2003 Wellington Paulista Brazil Forward 2006 30 9 Wendel Brazil Forward 2005–2006 44 3 Wesley Brazil Midfielder 2007–2010 81 11 William Brazil Forward 2004–2005 16 9 Wilson Alves Brazil Defender 1955–1957 Wladimir Brazil Defender 1991 16 0 Yasutoshi Miura Japan Midfielder 1984–1985 Zague Brazil Forward 1959 0 0 Zé Elias Brazil Midfielder 2004–2006 25 0 Zé Roberto Brazil Midfielder 2006–2007 48 12 Zé Sérgio Brazil Forward 1984–1986 18 1 Zetti Brazil Goalkeeper 1997–1999 72 0 Zezinho Brazil Midfielder 2010 14 0 Zito Brazil Midfielder 1952–1967 727 57
Notes
[edit]
NB^ For a full description of positions see football positions.
See also
[edit]
Santos FC and the Brazil national football team
References
[edit]
Further reading
[edit]
Filmography
[edit]
Aníbal Massaini Neto, Pelé Eterno, 2004.
Carlos Hugo Christensen, O Rei Pelé, 1963.
Djalma Limongi Batista, Asa Branca: um sonho brasileiro, 1981.
Eduardo Escorel and Luiz Carlos Barreto, Isto é Pelé, 1974.
Felipe Nepomuceno, Guadalajara 70, 2002.
Hank Levine, Marcelo Machado and Tocha Alves, Ginga, 2004.
Mercado Livre, Santos, Especial, 2011.
Paulo Machline, Uma história de futebol, 1998.
Pedro Asbeg, Dogão calabresa, 2002.
Ugo Giorgetti, Boleiros, 1998. | ||||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 82 | https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-male-football-players/reference%3Fpage%3D6 | en | Famous Male Football Players | https://imgix.ranker.com/list_img_v2/4825/984825/original/famous-male-football-players-u3 | https://imgix.ranker.com/list_img_v2/4825/984825/original/famous-male-football-players-u3 | [
"https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=10600724&cv=3.6&cj=1",
"https://static.ranker.com/img/brand/ranker-logo.svg?v=1&auto=format&q=60&fit=crop&fm=png&dpr=2&w=104",
"https://static.ranker.com/img/brand/wordmark.svg?v=1&auto=format&q=60&fit=crop&fm=png&dpr=2&w=210",
"https://imgix.ranker.com/img/icons/me... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Reference"
] | 2013-08-30T00:00:00 | List of famous male football players, listed by their level of prominence with photos when available. This greatest male football players list contains the ... | en | /img/icons/touch-icon-iphone.png | Ranker | https://www.ranker.com/list/famous-male-football-players/reference | David Beckham, born on May 2, 1975 in London, England, is a globally recognized figure in the realm of professional football. The son of a kitchen fitter and a hairdresser, Beckham's passion for football was ignited at an early age, leading him to play for several youth teams before he was noticed by Manchester United scouts. His professional journey began when he signed a contract with Manchester United at the age of 16, marking the start of an illustrious career that would span over two decades. Beckham's tenure at Manchester United was characterized by a string of successes. With his exceptional talent and precision, he helped the team secure numerous victories including six Premier League titles and the prestigious UEFA Champions League. In 2003, Beckham made a notable move to Real Madrid, where he continued to establish his prowess on the pitch. After four years with the Spanish team, he made a surprising shift to the American Major League Soccer, joining Los Angeles Galaxy. The move not only catapulted Beckham's fame in the United States but also contributed significantly to the growth of the sport in the country. Beyond his exploits on the field, Beckham has been equally influential off it. He retired from professional football in 2013 but continues to contribute to the sport through various engagements, including owning Inter Miami CF, a Major League Soccer team. Additionally, his marriage to Victoria Adams, a former member of the pop group Spice Girls, and their subsequent family life has attracted substantial media attention, further cementing Beckham's status as a global icon. Additionally, his philanthropic efforts, particularly as a UNICEF Goodwill Ambassador, have earned him widespread admiration and respect.
Antonio Ramiro Romo (born April 21, 1980) is an American football television analyst and retired quarterback who played 14 seasons with the Dallas Cowboys of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for Eastern Illinois University, where he won the Walter Payton Award in 2002, and led the Panthers to an Ohio Valley Conference championship in 2001. He signed as an undrafted free agent with the Cowboys in 2003. Beginning his career as a holder, Romo became the Cowboys' starting quarterback during the 2006 season. Serving as the team's primary starter from 2006 to 2015, he guided the Cowboys to four postseason appearances and was named to the Pro Bowl four times. Romo retired after the 2016 season, following a preseason back injury that caused him to lose his starting position to Dak Prescott. Upon retiring, he was hired by CBS Sports to become the lead color analyst for their NFL telecasts, teaming with Jim Nantz in the broadcast booth. Romo holds several Cowboys team records, including passing touchdowns, passing yards, most games with at least 300 passing yards, and games with three or more touchdown passes. He also held a higher passer rating in the fourth quarter than any other NFL quarterback from 2006 to 2013. However, Romo's reputation was affected by a lack of postseason success, having won only two of the six playoff games he appeared in and never advancing beyond the divisional round. His 97.1 passer rating is the fourth highest of all time and the highest among quarterbacks not to reach the Super Bowl, as well as the highest among retired players.
Diego Maradona, born on October 30, 1960, in Lanús, Buenos Aires, Argentina, was a football maestro who made an indelible impression on the global sports scene. His journey from the shanty town of Villa Fiorito to becoming one of the most iconic figures in football is nothing short of extraordinary. He was known for his exceptional skill, audacious style, and ability to both create and score goals, earning him accolades worldwide. Maradona shot to prominence after joining the Argentinos Juniors at the tender age of 10. His dazzling performances caught the attention of Boca Juniors, one of Argentina's most prestigious clubs, where he honed his skills before securing a high-profile transfer to Barcelona in Spain. However, it was at Napoli in Italy where Maradona truly etched his name into football folklore. Under his leadership, Napoli won their first-ever Serie A title in 1987 and repeated the feat in 1990, with Maradona being instrumental in both campaigns. Internationally, Maradona's crowning glory came in the 1986 World Cup, where he led Argentina to victory. His infamous Hand of God goal and his brilliant solo effort against England in the quarterfinals are still talked about today. Despite facing numerous challenges, including battles with drug addiction and health issues, Maradona's contributions to football remain unparalleled. He passed away on November 25, 2020, leaving behind a legacy that has inspired generations of footballers. | ||
3393 | dbpedia | 0 | 37 | https://astrologify.com/people/edinho-footballer-born-1983/ | en | Astrology Birth Chart for Edinho (Jan. 15, 1983) | [
"https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1500347064074674&ev=PageView&noscript=1",
"https://in.getclicky.com/101410346ns.gif",
"https://astrologify.com/ico/icon-180x180.png",
"https://astrologify.com/wp-content/uploads/liz-200x200.jpg",
"https://astrologify.com/wp-content/uploads/capricorn-sun-320x180.jpg 320w,https... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Liz Roby",
"www.facebook.com"
] | 2024-06-26T09:27:11+00:00 | Liz has two passions in life: astrology and relationships. As a professional astrologer, she has been featured in multiple publications such as BestLife, FoxNews, Glam, Glamour, and MindBodyGreen. She shares all her discoveries and observations on this website. | en | https://astrologify.com/ico/favicon.ico | Astrologify | https://astrologify.com/people/edinho-footballer-born-1983/ | Edimo Ferreira Campos, commonly known as Edinho, is a Brazilian former professional footballer who played as a defensive midfielder.
Edinho was born on January 15, 1983, in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. His birth geographical coordinates are 22° 52’ 60” South latitude and 43° 6’ 13” West longitude. Edinho is currently 41 years old.
Astrologically, Edinho falls under the Sun sign of Capricorn, with Aries as his Ascendant, Aquarius as his Moon sign, and Capricorn as his Black Moon Lilith sign.
Planets
Planets represent different aspects of personality, life themes, and energies within a birth chart, influencing individual characteristics, motivations, and experiences.
Planets in Signs
Planets in a zodiac sign denote how the energies and qualities associated with those planets express themselves within the context of the themes and attributes of that particular zodiac sign.
Sun Capricorn Moon Aquarius Mercury Capricorn Venus Aquarius Mars Aquarius Jupiter Sagittarius Saturn Scorpio Uranus Sagittarius Neptune Sagittarius Pluto Libra Ceres Capricorn Chiron Taurus Eros Aquarius Hygiea Libra Juno Aquarius Pallas Sagittarius Vesta Pisces Ascendant Aries Black Moon Lilith Capricorn Midheaven Capricorn North Node Cancer South Node Capricorn Part of Fortune Taurus Vertex Capricorn
Sunin Capricorn24° 54’ 4”
The Sun in Capricorn in a Natal Chart is a placement associated with patience and reliability. You are consistent and preserve tradition. You look to […] Read more »
Moonin Aquarius10° 22’ 37”
The Moon in Aquarius in the Natal Chart makes you a humanitarian with instincts related to fairness and equality. You are intuitively attracted to group […] Read more »
Mercuryin Capricorn26° 5’ 40”
Mercury in Capricorn in the Natal Chart makes you eager to express your ideas about money, finance, and career. You often think of investments and […] Read more »
Venusin Aquarius12° 23’ 7”
Aquarius Venus in the Natal Chart makes you unusual and brilliant. You value people who inspire breakthroughs. You love epiphanies that help you understand the […] Read more »
Marsin Aquarius28° 29’ 54”
Aquarius Mars in the Natal Chart makes you daring and impulsive. You are passionate and can follow your intellectual desires. You are inspiring and want […] Read more »
Jupiterin Sagittarius3° 54’ 22”
Sagittarius Jupiter in the Natal Chart indicates you are part of a generation that values spiritual growth and expansion. You are a truth-seeker and are […] Read more »
Saturnin Scorpio3° 45’ 56”
Is Saturn in Scorpio good or bad? Scorpio Saturn in the Natal Chart is an ideal placement for a generation obsessed with security and power. […] Read more »
Uranusin Sagittarius7° 40’ 42”
Uranus in Sagittarius in the Natal Chart is a generational placement, describing a broad cohort of people born within three years of each other. You […] Read more »
Neptunein Sagittarius27° 46’ 44”
Sagittarius Neptune in the Natal Chart indicates you are part of a generation born to help society expand. You help others grow and push boundaries. […] Read more »
Plutoin Libra29° 26’ 51”
Pluto in Libra in the Natal Chart indicates a generation devoted to exposing corruption within the legal system. You help society transform how it creates […] Read more »
Ceresin Capricorn14° 38’ 29”
Ceres in Capricorn in the Natal Chart indicates a generation committed to making others comfortable. You are sensitive to others’ needs and can be compassionate […] Read more »
Chironin Taurus22° 48’ 15”
Chiron in Taurus in the Natal Chart is an ideal placement for a nurturing healer. Your generation brings attention to financial and physical wellness. You […] Read more »
Erosin Aquarius4° 22’ 9”
Eros in Aquarius in the Natal Chart makes you eager to explore your kinky side. You are excited by dramatic and creative sexual experiences. You […] Read more »
Hygieain Libra27° 10’ 11”
Hygiea in Libra in the Natal Chart makes you peace-loving and harmonious. You maintain your health by being conscious of balance. You are empathetic and […] Read more »
Junoin Aquarius5° 42’ 29”
Aquarius Juno in the Natal Chart indicates you have an intellectual and creative connection to your love interest. You have a rebellious spirit and can […] Read more »
Pallasin Sagittarius24° 51’ 10”
Pallas in Sagittarius in the Natal Chart makes you determined and focused. You are generous and can be a natural leader who inspires others to […] Read more »
Vestain Pisces13° 36’ 36”
Vesta in Pisces in the Natal Chart makes you endearing and romantic. You are sensitive and obsessed with spiritual growth. You delve into the occult […] Read more »
Ascendantin Aries24° 11’ 4”
Aries Ascendant in the Natal Chart indicates a dramatic personality. You have a passionate appearance and often go to extremes to show your individuality. You […] Read more »
Black Moon Lilithin Capricorn23° 8’ 35”
Capricorn Black Moon Lilith in the Natal Chart makes you daring and independent in your career. Your business strategies are wild and based on your […] Read more »
Midheavenin Capricorn24° 28’ 39”
The Capricorn Midheaven in the Natal Chart makes you stoic and observant. You are patient and down to earth. You have a practical and determined […] Read more »
North Nodein Cancer3° 4’ 56”
Cancer Midheaven in the Natal Chart makes you maternal and caring. You take others under your wing and can be compassionate and loving. You are […] Read more »
South Nodein Capricorn3° 4’ 56”
Capricorn South Node in the Natal Chart makes you dependable and committed. You are reliable and have a gift for maintaining stability. You can be […] Read more »
Planets in Elements
Planets in elements denote how the fundamental energies and qualities associated with those planets interact with the elemental nature of the signs they inhabit, shaping an individual’s overall temperament and approach to life.
Earth Element
The earth element in astrology is associated with practicality and grounding. This element is associated with career and wealth. Taurus, Virgo, and Capricorn are signs […] Read more »
Air Element
The air element in astrology corresponds to three signs; Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius. This element is associated with new insights and perspectives. The air element […] Read more »
Fire Element
The fire element in astrology is associated with passion and motivation. This element brings creativity and intensifies planets and natal houses. Your competitive nature comes […] Read more »
Water Element
Astrologers and other occultists study the water element to understand emotional healing. This element relates to love and compassion. Numerous planets in water signs in […] Read more »
Planets in Qualities
Planets in qualities signify how the inherent attributes and tendencies of those planets align with the modalities of the signs they occupy, influencing an individual’s style of action, decision-making, and engagement with the world.
Cardinal Quality
The Cardinal quality in astrology is associated with new seasons and initiative. Cardinal signs mark the equinoxes and solstices. The Cardinal modality represents the extremes […] Read more »
Fixed Quality
The second Quality in astrology is the Fixed modality. Fixed Signs follow the Cardinal Signs, bringing strength and endurance. These signs build upon the foundation […] Read more »
Mutable Quality
The third Quality astrological signs are grouped into is mutable. Mutable Signs come at the end of a season. Mutable Signs are associated with flexibility […] Read more »
Planets in Houses
Planets in a zodiac house signify where in life’s areas and experiences the energies and influences of those planets are predominantly focused and expressed.
Sun Tenth House Moon Tenth House Mercury Tenth House Venus Tenth House Mars Eleventh House Jupiter Eighth House Saturn Seventh House Uranus Eighth House Neptune Ninth House Pluto Seventh House Ceres Ninth House Chiron First House Eros Tenth House Hygiea Seventh House Juno Tenth House Pallas Ninth House Vesta Eleventh House Black Moon Lilith Ninth House North Node Third House South Node Ninth House Part of Fortune First House Vertex Ninth House
Aspects
Aspects reveal the dynamic relationships and interactions between planets within a birth chart, influencing the way their energies combine and manifest in an individual’s life experiences and personality traits.
Within this birth chart, there are 15 major aspects, alongside 13 minor aspects, as well as 9 extra aspects.
Major Aspects
Major aspects highlight significant connections between planets, providing insights into key dynamics, challenges, and potentials shaping an individual’s life journey and psychological makeup.
Sun Conjunct Mercury Mars Sextile Neptune Mars Trine Pluto Moon Conjunct Venus Neptune Sextile Pluto Moon Sextile Uranus Mercury Square Pluto Jupiter Conjunct Uranus Saturn Conjunct Pluto Sun Square Pluto Venus Sextile Uranus Mars Square Jupiter Mars Trine Saturn Saturn Sextile Neptune Moon Square Saturn
Explore detailed articles on the major aspects in this birth chart, gaining deeper insights into this cosmic identity. Dive into each aspect and uncover how it shapes Edinho ‘s life journey.
Sun Conjunct Mercuryorb: 1°
Sun conjunct Mercury in the Natal Chart can make you bright, playful, and talkative. Your intellectual gifts are among your best characteristics. You can be […] Read more »
Moon Conjunct Venusorb: 2°
The Moon conjunct Venus helps you express your emotional nature through the visual and performing arts. You are idealistic and see the beauty in others. […] Read more »
Moon Sextile Uranusorb: 3°
When the Moon is sextile Uranus in a Natal Chart, this typically means that a person is free-spirited, unique, and a bit rebellious. Someone with […] Read more »
Jupiter Conjunct Uranusorb: 4°
Jupiter conjunct Uranus in a chart typically indicates that someone craves freedom and needs to try new things constantly. There are both positive and negative […] Read more »
Saturn Conjunct Plutoorb: 4°
Saturn conjunct Pluto in a Natal Chart typically indicates that a person has faced, or will face, some intense hardships. These might be experienced while […] Read more »
Sun Square Plutoorb: 5°
The Sun square Pluto in a Natal Chart makes you fearful of change and loss. Until you accept core fears and weaknesses, you may overcompensate […] Read more »
Venus Sextile Uranusorb: 5°
Venus sextile Uranus in a chart typically indicates that a person is open-minded, artistic, and innovative. They are likely noticeably unique or different in some […] Read more »
Moon Square Saturnorb: 7°
The Moon square Saturn in a Natal Chart typically creates controlling tendencies in a person. Depending on how this is expressed, people might be more […] Read more »
Minor Aspects
Minor aspects represent subtler connections between planets, offering additional nuances and layers of interpretation to understand more detailed influences on an individual’s personality and experiences.
Sun Conjunct Midheaven Jupiter Sextile Eros Sun Square Ascendant Moon Square Part of Fortune Mercury Square Hygiea Mars Trine Hygiea Jupiter Quincunx North Node Saturn Square Eros Saturn Trine North Node Saturn Sextile South Node Neptune Sextile Hygiea Sun Conjunct Black Moon Lilith Mercury Conjunct Midheaven
Discover additional layers of meaning with this collection of articles on the minor aspects found in Edinho ‘s birth chart. Delve deeper into these cosmic nuances to gain a richer understanding of this astrological profile.
Sun Conjunct Midheavenorb: 0°
The Sun conjunct Midheaven makes you outspoken and authentic. You openly share your talents and align your unique abilities with your public status. You are […] Read more »
Sun Square Ascendantorb: 1°
The Sun square Ascendant in the Natal Chart creates friction between your identity and outer appearance. Your first impressions don’t align with your authentic self. […] Read more »
Jupiter Quincunx North Nodeorb: 1°
Jupiter quincunx the North Node in a chart disconnects growth and destiny. It can be difficult for a person to find their true path and […] Read more »
Sun Conjunct Black Moon Lilithorb: 2°
Novice astrologers often ask, what does Black Moon Lilith mean? This fixed point in the chart indicates your potential to unleash pent-up power and frustration […] Read more »
Mercury Conjunct Midheavenorb: 2°
Mercury conjunct Midheaven in the Natal Chart makes you intellectual and outgoing. Your career brings opportunities to express your creativity and intelligence. You are thoughtful […] Read more »
Extra Aspects
Extra aspects, though less emphasized than major or minor aspects, contribute subtle nuances and intricacies to the overall astrological interpretation, offering additional insights into an individual’s personality traits and life experiences.
Chiron Trine Black Moon Lilith Ascendant Square Midheaven Ceres Sextile Vesta Ceres Conjunct Vertex Eros Conjunct Juno Pallas Trine Ascendant Ascendant Square Black Moon Lilith Black Moon Lilith Conjunct Midheaven Chiron Trine Midheaven
Explore how these extra aspects contribute to the intricate tapestry of Edinho ‘s life path through subtler influences. Dive into each extra aspect and uncover the hidden gems that shape a unique cosmic identity.
Ceres Conjunct Vertexorb: 1°
Ceres conjunct the Vertex in a chart combines someone’s nurturing tendencies with their fate and destiny. How they are nurtured and show care to others […] Read more »
Houses
A house starting in a zodiac sign indicates the area of life where the qualities and themes of that sign are particularly emphasized and influential within an individual’s birth chart. | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 94 | https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/great-generations-of-footballers-from-countries-or-regions.2015156/ | en | Great Generations of Footballers from Countries or Regions | [
"https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/great-generations-of-footballers-from-countries-or-regions.2015156/styles/bigsoccer/bigsoccer/media/logo.png",
"https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/great-generations-of-footballers-from-countries-or-regions.2015156/styles/bigsoccer/bigsoccer/media/logo.png",
"https://www.bigsocc... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | The (http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/great-world-cup-teams-that-never-were.2005683/) thread got me thinking about great generations of footballers... | en | styles/bigsoccer/bigsoccer/media/favicons/apple-icon-57x57.png | BigSoccer Forum | https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/great-generations-of-footballers-from-countries-or-regions.2015156/ | The (http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads/great-world-cup-teams-that-never-were.2005683/) thread got me thinking about great generations of footballers from countries. Some great generations did not get to play together and prove themselves on an international level for a variety of reasons. England's greatest generation of footballers did not get to play with one of their greatest contemporaries, Duncan Edwards, because of his early passing. Hungary's Golden Team, as powerful as its front line was, did not have all of its top attacking players available for selection because players abroad (Kubala, Nyers) were not included in the national team. Similar things occurred in Argentina in the 50s. I want to measure the quality of a generation by the total achievements of all the players in it, not just how well they performed together for the national team. For example the generation of English players in their primes in the late 1970s were major underachievers with the national team, but were major parts of English clubs dominating European Football.
My goal here is to simply define a generation as a group of players born in the same country in a certain time period. The time period took a little tinkering. I first looked at players born within 5 years of one another but this was too small a time period, as my goal was to grab a group of players who played together or could have played together because of their similar ages. With a 5 year time period players like Hidegkuti and Puskas, who clearly were part of the same generation and played together for much of their career could not be in one generation (Hidegkuti born in 1922, Puskas born in 1927). I then moved the time period to 10 years which seemed a little to big and players who were not associated with one another or careers did not really overlap in a meaningful way could be grouped in one generation (Domingos da Guia 1912 and Zizinho 1921). I settled on 8 years as the time period to use and in general it works relatively well with the reality of players careers. Usually on one team an 8 year gap between players ages in the maximum you see unless one player is very young and the other as unusual longevity.
I decided to strictly limit players to the country they were born in to limit confusion and grey areas. In theory we are looking for the best generations of players produced by a country or region. In some situations you have players move to a country at a very young age and you could still argue they were "produced" by the country they played for. Lillian Thruman moved to France at the age of 9 and most if not all of his football education and career was in France. Players like Eusebio or Coluna developed the early part of their careers abroad before moving to the country they were associated with in their late teens. They clearly were not developed in Portugal in my opinion. To eliminate grey areas like Lillian Thurman, and arguments about ethnicity (which by my definition has nothing to do with who produced a player, Thierry Henry and William Gallas were born in France so they were available for French generations) I simply used where the player was born to determine eligibility. This interpretation hurts a number of excellent footballing generations, largely the two mention earlier. France's World Cup winning generation loses Thruman, Desailly, Viera etc and Portugal's generation of the 60s loses Eusebio and Coluna.
To make things simple for comparing generations of players across different time periods I have defined players by their roles not positions (http://forums.bigsoccer.com/threads...-function-not-position.2009089/#post-30813593).
I have gone through each country and tried to identify their best generations. Then once that is complete it would be interesting to try to define the best generations among all countries.
To start off I will tackle one of the all time great footballing countries Brazil.
The first generation of players I wanted to capture was a generation built around Leonidas and Domingo da Guia. Going any earlier in time to players like Friedenreich does not make sense to me as there are not enough top players around Friedenreich to create a strong generation.
I will list players in relative order for their importance/achievement/talent for each "role".
Leonidas/Domingo da Guia generation stretches from 1910 to 1917. This was the generation of footballers that were in their primes for the 1938 World Cup that Brazil preformed well at.
Finishers
Leônidas da Silva (Leonidas)
Waldemar de Brito
Carvalho Leite
José Perácio
Leonídio Fantoni (Niginho)
Sylvio Pirillo
Uriel Fernandes (Teleco)
Chance Creators
Rodolpho Barteczko (Patesko)
Hércules de Miranda (Hércules)
Elba de Pádua Lima (Tim)
Luís Mesquita de Oliveira (Luisinho)
Romeu Pellicciari (Romeu)
Controllers
José Augusto Brandão
Zezé Procópio
Aarón Wergifker
Afonso Guimarães da Silva (Afonsinho)
Martín Mercío Silveyra
Defenders
Domingos da Guia
Jose de Oliveira Junqueira
Goalkeepers
Algisto Lorenzato (Batatais)
The strength of this generation is in the finishers and chance creators. There were enough excellent strikers, inside forwards, and wingers that many excellent players had difficulty getting into the national team. A player like Teleco is considered one of the greatest Cornthians players ever. He was top scorer in the Paulista 5 times (a record) and won four Paulista titles but to my knowledge never got capped due to the presence Leonidas and Carvalho Leite among others.
The weakness of this generation is among the controllers, defenders, and goalkeeper. There is decent depth at controller but none of the players were really considered the top halfbacks of their time in South America compared to contemporaries from Argentina (Ernesto Lazzatti, Jorge Alberti) and Uruguay (Obdulio Varela, Michele Andreolo). There is major lack of depth at defender with da Guia being an all time great but not much after that.
Zizinho/Ademir generation is from 1920 to 1927. This is generation of Brazilians that built strength through the 40s culminating in the 1949 South American Championship win and the 1950 World Cup final appearance. This generation also includes players who went on to be important veterans in the 1954 World Cup. I would say this is the generation that really elevated Brazil's status to a world power.
Finishers
Ademir Marques de Menezes (Ademir)
Heleno de Freitas
Albino Friaça Cardoso (Friaca)
Oswaldo da Silva (Baltazar)
Carlos Alberto Zolim Filho (Carlitos)
Adão Nunes Dornelles (Adãozinho)
Chance Creators
Thomaz Soares da Silva (Zizinho)
Jair Rosa Pinto (Jair)
Osmar Fortes Barcellos (Tesourinha)
Cláudio Christovam de Pinho (Cláudio)
Francisco Aramburu (Chico)
Francisco Rodrigues
José Lázaro Robles (Pinga)
Yeso Amalfi
Pedro de Araújo Simão (Simao)
Elísio dos Santos Teixeira (Teixerinha)
Manuel Marinho Alves (Maneca)
Controllers
Danilo Alvim
Jose Carlos Bauer
Rui Campos
Antenor Lucas (Brandãozinho)
Moacir Lamb (Biguá)
Ely do Amparo (Ely)
João Ferreira (Bigode)
Jaime de Almeida
Waldemar Fiume
Defenders
Nilton Santos
Augusto da Costa
Juvenal Amarijo (Juvenal)
Olavo Rodrigues Barbosa (Nena)
Goalkeepers
Moacir Barbosa Nascimento (Barbosa)
Carlos José Castilho (Castilho)
This generation sports excellent depth at all positions. Finishers is headed up by an all time great and has good depth with very well thought of players in Heleno de Freitas, Fricia, and Baltazar behind for depth plus two all time great goal scorers from the Campeonato Gaucho in Carlitos and Adãozinho. The chance creator group is fantastic with amazing depth. Claudio is considered by many the greatest player in his clubs history (Corinthians) and led a signature club of the time to multiple championships but he could never get major playing time at inside forward because of Jair and Zizinho. Teixerinha is in a similar situation as one of the great Sao Paulo's sides top attackers but few caps to show. The group of wingers also has great depth but not quite the star power of the inside forwards. The controllers are deep with Alvim and Bauer heading up the group. The defenders are the weak spot of the team with one all time great players who came in at the tail end of this generation, but outside of that the players involved are not considered the best at their position outside of Brazil. The two goalkeepers are solid but not spectacular.
Didi/Garrincha generation is from 1928 to 1935. This is in contention for the greatest generation in football history. Pele was not born until 1940 so he is difficult to join with this group of players. Despite Pele's absence I believe this group has more overall quality than any generation that can be made with Pele in it.
Finishers
Waldir Cardoso Lebrêgo (Quarentinha)
Edvaldo Izídio Neto (Vava)
Evaristo de Macedo Filho (Evaristo)
Paulo Valentim
Waldo Machado da Silva (Waldo)
Aluísio Francisco da Luz (Índio)
Chance Creators
Manuel Francisco dos Santos (Garrincha)
Waldyr Pereira (Didi)
Júlio Botelho (Julinho)
José Macia (Pepe)
José Ribamar de Oliveira (Canhoteiro)
Mario Zagallo
Dorval Rodrigues (Dorval)
Sidney Colônia Cunha (Chinesinho)
Joel Antônio Martins
Edvaldo Alves de Santa Rosa (Dida)
Vladem Lázaro Ruiz Quevedo (Delém)
Luíz Trochillo (Luizinho)
Paulo César Araújo (Pagão)
Controllers
José Ely de Miranda (Zito)
Dino Sani
Roberto Belangero
José Ferreira Franco (Zequinha)
José Mendonça dos Santos (Dequinha)
Mílton Alves da Silva
Defenders
Djalma Santos
Mauro Ramos de Oliveira (Mauro Ramos)
Orlando Peçanha de Carvalho (Orlando)
Hilderaldo Bellini
Nílton de Sordi
Zózimo Alves Calazães (Zózimo)
Valdemar Rodrigues Martíns (Oreco)
Dalmo Gaspar
João Carlos Batista Pinheiro (Pinheiro)
Jordan da Costa
Goalkeepers
Gylmar dos Santos Neves (Gilmar)
Félix Miélli Venerando (Félix)
Finishers lack an all time great superstar but has a number of excellent high quality players. The chance creator group is likely the best group of chance creators ever produced by a generation in or outside Brazil. The log jam of great wingers for example is amazing with Garrincha, Julinho, and Dorval all competing for caps on the right and Pepe, Canhoteiro, and Mario Zagallo all competing on the left. The controllers are strong behind to greats in Zito and Dino Sani. Unlike the previous Brazilian generations there is depth and quality in defense as well as two solid goalkeepers.
Pele/Altafini generation from 1937 to 1944 and the Pele/Tostao generation from 1940 to 1947. These are in my opinion the two best ways to build a generation around Pele. It is possible to stretch from 1933 to 1940 and get Pele (1940) and Garrincha (1933) in one generation but that does not have the overall quality that these two choices have in my eyes.
1937 to 1944
Finishers
Edson Arantes do Nascimento (Pelé)
Jose Altafini
Antônio Wilson Vieira Honório (Coutinho)
Toninho Guerreiro
Procópio Cardoso
Servílio de Jesus Filho (Servílio)
Flávio Almeida da Fonseca (Flávio Minuano)
Roberto Lopes de Miranda (Roberto Miranda)
Chance Creators
Jair Ventura Filho (Jairzinho)
Ademir da Guia
Gérson de Oliveira Nunes (Gerson)
Jair da Costa
Amarildo Tavares da Silveira (Amarildo)
Mengálvio Pedro Figueiró (Mengálvio)
Controllers
Wilson da Silva Piazza
Antônio Lima dos Santos (Lima)
Olegário Tolóí de Oliveira (Dudu)
Denílson Custódio Machado (Denílson)
Defenders
Carlos Alberto Torres
Everaldo Marques da Silva (Everaldo)
Rildo da Costa Menezes (Rildo)
Roberto Dias
Djalma Pereira Dias Júnior (Djalma Dias)
Hércules de Brito Ruas (Brito)
Altair Gomes de Figueiredo (Altair)
Goalkeepers
Haílton Corrêa de Arruda (Manga)
Raul Plassmann
1940 to 1947
Finishers
Edson Arantes do Nascimento (Pelé)
Eduardo Gonçalves de Andrade (Tostao)
Antônio Wilson Vieira Honório (Coutinho)
Dario José dos Santos (Dadá Maravilha)
Toninho Guerreiro
Flávio Almeida da Fonseca (Flávio Minuano)
Roberto Lopes de Miranda (Roberto Miranda)
Chance Creators
Jair Ventura Filho (Jairzinho)
Ademir da Guia
Gérson de Oliveira Nunes (Gerson)
Dirceu Lopes
Jair da Costa
Valdomiro Vaz Franco (Valdomiro)
Natal de Carvalho Baroni (Natal)
Controllers
Wilson da Silva Piazza
Antônio Lima dos Santos (Lima)
Denílson Custódio Machado (Denílson)
Alcindo Martha de Freitas (Alcindo)
Defenders
Carlos Alberto Torres
Everaldo Marques da Silva (Everaldo)
Rildo da Costa Menezes (Rildo)
Roberto Dias
Joel Camargo
Mário Peres Ulibarri (Marinho Peres)
Goalkeepers
Raul Plassmann
I bolded the major names unique to each generation. The core of Pele's generation remains mostly the same with either group (Pele, Coutinho, Jairzinho, Ademir da Guia, Gerson, Jair da Costa, Piazza, and Carlos Alberto Torres). The major additions for the 37-44 group is Altafini, Amarildo, Mengalvio, and Manga and the 40-47 group is Tostao, Direcu Lopez, and Dadá Maravilha. Not sure which one I prefer. Overall the Pele generations have just as much top quality as the Garrincha/Didi generation but lack the depth of quality it had, especially at controller and defender. Pele's generation is probably ahead at finishers and close behind at chance creator despite the lack of depth comparatively since the top quality is so good for Pele's generation (Jairzinho, Ademir da Guia, Gerson, Jair da Costa, and Direcu Lopez/Amarildo and Mengalvio).
I will continue the Brazil generations post Pele in another post.
Lilian Thuram was born in France mate. Guadeloupe is part of France juste like -let's say- Hawaï is part of the US.
One thing to consider is that goalies used to reach their primes later than field players (let's said 4 years later).
So, is common to see into the same generation on into their primes to "field players" with 21 y.o. and goalies with 34 y.o.
But, I understand if you want to stay things simple.
On to Italy.
The first major group of footballers is comprised of a few generations of inter-war players who had strong performances for the national team winning two World Cups and two Central European Cups between 1927 and 1938. Because the birth dates of signature Italian players of the time stretch from 1900 to 1916 multiple "generations" were needed to capture them all. These generations have less depth than other generations because of my exclusion of Oriundo, South American players who were purchased near the peaks of their careers by Italian clubs and then given prominent places in the national team. In this era more than any other, Oriundo had vital parts of the Italian national team, most notably Miguel Andreolo, Enrique Guaita, Julio Libonatti, Luis Monti, and Raimundo Orsi. These generations are especially short of chance creators because not only did the national team employ many Oriundo at these positions, many club team did as well with players like Raimundo Orsi, Enrique Guaita, Renato Cesarini, Francisco Fedullo, Arturo Chini Ludueña, Attilio Demaría, Francisco Frione, Niginho, Filo, Nininho, Roberto Porta, Attila Sallustro, Raffaele Sansone, Alejandro Scopelli, and Pedro Sernagiotto all taking starting positions in creative,attacking positions for prominent club team.
Combi/Ferrari generation is from 1900 to 1907.
Finishers
Angelo Schiavio
Gino Rossetti
Virgilio Levratto
Mario Magnozzi
Leopoldo Conti
Chance Creators
Giovanni Ferrari
Controllers
Luigi Bertolini
Attilio Ferraris
Antonio Janni
Fulvio Bernardini
Pietro Serantoni
Alfredo Pitto
Armando Castellazzi
Defenders
Virginio Rosetta
Luigi Allemandi
Umberto Caligaris
Eraldo Monzeglio
Felice Gasperi
Goalkeepers
Giampiero Combi
Giovanni De Pra
Mario Gianni
This generation is very deep with players at controller, defender, and goalkeeper with lots of top talent as well. Players like Combi, Rosetta, Allemandi, Caligaris, Monzeglio, Bertolini, and Ferraris were all thought of as some of the best European players of their time at their positions. There is decent depth at finisher but a lack of star talent. Only one chance creator is present but he was great.
The nest generations moves three years younger to capture Meazza but in turn losses some of the top talent at defender and goalkeeper the previous generation had.
Allemandi/Meazza generation is from 1903 to 1910.
Finishers
Giuseppe Meazza
Angelo Schiavio
Gino Rossetti
Virgilio Levratto
Pietro Pastore
Chance Creators
Giovanni Ferrari
Carlo Reguzzoni
Controllers
Luigi Bertolini
Attilio Ferraris
Antonio Janni
Fulvio Bernardini
Pietro Serantoni
Mario Pizziolo
Alfredo Pitto
Armando Castellazzi
Mario Montesanto
Defenders
Luigi Allemandi
Eraldo Monzeglio
Felice Gasperi
Goalkeepers
Aldo Olivieri
Carlo Ceresoli
I big step forward at finisher is taken by adding the best Italian player of the time. More depth is added to the creator and controller roles as well but major top end talent is lost at defender and goalkeeper.
The final generation of this group moves even younger to combine with Meazza the other top Italian attacking talents of the time and acquires a mostly new group of controllers and defenders.
Meazza/Piola generation is from 1909 to 1916
Finishers
Giuseppe Meazza
Silvio Piola
Guglielmo Gabetto
Aldo Boffi
Felice Borel
Pietro Ferraris
Chance Creators
Gino Colaussi
Amedeo Biavati
Controllers
Ugo Locatelli
Mario Perazzolo
Mario Pizziolo
Mario Montesanto
Defenders
Pietro Rava
Alfredo Foni
Goalkeepers
Aldo Olivieri
Carlo Ceresoli
The finishers position takes a huge step forward and is one of the strongest finisher groups of Italians ever with two all time great players and excellent depth. The chance creator position losses Ferrari but gains Colaussi, a relatively even trade. The depth at controller and defender is not present as it was in the earlier generations but the top talent is present in Locatelli, Rava, and Foni.
There is a relatively large time gap to the next major generation of players in my view with Italy having a down period after WWII (major set back with the air crash killing the majority of the national team) until the arrival of the great teams of the 60s the won four European Cups, a European Championship, and made a World Cup final.
Facchetti/Rivera generation is from 1939 to 1946
Finishers
Luigi Riva
Roberto Boninsegna
Pierino Prati
Sergio Gori
Chance Creators
Gianni Rivera
Sandro Mazzola
Mario Corso
Gigi Meroni
Angelo Domenghini
Controllers
Romeo Benetti
Giacomo Bulgarelli
Giancarlo De Sisti
Giuseppe Furino
Giovanni Trapattoni
Giorgio Ferrini
Gianfranco Bedin
Fabio Capello
Mario Bertini
Antonio Juliano
Giovanni Lodetti
Defenders
Giacinto Facchetti
Tarcisio Burgnich
Sandro Salvadore
Giuseppe Wilson
Roberto Rosato
Pierluigi Cera
Goalkeeper
Dino Zoff
Enrico Albertosi
Luciano Castellini
This generation is in clear contention for the best Italian generation even in my opinion. They have possibly the greatest Italian striker ever backed up by another excellent finisher. Two of the greatest number 10s Italy ever produced plus some very talented wingers at chance creator. An extremely deep group of defensive midfielders at controller. The group of defenders is somewhat lacking compared to younger generations but it still contains two all time great players. The goalkeeper group is also fantastic.
The next generation is also in contention for the best Italian generation ever in my opinion and is centered around the players who performed excellently at the 1978 and 1982 World Cups, winning the later. It can be organized in two ways around the core of player born between 1953 and 1956 (Scirea, Gentile, Antognoni, Tardelli, Conte, and Rossi). The first generation moves back to 1949 to acquire more players associated with 1978 (Causio, Bettega) while the second moves to 1960 for younger players who were emerging in the 80s (Cabrini, Baresi, Zenga).
The Bettega/Scirea generation is from 1949 to 1956
Finishers
Paolo Rossi
Roberto Bettega
Alessandro Altobelli
Paolo Pulici
Roberto Pruzzo
Francesco Graziani
Giordano Bruno
Chance Creators
Giancarlo Antognoni
Bruno Conti
Franco Causio
Evaristo Beccalossi
Controllers
Marco Tardelli
Agostino Di Bartolomei
Salvatore Bagni
Gabriele Oriali
Renato Zaccarelli
Giampiero Marini
Defenders
Gaetano Scirea
Cladio Gentile
Antonello Cuccureddu
Mauro Bellugi
Luciano Spinosi
Aldo Maldera
Goalkeeper
Ivano Bordon
Franco Tancredi
This may be the greatest group of Italian finishers ever depending on whether or not you prefer top end talent (1909-1916) or total depth of strong players (1949-1956). The chance creators are a very strong group by Italian standards and the controllers are solid led by Italy's best Tardelli. The defender group is solid but not great compared to other Italian generation, similar 1939 to 1946 with only a couple of top players. The goalkeeper group is weak. Overall this groups abundance of attacking players was reflected in the team attractive and attacking approach at WC 78.
Tweaking the generation to younger players changes the overall strengths and weaknesses of the generation.
The Scirea/Baresi generation is from 1953 to 1960
Finishers
Paolo Rossi
Alessandro Altobelli
Roberto Pruzzo
Giordano Bruno
Aldo Serena
Chance Creators
Giancarlo Antognoni
Bruno Conti
Evaristo Beccalossi
Controllers
Marco Tardelli
Agostino Di Bartolomei
Salvatore Bagni
Giuseppe Dossena
Carlo Ancelotti
Antonio di Gennaro
Defenders
Franco Baresi
Gaetano Scirea
Antonio Cabrini
Cladio Gentile
Pietro Vierchowod
Fulvio Collovati
Mauro Tassotti
Roberto Tricella
Aldo Maldera
Goalkeeper
Walter Zenga
Stefano Tacconi
Giovanni Galli
Franco Tancredi
The finishers or still solid but not nearly as good as the previous group, losing Bettega, Pulici, and Graziani. The chance creators are unchanged except by the important loss of Causio and the controllers are tottaly unchanged. There are major additions to the defenders making this possibly the best generation of Italian defenders ever with Baresi, Cabrini, Vierchowod, Collovatti, and Tassotti adding to Scirea and Gentile. There is also a major upgrade at goalkeeper with an all time great in Zenga and additional depth. This generations strength also reflects the teams approach at WC 82 as oppose to 78, with a more pragmatic style centered around a great defense. | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 3 | 62 | https://reliablesourceng.com/football-legend-pele-dies-at-82/ | en | Football legend Pele, dies at 82 | [
"https://reliablesourceng.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/cropped-logo-1-e1624847267420.png",
"https://reliablesourceng.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/cropped-logo-1-e1624847267420.png",
"https://reliablesourceng.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/cropped-logo-1-e1624847267420.png",
"https://reliablesourceng.com/w... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Kazie Uko"
] | 2022-12-30T01:31:00+00:00 | Nigeria | en | Reliable Source NG | https://reliablesourceng.com/football-legend-pele-dies-at-82/ | Pele, the legendary Brazilian soccer player who rose from barefoot poverty to become one of the greatest and best-known athletes in modern history, died on Thursday at the age of 82.
Sao Paulo’s Albert Einstein hospital, where Pele was undergoing treatment, said he died at 3:27 p.m. “due to multiple organ failures resulting from the progression of colon cancer associated with his previous medical condition.”
The death of the only man to win the World Cup three times as a player was confirmed on his Instagram account.
“Inspiration and love marked the journey of King Pele, who peacefully passed away today,” it read, adding he had “enchanted the world with his genius in sport, stopped a war, carried out social works all over the world and spread what he most believed to be the cure for all our problems: love.”
Tributes poured in from across the worlds of sport, politics and popular culture for a figure who epitomized Brazil’s dominance of the beautiful game.
The government of President Jair Bolsonaro, who leaves office on Sunday, declared three days of mourning, and said in a statement that Pele was “a great citizen and patriot, raising the name of Brazil wherever he went.”
Bolsonaro’s successor, President-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, wrote on Twitter that “few Brazilians carried the name of our country as far as he did.”
French President Emmanuel Macron said Pele’s legacy would live forever. “The game. The king. Eternity,” Macron tweeted.
Pele had been undergoing chemotherapy since he had a tumor removed from his colon in September 2021.
He also had difficulty walking unaided since an unsuccessful hip operation in 2012. In February 2020, on the eve of the coronavirus pandemic, his son Edinho said Pele’s ailing physical state had left him depressed.
On Monday, a 24-hour wake will be held for Pele in the center of the field at the stadium of Santos, his hometown club where he started playing as a teenager and quickly rose to fame.
The next day, a procession carrying his coffin will pass through the streets of Santos, passing the neighborhood where his 100-year-old mother lives, and ending at the Ecumenical Memorial Necropolis cemetery, where he will be buried in a private ceremony.
‘WHAT IS POSSIBLE’
U.S. President Joe Biden said on his Twitter that Pele’s rise from humble beginnings to soccer legend was a story of “what is possible.”
Pele, whose given name was Edson Arantes do Nascimento, joined Santos in 1956 and turned the small coastal club into one of the most famous names in football.
In addition to a host of regional and national titles, Pele won two Copa Libertadores, the South American equivalent of the Champions League, and two Intercontinental Cups, the annual tournament held between the best teams in Europe and South America.
He took home three World Cup winner’s medals, the first time as a 17-year-old in Sweden in 1958, the second in Chile four years later – even though he missed most of the tournament through injury – and the third in Mexico in 1970, when he led what is considered to be one of the greatest sides ever to play the game.
He retired from Santos in 1974 but a year later made a surprise comeback by signing a lucrative deal to join the New York Cosmos in the then nascent North American Soccer League.
In a glorious 21-year career he scored between 1,281 and 1,283 goals, depending on how matches are counted.
Pele, though, transcended soccer, like no player before or since, and he became one of the first global icons of the 20th century.
With his winning smile and an aw-shucks humility that charmed legions of fans, he was better known than many Hollywood stars, popes or presidents – many if not most of whom he met during a six-decade-long career as player and corporate pitchman.
“I am sad, but I am also proud to be Brazilian, to be from Pele’s country, a guy who was a great athlete,” said Ciro Campos, a 49-year-old biologist in Rio de Janeiro. “And also off the field, he was a cool person, not an arrogant athlete.”
Pele credited his one-of-a-kind mix of talent, creative genius and technical skill to a youth spent playing pick-up games in small-town Brazil, often using grapefruit or wadded-up rags because his family could not afford a real ball.
Pele was named “Athlete of the Century” by the International Olympic Committee, co-“Football Player of the Century” by world soccer body FIFA, and a “national treasure” by Brazil’s government.
His celebrity was often overwhelming. Grown adults broke down crying in his presence with regularity. When he was a player, souvenir-seeking fans rushed the field following games and tore off his shorts, socks and even underwear.
His house in Brazil was less than a mile from a beach, but he didn’t go there for some two decades because of fear of crowds.
Yet even in unguarded moments among friends, he rarely complained. He believed that his talent was a divine gift, and he spoke movingly about how soccer allowed him to travel the world, bring cheer to cancer patients and survivors of wars and famine, and provide for a family that, growing up, often did not know the source of their next meal.
“God gave me this ability for one reason: To make people happy,” he said during a 2013 interview with Reuters. “No matter what I did, I tried not to forget that.”
Brazil’s CBF soccer federation said “Pele was much more than the greatest sportsman of all time… The King of Soccer was the ultimate exponent of a victorious Brazil.”
Kylian Mbappé, the French star many view as the current best soccer player in the world, also offered his condolences.
“The king of football has left us but his legacy will never be forgotten,” he wrote on Twitter. “RIP KING.” | |||||
3393 | dbpedia | 2 | 96 | https://www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/edinho_3/jonathan-antero-silva/3/ | en | Edinho » Bilanz unter Referee Jonathan Antero Silva | [
"https://s.hs-data.com/bilder/shared/opener_grau.gif",
"https://s.hs-data.com/bilder/shared/ng_2013/wfb_logo_net.png",
"https://s.hs-data.com/bilder/shared/opener_white.gif",
"https://s.hs-data.com/bilder/shared/opener_white.gif",
"https://s.hs-data.com/bilder/shared/opener_white.gif",
"https://s.hs-data.... | [] | [] | [
"Edinho",
"Jonathan Antero Silva",
"Paraná Clube",
"Vila Nova - GO",
"Matches",
"Club",
"Team",
"team",
"league",
"goals",
"yellow card",
"red card",
"Football",
"Players",
"Profile",
"Statistics"
] | null | [] | null | Edinho » Bilanz unter Referee Jonathan Antero Silva | en | /favicon.ico | worldfootball.net | //www.worldfootball.net/player_summary/edinho_3/jonathan-antero-silva/3/ | |||||
3393 | dbpedia | 2 | 79 | https://pantheon.world/profile/person/Luan_Vieira | en | Luan Vieira Biography | https://pantheon.world/api/screenshot/person?id=43184198 | https://pantheon.world/api/screenshot/person?id=43184198 | [
"https://pantheon.world/images/icons/icon-nav.svg",
"https://pantheon.world/images/logos/logo_pantheon.svg",
"https://pantheon.world/images/icons/icon-search.svg",
"https://pantheon.world/images/profile/people/43184198.jpg",
"https://pantheon.world/images/ui/profile-w.svg",
"https://pantheon.world/images/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | /images/favicon.ico | null | Luan Vieira
Luan Guilherme de Jesus Vieira (born 27 March 1993) is a Brazilian professional footballer who plays as an attacking midfielder for Vitória . Read more on Wikipedia | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 3 | 35 | https://english.jagran.com/sports/from-joe-biden-to-emmanuel-macron-world-leaders-mourn-peles-demise-10059294 | en | From Joe Biden To Emmanuel Macron: World Leaders Mourn Pele's Demise | [
"https://imgeng.jagran.com/images/2024/feb/horoscopenew.svg"
] | [] | [] | [
"Pele demise",
"Pele death",
"Joe Biden",
"Kylian Mbappe",
"Emmanuel Macron",
"Jair Bolsonaro",
"Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva",
"Santos"
] | null | [] | 2022-12-30T15:14:00+05:30 | Pele, whose given name was Edson Arantes do Nascimento, joined Santos in 1956 and turned the small coastal club into one of the most famous names in football. In a glorious 21-year career he scored between 1,281 and 1,283 goals, depending on how matches are counted. | en | English Jagran | https://english.jagran.com/sports/from-joe-biden-to-emmanuel-macron-world-leaders-mourn-peles-demise-10059294 | Pele, the legendary Brazilian soccer player who rose from barefoot poverty to become one of the greatest and best-known athletes in modern history, died on Thursday at the age of 82.
Sao Paulo's Albert Einstein hospital, where Pele was undergoing treatment, said he died at 3:27 p.m. "due to multiple organ failures resulting from the progression of colon cancer associated with his previous medical condition."
The death of the only man to win the World Cup three times as a player was confirmed on his Instagram account.
"Inspiration and love marked the journey of King Pele, who peacefully passed away today," it read, adding he had "enchanted the world with his genius in sport, stopped a war, carried out social works all over the world and spread what he most believed to be the cure for all our problems: love."
Tributes poured in from across the worlds of sport, politics and popular culture for a figure who epitomized Brazil's dominance of the beautiful game.
The government of President Jair Bolsonaro, who leaves office on Sunday, declared three days of mourning, and said in a statement that Pele was "a great citizen and patriot, raising the name of Brazil wherever he went."
Bolsonaro's successor, President-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, wrote on Twitter that "few Brazilians carried the name of our country as far as he did."
French President Emmanuel Macron said Pele's legacy would live forever. "The game. The king. Eternity," Macron tweeted.
Pele had been undergoing chemotherapy since he had a tumor removed from his colon in September 2021.
He also had difficulty walking unaided since an unsuccessful hip operation in 2012. In February 2020, on the eve of the coronavirus pandemic, his son Edinho said Pele's ailing physical state had left him depressed.
On Monday, a 24-hour wake will be held for Pele in the center of the field at the stadium of Santos, his hometown club where he started playing as a teenager and quickly rose to fame.
The next day, a procession carrying his coffin will pass through the streets of Santos, passing the neighborhood where his 100-year-old mother lives, and ending at the Ecumenical Memorial Necropolis cemetery, where he will be buried in a private ceremony.
'WHAT IS POSSIBLE'
U.S. President Joe Biden said on his Twitter that Pele's rise from humble beginnings to soccer legend was a story of "what is possible."
Pele, whose given name was Edson Arantes do Nascimento, joined Santos in 1956 and turned the small coastal club into one of the most famous names in football.
In addition to a host of regional and national titles, Pele won two Copa Libertadores, the South American equivalent of the Champions League, and two Intercontinental Cups, the annual tournament held between the best teams in Europe and South America.
He took home three World Cup winner's medals, the first time as a 17-year-old in Sweden in 1958, the second in Chile four years later - even though he missed most of the tournament through injury - and the third in Mexico in 1970, when he led what is considered to be one of the greatest sides ever to play the game.
He retired from Santos in 1974 but a year later made a surprise comeback by signing a lucrative deal to join the New York Cosmos in the then nascent North American Soccer League.
In a glorious 21-year career he scored between 1,281 and 1,283 goals, depending on how matches are counted.
Pele, though, transcended soccer, like no player before or since, and he became one of the first global icons of the 20th century.
With his winning smile and an aw-shucks humility that charmed legions of fans, he was better known than many Hollywood stars, popes or presidents “ many if not most of whom he met during a six-decade-long career as player and corporate pitchman.
"I am sad, but I am also proud to be Brazilian, to be from Pele's country, a guy who was a great athlete," said Ciro Campos, a 49-year-old biologist in Rio de Janeiro. "And also off the field, he was a cool person, not an arrogant athlete."
Pele credited his one-of-a-kind mix of talent, creative genius and technical skill to a youth spent playing pick-up games in small-town Brazil, often using grapefruit or wadded-up rags because his family could not afford a real ball.
Pele was named "Athlete of the Century" by the International Olympic Committee, co-"Football Player of the Century" by world soccer body FIFA, and a "national treasure" by Brazil's government.
His celebrity was often overwhelming. Grown adults broke down crying in his presence with regularity. When he was a player, souvenir-seeking fans rushed the field following games and tore off his shorts, socks and even underwear.
His house in Brazil was less than a mile from a beach, but he didn't go there for some two decades because of fear of crowds.
Yet even in unguarded moments among friends, he rarely complained. He believed that his talent was a divine gift, and he spoke movingly about how soccer allowed him to travel the world, bring cheer to cancer patients and survivors of wars and famine, and provide for a family that, growing up, often did not know the source of their next meal.
"God gave me this ability for one reason: To make people happy," he said during a 2013 interview with Reuters. "No matter what I did, I tried not to forget that."
Brazil's CBF soccer federation said "Pele was much more than the greatest sportsman of all time... The King of Soccer was the ultimate exponent of a victorious Brazil."
Kylian Mbappe, the French star many view as the current best soccer player in the world, also offered his condolences.
"The king of football has left us but his legacy will never be forgotten," he wrote on Twitter. "RIP KING." | |||||
3393 | dbpedia | 3 | 42 | https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/football-transfer-review-2014-by-prime-time-sport-eng/25951915 | en | Football Transfer Review 2014 by Prime Time Sport ENG | [
"https://public.slidesharecdn.com/images/next/svg/logo/slideshare-scribd-company.svg?w=128&q=75 1x, https://public.slidesharecdn.com/images/next/svg/logo/slideshare-scribd-company.svg?w=256&q=75 2x",
"https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/profile-photo-ptimesport-48x48.jpg?cb=1522897343",
"https://image.slidesharecdn.c... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2013-09-06T05:11:27+00:00 | Football Transfer Review 2014 by Prime Time Sport ENG - Download as a PDF or view online for free | en | https://public.slidesharecdn.com/_next/static/media/favicon.7bc3d920.ico | SlideShare | https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/football-transfer-review-2014-by-prime-time-sport-eng/25951915 | 2. 2 1. Technical sheet 2. Summer transfers window 2013/14 3. Squads review La Liga 4. Barça vs Real Madrid 5. Conclusions 6. Annexes: - European Football Finances - Tables - About Prime Time Sport Football Transfer Review 2014
3. 3 About Football Transfer Review Content Mission Football Transfer Review by Prime Time Sport provides relevant data and insightful and independent analysis on the variables that influence squad designs and player transfers at main European Clubs, with special focus on Spanish La Liga • 2 releases published every year, related to Summer and Winter transfer windows • Combines content produced by Prime Time Sport and content from other relevant football industry studies • The objective is to combine the available data in a way that helps to come-up with insightful analysis, rather than the publication of the information itself • Addressed to both football industry professionals and those that follow it with special interest
4. 4 Technical sheet Team Specifications • Data included refer to main division of Spanish La Liga and the other top 4 European leagues (English Premier League, Italian Serie A, German Bundesliga and French Ligue 1) • Transfer figures include guaranteed amounts only • It includes player transfers that took place until September 2nd 2013 • Player loans with purchase obligation are accounted as a transfer at the time of effective player exit (examples: Ibrahimovic to AC Milan in 2010/11; Pedro León to Getafe in 2011/12) • Transfer figures are gross of agent fees or revenue share with other stakeholders • It is considered that teams where players are landing have paid for transfer fees, regardless of the participation of other investors • Transfer fees paid on managers have not been taken into consideration (Carlo Ancelotti to Real Madrid) • Squads review includes only players registered as first team members • Sign-up means new player arrivals (not total number of registered players) and Exit means players leaving a team (either on loan or because of contract expiration) • Director: Bruno Batlle • Analyst: Aleix Piqué • Collaborates: ESADE Business School
5. 5 1. Technical sheet 2. Summer transfers window 2013/14 3. Squads review La Liga 4. Barça vs Real Madrid 5. Conclusions 6. Annexes: - European Football Finances - Tables - About Prime Time Sport Football Transfer Review 2014
6. 6 1. Background 2. European football 3. La Liga Summer transfers window 2013/14
7. 7 Background Europe • Implementation of UEFA Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulation continues and is taken into account both by big and smaller teams. FFP will not allow to participate in European competitions the teams with more than 45mio€ of accumulated losses during 3 seasons until 2014/15. • Appearance of a new heavy spending teams (Monaco) along with loss of spending power of others (Anzhi). • New 2014/16 TV deals in the Premier League and 2013/15 in UEFA Champions League has increased prizes for participating teams by 57% and 20% respectively • Majority of teams (with exception of big 2) have little chance of further increasing revenues under current financial climate • As a result, income opportunities are almost restricted to selling the best players and continue to fight for the implementation of a new TV value distribution model. • Spanish Professional League (LFP) is closely monitoring clubs finances and must approve business plans. • Most clubs have agreed long term debt payment plans with Tax office, which severely impacts their ability to splash cash Spain
8. 8 1. Background 2. European football 3. La Liga Summer transfers window 2013/14
9. 9 Player acquisition spending- top 5 European leagues Mio€ 1.713 1.855 1.322 1.723 1.544 2.154 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 +40% Top 5 European Leagues combined investment grew by 40% to 2,2bio€, highest amount ever, despite Financial Fair Play and economy downturn
10. 10 Player acquisition spending- top 5 European leagues 510 400 470 245 230 435 327 262 140 157 553 465 360 194 151 617 335 128 226 238 731 402 388 375 258 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Mio€ +18% +303% +66% All big European leagues have experimented significant expenditure growth, with Premier League, Ligue 1 and Bundesliga reaching highest levels ever. Premier League has been the market driving force thanks to fresh an increased money from new TV contracts. La Liga experimented the highest growth led by Gareth Bale signing by Real Madrid +20% +8%
11. 11 % of total investment by top 4 in each league Mio€ 89,3% 79,5% 63,6% 55,5% 49,7% Real Madrid (47,3%) FC Barcelona Sevilla FC At.Madrid SSC Napoli AS Roma Fiorentina Juventus B. Munich B. Dormund Wolfsburg Shalke 04 AS Monaco (44,3%) PSG O.Marsella Saint-Etiene Investment stays monopolized by few teams with high revenue generation potential, wealthy owners or significant income from sales of best players Tottenham Man.City Chelsea Liverpool
12. 12 5 year accumulated investment top 5 leagues Mio€ 2.846 1.929 1.608 1.180 1.034 * Winter window transfers not included
13. 13 Player sales- Top 5 European leagues Mio€ 1.060 1.344 1.146 1.579 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 +38% Total income from players sales recuperates growth trend to 1,6bio€ (+38%) and reaches the highest level since 2010/11 season
14. 14 Player sales- Top 5 European leagues €Mio 287 269 187 176 141 290 438 336 152 128 183 365 299 164 135 480 410 261 228 200 2010/11 2010/12 2012/13 2013/14 La Liga makes close to half billion € in player sales, its highest level ever and highest amount in Europe. All European leagues -except English Premier League- experimented increased income from player sales +262% -13% +39% +12% +48%
15. 15 €Mio 248 -36 16 58 -24 217 42 23 27 70 318 62 103 -30 -55 470 147 58 -8 -92 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Net spending- Top 5 European leagues Premier League dominance becomes even stronger when deducting income from player sales, with a net investment still of 470mio€. On the other extreme, Spain continues to lose talent and experiments a negative net investment of 92mio€.
16. 16 # of player signings- Top 5 European leagues Nº. of players 307 97 120 95 101 59 58 23 35 19 Loans Signings 366 155 143 130 120 One more year, Serie A shows the highest number of player arrivals
17. 17 # of player exits- Top 5 European leagues Nº of players 251 158 155 140 127 356 100 50 56 41 Loans Transfers 607 258 205 196 168 # of exits confirms Serie A as the league with highest players circulation. More than half of exits (52%) have been in loan format
18. 18 Nº.of players -285 -75 -94 -54 -38 -250 -115 -54 -56 -59 -247 -113 -56 -54 -55 -242 -115 -66 -50 -48 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Net # signings vs exits- Top 5 European leagues For the 4th consecutive season all leagues have experimented a net players reduction as teams continue to optimize squad wages costs
19. 19 183 166 122 111 107 87 78 67 67 66 Real Madrid AS Monaco Tottenham PSG Man. City Napoli Chelsea Dinamo Moscú Shakhtar Donetsk AS Roma Mio€ Real Madrid is back to top spending position 2 years later after by investing 183mio€ (101 in Gareth Bale). Under new Russian ownership, AS Monaco reaches 2nd position by spending 166mio€. Tottenham takes advantage of Bale sale to join top 3. Top 8 of clubs represents 60% of total investment of European football Top 10 spending ranking
20. 20 Mio€ 147 100 95 70 65 65 64 52 43 43 PSG Chelsea Zenit B. Munich Tottenham M. United M. City Juventus Arsenal Inter Top 10 spending ranking 2012/13
21. 21 55 87 93 86 44 60 62 57 86 33 2330 147 64 100 70 33 43 65 52 43 24 183 111 107 78 62 57 50 34 32 29 26 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Mio€ Top European teams spending ranking Real Madrid lead the spending ranking after 2 years of low investment. PSG stays in the podium after another year of high expenditure to confirm its ambitious project. Real Madrid (+600%) , FC Barcelona (+212) and Man. City (+67%) have spent more after 3 years in a row decreasing its expenditure
22. 22 Top 5 spending clubs in each league Tottenham 121,8 Manchester City 106,5 Chelsea 77,8 Liverpool 56,0 Arsenal 45,0 Real Madrid 182,5 FC Barcelona 57,0 Sevilla FC 33,9 At. Madrid 33,0 Villarreal CF 16,0 SSC Napoli 86,9 AS Roma 66,2 AC Fiorentina 38,3 Juventus 32,1 Inter 28,8 Bayern Munich 62,0 Borussia Dormund 50,0 VfL Wolfsburgo 26,7 Shalke 04 25,0 Bayern Leverkusen 21,4 AS Mónaco 166,2 PSG 110,9 O. Marsella 41,7 Saint-Etienne 15,5 Toulouse 8,6 Mio€
23. 23 611 549 370 348 331 274 227 227 197 191 141 Accumulated 5 year spending of top teams Mio€ Real Madrid (611mio€) is the team with the highest combined expenditure in the last 5 years, followed by Manchester City (549mio€) and PSG (370) * Winter window transfers not included
24. 24 Mio€ 140 128 105 104 82 78 74 71 68 45 Anzhi Tottenham Roma R.Madrid Sevilla At.Madrid Porto Napoli Shakhtar Lille Top 10 teams in player sales income Anzhi is the European leader in player sales income after reduced ownership commitment. Tottenham (128mio€) reaches 2nd position thanks to Gareth Bale sale to Real Madrid.
25. 25 Mio€ Top 10 teams in player sales income 2012/13 81 71 69 67 56 41 40 40 39 39 Porto Benfica AC Milan Tottenham Arsenal Genoa At. Bilbao Lille Villarreal Real Madrid
26. 26 17 5 12 3 24 18 70 23 33 25 11 39 0 17 3 0 69 56 24 35 10 11 104 41 37 29 28 16 12 9 7 3 0 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Mio€ Top European teams player sales ranking Real Madrid is the team with highest income from player sales among the top ones. Bayern Munich, Juventus and PSG get important revenues from sales after 2 years of failing to reach high figures
27. 27 Tottenham 127,7 Everton 39,4 Liverpool 30,8 Sunderland 22,2 Arsenal 11,6 Real Madrid 103,5 Sevilla FC 81,9 Atlético Madrid 78,0 Valencia CF 41,7 Real Sociedad 39,0 AS Roma 91,9 SSC Napoli 70,7 AC Fiorentina 40,0 Juventus 36,7 Udinese 26,2 Borussia Dormund 44,1 Bayern Munich 41,0 Bayern Leverkusen 34,7 Werder Bremen 12,9 Mainz 05 11,3 Lille OSC 45,0 PSG 28,5 O. Lyon 24,5 Saint-Etienne 23,0 Toulouse 12,7 Mio€ Top European teams player sales ranking
28. 28 260 212 200 193 143 142 116 114 81 58 36 Accumulated 5 year player sales of top teams Mio€ * Winter window transfers not included Real Madrid gets confirmed as the most active team in the market having also the highest accumulated sales in the last 5 years. Inter Milan and AC Milan follow in 2nd and 3rd position
29. 29 Top European teams net investment ranking Mio€ 70 84 38 61 -8 46 36 0 39 5 4440 144 -9 90 -13 54 33 8 70 -45 36 98 82 79 75 38 34 29 22 21 10 -5 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Manchester City is the team with highest net investment this season. PSG keeps signing players without selling much for the 3rd year in a row and gets 2nd position. Juventus doesn’t invest the income from player sales and is the only top team with mores sales than spending in players
30. 30 Accumulated 5 year net investment of top teams Mio€ 435 351 333 274 192 161 146 84 -2 -16 -59 * Winter window deals not included
31. 31 European club ranking in # of signings Players 84 26 24 23 20 17 17 17 17 15 Parma Genoa Chievo Verona Hellas Verona Sassuolo Livorno Inter Milan Udinese Monaco Roma Italian teams top ranking of number of player arrivals and exits
32. 32 European club ranking in # of exits Players 120 44 37 35 33 32 30 28 28 28 Parma Genoa Udinese Milan Juventus Chievo Verona Bologna Roma Inter Milan Napoli
33. 33 Top 10 most expensive players 2013/14 €Mio 101 65 60 57 45 45 40 39 38 37 Bale Cavani Falcao Neymar Özil James Fernandinho Illarramendi Willian Higuaín Bale signing is the most expensive of the summer and in football history. The average cost of signings in the top 10 (53,1mio€) is 41% higher than last season Gotze
34. 34 Top 10 most expensive players 2012/13 €Mio 55 42 40 40 40 40 32 31 30 26 Hulk Thiago Silva Javi Martínez Witsel Lucas Hazard Oscar Van Persie Modric Lavezzi * Winter window transfers not included
35. 35 Average value Top 10 European signings last 5 years 44 26 32 38 53 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Average value of top 10 signings in 2012/13 is 53mio€, setting a new record Mio€
36. 36 Top 5 most expensive players in each league Özil 45 Fernandinho 40 Willian 38 Fellaini 32 Soldado/Lamela 30 Bale 101 Neymar 57 Illarramendi 39 Isco 30 Guilagovi 10 Higuaín 37 Strootman 17 Mario Gómez 16 Benatia 14 Ogbonna 13 Götze 37 Mkhitaryan 28 Thiago 25 Luiz Gustavo 18 Aubameyang 13 Cavani 65 Falcao 60 James 45 Marquinhos 31 Moutinho 25 Mio€
37. 37 Ranking most expensive transfers ever 101 94 72 66 65 65 60 60 59 57 Bale C.Ronaldo Zidane Ibrahimovic Kaka Cavani Figo Falcao F.Torres Neymar €Mio Half of the top 10 most expensive transfers ever have been made by Real Madrid. Also 4 of the top 10 transfers took place this summer (Bale, Cavani, Falcao and Neymar)
38. 38 Usage top 10 European signings 2012/13 91% 77% 67% 64% 61% 58% 56% 54% 53% 21% Van Persie Hazard Oscar Modric Lavezzi Javi Martínez Thiago Silva Witsel Hulk Lucas % Minutes Van Persie is the most profitable signing (number of minutes). Chelsea’s signings (Hazard and Oscar) are both at the top of the list *Winter window transfers not included. Calculated on domestic league minutes **Was transferred in summer but incorporated to the team in winter **
39. 39 1. Background 2. European football 3. La Liga Summer transfers window 2013/14
40. 40 Total player acquisition spending- La Liga Mio€ 270 470 262 360 128 388 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 +303% La Liga has tripled investment in new players to almost 400mio€, 2nd largest ever, as a result of reinvestment of income from sales and extraordinary signing of Gareth Bale by Real Madrid
41. 41 Player acquisition spending- La Liga Mio€ 470 94 262 111 360 245 128 65 388 148 Total Liga Liga excl. FCB & RM 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Signings by Barça and Real Madrid accounted for 62% of La Liga total (49% in 12/13, 32% in 11/12, 57% in 10/11, 80% in 09/10)
42. 42 New players investment R. Madrid vs FC Barcelona Mio€ 265 112 78 73 55 60 30 33 183 57 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Both Real Madrid and Barça recuperate growth trend after 3 consecutive years of decline. Season 2009/10 expenditure by Real Madrid is still its highest ever
43. 43 New players spending by team Mio€ 55 60 11 71 22 32 7 2 3 58 8 8 1 30 33 13 1 3 23 6 3 2 4 2 6 1 183 57 34 33 16 15 14 6 5 5 3 3 3 1 1 1 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Sevilla and Atlético Madrid follow the 2 giants by partially reinvesting income from players sales. 4 teams did not spend any money and 10 spent 3mio€ or less
44. 44 Top 10 on 5 year accumulated investment Mio€ * Winter window transfers not included Real Madrid accounts for 38% of total La Liga players investment of the last 5 years and has spent 82% more than FC Barcelona 611 335 136 103 96 79 57 30 26 19 Real Madrid FC Barcelona At.Madrid Valencia Sevilla Málaga Villarreal At.Bilbao Getafe Granada
45. 45 €Mio Top 10 most expensive players 2013/14 Bale and Neymar signings joined top 10 of most expensive signings ever. 5 of top 10 signings in Spain were made by Real Madrid or FC Barcelona (vs 3 at previous season) 101 57 39 30 10 8 8 8 7 7 Bale Neymar Illarramendi Isco Guilavogui Beñat Pabón Gameiro Bacca Alderweireld Baptistao
46. 46 Top 10 most expensive players 2012/13 €Mio 30 19 14 8 6 5 4 4 4 4 Modric Song Jordi Alba Canales Cissokho El Arabi Kondogbia Vela Pereira Gago D.López
47. 47 Total value of player sales- La Liga Mio€ 245 286 290 183 480 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Spanish La Liga sold players for 480mio€ at 13/14 summer transfer window, the highest amount in European history
48. 48 Player sales by team Mio€ 17 14 85 39 24 18 20 5 2 8 39 18 30 1 29 1 6 3 4 5 2 40 104 82 78 42 39 37 28 13 12 9 8 7 6 6 4 4 1 1 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Real Madrid is also the most active team in player sales by releasing Ozil, Higuain, Albiol and Callejón. FC Barcelona is only 7th (Thiago, Villa & Fontás). Sevilla, Atlético Madrid and Valencia, forced to sell their best players
49. 49 Top 10 on 5 year accumulated player sales Mio€ Financial constraints and availability of top players have put At. Madrid and Valencia very close to Real Madrid over a 5 year period. FC Barcelona traditionally more reluctant to sell its best players * Winter window transfers not included 260 220 215 145 122 93 67 65 55 40 Real Madrid At.Madrid Valencia FC Barcelona Sevilla Villarreal Málaga Getafe Espanyol At.Bilbao
50. 50 Sales abroad of national players Mio€ 57 47 17 74 79 115 139 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Spanish players exports grew for 4th consecutive seasons to 139, the highest number ever *Includes transfers of Liga BBVA and Liga Adelante
51. 51 Total net spending- La Liga €Mio 225 -24 70 -55 -92 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 The highest ever sales at La Liga resulted in a negative net investment of 92mio€, also the highest ever. La Liga moving from “buying” into “selling” type of league
52. 52 Net players spending by team €Mio 79,0 28,9 15,3 10,0 2,8 0,2 0,0 -0,9 -1,0 -3,0 -4,0 -6,1 -7,0 -11,7 -12,8 -27,3 -33,5 -36,0 -45,0 -48,0 Real Madrid and FC Barcelona clearly lead net investment ranking. 13 of 20 teams had higher sales than investment. Most teams did not reinvest their significant income from players sales
53. 53 Net players spending by team 2012/13 €Mio 33,0 12,5 4,5 3,8 3,3 3,0 2,2 1,5 1,0 0,0 -2,6 -3,6 -3,8 -4,7 -5,3 -6,8 -8,5 -17,0 -29,3 -37,5
54. 54 # of signings- La Liga Nº of players 95 53 34 58 31 28 36 37 58 37 58 63 39 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Loans Signings 126 122 57 147 Signings 0€ 134 The number of new players is the highest of last 5 years. As usual, there is a significant presence of loans and signings at 0 cost * Data of free signings at season 2009/10 not available 155
55. 55 # of exits- La Liga Nº of players 133 126 146 133 155 46 50 58 55 51 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Loans Signings 176 204 179 188 The number of exits is the highest in recent years. In average, every team released 10 players 205
56. 56 Net # of signings vs exits- La Liga Nº of players -53 -54 -57 -54 -50 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 For the 5th consecutive season, La Liga teams took advantage of the transfer window to reduce the number of players in the pay roll
57. 57 # of signings by team Nº of players 14 10 0 9 11 0 13 9 8 8 13 6 1 5 2 2 6 12 12 0 8 12 0 0 4 4 7 7 7 6 6 6 3 2 4 2 14 13 13 13 12 9 8 8 8 8 7 7 6 5 5 5 5 5 3 1 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Sevilla has made the biggest squad turnaround of La Liga, with 14 new players and 19 exits. Granada and Rayo Vallecano traditionally among the most active teams. FC Barcelona repeats as team with lowest number of new players *does not include registration in first squad of home grown players
58. 58 # of signings by team and category 9 2 0 1 3 1 0 5 6 5 1 4 3 3 2 3 4 5 1 1 5 5 5 7 2 1 4 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 6 8 5 7 7 4 2 2 2 1 0 0 2 2 1 0 Signings 0€ Loans Signings Nº of players
59. 59 Nº of players 14 14 15 10 10 14 10 7 9 10 9 12 14 8 6 22 11 10 6 12 10 10 10 8 9 9 11 12 5 3 14 5 22 19 14 13 11 11 11 11 11 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 7 6 5 4 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 13 teams have released 9 players or more. Granada leads releases ranking again (22). Real Sociedad only saw 4 players leaving the club # of exits by team
60. 60 Net # of signings vs exits Nº. of players 3 2 2 2 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -3 -3 -3 -3 -4 -4 -5 -5 -6 -6 -9 Granada repeats has the team with highest reduction of players in the squad. The majority of teams (15 out of 20) have now less players in the pay roll
61. 61 Continuity of signings of last season 100% 100% 71% 66% 66% 62% 60% 60% 55% 50% 42% 40% 40% 33% 33% 2/22/2 2/3 3/5 8/13 3/5 5/9 5/12 2/5 2/35/7 2/5 2/6 1/3 3/6 FC Barcelona and Real Madrid, with lower number of signings, are the only teams keeping all signings from previous season *Includes transfers made at winter window
62. 62 1. Technical sheet 2. Summer transfers window 2013/14 3. Squads review La Liga 4. Barça vs Real Madrid 5. Conclusions 6. Annexes: - European Football Finances - Tables - About Prime Time Sport Football Transfer Review 2014
63. 63 % of non national players by league 63,2% 44,9% 49,7% 40,3% 37,9% 63,3% 47,3% 48,6% 39,4% 38,8% 64,0% 52,2% 49,2% 41,1% 36,7% 69,6% 54,4% 45,8% 45,1% 40,2% 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Non-national players La Liga is still the league that has the highest % of national players. English Premier League the lowest
64. 64 Age Average age of players in squad 28,5 28,4 28,1 27,9 27,7 26,7 26,7 26,7 26,6 26,5 26,2 26,0 25,9 25,8 25,7 25,7 25,6 25,5 25,4 25,4
65. 65 17 17 14 11 10 8 8 7 6 5 5 4 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 Players Home grown players by squad * Players having participated in any youth teams of the club, including reserves (B teams)
66. 66 Average stability of squad- Top 10 3,8 3,1 3,2 2,4 1,7 1,2 1,1 1,3 3,7 3,5 3,3 3,0 1,7 1,3 1,5 1,7 1,6 1,6 4,3 4,2 2,8 2,7 2,3 2,3 2,0 1,7 1,7 1,7 FC Barcelona R.Sociedad At.Bilbao Real Madrid Osasuna Espanyol R.Valladolid Celta Málaga Getafe 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Barça repeats as the team with most stable squad Years* * Average time of stay in the club
67. 67 Average stability of squad- Bottom 10 Years* 1,2 1,6 0,8 2,0 1,0 1,0 1,01,1 1,8 1,3 2,0 1,2 1,1 0,8 1,43 1,41 1,4 1,2 1,18 1,1 0,91 0,88 0,87 0,75 At.Madrid Villarreal Valencia Granada Almería Sevilla Elche Betis Levante Rayo 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 * Average time of stay in the club
68. 68 1. Technical sheet 2. Summer transfers window 2013/14 3. Squads review La Liga 4. Barça vs Real Madrid 5. Conclusions 6. Annexes: - European Football Finances - Tables - About Prime Time Sport Football Transfer Review 2014
69. 69 Players movement 2012/13 2013/14 2012/13 2013/14 Revenues* (mio€) 470 N/A 517 N/A Profit/Loss* (mio€) 35,9 N/A 32,4 N/A Signings investment (mio€) 33 57 30 183 Player sales (mio€) 0 28 39 104 Net signings investment (mio€) 33 42 -8,5 79 # of signings 2 1 2 5 # of exits 3 7 9 8 Average cost per new player 17 57 15 37 Continuity players signed last season 2/2 2/2 4/5 2/2 Most expensive signing (mio€) Song (19) Neymar (57) Modric (30) Bale (101) * Forecast Real Madrid 2012/13 y FC Barcelona 2012/13
70. 70 Players movement- accumulated 5 years 2009/14 2009/14 Signings investment (mio€) 335 611 Player sales (mio€) 143 260 Net signings investment (mio€) 192 345 Most expensive signing (mio€) Ibrahimovic (66) Bale (101) Most important sale (mio€) Touré (30) Ozil (45) * Seasons 2009/10, 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13 y 2013/14
71. 71 2013/14 2013/14 Nº players in First team 25 23 Average age 26,7 25,7 Average stability of squad (Average time of stay in the club) 4,3 2,7 % Foreign players 36% 48% Nº Nationalities 6 7 Home grown players by squad 17 8 New home grown players by squad 2 4 U21 Players 2 6 Squad review
72. 72 # of signings- La Liga 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 20010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Van Bronckhorst Larsson Sylvinho Belletti Edmilson Giuly Deco Eto’o Van Bommel Ezquerro Thuram Gudjohnsen Zambrotta Y.Touré Abidal Milito Henry Pinto Piqué Henrique Keita Cáceres Hleb D.Alves Maxwell Keirrison Chygrynskiy Ibrahimovic Adriano Mascherano Villa A.Sánchez Cesc J.Alba Song Neymar
73. 73 8,8 1,5 7,0 2,2 9,5 0,0 0,0 20,8 0,0 26,0 Homegrown player sales FC Barcelona 2004-2014 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Luis García (8,75) Sergio Garcia (1,5) Gabri (0) Motta (2) G. dos Santos (6) Jorquera (0) V.Sánchez (0) Thiago (25) Santamaría (0) Ros (0) Damià (1) ToniCalvo (0,2) Oleguer (3) O.Romeu(5) Fontàs (1) Tortolero (0) Fernando Navarro (6) Crosas (0,5) Jeffren (3.75) Bojan (12) Mio€
74. 74 1. Technical sheet 2. Summer transfers window 2013/14 3. Squads review La Liga 4. Barça vs Real Madrid 5. Conclusions 6. Annexes: - European Football Finances - Tables - About Prime Time Sport Football Transfer Review 2014
75. 75 Top 5 European Leagues combined investment grew by 40% to 2,2bio€, highest amount ever, despite Financial Fair Play and economy downturn. All big European leagues have experimented significant expenditure growth, with Premier League, Ligue 1 and Bundesliga reaching highest levels ever. Premier League has been the market driving force with 731mio€ expenditure, thanks to fresh an increased money from new TV contracts. La Liga experimented the highest growth led by Gareth Bale signing by Real Madrid. Investment stays monopolized by few teams with high revenue generation potential, wealthy owners or significant income from sales of best players. Top 8 spending teams accounted for 60% of total investment in Europe. Total income from players sales recuperates growth trend to 1,6bio€ (+38%) and reaches the highest level since 2010/11 season. Player sales, along with increased money from new TV contracts in England and higher prizes for Champions League participation have helped to finance investment in new players acquisition Conclusions FTR 2014- summer (1 of 5)
76. 76 La Liga made close to half billion€ in player sales at summer transfer window, the highest amount ever in football history globally, confirming Spain as the upcoming power in talent production and development. All European leagues -except English Premier League- experimented increased income from player sales. Premier League dominance becomes even stronger when deducting income from player sales, with a net investment still of 470mio€. On the other extreme, Spain continues to lose talent and experiments a negative net investment of 92mio€. Therefore, for 2 seasons in a row, income from sales was higher than investment in new players Italian Serie A is once again the most active in terms of new player arrivals (366), more than doubling Spanish La Liga which is second with 156 new players. Loans and free signings continue to be a very popular signing format and for 4 seasons in a row all leagues experimented more player exits than arrivals In terms of clubs, Real Madrid is back to top spending position 2 years later after by investing 183mio€ (101 in Gareth Bale). Under new Russian ownership, AS Monaco reaches 2nd position by spending 166mio€. Tottenham takes advantage of Bale sale to join top 3. Conclusions FTR 2014- summer (2 of 5)
77. 77 Anzhi from Russia is the European leader in player sales income after reduced ownership commitment. Tottenham (128mio€) reaches 2nd position thanks to Gareth Bale sale to Real Madrid. 3 La Liga teams (Real Madrid, Sevilla and Atlético Madrid) among top 10 teams in player sales. Real Madrid is the undisputed driving force in the European transfers market of the last 5 years, as it made both the highest accumulated expenditure (611mio€) and the highest income in player sales (260mio€). Manchester City made the most significant net investment (acquisition costs minus sales) with 435mio€ in 5 years. Bale signing (101mio€) is the most expensive of the summer and in football history. The average cost of signings in the European top 10 (53,1mio€) is 41% higher than last season. Real Madrid has made 5 of 10 most expensive signings in European history. 4 signings of this summer have joined historical top 10. Conclusions FTR 2014- summer (3 of 5)
78. 78 La Liga has tripled investment in new players at summer transfer window to almost 400mio€, 2nd largest ever, as a result of reinvestment of income from player sales and extraordinary signing of Gareth Bale by Real Madrid Combined signings by Real Madrid (183mio€) and FC Barcelona (57mio€) continue to concentrate most of the value, accounting for 62% of La Liga total (49% in 12/13, 32% in 11/12, 57% in 10/11. Both Real Madrid and Barça recuperate investment growth trend after 3 consecutive years of decline. Real Madrid accounts for 38% of total La Liga players investment (610mio€) of the last 5 years and has spent 75% more than FC Barcelona (348mio€) in that period. Sevilla and Atlético Madrid follow the 2 giants by partially reinvesting income from players sales, spending 34mio€ and 33mio€ respectively. 4 La Liga teams did not spend any money and 9 spent 3mio€ or less Real Madrid (104mio€), Sevilla (82mio€) and Atlético Madrid (78mio€) are in top 3 positions of La Liga in terms of player sales income. FC Barcelona, having sold Thiago, Villa and Fontás is only 7th in the ranking. Real Madrid also leads sales of the last 5 years with 263mio€ income, followed by Atlético Madrid (220mio€) and Valencia (215mio€). During the last 5 years, Real Madrid has cashed-in 81% more than FC Barcelona in player sales income. Conclusions FTR 2014- summer (4 of 5)
79. 79 Spanish players exports grew for 4th consecutive season to 139, the highest number ever (17 in season 2009/10). The highest ever sales at La Liga (480mio€) resulted in a negative net investment of 87mio€, also the highest ever. La Liga moving from “buying” into “selling” type of league and experimenting difficulties to keep the talent at home (except for Real Madrid and FC Barcelona). 13 out of 20 La Liga teams saw their income on player sales beat the investment in signings Sevilla has made the biggest squad turnaround of La Liga, with 14 new players and 19 exits. Granada and Rayo Vallecano traditionally among the most active teams. FC Barcelona repeats as team with lowest number of new players (just Neymar) Spanish La Liga has the lowest proportion of foreign players (40,2%) among top European leagues FC Barcelona has the highest number of home grown players, along with Athletic Bilbao (17) and the most stable squad (4,3 years stay per player in average) Conclusions FTR 2014- summer (5 of 5)
80. 80 1. Technical sheet 2. Summer transfers window 2013/14 3. Squads review La Liga 4. Barça vs Real Madrid 5. Conclusions 6. Annexes: - European Football Finances - Tables - About Prime Time Sport Football Transfer Review 2014
81. 81 Revenue trend top European leagues Mio€ Source Deloitte Annual Review of Football Finance, June 2013 Big five leagues have experimented revenue growth for the 4th consecutive year, except Ligue1 in 2010/11. Revenue ranking remains unchanged and clearly led by Premier League, followed by Bundesliga and La Liga. 2.326 1.575 1.501 1.494 1.048 2.479 1.664 1.622 1.532 1.072 2.500 1.746 1.718 1.553 1.040 2.917 1.872 1.765 1.570 1.136 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
82. 82 Club European ranking by revenues Mio€ Source: Deloitte Football Money League 2013 While we wait for all teams publishing their 2012/13 results, season 2011/12 saw the same teams in top 6 positions in a ranking lead once again by Real Madrid followed by FC Barcelona 401 366 327 290 245 263 102 197 203 197 439 398 350 323 259 274 153 244 205 225 480 451 367 321 253 251 170 235 154 211 513 483 396 368 323 290 286 257 195 186 Real Madrid FCBarcelona Man.United B.Munich Chelsea Arsenal Man.City AC Milan Juventus Inter 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
83. 83 1. Technical sheet 2. Summer transfers window 2013/14 3. Squads review La Liga 4. Barça vs Real Madrid 5. Conclusions 6. Annexes: - European Football Finances - Tables - About Prime Time Sport Football Transfer Review 2014
84. 84 Arrivals & exits La Liga 2013/2014 Equipo Altas €Mio Bajas €Mio Neymar Total 57 -57 Fontàs Abidal David Villa Deulofeu Thiago Rafinha Total 1 0 2,1 Ced 25 Ced 28,1 Carvajal Casemiro Isco Illarramendi Bale Total 6,5 6 30 39 101 182,5 Carvalho Callejón R.Albiol Higuaín Kaká Cheryshev Adán Özil Total 0 9,5 12 37 0 Ced 0 45 103,5 Nelson Valdez Javi Fuego Míchel Oriol Romeu Hélder Postiga Dorlan Pabón Total 3 0 0,4 Ced 3 8 14,4 Tino Costa Nelson Valdez Gago Soldado Cissokho Total 7 3 1,7 30 Ced 41,7 Equipo Altas €Mio Bajas €Mio José Giménez Demichelis Baptistao David Villa Roberto Aranzubia Alderwireld Guilavogui Total 0,9 0 7 2,1 6 0 7 10 33 Falcao Silvio Cisma Rubén Micael Joel Rubén Pérez Pulido Cata Díaz S.Asenjo Pizzi Roberto Borja Bastón Demichelis Cabrera Total 60 Ced 0 3 4 Ced 0 0 Ced 6 Ced Ced 5 0 78 Fontàs Charles Nolito Rafinha Aurtenetxe Total 1 1 2,6 Ced Ced 4,6 Roberto Lago Iago Aspas Dani Abalo Bustos Jota Insa De Lucas Total 0 8,2 0 Ced Ced 0 0 8,2
85. 85 Arrivals & exits La Liga 2013/2014 Equipo Altas €Mio Bajas €Mio Chuli Steinhöfer Cedrick Andersen Reyes Joan Verdú Sara Jordi Figueras Dídac Vilà Juanfran Rennella Xavi Torres Total 0,8 0 0 0 0,9 0 Ced 0 Ced 0 0 2,8 4,5 Cañas Adrián Beñat Pozuelo Ezequiel Mario Agra Ángel Casto Fabri Rennella Álex Martínez J.Pereirea Total 0 0 8 0,5 Ced 0 Ced 0 0 0 Ced 0 0 8,5 Raúl Baena Nery Castillo Mojica Saúl Ñíguez Rubén Galeano Larrivey Alberto Bueno Cueva Zé Castro Iago Falqué S.Fernández J.Viera Total 0 0 Ced Ced 0 0 0 0 Ced 0 Ced 0 Ced 0 Javi Fuego Baptistao Piti A.Domíngez Casado Fiménez Delibasic Machado Rafa García Tamudo Total 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Equipo Altas €Mio Bajas €Mio Beto Rusescu Pareja Jairo Marko Marin Vitolo Bacca Carriço Figueiras Gameiro Cristóforo Iborra Mbia Cherysev Total 2 2,5 Ced 2,5 Ced 3,2 7 Ced 1 7,5 2,3 6 Ced Ced 33,9 Palop Jesús Navas Luna Luis Alberto Espinosa Spahic Del Moral Ibusuki Campaña Negredo Acosta Botía Alexis Medel Hervás Babá Guarente Kondogbia Total 0 17,5 2 8 0 0,4 Ced 0 2 19 0 Ced 0 13 Ced Ced 0 20 81,9 Bergdich Alcatraz Deigo Mariño Omar Bermettler Osorio Rossi Total 0,7 0 0 0 0 0 Ced 0,7 Balenziaga Hernández Alberto Bueno Quique Lázaro Total 0,5 Ced 0 0 0 0,5
86. 86 Arrivals & exits La Liga 2013/2014 Equipo Altas €Mio Bajas €Mio Sérgio da Silva David Barral Xumeetra El Adoua Ivanschitz Jvai jiménez Gomis Nong Babá Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,3 Ced 0,3 Míchel Munúa Barkero Dudka Iván López Morales Juanlu Roger Iborra Total 0,4 0 0 0 Ced Ced 0 Ced 6 6,4 Balenziaga Etxeita Beñat Kike Sola Mikel Rico Total 0,5 0 8 4 2,8 15,3 F.Llorente Amorebieta Xabi Castillo Igor Martínez Raúl Isma López Zubiaurre Iñigo Ramalho Aurtenetxe Iñigo Pérez Total 0 0 0 0 Ced 0 0 Ced Ced Ced Ced 0 Equipo Altas €Mio Bajas €Mio Roberto Lago Escudero Alexis L.López Total 0 0,5 0 Ced 0,5 Hugo Fraile Mané Barrada Güiza Arizmendi Xavi Torres Miguel Torres Álex Pérez Á.Vázquez Total 0 0 10 0 0 2,8 0,5 Ced Ced 13,3 Jordan Lotiès Joan Oriol De las Cuevas Oriol Riera Silva Total 0 0 1,2 0,7 1,2 3,1 Kike Sola Zabal Timor Nano Annunziata González Rúper Masoud Total 4 0 Ced 0 0 0 0 0 4
87. 87 Arrivals & exits La Liga 2013/2014 Equipo Altas €Mio Bajas €Mio Tissone Santa Cruz Antunes Ferreira Anderson Angeleri Pawlowski Chen El Hamdaoui Total 0 0 1,2 0,5 1 0,2 Ced 0,4 Ced 3,3 Saviola Demichelis Edinho Iturra Joaquín Isco Toulalan Baptista Rubén Recio S.Fernández Total 0 0 0 0 1,8 30 5 0 0 Ced 0 36,8 Stevanovic Gil Sapunaru Toño Del Moral Lombán Cisma Rubén Pérez Botía Carlos Sánchez Javi Márquez Boakye Total Ced Ced 0 0 Ced 0,1 0 Ced Ced 0 Ced Ced 0,1 Montagud Etxeita Xumetra Palanca Linares Pelayo Verdés Flaño Rivas Powel Total 0 0 0 0 0 Ced 0 0 Ced 0 0 Equipo Altas €Mio Bajas €Mio Lanzarote David López Fuentes Abraham Pizzi Sidnei Álex Torje Córdoba Total 0 0,2 0 0 Ced Cedd 0,5 Ced Ced 0,7 Petrov Joan Verdú Baena Amat Forlín Álvarez C.Alfonso C.Gómez Wakaso Albín Luna Total 0 0 0 2,9 3,5 0 Ced Ced 6 0 0 12,4 Perbet Pina Jokic Pantic Gio Dos Santos J.Pereira S.Asenjo Gabriel Total 1,4 5 0 0,3 6 0 Ced 3,3 16 Zapata Senna Mellberg Joan Oriol Truyols Javi Venta Diego Mariño Joselu G.Bordas Juanma Camuñas Total 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
88. 88 Arrivals & exits La Liga 2013/2014 Equipo Altas €Mio Bajas €Mio Gai Assulin Brahimi Iturra Piti Riki Douglas Belkalem Coeff Karnezis Ighalo Foulquier Recio Campos Pereira Widmer Total 0 4 0 0 0 2,3 0 Ced Ced Ced Ced Ced Ced Ced Ced 6,3 Iñigo López Cases Widmer Toño Pudil Kitoko Iriney Anya David de Coz Lucena Gai Assulin Yuste Ferreiro Machí Belkalem Mikel Rico Álex Bernal Toti Santos Siqueira Total 0 0 0,7 0 0 Ced 0 0 0 0 Ced Ced Ced Ced Ced 2,8 0 Ced Ced Ced 3,5 Equipo Altas €Mio Bajas €Mio Dubarbier Óscar Díaz Tébar Rodri Suso Ustari Nélson Torsiglieri Barbosa Total 0 0 0 Ced Ced 0 Ced Ced Ced 0 Charles Diego García Carlos Calvo Bernardello Mejía R.Suárez Abel Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Seferovic Abora Granero Oscar Vega Total 3 0 Ced 0 3 Illarramendi Llorente Abora Oscar Vega Total 39 0 Ced Ced 39
89. 89 Home grown players by team Club Canteranos Valdés, Oier, Piqué, Puyol, Bartra, J.Alba, Montoya, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Dos Santos, Sergi Roberto, Cesc, Tello, Pedro, Cuenca, Messi Casillas, Jesús, Diego López, Nacho, Carvajal, Arbeloa, Jesé, Morata Manquillo, Koke, O.Torres, Mario Suárez, Gabi Bernat, Alcácer, Guaita, Gayà, Míchel J.Varas, Julián, Cala, I.Puerto, A.Moreno, Reyes M.González, I.Martínez, Ansotegui, Zubikarai, C.Martínez, Estrada, Elustondo, Bergara, R.Pardo, Zurutuza, Javi Ros, X.Prieto, Griezman, Aguirretxe Iraizoz, San José, Gurpegi, Ekiza, Iraola, Iturraspe, Ibai, Susaeta, Muniain, Aduritz, Herrerin, Laporte, Unai, Etxeita, Saborit, Morán, Beñat Vadillo, Nano Alvaro Garcia Parreño, R.Rodríguez, Capdevila, V.Alvarez, J.Lopez, Tejera, Thievy, Kiko Casilla, Carlos Clerc, David López
90. 90 Home grown players by team Club Canteranos Juan Carlos, Iñiguez, Costa, Gaspar, Bruno, Manu Trigueros, Moises, J.Pereira Jesús Gámez, Portillo, Juanmi, Samu Arroyo S.Alvarez, Tuñez, J.Vila, Hugo Mallo, Oubiña, Alex Lopez, Yoel, D.Costas, Jonny Castro, Levy Madinda, A.Rodríguez Flaño, Echaide, Oier, R.Torres, Puñal, Raoul Loé, Onwu - Hector Rodas Lass Bangoura, Perea Rueda, Baraja Angel Trujillo, Zongo, Azeez
91. 91 Players exits R. Madrid 2004-2014 9,3 45,0 15,2 30,8 66,0 87,5 11,0 16,5 38,5 103,5 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Morientes (9,3) Figo (0) Zidane (-) Helguera (0) A. Gonález (-) Heinze (1,5) Metzelder (0) Garay (5) Altintop (3,5) Ozil (45) Owen (25) Portillo (0) Pavón (0) Cassano (0) Parejo (3) Guti (0) Pedro León (5) Canales (7,5) Higuaín (37) Celades (0) Cobeño (0) Mejía (0) Balboa (4) García (7) Raúl (0) Sarabia (3) Gago (3,5) Albiol (12) Solari (2) Sánchez (0) Bravo (2,3) García (0) Codina (0) Van der Vaart (11) Juan Carlos (2.5) Granero (8) Callejón (9,5) Samuel (18) Arbeloa (1,3) Diogo (4,5) Granero (3) Saviola (5) Fran Rico (1) Diarra (5) Carvalho (0) César (0) Borja (-) Beckham (0) Soldado (6) Cannavaro (0) Drenthe (-) Kaká (0) Juanfran (0,4) R. Carlos (0) Baptista (10) Huntelaar (15) Carvajal (5) Adán (0) Gravesen (3) Diego López (7) Robinho (43) Negredo (15) Joselu (6) Jurado (3) Cicinho (9) De la Red (-) Sneijder (15) González (-) De la Red (3) Robben (24) Ronaldo (7,5) Émerson (5) Torres (2) Salgado (0) Van Nistelrooy (0)
92. 92 Player exits FC Barcelona 2004-2014 14,8 10,0 13,0 14,0 55,0 22,0 69,0 23,8 0,0 28,1 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 Cocu (0) Rochemback (1,5) Larsson (0) Van Bronckhorts (0) Edmílson (0) Eto’o (20) Touré (30) V.Sánchez (0) Keita (0) Thiago (25) Santemaría (0) Ros (0) Gabri (0) Saviola (0) Oleguer (3) Gudjohnsen (2) Chygrynskiy (15) Milito (0) Henrique (-) Fontàs (1) Luis García (8,75) Albertini (-) Damià (1) Giuly (4,5) Ronaldinho (25) Jorquera (0) R. Márquez (0) Jeffren (3.75) Villa (2,1) Overmars (-) Riquelme (7) Recber (0) Máxi lópez (2) Ezquerro (0) Sylvinho (0) Henry (0) Bojan (12) Abidal (0) Kluivert (0) Gérard (0) López (-) Belletti (5,5) Deco (10) Ibrahimovic (24) Cáceres (3) Quaresma (6) García (1,5) Navarro (6) Motta (2) Thuram (-) O.Romeu(5) Dani (0) Rodri (0) G. dos Santos (6) Luis Enrique (-) Mark van Bommel (6) Zambrotta (10,5) Reiziger (0) Crosas (0,54) Tortolero (0) Enke (-)
93. 93 1. Technical sheet 2. Summer transfers window 2013/14 3. Squads review La Liga 4. Barça vs Real Madrid 5. Conclusions 6. Annexes: - European Football Finances - Tables - About Prime Time Sport Football Transfer Review 2014 | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 2 | 4 | https://www.instagram.com/edinhocampos_/ | en | Instagram | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | null | ||||||||
3393 | dbpedia | 0 | 17 | https://musicabrasileira.org/artists/marcela-biasi/ | en | Marcela Biasi – Música Brasileira | [
"https://musicabrasileira.org/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/960-mb-border-logo.png",
"https://i0.wp.com/musicabrasileira.org/WordPress/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/mbarrastando.jpg?fit=370%2C379&ssl=1"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Kees Schoof"
] | 2013-09-01T12:52:43-05:00 | en | Música Brasileira | https://musicabrasileira.org/artists/marcela-biasi/ | A Splendid Debut It seems everything is just happening to Marcela Biasi, composer, vocalist and guitarist. She’s always at the right place at the right time. Born in Niterói, RJ, Marcela Biasi (1981) enjoyed and absorbed the rich musical … Continued | ||||||
3393 | dbpedia | 3 | 15 | https://www.facebook.com/jovempannews/videos/jornal-jovem-pan-141122/489891466439493/ | en | JORNAL JOVEM PAN - 14/11/22 | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Jovem Pan News war live. | de | https://static.xx.fbcdn.net/rsrc.php/yT/r/aGT3gskzWBf.ico | https://www.facebook.com/jovempannews/videos/jornal-jovem-pan-141122/489891466439493/ | ||||||
3393 | dbpedia | 0 | 40 | https://val51mabar.wordpress.com/tag/arthur-bernardes/ | en | Val51mabar's Blog | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Posts about Arthur Bernardes written by val51mabar | en | https://s1.wp.com/i/favicon.ico | Val51mabar's Blog | https://val51mabar.wordpress.com/tag/arthur-bernardes/ | 10. THE RAISING OF OURS NATIONS
Here in United States the English colonization starts from 1,607. And was a more culturally diversified colonization. Even people from others nationalities like Germans, Dutchs, Scots, Irish and also Portuguese came to the Atlantic Coast. About religion they were all sort of denominations that sparkled from the Protestant Reformation or else. Also a minor number of Catholics. After a hard begining the colonies became more successful as Europe expanding its population demanded more agricultural products.
Products like tabaco and cotton were examples of what represented the success of the Colonies. And just like the rest of Americas, the Colonies, specially those in the south, became dependent on hardwork hands. In the south sanitary conditions were not ideal to European labors so the importation of slaves from Africa became essential part of the business. In the north the economic activity was not so lucrative then the presence of African slaves was least. The first Europeans to inhabit Americas after its Columbus rediscovery was the Spaniards. Florida yet was Spanish Colony and around the Gulf of Mexico they had been established. And the Frensh established themselves at the Lousiana Territory.
We must remember that, the European population begun its growth thanks to a more availability of foods such as corn, potatoes, tomatoes and many others from Americas. Probably, the spices from the Oriental Indias also helped on the prevention of infectious deseases too. And the wealth in many kind of forms brought from the Colonies from the whole world made possible the advancing in science, technology and knowledge as an whole.
Back in Brazil, at the XVII century, Portuguese colonists had established themselves in a strait shore line, from north to south. The number one product of exportation was the sugar. And while it was more valuable, the Portuguese Crown prohibit the creation of cattle in there. So, as it was needed for nourishment to people and for transportation of everything a timid interiorization begun at the Northeast of the country. It accounts for the conquest of the “Sertao”. Sertao is a Portuguese word to describe an wild west.
Since the establishment of the General-governors in Brazil they organized some expeditions to the interior in name of the Portuguese Crown. Those was called “Entradas” (Enterings) and had the objective of seek for something valuable, specially precious metals and gems. These ones was limited by the Treaty of Tordesilhas. Usually the point of departure was the capital, Salvador.
Another kind of expedition was called “Bandeiras” (Flags). It was of private initiative and most of all begun from the Sao Vicente Capitancy. Sao Vicente was the capital which was at the shore line and most of the expeditions begun from the villages of the uplands, usually Sao Paulo. It is why the men in the Bandeiras was called Bandeirantes, and today sometimes the people born at the State of Sao Paulo are also called by that name, like their ancestors was also called. But at that time they also was called Vicentinos (from Sao Vicente Capitancy). Today they are called Paulistas.
One of the motivations for those expeditions was the legend mentioned before, “The Emerald Mountain”. Native Brazilians passed on the story to Portuguese colonists that had a Sacred Mountain in the interior of the land made of green gems. Then because of the natural riches Spaniards had encountered on their side of Americas, Portuguese concluded that it would be emerald. So, they start looking for it.
They also collected an indian account for the legend of Sabarabussu (Resplandent Mountain). Was a legend like El Dourado. Later on Portuguese interpreted as it been the “Serra da Piedade” (Piety Mountain). It is a peak of around 5,200 feet high above sea level. Today it is part of the City of Caete, is one of the symbols of Minas Gerais and is a touristic point with a old Chapel (construction ended in 1,770) and astronomic observatory. But many other peaks made history in the State as it was used as referencial points for travelers and because its around abouts be rich in minerals and gems. Examples are the Itambe Peak (Acute Peak) and Caue Peak (Brothers Peak).
Agostinho Barbalho Bezerra, who was Governor of Rio de Janeiro (1,660-1,661) was sent by the king Afonso VI to look for the Emerald Mountain in December 17, 1,663. He did good services to the Portuguese Crown, and fought among his father Luis and brother Jeronimo at the war against Dutchs, and even were presented with the Santa Catarina Island. Today is where the state capital, Florianopolis, of Santa Catarina State stands. But in one of his expeditions he contracted an unknown fever and died in around 1,670, Rio de Janeiro.
So, the job to look for the Emerald Mountain was passed on to Fernao Dias Pais Leme. Fernao was a Bandeirante and he is the most inspiring researcher of his kind in that time. Usually, Bandeirantes entered in the future Brazilian Territory looking for indigenous people and taken them as slaves. Fernao Dias did the same. He lead Bandeiras that entered the Brazilian South and established a village, Parnaiba, Sao Paulo, with 5.000 enslavered indians. His main concern after be chosen, was to locate the Emerald Mountain. And with it in his mind established many farms along the ways where later became to be the Minas Gerais State. Those farms originated villages which became cities.
Is possible that, the legend of the Emerald Mountain made the Paulistas blinded for other riches in around Minas Gerais State. Despite of years researching, some green gems located by Fernao Dias expeditions revealled to be just turmalines, a less worthy gem. In 1,681 he also died by an unknown fever. His son Garcia went back to Sao Paulo and his son-in-law, Manoel de Borba Gato kept his work. And lets post one more genealogical sequence. This time for Fernao Dias. | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 2 | 18 | https://alchetron.com/Edinho-Campos-519307-W | en | Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia | [
"https://alchetron.com/cdn/private_file_1517239297426d981296f-39c1-4192-9799-fba8475d9bd.jpg",
"https://alchetron.com/cdn/edinho-campos-13558958-e998-41cd-b505-dded01aadee-resize-750.jpg",
"https://alchetron.com/cdn/edinho-campos-01134b14-2211-4549-a448-4629fb902be-resize-750.jpeg",
"https://alchetron.com/cdn... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2017-08-18T08:30:48+00:00 | Edimo Ferreira Campos (born 15 January 1983), commonly known as Edinho, is a Brazilian professional footballer who plays as a defensive midfielder for Coritiba. Edinho is a versatile midfielder with precise passing and is efficient in the tackle while committing very few fouls. In January 2010 Palme | en | /favicon.ico | Alchetron.com | https://alchetron.com/Edinho-Campos | Career
In January 2010 Palmeiras confirmed that the club signed another reinforcement for the team, this season, the club signed for 4 years the defensive midfielder, until December 2013.
In January 2011 Fluminense sing the player for peticion by, Muricy Ramalho, coach of the Fluminense.
On 19 December 2013, with the end of his contract with Fluminense, transferred to the Grêmio for the 2014 season.
On the June 6, 2016 it was involved In a change changes player Negueba, in the which Edinho will act for Coritiba.
Career statistics
As of 2 April 2017
Club
Internacional
Campeonato Gaúcho: 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008
Copa Libertadores: 2006
FIFA Club World Cup: 2006
Recopa Sudamericana: 2007
Copa Sudamericana: 2008
Fluminense
Campeonato Carioca: 2012
Campeonato Brasileiro Série A: 2012 | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 36 | https://tiltingfutures.org/updates/a-story-of-contrast/ | en | A Story of Contrast | [
"https://tiltingfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/tf-main-nav-logo.svg",
"https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/5943c5f026696b07dc613f19fca097f4?s=96&d=mm&r=pg",
"https://tiltingfutures.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/tf-huge-footer-logo.svg",
"https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/viewthroughconversion... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"About Kim Asenbeck"
] | 2012-07-10T18:24:57+00:00 | This is a story of contrast: small and big, here and there, old and new. My mother, Edna, is one of nine. I am convinced that in naming her children, my grandmother pulled out a book of baby names, flipped to “E”, and skimmed down the column, picking out names. My aunts and uncles, all... | en | Tilting Futures | https://tiltingfutures.org/updates/a-story-of-contrast/ | This is a story of contrast: small and big, here and there, old and new.
My mother, Edna, is one of nine. I am convinced that in naming her children, my grandmother pulled out a book of baby names, flipped to “E”, and skimmed down the column, picking out names. My aunts and uncles, all eight of them, have names that also begin with “Ed.” Namely, Edinho, Edvan, Ednilson, Edilson, Edmara, Edgar, Edlaine, and Edwaldo.
In her youth, my mother called Sao Jose dos Campos—a city in Southern Brazil—home. At 21, my mother met my father, a German who called Bavaria home. Next in the story comes marriage, relocation to Germany, and the birth of a daughter.
That’s where I come in.
While my mother is one of nine, I am one of one. My name does not begin with “Ed.” I call neither Brazil, nor Germany, nor the United States—where I’ve lived for the last ten years of my life—home. To say I am homeless is both dramatic and literally incorrect, but metaphorically accurate.
There are several contrasting schools of thought regarding the meaning of the word home. Some, for example, define home in terms of nationality. Yet for someone like me, who holds citizenship in both Germany and Brazil, and permanent residency in the United States, this approach is complicated.
Another more sentimental contingent believes that home is the place in which your childhood memories are made. But what if my memories are scattered across this globe, from east to west, north to south? Do I pick one memory, and call the space it occupies in my heart home? No, I call that mushy-gushy.
Finally, there’s John Lennon’s suggestion. In his song “Imagine,” the musician encourages his listener to envision a world in which there are no countries. In such a world, you and I would not be citizens of Cambodia, or Croatia, or Canada. We would be global citizens- each and every one of us. When asked where we were from, we would simply answer, “Planet Earth.”
This, to me, is definitive of the Global Citizen Year movement. I began by framing this story in the context of contrast—the contrast between my mother’s background and my own, between the varied meanings of home, and now, to conclude with, the contrast between past generations and a new generation of Global Citizens. Technology, globalization, and time have made it such that today’s leader leads much differently from her peers in the past. Today’s leader stands on a global stage—a stage to which Global Citizen Year and its mission serve as an analogous stairway.
In these coming months, this blog will be a virtual home of sorts: a place for me to log my adventures, update my audience on my progress and status, and to build a supporting community. I hope you will stay with me, reading along as I embark upon my Global Citizen Year and find my own home within this world. | |||||
3393 | dbpedia | 0 | 6 | https://donfutbolisto.com/en/player/edinho-70034/ | en | Player Edimo Ferreira Campos | [
"https://donfutbolisto.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-cropped-logo-pulpo-color-109x108.png",
"https://donfutbolisto.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/cropped-cropped-logo-pulpo-color-109x108.png",
"https://donfutbolisto.com/imagen/jugador/edinho-65244.webp",
"https://donfutbolisto.com/imagen/escudo/ceara... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Edimo Ferreira Campos"
] | 2024-03-25T19:42:46+00:00 | Here you can consult all the data of the soccer player Edimo Ferreira Campos | en | Don Futbolisto | https://donfutbolisto.com/en/player/edinho-70034/ | Edimo Ferreira Campos
Edinho
Nickname Edinho
Country of birth Brasil
City of birth Niterói
Nationality
Brasil
Birthdate 15/01/1983
Age 41
Height 183
Weight 83
Demarcation
Midfield player
According to the data we have Edimo Ferreira Campos, better known as Edinho, was born on January 15, 1983 in the city of Niterói, Brasil.
He debuted in 2005 with Sport Club Internacional in the city of Porto Alegre (Rio Grande do Sul), Brasil. His last year was 2019 with Ceará Sporting Club in the city of Fortaleza (Ceará), Brasil.
Edinho’s career as a player
Throughout his career, Edinho has been part of several teams, leaving his mark on each of them. Below is a summary of his career by season:
Season Team Matches Played Goals Goals per match Season 2019 Team Ceará Matches 14 Played 1 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2018 Team Ceará Matches 24 Played 18 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2017 Team Coritiba Matches 35 Played 8 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2016 Team Coritiba Matches 29 Played 20 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2016 Team Grêmio Matches 6 Played 2 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2015 Team Grêmio Matches 25 Played 19 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2014 Team Grêmio Matches 16 Played 10 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2013 Team Fluminense Matches 34 Played 34 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2012 Team Fluminense Matches 33 Played 33 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2011 Team Fluminense Matches 33 Played 33 Goals 1 Goals per match 0.03 Season 2010 Team Palmeiras Matches 30 Played 30 Goals 1 Goals per match 0.03 Season 2008-09 Team Lecce Matches 16 Played 14 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2008 Team Internacional Matches 27 Played 27 Goals 1 Goals per match 0.04 Season 2007 Team Internacional Matches 32 Played 32 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2006-07 Team Internacional Matches 2 Played 2 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2006 Team Internacional Matches 29 Played 29 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 Season 2005 Team Internacional Matches 37 Played 37 Goals 0 Goals per match 0.00 422 349 3 0.01
Edinho’s total trophies: 2
Edinho team trophies: 2
Throughout his career, Edinho has been a key player in several teams, contributing significantly to their success in various competitions. These are some of the most notable trophies that he has won with his teams: | |||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 61 | https://www.bssnews.net/sports/125613 | en | Pele's gilded, turf-lined tomb opens to public in Brazil | [
"https://www.bssnews.net/templates/web-view/images/site_logo.png",
"https://www.bssnews.net/templates/web-view/images/bss-banner3-eng.jpg",
"https://www.bssnews.net/assets/news_photos/2023/05/16/image-125613-1684207843.jpg",
"https://www.bssnews.net/templates/web-view/images/tab_img.jpg",
"https://www.bssne... | [] | [] | [
"Most Popular English News",
"Bangladeshi Newspaper",
""
] | null | [] | null | SANTOS, Brazil, May 16 2023 (BSS/AFP) - It is a final resting place fit for "The King": six months after | https://www.bssnews.net/favicon.ico?v=5 | BSS | https://www.bssnews.net/sports/125613 | SANTOS, Brazil, May 16 2023 (BSS/AFP) - It is a final resting place fit for "The King": six months after the death of the man widely considered the greatest footballer of all time, Brazil opened Pele's gilded, football-turfed tomb to the public Monday.
Pele, who died on December 29 at age 82 after a battle with cancer, was laid to rest at the Ecumenical Memorial Cemetery in Santos, Brazil. It is a high-rise, 14-story mausoleum that holds the Guinness world record for the tallest cemetery on Earth.
Fans were greeted by two life-size golden statues of the player nicknamed "O Rei" -- The King -- whose remains rest inside a large golden vault displayed in the middle of a 200-square-meter (more than 2,000-square-foot) room carpeted in artificial turf.
"It surpassed my expectations. It's a really beautiful place," said Ronaldo Rodrigues, 44, a businessman who was first in line to visit the tomb, along with his wife.
"I hope lots of tourists will come visit and get to know a little about Pele's story, what he represented for Santos, Brazil and the entire world."
Born Edson Arantes do Nascimento, Pele is the only player in history to win three World Cups (1958, 1962 and 1970).
He scored a world record 1,281 goals during his more than two-decade career with Santos (1956-74), the New York Cosmos (1975-77) and the Brazilian national team.
In tears, Pele's son Edinho told reporters who flocked to the southeastern port city that the family was still struggling to cope with their loss.
"But we're also very proud and happy at all the affection and reverence that's kept pouring in," he said.
For now, entries to the tomb are limited to 60 people a day, via a sign-up form on the cemetery's website.
Topped with a cross, Pele's golden vault has black etchings on its sides depicting his 1,000th goal and his famous raised-fist goal celebration. The room is wallpapered with images of fans in a football stadium.
The resort-like cemetery also features an auto museum that now includes the Mercedes Benz S-280 the company gave Pele in 1974 to commemorate his 1,000th goal.
"It's a place that's rich in detail, all lovingly assembled in tribute, as the 'King' deserves," cemetery manager Paulo Campos told AFP.
The mausoleum sits less than a kilometer (0.6 mile) from the Vila Belmiro, the stadium where Pele played most of his storied career. | |||||
3393 | dbpedia | 2 | 34 | https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2569552 | en | Edimo Ferreira Campos | [
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/72/Edimo_Ferreira_Campos.JPG/220px-Edimo_Ferreira_Campos.JPG",
"https://login.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralAutoLogin/start?type=1x1",
"https://www.wikidata.org/static/images/footer/wikimedia-button.svg",
"https://www.wikidata.org/static/images/foote... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Brazilian footballer and manager | en | /static/apple-touch/wikidata.png | https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2569552 | ||||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 77 | https://sport.timesofmalta.com/2023/05/16/watch-peles-gilded-turf-lined-tomb-opens-to-public-in-brazil/ | en | lined tomb opens to public in Brazil | [
"https://cdn-sport.timesofmalta.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/sportsdesklogosmall-noT.png",
"https://cdn-sport.timesofmalta.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/sportsdesklogosmall-noT.png",
"https://cdn-sport.timesofmalta.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/sportsdesklogosmall-noT.png",
"https://cdn-sport.timesofmalta... | [
"https://sportsdesk.com.mt/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/AFP-TV_20230515_HUM_BRA_MausoleumCelebrity_33F87A8_en-1.mp4"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"sportsdesk_admin"
] | 2023-05-16T00:00:00 | It is a final resting place fit for “The King”: six months after the death of the man widely considered the greatest footballer of all time, Brazil opened Pele’… | en | SportsDesk | https://sport.timesofmalta.com/2023/05/16/watch-peles-gilded-turf-lined-tomb-opens-to-public-in-brazil/ | It is a final resting place fit for “The King”: six months after the death of the man widely considered the greatest footballer of all time, Brazil opened Pele’s gilded, football-turfed tomb to the public Monday.
Pele, who died on December 29 at age 82 after a battle with cancer, was laid to rest at the Ecumenical Memorial Cemetery in Santos, Brazil. It is a high-rise, 14-story mausoleum that holds the Guinness world record for the tallest cemetery on Earth.
Fans were greeted by two life-size golden statues of the player nicknamed “O Rei” — The King — whose remains rest inside a large golden vault displayed in the middle of a 200-square-meter (more than 2,000-square-foot) room carpeted in artificial turf.
“It surpassed my expectations. It’s a really beautiful place,” said Ronaldo Rodrigues, 44, a businessman who was first in line to visit the tomb, along with his wife.
“I hope lots of tourists will come visit and get to know a little about Pele’s story, what he represented for Santos, Brazil and the entire world.”
Born Edson Arantes do Nascimento, Pele is the only player in history to win three World Cups (1958, 1962 and 1970).
He scored a world record 1,281 goals during his more than two-decade career with Santos (1956-74), the New York Cosmos (1975-77) and the Brazilian national team.
In tears, Pele’s son Edinho told reporters who flocked to the southeastern port city that the family was still struggling to cope with their loss.
“But we’re also very proud and happy at all the affection and reverence that’s kept pouring in,” he said.
For now, entries to the tomb are limited to 60 people a day, via a sign-up form on the cemetery’s website.
Topped with a cross, Pele’s golden vault has black etchings on its sides depicting his 1,000th goal and his famous raised-fist goal celebration. The room is wallpapered with images of fans in a football stadium.
The resort-like cemetery also features an auto museum that now includes the Mercedes Benz S-280 the company gave Pele in 1974 to commemorate his 1,000th goal.
“It’s a place that’s rich in detail, all lovingly assembled in tribute, as the ‘King’ deserves,” cemetery manager Paulo Campos told AFP.
The mausoleum sits less than a kilometer (0.6 mile) from the Vila Belmiro, the stadium where Pele played most of his storied career. | |||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 98 | https://chrismilot.com/52642849.edson-haaz-in-mexico.602.html | en | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | null | ||||||||||
3393 | dbpedia | 2 | 22 | https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-brazilian-football-league-serie-a-coritiba-foot-ball-club-edimo-ferreira-139280430.html | en | Brazilian Football League Serie A / ( Coritiba Foot Ball Club ) | [
"https://s.alamy.com/logos/1.68.0/alamy.svg",
"https://s.alamy.com/logos/1.68.0/alamy.svg",
"https://s.alamy.com/assets/latest/footer/mastercard.svg",
"https://s.alamy.com/assets/latest/footer/visa.svg",
"https://s.alamy.com/assets/latest/footer/amex.svg",
"https://s.alamy.com/assets/latest/footer/paypal.... | [] | [] | [
"brazilian",
"coritiba foot ball club",
"edimo",
"edinho",
"ferreira",
"football league",
"serie"
] | null | [
"Alamy Limited"
] | null | Download this stock image: Brazilian Football League Serie A / ( Coritiba Foot Ball Club ) - Edimo Ferreira Campos Edinho - J2GNH2 from Alamy's library of millions of high resolution stock photos, illustrations and vectors. | en | https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-brazilian-football-league-serie-a-coritiba-foot-ball-club-edimo-ferreira-139280430.html | Brazilian Football League Serie A / ( Coritiba Foot Ball Club ) - Edimo Ferreira Campos " Edinho "
Captions are provided by our contributors.
RMID:Image ID :J2GNH2
Image details
Contributor :
MB Media Solutions / Alamy Stock Photo
Image ID :
J2GNH2
File size :
18.8 MB (583.4 KB Compressed download)
Open your image file to the full size using image processing software.
Releases :
Model - no | Property - noDo I need a release?
Dimensions :
2229 x 2953 px | 18.9 x 25 cm | 7.4 x 9.8 inches | 300dpi
More information :
This image could have imperfections as it’s either historical or reportage.
Taxes may apply to prices shown. | ||||||
3393 | dbpedia | 1 | 20 | https://www.voanews.com/a/pele-s-gilded-turf-lined-tomb-opens-to-public-in-brazil/7095049.html | en | Pele's Gilded, Turf-Lined Tomb Opens to Public in Brazil | [
"https://ssc.voanews.com/b/ss/bbgprod,bbgentityvoa/1/G.4--NS/4071706?pageName=voa%3aeng%3aw%3aarticle%3apele%27s%20gilded%2c%20turf-lined%20tomb%20opens%20to%20public%20in%20brazil&c6=pele%27s%20gilded%2c%20turf-lined%20tomb%20opens%20to%20public%20in%20brazil&v36=8.33.0.0.279&v6=D=c6&g=https%3a%2f%2fwww.voanews.co... | [
"https://voa-video-hls-ns.akamaized.net/pangeavideo/2022/12/0/03/03370000-0aff-0242-5d35-08daeaae2ad6_master.m3u8"
] | [] | [
"Americas",
"football",
"soccer",
"Pele"
] | null | [
"Agence France-Presse"
] | 2023-05-16T01:42:20+00:00 | For now, entries to the tomb are limited to 60 people a day | en | /Content/responsive/VOA/img/webApp/favicon.svg | Voice of America | https://www.voanews.com/a/pele-s-gilded-turf-lined-tomb-opens-to-public-in-brazil/7095049.html | It is a final resting place fit for "The King": six months after the death of the man widely considered the greatest footballer of all time, Brazil opened Pele's gilded, football-turfed burial chamber to the public Monday.
Pele, who died on December 29 at age 82 after a battle with cancer, was laid to rest at the Ecumenical Memorial Cemetery in Santos, Brazil. It is a high-rise, 14-story mausoleum that holds the Guinness world record for the tallest cemetery on Earth.
Fans were greeted by two life-size golden statues of the player nicknamed "O Rei" — The King — whose remains rest inside a large golden vault displayed in the middle of a 200-square-meter (more than 2,000-square-foot) room carpeted in artificial turf.
"It surpassed my expectations. It's a really beautiful place," said Ronaldo Rodrigues, 44, a businessman who was first in line to visit the tomb, along with his wife.
"I hope lots of tourists will come visit and get to know a little about Pele's story, what he represented for Santos, Brazil and the entire world."
Born Edson Arantes do Nascimento, Pele is the only player in history to win three World Cups (1958, 1962 and 1970).
He scored a world record 1,281 goals during his more than two-decade career with Santos (1956-74), the New York Cosmos (1975-77) and the Brazilian national team.
In tears, Pele's son Edinho told reporters who flocked to the southeastern port city that the family was still struggling to cope with their loss.
"But we're also very proud and happy at all the affection and reverence that's kept pouring in," he said.
For now, entries to the tomb are limited to 60 people a day, via a sign-up form on the cemetery's website.
Topped with a cross, Pele's golden vault has black etchings on its sides, depicting his 1,000th goal and his famous raised-fist goal celebration. The room is wallpapered with images of fans in a football stadium.
The resort-like cemetery also features an auto museum that now includes the Mercedes Benz S-280 the company gave Pele in 1974 to commemorate his 1,000th goal.
"It's a place that's rich in detail, all lovingly assembled in tribute, as the 'King' deserves," cemetery manager Paulo Campos told AFP.
SEE ALSO: A related video by VOA's Edgar Maciel
The mausoleum sits less than a kilometer (0.6 mile) from the Vila Belmiro, the stadium where Pele played most of his storied career. | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 3 | 39 | https://issuu.com/lionsdailynews/docs/turner_issue_5 | en | Lions Daily News June 21 2018 | [
"https://static.isu.pub/fe/product-header-frontend/781e53c/31d186ba39f38e8c4fac.png",
"https://static.issuu.com/fe/silkscreen/0.0.3042/icons/gradient/icon-canva-gradient.svg",
"https://static.isu.pub/fe/product-header-frontend/781e53c/1e794a8c4ec65e549678.png",
"https://photo.isu.pub/lionsdailynews/photo_larg... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2018-06-21T07:33:09+00:00 | Read Lions Daily News June 21 2018 by Boutique Editions on Issuu and browse thousands of other publications on our platform. Start here! | en | /favicon.ico | Issuu | https://issuu.com/lionsdailynews/docs/turner_issue_5 | Welcome to Issuu’s blog: home to product news, tips, resources, interviews (and more) related to content marketing and publishing.
Here you'll find an answer to your question. | ||||
3393 | dbpedia | 2 | 75 | https://www.newagebd.net/article/201854/peles-gilded-turf-lined-tomb-opens-to-public-in-brazil | en | Pele’s gilded, turf-lined tomb opens to public in Brazil | [
"https://outspoken.newagebd.com/files/uploads/1_2.png",
"https://outspoken.newagebd.com/files/uploads/1_2.png",
"https://outspoken.newagebd.com/files/uploads/1_2.png",
"https://www.newagebd.net/assets/img/pro/1_2.png",
"https://www.newagebd.com/files/records/news/202305/201854_127.jpg",
"https://outspoken... | [] | [] | [
"New Age",
"The New Age",
"Daily New Age",
"Bangladesh Newspaper",
"Most Popular Outspoken English Daily Newpaper in Bangladesh",
"Bangladeshi Newspapers",
"Bangladesh News",
"Latest Bangladesh News",
"Bangladesh Latest News",
"Bangla Online News"
] | null | [] | 2024-08-13T00:00:00 | It is a final resting place fit for ‘The King’: six months after the death of the man widely considered the greatest footballer of all... | en | https://www.newagebd.net/article/201854/peles-gilded-turf-lined-tomb-opens-to-public-in-brazil | It is a final resting place fit for ‘The King’: six months after the death of the man widely considered the greatest footballer of all time, Brazil opened Pele’s gilded, football-turfed tomb to the public Monday.
Pele, who died on December 29 at age 82 after a battle with cancer, was laid to rest at the Ecumenical Memorial Cemetery in Santos, Brazil. It is a high-rise, 14-story mausoleum that holds the Guinness world record for the tallest cemetery on Earth.
Fans were greeted by two life-size golden statues of the player nicknamed ‘O Rei’ -- The King -- whose remains rest inside a large golden vault displayed in the middle of a 200-square-meter (more than 2,000-square-foot) room carpeted in artificial turf.
‘It surpassed my expectations. It’s a really beautiful place,’ said Ronaldo Rodrigues, 44, a businessman who was first in line to visit the tomb, along with his wife.
‘I hope lots of tourists will come visit and get to know a little about Pele’s story, what he represented for Santos, Brazil and the entire world.’
Born Edson Arantes do Nascimento, Pele is the only player in history to win three World Cups (1958, 1962 and 1970).
He scored a world record 1,281 goals during his more than two-decade career with Santos (1956-74), the New York Cosmos (1975-77) and the Brazilian national team.
In tears, Pele’s son Edinho told reporters who flocked to the southeastern port city that the family was still struggling to cope with their loss.
‘But we’re also very proud and happy at all the affection and reverence that’s kept pouring in,’ he said.
For now, entries to the tomb are limited to 60 people a day, via a sign-up form on the cemetery’s website.
Topped with a cross, Pele’s golden vault has black etchings on its sides depicting his 1,000th goal and his famous raised-fist goal celebration. The room is wallpapered with images of fans in a football stadium.
The resort-like cemetery also features an auto museum that now includes the Mercedes Benz S-280 the company gave Pele in 1974 to commemorate his 1,000th goal.
‘It’s a place that’s rich in detail, all lovingly assembled in tribute, as the ‘King’ deserves,’ cemetery manager Paulo Campos told AFP.
The mausoleum sits less than a kilometer (0.6 mile) from the Vila Belmiro, the stadium where Pele played most of his storied career. | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 7 | https://thomburchfield.medium.com/the-living-room-bijou-a-primer-on-citizen-kane-and-the-problems-with-mank-5bea09e84b6a | en | The Living Room Bijou: A Primer on “Citizen Kane” and the Problems with “Mank.” | [
"https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fill:64:64/1*dmbNkD5D-u45r44go_cf0g.png",
"https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fill:88:88/1*e-Tr5HZbASh1PJZTDaAf1w.jpeg",
"https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fill:144:144/1*e-Tr5HZbASh1PJZTDaAf1w.jpeg"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Thomas Burchfield",
"thomburchfield.medium.com"
] | 2021-02-03T21:13:22.612000+00:00 | So, there you are, feet up, thumbing through the Netflix menu one evening, when up pops a movie called Mank. You read the capsule — the fictionalized story about the writing of an old black-and-white… | en | https://miro.medium.com/v2/5d8de952517e8160e40ef9841c781cdc14a5db313057fa3c3de41c6f5b494b19 | Medium | https://thomburchfield.medium.com/the-living-room-bijou-a-primer-on-citizen-kane-and-the-problems-with-mank-5bea09e84b6a | In which I try to answer the question, “Should I watch Mank?”
So, there you are, feet up, thumbing through the Netflix menu one evening, when up pops a movie called Mank. You read the capsule — the fictionalized story about the writing of an old black-and-white movie called Citizen Kane — and then see the names David Fincher and Gary Oldman, reputable names for sure. Your thumb crawls toward the OK button — but wait! First, I have an important question!
Have you ever seen Citizen Kane? If you haven’t, I absolutely urge you to not watch Mank. If you do, I guarantee you’ll find it baffling, irrelevant, and dull. If you’re unacquainted with the Golden Age of Hollywood, it might seem as odd and alien to you as Star Wars is to those whose favorite science fiction movie remains Forbidden Planet. Most horrible of all, it might even put you off watching Citizen Kane, an intolerable thought.
So, what is this Citizen Kane? I‘m not speaking as one of those provincial fanboys who demand that you see all forty films in the DC/MCU universe before you even deign to snicker at Captain Spandex: Monsters from Turlock. (Oh, for the days when B movies were cheap, unpretentious, and fun.) | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 41 | https://www.amazon.com/Making-Citizen-Kane-Robert-Carringer/dp/0520058763 | en | Amazon.com | [
"https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/captcha/huyzhwry/Captcha_psbnpzdhxf.jpg",
"https://fls-na.amazon.com/1/oc-csi/1/OP/requestId=4CC6MYXN84C4K1YXNYMB&js=0"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | null | Enter the characters you see below
Sorry, we just need to make sure you're not a robot. For best results, please make sure your browser is accepting cookies. | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 14 | https://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/citizen-kane/Film%3Foid%3D3217823 | en | Tucson Weekly: The Best of Tucson, News, and Everything That Matters | [
"https://www.tucsonweekly.com/images/logos/mainLogo.jpg",
"https://media1.fdncms.com/tucsonweekly/imager/good-eats-sonoran-restaurant-week-showcases-local-dining/u/r-big16x10/36048785/082424-midtown-vegan-deli-nhg-dsc_2829.jpg?cb=1724793105",
"https://media2.fdncms.com/tucsonweekly/imager/new-headline/u/golden-... | [] | [] | [
"Tucson news",
"tucson newspaper",
"tucson weekly",
"tucson music",
"tucson restaurants",
"tucson concerts",
"tucson movies",
"tucson movie times",
"tucson politics",
"tucson politics news",
"tucson art galleries",
"best of tucson",
"Tucson Weekly"
] | null | [] | null | Founded in 1984, the Tucson Weekly is the Tucson news source that matters. Politics, culture, arts, music, food and everything else that makes our city great in print and online. | en | /favicon.ico | Tucson Weekly | https://www.tucsonweekly.com/ | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 16 | https://www.historytoday.com/archive/citizen-kane | en | History Today | [
"https://www.historytoday.com/themes/custom/historytoday/assets/HT-logo.png",
"https://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/HT%20August%202024%20Thumb.jpg",
"https://www.historytoday.com/themes/custom/historytoday/assets/HT-logo.png",
"https://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/printne... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/zyv19bg0scg?rel=0&showinfo=0"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | /sites/default/files/favicon.png | https://www.historytoday.com/archive/citizen-kane | The production history of Citizen Kane reads like a film script. Unfettered by the constraints of the Hollywood studio system, a boy genius is granted his wish to produce a film without studio interference, hire his theatrical friends and use the best technicians in Hollywood. When Orson Welles signed his contract in July 1939 with RKO, one of Hollywood's major film studios, he was given final cut: complete control over what eventually appeared on screen, provided the film did not exceed a modest budget of $500,000.
This unusually generous contract was part of RKO's strategy to attract new talent and confer artistic respectability on a film industry which had experienced a turbulent decade with the arrival of the 'talkies' and the Depression. An enterprising producer, George Schaefer, secured a promising deal: the services of a controversial but charismatic radio personality and theatre producer who brought with him a cast of characters who, like him, were new to film. Novelty and promise were the key ingredients of an arrangement which tested the limits of Hollywood's tolerance of aesthetic experiment, political bravado and sheer hype.
Now regarded as a film classic, it is somewhat ironic that Citizen Kane was not widely seen until the late 1950s. Its initial distribution was suppressed because it was commonly assumed that the film's central character, Charles Foster Kane, was a veiled critical portrait of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. Hearst's success in 'killing' Kane in 1941 tells us much about the power of the press in that period and how far a rich and powerful man would go to suppress criticism. It also reveals that cinema, the most popular form of mass entertainment, was widely recognised. as an influential medium of persuasion and propaganda.
A second irony of the film's early history is that Welles did not go to Hollywood in the first instance to make Citizen Kane. His first project, a filmed version of Joseph Conrad's novella Heart of Darkness, was never produced because it exceeded its budget at the pre-production stage. It was only as a last-minute attempt to do something useful with his generous contract that Welles, in collaboration with the experienced screenwriter Hermann Mankiewicz, developed the Kane idea. Since Welles was extremely interested in contemporary politics it was likely, however, that any film he made would involve themes reflecting this interest. The timing of its production and release gave it a sense of urgency while the film was being written war had broken out in Europe and it is essential to regard Citizen Kane as a product of that critical situation.
Welles' politics are extremely important for a full understanding of Citizen Kane in its contemporary context and partly explain Hearst's dramatic reaction against the film. In the 1930s Welles was a fervent supporter of President Roosevelt's New Deal: interventionist economic and social policies which had been enacted to combat the Depression, involving public works schemes and social security. By the time Welles went to Hollywood he had already produced plays financed by the Federal Theatre, an arm of the New Deal's cultural policy which was a relief measure to provide employment in the theatre. Having spent time in Europe and being deeply attracted to European culture, Welles was also an anti-fascist and urged American intervention in the Second World War. Hearst, on the other hand, campaigned against the New Deal and was a firm isolationist: hence his recriminations against Welles when Kane was first released.
Although not explicitly named as the model for Charles Foster Kane, Hearst bore close enough resemblance to the fictional character to invite comparison even before the film was complete. As an ex-newspaper man turned screenwriter Mankiewicz had first-hand knowledge of Hearst and along with other writers had visited him in his vast mansion, San Simeon. Ostensibly Citizen Kane is about a reporter's search for the meaning of a dying newspaper magnate's last words, 'Rosebud'. This quest triggers five flashback sequences when the reporter, Thompson, investigates Kane's life. He visits the archive of Kane's guardian, Thatcher, and interviews four key people: his business manager, Bernstein; his friend Leland, his second wife, Susan; and his butler, Raymond. The flashback structure allows us access to key scenes from Kane's life from childhood to old age. We learn that he inherited a fortune by chance; was separated from his mother at an early age to be educated to use that fortune: started a newspaper which grew into an empire; embarked on a disastrous political career; lost his two wives; and ended his days in a pathetic condition in self-imposed exile in his baroque palace, Xanadu.
Before the flashbacks, however, we are given a brief, but comprehensive series of 'snapshots' from Kane's life by means of a newsreel which has obviously been modelled in style on The March of Time. In an arresting blast of sound and image we are presented with segments from the life of a man whose exploits have been full of contradictions and riddled with inconsistencies. A montage of newspaper headlines reporting Kane's death describe him in startlingly different terms: while one refers to him as 'an outstanding American' another labels him 'US Fascist No. 1'. We see him as a man of the people but also keeping company with Hitler.
As the story unfolds the parallels between Hearst and Kane are obvious: both controlled newspaper empires; both frequently distorted the truth for a good story in the tradition of 'yellow journalism'; both supported war with Spain in 1898; both dabbled in politics and both ended their lives cocooned in huge buildings (San Simeon and Xanadu) surrounded by precious art objects. Although Hearst did not, like Kane, force his wife into an unsuccessful opera career, he did exercise control over Marion Davies' film roles. Davies, whom Hearst never married, was a gifted comic actress, but because most of her films were financed by Hearst she was forced to play romantic heroines to which her talents were unsuited. Welles used Marion Davies' well-known liking for jigsaw puzzles as a means of conveying Susan's boredom in Xanadu. With these and other glaring similarities it is not, therefore, surprising that the first reviewers of Citizen Kane were impressed by its contemporary significance.
Criticism of Hearst stemmed from Welles' New Deal liberalism and desire for America to intervene in the Second World War; both these policies were opposed by Hearst's 'yellow press'. In this sense the film is a direct attack on Hearst's political beliefs, business activities and journalistic style. It is no coincidence that Citizen Kane was being produced exactly when the isolationist vs. interventionist debate was at its height in America: the film was released six months before Pearl Harbor. In this broad context, via the portrayal of Kane as obsessed and isolated, surrounded in Xanadu at the end of his life by objets d'art from all over Europe, Kane's central character stands for blinkered American isolationists keen to absorb European culture, but at the same time steer clear of political involvement to assist Europe's plight against Fascism. By portraying Kane's political failure and subsequent exile in Xanadu Welles was making indirect comment on the contemporary European crisis.
At another level one also gets a sense that in Citizen Kane Welles is criticising fundamental contradictions within monopolistic journalism and political rhetoric. These contradictions were evident in Hearst's business practices and political ambitions. Kane represents the era of pre-New Deal attitudes, the 'old order' when newspapermen wielded enormous power. The film reveals that that power is founded on distortion and hypocrisy. One of the Inquirer's first campaigns is against monopolistic business trusts, but it is only the character Leland who sees that Kane's newspaper empire is guilty of a similar degree of concentration. When Kane's growing empire poaches staff from a rival paper, the Chronicle, we know that the reporters will adapt their style to tit the ideological remit of the Inquirer. In Kane's political career he claims to represent 'the people' but is fundamentally opposed to trade union organisation. ironically, his political career is destroyed by exposure in the press of his affair with Susan Alexander. Kane proves that he can make an untalented singer into an opera star by falsifying the reviews. Welles is, therefore, using one medium, film, to expose the evident hypocrisy of another, the press.
It is worth remembering that in the late 1930s film was but one of the new mass media which were beginning to exert a great deal of influence over public opinion. As well as cinema, radio was extremely popular and indeed served as Welles' first encounter with mass notoriety with Mercury's infamous The War of the Worlds broadcast in 1938, which persuaded millions of Americans that Martians were attacking the Earth. In some ways the panic created by this broadcast prepared Welles for the furore over Citizen Kane. Broadcasting was at the peak of its influence in the 1930s and Roosevelt's 'fireside chats' had taken political propaganda quite literally into the homestead. Welles' experience with The War of the Worlds and his general perception of the influence of radio meant that he was fully acquainted with controversy and aware of the different forms of power to be found in the press, radio and film. Whereas Citizen Kane suggests that the old order of newspaper journalism was flawed and outdated it is ironic that Hearst's reprisals demonstrated that the 'yellow press' still wielded considerable influence.
Welles is also commenting more generally on the historical enterprise in the sense that the reporter is researching a man's past by examining particular sources familiar to all historians: memoirs and interviews. In many ways the investigation could be a cautionary tale about the need to scrutinise sources. In the process of Thompson's investigation we learn more about Kane's associates and ex-wife than about the central protagonist who is the subject of his enquiries. Ironically, in spite of the rigour of Greg Toland's deep-focus photography (everything in the frame is of equal definition) the film medium has proved no more successful in revealing the 'truth' of Kane's life than the press. The impossibility of the 'truth' is a larger theme still when we end up knowing little more about Kane than we already knew from the mock newsreel. The revelation that 'Rosebud' is Kane's childhood sled (and all it symbolises in terms of lost innocence and the shock of being separated from his mother) answers some questions, but by no means all. The mass media are thus presented cynically. Welles shows the media as being incredibly powerful but not always capable of rendering the truth.
More than anything else, the Hearst controversy overshadowed discussion of Citizen Kane's artistic qualities. Although its brilliance was noted by many reviewers, the most damaging aspect of Hearst's revenge was when he persuaded cinemas not to show the film and refused to give RKO any publicity in his papers. The fact that the studios were worried about Hearst's threatened anti-movie reprisals is testament to the persuasive power of the press in terms of advertising new film releases. The movie moguls were also perhaps afraid that Hearst papers would expose salacious gossip about them in their society pages. Schaefer was loyal to Welles throughout the Hearst controversy: at one point he refused an offer of money by a studio boss to destroy the negative and prints. After such difficulties RKO was forced to withdraw the film from distribution and it was not reissued until the 1950s. The generation of film-goers for whom Citizen Kane was produced were unable to see it.
It is arguable, however, that had the film been on major release in 1941 it would not have done good business because contemporary audiences would have found its themes too bleak and its 'hero' too de-centered. The flashback structure was unusual and, perhaps, alienating. More typically, Hollywood films subscribed to 'unwritten' rules of structural coherence; goal-orientated heroes who triumph against obstacles; unobtrusive camera and editing techniques and an apparently obligatory happy ending. Citizen Kane did none of these things and so it is unlikely that outside the 'art house' market the film would have been a box office success if the Hearst controversy had not prevented it from receiving nationwide distribution. In the few locations where it played business was poor. Although critics praised its artistic merits Citizen Kane won only one Academy Award (it was nominated for nine) for the screenplay.
Citizen Kane's second and far more sustained 'lease of life’ resulted from critics' appreciation since the late 1950s of Hollywood directors who managed to create interesting and innovative works of film art: within the artistic constraints imposed by the studio system. The studio 'factory' was seen to have produced its auteurs against the grain of artistic standardisation and economic regulation. Having suffered from studio interference in his post-Citizen Kane films Welles was the perfect candidate for reappraisal. This linked in later with at first grudging appreciation of the technical achievements of Welles' collaborators, primarily Greg Toland who was responsible for the cinematography and Hermann Mankiewicz, resurrected as an important contributor to the script by critic Pauline Kael with her 'Raising Kane' article in the New Yorker in 1971 (the 'Rosebud' hook was Mankiewicz's idea whereas Welles insisted on the line 'I don't think that any word explains a man's life').
Gradually the film has crept into the canon of 'great film classics', a model of cinematic achievement and an obtrusive display of what cinema can do best: cinematic spectacle. RKO technicians used special-effects to create startling images of cameras apparently swooping through windows; models were filmed to create the illusion of large buildings and Toland's deep-focus photography gave the film its distinctive crisp style. As interest in the application of psychoanalysis to film studies has grown, theorists have stressed the significance of Kane's Oedipal crisis and taken seriously what Welles dismissed as the 'dollar-book Freud' element of the plot. The film has meant many things to many people and continues to engage film scholars and impress new generations of film-goers.
Even though the credit of Welles' collaborators has been stressed, his overall vision for Citizen Kane and clear conception of the film's visual style are incontestable. These are the key elements in assuring its longevity as a film classic. Also important is its refusal to reveal all by means of the investigative structure and enigmatic resolution, Welles has ironically pointed out a universal truth. The historian's task is complex and demanding: a single word does not explain a man's life, nor does a news- paper headline, a radio report or a densely composed film frame. All are sources which must be treated with the utmost scrutiny but which taken together can reveal significant 'truths' about elements of the past, truths which are often not what we would like to learn. In that sense Citizen Kane is likely to continue to fascinate audiences for many years. | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 19 | https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/citizen-kane-review-1941-movie-998891/ | en | ‘Citizen Kane’: THR’s 1941 Review | [
"https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=6035310&c4=&cv=3.9&cj=1",
"https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/24cover.lores_.jpg?w=1154",
"https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/24cover.lores_.jpg?w=1154",
"https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/0... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"THR Staff"
] | 2017-05-01T08:59:36+00:00 | On May 1, 1941, RKO Radio Pictures held the premiere of Citizen Kane at the Palace Theatre in New York, garnering raves from local critics. | en | The Hollywood Reporter | https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/citizen-kane-review-1941-movie-998891/ | On May 1, 1941, RKO Radio Pictures held the premiere of Citizen Kane at the Palace Theatre in New York, garnering raves from local critics. Ahead of its release, The Hollywood Reporter appraised producer-director Orson Welles‘ picture in a review originally headlined “‘Kane Astonishing Picture.”
Citizen Kane is a great motion picture. Great in that it was produced by a man who had never had any motion picture experience; great because he cast it with people who had never faced a camera in a motion picture production before; great in the manner of its story-telling, in both the writing of that story and its unfolding before a camera; great in that its photographic accomplishments are the highlights of motion picture photography to date, and finally great, because technically, it is a few steps ahead of anything that has been made in pictures before.
From the point of entertainment, this reviewer chooses again to qualify it as great. An audience might not think so because they might not understand its technical perfections, or will be astonished, as we were, at the acting of a cast that had never been in a studio before. Nor will they credit the fact that this entertainment was really brought to the screen on a low budget — under $800,000 — and, in order to accomplish that, things had to be done that no brain or set of brains had ever before accomplished.
These items interested us, made the entertainment much greater, and how much an audience’s ignorance of these facts will discount the actual entertainment, we can’t tell. But we’ll venture the opinion that no ticket buyer, if he ever has the opportunity of buying a ticket to see Citizen Kane, will leave the theatre mad at his buy, because he will be entertained, although probably not as much as those knowing the inside of this whole production.
Whether the story was inspired by the life of William Randolph Hearst is of little interest to this reviewer; that’s for others to determine and act as they see fit. However, we might express our opinion that we will be surprised if the picture ever hits a theatre where admission is charged, and if that is finally the case, audiences will lose the opportunity of seeing a fine motion picture produced in a most adult fashion and one that should lift Orson Welles right up to the top of producers and actors.
Violates Tradition
Welles has made his Hollywood debut in such an astonishingly unconventional production that it is difficult to criticize Citizen Kane along the customary lines. Time after time, as the life of Charles Foster Kane is unfolded, Welles violates cinema tradition in acting, writing and photography, and gets away with it all magnificently.
He wastes no time in introducing his different technique. The film begins with a mythical two-reel “News on the March,” obviously based on the March of Time, since the commentator’s phraseology is unmistakable “Time” talk. It is a short on the life of the great publisher, Charles Foster Kane, who has just died, and it touches on the highlights of his career from the day he acquires The New York Inquirer until his death.
As Kane succumbs, he is heard to utter one word, “Rosebud,” and it is this one word which holds together the succeeding episodes of the film. As the short ends, it becomes apparent that this was a screening of the subject for its producers. They are dissatisfied with it, because the short has not brought out the hidden motivations which make Kane such a fabulous character, nor has it explained the meaning of the cryptic reference to “Rosebud.”
Hearst Mentioned Once
It is in this scene at the end of the “News on the March” sequence that the name of Hearst is mentioned the only time in Citizen Kane. One of the actors is overheard saying “It could have been any publisher, could have been Pulitzer, could have been Hearst.” Another responds: “Yes, and it could have been John Doe.”
A reporter from “News on the March” then begins the monumental task of checking Kane’s life, beginning with his infancy in the West when he inherits a fortune, the arrival of the estate’s lawyers to take young Kane to school finds him sledding in the snow and fighting against leaving this pastime to accompany the attorneys. To obtain his information, the reporter interviews the five persons who knew Kane best: his lawyer, his right hand man in the Kane publications, his former dramatic critic, and his second wife, whom he meets as a penniless flighty girl and attempts to make the public accept as a great singer, and the butler who manages his far-flung estate on the Gulf of Mexico.
Wife Supplies Drama
The drama critic, the lawyer, the butler and his publishing aide all contribute their bits to the Kane saga, but the dramatic high spots come mostly from the memory of the press tycoon’s second wife, by this time a drunken derelict, still trying to be a singer in an Atlantic City dive. When she meets Kane, he is already married to the niece of a mythical U.S. president, and so bored that he rarely comes home. Their meeting is just a “pick-up” on a rainy street, but it progresses so fast that, in no time, the illicit amour becomes public knowledge through exposure by a politician he is fighting, and Kane loses a sure election as governor of New York.
His first wife divorces him, he marries the singer, and then inaugurates a campaign in all his papers to establish her as a star. She is a desperately incompetent performer, and his efforts to put her over make him a laughing stock and cost him his best friend, the dramatic critic.
Finally, shorn of most of his journalistic power by the 1929 crash, an embittered old man, he retires to his incredible Gulf Coast place. There the second wife does jigsaw puzzles in the vast living room and grows to hate him. She leaves him, and Kane’s death follows very soon afterwards. He is broken, friendless and all he has left behind him are the palace and its grounds — which include a private zoo — his untold art treasures, and a string of papers actually controlled by banks. Not until the final scene is the mystery of “Rosebud” explained, and, though it is done with utter simplicity, it provides a chill and lump in anyone’s throat.
“Rosebud” Explained
The camera pans over the limitless expanse of paintings, sculpture, and all his other useless possessions. Appraisers are sorting it out, and the worthless items are burned. Into the flames go all manner of knickknacks, and at last the wreckers begin burning odds and ends from his mother’s home out west, which Kane had collected after she died. Suddenly the flames are seen licking over a little boy’s sled. The camera picks it out from the rest of the fire, and on it is written the one word “Rosebud.”
Welles’ performance is nothing less than astonishing. He begins as a youth of 21, goes through middle age to his death, and makes every moment believable in voice, walk and gesture. Even in his love scenes is Welles effective.
The support he gets from the cast, every one of whom is a completely new face to picture audiences, is downright amazing. There isn’t a weak member of the troupe, and though space doesn’t permit praise for all of them, a few must be selected for special mention. Dorothy Comingore, as the singer, is put through a range of emotions that would try any actress one could name, but she delivers without a second’s let-down. Citizen Kane should make this girl a star. Joseph Cotten, who played in Philadelphia Story, is splendid as the drama critic, as are Everett Sloane in the role of Bernstein, Kane’s faithful aide, and Ruth Warrick, as his first wife.
Gregg Toland’s camera has never performed such miracles. He has caught the players from daringly unusual angles. He produced effects so novel in some scenes that they cannot be described here. The musical score by Bernard Herrmann is also worthy of commendation. — unbylined review, originally published March 12, 1941. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 55 | https://reviews3427.rssing.com/chan-8420312/all_p26.html | en | Film Guru Lad | [
"https://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-KygWsHah2_7Qa.gif",
"https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/jRw9QiV0rp07wMhp9AZCaSL2QUIZGr02GMuZcLkUg2Iwt7MyWZymdW4NMxo",
"https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CrUnNB8efvM/XgBMQlFGPpI/AAAAAAAAEpM/VyY4sYCw6H8Mk1XJ1y2F8e_tXrKU5nl3gCLcBGAsYHQ/s320/EC5e-TBXoAEmB-o.png",
"https://1.bp.blogsp... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | //www.rssing.com/favicon.ico | null | Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker Review
Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker
Release Date: 19th December 2019 - Australia
Production Companies
Lucasfilm Ltd
Distribution
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Australia
Genre: Sci-Fi
Rating: M
Runtime: 141 minutes
Budget: $300,000,000
Box Office Gross: $598,330,816 (Worldwide - figure subject to change)
Plot Summary
The evil Emperor Palpatine is thought to have been killed in the second Death Star when in actual fact, he survived. It is up to the remaining members of the Resistance to find a trace of his whereabouts as well as Finn and Poe to lead them in defeating the First Order and put a stop to their plans in founding a new Empire. Meanwhile, Rey has to confront Kylo Ren and must face him for the last time.
Cast
Daisy Ridley - Rey
Adam Driver - Kylo Ren
John Boyega - Finn
Oscar Isaac - Poe Dameron
Kelly Marie Tran - Rose
Mark Hamill - Luke Skywalker
Carrie Fisher - General Leia Organa (archive footage)
Billy Dee Williams - Lando Calrissian
Lupita Nyong'o - Maz Kanata
Anthony Daniels - C3PO
Jimmy Vee - R2D2
Brian Herring - BB-8 Performer
Dave Chapman - BB-8 Performer
Joonas Suotamo - Chewbacca
Keri Russell - Zorii Bliss
Naomi Ackie - Jannah
Domhnall Gleeson - General Hux
Richard E. Grant - Allegiant General Pryde
Ian McDiarmid - Palpatine
Greg Grunberg - Snap Wexley
Shirley Henderson - Babu Frink
Dominic Monaghan - Beaumont Kin
Billie Lourd - Lieutenant Connix
Nick Kellington - Klaud
Mandeep Bhillon - Lieutenant Garam
Alison Rose - Lieutenant Draper
Amanda Lawrence - Commander D'Acy
Tanya Moodie - General Parnadee
Simon Paisley Day - General Quinn
Geff Francis - Admiral Griss
Amanda Hale - Officer Kandia
Amir El-Masry - Commander Trach
Aidan Cook - Boolie (Voice)
Patrick Williams - Boolie
J.J. Abrams - D-O (Voice)
Tom Wilton - Colonel Aftab Ackbar
Chris Terrio - Colonel Aftab Ackbar (Voice)
Kiran Shah - Nambi Ghima
Debra Wilson - Nambi Ghima (Voice)
Josef Atlin - Pilot Vanik
Vinette Robinson - Pilot Tyce
Mike Quinn - Nien Numb
Kipsang Rotich - Nien Numb (Voice)
Ann Firbank - Tatooine Elder
Philicia Saunders - Tabala Zo
Nigel Godrich - FN-2802
Dhani Harrison - FN-0878
J.D. Dillard - FN-1226
Dave Hearn - FN-0606
Josefine Irrera Jackson - Young Rey
Cailey Fleming - Young Rey
Jodie Comer - Rey's Mother
Billy Howle - Rey's Father
Carolyn Hennesy - Demine Lithe
John Williams - Oma Tres (Cameo)
Denis Lawson - Wedge Antilles (Cameo)
Warwick Davis - Wicket W. Warrick (Cameo)
Harrison Davis - Pommet Warrick
Andy Serkis - Supreme Leader Snoke (Voice) (Cameo)
James Earl Jones - Darth Vader (Voice) (Cameo)
Hayden Christensen - Anakin Skywalker (Voice) (Cameo)
Ewan McGregor - Obi Wan Kenobi (Voice) (Cameo)
Frank Oz - Yoda (Voice) (Cameo)
Liam Neeson - Qui Gon Jinn (Voice) (Cameo)
Samuel L. Jackson - Mace Windu (Voice) (Cameo)
Ashley Eckstein - Ahsoka Tano (Voice) (Cameo)
Freddie Prinze Jr. - Kanan Jarrus (Voice) (Cameo)
Olivia d'Abo - Luminara Unduli (Voice) (Cameo)
Jennifer Hale - Aayla Secura (Voice) (Cameo)
Angelique Perrin - Adi Gallia (Voice) (Cameo)
Harrison Ford - Han Solo (Cameo) (Uncredited)
Crew
Story/Screenplay/Producer/Director -
J.J. Abrams
Based on Characters - George Lucas
Story/Screenplay - Chris Terrio
Story - Derek Connolly and
Colin Trevorrow
Executive Producer/First Assistant Director -
Tommy Gormley
Executive Producer/Unit Production Manager -
Callum Greene
Executive Producer - Jason D. McGatlin
Producers - Kathleen Kennedy and
Michelle Rejwan
Production Designers - Rick Carter
and Kevin Jenkins
Design Supervisor: Lucasfilm - James Clyne
Senior Concept Designer - Sean Hargreaves
Supervising Art Director - Paul Inglis
Set Decorator - Rosemary Brandenburg
Costume Designer - Michael Kaplan
Creature and Special Makeup Effects Designer -
Neal Scanlan
Cinematography - Dan Mindel
Second Unit Director - Victoria Mahoney
Stunt Coordinator - Eunice Hathart
Fight Coordinator - Mike Lambert
Special Effects Supervisor - Dominic Tuohy
Special Effects Supervisor: Los Angeles - Roy K. Cancino
Special Effects Coordinator - Alicia Davies
Visual Effects Supervisors - Roger Guyett and
Marc Varisco
Visual Effects Supervisors: ILM - Daniele Bigi,
Jeff Capogreco and Dan Snape
Visual Effects Supervisor: Hybride - François Lambert
Visual Effects Producer: Lucasfilm - Janet Lewin
Visual Effects Producers - Kevin Elam,
TJ Falls and Dawn Turner
Animation Supervisor: ILM - Stephen Aplin
Animation Supervisor - Paul Kavanagh
Film Editors - Maryann Brandon and
Stefan Grube
Sound Designer/Supervising Sound Editor - David Acord
Sound Designer - Ben Burtt
Music - John Williams
Review
For over 42 years, the 'Star Wars' movie franchise has reached the culmination of its saga with 'THE RISE OF SKYWALKER'. Fans are either worried, excited or in any case indifferent to this new instalment. Some find it hard to forgive everything that was in 'The Last Jedi'that caused them discomfort. I feel sorry for the actress Kelly Marie Tran who was attacked by misogyny and racism from angry fans. Her role has been downgraded in this movie because of the controversy. I began to question myself in joining a fan base that is consumed with hatred and prejudice. I have had the high expectations for 'THE RISE OF SKYWALKER' as it was a beginning of an end to a galaxy far, far away that is conceived by George Lucas. Unfortunately it was not the grand finale that I hoped it would be. I felt that Disney has broken our promises in concluding this saga in favour of a contrived ending to the movie.
Director J.J. Abrams has been brought back to restore the light that has seemed to have vanished in 'The Last Jedi'. This includes retconning the fan-divisive plot points that were already addressed in the predecessor film such as the identity of Rey's parents. While there are fans who hated Rian Johnson's unorthodox approach on 'The Last Jedi'they can thank J.J. for fixing those issues. However, there is a downside on 'THE RISE OF SKYWALKER' and that is that J.J. is losing his creative touch. The plot is derivative of 'Return of the Jedi' and is even convoluted, not helped at all is the sluggish pacing which also hurts the film.
There is nothing else added on 'THE RISE OF SKYWALKER' like character driven scenes and plot twists. My biggest complaint of the film aside from the story is that Emperor Palpatine being alive lessens the impact of his supposed defeat in 'Return of the Jedi'. This would have been better if the Emperor should have returned as either a Force ghost or a clone like in the 'Legends' series.
The visuals are still spectacular and there are some good moments in the film. The acting continues with original players that are added to return in this movie like Billy Dee Williams as Lando Calrissian. Ian McDiarmid hams it up in his reprisal as the evil aforementioned Sith Lord. While I admit that this instalment was an emotional send-off for Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia. Alas, it would have been better if she was still alive to complete her journey of the character.
'THE RISE OF SKYWALKER' could have concluded in a emotional note with high intensity. I felt it would have gone in a different direction, like how Rian Johnson had done to 'The Last Jedi'. Some fans may not like 'THE RISE OF SKYWALKER, but that doesn't mean that they are nothing short of devotional to the 'Star Wars' series. The franchise will live on in all of our hearts as always, but what we got there instead is a movie that is neither good or bad.
Star rating: (5/10) Average
↧
↧
In Memory of Syd Mead (1933-2019)
Syd Mead (1933-2019)
I do apologise for this late obituary. Syd Mead, a conceptual designer and visual futurist whom is responsible for providing the artwork of films like 'Blade Runner', 'TRON'and 'Aliens'passed away on 30th December 2019 at the age of 86, due to complications of lymphoma. Prior to his death, he announced his retirement in September and is about to receive the Cameron Menzies award for his designs in the Art Directors Guild.
Starting in 1979, he began his conceptual art career with 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture'. It was then followed by his work on 'Blade Runner'where he did the futuristic designs including the vehicles as well as the city of Los Angeles that is seen in his own unique perspective. It was many years later that Syd got to work with Ridley Scott again on the sequel 'Blade Runner 2049'. He was among the three conceptual artists that worked on the Disney film 'Tron'where he actually designed the light-cycles, the solar sailer, tanks and Sark's carrier. Syd continued illustrating in films like '2010', 'Aliens', 'Short Circuit'and more recently 'Elysium'and 'Tomorrowland'.
If you want look at Syd Mead's designs and artwork, just go to his official website (www.sydmead.com)
↧
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Review
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
Release Date: 1st December 2005 - Australia
Production Companies
Warner Bros. Pictures (presents)
Heyday Films
Palatex Productions IV
Distribution
Roadshow Distribution
Genre: Fantasy
Rating: M
Runtime: 157 minutes
166 minutes
(extended)
Budget: $150,000,000
Box Office Gross: $897,099,794 (Worldwide)
Plot Summary
When Harry Potter's name
emerges from the Goblet
of Fire, he becomes a
competitor in a grueling
battle for glory among
three wizarding schools -
the Triwizard Tournament.
But since Harry never
submitted his name for the
Tournament, who did?
Now Harry must confront
a deadly dragon, fierce
water demons and an
enchanted maze only to
find himself in the cruel
grasp of He Who Must Not
Be Named.
Cast
Daniel Radcliffe - Harry Potter
Emma Watson - Hermione
Granger
Rupert Grint - Ron Weasley
Ralph Fiennes - Lord
Voldemort
Robbie Coltrane - Ruebus
Hagrid
Gary Oldman - Sirius Black
Michael Gambon - Albus
Dumbledore
Maggie Smith - Minerva
McGonnagall
Alan Rickman - Severus
Snape
Brendan Gleeson - Alastor
'Mad Eye' Moody
Tom Felton - Draco Malfoy
Jason Isaacs - Lucius Malfoy
Warwick Davis - Filius Flitwick
David Bradley - Argus Filch
Devon Murray - Seamus
Finnigan
Jamie Waylett - Vincent Crabbe
Joshua Herdman - Gregory
Goyle
Mark Williams - Arthur Weasley
Bonnie Wright - Ginny Weasley
James & Oliver Phelps - Fred
and George Weasley
Robert Hardy - Cornelius Fudge
Roger Lloyd-Pack - Barty
Crouch
Jeff Rowle - Amos Diggory
Robert Pattinson - Cedric
Diggory
Timothy Spall - Wormtail
David Tennant - Barty Crouch Jr.
Shefali Chowdhury - Parvati
Patil
Afshan Azad - Padma Patil
Alfred Enoch - Dean Thomas
William Melling - Nigel
Katie Leung - Cho Chang
Louis Doyle - Ernie MacMillan
Charlotte Skeoch - Hannah
Abbott
Tiana Benjamin - Angelina
Johnson
Henry Lloyd-Hughes - Roger
Davies
Adrian Rawlins - James Potter
Geraldine Somerville - Lily
Potter
Miranda Richardson - Rita
Skeeter
Stainslav Ianevski - Victor Krum
Clémence Poésy - Fleur
Delacour
Angelica Mandy - Gabrielle
Delacour
Eric Sykes - Frank Bryce
Predrag Bjelac - Igor Karkaroff
Frances de la Tour -
Madame Maxime
Shirley Henderson -
Moaning Myrtle
Crew
Director - Mike Newell
Based on Novel "Harry Potter
and the Goblet of Fire" - J.K.
Rowling
Screenplay - Steve Kloves
Executive Producers - David
Barron and Tanya Seghatchian
Producers - David Heyman
and Lorne Orleans (IMAX
Version)
Co-Producer/Second Unit
Director - Peter MacDonald
Casting Directors - Mary
Selway and Fiona Weir
Production Designer - Stuart
Craig
Senior Art Director - Andrew
Ackland-Snow
Supervising Art Director - Neil Lamont
Art Directors - Mark Bartholomew,
Alastair Bullock, Alan Gilmore,
Gary Tomkins and Alexandra Walker
Set Decorator - Stephenie McMillan
Costume Designer - Jany Temime
Creature and Makeup Effects Designer - Nick Dudman
Makeup Designer - Amanda Knight
Director of Photography - Roger Pratt
Stunt Coordinator - Greg Powell
Diving Coordinator - Dave Shaw
Special Effects Supervisor - John Richardson
Special Effects Coordinator - Rosie Richardson
Visual Effects Supervisor - Jim Mitchell
Visual Effects Supervisor: ILM - Tim Alexander
Visual Effects Supervisor: Framestore CFC - Tim Webber
Visual Effects Supervisor: MPC - Ben Shepherd
Visual Effects Supervisor: Cinesite - Simon Stanley-Clamp
Additional Visual Effects Supervisors - Tim Burke and
Richard Stammers
Visual Effects Producers - Theresa Corrao and
Emma Norton
Animation Supervisors: Framestore CFC - Pablo Grillo
and Max Solomon
Animation Supervisor: Dragon, Ship and World Cup, ILM -
Steve Rawlins
Computer Graphics Supervisor: ILM - Robert Weaver
CGI Modelling Supervisor - Ken Bryan
Model Unit Supervisor: Cinesite - José Granell
Supervisor: MPC - Charley Henley
Character Rigging Supervisor: ILM - Eric Wong
Film Editor - Mick Audsley
Composer: Theme "Harry Potter" - John Williams (Uncredited)
Music - Patrick Doyle
Awards
2006 Academy Awards
Best Art Direction - Stuart Craig and Stephenie McMillan (Nominated)
Review
The 'Harry Potter'film series continues its magic with the fourth addition 'THE GOBLET OF FIRE'. While 'The Prisoner of Azkaban'was certainly a step up, 'GOBLET'is the most dark and gritty movie of the franchise. It is up to this point that the series had increased its shift and is no longer appealing to all ages. The later instalments are aimed at younger teens and adults and it focused the characters as they are now faced with adult situations. Mike Newell takes Alfonso Cauron's position as the director and it's incredible how he was able to pull off a simple task in this movie. The visuals are significant as always and it seems that the film has shown no signs of slowing down. But enough said, let's talk about the acting.
I praise Ralph Fiennes for doing an extraordinary job of portraying Lord Voldemort. He certainly knows how to introduce a dark wizard who is already a villain at the start. Brendan Gleeson takes the role of 'Mad Eye' Moody and he seems to make his character look insane. Honestly, I came here for this movie because of its two supporting actors; David Tennant and Robert Pattinson. It's amazing that Tennant plays a Death Eater rather than portraying a certain doctor who wanders through time and space in the 'Doctor Who'series. Also, it is worth mentioning that Pattinson, who plays the ill-fated Cedric Diggory, also plays a vampire in the infamous 'Twilight' movies as well as Batman in a upcoming titular film in 2021. The music by Patrick Doyle is good but has the same notes that John Williams used in the previous instalments.
'GOBLET OF FIRE'remains a bit fresh but still a gripping chapter to a film series that helps everyone believe in magic. This movie is highly recommended to all fans of J. K. Rowling's and stands to be one of the most famous series that was ever conceived in literature and film history.
Star rating: (10/10) Best Movie Ever
↧
Pokémon Detective Pikachu Review
Pokémon: Detective Pikachu
Release Date: 9th May 2019 - Australia
Production Companies
Warner Bros. Pictures (presents)
Legendary Entertainment (presents)
The Pokémon Company
Toho Company (in association with)
Province of British Columbia Production Services Tax Credit
Nintendo (additional copyright holder)
Creatures (additional copyright holder)
GAME FREAK (additional copyright holder)
Distribution
Roadshow Distribution
Genre: Fantasy/Mystery
Rating: PG
Runtime: 104 minutes
Budget: $150,000,000
Box Office Gross: $431,705,346 (Worldwide)
Plot Summary
When an expert detective named Harry Goodman has gone missing, it is up to his son Tim to find out about his disappearance. Tim teams up with Harry's former Pokémon partner of a Pikachu (who only Tim can communicate with) who tags along and helps with the investigation. They set out on a mystery in the sprawling metropolis of Ryme City where humans and Pokémon are living in peaceful co-existence before they unravel a shocking discovery that has the potential to destroy the Pokémon universe.
Cast
Ryan Reynolds - Detective Pikachu
Justice Smith - Tim Goodman
Kathryn Love Newton - Lucy Stevens
Bill Nighy - Howard Clifford
Ken Watanabe - Lieutenant Hide Yoshida
Chris Geere - Roger Clifford
Suki Waterhouse - Ms. Norman
Josette Simon - Grams
Rita Ora - Dr. Ann Laurent
Karan Soni - Jack
Max Fincham - Young Tim Goodman
Ikue Ôtani - Pikachu (Voice)
Rina Hoshino - Mewtwo (Voice)
Kotaro Watanabe - Mewtwo (Voice)
Crew
Screenplay/Director - Rob Letterman
Based on "Pokémon" - Satoshi Tajiri, Ken Sugimori and Junichi Masuda
Characters - Atsuko Nishida
Original Story - Tomokazu Ohara and Haruka Utsui
Story/Screenplay - Dan Hernandez and Benji Samit
Story - Nicole Perlman
Screenplay - Derek Connolly
Executive Producer/Unit Production Manager - Joseph M. Caraccioli Jr.
Executive Producers - Tsunekazu Ishihara,
Hiro Matsuoka, Ali Mendes, Toshio Miyahara,
Kenji Okubo and Koji Ueda
Producers - Cale Boyter,
Hidenaga Katakimi, Don McGowan
and Mary Parent
Co-Producers - Greg Baxter and Lisa Dennis
Co-Producer/First Assistant Director -
Cliff Lanning
Casting Directors - Sarah Finn and
Jina Jay
Production Designer - Nigel Phelps
Supervising Art Director - Ben Collins
Art Directors - Andrea Borland,
Guy Bradley, Nick Dent, Shira Hockman,
Rhys Ifan and Nic Pallace
Costume Designer - Suzie Harman
Cinematography - John Mathieson
Second Unit Director - Stephen Wolfenden
Stunt Coordinator - Mark Henson
Visual Effects Supervisors - Beau Garcia and Erik Nordby
Visual Effects Supervisor: Framestore - Jonathan Fawkner
Visual Effects Producers - Greg Baxter and
Martina Chakarova
Visual Effects Consultant - Page Buckner
Film Editors - Mark Sanger and
James Thomas
Music - Henry Jackman
Review
I remember being introduced to Pokémon as a kid and it seems so long ago that I started playing the games. Then I started watching the anime show on Channel 10 at Cheez TV and Cartoon Network respectively. I was excited to hear that a live-action film of the Pokémon franchise was in the works. Unfortunately, I wasn’t expecting that the movie would be based on a specific spin-off video game of the franchise called 'DETECTIVE PIKACHU'. I was sceptical about the movie which focuses on the titular Pokémon character who talks like a human because it seemed so weird. Needless to say, I had low expectations. Especially when Ryan Reynolds who many would know as the actor who played Deadpool was cast as the voice of Pikachu. My opinion shifted for the better when I read all of the reviews of the film showering it with praise.
Unlike the other Pokémon features that received mixed reviews, critics were less caustic towards this one. Most video game movie adaptations don't have a good track record, with some turning out to be disappointments at the critical and box-office reception. Thankfully, 'DETECTIVE PIKACHU' turned things the right way around and is the best video game movie adaptation I have seen. The humour is very witty and offbeat and it makes the film extremely satisfying to watch. Reynolds' talking Pikachu was the central reason why the movie was so very funny. Another important layer to 'DETECTIVE PIKACHU' was the mystery that contains intrigue and twists to keep moviegoers watching.
I must admit, Reynolds did a fantastic job of voicing the titular character with a lot of charm and comic timing. Reynolds was a blast for this movie but also has some heartfelt moments to his performance. I thought Justice Smith wasn't the best actor in Hollywood but did okay in his role as Tim. Bill Nighy was still Bill Nighy and it was unexpected to see him in a movie based on the Pokémon franchise. I felt the CGI visuals were good and it made the Pokémon characters come alive for this film.
I have nothing more to say about 'DETECTIVE PIKACHU', but it is a must-see movie for all Pokémon fans of all ages. Some fans won't like it but that doesn't stop them from watching and enjoying the anime and playing the video games.
Star rating: (10/10) Best Movie Ever
↧
92nd Academy Awards
92nd Academy Awards
Broadcast Date: 10th February 2020 - Australia
It's official moviegoers, nominations for this year's Oscar ceremony have been announced with 'Joker'leading 11 award categories including Best Picture. I was a bit disappointed that neither Matt Damon nor Christian Bale were nominated for the Best Actor award in 'Ford v Ferrari'. I was surprised to discover that the Best Foreign Language Film award category has been changed into the Best International Feature Film award.
Here is the list of the contenders that are nominees for each category.
Best Visual Effects
Avengers: Endgame - Dan DeLeeuw, Matt Aitken, Russell Earl and Dan Sudick
The Irishman - Pablo Helman, Lendro Estebecorena, Stephane Grabli and Nelson Supulveda
The Lion King - Robert Legato, Adam Valdez, Andrew R. Jones and Eliot Newman
1917 - Guillaume Rocheron, Greg Butler and Dominic Tuohy
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker - Roger Guyett, Neal Scanlan, Patrick Tubach and Dominic Tuohy
Best Film Editing
Ford v Ferrari - Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker
The Irishman - Thelma Schoonmaker
Jojo Rabbit - Tom Eagles
Joker - Jeff Groth
Parasite - Yang Jin-mo
Best Costume Design
The Irishman - Sandy Powell and Christopher Peterson
Jojo Rabbit - Mayes C. Rubeo
Joker - Mark Bridges
Little Women - Jacqueline Durran
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Arianne Phillips
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Bombshell - Kazu Hiro, Anne Morgan and Vivian Baker
Joker - Nicki Ledermnn and Kay Georgiou
Judy - Jeremy Woodhead
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - Paul Gooch, Arjen Tuiten and David White
1917 - Naomi Donne, Tristan Versluis and Rebecca Cole
Best Cinematography
The Irishman - Rodrigo Prieto
Joker - Lawrence Sher
The Lighthouse - Jarin Blaschke
1917 - Roger Deakins
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Robert Richardson
Best Production Design
The Irishman - Production Design: Bob Shaw; Set Decoration: Regina Graves
Jojo Rabbit - Production Design: Ra Vincent; Set Decoration: Nora Sopkova
1917 - Production Design: Dennis Gassner; Set Decoration: Lee Sandales
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Production Design: Barbara Ling; Set Decoration: Nancy Haigh
Parasite - Production Design: Lee Ha-jun; Set Decoration: Cho Won-woo
Best Sound Mixing
Ad Astra - Gary Rydstrom, Tom Johnson and Mark Ulano
Ford v Ferrari - Paul Massey, David Giammarco and Steven A. Morrow
Joker - Tom Ozanich, Dean Zupancic and Tod Maitland
1917 - Mark Taylor and Stuart Wilson
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Michael & Christian P. Minkler and Mark Ulano
Best Sound Editing
Ford v Ferrari - Donald Sylvester
Joker - Alan Robert Murray
1917 - Oliver Tarney and Rachael Tate
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Wylie Stateman
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker - Matthew Wood and David Acord
Best Original Song
"I Can't Let Yourself Throw Away" from Toy Story 4 - Music and Lyrics by Randy Newman
"(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" from Rocketman - Music by Elton John; Lyrics by Bernie Taupin
"I'm Standing with You" from Breakthrough - Music and Lyrics by Diane Warren
"Into the Unknown" from Frozen II - Music and Lyrics by Kristen Anderson & Robert Lopez
"Stand Up" from Harriet - Music and Lyrics by Joshuah Brian Campbell and Cynthia Erivo
Best Original Score
Joker - Hildur Guonadottir
Little Women - Alexandre Desplat
Marriage Story - Randy Newman
1917 - Thomas Newman
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker - John Williams
Best Animated Short Film
Dcera (Daughter) - Daria Kashcheeva
Hair Love - Matthew A. Cherry and Karen Rupert Toliver
Kitbull - Rosana Sullivan and Kathryn Hendrickson
Memorable - Bruno Collet and Jean-Francois Le Corre
Sister - Siqi Song
Best Live Action Short Film
Brotherhood - Meryam Joobeur and Maria Gracia Turgeon
Nefta Football Club - Yves Piat and Damien Megherbi
The Neighbors' Window - Marshall Curry
Saria - Bryan Buckley and Matt Lefebvre
A Sister - Delphine Girard
Best Documentary - Short Subject
In the Absence - Yi Seung-Jin and Gary Byung-Seok Kam
Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl) - Carol Dysinger and Elena Andreicheva
Life Overtakes Me - John Haptas and Kristine Samuelson
St. Louis Superman - Smrti Mundhra and Sami Khan
Walk Run Cha-Cha - Laura Nix and Colette Sandstedt
Best Documentary - Feature
American Factory - Steven Bognar and Julia & Jeff Reichert
The Cave - Feras Fayyad, Kirstine Barfod and Sigrid Dyekjaer
The Edge of Democracy - Petra Costa, Joanna Natasegara, Shane Boris and Tiago Pavan
For Sama - Waad Al-Kateab and Edward Watts
Honeyland - Ljubomir Stefanov, Tamara Kotevska and Atanas Georgiev
Best International Feature Film
Corpus Christi (Poland) in Polish - Directed by Jan Komasa
Honeyland (North Macedonia) in Turkish - Directed by Tamara Koevska and Ljubomir Stefanov
Les Miserables (France) in French - Directed by Ladj Ly
Best Animated Feature Film
How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World - Dean DeBlois, Bonnie Arnold and Brad Lewis
I Lost My Body - Jeremy Clapin and Marc du Pontavic
Klaus - Sergio Pablos, Jinko Gotoh and Marisa Roman
Missing Link - Chris Butler, Arianne Sutner and Travis Knight
Toy Story 4 - Josh Cooley, Jonas Rivera and Mark Nielsen
Best Writing - Adapted Screenplay
The Irishman - Steven Zaillian based on the book 'I Heard You Paint Houses' by Charles Brandt
Jojo Rabbit - Taika Watiti based on the novel 'Caging Skies'by Christine Leunens
Joker - Todd Philips and Scott Silver based on characters created by Bill Finger, Bob Kane and Jerry Robinson
Little Women - Greta Gerwig based on the novel by Louisa May Alcott
The Two Popes - Anthony McCarten based on his play 'The Pope'
Best Writing - Original Screenplay
Knives Out - Written by Rian Johnson
Marriage Story - Written by Noah Baumbach
1917 - Written by Sam Mendes and Krysty Wilson-Cairns
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Written by Quentin Tarantino
Parasite - Written by Bong Joon-Ho and Han Jin-won
Best Supporting Actress
Kathy Bates - Richard Jewell as Barbara "Bobi" Jeweel
Laura Dern - Marriage Story as Nora Fanshaw
Scarlett Johansson - Jojo Rabbit as Rosie Betzler
Florence Pugh - Little Women as Amy March
Margot Robbie - Bombshell as Kayla Pospisil
Best Supporting Actor
Tom Hanks - A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood as Fred Rogers
Anthony Hopkins - The Two Popes as Pope Benedict XVI
Al Pacino - The Irishman as Jimmy Hoffa
Joe Pesci - The Irishman as Russell Bufalino
Brad Pitt - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood as Cliff Booth
Best Actress
Cynthia Erivo - Harriet as Harriet Tubman
Scarlett Johansson - Marriage Story as Nicole Barber
Saoirse Roman - Little Women as Josephine "Jo" March
Charlize Theron - Bombshell as Megyn Kelly
Renee Zellweger - Judy as Judy Garland
Best Actor
Antonio Banderas - Pain and Glory as Salvador Mallo
Leonardo DiCaprio - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood as Rick Dalton
Adam Driver - Marriage Story as Charlie Barber
Joaquin Phoenix - Joker as Arthur Fleck/The Joker
Jonathan Pryce - The Two Popes as Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio
Best Director
Martin Scorsese - The Irishman
Todd Phillips - The Joker
Sam Mendes - 1917
Quentin Tarantino - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
Bong Joon-ho - Parasite
Best Picture
Ford v Ferrari - Peter Chernin, Jenno Topping and James Mangold
The Irishman - Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, Jane Rosenthal and Emma Tillinger Koskoff
Jojo Rabbit - Carthew Neal and Taika Watiti
Joker - Todd Phillips, Bradley Cooper and Emma Tillinger Koskoff
Little Women - Amy Pascal
Marriage Story - Noah Baumbach and David Heyman
1917 - Sam Mendes, Pippa Harris, Jayne-Ann Tenggren and Callum McDoogal
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - David Heyman, Shannon McIntosh and Quentin Tarantino
Parasite - Kwak Sin-ae and Bong Joon-ho
Make sure you let me know who you think the winners will be. My predictions for the winners of the following categories are...
Best Picture - Ford v Ferrari
Best Actress - Renee Zellweger for Judy
Best Animated Feature - Klaus
Best Visual Effects - Avengers: Endgame
Good luck!
Back to Home
↧
↧
Jumanji: The Next Level Review
Jumanji: The Next Level
Release Date: 26th December 2019 - Australia
Production Companies
Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE)
Hartbeat Productions
Instinctual VFX
Matt Tolmac Productions
Seven Bucks Productions
Distribution
Sony Pictures Australia
Genre: Adventure/Comedy
Rating: PG
Runtime: 123 minutes
Budget: $132,000,000
Box Office Gross: $711,787,975 (Worldwide - figure subject to change)
Plot Summary
When Spencer is brought back into the video game of Jumanji, it’s up to his friends with the help of his grandfather and Milo to return to the game and find him. As the players return to Jumanji, they find that the game has changed and they must travel through the sandy dunes and snowy mountains to finish playing the world’s most dangerous game.
Cast
Dwayne Johnson - Bravestone
Kevin Hart - Mouse
Jack Black - Shelly
Karen Gillan - Ruby
Nick Jonas - Seaplane
Awkwafina - Ming
Alex Wolff - Spencer
Ser’Darius Blain - Fridge
Madison Iseman - Bethany
Morgan Turner - Martha
Danny DeVito - Eddie
Danny Glover - Milo
Colin Hanks - Alex
Rhys Darby - Nigel
Rory McCann - Jurgen the Brutal
Dania Ramirez - Flame
Bebe Neuwirth - Nora Shepherd
Massi Furlan - Switchblade
Jennifer Patino - Bravestone's Mother
Lamorne Morris - Heater Repair Man
Deobia Oparei - Gromm
Marin Hinkle - Spencer's Mom
Michael Beasley - Coach Davis
John Ross Bowie - Cavendish
Crew
Writer/Producer/Director - Jake Kasdan
Based on the Book "Jumanji"/Executive Producer -
Chris Van Allsburg
Writers/Executive Producers - Jeff Pinkner
and Scott Rosenberg
Executive Producers - Ted Field,
David B. Householter, Melvin Mar,
William Teitler and Mike Weber
Producers - Dany & Hiram Garcia,
Dwayne Johnson and Matt Tolmach
Production Designer - Bill Brzeski
Costume Designer - Louise Mingenbach
Cinematography - Gyula Pados
Second Unit Director/Stunt Coordinator -
Wade Eastwood
Fight Coordinator - Wolfgang Stegemann
Special Effects Supervisor - J.D. Schwalm
Special Effects Coordinator - Eric Cook
Visual Effects Supervisor - Mark Breakspear
Visual Effects Supervisors: Weta Digital - Mark Gee
and Ken McGaugh
Animation Supervisor: Weta Digital - Paul Story
Film Editors - Steve Edwards,
Mark Helfrich and Tara Timpone
Music - Henry Jackman
Review
The game has changed for 'JUMANJI: THE NEXT LEVEL', it has maintained the same quality as its predecessor in most ways but in terms of visual effects, this movie has elevated the franchise to a whole new level (no pun intended). While I still haven't revisited the original 'Jumanji'film, I imagined that the graphics wouldn't be as good as the new installments. The humour in the movie was plain and simple but still blends well with the action.
All four of the returning main cast gave quality comedic performances, with Dwayne Johnson, Jack Black and Kevin Hart being the standouts. The other actors featured added colour to the film, with Danny Devito and Danny Glover's characters (also portrayed by Johnson and Hart respectively) acting as a running joke. This maybe the main point of difference between 'THE NEXT LEVEL'and 'Welcome to the Jungle'. In other words, the action and antics stayed the same, but the performances were altered.
'THE NEXT LEVEL'was a great sequel and enjoyable for audiences who have watched its predecessor. While this film may turn out as a tough act to follow, depending if the next instalment is going to turn out as not as good as we thought. Best of luck, movie viewers!
Star rating: (8/10) Very Good Movie
↧
In Memory of Terry Jones (1942-2020)
Terry Jones (1942-2020)
British comedian/writer Terry Jones has died on January 21st 2020 at the age of 77 following the complications of his dementia. He was one of the six members of the British comedy troupe, Monty Python, which are compromised of himself as well as others like John Cleese, Michael Palin, Eric Idle, Terry Gilliam and Graham Chapman. The group are responsible for its sketch show 'Monty Python's Flying Circus'and five of its movies including 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', 'Life of Brian' and 'The Meaning of Life'which all have influenced a new generation of comedians.
The group was formed in 1969, as all each of the founding members went on become to household names and have invented the phrase "Pythonesque" through the meaning of its absurdist style of humour. Like the rest of his fellow Pythons, Jones performed various characters in several of their comedies. Such of these roles include Sir Bedivere the Wise and Prince Herbert in 'Holy Grail', Brian's mother in 'Life of Brian'who has famously shouted "He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!" and the morbidly obese Mr. Creosote in 'The Meaning of Life'. In addition to starring in these movies, Terry Jones was known to have co-directed 'Holy Grail'in his debut with Terry Gilliam and is also the sole director of 'Life of Brian'and 'The Meaning of Life'. Outside of his fame with Monty Python, Terry even wrote the script of 'Labyrinth'for Jim Henson. He even has directed a movie 'Absolutely Anything'which he reunites with the surviving Python members and features Simon Pegg and Robin Williams in his final role.
In 2015, Jones was diagnosed with a rare degenerative form of dementia that he is no longer able to speak. My thoughts and prayers are to his family and friends and he will sorely be missed.
↧
Citizen Kane Review
Citizen Kane
Release Date: 23rd January 1942 - Australia
Production Companies
RKO Radio Pictures
Mercury Productions
Genre: Drama
Rating: PG
Runtime: 119 minutes
Budget: $839,727
Box Office Gross: $1,594,107 (Worldwide)
Plot Summary
When famous publishing mogul Charles Foster Kane dies, a reporter must investigate the shocking details of his personal life as well as the meaning of his final word "Rosebud".
Cast
Joseph Cotten - Jedediah Leland/Screening Room Reporter
Dorothy Comingore - Susan Alexander Kane
Ray Collins - James W. Gettys
George Coulouris - Walter Parks Thatcher
Agnes Moorehead - Mary Kane
Ruth Warrick - Emily Monroe Norton Kane
Erskine Sanford - Herbert Carter/Screening Room Reporter
Everett Sloane - Mr. Bernstein
William Alland - Jerry Thompson
Paul Stewart - Raymond
Fortunio Bonanova - Matiste
Philip Van Zandt - Mr. Rawlston
Georgia Backus - Miss Anderson
Harry Shannon - Kane's Father
Sonny Bupp - Kane III
Buddy Swan - Kane - Age Eight
Orson Welles - Charles Foster Kane
Alan Ladd - Pipe Smoking Reporter (Cameo) (Uncredited)
Crew
Original Screenplay/Production/Director - Orson Welles
Original Screenplay - Herman J. Mankewicz
Contributing Writer/Editorial Supervisor - John Houseman (Uncredited)
Contributing Writers - Roger Q. Denny and Mollie Kent (Uncredited)
Executive Producer - George Schaefer (Uncredited)
Art Director - Van Nest Polglase
Associate Art Director - Perry Ferguson
Set Decorator - Darrell Silvera (Uncredited)
Makeup Artist - Maurice Seiderman (Uncredited)
Costumes - Edward Stevenson
Photography - Gregg Toland
Special Effects - Vernon L. Walker
Optical Effects - Linwood G. Dunn (Uncredited)
Recording - Bailey Fesler and James G. Stewart
Sound Supervisor - John Aalberg (Uncredited)
Editor - Robert Wise
Assistant Editor - Mark Robson (Uncredited)
Music - Bernard Herrmann
Awards
1942 Academy Awards
Best Writing, Original Screenplay - Orson Welles and
Herman J. Mankewicz (Won)
————————
Best Picture - Orson Welles (Nominated)
Best Director - Orson Welles (Nominated)
Best Actor - Orson Welles (Nominated)
Best Cinematography - Gregg Toland (Nominated)
Best Art Direction-Interior Decoration, Black-and-White -
Perry Ferguson, Van Nest Polglase, A. Roland Fields and
Darrell Silvera (Nominated)
Best Film Editing - Robert Wise (Nominated)
Best Sound, Recording - John Aalberg (Nominated)
Best Music, Scoring of a Dramatic Picture -
Bernard Herrmann (Nominated)
Review
Most film aficionados and directors have considered 'CITIZEN KANE' as the greatest film of all time. Others believed it was 'Vertigo'that outranked Orson Welles' classic masterpiece. I remembered to have seen bits of the movie such as the twist ending. I never got to watch its entirety all by myself until I came across it recently. The history of 'CITIZEN KANE'goes way back long before a new generation of filmmakers and movie buffs like us were even born, as this film was first released in 1941. Initially, the film was loved by critics, but it was unrecognised at the box office and pulled from theatres. Because of the influence of news baron William Randolph Hearst whom the movie has provided unflattering comparisons between him and the main character Charles Foster Kane.
It caused Hearst to actually detest it and he used his connections to try to get rid of the film before anyone can see it. 'KANE' didn't get resurfaced until the mid 50s when after Hearst's death and television became everyone's favourite pastime. Then decades later, the movie was vindicated and the rest is history.
There is so much talent and craftsmanship that has been poured all over into 'CITIZEN KANE'as it was Orson Welles' pet project. The way that Orson Welles has self-financed, co-wrote, produced, directed and acted in his very own movie that he couldn't be proud of. It's a shame that Orson had stopped making more movies prior to his death in 1985. The cinematography by Gregg Toland was magnificent as it had paved the way for modern movies to use his camera techniques.
I'm not exactly sure if I want to see this classic again or that I had any interest in it whatsoever. 'CITIZEN KANE'is a great classic, but not one of the greatest movies in my opinion. Honestly, this film gets better as it ages and is more likely in need of transition for video streaming.
Star rating: (8/10) Very Good Movie
↧
In Memory of Kirk Douglas (1916-2020)
Kirk Douglas (1916-2020)
Hollywood acting legend Kirk Douglas has passed away from natural causes on 5th February 2020 at the ripe old age of 103 years. His legendary screen presence and indomitable spirit of acting were iconic and he has starred in over a dozen of feature films that maintained his charisma and celebrity status. He was one of the leading men of Hollywood and was one of the last surviving actors that lived through the Golden Age. He was also the father of Michael Douglas who still followed his acting footsteps.
Born to Russian parents that have emigrated to America, Kirk's real name was Izzy Demsky before he legally changed his name to Kirk Douglas prior to his enlistment in the United States Navy during World War II. Before his film acting career had begun Kirk had worked on radio, theater and commercials. He made his break through on stage in 'Kiss and Tell'when he took over a role that was originally portrayed by Richard Widmark. This led to other offers for Douglas and his career had blossomed and has later transitioned to movie roles, starting with his debut in 'The Strange Love of Martha Ivers'with Barbara Stanwyck.
Kirk's leading persona and tough guy image was established in 1949 when he was chosen by producer Stanley Kramer as a boxer in 'Champion'which earned him his first Oscar nomination for Best Actor. It was soon followed up by his other early films including 'Young Man with a Horn', 'Ace in the Hole'with Lauren Bacall and 'Detective Story'which brought him a Golden Globe nomination. Kirk then appeared in 'The Bad and the Beautiful'which he again was nominated for an Oscar for his role as a movie producer. In 1954, the same year he played the titular character in 'Ulysses', Douglas proved that he could perform in roles that have a comedic touch, that in Walt Disney's big-budgeted adaptation of Jules Verne's '20,000 Leagues Under the Sea'in which he starred as the sailor Ned Land. In addition to starring in his movies, Kirk founded his own production company Byrna Productions which he named after his mother.
Kirk has played Vincent Van Gogh in 'Lust for Life'which grabbed him of his third Oscar nomination and has collaborated with a young unknown film director named Stanley Kubrick for the two films,'Paths of Glory'and more famously 'Spartacus'. It was the latter movie that featured Kirk in a role that defined his career as the title character who leads a rebellion among his fellow slaves. He was also the executive producer of that movie and was the producer of 'Lonely Are the Brave'which he also starred in. Throughout the decades, Kirk has continued to appear in more films like 'Gunfight at the O.K. Caroll', 'The Devil's Disciple', 'Seven Days in May', 'In Harm's Way', 'Saturn 3', 'The Final Countdown'(which is produced by his son Peter), 'The Man from Snowy River', 'Tough Guys', etc.
In 1963, Kirk starred in a stage version of 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next'which he had bought the rights of the novel from its author and was later made into a movie by his son Michael who produced it and starred Jack Nicholson in Kirk's stead when he was considered too old for the leading part.
Prior to his retirement from acting in 2004, Kirk had survived a helicopter crash in 1991 which nearly killed him, and suffered a stroke in 1996 which effected his speech. During that same year, he received an Honorary Award for his lifetime achievement in over 50 years. Kirk became a centenarian when he celebrated his 100th birthday and has appeared in 2018 Golden Globes at the age of 101 with his daughter-in-law Catherine Zeta Jones to help present the Best Screenplay award while receiving a standing ovation.
I confess that I never got to see many of Kirk Douglas' movies and I would have respected him as an actor. My condolences to his family and friends.
↧
↧
Winners of the 92nd Academy Awards
And The Oscar Goes To..... (92nd Academy Award Winners)
Now, here are the winners for the 92nd Academy Awards.
Only one winner in this year's ceremony that I did predict is Renée Zellweger in winning the Best Actress award for her performance as Judy Garland in 'Judy'. I was expecting 'Ford v Ferrari'to win for Best Picture, but I was disappointed that the award went to 'Parasite'which is the first non-English film to have this rare distinction. I was even amazed to discover that Joaquin Phoenix has won the Best Actor award for his performance as the Joker in the titular film.
Best Visual Effects
1917 - Guillaume Rocheron, Greg Butler and Dominic Tuohy
Best Film Editing
Ford v Ferrari - Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker
Best Costume Design
Little Women - Jacqueline Durran
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
Bombshell - Kazu Hiro, Anne Morgan and Vivian Baker
Best Cinematography
1917 - Roger Deakins
Best Production Design
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood - Production Design: Barbara Ling; Set Decoration: Nancy Haigh
Best Sound Mixing
1917 - Mark Taylor and Stuart Wilson
Best Sound Editing
Ford v Ferrari - Donald Sylvester
Best Original Song
"(I'm Gonna) Love Me Again" from Rocketman - Music by Elton John; Lyrics by Bernie Taupin
Best Original Score
Joker - Hildur Guonadottir
Best Animated Short Film
Hair Love - Matthew A. Cherry and Karen Rupert Toliver
Best Live Action Short Film
The Neighbors' Window - Marshall Curry
Best Documentary - Short Subject
Learning to Skateboard in a Warzone (If You're a Girl) - Carol Dysinger and Elena Andreicheva
Best Documentary - Feature
American Factory - Steven Bognar and Julia & Jeff Reichert
Best International Feature Film
Parasite (South Korea) in Korean - Directed by Bong Joon-ho
Best Animated Feature Film
Toy Story 4 - Josh Cooley, Jonas Rivera and Mark Nielsen
Best Writing - Adapted Screenplay
Jojo Rabbit - Taika Watiti based on the novel 'Caging Skies' by Christine Leunens
Best Writing - Original Screenplay
Parasite - Written by Bong Joon-Ho and Han Jin-won
Best Supporting Actress
Laura Dern - Marriage Story as Nora Fanshaw
Best Supporting Actor
Brad Pitt - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood as Cliff Booth
Best Actress
Renee Zellweger - Judy as Judy Garland
Best Actor
Joaquin Phoenix - Joker as Arthur Fleck/The Joker
Best Director
Bong Joon-ho - Parasite
Best Picture
Parasite - Kwak Sin-ae and Bong Joon-ho
Academy Honorary Awards
David Lynch
Wes Studi
Lina Wertmüller
Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award
Geena Davis
↧
Kill Switch Review
Kill Switch
Release Date: 16th June 2017 - USA
Production Companies
FilmNation Entertainment (presents)
Square One Entertainment (presents)
Rainmaker Films (presents)
CTM Productions BV
Genre: Sci-Fi/Action
Rating: M
Runtime: 92 minutes
Plot Summary (Retrieved from DVD Cover of Release)
In a terrifying future where a parallel Earth has been created to act as an energy resource for our dying planet. Trying to harness the power of this unstable universe will result in a global cataclysm... and only one man can try and prevent it - ex-NASA pilot and physicist Will Porter. But Alterplex, the corrupt and secretive mega-corporation that controls this 'new world', will stop at nothing to ensure his mission fails.
Cast
Dan Stevens - Will Porter
Bérénice Marlohe - Abigail Vos
Tygo Gernandt - Michael
Charity Wakefield - Mia
Bas Keijzer - Bektman
Mike Libanon - Hugo
Mike Reus - Dr. Klintsen
Kasper van Groesen - Donny
Gijs Scholten van Aschat - Reynard
Crew
Producer/Visual Effects Supervisor/Director - Tim Smit
Screenplay - C. Kindinger and Omid Nooshin
Executive Producers - Clay Pecorin,
Russell Geyser, Thibaut Niels,
Aaron Ryder, Milan Popelka and
Al Munteanu
Producers - Denis Wigman,
Sander Verdonk and Patrick Chu
Co-Producer - Michael A. Jackman
Creative Consultant - Willem van de Geijn
Casting Director - Rose Wicksteed
Production Designer - Romke Faber
Costume Designer - Foster Douze
Director of Photography - Jacco van Ree
Stunt Coordinator - Simon van Lammeren
Visual Effects Producer/Supervisor -
Chris Wenting
Visual Effects Supervisor - Anthi Tsirouki
Editor - Wouter van Luijn
Music - Seven League Beats
Review
Having not heard of 'KILL SWITCH', it’s no wonder that the film was that obscure, I found it on a secondhand DVD store in Parramatta. However, its premise as convened by the DVD cover made me think that it might be worth-watching. Unfortunately, this B-grade film feels more like 'Halo' because it was mostly filmed in a perspective of a first-shooter video game being brought to life in cinematic vision. I just can’t get over how its weirdness is comparable to another film. This feature is called 'Doom' and although I haven't seen all of it, I have seen enough to know it uses the same point-of-view camera angle. The special effects are nice in 'KILL SWITCH' but they don’t add to the film.
Dan Stevens is the only notable actor in the movie and he tries to give a compelling performance in his leading role. Unfortunately for him, his faux American accent was bad and there were a very few scenes that showcase the main actor.
'KILL SWITCH'could have been so much more to become a great sci-fi film, but nope, it just disappoints us. I would advise you not to come around and go looking for this movie as it is not worth-watching.
Star rating: (3/10) Disappointing
↧
Birds of Prey Review
Birds of Prey
Release Date: 6th February 2020 - Australia
Production Companies
Warner Bros. Pictures
DC Entertainment
DC Comics
Clubhouse Pictures
Kroll & Co. Entertainment
LuckyChap Entertainment
Distribution
Roadshow Distribution
Genre: Action
Rating: MA15+ (Not Suitable for Young Children)
Runtime: 109 minutes
Budget: $100,000,000
Box Office Gross: $145,618,302 (Worldwide - figure subject to change)
Plot Summary
Harley Quinn has broken up with the Joker which put a large price on her head and is wanted by many. She must protect a young girl from a crime lord Black Mask who is after her along with his henchman Victor Zsasz. She finds herself forming a alliance with three women whom each have different goals to stop the crime boss from killing the child.
Cast
Margot Robbie - Harley Quinn
Rosie Perez - Renee Montoya
Mary Elizabeth Winstead - Helena Bertinelli/The Huntress
Jurnee Smollett-Bell - Dinah Lance/Black Canary
Ewan McGregor - Roman Sionis
Ella Jay Basco - Cassandra Cain
Chris Messina - Victor Zsasz
Ali Wong - Ellen Yee
Daniel Beinhardt - Sioins' Chauffeur
Derek Wilson - Tim Evans
Joe Bucaro III - Carlos Rossi
François Chau - Mr. Keo
Miyuki Matsunaga - Mrs. Keo
Anna Mikami - Miss Keo (16 years)
Bruno Olivier - Bodega Cook (Sal)
Matthew Willig - Happy
Michael Masini - Officer Drago
Steven Williams - Captain Patrick Erickson
Charlene Amola - Maria Bertinelli
Ella Mika - Young Helena
Robert Catrini - Stefani Galante
K.K. Barrett - Dr. Aguilar
Dana Lee - Doc
Bojana Novakovic - Erika
Paul Lisa - Helena's Father
Crew
Director - Cathy Yan
Writer - Christina Hodson
Executive Producers - David Ayer, Walter Hamada, Geoff Johns, Hans Ritter and Galen Valsman
Producers - Sue Kroll, Margot Robbie and Bryan Unkeless
Co-Producer - Donald Sparks
Production Designer - K.K. Barrett
Supervising Art Director - Kasra Farahani
Set Decorator - Florencia Martin
Costume Designer - Erin Bernach
Director of Photography - Matthew Libatique
Second Unit Director/Stunt Coordinator - Jonathan Eusebio
Second Unit Director - Chad Stahelski
Fight Coordinator - Jon Valera
Special Effects Supervisor - Matt Hawker
Visual Effects Supervisors - Yael Majors and Greg Steele
Visual Effects Producers - Annemarie Griggs, Jesse Morrow, Georgina Street
Editors - Jay Cassidy and Evan Schiff
Music - Daniel Pemberton
Review
I didn't have any knowledge about the Birds of Prey comic when I first heard about the movie being made. When walking to the cinema, I had no idea what I'm walking into. After Margot Robbie was praised for her scene-stealing performance as Harley Quinn in 'Suicide Squad', her character was so popular that she reprised her role in the follow-up 'BIRDS OF PREY'. While regarded as a typical DC movie with nothing else added to the film, it doesn't keep 'BIRDS OF PREY' from being ultra-violent and over-the-top.
The film was somewhat a cash-grab to profit off Margot Robbie's Harley Quinn, but it had clever action sequences and colourful humor which are the highlights of the movie. On the negatives, the plot is underwhelming and scattershot. I really didn't like how the narrative was disjointed and had less depth and focus on characters that are need of development.
Alongside Margot Robbie's performance, Ewan McGregor really digs an impression of a bad guy coming from roles as a Jedi Knight and other good characters which resulted in Black Mask really showing full colours.
While campy, fun and all-too feminine, BIRDS OF PREY is an above average DC flick which is playful at times but comes across as a missed opportunity and ultimately could have been better.
Star rating: (6/10) Fair Movie
Back to Home
↧
The Goonies Review
The Goonies
Release Date: 12th December 1985 - Australia
Production Companies
Warner Bros. Pictures (presents)
Amblin Entertainment
Distribution
Roadshow Distribution
Genre: Family/Adventure
Rating: PG
Runtime: 114 minutes
Budget: $19,000,000
Box Office Gross: $124,000,000 (Worldwide)
Plot Summary
Threatened by the development plans which would tear down their neighbourhood and replace it with a golf course, a group of young misfits called The Goonies stumble upon an ancient map that leads to an old pirate's treasure which would save their homes from being torn down. They go out on an adventure to look for the treasure and encounter obstacles along the way. They have to find it before a family of criminals will get their hands on the doubloons.
Cast
Sean Astin - Mikey
Josh Brolin - Brand
Jeff Cohen - Chunk
Corey Feldman - Mouth
Kerri Green - Andy
Martha Plimpton - Stef
Jonathan Ke Huy Quan - Data
John Matuszak - Sloth
Anne Ramsey - Mama Fratelli
Robert Davi - Jake
Joe Pantoliano - Francis
Lupe Ontiveros - Rosalita
Mary Ellen Trainor - Mrs. Walsh
Keith Walker - Mr. Walsh
Curt Hanson - Mr. Perkins
Steve Antin - Troy
Paul Tuerpe - Sheriff
Bill Bradley - Bill
Michael Paul Chan - Data's Father
Charles McDaniel - Chunk's Father
Elaine Cohen McMahon - Chunk's Mother
Nick McLean - Mouth's Father (Cameo)
Richard Donner - Policeman (Cameo) (Uncredited)
Cyndi Lauper - Herself (Cameo) (Uncredited)
Crew
Producer/Director - Richard Donner
Story/Executive Producer/Second Unit Director/
Film Editor (Uncredited) - Steven Spielberg
Screenplay - Chris Columbus
Executive Producers - Frank Marshall
and Kathleen Kennedy
Producer - Harvey Bernhard
Casting Directors - Jane Feinberg,
Mike Fenton and Judy Taylor
Production Designer - J. Michael Riva
Art Director - Rick Carter
Set Decorator - Linda DeScenna
Costume Designer - Richard LaMotte
Makeup Creator: Sloth - Craig Reardon
Makeup Creators/Executors: Sloth - Ellis Burman Jr.,
Thomas R. and Bari Dreiband-Burman
Director of Photography - Nick McLean
Stunt Coordinator - George Robotham
Special Effects Coordinator - Matt Sweeney
Visual Effects Supervisor - Michael J. Allister
Visual Effects Art Director: ILM - Dave Carson
Chief Model Maker: ILM - Bill George
Film Editor - Michael Kahn
Music Score - Dave Grusin
Review
I remembered seeing 'THE GOONIES'a long time ago and it’s incredible how well the film has aged in 35 years. It took me a long time to re-watch this nostalgic family adventure that I grew up with and it has cemented itself as an all-time classic. 'THE GOONIES'is not your typical childhood movie as it attracted a new age of youngsters while other films from this era haven't retained the contemporary appeal. Featuring the combined creative forces of director Richard Donner, writer Chris Columbus and collaborator Steven Spielberg, they've created something that could be considered one of the best family movies for young and old viewers. It was a launching pad for a few young actors like Sean Astin and Josh Brolin, who went on to have successful careers in the entertainment business as adults. Particularly Brolin who is an integral part of the MCU playing Thanos.
Despite the actors being quite young, several of them did a fantastic job and have given performances of a lifetime. These standouts to me include Astin, Brolin, Corey Feldman and Jeff Cohen. The adult actors including Anne Ramsey, Robert Davi and Joe Pantoliano acted very well against the child stars making for a great cast chemistry.
The film may well have been a inspiration for 'Super 8','Stranger Things'as well as many other works in the last thirty years. I defintely give 'THE GOONIES' a 10 out of 10 for best movie.
Star rating: (10/10) Best Movie Ever
↧
↧
Sonic the Hedgehog Review
Sonic the Hedgehog
Release Date: 13th February 2020 - Australia
Production Companies
Paramount Pictures
Sega
Original Film
Blur Studio
Marza Animation Planet
DJ2 Entertainment
Paramount Animation
Sega Sammy Group
Stories International
Distribution
Paramount Pictures Australia
Genre: Family
Rating: PG
Runtime: 99 minutes
Budget: $95,000,000
Box Office Gross: $216,430,382 (Worldwide - figure subject to change)
Plot Summary
Sonic is the fastest hedgehog, who has lived peacefully and undiscovered on Earth for 10 years. Until one day, he accidentally causes a power outage in a small town which catches the attention of Dr. Robotnik, a mad scientist who is working for the government. Together with his newfound friend, a local human sheriff named Tom, Sonic needs to stop the evil doctor from both capturing him and using his powers for his own nefarious purposes.
Cast
Ben Schwartz - Sonic the Hedgehog (Voice)
James Marsden - Tom
Wachowski
Jim Carrey - Dr. Ivo Robotnik
Tika Sumpter - Maddie Wachowski
Natasha Rothwell - Rachel
Adam Pally - Wade
Lee Majdoub - Agent Stone
Neal McDonough - Major Berrington
Tom Butler - Vice Chairman Walters
Frank C. Turner - Crazy Carl
Melody Nosipho Niemann - JoJo
Terence Kelly - Farmer Zimmer
Benjamin Vilac - Baby Sonic
(Voice)
Donna Jay Fulks - Longclaw
(Voice)
Garry Chalk - Navy Chief of
Staff (Cameo)
Colleen O'Shaughnessey - Miles "Tails" Prower (Voice)
(Cameo) (Uncredited)
Crew
Executive Producer/Director - Jeff Fowler
Based on Characters - Yuji Naka,
Naoto Ohshima and Hirokazu Yasuhara
Writers - Patrick Casey and Josh Miller
Executive Producers - Toby Ascher,
Masanao Maeda, Tim Miller, Nan Morales
and Hajime & Haruki Satomi
Producers - Takeshi Ito,
Neal H. Moritz and Toru Nakahara
Co-Producers - Dan Jevons and
Dmitri M. Johnson
Production Designer - Sean Harworth
Graphic Designers - Shannon Courte and
Tyson Hesse
Costume Designer - Debra McGuire
Cinematography - Stephen F. Windon
Second Unit Director - Peter Lyons Collister
Stunt Coordinator - Garvin Cross
Special Effects Supervisor - Alex Burdett
Visual Effects Supervisors - Chris Uyede
and Ged Wright
Visual Effects Supervisor: Marza Animation -
David Nelson
Film Editors - Debra Neil-Fisher and
Stacey Schroeder
Music - Junkie XL
Review
Remember what I said in my review of 'Wreck-It Ralph' that I wished for a movie adaptation of Sonic the Hedgehog to be made. It has finally come true but not in the way you would expect. I've already reviewed one film that was based on the video game character which was actually a two-episode anime miniseries. I was skeptical of the new 'SONIC THE HEDGEHOG' movie which I thought would not work in live-action. This is because I looked at the teaser that featured an unsettling CGI design of Sonic which was too bizarrely realistic and many other fans felt the same way as I did. Fortunately, they re-designed it and fans were much happier with this design.
A energetic and (no pun intended) fast-paced movie that manages to get the character right into the big screen. Unlike several video game movies with the exception of 'Detective Pikachu', this movie does justice to the original source material. There is one drawback from 'SONIC'that keeps it from winning over the critics which is the overly simplistic and predictable story-line.
The best aspect of this movie aside from the redesign of Sonic was Jim Carrey's performance as Dr. Robotnik. Carrey was back in comedic form as the over-the-top evil genius, it reminds me of his early roles back when he had the frantic energy to make audiences laugh. I also thought that Ben Schwartz was funny as the voice of the titular protagonist, and he played well against James Marsden's straight arrow performance of Tom which held the otherwise chaotic film together.
I really think you should go see 'SONIC THE HEDGEHOG', some fans may not like it but that shouldn't stop the rest of you from going to see it.
Star rating: (7/10) Good Movie
Back to Home
↧
In Memory of Max Von Sydow (1929-2020)
Max Von Sydow (1929-2020)
It is with huge sorrow that the Swedish-born actor Max Von Sydow has died at the ripe old age of 90 on March 8th 2020. He was known in Sweden in 11 movies that were directed by Ingmar Bergman such as 'The Seventh Seal'and internationally in films like 'The Exorcist', 'Flash Gordon', 'Dune', 'Hannah and Her Sisters', 'Awakenings', 'Minority Report' and 'Shutter Island'.
Max was a seasoned veteran and his career had spanned in almost seven decades. Starting in 1949 when he made his screen debut and in the mid 1950s, Max was approached by filmmaker Ingmar Bergman who was at the time, the chief director of Malmö City Theatre. Their first film together in 1957 was 'The Seventh Seal'in which Von Sydow was cast as a disillusioned knight from the 14th century who has returned to Sweden after fighting in the Crusades. The film featured an iconic scene of the character when he plays a game of chess with Death. Von Sydow's acting profile was progressing while he was working extensively in his homeland of Sweden. A number of times, he was approached for international roles like the titular antagonist in 'Dr. No'and Captain Von Trapp in 'The Sound of Music'but turned them down. It was not until 1965 that Sydow took up an offer from American director George Stevens when he was cast as the biblical figure Jesus Christ in the epic movie 'The Greatest Story That Ever Told'. While the film proved to be his international debut, it was not an instant success at the box office. In 1973, Sydow had gained international success for portraying Father Lankester Merrin in the William Friedkin's terrifying horror feature 'The Exorcist'. He later reprised his role in the sequel 'Exorcist II: The Heretic'.
In 1989, Von Sydow was nominated for Best Actor in 'Pelle the Conqueror' and again in 2012 for Best Supporting Actor in 'Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close'. Max had other notable film roles that were in his profile including 'The Reward' where he played a crop-dusting pilot, a reverend in 'Hawaii', and Ming the Merciless in the cult sci-fi movie 'Flash Gordon'. He also appeared in numerous films such as 'Conan the Barbarian', 'Dune', 'Hannah and Her Sisters', 'Ghostbusters II', 'Awakenings', 'Judge Dredd', 'Minority Report', The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, 'Rush Hour 3', 'Shutter Island', 'Robin Hood'and 'Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens'. Outside of his movie appearances, Von Sydow had appeared in television including a guest voice in 'The Simpsons'as well as portraying the Three-Eyed Raven in 'Game of Thrones'for which he was nominated for a Primetime Emmy Award. He even lend his voice in the world of video gaming such as Esbern in 'Skyrim'.
My condolences to his family and friends.
↧
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End Review
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Release Date: 24th May 2007 - Australia
Production Companies
Walt Disney Pictures
Jerry Bruckheimer Films
Distribution
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Australia
Genre: Action/Adventure
Rating: M
Runtime: 168 minutes
Budget: $300,000,000
Box Office Gross: $963,420,425
(Worldwide)
Plot Summary
Will Turner, Elizabeth Swann and Captain Barbossa embark on the near impossible tasks of rescuing Jack Sparrow from Davy Jones' Locker and enlisting the support of the other pirate lords to combat the force of Lord Beckett and Davy Jones himself (who is under Beckett's control).
Cast
Johnny Depp - Captain Jack Sparrow
Geoffrey Rush - Hector
Barbossa
Bill Nighy - Davy Jones
Orlando Bloom - Will Turner
Keira Knightley - Elizabeth
Swann
Jack Davenport - Norrington
Jonathan Pryce - Governor Weatherby Swann
Keith Richards - Captain Teague
Kevin McNally - Joshamee Gibbs
Stellar Skarsgard - Bootstrap Bill
Chow Yun-fat - Captain Sao Feng
Lee Arenberg - Pintel
Mackenzie Crook - Ragetti
Tom Hollander - Cutler Beckett
Naomie Harris - Tia Dalma
David Bailie - Cotton
Martin Klebba - Marty
David Schofield - Mercer
Alex Norton - Captain Bellamy
Dermot Keaney - Maccus
Andy Beckwith - Clanker
Clive Ashborn - Koleniko
Reggie Lee - Tai Haung
Christopher Adamson - Jimmy Legs
Jonathan Linsley - Oglively
John Boswall - Wyvern
Max Baker - Burser
Steve Speirs - Quartermaster
Greg Ellis - Lt. Theodore Groves
Giles New - Murtogg
Angus Barnett - Mullroy
Lauren Maher - Scarlett
Vanessa Branch - Giselle
Dominic Scott Kay - Henry Turner
Crew
Director - Gore Verbinski
Based on Characters/Writers - Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio
Based on Characters - Stuart Beattie and Jay Wolpert
Executive Producers - Mike Stenson, Chad Oman and Bruce Hendricks
Executive Producer/Unit Production Manager - Eric McLeod
Producer - Jerry Bruckheimer
Historical Advisor - Peter Twist
Casting Director - Denise Chaiman
Production Designer - Rick Heinrichs
Creature Concepts - Mark 'Crash' McCreerySet Decorator - Cheryl Carasik
Costume Designer - Penny Rose
Makeup Effects Creator/
Department Head - Ve Neill
Makeup Effects Supervisor/Key Makeup Artist/Prosthetic Makeup Designer - Joel Harlow
Additional Makeup Supervisor/Tattoo Designer - Ken Diaz
Director of Photography - Dariusz Wolski
Second Unit Director/Stunt Coordinator - George Marshall Ruge
Second Unit Director/Visual Effects Supervisor - Charles Gibson
Sword Master/Stunt Double: Geoffrey Rush/Bill Nighy - Thomas DuPont
Special Effects Director - John Frazier
Special Effects Director/Coordinator: Bahamas - Allen Hall
Special Effects Coordinator/Gimbal Foreman: Bahamas -
Mark Hawker
Visual Effects Supervisor - John Knoll
Visual Effects Supervisor: ILM - Roger Guyett
Visual Effects Supervisor: The Orphanage - Kevin Baillie
Visual Effects Supervisor: Digital Domain - Bryan Grill
Visual Effects Art Director - Aaron McBride
Animation Supervisors - David Andrews and Hal T. Hickel
Digital Supervisor - Mike Sanders
Digital Effects/Computer Graphics Supervisor: The Orphanage -
Euan K. MacDonald
Creature Model Supervisor: ILM - Geoff Campbell
Models and Miniatures Unit Supervisor: Kerner Optical -
Charles Bailey
Film Editors - Craig Wood and Stephen Rivkin
Sound Mixer: Skywalker Sound/Supervising Sound Editor/
Designer - Christopher Boyes
Music Supervisor - Bob Badami
Music - Hans Zimmer
Composer: Additional Music/Conductor - Nick Glennie-Smith
Composers: Additional Music - Lorne Balfe,
Tom Gire, Henry Jackman, John Sponsler,
Geoff Zanelli and Atli Orvarsson
Composer: Additional Music/Musician - Heitor Pereria
Awards
2008 Academy Awards
Best Makeup - Ve Neill and Martin Samuel (Nominated)
Best Visual Effects - John Knoll, Charles Gibson, Hal T. Hickel and John Frazier (Nominated)
Review
'AT WORLD'S END' was supposed to be the grand finale of the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' movies. In fact, there were two more movies to come including 'On Stranger Tides'. However, this eventuality does not take away from the spectacle of 'AT WORLD'S END'. This instalment is a highly intricate though less daring adventure fantasy movie. Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer were the masterminds behind its reduced swashbuckling action and it felt like this episode of 'Pirates'was so convoluted it felt like it could sink into the depths of the ocean.
Like 'Dead Man's Chest' before, it's not quite as entertaining as the first movie 'The Curse of the Black Pearl'. The second and third films are linked both in terms of the plot and being glamorously over-produced for definite success at the box office. Despite this, neither had the same charm as the original. Because of this, fans might find this film to be jarring and not the kind of fantasy adventure film that we've come to expect. This creates an inconsistent tone that drew the film onto a new path. The story-line was confusing and required a lot more concentration than viewers might have realised. The pirates have an implosion rather than a united fight against their adversaries.
I thought that Keith Richards was interesting as Jack Sparrow's dad, which is fitting given that Depp famously modeled his Jack Sparrow on the musician himself.
'AT WORLD'S END'is a decent movie but is short of eight pieces. I recommend this film to all audiences, but don't expect it to live up to the original.
Star rating: (6/10) Fair Movie
↧
In Memory of Andrew Jack (1944-2020)
Andrew Jack (1944-2020)
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, I regret to inform you that Star Wars actor and dialect coach Andrew Jack has passed away of coronavirus on 31st March 2020, he was 76 years old.
Andrew had starred in 'The Force Awakens'and 'The Last Jedi'playing Caluan Ematt, a major (now general) for the Resistance as well as providing the voice of Moloch in 'Solo: A Star Wars Story'. He has worked with over 200 actors, among them are Robert Downey, Jr., Pierce Brosnan and Chris Hemsworth.
Jack even worked as a supervising dialect coach on 'The Lord of the Rings'series where he taught the actors to speak in their Middle-Earth accents as well as Elvish and Black Speech. He also taught the cast members to speak in their Greek and Trojan accents that he created for the movie 'Troy'.
Back to Home
↧
↧
Paul Blart: Mall Cop Review
Paul Blart: Mall Cop
Release Date: 19th March 2009 - Australia
Production Companies
Columbia Pictures (presents)
Relativity Media (in association with)
Happy Madison Productions
Distribution
Sony Pictures Australia
Genre: Action/Comedy
Rating: PG
Runtime: 91 minutes
Budget: $26,000,000
Box Office Gross: $183,348,429 (Worldwide)
Plot Summary
All his life, mild-mannered Paul Blart has dreamed of becoming a state trooper but is instead a security officer in a local mall of New Jersey. When a gang of crooks invade the mall and has taken some hostages, it's up to Paul Blart to rescue them and defend the mall from intruders as he must go from being mall cop to real cop!
Cast
Kevin James - Paul Blart
Keri O'Donnell - Veck Simms
Jayma Mays - Amy
Raini Rodriguez - Maya
Shirley Knight - Mom
Stephen Rannazzisi - Stuart
Peter Gerety - Chief Brooks
Bobby Cannavale - Cmdr. James Kent
Adam Ferrara - Sergeant Howard
Jamal Mixon - Leon
Adhir Kalyan - Pahud
Erick Avari - Vijay
Mike Vallely - Rudolph
Jason Ellis - Prancer
Jason Packham - Comet
Rick Thorne - Cupid
Victor Lopez - Donner
Natascha Hopkins - Vixen
Mookie Barker - Mr. Ferguson
Dylan Clark Marshall - Jason
Bernie McInerney - Old Man on Scooter
Gary Valentine - Karaoke Singer
Crew
Director - Steve Carr
Writer - Nick Bakay
Writer/Producer - Kevin James
Executive Producer - Jeff Sussman
Consulting Producer - Duane A. Dahl
Producers - Barry Bernardi, Todd Garner, Jack Giarraputo and Adam Sandler
Production Designer - Perry Andelin Blake
Art Director - Alan Au
Costume Designer - Ellen Lutter
Director of Photography - Russ T. Alsobrook
Stunt Coordinator - Chris O'Hara
Special Effects Coordinator - Ray Bivins
Film Editor - Jeff Freeman
Music - Waddy Wachtel
Review
In light of COVID-19 that is happening across the world, I was so disappointed that several new movies' release dates have been postponed and all of the cinemas were temporarily closed. This fear of pandemic was widespread that it caused everyone to stay at home and began social distancing. Fortunately, it didn’t stop me from continuing to review movies. One of the films I did watch while being self-isolated was 'PAUL BLART: MALL COP'. I was supposed to review this comedy before 2020 and I ended up doing it anyway. The film has some great laughs, but the jokes were a hit-or-miss and the storyline is predictable. It feels like a stale lighthearted parody of 'Die Hard'only without the fun and gratuitous violence. I liked the moment when Paul gets drunk under the influence of alcohol and then makes a fool out of himself. Kevin James wasn't a bad comedian and though he had a knack for playing overweight characters. James' portrayal was decent but it won't save the movie of its shortcomings.
'PAUL BLART: MALL COP' is not one of my favourite comedies and was an average movie at best. I was surprised that the film did have a sequel which is improbable because there is no way it could prove stronger than the original.
Star rating: (5/10) Average
Back to Home
↧
Into the Storm Review
Into the Storm
Release Date: 4th September 2014 - Australia
Production Companies
Broken Road Productions
New Line Cinema
RatPac-Dune Entertainment
Village Roadshow Pictures
Distribution
Roadshow Distribution
Genre: Thriller
Rating: M
Runtime: 89 minutes
Budget: $50,000,000
Box Office Gross: $161,702,194 (Worldwide)
Plot Summary
An unprecedented onslaught of tornadoes begins to ravage the entire town of Silverton where a group of storm chasers are busy tracking the storms and a widowed vice-principal of a high school with two teenage sons is organising the graduation ceremony. These people must get themselves in a safer haven, even they have to seek shelter or otherwise get sucked in the vortex.
Cast
Richard Armitage - Gary
Sarah Wayne Callies - Allison
Matt Walsh - Pete
Max Deacon - Donnie
Nathan Kress - Trey
Alycia Debnam-Carey - Kaitlyn
Arien Escarpeta - Daryl
Jeremy Sumpter - Jacob
Lee Whittaker - Lucas
Kyle Davis - Donk
Jon Reep - Reeves
Scott Lawrence - Principal Thomas Walker
David Drumm - Chester
Brandon Ruiter - Todd White
Jimmy Groce - Studious Male
Linda Gehringer - Linda
Keane Wayne Winterhalt - Grace
Maryann Nagel - Ms. McGee
Crew
Director - Steven Quale
Writer/Co-Producer (Uncredited) - John Swetnam
Executive Producers - Bruce Berman, Richard Brener, Walter Hamada, Dave Neudstater and Jeremy Stein
Executive Producer/Unit Production Manager - W. Mark McNair
Producer - Todd Garner
Casting Director - Mindy Marin
Production Designer - David Sandefur
Art Director - Marco Rubeo
Costume Designer - Kimberly Adams-Galligan
Cinematography - Brian Pearson
Stunt Coordinators - Bob Brown and Scott Workman
Special Effects Coordinator - Joe Pancake
Visual Effects Supervisor: Digital Domain - Jay Barton
Visual Effects Supervisor: Method Studios London - Simon Carr
Digital Effects Supervisor - Nikos Kalaitzidis
Animation Supervisor - Erik Gamache
Animation Director: Method Studios - Keith Roberts
Film Editor - Eric A. Sears
Music - Brian Tyler
Review
There's a reason why 'INTO THE STORM'is not exactly the best disaster movie of the year. Probably because it's too similar to another disaster film 'Twister' which came out 18 years before this film. It's interesting that this movie is more different to what we expect from a Hollywood feature.
It was mostly shot in found footage which gives the film a natural look, in addition using plain and modern cinematography for additional effects. Unfortunately, the movie is much too reliant on bland characterisations and bad writing than each of its visual aspects. Director Steven Quale is known for directing 'Final Destination 5'was probably not bad at helming this feature, but his efforts are nothing special.
One thing that also bothered me in the film is that there are two characters who are amateur daredevils given that they chase these storms as the title suggests. They are misplaced and they should have been in a different movie. I believe that they weren’t really necessary in 'INTO THE STORM'and I also think that if the film had been directed by Michael Bay for example, these two characters would have worked as comic relief. If those hillbillies could have been killed by getting sucked into a tornado, they should have stayed dead, given how useless they were in the plot.
There are not many recognisable names in the cast except for Richard Armitage, Sarah Wayne Callies and Matt Walsh who were probably the only known actors in the film. Though Armitage does give in to a subdued performance in this movie than any of his co-stars.
Not quite as bad as I hoped, 'INTO THE STORM'is a decent movie that does have its flaws. Its entertainment value will probably be best suited for average moviegoers.
Star rating: (6/10) Fair Movie
↧
Small Soldiers Review
Small Soldiers
Release Date: 17th September 1998 - Australia
Production Companies
DreamWorks Pictures (present)
Universal Pictures (present)
Amblin Entertainment (copyright holder)
Distribution
Universal Pictures Australia
Genre: Family/Action
Rating: PG
Runtime: 106 minutes
Budget: $40,000,000
Box Office Gross: $71,743,823 (Worldwide)
Plot Summary
Alan Abernathy is a teenager whose dad runs the toy store is trying out a new line of action figures called The Commando Elite vs. The Gorgonites. Unfortunately, these were no ordinary toys as the company that makes them have installed military microchips into their series of action figures that gives them a mind of their own. Alan winds up being recruited to help the peace-loving Gorgonites battle against the dangerous Commandos. Can Alan defend his home and family and rescue the girl of his dreams before his whole neighbourhood is terrorised?
Cast
Gregory Smith - Alan Abernathy
Tommy Lee Jones - Chip
Hazard (Voice)
Frank Langella - Archer (Voice)
Kirsten Dunst - Christy Fimple
Jacob Smith - Timmy Fimple
Wendy Schaal - Marion Fimple
Phil Hartman - Phil Fimple
Jay Mohr - Larry Benson
Kevin Dunn - Stuart Abernathy
Ann Magnuson - Irene Abernathy
Denis Leary - Gil Mars
David Cross - Irwin Wayfair
Dick Miller - Joe
Alexandra Wilson - Ms. Kegel
Jonathan Bouck - Brad
Robert Picardo - Ralph, Clean Room Technician
Ernest Borgnine - Kip Killagin (Voice)
Jim Brown - Butch Meathook (Voice)
Bruce Dern - Link Static (Voice)
George Kennedy - Brick Bazooka (Voice)
Clint Walker - Nick Nitro (Voice)
Christopher Guest - Slamfist/
Scratch-It (Voice)
Michael McKean - Insaniac/
Freakenstein (Voice)
Harry Shearer - Punch-It (Voice)
Sarah Michelle Gellar - Gwendy
Doll (Voice)
Christina Ricci - Gwendy
Doll (Voice)
Marcia Mitzman Gaven -
Globotech Announcer (Voice)
Crew
Director - Joe Dante
Writers - Gavin Scott, Adam Rafkin, Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio
Executive Producers - Walter F. Parkes and Steven Spielberg (Uncredited)
Producers - Colin Wilson and Michael Finnell
Co-Producer/Unit Production Manager - Paul Deason
Casting Director - Denise Chaiman
Production Designer - William Sandwell
Supervising Art Director - Mark W. Mansbridge
Set Decorator - Rosemary Brandenburg
Costume Designer - Carole Brown-James
Makeup Effects Supervisors/Puppeteers -
John Rosengrant and J. Alan Scott
Director of Photography - Jamie Anderson
Second Unit Director/Stunt Coordinator -
M. James Arnett
Special Effects Supervisor - Keith Marbory
Special Effects Coordinator - Ken Pepiot
Action Figures and Animatronics Design -
Stan Winston
Visual Effects Supervisors - Stefen Fangmeier
and Jeff Matakovich
Visual Effects Co-Supervisor - Ellen Poon
Visual Effects Art Director - George Hull
Computer Graphics Supervisors: ILM -
Gerald Gutschmidt, Erik Mattson and
Carl N. Frederick (Uncredited)
Animation Supervisor - David Andrews
Film Editors - Marshall Harvey and Michael Thau
Music - Jerry Goldsmith
Review
As a kid, I saw 'SMALL SOLDIERS'for the first time and before viewing the movie, I didn't know that the Commando Elite were the main antagonists, not the heroes as I thought of it to be. This film had a cool and creative concept of toys attacking humanity and each other that makes 'Toy Story'look kid-friendly and less violent. 'SMALL SOLDIERS'was not a kids movie that it was clearly advertised by DreamWorks, it was in fact originally intended for teens which explains that there are some dark scenes in the finished product.
Joe Dante despite known for directing cult classics (apart from his only success with 'Gremlins') has never done something this similar to his hit film. The special effects are dandy but some of them didn't age well, particularly the CGI. The performances from the actors are first-rate, but they never stood out so well in the movie. I really like how Dante got to employ some of the surviving 'Dirty Dozen'members to voice the soldiers, while Christopher Guest and his fellow Spinal Tap players portray the friendly Gorgonites. The film even features a heartwarming dedication to the late Phil Hartman who plays Kirsten Dunst's fictional dimwitted dad.
While smart, clever and funny, 'SMALL SOLDIERS'was almost as good as 'Gremlins'and is worth-seeing for everyone.
Star rating: (7/10) Good Movie
↧ | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 57 | https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/11/mank-david-fincher-review/617012/ | en | Why a Movie About 1930s Hollywood Resonates Today | [
"https://cdn.theatlantic.com/_next/static/images/nav-archive-promo-5541b02ae92f1a9276249e1c6c2534ee.png",
"https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/images/current-issue.large.jpg",
"https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/img/specialreports/lead/2020/10/14/Thumbnail.jpg",
"https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/files... | [] | [] | [
"writer of Citizen Kane",
"David Fincher’s new biographical film",
"screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz",
"tent of William Randolph Hearst",
"glamorous Old Hollywood movie set",
"best film",
"Fincher’s film",
"Kane’s first draft",
"Orson Welles masterpiece",
"tortured creation of Citizen Kane",
"G... | null | [
"David Sims"
] | 2020-11-09T16:29:10+00:00 | David Fincher’s new Netflix film, <em>Mank</em>, is about the tortured making of <em>Citizen Kane</em>. But it has plenty to say about the entertainment industry—and America—of 2020. | en | https://cdn.theatlantic.com/_next/static/images/favicon-3888b0e329526a975703e3059a02b92d.ico | The Atlantic | https://www.theatlantic.com/culture/archive/2020/11/mank-david-fincher-review/617012/ | The screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz is an odd sight on a glamorous Old Hollywood movie set. As played by Gary Oldman in David Fincher’s new biographical film, Mank, he’s a disheveled figure on the sidelines, an acclaimed New York wordsmith brought to serve as a cog in a giant Los Angeles machine. During a movie shoot, “Mank” makes a wisecrack that gets him summoned to the tent of William Randolph Hearst, the famous newspaper magnate and movie producer (played by Charles Dance). To Hearst, Mankiewicz is little more than a court jester, an amusing addition to his collection of oddball pals. To Mankiewicz, Hearst represents something more serious and frightening.
Today, Mankiewicz is most remembered as a co-writer of Citizen Kane, the Orson Welles masterpiece widely interpreted as a scathing critique of Hearst and the tycoon class he belonged to. And although some of Mank (which debuts in theaters Friday and on Netflix next month) is concerned with the arduous process of writing Kane’s first draft, Fincher’s film has a grander scope. It interrogates the fragile dynamic between creator and mogul that’s essential to the Hollywood business of hammering art into commerce, whether in the 1930s or today. In Mankiewicz, Fincher has found a perfect unsung hero, a man who tried to reckon with an industry that so often puts business before authenticity—and ended up writing what is considered the best film ever made.
One might dismiss Mank as a niche story that relitigates old arguments about the tortured creation of Citizen Kane and the extent to which that film was a condemnation of Hearst and his partner, the actor Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). But Kane is just an anchor for Fincher’s deeper exploration of the monolithic conservatism of 1930s Hollywood. When Mank takes place, the Great Depression is raging, and American cinema is booming. The industry is stamping out political radicalism, and most of its storytelling power is concentrated in the hands of mega-moguls such as Jack Warner, Darryl Zanuck, and Louis B. Mayer.
Similar to Citizen Kane, Mank unfurls much of its narrative via flashback. The film drifts between Mankiewicz toiling away at the Kane screenplay in a secluded lodge and his memories of his friendship with Hearst, Davies, and Mayer (who hired him to work at MGM Studios). A former drama critic and playwright, Mankiewicz moved West like many great writers of the era—F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Faulkner, Dorothy Parker—to dash off crowd-pleasers in exchange for a healthy paycheck. “This is a business where the buyer gets nothing for his money but a memory,” Mayer (a wonderfully grouchy Arliss Howard) barks to Mankiewicz. “What he bought still belongs to the man who sold it. That’s the real magic of the movies.”
Don’t be fooled by Mank’s old-fashioned presentation—by the black-and-white cinematography, echoey dialogue, and melodramatic throwback score. This movie is surprisingly resonant in 2020. Since Disney’s acquisition of Fox in 2019, Hollywood is the most centralized it’s been since its Golden Age. Even newer upstarts like Netflix, which is releasing Mank, are multibillion-dollar monoliths aiming for global domination with every major release.
The film speaks to the creative frustrations of working within such a rigid system, something Fincher himself has experienced. His first movie, Alien 3, had a notoriously difficult production during which he clashed with the studio and lost control of the final cut. In a recent interview, Fincher ruefully recalled being “a hired gun [asked] to make a library title for a multinational, vertically integrated media conglomerate.” It’s no wonder he admires the ornery Mankiewicz, a man who always goes one joke too far, drinks one glass too many, and crows about being the one angry socialist in a room of millionaires.
Fincher’s filmography includes generational classics such as Seven, Fight Club, Zodiac, and The Social Network, all movies focused on obsessive and sometimes abrasive figures struggling against what they perceive as a hostile world. Mank is full of nostalgic visual splendor, and certain shots evoke the deep-focus magic of Kane, but the vintage vibe only goes so far. There’s a digital crispness to the black-and-white photography, lending a bizarre sense of clarity where older films might look warmer and fuzzier. The look fits the hard-bitten perspective of Mankiewicz, who churned out fanciful scripts for his studio but viewed the industry with deep cynicism.
Mankiewicz spends much of the film in Hearst’s good graces, charming the magnate with self-deprecating bons mots and just enough truth-telling to remain interesting; his relationship with Davies, an actress who was Hearst’s longtime partner, is chummy to the point of flirtation. But California’s 1934 gubernatorial election, a mostly forgotten bit of political history that pitted the Republican Frank Merriam against the famed author and avowed socialist Upton Sinclair, is what finally fractures their relationship. Sinclair’s End Poverty in California campaign called for guaranteed pensions, tax reform, and massive public works, and was decried by the right as encroaching communism. MGM, in league with Hearst, produced propagandist newsreels to discredit Sinclair that played in cinemas around the state.
As Fincher put it, the studio and Hearst “sort of pioneered fake news,” using the glitz and glamour of cinema to manipulate audiences and distract people from a duller reality. This plotline hits hardest in Mank, which is arriving after a drawn-out presidential-election season choked with falsehoods on cable news and distorted social-media feeds. Fincher didn’t set out to make a movie about today’s politics; he’s telling a universal story about trying to change an industry (and a world) in which every system seems freighted with inertia. Mankiewicz isn’t quite a radical, nor is he especially principled. Still, in trying to make sense of his experiences with Hearst through a Hollywood narrative, he transforms a familiar tale about shattered idealism into a revolutionary work of art.
Is the power of Citizen Kane solely thanks to Mank? Fincher, working from a screenplay by his father, Jack (a journalist who died in 2003 and has no other scripts to his name), knows that would be too bold a claim. Kane’s co-writer, a 25-year-old Welles, is imposing and charismatic as played by Tom Burke, but he’s portrayed as secondary in Mank, waiting to take the reins once Mankiewicz is done writing. Welles is yet another egotistical giant whom the humble screenwriter bumps up against while trying to do his job. With Citizen Kane, an electrifying young filmmaker collaborated with a jaded old storyteller at the perfect moment, seizing on the wounded heart of Mankiewicz’s script to decry the allure and hubris of America’s titans of industry. In that way, Mank is a tale of triumph, the kind that’s been told countless times on the silver screen, but never quite with this moving blend of realism and regret. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 35 | https://www.britannica.com/biography/Orson-Welles/At-RKO-Citizen-Kane-and-The-Magnificent-Ambersons | en | Orson Welles - Film Director, Actor, Producer | [
"https://cdn.britannica.com/mendel/eb-logo/MendelNewThistleLogo.png",
"https://cdn.britannica.com/mendel/eb-logo/MendelNewThistleLogo.png",
"https://cdn.britannica.com/65/194365-004-64099B1A/Orson-Welles.jpg",
"https://cdn.britannica.com/60/198760-004-D3AE3D9B/Orson-Welles-1939.jpg",
"https://cdn.britannica... | [] | [] | [
"Orson Welles",
"encyclopedia",
"encyclopeadia",
"britannica",
"article"
] | null | [
"Michael Barson"
] | 1999-05-04T00:00:00+00:00 | Orson Welles - Film Director, Actor, Producer: Citizen Kane (1941) is arguably the greatest movie ever to come out of Hollywood, and it is surely one of the most-impressive debuts by any director. Welles also produced and coscripted the film with Herman J. Mankiewicz. Welles submitted a joyfully energetic performance as Charles Foster Kane, the newspaper magnate (clearly based on newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst) who rises from a poor background to amass uncountable millions—none of which he is able to enjoy, thanks to his epic ambitions. Citizen Kane featured an ensemble cast in support of Welles, composed mostly of Mercury actors, and included Joseph Cotten, Agnes | en | /favicon.png | Encyclopedia Britannica | https://www.britannica.com/biography/Orson-Welles/At-RKO-Citizen-Kane-and-The-Magnificent-Ambersons | Citizen Kane (1941) is arguably the greatest movie ever to come out of Hollywood, and it is surely one of the most-impressive debuts by any director. Welles also produced and coscripted the film with Herman J. Mankiewicz. Welles submitted a joyfully energetic performance as Charles Foster Kane, the newspaper magnate (clearly based on newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst) who rises from a poor background to amass uncountable millions—none of which he is able to enjoy, thanks to his epic ambitions.
Citizen Kane featured an ensemble cast in support of Welles, composed mostly of Mercury actors, and included Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Everett Sloane, Paul Stewart, and Ruth Warrick. Shot with an array of classic and experimental techniques by Gregg Toland, evocatively scored by Bernard Herrmann, and edited brilliantly by Robert Wise, Citizen Kane was a masterpiece of moviemaking. It was also the last time Welles made a Hollywood movie that reached the screen intact.
Although it initially received rave reviews, Citizen Kane was not a financial success. RKO found the film—with its complex flashback structure and lack of an appealing protagonist—difficult to market, and its box office was also hindered by the Hearst newspapers’ using their power to hamstring its commercial prospects. Nevertheless, Citizen Kane received nine Academy Award nominations, of which Welles received three (best actor, director, and original screenplay), but only the screenplay won an Oscar.
The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) was produced, written, and directed by Welles, and to some critics it represents the peak of his artistry—even though it was taken out of his hands by RKO after poor test screenings. It was heavily reedited by Wise (44 minutes were cut), and a new ending was tacked on. The Magnificent Ambersons was adapted from Booth Tarkington’s novel about the declining fortunes of a wealthy 19th-century Indianapolis family whose smugness (and inability to comprehend the significance of industrialization and the automobile) leads to their downfall. The ensemble cast featured Tim Holt as the spoiled scion whose arrogance finally earns him a well-deserved comeuppance that nonetheless carries the weight of tragedy. Mercury actors (and Citizen Kane veterans) Cotten, Moorehead, and Ray Collins all delivered fine performances, and former silent star Dolores Costello and young Anne Baxter demonstrated Welles’s attention to his female actors. Photographed brilliantly by Stanley Cortez, The Magnificent Ambersons was nominated for a best picture Oscar.
Even while Wise was cutting The Magnificent Ambersons, Welles was in South America filming his quasi-documentary It’s All True, an anthology of three short films: “The Story of Samba (Carnaval),” about Rio de Janeiro’s annual Carnival; “My Friend Bonito,” about bullfighting; and “Four Men on a Raft,” about four humble fishermen who become national heroes after a daring voyage. RKO canceled the project midway, leaving Welles stranded in Rio. (The legendary project, never released, resurfaced when the mostly extant footage from “Four Men on a Raft” was assembled by Richard Wilson, Bill Krohn, and Myron Meisel as part of the documentary It’s All True: Based on an Unfinished Film by Orson Welles [1993].) | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 5 | https://moviemusicuk.us/2016/06/27/citizen-kane-bernard-herrmann/ | en | CITIZEN KANE – Bernard Herrmann | [
"https://moviemusicuk.us/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/citizenkane.jpg?w=595",
"https://1.gravatar.com/avatar/1de0f106cee5c35db42331ddcc451475b5bfbcd8e510cbd1b355af737c3d4685?s=32&d=&r=G",
"https://moviemusicuk.us/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/newmmuklogo-small.jpg",
"https://moviemusicuk.us/wp-content/uploads/2010... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Valentin Berger"
] | 2016-06-27T00:00:00 | 100 GREATEST SCORES OF ALL TIME Original Review by Craig Lysy RKO Studio executives were impressed with Orson Welles success on Broadway as well as his historic ground-breaking 1938 radio broadcast of “The War of the Worlds”. They perceived genius and offered him an unprecedented contract to direct a film of his creation, his own… | en | MOVIE MUSIC UK | https://moviemusicuk.us/2016/06/27/citizen-kane-bernard-herrmann/ | 100 GREATEST SCORES OF ALL TIME
Original Review by Craig Lysy
RKO Studio executives were impressed with Orson Welles success on Broadway as well as his historic ground-breaking 1938 radio broadcast of “The War of the Worlds”. They perceived genius and offered him an unprecedented contract to direct a film of his creation, his own cast and crew, and most remarkably, final cut privileges. Welles conceived a searing quasi-biopic on an American magnate’s life and legacy, collaborating with Herman Mankiewicz to fashion what is now regarded as one of the finest screenplays in cinematic history. Welles was audacious in casting the film, selecting unknowns who had never before acted in motion pictures including; himself as Charles Foster Kane, Joseph Cotten as Jedediah Leland, Dorothy Comingore as Susan Kane, Everett Sloane as Ray Collins as Susan Alexander Kane, George Coulouris as Walter Parks Thatcher, Agnes Moorehead as Mary Kane, Paul Stewart as Raymond, Ruth Warrick as Emily Kane, Erskine Sanford as Herbert Carter, and William Alland as Jerry Thompson.
Welles conceived Citizen Kane as a quasi-biopic, which offers a damning commentary on the pursuit of wealth, its corrupting influence and the hollowness of the American dream. The film’s protagonist is Charles Foster Kane, who was conceived by Welles as an amalgam of American newspaper magnates William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, as well as business tycoons Samuel Insull and Harold McCormick. The story reveals the discovery of gold on his parent’s property in 1871, which leads his mother to send him away albeit for a first-class education, but also to protect him from his abusive father. The young Kane feels betrayed and slams his beloved sled Rosebud into Walter Thatcher, who’s ward he would become. Kane receives a fine education and secures rights to his inheritance at the age of 25. He buys the New York Inquirer newspaper and uses it to enrich himself through yellow journalism, which over time devolves further to an insatiable and ruthless pursuit of power.
He destroys all of those close to him and tragically ends life as a broken man, having suffered two failed marriages, and spending his final days in social isolation, surrounded by all the luxury he had purchased for his palatial estate Xanadu. Citizen Kane was a commercial disaster because of the unremitting antagonism of Newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst who intimidated both RKO and theater owners who feared lawsuits for libel. As a result, the film had a very limited run and secured a $160,000 loss from its production cost of $839,727. The film was triumph for Welles, securing widespread critical acclaim and earning nine Academy Award nominations, winning one for Best Writing, Original Screenplay. Welles however was eventually vindicated by a revival of interest in the film, which led to a rerelease in 1956. Today film critics universally consider Citizen Kane not only the most influential film of all time, but also the greatest due to the confluence of Welles and Mankiewicz’s screenplay, Gregg Toland’s cinematography, Robert Wise’s editing and lastly, Bernard Herrmann’s musical masterpiece. Its legacy reveals that it secured first place on the American Film Institute’s greatest 100 movies list in 1998, as well as the 2007 update.
Orson Welles recognized and appreciated Herrmann’s talents as music director for CBS’ highly regarded series – Orson Welles’ “Mercury Theater of the Air”, and so when RKO Pictures signed him to a contract in 1941, he brought Herrmann along as his composer. Their first collaboration was “Citizen Kane” (1941), which earned Herrmann acclaim and his first Academy Award nomination for Best Score of a Dramatic Picture. The film is a masterpiece, set in the period of American industrialization. The brilliant screenplay by Welles and Herman Mankiewicz uses this backdrop to portray a great man’s rise and fall due to a misuse of power, which leaves him emotionally and physically isolated. Herrmann understood immediately the impetus of the film’s tragic narrative saying “it’s a picture about wealth and power… Kane, in my opinion was totally misunderstood.” Wells gave Herrmann unprecedented access and 12 weeks in which to write the score, which he used to create what I believe is one of the finest in his canon.
The score is a masterpiece of both conception and expression, which has passed into legend. Herrmann provided two primary recurring five-note leitmotifs, both of which drew inspiration from Rachmaninov’s tone poem “Isle Of The Dead”, whose main theme incorporated the “Dies Irae” (Day Of Wrath) theme from the Roman Catholic requiem Mass. Within the words of the Dies Irae chant is revealed the Day of Judgment, which devout Christians believe they will ascend to heaven while the accursed will descend unto the fire pit of Hell. We therefore can discern from Herrmann’s reference to the chant, a commentary on Kane’s moral nature. As such, the evocation of “Dies Irae” within the Power Theme informs us of an indictment of Kane’s ruthless ambitions and actions throughout the film. Juxtaposed is the Rosebud Theme, which is kindred in construct to the Power Theme, in that it also contains five notes. Yet it’s fundamental expression and its color is juxtaposed with the Power Theme. While the Power Theme is emoted as a tritone or minor third, the Rosebud Theme ends with a falling fourth, which imbues it with a subtle radiant aura of hopefulness. The Rosebud Theme therefore is intrinsically linked with the more positive influences in Kane’s life, most importantly the sled Rosebud, which embodies the memories of his lost childhood, the resultant unhappiness, and regrets that ever plague him.
I would like to credit Mark Richards, PhD author of “Citizen Kane Leitmotifs and Rachmaninoff’s Isle of the Dead” for his expert and incisive analysis from which I utilized for this paragraph. I highly recommend you read the full article at http://www.filmmusicnotes.com/citizen-kane-leitmotifs-and-rachmaninoffs-isle-of-the-dead/
Secondary themes include; his Inquirer Theme, which serves as the identity of his beloved newspaper. The music is energetic and propels each scene forward with and amazing ensemble of solo flute and oboe attended by kindred bubbling woodwinds, strings animato and vigorous cabaret can-can rhythms. Herrmann often used the cabaret can-can rhythms to support Kane’s accomplishments and singular focus on his newspaper. Lastly, we have the Time Motif, a tic-toc ostinato by harp and woodwinds, which support the passage of time. Herrmann also brought innovation in that he did not believe that he should be constrained by the make up of the traditional orchestra. He relates; “A film score can be made up of different fantastic groupings of instruments as I have done throughout my career.” Herrmann often desired to bath the audience in sonorities of kindred instruments such as four flutes joined with alto and bass flutes as a choir as was done in this film. His choir of ten harps to emote the aquatic landscape of “Beneath The 12 Mile Reef” and his choir of twelve flutes that provided the haunting ambiance of “Torn Curtain” are classic examples of sonorities in his scores. He also composed an aria for a fictional opera “Salammbo”. Herrmann purposely composed this piece to inform us that Susan, this little girl with a modest voice, has been thrown into the limelight, struggling to sing a part whose voice and range demands exceeded her native gifts. This was brilliantly conceived! Lastly, Herrmann infused his soundscape with classic waltzes and contemporaneous music of the era to provide authenticity to place and time.
The film opens without music to display the RKO and Mercury Production logos, and the film title. “Prelude” offers a masterpiece cue of conception and execution where the score’s two primary themes entwine, creating an eerie unsettling dichotomy. Herrmann created perhaps his most famous sonority with the use of four flutes, four alto flutes, four bass flutes, contrabass clarinets, tubas, trombones, low register percussion and vibraphone to create the haunting cavernous nature of Kane’s Xanadu estate. Herrmann said he wanted to create a “subterranean, strange heaviness of death and futility.” The cue opens the film proper with a view of a fence with a “No Trespassing” sign. As the camera slowly pans up Herrmann fills us with foreboding with the introduction of the Power Theme, which emanates darkly from his low register sonority of horns and woodwinds. The Rosebud Theme follows, also dwelling in the lowest register of horns and woodwinds, countered by the opening two notes of the Power Theme as we see a montage of caged monkeys, boat dock, golf course and the silhouette of Xanadu whose solitary bedroom light is suddenly extinguished at 1:38 with a timpani roll. We enter Kane’s bedroom, which dissolves into the swirling snowflakes of a snow globe he is holding in his hand carried by the Rosebud Theme by vibraphone with woodwind adornment. As he utters “Rosebud” its theme supports his expiation and the fall and shattering of the snow globe from his lifeless hand. His nurse enters, determines he has died, and pulls a sheet over his face. As the sun rises the Rosebud Theme also rises on vibraphone, yet its ascent is opposed by a descent of low register woodwinds, horns and strings. The confluence of film imagery and music for this scene was sublime.
A documentary of Kane’s life unfolds over the next nine minutes of the film supported with source music, which is not found on the album. Afterwards his newspaper editor Mr. Ralston orders an investigation into the mystery of Kane’s last word – “Rosebud”. We change scenes to “Rain” set outside of the El Rancho nightclub on a stormy night. Herrmann offers an ambient soundscape using shifting strings, woodwind figures, vibraphone, and celeste, which unsettles us with its dark, eerie auras. As the camera pans into the nightclub through the skylight, the score shifts to source jazz. Reporter Jerry Thompson tries to interview Kane’s second wife Susan Alexander Kane but is pointedly rebuffed. The dark auras of the score are sustained in “Litany” as Thompson continues his investigation at the Thatcher Memorial library with a review of Thatcher’s personal diary. The library presents more as a mausoleum than library and Herrmann supports the scene with a subdued and reverential rendering of the Power Theme by harp, muted trumpets and soft woodwind figures. “Manuscript Reading And Snow Picture” reveals Thompson sitting down to read as an orchestral surge supports the closing of the massive vault door. Muted horns riverenti are joined by the Time Motif’s ticking clock ostinato of woodwinds and harp to mark the passage of time. As we read the diary, we shift back in time at 1:00 atop shimmering violins and harp glissando where we see a young Kane playing in a snow shower outside his home. He is throwing snowballs and we see his sled; which Herrmann supports with an ethereal rendering of the Rosebud Theme by vibraphone, chimes, harp glissandi, high register woodwinds and shifting strings. The music for this scene transition was exceptional.
In the next two cues Herrmann masterfully speaks to powerful unspoken emotions swirling within, not the overt narrative unfolding on the screen. “Mother’s Sacrifice” reveals her as sole executor of the family’s wealth in an argument with her husband over her decision to send Charles East to get a first-rate education as a ward of Thatcher. She calls to Charles and takes Thatcher out to meet him. Herrmann’s music speaks from the mother’s perspective, and is full of heartache, using a sad rendering of the Power Theme – an allusion to Charles’ destiny. Her regret and resolve is carried by a clarinet doloroso. “Charles Meets Thatcher” does not go well as Charles does not wish to go. We see betrayal in his eyes as he slams the sled into Thatcher, upending him. He tries to flee, only to be called back by his father’s tough voice. His flight is supported by a solo grieving oboe, joined by muted horns and a string ascent, which is truncated by the father’s harsh voice. At 0:19 the scene changes to reveal Charles’ beloved sled Rosebud left abandoned amidst a strong snow storm. Herrmann supports the pathos of loss with the Rosebud Theme emoted by sorrowful bassoon with tremolo string adornment. We scene change once more to Charles unwrapping Thatcher’s Christmas gift of a new sled, which is supported by quivering sleigh bells and eerie trilling woodwinds.
“Galop” offers an amazing cue, full of energy, playfulness and vigor. Kane, who at 25 years of age, has inherited is great fortune and has informed Thatcher, much to his dismay, of his intent to purchase the Daily Inquirer Newspaper. The music enters as we see men reading the newspaper filled with sensational headlines, including Thatcher who day after day reads headlines attacking him and his bank. Herrmann introduces his Inquirer Theme, which propels the scene forward with and amazing ensemble of solo flute and oboe attended by kindred bubbling woodwinds, strings animato and vigorous cabaret can-can rhythms! It is so rare and enjoyable to hear this side of Herrmann. “Dissolve” reveals Kane and Thatcher in a heated argument over his newspaper and mounting financial loses. Herrmann supports the moment with interplay of a mocking Inquirer Theme and darkly draped Power Theme. In “Second Manuscript” a grim rendering of the Power Theme supports Kane’s revelation that “he would have liked to have been a different man, one that Thatcher would have hated.” A scene change to the present reveals Thompson reading the Thatcher manuscript, where we are informed that Kane has gone bust due to the Wall Street crash of 1929 and is relinquishing control of his newspapers. A forlorn Power Theme is joined by tic-toc Time Motif ostinato as Kane contemplates his grim circumstances.
“Thanks” reveals a frustrated Thompson completing his inquiry at the Thatcher Library. As the insufferable librarian advises him that it is time to leave, mocking horns and comic woodwinds inform us of his disdain. “Bernstein’s Narration” was intended to support Bernstein’s reminisces of the past, and Kane’s passing, but it excised from the film. Herrmann provides a wistful pastorale born by flute tenero and warm strings gentile to carry the moment. I believe Welles made an artistic misjudgment to remove this cue as it achieves a beautiful confluence with the imagery and film narrative. “Kane’s New Office” reveals a flashback to the day Kane with Leland and Bernstein, took possession of the Inquirer and is introduced to the staff. Interplay of and energetic Inquirer Theme and proud Trumpet born Power theme supports the scene. In “Hornpipe Polka” Kane co-opts Carter’s office and informs him that the paper will now be open 24 hours a day instead of twelve. The Time Motif joins with a comic rendering Inquirer Theme, which speaks to Carter, who is just flabbergasted. “Carter’s Exit” supports his aggrieved departure as he will not be party to transforming the Inquirer from a respected newspaper into a shameless, sensationalist tabloid. Comic woodwinds propelled by the Inquirer Theme‘s cabaret can-can rhythms support Carter’s inglorious departure. We close darkly as the camera pans into Kane’s office where he prepares the morning edition.
“Chronicle Scherzo” is a wonderful score highlight with Herrmann’s playful comic genius on full display! Kane decides to display his “Declaration of Principles” in which he commits to the paper to tell the news honestly, to tirelessly fighti for, and champion their rights as citizens and human beings. The music enters in the morning as we see hundreds of newspaper bundles readied for delivery. Strings energico and proud horns play over a propulsive timpani rhythm adorned with chattering xylophone, which perfectly propel the film’s narrative. Herrmann’s creative writing here is just superb! “Bernstein’s Presto” was intended to support Bernstein informing Leland of a communique from Kane, who is vacationing in Paris, but it was excised from the film. Herrmann offers an energetic and fast paced piece propelled by strings and woodwinds animato, jaunty percussion and festive cabaret can-can rhythms. In “Kane’s Return” a festive rendering of the vibrant cabaret can-can rhythms of the Inquirer Theme supports Kane’s return from Europe with the wonderful announcement of his engagement Emily Monroe Norton.
“Valse Presentation” reveals Leland, Bernstein and the staff gazing out the window to the street below to see Kane and his fiancée Emily, niece to the President. Herrmann supports the scene with classic elegance, a wonderful waltz with woodwind adornment. In “Sunset Narration” we return to the present with Thompson and Bernstein discussing the origins of Rosebud. In a scene change Thompson visits Leland who is hospitalized for old age-related problems, hoping to discover who was Rosebud. Herrmann creates a soundscape of palpable melancholia replete with shifting string figures, oboe doloroso and kindred woodwinds as we see a man who knows he has reached the end of his days. We end once again with Thompson failing to obtain the identity of Rosebud.
“Theme And Variations” offers a masterpiece cue, brilliant in its conception and execution. The Kane’s are having breakfast and cue supports a montage, which displays a journey through the years of their marriage. Herrmann uses a classic valzer gentile to underpin the montage. What is brilliant is how the waltz’s development mirrors the change in Charles Kane’s persona; growing increasingly more sour, harsh and arrogant over time. The confluence of music and film narrative is sublime. In scene one we have the idyllic setting of two newlyweds with professions of love, which is supported by a warm valzer gentile. At 0:55 in scene two Emily criticizes Charles for being late, and we see this is not the first time. The fluidity of the waltz is replaced by a staccato cadence by woodwinds animato and shifting string figures. At 1:12 in scene three we see a growing discord as a jealous Emily competes with the newspaper for Kane’s affection. Kane hits back by criticizing her uncle the president. A musical dichotomy arises with woodwinds animato countered by muted horns and pizzicato strings. A statement of the Power Theme is heard informing us that Kane values power over love. At 1:43 in scene four Emily and Kane argue over Bernstein’s gift. Herrmann supports with woodwinds and strings agitato accented with muted horns. In scene 5 at 2:02 Emily again criticizes the Inquirer and Kane will have none of it, rebuking her. The chasm between them is fully exposed by grim repeating statements of the Power Theme, which ends painfully with muted horns. We conclude in scene six at 2:30 with the two sitting at opposite ends of the table, emotionally divorced, as she reads the Chronicle and he reads in Inquirer, each draped in oblivious silence. Shimmering ethereal strings and a plucked harp ostinato create a lifeless, emotionless void that has become their marriage. We close returning to the future as Leland continues to reminisce with Thompson, who entices him to discuss Kane’s second wife, Susan.
In “Kane And Susan” Susan, who sought medicine for a tooth ache meets Kane on the street as she walks home. He has been splattered with mud from a passing carriage and she offers him hot water in her apartment. Kane is intrigued and accepts her offer. She tends to him and he closes her bedroom door, which she reopens. Herrmann supports their intimacy tenderly with the Rosebud Theme on solo violin, attended by kindred strings with harp adornment. “Susan’s Room” offers a beautiful romantic score highlight. It reveals that Kane has warmed to her and is flirting. He entertains her by wiggling his ears and making shadow animal figures. He is pleasantly surprised that she does not know who he is. Herrmann supports the tender moment with an extended rendering of the Rosebud Theme, which opens with solo flute tenero and strings gentile, transitions to clarinet and strings, and then returns again to solo flute with strings and harp adornment.
“Mother Memory” was intended to support Kane’s reminiscing about his mother, but was excised from the film. Plaintive strings usher in a clarinet doloroso, which inform us of Kane’s sadness regarding his mother. In “The Trip” Kane decides to run for Governor of New York and is poised to win when his campaign is upended after his political rival exposes his affair. The revelation occurs at Susan’s apartment where Gettys informs Emily of the affair. When Emily asks him to depart with her, Kane without hesitation refuses, choosing to remain with Susan. We see in her eyes devastation and the end of their marriage. Herrmann sows disquiet with a forlorn soundscape born by plaintive woodwinds, bass and vibraphone. “Getty’s Departure” reveals Emily’s departure, soon followed by Gettys. Kane is defiant, follows him down the stairs and rages, threatening to destroy him. Herrmann supports Kane with a powerful crescendo of rage, which crests with thunderous timpani strikes and blaring horns of doom. “Kane Marries” reveals Kane’s marriage to Susan, which Herrmann supports by interpolating a festive arrangement of Mendelssohn’s Wedding March embellished with horns trionfali.
In “Salaambo’s Aria” we bear witness to the score’s emotional apogee, which serves as a testament to Herrmann’s genius. Kane has built a magnificent opera house in Chicago for Susan’s debut. Her on stage wardrobe preparations are frantic and she seems overwhelmed by events. Herrmann composed an aria for a fictional opera titled “Salammbo” to support the film’s supreme scene, with Susan’s singing dubbed by soprano Janice Watson. As the curtain rises, we open with repeating grand horn declarations supported by strings appassionato and exotic woodwinds, which serve as a prelude to the aria. At 0:38 the aria commences supported by tremolo strings, exotic woodwinds, muted horns and harp glissandi, but we hear as the camera pans upwards to stage hands that her voice lacks the power and gravitas demanded by the aria. At 1:22 soft strings provide a swaying motion with woodwind adornment, which better compliment her underpowered vocals. At 2:49 proud horns declarations resound, joined by exotic woodwinds and strings romantico. At 3:10 the aria demands virtuoso singing for its grand climatic statement, which Susan clearly lacks as we build atop her strained, underpowered vocals to climax at 3:51. She cannot sustain her vocals as the part demands and she is dwarfed by the music’s concluding grand orchestral flourish. During the performance Kane hears guests mocking her performance, Bernstein falls asleep and Leland cuts out figures in his program. Kane realizes her debut was disastrous, simmers with anger and returns to the newspaper office to find Leland drunk and passed out over a scathing review of Susan’s performance. Kane takes the unfinished review and proceeds to finish it in his office as was intended by Leland.
In “Leland’s Dismissal”, Leland wakes from his stupor and is informed by Bernstein that Kane is finishing his review. As Leland enters Kane coldly fires him without remorse. The music enters darkly after Kane’s words atop grim horns, beleaguered woodwinds and a grotesque variant of the Inquirer Theme. The scene ends in the present with Thompson and Leland’s discussion. “New Dawn Music” reveals Leland being taken away by nurses. Music enters as we change scenes to the El Rancho night club with the camera again taking us inside through the skylight. Horns of regret strings doloroso and twinkling ethereal woodwinds carry us into the club, with a transition to soft jazz as we see Thompson again trying to pry information out Susan, who is clearly drunk. We flash back to the aftermath of her debut. She wants to quit singing, as she feels humiliated by the scathing reviews. Kane forces her to continue lest he lose face, and we see a montage of her singing in all the grand opera houses of America supported by her flawed aria vocals – not reprised on the album. Only after she attempts suicide does Kane relent in his demands that she continue touring.
In “Xanadu”, its dark silhouette is seen in the distance and we are carried inward atop a grim rendering of the Power Theme. Inside we see a pathetic Susan wiling away the hours with jigsaw puzzles. She is unhappy with her isolation and pleads with Kane to take he to New York where she can live life and have fun. A grim, recurring Power Theme informs us that Kane is resolute in denying her request, yet a fleeting fragment of the Rosebud Theme suggests a kernel of doubt. “Jigsaws” reveals the tic-toc monotony of the Time Motif as we see a montage of Susan playing with various jigsaw puzzles. We see dissatisfaction, weariness and unfulfillment in her eyes. “Second Xanadu” Kane walks in on Susan playing yet another jigsaw puzzle and asks how she knows that she has not played this one before? She counters by criticizing his statue collecting. Kane responds with an offer to invite guests for a picnic to which she expresses little interest. Horn blasts announce Kane’s imperious arrival and eerie woodwind descents and shifting string figures elicit the specter of the Power Theme as he willfully decides that they are going on a picnic.
In “Kane’s Picnic” we see Susan and Kane traveling with guests in a car caravan along the beach. Later in their private tent she informs him that he never gives her what she wants, thus revealing that she feels trapped in a loveless, unfulfilling marriage. As she screams at him, he slaps her and refuses her request that he apologize. Herrmann speaks to these feelings with a grotesque, mocking Blues performance by bassoon, muted horns, piano, and a drum cadence of futility. “Susan Leaves” was intended to support the scene where Susan packs her bags and leaves Kane, but Welles dialed it out of the film. Kane demands that she stay, and she refuses. He then does what we imagined impossible; he pleads with her to stay, promising to give her everything she wants – for his sake. She rebuffs him and walks out of his life, never to return. Herrmann supports the moment sadly, with interplay of the Power and Rosebud Themes, which speak to the internal struggle being waged in Kane’s mind. I believe Welles made an artistic error in omitting this music as I believe it added poignancy to Kane’s unspoken mental struggles. “El Rancho” reveals return to the present, where Susan realizes that it is morning. Soft strings and woodwinds gentile support the scene. A scene change to the Kane estate at 0:13 is supported with blaring horns barbaro declarations of the Power Theme. As the butler Raymond asks for money to reveal the identity of Rosebud, its theme is heard on a woodwind mysterioso.
“The Glass Ball” supports the aftermath of Susan’s departure. Kane’s rage erupts violently as he destroys and overturns everything in Susan’s bedroom. Only the sight of his beloved snow globe stops his rage. As he picks it up and places it in his pocket, he mutters “Rosebud”. The music enters with the snow globe, supported by the Rosebud Theme. The theme is emoted by strings doloroso and bass flute joined by a cadence of death as Kane walks alone through his cavernous palace. We conclude with a grim rendering of the Power Theme as we return to Raymond and Thompson in the present. “Finale” offers a score highlight. After cataloging and photographing Kane’s countless possessions, the reporters depart the estate as they concede they will never solve the mystery of Rosebud. As the camera pans over the multitude of crates, a sad and funereal rendering of the Power Theme by muted horns supports as a final sad testament to Kane. Slowly the music begins to soften and transforms into the Rosebud Theme on flute doloroso as we see the sled, which is clearly named Rosebud. It is grabbed by a worker as one of the many items slated to be burned. Tremolo strings sound as he tosses it into the furnace, from which erupts the Rosebud Theme on horns barbaro, slowly dissipating as the Rosebud name is burned away. At 1:48 as the black smoke flows out the chimney to the skies above horn irato declarations of the Power Theme resound powerfully. We conclude the film with a view of the “No Trespassing” sign and silhouette view of Xanadu, supported by the Power Theme emoted by muted horns, which ends in a dramatic timpani drum roll flourish.
I would like to thank Robert Townson and Varese Sarabande for this long-sought re-recording of Bernard Herrmann’s masterpiece, “Citizen Kane”. The masterful conducting by Joel McNeely with the Royal Scottish National Orchestra was superb. In terms of sound, the recording and mastering provide pristine audio quality and an exceptional listening experience. The conception and execution of this debut film score reveals Herrmann’s genius, and mastery of his craft. He understood the psychology of Kane and created the Power and Rosebud Themes, two kindred yet competing identities, which spoke to his struggle to achieve power and find happiness. In scene after scene Herrmann’s insightful music penetrated into the very sinews of Welles’ narrative, achieving a rare and poignant confluence. Folks, this score is testimony to Herrmann’s genius, a masterpiece of film score art, and what many critics believe to be, one of the finest film scores ever written. I consider it the finest film score debut ever written, one of the finest in Herrmann’s canon, a gem of the early Golden Age, and an essential score for collectors. I highly recommend purchase of this magnificent album for your collection.
For those of you unfamiliar with the score, I have included a YouTube link to the magnificent “Finale”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OraLoXS_7-4
Buy the Citizen Kane soundtrack from the Movie Music UK Store
Track Listing:
Prelude (2:59)
Rain (1:27)
Litany (1:15)
Manuscript Reading and Snow Picture (1:36)
Mother’s Sacrifice (0:50)
Charles Meets Thatcher (0:45)
Galop (0:46)
Dissolve (0:14)
Second Manuscript (0:58)
Thanks (0:08)
Bernstein’s Narration (0:37)
Kane’s New Office (0:48)
Hornpipe Polka (0:45)
Carter’s Exit (0:39)
Chronicle Scherzo (1:03)
Bernstein’s Presto (0:19)
Kane’s Return (0:26)
Valse Presentation (0:55)
Sunset Narration (2:47)
Theme and Variations (3:02)
Kane and Susan (0:28)
Susan’s Room (2:14)
Mother Memory (0:31)
The Trip (1:13)
Getty’s Departure (0:32)
Kane Marries (0:55)
Salaambo’s Aria (4:10)
Leland’s Dismissal (0:58)
New Dawn Music (0:47)
Xanadu (1:36)
Jigsaws (0:59)
Second Xanadu (1:14)
Kane’s Picnic (0:35)
Susan Leaves (1:06)
El Rancho (0:30)
The Glass Ball (1:32)
Finale (2:33)
The Night (3:06) [BONUS]
Xanadu Music (2:27) [BONUS]
Dawn (0:57) [BONUS]
Running Time: 50 minutes 40 seconds
Varese Sarabande 302-065-806-2 (1941/1999) | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 74 | https://artlark.org/2022/05/01/heart-of-darkness-in-citizen-kane/ | en | ‘Heart of Darkness’ in ‘Citizen Kane’ | [
"https://artlark.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/orson_welles-citizen_kane1.jpg?w=186&h=186&crop=1",
"https://artlark.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/51ypozuqwol.jpg?w=228&h=321",
"https://artlark.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/31y-tmbdal.jpg?w=227&h=342",
"https://artlark.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/002282.... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2022-05-01T00:00:00 | On the 1st of May 1941, the American drama film Citizen Kane, had its premiere in New York City. The film co-written, directed, produced by, and starring Orson Welles, has been considered by many of the fans and film critics one of the best, if not the best, motion pictures of all time. The day… | en | https://secure.gravatar.com/blavatar/42c7cae709d22f4d99722ba439325a23f4938beaf992d40c18ee607a2f664877?s=32 | A R T L▼R K | https://artlark.org/2022/05/01/heart-of-darkness-in-citizen-kane/ | On the 1st of May 1941, the American drama film Citizen Kane, had its premiere in New York City. The film co-written, directed, produced by, and starring Orson Welles, has been considered by many of the fans and film critics one of the best, if not the best, motion pictures of all time. The day after its premiere, The New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote in his review that Citizen Kane “…comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood.” Therefore, it seems rather surprising that, despite being nominated for nine Academy Awards, it received only one, for best original screenplay by Herman Mankiewicz and Orson Welles.
The main plot of the film is built around the life of Charles Foster Kane, a multimillionaire newspaper tycoon, whose enigmatic last word ‘Rosebud’ sets the action of the film back to his early childhood. Intrigued by and aspiring to decipher the meaning of Kane’s last word, journalist Jerry Thompson interviews friends and associates of the man in question, and Kane’s story unfolds as a series of flashbacks. He discovers evidence of a child separated from his family, who then, after getting hold of a vast fortune at the early age of twenty five, becomes the owner of a newspaper. Together with his friend Jedediah Leland, Kane enters the newspaper business with sensationalized yellow journalism. He ends up marrying the niece of the future President of the United States, and gradually assumes more and more power while successively losing touch with those around him. He eventually dies old and alone in his Florida-based palatial estate Xanadu, whispering the famous last word.
It is believed that the story line of Citizen Kane had been significantly inspired by Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, which was supposedly Welles’ next planned project after the huge success of his 1938 War of the Worlds broadcast. Apparently, after being offered a contract with RKO Pictures, Welles came to Hollywood with the intention of turning the novella into a full-length film. Conrad’s story opens and closes with a narrator speaking in the first person, but the storytelling is soon taken over by another first-person narrator, Marlow. And so, the film was meant to be told in the first person, with hand-held cameras acting as Marlow’s eyes. Welles was prepared to play both leading roles – the invisible narrator Marlow and the mysterious, self-proclaimed idealist Kurtz. With a high starting budget of $50,000, which eventually grew to, in those times astronomical $1,100,000, Heart of Darkness was due to roll on the 10th of October 1939. However, the outbreak of war in Europe affected the film industry to the point that RKO had to eventually withdraw the whole project. That is why early in 1940, Welles, Houseman, and Herman Mankiewicz started working on a script to a new film entitled American, which was the first draft of Citizen Kane. It seemed that Welles’ fascination with Heart of Darkness left a visible mark on this new project.
“Both Welles’s film and Conrad’s story are about the deaths of men who have turned themselves into kings, into self-proclaimed gods. …Kane and Kurtz are both men of limitless but frustrated potential. Kane has infinite promise, ambition and richness that refuse to work for him or satisfy him; Kurtz could have been a great writer, politician, philosopher. Both men are disappointed with the world they find and compensate by building their own isolated monarchies. Both are damned or deified according to the point of view of the person who is speaking, the multiplicity of voices and narrators on the subject of the main character being a feature of both works (in Conrad’s novella, we have interpretations of Kurtz from Marlow, the Harlequin, Kurtz’s fiancée, among others; in Welles’s film, Kane is seen through the eyes of Bernstein, Thatcher, Leland, Susan Alexander). Both works are dominated by the meaning of the dying god’s last words, which are felt to hold the key to their existence. In Heart of Darkness, they are ‘the horror, the horror’; in Citizen Kane, it is ‘Rosebud’.” (Neil Sinyard, Filming Literature: The Art of Screen Adaptation)
Furthermore, “the structure of both works is remarkably similar. Both are built around the concept of interior journeys. The search for Kurtz in Heart of Darkness is also a search for understanding Kurtz, bringing enlightenment out of the jungle. The search for ‘Rosebud’ in Citizen Kane is also a search for the explanation of Kane’s character, bringing truth from out of the shadows. In both cases, these become metaphysical journeys, a movement away from realism and towards myth – towards Kurtz as the savage god who must be sacrificed; towards Kane as Kubla Khan in his own Xanadu.” (Sinyard)
Whilst knowing of Welles’ interest in filming Heart of Darkness and the possible influence he and his script may have had on the conception, writing, and shooting of Citizen Kane, the parallels must be considered carefully. Whether the process of influence was conscious or more likely unconscious, or, a mixture of both, the probability seems high that Citizen Kane would not be the film it is without Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 21 | https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/why-citizen-kane-was-booed-at-the-1942-oscars/ | en | Why ‘Citizen Kane’ was booed at the 1942 Oscars | [
"https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/wp-content/themes/far-out-magazine/img/newsletter.gif",
"https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/wp-content/themes/far-out-magazine/logo/faroutmagazine.co.uk/minimal-logo.svg?ver=1.1.6",
"https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/wp-content/themes/far-out-magazine/logo/faroutmagazine.co.uk/plain-logo.svg?... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/8dxh3lwdOFw?feature=oembed"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Scott Campbell"
] | 2024-02-27T03:00:00+00:00 | 'Citizen Kane' is unquestionably one of the greatest movies ever made, but it still got booed at the Academy Awards for its inspirations. | en | /favicon.ico | Far Out Magazine | https://faroutmagazine.co.uk/why-citizen-kane-was-booed-at-the-1942-oscars/ | It’s not often that a directorial debut goes down in history as one of the greatest movies ever made, but Orson Welles probably expected that exact result when he sent Citizen Kane out into the world.
Welles had already gained fame and notoriety by his early 20s after a distinguished stage career was followed by his legendary radio adaptation of The War of the Worlds, leaving him fully aware of his immeasurable talent at such a young age.
Co-writing, producing, directing, and starring in his very first feature film, he was brimming with the confidence bordering on arrogance that would ultimately define the entirety of his time in Hollywood. Of course, he was correct to be so cocky, with Citizen Kane releasing a month after he’d turned 26.
It was far from a box office bonanza, though, barely recouping its budget twice over during its theatrical run before it encountered the wrath of one of the most powerful men on the planet. Welles went to great lengths to ensure William Randolph Hearst’s influence on Charles Foster Kane was kept under wraps, and looking at what happened in the aftermath; it’s easy to see why.
The media magnate banned any newspaper he owned from advertising or reviewing the film, while any mention of the title was outright prohibited. Launching a libellous smear campaign against Welles, Hearst even considered legal action for Citizen Kane, deriving so many of its story beats directly from his own life.
It didn’t prevent the epic drama from becoming an awards season favourite, with nine Academy Award nominations including ‘Best Picture’, ‘Best Director’, ‘Best Actor’, and ‘Best Screenplay’ being handed its way. However, not only did Citizen Kane emerge from the ceremony with a solitary win for the latter category, but it was reportedly booed out of the building every time its name was read out.
The caveat is that the only recorded account of the audience vociferously booing Citizen Kane nine times over during the 14th edition of the Oscars came directly from Welles himself, and he wasn’t even in attendance. That being said, the trades at the time offered further details on why it’s hardly a far-fetched tale.
In the March 1942 edition of Variety, it was suggested that John Ford’s How Green Was My Valley was viewed as the standout candidate based on its director’s status as a firmly established part of the industry hierarchy, and it would ultimately scoop four trophies on the night, pipping Citizen Kane to ‘Best Picture’ and ‘Best Director’ in the process.
It was also intimated that Hearst’s far-reaching influence could have been another key factor, positing that the only reason Welles’ film received so many nods was as a thinly-veiled apology for how he was “treated and maligned by the Hearst papers,” furthering the belief Academy voters found it undeserving of so many nominations.
Intriguingly, Welles’ prickly reputation may have also played a part. Extras were allowed to vote for ‘Best Picture’, ‘Best Song’, and the four top acting prizes at the time, which meant there were literally thousands of people who held a stake in the outcome. Furthering that assessment, it was noted how “it was patent that the mob didn’t like the guy personally,” which may have contributed to both the booing and Citizen Kane‘s poor showing. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 23 | https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/05/citizen-kane-at-70-the-legacy-of-the-film-and-its-director/237029/ | en | 'Citizen Kane' at 70: The Legacy of the Film and Its Director | [
"https://cdn.theatlantic.com/_next/static/images/nav-archive-promo-5541b02ae92f1a9276249e1c6c2534ee.png",
"https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/images/current-issue.large.jpg",
"https://cdn.theatlantic.com/media/img/specialreports/lead/2020/10/14/Thumbnail.jpg",
"https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/files... | [] | [] | [
"Orson Welles",
"film's debut",
"Citizen Kane",
"final cut of his first film",
"Times film critic A.O. Scott",
"Orson Welles's masterpiece",
"Mercury Theatre",
"best film",
"making of Citizen Kane",
"detailed notes",
"American Film Institute",
"film.Seventy years",
"influential critic Kennet... | null | [
"David W. Brown"
] | 2011-05-03T12:00:37+00:00 | As the anniversary of the premiere approaches, a look at how the movie changed the industry—and what happened to Orson Welles in the years that followed | en | https://cdn.theatlantic.com/_next/static/images/favicon-3888b0e329526a975703e3059a02b92d.ico | The Atlantic | https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/05/citizen-kane-at-70-the-legacy-of-the-film-and-its-director/237029/ | "There's only one person in the world who's going to decide what I'm going to do and that's me." – Charles Foster Kane
On the film's debut in 1941, the New York Times acknowledged that Citizen Kane was "one of the great (if not the greatest) motion pictures of all time." The paper hedged its bets, however, adding that "it was riding the crest of perhaps the most provocative publicity wave ever to float a motion picture," and that this "pre-ordered a mental attitude." The whirlwind surrounding the making of Citizen Kane is well known. Orson Welles, the brash prodigy of stage and radio, earned the envy and scorn of Hollywood veterans by striding onto the RKO lot with an unprecedented contract awarding him a three-picture deal, a massive budget, and the final cut of his first film—the Holy Grail of filmmaking. The controversial subject of his cinematic debut riled one of the most powerful men in the world, and upset the delicate balance of the studio system. Orson Welles earned every drop of ink written about his impending career in film.
Seventy years later, however, it's clear that the New York Times need not have qualified its glowing review. As Times film critic A.O. Scott recently remarked, "Citizen Kane shows Welles to be a master of genre. It's a newspaper comedy, a domestic melodrama, a gothic romance, and a historical epic." And it is still considered the best film ever made. In 1998, the American Film Institute polled 1,500 film professionals. The result was "100 Years... 100 Movies," and Orson Welles's masterpiece lorded over the list. Ten years later, the AFI commissioned another poll. Citizen Kane retained the top spot. As noted by the late, influential critic Kenneth Tynan, "Nobody who saw Citizen Kane at an impressionable age will ever forget the experience; overnight, the American cinema had acquired an adult vocabulary, a dictionary instead of a phrase book for illiterates."
The contract that gave birth to Citizen Kane was an unthinkable gamble by RKO, but the studio had good reason to bet on Orson Welles. At 20, he lorded over Broadway, first with Voodoo Macbeth, a reworking of the "Scottish play" set in the Caribbean and starring an all-African American cast. He followed triumphant reviews by establishing the Mercury Theatre and rewriting Julius Caesar, setting it in Mussolini's Italy. The curtain rose to universal acclaim. In a 1938 cover story, Time magazine wrote of Welles, "If the career of the Mercury Theatre, which next week will be six months old, seems amazing, the career of Orson Welles, who this week is 23, is no less so. Were Welles's 23 years set forth in fiction form, any self-respecting critic would damn the story as too implausible for serious consideration."
Already a radio star, Welles brought the Mercury cast and crew to CBS and founded Mercury Theater on the Air. The radio show pushed the boundaries of the format, but would explode into the national conversation after its infamous production of The War of the Worlds. Presented without commercial interruption and carefully plotted to catch radio listeners tuning the dial, it was performed as a straight news broadcast. Each "news" segment ladled tension and gravity over the airwaves, reporting peculiar lights in space that culminated in a full-scale Martian invasion.
Welles expected fallout, and he got it. And with it, the keys to Hollywood, or as he described it, "the biggest electric train set a boy ever had." Audacity and genius his trademark, and with a third medium to conquer and transform, Welles didn't think small. With the Mercury players in tow, he enlisted veteran satirist and screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. Together they crafted a story that began with the death of an enigmatic protagonist, and explored his life through flashbacks told from multiple points of view. As questions are answered, questions are raised. The script ultimately compares a man's life to a jigsaw puzzle missing pieces, and thus impossible to solve. The writers very loosely based the title character of Charles Foster Kane on William Randolph Hearst, thus incurring the newspaper titan's wrath. Welles, Mercury, RKO, and the studio heads endured journalistic scandalmongering, and the film eventually earned a blacklist. Welles would later remark, "If Hearst isn't rightfully careful, I'm going to make a film that's really based on his life."
By coincidence, as related by Welles in his autobiography, he once found himself alone in an elevator with Hearst. It was the night of Citizen Kane's San Francisco premiere, and Welles invited him to the opening. "He didn't answer. And as he was getting off at his floor, I said, 'Charles Foster Kane would have accepted.'"
If the unconventional narrative style of the film transformed screenwriting, it is the technical detail of Citizen Kane that has overwhelmed the senses of audiences for seven decades. Gregg Toland was considered to be the best cinematographer in the world at the time, and showed up at Mercury's office one day. "My name's Toland," he is reported to have said, "and I want you to use me on your picture." By way of explanation, Toland added, "I want to work with somebody who never made a movie."
Welles called Toland "the greatest gift any director—young or old—could ever, ever have," and said, "I was calling for things only a beginner would have been ignorant enough to to think anybody could ever do, and there he was, doing them."
Citizen Kane is perhaps most studied for its use of deep-focus photography, wherein the entire frame remains in focus at all time. This technique challenges audiences to search the screen for crucial pieces of the puzzle, and allows for cinematic sleight of hand. An otherwise ordinary fireplace, for example, is a background piece in Kane's mansion. It's not until Kane steps next to it that its massive size is revealed, and Kane's captivity to his outsized riches fully expressed. In another scene, when Kane loses control of his media empire, he dominates the frame, signing away his holdings while claiming a moral superiority to his new corporate masters. He then turns and walks to a window at the far end of the room, and is visually diminished. Through deep focus, the camera captures the magnitude of Kane's defeat without a single word spoken.
Yet for all its renown, for all its acclaim, for all its influence, Welles would never again "ride the crest" of greatness in Hollywood. His follow-up project, The Magnificent Ambersons, was butchered by the studio, the result of unfavorable test screenings and a loophole in Welles's contract. (Though Welles would disown the film and its altered "happy" ending, it is still considered one of the great works of American cinema.) Though sheer force of personality, Welles likely would have prevailed over the studio hands carving away at his baby. But immediately after submitting his final cut, Welles departed to Brazil to film It's All True, a documentary commissioned by the U.S. government's Good Neighbor Policy as part of the war effort.
According to Orson Welles scholar Lawrence French, It's All True was the "biggest mistake of [Welles's] life." He returned from Brazil and was fired by RKO for allegedly going over budget, and the same journalists who elevated Welles to the stratosphere pounced on his oversized personality. Though Welles would go on to helm twelve more features and contribute to dozens more (to say nothing of the literally hundreds of roles he performed as an actor) he never truly regained his cinematic luster. Critic David Thompson went so far as to call Welles a failed artist, which in Mr. French's view is absurd. "Look at the work he's done all these years. Even if he only made twelve films, they're twelve of the greatest films ever made.”
Interestingly, Orson Welles never lost his personal connection with the general public. In a March 1967 Playboy interview, Kenneth Tynan notes, "At 51, he has long since joined the select group of international celebrities whose fame is self-sustaining, no matter how widely opinions of their work may vary, and no matter how much the work itself may fluctuate in quality." Tynan places Welles on a list that includes Chaplin, Ellington, Picasso, and Hemingway. And that fame seems only to have grown with time. A countless number of biographies have been written about him, and he's featured in hundreds of books. He has been portrayed on stage and in film—notably in Tim Burton's Ed Wood, but most recently in Richard Linklater's acclaimed Me and Orson Welles. Woody Allen described Welles as "the only American director." Jack White of the band The White Stripes considers Welles a hero, and wrote a song consisting entirely of lines from Citizen Kane. In a Mother Jones interview, television virtuoso Joss Whedon admitted to weeping at the news of Welles's death, lamenting that a "great genius had been trodden down," a man that had "shown such promise and not been allowed to speak." Television and radio personality Glenn Beck went so far as to name his media company Mercury Radio Arts in honor of Welles. Film critic Roger Ebert refers to Welles solemnly as "the Great Man."
Proof that Orson Welles has ascended from "filmmaker" to "immortal" can be found in the way his incomplete works are now treated. Sealed reels of The Merchant of Venice have been stolen, just as art thieves might snatch a Renoir. There is an ongoing war for the rights to several of Welles's pictures. Nobody expects to make any money from these films—they're incomplete at best, and many reels would disintegrate when exposed to air. These battles are about being the sole owner of art itself. Meanwhile, the Welles Archive at the Munich Film Museum houses scraps of films—mere shots, really—simply to be admired. There is a fair comparison to be made with the sketchbooks of Leonardo da Vinci. Just as his scribblings are considered priceless, so too are fleeting seconds of footage filmed by the American auteur.
At the same time, there are two parts of the Welles legacy that remain unresolved. His final film, The Other Side of the Wind, remains locked in a Parisian vault, the result of a bitter rights battle between Welles's partner, Oja Kodar, the Welles estate, Beatrice Welles, and—with typical Wellesian gusto—a relative of the Shah of Iran. Orson Welles left detailed notes on how the film is to be edited, and personally tapped director Peter Bogdanovich to complete it. Though rumors surface every year that the film might finally meet an audience, there's been no real progress in the unsettled legal matters. After 40 years, however, it's unclear how a completed film would be received. Stanley Kubrick handed in the final cut of Eyes Wide Shut one week before his death, and wild expectations resulted in a critical assault on the cerebral film. (It has since received a more positive artistic reevaluation.)
In the case of The Other Side of the Wind, even in his time Welles was never an easily accessible director. But according to Mr. French, "Its style predicts films like Natural Born Killers. It uses a frenetic editing technique, it has boldness in film stocks—going from black and white to color—and it has a lot of quick cutting and wild camera movements. If it would have come out in 1975, it would have been seen as very innovative." Having viewed a rough cut of the film, Mr. French notes, "It's quite an interesting film. It's not Citizen Kane, but if it's put together right, it will be very well received." One problem is that even if the rights issues are settled, people are afraid to touch the film. "Whoever puts it together will be blamed for ruining it."
Meanwhile, there are rumors of a pristine "Orson Welles cut" of The Magnificent Ambersons, unmolested by RKO and with the original ending. A long print of the film was sent to Welles in Brazil while he was filming It's All True. It is possible that it was preserved, but many, including Mr. French, suspect this is pure fantasy. It is, however, a tantalizing fantasy. That 70 years later, a film might exist that surpasses Citizen Kane as the greatest film ever made. And that it is directed by Orson Welles. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 18 | https://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/citizen-kane/Film%3Foid%3D2982536 | en | Cleveland Scene | [
"https://www.clevescene.com/images/logos/mainLogo.jpg",
"https://media1.clevescene.com/clevescene/imager/county-dems-lend-hand-to-residents-managing-higher-property-taxes-put-blame-on-statehouse/u/r-big16x10/45003244/_m1a6505.jpg?cb=1724847180",
"https://media1.clevescene.com/clevescene/imager/concert-photos-fr... | [] | [] | [
"Cleveland Scene",
"Scene",
"Cleveland News",
"Ohio News",
"Elections",
"Arts",
"Culture",
"Restaurants",
"Concerts",
"Events",
"Things to Do in Cleveland"
] | null | [] | null | Cleveland Scene is your free source for Cleveland and Northeast Ohio news, arts and culture coverage, restaurant reviews, music, things to do, photos, and more. | en | /favicon.ico | Cleveland Scene | https://www.clevescene.com/ | "Income Isn't Rising With Property Valuations": Cuyahoga County Dems Urge State to Provide Relief on Climbing Property Taxes
Taxes have jumped following the latest sexennial reappraisal, which saw 32% valuation increases with even higher numbers in the city of Cleveland
A handful of Cuyahoga County and state Democrats gathered in a room on the fourth floor of the County Headquarters on East 9th on Tuesday morning with one consistent, resonating message: Property values are increasing next year... | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 0 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane | en | Citizen Kane | [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/icons/wikipedia.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-wordmark-en.svg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/static/images/mobile/copyright/wikipedia-tagline-en.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg/1... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Wikimedia projects"
] | 2001-08-31T17:53:47+00:00 | en | /static/apple-touch/wikipedia.png | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane | 1941 drama film by Orson Welles
For the hip hop duo, see Citizen Kane (band).
Citizen KaneDirected byOrson WellesScreenplay by
Herman J. Mankiewicz
Orson Welles
Produced byOrson WellesStarringCinematographyGregg TolandEdited byRobert WiseMusic byBernard Herrmann
Production
companies
Distributed byRKO Radio Pictures
Release dates
Running time
119 minutes[1]CountryUnited StatesLanguageEnglishBudget$839,727[2]Box office$1.8 million (re-release)[3][4]
Citizen Kane is a 1941 American drama film directed by, produced by, and starring Orson Welles. Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz wrote the screenplay. The picture was Welles's first feature film.
Citizen Kane is frequently cited as the greatest film ever made.[5] For 40 years (5 decennial polls: 1962, 1972, 1982, 1992, 2002), it stood at number 1 in the British Film Institute's Sight & Sound decennial poll of critics,[6] and it topped the American Film Institute's 100 Years ... 100 Movies list in 1998, as well as its 2007 update. The film was nominated for Academy Awards in nine categories and it won for Best Writing (Original Screenplay) by Mankiewicz and Welles. Citizen Kane is praised for Gregg Toland's cinematography, Robert Wise's editing, Bernard Herrmann's music, and its narrative structure, all of which have been considered innovative and precedent-setting.
The quasi-biographical film examines the life and legacy of Charles Foster Kane, played by Welles, a composite character based on American media barons William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, Chicago tycoons Samuel Insull and Harold McCormick, as well as aspects of the screenwriters' own lives. Upon its release, Hearst prohibited any mention of the film in his newspapers.[7]
After the Broadway success of Welles's Mercury Theatre and the controversial 1938 radio broadcast "The War of the Worlds" on The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was courted by Hollywood. He signed a contract with RKO Pictures in 1939. Although it was unusual for an untried director, he was given freedom to develop his own story, to use his own cast and crew, and to have final cut privilege. Following two abortive attempts to get a project off the ground, he wrote the screenplay for Citizen Kane, collaborating with Herman J. Mankiewicz. Principal photography took place in 1940, the same year its innovative trailer was shown, and the film was released in 1941.
Although it was a critical success, Citizen Kane failed to recoup its costs at the box office. The film faded from view after its release, but it returned to public attention when it was praised by French critics such as André Bazin and re-released in 1956. In 1958, the film was voted number 9 on the prestigious Brussels 12 list at the 1958 World Expo. Citizen Kane was selected by the Library of Congress as an inductee of the 1989 inaugural group of 25 films for preservation in the United States National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".[8][9][10] Roger Ebert wrote of it: "Its surface is as much fun as any movie ever made. Its depths surpass understanding. I have analyzed it a shot at a time with more than 30 groups, and together we have seen, I believe, pretty much everything that is there on the screen. The more clearly I can see its physical manifestation, the more I am stirred by its mystery."[11]
Plot
[edit]
In a mansion called Xanadu, part of a vast palatial estate in Florida, the elderly Charles Foster Kane is on his deathbed. Holding a snow globe, he utters his last word, "Rosebud", and dies. A newsreel obituary tells the life story of Kane, an enormously wealthy newspaper publisher and industry magnate. Kane's death becomes sensational news around the world, and the newsreel's producer tasks reporter Jerry Thompson with discovering the meaning of "Rosebud".
Thompson sets out to interview Kane's friends and associates. He tries to approach Kane's second wife, Susan Alexander Kane, now an alcoholic who runs her own nightclub, but she refuses to talk to him. Thompson goes to the private archive of the late banker Walter Parks Thatcher. Through Thatcher's written memoirs, Thompson learns about Kane's rise from a Colorado boarding house and the decline of his fortune.
In 1871, gold was discovered through a mining deed belonging to Kane's mother, Mary Kane. She hired Thatcher to establish a trust that would provide for Kane's education and assume guardianship of him. While the parents and Thatcher discussed arrangements inside the boarding house, the young Kane played happily with a sled in the snow outside. When Kane's parents introduced him to Thatcher, the boy struck Thatcher with his sled and attempted to run away.
By the time Kane gained control of his trust at the age of 25, the mine's productivity and Thatcher's prudent investing had made Kane one of the richest men in the world. Kane took control of the New York Inquirer newspaper and embarked on a career of yellow journalism, publishing scandalous articles that attacked Thatcher's (and his own) business interests. Kane sold his newspaper empire to Thatcher after the 1929 stock market crash left him short of cash.
Thompson interviews Kane's personal business manager, Mr. Bernstein. Bernstein recalls that Kane hired the best journalists available to build the Inquirer's circulation. Kane rose to power by successfully manipulating public opinion regarding the Spanish–American War and marrying Emily Norton, the niece of the President of the United States.
Thompson interviews Kane's estranged best friend, Jedediah Leland, in a retirement home. Leland says that Kane's marriage to Emily disintegrated over the years, and he began an affair with amateur singer Susan Alexander while running for Governor of New York. Both his wife and his political opponent discovered the affair, and the public scandal ended his political career. Kane married Susan and forced her into a humiliating career as an opera singer (for which she had neither the talent nor the ambition). Kane arranged for a large opera house to be built in Chicago for Susan to perform in. After Leland began to write a negative review of Susan's disastrous opera debut, Kane fired him but finished the negative review and printed it. Susan protested that she never wanted the opera career anyway, but Kane forced her to continue the season.
Susan consents to an interview with Thompson and describes the aftermath of her opera career. She attempted suicide, and Kane finally allowed her to abandon singing. After many unhappy years living at Xanadu with Kane, the two had an argument that culminated in Kane slapping Susan. Susan decided to leave Kane. Kane's butler Raymond recounts that, after Susan moved out of Xanadu, Kane began violently destroying the contents of her former bedroom. When Kane discovered a snow globe, he calmed down and tearfully said "Rosebud". Thompson concludes that he cannot solve the mystery and that the meaning of Kane's last word will remain unknown.
At Xanadu, Kane's belongings are cataloged or discarded by the mansion's staff. They find a sled, the one on which eight-year-old Kane was playing on the day that he was taken from his home in Colorado, and throw it into a furnace with other items. Unknown to the staff, the sled's trade name, printed on top, becomes visible through the flames: "Rosebud".
Cast
[edit]
The beginning of the film's ending credits states that "Most of the principal actors in Citizen Kane are new to motion pictures. The Mercury Theatre is proud to introduce them."[12] The cast is then listed in the following order, with Orson Welles' credit for playing Charles Foster Kane appearing last:[12]
Joseph Cotten as Jedediah Leland, Kane's best friend and a reporter for The Inquirer. Cotten also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[13]
Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane, Kane's mistress and second wife.[13]
Agnes Moorehead as Mary Kane, Kane's mother.[13]
Ruth Warrick as Emily Monroe Norton Kane, Kane's first wife.[13]
Ray Collins as Jim W. Gettys, Kane's political rival for the post of Governor of New York.[13]
Erskine Sanford as Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer. Sanford also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[13]
Everett Sloane as Mr. Bernstein, Kane's friend and employee at The Inquirer.[13]
William Alland as Jerry Thompson, a reporter for News on the March. Alland also voices the narrator of the News on the March newsreel.[13]
Paul Stewart as Raymond, Kane's butler.[13]
George Coulouris as Walter Parks Thatcher, a banker who becomes Kane's legal guardian.[13]
Fortunio Bonanova as Signor Matiste, vocal coach of Susan Alexander Kane.[13]
Gus Schilling as John, headwaiter at the El Rancho nightclub. Schilling also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.[13]
Philip Van Zandt as Mr. Rawlston, News on the March open at the producer.[13]
Georgia Backus as Bertha Anderson, attendant at the library of Walter Parks Thatcher.[13]
Harry Shannon as Jim Kane, Kane's father.[13]
Sonny Bupp as Charles Foster Kane III, Kane's son.[13]
Buddy Swan as Charles Foster Kane, age eight.[13]
Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane, a wealthy newspaper publisher.[13]
Additionally, Charles Bennett appears as the entertainer at the head of the chorus line in the Inquirer party sequence,[14]: 40–41 and cinematographer Gregg Toland makes a cameo appearance as an interviewer depicted in part of the News on the March newsreel.[15][16] Actor Alan Ladd, still unknown at that time, makes a small appearance as a reporter smoking a pipe at the end of the film.[17]
Production
[edit]
Development
[edit]
Hollywood had shown interest in Welles as early as 1936.[18]: 40 He turned down three scripts sent to him by Warner Bros. In 1937, he declined offers from David O. Selznick, who asked him to head his film company's story department, and William Wyler, who wanted him for a supporting role in Wuthering Heights. "Although the possibility of making huge amounts of money in Hollywood greatly attracted him," wrote biographer Frank Brady, "he was still totally, hopelessly, insanely in love with the theater, and it is there that he had every intention of remaining to make his mark."[19]: 118–119, 130
Following the 1938 "The War of the Worlds" broadcast of his CBS radio series The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was lured to Hollywood with a remarkable contract.[20]: 1–2, 153 RKO Pictures studio head George J. Schaefer wanted to work with Welles after the notorious broadcast, believing that Welles had a gift for attracting mass attention.[21]: 170 RKO was also uncharacteristically profitable and was entering into a series of independent production contracts that would add more artistically prestigious films to its roster.[20]: 1–2, 153 Throughout the spring and early summer of 1939, Schaefer constantly tried to lure the reluctant Welles to Hollywood.[21]: 170 Welles was in financial trouble after failure of his plays Five Kings and The Green Goddess. At first he simply wanted to spend three months in Hollywood and earn enough money to pay his debts and fund his next theatrical season.[21]: 170 Welles first arrived on July 20, 1939,[21]: 168 and on his first tour, he called the movie studio "the greatest electric train set a boy ever had".[21]: 174
Welles signed his contract with RKO on August 21, which stipulated that Welles would act in, direct, produce and write two films. Mercury would get $100,000 for the first film by January 1, 1940, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000, and $125,000 for a second film by January 1, 1941, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000. The most controversial aspect of the contract was granting Welles complete artistic control of the two films so long as RKO approved both projects' stories[21]: 169 and so long as the budget did not exceed $500,000.[20]: 1–2, 153 RKO executives would not be allowed to see any footage until Welles chose to show it to them, and no cuts could be made to either film without Welles's approval.[21]: 169 Welles was allowed to develop the story without interference, select his own cast and crew, and have the right of final cut. Granting the final cut privilege was unprecedented for a studio because it placed artistic considerations over financial investment. The contract was deeply resented in the film industry, and the Hollywood press took every opportunity to mock RKO and Welles. Schaefer remained a great supporter[20]: 1–2, 153 and saw the unprecedented contract as good publicity.[21]: 170 Film scholar Robert L. Carringer wrote: "The simple fact seems to be that Schaefer believed Welles was going to pull off something really big almost as much as Welles did himself."[20]: 1–2, 153
Welles spent the first five months of his RKO contract trying to get his first project going, without success. "They are laying bets over on the RKO lot that the Orson Welles deal will end up without Orson ever doing a picture there," wrote The Hollywood Reporter.[20]: 15 It was agreed that Welles would film Heart of Darkness, previously adapted for The Mercury Theatre on the Air, which would be presented entirely through a first-person camera. After elaborate pre-production and a day of test shooting with a hand-held camera—unheard of at the time—the project never reached production because Welles was unable to trim $50,000 from its budget.[a][b][22]: 30–31 Schaefer told Welles that the $500,000 budget could not be exceeded; as war loomed, revenue was declining sharply in Europe by the fall of 1939.[19]: 215–216
He then started work on the idea that became Citizen Kane. Knowing the script would take time to prepare, Welles suggested to RKO that while that was being done—"so the year wouldn't be lost"—he make a humorous political thriller. Welles proposed The Smiler with a Knife, from a novel by Cecil Day-Lewis.[22]: 33–34 When that project stalled in December 1939, Welles began brainstorming other story ideas with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who had been writing Mercury radio scripts. "Arguing, inventing, discarding, these two powerful, headstrong, dazzlingly articulate personalities thrashed toward Kane", wrote biographer Richard Meryman.[23]: 245–246
Screenplay
[edit]
Main article: Screenplay for Citizen Kane
One of the long-standing controversies about Citizen Kane has been the authorship of the screenplay.[23]: 237 Welles conceived the project with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who was writing radio plays for Welles's CBS Radio series, The Campbell Playhouse.[20]: 16 Mankiewicz based the original outline on the life of William Randolph Hearst, whom he knew socially and came to hate after being exiled from Hearst's circle.[23]: 231
In February 1940 Welles supplied Mankiewicz with 300 pages of notes and put him under contract to write the first draft screenplay under the supervision of John Houseman, Welles's former partner in the Mercury Theatre. Welles later explained, "I left him on his own finally, because we'd started to waste too much time haggling. So, after mutual agreements on storyline and character, Mank went off with Houseman and did his version, while I stayed in Hollywood and wrote mine."[22]: 54 Taking these drafts, Welles drastically condensed and rearranged them, then added scenes of his own. The industry accused Welles of underplaying Mankiewicz's contribution to the script, but Welles countered the attacks by saying, "At the end, naturally, I was the one making the picture, after all—who had to make the decisions. I used what I wanted of Mank's and, rightly or wrongly, kept what I liked of my own."[22]: 54
The terms of the contract stated that Mankiewicz was to receive no credit for his work, as he was hired as a script doctor.[24]: 487 Before he signed the contract Mankiewicz was particularly advised by his agents that all credit for his work belonged to Welles and the Mercury Theatre, the "author and creator".[19]: 236–237 As the film neared release, however, Mankiewicz began wanting a writing credit for the film and even threatened to take out full-page advertisements in trade papers and to get his friend Ben Hecht to write an exposé for The Saturday Evening Post.[25] Mankiewicz also threatened to go to the Screen Writers Guild and claim full credit for writing the entire script by himself.[21]: 204
After lodging a protest with the Screen Writers Guild, Mankiewicz withdrew it, then vacillated. The question was resolved in January 1941 when the studio, RKO Pictures, awarded Mankiewicz credit. The guild credit form listed Welles first, Mankiewicz second. Welles's assistant Richard Wilson said that the person who circled Mankiewicz's name in pencil, then drew an arrow that put it in first place, was Welles. The official credit reads, "Screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles".[23]: 264–265 Mankiewicz's rancor toward Welles grew over the remaining twelve years of his life.[26]: 498
Questions over the authorship of the Citizen Kane screenplay were revived in 1971 by influential film critic Pauline Kael, whose controversial 50,000-word essay "Raising Kane" was commissioned as an introduction to the shooting script in The Citizen Kane Book,[22]: 494 published in October 1971.[27] The book-length essay first appeared in February 1971, in two consecutive issues of The New Yorker magazine.[22]: 494 [28] In the ensuing controversy, Welles was defended by colleagues, critics, biographers and scholars, but his reputation was damaged by its charges.[26]: 394 The essay's thesis was later questioned and some of Kael's findings were also contested in later years.[29][30][31]
Questions of authorship continued to come into sharper focus with Carringer's 1978 thoroughly researched essay, "The Scripts of Citizen Kane".[32][c] Carringer studied the collection of script records—"almost a day-to-day record of the history of the scripting"—that was then still intact at RKO. He reviewed all seven drafts and concluded that "the full evidence reveals that Welles's contribution to the Citizen Kane script was not only substantial but definitive."[32]: 80
Casting
[edit]
Citizen Kane was a rare film in that its principal roles were played by actors new to motion pictures. Ten were billed as Mercury Actors, members of the skilled repertory company assembled by Welles for the stage and radio performances of the Mercury Theatre, an independent theater company he founded with Houseman in 1937.[19]: 119–120 [34] "He loved to use the Mercury players," wrote biographer Charles Higham, "and consequently he launched several of them on movie careers."[35]: 155
The film represents the feature film debuts of William Alland, Ray Collins, Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Erskine Sanford, Everett Sloane, Paul Stewart, and Welles himself.[13] Despite never having appeared in feature films, some of the cast members were already well known to the public. Cotten had recently become a Broadway star in the hit play The Philadelphia Story with Katharine Hepburn[21]: 187 and Sloane was well known for his role on the radio show The Goldbergs.[21]: 187 [d] Mercury actor George Coulouris was a star of the stage in New York and London.[34]
Not all of the cast came from the Mercury Players. Welles cast Dorothy Comingore, an actress who played supporting parts in films since 1934 using the name "Linda Winters",[36] as Susan Alexander Kane. A discovery of Charlie Chaplin, Comingore was recommended to Welles by Chaplin,[37]: 170 who then met Comingore at a party in Los Angeles and immediately cast her.[38]: 44
Welles had met stage actress Ruth Warrick while visiting New York on a break from Hollywood and remembered her as a good fit for Emily Norton Kane,[21]: 188 later saying that she looked the part.[37]: 169 Warrick told Carringer that she was struck by the extraordinary resemblance between herself and Welles's mother when she saw a photograph of Beatrice Ives Welles. She characterized her own personal relationship with Welles as motherly.[39]: 14
"He trained us for films at the same time that he was training himself," recalled Agnes Moorehead. "Orson believed in good acting, and he realized that rehearsals were needed to get the most from his actors. That was something new in Hollywood: nobody seemed interested in bringing in a group to rehearse before scenes were shot. But Orson knew it was necessary, and we rehearsed every sequence before it was shot."[40]: 9
When The March of Time narrator Westbrook Van Voorhis asked for $25,000 to narrate the News on the March sequence, Alland demonstrated his ability to imitate Van Voorhis and Welles cast him.[41]
Welles later said that casting character actor Gino Corrado in the small part of the waiter at the El Rancho broke his heart. Corrado had appeared in many Hollywood films, often as a waiter, and Welles wanted all of the actors to be new to films.[37]: 171
Other uncredited roles went to Thomas A. Curran as Teddy Roosevelt in the faux newsreel; Richard Baer as Hillman, a man at Madison Square Garden, and a man in the News on the March screening room; and Alan Ladd, Arthur O'Connell and Louise Currie as reporters at Xanadu.[13]
Ruth Warrick (died 2005) was the last surviving member of the principal cast. Sonny Bupp (died 2007), who played Kane's young son, was the last surviving credited cast member.[42] Kathryn Trosper Popper (died March 6, 2016) was reported to have been the last surviving actor to have appeared in Citizen Kane.[43] Jean Forward (died September 2016), a soprano who dubbed the singing voice of Susan Alexander, was the last surviving performer from the film.[44]
Filming
[edit]
Production advisor Miriam Geiger quickly compiled a handmade film textbook for Welles, a practical reference book of film techniques that he studied carefully. He then taught himself filmmaking by matching its visual vocabulary to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, which he ordered from the Museum of Modern Art,[21]: 173 and films by Frank Capra, René Clair, Fritz Lang, King Vidor[45]: 1172 : 1171 and Jean Renoir.[19]: 209 The one film he genuinely studied was John Ford's Stagecoach,[22]: 29 which he watched 40 times.[46] "As it turned out, the first day I ever walked onto a set was my first day as a director," Welles said. "I'd learned whatever I knew in the projection room—from Ford. After dinner every night for about a month, I'd run Stagecoach, often with some different technician or department head from the studio, and ask questions. 'How was this done?' 'Why was this done?' It was like going to school."[22]: 29
Welles's cinematographer for the film was Gregg Toland, described by Welles as "just then, the number-one cameraman in the world." To Welles's astonishment, Toland visited him at his office and said, "I want you to use me on your picture." He had seen some of the Mercury stage productions (including Caesar[26]: 66 ) and said he wanted to work with someone who had never made a movie.[22]: 59 RKO hired Toland on loan from Samuel Goldwyn Productions[47]: 10 in the first week of June 1940.[20]: 40
"And he never tried to impress us that he was doing any miracles," Welles recalled. "I was calling for things only a beginner would have been ignorant enough to think anybody could ever do, and there he was, doing them."[22]: 60 Toland later explained that he wanted to work with Welles because he anticipated the first-time director's inexperience and reputation for audacious experimentation in the theater would allow the cinematographer to try new and innovative camera techniques that typical Hollywood films would never have allowed him to do.[21]: 186 Unaware of filmmaking protocol, Welles adjusted the lights on set as he was accustomed to doing in the theater; Toland quietly re-balanced them, and was angry when one of the crew informed Welles that he was infringing on Toland's responsibilities.[48]: 5:33–6:06 During the first few weeks of June, Welles had lengthy discussions about the film with Toland and art director Perry Ferguson in the morning, and in the afternoon and evening he worked with actors and revised the script.[20]: 69
On June 29, 1940—a Saturday morning when few inquisitive studio executives would be around—Welles began filming Citizen Kane.[20]: 69 [26]: 107 After the disappointment of having Heart of Darkness canceled,[22]: 30–31 Welles followed Ferguson's suggestion[e][22]: 57 and deceived RKO into believing that he was simply shooting camera tests. "But we were shooting the picture," Welles said, "because we wanted to get started and be already into it before anybody knew about it."[22]: 57
At the time RKO executives were pressuring him to agree to direct a film called The Men from Mars, to capitalize on "The War of the Worlds" radio broadcast. Welles said that he would consider making the project but wanted to make a different film first. At this time he did not inform them that he had already begun filming Citizen Kane.[21]: 186
The early footage was called "Orson Welles Tests" on all paperwork.[20]: 69 The first "test" shot was the News on the March projection room scene, economically filmed in a real studio projection room in darkness that masked many actors who appeared in other roles later in the film.[20]: 69 [22]: 77–78 [f] "At $809 Orson did run substantially beyond the test budget of $528—to create one of the most famous scenes in movie history," wrote Barton Whaley.[26]: 107
The next scenes were the El Rancho nightclub scenes and the scene in which Susan attempts suicide.[g][20]: 69 Welles later said that the nightclub set was available after another film had wrapped and that filming took 10 to 12 days to complete. For these scenes Welles had Comingore's throat sprayed with chemicals to give her voice a harsh, raspy tone.[37]: 170–171 Other scenes shot in secret included those in which Thompson interviews Leland and Bernstein, which were also shot on sets built for other films.[41]
During production, the film was referred to as RKO 281. Most of the filming took place in what is now Stage 19 on the Paramount Pictures lot in Hollywood.[51] There was some location filming at Balboa Park in San Diego and the San Diego Zoo.[52] Photographs of German-Jewish investment banker Otto Hermann Kahn's real-life estate Oheka Castle were used to portray the fictional Xanadu.[53][54]
In the end of July, RKO approved the film and Welles was allowed to officially begin shooting, despite having already been filming "tests" for several weeks. Welles leaked stories to newspaper reporters that the "tests" had been so good that there was no need to re-shoot them. The first "official" scene to be shot was the breakfast montage sequence between Kane and his first wife Emily. To strategically save money and appease the RKO executives who opposed him, Welles rehearsed scenes extensively before actually shooting and filmed very few takes of each shot set-up.[21]: 193 Welles never shot master shots for any scene after Toland told him that Ford never shot them.[37]: 169 To appease the increasingly curious press, Welles threw a cocktail party for selected reporters, promising that they could watch a scene being filmed. When the journalists arrived Welles told them they had "just finished" shooting for the day but still had the party.[21]: 193 Welles told the press that he was ahead of schedule (without factoring in the month of "test shooting"), thus discrediting claims that after a year in Hollywood without making a film he was a failure in the film industry.[21]: 194
Welles usually worked 16 to 18 hours a day on the film. He often began work at 4 a.m. since the special effects make-up used to age him for certain scenes took up to four hours to apply. Welles used this time to discuss the day's shooting with Toland and other crew members. The special contact lenses used to make Welles look elderly proved very painful, and a doctor was employed to place them into Welles's eyes. Welles had difficulty seeing clearly while wearing them, which caused him to badly cut his wrist when shooting the scene in which Kane breaks up the furniture in Susan's bedroom. While shooting the scene in which Kane shouts at Gettys on the stairs of Susan Alexander's apartment building, Welles fell ten feet; an X-ray revealed two bone chips in his ankle.[21]: 194
The injury required him to direct the film from a wheelchair for two weeks.[55][21]: 194–195 He eventually wore a steel brace to resume performing on camera; it is visible in the low-angle scene between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election.[h][22]: 61 For the final scene, a stage at the Selznick studio was equipped with a working furnace, and multiple takes were required to show the sled being put into the fire and the word "Rosebud" consumed. Paul Stewart recalled that on the ninth take the Culver City Fire Department arrived in full gear because the furnace had grown so hot the flue caught fire. "Orson was delighted with the commotion", he said.[40]: 8–9 [56]
When "Rosebud" was burned, Welles choreographed[clarification needed] the scene while he had composer Bernard Herrmann's cue playing on the set.[57]
Unlike Schaefer, many members of RKO's board of governors did not like Welles or the control that his contract gave him.[21]: 186 However such board members as Nelson Rockefeller and NBC chief David Sarnoff[45]: 1170 were sympathetic to Welles.[58] Throughout production Welles had problems with these executives not respecting his contract's stipulation of non-interference and several spies arrived on set to report what they saw to the executives. When the executives would sometimes arrive on set unannounced the entire cast and crew would suddenly start playing softball until they left. Before official shooting began the executives intercepted all copies of the script and delayed their delivery to Welles. They had one copy sent to their office in New York, resulting in it being leaked to press.[21]: 195
Principal shooting wrapped October 24. Welles then took several weeks away from the film for a lecture tour, during which he also scouted additional locations with Toland and Ferguson. Filming resumed November 15[20]: 87 with some re-shoots. Toland had to leave due to a commitment to shoot Howard Hughes' The Outlaw, but Toland's camera crew continued working on the film and Toland was replaced by RKO cinematographer Harry J. Wild. The final day of shooting on November 30 was Kane's death scene.[20]: 85 Welles boasted that he only went 21 days over his official shooting schedule, without factoring in the month of "camera tests".[21]: 195 According to RKO records, the film cost $839,727. Its estimated budget had been $723,800.[13]
Post-production
[edit]
Citizen Kane was edited by Robert Wise and assistant editor Mark Robson.[47]: 85 Both would become successful film directors. Wise was hired after Welles finished shooting the "camera tests" and began officially making the film. Wise said that Welles "had an older editor assigned to him for those tests and evidently he was not too happy and asked to have somebody else. I was roughly Orson's age and had several good credits." Wise and Robson began editing the film while it was still shooting and said that they "could tell certainly that we were getting something very special. It was outstanding film day in and day out."[45]: 1210
Welles gave Wise detailed instructions and was usually not present during the film's editing.[20]: 109 The film was very well planned out and intentionally shot for such post-production techniques as slow dissolves.[41] The lack of coverage made editing easy since Welles and Toland edited the film "in camera" by leaving few options of how it could be put together.[20]: 110 Wise said the breakfast table sequence took weeks to edit and get the correct "timing" and "rhythm" for the whip pans and overlapping dialogue.[41] The News on the March sequence was edited by RKO's newsreel division to give it authenticity.[20]: 110 They used stock footage from Pathé News and the General Film Library.[13]
During post-production Welles and special effects artist Linwood G. Dunn experimented with an optical printer to improve certain scenes that Welles found unsatisfactory from the footage.[41] Whereas Welles was often immediately pleased with Wise's work, he would require Dunn and post-production audio engineer James G. Stewart to re-do their work several times until he was satisfied.[20]: 109
Welles hired Bernard Herrmann to compose the film's score. Where most Hollywood film scores were written quickly, in as few as two or three weeks after filming was completed, Herrmann was given 12 weeks to write the music. He had sufficient time to do his own orchestrations and conducting, and worked on the film reel by reel as it was shot and cut. He wrote complete musical pieces for some of the montages, and Welles edited many of the scenes to match their length.[59]
Style
[edit]
Film scholars and historians view Citizen Kane as Welles's attempt to create a new style of filmmaking by studying various forms of it and combining them into one. However, Welles stated that his love for cinema began only when he started working on the film. When asked where he got the confidence as a first-time director to direct a film so radically different from contemporary cinema, he responded, "Ignorance, ignorance, sheer ignorance—you know there's no confidence to equal it. It's only when you know something about a profession, I think, that you're timid or careful."[60]: 80
David Bordwell wrote that "The best way to understand Citizen Kane is to stop worshipping it as a triumph of technique." Bordwell argues that the film did not invent any of its famous techniques such as deep focus cinematography, shots of the ceilings, chiaroscuro lighting and temporal jump-cuts, and that many of these stylistics had been used in German Expressionist films of the 1920s, such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. But Bordwell asserts that the film did put them all together for the first time and perfected the medium in one single film.[45]: 1171 In a 1948 interview, D. W. Griffith said, "I loved Citizen Kane and particularly loved the ideas he took from me."[61]
Arguments against the film's cinematic innovations were made as early as 1946 when French historian Georges Sadoul wrote, "The film is an encyclopedia of old techniques." He pointed out such examples as compositions that used both the foreground and the background in the films of Auguste and Louis Lumière, special effects used in the films of Georges Méliès, shots of the ceiling in Erich von Stroheim's Greed and newsreel montages in the films of Dziga Vertov.[62]
French film critic André Bazin defended the film, writing: "In this respect, the accusation of plagiarism could very well be extended to the film's use of panchromatic film or its exploitation of the properties of gelatinous silver halide." Bazin disagreed with Sadoul's comparison to Lumière's cinematography since Citizen Kane used more sophisticated lenses,[63]: 232 but acknowledged that it had similarities to such previous works as The 49th Parallel and The Power and the Glory. Bazin stated that "even if Welles did not invent the cinematic devices employed in Citizen Kane, one should nevertheless credit him with the invention of their meaning."[63]: 233 Bazin championed the techniques in the film for its depiction of heightened reality, but Bordwell believed that the film's use of special effects contradicted some of Bazin's theories.[64]: 75
Storytelling techniques
[edit]
Citizen Kane rejects the traditional linear, chronological narrative and tells Kane's story entirely in flashbacks using different points of view, many of them from Kane's aged and forgetful associates, the cinematic equivalent of the unreliable narrator in literature.[65]: 83 Welles also dispenses with the idea of a single storyteller and uses multiple narrators to recount Kane's life, a technique not used previously in Hollywood films.[65]: 81 Each narrator recounts a different part of Kane's life, with each story overlapping another.[66] The film depicts Kane as an enigma, a complicated man who leaves viewers with more questions than answers as to his character, such as the newsreel footage where he is attacked for being both a communist and a fascist.[65]: 82–84
The technique of flashbacks had been used in earlier films, notably The Power and the Glory (1933),[67] but no film was as immersed in it as Citizen Kane. Thompson the reporter acts as a surrogate for the audience, questioning Kane's associates and piecing together his life.[66]
Films typically had an "omniscient perspective" at the time, which Marilyn Fabe says give the audience the "illusion that we are looking with impunity into a world which is unaware of our gaze". Citizen Kane also begins in that fashion until the News on the March sequence, after which we the audience see the film through the perspectives of others.[65]: 81 The News on the March sequence gives an overview of Kane's entire life (and the film's entire story) at the beginning of the film, leaving the audience without the typical suspense of wondering how it will end. Instead, the film's repetitions of events compels the audience to analyze and wonder why Kane's life happened the way that it did, under the pretext of finding out what "Rosebud" means. The film then returns to the omniscient perspective in the final scene, when only the audience discovers what "Rosebud" is.[65]: 82–83
Cinematography
[edit]
The most innovative technical aspect of Citizen Kane is the extended use of deep focus,[68] where the foreground, background, and everything in between are all in sharp focus. Cinematographer Toland did this through his experimentation with lenses and lighting. Toland described the achievement in an article for Theatre Arts magazine, made possible by the sensitivity of modern speed film:
New developments in the science of motion picture photography are not abundant at this advanced stage of the game but periodically one is perfected to make this a greater art. Of these I am in an excellent position to discuss what is termed "Pan-focus", as I have been active for two years in its development and used it for the first time in Citizen Kane. Through its use, it is possible to photograph action from a range of eighteen inches from the camera lens to over two hundred feet away, with extreme foreground and background figures and action both recorded in sharp relief. Hitherto, the camera had to be focused either for a close or a distant shot, all efforts to encompass both at the same time resulting in one or the other being out of focus. This handicap necessitated the breaking up of a scene into long and short angles, with much consequent loss of realism. With pan-focus, the camera, like the human eye, sees an entire panorama at once, with everything clear and lifelike.[69]
Another unorthodox method used in the film was the low-angle shots facing upwards, thus allowing ceilings to be shown in the background of several scenes. Every set was built with a ceiling[69] which broke with studio convention, and many were constructed of fabric that concealed microphones.[70] Welles felt that the camera should show what the eye sees, and that it was a bad theatrical convention to pretend that there was no ceiling—"a big lie in order to get all those terrible lights up there," he said. He became fascinated with the look of low angles, which made even dull interiors look interesting. One extremely low angle is used to photograph the encounter between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election. A hole was dug for the camera, which required drilling into the concrete floor.[22]: 61–62
Welles credited Toland on the same title card as himself. "It's impossible to say how much I owe to Gregg," he said. "He was superb."[22]: 59 [71] He called Toland "the best director of photography that ever existed."[72]
Sound
[edit]
Citizen Kane's sound was recorded by Bailey Fesler and re-recorded in post-production by audio engineer James G. Stewart,[47]: 85 both of whom had worked in radio.[20]: 102 Stewart said that Hollywood films never deviated from a basic pattern of how sound could be recorded or used, but with Welles "deviation from the pattern was possible because he demanded it."[41] Although the film is known for its complex soundtrack, much of the audio is heard as it was recorded by Fesler and without manipulation.[20]: 102
Welles used techniques from radio like overlapping dialogue. The scene in which characters sing "Oh, Mr. Kane" was especially complicated and required mixing several soundtracks together.[20]: 104 He also used different "sound perspectives" to create the illusion of distances,[20]: 101 such as in scenes at Xanadu where characters speak to each other at far distances.[41] Welles experimented with sound in post-production, creating audio montages,[73]: 94 and chose to create all of the sound effects for the film instead of using RKO's library of sound effects.[20]: 100
Welles used an aural technique from radio called the "lightning-mix". Welles used this technique to link complex montage sequences via a series of related sounds or phrases. For example, Kane grows from a child into a young man in just two shots. As Thatcher hands eight-year-old Kane a sled and wishes him a Merry Christmas, the sequence suddenly jumps to a shot of Thatcher fifteen years later, completing the sentence he began in both the previous shot and the chronological past. Other radio techniques include using a number of voices, each saying a sentence or sometimes merely a fragment of a sentence, and splicing the dialogue together in quick succession, such as the projection room scene.[74]: 413–412 The film's sound cost $16,996, but was originally budgeted at $7,288.[20]: 105
Film critic and director François Truffaut wrote that "Before Kane, nobody in Hollywood knew how to set music properly in movies. Kane was the first, in fact the only, great film that uses radio techniques. ... A lot of filmmakers know enough to follow Auguste Renoir's advice to fill the eyes with images at all costs, but only Orson Welles understood that the sound track had to be filled in the same way."[75] Cedric Belfrage of The Clipper wrote "of all of the delectable flavours that linger on the palate after seeing Kane, the use of sound is the strongest."[45]: 1171
Make-up
[edit]
The make-up for Citizen Kane was created and applied by Maurice Seiderman (1907–1989), a junior member of the RKO make-up department.[76]: 19 He had not been accepted into the union, which recognized him as only an apprentice, but RKO nevertheless used him to make up principal actors.[76]: 19 "Apprentices were not supposed to make up any principals, only extras, and an apprentice could not be on a set without a journeyman present," wrote make-up artist Dick Smith, who became friends with Seiderman in 1979. "During his years at RKO I suspect these rules were probably overlooked often."[76]: 19 "Seiderman had gained a reputation as one of the most inventive and creatively precise up-and-coming makeup men in Hollywood," wrote biographer Frank Brady.[19]: 253
On an early tour of RKO, Welles met Seiderman in the small make-up lab that he created for himself in an unused dressing room.[76]: 19 "Welles fastened on to him at once," wrote biographer Charles Higham, as Seiderman had developed his own makeup methods "that ensured complete naturalness of expression—a naturalness unrivaled in Hollywood."[35]: 157 Seiderman developed a thorough plan for aging the principal characters, first making a plaster cast of the face of each of the actors who aged. He made a plaster mold of Welles's body down to the hips.[77]: 46
"My sculptural techniques for the characters' aging were handled by adding pieces of white modeling clay, which matched the plaster, onto the surface of each bust," Seiderman told Norman Gambill. When Seiderman achieved the desired effect, he cast the clay pieces in a soft plastic material[77]: 46 that he formulated himself.[76]: 20 These appliances were then placed onto the plaster bust and a four-piece mold was made for each phase of aging. The castings were then fully painted and paired with the appropriate wig for evaluation.[77]: 46–47
Before the actors went before the cameras each day, the pliable pieces were applied directly to their faces to recreate Seiderman's sculptural image. The facial surface was underpainted in a flexible red plastic compound;[77]: 43 The red ground resulted in a warmth of tone that was picked up by the panchromatic film. Over that was applied liquid grease paint, and finally a colorless translucent talcum.[77]: 42–43 Seiderman created the effect of skin pores on Kane's face by stippling the surface with a negative cast made from an orange peel.[77]: 42, 47
Welles often arrived on the set at 2:30 am,[22]: 69 as application of the sculptural make-up took 3½ hours for the oldest incarnation of Kane. The make-up included appliances to age Welles's shoulders, breast, and stomach.[76]: 19–20 "In the film and production photographs, you can see that Kane had a belly that overhung," Seiderman said. "That was not a costume, it was the rubber sculpture that created the image. You could see how Kane's silk shirt clung wetly to the character's body. It could not have been done any other way."[77]: 46
Seiderman worked with Charles Wright on the wigs. These went over a flexible skull cover that Seiderman created and sewed into place with elastic thread. When he found the wigs too full, he untied one hair at a time to alter their shape. Kane's mustache was inserted into the makeup surface a few hairs at a time, to realistically vary the color and texture.[77]: 43, 47 He also made scleral lenses for Welles, Dorothy Comingore, George Coulouris, and Everett Sloane to dull the brightness of their young eyes. The lenses took a long time to fit properly, and Seiderman began work on them before devising any of the other makeup. "I painted them to age in phases, ending with the blood vessels and the arcus senilis of old age."[77]: 47 Seiderman's tour de force was the breakfast montage, shot all in one day. "Twelve years, two years shot at each scene," he said.[77]: 47
The major studios gave screen credit for make-up only to the department head. When RKO make-up department head Mel Berns refused to share credit with Seiderman, who was only an apprentice, Welles told Berns that there would be no make-up credit. Welles signed a large advertisement in the Los Angeles newspaper:[76]: 22 [77]: 48
THANKS TO EVERYBODY WHO GETS SCREEN CREDIT FOR "CITIZEN KANE"
AND THANKS TO THOSE WHO DON'T
TO ALL THE ACTORS, THE CREW, THE OFFICE, THE MUSICIANS, EVERYBODY
AND PARTICULARLY TO MAURICE SEIDERMAN, THE BEST MAKE-UP MAN IN THE WORLD[76]: 20
Sets
[edit]
Although credited as an assistant, the film's art direction was done by Perry Ferguson.[47]: 85 Welles and Ferguson got along during their collaboration.[20]: 37 In the weeks before production began Welles, Toland and Ferguson met regularly to discuss the film and plan every shot, set design and prop. Ferguson would take notes during these discussions and create rough designs of the sets and story boards for individual shots. After Welles approved the rough sketches, Ferguson made miniature models for Welles and Toland to experiment on with a periscope in order to rehearse and perfect each shot. Ferguson then had detailed drawings made for the set design, including the film's lighting design. The set design was an integral part of the film's overall look and Toland's cinematography.[20]: 42
In the original script the Great Hall at Xanadu was modeled after the Great Hall in Hearst Castle and its design included a mixture of Renaissance and Gothic styles.[20]: 50–51 "The Hearstian element is brought out in the almost perverse juxtaposition of incongruous architectural styles and motifs," wrote Carringer.[20]: 54 Before RKO cut the film's budget, Ferguson's designs were more elaborate and resembled the production designs of early Cecil B. DeMille films and Intolerance.[20]: 55 The budget cuts reduced Ferguson's budget by 33 percent and his work cost $58,775 total,[20]: 65 which was below average at that time.[73]: 93
To save costs Ferguson and Welles re-wrote scenes in Xanadu's living room and transported them to the Great Hall. A large staircase from another film was found and used at no additional cost.[20]: 56–57 When asked about the limited budget, Ferguson said "Very often—as in that much-discussed 'Xanadu' set in Citizen Kane—we can make a foreground piece, a background piece, and imaginative lighting suggests a great deal more on the screen than actually exists on the stage."[20]: 65–66 According to the film's official budget there were 81 sets built, but Ferguson said there were between 106 and 116.[20]: 64
Still photographs of Oheka Castle in Huntington, New York, were used in the opening montage, representing Kane's Xanadu estate.[78][79] Ferguson also designed statues from Kane's collection with styles ranging from Greek to German Gothic.[20]: 61 The sets were also built to accommodate Toland's camera movements. Walls were built to fold and furniture could quickly be moved. The film's famous ceilings were made out of muslin fabric and camera boxes were built into the floors for low angle shots.[20]: 64–65 Welles later said that he was proud that the film production value looked much more expensive than the film's budget. Although neither worked with Welles again, Toland and Ferguson collaborated in several films in the 1940s.[20]: 65
Special effects
[edit]
The film's special effects were supervised by RKO department head Vernon L. Walker.[47]: 85 Welles pioneered several visual effects to cheaply shoot things like crowd scenes and large interior spaces. For example, the scene in which the camera in the opera house rises dramatically to the rafters, to show the workmen showing a lack of appreciation for Susan Alexander Kane's performance, was shot by a camera craning upwards over the performance scene, then a curtain wipe to a miniature of the upper regions of the house, and then another curtain wipe matching it again with the scene of the workmen. Other scenes effectively employed miniatures to make the film look much more expensive than it truly was, such as various shots of Xanadu.[80]
Some shots included rear screen projection in the background, such as Thompson's interview of Leland and some of the ocean backgrounds at Xanadu.[20]: 88 Bordwell claims that the scene where Thatcher agrees to be Kane's guardian used rear screen projection to depict young Kane in the background, despite this scene being cited as a prime example of Toland's deep focus cinematography.[64]: 74 A special effects camera crew from Walker's department was required for the extreme close-up shots such as Kane's lips when he says "Rosebud" and the shot of the typewriter typing Susan's bad review.[20]: 88
Optical effects artist Dunn claimed that "up to 80 percent of some reels was optically printed." These shots were traditionally attributed to Toland for years.[81]: 110 The optical printer improved some of the deep focus shots.[20]: 92 One problem with the optical printer was that it sometimes created excessive graininess, such as the optical zoom out of the snow globe. Welles decided to superimpose snow falling to mask the graininess in these shots.[20]: 94 Toland said that he disliked the results of the optical printer,[20]: 92 but acknowledged that "RKO special effects expert Vernon Walker, ASC, and his staff handled their part of the production—a by no means inconsiderable assignment—with ability and fine understanding."[64]: 74–75
Any time deep focus was impossible—as in the scene in which Kane finishes a negative review of Susan's opera while at the same time firing the person who began writing the review—an optical printer was used to make the whole screen appear in focus, visually layering one piece of film onto another.[20]: 92 However, some apparently deep-focus shots were the result of in-camera effects, as in the famous scene in which Kane breaks into Susan's room after her suicide attempt. In the background, Kane and another man break into the room, while simultaneously the medicine bottle and a glass with a spoon in it are in closeup in the foreground. The shot was an in-camera matte shot. The foreground was shot first, with the background dark. Then the background was lit, the foreground darkened, the film rewound, and the scene re-shot with the background action.[20]: 82
Music
[edit]
The film's music was composed by Bernard Herrmann.[82]: 72 Herrmann had composed for Welles for his Mercury Theatre radio broadcasts.[82]: 63 Because it was Herrmann's first motion picture score, RKO wanted to pay him only a small fee, but Welles insisted he be paid at the same rate as Max Steiner.[82]: 72
The score established Herrmann as an important new composer of film soundtracks[83] and eschewed the typical Hollywood practice of scoring a film with virtually non-stop music. Instead Herrmann used what he later described as "radio scoring", musical cues typically 5–15 seconds in length that bridge the action or suggest a different emotional response.[82]: 77–78 The breakfast montage sequence begins with a graceful waltz theme and gets darker with each variation on that theme as the passage of time leads to the hardening of Kane's personality and the breakdown of his first marriage.[84][85]
Herrmann realized that musicians slated to play his music were hired for individual unique sessions; there was no need to write for existing ensembles. This meant that he was free to score for unusual combinations of instruments, even instruments that are not commonly heard. In the opening sequence, for example, the tour of Kane's estate Xanadu, Herrmann introduces a recurring leitmotif played by low woodwinds, including a quartet of alto flutes.[86]
For Susan Alexander Kane's operatic sequence, Welles suggested that Herrmann compose a witty parody of a Mary Garden vehicle, an aria from Salammbô.[22]: 57 "Our problem was to create something that would give the audience the feeling of the quicksand into which this simple little girl, having a charming but small voice, is suddenly thrown," Herrmann said.[82]: 79 Writing in the style of a 19th-century French Oriental opera,[59] Herrmann put the aria in a key that would force the singer to strain to reach the high notes, culminating in a high D, well outside the range of Susan Alexander.[82]: 79–80 Soprano Jean Forward dubbed the vocal part for Comingore.[83] Houseman claimed to have written the libretto, based on Jean Racine's Athalie and Phedre,[87]: 460–461 although some confusion remains since Lucille Fletcher remembered preparing the lyrics.[82]: 80 Fletcher, then Herrmann's wife, wrote the libretto for his opera Wuthering Heights.[82]: 11
Music enthusiasts consider the scene in which Susan Alexander Kane attempts to sing the famous cavatina "Una voce poco fa" from Il barbiere di Siviglia by Gioachino Rossini with vocal coach Signor Matiste as especially memorable for depicting the horrors of learning music through mistakes.[88]
In 1972, Herrmann said, "I was fortunate to start my career with a film like Citizen Kane, it's been a downhill run ever since!" Welles loved Herrmann's score and told director Henry Jaglom that it was 50 percent responsible for the film's artistic success.[82]: 84
Some incidental music came from other sources. Welles heard the tune used for the publisher's theme, "Oh, Mr. Kane", in Mexico.[22]: 57 Called "A Poco No", the song was written by Pepe Guízar and special lyrics were written by Herman Ruby.[89]
"In a Mizz", a 1939 jazz song by Charlie Barnet and Haven Johnson, bookends Thompson's second interview of Susan Alexander Kane.[20]: 108 [89] "I kind of based the whole scene around that song," Welles said. "The music is by Nat Cole—it's his trio."[22]: 56 Later—beginning with the lyrics, "It can't be love"—"In a Mizz" is performed at the Everglades picnic, framing the fight in the tent between Susan and Kane.[20]: 108 Musicians including bandleader Cee Pee Johnson (drums), Alton Redd (vocals), Raymond Tate (trumpet), Buddy Collette (alto sax) and Buddy Banks (tenor sax) are featured.[90]
All of the music used in the newsreel came from the RKO music library, edited at Welles's request by the newsreel department to achieve what Herrmann called "their own crazy way of cutting". The News on the March theme that accompanies the newsreel titles is "Belgian March" by Anthony Collins, from the film Nurse Edith Cavell. Other examples are an excerpt from Alfred Newman's score for Gunga Din (the exploration of Xanadu), Roy Webb's theme for the film Reno (the growth of Kane's empire), and bits of Webb's score for Five Came Back (introducing Walter Parks Thatcher).[82]: 79 [89]
Editing
[edit]
One of the editing techniques used in Citizen Kane was the use of montage to collapse time and space, using an episodic sequence on the same set while the characters changed costume and make-up between cuts so that the scene following each cut would look as if it took place in the same location, but at a time long after the previous cut. In the breakfast montage, Welles chronicles the breakdown of Kane's first marriage in five vignettes that condense 16 years of story time into two minutes of screen time.[91] Welles said that the idea for the breakfast scene "was stolen from The Long Christmas Dinner by Thornton Wilder ... a one-act play, which is a long Christmas dinner that takes you through something like 60 years of a family's life."[22]: 51 The film often uses long dissolves to signify the passage of time and its psychological effect of the characters, such as the scene in which the abandoned sled is covered with snow after the young Kane is sent away with Thatcher.[65]: 90–91
Welles was influenced by the editing theories of Sergei Eisenstein by using jarring cuts that caused "sudden graphic or associative contrasts", such as the cut from Kane's deathbed to the beginning of the News on the March sequence and a sudden shot of a shrieking cockatoo at the beginning of Raymond's flashback.[65]: 88–89 Although the film typically favors mise-en-scène over montage, the scene in which Kane goes to Susan Alexander's apartment after first meeting her is the only one that is primarily cut as close-ups with shots and counter shots between Kane and Susan.[47]: 68 Fabe says that "by using a standard Hollywood technique sparingly, [Welles] revitalizes its psychological expressiveness."[65]: 88
Sources
[edit]
Main article: Sources for Citizen Kane
Welles never confirmed a principal source for the character of Charles Foster Kane. Houseman wrote that Kane is a synthesis of different personalities, with Hearst's life used as the main source. Some events and details were invented,[87]: 444 and Houseman wrote that he and Mankiewicz also "grafted anecdotes from other giants of journalism, including Pulitzer, Northcliffe and Mank's first boss, Herbert Bayard Swope."[87]: 444 Welles said, "Mr. Hearst was quite a bit like Kane, although Kane isn't really founded on Hearst in particular. Many people sat for it, so to speak".[60]: 78 He specifically acknowledged that aspects of Kane were drawn from the lives of two business tycoons familiar from his youth in Chicago—Samuel Insull and Harold Fowler McCormick.[i][22]: 49
The character of Jedediah Leland was based on drama critic Ashton Stevens, George Stevens's uncle and Welles's close boyhood friend.[22]: 66 Some detail came from Mankiewicz's own experience as a drama critic in New York.[23]: 77–78
Many assumed that the character of Susan Alexander Kane was based on Marion Davies, Hearst's mistress whose career he managed and whom Hearst promoted as a motion picture actress. This assumption was a major reason Hearst tried to destroy Citizen Kane.[92][j] Welles denied that the character was based on Davies,[94] whom he called "an extraordinary woman—nothing like the character Dorothy Comingore played in the movie."[22]: 49 He cited Insull's building of the Chicago Opera House, and McCormick's lavish promotion of the opera career of his second wife, Ganna Walska, as direct influences on the screenplay.[22]: 49
The character of political boss Jim W. Gettys is based on Charles F. Murphy, a leader in New York City's infamous Tammany Hall political machine.[28]: 61
Welles credited "Rosebud" to Mankiewicz.[22]: 53 Biographer Richard Meryman wrote that the symbol of Mankiewicz's own damaged childhood was a treasured bicycle, stolen while he visited the public library and not replaced by his family as punishment. He regarded it as the prototype of Charles Foster Kane's sled.[23]: 300 In his 2015 Welles biography, Patrick McGilligan reported that Mankiewicz himself stated that the word "Rosebud" was taken from the name of a famous racehorse, Old Rosebud. Mankiewicz had a bet on the horse in the 1914 Kentucky Derby, which he won, and McGilligan wrote that "Old Rosebud symbolized his lost youth, and the break with his family". In testimony for a copyright infringement suit brought by Hearst biographer Ferdinand Lundberg, Mankiewicz said, "I had undergone psycho-analysis, and Rosebud, under circumstances slightly resembling the circumstances in [Citizen Kane], played a prominent part."[95] Gore Vidal has argued in the New York Review of Books that "Rosebud was what Hearst called his friend Marion Davies's clitoris".[96]
The News on the March sequence that begins the film satirizes the journalistic style of The March of Time, the news documentary and dramatization series presented in movie theaters by Time Inc.[97][98] From 1935 to 1938[99]: 47 Welles was a member of the uncredited company of actors that presented the original radio version.[100]: 77
Houseman claimed that banker Walter P. Thatcher was loosely based on J. P. Morgan.[47]: 55 Bernstein was named for Dr. Maurice Bernstein, appointed Welles's guardian;[22]: 65–66 Sloane's portrayal was said to be based on Bernard Herrmann.[83] Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer, was named for actor Jack Carter.[35]: 155
Political themes
[edit]
Laura Mulvey explored the anti-fascist themes of Citizen Kane in her 1992 monograph for the British Film Institute. The News on the March newsreel presents Kane keeping company with Hitler and other dictators while he smugly assures the public that there will be no war.[101]: 44 She wrote that the film reflects "the battle between intervention and isolationism" then being waged in the United States; the film was released six months before the attack on Pearl Harbor, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt was laboring to win public opinion for entering World War II. "In the rhetoric of Citizen Kane," Mulvey writes, "the destiny of isolationism is realised in metaphor: in Kane's own fate, dying wealthy and lonely, surrounded by the detritus of European culture and history."[47]: 15
Journalist Ignacio Ramonet has cited the film as an early example of mass media manipulation of public opinion and the power that media conglomerates have on influencing the democratic process. He believes that this early example of a media mogul influencing politics is outdated and that today "there are media groups with the power of a thousand Citizen Kanes."[102][103] Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is sometimes labeled as a latter-day Citizen Kane.[104][105]
Comparisons have also been made between the career and character of Donald Trump and Charles Foster Kane.[106][107][108] Citizen Kane is reported to be one of Trump's favorite films, and his biographer Tim O'Brien has said that Trump is fascinated by and identifies with Kane.[109] In an interview with filmmaker Errol Morris, Trump explained his own interpretation of the film's themes, saying "You learn in 'Kane' maybe wealth isn't everything, because he had the wealth but he didn't have the happiness. In real life I believe that wealth does in fact isolate you from other people. It's a protective mechanism — you have your guard up much more so [than] if you didn't have wealth...Perhaps I can understand that."[110]
Pre-release controversy
[edit]
To ensure that Hearst's life's influence on Citizen Kane was a secret, Welles limited access to dailies and managed the film's publicity. A December 1940 feature story in Stage magazine compared the film's narrative to Faust and made no mention of Hearst.[20]: 111
The film was scheduled to premiere at RKO's flagship theater Radio City Music Hall on February 14, but in early January 1941 Welles was not finished with post-production work and told RKO that it still needed its musical score.[21]: 205 Writers for national magazines had early deadlines and so a rough cut was previewed for a select few on January 3, 1941[20]: 111 for such magazines as Life, Look and Redbook. Gossip columnist Hedda Hopper (an arch-rival of Louella Parsons, the Hollywood correspondent for Hearst papers) showed up to the screening uninvited. Most of the critics at the preview said that they liked the film and gave it good advanced reviews. Hopper wrote negatively about it, calling the film a "vicious and irresponsible attack on a great man" and criticizing its corny writing and old fashioned photography.[21]: 205
Friday magazine ran an article drawing point-by-point comparisons between Kane and Hearst and documented how Welles had led on Parsons.[20]: 111 Up until this Welles had been friendly with Parsons. The magazine quoted Welles as saying that he could not understand why she was so nice to him and that she should "wait until the woman finds out that the picture's about her boss." Welles immediately denied making the statement and the editor of Friday admitted that it might be false. Welles apologized to Parsons and assured her that he had never made that remark.[21]: 205
Shortly after Friday's article, Hearst sent Parsons an angry letter complaining that he had learned about Citizen Kane from Hopper and not her. The incident made a fool of Parsons and compelled her to start attacking Welles and the film. Parsons demanded a private screening of the film and personally threatened Schaefer on Hearst's behalf, first with a lawsuit and then with a vague threat of consequences for everyone in Hollywood. On January 10 Parsons and two lawyers working for Hearst were given a private screening of the film.[21]: 206 James G. Stewart was present at the screening and said that she walked out of the film.[40]: 11
Soon after, Parsons called Schaefer and threatened RKO with a lawsuit if they released Kane.[20]: 111 She also contacted the management of Radio City Music Hall and demanded that they should not screen it.[21]: 206 The next day, the front page headline in Daily Variety read, "HEARST BANS RKO FROM PAPERS."[111] Hearst began this ban by suppressing promotion of RKO's Kitty Foyle,[73]: 94 but in two weeks the ban was lifted for everything except Kane.[20]: 111
When Schaefer did not submit to Parsons she called other studio heads and made more threats on behalf of Hearst to expose the private lives of people throughout the entire film industry.[21]: 206 Welles was then threatened with an exposé about his romance with the married actress Dolores del Río, who wanted the affair kept secret until her divorce was finalized.[21]: 207 In a statement to journalists Welles denied that the film was about Hearst. Hearst began preparing an injunction against the film for libel and invasion of privacy, but Welles's lawyer told him that he doubted Hearst would proceed due to the negative publicity and required testimony that an injunction would bring.[21]: 209
The Hollywood Reporter ran a front-page story on January 13 that Hearst papers were about to run a series of editorials attacking Hollywood's practice of hiring refugees and immigrants for jobs that could be done by Americans. The goal was to put pressure on the other studios to force RKO to shelve Kane.[20]: 111 Many of those immigrants had fled Europe after the rise of fascism and feared losing the haven of the United States.[21]: 209 Soon afterwards, Schaefer was approached by Nicholas Schenck, head of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's parent company, with an offer on the behalf of Louis B. Mayer and other Hollywood executives to RKO Pictures of $805,000 to destroy all prints of the film and burn the negative.[20]: 111–112 [112]
Once RKO's legal team reassured Schaefer, the studio announced on January 21 that Kane would be released as scheduled, and with one of the largest promotional campaigns in the studio's history. Schaefer brought Welles to New York City for a private screening of the film with the New York corporate heads of the studios and their lawyers.[20]: 112 There was no objection to its release provided that certain changes, including the removal or softening of specific references that might offend Hearst, were made.[20]: 112–113 Welles agreed and cut the running time from 122 minutes to 119 minutes. The cuts satisfied the corporate lawyers.[20]: 113
Trailer
[edit]
Main article: Citizen Kane trailer
Now that the film was completed, RKO had to sell it to moviegoers. The usual method was for a studio film editor to compile a montage of highlights for a coming-attractions trailer, which would be shown to audiences shortly before the film came to their local theater. The trailer for Citizen Kane was something special, and like the feature itself was radically different from the general run. It was really a pioneer of what is now known as a teaser trailer, which piqued viewers' curiosity about the film without actually revealing any of the content.
Written and directed by Welles at Toland's suggestion, the Citizen Kane trailer does not feature a single second of footage of the actual film itself, but acts as a wholly original, tongue-in-cheek, pseudo-documentary piece on the film's production.[37]: 230 Filmed at the same time as Citizen Kane itself, it offers the only existing behind-the-scenes footage of the film. The trailer, shot by staff cameraman Harry Wild instead of Toland, follows an unseen Welles as he provides narration for a tour around the film set, introductions to the film's core cast members, and a brief overview of Kane's character.[22]: 360 The trailer also contains a number of trick shots, including one of Everett Sloane appearing at first to be running into the camera, which turns out to be the reflection of the camera in a mirror.[113]
At the time, it was almost unprecedented for a film trailer to not actually feature anything of the film itself; and while Citizen Kane is frequently cited as a groundbreaking, influential film, Simon Callow argues its trailer was no less original in its approach. Callow writes that it has "great playful charm ... it is a miniature documentary, almost an introduction to the cinema ... Teasing, charming, completely original, it is a sort of conjuring trick: Without his face appearing once on the screen, Welles entirely dominates its five [sic] minutes' duration."[24]: 558–9
Release
[edit]
Radio City Music Hall's management refused to screen Citizen Kane for its premiere. A possible factor was Parsons's threat that The American Weekly would run a defamatory story on the grandfather of major RKO stockholder Nelson Rockefeller.[20]: 115 Other exhibitors feared being sued for libel by Hearst and refused to show the film.[21]: 216 In March Welles threatened the RKO board of governors with a lawsuit if they did not release the film. Schaefer stood by Welles and opposed the board of governors.[21]: 210 When RKO still delayed the film's release Welles offered to buy the film for $1 million and the studio finally agreed to release the film on May 1.[21]: 215
Schaefer managed to book a few theaters willing to show the film. Hearst papers refused to accept advertising.[20]: 115 RKO's publicity advertisements for the film erroneously promoted it as a love story.[21]: 217
Kane opened at the RKO Palace Theatre on Broadway in New York on May 1, 1941,[13] in Chicago on May 6, and in Los Angeles on May 8.[20]: 115 Welles said that at the Chicago premiere that he attended the theater was almost empty.[21]: 216
Response at the time of release
[edit]
Critical reviews fell into three types: great, mixed, and negative. Most were in the first category. The day following the premiere of Citizen Kane, The New York Times critic Bosley Crowther wrote that "it comes close to being the most sensational film ever made in Hollywood... Count on Mr. Welles: he doesn't do things by halves. ... Upon the screen he discovered an area large enough for his expansive whims to have free play. And the consequence is that he has made a picture of tremendous and overpowering scope, not in physical extent so much as in its rapid and graphic rotation of thoughts. Mr. Welles has put upon the screen a motion picture that really moves".[114]
The Washington Post called it "one of the most important films in the history" of filmmaking.[115] The Washington Evening Star said Welles was a genius who created "a superbly dramatic biography of another genius" and "a picture that is revolutionary".[116] New York Daily News critic Kate Cameron called it "one of the most interesting and technically superior films that has ever come out of a Hollywood studio".[117] New York World-Telegram critic William Boehnel said that the film was "staggering and belongs at once among the greatest screen achievements".[118] Time magazine wrote that "it has found important new techniques in picture-making and story-telling."[21]: 211 Life magazine's review said that "few movies have ever come from Hollywood with such powerful narrative, such original technique, such exciting photography."[21]: 211 John C. Mosher of The New Yorker called the film's style "like fresh air" and raved "Something new has come to the movie world at last."[119]: 68 Anthony Bower of The Nation called it "brilliant" and praised the cinematography and performances by Welles, Comingore and Cotten.[120] John O'Hara's Newsweek review called it the best picture he'd ever seen and said Welles was "the best actor in the history of acting."[21]: 211 Welles called O'Hara's review "the greatest review that anybody ever had."[37]: 100
In the UK C. A. Lejeune of The Observer called it "The most exciting film that has come out of Hollywood in twenty-five years"[121] and Dilys Powell of The Sunday Times said the film's style was made "with the ease and boldness and resource of one who controls and is not controlled by his medium."[122]: 63 Edward Tangye Lean of Horizon praised the film's technical style, calling it "perhaps a decade ahead of its contemporaries."[123][k]
Other reviews were mixed. Edwin Schallert of the Los Angeles Times said it was brilliant and skillful at times, but had an ending that "rather fizzled".[125] The Chicago Tribune called the film interesting and different but "its sacrifice of simplicity to eccentricity robs it of distinction and general entertainment value".[126] Otis Ferguson of The New Republic said it was "the boldest free-hand stroke in major screen production since Griffith and Bitzer were running wild to unshackle the camera", but also criticized its style, calling it a "retrogression in film technique" and stating that "it holds no great place" in film history.[127] Ferguson reacted to some of the film's celebrated visual techniques by calling them "just willful dabbling" and "the old shell game." In a rare film review, filmmaker Erich von Stroheim criticized the film's story and non-linear structure, but praised the technical style and performances, and wrote "Whatever the truth may be about it, Citizen Kane is a great picture and will go down in screen history. More power to Welles!"[128]
Some prominent critics wrote negative reviews. None of them dismissed the film as being altogether bad, noting the film's undeniable technical effects, but they did find fault with the narrative. Eileen Creelman of The New York Sun called it "a cold picture, unemotional, a puzzle rather than a drama".[35]: 178 In his 1941 review for Sur, Jorge Luis Borges famously called the film "a labyrinth with no center" and predicted that its legacy would be a film "whose historical value is undeniable but which no one cares to see again."[129] The Argus Weekend Magazine critic Erle Cox called the film "amazing" but thought that Welles's break with Hollywood traditions was "overdone".[130] Tatler's James Agate called it "the well-intentioned, muddled, amateurish thing one expects from high-brows";[131] he admitted that it was "a quite good film" but insisted that it "tries to run the psychological essay in harness with your detective thriller, and doesn't quite succeed."[132] Other people who disliked the film were W. H. Auden[37]: 98 and James Agee.[37]: 99 After watching the film on January 29, 1942, future British star Kenneth Williams, then aged 15, curtly described the film in his first diary as "boshey rot".[133]
Reception from the public
[edit]
The film did well in cities and larger towns, but it fared poorly in more remote areas. RKO still had problems getting exhibitors to show the film. For example, one chain controlling more than 500 theaters got Welles's film as part of a package but refused to play it, reportedly out of fear of Hearst.[20]: 117 Hearst's disruption of the film's release damaged its box office performance and, as a result, it lost $160,000 during its initial run.[134]: 164 [135] The film earned $23,878 during its first week in New York. By the ninth week it only made $7,279. Overall it lost money in New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C., but made a profit in Seattle.[21]: 216
Moviegoers who saw the picture generally spread negative word of mouth among their neighbors, and exhibitors in the United States and Canada weren't shy about voicing their reactions, as published in Motion Picture Herald. A few theater owners were discerning, recognizing the startling new techniques but conceding bad box office: "Is likely to make your auditorium resound from vacuousness like the giant stone walls in Kane's incredible castle. Box office or no box office, this unusual film is without doubt a step toward elevating the artistic plane of the motion picture in general."[136] A college-town exhibitor reported, "I thought it was fine, as did the majority of people who attended the performances. However, there were some who either did not like it or did not get it. Business was just average."[137] "Don't try to tell me Orson Welles isn't a genius; herein he has produced a mighty fine picture, and herewith he has established for me the lowest gross that I have ever, ever experienced. I would have sworn that such ridiculous receipts were utterly impossible. If you cater to film connoisseurs, this picture is made for you. But me, I hurt all over."[138] Others were more blunt: "Nobody liked this and said so. We took in just enough to pay for it so considered ourselves very lucky."[139] "One day after showing this we still feel hesitant about walking abroad without an escort. Half of the few dozen that paid to see this masterpiece walked out, and the other half remained only to think up new dirty cracks to cast in our direction on the way out."[140] "High priced picture. But I made a little money on my help. They took off three days because they were afraid of being all alone in the theatre."[141] "You can stand in front of a mirror and call yourself 'sucker' when you play this one. It does not have one redeeming feature. It will not draw; those that do come will not know what it is all about."[142] A Minnesota exhibitor summed up the situation for rural areas: "My patrons still don't know what it was all about. Too long and too deep. No box office value to small towns."[143]
Hearst's response
[edit]
Hearing about Citizen Kane enraged Hearst so much that he banned any advertising, reviewing, or mentioning of it in his papers, and had his journalists libel Welles.[112] Welles used Hearst's opposition as a pretext for previewing the film in several opinion-making screenings in Los Angeles, lobbying for its artistic worth against the hostile campaign that Hearst was waging.[112] A special press screening took place in early March. Henry Luce was in attendance and reportedly wanted to buy the film from RKO for $1 million to distribute it himself. The reviews for this screening were positive. A Hollywood Review headline read, "Mr. Genius Comes Through; 'Kane' Astonishing Picture". The Motion Picture Herald reported about the screening and Hearst's intention to sue RKO. Time magazine wrote that "The objection of Mr. Hearst, who founded a publishing empire on sensationalism, is ironic. For to most of the several hundred people who have seen the film at private screenings, Citizen Kane is the most sensational product of the U.S. movie industry." A second press screening occurred in April.[73]: 94
When Schaefer rejected Hearst's offer to suppress the film, Hearst banned every newspaper and station in his media conglomerate from reviewing—or even mentioning—the film. He also had many movie theaters ban it, and many did not show it through fear of being socially exposed by his massive newspaper empire.[144] The Oscar-nominated documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane lays the blame for the film's relative failure squarely at the feet of Hearst. The film did decent business at the box office; it went on to be the sixth highest grossing film in its year of release, a modest success its backers found acceptable. Nevertheless, the film's commercial performance fell short of its creators' expectations.[92] Hearst's biographer David Nasaw points out that Hearst's actions were not the only reason Kane failed, however: the innovations Welles made with narrative, as well as the dark message at the heart of the film (that the pursuit of success is ultimately futile) meant that a popular audience could not appreciate its merits.[145]: 572–573
Hearst's attacks against Welles went beyond attempting to suppress the film. Welles said that while he was on his post-filming lecture tour a police detective approached him at a restaurant and advised him not to go back to his hotel. A 14-year-old girl had reportedly been hidden in the closet of his room, and two photographers were waiting for him to walk in. Knowing he would be jailed after the resulting publicity, Welles did not return to the hotel but waited until the train left town the following morning. "But that wasn't Hearst," Welles said, "that was a hatchet man from the local Hearst paper who thought he would advance himself by doing it."[22]: 85–86
In March 1941, Welles directed a Broadway version of Richard Wright's Native Son (and, for luck, used a "Rosebud" sled as a prop). Native Son received positive reviews, but Hearst-owned papers used the opportunity to attack Welles as a communist.[21]: 213 The Hearst papers vociferously attacked Welles after his April 1941 radio play, "His Honor, the Mayor",[146] produced for The Free Company radio series on CBS.[100]: 113 [147]
Welles described his chance encounter with Hearst in an elevator at the Fairmont Hotel on the night Citizen Kane opened in San Francisco. Hearst and Welles's father were acquaintances, so Welles introduced himself and asked Hearst if he would like to come to the opening. Hearst did not respond. "As he was getting off at his floor, I said, 'Charles Foster Kane would have accepted.' No reply", recalled Welles. "And Kane would have, you know. That was his style—just as he finished Jed Leland's bad review of Susan as an opera singer."[22]: 49–50 [148]
In 1945, Hearst journalist Robert Shaw wrote that the film got "a full tide of insensate fury" from Hearst papers, "then it ebbed suddenly. With one brain cell working, the chief realized that such hysterical barking by the trained seals would attract too much attention to the picture. But to this day the name of Orson Welles is on the official son-of-a-bitch list of every Hearst newspaper".[119]: 102
Despite Hearst's attempts to destroy the film, since 1941 references to his life and career have usually included a reference to Citizen Kane, such as the headline 'Son of Citizen Kane Dies' for the obituary of Hearst's son.[149] In 2012, the Hearst estate agreed to screen the film at Hearst Castle in San Simeon, breaking Hearst's ban on the film.[148]
Contemporary response
[edit]
Modern critics have given Citizen Kane an even more positive response. Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 99% of 125 critics gave the film a positive review, with an average rating of 9.70/10. The site's critical consensus reads: "Orson Welles's epic tale of a publishing tycoon's rise and fall is entertaining, poignant, and inventive in its storytelling, earning its reputation as a landmark achievement in film."[150] In April 2021, it was noted that the addition of an 80-year-old negative review from the Chicago Tribune reduced the film's rating from 100% to 99% on the site; Citizen Kane held its 100% rating until early 2021.[151] On Metacritic, however, the film still has a rare weighted average score of 100 out of 100 based on 19 critics, indicating "universal acclaim".[152]
Accolades
[edit]
Award Category Nominee(s) Result Academy Awards[153] Outstanding Motion Picture Mercury Nominated Best Director Orson Welles Nominated Best Actor Nominated Best Original Screenplay Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles Won Best Art Direction–Interior Decoration – Black-and-White Perry Ferguson, Van Nest Polglase, Al Fields and Darrell Silvera Nominated Best Cinematography – Black-and-White Gregg Toland Nominated Best Film Editing Robert Wise Nominated Best Scoring of a Dramatic Picture Bernard Herrmann Nominated Best Sound Recording John Aalberg Nominated DVD Exclusive Awards Best Audio Commentary Roger Ebert Won National Board of Review Awards[154][155] Best Film Won Top Ten Films Won Best Acting George Coulouris Won Orson Welles Won National Film Preservation Board National Film Registry Inducted New York Film Critics Circle Awards[156] Best Film Won Best Director Orson Welles Nominated Best Actor Nominated Online Film & Television Association Awards Hall of Fame – Motion Picture Won Online Film Critics Society Awards Best Overall DVD Nominated Satellite Awards Best Classic DVD Citizen Kane: Ultimate Collector's Edition Nominated Saturn Awards Best DVD/Blu-Ray Special Edition Release Citizen Kane: 70th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition Nominated Village Voice Film Poll Best Film of the Century Won
It was widely believed the film would win most of its Academy Award nominations, but it received only the award for Best Original Screenplay. Variety reported that block voting by screen extras deprived Citizen Kane of Best Picture and Best Actor, and similar prejudices were likely to have been responsible for the film receiving no technical awards.[20]: 117 [157]
Legacy
[edit]
Main article: Legacy of Citizen Kane
Citizen Kane was the only film made under Welles's original contract with RKO Pictures, which gave him complete creative control.[21]: 223 Welles's new business manager and attorney permitted the contract to lapse. In July 1941,[158][159] Welles reluctantly signed a new and less favorable deal with RKO[21]: 223 under which he produced and directed The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), produced Journey into Fear (1943), and began It's All True, a film he agreed to do without payment. In the new contract Welles was an employee of the studio[160] and lost the right to final cut, which later allowed RKO to modify and re-cut The Magnificent Ambersons over his objections.[21]: 223 In June 1942, Schaefer resigned the presidency of RKO Pictures and Welles's contract was terminated by his successor.[58]
The European release of Kane was delayed until after World War II, premiering in Paris in 1946. Initial reception by French critics was influenced by negative views from Jean-Paul Sartre and Georges Sadoul, who criticized Hollywood's cultural sophistication and the film's nostalgic use of flashbacks. However, critic André Bazin delivered a transformative speech in 1946 that shifted public opinion. Bazin praised the film for its innovative use of mise-en-scène and deep focus cinematography, advocating for a filmic realism that allows audiences to engage more actively with the narrative. Bazin's essays, especially "The Technique of Citizen Kane," played a crucial role in enhancing the film's reputation, arguing it revolutionized film language and aesthetics. His defense of "Citizen Kane" as a work of art influenced other critics and contributed to a broader re-evaluation of the film in Europe and the United States.[161]: 37
In the U.S., the film was initially neglected until it began appearing on television in the 1950s and was re-released in theaters. American film critic Andrew Sarris was significant in reviving its reputation, describing it as a profoundly influential American film. Over the decades, "Citizen Kane" has been consistently ranked highly in critical surveys and polls, often cited as the greatest film ever made.[5]
The film's narrative structure, cinematography, and themes have influenced countless filmmakers and films worldwide, asserting its place as a cornerstone in the history of cinema. Notable film directors and critics have acknowledged its impact on their work and the broader film landscape, underscoring its enduring legacy in both theory and practice.[162]
Rights and home media
[edit]
The composited camera negative of Citizen Kane is believed to be lost forever. The most commonly-reported explanation is that it was destroyed in a New Jersey film laboratory fire in the 1970s. However, in 2021, Nicolas Falacci revealed that he had been told "the real story" by a colleague, when he was one of two employees in the film restoration lab which assembled the 1991 "restoration" from the best available elements. Falacci noted that throughout the process he had daily visits in 1990-91 from an unnamed "older RKO executive showing up every day – nervous and sweating". According to Falacci's colleague, this elderly man was keen to cover up a clerical error he had made decades earlier when in charge of the studio's inventory, which had resulted in the original camera negatives being sent to a silver reclamation plant, destroying the nitrate film to extract its valuable silver content. Falacci's account is impossible to verify, but it would have been fully in keeping with industry standard practice for many decades, which was to destroy prints and negatives of countless older films deemed non-commercially viable, to extract the silver.[163]
Subsequent prints were derived from a master positive (a fine-grain preservation element) made in the 1940s and originally intended for use in overseas distribution.[164] Modern techniques were used to produce a pristine print for a 50th Anniversary theatrical reissue in 1991 which Paramount Pictures released for then-owner Turner Broadcasting System,[165] which earned $1.6 million in North America[166] and $1.8 million worldwide.[3]
In 1955, RKO sold the American television rights to its film library, including Citizen Kane, to C&C Television Corp.[167] In 1960, television rights to the pre-1959 RKO's live-action library were acquired by United Artists. RKO kept the non-broadcast television rights to its library.[168]
In 1976, when home video was in its infancy, entrepreneur Snuff Garrett bought cassette rights to the RKO library for what United Press International termed "a pittance". In 1978 The Nostalgia Merchant released the film through Media Home Entertainment. By 1980 the 800-title library of The Nostalgia Merchant was earning $2.3 million a year. "Nobody wanted cassettes four years ago," Garrett told UPI. "It wasn't the first time people called me crazy. It was a hobby with me which became big business."[169] RKO Home Video released the film on VHS and Betamax in 1985.[170]
On December 3, 1984, The Criterion Collection released the film as its first LaserDisc.[171] It was made from a fine grain master positive provided by the UCLA Film and Television Archive.[172] When told about the then-new concept of having an audio commentary on the disc, Welles was skeptical but said "theoretically, that's good for teaching movies, so long as they don't talk nonsense."[37]: 283 In 1992 Criterion released a new 50th Anniversary Edition LaserDisc. This version had an improved transfer and additional special features, including the documentary The Legacy of Citizen Kane and Welles's early short The Hearts of Age.[173]
Turner Broadcasting System acquired broadcast television rights to the RKO library in 1986[174] and the full worldwide rights to the library in 1987.[175] The RKO Home Video unit was reorganized into Turner Home Entertainment that year.[176] In 1991 Turner released a 50th Anniversary Edition on VHS and as a collector's edition that includes the film, the documentary Reflections On Citizen Kane, Harlan Lebo's 50th anniversary album, a poster and a copy of the original script.[177] In 1996, Time Warner acquired Turner and Warner Home Video absorbed Turner Home Entertainment.[178] In 2011, Time Warner's Warner Bros. unit had distribution rights for the film.[179]
In 2001, Warner Home Video released a 60th Anniversary Collectors Edition DVD. The two-disc DVD included feature-length commentaries by Roger Ebert and Peter Bogdanovich, as well as a second DVD with the feature length documentary The Battle Over Citizen Kane (1999). It was simultaneously released on VHS.[180][181] The DVD was criticized for being "too bright, too clean; the dirt and grime had been cleared away, but so had a good deal of the texture, the depth, and the sense of film grain."[182]
In 2003, Welles's daughter Beatrice Welles sued Turner Entertainment, claiming the Welles estate is the legal copyright holder of the film. She claimed that Welles's deal to terminate his contracts with RKO meant that Turner's copyright of the film was null and void. She also claimed that the estate of Orson Welles was owed 20% of the film's profits if her copyright claim was not upheld. In 2007 she was allowed to proceed with the lawsuit, overturning the 2004 decision in favor of Turner Entertainment on the issue of video rights.[183]
In 2011, it was released on Blu-ray and DVD in a 70th Anniversary Edition.[184] The San Francisco Chronicle called it "the Blu-ray release of the year."[185] Supplements included everything available on the 2001 Warner Home Video release, including The Battle Over Citizen Kane DVD. A 70th Anniversary Ultimate Collector's Edition added a third DVD with RKO 281 (1999), an award winning TV movie about the making of the film. Its packaging extras included a hardcover book and a folio containing mini reproductions of the original souvenir program, lobby cards, and production memos and correspondence.[186] The transfer for the US releases were scanned as 4K resolution from three different 35mm prints and rectified the quality issues of the 2001 DVD.[182] The rest of the world continued to receive home video releases based on the older transfer. This was partially rectified in 2016 with the release of the 75th Anniversary Edition in both the UK and US, which was a straight repackaging of the main disc from the 70th Anniversary Edition.[187][188]
On August 11, 2021 Criterion announced their first 4K Ultra HD releases, a six-film slate, would include Citizen Kane. Criterion indicated each title was to be available in a combo pack including a 4K UHD disc of the feature film as well as the film and special features on the companion Blu-rays.[189] Citizen Kane was released on November 23, 2021 by the collection as a 4K and 3 Blu-ray disc package. However, the release was recalled because at the half-hour mark on the regular blu-ray, the contrast fell sharply, which resulted in a much darker image compared to what was supposed to occur.[190] However this issue does not apply to the 4K version itself.
Colorization controversy
[edit]
In the 1980s, Citizen Kane became a catalyst in the controversy over the colorization of black-and-white films. One proponent of film colorization was Ted Turner,[191] whose Turner Entertainment Company owned the RKO library.[192] A Turner Entertainment spokesperson initially stated that Citizen Kane would not be colorized,[193] but in July 1988 Turner said, "Citizen Kane? I'm thinking of colorizing it."[194] In early 1989 it was reported that two companies were producing color tests for Turner Entertainment. Criticism increased when filmmaker Henry Jaglom stated that shortly before his death Welles had implored him "don't let Ted Turner deface my movie with his crayons."[195]
In February 1989, Turner Entertainment President Roger Mayer announced that work to colorize the film had been stopped due to provisions in Welles's 1939 contract with RKO that "could be read to prohibit colorization without permission of the Welles estate."[196] Mayer added that Welles's contract was "quite unusual" and "other contracts we have checked out are not like this at all."[197] Turner had only colorized the final reel of the film before abandoning the project. In 1991 one minute of the colorized test footage was included in the BBC Arena documentary The Complete Citizen Kane.[l][198]
The colorization controversy was a factor in the passage of the National Film Preservation Act in 1988 which created the National Film Registry the following year. ABC News anchor Peter Jennings reported that "one major reason for doing this is to require people like the broadcaster Ted Turner, who's been adding color to some movies and re-editing others for television, to put notices on those versions saying that the movies have been altered".[199]
Bibliography
[edit]
Notes
[edit]
References
[edit]
Database
[edit]
Official website
Citizen Kane at AllMovie
Citizen Kane at the AFI Catalog of Feature Films
Citizen Kane at IMDb
Citizen Kane at Metacritic
Citizen Kane at Rotten Tomatoes
Citizen Kane at the TCM Movie Database
Citizen Kane at Cinema Belgica
Other
[edit] | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 59 | https://rutube.ru/video/df4ed6e41d118a107131412ef46259f8/ | en | Top 10 Best Highest Rated Movies by Rotten Tomatoes | Hollywood Action, Love & Drama | All Time | [
"https://pic.rutubelist.ru/links/f8/b7/f8b74ee02b3d12b1fe70c4bbee27a10a.jpg?width=48",
"https://pic.rutubelist.ru/links/0d/51/0d513ac6d114896d6e4cbb31d688cae3.jpg?width=48",
"https://pic.rutubelist.ru/links/63/b1/63b170295217ecd62401284571fbbd3f.png?width=48",
"https://pic.rutubelist.ru/links/0c/88/0c88d500af... | [] | [] | [
"RUTUBE",
"видео",
"клипы",
"сериалы",
"кино",
"трейлеры",
"фильмы",
"мультфильмы",
"онлайн",
"рутьюб",
"рутуб"
] | null | [] | null | Top 10 best highest rated movies on Rotten Tomatoes this movies are Hollywood and many movies dubbed in Hindi their movies are love, drama, action and many more Movies detail list: 1. Black Panther(20... Смотрите видео онлайн «Top 10 Best Highest Rated Movies by Rotten Tomatoes | Hollywood Action, Love & Drama | All Time» на канале «Showbiz Showdowns» в хорошем качестве и бесплатно, опубликованное 17 мая 2024 года в 12:39, длительностью 00:02:35, на видеохостинге RUTUBE. | ru | https://static.rutube.ru/static/favicon.ico | RUTUBE | https://rutube.ru/video/df4ed6e41d118a107131412ef46259f8/ | Top 10 best highest rated movies on Rotten Tomatoes this movies are Hollywood and many movies dubbed in Hindi their movies are love, drama, action and many more Movies detail list: 1. Black Panther(2018) Directed by Ryan Coogler Produced by Kevin Feige Written by Ryan Coogler Joe Robert Cole Based on Black Panther by Stan Lee Jack Kirby Starring Chadwick Boseman Michael B. Jordan Lupita Nyong'o Danai Gurira Martin Freeman Daniel Kaluuya Letitia Wright Winston Duke Angela Bassett Forest Whitaker Andy Serkis Music by Ludwig Göransson Cinematography Rachel Morrison Edited by Michael P. Shawver Debbie Berman Production company Marvel Studios Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures Budget $200 million Box office $1.347 billion 2. Lady Bird(2017) Directed by Greta Gerwig Produced by Scott Rudin Eli Bush Evelyn O'Neill Written by Greta Gerwig Starring Saoirse Ronan Laurie Metcalf Tracy Letts Lucas Hedges Timothée Chalamet Beanie Feldstein Stephen McKinley Henderson Lois Smith Music by Jon Brion Cinematography Sam Levy Edited by Nick Houy Production company Scott Rudin Productions A24 Management 360 IAC Films Distributed by A24 (United States) Universal Pictures Budget $10 million Box office $78.6 million 3. The Wizard of Oz(1939) Directed by Victor Fleming Produced by Mervyn LeRoy Screenplay by Noel Langley Florence Ryerson Edgar Allan Woolf Based on The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum Starring Judy Garland Frank Morgan Ray Bolger Bert Lahr Jack Haley Billie Burke Margaret Hamilton Charley Grapewin Music by Herbert Stothart Cinematography Harold Rosson Edited by Blanche Sewell Production company Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distributed by Loew's, Inc. Budget $2.8 million Box office $25.7 million 4. Citizen Kane(1941) Directed by Orson Welles Produced by Orson Welles Screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz Orson Welles Starring Orson Welles Joseph Cotten Dorothy Comingore Everett Sloane Ray Collins George Coulouris Agnes Moorehead Paul Stewart Ruth Warrick Erskine Sanford William Alland Music by Bernard Herrmann Cinematography Gregg Toland Edited by Robert Wise Production company Mercury Productions Distributed by RKO Radio Pictures Release date Budget $839,727 Box office $1.6 million 5. BlacKkKlansman(2018) Directed by Spike Lee Produced by Jason Blum Spike Lee Raymond Mansfield Sean McKittrick Jordan Peele Shaun Redick Screenplay by Charlie Wachtel David Rabinowitz Kevin Willmott Spike Lee Based on Black Klansman by Ron Stallworth Starring John David Washington Adam Driver Laura Harrier Topher Grace Music by Terence Blanchard Cinematography Chayse Irvin Edited by Barry Alexander Brown Production company Blumhouse Productions Monkeypaw Productions QC Entertainment 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks Legendary Entertainment Perfect World Pictures Distributed by Focus Features Budget $15 million Box office $92.6 million 6. Get Out(2017) Directed by Jordan Peele Produced by Jason Blum Edward H. Hamm Jr. Sean McKittrick Jordan Peele Written by Jordan Peele Starring Daniel Kaluuya Allison Williams Bradley Whitford Caleb Landry Jones Stephen Root Catherine Keener Music by Michael Abels Distributed by Universal Pictures $4.5 million Box office $255.5 million 7. Mad Max: Fury Road(2015) Directed by George Miller Produced by Doug Mitchell George Million Brendan McCarthy Nico Lathouris Starring Tom Hardy Charlize Theron Nicholas Hoult Hugh Keays-Byrne Rosie Huntington-Whiteley Riley Keough Zoë Kravitz Production companies Warner Bros. Pictures Village Roadshow Pictures Kennedy Miller Mitchell RatPac-Dune Entertainment Distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures (United States and International) Roadshow Films (Australia) $150 million Box office $378.9 million 8. The Third Man(1949) Directed by Carol Reed Produced by Carol Reed Alexander Korda[1] David O. Selznick Screenplay by Graham Greene Starring Joseph Cotten Alida Valli Orson Welles Trevor Howard Narrated by Joseph Cotten (American release) Carol Reed (British release) Music by Anton Karas Cinematography Robert Krasker Edited by Oswald Hafenrichter Production company London Films Distributed by British Lion Film Corporation (UK) Selznick Releasing Organization (US) Release date 1 September 1949 (United Kingdom) 2 February 1950 (United States) Box office £277,549 (UK) 9. Moonlight(2016) Directed by Barry Jenkins Produced by Adele Romanski Dede Gardner Jeremy Kleiner Screenplay by Barry Jenkins Story by Tarell Alvin McCraney Based on In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue by Tarell Alvin McCraney Starring Trevante Rhodes André Holland Janelle Monáe Ashton Sanders Jharrel Jerome Naomie Harris Mahershala Ali Music by Nicholas Britell Cinematography James Laxton Edited by Nat Sanders Joi McMillon Production company A24 Plan B Entertainment Pastel Productions Distributed by A24 Release date September 2, 2016 (Telluride) October 21, 2016 (United States) Budget $1.5–4 million Box office $65.2 | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 15 | https://www.thecollector.com/citizen-kane-greatest-film-all-time/ | en | What Makes Citizen Kane the Greatest Film of All Time? | [
"https://www.thecollector.com/_next/image?url=%2Fimages%2Flogo.jpg&w=384&q=75",
"https://www.thecollector.com/_next/image?url=%2Fimages%2Flogo-light.png&w=384&q=75",
"https://cdn.thecollector.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/citizen-kane-greatest-film-all-time.jpg?width=480&quality=70 480w, https://cdn.thecollect... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Thom Delapa"
] | 2023-11-24T12:11:27 | Citizen Kane is one of the most famous movies in the history of film. | en | /favicon/apple-touch-icon.png | TheCollector | https://www.thecollector.com/citizen-kane-greatest-film-all-time/ | Not only does Citizen Kane remain a miracle of modernist cinema, but the fact that it was made during the height of Hollywood studio control also renders it unparalleled among the weightiest and most influential milestones of feature filmmaking. The film launched the meteoric screen career of the then-25-year-old Orson Welles. Here’s everything you need to know about why Citizen Kane is still the greatest movie of all time.
Orson Welles was the enfant terrible of radio and the New York stage who had panicked America with his Mercury Theatre’s notorious 1938 broadcast of H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds. It was the subject of one of Hollywood’s most pitched censorship struggles, pitting the powerful newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst against RKO, a minor member of the classic studio majors.
But for newer generations, Welles’ prodigious 1941 directorial debut may not carry the weight of its reputation well, not unlike Welles himself (1915-1985) who in his later years rather infamously ballooned in size (amply illustrated in his TV adverts and on talk shows), light years from the dashing figure he cut in his heady days as the wunderkind toast of both coasts. The film’s reputation has also taken knocks of late from critical circles. Each decade from 1962 until 2002, the British Film Institute’s Sight and Sound magazine voted it the greatest of all time, an astounding record not broken until 2012 when Alfred Hitchcock’s Vertigo toppled it. To add insult to injury Kane was downgraded to third-place BFI citizenship in 2022 when Chantal Akerman’s Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975) vaulted from feminist left field to take first prize.
What Makes the Movie So Compelling?
While Welles and Mankiewicz hardly invented the flashback what is unique are the multiple characters who tell them, including one whose memory is relayed in the form of a diary chapter, all prompted by questions from a dogged reporter. So while the film begins in the present, much of it consists of previous events presented out of chronological order. The very effect of starting with the demise of the main character—a framing device that allows no real escape or Hollywood ending—would be essential to the doomed world of American film noir of the later 1940s.
Back in the days not long ago when feature films were filmed on reels of 35mm film (recording images at 24 frames per second), there were many U.S. cinematographers who shined, but the brightest might have been Gregg Toland, who alas died young at the age of 44 in 1948. Among other techniques, he was a master of what’s called photography in depth or deep focus. In classic Hollywood before high-speed black-and-white or color film stock, it was difficult if not impossible to keep both the foreground and background of a shot in focus, especially indoors or under low light conditions.
Utilizing faster lenses and more intense light (and, sometimes, trick photography) Toland was able to give Welles realistic, expansive, yet nuanced compositions that negated the need to cut between objects within a scene. Thus, in a textbook example from Kane’s stunted childhood, young Charles is playing in the snow outside his family’s Colorado cabin while inside his parents are about to hand him (and his happenstance fortune) over to his Dickensian new guardian. In a long mobile camera shot lasting almost two minutes and cued by the diary flashback, we first see Charlie at a distance through what’s revealed to be an open window as his mother speaks of his departure; then we see her retreat to a table where she signs him away, during which time her husband closes the window, leaving Charles framed far in the background; and then we see her return to the window to reopen it, ending with a cut to a close-up of her wistfully gazing off at Charlie. Pregnant with oedipal baggage, Toland’s bravura long take traces of Charlie’s forceful, if not traumatic, ejection from his mother, a defining moment rendered even more poignant by his ironic playful taunt, “… the Union forever!”
Inspired by the stylized naturalism of deep focus, Kane swells into a watershed for important critics such as France’s André Bazin, who championed it as a trailblazer in world cinema’s post-World War II transformation away from artifice into realistic documentary-like modes, a movement that encompasses classics from the Italian neo-realist Bicycle Thieves (1948) to Elia Kazan’s On the Waterfront (1954). Yet at the same time, in the same film, Welles and his editor—and future director—Robert Wise brilliantly take a formalist tack, utilizing a cinematic montage that brutally boils down Kane’s first marriage into six whirlwind snapshots over time, all at the breakfast table. Cued by voice-over narration, this flashback opens on the couple’s honeymoon ardor but closes with a serving of chilly silence, accented visually by the couple’s growing distance from each other and the lengthening of the table.
From that opening deathbed exclamation, Welles and his sound crew deftly crafted the audio track to simulate a sense of depth for both the dialogue and a scene’s ambient noises. In this way, Welles does for his soundtrack what deep focus does for his visuals—creating a fuller, richer aural dimension, a penchant for reflecting his virtuoso talents in both theater and radio. No discussion of sound in Kane would be complete without giving a shout-out to another irreplaceable cog, composer Bernard Herrmann, who would go on to a prolific Hollywood career, writing marvelously expressive orchestral scores for Alfred Hitchcock classics (including Psycho and Vertigo) and, in his valedictory triumph, Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver.
Herrmann excelled at fashioning Wagnerian musical leitmotifs, that is, unique melodies that are identified with specific characters (think of John Williams’ relentless shark theme in Jaws). It’s noteworthy that Kane’s own Rosebud theme wafts through several scenes, causing attentive audiences to tune in for clues.
The Set
When Welles first took a tour of all the resources at his disposal in the RKO studios, he famously gushed, “This is the biggest electric train set a boy ever had!” Not simply Toland’s cameras and lights, Wise’s editing machines, or Herrmann’s allusive music, but equally the props and sets as overseen by Perry Ferguson, the film’s associate art director. With nearly all the scenes shot in studio soundstages, on less than a $1 million budget Kane was far from the spendthrift production that its detractors called it. Indeed, impressively large-looking sets like the baronial main hall of Kane’s Xanadu mansion were in fact only partially built to save on costs and its incompleteness was cleverly masked by Toland’s gloomy low-key lighting. Combine that with deep focus (via wide-angle lenses that make background objects appear even more distant) and seemingly faraway sounds (enhanced by echoes), and the eye is tricked into perceiving a bigger space than what’s actually there. “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain,” indeed.
While ostensibly the story of the rise and fall of Charles Foster Kane (a tour-de-force acted by young Welles himself), most anyone in 1941 media who read the script or saw the movie would have thought Welles and Mankiewicz’s magnum opus was no doubt a veiled biopic of Hearst, and not just of him but equally of his longtime mistress, actress Marion Davies. Instead of boosting the screen career of his mistress, as Hearst did, Kane pushes Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore) into singing grand opera, much against her will—and nearly into suicide. Evidently, it was the portrayal of Alexander/Davies as a boozy, no-talent chanteuse that got Hearst to stop the presses and call out the hounds on RKO and Welles. It didn’t help matters that Welles was not just a brash wunderkind but came from the highfalutin New York theater world. He was also a Roosevelt New Dealer in politically conservative Hollywood, plus he wore a beard.
Over 80 years later, when all the principal players have bowed out and Hearst only lives on through his namesake media empire and via tours of his legendary San Simeon California castle (once the site of Hollywood’s most exclusive sleepover parties), Citizen Kane has a new resonance, not simply for its remarkable technical, writing, and acting achievements, but for its timeless themes and discourses on moneyed U.S. society, the press, and the individual. It’s the story of mass-media power, of course, centered on one man whose reckless and materialistic egotism tramples his youthful idealism. While it’s a Hearst roman-a-clef, the hero’s tragic trajectory bears an uncanny resemblance to any number of U.S. cultural and entrepreneurial giants—from Howard Hughes to Elvis Presley and beyond—who began their historic careers in fame, fast company, and fortune yet ended them as sad, solitary wrecks.
Here too, as Kane’s career unfolds as a publisher, he is in the jovial company of his two closest friends, Jed (Joseph Cotten) and Mr. Bernstein (Everett Sloane), who both truly care for him. There are hints that Jed may be gay. By the end—that is, the beginning and middle—of the film, all three appear aged and estranged, and their friendships faded like yesterday’s news.
Perhaps even more timely, Kane literally lords over his paramour-turned-wife Susan, controlling her—and others—not just with wealth and the printed word but with his very voice, which we hear amplified through microphones or simply through his own vocal power. We can readily deem such artistic continuities as belonging to an auteur, that widely overused descriptor of a director whose distinctive themes and/or techniques appear from work to work, if often subtle or covert. Despite the successive waves of feminism from the years of suffragettes to Women’s Liberation and MeToo, were we listening we would have heard the voices of females used and abused—sexually and otherwise—by domineering men. Perhaps even more so now since women have fully entered the workplace in the West, including in fields where angels once feared to tread. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 17 | https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/celebrity/against-appearances | en | Against Appearances | http://laphamsquarterly.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/images/essay/orsonwelles.jpg?itok=lEwIOnuf | http://laphamsquarterly.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/images/essay/orsonwelles.jpg?itok=lEwIOnuf | [
"https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=710572093141893&ev=PageView&noscript=1",
"https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/sites/default/files/styles/podcast_large_custom_user_xsmall_2x/public/images/essay/orsonwelles.jpg?itok=AxK7GBcv×tamp=1423002677",
"https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/sites/default/files/images/artwork/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Bruce Bawer",
"Francine Prose",
"Nathaniel Rich"
] | null | Orson Welles became a star not by creating some great work, but by simply scaring the hell out of people. | en | https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/sites/all/themes/laphams_theme/favicon.ico | Lapham’s Quarterly | https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/celebrity/against-appearances | Not long before the star, co-writer, producer, and director of Citizen Kane died at the age of seventy on October 10, 1985, The New York Times Magazine ran a cover story by his authorized biographer, Barbara Leaming, under the title, “Orson Welles: The Unfulfilled Promise.” The phrase resurfaced three months later in the Times obituary, which also described Welles as a “boy wonder”—and, a few paragraphs later, as a “Wonder Boy”—who was touched by “genius” but who had failed “to realize his dreams.” While focusing on the triumphs of Welles’ teens and early twenties, the obit said little about his later works, preferring instead to dwell on the “controversy” and “polemics” he inspired. There were also generous quotes from such Welles detractors as Broadway critic Walter Kerr, who called him “possibly the world’s youngest has-been.”
From midcentury onward, few Americans would have challenged the idea that Welles was washed-up. The members of the baby-boom generation, myself among them, knew Welles was a great director who, before we were born, had directed the greatest film of all time. Hardly any of us had ever seen it. What we did see was Welles the talk-show raconteur—a regal, bearded figure whose imposing physical presence, magisterial baritone, and combination of gravitas and good humor commanded the small screen like a colossus. His erudite, entertaining conversations with Johnny, Merv, and Dick Cavett gave the impression that he had read everything, been everywhere, known everybody. His life rarely required embellishment, but when the TV cameras were rolling, Welles merrily embellished away, spinning improbable stories about how he’d met Hitler and how his father had broken the bank at Monte Carlo. There was also Welles the TV pitchman, for millions of us his voice forever to be associated less with a soliloquy from King Lear than with the bemusing assurance that Paul Masson “will sell no wine before its time.” Or again, in still another persona, Welles was the purveyor of Kulchur to mainstream America, reciting Romeo’s dying words on I Love Lucy, delivering to The Dean Martin Show a speech by Falstaff.
Who else but a great man would be invited on those TV shows to strut and fret a few minutes upon the stage as a sort of emissary descended from the mysterious heights of high culture when such things still mattered? It was the golden age of the American middlebrow, the era when Will and Ariel Durant were busy popularizing history and philosophy, and Isaac Asimov and George Gamow were performing the same service for science. Like them, Welles made the difficult things he loved accessible to the masses. He knew how to package even
Shakespeare in such a way as to make the Bard digestible, sandwiching soliloquies, for example, between magic tricks and comedy skits. Welles, who had played many monarchs over the years, was himself a sort of high-culture version of King Michael of Romania—one of those sometime sovereigns whose stationery still bore royal seals even though their kingdoms no longer existed.
But for us kids he was a “pure” celebrity in much the way that Paris Hilton is today, a person whose fame floated free of any accomplishment to which we’d actually borne witness. Had we been asked to name a movie director, Welles would have come to mind first, even though we’d never seen a frame of his work; at the same time we’d seen countless films whose directors we wouldn’t be able to identify under threat of death or dismemberment. Who directed Mary Poppins, or even The Wizard of Oz? The only name that loomed remotely as large as Welles was Hitchcock, but even he was just the “master of suspense,” not the Great Director, the supreme cinematic artist. It was Welles who introduced us to the very concept of Great Director: thanks largely to him, Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, Lynch, and Tarantino have become household names. None of these men, however, would ever come close to matching the aura of Welles. Certainly none of them had a backstory to compare with his.
Born in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 1915, Welles was a child prodigy who at the age of ten was profiled in a Madison newspaper that exclaimed over his “fluent command of the language” and acquaintance with “books far beyond his years.” He was a gifted musician but had dropped music when his mother died; after his father’s death, the boy ended his formal education at fifteen and went to Ireland to sketch the countryside. After presenting himself as a star of the New York Theatre Guild to the management of Dublin’s famous Gate Theatre, he was cast in a leading role—and received rave notices. At seventeen, he coedited Everybody’s Shakespeare, a successful series of abridgements for high-school students.
Soon he was in New York, working as a writer, actor, and director both on stage and on air, churning out radio dramas with staggering speed and felicity—he took part in hundreds of radio broadcasts in his lifetime—and speaking into microphones with a seemingly inborn authority. Arthur Miller recalled decades later, “Welles’ genius with the microphone; he seemed to climb into it, his word-carving voice winding into one’s brain. No actor had such intimacy and sheer presence.” At twenty, Welles won praise for an all-black production of Macbeth in Harlem, a venture that was motivated partly by his sincere concern for racial equality and partly by a well-nigh incomparable appetite and talent for getting his name in the papers. In 1937 he and John Houseman formed the Mercury Theatre company and began producing stage and radio plays, one of which made him internationally famous when the innovative faux-newscast approach of his CBS radio adaptation of War of the Worlds sent citizens across the country into a panic, fearing the earth was under attack by Martians.
Despite his wide range of formidable gifts, he became a star not by creating some great work but, quite simply, by scaring the hell out of people. And since this was a time when Hollywood rushed to snap up anyone who’d made a splash in New York, Welles was summoned westward. True to his contrarian nature, he turned down the first few offers, saying that he was not particularly eager to make motion pictures. Why, then, did he agree to become a director? “We’re in the age of film,” he later declared. “Film is at the heart of life.” Whether or not this sentiment was truly uppermost in his thoughts when he refused those initial entreaties, the effect was to make the studios take their bids higher and higher. Consequently, the two-picture deal he struck with RKO in 1939 was unique. Not only did the studio sign him to produce, direct, write, and act in two features, it gave him absolute autonomy: he’d get final cut of his films and wouldn’t have to show them to any studio heads until they were done. The unprecedented contract terms, and the perhaps equally unprecedented hard-to-get act that had precipitated them, produced effusive copy in newspapers across the U.S. They also won him instant enemies in the movie capital. “No other newcomer’s arrival in Hollywood,” reported the Saturday Evening Post at the time, “ever caused so much indignation as Welles’.” His attitude didn’t help. Even his co-writer on Citizen Kane, Herman Mankiewicz is reported to have said, “There but for the grace of God, goes God!” One of his biographers, David Thomson, stated that in Hollywood, “From July 1939 to August 1942, Orson Welles…made…a tactless, eternally incriminating assault on the notion of the proper ways things were done.” Had anyone ever done such a good job of cutting a public figure while at the same time cutting his own throat?
And so he made Citizen Kane. Welles drew his cast largely from his Mercury Theatre ensemble, later suggesting that his chief strength while filming Kane had been his ignorance. Because he was totally unfamiliar with the process, he did things—with the enthusiastic collaboration of his top-drawer cinematographer Gregg Toland—that supposedly couldn’t be done; deep focus and low-angle shots are only two of the many now familiar techniques that Kane introduced. The main difficulty, however, was not making the film but getting it released. When word got out that Welles was making a picture based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, representatives of the newspaper magnate’s empire threatened not only RKO but the entire movie colony. Welles, of course, had to have realized the old man would not take it lying down. He’d chosen as the subject of his first picture one of the few Americans outside of New York, Washington, and Hollywood who made even bigger headlines than he himself did—and who actually dictated the headlines in the first place.
Welles got more than he bargained for. Hollywood moguls were terrified that Hearst, a noted anti-Semite, would make a national issue out of the Jewish influence in Hollywood, a prospect not to be taken lightly in 1941. So intense was this fear that MGM even offered to buy Kane from RKO and destroy the negatives to ensure the film would never see the dark of a movie theater. But Welles, in what Kane’s editor, Robert Wise, called his “greatest performance,” urged RKO brass not to cave to a tyrant in the midst of a world war against fascism. His plea worked: Citizen Kane went into release. Yet while the film won respect, it lost money—partly because many exhibitors, fearing Hearst, refused to show it. The controversy sapped Welles’ power in Hollywood even as it enhanced his celebrity.
Kane was not ignored at the Oscars for 1941: Welles and Mankiewicz shared the award for Best Original Screenplay. Befitting the temper of the times, the nods for Best Picture and Best Director went to How Green Was My Valley, a sentimental story about a Welsh mining family. Very few Americans, one suspects, saw this as an outrage. Only years later did critics and directors who’d seen Citizen Kane in their formative years elevate it in a way few had foreseen. In 1959 François Truffaut said that it “consecrated a great many of us to the vocation of cinéaste”; Martin Scorsese said that its director “inspired more people to become filmmakers than anybody else in the history of cinema.” In 1952, Citizen Kane was absent from the film magazine Sight & Sound’s decennial list of the ten best pictures of all time; in the 1962 critics’ poll it held the top spot, where it has remained ever since.
For a long time, I had the impression that Welles had never made another movie and that this was the fault of Hollywood bosses who, caring only for money and not for art, had kicked him to the curb. Then I found out about his second picture, The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), based on Booth Tarkington’s 1918 novel of the same name. I gathered it was a marred masterpiece: RKO had taken it out of Welles’ hands, whittled it down from 132 to 88 minutes, and blessed it with a happy ending. Like Kane, Ambersons is a grim story about wealth and decay, in this instance about the decline of a rich turn-of-the-century Indianapolis family. For years the released version of Ambersons seemed to have vanished from big and small screens—the lost negatives of Welles’ original cut have become the Holy Grail for cinephiles—but it has since resurfaced, and while the studio’s butchering is evident, it remains a work of extraordinary beauty. It was also exactly the sort of film nobody wanted to see in wartime, and flopped.
Welles’ career had reached a turning point. “They destroyed Ambersons, and the picture itself destroyed me,” he later recollected. While RKO was chopping off a third of the film, he was in Brazil making what was supposed to be his third picture, It’s All True, about the lives of Brazilian peasants, fishermen, and ordinary folk celebrating Carnival in Rio. No movie emerged. Rumors spread that Welles was shooting miles of unusable film of people dancing on the beach—an account that doesn’t square with his fastidious work on Kane and Ambersons but that is not entirely inconsistent with later accounts of his disproportionate exposure of celluloid for various never-completed projects. A major aspect of the Ambersons myth has been debunked: though Welles was said to have gone way over budget, a report that forever shaped his image as a director and scared off potential backers, it has been established definitively that he stayed under budget on It’s All True, the rumors being the work of his enemies at RKO. Nonetheless, the enemies won: It’s All True was cancelled—along with Welles’ RKO contract—and much of the Rio footage was given a sailor’s burial in the Pacific. Welles called It’s All True “the one key disaster in my story.” It might also be described as the point at which the media got the upper hand over him in the struggle to shape his image. Earlier he had played the media like a maestro, establishing himself in the public eye as a multitalented wunderkind; now the media wrested back control and began the process of redefinition that led eventually to the obits describing him as a failure, a has-been, a prodigy whose promise was unfulfilled.
Not that Welles’ Hollywood career was over—not by a long shot. While the major studios were loath to bankroll a new project, they were eager to put his famous face on the silver screen. In fact he went straight from Rio to 20th Century Fox, where he played Rochester in the 1944 version of Jane Eyre —the first of his many performances for other directors. Five years later he played one of his most famous characters, the amoral Harry Lime in The Third Man, a superlative thriller (written by Graham Greene and directed by Carol Reed) about black-market dealings in postwar Vienna. Welles’ larger-than-life public image is reflected in both pictures by his casting as a mysterious figure about whom we hear a great deal before he finally appears onscreen. About this arrangement in The Third Man, Welles said, “Every sentence in the whole script is about Harry Lime—nobody talks about anything else for ten reels. And then there’s that shot in the doorway—what a star entrance that was!” It’s proof of the power of his personality that even though Welles doesn’t turn up until more than halfway through the film—and his entire performance consists of two chase scenes and a single exchange of dialogue with Joseph Cotton—he steals the show.
S uch triumphs, however, were cold comfort. Welles took acting jobs and did so much tacky TV work because he required capital to finance his own directing projects and needed to keep his name out there to impress potential backers. After RKO let him go, his life was that of a freelance director, one who, more often than not, was obliged to put his own money into his projects. He ended up appearing in or narrating over a hundred films (from Moby-Dick to The Muppet Movie), often rewriting his lines and “advising” the director. When the American Film Institute selected the cinema’s top twenty-five male stars in 1999, he clocked in at number sixteen, between Gene Kelly and Kirk Douglas. As the years went by, he became an increasingly sought-after cast member, not just because of his acting talent but also because he was the very personification of solemnity, authority, sophistication. Welles himself said that directors hired him “when they have a really bad movie and they want a cameo that will give it a little class.” He became the king of the cameos, doing single-scene star turns. Few of them provided him with an opportunity to deliver a memorable performance, but most of them contributed to his ever-growing renown. The Welles who popped up as Louis XVIII in Waterloo or as Cardinal Wolsey in A Man for All Seasons was a precursor of today’s reality-TV stars: his very presence caused viewers to instantly unsuspend disbelief. (“Hey, it’s Orson Welles!”) And as he wrapped that majestic voice around the almost invariably portentous lines he’d been given—and had probably rewritten himself—more than a few audience members, I’d wager, didn’t get drawn back into the narrative but instead exclaimed, if only to themselves, “Wow, what acting!”
Famous, adj. Conspicuously miserable.
—Ambrose Bierce, 1906
Alas, even as Welles became an increasingly familiar adornment to other people’s movies, his own latter-day directorial efforts were either well-kept secrets or quickly disappeared from theaters. After Ambersons, he directed four movies for what were then second- and third-rate Hollywood studios—The Stranger (International, 1946), The Lady from Shanghai (Columbia, 1947), Macbeth (Republic, 1948), and Touch of Evil (Universal, 1958)—plus a handful of others, among them Othello (1952), The Trial (1962) and Chimes at Midnight (1965), most of which were filmed in Europe on shoestring budgets and went into very limited release. There were also innumerable projects that he was never able to get off the ground, and some that he spent years filming on and off but
never completed.
Yet even if Welles had never made Kane or Ambersons, the best of these later films would still qualify him as a director of first rank. In Touch of Evil, a shabby, corrupt, gangster-ridden U.S.-Mexico border town becomes a locus of cinematic power; in Chimes at Midnight, Welles rearranges portions of five Shakespeare plays into a tour de force about the friendship between Prince Hal and Falstaff. Some critics carped: Welles, in their view, had done to Shakespeare what RKO had done to Ambersons. But he argued that if it was acceptable for Verdi to tinker with Shakespeare to make a good opera about Falstaff, he should be able to do likewise to make a good film. Laurence Olivier dismissed his own Shakespearean films as “utterly conventional” alongside the “brilliance” and “originality” of Welles’ versions. These later films didn’t go entirely unnoticed: Welles’ performance as Falstaff earned him a BAFTA nomination; Othello won the 1952 Grand Prize of the Festival at Cannes. Yet few people saw these movies then, and few have seen them since. Their existence even escaped the knowledge of some film-world insiders. When Welles won the American Film Institute’s Life Achievement Award in 1975, the director of True Grit and Airport, Henry Hathaway, protested, “He’s only made one movie.”
Welles had become a movie director because “We’re in the age of film. Film is at the heart of life.” Yet he’d lived well into the age of TV—an age in which people increasingly became famous for no discernible reason—and came to see his image reshaped by the medium in ways he could never have imagined. How many of those who saw him dozens of times on talk shows died without ever seeing a single complete Welles picture? The world applauded him for being a great director, but how many actually watched what he was directing? Businesspeople hired him to hawk merchandise; filmmakers knew he’d give their hackwork a touch of class. He was both great and famous, but by the end there was hardly any connection between these two adjectives.
As Leonard Bernstein learned at about the same time, the problem with earning the reputation of a child prodigy is that no matter what you go on to accomplish—and especially if many influential people aren’t even aware of what you’ve accomplished—you end up being branded a failure, because that, too, is good copy. Why spoil a clear image with a complex reality? So it was that in Welles’ last decades, and following his death, the standard take was that he was indeed a pitiable figure who’d failed to live up to his potential. Mercifully, there were dissenting voices. The day after Welles’ death, New York Times film critic Vincent Canby reacted sharply to the ubiquitous question, “What ever happened to Orson Welles?” His reply, in part: “Nothing ‘happened.’ He directed several of the greatest movies ever made…He didn’t wind up—like some—broke, or forgotten, or as a hopeless drunk, or as a mean-spirited has-been.”
For anyone who has seen those post-Kane movies, Welles’ denouement is as heartbreaking as the last moments of Kane: Welles, who at his death was working on a new film, was almost universally regarded as having spent decades coasting on past glories. One of his biographers, Joseph McBride, spells the irony out succinctly: while such colleagues as John Huston “didn’t balk at directing mediocre movies for hire in order to remain bankable, Welles was heroically unwilling to compromise as a director. But he was willing to do almost anything as an actor/personality…Unfortunately, since the American public rarely saw the films such whoring allowed him to direct, whoring was all most people thought he was doing.”
Welles’ career teaches two immutable truths about Hollywood. If you want to work within the system, you’ve got to play by its rules. You can be, or play at being, a rebel in all kinds of ways—witness Oliver Stone and Michael Moore—but you’ve still got to schmooze the money men. Welles couldn’t do that. “Orson is not a man who can bow down to idiots,” Huston said. “And Hollywood is full of them.” Furthermore, a man who produces great work outside the system and under the mainstream radar while the general public sees him doing mostly nonsense will be perceived accordingly. Welles’ own physical appearance may have been a major factor. That “stuffed cloakbag of guts”—to borrow a line from Prince Hal—simply didn’t look like a hard worker, but rather like a decadent gourmand who’d spent the last couple of decades wolfing down eight-course meals at five-star restaurants, regaling his dining companions with tales of bygone triumphs. And in fact he had spent years doing exactly that. But he’d also been making some of the finest films of his time.
For better and worse, the American movie business is different now. We’re more accustomed to the idea of the director as artist, as auteur. There are more film festivals, more opportunities for independent filmmakers with original visions. On the other hand, fewer films are put into wide release today than when Welles started out, and those that are broadly distributed are rarely pictures of the sort he made. Welles himself in his later years lamented the demise of the old studio system, whose founders, for all their crassness, had at least loved movies in a way that the corporate conglomerates do not. One can’t easily imagine a young, first-time, artsy filmmaker nowadays getting the kind of deal that Welles got with RKO.
Today there are perhaps a half dozen living directors whose fame is based solidly on their directing—among them Spielberg and Scorsese—but in order to keep their careers alive even the most notable of them have now and then had to hold their noses and churn out trash of a kind Welles would never have deigned to direct. Indeed, in an age when talk shows no longer even feign an interest in urbane conversation and when the Internet mints a new round of instant celebrities every week, one cannot even be certain that Welles, if he were alive today, would be able to exploit his fame successfully enough to continue to be a filmmaker on his own terms—which for him, in the end, was the only thing that mattered. | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 20 | https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2023/feb/03/still-great-flick-citizen-kane-taken-in-context/ | en | The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette - Arkansas' Best News Source | [
"https://wehco.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/static-4/ao_redesign/dist/img/adg-logo-white-alt.svg",
"https://wehco.media.clients.ellingtoncms.com/img/photos/2023/02/02/onfilm_0203_t800.jpg?90232451fbcadccc64a17de7521d859a8f88077d",
"https://media.arkansasonline.com/static/ao_redesign/dist/img/adg-logo.svg"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Philip Martin"
] | 2023-02-03T00:00:00 | The movie I've watched more than any other would be John Landis' "Animal House." | en | https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2023/feb/03/still-great-flick-citizen-kane-taken-in-context/ | The movie I've watched more than any other would be John Landis' "Animal House."
Let me qualify that -- "Animal House" is very likely the movie I've sat through more times than any other. When I was a kid, it seemed like we had to watch "The Wizard of Oz" at least twice a year (I was traumatized by the flying monkeys, they still make cameo appearance in my nightmares).
But I've intentionally watched "Animal House" a bunch: start to finish, maybe 20 to 30 times. I've shown it to classes and broken down some of the scenes. I try not to quote it, but recognize when others do.
I was 19 years old and in college when it came out. I went to toga parties that were inspired by it. "Animal House" is a cultural marker for my generation, like "Hang On Sloopy" might be for someone a little older than I am. While I could no doubt write a couple thousand words about "Animal House" and its particular place in the zeitgeist, I usually don't think much about it. It's enough that "Animal House" is funny in the specific way in which it is funny.
It is an important movie, but not a great movie.
"Citizen Kane" is probably the great movie I have watched most often. I don't remember when or how I first watched it, but when I did I was aware of its reputation for greatness. And that was very likely the reason I watched it.
I went through a period in my teens and early 20s when I wanted to educate myself about film, so I began to programmatically watch all these movies I heard were great.
While my movie fandom compelled me to see movies like "Animal House" and "Apocalypse Now" and "Pretty Baby" and "Grease" in theaters, I also spent a good deal of time seeking out older movies like Alain Resnais' "Hiroshima, Mon Amour" and Yasujiro Ozu's "Tokyo Story."
(Nobody believed it then or now, but the reason I had a subscription to the Playboy Channel in the early 1980s was because, very late at night, it played great foreign films. I taped movies like Michelangelo Antonioni's "L'Avventura" and Marco Ferreri's "La Grand Bouffe" off the channel.)
While it's possible and maybe even likely that I had seen "Citizen Kane" on television in the '60s or early '70s, on Jan. 17, 1976, "Saturday Night Live" ran a skit that played with the idea that "rosebud" wasn't quite the last word out of dying Charles Foster Kane's mouth.
Chevy Chase played Jed Leland, Dan Aykroyd played Kane, Laraine Newman played the nurse who'd overheard the dying declaration, and I got the joke so I must have at least been familiar with film's cryptic ending.
But I didn't watch "Kane" until after I'd seen "Animal House," around 40 years after its release, which means I saw something different from the audiences who'd watched it when it came out. They received it as a movie, as an occasion to get out of the house. They might have been on a date. They were looking for diversion. They came to it in the same spirit I came that first time to "Animal House."
And I was looking for some sort of edification, to know a film that had been acclaimed "the greatest of all time." I came to "Kane" with expectations.
Before I knew "Citizen Kane," I knew its director, Orson Welles. He was a Hollywood celebrity, less witty than Paul, but a formidable black-swaddled bulk on the end of Johnny and Merv's talk show couches. He hawked cheap wine and fish sticks. He was famous for having terrified a nation with his radio version of "The War of the Worlds" and for having, at 25, directed "Citizen Kane." He did not have the grace to go quietly or crack up spectacularly; he just hung around being ridiculous.
Welles was a failure with a certain gravitas, who exerted a curious power over the Hollywood that refused to finance his projects. There is a way of reading "Kane" as a prescient autobiography -- while Kane is famously based on real-life publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst, Welles (and screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz) imbued fictional Kane with many Wellesian qualities and congruities. Like Kane, Welles was around 8 years old when he lost his mother, though Welles' mother died and Kane's mother sends him away.
Both Welles and Kane were afflicted by what we these days might identify as toxic ambition (though audiences in 1941 might have seen it differently). Both were wunderkinds. Mankiewicz also drew on Welles' megalomania for inspiration for the Charles Foster Kane character.
...
"Kane" is a great movie, with all the baggage that comes with that (who wants to watch great movies when we could have more fun rewatching "Animal House?") but it would not have made a great novel. It is not always coherent. What is the question to its final "Jeopardy" answer -- uttered by a dying Kane, who answers in an empty room (with only the audience there to hear) -- of Rosebud? Is it what drove Charles Foster Kane to become what he became? The reporter played by William Alland can't figure it out. Neither can any of the great man's former intimates.
"I don't think any word can explain a man's life," Alland finally admits. Duh.
We watch the excesses of Xanadu, all the treasure and junk amassed by voracious Kane during his lifetime, being cataloged and sorted. And his childhood sled Rosebud being flung into an incinerator.
This is an elliptical image; the sled usually is taken as a symbol of Kane's lost childhood.
But we should remember that "Citizen Kane" is a hit piece, a barely disguised attack on William Randolph Hearst, the press magnate turned politician, who once, the story goes, had the drunken Welles forcibly expelled from one of the parties he hosted for the Hollywood elite at his estate at San Simeon.
Welles made "Citizen Kane" in retaliation, hiring Mankiewicz in part because the writer -- who had also been given the heave-ho from one of Hearst's parties -- knew a lot of the old man's secrets (there is an alternate theory of "rosebud" that can't be safely alluded to in a family newspaper). Hearst hated both of them.
A couple of years ago, David Fincher's "Mank," about Mankiewicz and the making of "Kane," revived the stubborn question of who deserves the larger share of credit for writing "Kane." "Mank," written by Fincher's father, was inspired by Pauline Kael's famous 1971 essay "Raising Kane," which forcefully argues that Mankiewicz, not Welles, was the essential genius behind the film.
I like "Mank" a lot, but find it difficult to imagine people who aren't already steeped in the lore surrounding "Kane" finding it interesting. It's an inside baseball project, a Hollywood movie about a famous Hollywood movie that is still assumed to have been the work of a singular genius named Orson Welles (who never lived up to the early promise demonstrated by the film).
"Mank" is a clever movie, and it's tempting to read it as a screed against so-called auteur theory -- the idea that the director of the film can be considered its sole author -- directed by one of our foremost auteurs.
To really get "Mank," you have to know "Kane" better than I did when I got the joke underpinning the "SNL" skit. To appreciate "Mank," you need to understand the techniques cinematographer Gregg Toland developed to shoot it. You should know about Mankiewicz's reputation as a ruined talent, and the way writers like William Faulkner and F. Scott Fitzgerald were broken on Hollywood's wheel.
You should know a little film history, and about how Mankiewicz, as Kael wrote, "spearheaded the movement of that whole Broadway style of wisecracking, fast-talking, cynical-sentimental entertainment onto the national scene." Movies with so many prerequisites usually appeal to a narrow demographic. Or at least a lot narrower demographic than "Animal House." (Or "Cocaine Bear.")
It's silly to designate any one movie as the greatest ever, but we should recognize "Kane" as one of the most important Hollywood films ever made and one that, more than 80 years on, retains a capacity to entertain a wide audience.
On the most superficial level, it's a gorgeous film, with a silver-cream luster punctuated by opaque and impenetrable blacks. If its story seems obvious to modern audiences -- it is at heart a middlebrow Freudian fable that says nothing more profound than the lives of the rich are as lonely and empty as any -- it still manages to say it beautifully.
Without minimizing Mankiewicz's contribution -- and he probably was the sole author of the screenplay -- what's genuinely great about "Kane" is not the story it imagines, but how it is realized. The genius is in the execution: the brashness of Toland's revolutionary deep-focus camera as it sweeps over baldly artificial sets, a great leaping joy at having discovered untapped possibilities in a medium that had prematurely settled on a vocabulary of gesture and musical cues.
"Citizen Kane" is a great movie mostly because it is a great magic trick, an alternate universe we can visit and inhabit and will retain a certain power and gravity even after all those who made it, and all of us who've watched it, are gone.
Like all art, it's not what it says or how true it is; it's how it says its truth.
Email:
pmartin@adgnewsroom.com | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 39 | https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/celebrity/against-appearances | en | Against Appearances | http://laphamsquarterly.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/images/essay/orsonwelles.jpg?itok=lEwIOnuf | http://laphamsquarterly.org/sites/default/files/styles/thumbnail/public/images/essay/orsonwelles.jpg?itok=lEwIOnuf | [
"https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=710572093141893&ev=PageView&noscript=1",
"https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/sites/default/files/styles/podcast_large_custom_user_xsmall_2x/public/images/essay/orsonwelles.jpg?itok=AxK7GBcv×tamp=1423002677",
"https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/sites/default/files/images/artwork/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Bruce Bawer",
"Terry McDonell",
"Lewis H. Lapham"
] | null | Orson Welles became a star not by creating some great work, but by simply scaring the hell out of people. | en | https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/sites/all/themes/laphams_theme/favicon.ico | Lapham’s Quarterly | https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/celebrity/against-appearances | Not long before the star, co-writer, producer, and director of Citizen Kane died at the age of seventy on October 10, 1985, The New York Times Magazine ran a cover story by his authorized biographer, Barbara Leaming, under the title, “Orson Welles: The Unfulfilled Promise.” The phrase resurfaced three months later in the Times obituary, which also described Welles as a “boy wonder”—and, a few paragraphs later, as a “Wonder Boy”—who was touched by “genius” but who had failed “to realize his dreams.” While focusing on the triumphs of Welles’ teens and early twenties, the obit said little about his later works, preferring instead to dwell on the “controversy” and “polemics” he inspired. There were also generous quotes from such Welles detractors as Broadway critic Walter Kerr, who called him “possibly the world’s youngest has-been.”
From midcentury onward, few Americans would have challenged the idea that Welles was washed-up. The members of the baby-boom generation, myself among them, knew Welles was a great director who, before we were born, had directed the greatest film of all time. Hardly any of us had ever seen it. What we did see was Welles the talk-show raconteur—a regal, bearded figure whose imposing physical presence, magisterial baritone, and combination of gravitas and good humor commanded the small screen like a colossus. His erudite, entertaining conversations with Johnny, Merv, and Dick Cavett gave the impression that he had read everything, been everywhere, known everybody. His life rarely required embellishment, but when the TV cameras were rolling, Welles merrily embellished away, spinning improbable stories about how he’d met Hitler and how his father had broken the bank at Monte Carlo. There was also Welles the TV pitchman, for millions of us his voice forever to be associated less with a soliloquy from King Lear than with the bemusing assurance that Paul Masson “will sell no wine before its time.” Or again, in still another persona, Welles was the purveyor of Kulchur to mainstream America, reciting Romeo’s dying words on I Love Lucy, delivering to The Dean Martin Show a speech by Falstaff.
Who else but a great man would be invited on those TV shows to strut and fret a few minutes upon the stage as a sort of emissary descended from the mysterious heights of high culture when such things still mattered? It was the golden age of the American middlebrow, the era when Will and Ariel Durant were busy popularizing history and philosophy, and Isaac Asimov and George Gamow were performing the same service for science. Like them, Welles made the difficult things he loved accessible to the masses. He knew how to package even
Shakespeare in such a way as to make the Bard digestible, sandwiching soliloquies, for example, between magic tricks and comedy skits. Welles, who had played many monarchs over the years, was himself a sort of high-culture version of King Michael of Romania—one of those sometime sovereigns whose stationery still bore royal seals even though their kingdoms no longer existed.
But for us kids he was a “pure” celebrity in much the way that Paris Hilton is today, a person whose fame floated free of any accomplishment to which we’d actually borne witness. Had we been asked to name a movie director, Welles would have come to mind first, even though we’d never seen a frame of his work; at the same time we’d seen countless films whose directors we wouldn’t be able to identify under threat of death or dismemberment. Who directed Mary Poppins, or even The Wizard of Oz? The only name that loomed remotely as large as Welles was Hitchcock, but even he was just the “master of suspense,” not the Great Director, the supreme cinematic artist. It was Welles who introduced us to the very concept of Great Director: thanks largely to him, Spielberg, Scorsese, Coppola, Lynch, and Tarantino have become household names. None of these men, however, would ever come close to matching the aura of Welles. Certainly none of them had a backstory to compare with his.
Born in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in 1915, Welles was a child prodigy who at the age of ten was profiled in a Madison newspaper that exclaimed over his “fluent command of the language” and acquaintance with “books far beyond his years.” He was a gifted musician but had dropped music when his mother died; after his father’s death, the boy ended his formal education at fifteen and went to Ireland to sketch the countryside. After presenting himself as a star of the New York Theatre Guild to the management of Dublin’s famous Gate Theatre, he was cast in a leading role—and received rave notices. At seventeen, he coedited Everybody’s Shakespeare, a successful series of abridgements for high-school students.
Soon he was in New York, working as a writer, actor, and director both on stage and on air, churning out radio dramas with staggering speed and felicity—he took part in hundreds of radio broadcasts in his lifetime—and speaking into microphones with a seemingly inborn authority. Arthur Miller recalled decades later, “Welles’ genius with the microphone; he seemed to climb into it, his word-carving voice winding into one’s brain. No actor had such intimacy and sheer presence.” At twenty, Welles won praise for an all-black production of Macbeth in Harlem, a venture that was motivated partly by his sincere concern for racial equality and partly by a well-nigh incomparable appetite and talent for getting his name in the papers. In 1937 he and John Houseman formed the Mercury Theatre company and began producing stage and radio plays, one of which made him internationally famous when the innovative faux-newscast approach of his CBS radio adaptation of War of the Worlds sent citizens across the country into a panic, fearing the earth was under attack by Martians.
Despite his wide range of formidable gifts, he became a star not by creating some great work but, quite simply, by scaring the hell out of people. And since this was a time when Hollywood rushed to snap up anyone who’d made a splash in New York, Welles was summoned westward. True to his contrarian nature, he turned down the first few offers, saying that he was not particularly eager to make motion pictures. Why, then, did he agree to become a director? “We’re in the age of film,” he later declared. “Film is at the heart of life.” Whether or not this sentiment was truly uppermost in his thoughts when he refused those initial entreaties, the effect was to make the studios take their bids higher and higher. Consequently, the two-picture deal he struck with RKO in 1939 was unique. Not only did the studio sign him to produce, direct, write, and act in two features, it gave him absolute autonomy: he’d get final cut of his films and wouldn’t have to show them to any studio heads until they were done. The unprecedented contract terms, and the perhaps equally unprecedented hard-to-get act that had precipitated them, produced effusive copy in newspapers across the U.S. They also won him instant enemies in the movie capital. “No other newcomer’s arrival in Hollywood,” reported the Saturday Evening Post at the time, “ever caused so much indignation as Welles’.” His attitude didn’t help. Even his co-writer on Citizen Kane, Herman Mankiewicz is reported to have said, “There but for the grace of God, goes God!” One of his biographers, David Thomson, stated that in Hollywood, “From July 1939 to August 1942, Orson Welles…made…a tactless, eternally incriminating assault on the notion of the proper ways things were done.” Had anyone ever done such a good job of cutting a public figure while at the same time cutting his own throat?
And so he made Citizen Kane. Welles drew his cast largely from his Mercury Theatre ensemble, later suggesting that his chief strength while filming Kane had been his ignorance. Because he was totally unfamiliar with the process, he did things—with the enthusiastic collaboration of his top-drawer cinematographer Gregg Toland—that supposedly couldn’t be done; deep focus and low-angle shots are only two of the many now familiar techniques that Kane introduced. The main difficulty, however, was not making the film but getting it released. When word got out that Welles was making a picture based on the life of William Randolph Hearst, representatives of the newspaper magnate’s empire threatened not only RKO but the entire movie colony. Welles, of course, had to have realized the old man would not take it lying down. He’d chosen as the subject of his first picture one of the few Americans outside of New York, Washington, and Hollywood who made even bigger headlines than he himself did—and who actually dictated the headlines in the first place.
Welles got more than he bargained for. Hollywood moguls were terrified that Hearst, a noted anti-Semite, would make a national issue out of the Jewish influence in Hollywood, a prospect not to be taken lightly in 1941. So intense was this fear that MGM even offered to buy Kane from RKO and destroy the negatives to ensure the film would never see the dark of a movie theater. But Welles, in what Kane’s editor, Robert Wise, called his “greatest performance,” urged RKO brass not to cave to a tyrant in the midst of a world war against fascism. His plea worked: Citizen Kane went into release. Yet while the film won respect, it lost money—partly because many exhibitors, fearing Hearst, refused to show it. The controversy sapped Welles’ power in Hollywood even as it enhanced his celebrity.
Kane was not ignored at the Oscars for 1941: Welles and Mankiewicz shared the award for Best Original Screenplay. Befitting the temper of the times, the nods for Best Picture and Best Director went to How Green Was My Valley, a sentimental story about a Welsh mining family. Very few Americans, one suspects, saw this as an outrage. Only years later did critics and directors who’d seen Citizen Kane in their formative years elevate it in a way few had foreseen. In 1959 François Truffaut said that it “consecrated a great many of us to the vocation of cinéaste”; Martin Scorsese said that its director “inspired more people to become filmmakers than anybody else in the history of cinema.” In 1952, Citizen Kane was absent from the film magazine Sight & Sound’s decennial list of the ten best pictures of all time; in the 1962 critics’ poll it held the top spot, where it has remained ever since.
For a long time, I had the impression that Welles had never made another movie and that this was the fault of Hollywood bosses who, caring only for money and not for art, had kicked him to the curb. Then I found out about his second picture, The Magnificent Ambersons (1942), based on Booth Tarkington’s 1918 novel of the same name. I gathered it was a marred masterpiece: RKO had taken it out of Welles’ hands, whittled it down from 132 to 88 minutes, and blessed it with a happy ending. Like Kane, Ambersons is a grim story about wealth and decay, in this instance about the decline of a rich turn-of-the-century Indianapolis family. For years the released version of Ambersons seemed to have vanished from big and small screens—the lost negatives of Welles’ original cut have become the Holy Grail for cinephiles—but it has since resurfaced, and while the studio’s butchering is evident, it remains a work of extraordinary beauty. It was also exactly the sort of film nobody wanted to see in wartime, and flopped.
Welles’ career had reached a turning point. “They destroyed Ambersons, and the picture itself destroyed me,” he later recollected. While RKO was chopping off a third of the film, he was in Brazil making what was supposed to be his third picture, It’s All True, about the lives of Brazilian peasants, fishermen, and ordinary folk celebrating Carnival in Rio. No movie emerged. Rumors spread that Welles was shooting miles of unusable film of people dancing on the beach—an account that doesn’t square with his fastidious work on Kane and Ambersons but that is not entirely inconsistent with later accounts of his disproportionate exposure of celluloid for various never-completed projects. A major aspect of the Ambersons myth has been debunked: though Welles was said to have gone way over budget, a report that forever shaped his image as a director and scared off potential backers, it has been established definitively that he stayed under budget on It’s All True, the rumors being the work of his enemies at RKO. Nonetheless, the enemies won: It’s All True was cancelled—along with Welles’ RKO contract—and much of the Rio footage was given a sailor’s burial in the Pacific. Welles called It’s All True “the one key disaster in my story.” It might also be described as the point at which the media got the upper hand over him in the struggle to shape his image. Earlier he had played the media like a maestro, establishing himself in the public eye as a multitalented wunderkind; now the media wrested back control and began the process of redefinition that led eventually to the obits describing him as a failure, a has-been, a prodigy whose promise was unfulfilled.
Not that Welles’ Hollywood career was over—not by a long shot. While the major studios were loath to bankroll a new project, they were eager to put his famous face on the silver screen. In fact he went straight from Rio to 20th Century Fox, where he played Rochester in the 1944 version of Jane Eyre —the first of his many performances for other directors. Five years later he played one of his most famous characters, the amoral Harry Lime in The Third Man, a superlative thriller (written by Graham Greene and directed by Carol Reed) about black-market dealings in postwar Vienna. Welles’ larger-than-life public image is reflected in both pictures by his casting as a mysterious figure about whom we hear a great deal before he finally appears onscreen. About this arrangement in The Third Man, Welles said, “Every sentence in the whole script is about Harry Lime—nobody talks about anything else for ten reels. And then there’s that shot in the doorway—what a star entrance that was!” It’s proof of the power of his personality that even though Welles doesn’t turn up until more than halfway through the film—and his entire performance consists of two chase scenes and a single exchange of dialogue with Joseph Cotton—he steals the show.
S uch triumphs, however, were cold comfort. Welles took acting jobs and did so much tacky TV work because he required capital to finance his own directing projects and needed to keep his name out there to impress potential backers. After RKO let him go, his life was that of a freelance director, one who, more often than not, was obliged to put his own money into his projects. He ended up appearing in or narrating over a hundred films (from Moby-Dick to The Muppet Movie), often rewriting his lines and “advising” the director. When the American Film Institute selected the cinema’s top twenty-five male stars in 1999, he clocked in at number sixteen, between Gene Kelly and Kirk Douglas. As the years went by, he became an increasingly sought-after cast member, not just because of his acting talent but also because he was the very personification of solemnity, authority, sophistication. Welles himself said that directors hired him “when they have a really bad movie and they want a cameo that will give it a little class.” He became the king of the cameos, doing single-scene star turns. Few of them provided him with an opportunity to deliver a memorable performance, but most of them contributed to his ever-growing renown. The Welles who popped up as Louis XVIII in Waterloo or as Cardinal Wolsey in A Man for All Seasons was a precursor of today’s reality-TV stars: his very presence caused viewers to instantly unsuspend disbelief. (“Hey, it’s Orson Welles!”) And as he wrapped that majestic voice around the almost invariably portentous lines he’d been given—and had probably rewritten himself—more than a few audience members, I’d wager, didn’t get drawn back into the narrative but instead exclaimed, if only to themselves, “Wow, what acting!”
Alas, even as Welles became an increasingly familiar adornment to other people’s movies, his own latter-day directorial efforts were either well-kept secrets or quickly disappeared from theaters. After Ambersons, he directed four movies for what were then second- and third-rate Hollywood studios—The Stranger (International, 1946), The Lady from Shanghai (Columbia, 1947), Macbeth (Republic, 1948), and Touch of Evil (Universal, 1958)—plus a handful of others, among them Othello (1952), The Trial (1962) and Chimes at Midnight (1965), most of which were filmed in Europe on shoestring budgets and went into very limited release. There were also innumerable projects that he was never able to get off the ground, and some that he spent years filming on and off but
never completed.
Yet even if Welles had never made Kane or Ambersons, the best of these later films would still qualify him as a director of first rank. In Touch of Evil, a shabby, corrupt, gangster-ridden U.S.-Mexico border town becomes a locus of cinematic power; in Chimes at Midnight, Welles rearranges portions of five Shakespeare plays into a tour de force about the friendship between Prince Hal and Falstaff. Some critics carped: Welles, in their view, had done to Shakespeare what RKO had done to Ambersons. But he argued that if it was acceptable for Verdi to tinker with Shakespeare to make a good opera about Falstaff, he should be able to do likewise to make a good film. Laurence Olivier dismissed his own Shakespearean films as “utterly conventional” alongside the “brilliance” and “originality” of Welles’ versions. These later films didn’t go entirely unnoticed: Welles’ performance as Falstaff earned him a BAFTA nomination; Othello won the 1952 Grand Prize of the Festival at Cannes. Yet few people saw these movies then, and few have seen them since. Their existence even escaped the knowledge of some film-world insiders. When Welles won the American Film Institute’s Life Achievement Award in 1975, the director of True Grit and Airport, Henry Hathaway, protested, “He’s only made one movie.”
Welles had become a movie director because “We’re in the age of film. Film is at the heart of life.” Yet he’d lived well into the age of TV—an age in which people increasingly became famous for no discernible reason—and came to see his image reshaped by the medium in ways he could never have imagined. How many of those who saw him dozens of times on talk shows died without ever seeing a single complete Welles picture? The world applauded him for being a great director, but how many actually watched what he was directing? Businesspeople hired him to hawk merchandise; filmmakers knew he’d give their hackwork a touch of class. He was both great and famous, but by the end there was hardly any connection between these two adjectives.
As Leonard Bernstein learned at about the same time, the problem with earning the reputation of a child prodigy is that no matter what you go on to accomplish—and especially if many influential people aren’t even aware of what you’ve accomplished—you end up being branded a failure, because that, too, is good copy. Why spoil a clear image with a complex reality? So it was that in Welles’ last decades, and following his death, the standard take was that he was indeed a pitiable figure who’d failed to live up to his potential. Mercifully, there were dissenting voices. The day after Welles’ death, New York Times film critic Vincent Canby reacted sharply to the ubiquitous question, “What ever happened to Orson Welles?” His reply, in part: “Nothing ‘happened.’ He directed several of the greatest movies ever made…He didn’t wind up—like some—broke, or forgotten, or as a hopeless drunk, or as a mean-spirited has-been.”
For anyone who has seen those post-Kane movies, Welles’ denouement is as heartbreaking as the last moments of Kane: Welles, who at his death was working on a new film, was almost universally regarded as having spent decades coasting on past glories. One of his biographers, Joseph McBride, spells the irony out succinctly: while such colleagues as John Huston “didn’t balk at directing mediocre movies for hire in order to remain bankable, Welles was heroically unwilling to compromise as a director. But he was willing to do almost anything as an actor/personality…Unfortunately, since the American public rarely saw the films such whoring allowed him to direct, whoring was all most people thought he was doing.”
Welles’ career teaches two immutable truths about Hollywood. If you want to work within the system, you’ve got to play by its rules. You can be, or play at being, a rebel in all kinds of ways—witness Oliver Stone and Michael Moore—but you’ve still got to schmooze the money men. Welles couldn’t do that. “Orson is not a man who can bow down to idiots,” Huston said. “And Hollywood is full of them.” Furthermore, a man who produces great work outside the system and under the mainstream radar while the general public sees him doing mostly nonsense will be perceived accordingly. Welles’ own physical appearance may have been a major factor. That “stuffed cloakbag of guts”—to borrow a line from Prince Hal—simply didn’t look like a hard worker, but rather like a decadent gourmand who’d spent the last couple of decades wolfing down eight-course meals at five-star restaurants, regaling his dining companions with tales of bygone triumphs. And in fact he had spent years doing exactly that. But he’d also been making some of the finest films of his time.
For better and worse, the American movie business is different now. We’re more accustomed to the idea of the director as artist, as auteur. There are more film festivals, more opportunities for independent filmmakers with original visions. On the other hand, fewer films are put into wide release today than when Welles started out, and those that are broadly distributed are rarely pictures of the sort he made. Welles himself in his later years lamented the demise of the old studio system, whose founders, for all their crassness, had at least loved movies in a way that the corporate conglomerates do not. One can’t easily imagine a young, first-time, artsy filmmaker nowadays getting the kind of deal that Welles got with RKO.
Today there are perhaps a half dozen living directors whose fame is based solidly on their directing—among them Spielberg and Scorsese—but in order to keep their careers alive even the most notable of them have now and then had to hold their noses and churn out trash of a kind Welles would never have deigned to direct. Indeed, in an age when talk shows no longer even feign an interest in urbane conversation and when the Internet mints a new round of instant celebrities every week, one cannot even be certain that Welles, if he were alive today, would be able to exploit his fame successfully enough to continue to be a filmmaker on his own terms—which for him, in the end, was the only thing that mattered. | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 22 | https://summariq.com/citizen-kane/ | en | Citizen Kane summary | [
"https://summariq.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/summariq-logo-220.png",
"https://summariq.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/citizen-kane-orson-welles.webp"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"adminka"
] | 2024-05-08T23:08:42+00:00 | Citizen Kane summary: Citizen Kane is a film about a wealthy newspaper magnate, Charles Foster Kane, whose life and career are investigated by a reporter trying to decipher the meaning behind his mysterious last word, "Rosebud." | en | summariq.com | https://summariq.com/citizen-kane/ | Summary in a 1 minute read
Citizen Kane is a classic film directed by Orson Welles that tells the story of Charles Foster Kane, a wealthy newspaper tycoon who dies alone in his mansion. The film follows a reporter's investigation into Kane's life, trying to uncover the meaning behind his last word, "Rosebud." Through flashbacks and interviews with those who knew him, we see Kane's rise to power and his eventual downfall. As a child, Kane was taken from his poor family and raised by a wealthy banker, which shaped his desire for success and control. He marries a woman he doesn't love and becomes increasingly isolated and corrupt as he gains more power. In the end, we learn that "Rosebud" was the name of Kane's childhood sled, symbolizing his lost innocence and the emptiness of his material wealth. Citizen Kane is a powerful exploration of the human desire for love, power, and the consequences of both.
Summary in 1 page
Charles Foster Kane: The movie follows the life of Charles Foster Kane, a wealthy newspaper tycoon who rose to fame and power in the early 20th century.
Jedediah Leland: Kane’s best friend and a journalist who works for his newspaper.
Susan Alexander: Kane’s second wife, a singer and actress who he forces into a career in opera.
Thatcher: Kane’s guardian who takes him away from his poor family and raises him as his own.
Raymond: Kane’s butler and confidant.
The movie begins with the death of Charles Foster Kane, who utters the word “Rosebud” before taking his last breath. A group of reporters are assigned to find out the meaning behind this mysterious word, and they begin to investigate Kane’s life.
The story then flashes back to Kane’s childhood, where he is taken away from his poor family by Thatcher and brought to live a life of luxury. As he grows up, Kane becomes a rebellious and ambitious young man, determined to make a name for himself.
Kane inherits a small newspaper from Thatcher and turns it into a successful and influential publication, using sensationalist headlines and controversial stories to increase circulation. He also becomes involved in politics, using his newspaper to support his own political ambitions.
As Kane’s power and wealth grow, he becomes more and more isolated from those around him. His first marriage to Emily falls apart due to his infidelity, and he marries Susan Alexander, a young singer who he forces into a career in opera. However, Susan’s lack of talent and Kane’s controlling nature lead to a strained and unhappy marriage.
Meanwhile, Jedediah Leland, Kane’s best friend and a journalist at his newspaper, becomes disillusioned with Kane’s methods and leaves the paper. He later reveals to the reporters investigating “Rosebud” that Kane’s downfall began when he became more concerned with his own ego and power than with the truth.
As the reporters continue to dig into Kane’s life, they discover that “Rosebud” was the name of a sled from Kane’s childhood. They also find out that Kane’s last word was a symbol of his longing for the simple and happy life he had before being taken away from his family.
The movie ends with the reporters realizing that they may never fully understand the meaning of “Rosebud” or the complex man that was Charles Foster Kane. The audience is left to ponder the true significance of the word and its connection to Kane’s life.
In conclusion, Citizen Kane is a classic film that explores the rise and fall of a powerful and enigmatic man. Through the use of flashbacks and multiple perspectives, the movie delves into the complexities of human nature and the consequences of pursuing wealth and power at any cost. Orson Welles’ masterful direction and the exceptional performances of the cast make Citizen Kane a timeless masterpiece that continues to captivate audiences to this day. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 77 | https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane | en | Citizen Kane | [
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Citizen-Kane-Orson-Welles.jpg/220px-Citizen-Kane-Orson-Welles.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Citizen_Kane_poster%2C_1941_%28Style_B%2C_unrestored%29.jpg/220px-Citizen_Kane_poster%2C_1941_%28Style_B%2C_unrestored%29.jpg",
... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Contributors to Wikimedia projects"
] | 2004-12-01T01:50:16+00:00 | en | /static/favicon/wikiquote.ico | https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Citizen_Kane | Citizen Kane is a 1941 film that tells the story of powerful newspaper owner Charles Foster Kane, who was many things to many people, both in life and, retrospectively, in death. It is believed to be loosely based on the life of the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst and is widely considered one of the best American films ever.
Directed by Orson Welles. Written by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles.
The classic story of power and the press.taglines
Charles Foster Kane
[edit]
Rosebud...
Opening line; his last word as he dies.
Note: ranked #17 in the American Film Institute's list of the top 100 movie quotations in American cinema.
The news goes on for 24 hours a day.
If the headline is big enough, it makes the news big enough.
As Charles Foster Kane who owns eighty-two thousand, six hundred and thirty-four shares of public transit - you see, I do have a general idea of my holdings - I sympathize with you. Charles Foster Kane is a scoundrel. His paper should be run out of town. A committee should be formed to boycott him. You may, if you can form such a committee, put me down for a contribution of one thousand dollars.
It's my duty and — I'll let you in on a little secret — it's also my pleasure to see to it that decent, hard-working people in this community aren't robbed blind by a pack of money-mad pirates, just because they haven't had anybody to look after their interests.
You're right. I did lose a million dollars last year. I expect to lose a million dollars this year. I expect to lose a million dollars next year! You know, Mr. Thatcher, at the rate of a million dollars a year, I'll have to close this place in 60 years.
If I don't look after the interests of the underprivileged, maybe somebody else will. Maybe somebody without any money or property, and that would be too bad!
I always gagged on that silver spoon.
We have no secrets from our readers. Mr. Thatcher is one of our most devoted readers, Mr. Bernstein. He knows what's wrong with every issue since I've taken charge.
I was on my way to the Western Manhattan Warehouse in search of my youth. You see, my mother died a long time ago and her things were put in storage out West. There wasn't any other place to put them. I thought I'd send for them now. Tonight, I was going to take a look at them. You know, a sort of sentimental journey.
I run a couple of newspapers. What do you do?
[I entered this campaign] with one purpose only, to point out and make public the dishonesty, the downright villainy of Boss Jim W. Gettys' political machine, now in complete control of the government of this state. I made no campaign promises, because until a few weeks ago, I had no hope of being elected. Now however, I am something more than a hope. Jim Gettys, Jim Gettys has something less than a chance. Every straw vote, every independent poll shows that I'll be elected. Now I can afford to make some promises. The working man, the working man and the slum child know they can expect my best efforts in their interests. The nation's ordinary citizens know that I'll do everything in my power to protect the underprivileged, the underpaid, and the underfed.
I don't think there's one word that can describe a man's life.
A toast, Jedediah, to love on my terms. Those are the only terms anybody ever knows - his own.
Don't worry about me, Gettys. Don't worry about me. I'm Charles Foster Kane! I'm no cheap, crooked politician, trying to save himself from the consequences of his crimes! [louder] Gettys! I'm going to send you to Sing Sing! Sing Sing, Gettys! Sing Sing!
You can't buy a bag of peanuts in this town without someone writing a song about you.
Mr. Bernstein
[edit]
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Cornell, Switzerland... he was thrown out of a lot of colleges.
President's niece, huh? Before Mr. Kane's through with her, she'll be a president's wife.
We never lost as much as we made.
[to Jedediah Leland] Mr. Kane is finishing the review you started - he's writing a bad notice. I guess that'll show you.
Old age. It's the only disease, Mr. Thompson, that you don't look forward to being cured of.
A fellow will remember a lot of things you wouldn't think he'd remember. You take me. One day, back in 1896, I was crossing over to Jersey on the ferry, and as we pulled out, there was another ferry pulling in, and on it there was a girl waiting to get off. A white dress she had on. She was carrying a white parasol. I only saw her for one second. She didn't see me at all, but I'll bet a month hasn't gone by since that I haven't thought of that girl.
Well, it’s no trick to make a lot of money if all you want is to make a lot of money.
Jedediah Leland
[edit]
I can remember everything. That's my curse, young man. It's the greatest curse that's ever been inflicted on the human race: memory.
[referring to Kane's 'Declaration of Principles'] I'd like to keep that particular piece of paper myself. I have a hunch it might turn out to be something pretty important, a document, like the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, and my first report card at school.
I suppose he had some private sort of greatness, but he kept it to himself. He never gave himself away. He never gave anything away, he just left you a tip, hmm? Ha. He had a generous mind. I don't suppose anybody ever had so many opinions. But he never believed in anything except Charlie Kane. He never had a conviction except Charlie Kane in his life. I suppose he died without one. It must have been pretty unpleasant. Of course, a lot of us check out without having any special convictions about death, but we do know what we believe in, we do believe in something.
He married for love. Love. That's why he did everything. That's why he went into politics. It seems we weren't enough, he wanted all the voters to love him too. Guess all he really wanted out of life was love. That's Charlie's story, how he lost it. You see, he just didn't have any to give. Well, he loved Charlie Kane of course, very dearly, and his mother. I guess he always loved her.
You know, when I was a young man there used to be an impression around that nurses were pretty. Well, it was no truer then than it is today.
Newsreel Narrator
[edit]
Legendary was Xanadu where Kubla Khan decreed his stately pleasure dome. Today, almost as legendary is Florida's Xanadu, world's largest private pleasure ground. Here, on the deserts of the Gulf Coast, a private mountain was commissioned and successfully built. One hundred thousand trees, twenty thousand tons of marble are the ingredients of Xanadu's mountain. Contents of Xanadu's palace: paintings, pictures, statues, the very stones of many another palace — a collection of everything so big it can never be catalogued or appraised, enough for ten museums — the loot of the world. Xanadu's livestock: the fowl of the air, the fish of the sea, the beast of the field and jungle. Two of each, the biggest private zoo since Noah. Like the pharaohs, Xanadu's landlord leaves many stones to mark his grave. Since the pyramids, Xanadu is the costliest monument a man has built to himself. Here in Xanadu last week, Xanadu's landlord was laid to rest: a potent figure of our century, America's Kubla Khan, Charles Foster Kane.
Kane helped to change the world, but Kane's world now is history. The great yellow journalist himself lived to be history, outlived his power to make it.
Alone in his never-finished, already decaying pleasure palace, aloof, seldom visited, never photographed, an emperor of new strength continued to direct his failing empire, varyingly attempted to sway as he once did the destinies of a nation that had ceased to listen to him, ceased to trust him. Then last week, as it must to all men, death came to Charles Foster Kane.
Others
[edit]
Rawlston: It isn't enough to tell us what a man did. You've got to tell us who he was.
Walter Parks Thatcher: Mr. Charles Foster Kane, in every essence of his social beliefs, and by the dangerous manner in which he has persistently attacked the American traditions of private property, initiative, and opportunity for advancement, is in fact, nothing more or less than a Communist!
Politician: The words of Charles Foster Kane are a menace to every working man in this land. He is today what he has always been, and always will be: a Fascist!
Susan: [referring to Xanadu] Oh, a person could go crazy in this dump with nobody to talk to, nobody to have any fun with. Forty-nine thousand acres of nothing but scenery and statues. I'm lonesome.
Raymond: [last lines] Throw that junk in!
Dialogue
[edit]
Rawlston: Maybe he told us all about himself on his deathbed.
Jerry Thompson: Yeah, and maybe he didn't. Maybe it was just a—
Rawlston: All we saw on that screen was a big American.
Thompson: One of the biggest!
Rawlston: But how is he any different from Ford? Or Hearst for that matter? Or John Doe?
Thompson: Yeah, sure!
Rawlston: I tell you, Thompson, a man's dying words—
Newsman: What were they?
Thompson: Oh, you don't read the papers? [laughter]
Rawlston: When Charles Foster Kane died, he said just one word.
Thompson: Rosebud.
Newsman: Tough guy, huh? Dies calling for Rosebud.
Rawlston: Just that one word! But who is she?
Newsman: What was it?
Rawlston: Here's a man that could have been president, who was as loved and hated and as talked about as any man in our time, but when he comes to die he's got something on his mind called Rosebud. Now what does that mean?
Newsman: It's a race horse he bet on once.
Newsman: Yeah, that didn't come in.
Rawlston: All right. But what was the race?
Thatcher's secretary: [Quoting from Kane's letter] "Sorry, but I'm not interested in gold mines, oil wells, shipping or real estate. One item"—
Walter Parks Thatcher: Nonsense! [snatches the letter] Now see: "One item on your list intrigues me: the New York Inquirer, a little newspaper I understand we acquired in a foreclosure proceeding. Please don't sell it. I'm coming back to America to take charge. I think it would be fun to run a newspaper." [repeating] "I think it would be fun to run a newspaper!"
Charles: Now look, Mr. Carter, here's a front-page story in the Chronicle about a Mrs. Harry Silverstone in Brooklyn who's missing. Now, she's probably murdered. Here's a picture of her in the Chronicle. Why isn't there something about it in the Inquirer?
Carter: Because we are running a newspaper. There's no proof that that woman is murdered, or even that she's dead...It's not our function to report the gossip of housewives. If we were interested in that kind of thing, Mr. Kane, we could fill the paper twice over daily.
Charles: Mr. Carter, that's the kind of thing we are going to be interested in, from now on.
Leland: These men who were with the Chronicle. Weren't they just as devoted to the Chronicle politics as they are now to our policies?
Bernstein: Sure, they're just like anybody else. They got work to do, they do it! Only they happen to be the best men in the business!
Leland: Do we stand for the same things the Chronicle stands for, Bernstein?
Bernstein: Certainly not. Listen, Mr. Kane, he'll have them changed to his kind of newspapermen in a week!
Leland: There's always a chance, of course, that they'll change Mr. Kane, without his knowing it.
Emily: Sometimes, I think I'd prefer a rival of flesh-and-blood.
Charles: Oh Emily, I don't spend that much time on the newspaper.
Emily: It isn't just the time. It's what you print-attacking the President.
Charles: You mean Uncle John.
Emily: I mean the President of the United States.
Charles: He's still Uncle John, and he's still a well-meaning fathead who's letting a pack of high-pressure crooks run his administration. This whole oil scandal—
Emily: He happens to be the President, Charles, not you.
Charles: That's a mistake that will be corrected one of these days.
Emily: Really Charles, people will think-
Charles: -what I tell them to think.
Charles: You know, Mr. Bernstein, if I hadn't been very rich, I might have been a really great man.
Walter Parks Thatcher: Don't you think you are?
Charles: I think I did pretty well under the circumstances.
Walter Parks Thatcher: What would you like to have been?
Charles: Everything you hate.
Charles: Six years ago, I looked at a picture of the world's greatest newspaper men. I felt like a kid in front of a candy store. Well, tonight, six years later, I got my candy-all of it. Welcome, gentlemen, to the Inquirer! Make up an extra copy of that picture and send it to the Chronicle, will you please? It'll make you all happy to learn that our circulation this morning was the greatest in New York, 684,000.
Bernstein: Six hundred and eighty-four thousand one hundred and thirty-two!
Charles: Right! Having thus welcomed you, I hope you'll forgive my rudeness in taking leave of you. I'm going abroad next week for a vacation. I've promised my doctor for some time now that I'd leave when I could, and I now realize that I can't.
Bernstein: Say, Mr. Kane, as long as you're promising, there's a lot of pictures and statues in Europe you haven't bought yet.
Charles: You can't blame me, Mr. Bernstein. They've been making statues for two thousand years, and I've only been buying for five.
Bernstein: Promise me, Mr. Kane.
Charles: I promise you, Mr. Bernstein.
Bernstein: Thank you.
Charles: Mr. Bernstein? You don't expect me to keep any of those promises, do you?
Leland: You still eating?
Charles: I'm still hungry.
Charles: Are we going to declare war on Spain, or are we not?
Leland: The Inquirer already has.
Charles: You long-faced, overdressed anarchist!
Leland: I am not overdressed!
Charles: You are too. Mr. Bernstein, look at his necktie.
Charles: Read the cable.
Bernstein: "Girls delightful in Cuba. Stop. Could send you prose poems about scenery, but don't feel right spending your money. Stop. There is no war in Cuba, signed Wheeler." Any answer?
Charles: Yes. "Dear Wheeler: you provide the prose poems. I'll provide the war."
Leland: Bernstein, am I a stuffed shirt? Am I a horse-faced hypocrite? Am I a New England school marm?
Bernstein: Yes. If you thought I'd answer you any differently than what Mr. Kane tells you...
Charles Foster Kane III: Mother, is Pop governor yet?
Emily: Not yet, Junior.
Charles: This gentleman was saying...
Jim Gettys: I'm not a gentleman. [To Emily] Your husband's only trying to be funny calling me one. I don't even know what a gentleman is. You see, my idea of a gentleman...Well, Mrs. Kane, if I owned a newspaper and I didn't like the way somebody was doing things, some politician say, I'd fight him with everything I had. Only I wouldn't show him in a convict's suit with stripes so his children could see the picture in the paper, or his mother.
Charles: [after his affair with Susan is revealed] I'm staying here. I can fight this all alone.
Emily: Charles, if you don't listen to reason, it may be too late.
Charles: Too late. For what? For you and this public thief to take the love of the people of this state away from me?
Susan: Charlie, you got other things to think about. Your little boy, you don't want him to read about you in the papers.
Charles: There's only one person in the world who decides what I'm going to do, and that's me.
Emily: You decided what you were going to do, Charles, some time ago.
Charles: I set back the sacred cause of reform, is that it? All right, that's the way they want it, the people have made their choice. It's obvious the people prefer Jim Gettys to me.
Leland: You talk about the people as though you owned them, as though they belong to you. Goodness. As long as I can remember, you've talked about giving the people their rights, as if you can make them a present of liberty, as a reward for services rendered. Remember the working man?
Charles: I'll get drunk too, Jedediah, if it'll do any good.
Leland: Ah, it won't do any good. Besides, you never get drunk. You used to write an awful lot about the workingman. He's turning into something called organized labor. You're not going to like that one little bit when you find out it means that your working man expects something as his right, not as your gift! Charlie, when your precious underprivileged really get together, oh boy! That's going to add up to something bigger than your privileges! Then I don't know what you'll do! Sail away to a desert island probably and lord it over the monkeys!
Charles: I wouldn't worry about it too much, Jed. There'll probably be a few of them there to let me know when I do something wrong.
Leland: Mmm, you may not always be so lucky. You don't care about anything except you. You just want to persuade people that you love 'em so much that they ought to love you back. Only you want love on your own terms. Something to be played your way, according to your rules.
[On Kane finishing Leland's bad review of Susan's opera singing]
Thompson: Everybody knows that story, Mr. Leland. But why did he do it? How could a man write a notice like that?
Leland: You just don't know Charlie. He thought that by finishing that notice he could show me he was an honest man. He was always trying to prove something. The whole thing about Susie being an opera singer, that was trying to prove something. You know what the headline was the day before the election? "Candidate Kane found in love nest with quote, singer, unquote." He was gonna take the quotes off the singer.
Thompson: He made an awful lot of money.
Bernstein: Well, it's no trick to make a lot of money, if all you want is to make a lot of money.
Reporter: [Asking about the potential for war in Europe] Isn't that correct?
Charles: Don't believe everything you hear on the radio. Read the 'Inquirer'!
Reporter: How did you find business conditions in Europe?
Charles: How did I find business conditions in Europe, Mr. Bones? With great difficulty. [laughs]
Reporter: You glad to be back, Mr. Kane?
Charles: I'm always glad to be back, young man. I'm an American. Always been an American. Anything else? When I was a reporter, we asked them quicker than that. Come on, young fella.
Reporter: What do you think of the chances for war in Europe?
Charles: I've talked with the responsible leaders of the Great Powers - England, France, Germany, and Italy - they're too intelligent to embark on a project which would mean the end of civilization as we now know it. You can take my word for it. There'll be no war.
Walter Parks Thatcher: You're too old to call me "Mr. Thatcher," Charles.
Charles: You're too old to be called anything else. You were always too old.
Charles: Hello, Jedediah.
Leland: Hello, Charlie. I didn't know we were speaking.
Charles: Sure, we're speaking, Jedediah. You're fired.
Susan: You're awful funny, aren't you? I'll tell you one thing you're not going to be funny about, and that's my singing. I'm through. I never wanted to do it in the first place.
Charles: You will continue with your singing, Susan. I don't propose to have myself made ridiculous.
Susan: You don't propose to have yourself made ridiculous?! What about me? I'm the one who's got to do the singing. I'm the one who gets the raspberries. Why don't you let me alone?
Susan: Oh sure, you give me things, but that don't mean anything to you.
Charles: You're in a tent, darling. You aren't at home. I can hear you very well if you speak in a normal tone of voice.
Susan: What's the difference between giving me a bracelet or giving somebody else a hundred thousand dollars for a statue you're gonna keep crated up and never even look at? It's just money. It doesn't mean anything! You never really give me anything that belongs to you, that you care about!
Charles: Susan, I want you to stop this.
Susan: I'm not gonna stop it.
Charles: Right now!
Susan: You never gave me anything in your whole life. You just tried to bribe me into giving you something.
Charles: Susan!
Charles: Whatever I do, I do because I love you.
Susan: You don't love me. You want me to love you. "Sure, I'm Charles Foster Kane. Whatever you want, just name it and it's yours. But you've got to love me!" [Kane slaps her] Don't tell me you're sorry.
Charles: I'm not sorry.
[Susan is leaving Kane]
Susan: Goodbye Charlie.
Charles: Susan. Please don't go. No. Please, Susan. From now on, everything will be exactly the way you want it to be, not the way I think you want it, but your way. You mustn't go. You can't do this to me.
Susan: I see. So it's you that this is being done to. It's not me at all. Not what it means to me. [laughs] I can't do this to you? Oh, yes I can. [leaves]
Reporter 1: What's that?
Reporter 2: Another Venus.
Reporter 1: Twenty-five thousand bucks. That's a lot of money to pay for a dame without a head.
Female reporter: If you could've found out what Rosebud meant, I bet that would've explained everything.
Thompson: No, I don't think so; no. Mr. Kane was a man who got everything he wanted and then lost it. Maybe Rosebud was something he couldn't get, or something he lost. Anyway, it wouldn't have explained anything. I don't think any word can explain a man's life. No, I guess Rosebud is just a piece in a jigsaw puzzle, a missing piece.
Taglines
[edit]
It's Terrific!
Everybody's talking about it!
The classic story of power and the press.
I hate him! I love him! He's a scoundrel! He's a saint! He's crazy! He's a genius!
Some called him a hero. Others called him a heel...
Cast
[edit]
Orson Welles - Charles Foster Kane
Joseph Cotten - Jedediah Leland
Everett Sloane - Mr. Bernstein
Dorothy Comingore - Susan Alexander Kane
Agnes Moorehead - Mary Kane
Ruth Warrick - Emily Monroe Norton Kane
Ray Collins - James W. Gettys
William Alland - Jerry Thompson
Paul Stewart - Raymond
George Coulouris - Walter Parks Thatcher
Philip Van Zandt - Mr. Rawlston
Wikipedia has an article about:
Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
The Battle Over Citizen Kane at American Experience (PBS)
Citizen Kane quotes at the Internet Movie Database
Citizen Kane at Rotten Tomatoes
Citizen Kane at filmsite.org | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 2 | https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Citizen-Kane-(1941) | en | Financial Information | [
"https://www.the-numbers.com/images/logo_2021/SVG/numbers-logo-r.svg",
"https://www.the-numbers.com/images/icons/facebook.svg",
"https://www.the-numbers.com/images/icons/twitter.svg",
"https://www.the-numbers.com/images/icons/tiktok_TN.svg",
"https://www.the-numbers.com/images/icons/instagram_TN.svg",
"ht... | [] | [] | [
"Citizen Kane (1941)",
"Movie",
"Film",
"Financial",
"Result",
"Performance",
"Budget",
"Gross",
"Earnings",
"Sales",
"Revenue",
"Box Office",
"Daily",
"Weekend",
"Weekly",
"Records",
"Opening Weekend",
"Profitability",
"Domestic",
"International",
"Worldwide",
"Overseas",
... | null | [] | null | Financial analysis of Citizen Kane (1941) including budget, domestic and international box office gross, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, total earnings and profitability. | https://the-numbers.com/images/logo_2021/favicon.ico | The Numbers | https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Citizen-Kane-(1941) | DateRankUnits
this
Week% ChangeTotal
UnitsSpending
this
WeekTotal
SpendingWeeks
in
Release Sep 18, 20111111,93811,938$477,402$477,4021,047
Our DVD and Blu-ray sales estimates are based on weekly retail surveys, which we use to build a weekly market share estimate for each title we are tracking. The market share is converted into a weekly sales estimate based on industry reports on the overall size of the market, including reports published in Media Play News.
For example, if our weekly retail survey estimates that a particular title sold 1% of all units that week, and the industry reports sales of 1,500,000 units in total, we will estimate 15,000 units were sold of that title. The consumer spending estimate is based on the average sales price for the title in the retailers we survey.
We refine our estimates from week to week as more data becomes available. In particular, we adjust weekly sales figures for the quarter once the total market estimates are published by the Digital Entertainment Group. Figures will therefore fluctuate each week, and totals for individual titles can go up or down as we update our estimates.
Because sales figures are estimated based on sampling, they will be more accurate for higher-selling titles.
DVD and Blu-ray Releases for January 17th, 2012
January 16th, 2012
It's a slow week on the home market; there are four first run wide releases on this week's list, which is not bad, but only one of those, The Ides of March, earned reviews that were even remotely good. Unfortunately, there are only a few smaller releases that are worth checking out, so it's a pretty shallow week as well. As far as Pick of the Week is concerned, The Ides of March on DVD or Blu-ray Combo Pack win that honor, practically by default. More...
Blu-ray Sales: Thor Goes to War
September 28th, 2011
There are three major releases on this week's Blu-ray sales chart, including one that was released a little early, and one that was released a little late. Leading the way in terms of units sold is Thor with 799,000 units / $22.00 million. Its opening Blu-ray ratio was just a hair under 50% and that's a figure that will quickly become the norm for blockbuster releases. More...
DVD and Blu-ray Releases for September 13th, 2011
September 13th, 2011
It is an incredibly busy week on the home market with several major releases, including Thor on Blu-ray, as well as Star Wars The Complete Saga, which comes out this Friday. Unfortunately, neither of the screeners have arrived yet, so it is hard to tell if they are pick of the week material. I figured Star Wars would easily take that honor, but the changes made have pissed off enough people that I think it's best that I hold off making a judgment till after it arrives. After spending way too long trying to pick between the two, I'm going with Degrassi: Season Ten, Part Two instead. More... | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 81 | https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/movies/objection-quashes-sale-of-welles-s-kane-oscar.html | en | Objection Quashes Sale Of Welles's 'Kane' Oscar | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Dave Kehr",
"www.nytimes.com",
"dave-kehr"
] | 2003-07-22T00:00:00 | Christie's, ending standoff with Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, withdraws from sale Oscar won by Orson Welles in 1942 as co-writer of Citizen Kane; Oscar had been part of large selection of Welles-related material and would have been centerpiece of Entertainment Memorabilia auction; photo (M) | en | /vi-assets/static-assets/favicon-d2483f10ef688e6f89e23806b9700298.ico | https://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/22/movies/objection-quashes-sale-of-welles-s-kane-oscar.html | A standoff over one of the most illustrious artifacts of American film, the Oscar won by Orson Welles in 1942 as the co-writer of ''Citizen Kane,'' ended yesterday when Christie's withdrew it from sale. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Hollywood trade group that sponsors the Oscars, had objected to its sale, claiming the right to buy back the statue for $1.
The Oscar was to have been the centerpiece of Christie's ''Entertainment Memorabilia'' auction on Friday and was highlighted on the catalog cover. It was among a large selection of Welles-related material and had carried an estimate of $300,000 to $400,000. The rest of the sale is to continue as planned.
''The Oscar has been withdrawn,'' a Christie's spokeswoman said late yesterday afternoon, ''so we will not be able to offer it in the sale.''
Although several major Oscars have reached the market in recent years, including Ronald Colman's best-acting award for ''A Double Life'' (1947), which sold at Christie's last year for $174,500, the academy has long imposed restrictions on how and where Oscars can be sold.
Bruce Davis, the academy's executive director, had said he was surprised that the Welles Oscar had been scheduled for sale because ''we have a letter from Christie's general counsel assuring us that the Oscar would not be offered for sale until the legal issues are resolved.'' He continued, ''We were extremely puzzled to hear on Friday that they intended to go ahead and put it on the block.''
Since 1950 the academy has asked all Oscar recipients to sign an agreement stipulating that should the owner ever offer the Oscar for sale, the academy has the first right of purchase, at the nominal cost of $1. Mr. Davis said the agreement was evoked to stop the sale of the Kane Oscar, even though it was won eight years before the agreement came into being.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 98 | https://rhms200fall2017.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/character-blocking-in-citizen-kane/ | en | Character Blocking in Citizen Kane | [
"https://rhms200fall2017.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/vertigo-2.jpg?w=608",
"https://defaultcustomheadersdata.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/city1.jpg?resize=1200,280",
"https://rhms200fall2017.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/screen-shot-2017-09-15-at-3-26-49-pm.png?w=840",
"https://rhms200f... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Author mattyhodgkins"
] | 2017-09-21T00:00:00 | Citizen Kane has so many beautiful stylistic qualities that enhance its viewing experience. With all the amazing costumes and lighting throughout the movie, its hard not to appreciate the aesthetic of the film. Orson Wells especially excels in the mise en scène department with his use of character blocking. Wells specifically uses the positioning and placement… | en | Media Design and Criticism | https://rhms200fall2017.wordpress.com/2017/09/21/character-blocking-in-citizen-kane/ | Citizen Kane has so many beautiful stylistic qualities that enhance its viewing experience. With all the amazing costumes and lighting throughout the movie, its hard not to appreciate the aesthetic of the film. Orson Wells especially excels in the mise en scène department with his use of character blocking. Wells specifically uses the positioning and placement of each actor to display power. There are many scenes during the movie where Kane is actually not in control or the center of the universe. I will discuss these scenes in depth and analyze the ways in which character blocking is employed.
The image above is a still from early on in the film. This is the moment in the film where Kane’s mother is creating a trust fund for Kane after a gold mine was discovered on their property. Kane’s mother is also arranging to have Kane live with Thatcher so that he can be properly educated and live a better life. This still displays exactly who is in control and has the most influence/power. Although the whole scene is about Kane, his character has the least amount of control. Kane’s mother is actually the most powerful person in the scene, and her placement in relation to the camera emphasizes that. She is the most prominent in the shot, her face is the closest to the audience. Thatcher does not even try and converse with Kane’s father because he is just a bumbling idiot, which is why is placed far left side. Thatcher is the next most powerful character in the scene because he holds the future of Kane. Thatcher is placed closest to the center of the screen because of this importance, allowing the audience to almost always have a view of him. Lastly we have Kane himself, placed as far away as he possibly can while still being visible. Because Kane is still the focus of the scene, he is kept towards the center of the shot, but the audience, much like the characters themselves, can ignore him for the most part.
This still is from a scene that occurs much later in the film. This is the scene in which Kane’s affair with Susan is discovered by his political opponent and his wife. The same principals of power are being used with this character blocking. Emily is the most important character in this scene because his political opponent is discussing the consequences of continuing to run with her and not Kane. Emily might not be facing the camera and is off to the side, but she is the closest object to the screen to convey her importance. The political opponent also has a fair bit of control in this scene because he is the one black mailing Kane into dropping out of the race. He is not quite as close to the screen as Emily, but he is far closer than Susan and Kane. Throughout the scene Susan tries to explain the situation or interject with a point. Every time she does so, she also moves closer to the screen, displaying more power than even Kane. Similarly to the earlier scene, Kane is positioned farthest back, but also closest to the center. The scene revolves around Kane, but he is powerless.
This next still takes place right after the previous one. Emily and his opponent have finished their discussion and Emily agrees to have Kane drop out of the race. She then says goodnight to the opponent and tells Kane they are leaving. This moment is when Kane takes back power and control of the scene. He refuses to leave with Emily and refuses to back out of the race. He states, “There’s only one person in the world to decide what I’ll do. And that’s me.” Kane spent most of this scene hidden away in the back, but even without words the audience knows he has taken back control when he walks forward to the camera and positions himself dead center. Character blocking is used throughout the film for a number of stylistic and thematic purposes, but Welles’ use of it to display power is the most effective. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 97 | https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/citizen-kane-productivity-edward-lamont | en | Citizen Kane and productivity | https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/C4E12AQE0k6dWUPjUNw/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1520210053261?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=wLzjwEVdXN9fmAI0poM3mpix6I_9Y97PlkXZDjn3UKw | https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/C4E12AQE0k6dWUPjUNw/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1520210053261?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=wLzjwEVdXN9fmAI0poM3mpix6I_9Y97PlkXZDjn3UKw | [
"https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/v2/C4E12AQE0k6dWUPjUNw/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/article-cover_image-shrink_600_2000/0/1520210053261?e=2147483647&v=beta&t=wLzjwEVdXN9fmAI0poM3mpix6I_9Y97PlkXZDjn3UKw"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Edward Lamont"
] | 2017-03-24T09:31:07+00:00 | Orson Welles was an astonishing talent. Famously brilliant, he produced, co-wrote, directed and acted the lead role in Citizen Kane, a film that won an academy award and has consistently topped the ‘all time best film’ lists in my lifetime. | en | https://static.licdn.com/aero-v1/sc/h/al2o9zrvru7aqj8e1x2rzsrca | https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/citizen-kane-productivity-edward-lamont | Orson Welles was an astonishing talent. Famously brilliant, he produced, co-wrote, directed and acted the lead role in Citizen Kane, a film that won an academy award and has consistently topped the ‘all time best film’ lists in my lifetime.
We can quibble about whether it is in fact the best film of all time – that will be a matter of taste – but to write, produce, act and direct in a movie that is even considered for such an accolade is an amazing feat. Most of us couldn’t manage to do even one of those jobs in a manner that won an award, never mind all four of them in the same picture. And that was merely the pinnacle of his achievement. A quick look at Wikipedia will reveal the depth and scale of his genius.
Given he was long dead before the book was published, it is unlikely that Orson Welles was a GTDer.
His output was prodigious however, and in one respect he was absolutely aligned with what we teach: he was trying to get consistently great results with the minimum effort possible. For example, at one point, Welles decided to reduce his cognitive load by not learning his lines as an actor.
He still needed to get through his scenes and give his fellow actors the right cues, but he simply had too much on his plate – what with the writing, directing and producing – to learn his lines by heart.
His solution? He had all of his lines written in huge font on poster-sized cards, and then had the cards held or arranged around the set – out of sight of the camera – so all he had to do was learn in what order to turn for his next line to get through a given scene.
Brilliant. I’ve often wished for someone to hold up my lines during difficult moments in my life, but my producer tells me there is no money in the budget for it.
Still, over the years, I’ve found something similar to be very helpful. It is for those moments when it is not enough to have the reminder for something in my system – because I won’t have my system to hand when I need to be reminded. I need the reminder there where I need it, in the moment that I need to see it. I call them my ‘Orson notes’. An untrained eye might mistake them for Post-its or random scraps of paper, but they are in fact Orson Notes. The romantic in me finds it helpful to enhance the mundane in my life with a bit of Hollywood glamour.
An example? As I’ve said elsewhere, if I am clarifying things in my inbox after I ‘close the shop’ (stop responding to mails) at 7pm, I simply put my work into the ‘drafts’ folder for sending the next morning. Occasionally, the following day has started faster than I expected, and I’ve missed the actual sending of the drafts. I found that dropping a quick hand-written note with ‘drafts’ on my desk when I put the first mail in drafts – a la Orson – was all it took to make sure that I sent the drafts in the morning.
Another place this has worked is with seminar prep. One of the things I need to do on the night before a seminar is charge up the speakers that I use for music and videos during the following day. If I can’t do that charging somewhere that I’m sure to see the speakers first thing the next morning, it has happened that I’ve left them behind. Solution? An ‘Orson’ with ‘speakers’ written on it and placed on my bag to remind myself to pick up the speakers that have been charging overnight out of sight in the corner of my hotel room. That is all it takes to ensure a good nights sleep. And speakers in the seminar room.
Finally, while working on recovering from a recent injury, I was advised to ice the affected joint regularly, even while on the road. The best way to make sure I took my ice pack with me? A note in my suitcase with ‘ice pack’ on it. When I go to pack the suitcase it falls out, and I put it on the edge of the bag so as to be unable to miss the note when closing the suitcase before I go. Presto – iced-limbs on tap wherever I happen to be in the world.
This is not high tech stuff, but it doesn’t need to be. It just needs to get the job done.
Maximum results with minimum input. Orson would certainly approve.
Any Orson Notes kicking around in your life? I’d love to hear if you are doing something similar. | |||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 61 | https://www.upress.state.ms.us/News/2020/MANK-The-Story-behind-the-Story-behind-the-Story-of-Citizen-Kane | en | MANK: The Story behind the Story behind the Story of Citizen Kane | [
"https://www.upress.state.ms.us/extension/upm/design/upm/images/upm.svg",
"https://www.upress.state.ms.us/var/site/storage/images/news/2020/mank-the-story-behind-the-story-behind-the-story-of-citizen-kane/1195267-3-eng-CA/MANK-The-Story-behind-the-Story-behind-the-Story-of-Citizen-Kane_rb_blogfeatured.png",
"ht... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | The University Press of Mississippi (UPM) publishes books that interpret the South and its culture to the nation and the world, scholarly books of the highest distinction, and books vital to readers in African American studies, Caribbean studies, comics studies, film and media studies, folklore, history, literary studies, music, and popular culture. | /extension/upm/design/upm/images/favicon.ico | https://www.upress.state.ms.us/News/2020/MANK-The-Story-behind-the-Story-behind-the-Story-of-Citizen-Kane | By Sydney Ladensohn Stern, author of The Brothers Mankiewicz: Hope, Heartbreak, and Hollywood Classics
David Fincher’s Mank, streaming on Netflix starting December 4, fulfills the director’s long-held dream to make a black and white film based on a screenplay by his late father, journalist Jack Fincher. Jack loved movies, especially Citizen Kane, Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece about newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. In the 1990s, before David made his first feature film, Jack wrote a biopic about Herman Mankiewcz, the screenwriter who wrote Citizen Kane’s first draft.
Like Citizen Kane, Mank is a character portrait, the story of an alcoholic screenwriter (played by Gary Oldman) who writes a script for the money, casually and with no expectations. Neither he nor anyone connected with it, least of all Orson Welles, has an inkling it will become Hollywood’s most iconic film. But Herman does come to realize that he has done the best work of his career and, at least for one shining moment, takes pride in what he has created and sees his chance at a bit of immortality.
For a biopic, as opposed to a documentary, Mank is surprisingly accurate. In writing The Brothers Mankiewicz, my dual biography of Herman and his younger, more successful brother, writer-director Joseph L. Mankiewicz, I spent years researching the details of Herman’s life and Citizen Kane’s creation, so by now I know them well. Any film based on a true story must take liberties with facts—events have to be compressed, sequences reordered, characters added or subtracted or compounded. Mank does all of those, including the addition of a fictional subplot about California’s 1934 gubernatorial election. Even so, it remains admirably faithful to the facts. And when it cannot be literally true, it aspires to find the characters’ emotional truth.
In Citizen Kane, the young Charlie Kane outrages his former guardian when he says, “I think it would be fun to run a newspaper.” In that spirit, I think it would be fun to mix stills from Mank with photographs and some quotations from my book. Both tell the story.
As Mank begins, screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) has been kicked out of every major studio in Hollywood and decides to go to New York to revive his newspaper career.
They get no farther than New Mexico when Herman is seriously injured and is returned to Los Angles to recuperate.
Among Herman’s visitors is “a brilliant young writer/director/actor he had met in New York several years before and taken to immediately. The large, handsome actor barely in his twenties oozed charm and overflowed with ideas he communicated in a remarkable, resonant voice.” (Tom Burke as Orson Welles with Oldman)
The neophyte filmmaker hires Herman to write the script for a biopic about William Randolph Hearst and they agree that to keep the alcoholic screenwriter out of trouble, he will write it at a Mojave Desert dude ranch. “They embarked in a two-car caravan….Herman lay in the back of a studio limousine, accompanied by two sets of crutches and a German nurse. Houseman and Rita Alexander, an English secretary Sara had found, followed in a convertible.” (Lily Collins as Rita Alexander with Oldman)
Creating Kane: Orson Welles visits. John Houseman reads. Herman’s nurse mops his brow. Rancho Verde, 1940.
As Herman writes his screenplay in Mank, he recalls his visits to Hearst’s fabulous San Simeon and his fondness for Hearst’s mistress, actress Marion Davies. “Hearst’s Los Angeles Examiner, September 24, 1931, displays cohosts feting Marion Davies (though Hearst paid).” Marion Davies is 6th from left, arm around Louella Parsons. Sara Mankiewicz is 4th from the right. Hedda Hopper is on the end. Standing, Irving Thalberg is 4th from the left. Herman is 4th from the right. Actor John Gilbert is 2nd from the right.
“Herman and Sara suspected she drank because she was bored and feared life was passing her by.” (Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies at San Simeon costume party)
In other Mank flashbacks, Herman recalls the years he and Joe worked at Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer under Louis B. Mayer, who considered himself the father of the MGM family. “Mayer combined genuine kindness with ruthlessness, charm with histrionics (he could cry, faint, and even foam at the mouth at will), and ruled over an almost self-sufficient society.” (Oldman with Arliss Howard as Mayer, Tom Pelphrey as Joe)
Of course, Herman and Joe already had a father: Herman, Joe, and Frank Mankiewicz, aka Pop.
Enjoy Mank – I certainly did. | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 63 | https://pdfcoffee.com/david-a-cook-a-history-of-narrative-film-pdf-pdf-free.html | en | A History of Narrative Film PDF | [
"https://pdfcoffee.com/pdfcoffee/assets/img/pdfcoffee_logo.png",
"https://pdfcoffee.com/img/200x200/david-a-cook-a-history-of-narrative-film-pdf-pdf-free.jpg",
"https://pdfcoffee.com/pdfcoffee/assets/img/thumbnail_placeholder.png",
"https://pdfcoffee.com/pdfcoffee/assets/img/thumbnail_placeholder.png",
"htt... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Guest"
] | null | A H I S T O R Y O F N A R R AT I V E F I L M FIFTH EDITIONDavid A. Cook The University of North Carolina at Greensboro... | en | pdfcoffee.com | https://pdfcoffee.com/david-a-cook-a-history-of-narrative-film-pdf-pdf-free.html | Citation preview
A H I S T O R Y O F N A R R AT I V E F I L M FIFTH EDITION
David A. Cook The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
W.W. NORTON & COMPANY NEW YORK • LONDON
HISTNARR5_FM_i-xvii.indd i
n
10/12/15 5:00 pm
W. W. Norton & Company has been independent since its founding in 1923, when William Warder Norton and Mary D. Herter Norton first published lectures delivered at the People’s Institute, the adult education division of New York City’s Cooper Union. The firm soon expanded its program beyond the Institute, publishing books by celebrated academics from America and abroad. By midcentury, the two major pillars of Norton’s publishing program—trade books and college texts—were firmly established. In the 1950s, the Norton family transferred control of the company to its employees, and today—with a staff of four hundred and a comparable number of trade, college, and professional titles published each year—W. W. Norton & Company stands as the largest and oldest publishing house owned wholly by its employees.
The publisher dedicates this edition to the memory of Jamie Vuignier (1967–2015) Copyright © 2016, 2004, 1996, 1990, 1981 by W. W. Norton & Company, Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Editor: Peter Simon Assistant Editors: Gerra Goff and Connor Sullivan Project Editor: Sujin Hong Associate Director of Production, College: Benjamin Reynolds Managing Editor, College Digital Media: Kim Yi Media Editor: Carly Fraser Doria Associate Media Editor: Cara Folkman Media Project Editor: Jesse Newkirk Media Editorial Assistant: Ava Bramson Marketing Manager, Film: Kimberly Bowers Design Director: Rubina Yeh Book Design: Lissi Sigillo Photo Editor: Stephanie Romeo Permissions Manager: Megan Jackson Composition: MPS North America LLC MPS Project Manager: Jackie Strohl Digital File Management: Jay’s Publishers Services Illustrations: Imagineering Manufacturing: R. R. Donnelley—Kendallville, IN Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. Names: Cook, David A., author. Title: A history of narrative film / David A. Cook. Other titles: Narrative film Description: Fifth Edition. | New York : W.W. Norton & Company, [2016] | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2015044580 | ISBN 9780393920093 (pbk.) Subjects: LCSH: Motion pictures--History. Classification: LCC PN1993.5.A1 C65 2016 | DDC 791.4309--dc23 LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015044580 W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110-0017 wwnorton.com W. W. Norton & Company Ltd., Castle House, 75/76 Wells Street, London W1T 3QT 1234567890
For Diane, always And for our children, Lindsay, Gregory, and Jessica
HISTNARR5_FM_i-xvii.indd iii
10/12/15 5:00 pm
Contents Preface
xiii
Preface to the Fifth Edition
xv
• The Rise of Hollywood to International Dominance 33 Expansion on the Continent 34 • The Empire of Pathé Frères 34
01
• Louis Feuillade and the Rise of Gaumont 35 • The Société Film d’Art 39 • The Italian Superspectacle 40
ORIGINS 3 Optical Principles 3 Series Photography 5 Motion Pictures 7 Projection: Europe and America 9 The Evolution of Narrative: Georges Méliès 13 Edwin S. Porter: Developing a Concept of Continuity Editing 17
03 D. W. GRIFFITH AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NARRATIVE FORM 45 Formative Influences 46 The Beginning at Biograph 46
02 INTERNATIONAL EXPANSION, 1907–1918 25 The United States 25 • The Early Industrial Production Process 25 • The Motion Picture Patents Company 26 • The Advent of the Feature Film 28 • The Rise of the Star System 29 • The Move to Hollywood 30 • The New Studio Chiefs and Industry Realignment 30 • The “Block Booking” Dispute and the Acquisition of Theaters 32
iv
Innovation, 1908–1909: Interframe Narrative 47 Innovation, 1909–1911: Intraframe Narrative 49 Griffith’s Drive for Increased Film Length 51 Judith of Bethulia and the Move to Mutual 51 The Birth of a Nation 53 • Production 53 • Structure 56 • Impact 59 Intolerance 60 • Production 60 • Structure 61 • Influence and Defects 63 Griffith after Intolerance 64 Decline 67 The Importance of Griffith 69
04 GERMAN CINEMA OF THE WEIMAR PERIOD, 1919–1929 71 The Prewar Period 71 The Founding of UFA 72 Das Kabinett des Dr. Caligari 74 Fritz Lang 76 F. W. Murnau and the Kammerspielfilm 78 The Parufamet Agreement and the Migration to Hollywood 81 G. W. Pabst and “Street” Realism 82 Down and Out 87
05 SOVIET SILENT CINEMA AND THE THEORY OF MONTAGE, 1917–1931 89 Prerevolutionary Cinema 89 The Origins of Soviet Cinema 90 Dziga Vertov and the Kino-Eye 92 Lev Kuleshov and the Kuleshov Workshop 94 Sergei Eisenstein 99 • • • • • •
The Formative Years 99 From Theater to Film 102 The Production of Battleship Potemkin 103 The Structure of Potemkin 103 Eisenstein’s Theory of Dialectical Montage 104 October (Ten Days That Shook the World, 1928): A Laboratory for Intellectual Montage 109
CONTENTS
v
• Eisenstein after October 111 Vsevolod Pudovkin 112 Alexander Dovzhenko 114 Socialist Realism and the Decline of Soviet Cinema 115
06 HOLLYWOOD LY IN THE T TWENTIES T 119 Thom Thom o as as Ince, Mack Sennett, and the Stu t diio System of Production 120 Char Ch a li ar lie e Chaplin C 123 Bu ustter er Keaton K 127 H ro Ha old o ld Lloyd and Others 131 Hollywood Scandals and the Creation Hol Ho of the MPPDA 134 Cecil B. DeMille 136 The “Continental Touch”: Lubitsch and Others 138 In the American Grain 139 Erich von Stroheim 142
07 THE COMING OF SOUND AND COLOR, 1926–1935 151 Sound-on-Disc 151 Sound-on-Film 153 Vitaphone 154 Fox Movietone 157 The Process of Conversion 158 The Introduction of Color 161 Problems of Early Sound Recording 169 The Theoretical Debate over Sound 172 The Adjustment to Sound 174
vi
CONTENTS CONTEN TENTS TS
08 THE SOUND FILM AND THE AMERICAN STUDIO SYSTEM 179 New Genres and Old 179 Studio Politics and the Production Code 182 The Structure of the Studio System 185 • MGM 185
• Sound, 1929–1934 240 • Poetic Realism, 1934–1940 242 • Jean Renoir 245
10 ORSON WELLES AND THE MODERN SOUND FILM 251
• Paramount 187
Citizen Kane 252
• Warner Bros. 187
• Production 252
• 20th Century–Fox 187
• Structure 258
• RKO 189
• Influence 267
• The Minors 190
Welles after Citizen Kane 267
• “Poverty Row” 192 • Ethnic Cinema 193 Major Figures of the Studio Era 197 • Josef von Sternberg 197 • John Ford 199 • Howard Hawks 203 • Alfred Hitchcock 205 • George Cukor, William Wyler, and Frank Capra 217 The Heritage of the Studio System 221
11 WARTIME AND POSTWAR CINEMA: ITALY AND THE UNITED STATES, 1940–1951 275 The Effects of War 275 Italy 276 • The Italian Cinema before Neorealism 276 • The Foundations of Neorealism 278
09
• Neorealism: Major Figures and Films 280
EUROPE IN THE THIRTIES 223
The United States 285
The International Diffusion of Sound 223
• Hollywood at War 285
Britain 224
• The Postwar Boom 288
Germany 225
Postwar Genres in the United States 290
Italy 228 The Soviet Union 229
• “Social Consciousness” Films and Semi-Documentary Melodramas 290
France 233
• Film Noir 293
• Avant-Garde Impressionism, 1921–1929 233
• The Witch Hunt and the Blacklist 296
• The “Second” Avant-Garde 236
• The Arrival of Television 300
• The Decline of Neorealism 283 • The Impact of Neorealism 285
CONTENTS
vii
12 HOLLYWOOD, 1952–1965 303
• Influence of the Fifties Documentary Movement and Independent Production 347 Theory: Astruc, Bazin, Auteurism, and Cahiers du cinéma 350
The Conversion to Color 303
The New Wave (Nouvelle Vague): First Films 351
Widescreen and 3-D 305
The New Wave: Origins of Style 354
• Multiple-Camera/Projector Widescreen: Cinerama 305
Major New Wave Figures 356
• Depth: Stereoscopic 3-D 308 • The Anamorphic Widescreen Processes 310 • The Non-Anamorphic, or Wide-Film, Widescreen Processes 312 • Adjusting to Widescreen 315 • The Widescreen “Blockbuster” 317 • American Directors in the Early Widescreen Age 317
• François Truffaut 357 • Jean-Luc Godard 360 • Alain Resnais 364 • Claude Chabrol 365 • Louis Malle 367 • Eric Rohmer and Jacques Rivette 369 • Agnès Varda, Jacques Demy, and Others 370 After the Wave 372
1950s Genres 321
French Cinema in the 1980s and the 1990s 376
• The Musical 323
The Significance of the New Wave 382
• Comedy 323 • The Western 324 • The Gangster Film and the Anticommunist Film 326 • Science Fiction 328 • The “Small Film”: American Kammerspielfilm 331 Independent Production and the Decline of the Studio System 333 The Scrapping of the Production Code 335
13 THE FRENCH NEW WAVE, OR NOUVELLE VAGUE, AND ITS NATIVE CONTEXT 339 The Occupation and Postwar Cinema 339 • Robert Bresson and Jacques Tati 343 • Max Ophüls 345
viii
CONTENTS
14 NEW CINEMAS IN BRITAIN AND THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING COMMONWEALTH 385 Great Britain 385 • Postwar British Cinema and Its Context 385 • The Free Cinema Movement 387 • British “New Cinema,” or Social Realism 389 • The End of Social Realism and Beyond 392 Australia and New Zealand 404 • Australia 404 • New Zealand 411 Canada 415
15 EUROPEAN RENAISSANCE: WEST 425 The Second Italian Film Renaissance 425 • Federico Fellini 425 • Michelangelo Antonioni 428 • Ermanno Olmi, Pier Paolo Pasolini, and Bernardo Bertolucci 433 • Other Italian Auteurs 435 Popular Cinema in Italy 441 Contemporary Widescreen Technologies and Styles 444 Scandinavian or Nordic Cinema 448 • Ingmar Bergman and Others 448 • Sweden 451 • Finland 451 • Denmark and Dogme95 452 • Norway and Iceland 455 Spain 456 • Luis Buñuel 456 • New Spanish Cinema 460 Germany: Das neue Kino 463 • Postwar Origins 463 • Young German Cinema 463 • The New German Cinema 464 International Stature: Fassbinder, Herzog, Wenders, and Others 467 • Rainer Werner Fassbinder 467 • Werner Herzog 470 • Wim Wenders 473 • Hans-Jürgen Syberberg and Others 475 • Jean-Marie Straub and Marxist Aesthetics 475
CONTENTS CO O NTE TE E N TS S
ix
16 EUROPEAN RENAISSANCE: EAST 481 Poland 482 • The Polish School 482 • The Second Generation 484 • The Third Polish Cinema 486 • Solidarity and Polish Cinema 488 Former Czechoslovakia 490 • The Postwar Period 490 • The Czech New Wave 492 • “Banned Forever” 498 Hungary 500 • Three Revolutions 500 • András Kovács 502 • Miklós Jancsó 503 • Gaál, Szabó, and Mészáros 505 • Other Hungarian Directors 508 Former Yugoslavia 511 • Partisan Cinema and Nationalist Realism 512 • Novi Film 513 • The “Prague Group” 517 Bulgaria 523 Romania 526 Other Balkan Cinemas 529 The Importance of Eastern European Cinema 531
17 THE FORMER SOVIET UNION 533 Cinema during the Khrushchev Thaw 534 Sergei Parajanov and Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors 537 Cinema under Brezhnev 539 Cinema of the Non-Russian Republics 542 Baltic Cinema 542
x
CONTENTS CON N TEN TENTS TS
• Lithuania 542
China 603
• Latvia 543
• The People’s Republic of China 604
• Estonia 544
• Hong Kong 609
Moldavia (Moldova) 544
• Taiwan (Republic of China) 618
Transcaucasian Cinema 545 • Georgia 545 • Armenia 547 • Azerbaijan 549
19
Central Asian Cinema 551
THIRD WORLD CINEMA 623
• Uzbekistan 551
Latin America 625
• Kazakhstan 552
• Mexico 627
• Kirghizia (Kyrgyzstan) 553
• Brazil 629
• Tadjikistan 554
• Argentina 632
• Turkmenistan 555
• Bolivia, Peru, and Chile 635
Soviet Russian Cinema 555
• Venezuela, Colombia, and Central America 638
Glasnost, Perestroika, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union 560
Cuba and the New Latin American Cinema 640
18 WIND FROM THE EAST: JAPAN, INDIA, AND CHINA 565
Africa 643 • North Africa 643 • Sub-Saharan Africa 647 The Middle East 651 • Iran 651 • Israel 657 The Pacific Rim 659
Japan 565 • The Early Years 565 • Sound 567 • War 568
20
• Occupation 569
HOLLYWOOD, 1965–1995 669
• Rashomon, Kurosawa, and the Postwar Renaissance 570
The New American Cinema 671
• Kenji Mizoguchi 574 • Yasujiro Ozu 575 • Offscreen Space 577 • The Second Postwar Generation 578 • The Japanese New Wave 580 • Japanese Filmmaking after the New Wave 586 • Decline of the Studios 591 India 594
• The Impact of Bonnie and Clyde 671 • 2001: A Space Odyssey 674 • The Wild Bunch: “Zapping the Cong” 676 • End of a Dream 677 Hollywood in the Seventies and the Eighties 679 • Inflation and Conglomeration 679 • New Filmmakers of the Seventies and the Eighties 682
• Satyajit Ray 597
• The American Film Industry in the Age of “Kidpix” 690
• Parallel Cinema 598
• Developments in Film Stock 693
• Regional Cinemas 599
• The Effects of Video 694
CONTENTS
xi
21 THE DIGITAL DOMAIN 701 Digital Production 701 • Origins of Computer Animation, 1962–1988 702
Digital Distribution 742 “Independent” Film 743 A Glut of Indie Films? 744 Slow Cinema, Long Films 745 Long Movies on Television 746 DVD 748 “Binge-Watching” 748
Industrial Light & Magic 705
Giants in the Earth 750
• From The Abyss to Death Becomes Her 705
Some Contemporary Trends 750
• The Impact of Jurassic Park, 1993–1996 708
• The Rise and Fall of “Torture Porn” 750
Digital Domain and Titanic 709
• The Hybridization of Comedy and Drama 751
Particle Animation, 1996–1997: Twister, Independence Day, and Starship Troopers 710
Four Comic Talents 752
A New “New Hollywood,” 1997–1998 713
Other American Auteurs 755 Shape of the Future 764
The Digital Manipulation of Color 716 Bread and Circuses 719
Glossary 765
Millennial Visions 722
Photo Credits 782
A New Aesthetic for a New Century 723
Name Index 787
Digital 3-D 726
Subject Index 804
The Digital Future 728
22 A GLOBAL CINEMA? 733 Megapictures, or “Tent Poles” 733 Hollywood Abroad 738 Globalization’s Effects on Local Cinemas 738
xii
CONTENTS
Preface
W
e spend much of our waking lives surrounded by moving photographic images. They have come to occupy such a central position in our experience that it is unusual to pass even a single day without encountering them for an extended period of time, through either film or television. In short, moving photographic images have become part of the total environment of modern industrial society and, both materially and psychologically, have a shaping impact on our lives. Yet few of us have been taught to understand precisely how they work. Most of us, in fact, have extremely vague notions about how moving images are formed, and how they are structured to create the multitude of messages sent out to us by the audiovisual media on an almost continuous basis. If we made an analogy with verbal language, we would be forced to consider ourselves barely literate—able to assimilate the language form without fully comprehending it. We would, of course, be appalled to find ourselves living in a culture with a verbal literacy level of a three-year-old child. Most persons living with such limitations, like small children, would be easy prey to whoever could manipulate the language. They would be subject to the control of any entity that understood the language from the inside out and could therefore establish an authority of knowledge over them, just as verbally literate adults establish authority over children. Such a situation would be unthinkable in the modern industrial world, and our own culture has made it a priority to educate its children in the institutions of human speech, so that they can participate in the community of knowledge that verbal literacy sustains.
Imagine that a new language form came into being at the turn of the twentieth century—an audiovisual language form that first took the shape of cinema and then became, in time, the common currency of modern television. Imagine that because making statements in this language depends on an expensive industrial process, only a handful of elite specialists are trained to use it. Imagine that, although there was public anxiety about the potentially corrupting influence of the new language at its birth, it was perceived not as a language at all but as a medium of popular entertainment, and in this guise, the language has gradually colonized us as if it were the vernacular speech of some conquering foreign power. Finally, imagine waking up one day to discover that we had mistaken the language for a mode of dreaming, and in the process have become massively illiterate in what has turned into the primary language form, one that not only surrounds us materially but that, as language forms tend to do, also invades our minds. What would we do if that happened? We could choose to embrace our error and lapse into the anarchic mode of consciousness characteristic of preliterate societies, which might be fun but most certainly would be dangerous in an advanced industrial society. Or, we could attempt to instruct ourselves in the language form from ground up and from inside out. We could try to learn as much of its history, technology, and aesthetics as possible. We could trace the evolution of its syntactic and semantic forms from its birth through its present stages of development, and try to forecast the shapes it might take in the future. We could, finally, bring the apparatus of sequential logic and critical analysis to bear on the seemingly random
xiii
HISTNARR5_FM_i-xvii.indd xiii
10/12/15 5:00 pm
structures of the language in order to read them in new and meaningful ways. This scenario conforms quite accurately, I believe, to our present situation in the modern world. The language of the moving photographic images has become so pervasive in our daily lives that we scarcely notice its presence. And yet, it does surround us, sending us messages, taking positions, making statements, and constantly redefining our relationship to material reality.
xiv
We can choose to live in ignorance of its operations and be manipulated by those who control it. Or, we can teach ourselves to read it, appreciate its very real and manifold truths, and recognize its equally real and manifold deceptions. As a lifelong student and teacher of language forms, both verbal and audiovisual, I believe that most intelligent and humane persons in our culture will opt for the latter. It is for them that I have written this book.
PREFACE
HISTNARR5_FM_i-xvii.indd xiv
10/12/15 5:00 pm
Preface to the Fifth Edition
I
n the past decade, two trends have become abundantly clear—the persistence of blockbuster megapictures (or “tent poles”) that dominate the global market, and the renewed vitality of independent films, some of them art films. The advent of low-cost, high-end digital film equipment at the consumer level has meant that indie producers are no longer dependent on the technical resources of the majors. By the 2010s, thousands of small companies could produce films for a fraction of the cost of a Hollywood product. Postproduction was also rendered inexpensive by nonlinear editing software available for home computers. By 2005, about 15 percent of the U.S. domestic box office derived from independent films. In response to the digitization of production, distribution, and exhibition in the West, digital video increasingly became the medium of choice in the developing world. Recent developments in the cinemas of Nigeria, Turkey, Tunisia, and Romania testify to the increasing globalization of film beyond Hollywood’s force-feeding megapicture machine. This has been possible to a large extent because the technology of high-definition (HD) video has put the tools of classical Hollywood cinema into the hands of the world’s have-nots and disempowered, or at least those less powerful than America’s multinational media conglomerates. At the same time, American control of the world’s mass media has never been stronger. The American film industry in the early twenty-first century has become a crucible for the creation of franchises and brands that achieved nearly universal diffusion through the majors’ global distribution network. As film historian Stephen Prince puts it, “Understood in strict economic terms, production by the majors [is] about the manufacture and
distribution of commodities (not films) on a national and global scale.” Appropriately, the cover image of this edition is from Jean-Luc Godard’s 1996 film Made in U.S.A., which, in perfect irony, could not be shown in the United States until 2009 due to a threatened suit for copyright infringement. Moreover, by the mid-2010s, the United States had the great advantage of sustaining the largest home market for motion pictures in the world: with more than 40,000 screens, an all-time high, American audiences accounted for 44 percent of the global box office in 2014. This domestic market, saturated as it was, provided studios with an opportunity to amortize a film’s highest costs (those incurred in production) in the United States, and then derive pure profit from foreign and ancillary markets. Also by the mid-2010s, both mainstream and independent films had to grapple with the new economic and financial force of television. Increasingly, the vast majority of films that opened at the Sundance Film Festival and its counterparts found their audience not in a theater but on a video-on-demand system. This has meant a partial reconfiguration of film form toward the streaming nature of video.
Changes in the Fifth Edition To improve the reader’s experience, the long lists of films in the previous editions have been moved to an extensive Filmography section online, which can be found at digital.wwnorton.com/narrativefilm5. Also moved online is the Selective Bibliography, while the lengthy footnotes that sometimes cluttered the text
xv
have been deleted. Users of the Fifth Edition’s Ebook can find both the Filmography and the Selective Bibliography inside, after the Glossary. The design of the book has been similarly altered to provide fewer but bigger and bolder illustrations, now presented in a four-color format. A section on new Romanian cinema has been added to Chapter 16, as well as a section on digital 3-D to Chapter 21; information on various national cinemas has been updated through 2015; and finally, a new chapter (Chapter 22) has been added to address major developments since 2004, including the institutionalization of the megapicture, the rise of independent production and distribution, and the influence of video on both “slow cinema” and “long movies” (the frequently binge-watched formulations of serial television known as miniseries). Chapter 22 deals with new developments in the cinema of Nigeria, Turkey (including new material on Nuri Bilge Ceylan), and Thailand (including new material on Apichatpong Weerasethakul), as well as the rise and fall of “torture porn” and the advent of new auteurs in Hollywood— especially those specializing in dramatic comedy, or “dramedy,” such as David O. Russell, Spike Jonze, Alexander Payne, Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater, and Paul Thomas Anderson; and others, such as David Fincher, Steven Soderbergh, Joel and Ethan Cohen, and Christopher Nolan. Special attention also is paid to the work of Kathryn Bigelow, Sofia Coppola, Spike Lee, and Steve McQueen. While it is clear that Hollywood megapictures will continue to dominate the world’s theater screens, it is equally clear that motion pictures are no longer primarily consumed on theatrical screens. Mobile, online, and streaming consumption of motion pictures is increasingly common and tends to liberate the cinema from the blockbuster syndrome in the direction of independence. But the more things change, the more they stay the same: cinema is still fundamentally a narrative art whose major purpose is the telling of stories, and storytelling precedes every other form of organized human behavior but the burial of the dead. Its roots lie deep in our consciousness and preconsciousness, and its importance to us will not go away easily. So as the screens grow smaller, the importance of cinema looms ever larger, telling stories of valor and heroism, war and peace, and love and loss, as it always has done and will continue to do until narrative loses its fundamental place in our hierarchy of values.
xvi
On Method For reasons that will become apparent in the course of this book, I believe that the history of film as we have experienced it to date is the history of a narrative form. Many of the greatest films ever made were created by artists seeking to break the constraints of this form as it is defined at different points in time, and there is much evidence to suggest that since the 1960s, cinema has been moving in an increasingly nonnarrative direction. But the fact remains, the language common to the international cinema from the last decade of the nineteenth century to the present has been narrative, both in aspiration and structural forms. For this reason, I have excluded documentary cinema, animated cinema, and the experimental avant-garde from consideration in this book, except when they have influenced narrative form to a demonstrable and significant degree. This is not to suggest that any of these forms is unimportant, but rather that each is important and distinctive enough to warrant a separate history of its own (many of which, in fact, already exist).
On Dates, Titles, and Illustrations Wherever possible, the date given for a film is the year of its theatrical release in its country of origin. Unless otherwise noted (as in the case of intermittent production or delayed release), the reader may assume a lapse of four to six months between the start of production and the date of release for features. This is important in correlating the history of film with the history of human events—for instance, many American films with the release date of 1942 went into production and were completed before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. As for the titles of films in languages other than English, those in French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, and German are given in the original language, followed (in parentheses) by a literal English translation, and an alternate English-language release title, if one exists. After the initial reference, the original foreign-language title is used, except in the case of a film that is best known in the English-speaking world by its English title—for example, Jean-Luc Godard’s Breathless (À bout de souffle, 1959). For Scandinavian, Eastern European, Middle Eastern, Asian, and African
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
HISTNARR5_FM_i-xvii.indd xvi
10/12/15 5:00 pm
languages, the convention is reversed: the initial reference is given in English, followed by the original title in parentheses (a transliteration is supplied if the original title is in an alphabet other than our own). All subsequent references use the English title, unless the film is best known by its foreign-language title—for instance, Akira Kurosawa’s Ikiru (Living/To Live, 1952) and Yojimbo (The Bodyguard, 1961). In the case of films for which the original foreign-language title is unavailable, only the English title is given. The photographs used to illustrate the book represent a combination of production stills and DVD frame grabs. Production stills, since they are taken on the set by professional photographers, yield a higher quality of reproduction; but since they are made initially for the purpose of publicity, they are sometimes “beautified” to the point of distortion. Frame grabs, on the other hand, are taken digitally from the films themselves and, therefore, represent the actual images as composed and shot by the filmmakers. Their quality of reproduction is often lower than that of production stills, since several extra steps of transference are involved in printing
them, but their correspondence with the film images is exact. I have tried to use frame grabs whenever shot sequences have been reproduced for discussion or when lengthy analysis accompanies an individual image or series of images. I have used production stills when less analytical procedures are involved. (Many films of the 1950s and most films of subsequent eras were shot in some type of widescreen process, with aspect ratios varying from 2.55:1 to 1.85:1. For reasons of typography and design, a few of the stills from such films in this volume have been reproduced in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio of the Academy frame.) Although photographs can never replicate cinema, lacking as they do the essential component of motion, they can be made to represent it. Throughout the book, I have attempted to integrate the stills with the written text in a manner that provides for maximum delivery of information. The reader is, therefore, encouraged to regard both photographic and verbal information as part of the same critical fabric, although neither, ultimately, can substitute for the audiovisual information contained in the films themselves.
PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION
HISTNARR5_FM_i-xvii.indd xvii
xvii
10/12/15 5:00 pm
A la conquête de l’air (Conquest of the Skies; Ferdinand Zecca, 1901).
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 2
23/11/15 11:20 AM
01 Origins Optical Principles The beginning of film history is the end of something else: the successive stages of technological development during the nineteenth century, whereby simple optical devices used for entertainment grew into sophisticated machines that could convincingly represent empirical reality in motion. Both toys and machines depended on interactive optical phenomena known as persistence of vision and the phi phenomenon for their illusions. The former is a characteristic of human perception, known to the ancient Egyptians but first described scientifically by Peter Mark Roget in 1824, whereby the brain retains images cast on the retina of the eye for approximately onetwentieth to one-fifth of a second beyond their actual removal from the field of vision. The latter, whose operation was discovered by the Gestalt psychologist Max Wertheimer in 1912, is the phenomenon that causes us to see the individual blades of a rotating fan as a unitary circular form or the different hues of a spinning color wheel as a single homogeneous color. Together, persistence of vision and the phi phenomenon allow us to see a succession of static images as a single unbroken movement and permit the illusion of continuous motion on which cinematography is based. Persistence of vision prevents us from seeing the dark spaces between the film frames by causing “flicker fusion,” when the frequency with which the projection light is broken approaches fifty times per second. Without this effect, our eyes would perceive the alternation of light and dark on the
3
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 3
23/11/15 11:20 AM
screen as each projected image succeeded the next, as in fact was the case in the earliest days of the movies. Films became known colloquially as “flickers” or “flicks” for this very reason. The phi phenomenon, also known as the “stroboscopic effect,” creates apparent movement from frame to frame at optimal projection speeds of 12 to 24 frames per second (fps). This much is known, but perceptual psychologists still understand very little about the neural and cognitive processes involved in the perception of motion. The frames of a strip of film are a series of individual still photographs that the motion-picture camera, as it was perfected by the Edison Laboratories in 1892 and as it exists today, imprints one at a time. The succession of frames recorded in the camera, when projected at the same or a similar speed, creates the illusion of continuous motion essential to the cinema. Most motion-picture cameras today expose individual frames at the rate of 24 per second. The illusion of continuous motion can be induced in our brains at rates as low as 12 fps, yet speeds have traditionally been set at about 16 fps for silent film and 24 for sound. On the film strip itself, these frames are separated by thin, unexposed frame lines, but in projection a rotating shutter opens and closes to obscure the intervals between frames and to permit each frame to be flashed on the screen twice, thereby eliminating the flicker we would otherwise perceive by their movement. When we “watch” a film in a theater, we actually spend as much as 50 percent of the time in darkness, with the projector’s shutter closed and nothing before us on the screen, whether the film is digitized or not. Thus, the continuity of movement and light that seems to be the most palpable quality of the cinema exists only in our brains. Persistence of vision and the phi phenomenon were exploited for the purpose of optical entertainment for many years before the invention of photography. A popular child’s toy of the early nineteenth century was the Thaumatrope (from the Greek for “magical turning”), a paper disk with strings attached at opposite points on the perimeter so that it could be twirled between finger and thumb. A different image was imprinted on each face, and when the disk was spun the images seemed to merge into a single unified picture (a rider would mount a horse, a parrot enter its cage, and so on). Between 1832 and 1850, hundreds of optical toys were manufactured that used rotating “phase drawings” of things in motion to produce a crude form of animation. Drawings representing successive phases of an action would be mounted on a disk or a cylinder 4
CHAPTER 01
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 4
George Horner’s Zoetrope.
and rotated in conjunction with some type of shutter apparatus (usually a series of slots in the disk or the cylinder itself ) to produce the illusion of motion. Joseph Plateau’s Phenakistoscope (from the Greek for “deceitful view,” 1832) and George Horner’s Zoetrope (“live turning,” 1834) were among the most popular of these toys, which reached increasing stages of refinement as the century progressed. When still photography was invented by LouisJacques-Mandé Daguerre (1787–1851) in 1839 and perfected during the next decade, it was a relatively simple step to replace the phase drawings in the motion-simulation devices with individually posed “phase photographs,” as Plateau began to do in 1849. At this point, live action could be simulated photographically but not recorded spontaneously and simultaneously as it occurred. This required the drastic reduction in photographic exposure time from fifteen minutes to one one-thousandth of a second that was achieved between 1876 and 1881 by the replacement of collodion wet plates with gelatin dry plates and by the introduction of “series photography” by the Anglo-American photographer Eadweard Muybridge (1830–1904).
ORIGINS
23/11/15 11:20 AM
Series Photography In 1872, Muybridge was hired by Leland Stanford (1824–1893), a former California governor and wealthy businessman, to prove that at some point in its gallop, a racehorse lifts all four hooves off the ground (a convention of nineteenth-century graphic illustration required running horses to always be pictured with at least one foot on the ground). After several years of abortive experiments, Muybridge accomplished this in the summer of 1877 by setting up a battery of twelve electrically operated cameras (later studies used twenty-four) along a Sacramento racetrack and stretching wires across it that would trip the cameras’ shutters. As a horse came down the track, its hooves tripped each shutter individually and caused the cameras to photograph it in successive stages of motion during the gallop.
Muybridge demonstrated his results in 1879 on a mechanism he called the zoopraxiscope. This special kind of “magic lantern” projected colored, handdrawn images that were based on these photographs and placed along the outer rim of a circular glass disk. (The optical, or magic, lantern was a simple projection device invented in the seventeenth century, consisting of a light source and a magnifying lens; it enjoyed great popularity as a projector of still transparencies during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and became a major component in subsequent motionpicture projection.) Muybridge devoted the rest of his life to refining his process of series photography, but he was not “the man who invented moving pictures,” as a recent biography proclaims. He recorded live action continuously for the first time in history, but he did so with a series of twelve or more cameras. Until the separate functions of these machines could be incorporated into a single instrument, the cinema could not be born.
Eadweard Muybridge’s glass-plate series photographs.
SERIES PHOTOGRAPHY
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 5
5
23/11/15 11:20 AM
”The Flight of a Heron”: images from Étienne-Jules Marey’s chronophotographic gun.
Emulsion images from Thomas Edison’s “Record of a Sneeze” (or “Fred Ott’s Sneeze”; 1894).
6
CHAPTER 01
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 6
It was the French physiologist Étienne-Jules Marey (1830–1904) who recorded the first series photographs of live action in a single camera, which, as it happens, was also portable. Marey, a specialist in animal locomotion, invented the “chronophotographic gun” in 1882 to take series pictures of birds in flight. This instrument, a camera shaped like a rifle, took twelve instantaneous photographs of a movement per second and imprinted them on a rotating glass plate. A year later, Marey switched from the cumbersome plates to paper roll film, which had the effect of introducing the film strip to cinematography. Yet like most of his contemporaries, Marey was not interested in cinematography as such. In his view, he had invented a machine for the dissection of motion similar to Muybridge’s apparatus, but more flexible, and never intended to project his results. The next step was taken in 1887 in Newark, New Jersey, when an Episcopalian minister named Hannibal Goodwin (1822–1900) first used celluloid roll film as a base for light-sensitive emulsions. Goodwin’s idea was appropriated by the American entrepreneur George Eastman (1854–1932), who in 1889 began to mass-produce and market celluloid roll film on what would soon become an international scale. Neither Goodwin nor Eastman was initially interested in motion pictures, but it was the introduction of a plastic recording medium (in the generic sense of both durable and flexible), coupled with the technical breakthroughs of Muybridge and Marey, that enabled the Edison Laboratories in West Orange, New Jersey, to invent the Kinetograph, the first true motion-picture camera.
ORIGINS
23/11/15 11:20 AM
Motion Pictures Like his predecessors, Thomas Alva Edison (1847–1931) was not interested in cinematography in and of itself. Rather, he wished to provide a visual accompaniment for his vastly successful phonograph, and in June 1889, he assigned a young laboratory assistant named William Kennedy Laurie Dickson (1860–1935) to help him develop a motion-picture camera for that purpose. Edison, in fact, envisioned a kind of “coin-operated entertainment machine,” in which motion pictures made by the Kinetograph would illustrate the sound from the phonograph. Dickson “invented” the first motion-picture camera in a brilliant synthesis of already existing principles and techniques that he had learned from studying the work of Muybridge, Marey, and others. After some ineffectual attempts to record photographic images microscopically on phonographlike cylinders, Dickson began to experiment with the use of celluloid roll film in a battery-driven camera similar to Marey’s chronophotographic gun, and he arrived at the Kinetograph in late 1891. The machine incorporated what have come to be recognized as the two essentials of motion-picture camera and projector engineering: (1) a stop-motion device to ensure the intermittent but regular motion of the film strip through the camera, and (2) a perforated celluloid film strip consisting of four sprocket holes on the bottom edge of each frame. The former, adapted by Dickson from the escapement mechanism of a watch, permits the unexposed film strip, in its rapid transit through the camera, to be stopped for a fraction of a second before the lens while the shutter opens to admit light from the photographed object and expose the individual frames. In projection, the process is exactly reversed: each frame, now developed, is held intermittently before the projection lamp while the shutter opens to emit light through the lens and project the film image onto the screen. Without a stop-motion device in both camera and projector, the film image would blur. The synchronization of film strip and shutter (which ensures the exact regularity of this discontinuous movement) and the synchronization of the camera and the projector are accomplished by means of the regular perforations in the film strip—inspired by the perforated paper of the Edison automatic telegraph—which is pulled through both machines by a system of clawed gears.
Frames from Rescued by Rover (Cecil Hepworth, 1905), illustrating sprocket holes.
MOTION PICTURES
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 7
7
23/11/15 11:20 AM
Yet Edison was not interested in projection. He mistakenly believed that the future of moving pictures lay in individual exhibition, so he commissioned Dickson to perfect the small viewing machine he had already designed for private use in the laboratory. The first moving pictures recorded in the Kinetograph were viewed by the public individually through the magnifying lens of a boxlike peep-show machine, in which a continuous 40- to 50-foot film loop ran on spools between an electric lamp and a shutter. This device was dubbed the Kinetoscope. True to Edison’s original intention, Dickson had attempted to design both viewer and camera so that sound and image could be synchronized and recorded simultaneously. Yet, in fact, accurate synchronization proved impossible, and the very few Kinetoscope films made with sound (called “Kinetophones”) employed asynchronous musical accompaniment. Furthermore, when speculative emphasis shifted to projection a few years later, the reproduction of sound became doubly infeasible because there was as yet no means of amplifying it for a large audience. Edison applied for patents on his new machines in 1891 but decided against paying the extra $150
to secure an international copyright, realizing that the Europeans had done so much of the essential mechanical invention of the apparatus that patent claims against them would not hold up. Soon after patents were granted in 1893, Edison began to market Kinetoscopes through several companies. On April 14, 1894, a Canadian entrepreneur named Andrew Holland opened the first Kinetoscope parlor in a converted shoe store at 1155 Broadway in New York City. Holland charged twenty-five cents per person for access to a row of five Edison peep-show viewers, each of which contained a single film loop shot with the Kinetograph. Others followed his lead, and soon Kinetoscope parlors were opened across the country, all supplied with 50-foot shorts produced for them exclusively by the Edison Company’s West Orange studio at the rate of $10 to $15 outright per print. This first motion-picture studio had been constructed by Dickson in 1893 for a little more than $600. Called the “Black Maria” (after contemporary slang for what was later known as a “paddy wagon”) because it was covered with protective tar-paper strips, Dickson’s studio was a single room measuring about 25 by 30 feet. A section of its roof could be opened to admit
Thomas Edison’s Kinetoscope.
8
CHAPTER 01
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 8
ORIGINS
23/11/15 11:20 AM
William Kennedy Laurie Dickson’s studio “Black Maria” (c. 1893).
the sunlight—then the cinema’s only effective lighting source—and the whole building could be rotated on a circular track to follow the sun’s course across the sky. Here, from 1893 to April 1895, Dickson was the producer, director, and cameraman for hundreds of brief films distributed by the Edison Company to the Kinetoscope parlors. These first films seem extremely primitive today, in both content and form. The 50-foot maximum format (approximately 16 seconds at a speed of 40 fps; 60 seconds at the later standard rate of 16 fps) was not conducive to the construction of narratives but was eminently suitable for recording quick vaudeville turns, slapstick comedy skits, and other kinds of brief performance. Taken together, the earliest Kinetoscope shorts preserve a series of standard theatrical routines whose only requisite content is motion. Structurally, the films are even cruder, consisting of continuous unedited footage of what occurred in front of the lens of Dickson’s stationary camera. This stasis was partly the result of technological limitations—especially the small enclosure of the Black Maria studio and the cumbersomeness of the Kinetograph, which resembled a small icebox in shape and size and initially weighed more than 500 pounds. At this point in the history of film, the camera was never permitted to record more
than could be seen by a single individual standing in one fixed spot and focusing on a single event for a given length of time.
Projection: Europe and America Eadweard Muybridge’s well-publicized presentations of his zoopraxiscope (in both Europe and America) during the 1880s did much to stimulate interest in perfecting the projection of a series of photographs. The basic requirements of projection engineering were (1) the enlargement of the images for simultaneous viewing by large groups and (2) a means of ensuring the regular but intermittent motion of the developed film strip as it passed between the projection lamp and the shutter (which would correspond with the discontinuous movement of the strip through the camera). The first requirement was easily and rapidly met by applying the principle of magic-lantern projection to film; the second proved more difficult, but was eventually fulfilled by the Maltese-cross system used in most projectors today.
PROJECTION: EUROPE AND AMERICA
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 9
9
23/11/15 11:20 AM
A.
B. Pin
Diagram of the Maltese-cross gear.
The Maltese-cross system was perfected by the German film pioneer Oskar Messter (1866–1943). As indicated by the diagram, it has two basic parts: (A) a gear in the shape of a Maltese cross connected directly to the sprocket wheels that pull the film through the projector, and (B) a circular disk attached to the projector’s drive mechanism, which carries a metal pin at its outer edge. The disk rotates continuously, and the pin is located so that it enters one slot of the cross per cycle and propels it through a quarter of a revolution, but when the disk makes contact again with the edge of the cross itself, the gear is tightly locked until the pin rotates around to the next slot. This ensures the regular stop-and-go motion of the film strip through the projector. It was actually the year 1895 that witnessed the most significant developments in projection technology, and these occurred almost simultaneously in every country in Western Europe and in the United States. By far the most important of these devices was perfected by two brothers, Auguste and Louis Lumière (1862–1954 and 1864–1948, respectively), who operated a factory for the manufacture of photographic equipment in Lyons, France—and whose family name was, appropriately, the French word for “light.” After a thorough study of the workings of the Edison machine, the Lumières invented an apparatus that could serve as camera, projector, and film printer and that was finally patented as the Cinématographe, thus coining the term that attaches to the medium of film to this day. The Cinématographe was built to run at a speed of 16 fps and established the standard for silent film. On December 28, 1895, the Lumières rented a basement room in the Grand Café, on the Boulevard des Capucines in Paris, to project a program of ten films for the first time to a paying audience. Some of the titles 10
CHAPTER 01
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 10
from that program were L’arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat (Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station), which dramatically marked the beginning of the cinema’s long obsession with the Industrial Revolution; Déjeuner de bébé (Baby’s Lunch), Louis’s record of brother Auguste feeding his infant daughter; and L’arroseur arrosé (The Sprinkler Sprinkled), a bit of slapstick in which a young boy steps on a hose, which then squirts a gardener in the face when he peers at the nozzle. L’arrivée was a visual tour de force, and audiences are said to have dodged aside at the sight of the locomotive barreling toward them into the foreground on the screen. Due to its relative lightness, the Cinématographe could be taken out of doors more easily than the Kinetograph, and for this reason the early Lumière films have a much higher documentary content than do Edison’s (the Lumières called their films “actualités,” or documentary views). Structurally, however, the earliest Lumière and Edison films are precisely the same—the camera and the point of view are static (except when moved functionally, to reframe action) and the action continuous from beginning to end, as if editing “reality” was unthinkable to their makers. Admission to the Lumière program was 1 franc per customer, and the receipts for the first day totaled only 35 francs. Yet within a month, the Cinématographe showings were earning an average of 7,000 francs a week, and motion pictures had become, overnight, an extremely lucrative commercial enterprise. The most important aspect of the Cinématographe projections, however, was that they marked the end of the period of technological experimentation that had begun with Muybridge’s series photography in 1877: the two machines on which the cinema was founded had been perfected at last. In Germany, the Skladanowsky brothers, Max and Emil (1863–1939 and 1859–1945, respectively), developed almost simultaneously with the Lumières a projector for celluloid film strips called the “Bioskop” or Bioscope (a common term for many early cameras and projectors) and projected films of their own making in a public performance at the Berlin Wintergarten on November 1, 1895. Projection reached England immediately thereafter, in 1896, when a manufacturer of scientific instruments named Robert W. Paul (1869– 1943) patented the Theatrograph (later renamed the Animatograph), a projector based on the Kinetoscope— although the Lumière Cinématographe was soon to capture both the British and the Continental markets. (right) Auguste and Louis Lumière.
ORIGINS
23/11/15 11:20 AM
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 11
23/11/15 11:20 AM
L’arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat (Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station; Lumière brothers, 1895).
Edison became aware of the vastly promising financial future of projection through the success of the Cinématographe at about the same time that Kinetoscope installations had reached a saturation point in the United States (all told, a little more than 900 of them were sold), and he commissioned the invention of a projection device in the summer of 1895. In September of that year, however, Edison learned that two aspiring inventors, C. Francis Jenkins (1867–1934) and Thomas Armat (1866–1948), had projected a program of Kinetograph shorts at the Cotton States Exposition in Atlanta, Georgia, with an electrically powered machine that incorporated a stop-motion mechanism superior to anything then under patent. Their projector also made use of a small but extremely important device employed earlier in the year by the Latham family (brothers Gray and Otway, along with their father, Woodville). The Lathams, who had made money showing fight films with Edison’s Kinetoscope, formed the Lambda Company to make motion pictures of prize fights and other sporting events and then project these on the screen. Their contribution, the Latham loop, merits special consideration here. One chief practical problem of early motion-picture production and exhibition was that of film breakage. At lengths greater than 50 to 100 feet, the inertia of the 12
CHAPTER 01
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 12
take-up reel would frequently cause the film strip to tear or snap in the projector. Assisted by the engineerinventors Enoch Rector and Eugène Augustin Lauste, the Lathams had discovered that by placing a small loop in the film strip just above and below the projection lens and maintaining it with an extra set of sprockets, the stress could be redistributed in such a manner as to permit films of greater length in the magazine. Edison was so impressed with the features of Armat’s machine that he abandoned his own research project and bought the apparatus outright under a scandalous agreement whereby he himself would manufacture it and take full credit for its invention, while Armat would be allowed a small plate on the back crediting him with “design.” Edison dubbed the new machine the Vitascope and gave it its first public exhibition on April 23, 1896, at the popular Koster and Bial’s Music Hall in New York City, where it received top billing as “Edison’s greatest marvel.” Like their predecessors, Edison’s Vitascope films offered nothing more than unmediated glimpses of real action as it unfolded before the camera from a single point of view, but these rather crude “living pictures,” as they were soon labeled, proved novel and engaging enough to satisfy the public’s taste for several years to come. After all, the world had never seen their like before.
ORIGINS
23/11/15 11:20 AM
For example, a writer for La Poste commented on the Cinématographe projections of December 28, 1895: The beauty of the invention resides in the novelty and ingenuity of the apparatus. When these apparatuses are made available to the public, everybody will be able to photograph those who are dear to them, no longer as static forms but with their movements, their actions, their familiar gestures, capturing the speech on their very lips. Then, death will no longer be absolute.
The original audiences for motion pictures did not perceive them as we do—as a succession of images linked together in a continuity of meaning—but rather as a series of discontinuous “animated photographs.” Conditioned by lantern slide shows, comic strips, and other serial presentations of images, these audiences saw individual scenes as self-contained and did not infer meaning from one scene to the next. The shift in consciousness from films as animated photographs to films as continuous narratives began around the turn of the century. The Vitascope and Cinématographe projections mark the culmination of the cinema’s prehistory. By 1896, all of the basic technological principles of film recording and projection had been discovered and
The Latham loop, redrawn from Thomas Armat’s 1901 patent application.
incorporated into existing machines—which, with certain obvious exceptions, such as the introduction of light-sensitive sound, have remained essentially unchanged from that day to this. Thus, the history of cinema as an art form begins, for if our understanding of the machines was sophisticated, knowledge of how to use them was primitive indeed. Nevertheless, by the late 1890s, cinema was already on its way toward becoming a mass medium with the then-unimaginable power to communicate without print or speech.
The Evolution of Narrative: Georges Méliès During the 1890s, near the end of the decade, exhibitors often created multishot narratives that focused on such subjects as a fire rescue or the Spanish-American War. The showmen developed these stories by purchasing various one-shot films from production companies, then putting them in an order and delivering a narration, often combined with sound effects and lantern slides. Creative responsibility was thus divided between producer and exhibitor. By the turn of the century, however, producers were beginning to assume this editorial responsibility by making multishot films on their own. In the process, filmmakers took more control of the narrative, allowing for greater specificity in the story line. In many respects, therefore, producers began to resemble modern-day filmmakers. Such a development is most clearly apparent in the work of Georges Méliès (1861–1938), a professional magician who owned and operated the Théâtre RobertHoudin in Paris. Méliès had been using magic-lantern projections in his conjuring acts for years, and when he attended the first Cinématographe programs in 1895, he immediately recognized the vast illusionist possibilities of the “living pictures.” Accordingly, in early 1896, he bought an Animatograph projector from the English inventor Robert W. Paul for 1,000 francs and simply reversed its mechanical principle to design his own camera, which was constructed for him by the instrument maker Lucien Korsten. By April 1896, Méliès was showing his own productions in his own theater. In time, he would become the cinema’s first important narrative artist as well, but not before he had done some apprentice work in the manner of the Lumières and Edison by filming a series of actualités, comic episodes, and staged conjurer’s tricks for projection in his theater.
THE EVOLUTION OF NARRATIVE: GEORGES MÉLIÈS
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 13
13
23/11/15 11:20 AM
According to Méliès’s memoirs, one afternoon in the fall of 1896, while he was filming a Parisian street scene, his camera jammed in the process of recording an omnibus as it emerged from a tunnel. When he got the machine working again, a funeral hearse had replaced the omnibus, so that in projection the omnibus seemed to change into the hearse. By this accident, Méliès came to recognize the possibilities of manipulating real time and real space inherent in the editing of exposed film. Although he went on to make hundreds of delightful narrative films, his model for them was the narrative mode of the legitimate theater, because it was what he knew best. That is, he conceived all of his films in terms of dramatic scenes played out from beginning to end, rather than in terms of shots, or individual visual perspectives on a scene. The only editing, therefore, aside from that used in optical illusions of disappearance and conversion, occurs between scenes, rather than within them. The scenes themselves are composed of single shots, taken with a motionless camera from a fixed point of view, that of a theater spectator sitting in the orchestra center aisle with an excellent eye-level view of the action, and the actors move across the film frame from left to right or right to left as if it were the proscenium arch of a stage. Normally, a viewer experiences no more narrative manipulation within a Méliès film than in watching a stage play of the same action; one sees a significant amount of stage illusion, of course, but changes in time and space coincide precisely with changes in scene, and the narrative point of view is rigidly static. Méliès was nevertheless the cinema’s first narrative artist. By adapting certain techniques of still photography, theater spectacle, and magic-lantern projection to the linear medium of the film strip, he innovated significant narrative devices such as the fade-in; the fade-out; the overlapping, or “lap,” dissolve; and stopmotion photography. To put his discoveries into effect, Méliès, in late 1896, organized the Star Film Company, and by the spring of 1897, he had constructed a small production studio on the grounds of his house in the Paris suburb of Montreuil. The building measured 55 by 20 feet and was glass-enclosed like a greenhouse to admit maximum sunlight, the cinema’s only effective lighting source until mercury-vapor lamps came into general use around 1907. Here Méliès produced, directed, photographed, and acted in some five hundred films between 1897 and 1913, when, like so many other film pioneers, he was forced out of business by his competitors because he had lost touch with 14
CHAPTER 01
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 14
the rapid development of both the medium and the industry. His early work consisted of short “trick films,” by and large, whose impact depended on a single special effect, usually accomplished through photographic double exposure or superimposition. Soon longer films, approximately one reel in length, began to appear—for example, A Trip to the Moon (1902) and The Palace of the Arabian Nights (1905)—and by middecade Méliès was fully committed to narrative until the end of his career. Although he also made many films based on historical and contemporary events, Méliès’s most memorable productions concern the fantastic and the bizarre and are acted out before lush phantasmagoric backgrounds that he himself designed and painted. Many were released in color, because at the height of his very substantial success Méliès employed twenty-one women at the studio of Madame Tuillier to hand-tint his films individually, frame by frame. Although Méliès went bankrupt in 1923, due to his ruin at the hands of Pathé Frères and other rivals, his films had immense popular appeal at the turn of the century. Indeed, by 1902, Star Film had become one of the world’s largest suppliers of motion pictures, with offices in New York, London, Barcelona, and Berlin, and had nearly driven the Lumières out of production. By far the most successful and influential film Méliès made at Montreuil was Le voyage dans la lune (A Trip to the Moon). Produced in 1902, this film achieved international circulation within months of its completion, albeit through the unethical distribution of “dupes” by rival concerns as much as through Méliès’s own sales. Le voyage dans la lune, loosely adapted by Méliès from the Jules Verne novel of the same title, was 825 feet long (a little under 14 minutes at the average silent speed of 16 fps), or three times the average length of the contemporary Edison and Lumière products (one of Méliès’s achievements was increasing the standard length of fiction films). Utterly characteristic of both the strengths and the weaknesses of Méliès’s theatrical narrative mode, the film is composed of thirty separate scenes, which he appropriately called “tableaux,” all photographed from the same angle and connected by means of lap dissolves. The whole film very much resembles a photographed stage play, save for the inclusion of some of the optical tricks that were a Méliès trademark—the product of nineteenth-century stage illusion, pure and simple—and that serve to illustrate how very far Méliès really was from tapping the full narrative potential of the medium. The classic example of Méliès’s lack of
ORIGINS
23/11/15 11:20 AM
Interior of Georges Méliès’s studio at Montreuil.
vision in this respect is that when he wished to show the astronomers’ projectile crashing dramatically into the face of the moon, he moved the papier-mâché moon on a dolly into the lens of the camera, rather than moving the camera into the moon—even though, as a practical matter, moving the camera would have been far simpler. Méliès, in fact, never moved his camera once in any of his more than five hundred films. Neither did he alternate the point of view within scenes or even between them by changing camera angles. His films were, as he once called them, “artificially arranged scenes,” or “moving tableaux,” and his camera functioned as the inert eye of a theater spectator from the beginning to the end of his career. Viewed today, these early films are bound to seem primitive because cinema is for us a highly integrated
narrative form. (In fact, primitive cinema is the term used by film historians—not in a pejorative sense—to describe the medium from the invention of its first machines to about 1910.) There is an increasing body of opinion, however, that their original audiences experienced these films very differently than we do—as a kind of performative spectacle, or “attraction,” whose function was to present, rather than to represent, to show, rather than to narrate. Film scholar Tom Gunning has called this phenomenon the “cinema of attractions” and suggests that it dominated the medium’s first decade (1895– 1906), after which the story film became dominant and the presentational mode went underground to become an important element of avant-garde cinema and certain narrative genres (e.g., the musical, science
THE EVOLUTION OF NARRATIVE: GEORGES MÉLIÈS
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 15
15
23/11/15 11:20 AM
Frames from Le voyage dans la lune (A Trip to the Moon; Georges Méliès, 1902).
fiction). In its earliest form, the cinema of attractions drew audiences to the technological display of its projection apparatus (the Vitascope was “Edison’s greatest marvel,” and so on) and, on-screen, solicited their attention by “direct address”—that is, the recurring look of the actors at the camera—or some other form of direct stimulation. In this view, to look for narrative continuity in such early films—even such clearly plotted ones as Le voyage dans la lune—is to miss the point that for filmmakers and audiences alike, early cinema was conceived as a series of displays providing spectatorial pleasure through all of the objects, views, and events it could show, whether fictional or documentary and whether in story form or not. This perspective has the distinct advantage of refusing to blame early cinema for what it was not—a stuttered and inarticulate version of what cinema would become during its so-called classical period, from the 1910s through the 1950s, or what we regard as its even more advanced state today. 16
CHAPTER 01
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 16
Méliès discovered, if he did not exploit, the enormous potential inherent in the editing of exposed film, and through his influence on contemporary filmmakers he pointed the cinema well on its way toward becoming an essentially narrative, rather than a documentary, medium, as Edison and Lumière cameramen had originally conceived it. Furthermore, Méliès was an artist of unique and individual talent, and his films endure every bit as much for their distinctive imaginative power as for their contributions to cinematic form. He had stumbled into the narrative dimensions of the cinema very much as cinema had stumbled into being—arbitrarily, almost by accident—and he appropriated a conventional and unimaginative narrative model because it was what he knew best; yet those who came after him would understand. Charlie Chaplin called him “the alchemist of light,” but D. W. Griffith, at the end of his own monumental career in 1932, put it best when he said of Méliès, “I owe him everything.”
ORIGINS
23/11/15 11:20 AM
Edwin S. Porter: Developing a Concept of Continuity Editing Méliès ultimately lost his audience to the practitioners of a more sophisticated narrative style, the origins of which are closely associated with the work of Edwin S. Porter (1870–1941). Porter had worked as a Vitascope projectionist in 1896, helping to set up the landmark Koster and Bial’s projection of April 23, and he subsequently operated his own equipment in such mainline theaters as the Eden Musée in New York City. In 1900, Porter joined the Edison Manufacturing Company as a mechanic and, in early 1901, he became production head of its new skylight studio on East Twenty-First Street, where for the next few years he served as director/cameraman for much of the company’s output. His first films were one-shot skits and actualités and brief multiscene narratives based on political cartoons and contemporary events. Porter also filmed the extraordinary Pan-American Exposition by Night (1901), which used time-lapse photography to create a circular panorama of the illuminated fairgrounds, by modifying his camera to expose a single frame every ten seconds. By 1901, Porter had encountered the films of Méliès and those of the two British pioneers, George Albert Smith (1864–1959) and James Williamson (1855–1933). Smith, a portrait photographer, and Williamson, a lanternist, had constructed their own motion-picture cameras and, between 1896 and 1898, had begun to produce trick films featuring superimpositions and interpolated close-ups (Grandma’s Reading Glass [Smith, 1900]; The Big Swallow [Williamson, 1901]). Smith would later develop the first commercially successful photographic color process (Kinemacolor, c. 1906–1908, with Charles Urban), while Williamson apparently experimented with intercutting between the interior and the exterior of a building as early as 1901 in Fire!—a film that decisively influenced the structure and content of Porter’s Life of an American Fireman (1903). By 1902, both Smith and Williamson had built studios in their native Brighton and, with their associates, came to be known as members of the “Brighton school,” although they did not really constitute the coherent movement that such a term implies. Yet it seems certain that Porter saw some of the earlier Brighton work, because it was occasionally sold by Edison, and also he may have seen that of the Yorkshire-based filmmakers James Bamforth (The Kiss in the Tunnel, 1899), who produced films with the Riley
brothers of Bradford under the banner of RAB (Riley and Bamforth), and Frank Mottershaw of the Sheffield Photo Company (A Daring Daylight Robbery, 1903). However, it may have been Porter’s experience as a projectionist at the Eden Musée in the late 1890s that led him to the practice of continuity editing in the period from 1901 to 1903. As he moved from exhibition to production, Porter began to apply many of the editorial skills he had learned to filmmaking. He was also clearly influenced by Méliès’s story films. Thus, Jack and the Beanstalk (1902) shows a strong debt to Méliès’s Bluebeard (1902). By his own admission, Porter was powerfully influenced by Méliès’s A Trip to the Moon (1902), which he came to know well in the process of duplicating it for distribution (again, illegally) by Edison in October 1902. Years later, he claimed that it was the Méliès film that had given him the idea for “telling a story in continuity form,” which resulted in Life of an American Fireman, produced in late 1902 and released in January 1903. The subject of this film—the dramatic rescue of a woman and child from a burning building by firemen— was a popular one, having been featured in lantern slide shows and other films many years previously. What was unusual was Porter’s idea of combining stock footage from the Edison archive with staged scenes of the rescue to create a uniquely cinematic form: a fiction constructed from recordings of empirically real events. On the basis of the standard print distributed by the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) Department of Film, it was long thought that in the final sequence of the film, Porter intercut, or cut together, interior shots of a blazing room with exterior shots of a fireman climbing a ladder to rescue its occupants, creating a radically
The Big Swallow (James Williamson, 1901).
EDWIN S. PORTER: DEVELOPING A CONCEPT OF CONTINUITY EDITING
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 17
17
23/11/15 11:21 AM
innovative effect—the illusion of separate but simultaneous and parallel actions, which was to become a basic structural element of cinematic narrative. Life of an American Fireman, however, was a lost film until 1944, when MoMA acquired a 35mm nitrate print from Pathé News Inc. Although MoMA has never claimed that this print, known today as the “Cross-Cut Version,” was the original, it conforms in principle to the editing continuity of the original, as it has been described by American film historians from Terry Ramsaye through Lewis Jacobs and beyond. Ramsaye’s description was based either on memory or on Porter’s own account of the film (more recently set forth by Budd Schulberg in Variety, May 9, 1979). Jacobs’s description was based on a combination of Ramsaye’s version, the Edison catalogue description, and a sequence of production stills made for copyright purposes by the Edison Company, which seem to suggest intercutting at the film’s climax. The Cross-Cut Version is 378 feet long ( just over 6 minutes at the average silent speed of 16 fps) and consists of 20 separate shots linked together by dissolves or straight cuts as follows: 1. The fire chief asleep, dreaming of his wife and child, who appear in a circular vignette at the upper right-hand corner of the screen, later called the “dream balloon.” 2. Close-up of a fire-alarm box and an anonymous hand pulling its lever (Porter’s first close-up to be completely integrated with its narrative context). All other shots in the film are long shots. 3. Interior of the firemen’s dormitory, with the men first asleep, then waking in response to the alarm—a slight temporal overlap from shot 2—dressing, and sliding down the pole. 4. Interior ground floor of the firehouse, actually an outdoor set, with the pole in the center on which no one has yet appeared; workers harness the horses to the engines, and the firemen finally slide down the pole from above at the conclusion of the scene, as the engine races off to the right. There is a significant temporal overlap and redundancy of action between shots 3 and 4, clearly establishing narrative space and time. 5. Exterior of the firehouse as the doors are flung open and the engines charge out, overlapping the action of shot 4. 6. Suburban street scene: Eight engines rush past the camera from right to left, passing a crowd of bystanders (stock footage apparently, since it’s snowing in this scene but nowhere else in the film). 18
CHAPTER 01
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 18
7. Street scene: Four engines rush past the camera, which pans (moves horizontally on its vertical axis) dramatically to follow the fourth and comes to rest on the front of a burning house, where a fireman (Edison actor/producer James White) jumps from the vehicle. 8. Interior of the house: A mother and a child in an upstairs room filled with smoke. 9. Exterior of the house: The mother approaches an upstairs window and calls for help. 10. Interior: The woman collapses on a bed. 11. Exterior: A fireman enters the front door. 12. Interior: The same fireman runs into the room through a door at the right and breaks the window (which was open in shots 9 and 11 but closed in 8 and 10). 13. Exterior: Firemen on the ground place a ladder against the broken window. 14. Interior: The fireman carries the woman to the ladder, which has appeared at the window. 15. Exterior: The fireman and the woman descend the ladder. 16. Interior: The fireman enters the window by the ladder and picks up the child. 17. Exterior: The woman becomes hysterical. 18. Interior: The fireman exits through the window with the child. 19. Exterior: The fireman descends the ladder with the child and reunites it with the mother. 20. Interior: Firemen enter the room through the window to extinguish the fire with a hose. By crosscutting (or, synonymously, intercutting) seven shots of an interior with six shots of an exterior to depict parallel actions occurring simultaneously, Porter seemed to have achieved—for the first time in motion-picture history—narrative omniscience over the linear flow of time, which the cinema, out of all of the arts, can most credibly sustain. No other medium permits such a rapid alternation of multiple perspectives without destroying point of view. (There were precedents for parallel editing, or crosscutting, of course, in late-nineteenth-century melodrama, fiction, magic-lantern projections, stereopticon slide shows, and newspaper comic strips.) During the 1970s, however, another print of Life of an American Fireman came to light that is based on the paper print filed for copyright at the Library of Congress by the Edison Company in 1903. This socalled Copyright Version is 400 feet long and contains nine shots—the first seven as described above, and then the entire interior sequence (shots 8, 10, 12, 14, 16,
ORIGINS
23/11/15 11:21 AM
The editing sequence from the Copyright Version of Life of an American Fireman (Edwin S. Porter, 1903): two frames per shot, except shots 5 and 6.
18, and 20 combined), followed by the entire exterior sequence (shots 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19), without any intercutting between them. In fact, this use of temporal repetitions and overlapping action can be found in such contemporaneous Porter films as How They Do Things on the Bowery (October 1902). Thanks primarily to the scholarship of Charles Musser, the Copyright Version was established as the original, and in the restored print circulated by MoMA since 1985, the two concluding scenes repeat the same rescue operation from interior and exterior points of view, depicting it as two completely autonomous actions. We know today that early filmmakers often overlapped events across their splices—as here and in the rocket landing in A Trip to the Moon—to establish spatial, temporal, and narrative relationships between shots. Yet although this kind of overlapping continuity clearly defines spatial relationships, it leaves temporal ones underdeveloped and, to modern sensibilities, confused. Where, for example, in Life of an American
Fireman, have the firemen been between the time they slide down the pole from their dormitory in shot 3 and appear on the pole on the ground floor in shot 4? For a while, at least, these questions did not trouble contemporary audiences. Conditioned by lantern slide shows, stereopticon presentations, and even comic strips, they understood a sequence of motion-picture shots as a series of individual moving photographs, or “attractions,” each of which was self-contained within its frame. If actions overlapped from shot to shot, it didn’t matter, because the temporal relationship between shots was assumed to be alinear—there was no assumption that time moved forward when cutting from one scene to the next. Yet spatial relationships in such preexisting forms as slide shows were clear because their only medium was space. Motion added the dimension of time, and the main problem for early filmmakers would soon become the establishment of linear continuity from one shot to the next. Modern continuity editing, on which the
EDWIN S. PORTER: DEVELOPING A CONCEPT OF CONTINUITY EDITING
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 19
19
23/11/15 11:21 AM
classical Hollywood system was based (and which still predominates today), began when they realized that action could be made to seem continuous from shot to shot, and conversely, that two or more shots could be made to express a single unit of meaning. Porter himself moved toward this realization in The Great Train Robbery (December 1903), which exists in a single authoritative version and is widely acknowledged to be his finest achievement. The Great Train Robbery was simultaneously the cinema’s first Western and the first film to exploit the violence of armed crime. The most significant thing about the film for us, however, is its editing continuity. Yet although The Great Train Robbery contains no intercutting within scenes, Porter cut between his scenes without dissolving or fading and—most important—without playing them out to the end. In Méliès, and in early Porter, for that matter, dramatic scenes are played out to their logical conclusion and new scenes are begun in the studied and gradual manner of nineteenthcentury theater. No ellipses occur in the action of a continuous scene once it has begun, just as there would and could be none on the legitimate stage. Porter saw, however, that a filmmaker can in fact cut away from one scene before it is dramatically complete and simultaneously cut into another after it has already begun. This practice contains the rudiments of a truly cinematic narrative language because it posits that the basic signifying unit of film—the basic unit of cinematic meaning—is not the scene, as in Méliès, and not the continuous unedited film strip, as in the earliest Edison and Lumière shorts, but rather the shot, of which, as Griffith would later demonstrate, there may be a virtually limitless number within any given scene. In this respect, Porter anticipated the formulation of the classical Hollywood editing style. Written, directed, photographed, and edited by Porter, The Great Train Robbery is 740 feet long (a little more than 12 minutes at the average standard silent speed of 16 fps) and consists of fourteen separate non-overlapping shots—not scenes—of actions, which are themselves dramatically incomplete. These are connected by straight cuts in the following sequence: 1. Interior of the railroad telegraph office: Two bandits enter and bind and gag the operator, while the moving train, visible through the office window, comes to a halt. 2. Railroad water tower: The other members of the gang board the train secretly as it takes on water. 20
CHAPTER 01
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 20
3. Interior of the mail car with scenery rushing by through an open door: The bandits break in, kill a messenger, seize valuables from a strongbox, and leave. 4. Coal tender and interior of the locomotive cab: The bandits kill the fireman after a fierce struggle, throw his body off the train, and compel the engineer to stop. 5. Exterior shot of the train coming to a halt and the engineer uncoupling the locomotive. 6. Exterior shot of the train as the bandits force the passengers to line up along the tracks and surrender their valuables; one passenger attempts to escape, runs directly into the camera lens, and is shot in the back. 7. The bandits board the engine and abscond with the loot. 8. The bandits stop the engine several miles up the track, get off, and run into the woods as the camera pans and tilts slightly to follow them. 9. The bandits scramble down the side of a hill and across a stream to mount their horses; the camera follows them in a sweeping horizontal panning shot. 10. Interior of the telegraph office: The operator’s daughter arrives and unties her father, who then runs out to give the alarm. 11. Interior of a crowded dance hall: A “tenderfoot” is made to “dance,” as six-guns are fired at his feet; the telegraph operator arrives, and a posse is formed. 12. Shot of the mounted bandits dashing down the face of a hill with the posse in hot pursuit; both groups move rapidly toward the camera; one of the bandits is killed as they approach. 13. Shot of the remaining bandits examining the contents of the stolen mail pouches; the posse approaches stealthily from the background and kills them all in a final shoot-out. 14. Medium close-up (a shot showing its subject from the midsection up) of the leader of the bandits firing his revolver point-blank into the camera (and thus, the audience), a shot that, according to the Edison catalogue, “can be used to begin or end the picture.” In addition to cutting away from scenes (or shots) before they were dramatically concluded and avoiding temporal overlap, The Great Train Robbery contains other innovations. Although the interior sequences were shot in the conventional manner of Méliès, the camera placement in many of the exterior sequences
ORIGINS
23/11/15 11:21 AM
was fresh and dynamic. Several shots, for example, were staged in depth: in shot 4, the camera looks down on the action in the engine cab from the coal tender as the train plunges through space, and in shot 6, an actor moves diagonally across the frame into the camera lens, rather than horizontally across it—a major departure from the frontally composed, theatrical staging of Méliès. There is what seems to be an effective use of in-camera mattes in shot 1 (the moving train coming to a halt, seen through the telegraph office window) and shot 3 (the landscape rushing past the express car door), but it is more likely double exposure or double printing. More significant, there are two authentic panning shots—a tilt following the bandits as they dismount the engine in shot 8, and an impressive pan following the sweep of their flight through the woods in shot 9. Finally, there is a suggestion of parallel editing reminiscent of the Cross-Cut Version of Life of an American Fireman when Porter cuts from the bandits’ getaway back to the bound telegraph operator in shot 10. Nevertheless, for all of its contributions to the medium, The Great Train Robbery was not an isolated breakthrough. As Charles Musser points out, The Great Train Robbery was well situated within the already popular subgenres of the chase and the railway travel film (a type of attraction popularized by Hale’s Tours, in which the audience was encouraged to assume the role of passengers on a moving train). All of its interior scenes are photographed in the stagelike fashion of Méliès: the actors move from left to right or vice versa across the “proscenium” of the frame. Furthermore, Porter never uses more than one camera angle or position in any one setting, and like those of Méliès, most of his shots are long shots showing the actors at full length. Conversely, by building up a continuity of dramatic action out of thirteen separate shots, not counting the final close-up, Porter had shown that cinematic narrative depends not so much on the arrangement of objects or actors within a scene (as does the theater and, to a large extent, still photography) as on the arrangement of shots in relation to one another. Contemporary audiences understood none of this, but they loved the dramatic excitement generated by Porter’s editing and by what amounted at the time to his “special effects,” including bursts of handtinted orange-yellow smoke during the gunfights. So spectacular was the commercial success of The Great Train Robbery that the film was studied and imitated by filmmakers all over the world. It is frequently credited with establishing the realistic narrative, as opposed to Méliès-style fantasy, as the dominant cinematic form from Porter’s day to our own and with temporarily
standardizing the length of that form at a single reel— 1,000 feet, or 10 to 16 minutes, depending on the speed of projection. Furthermore, The Great Train Robbery probably did more than any film made before 1912 to convince investors that the cinema was a moneymaking proposition, and it was directly instrumental in the spread of permanent movie theaters, popularly called nickelodeons or “store theaters,” across the country. More than fifty of Porter’s subsequent films have survived. These display a richness of storytelling within the representational system that he had helped to establish. He continued to practice overlapping action in such conventional productions as Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1903), a filmed play in fourteen tableaux linked together by descriptive intertitles (which he may have been the first to use), complete with painted backdrops and a cakewalk, and in the social-justice melodramas The Ex-Convict (1904) and The Kleptomaniac (1905), which are notable at least for their themes. Some of Porter’s later work has modest technical interest—he matched camera angles from shot to shot in Maniac Chase (1904); employed dramatic, one-source lighting in The Seven Ages (1905); used panning shots in The White Caps (1905); and experimented with model animation in Dream of a Rarebit Fiend (1906) and The “Teddy” Bears (1907), as well as animating the title sequences of a number of his other films. Yet Porter could not adapt to the new methods of filmmaking and the emerging system of representation that developed in response to the rampant growth of the nickelodeons, which by 1907 were drawing one million patrons per day. Their popularity had created a public demand for story films that forced the rationalization of production, which in his managerial capacity, at any rate, Porter initially encouraged. As production became ever more hierarchical and rigorous, however, he left Edison to form his own production company. This eventually became the independent Rex Film, which he sold to Universal Film Manufacturing Company in 1912 to join Adolph Zukor as director-general of the Famous Players Film Company. There he supervised the entire output and directed conventionally successful adaptations of novels and plays until he left the business in 1916. Like Méliès, Porter had a genius for constructing narratives that communicated with early audiences at a certain crucial point in their developing relationship with the screen. The overlapping continuities of How They Do Things on the Bowery (1902), Life of an American Fireman (1903), The Kleptomaniac (1905), and Rescued from an Eagle’s Nest (1908) told their stories in ways their audiences could comfortably understand.
EDWIN S. PORTER: DEVELOPING A CONCEPT OF CONTINUITY EDITING
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 21
21
23/11/15 11:21 AM
Ironically, it was the work of Porter, as much as that of any other filmmaker, that had created the nickelodeon boom. Before the rise of these nickelodeon theaters (1905–1906), exhibition was carried out in a wide variety of sites: vaudeville theaters, summer parks, small specialized storefront theaters, lecture halls, churches, saloons, and between acts of plays by repertory companies touring the nation’s opera houses. With vaudeville theaters in major cities paying the largest fees and giving the greatest visibility to motion pictures, fierce competition existed among such houses by the turn of the century. These theaters hired and advertised the name of the exhibition service as much as or more than the films (“The Cinématographe,” “The Biograph,” and so on). During the novelty period (1895–1897), major exhibitors either made their own films (the Lumières’ Cinématographe) or were closely affiliated with a production company (the Vitascope with the Edison Manufacturing Company). The exhibition service would supply the theater with an “operator” and a
22
CHAPTER 01
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 22
short (eight to fifteen minutes) program of films. At this point, then, the film industry functioned as a unit, with the producers leasing a complete film service of projector, projectionist, and shorts to the vaudeville houses as a self-contained “act.” By 1897, this pattern had changed, as producers began to sell projectors and films outright to itinerant exhibitors, who would travel with their shows from one temporary location—theaters, fairgrounds, circuses, lyceums, and the like—to the next, as the novelty of their programs wore off. Itinerant exhibition separated that function from production for the first time and gave the exhibitor a large degree of control over early film form, because he was responsible for arranging the one-shot films purchased from producers into coherent, crowd-pleasing programs. This process, which often involved the addition of narration, music, and sound effects, was effectively a form of editing, and the itinerant projectionists of 1897 to 1904 may be properly regarded as the first “authors” of motion pictures.
ORIGINS
23/11/15 11:21 AM
Yet the practice of selling prints outright, which encouraged itinerant exhibition, simultaneously discriminated against the owners of permanent sites and inhibited their future growth. In 1903, in response to this situation, Harry J. and Herbert Miles, operating between offices in New York and San Francisco, functioned as middlemen between producers and exhibitors, buying prints from the former and leasing them to the latter for 25 percent of the purchase price. Later, rental fees would be set according to production costs and admission returns per film, but the exchange system of distribution quickly caught on because it handsomely profited everyone concerned. The new film brokers, or “distributors,” literally made fortunes by renting the same prints to different exhibitors over and over again; exhibitors found that they could vary their programs without financial risk and reduce overhead at the same time; and producers ultimately experienced a surge in demand so enormous that it forced the wholesale industrialization of production previously described. The most immediate effect of the rapid formation and rise of the distribution sector was the “nickelodeon boom,” in which the number of permanent theaters in the United States mushroomed from a mere handful in 1904 to between 8,000 and 10,000 by 1908. There had been such theaters in the United States since 1896, but few survived more than two or three years. Storefront theaters did not become very profitable over the long term until the exchange system of distribution created an economic context for them and gave birth to the nickelodeons. Named for the original “Nickelodeon” (ersatz Greek for “nickel theater”) that opened in Pittsburgh in 1905, these were makeshift exhibition sites lodged in converted storefronts that showed from ten to sixty minutes’ worth of shorts for an admission price of five to ten cents, depending on the amenities, such as piano accompaniment and cushioned seats, and the location. Although they were originally associated with working-class audiences, nickelodeons appealed increasingly to segments of the middle class as the decade wore on, becoming identified in the public mind with narrative. Their rapid spread across the country by the end of 1908 forced the standardization of film length at one reel, or 1,000 feet—about 16 minutes at the average silent speed of 16 fps—to facilitate new economies of production, distribution, and exhibition.
(left) The original “Nickelodeon” in Pittsburgh (1905).
Rescued from an Eagle’s Nest (Edwin S. Porter, 1908).
This was the industrial system that Porter resisted and ultimately rejected. But before he left Edison in 1909, he did something that, by circumstance, was to prove immensely important to the history of cinema. His otherwise undistinguished melodrama Rescued from an Eagle’s Nest (1908) provided a needy young actor named David Wark Griffith with his first leading role in films and marked the beginning of a career that was to last forty years and bring the embryonic narrative cinema to a high point of development. A chain of rejected stories and failed plays led him inexorably to the Edison Corporation studios with a scenario based on a work by the French playwright Victorien Sardou (1831–1908), La Tosca. This Porter flatly rejected as having too many scenes, but he offered Griffith a salary of $5 a day to appear in a film of his own, whose improbable story was based on a real event. In it, Griffith, who was more than a little ashamed to have accepted work as a film actor, played a heroic woodcutter who rescues his infant child from the mountain aerie of a large and vicious eagle, wrestling the bird to its death in the process. When Rescued from an Eagle’s Nest first appeared on the screen in early 1908, Porter had already abdicated his position of creative leadership in film, but the technology of cinema had long been born and the rudiments of its narrative language evolved. The cinema now awaited its first great narrative artist, who would refine that language, elaborate it, and ultimately transcend it.
EDWIN S. PORTER: DEVELOPING A CONCEPT OF CONTINUITY EDITING
HISTNARR5_Ch01_002-023.indd 23
23
23/11/15 11:21 AM
Sarah Bernhardt in Les amours de la reine Élisabeth (The Loves of Queen Elizabeth; Henri Desfontaines and Louis Mercanton, 1912, for Histrionic Films).
HISTNARR5_Ch02_024-043.indd 24
23/11/15 12:03 PM
02 International Expansion, 1907–1918 The United States The Early Industrial Production Process By 1908, the cinema had risen from the status of a risky commercial venture to that of a permanent and full-scale, if not yet a major and respectable, industry. In that year, there were 10,000 nickelodeons and 100 film exchanges operating in the United States, and they were supplied by about 20 “manufacturers” who churned out films at the rate of 1 to 2 one-reelers per director per week. A similar situation existed on the Continent and in Britain, and by the time Griffith entered the cinema, the studios (or “factories”) of the Western world could scarcely keep up with the public demand for new films. Furthermore, the novelty of the medium was such that almost anything the studios could produce, regardless of quality, was gobbled up by the international network of distribution and exchange. Although the introduction of mercury-vapor lamps encouraged several companies to construct indoor studios as early as 1903, films were generally shot out of doors in a single day on budgets of $200 to $500 and were rigorously limited to one reel of about 1,000 feet in length, with a running time of ten to sixteen minutes, depending on projection speed. Nearly all of the films were put together on an
25
HISTNARR5_Ch02_024-043.indd 25
23/11/15 12:03 PM
assembly-line basis, following the stagebound narrative conventions of Méliès and the overlapping continuities of Porter, with natural backgrounds and few, if any, retakes. Not surprisingly, industry emphasis on speed and quantity of production militated against creative experiment and demanded the detailed division of labor. Industrial conditions between 1907 and 1913 clearly motivated cost-efficient production practices and encouraged a trend toward centralization at the same time that they discouraged formal experiment, except in the service of increased narrative clarity. So from the nickelodeon boom to the advent of features, the main industrial tendency was toward centralization and standardization of production practice, and the uniform product was the one-reel film. Nevertheless, financial competition among rival production companies was fierce and frequently lawless. Though Thomas Edison claimed ownership of essential patents for the motion-picture camera, many companies were using versions of his machines without paying royalties. Hundreds of suits and countersuits were filed by Edison and his competitors during this renegade period of rampant growth. At the other end of the industry, relationships between distributors and exhibitors became increasingly strained. Because copyright law for motion pictures was still being defined by the courts and legislatures, and since in any case, most production companies did not bother to copyright their pictures, the majority of films were more or less in the public domain, and prints were often stolen, pirated, and illicitly duplicated, just as books had been before 1893.
The Motion Picture Patents Company The most powerful American production companies banded together under joint Edison-Biograph leadership in a protective trade association called the Motion Picture Patents Company, or the MPPC, on December 18, 1908. To ensure their continued dominance of the market, Edison, Biograph, Vitagraph, Essanay, Kalem, Selig Polyscope, Lubin, Star Film, Pathé Frères, and Kleine Optical (the largest domestic distributor of foreign films) pooled the sixteen most significant U.S. patents for motion-picture technology and entered into an exclusive contract with Eastman-Kodak for the supply of raw film stock. The MPPC, also known simply as the “Trust,” sought to control every segment of the industry through issuing licenses and assessing royalties therefrom. The use 26
CHAPTER 02
HISTNARR5_Ch02_024-043.indd 26
of its patents was granted only to licensed equipment manufacturers, and film stock could be sold only to licensed producers; licensed producers and importers were required to fix rental prices at a minimum level and to set quotas for foreign footage to reduce competition; MPPC films could be sold only to licensed distributors, who could lease them only to licensed exhibitors; and only licensed exhibitors had the right to use MPPC projectors and rent company films. To this seemingly airtight system was added the General Film Company, which integrated the licensed distributors into a single corporate entity in 1910—the same year in which motion-picture attendance in the United States rose to 26 million people a week. Although it was clearly monopolistic in practice and intent, the MPPC helped stabilize the American film industry during a period of unprecedented growth and change by standardizing exhibition practice, increasing the efficiency of distribution, and regularizing pri | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 37 | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/plotsummary/ | en | Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://fls-na.amazon.com/1/batch/1/OP/A1EVAM02EL8SFB:142-0120604-5764850:69RHJCJVA5QVCQ32HPJB$uedata=s:%2Fuedata%2Fuedata%3Fstaticb%26id%3D69RHJCJVA5QVCQ32HPJB:0",
"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZDgyOWIwYTYtOTJmZi00NTFmLWFhYzYtNWE0Y2ZmYTBjYzRlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTYzMDM0NTU@._V1_QL75_UY133_CR2,0,90,133_.j... | [] | [] | [
"Movie Plot",
"Plot Summary",
"Plot Synopsis"
] | null | [] | null | Citizen Kane (1941) - Plot summary, synopsis, and more... | en | IMDb | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/plotsummary/ | In a mansion in Xanadu, a vast palatial estate in Florida, the elderly Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles) is on his deathbed. Holding a snow globe, he utters a word, "Rosebud", and dies; the globe slips from his hand and smashes on the floor. A newsreel obituary tells the life story of Kane, an enormously wealthy newspaper publisher. Kane had humble beginnings but led a stellar life. He was twice divorced, and his business empire once contained 13 newspapers and radio stations across US. His palatial mansion Xanadu was the most expensive private construction project after the pyramids. It had a private zoo. Kane was legendary in his hatred for Thatcher, who also claimed to be the trustee of Kane's wealth from his parents. Kane's political career was cut short due to a love scandal, & in his late years, he was alone, unloved and abandoned. Kane's death becomes sensational news around the world, and the newsreel's producer tasks reporter Jerry Thompson (William Alland) with discovering the meaning of "Rosebud".
Thompson sets out to interview Kane's friends and associates. He approaches Kane's second wife (Dorothy Comingore), Susan Alexander Kane, now an alcoholic who runs her own nightclub, but she refuses to talk to him. Thompson goes to the private archive of the late banker Walter Parks Thatcher (George Coulouris), also Kane's legal guardian when he was young. Through Thatcher's written memoirs, Thompson learns that Kane's childhood began in poverty in Colorado.
In 1871, after a gold mine was discovered on her property, Kane's mother Mary Kane (Agnes Moorehead) sends Charles away to live with Thatcher so that he would be properly educated. While Thatcher and Charles' parents discuss arrangements inside, the young Kane (Buddy Swan) plays happily with a sled in the snow outside his parents' boarding-house and protests being sent to live with Thatcher. Kane's mother made this decision as she was afraid that Kane's father was a bum and he would squander away the money. So, she hands over control of the gold mine to Thatcher's bank in exchange for all profits going into a trust, which would be given to Kane when he turns 25. Years later, after gaining full control over his trust fund at the age of 25, Kane enters the newspaper business and embarks on a career of yellow journalism. He takes control of the New York Inquirer and starts publishing scandalous articles that attack Thatcher's business interests. Thatcher is livid, Kane continues to bleed to the extent of $ 1 MM per year to keep his newspaper going. After the stock market crash in 1929, Kane is forced to sell controlling interest of his newspaper empire to Thatcher.
Back in the present, Thompson interviews Kane's personal business manager, Mr. Bernstein (Everett Sloane). Bernstein recalls how Kane hired the best journalists available to build the Inquirer's circulation. Kane rose to power by successfully manipulating public opinion regarding the Spanish American War and marrying Emily Norton (Ruth Warrick), the niece of a President of the United States. He grew the circulation of his paper from a modest 26,000 to an astounding 684,000, beating its top rival the chronicle.
Thompson interviews Kane's estranged best friend, Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten), in a retirement home. Leland recalls how Kane's marriage to Emily disintegrates more and more over the years (Kane would not refrain from attacking the policies of the President and that would cause tension in the Kane household), and he begins an affair with amateur singer Susan Alexander while he is running for Governor of New York. Both his wife and his political opponent (James Gettys) discover the affair and the public scandal ends his political career. Kane marries Susan and forces her into a humiliating operatic career for which she has neither the talent nor the ambition (Apparently Susan told Kane when they were dating that she always wanted to be a singer).
Back in the present, Susan now consents to an interview with Thompson, and recalls her failed opera career. Kane finally allows her to abandon her singing career after she attempts suicide. After years spent dominated by Kane and living in isolation at Xanadu, Susan leaves Kane. Kane's butler Raymond (Paul Stewart) recounts that, after Susan leaves him, Kane begins violently destroying the contents of her bedroom. He suddenly calms down when he sees a snow globe and says, "Rosebud." Back at Xanadu, Kane's belongings are being cataloged or discarded. Thompson concludes that he is unable to solve the mystery and that the meaning of Kane's last word will forever remain an enigma. As the film ends, the camera reveals that "Rosebud" is the trade name of the sled on which the eight-year-old Kane was playing on the day that he was taken from his home in Colorado. Thought to be junk by Xanadu's staff, the sled is burned in a furnace. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 94 | https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-massmedia/chapter/8-2-the-history-of-movies/ | en | Media and Culture | [
"http://textbooks.opensuny.org/wp-content/uploads/OST-SOS-SUNY-logos_SOS-white.png",
"https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1918/2017/05/16194945/8.2.0.jpg",
"https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/courses-images/wp-content/uploads/sites/1918/2017/05/16194948/8.2.1.jpg",
"http... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2016-03-22T00:00:00 | According to the author, the world did not need another introductory text in mass communication. But the world did need another kind of introductory text in mass communication, and that is how Understanding Media and Culture: An Introduction to Mass Communication was birthed. | en | https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-massmedia/wp-content/themes/bombadil/favicon.ico | https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-massmedia/chapter/8-2-the-history-of-movies/ | The movie industry as we know it today originated in the early 19th century through a series of technological developments: the creation of photography, the discovery of the illusion of motion by combining individual still images, and the study of human and animal locomotion. The history presented here begins at the culmination of these technological developments, where the idea of the motion picture as an entertainment industry first emerged. Since then, the industry has seen extraordinary transformations, some driven by the artistic visions of individual participants, some by commercial necessity, and still others by accident. The history of the cinema is complex, and for every important innovator and movement listed here, others have been left out. Nonetheless, after reading this section you will understand the broad arc of the development of a medium that has captured the imaginations of audiences worldwide for over a century.
As the kinetoscope gained popularity, the Edison Company began installing machines in hotel lobbies, amusement parks, and penny arcades, and soon kinetoscope parlors—where customers could pay around 25 cents for admission to a bank of machines—had opened around the country. However, when friends and collaborators suggested that Edison find a way to project his kinetoscope images for audience viewing, he apparently refused, claiming that such an invention would be a less profitable venture (Britannica).
Because Edison hadn’t secured an international patent for his invention, variations of the kinetoscope were soon being copied and distributed throughout Europe. This new form of entertainment was an instant success, and a number of mechanics and inventors, seeing an opportunity, began toying with methods of projecting the moving images onto a larger screen. However, it was the invention of two brothers, Auguste and Louis Lumière—photographic goods manufacturers in Lyon, France—that saw the most commercial success. In 1895, the brothers patented the cinématographe (from which we get the term cinema), a lightweight film projector that also functioned as a camera and printer. Unlike the Edison kinetograph, the cinématographe was lightweight enough for easy outdoor filming, and over the years the brothers used the camera to take well over 1,000 short films, most of which depicted scenes from everyday life. In December 1895, in the basement lounge of the Grand Café, Rue des Capucines in Paris, the Lumières held the world’s first ever commercial film screening, a sequence of about 10 short scenes, including the brother’s first film, Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory, a segment lasting less than a minute and depicting workers leaving the family’s photographic instrument factory at the end of the day, as shown in the still frame here in Figure 8.3 (Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire).
Believing that audiences would get bored watching scenes that they could just as easily observe on a casual walk around the city, Louis Lumière claimed that the cinema was “an invention without a future (Menand, 2005),” but a demand for motion pictures grew at such a rapid rate that soon representatives of the Lumière company were traveling throughout Europe and the world, showing half-hour screenings of the company’s films. While cinema initially competed with other popular forms of entertainment—circuses, vaudeville acts, theater troupes, magic shows, and many others—eventually it would supplant these various entertainments as the main commercial attraction (Menand, 2005). Within a year of the Lumières’ first commercial screening, competing film companies were offering moving-picture acts in music halls and vaudeville theaters across Great Britain. In the United States, the Edison Company, having purchased the rights to an improved projector that they called the Vitascope, held their first film screening in April 1896 at Koster and Bial’s Music Hall in Herald Square, New York City.
Film’s profound impact on its earliest viewers is difficult to imagine today, inundated as many are by video images. However, the sheer volume of reports about the early audience’s disbelief, delight, and even fear at what they were seeing suggests that viewing a film was an overwhelming experience for many. Spectators gasped at the realistic details in films such as Robert Paul’s Rough Sea at Dover, and at times people panicked and tried to flee the theater during films in which trains or moving carriages sped toward the audience (Robinson). Even the public’s perception of film as a medium was considerably different from the contemporary understanding; the moving image was an improvement upon the photograph—a medium with which viewers were already familiar—and this is perhaps why the earliest films documented events in brief segments but didn’t tell stories. During this “novelty period” of cinema, audiences were more interested by the phenomenon of the film projector itself, so vaudeville halls advertised the kind of projector they were using (for example “The Vitascope—Edison’s Latest Marvel”) (Balcanasu, et. al.), rather than the names of the films (Britannica Online).
By the close of the 19th century, as public excitement over the moving picture’s novelty gradually wore off, filmmakers were also beginning to experiment with film’s possibilities as a medium in itself (not simply, as it had been regarded up until then, as a tool for documentation, analogous to the camera or the phonograph). Technical innovations allowed filmmakers like Parisian cinema owner Georges Méliès to experiment with special effects that produced seemingly magical transformations on screen: flowers turned into women, people disappeared with puffs of smoke, a man appeared where a woman had just been standing, and other similar tricks (Robinson).
Not only did Méliès, a former magician, invent the “trick film,” which producers in England and the United States began to imitate, but he was also the one to transform cinema into the narrative medium it is today. Whereas before, filmmakers had only ever created single-shot films that lasted a minute or less, Méliès began joining these short films together to create stories. His 30-scene Trip to the Moon (1902), a film based on a Jules Verne novel, may have been the most widely seen production in cinema’s first decade (Robinson). However, Méliès never developed his technique beyond treating the narrative film as a staged theatrical performance; his camera, representing the vantage point of an audience facing a stage, never moved during the filming of a scene. In 1912, Méliès released his last commercially successful production, The Conquest of the Pole, and from then on, he lost audiences to filmmakers who were experimenting with more sophisticated techniques (Encyclopedia of Communication and Information).
“I Don’t Think We’re in Kansas Anymore”: Film Goes Technicolor
Although the techniques of tinting and hand painting had been available methods for adding color to films for some time (Georges Méliès, for instance, employed a crew to hand-paint many of his films), neither method ever caught on. The hand-painting technique became impractical with the advent of mass-produced film, and the tinting process, which filmmakers discovered would create an interference with the transmission of sound in films, was abandoned with the rise of the talkie. However, in 1922, Herbert Kalmus’s Technicolor company introduced a dye-transfer technique that allowed it to produce a full-length film, The Toll of the Sea, in two primary colors (Gale Virtual Reference Library). However, because only two colors were used, the appearance of The Toll of the Sea (1922), The Ten Commandments (1923), and other early Technicolor films was not very lifelike. By 1932, Technicolor had designed a three-color system with more realistic results, and for the next 25 years, all color films were produced with this improved system. Disney’s Three Little Pigs (1933) and Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (1936) and films with live actors, like MGM’s The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Gone With the Wind (1939), experienced early success using Technicolor’s three-color method.
Despite the success of certain color films in the 1930s, Hollywood, like the rest of the United States, was feeling the impact of the Great Depression, and the expenses of special cameras, crews, and Technicolor lab processing made color films impractical for studios trying to cut costs. Therefore, it wasn’t until the end of the 1940s that Technicolor would largely displace the black-and-white film (Motion Pictures in Color).
Down With the Establishment: Youth Culture of the 1960s and 1970s
Movies of the late 1960s began attracting a younger demographic, as a growing number of young people were drawn in by films like Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch (1969), Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde (1967), and Dennis Hopper’s Easy Rider (1969)—all revolutionary in their genres—that displayed a sentiment of unrest toward conventional social orders and included some of the earliest instances of realistic and brutal violence in film. These four films in particular grossed so much money at the box offices that producers began churning out low-budget copycats to draw in a new, profitable market (Motion Pictures). While this led to a rise in youth-culture films, few of them saw great success. However, the new liberal attitudes toward depictions of sex and violence in these films represented a sea of change in the movie industry that manifested in many movies of the 1970s, including Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather (1972), William Friedkin’s The Exorcist (1973), and Steven Spielberg’s Jaws (1975), all three of which saw great financial success (Britannica Online; Belton, 1994).
Blockbusters, Knockoffs, and Sequels
In the 1970s, with the rise of work by Coppola, Spielberg, George Lucas, Martin Scorsese, and others, a new breed of director emerged. These directors were young and film-school educated, and they contributed a sense of professionalism, sophistication, and technical mastery to their work, leading to a wave of blockbuster productions, including Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Star Wars (1977), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), and E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982). The computer-generated special effects that were available at this time also contributed to the success of a number of large-budget productions. In response to these and several earlier blockbusters, movie production and marketing techniques also began to shift, with studios investing more money in fewer films in the hopes of producing more big successes. For the first time, the hefty sums producers and distributers invested didn’t go to production costs alone; distributers were discovering the benefits of TV and radio advertising and finding that doubling their advertising costs could increase profits as much as three or four times over. With the opening of Jaws, one of the five top-grossing films of the decade (and the highest grossing film of all time until the release of Star Wars in 1977), Hollywood embraced the wide-release method of movie distribution, abandoning the release methods of earlier decades, in which a film would debut in only a handful of select theaters in major cities before it became gradually available to mass audiences. Jaws was released in 600 theaters simultaneously, and the big-budget films that followed came out in anywhere from 800 to 2,000 theaters nationwide on their opening weekends (Belton; Hanson & Garcia-Myers, 2000).
The major Hollywood studios of the late 1970s and early 1980s, now run by international corporations, tended to favor the conservative gamble of the tried and true, and as a result, the period saw an unprecedented number of high-budget sequels—as in the Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Godfather films—as well as imitations and adaptations of earlier successful material, such as the plethora of “slasher” films that followed the success of the 1979 thriller Halloween. Additionally, corporations sought revenue sources beyond the movie theater, looking to the video and cable releases of their films. Introduced in 1975, the VCR became nearly ubiquitous in American homes by 1998 with 88.9 million households owning the appliance (Rosen & Meier, 2000). Cable television’s growth was slower, but ownership of VCRs gave people a new reason to subscribe, and cable subsequently expanded as well (Rogers). And the newly introduced concept of film-based merchandise (toys, games, books, etc.) allowed companies to increase profits even more.
References
Baers, Michael. “Studio System,” in St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, ed. Sara Pendergast and Tom Pendergast (Detroit: St. James Press, 2000), vol. 4, 565.
Balcanasu, Andrei Ionut, Sergey V. Smagin, and Stephanie K. Thrift, “Edison and the Lumiere Brothers,” Cartoons and Cinema of the 20th Century, http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118600/index.phtml?menu=en%3B1%3Bci1001.html.
Belton, American Cinema/American Culture, 305.
Belton, John. American Cinema/American Culture. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), 284–290.
Britannica Online, s.v. “History of the Motion Picture”.
Britannica Online, s.v. “Kinetoscope,” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/318211/Kinetoscope/318211main/Article.
Britannica Online, s.v. “nickelodeon.”
Britannica Online. s.v. “History of the Motion Picture.” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/394161/history-of-the-motion picture; Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace, 45, 53.
British Movie Classics, “The Kinetoscope,” British Movie Classics, http://www.britishmovieclassics.com/thekinetoscope.php.
Dictionary of American History, 3rd ed., s.v. “Nickelodeon,” by Ryan F. Holznagel, Gale Virtual Reference Library.
Dresler, Kathleen, Kari Lewis, Tiffany Schoser and Cathy Nordine, “The Hollywood Ten,” Dalton Trumbo, 2005, http://www.mcpld.org/trumbo/WebPages/hollywoodten.htm.
Encyclopedia of Communication and Information (New York: MacMillan Reference USA, 2002), s.v. “Méliès, Georges,” by Ted C. Jones, Gale Virtual Reference Library.
Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire, s.v. “Cinema.”
Fielding, Raymond A Technological History of Motion Pictures and Television (Berkeley: California Univ. Press, 1967) 21.
Gale Virtual Reference Library, “Motion Pictures in Color,” in American Decades, ed. Judith S. Baughman and others, vol. 3, Gale Virtual Reference Library.
Gale Virtual Reference Library, Europe 1789–1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire, vol. 1, s.v. “Cinema,” by Alan Williams, Gale Virtual Reference Library.
Georgakas, Dan. “Hollywood Blacklist,” in Encyclopedia of the American Left, ed. Mari Jo Buhle, Paul Buhle, and Dan Georgakas, 2004, http://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/blacklist.html.
Gochenour, “Birth of the ‘Talkies,’” 578.
Gochenour, Phil. “Birth of the ‘Talkies’: The Development of Synchronized Sound for Motion Pictures,” in Science and Its Times, vol. 6, 1900–1950, ed. Neil Schlager and Josh Lauer (Detroit: Gale, 2000), 577.
Hanson, Steve and Sandra Garcia-Myers, “Blockbusters,” in St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture, ed. Sara Pendergast and Tom Pendergast (Detroit: St. James Press, 2000), vol. 1, 282.
Higham, Charles. The Art of the American Film: 1900–1971. (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1973), 85.
Menand, Louis “Gross Points,” New Yorker, February 7, 2005, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/02/07/050207crat_atlarge.
Mills, Michael. “Blacklist: A Different Look at the 1947 HUAC Hearings,” Modern Times, 2007, http://www.moderntimes.com/blacklist/.
Motion Picture Association of America, “History of the MPAA,” http://www.mpaa.org/about/history.
Motion Pictures in Color, “Motion Pictures in Color.”
Motion Pictures, “Griffith,” Motion Pictures, http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_6.html#0011.
Motion Pictures, “Post World War I US Cinema,” Motion Pictures, http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_10.html#0015.
Motion Pictures, “Pre World War II Sound Era: Introduction of Sound,” Motion Pictures, http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_11.html#0017.
Motion Pictures, “Pre World-War I US Cinema,” Motion Pictures: The Silent Feature: 1910-27, http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_4.html#0009.
Motion Pictures, “Recent Trends in US Cinema,” Motion Pictures, http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_37.html#0045.
Motion Pictures, “The War Years and Post World War II Trends: Decline of the Hollywood Studios,” Motion Pictures, http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/macro/macro_5004_39_24.html#0030.
Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace, 135, 144.
Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace, 63.
Robinson, From Peep Show to Palace, 74–75; Encyclopedia of the Age of Industry and Empire, s.v. “Cinema.”
Robinson, David. From Peep Show to Palace: The Birth of American Film (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 43–44.
Rogers, Everett. “Video is Here to Stay,” Center for Media Literacy, http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/video-here-stay.
Rosen, Karen and Alan Meier, “Power Measurements and National Energy Consumption of Televisions and Video Cassette Recorders in the USA,” Energy, 25, no. 3 (2000), 220.
Sedman, David. “Film Industry, Technology of,” in Encyclopedia of Communication and Information, ed. Jorge Reina Schement (New York: MacMillan Reference, 2000), vol. 1, 340. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 62 | https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk/shop/mystery/citizen-kane-1941/ | en | Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/dvd-planet-store-pakistan.png",
"https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/dvd-planet-store-pakistan.png",
"https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/oFWvF7OJfT2ydAAatlnsgChV4FP-600x900.jpg",
"https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"www.facebook.com"
] | null | Newspaper magnate, Charles Foster Kane is taken from his mother as a boy and made the ward of a rich industrialist. As a result, every well-meaning, tyrannical or self-destructive move he makes for the rest of his life appears in some way to be a reaction to that deeply wounding event. | en | //www.dvdplanetstore.pk/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/favicon.ico | DVD PLANET STORE | https://www.dvdplanetstore.pk/shop/mystery/citizen-kane-1941/ | Product Availability
Please note that a product being listed on our website does not necessarily mean it is in stock and readily available for order. Our catalog is built as a reference for our customers, while we do our best to sync our in-stock items on our website. The items that are not released yet, or not out on DVD / Blu-ray are indeed unavailable, and that is what we would tell our customers if the requests ever come in.
Our aim is to build a comprehensive listing of movies and TV shows available to date.
Since, we do not take payments online at this time, there is 0% risk in placing order for movies you like on our website. Our representative will get in touch with the customer with the availability of the items when an order is placed.
Notice and Takedown policy
As a professional and reputable online store, DVD Planet Store is fully committed to the twin issues of copyright and trademarks. Please read our notice and takedown policy by clicking here.
Best Effort Policy
Should an item be unavailable, we would inform you if it was possible to provide an on-Demand DVD-R version of the requested item, but we offer no guarantees. Many DVD stores now offer MOD service, and so do we to keep a competitive edge. We would not make any profit out of such sale. The price of the items would only cover the operational / raw material / shipping costs; and would be sold for personal use only.
Processing
Our processing time is 1-2 days for in-stock items for domestic orders. For MOD requests, processing time could be up to 1 week on average. We do our best to fulfill orders as quickly as we can. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 60 | https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/herman-mankiewicz-pauline-kael-and-the-battle-over-citizen-kane | en | Herman Mankiewicz, Pauline Kael, and the Battle Over “Citizen Kane” | [
"https://www.newyorker.com/verso/static/the-new-yorker/assets/logo.svg",
"https://www.newyorker.com/verso/static/the-new-yorker/assets/logo-header.svg",
"https://media.newyorker.com/photos/59097b758b51cf59fc423c61/1:1/w_270%2Cc_limit/undefined",
"https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5faeed169475b2442b5d2950/mas... | [] | [] | [
"film",
"orson welles",
"citizen kane",
"screenwriting",
"criticism"
] | null | [
"Richard Brody",
"Jackson Arn",
"Condé Nast"
] | 2020-11-14T06:00:00-05:00 | Richard Brody reviews David Fincher’s film “Mank,” about the writing of “Citizen Kane” and the debate over whether Orson Welles and Herman Mankiewicz should share credit for the classic film. | en | https://www.newyorker.com/verso/static/the-new-yorker/assets/favicon.ico | The New Yorker | https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-front-row/herman-mankiewicz-pauline-kael-and-the-battle-over-citizen-kane | In 1939, Herman J. Mankiewicz was a forty-two-year-old screenwriter, acclaimed in Hollywood not only for the lines of dialogue he wrote for movies but for the ones he delivered in life. In nearly a decade and a half in the business, he’d found success at Paramount working with Josef von Sternberg and with his friends the Marx Brothers, and at M-G-M writing on “Dinner at Eight” and, briefly, “The Wizard of Oz,” where he had the idea of filming Kansas in bleak black-and-white and Oz in Technicolor. But he was best known as one of the great personalities in the film business. He’d migrated to Hollywood from New York City, where he’d been The New Yorker’s first theatre critic and a member of the famed Algonquin Round Table, and he carried that group’s spirit of cynical candor and acerbic bravado to the movie community. In commissaries and at cocktail parties, he was known for his learned insights and his unpredictable politics (he wrote, at great risk, an anti-Hitler script in 1933, yet he was opposed to American involvement in the Second World War, and even called himself an “ultra-Lindbergh”) as well as for the style with which he delivered them. He was also habitually drunk and wildly impolitic, known for the scenes that he made and the insults that he flung. His work habits were notoriously dubious: a compulsive gambler, he spent ample studio time placing bets and listening to horse races; a social whirlwind, he talked the day away in person and by phone. He lampooned and defied his bosses, and got fired from every job he didn’t quit. By the summer of 1939, he was unemployed, which is how he found himself desperately available when a twenty-four-year-old newcomer to Hollywood by the name of Orson Welles offered him a job.
Welles, prolific and precocious, had become a stage star at sixteen, a major theatre director at twenty, and, in 1937, the co-founder (with John Houseman) of the Mercury Theatre company; he’d become a radio star at twenty-three, and become infamous, in 1938, for the radio broadcast “War of the Worlds,” the tale of an invasion from outer space, told in the form of faux news bulletins, which many listeners mistook as real. He’d also made two independent films on the side. The week of his twenty-third birthday, he had been featured on the cover of Time magazine. But whereas Mankiewicz was a Hollywood insider, Welles was despised by the movie industry in advance, resented and derided for his youth, his fame, his intellectualism—and his contractually guaranteed freedom. He had signed a contract with R.K.O. studio to produce, write, direct, and act in two movies, for which he, alone among Hollywood studio filmmakers, would be allowed final cut. He initially brought Mankiewicz on to ghostwrite radio programs, but their collaboration soon shifted, and Welles recruited him as a co-writer of the first film.
Their collaboration, and the film that resulted from it—“Citizen Kane”—was hailed, even before its release, as one of the greatest movies ever made. A drama about a young heir who turns himself into a newspaper mogul and national figure, building and destroying an empire of his own, it became a marker of an aesthetic and generational shift in the history of cinema, and it made Welles—and what Welles represented—the cynosure of world cinema. Welles and Mankiewicz won an Oscar for the screenplay (the only one that the movie earned, though it was nominated in nine categories), but that award itself was the culmination of a bitter dispute, only one of the many that the movie sparked: Mankiewicz’s contract with Welles had explicitly denied him writing credit, yet Mankiewicz, whose career badly needed the jolt, wanted it—and, after a struggle both in the press and behind the scenes, ultimately succeeded in securing it. Yet today, Welles remains legendary, while Mankiewicz, who died in 1953, is unknown to all but the most attentive movie buffs.
This should change with the release, on Friday, of David Fincher’s new film, “Mank,” a bio-pic of the screenwriter’s years in Hollywood, centered on his work on “Citizen Kane” and based on a script by Fincher’s late father, Jack, a journalist to whom Fincher had suggested the subject. The movie, as Fincher put it in a recent interview with Vulture, is an attempt to define the very nature of Mankiewicz’s contribution to “Citizen Kane,” and to the history of cinema—and to dramatize his battle to get credit for it.
Fincher said that the original draft of his father’s script closely followed the argument made in one of the most famous—and likely one of the most controversial—essays ever to appear in The New Yorker: “Raising Kane,” from 1971, by one of the magazine’s film critics at the time, Pauline Kael. The piece, which was published in two parts and ran fifty thousand words long, attempted to make the case that Mankiewicz deserved not joint but sole credit for the “Citizen Kane” script. “Mank” focusses tightly on Mankiewicz’s behind-the-scenes social and studio life in the nineteen-thirties and its connection to his work on “Citizen Kane.” For a more complete understanding of Mankiewicz’s legacy, it’s worth also revisiting his path to writing movies, which he never much respected as an art form, and the battle that Kael ignited with “Raising Kane,” in which, far from merely outlining Mankiewicz’s crucial role in “Citizen Kane” and his fascinating and tragic character, she attempted, misguidedly, to elevate Mankiewicz, the company man malgré lui, over the independent artist Welles.
Mankiewicz was already a member of the Algonquin Round Table set, when, in late 1924, Harold Ross, on the cusp of launching a new magazine called The New Yorker, asked him to be its first drama critic. Mankiewicz was twenty-seven years old at the time—young in years but long in experience. Born in New York, in 1897, and raised in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, he was the son of German-Jewish immigrants; his father was a poor but fiercely striving (and, eventually, publicly recognized) scholar, a cold and harsh figure who imparted high intellectual standards on Herman, who met them brilliantly but unhappily. Herman had graduated from high school at fourteen and entered Columbia at fifteen, after spending a gap year working in a coal mine; he had served in the Marines in the First World War, worked as a reporter in New York, and then, with his new bride, Sara, gone to Germany, in 1920, where he’d quickly made his name, and his legend, as a reckless and wild wit, able to talk himself into jobs and situations that he usually left in ruins. After returning to New York, in 1922, he’d become a drama critic at the Times while aspiring, with little success, to a career as a playwright. When he joined The New Yorker, Ross hoped he could wrangle his Algonquin cohorts as well; when the others demurred, Mankiewicz offered Ross a notable word of consolation: “The half-time help of wits is no better than the full-time help of half-wits.”
Less than a year into his job at The New Yorker, which published its first issue in February of 1925, Mankiewicz received a lucrative invitation to write in Hollywood. He needed the quick payday, not only to help support his family (he and Sara had two young sons) but also to repay his gambling debts. But he had little interest in movies and even less regard for them. According to Sydney Ladensohn Stern, in her 2019 book, “The Brothers Mankiewicz,” he told his son Don, “You can’t have a literature of screenwriting because it would be like a literature of comic books.” Yet he was good at it; for silent films, he deployed his epigrammatic wit to create intertitles, dialogue as well as descriptive passages that needed to be brief enough to fit on the screen and be read quickly, and with his journalistic sensibility, he could both recognize a good story and fit it into a rigid format. He sent a telegram to his friend the reporter Ben Hecht in late 1926, perhaps the most famous and likely the most consequential one ever sent from Hollywood, offering him a job and concluding with the fateful lines “Millions are to be grabbed out here and your only competition is idiots. Don’t let this get around.”
Mankiewicz hadn’t hoped to remain in Hollywood very long. Before heading West, he had arranged with Ross to keep his job waiting for him upon his return—or so he thought. In February of 1926, Ross, long dismayed by Mankiewicz’s work habits and, for that matter, with his work, fired him—by telegram—and Mankiewicz, without an immediate alternative, decided to keep working in Hollywood. Mankiewicz, though, not only disdained movies as such but found the very nature of their collaborative and corporate work inimical to his idea of writing; according to Meryman, “Herman sourly described story conferences as the time ‘when the producer says to you, “Now in reel three the fellow shouldn’t kiss the girl, he should kiss the cow.” And then the whole picture unravels, and you can’t stand it.’ ” At M-G-M, the industrialized process was less like a writers’ room than a game of exquisite corpse; as Irene Selznick (the studio head Louis B. Mayer’s daughter and the first wife of the producer David O. Selznick), explained, “Sometimes one writer did the outline, someone else did the synopsis, someone did the dialogue, someone did the revision, someone did a complete rewrite.”
The job working for Welles was something different—it provided Mankiewicz with his first chance to write a movie without a studio hovering over his shoulder. His role on “Citizen Kane” was the result of some curious twists of fortune: Welles originally hired him to ghostwrite radio shows, while planning to make his first film for R.K.O., an adaptation of “Heart of Darkness.” Welles was going to play both Marlow and Kurtz, as he had done in a radio version of the novel, and his artistic idea was as extreme as anything in “Kane”: Marlow would never be seen, because the camera would follow the explorer’s subjective point of view throughout. The plan fell through because of its budget, and his next project—a mystery about a fascist plot in America, which he asked Mankiewicz to help out on—did, too. Then, in conversation with Mankiewicz, the idea for a project about the life of a powerful person, seen from multiple perspectives, came up. Welles and Mankiewicz ran through several possible subjects (including the gangster John Dillinger) before Mankiewicz suggested the newspaper magnate and politician William Randolph Hearst. Mankiewicz knew Hearst well—before he wore out his welcome, as he did with just about everyone, he and his wife had been frequent guests at Hearst’s colossal San Simeon compound.
Mankiewicz and Welles’s collaboration on the script—which Mankiewicz originally called “American” (the ultimate title was chosen by the head of R.K.O., George Schaefer)—was a peculiar one. Mankiewicz was in a half-body cast at the time, having broken his leg badly in a car accident (he was a passenger). Welles parked him in a house in the remote town of Victorville, eighty miles from Hollywood, where a nurse took care of him. Welles’s associate John Houseman, at Mankiewicz’s insistence, was present to talk out the story. The secretary Rita Alexander took Mankiewicz’s dictation and typed it up, and Welles periodically visited and often called to consult.
The battle over credit began while the movie was still in production, in the summer of 1940, and sorting out the details is like diving into the Warren Commission report. Mankiewicz, realizing that the script was turning out well, regretted that his deal with Welles specified he’d get no credit for it. Hecht and others in his circle urged him to take the matter public—and to fight for sole credit. For Welles, that would have been a big problem, not least because losing his writing credit might have put him in breach of his R.K.O. contract, which specified that he’d act, write, produce, and direct. Mankiewicz appealed to the Screen Writers Guild, then withdrew his appeal, out of fear of retribution from Hearst. It was R.K.O. that ultimately decided to award him joint credit with Welles. Famously, when the Oscar was announced at the awards ceremony, the cheering at the mention of Mankiewicz’s name obliterated the mention of the second-credited writer, Welles. Neither man was present at the ceremony, but Richard Meryman, in his groundbreaking 1978 biography, “Mank,” cites the speech that Mankiewicz said he would have given: “I am very happy to accept this award in Mr. Welles’s absence, because the script was written in Mr. Welles’s absence.”
The story of Welles and Mankiewicz’s fraught collaboration was a perfect vessel for Pauline Kael’s preoccupations as a critic. She had made her name with a 1963 piece, “Circles and Squares,” savaging the film critic Andrew Sarris and other proponents of the “auteur theory,” which emphasized the primacy of directors as the creative force in movies. A lover of classic Hollywood movies and their commercial, popular appeal, she believed that the emphasis on directing led critics to overlook the inherently collaborative nature of Hollywood filmmaking, and she portrayed other critics’ principled attention to directors (including many whose work went unduly unacclaimed) as an orthodoxy in need of demolishing. In “Raising Kane,” she argued that much of what’s great about “Citizen Kane” in fact arose not from Welles but from the contributions of Mankiewicz and the rest of the cast and crew, and not from the film’s originality but from its place in, and reflection of, cinematic traditions that passed into it by way of the studio system and its veterans. After “Citizen Kane,” Kael concluded, Welles “was alone, trying to be ‘Orson Welles,’ though ‘Orson Welles’ had stood for the activities of a group.”
When “Raising Kane” was published, the piece outraged Welles himself—who was busily working on movies, including “The Other Side of the Wind”—and caused an outcry among critics who appreciated Welles’s entire œuvre and among historians who knew the fuller story. In October of 1972, in Esquire, the filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich rebutted Kael’s findings with his own ten-thousand-word piece, titled “The Kane Mutiny.” In it, Bogdanovich demonstrated that, in reporting her piece, Kael had failed to speak with Welles or anyone who’d worked with him on the script, or, for that matter, with anyone who might have provided a different point of view. Bogdanovich interviewed the screenwriter Charles Lederer, a close friend of Mankiewicz’s, who said that Mankiewicz complained to him about Welles’s many changes to the script. Welles’s secretary from the time, Katherine Trosper, hearing of the charge that Welles wrote nothing of “Citizen Kane,” told Bogdanovich, “Then I’d like to know what was all that stuff I was always typing for Mr. Welles!” Among the other sources Bogdanovich spoke with was a U.C.L.A. professor, Howard Suber, who claimed that Kael had cajoled him—with a promise of a book contract that never materialized—into sharing his copious research on “Citizen Kane” with her, only to use it in her piece, uncredited, while distorting its findings—“After months of investigation I regard the authorship of Kane as a very open question,” he said. Bogdanovich wrote, in 1998, that although he had done “all the legwork, research, and interviews” for the piece, Welles himself—a close friend and associate—“had taken a strong hand in revising and rewriting” it. (In a recent e-mail, Bogdanovich said that there were “bits and pieces that Orson added or subtracted—added, mainly.”)
Subsequently, more impartial, and more crucial, sources for Mankiewicz’s life emerged. Notably, in 1985, the scholar Robert Carringer published a scholarly book about “Citizen Kane” that drew upon newly available studio archives. Carringer concluded that the script bore the work of both writers—Mankiewicz’s work was fundamental, and Welles’s revisions were transformative. Fincher, in making “Mank,” revised his father’s script to soften its anti-Welles bent. The film he made is less interested in litigating the battle between Mankiewicz and Welles than in exploring the relationship between Mankiewicz and Hearst, and how it informed Mankiewicz’s writing of “Citizen Kane.”
There’s little doubt, by now, that Mankiewicz’s Hearst connection provided the essential substance for the film; it also nearly destroyed the film before it could be released. Mankiewicz took it upon himself to provide a copy of the script to Charles Lederer, a friend and screenwriter who also happened to be the nephew of Hearst’s mistress, the actress Marion Davies. It came back to Mankiewicz with markings on passages relating to Hearst. Welles had denied that the movie was based on Hearst’s life; the set had been kept strictly sealed, and the footage wasn’t shown to anyone outside the studio. But then the gossip columnist Hedda Hopper pushed her way into a screening and reported what (rather, who) she thought the movie was about, and Hearst sprang indignantly into action, orchestrating a scurrilous publicity campaign against the movie, and exercising his considerable influence in Hollywood—especially with Louis B. Mayer, the head of M-G-M (who’d fired Mankiewicz, in 1939)—to prevent it from ever being seen.
The pressure that Hearst exerted was fearsome and monstrous. He threatened to divulge salacious information about stars and studio executives, to drum up a nativist campaign against European (mostly Jewish) movie-industry people who’d fled Hitler and found work in Hollywood, and to launch an anti-Semitic campaign against the (mostly Jewish) studio heads. In response, Mayer (who was Jewish) organized a consortium of studio heads to buy the negative of “Citizen Kane” from R.K.O. and destroy it, but Schaefer, R.K.O.’s head, rejected their demand. Hearst also had his newspapers pursue Welles; he charged that Welles was a Communist (he wasn’t); he used his influence with J. Edgar Hoover to have Welles investigated by the F.B.I. Hearst’s movie-gossip columnist Louella Parsons, Meryman writes, contacted the local draft board to try to get Welles drafted. (Later, he inflicted scathing journalistic revenge against Mankiewicz, too, inflating a minor accident caused by Mankiewicz’s drunk driving into a national scandal.) The campaign worked: though “Citizen Kane” wasn’t burned, Mayer got the studios—which also owned most of the first-run movie houses in major cities—to refuse to screen it.
What saved “Citizen Kane” was the fervent critical acclaim it garnered at private screenings held while its release was in doubt. John O’Hara wrote, in Newsweek, that he’d “just seen a picture which he thinks must be the best picture he ever saw”—and warned readers that they might never get to see it. On May 1, 1941, “Citizen Kane” was released in New York, in a single theatre, and was eventually shown nationwide; it did reasonably well in big cities but was a flop—indeed, was often not screened at all—in small-town theatres that booked it. Despite the instant renown that the film earned Welles, its influence on his career was disastrous. Welles was never able to work again in Hollywood with the same freedom. To help Schaefer keep his job (which was threatened by the controversy over “Citizen Kane” and, even more, by its financial losses), Welles renegotiated his contract for his second film, “The Magnificent Ambersons,” renouncing final cut, and he paid the price—the film was mutilated by the studio, which cut forty-three minutes out of it and had another director reshoot rewritten portions. Welles, in 1946, told Roy Fowler, “I came to Hollywood saying, ‘If they let me do a second picture, I’m lucky.’ They didn’t, and since that time I’ve been trying to get back to the position I was in when I first arrived with a contract to make the picture in my own way without interference.” The only freedom he had, from that point on, came when he financed his own movies with money he earned as an actor.
Before he went to Hollywood, Welles described his work in the theatres as “actor-director,” and he conceived of his filmmaking the same way. In the theatre, he had always been an adaptor of Shakespeare, or Christopher Marlowe, or George Bernard Shaw, and when he made movies he took a similar approach. He adapted Joseph Conrad, Shakespeare, Kafka, Booth Tarkington, several pulp-fiction stories, and even a radio script involving the character Harry Lime (which he’d played in Carol Reed’s film “The Third Man”). Why would he not adapt Herman Mankiewicz, too? There was a difference, though, from a practical perspective, in making use of the raw material of a contemporary who was also a competitor for the honors of the business (whereas the pecking order of Shakespeare and Welles was unambiguous in one direction). During the writing of “Citizen Kane,” Mankiewicz took to calling Welles “Monstro” and lampooned him for his ego; Mankiewicz once quipped, upon seeing Welles pass by at the studio, “There but for the grace of God goes God.”
Yet Welles’s earnest self-regard as an artist was ultimately one of the qualities that distinguished him from the cynical, unfulfilled Mankiewicz. Mankiewicz’s own assessment of the art of screenwriting was overly harsh (there is indeed an art to comic books), but he was right to consider it a lesser activity than writing plays—not because movies are less significant than plays but because screenwriters’ work is a matter of industrial necessity rather than artistic impulse. Kael’s most grievous error, in her polemic, was in failing to recognize that Welles would have been Welles without Mankiewicz; if he had gotten to make “Heart of Darkness,” it would in all likelihood have been as original as “Kane,” and, free from the vengeful wrath of Hearst, he’d likely have been able to make a second film without losing his creative freedom. For that matter, Mankiewicz, without the strictures of Hollywood, would likely have been at his creative heights sooner and longer. The story of Mankiewicz’s movie career, no less than Welles’s, involves the horror built into the glory of Hollywood—the relentless power of commercial institutions to impose its practices and formulas on the art of movies. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 79 | https://www.gradesaver.com/citizen-kane | en | Citizen Kane Study Guide | [
"https://www.gradesaver.com/assets/logos/head-39d3d4f4e80fb364ecbffd1884663226a1a58efa38367c551694c88c40330163.svg",
"https://www.gradesaver.com/assets/ads/lit-essays-bd63021b362793d416a01a926ffdfc592f66054137bea15c1fbc73b5f0e02a69.png",
"https://www.gradesaver.com/assets/ads/cae-essays-9380d592ed8bd235b6d58dd2... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Orson Welles"
] | 2023-09-04T16:20:22+00:00 | Citizen Kane study guide contains a biography of director Orson Welles, literature essays, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis. | en | https://www.gradesaver.com/citizen-kane | Citizen Kane has widely been praised as the greatest film ever made, particularly for its innovative narrative structure, its cinematography, editing, and Orson Welles' tour de force performance. Pauline Kael called it "the one American talking picture that seems as fresh now as the day it opened", and Francois Truffaut called it the film that "probably has started the largest number of filmmakers on their careers". It was the rare film that came out of the American Studio system where the filmmaker had complete creative control, and now occupies the number one spot on many internationally-recognized lists of the Greatest Films Of All Time.
There has always been a great deal of controversy about who is responsible for the initial idea and screenplay of Citizen Kane. Herman J. Mankiewicz was a playwright, and the first regular theater critic for the New Yorker. He had a notorious alcohol problem and was addicted to gambling. Mankiewicz met William Randolph Hearst and his mistress, Marion Davies, in 1940 and apparently had wanted to make a film about Hearst before he even met Welles. Pauline Kael famously supported Mankiewicz's claim of planting the original creative seeds of Citizen Kane, writing that Mankiewicz proposed an idea to Welles about making a "'prismatic' movie about the life of a man seen from several different points of view" (49). Kael claims that the idea of Hearst as the inspiration for the protagonist was what excited Welles.
Meanwhile, Welles claimed to have come up with the idea to make a film about Hearst, which is also supported by sources close to the director. Welles had helped to create the March of Time obituary on munitions tycoon Sir Basil Zaharoff (which would inspire the newsreel at the beginning of Citizen Kane): "Zaharoff's secretaries burning his papers in the giant fireplace of his castle. Later, witnesses are called to remember Zaharoff's life. Later still, the dying, castle-dwelling Zaharoff, played by Welles, is given his own voice and his own valedictory camera. He announces a wish to be wheeled into the sun 'by that rosebush'" (Andrews). Regardless of the source of the idea, a film about Hearst was right up Herman Mankiewicz and Orson Welles's respective alleys. Like Welles, Hearst "had been at the center of controversy for his entire public life. But in the 1930s, it became commonplace to question or even attack the older ideal of America and the system of values that Hearst represented" (Carringer 17).
Mankiewicz's first draft of the screenplay, simply called American, was more than 250 pages long, and told the story of "a publishing tycoon and public figure told in retrospect after his death by the persons who had known him best" (Carringer 18). This script apparently had a lot of specific incidents taken straight from William Randolph Hearst's life, which Mankiewicz was certainly privy to because of his background as a journalist and his own visits to San Simeon, Hearst's famous castle. For example, he would have known that Marion Davies (Hearst's mistress who is believed to be the inspiration for Susan Alexander) loved jigsaw puzzles and was a heavy drinker. For reasons of copyright infringement, American would have been a major legal problem for RKO if they had chosen to put it into production. Welles soon took over the scripting process himself, working off of Mankiewicz's drafts. However, as the project neared the point of production, the budget came in much higher than Schaefer was willing to spend. At this moment, the film could have fallen apart completely, but Welles spearheaded revisions on the production plan and the screenplay to reduce the film's scope. Mankiewicz came back on to continue cutting down the script.
The film, which was called RKO 281 at this point, finally went into production on June 29, 1940. It was filmed on what is now the Paramount Lot in Hollywood with some location filming around California. Orson Welles forbade studio executives from visiting the set. Production was completed four months later on October 23, 1940. The film eventually cost $686,033. However, after the film was complete, the problems began anew. Louella Parsons, the Hollywood correspondent for Hearst's publications, saw a preview screening and walked out, furious. She called George Schaefer and threatened to sue RKO if the film was ever released. Soon afterwards, Hearst's papers banned any mention of RKO, especially Citizen Kane. Hearst papers threatened to publish an editorial exposing Hollywood's frequent hiring of immigrants and refugees for jobs that could be filled easily by American workers unless the film was shelved. All the studio heads in Hollywood pleaded with Schaefer not to release the film, even offering to reimburse his costs and then some, but their requests fell on deaf ears. One trade exposed Hollywood's anxiety around the picture; "the industry could ill afford to be made the object of counterattack by the Hearst newspapers" (Kael 7).
However, Schaefer released Citizen Kane as planned. Critics loved the film although RKO lost money on the theatrical run due to Hearst's boycott. It was nominated for 9 Academy Awards but only won one for Best Screenplay, which Welles had to share with Mankiewicz. Apparently the Oscar crowd booed every time Citizen Kane was mentioned during the ceremony.
By the 1950s, though, Citizen Kane re-emerged thanks to repeat airings on television and the support of famous film critics like Andrew Sarris and Andre Bazin. Pauline Kael writes, "Like most films of the sound era that are called masterpieces, Citizen Kane has reached its audience gradually over the years rather than at the time of release". Cinematographers have continued to cite Welles and Toland's visual handling of the material as an inspiration, a film that invigorated the craft. Robert Carringer notes that since the 1960s, Citizen Kane is "far and away the film most often studied in college and university film classes". Geoff Andrew praises the film's timeless universality, saying, "it's about a tycoon but it's about America. It's about how we think about ourselves and how people will think about us after we die." | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 35 | https://github.com/RajatBhageria/Wikipedia-Scraper | en | Scraper: Wikipedia Scraper to retrieve particular data regarding the Academy Awards | https://opengraph.githubassets.com/32aba613ee1bd728171884880de82b70f4598577621e8dc1ed588acfc1b130ce/RajatBhageria/Wikipedia-Scraper | https://opengraph.githubassets.com/32aba613ee1bd728171884880de82b70f4598577621e8dc1ed588acfc1b130ce/RajatBhageria/Wikipedia-Scraper | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Wikipedia Scraper to retrieve particular data regarding the Academy Awards - GitHub - RajatBhageria/Wikipedia-Scraper: Wikipedia Scraper to retrieve particular data regarding the Academy Awards | en | GitHub | https://github.com/RajatBhageria/Wikipedia-Scraper | Rajat Bhageria NETS 150 HW 3 March 26, 2015
Overall: I used Jsoup to complete this assignment. In this readMe.txt file, I have detailed all the questions, all my answers, and the algorithms I used--in quite a lot of detail--to solve the problems. In terms of URL, I only hard-coded the main URL of the portal and then use relative links and hrefs to navigate to the various webpages. The answers to the theoretical part of my assignment is attached in a PDF. I additionally completed 1 extra credit assignment.
Program Structure: I have created two classes. I have created a "Questions" class in which each question (or extra credit question) is a separate method (with appropriate documentation and arguments). The Main class is called "Main," and in this class I create a instance of the Questions object; I then call all the methods for the questions in the main class and do all the printing there. In the Main class, you can chang the instance variables that are then passed into the methods in Question to change the parameters (and thus represent the italicized words in the questions).
Please do note that some of the questions take some time to process; if it is taking a long time, it is probably still processing.
Part 1: See attached PDF document
Part 2: Programming
Question 1: List all movies nominated for the Best Picture award for which one of the Production Companies was Disney.
Question 2: For the Best Original Screenplay award, list the writers for the movie that was nominated/won titled Divorce, Italian Style
Question 3: List all actors nominated for a Best Leading Actor award whose role was playing a King:
Question 4: For the year 2006, list all actresses nominated for a Best Leading Actress award along with the movie and their age that year.
Question 5: List all directors (with the corresponding movies) that have been nominated for at least 4 Best Director awards.
Question 6: List the country (with the corresponding movies) that has been nominated the most number of times for Best Foreign Language Film award.
Question 7: List all movies nominated for the Best Animated Feature award that starred Tom Hanks:
Question 8: Wildcard: List the budgets (and the names) of each of the films that were nominated for Best Director award (in chronological order):
Part 2 Extra Credit: Wildcard: The Average age of all the actors nominated for the Best Leading Actor in the year 1936 (variable) is: | |||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 76 | http://raindance.org/films-films-citizen-kane-rko-281-battle-citizen-kane/ | en | Films about Films – Citizen Kane, RKO 281 and “The Battle Over Citizen Kane” | http://raindance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/citizen_kane_hearst_1050x700.jpg | http://raindance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/citizen_kane_hearst_1050x700.jpg | [
"https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=629943962668341&ev=PageView&noscript=1",
"https://raindance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/logo-home.svg",
"https://raindance.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/logo-home.svg",
"https://raindance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/citizen_kane_hearst_1050x700.jpg",
"https://raindance... | [
"... | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Tim Lorge"
] | 2018-03-07T15:22:13+00:00 | There are some films in which the production itself was so unbelievable that they spawned a separate film documenting or dramatizing the process. I’m not talking about a middling DVD extra. I’m talking an actual documentary made by someone other than the studio. For some films, to truly understand them, you really need to know […] | en | Raindance | http://raindance.org/films-films-citizen-kane-rko-281-battle-citizen-kane/ | There are some films in which the production itself was so unbelievable that they spawned a separate film documenting or dramatizing the process.
I’m not talking about a middling DVD extra. I’m talking an actual documentary made by someone other than the studio.
For some films, to truly understand them, you really need to know the backstory (a.k.a. horseshit) about its production.
There are many and we’ll cover some of them. Our first is Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane.
Citizen Kane is often called the greatest film ever made because it is the greatest fucking movie ever!
Yes, everyone says it and it is easy to discount that fact.
However, I ask you to consider this.
At the age of 24, if you had created a story about the private life of the largest media tycoon in the world, a man who, if he didn’t particularly care for your story, could crush your life, career and art, would you as an artist be willing to write that story, get it made and spend the rest of your life dealing with the fallout from it?
Orson Welles, along with Herman J. Mankiewicz, created that story based on media magnate William Randolph Hearst. The decision to create this story and yes, his career suffered because of it.
Hearst’s power and influence is really quite unimaginable today. No one wields as much power over the media as he did. Rupert Murdoch is nothing compared to Hearst.
Every frame of Kane is steeped with jabs at Hearst. As detailed in Filmmakers Thomas Lennon (the documentarian not Lt. Dangle of Reno 911!) and Michael Epstein’s U.S. Public Broadcasting System (PBS) documentary “The Battle over Citizen Kane,” when Hearst got wind of this, he was none too pleased.
He sent influential gossip columnist Louella Parsons (think TMZ but with WAY more power to destroy people) to find out all she could about the film and obliterate it before its release.
When that didn’t work, Hearst tried to coerce the heads of the other Hollywood studios.
That didn’t work either. Hearst’s newspapers set about trashing the film and libeling Welles upon its release. Non-Hearst papers, however, gave it positive reviews.
In the end, the audiences of 1941 ultimately rejected Kane and it bombed.
With the death of Hearst in 1951 and advent of TV in the 50’s, Kane began its ascent to legendary status.
The story of Citizen Kane is a frame story that opens with a media tycoon Charles Foster Kane’s last words “Rosebud.” This sends an intrepid reporter on a quest, to find out what Rosebud means.
“RKO 281” was a dramatization of “The Battle” documentary that HBO produced in 1999.
There are some criticisms about “The Battle” and, in turn “281,” claiming Welles and Hearst weren’t as similar as portrayed and that the “Hollywood legend” of Rosebud being a nickname Hearst had for his mistress’ clitoris wasn’t true.
Whether either is true or not, I have no idea. Considering the venom with which Hearst pursued Welles and Kane, I can certainly see it as plausible.
It’s hard to say which of these to watch first.
Unless you are familiar with the US in the 1930’s, I’d suggest watching “The Battle” first. That will really help you frames Kane better. Then, watch RKO 281 and watch Kane again.
I’d suggest getting the DVD because you’ll watch this over and over. Plus, some of the DVD packages have all three films.
If you are a lover of film and have never seen these, you must.
Citizen Kane – 1941
Written by: Herman J. Mankiewicz, Orson Welles – Original Screenplay; John Houseman, Roger Q. Denny and Mollie Kent – Uncredited, Contributing Writers
Directed by: Orson Welles
Main Cast:
Joseph Cotten
Dorothy Comingore
Agnes Moorehead
Ruth Warrick
Erskine Sanford
Everett Sloane
Paul Stewart
Orson Welles
Academy Awards: 9 nominations, 1 win.
On lists
1001 Films
#1 AFI Top 100 ‘07
#1 AFI Top 100 ‘98
#4 WGA 101 Greatest
1989 Addition to National Film Registry, one of the first 25 selected
The Battle Over Citizen Kane – 1996
Written by: Richard Ben Cramer & Thomas Lennon
Directed by: Michael Epstein & Thomas Lennon
Main Cast
David McCullough (host)
Orson Welles (archive)
William Randolph Hearst (archive)
Richard Ben Cramer (narration)
Academy Awards: 1 Nomination for Best Documentary Feature
RKO 281 – 1999
Written by John Logan; Based on “The Battle Over Citizen Kane” by Richard Ben Cramer and Thomas Lennon
Directed by: Benjamin Ross
Main Cast
Liev Schreiber
James Cromwell
Melanie Griffith
John Malkovich
Brenda Blethyn
Roy Scheider
Liam Cunningham
Kerry Shale
Awards: | |||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 80 | https://archive.jsonline.com/entertainment/books/filmmakers-journey-puts-deep-focus-on-orson-welles-citizen-kane-b99697589z1-375036391.html | en | 'Filmmaker's Journey' puts deep focus on Orson Welles, 'Citizen Kane' | http://media.jrn.com/images/b99697589z.1_20160408095434_000_gl2f5kk2.1-0.jpg | http://media.jrn.com/images/b99697589z.1_20160408095434_000_gl2f5kk2.1-0.jpg | [
"https://archive.jsonline.com/Services/image.ashx?domain=www.jsonline.com&file=logo-mjs-76-icon.png&resize=",
"https://archive.jsonline.com/Services/image.ashx?domain=www.jsonline.com&file=b99697589z.1_20160408095434_000_g49f3kaa.1-0.jpg&resize=200*309",
"https://archive.jsonline.com/Services/image.ashx?domain=... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Film historian Harlan Lebo taps unpublished material and a copy of the “lost” final script to answer just about every question and debate about the classic 1941 movie. | en | /Services/include.ashx?domain=www.jsonline.com&file=logo-mjs-200-icon.png | https://archive.jsonline.com/Services/include.ashx | By of the
It's generally agreed that "Citizen Kane" ranks among film's best. After that, there's generally a lot of disagreement.
Who really wrote it — was it Orson Welles and veteran screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz, or did Mankiewicz do it all himself? Is the title character, Charles Foster Kane, really based on William Randolph Hearst? Howard Hughes? Welles himself?
Harlan Lebo — who wrote a coffee-table book on "Kane" and was a historical consultant for the 1941 movie's 50th anniversary rerelease — does a pretty good job of answering those questions and others in "Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker's Journey," due out April 26 to mark the movie's 75th anniversary this year.
Lebo tapped previously unpublished material, interviewed the last surviving members of the "Kane" cast and crew (several of whom have since died), and tracked down what may be the only copy of the "lost" final script of the movie.
The result is an engaging synthesis of just about everything written about "Kane," with expertly drawn conclusions that feel like, when you read them, the arguments are over.
Who wrote "Kane" has been debated for decades. Mankiewicz shared screen credit with Welles on the script, but detractors later claimed the writing was all Mankiewicz's.
But Lebo shows how Welles, a master at tuckpointing narrative from his years of shaping stage and radio scripts, extensively reshaped the screenplay, and the title character. As seen by Mankiewicz, Welles said, Kane was "simply as an egomaniac monster"; Welles pared back the dialogue to reveal the character's inner emptiness.
But Lebo shows that there was a cost to that approach: While it's the things left unsaid that make "Kane" brilliant, they also left some audiences and critics confused.
Lebo also takes a deep dive into the Kane/Hearst connection, showing that, while Hearst was a partial inspiration for the character, so were many others, including Hughes, and that Welles reworked the screenplay to eliminate elements that were a little too close to the real-life publisher.
Ironically, Lebo writes, it was Hearst's battle to kill the movie and wreck Welles' career that did more to lash him to Kane.
Lebo's exhaustive viewer's guide at the back of the book includes a scene-by-scene guide, itemized details of "Kane's" budget and the most detailed cast list you'll see this side of Internet Movie Database.
All of that makes "A Filmmaker's Journey" a definitive resource for anyone interested in Welles and "Kane." | |||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 99 | https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/12/21/herman-mankiewicz-netflix | en | 'Brilliant' But 'Full Of Self-Hate': The Man Behind 'Citizen Kane' Inspires Netflix’s 'Mank' | [
"https://wordpress.wbur.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Mank_Reel4_OnlineGrade_NoGrain_cropped_v17.0006991-1000x455.jpg",
"https://img.youtube.com/vi/aSfX-nrg-lI/hqdefault.jpg",
"https://media.wbur.org/wp/2020/12/GettyImages-526898560-400x512.jpg",
"https://wordpress.wbur.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0722_ro... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Robin Young"
] | 2020-12-21T00:00:00 | "Mank" centers around Herman Mankiewicz, the writer who won an Oscar honoring his screenplay for "Citizen Kane." | en | https://static.wbur.org/images/icons/favicon.ico | https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2020/12/21/herman-mankiewicz-netflix | Herman Mankiewicz, the screenwriter commissioned by Orson Welles to pen “Citizen Kane,” is the focus of the new Netflix film “Mank.”
Mankiewicz, played by actor Gary Oldman, fiercely battled over writing credit for the film with Welles, the 25-year-old who in 1940 produced, directed and starred as Kane, a thinly veiled version of real-life media titan William Randolph Hearst. A great Hollywood feud ensued.
“Mank,” written by the late Jack Fincher and directed by his son David Fincher, comes down firmly on the side of Mankiewicz. So did critic Pauline Kael in an infamous 1972 essay after which director Peter Bogdanovich came to Welles’ defense.
Josh Mankiewicz, grandson of Herman Mankiewicz and NBC journalist best known for his reporting on “Dateline,” says growing up, there was never a debate about who wrote “Citizen Kane.”
Ben Mankiewicz, another grandson and host on Turner Classic Movies, says he gets why people came to Welles’ defense because Kael’s piece was seen as diminishing the director’s contribution to the historic film. And Welles’ accomplishments were clearly outstanding, Ben Mankiewicz says.
Welles “produced it in the face of these enormous headwinds, directed it in a way that changed the way movies are directed and delivered this dazzling performance,” Ben Mankiewicz says.
But all in all, he argues that while it is Welles’ movie, Herman Mankiewicz conceived and mostly wrote the screenplay.
Eventually, the two men shared the credit and an Oscar for the precedent-setting film.
“Mank” takes a peek into Herman Mankiewicz’s life as the head of a great family — one that spawned the late journalist Frank Mankiewicz, once president of National Public Radio and press secretary to Robert Kennedy — but also a father who struggled with alcoholism, the cause of his early death.
Neither Josh nor Ben Mankiewicz met their grandfather but heard about him almost “mythically” throughout their lives.
Herman Mankiewicz’s career spanned far and wide. He was the Berlin correspondent for the Chicago Tribune, the drama critic for The New York Times, the first regular drama critic at The New Yorker, and a script fixer on many films including “The Wizard of Oz” and “Man of the World,” among others.
In “Mank”, viewers see a nod to another side of Herman Mankiewicz, such as his efforts to help Jews escape Nazi Germany. But ultimately, in the film, he’s depicted as a court jester, the term studio heads would call him.
In addition to his heavy drinking, Herman Mankiewicz had another fatal flaw — a deep-seated belief that his work didn’t matter and wasn’t good enough.
Advertisement
Josh Mankiewicz says the Herman Mankiewicz in “Mank” is exactly the person who he heard about growing up — “brilliant, funny, literate, kind, a mensch, full of self-hate.”
“The only person that didn't believe he was a great, wonderful, talented guy was Herman. And he sort of took that out on himself,” Josh Mankiewicz says. “And in the end, he paid for it and we did, too.”
Interview Highlights
On how Herman Mankiewicz’s son, Frank Mankiewicz, was affected by his father’s actions
Ben Mankiewicz: “First of all, my dad didn't drink and he didn't really gamble, the two primary sins that destroyed Herman. But mostly, of course, what destroyed Herman was that sort of self-loathing that he didn't think anything he'd contributed mattered. He didn't think these movies mattered. So, you know, I want to go back and I think my father did, too, you know, and especially as I spent the last two decades of my life talking about classic movies, you want to go back in time and shake him and go, ‘Hey man, no, this art form mattered.’ This was not a popcorn escapism and nothing else. This is a valuable, signature American art form, and he would have been enormously proud of it. Clearly, one reason for fighting for the credit on ‘Citizen Kane’ was that he thought he had finally written something worthwhile, something that mattered.”
Josh Mankiewicz: “He was the father that Herman, I think, was not. He was always there. He went to every one of Ben's high school basketball games. He took me out of school to go to campaign events in 1968 and 1972, which was a tremendous education. He made sure that the childhood he didn't have, his kids did have.”
On how Herman Mankiewicz made an enemy out of William Randolph Hearst, the subject of “Citizen Kane,” and how Hearst used his empire to take down Herman after his drunken fender bender
BM: “First of all, so people understand William Randolph Hearst, he was much more than Rupert Murdoch. He was. But he was like Rupert Murdoch and CBS and NBC and ABC and The Washington Post and The New York Times …”
JM: “And Mark Zuckerberg.”
BM: “And Mark Zuckerberg. I mean, he was by far the most powerful media figure of the 20th century. So when my grandfather had this fender bender, the Hearst people at the Beverly Hills Police Department alerted the Hearst paper and The Examiner put it on the front page like it was the biggest story in the world. This was in the ‘40s. And the trial was on the front page again, like it was, you know, it was the O.J. Simpson trial. And then my father was at Camp Roberts getting ready to go overseas and fight in the Second World War. My dad would, he said, sprint to the PX [Post Exchange] where they sold the papers and The Examiner was the afternoon paper and he would buy all of the afternoon papers that covered the story about his father drinking and having this accident, and he would throw them away.”
JM: “I either heard or always believed that my dad buying the newspapers and throwing them away so that others couldn't read them was the inspiration for the scene in “Absence of Malice” in which Melinda Dillon's character picks up the morning paper on her neighbor's lawns and throws them away so that her story of how she was involved with the Paul Newman character won't get out.”
On the Mankiewicz family
JM: “I mean, I saw a lot of people at the dinner table who I later saw on the evening news. I remember, when I was 17, I went on a trip to England and I went to Pinewood Studios where [Herman Mankiewicz’s brother] Joe [Mankiewicz] was shooting "Sleuth." And now whenever I see “Sleuth,” I remember that I was on that set and I sat in that chair. But I mean otherwise, life was pretty much normal.”
BM: “My dad never put an ounce of pressure on us to do big things. Smart things really was all he was concerned with. But there was a weight of expectation that just comes with the name. We think that the smartest person in the family was our father, one of the smartest people of his generation. And all those great people who worked at NPR when he was there from the late ‘70s into the early ‘80s, I mean, almost uniformly, they say whenever Frank was in the room, you knew that was the smartest guy in the room. So we had this dad who I sort of just decided at age, you know, 12 or 13, I could be maybe successful in life, but I'm never going to be like my father. You just can't. But that weight of expectation never goes away. It still exists now.”
On watching their grandfather portrayed in “Mank”
JM: “Look, it was surreal to see the guy I never met but always heard about suddenly in my living room. I thought the movie was great. You do kind of want to, if you're a Mankiewicz, reach through the screen and slap him. But it was great to be able to finally meet him in a fashion. It was.”
BM: “It was an incredibly emotional experience. And Fincher told me he didn't see it as about the credit for ‘Citizen Kane.’ There's a tremendous amount of focus on that, and I certainly understand. He wanted to tell the story of the screenwriter and how important screenwriting is in Hollywood and this guy's personal struggle to achieve despite this instinct that he didn't deserve to achieve. I don't know, man. He seemed fun and loved by his peers and the people who he alienated, William Randolph Hearst and studio executives, well, that's not so bad.” | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 23 | https://www.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/films/collections/what-to-watch/films-to-watch-if-you-like/10-films-to-watch-if-you-like-citizen-kane | en | 10 Films to Watch if You Like Citizen Kane | https://cdn-3.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/ | https://cdn-3.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/ | [
"https://www.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/shared-w/images/logo.svg",
"https://cdn-2.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/1712160915335_l.jpg",
"https://cdn-2.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/15082401254213_l.jpg",
"https://cdn-2.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/1809190435231_l.jpg",
"https://cdn-2.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/1608090245231_l.jpg",
"https://cdn... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Cinema Paradiso"
] | null | Here's our suggestions of films to watch after Orson Welles' Citizen Kane! Find the best films and rent them at CinemaParadiso.co.uk! | /rental-dvds/rental/img/favicon.ico | CinemaParadiso.co.uk | https://www.cinemaparadiso.co.uk/films/collections/what-to-watch/films-to-watch-if-you-like/10-films-to-watch-if-you-like-citizen-kane | Considering it has long been regarded as the best film ever made, it's surprising that the 80th anniversary of Citizen Kane has been marked with so little fuss. Here at Cinema Paradiso, however, we can spot a masterpiece when we see it. In this article, we'll be guiding you to 10 films to watch if you liked Citizen Kane. We'll also zip over the history of Orson Welles, as well as recounting the myths and controversies surrounding the film, bringing you the only article you'll ever need to understand Citizen Kane!.
When it was released in 1941, Citizen Kane was regarded as more of a cause célèbre than a cinematic classic. Ignored by large parts of the American press, it was primarily seen in large cities and made relatively little impact at the box office, despite landing nine Oscar nominations. Eighty years on, however, Orson Welles's directorial debut is ranked among the finest films ever made.
Screeds have been written about it, with much of the focus falling on the relative contributions made to the Oscar-winning screenplay by Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz. Debates have also raged about the extent of the impact that Welles's supposedly pioneering technique has had on Hollywood film-making. So, why not let Cinema Paradiso guide you through the maze.
Orson Welles' Arrives In Hollywood
When a 16 year-old from Kenosha, Wisconsin strode into the famous Gate Theatre in Dublin and landed a job after introducing himself as a renowned Broadway star, he realised that anything was possible. Two years later, a chance meeting at a 1933 party in Chicago resulted in Orson Welles making his American stage bow and he had moved into radio and film by the end of the following year.
Welles was 19 when he starred alongside wife-to-be Virginia Nicolson in a self-made short entitled, The Hearts of Age (1934). But he would have to wait a few months before becoming the toast of New York after directing an all-African American cast in a voodoo version of William Shakespeare's Macbeth. He followed this by reviving Eugène Marin Labiche and Marc-Michel's 1851 play, The Italian Straw Hat, which had been wonderfully filmed by René Clair in 1928. But the Boy Wonder was only getting started.
In 1937, he produced Marc Blitzstein's political operetta, The Cradle Will Rock, under the auspices of the Federal Theatre Project that had been set up during the Great Depression. Angus MacFadyen captures something of Welles's fearlessness and energy in Tim Robbins's Cradle Will Rock (1999), while the extent to which Welles took the performing arts by storm is discussed in two fine documentaries, Chuck Workman's Magician: The Astonishing Life and Work of Orson Welles (2014) and Mark Cousins's The Eyes of Orson Welles (2019).
These also mention an audacious reading of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar that relocated the action to Fascist Benito Mussolini's Italy. Workman and Cousins also recall the CBS radio broadcast on Halloween 1938 that jolted a nation. But the full story of how the Mercury Theatre company convinced millions that the United States was under alien attack is retold in John Ross's The Day That Panicked America: The H.G. Wells War of the Worlds Scandal (2005), which is available to rent from Cinema Paradiso.
Welles had already been offered the odd script and had even been screen tested at Warner Bros in 1937. But he was in no hurry to venture into the movies, as he deemed them an inferior form of entertainment, even though he had made his own second short, which had been hastily filmed in 1938 to add novelty to a revival of William Gillette's 1894 comedy, Too Much Johnson. Consequently, Welles also turned down both independent producer David O. Selznick's offer to head up his story department and a supporting role in William Wyler's adaptation of Emily Brontë's Wuthering Heights (1939), which received an Academy Award for the black-and-white photography of Gregg Toland, more of whom anon.
RKO chief George J. Schaefer was so determined to land Welles after The War of the Worlds saga that he offered him the chance to make two films without any studio interference. When the plays Five Kings and The Green Goddess unexpectedly bombed on Broadway, Welles signed on the dotted line. Arriving in Hollywood on 20 July 1939, he declared the first studio he saw 'the greatest electric train set a boy ever had'. However wide-eyed he might have been, the 24 year-old still negotiated a financially favourable contract in return to writing, directing, producing and starring in two pictures whose budgets were not to exceed $500,000.
Despite having guaranteed privacy on the set and in the cutting room, Welles soon discovered just how much freedom he would actually be given when he spent five fruitless months making camera tests in a bid to persuade RKO to spend an extra $50,000 so that he could adapt Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, with himself playing both Kurtz and an unseen Marlow.
An offer to team with Lucille Ball on a quickie version of Cecil Day-Lewis's thriller, The Smiler With a Knife, was also spurned, as the tale of a fascist plot in Washington was deemed too contentious with Europe being engulfed in the Phony War. Instead, Welles sought out erstwhile Mercury Theatre scenarist Herman J. Mankiewicz to kick around ideas for a project that was provisionally titled, American.
Who Wrote Citizen Kane?
Two films have been made about the writing of Citizen Kane and neither of them can lay claim to telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Produced by Ridley and Tony Scott and taking its title from Kane's studio's production number, Benjamin Ross's RKO 281 (1999) stars Liev Schreiber as Welles and John Malkovich as Mankiewicz, who is nervous about basing a film on press baron William Randolph Hearst and his actress mistress Marion Davies because he knows that the pioneer of yellow journalism had the contacts to destroy both of their careers.
By contrast, David Fincher's 10-time Oscar-nominated Mank (2020) avers that Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) collaborated with Welles (Tom Burke) to wreak his revenge on Hearst (Charles Dance) and Davies (Amanda Seyfried) for causing the suicide of Shelly Metcalf, a personnage à clef based on Felix E. Feist, who went on to direct titles like The Big Trees (1952) and Donovan's Brain (1953), which are available to rent on high-quality disc from Cinema Paradiso.
As there are few uncontested accounts of the writing process, it's only possible to surmise what happened next. In February 1940, with Mankiewicz in plaster after breaking his leg in a traffic accident, he was deposited in a house in Victorville with producer John Houseman and a nurse. Also present was secretary Rita Alexander, who took dictation as Mankiewicz worked from the 300 pages of notes that Welles had amassed during discussions that had been so fractious that he had reached the conclusion that they would be better off working alone.
Glad to be employed, Mankiewicz had agreed to work without credit, as Welles's RKO contract had stipulated that he 'wrote' the screenplay for his film. As news filtered back that the production was going well, Mank came to regret the deal and was encouraged by fellow scribe Ben Hecht to demand formal recognition. Fearing Hearst's backlash, however, Mankiewicz withdrew his appeal to the Screen Writers Guild and it was only when RKO confirmed the credits in January 1941 that he was cited as co-writer. According to Welles's assistant, Richard Wilson, the director had insisted that Mankiewicz's name appeared first. But he also made a point of asserting that the shooting script combined ideas from both drafts. 'At the end, naturally,' Welles stated, 'I was the one making the picture, after all - who had to make the decisions. I used what I wanted of Mank's and, rightly or wrongly, kept what I liked of my own.'
Such pronouncements failed to mollify Mankiewicz, who spent the last 12 years of his life grumbling about the man he now called 'Monstro'. Reportedly, on once spotting him at the studio, Mank hissed, 'There but for the grace of God goes God.' He continued to write, however, and Cinema Paradiso users can enjoy his efforts on two contrasting pictures, Robert Siodmak's noir, Christmas Holiday (1944), and Frank Borzage's swashbuckler, The Spanish Main (1945). Intriguingly, the former employed a flashback structure to chronicle the relationship between Deanna Durbin and Gene Kelly.
Over the next two decades, Citizen Kane slipped out of the public consciousness (see below). Upon its rediscovery, however, the debate over who wrote what was renewed. In October 1971, critic Pauline Kael published The Citizen Kane Book to mark the picture's 30th anniversary. At its core was 'Raising Kane', a 50,000-word article she had written for the New Yorker the previous February. Nettled by the notion of auteur theory that credited directors as the 'authors' of their films, Kael had argued that Welles was indebted to the brilliance of his cast and crew, as well as Mankiewicz, who had written the bulk of the scenario.
Unfortunately, such was her antipathy for Welles that Kael had not bothered to confront him with her convictions. Consequently, he responded with the aid of critic-turned-film-maker Peter Bogdanovich in a 10,000-word Esquire piece entitled, 'The Kane Mutiny' (after Edward Dmytryk's 1954 adaptation of Herman Wouk's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, The Caine Mutiny).
Among the people Bogdanovich interviewed was renowned screenwriter Charles Lederer, who not only happened to be a good friend of Mankiewicz, but who was also Marion Davies's nephew. He claimed, 'Manky was a great paragrapher - he wasn't really a picture writer. I read his script of the film - the long one called American - before Orson really got to changing it and making his version of it - and I thought it was pretty dull.'
Inspirations for Citizen Kane, Citizen Kane for Inspiration
Shortly before he died in July 1948, pioneering director D.W. Griffith told an interviewer, 'I loved Citizen Kane and particularly loved the ideas he took from me.' This was a bit rich coming from the maker of such landmark early features as The Birth of a Nation (1915) and Intolerance (1916), as, like Orson Welles, he was less of a technical innovator than a skilled applicator of other people's ideas.
Welles liked to claim that he had prepared for his directing bow with 40 viewings of John Ford's Stagecoach (1939). In fact, he spent considerable time at the Museum of Modern Art in New York watching pictures by Frank Capra, René Clair, Fritz Lang, King Vidor and Jean Renoir. He also studied Robert Wiene's The Cabinet of Dr Caligari (1920). Once on the set, however, Ford was his tutor and he got into the habit of running Stagecoach after dinner each night with a different member of the crew and bombarding them with questions. As he later recalled, 'It was like going to school.'
Welles was also indebted to production advisor Miriam Geiger, who compiled a handmade textbook of basic techniques that he kept close to hand. Another key collaborator was art director Perry Ferguson, who attended meetings with Welles and cinematographer Gregg Toland to design sets that not only captured the atmosphere of a scene, but which could also accommodate the moving camera that Welles intended to use to film scenes in deep focus.
Indeed, Ferguson created models for the pair to plan the lighting and blocking of their sequence shots. He also incorporated trenches into the studio floor so that Toland could grab low-angle shots, while he used muslin to create the famous ceilings that were still a novelty in Hollywood movies. His pièce de résistance, however, was the Great Hall at Xanadu, the Kane mansion that was modelled on the Hearst Castle at San Simeon and belied the fact that it had been fashioned on the tightest of budgets.
On Ferguson's suggestion, shooting on 'RKO 281' began on 29 June 1940 while the front office thought Welles was doing 'camera tests', so that he could get the hang of calling the shots before the suits paid a call. The first scene completed took place in the RKO projection room, as the assembled discussed the News on the March newsreel announcing Kane's death and pondering the mystery of his final word, 'Rosebud'.
Always rehearsing scenes in advance, Welles next made use of sets built for other pictures to shoot the El Rancho nightclub scene in which second wife Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore) recalls her relationship with Kane. Similarly, the interviews with best friend Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten) and Inquirer employee Bernstein (Everett Sloane) were filmed on existing sets. The odd scene required location shooting, but the production's main base was Stage 19 at Paramount Pictures, which allowed Welles and sound recordist Bailey Fesler to experiment with overlapping speech and sound perspectives.
Among the most famous scenes was the breakfast montage involving Kane and first wife Emily Norton (Ruth Warwick), which marked the 'official' start of filming. Once the camera started rolling, Welles came to rely so heavily on Toland that he dubbed him 'the greatest gift any director - young or old - could ever, ever have'. Yet Toland had been so keen to work with the Boy Genius with a reputation for experimentation that he had persuaded producer Samuel Goldwyn to loan him to RKO.
Unusually, little inter-studio bartering had to be done to recruit the cast, as 10 members of the ensemble were Mercury Theatre regulars. Like Welles, Joseph Cotten, Everett Sloane, William Alland (reporter Jerry Thompson), Ray Collins (Boss Jim W. Gettys), Agnes Moorehead (mother Mary Kane), Erskine Sanford (inquirer editor Herbert Carter) and Paul Stewart (Raymond the butler) were all making their first feature. Dorothy Comingore (who had previously used the name 'Linda Winters) was recommened to Welles by Charlie Chaplin, while he cast stage actress Ruth Warwick because she reminded him of his mother, Beatrice.
Morehead claimed that Welles 'trained us for films at the same time that he was training himself', He often discussed the day's shooting during the four-hour stints required to apply Maurice Seiderman's make-up. Often working 18-hour days, Welles was forced to slow down after damaging an ankle in a fall down some steps and had to direct from a wheelchair for a fortnight and use a steel brace to enable him to stand during his own scenes.
Principal photography wrapped on 24 October with a bonfire that got out of hand and Paul Stewart noted that 'Orson was delighted with the commotion.' However, he was back shooting retakes on 15 November, although Harry J. Wild had to take over partway through because Toland was contracted to start what turned out to be the interminable shoot for Howard Hughes's Western, The Outlaw (1943).
Fittingly, the final scene taken on 30 November was Kane's death and Welles boasted to the press that he had only overrun by 21 days (when he had actually been shooting in secret for a month). The delays cost RKO $115,927, as the budget reached $839,727. But the work was far from over. In addition to the numerous special effects shots created by Vernon L. Walker and Linwood G. Dunn, Welles also insisted on making extensive use of an optical printer during post-production.
Having edited 'in camera' by using the mise-en-scène technique of shooting long takes in depth to restrict the amount of coverage of each scene, Welles provided editor Robert Wise and assistant Mark Robson (who would both go on to become acclaimed directors) with copious notes to 'guide' them in the application of Sergei Eisenstein's theory of associative montage.
Initially, Wise struggled to impose rhythms on the fluid images and overlapping dialogue, but he achieved several masterly set-pieces, including the News on the March newsreel and the breakfast montage that compresses 16 years of marital ennui into two minutes. This sequence makes innovative use of the 'lightning mix' technique that Welles and sound engineer James G. Stewart devised to provide audio bridges within visual montages.
Adding to the efficacy of these passages was Bernard Herrman's score. However, the sharp-eared will detect strains of Anthony Collins's 'Belgian March' from Herbert Wilcox's Nurse Edith Cavell (1939), which is available to rent from Cinema Paradisoon high-calibre DVD.
They Think It's All Over
In order to prevent the Hearst empire from discovering the truth about Citizen Kane's genesis, Welles restricted press access to the set and limited the number of RKO executives who could see the daily rushes. In a rare interview, he explained that the plot was based on the Faust legend, while he made a point of buttering up Louella Parsons, who was the Hearst gossip columnist in Hollywood.
She was excluded when certain sections of the press demanded a screening of the rough cut on 3 January 1941. However, arch rival Hedda Hopper insisted on being admitted, even though she had not been invited, and she rubbished the film's old-fashioned melodramatics and visual trickery before denouncing Welles for perpetrating a 'vicious and irresponsible attack on a great man'.
Furious at being scooped and outraged at being duped by Welles, Parsons set out to humiliate him, while making it seem as though she was defending her blameless employer. Shortly after storming out of a private screening on 10 January, she threatened a lawsuit if RKO released the film. Moreover, she urged Radio City Music Hall in New York to boycott the film. Meanwhile, the Hearst chain refused all RKO advertising and this ruffled front office feathers, as it was running a campaign to land Ginger Rogers the Academy Award for Best Actress for Sam Wood's Kitty Foyle (1940).
But George Schaefer remained loyal to Welles, as he sensed he had produced something unprecedentedly remarkable. Despite Hearst threatening to expose Welles's affair with married actress Dolores Del Rio, Welles was advised by his lawyers to sit tight, as Hearst would never sue him for libel or invasion of privacy, as he knew that details of his liaison with Davies would have to be revealed in court.
Such was Hearst's lack of scruple, however, that he tipped off the Hollywood Reporter that his newspapers were about to run a series of rabble-rousing articles denouncing the studios for overlooking American workers and hiring the numerous Jewish artists who had fled war-torn Europe. Fearing a backlash, MGM chiefs Nicholas Schenck and Louis B. Mayer spoke on behalf of the other major studios in offering RKO $805,000 compensation if it destroyed all prints of the film and the master negative.
Rather than buckle, however, Schaefer invited his peers to a screening in New York, at which Welles agreed to cut three minutes of potentially defamatory material in return for a guarantee that the Production Code Administration would pass the picture for release. Hearst instructed his journalists to avoid any mention of Kane in smearing Welles as a Communist degenerate. By pure coincidence, at the height of the furore, Welles and Hearst found themselves sharing a lift at the Fairmont Hotel on the night of the San Francisco premiere. Welles invited Hearst to attend and, when he refused to reply, he teased, 'Charles Foster Kane would have accepted.'
How was Citizen Kane Originally Recieved?
A decade after it premiered at Broadway's RKO Palace on 1 May 1941, Hearst died thinking he had won the battle over Citizen Kane. The lack of stars counted against the picture outside the major cities, as did its narrative complexity and bold stylisation. Some even complained the message that wealth couldn't buy happiness was unAmerican. Thus, with European being lost to war, Kane lost $160,000 and slowly slipped into anonymity.
Frustrated by the ticket sales and the missed opportunity to get Welles to direct The Men From Mars in a bid to cash in on his War of the Worlds notoriety, RKO insisted on re-negotiating his deal. Moreover, the studio butched his adaptation of Booth Tarkington's The Magnificent Ambersons (1942) while Welles was in South America making the Good Neighbour documentary, It's All True, for the US government. In his absence, Hearst pulled strings with J. Edgar Hoover to have Welles investigated by the FBI, while Parsons campaigned to have him drafted so that he would be sent to the Pacific. But Welles remained in Hollywood and, with Norman Foster's Journey into Fear (1943), he began the lifelong globe-trotting rigmarole of acting in the films of others in order to bankroll his own projects.
Five years after its US release, Citizen Kane premiered in France at the Marbeuf Theatre in Paris on 10 July 1946. Intellectuals Jean-Paul Sartre and Georges Sadoul wondered what the fuss had been about, with the latter claiming 'the whole film is based on a misconception of what cinema is all about'. Echoing the contention that the film rehashed old techniques, novelist Jorge Luis Borges declared it a 'labyrinth with no centre...whose historical value is undeniable but which no one cares to see again'.
For many years, no one could see Kane at all. But André Bazin was determined to salvage the film's dwindling reputation and his 1947 essay, 'The Technique of Citizen Kane', did much to prompt a re-evaluation. Following the positive notices of future auteurs François Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard, New York critic Andrew Sarris proclaimed the film a masterpiece in 'Citizen Kane: The American Baroque', which was published in Film Culture in 1956, the year in which Kane started screening on American television after RKO sold its library prior to closing down.
The rehabilitation continued in 1958, when Citizen Kane came 9th in a Top 12 list compiled by over 100 critics and historians at Expo 58 in Brussels. Indeed, Kane, Jean Renoir's La Grande Illusion (1937) and Vittorio De Sica's Bicycle Thieves (1948) were the only talkies to make the cut.
The latter also topped the first decennial poll sponsored by Sight and Sound in 1952, with Kane limping into 11th place. However, it topped the chart in 1962 and remained there until being unseated by Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo (1958) five decades later. It will be interesting to see where it comes in the 2022 vote.
It's hard to find a current film-maker who doesn't acknowledge the influence of Welles and Kane. An early disciple was John Huston, who encouraged cinematographer Arthur Edeson to copy Toland's shooting style in The Maltese Falcon (1941). Frank Tuttle's This Gun For Hire (1942), George Cukor's Gaslight (1944) and Max Ophüls's Caught (1949) also borrowed noirish touches from Welles, who almost certainly influenced Robert Stevenson's stylistic decisions while playing Rochester opposite Joan Fontaine in Jane Eyre (1943).
Although Akira Kurosawa hadn't seen Kane when he made Rashomon (1950), Welles himself revisited the flashbacking structure for Confidential Report (aka Mr Arkadin, 1955) and it has further resurfaced in Bernardo Bertolucci's The Grim Reaper (1962), Andrzej Wajda's Man of Marble (1977) and Warren Beatty's Reds (1981), Paul Schrader's Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters (1988) and Todd Haynes's Velvet Goldmine (1998).
Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood (2007) and The Master (2012) have been claimed as latterday variations on Kane, while the efforts of the North Korean regime to coerce Sony into suppressing Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen's The Interview (2014) recalls the Hearst campaign.
It was often believed that one of the reasons that the mogul got so riled about Kane was that 'Rosebud' was his pet name for Marion Davies's genitalia. Biographer Richard Meryman, however, insisted the name came from a childhood bicycle that had been stolen while Mankiewicz was in a public library. But Patrick McGilligan has cleared up the mystery by revealing that, while seeking a suitable symbol of lost youth, Mank had remembered a horse named Old Rosebud that had won him a bet by romping home by eight lengths in a record time at the 1914 Kentucky Derby. Now there's a topic for a movie! | |||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 38 | http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/citizenkane.htm | en | Citizen Kane Blu | http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film6/blu-ray_reviews_79/creature_features_blu-ray_/run-amok-980.jpg | [
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/2/become_a_patron_button-50.jpg",
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/ads/banner_top.gif",
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/ads/top-main1.jpg",
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/banners/main-bann.jpg",
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/ads/bottom-main.jpg",
"http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/ads/banne... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | null | I'm going to work my way through much more of this incredible package and report more (example - I am assuming the second disc 'The Battle Over Citizen Kane' is the exact single-layered one as in the 2002 release). We also assume this transfer etc. is the exact same as in the Ambersons included one (found HERE) - but we will report if we find any discrepancies. As for now this has our recommendation!
***
ON THE DVDs: The Universal PAL edition has aptly been called the "Technical Edition" of Citizen Kane on DVD. It shows wonderful film grain. The Warner NTSC version has been brightened, enough for scholars to notice in some shadowy scenes. The sound in the Warner is quite poor where the Universal has been beefed up a bit. The Ken Barnes commentary on the PAL edition focuses quite heavily on the technical aspects which is certainly important and illuminating. Bogdanovich and Ebert's commentary on the Warner is likewise interesting and informative. I can't rightly say one is "better" than the other, but I personally enjoyed the Warner more.
The Universal version is less smooth in comparison (look at the newspaper text in the first large capture). I found the PAL version so dark that it actually eliminates some information from the screen (see the head on the right side of the 3rd large capture). I can't help but feel the Universal is saturated as well as having the PAL speedup issue which is not adhering to an original viewing experience. I expect the debate with "Kane" scholars can go on indefinitely. What would have been best would be the integrity and film grain of the Universal (and sound!) and the detail and clarity of the Warner... and the Extras of both... and no PAL speedup... and no cropping. I expect that true buffs (and there are many!) should buy both versions. It is nice at least for the rest of us to have a choice.
NOTE (from this HTF Forum thread - Andrew Markworthy): the scene in Bernstein's office (Chapter 9 in the R2 edition, I think Chapter 10 in the R1) there is rain coming down pretty heavily outside, which you can see through the window - or at least, you *should* be able to see it. In the R1 version, you can see the rain coming down in the top third of the window, but after that the rain seems to disappear. The allegation is that the digital clean-up was over-zealous and erased the rain, thinking it was visual noise.
Okay, cut to the chase - in the new R2 version you can see *exactly* what's going on. Outside is a light source that makes the upper third of the rain brighter, so it's far easier to see. The lower two thirds are visible, but in contrast, this portion is much dimmer than the top third (indeed, you see rather more of the rain running down the window). I think that what Greg Tolland (the cinematographer) was trying to do here was to give an impression of an illuminated sign or logo outside the window, as you see on the side of big corporate HQ buildings. These are always placed high up on buildings, and of course Bernstein, being the big cheese, will have an office high up the building. I think this is yet another example of the meticulous planning that went into CK, right down to the subtle reinforcement by visual cues. It didn't have to be there, but it just adds that slight extra edge. | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 8 | https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a557703/8-movie-classics-that-were-box-office-flops-from-blade-runner-to-brazil/ | en | 8 great movies that were box office flops | https://www.digitalspy.com/_assets/design-tokens/digitalspy/static/images/favicon.b8735b8.ico | https://www.digitalspy.com/_assets/design-tokens/digitalspy/static/images/favicon.b8735b8.ico | [
"https://www.digitalspy.com/_assets/design-tokens/fre/static/icons/search.f1c199c.svg?primary=%2523ffffff",
"https://www.digitalspy.com/_assets/design-tokens/fre/static/icons/close.38e3324.svg?primary=%2523ffffff",
"https://www.digitalspy.com/_assets/design-tokens/digitalspy/static/images/logos/logo.9d2bac0.svg... | [] | [] | [
"Frank Capra",
"Orson Welles",
"Stanley Kubrick",
"Terry Gilliam",
"Robert De Niro",
"Martin Scorsese",
"James Stewart",
"Ridley Scott",
"David Fincher",
"Harrison Ford",
"Brad Pitt"
] | null | [
"Ben Rawson-Jones"
] | 2014-03-15T09:30:00+00:00 | From Brazil to Blade Runner, not all of your favourite films were hits first time around. | en | /_assets/design-tokens/digitalspy/static/images/favicon.b8735b8.ico | Digital Spy | https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a557703/8-movie-classics-that-were-box-office-flops-from-blade-runner-to-brazil/ | "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long," muses Dr Eldon Tyrell in Blade Runner. This statement doesn't apply to a startling list of classic movies that faded fast at the box office on initial release, but whose flames have been burning with more intensity as the years have passed...
Blade Runner (1983)
Budget: $28 million
Box office: $33.7 million (including re-releases)
While androids dream of electric sheep, accountants must have endured hellish nightmares in the aftermath of Blade Runner's dismal run at the box office in the summer of 1982. An opening weekend of barely $6 million (£3.61 million) was attributed to an ill-conceived advertising campaign, the competition of ET for bums on seats and a mixed reception from viewers who felt stunned by the imagery but alienated by the narrative.
It's hard not to wonder whether the film would have fared better if the studio had faith in director Ridley Scott's original vision, instead of meddling with the final cut and slapping on a voiceover and happy ending to vanquish any sense of ambiguity. But perhaps Blade Runner is one of those movies that needs time for audiences to absorb, due to its vast aesthetic and philosophical scope. The turning point came with the release of the hugely superior Director's Cut in 1992, prompting a critical re-evaluation and huge sales on home video.
Brazil (1985)
Budget: $15 million
Box office: $9.9 million
Terry Gilliam doesn't appear to have a great deal of luck with his labours of love. The horrors he had to endure in his efforts to make The Man Who Killed Don Quixote are well documented, while The Adventures of Baron Munchausen sadly became a notorious financial failure. The story of Brazil's turbulent release in 1985, which came only after the director took out a full-page ad in Variety and defied Universal Pictures by screening the film privately, is so fascinating that it's merited a whole book of its own entitled The Battle Of Brazil.
Those scissor-happy execs didn't learn from the box office failure of Blade Runner and refused to release Gilliam's majestic cut of the movie after it didn't test well at preview screenings. By thinking they knew what the public wanted in a dystopian satire, they excised the ambiguity, reduced the running time and tacked on a happy ending. Do they ever learn? There's a certain irony that the film lambasts a consumer-driven world, yet ultimately fell victim to it.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Budget: $25 million
Box office: $28 million
How such a popular movie could tank at the box office is a mystery to rival how Tim Robbins's inmate managed to stick his Rita Hayworth poster back up on his cell wall after climbing into the tunnel it was concealing. Frank Darabont's 1994 drama, adapted from a Stephen King novella, owes a great deal to Academy Award voters who bestowed seven nominations on it after it fell hugely under the radar.
A re-release to tie in with the Oscars helped to push box office receipts beyond its paltry initial return of $16 million (£9.63 million), although the film limped away empty-handed on the night of the awards. Upon hitting the video shelves, a growing word of mouth began to spread and before long it felt that the whole world had witnessed the triumphant tale of redemption and salvation. With a rating of 9.3/10 on IMDB from over 1 million users, The Shawshank Redemption currently occupies the top spot on the influential website.
Citizen Kane (1941)
Budget: $839,727
Box office: $1.5 million
Rosebud. That one word has a lot to answer for, as the cryptic ending to Orson Welles's 1941 masterpiece may well have swayed movie studios to steer clear of ambiguous endings over the ensuing decades and giving visionary directors the final cut. Hence the lack of an origami unicorn or dream reveal in the theatrically released cuts of Blade Runner and Brazil respectively.
Often voted the best movie ever made by film critics, Citizen Kane rewrote the rulebook when it came to filmmaking - not that it did the 25-year-old Welles's career or ego much good. Initial reviews were extremely favourable, but the public were shielded from much of the acclaim because the hugely powerful American newspaper mogul William Randolph Hearst heard that the movie's ruthless title character was based on him and blocked any mention of Citizen Kane in his publications. Ongoing legal disputes also prevented the film from even making it into many cinemas.
Fight Club (1999)
Budget: $63 million
Box office: $37 million (+ $63 million foreign)
The first rule of Fight Club is... wait until it's out on video before watching it. Initial box office fortunes sagged more than Meatloaf's moobs in the movie, despite David Fincher's film generating a huge amount of pre-release buzz. Starring the very marketable Brad Pitt - fresh from success in Se7en and Terry Gilliam's 12 Monkeys - this looked like it had all the makings of an instant hit.
Perhaps a movie about a subversive counter-culture didn't appeal to many people beyond that very same subversive counter-culture demographic? Word of mouth may also have been hindered as viewers took a long while to digest what they had just witnessed, especially the (wait for it) ambiguous ending. Let's just all appreciate the fact that the studio didn't insist on releasing a cut bearing an Edward Norton voiceover in which he repeatedly explains that Tyler Durden is an extension of himself.
Raging Bull (1980)
Budget: $18 million
Box office: $23 million
Nominated for eight Oscars and frequently acclaimed as one of the best movies ever made, Raging Bull left director Martin Scorsese fearing for his career after it sank at the box office in 1980. The brutal beauty of the film is undeniable, but commercial success is often reliant on an advertising campaign that packs a punch more powerful than Jake LaMotta.
Lacking the mainstream feelgood factor that enabled Rocky to land a knockout blow, Raging Bull must have alienated many potential viewers through being shot in black and white for justifiable artistic reasons. Perhaps, like Fight Club, the prospect of prevalent violence also swayed some from deciding to spend over two hours at the cinema - a venue often seen as an escapist pursuit to flee from the horrors of life rather than be confronted by them in such a stark manner.
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Budget: $3.18 million
Box office: $3.3 million
Frank Capra's 1946 fantasy is such staple viewing at Christmas that it's hard to comprehend its commercial failure. Many cite a crowded marketplace as the prime reason why It's a Wonderful Life suffered, but the tragic elements of the story could have deterred many from snapping up tickets. After all, when we encounter James Stewart's George Bailey, he's planning his own suicide on Christmas Eve - a premise that would be too dark for even a festive edition of EastEnders.
The Wizard of Oz (1938)
Budget: $2.7 million
Box office: $3 million (on initial release)
"We're off to see the Wizard, the wonderful Wizard of Oz." No, you're probably not. At least in 1939. The mesmeric presence of Judy Garland, a cute dog and innovative Technicolor somehow failed to lure cinemagoers during the initial run of Victor Fleming's iconic movie, which lost the studio money at first. Fortunately, a steady stream of re-releases - which continue to this day with singalong versions - have significantly changed that.
It's worth pointing out that The Wizard Of Oz's early failure was only relative to its huge production cost. $2.7 million (£1.6 million) to make a movie was a barely fathomable figure in those days. | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 14 | https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/78802/13-classic-facts-about-citizen-kane | en | 13 Classic Facts About âCitizen Kaneâ | [
"https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_crop,w_1024,h_576,x_0,y_0/c_fill,w_354,ar_16:9,f_auto,q_auto,g_auto/images/voltaxMediaLibrary/mmsport/mentalfloss/01g1nkedn72q2x7y0n57.jpg 354w, https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_crop,w_1024,h_576,x_0,y_0/c_fill,w_708,ar_16:9,f_auto,q_auto,g_auto/im... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Matthew Jackson"
] | 2021-09-12T14:21:14+00:00 | Roger Ebert called Orson Wellesâ masterpiece âthe official answerâ to the question âWhatâs the greatest film of all time?â | en | Mental Floss | https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/78802/13-classic-facts-about-citizen-kane | Roger Ebert used to joke that Citizen Kane is "the official answer" to the question âWhatâs the greatest film of all time?" In the eight-plus decades since its release in 1941, Citizen Kane has remained one of the clearest expressions of creative freedom and artistic innovation ever put on film. Orson Welles, its co-writer, director, producer, and star, was granted an incredible amount of control over its production, and he put it to good use, setting new standards for cinematography, makeup effects, and storytelling on the big screen.
If much of what we see now in Citizen Kane seems commonplace in the landscape of cinema, itâs because this film that set the precedent. Ebert said it best: â[Citizen Kane] consolidated the film language up until 1941 and broke new ground in such areas as deep focus, complex sound, and narrative structure.â
So, in celebration of the âofficialâ greatest movie ever, here are 13 facts about Citizen Kane.
1. Orson Welles had unprecedented creative control.
By the time he came to Hollywood, Orson Welles was regarded as one of the great young geniuses of his era. His work in the theater earned him the cover of TIME by the age of 23, and the 1938 radio broadcast of The War of the Worldsâarguably the first âmockumentaryâ ever madeâcaused such a national panic that he was forced to apologize for it. It was no surprise when Hollywood began seeking his talents, but what was surprising was just how much freedom he was given.
When George Schaefer, the head of RKO Pictures, was hoping to generate a creative shakeup at his studio, he signed a deal with Welles that granted the wunderkind direct access to Schaefer himself and, among other things, gave Welles final cut on his films. Because Welles was a first-time film director, the move generated immense controversy in Hollywood, particularly when Schaefer cut the salaries of RKO employees while still granting Welles creative freedom over his work.
2. Welles's first idea for a film was an adaptation of Heart of Darkness.
When Welles was granted his ambitious RKO movie deal, his initial plan was to make an adaptation of Joseph Conradâs classic novel Heart of Darkness, featuring first-person camera techniques, elaborate sets, and Wellesâs own narration. Though production got far enough that test footage was shot featuring miniature set designs, RKO ultimately shut the movie down because the budget grew too high. In searching for an alternate project, Welles happened upon a massive screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz called American. After several rewrites, this screenplay would become Citizen Kane.
3. Authorship of the Citizen Kane script is still disputed.
In the end, both Mankiewicz and Welles would win an Academy Award for the screenplay for Citizen Kane, but itâs still not entirely clear how much work each man did on the final product. Welles once claimed that Mankiewicz was responsible for the first two drafts, while he had significant input on the third. A contract signed by Mankiewicz apparently stipulated that the studio was allowed to omit his name on the script, while a Screen Writers Guild rule at the time stated that a producer (in this case, Welles) could not be given a writing credit unless he wrote the script âentirely without the collaboration of any other writer.â In the end, the two parties agreed to share credit.
4. Orson Welles was inspired by watching Stagecoach.
At the beginning of filming Citizen Kane, Welles was an acclaimed theater and radio director with no real experience in cinema. In an effort to learn the ropes of a new craft, Welles turned to one of the most acclaimed films of the day: John Fordâs iconic Western Stagecoach. He once claimed he watched the film âevery night for a monthâ in an effort to dissect the craft behind its production.
5. Orson Welles's eating and drinking habits affected his health during production.
Though he was not yet famous for the excesses that would make him notorious later in life, Welles nonetheless had some peculiar eating and drinking habits during the production of Citizen Kane. His habit of consuming more than 30 cups of coffee each day caused caffeine poisoning. He switched to tea, believing that the time it took to make each cup would slow him down, but having an assistant make it for him meant that he drank so much his skin changed color. In addition, Welles would sometimes simply not eat for long stretches, then sit down to a meal of three steaks.
6. Citizen Kane's makeup effects were cutting-edge.
Throughout the course of the film, Charles Foster Kane has to look, at various times, impossibly youthful and very, very old. Welles once recalled that, for the scenes of Kaneâs early years, his face was âyanked up with fish skinâ to give him a youthful look, even at 25, thatâs âimpossible in real life.â For the scenes of Kaneâs later years, Welles turned to Maurice Seiderman, an aspiring (non-union) makeup artist who was, at the time, sweeping the floors in the RKO makeup department. Welles noticed that Seiderman was using his spare time experimenting with latex to create artificial face appliances and, impressed with his ingenuity, asked him to work on Citizen Kane. Latex face appliances are now common practice in movie makeup effects.
7. Citizen Kane's cinematography revolutionized the look of movies.
If any name can rival Wellesâs in discussing the making of Citizen Kane, it is that of Gregg Toland, the cinematographer who turned the film into an exercise in cinematic innovation. According to Welles, Toland actually approached him and volunteered to shoot the film. When Welles said âI donât know anything about movies,â Toland replied: âThatâs why I want to do it, because I think if youâre left alone as much as possible, weâre going to have a movie that looks different. Iâm tired of working with people who know too much about it.â
So, the pair got to work, and Toland was given the freedom he so craved. He modified cameras and lenses to create the filmâs famous "deep focus" shots. He worked with visual effects expert Linwood Dunn to create masterful composite shots (the scene in which Kane discovers Susan Alexanderâs suicide attempt, for example, isnât just one shot, but three shots stacked atop one another). He stretched muslin over the tops of sets to allow the ceilings to be visible while microphones could also be placed above the actors, and he and Welles famously chopped holes into the floors to allow for even lower camera angles. All of these elements combine to make Citizen Kane a master class in cinematography, and an example of every camera trick of the era finally combined into a single film. As Welles would later put it: âIn this case I had a cameraman who didnât care if he was criticized if he failed, and I didnât know that there were things you couldnât do. So anything that I could think up in my dreams, I attempted to photograph.â
8. Orson Welles was injured twice during filming.
Wellesâs commitment to his performance as Charles Foster Kane meant that he poured tremendous energy into the role, sometimes at the risk of his own wellbeing. During the scene in which Kane rampages through Susanâs room, smashing furniture and ripping things off the walls, he cut his left hand. Then, during the scene in which Kane confronts Boss Jim Gettys (Ray Collins) on a staircase, Welles fell and injured his ankle so badly that he was forced to reschedule certain scenes and direct the film from a wheelchair for several days.
9. Welles did magic tricks to distract studio executives.
Though heâd been granted incredible creative freedom to make the film, Welles still had to answer to studio executives who wanted the film to turn a profit, and was apparently worried they wouldnât approve of the often innovative nature of his production. For the âNews of the Worldâ newsreel sequence, he even went so far as to claim the footage shot was just âtests,â so the RKO office wouldnât worry about it.
When RKO executives actually did visit the production, Welles used his natural flair for showmanship to distract them. According to Seiderman, the crew was told during these occasions: âDonât do anything. Smoke cigarettes and talk.â Meanwhile, Welles would perform card tricks for executives until they left.
âHe would invite us over but heâd keep us outside the screening and then do tricks and stuff to amuse us,â George Schaeferâs then-assistant Reginald Armour recalled.
10. Citizen Kane contains pterodactyls.
Though he had massive creative freedom on the film, Welles also still had a budget, and as a result certain creative shortcuts were used to reduce cost on Citizen Kane. In one instance, a scene between Kane and Susan that was originally intended to take place in an ornate Xanadu living room was instead shot in a redressed hallway. In another, the production got even more creative: For the scene in which Kane and his entourage visit the beach, the large birds flying in the background are actually a previously created shot of pterodactyls from either King Kong (1933) or Son of Kong (1933).
11. Citizen Kane launched many film careers.
Because he had worked for many years with the Mercury Theatre Company (which he co-founded with John Houseman), Wellesâs natural inclination was to include his theatrical collaborators in Citizen Kane. Among the actors making their cinema debuts are Mercury players Joseph Cotten (Jedediah Leland), Everett Sloane (Mr. Bernstein), Agnes Moorehead (Mary Kane), and Ray Collins (Jim Gettys).
12. William Randolph Hearst tried to keep Citizen Kane out of theaters.
Even before its release, rumors swirled that Charles Foster Kane and his life story were based on the life of media baron William Randolph Hearst, one of the most powerful men in America at the time. Like Kane, Hearst built a massive California palace and stocked it with exotic animals. Like Hearst, Kane fell in love with a performer and became a sort of patron to her (in the film itâs Susan Alexander; in real life it was Marion Davies). One Kane line in particularââYou provide the prose poems; Iâll provide the warââseemed to be directly lifted from a famous Hearst quote: âYou furnish the pictures. Iâll furnish the war.â Thereâs even a popular legend that the filmâs inciting MacGuffin, âRosebud,â was inspired by a pet name for a portion of Daviesâs anatomy.
Though he denied the film was based on Hearst at the time, Welles would later say, âI thought we were very unfair to Marion Davies, because we had somebody very different in the place of Marion Davies, and it seemed to me to be something of a dirty trick, and does still strike me as being something of a dirty trick, what we did to her. And I anticipated the trouble from Hearst for that reason.â He would later effusively praise Davies in the foreword to her memoir.
Louella Parsons, a Hearst columnist and tremendously influential media figure at the time, requested a private screening of the film prior to its release. According to post-production sound engineer James G. Stewart, Parsons left, âoutraged,â before the film even ended. (Her chauffeur, who stayed until the end, called it a âvery good picture.â) Parsons then began demanding to speak to Schaefer, claiming that RKO Pictures would face âthe most beautiful lawsuit in historyâ if the film was released. Editor Robert Wise was then asked to screen the film for the heads of all the other major studios of the day, as they all feared Hearstâs influence and worried that the filmâs release would impact all of Hollywood if it incurred the full measure of his wrath.
Hearstâs vast newspaper empire banned all advertising of Citizen Kane, and numerous theater chains refused to show it, contributing to its eventual financial failure at the box office. Welles once claimed that the retribution grew so vicious that he was warned by a policeman that âan underage girl, undressed, and photographersâ were waiting for him in his hotel room, so he simply abandoned the room and left town.
13. Steven Spielberg owns "Rosebud."
The film hinges on the word âRosebud,â and on a group of reporters attempting to find out why it was Charles Foster Kaneâs last word. Itâs eventually revealed that âRosebudâ was written on a sled Kane owned as a child, symbolizing a sense of joy and innocence that he constantly worked for in adulthood but perhaps never gained. This plot device is among the most iconic in cinema history, and has been parodied in everything from The Simpsons to Family Guy. In 1982, one of the âRosebudâ sleds from the film was put up for auction at Sothebyâs in New York City. The buyer was director Steven Spielberg. Though some of the âRosebudâ sleds were burned during the Citizen Kane production as part of the final scene, itâs still unclear if Spielbergâs copy is the only one remaining.
Additional Sources: The Complete Citizen Kane (1991), The Making of Citizen Kane, by Robert L. Carringer
A version of this story ran in 2016; it has been updated for 2022. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 58 | https://www.scribd.com/document/726026840/Excel-Assignment-Dataset | en | Excel Assignment Dataset | https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/726026840/original/9950d84c32/1724990368?v=1 | https://imgv2-1-f.scribdassets.com/img/document/726026840/original/9950d84c32/1724990368?v=1 | [
"https://s-f.scribdassets.com/webpack/assets/images/shared/gr_table_reading.9f6101a1.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Yash Thakur"
] | null | Excel Assignment Dataset - Free download as Excel Spreadsheet (.xls / .xlsx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. | en | https://s-f.scribdassets.com/scribd.ico?307809619?v=5 | Scribd | https://www.scribd.com/document/726026840/Excel-Assignment-Dataset | |||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 1 | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/ | en | Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://fls-na.amazon.com/1/batch/1/OP/A1EVAM02EL8SFB:138-2901438-2327665:DXSAB3G8NJJ364QETGV2$uedata=s:%2Fuedata%2Fuedata%3Fstaticb%26id%3DDXSAB3G8NJJ364QETGV2:0",
"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZDgyOWIwYTYtOTJmZi00NTFmLWFhYzYtNWE0Y2ZmYTBjYzRlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTYzMDM0NTU@._V1_QL75_UY281_CR4,0,190,281_.... | [] | [] | [
"Reviews",
"Showtimes",
"DVDs",
"Photos",
"User Ratings",
"Synopsis",
"Trailers",
"Credits"
] | null | [] | 1962-06-29T00:00:00 | Citizen Kane: Directed by Orson Welles. With Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, Agnes Moorehead, Ruth Warrick. Following the death of publishing tycoon Charles Foster Kane, reporters scramble to uncover the meaning of his final utterance: 'Rosebud.' | en | IMDb | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/ | Citizen Kane is majestic, elegant and noble. It begins at the end, we see a man of obvious wealth and power breathe his last, and then the mysteries of his life are unraveled via a series of anecdotes, barely remembered scenes and highly subjective memories. The boldness of this approach cannot be overemphasized. At the time that this film was made Hollywood was for the most part used to creating straight-forward stories with clearly identified heroes and villains. Kane dared to present Man as he is, rife with confusions, internal contradictions and uncertainty.
As the film progressed, we see Kane, loosely based on William Randolph Hearst, the famous newspaper tycoon slowly sacrifice his ideals in order to build his financial empire, losing his friendships with those who believed in him until ultimately he looses everything he has, his marriage, his friends, and his integrity. Though he is the richest man in the world he lives his remaining isolated in his privately built mountain estate where he has surrounded himself with material pleasures, alone and despairing, one senses that he welcomes death. The film takes the view that wealth and power are inherently destructive of human values. Kane himself states `If I hadn't been born rich I might have been a really great man.
What is so masterful about Kane is its ambiguity. We never are certain if Kane really did believe in the values that he professed. At the same time that he sets himself up as above the world, he longs for the affection of the common people. This is symbolized by his exploitative, and patronizing love for a chorus girl, Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore). Her character is given a paper-thin characterization, the only obvious flaw in a nearly perfect movie.
Orson Wells gives a bravura performance as Kane, both identifying with and condemning the man. This film was his first venture into movie making after the infamous War of the Worlds radio broadcast that threw America into an uproar. Wells, a child prodigy, had a background in Shakespearian theater, offering modernized adaptations of the Classics, a bold and unusual gesture at the time. He brought that kind of sweeping tragic romantic sensibility to his first film.
Unconstrained by Hollywood's traditions, he broke all the rules. The deep focus photography that gives Kane its theatrical look was one of his innovations. A mastery of sound, gained from years of working in the radio was another. Kane is an avalanche of technical innovation, unmatched in any other Hollywood film.
Despite the film's pessimistic outlook, it is studded by moments of joy, beauty and emotional truth. The supporting cast of characters, most of them regulars from Wells' Mercury Theater are also superb. Joseph Cotton is memorable as Jed Leland Kane's close friend who believes in him more then he does. And Everet Slone is wonderful as Kane's would be mentor Mr. Bernstien.
So many scenes in this movie linger forever in the memory, one is left with a stirring vision of the frailty of the human condition, the film gives us no easy answers and while being fiercely critical of many of it's characters is universal in it's compassion and sympathy, this is perhaps the most vital ingredient for great art.
Kane was one of the most controversial films ever made. Hearst, offended by his portrayal, offered RKO a small fortune to destroy the film. When that didn't work his newspapers embarked on a campaign of defamation against Wells, thus proving that the film's criticism of the power and corruption of the press were precisely on target. Wells was never given a free hand to direct how he liked again and American Cinema was deprived of the one of the greatest geniuses to adopt it as a medium of self-expression.
It's influence, was immediate, incalculable and mostly unacknowledged, the film was a box office and critical failure due to Hearst's efforts and it was not until years later that this film got the respect it deserved. Nowadays there is not one living film director of serious artistic intent that has not been deeply influenced by Citizen Kane. It's not just a masterpiece it's a creative touchstone.
Of course there were other talents at work in making Kane, Hermann Mankiewicz's efforts on the script were indispensable and Bernard Hermann, the composer most famous for working with Hitchcock provided the films beautiful music. Still, the film remains most obviously the work of Orson Wells, a veritable hall of mirrors reflecting the great artist's dreams, obsessions and fears. Citizen Kane is not just one of the great works of cinema it is one of the greatest artistic creations of the century | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 19 | https://timenote.info/en/events/Citizen-Kane | en | Citizen Kane | [
"https://media2.nekropole.info/2020/12/Grazhdanin-Kejn_idx_5fcd0961be8a0-sq.jpg",
"https://media2.nekropole.info/2021/09/Londona-notiek-Dzeimsa-Bonda-filmas-No-Time-To-Die-pirmizrad_idx-sq.jpg",
"https://media2.nekropole.info/2022/09/Vija-Beinerte-Kapec-vini-tik-ilgi-ir-mums-melojusi_idx-sq.jpg",
"https://med... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2024-08-17T18:37:09-04:00 | Citizen Kane is a 1941 American drama film by Orson Welles, its producer, co-screenwriter, director and star. The picture was Welles's first feature film. Consi | en | /img/icons/apple-touch-icon-152x152.png | https://timenote.info/en/events/Citizen-Kane | Citizen Kane is a 1941 American drama film by Orson Welles, its producer, co-screenwriter, director and star. The picture was Welles's first feature film. Considered by many critics, filmmakers, and fans to be the greatest film ever made, Citizen Kane was voted as such in five consecutive British Film Institute Sight & Sound polls of critics, and it topped the American Film Institute's 100 Years ... 100 Movies list in 1998, as well as its 2007 update. Nominated for Academy Awards in nine categories, it won an Academy Award for Best Writing (Original Screenplay) by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Welles. Citizen Kane is particularly praised for Gregg Toland's cinematography, Robert Wise's editing, Bernard Herrmann's music, and its narrative structure, all of which have been considered innovative and precedent-setting.
The quasi-biographical film examines the life and legacy of Charles Foster Kane, played by Welles, a composite character based in part upon American media barons William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, Chicago tycoons Samuel Insull and Harold McCormick, as well as aspects of the screenwriters' own lives. Upon its release, Hearst prohibited mention of the film in any of his newspapers.
After the Broadway successes of Welles's Mercury Theatre and the controversial 1938 radio broadcast "The War of the Worlds" on The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was courted by Hollywood. He signed a contract with RKO Pictures in 1939. Although it was unusual for an untried director, he was given the freedom to develop his own story, to use his own cast and crew, and to have final cut privilege. Following two abortive attempts to get a project off the ground, he wrote the screenplay for Citizen Kane, collaborating on the effort with Herman J. Mankiewicz. Principal photography took place in 1940 and the film received its American release in 1941.
While a critical success, Citizen Kane failed to recoup its costs at the box office. The film faded from view after its release, but was subsequently returned to the public's attention when it was praised by such French critics as André Bazin and given an American revival in 1956. The film was released on Blu-ray on September 13, 2011, for a special 70th-anniversary edition. Citizen Kane was selected by the Library of Congress as an inductee of the 1989 inaugural group of 25 films for preservation in the United States National Film Registry for being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".
Plot
In a mansion called Xanadu, part of a vast palatial estate in Florida, the elderly Charles Foster Kane is on his deathbed. Holding a snow globe, he utters a word, "Rosebud", and dies; the globe slips from his hand and smashes on the floor. A newsreel obituary tells the life story of Kane, an enormously wealthy newspaper publisher and industrial magnate. Kane's death becomes sensational news around the world, and the newsreel's producer tasks reporter Jerry Thompson with discovering the meaning of "Rosebud".
Thompson sets out to interview Kane's friends and associates. He tries to approach his wife, Susan Alexander Kane, now an alcoholic who runs her own nightclub, but she refuses to talk to him. Thompson goes to the private archive of the late banker Walter Parks Thatcher. Through Thatcher's written memoirs, Thompson learns about the rise and decline of Kane's personal fortune.
In 1871, gold was discovered through a mining deed belonging to Kane's mother, Mary Kane. She hired Thatcher to establish a trust that would provide for Kane's education and to assume guardianship of him. While Thatcher and Charles' parents discussed arrangements inside, the young Kane played happily with a sled in the snow outside the boarding-house. When Kane's parents turned him over to Thatcher, the boy struck Thatcher with his sled and attempted to run away.
By the time Kane gained control of his trust at the age of 25, the mine's productivity and Thatcher's prudent investing had made him one of the richest men in the world. He took control of the New York Inquirer newspaper and embarked on a career of yellow journalism, publishing scandalous articles that attacked Thatcher's (and his own) business interests. Kane sold his newspaper empire to Thatcher after the 1929 stock market crash left him short of cash.
Thompson interviews Kane's personal business manager, Mr. Bernstein. Bernstein recalls how Kane hired the best journalists available to build the Inquirer's circulation. Kane rose to power by successfully manipulating public opinion regarding the Spanish–American War and marrying Emily Norton, the niece of the President of the United States.
Thompson interviews Kane's estranged best friend, Jedediah Leland, in a retirement home. Leland recalls how Kane's marriage to Emily disintegrated more and more over the years, and he began an affair with amateur singer Susan Alexander while he was running for Governor of New York. Both his wife and his political opponent discovered the affair and the public scandal ended his political career. Kane married Susan and forced her into a humiliating operatic career for which she had neither the talent nor the ambition, even building a large opera house for her. After Leland began to write a negative review of Susan's opera debut, Kane fired him but finished the negative review and printed it.
Susan consents to an interview with Thompson and recalls her failed opera career. Kane finally allowed her to abandon singing after she attempted suicide. After years spent dominated by Kane and living in isolation at Xanadu, she left him. Kane's butler Raymond recounts that, after Susan left him, Kane began violently destroying the contents of her bedroom. When he happened upon a snow globe, he grew calm and said "Rosebud." Thompson concludes that he is unable to solve the mystery and that the meaning of Kane's last word will forever remain an enigma.
Back at Xanadu, Kane's belongings are being cataloged or discarded by the staff. They find the sled on which the eight-year-old Kane was playing on the day that he was taken from his home in Colorado. Deeming it junk, they throw it into a furnace. As the sled burns, the camera reveals its trade name, ignored by the staff: "Rosebud."
Cast
The beginning of the film's ending credits state that "Most of the principal actors in Citizen Kane are new to motion pictures. The Mercury Theatre is proud to introduce them." The cast is listed in the following order:
Joseph Cotten as Jedediah Leland, Kane's best friend and a reporter for The Inquirer. Cotten also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.
Dorothy Comingore as Susan Alexander Kane, Kane's mistress and second wife.
Agnes Moorehead as Mary Kane, Kane's mother.
Ruth Warrick as Emily Monroe Norton Kane, Kane's first wife.
Ray Collins as Jim W. Gettys, Kane's political rival for the post of Governor of New York.
Erskine Sanford as Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer. Sanford also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.
Everett Sloane as Mr. Bernstein, Kane's friend and employee at The Inquirer.
William Alland as Jerry Thompson, a reporter for News on the March. Alland also voices the narrator of the News on the March newsreel.
Paul Stewart as Raymond, Kane's butler.
George Coulouris as Walter Parks Thatcher, a banker who becomes Kane's legal guardian.
Fortunio Bonanova as Signor Matiste, vocal coach of Susan Alexander Kane.
Gus Schilling as John, headwaiter at the El Rancho nightclub. Schilling also appears (hidden in darkness) in the News on the March screening room.
Philip Van Zandt as Mr. Rawlston, News on the March open at the producer.
Georgia Backus as Bertha Anderson, attendant at the library of Walter Parks Thatcher.
Harry Shannon as Jim Kane, Kane's father.
Sonny Bupp as Charles Foster Kane III, Kane's son.
Buddy Swan as Charles Foster Kane, age eight.
Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane, a wealthy newspaper publisher.
Additionally, Charles Bennett appears as the entertainer at the head of the chorus line in the Inquirer party sequence, and cinematographer Gregg Toland makes a cameo appearance as an interviewer depicted in part of the News on the March newsreel. Actor Alan Ladd makes a cameo appearance as a reporter smoking a pipe at the end of the film.
Pre-production
Development
Hollywood had shown interest in Welles as early as 1936. He turned down three scripts sent to him by Warner Bros. In 1937, he declined offers from David O. Selznick, who asked him to head his film company's story department, and William Wyler, who wanted him for a supporting role in Wuthering Heights. "Although the possibility of making huge amounts of money in Hollywood greatly attracted him," wrote biographer Frank Brady, "he was still totally, hopelessly, insanely in love with the theater, and it is there that he had every intention of remaining to make his mark."
Following "The War of the Worlds" broadcast of his CBS radio series The Mercury Theatre on the Air, Welles was lured to Hollywood with a remarkable contract. RKO Pictures studio head George J. Schaefer wanted to work with Welles after the notorious broadcast, believing that Welles had a gift for attracting mass attention. RKO was also uncharacteristically profitable and was entering into a series of independent production contracts that would add more artistically prestigious films to its roster. Throughout the spring and early summer of 1939, Schaefer constantly tried to lure the reluctant Welles to Hollywood. Welles was in financial trouble after failure of his plays Five Kings and The Green Goddess. At first he simply wanted to spend three months in Hollywood and earn enough money to pay his debts and fund his next theatrical season. Welles first arrived on July 20, 1939 and on his first tour, he called the movie studio "the greatest electric train set a boy ever had".
Welles signed his contract with RKO on August 21, which stipulated that Welles would act in, direct, produce and write two films. Mercury would get $100,000 for the first film by January 1, 1940, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000, and $125,000 for a second film by January 1, 1941, plus 20% of profits after RKO recouped $500,000. The most controversial aspect of the contract was granting Welles complete artistic control of the two films so long as RKO approved both projects' stories and so long as the budget did not exceed $500,000. RKO executives would not be allowed to see any footage until Welles chose to show it to them, and no cuts could be made to either film without Welles's approval. Welles was allowed to develop the story without interference, select his own cast and crew, and have the right of final cut. Granting final cut privilege was unprecedented for a studio since it placed artistic considerations over financial investment. The contract was deeply resented in the film industry, and the Hollywood press took every opportunity to mock RKO and Welles. Schaefer remained a great supporter and saw the unprecedented contract as good publicity. Film scholar Robert L. Carringer wrote: "The simple fact seems to be that Schaefer believed Welles was going to pull off something really big almost as much as Welles did himself."
Welles spent the first five months of his RKO contract trying to get his first project going, without success. "They are laying bets over on the RKO lot that the Orson Welles deal will end up without Orson ever doing a picture there," wrote The Hollywood Reporter. It was agreed that Welles would film Heart of Darkness, previously adapted for The Mercury Theatre on the Air, which would be presented entirely through a first-person camera. After elaborate pre-production and a day of test shooting with a hand-held camera—unheard of at the time—the project never reached production because Welles was unable to trim $50,000 from its budget. Schaefer told Welles that the $500,000 budget could not be exceeded; as war loomed, revenue was declining sharply in Europe by the fall of 1939.
He then started work on the idea that became Citizen Kane. Knowing the script would take time to prepare, Welles suggested to RKO that while that was being done—"so the year wouldn't be lost"—he make a humorous political thriller. Welles proposed The Smiler with a Knife, from a novel by Cecil Day-Lewis. When that project stalled in December 1939, Welles began brainstorming other story ideas with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who had been writing Mercury radio scripts. "Arguing, inventing, discarding, these two powerful, headstrong, dazzlingly articulate personalities thrashed toward Kane", wrote biographer Richard Meryman.
Screenplay
One of the long-standing controversies about Citizen Kane has been the authorship of the screenplay. Welles conceived the project with screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, who was writing radio plays for Welles's CBS Radio series, The Campbell Playhouse. Mankiewicz based the original outline on the life of William Randolph Hearst, whom he knew socially and came to hate after being exiled from Hearst's circle.
In February 1940 Welles supplied Mankiewicz with 300 pages of notes and put him under contract to write the first draft screenplay under the supervision of John Houseman, Welles's former partner in the Mercury Theatre. Welles later explained, "I left him on his own finally, because we'd started to waste too much time haggling. So, after mutual agreements on storyline and character, Mank went off with Houseman and did his version, while I stayed in Hollywood and wrote mine." Taking these drafts, Welles drastically condensed and rearranged them, then added scenes of his own. The industry accused Welles of underplaying Mankiewicz's contribution to the script, but Welles countered the attacks by saying, "At the end, naturally, I was the one making the picture, after all—who had to make the decisions. I used what I wanted of Mank's and, rightly or wrongly, kept what I liked of my own."
The terms of the contract stated that Mankiewicz was to receive no credit for his work, as he was hired as a script doctor. Before he signed the contract Mankiewicz was particularly advised by his agents that all credit for his work belonged to Welles and the Mercury Theatre, the "author and creator". As the film neared release, however, Mankiewicz began threatening Welles to get credit for the film—including threats to place full-page ads in trade papers and to get his friend Ben Hecht to write an exposé for The Saturday Evening Post. Mankiewicz also threatened to go to the Screen Writers Guild and claim full credit for writing the entire script by himself.
After lodging a protest with the Screen Writers Guild, Mankiewicz withdrew it, then vacillated. The question was resolved in January 1941 when the studio, RKO Pictures, awarded Mankiewicz credit. The guild credit form listed Welles first, Mankiewicz second. Welles's assistant Richard Wilson said that the person who circled Mankiewicz's name in pencil, then drew an arrow that put it in first place, was Welles. The official credit reads, "Screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles". Mankiewicz's rancor toward Welles grew over the remaining 12 years of his life.
Questions over the authorship of the Citizen Kane screenplay were revived in 1971 by influential film critic Pauline Kael, whose controversial 50,000-word essay "Raising Kane" was commissioned as an introduction to the shooting script in The Citizen Kane Book, published in October 1971. The book-length essay first appeared in February 1971, in two consecutive issues of The New Yorker magazine. In the ensuing controversy Welles was defended by colleagues, critics, biographers and scholars, but his reputation was damaged by its charges. The essay was later discredited and Kael's own scholarship was called into question.
Any question of authorship was resolved with Carringer's 1978 essay, "The Scripts of Citizen Kane". Carringer studied the collection of script records—"almost a day-to-day record of the history of the scripting"—that was then still intact at RKO. He reviewed all seven drafts and concluded that "the full evidence reveals that Welles's contribution to the Citizen Kane script was not only substantial but definitive."
Sources
Although various sources were used as a model for Kane, William Randolph Hearst was the primary inspiration Hearst was disturbed by the film's supposed depiction of Marion Davies, but Welles always denied that Susan Alexander Kane was based on Davies.
Welles never confirmed a principal source for the character of Charles Foster Kane. Houseman wrote that Kane is a synthesis of different personalities, with Hearst's life used as the main source. Some events and details were invented, and Houseman wrote that he and Mankiewicz also "grafted anecdotes from other giants of journalism, including Pulitzer, Northcliffe and Mank's first boss, Herbert Bayard Swope." Welles said, "Mr. Hearst was quite a bit like Kane, although Kane isn't really founded on Hearst in particular. Many people sat for it, so to speak". He specifically acknowledged that aspects of Kane were drawn from the lives of two business tycoons familiar from his youth in Chicago—Samuel Insull and Harold Fowler McCormick.
The character of Jedediah Leland was based on drama critic Ashton Stevens, George Stevens's uncle and Welles's close boyhood friend. Some detail came from Mankiewicz's own experience as a drama critic in New York.
Many assumed that the character of Susan Alexander Kane was based on Marion Davies, Hearst's mistress whose career he managed and who Hearst promoted as a motion picture actress. This assumption was a major reason Hearst tried to destroy Citizen Kane. Welles denied that the character was based on Davies, whom he called "an extraordinary woman—nothing like the character Dorothy Comingore played in the movie." He cited Insull's building of the Chicago Opera House, and McCormick's lavish promotion of the opera career of his second wife, Ganna Walska, as direct influences on the screenplay.
As a known supporter of President Roosevelt, whom both McCormick and Hearst opposed based on his successful attempts to control the content of radio programs and his ongoing efforts to control print, Welles may have had incentive to use the film to smear both men.
The character of political boss Jim W. Gettys is based on Charles F. Murphy, a leader in New York City's infamous Tammany Hall political machine.
Welles credited "Rosebud" to Mankiewicz. Biographer Richard Meryman wrote that the symbol of Mankiewicz's own damaged childhood was a treasured bicycle, stolen while he visited the public library and not replaced by his family as punishment. He regarded it as the prototype of Charles Foster Kane's sled. In his 2015 Welles biography, Patrick McGilligan reported that Mankiewicz himself stated that the word "Rosebud" was taken from the name of a famous racehorse, Old Rosebud. Mankiewicz had a bet on the horse in the 1914 Kentucky Derby, which he won, and McGilligan wrote that "Old Rosebud symbolized his lost youth, and the break with his family". In testimony for the Lundberg suit, Mankiewicz said, "I had undergone psycho-analysis, and Rosebud, under circumstances slightly resembling the circumstances in [Citizen Kane], played a prominent part."
The News on the March sequence that begins the film satirizes the journalistic style of The March of Time, the news documentary and dramatization series presented in movie theaters by Time Inc. From 1935 to 1938 Welles was a member of the uncredited company of actors that presented the original radio version.
Houseman claimed that banker Walter P. Thatcher was loosely based on J. P. Morgan. Bernstein was named for Dr. Maurice Bernstein, appointed Welles's guardian; Sloane's portrayal was said to be based on Bernard Herrmann. Herbert Carter, editor of The Inquirer, was named for actor Jack Carter.
Production
Casting The Mercury Theatre was an independent repertory theatre company founded by Orson Welles and John Houseman in 1937. The company produced theatrical presentations, radio programs, films, promptbooks and phonographic recordings.
Citizen Kane was a rare film in that its principal roles were played by actors new to motion pictures. Ten were billed as Mercury Actors, members of the skilled repertory company assembled by Welles for the stage and radio performances of the Mercury Theatre, an independent theater company he founded with Houseman in 1937. "He loved to use the Mercury players," wrote biographer Charles Higham, "and consequently he launched several of them on movie careers."
The film represents the feature film debuts of William Alland, Ray Collins, Joseph Cotten, Agnes Moorehead, Erskine Sanford, Everett Sloane, Paul Stewart, and Welles himself. Despite never having appeared in feature films, some of the cast members were already well known to the public. Cotten had recently become a Broadway star in the hit play The Philadelphia Story with Katharine Hepburn and Sloane was well known for his role on the radio show The Goldbergs. Mercury actor George Coulouris was a star of the stage in New York and London.
Not all of the cast came from the Mercury Players. Welles cast Dorothy Comingore, an actress who played supporting parts in films since 1934 using the name "Linda Winters", as Susan Alexander Kane. A discovery of Charlie Chaplin, Comingore was recommended to Welles by Chaplin, who then met Comingore at a party in Los Angeles and immediately cast her.
Welles had met stage actress Ruth Warrick while visiting New York on a break from Hollywood and remembered her as a good fit for Emily Norton Kane, later saying that she looked the part. Warrick told Carringer that she was struck by the extraordinary resemblance between herself and Welles's mother when she saw a photograph of Beatrice Ives Welles. She characterized her own personal relationship with Welles as motherly.
"He trained us for films at the same time that he was training himself," recalled Agnes Moorehead. "Orson believed in good acting, and he realized that rehearsals were needed to get the most from his actors. That was something new in Hollywood: nobody seemed interested in bringing in a group to rehearse before scenes were shot. But Orson knew it was necessary, and we rehearsed every sequence before it was shot."
When The March of Time narrator Westbrook Van Voorhis asked for $25,000 to narrate the News on the March sequence, Alland demonstrated his ability to imitate Van Voorhis and Welles cast him.
Welles later said that casting character actor Gino Corrado in the small part of the waiter at the El Rancho broke his heart. Corrado had appeared in many Hollywood films, often as a waiter, and Welles wanted all of the actors to be new to films.
Other uncredited roles went to Thomas A. Curran as Teddy Roosevelt in the faux newsreel; Richard Baer as Hillman, a man at Madison Square Garden, and a man in the News on the March screening room; and Alan Ladd, Arthur O'Connell and Louise Currie as reporters at Xanadu.
Ruth Warrick (died 2005) was the last surviving member of the principal cast. Sonny Bupp (died 2007), who played Kane's young son, was the last surviving credited cast member. Kathryn Trosper Popper (died March 6, 2016) was reported to have been the last surviving actor to have appeared in Citizen Kane. Jean Forward (died September 2016), a soprano who dubbed the singing voice of Susan Alexander, was the last surviving performer from the film.
Filming
Production advisor Miriam Geiger quickly compiled a handmade film textbook for Welles, a practical reference book of film techniques that he studied carefully. He then taught himself filmmaking by matching its visual vocabulary to The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, which he ordered from the Museum of Modern Art, and films by Frank Capra, René Clair, Fritz Lang, King Vidor and Jean Renoir. The one film he genuinely studied was John Ford's Stagecoach, which he watched 40 times. "As it turned out, the first day I ever walked onto a set was my first day as a director," Welles said. "I'd learned whatever I knew in the projection room—from Ford. After dinner every night for about a month, I'd run Stagecoach, often with some different technician or department head from the studio, and ask questions. 'How was this done?' 'Why was this done?' It was like going to school."
Welles's cinematographer for the film was Gregg Toland, described by Welles as "just then, the number-one cameraman in the world." To Welles's astonishment, Toland visited him at his office and said, "I want you to use me on your picture." He had seen some of the Mercury stage productions (including Caesar) and said he wanted to work with someone who had never made a movie. RKO hired Toland on loan from Samuel Goldwyn Productions in the first week of June 1940.
"And he never tried to impress us that he was doing any miracles," Welles recalled. "I was calling for things only a beginner would have been ignorant enough to think anybody could ever do, and there he was, doing them." Toland later explained that he wanted to work with Welles because he anticipated the first-time director's inexperience and reputation for audacious experimentation in the theater would allow the cinematographer to try new and innovative camera techniques that typical Hollywood films would never have allowed him to do. Unaware of filmmaking protocol, Welles adjusted the lights on set as he was accustomed to doing in the theater; Toland quietly re-balanced them, and was angry when one of the crew informed Welles that he was infringing on Toland's responsibilities. During the first few weeks of June, Welles had lengthy discussions about the film with Toland and art director Perry Ferguson in the morning, and in the afternoon and evening he worked with actors and revised the script.
On June 29, 1940—a Saturday morning when few inquisitive studio executives would be around—Welles began filming Citizen Kane. After the disappointment of having Heart of Darkness canceled,Welles followed Ferguson's suggestion and deceived RKO into believing that he was simply shooting camera tests. "But we were shooting the picture," Welles said, "because we wanted to get started and be already into it before anybody knew about it."
At the time RKO executives were pressuring him to agree to direct a film called The Men from Mars, to capitalize on "The War of the Worlds" radio broadcast. Welles said that he would consider making the project but wanted to make a different film first. At this time he did not inform them that he had already begun filming Citizen Kane.
The early footage was called "Orson Welles Tests" on all paperwork. The first "test" shot was the News on the March projection room scene, economically filmed in a real studio projection room in darkness that masked many actors who appeared in other roles later in the film. "At $809 Orson did run substantially beyond the test budget of $528—to create one of the most famous scenes in movie history," wrote Barton Whaley.
The next scenes were the El Rancho nightclub scenes and the scene in which Susan attempts suicide. Welles later said that the nightclub set was available after another film had wrapped and that filming took 10 to 12 days to complete. For these scenes Welles had Comingore's throat sprayed with chemicals to give her voice a harsh, raspy tone. Other scenes shot in secret included those in which Thompson interviews Leland and Bernstein, which were also shot on sets built for other films.
During production, the film was referred to as RKO 281. Most of the filming took place in what is now Stage 19 on the Paramount Pictures lot in Hollywood. There was some location filming at Balboa Park in San Diego and the San Diego Zoo.
In the end of July, RKO approved the film and Welles was allowed to officially begin shooting, despite having already been filming "tests" for several weeks. Welles leaked stories to newspaper reporters that the tests had been so good that there was no need to re-shoot them. The first official scene to be shot was the breakfast montage sequence between Kane and his first wife Emily. To strategically save money and appease the RKO executives who opposed him, Welles rehearsed scenes extensively before actually shooting and filmed very few takes of each shot set-up. Welles never shot master shots for any scene after Toland told him that Ford never shot them. To appease the increasingly curious press, Welles threw a cocktail party for selected reporters, promising that they could watch a scene being filmed. When the journalists arrived Welles told them they had "just finished" shooting for the day but still had the party. Welles told the press that he was ahead of schedule (without factoring in the month of "test shooting"), thus discrediting claims that after a year in Hollywood without making a film he was a failure in the film industry.
Welles fell ten feet (3 m) while shooting the scene in which Kane shouts at the departing Boss Jim W. Gettys; his injuries required him to direct from a wheelchair for two weeks.
Welles usually worked 16 to 18 hours a day on the film. He often began work at 4 a.m. since the special effects make-up used to age him for certain scenes took up to four hours to apply. Welles used this time to discuss the day's shooting with Toland and other crew members. The special contact lenses used to make Welles look elderly proved very painful, and a doctor was employed to place them into Welles's eyes. Welles had difficulty seeing clearly while wearing them, which caused him to badly cut his wrist when shooting the scene in which Kane breaks up the furniture in Susan's bedroom. While shooting the scene in which Kane shouts at Gettys on the stairs of Susan Alexander's apartment building, Welles fell ten feet; an X-ray revealed two bone chips in his ankle.
The injury required him to direct the film from a wheelchair for two weeks. He eventually wore a steel brace to resume performing on camera; it is visible in the low-angle scene between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election. For the final scene, a stage at the Selznick studio was equipped with a working furnace, and multiple takes were required to show the sled being put into the fire and the word "Rosebud" consumed. Paul Stewart recalled that on the ninth take the Culver City Fire Department arrived in full gear because the furnace had grown so hot the flue caught fire. "Orson was delighted with the commotion", he said.
When "Rosebud" was burned, Welles choreographed the scene while he had composer Bernard Herrmann's cue playing on the set.
Unlike Schaefer, many members of RKO's board of governors did not like Welles or the control that his contract gave him. However such board members as Nelson Rockefeller and NBC chief David Sarnoff were sympathetic to Welles. Throughout production Welles had problems with these executives not respecting his contract's stipulation of non-interference and several spies arrived on set to report what they saw to the executives. When the executives would sometimes arrive on set unannounced the entire cast and crew would suddenly start playing softball until they left. Before official shooting began the executives intercepted all copies of the script and delayed their delivery to Welles. They had one copy sent to their office in New York, resulting in it being leaked to press.
Principal shooting wrapped October 24. Welles then took several weeks away from the film for a lecture tour, during which he also scouted additional locations with Toland and Ferguson. Filming resumed November 15 with some re-shoots. Toland had to leave due to a commitment to shoot Howard Hughes' The Outlaw, but Toland's camera crew continued working on the film and Toland was replaced by RKO cinematographer Harry J. Wild. The final day of shooting on November 30 was Kane's death scene. Welles boasted that he only went 21 days over his official shooting schedule, without factoring in the month of "camera tests." According to RKO records, the film cost $839,727. Its estimated budget had been $723,800.
Post-production
Citizen Kane was edited by Robert Wise and assistant editor Mark Robson. Both would become successful film directors. Wise was hired after Welles finished shooting the "camera tests" and began officially making the film. Wise said that Welles "had an older editor assigned to him for those tests and evidently he was not too happy and asked to have somebody else. I was roughly Orson's age and had several good credits." Wise and Robson began editing the film while it was still shooting and said that they "could tell certainly that we were getting something very special. It was outstanding film day in and day out."
Welles gave Wise detailed instructions and was usually not present during the film's editing. The film was very well planned out and intentionally shot for such post-production techniques as slow dissolves. The lack of coverage made editing easy since Welles and Toland edited the film "in camera" by leaving few options of how it could be put together. Wise said the breakfast table sequence took weeks to edit and get the correct "timing" and "rhythm" for the whip pans and overlapping dialogue. The News on the March sequence was edited by RKO's newsreel division to give it authenticity.[15]:110 They used stock footage from Pathé News and the General Film Library.
During post-production Welles and special effects artist Linwood G. Dunn experimented with an optical printer to improve certain scenes that Welles found unsatisfactory from the footage. Whereas Welles was often immediately pleased with Wise's work, he would require Dunn and post-production audio engineer James G. Stewart to re-do their work several times until he was satisfied.
Welles hired Bernard Herrmann to compose the film's score. Where most Hollywood film scores were written quickly, in as few as two or three weeks after filming was completed, Herrmann was given 12 weeks to write the music. He had sufficient time to do his own orchestrations and conducting, and worked on the film reel by reel as it was shot and cut. He wrote complete musical pieces for some of the montages, and Welles edited many of the scenes to match their length.
Trailer Written and directed by Welles at Toland's suggestion, the theatrical trailer for Citizen Kane differs from other trailers in that it did not feature a single second of footage of the actual film itself, but acts as a wholly original, tongue-in-cheek, pseudo-documentary piece on the film's production. Filmed at the same time as Citizen Kane itself, it offers the only existing behind-the-scenes footage of the film. The trailer, shot by Wild instead of Toland, follows an unseen Welles as he provides narration for a tour around the film set, introductions to the film's core cast members, and a brief overview of Kane's character. The trailer also contains a number of trick shots, including one of Everett Sloane appearing at first to be running into the camera, which turns out to be the reflection of the camera in a mirror.
At the time, it was almost unprecedented for a film trailer to not actually feature anything of the film itself; and while Citizen Kane is frequently cited as a groundbreaking, influential film, Simon Callow argues its trailer was no less original in its approach. Callow writes that it has "great playful charm ... it is a miniature documentary, almost an introduction to the cinema ... Teasing, charming, completely original, it is a sort of conjuring trick: Without his face appearing once on the screen, Welles entirely dominates its five [sic] minutes' duration."
Style
Film scholars and historians view Citizen Kane as Welles's attempt to create a new style of filmmaking by studying various forms of it and combining them into one. However, Welles stated that his love for cinema began only when he started working on the film. When asked where he got the confidence as a first-time director to direct a film so radically different from contemporary cinema, he responded, "Ignorance, ignorance, sheer ignorance—you know there's no confidence to equal it. It's only when you know something about a profession, I think, that you're timid or careful."
David Bordwell wrote that "The best way to understand Citizen Kane is to stop worshiping it as a triumph of technique." Bordwell argues that the film did not invent any of its famous techniques such as deep focus cinematography, shots of the ceilings, chiaroscuro lighting and temporal jump-cuts, and that many of these stylistics had been used in German Expressionist films of the 1920s, such as The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. But Bordwell asserts that the film did put them all together for the first time and perfected the medium in one single film. In a 1948 interview, D. W. Griffith said, "I loved Citizen Kane and particularly loved the ideas he took from me."
Arguments against the film's cinematic innovations were made as early as 1946 when French historian Georges Sadoul wrote, "The film is an encyclopedia of old techniques." He pointed out such examples as compositions that used both the foreground and the background in the films of Auguste and Louis Lumière, special effects used in the films of Georges Méliès, shots of the ceiling in Erich von Stroheim's Greed and newsreel montages in the films of Dziga Vertov.
French film critic André Bazin defended the film, writing: "In this respect, the accusation of plagiarism could very well be extended to the film's use of panchromatic film or its exploitation of the properties of gelatinous silver halide." Bazin disagreed with Sadoul's comparison to Lumière's cinematography since Citizen Kane used more sophisticated lenses, but acknowledged that it had similarities to such previous works as The 49th Parallel and The Power and the Glory. Bazin stated that "even if Welles did not invent the cinematic devices employed in Citizen Kane, one should nevertheless credit him with the invention of their meaning." Bazin championed the techniques in the film for its depiction of heightened reality, but Bordwell believed that the film's use of special effects contradicted some of Bazin's theories.
Storytelling techniques
Citizen Kane rejects the traditional linear, chronological narrative and tells Kane's story entirely in flashbacks using different points of view, many of them from Kane's aged and forgetful associates, the cinematic equivalent of the unreliable narrator in literature. Welles also dispenses with the idea of a single storyteller and uses multiple narrators to recount Kane's life, a technique not used previously in Hollywood films. Each narrator recounts a different part of Kane's life, with each story overlapping another. The film depicts Kane as an enigma, a complicated man who leaves viewers with more questions than answers as to his character, such as the newsreel footage where he is attacked for being both a communist and a fascist.
The technique of flashbacks had been used in earlier films, notably The Power and the Glory (1933), but no film was as immersed in it as Citizen Kane. Thompson the reporter acts as a surrogate for the audience, questioning Kane's associates and piecing together his life.
Films typically had an "omniscient perspective" at the time, which Marilyn Fabe says give the audience the "illusion that we are looking with impunity into a world which is unaware of our gaze". Citizen Kane also begins in that fashion until the News on the March sequence, after which we the audience see the film through the perspectives of others. The News on the March sequence gives an overview of Kane's entire life (and the film's entire story) at the beginning of the film, leaving the audience without the typical suspense of wondering how it will end. Instead, the film's repetitions of events compels the audience to analyze and wonder why Kane's life happened the way that it did, under the pretext of finding out what "Rosebud" means. The film then returns to the omniscient perspective in the final scene, when only the audience discovers what "Rosebud" is.
Cinematography
The most innovative technical aspect of Citizen Kane is the extended use of deep focus, where the foreground, background, and everything in between are all in sharp focus. Cinematographer Toland did this through his experimentation with lenses and lighting. Toland described the achievement in an article for Theatre Arts magazine, made possible by the sensitivity of modern speed film:
New developments in the science of motion picture photography are not abundant at this advanced stage of the game but periodically one is perfected to make this a greater art. Of these I am in an excellent position to discuss what is termed "Pan-focus", as I have been active for two years in its development and used it for the first time in Citizen Kane. Through its use, it is possible to photograph action from a range of eighteen inches from the camera lens to over two hundred feet away, with extreme foreground and background figures and action both recorded in sharp relief. Hitherto, the camera had to be focused either for a close or a distant shot, all efforts to encompass both at the same time resulting in one or the other being out of focus. This handicap necessitated the breaking up of a scene into long and short angles, with much consequent loss of realism. With pan-focus, the camera, like the human eye, sees an entire panorama at once, with everything clear and lifelike.
Another unorthodox method used in the film was the low-angle shots facing upwards, thus allowing ceilings to be shown in the background of several scenes. Every set was built with a ceiling which broke with studio convention, and many were constructed of fabric that concealed microphones. Welles felt that the camera should show what the eye sees, and that it was a bad theatrical convention to pretend that there was no ceiling—"a big lie in order to get all those terrible lights up there," he said. He became fascinated with the look of low angles, which made even dull interiors look interesting. One extremely low angle is used to photograph the encounter between Kane and Leland after Kane loses the election. A hole was dug for the camera, which required drilling into the concrete floor.
Welles credited Toland on the same title card as himself. "It's impossible to say how much I owe to Gregg," he said. "He was superb." He called Toland "the best director of photography that ever existed." | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 22 | https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/performing-arts/film-and-television/citizen-kane | en | Encyclopedia.com | [
"https://www.encyclopedia.com/themes/custom/trustme/images/header-logo.jpg"
] | [] | [] | [
"Get information",
"facts",
"and pictures",
"about Citizen Kane",
"at Encyclopedia.com",
"Make",
"research",
"projects",
"and school reports",
"about Citizen Kane",
"easy",
"with credible",
"articles",
"from our FREE",
"online encyclopedia and dictionary"
] | null | [] | null | CITIZEN KANEUSA, 1941 Director: Orson Welles [1]Production: RKO Radio Pictures Corp.; black and white, 35mm, running time: 120 minutes. Released 1 May 1941, New York [2]. | en | /sites/default/files/favicon.ico | https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/performing-arts/film-and-television/citizen-kane | CITIZEN KANE
USA, 1941
Director: Orson Welles
Production: RKO Radio Pictures Corp.; black and white, 35mm, running time: 120 minutes. Released 1 May 1941, New York. Filmed 30 July through 23 October 1940 in RKO studios; cost: $686,033.
Producer: Orson Welles; original screenplay: Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles; photography: Gregg Toland; editors: Robert Wise and Mark Robson; sound recordists: Bailey Fesler and James G. Stewart; art director: Van Nest Polglase; music: Bernard Herrmann; special effects: Vernon L. Walker; costume designer: Edward Stevenson.
Cast : Orson Welles (Charles Foster Kane); Buddy Swan (Kane, Aged 8); Sonny Bupp (Kane 3rd); Harry Shannon (Kane's Father); Joseph Cotten (Jedediah Leland); Dorothy Comingore (Susan Alexander); Everett Sloane (Mr. Bernstein); Ray Collins (James W. Gettys); George Coulouris (Walter Parks Thatcher); Agnes Moorehead (Kane's Mother); Paul Stewart (Raymond); Ruth Warrick (Emily Norton); Erskine Sanford (Herbert Carter); William Alland (Thompson); Georgia Backus (Miss Anderson); Philip van Zandt (Mr. Rawlston); Gus Schilling (Head Waiter); Fortunio Bonanova (Signor Matiste).
Awards: Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, 1941; New York Film Critics Award, Best Picture, 1941.
Publications
Script:
Mankiewicz, Herman J., and Orson Welles, "The Shooting Script," in The Citizen Kane Book, by Pauline Kael, Boston, 1971.
Citizen Kane Script Book, New York, 1991.
Books:
Bazin, André, Orson Welles, Paris, 1950.
Noble, Peter, The Fabulous Orson Welles, London, 1956.
Bogdanovich, Peter, The Cinema of Orson Welles, New York, 1961.
Bessy, Maurice, Orson Welles, Paris, 1963.
Cowie, Peter, The Citizen Kane Book, Boston, 1971.
Higham, Charles, The Films of Orson Welles, Berkeley, 1971.
Bogdanovich, Peter, and Orson Welles, This Is Orson Welles, New York, 1972.
McBride, Joseph, Orson Welles, London, 1972; New York, 1977.
Cowie, Peter, A Ribbon of Dreams: The Cinema of Orson Welles, New York, 1973.
Gottesman, Ronald, editor, Focus on Orson Welles, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1976.
Naremore, James, The Magic World of Orson Welles, New York, 1978.
Kawin, Bruce, Mindscreen: Bergman, Godard, and First-PersonFilm, Princeton, New Jersey, 1978.
Valentinetti, Claudio M., Orson Welles, Florence, 1981.
Bergala, Alain, and Jean Narboni, editors, Orson Welles, Paris, 1982.
Wollen, Peter, Readings and Writings: Semiotic Counter-Strategies, London, 1982.
Andrew, Dudley, Film in the Aura of Art, Princeton, 1984.
Carringer, Robert L., The Making of Citizen Kane, Berkeley, 1985; revised, 1996.
Higham, Charles, Orson Welles: The Rise and Fall of an AmericanGenius, New York, 1985.
Leaming, Barbara, Orson Welles: A Biography, New York, 1985.
Parra, Daniele, and Jacques Zimmer, Orson Welles, Paris, 1985.
Weis, Elisabeth, and John Belton, editors, Film Sound: Theory andPractice, New York, 1985.
Taylor, John Russell, Orson Welles: A Celebration, London, 1986.
Jarvie, Ian, Philosophy of the Film: Epistemology, Ontology, Aesthetics, London, 1987.
Joxe, Sandra, Citizen Kane, Orson Welles, Paris, 1990.
Lebo, Harlan, Citizen Kane: The Fiftieth-Anniversary Album, New York, 1990.
Berthome, Jean-Pierre, Citizen Kane, Paris, 1992.
Mulvey, Laura, Citizen Kane, London, 1992.
Cahill, Marie, Citizen Kane, New York, 1993.
Gottesman, Ronald, editor, Perspectives on Citizen Kane, New York, 1996.
Articles:
Pritt, Emile, in New Masses (New York), 4 February 1941.
Sage, M., in New Republic (New York), 24 February 1941.
Tolan, Gregg, "Realism for Citizen Kane," in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), February 1941.
Life (New York), 17 March 1941.
O'Hara, John, in Newsweek (New York), 17 March 1941.
Time (New York), 17 March 1941.
Crowther, Bosley, in New York Times, 2 May 1941.
Herrmann, Bernard, in New York Times, 25 May 1941.
Toland, Gregg, "How I Broke the Rules in Citizen Kane," in PopularPhotoplay Magazine (New York), June 1941.
The Times (London), 13 October 1941.
Leenhardt, Roger, in Ecran Francais (Paris), 3 July 1946.
Doniol-Valcroze, Jacques, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), Decem-ber 1946.
Manuel, Jacques,"Essai sur le style d'Orson Welles," in Revue duCinéma (Paris), December 1946.
Toland, Gregg, "L'Operateur de prises de vues," in Revue duCinéma (Paris), January 1947.
Chartier, Jean-Pierre, in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), January 1947.
Viazzi, Glauco, in Bianco e Nero (Rome), July 1948.
Bazin, André, and Jean-Charles Tacchella, interview with Welles, in Bianco e Nero (Rome), 21 September 1948.
Sarris, Andrew, "Citizen Kane: American Baroque," in Film Culture (New York), no. 2, 1956.
Pariante, Roberto, "Orson Welles from Citizen Kane to Othello," in Bianco e Nero (Rome), March 1956.
"L'Oeuvre d'Orson Welles," in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), Septem-ber 1958.
Domarchi, Jean, "America," in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), July 1959.
Coursodon, Jean-Pierre, in Cinéma (Paris), no. 43, 1960.
Stanbrook, Alan, "The Heroes of Orson Welles," in Film (London), no. 28, 1961.
"Welles Issue" of Image et Son (Paris), no. 139, 1961.
"Citizen Kane Issue" of Avant-Scène du Cinéma (Paris), Janu-ary 1962.
"Welles Issue" of Cineforum (Venice), no. 19, 1962.
Capdena, Michel, "Citizen K," in Lettres Françaises (Paris), 27 December 1962.
Cutts, John, in Films and Filming (London), December 1963.
McBride, Joseph, in Film Heritage (Dayton, Ohio), Fall 1968.
Sarris, Andrew, in Village Voice (New York), 15 April 1971, 27 May 1971, and 3 June 1971.
Bordwell, David, in Film Comment (New York), Summer 1971.
Henderson, Brian, "The Long Take," in Film Comment (New York), Summer 1971.
Goldfarb, Phyllis, "Orson Welles' Use of Sound," in Take One (Montreal), July-August 1971.
Comolli, Jean-Louis, "Technique et Idéologie: Caméra, perspective, profondeur de champ," in Cahiers du Cinéma (Paris), January-February 1972.
Cohen, H., "The Heart of Darkness in Citizen Kane," in CinemaJournal (Evanston, Illinois), Fall 1972.
"Citizen Kane Issue" of Chaplin (Stockholm), vol. 15, no. 2, 1973.
Burch, Noël, "Propositions," in Afterimage (London), Spring 1974.
Mass, R., "A Linking of Legends: The Great Gatsby and CitizenKane," in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), Sum-mer 1974.
Smith, J., "Orson Welles and the Great American Dummy," in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), Summer 1974.
Ciment, Michel, "Ouragans autour de Kane," in Positif (Paris), March 1975.
Champlin, Charles, "More about Citizen Kane," in American Cinematographer (Los Angeles), April 1975.
"Semiotics and Citizen Kane," in Film Reader (Evanston, Illinois), no. 1, 1975.
Carringer, Robert, "Citizen Kane, The Great Gatsby, and Some Conventions of American Narrative," in Critical Inquiry (Chi-cago), Winter 1975.
Pitiot, P., and H. Behar, in Image et Son (Paris), September 1976.
Firestone, B. M., "A Rose Is a Rose Is a Columbine: Citizen Kane and William Styron's Nat Turner," in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), Spring 1977.
Gambill, N., "Making Up Kane," in Film Comment (New York), November-December 1978.
Jaffe, I. S., "Film as Narration of Space: Citizen Kane," in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), no. 2, 1979.
Toeplitz, J., "Von einem, der Karriere macht: Orson Welles in Hollywood der dreissiger Jahre," in Film und Fernsehen (East Berlin), no. 2, 1979.
Westerbeck Jr., C. L., in Commonweal (New York), 22 June 1979.
Clipper, L. J., "Art and nature in Welles' Xanadu," in Film Criticism (Edinboro, Pennsylvania), Spring 1981.
Haustrate, G., in Cinéma (Paris, July-August 1981.
Houston, Beverle, "Power and Dis-Integration in the Films of Orson Welles," in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1985.
Left, L. J., "Reading Kane," in Film Quarterly (Berkeley), Fall 1985.
Beja, M., "Orson Welles and the Attempt to Escape from Father," in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 13, no. 1, 1985.
Maxfield, J.F., "A Man Like Ourselves: Citizen Kane is Aristotelean Tragedy," in Literature/Film Quarterly (Salisbury, Maryland), vol. 14, no. 3, 1986.
Jones, Elizabeth, "Locating Truth in Film, 1940–80," in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Autumn, 1986.
Tomasulo, Frank P., "Point-of-View and Narrative Voice in CitizenKane's Thatcher Sequence," in Wide Angle (Athens, Ohio), vol. 8, nos. 3–4, 1986.
Tarnowski, J.-F., "Le Prologue," in Revue du Cinéma (Paris), May 1987.
Rathgeb, Douglas L., "Fates in the Crowd: Illuminating Citizen Kane Through Woody Allen's Zelig," in Post Script (Jacksonville, Florida), Spring-Summer 1987.
Rosenbaum, Jonathan, and others, "Dialogue: On Viewer Response to Citizen Kane," in Cinema Journal (Champaign, Illinois), Summer 1987.
Bates, Robin, "Fiery Speech in a World of Shadows: Rosebud's Impact on Early Audiences," in Cinema Journal (Champaign, Illinois), Winter 1987.
Morrison, J., "From Citizen Kane to Mr. Arkadin: The Evolution of Orson Welles's Aesthetics of Space," in New Orleans Review, no. 3, 1989.
Nielsen, N. A., "Et allerhelvedes perspektiv," in Kosmorama (Co-penhagen), Fall 1989.
Ropars-Wuilleumier, M.-C., "Narration and Signification: A Filmic Example," in Quarterly Review of Film and Video (New York), no. 4, 1990.
Rosterman, R., "Citizen Kane: 50 Years of Controversy," in Hollywood: Then and Now (Studio City, California), no. 7, 1991.
Vergne, F., "Citizen Kane e Confidential Report di Orson Welles: la retorica dei ricordo," in La Cosa Vista (Trieste), no. 16–17, 1991.
Kyff, Robert S., "Even After 50 Years, Citizen Kane Resonates with a Clarity Both Technical and Allegorical," in Chicago Tribune, 1 May 1991.
van der Burg, J., "Toevalstreffer van de eeuw," in Skoop (Amster-dam), July-August 1991.
Toland, G., "Realism for Citizen Kane," in American Cinematographer (Hollywood), August 1991.
Sarris, A., "For and Against Kane," in Sight and Sound (London), October 1991.
Hogue, P., "The Friends of Kane," in Film Comment (New York), November-December 1991.
Maland, C., "Memories and Things Past: History and Two Biographical Flashback Films," in East-West Film Journal (Honolulu), no. 1, 1992.
La Polla, F., "Welles e la frequentazione delle tenebre." in Quadernidi Cinema (Florence), July-September 1992.
Kovacs, A. B., "Minden idok. . . ," in Filmvilag (Budapest), no. 6, 1993.
Pipolo, T., "Screen Memories in Citizen Kane," in P.O.V. (Brussels), no. 10, 1993.
Altman, Rick, "Deep-Focus Sound: Citizen Kane and the Radio Aesthetic," in Quarterly Review of Film and Video (Reading), vol. 15, no. 3, December 1994.
Welles, Orson, "Orson Welles par Orson Welles," in Positif (Paris), no. 418, December 1995.
Kan, E., "Great Beginnings . . . and Endings," in P.O.V. (Brussels), no. 2, December 1996.
Thomson, D., "Ten Films that Showed Hollywood How to Live," in Movieline (Escondido, California) vol. 8, July 1997.
* * *
"Everything that matters in cinema since 1940," François Truffaut has suggested, "has been influenced by Citizen Kane." It is not surprising, then, that Citizen Kane should be one of the most written about films in cinema history; nearly every major critic since André Bazin has felt compelled to discuss it, among them Andrew Sarris, Peter Cowie, David Bordwell, Joseph McBride, and Bruce Kawin.
Of the various critical approaches taken to the film, the most trivial, though in some respects the most common, is to understand Citizen Kane as an only slightly disguised biography of William Randolph Hearst. Hearst certainly took it that way, and was largely responsible, through the influence of his newspaper syndicate (which refused to review RKO films for a time), for the film's box-office failure, despite the generally enthusiastic response of the critics. Pauline Kael did much to revive this line of thinking in her 1971 "Raising Kane" essay. Kael's point is essentially negative. Movies in general "are basically kitsch," though on occasion kitsch "redeemed." Citizen Kane is a case in point, especially given its reputation, and that of Orson Welles. Indeed, much of Kael's essay is devoted to showing that aspects of Kane normally attributed to Welles really represented or were indebted to the work of others—to Gregg Toland's cinematography, to the conventions of Hollywood newspaper comedy, and especially to Herman J. Mankiewicz, to whom Kael attributes the entire script. Her point even here, however, is that Mankiewicz largely retold the story of William Randolph Hearst ("What happened in Hearst's life was far more interesting" Kael argues at one point)—so that the process of making Citizen Kane is pictured largely as a process of disguise and oversimplification, begun by Mankiewicz and only finished by Welles. What Kael clearly fails to see is the irrelevance of her whole approach (not to mention its basic inaccuracy in regard to historical fact). As François Truffaut puts it: "It isn't San Simeon that interests me but Xanadu, not the reality but the work of art on film." To see the film as a denatured version of some past reality is simply not to see the film.
In sharp contrast to Kael's variety of historicism is the approach taken by André Bazin in his work on Welles. Rather than read the "story" of Citizen Kane against the background provided by the life of Hearst, Bazin focuses on film style in Citizen Kane especially on the degree to which style "places the very nature of the story in question." And rather than describe film style in Citizen Kane as being consistent with that of Hollywood generally (as Kael does in part), Bazin suggests that Welles' reliance on the sequence shot (or long take) and deep focus represents an important break with classical cinematic practice and with the viewing habits derived from it. Classical editing, according to Bazin, "substituted mental and abstract time" for the "ambiguity of expression" implicit in reality; whereas "depth of focus reintroduced ambiguity into the structure of the image" by transferring "to the screen the continuum of reality," in regards both to time and space. "Obliged to exercise his liberty and his intelligence, the spectator perceives the ontological ambivalence of reality directly, in the structure of its appearances."
There are problems with such an ontological approach to cinema (it focuses on sequences rather than on whole films, for instance); but Bazin's emphasis on the ambiguity of appearances in Welles is consistent with a third approach to Citizen Kane which sees the film as an early instance of the fragmented modernist narrative. In the words of Robert Carringer, the fact that Kane's story in the film is told from several perspectives, by several different characters, "reflects the Modernist period's general preoccupation with the relativism of points of view." Indeed, the film's "main symbolic event" is not the burning of Kane's "Rosebud" sled but rather the shattering of the little glass globe, which thus stands "for the loss of 'Kane-ness,' the unifying force behind the phenomenon of Kane." Accordingly, the effort undertaken by Thompson, the newsreel reporter, to uncover the secret of Kane's life by tracking down the meaning of "Rosebud" through interviewing Kane's friends and associates can be seen as a paradigm of the human desire to simplify the complex, though Thompson himself becomes increasingly cynical about the prospect of making sense of Charles Foster Kane.
It is arguable, however, that Thompson's cynicism—summed up when he says "I don't think any word can sum up a man's life"—is itself suspect for assuming that complexity is antithetical in intelligibility. Central to such a view of Kane is the premise that multiple narratives serve to cast doubt. And in a film such as Kurosawa's Rashomon (to which Kane is often compared) such is certainly the case. But the narrative of Citizen Kane may well work differently, at different "levels" of narration. The reporter himself comprises the first "level" of narration—in the newsreel he watches, and in the interviews he conducts. The interviews, then, constitute a second level of narration, in that they are embedded in the first. It is arguable, however, that a third level of narration exists. It can be seen in the "framing" sequences, which take us up to and then away from the gates of Xanadu; it can also be seen in the fact that the narratives of all those interviewed contain material that the person telling the tale could not have known, even at second hand (as if each such narrative were being "re-narrated"). But the third level of narration is most clearly evident in a series of visual metaphors (the recurrent visual figure of the window or door frame, for example, which repeatedly serves to cut one character off from others) which remain constant throughout the film, both in the flashbacks and in the reporter's narrative, regardless of who is ostensibly narrating the sequence. Accordingly, we can say that the entire film constitutes a single narrative with other narratives embedded; that the narratives work at different levels disallows easy assumptions that they cancel each other out, no matter how partial or biased any one narrative might be.
In terms of style and narrative, then, Citizen Kane is a film of remarkable complexity and depth; yet in thematic terms, Citizen Kane is also a hymn to failure. Kane's failure to put his remarkable energy to real use, Thompson's failure to find real meaning in Kane's life story. The shame, in Kane's case, is that his tremendous capacities and resources are wasted, used up; the closing shot of Xanadu, the smoke of Kane's burning possessions pouring from a chimney, recalls the factory smokestacks of the film's newsreel sequence, as the chainlink fence recalls the factory fences. The shame in Thompson's case is that he contributes to this waste by refusing to get to the point, refusing to see how thoroughly Kane was a product of his circumstances, as much victim as victimizer. But we need not follow Thompson's lead in this, however cinematically marvellous Citizen Kane might be. The sense is ours to make.
—Leland Poague
Citizen Kane
Orson Welles' film Citizen Kane has been consistently ranked as one of the best films ever made. A masterpiece of technique and storytelling, the film helped to change Hollywood film-making and still exerts considerable influence today. However, at the time of its premiere in 1941, it was a commercial failure that spelled disaster for Welles' Hollywood career.
Citizen Kane tells the story of millionaire press magnate Charles Foster Kane (played by Welles). The film opens with Kane on his death bed in his magnificent Florida castle, Xanadu, murmuring the word "Rosebud." A newsreel reporter (William Alland) searches for clues to the meaning of the word and to the meaning of Kane himself. Interviewing many people intimately connected with Kane, the reporter learns that the millionaire was not so much a public-minded statesman as he was a tyrannical, lonely man. The reporter never learns the secret of Kane's last word. In the film's final moments, we see many of Kane's possessions being thrown into a blazing furnace. Among them is his beloved childhood sled, the name "Rosebud" emblazoned across it.
Citizen Kane encountered difficulties early on. Welles fought constantly with RKO over his budget and against limits on his control of the production. Furthermore, because the film was based in part on the life of publisher William Randolph Hearst, Hearst's papers actively campaigned against it, demanding that Citizen Kane be banned and then later refusing to mention or advertise it altogether. Although the scheme backfired, generating enormous publicity for the movie, a frightened RKO released the film only after Welles threatened the studio with a lawsuit.
Critics reacted positively, but were also puzzled. They enthusiastically applauded Citizen Kane's many technical innovations. Throughout the film, Welles and his crew employed depth of field (a method in which action in both the foreground and background clearly are in focus, and used to great effect by cinematographer Gregg Toland), inventive editing, sets with ceilings, chiaroscuro lighting, and multilayered sound. Although sometimes used in foreign film, many of these techniques were new to Hollywood. They have since, however, become standard for the industry.
Critics also were impressed by Citizen Kane's many virtuoso sequences: a "March of Time"-type newsreel recounting the bare facts of Kane's life; the breakfast table scene, where in a few minutes his first marriage deteriorates to the strains of a waltz and variations (by noted screen composer Bernard Herrmann, in his first film assignment); a tracking shot through the roof of a nightclub; and a faux Franco-Oriental opera. None of these sequences, however, are showstoppers; each propels the narrative forward.
That narrative proved puzzling both to critics and to audiences at large. Written by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Welles (although there is considerable controversy over how much Welles contributed), the narrative employs a series of flashbacks that tell different pieces of Kane's life story and reveal the witnesses' various perceptions of him. By arranging these pieces out of order, the script opened the door for later screenwriters to avoid the demands of strict chronology. At the time, however, this innovation confused most audiences.
While Citizen Kane did well in New York, the film did poor business in small-town America. The film was a commercial failure, allowing RKO's officials to eventually let go of Welles. Thereafter, he found it increasingly difficult to make movies in Hollywood. Shunned by the studio system, he was forced to spend much of his time simply trying to raise money for his various projects.
For a while, Citizen Kane itself seemed to suffer a similar fate. Although the film was nominated for a host of Oscars, Academy members took RKO's side in the studio's battle with Welles, awarding the movie only one Oscar for best original screenplay. The film lost to How Green Was My Valley for best picture. Citizen Kane soon sank into obscurity, rarely discussed, except when described as the beginning of the end of Welles' film career.
After World War II, RKO, seeking to recoup its losses, released Citizen Kane in European theaters hungry for American films and also made it available for American television. Exposed to a new generation of moviegoers, the film received new critical and popular acclaim. Riding the wave of Citizen Kane's new-found popularity, Welles was able to return to Hollywood, directing Touch of Evil in 1958.
Consistently ranked number one on Sight and Sound's top ten films list since the mid-1950s, Citizen Kane continues to attract, inspire, and entertain new audiences. In 1998, it was voted the best American film of the twentieth century by the American Film Institute.
—Scott W. Hoffman
Further Reading:
Carringer, Robert L. The Making of Citizen Kane. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1996.
Higham, Charles. The Films of Orson Welles. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1970.
Kael, Pauline. The Citizen Kane Book. Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1971.
McBride, Joseph. Orson Welles. New York, Viking Press, 1972.
Naremore, James. The Magic World of Orson Welles. New York, Oxford University Press, 1978.
Citizen Kane
Citizen Kane (1941) is acclaimed as one of the greatest sound films in the history of the cinema. It was cowritten by Orson Welles (1915–1985) and Herman J. Mankiewicz (1897–1953). Welles also produced and directed the film for RKO Radio Pictures in Hollywood (see entry under 1930s—Film and Theater in volume 2). At the time he created Citizen Kane, Welles was a twenty-five-year-old theater and radio (see entry under 1920s— TV and Radio in volume 2) genius who had not yet made a feature-length film. His youth and inexperience is astounding considering the complexity and accomplishment of the visual and narrative (storytelling) techniques used in the movie. In an unusual move by any Hollywood-based film studio, Welles was given complete artistic control over this production. He was able to have the final decision in every area of production. Production elements included screenplay, camera, lighting, art direction, and music. The music in the film was composed and conducted by Bernard Herrmann (1911–1975).
The story of Citizen Kane begins with the death of a wealthy, influential American newspaper publisher named Charles Foster Kane. In six creative narrative sequences—bookended by an introduction and an epilogue—the biography of Kane is related, beginning with a newsreel capsule of the man's life and continuing with glimpses of his childhood and adult years. Kane's controversial life unfolds through a clever manipulation of time by editing. Much of the film is constructed from flashbacks, which are sequences that have taken place in the past, before the present time of the motion picture. The details of Kane's life are told through journal entries and interviews with those he knew, as a reporter seeks to solve the mystery of the significance of the last word that Kane speaks, which is "Rosebud." As the details of Kane's biography are disclosed, the larger story of a man's quest for "the American dream" also is explored.
The character of Kane, acted by Welles, is in many ways a thinly cloaked, fictional version of real-life multimillionaire newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst (1863–1951). Hearst was outraged at the unauthorized and unflattering interpretation of his life story, and he tried to prevent the film from being released. When that attempt failed, Hearst used his many newspapers to prevent the film from becoming popular. He
refused to print advertisements for the film and threatened to stop advertising and reviewing RKO films in the future. These actions were effective, and the film failed badly at the box office. At RKO, angry film executives got even with Welles. They removed his right to make final artistic decisions about future motion picture productions at the studio. As a result, Welles's next few films were badly tampered with by lesser talents. The rest of his film career was characterized by inadequate budgets and production schedules. Welles never again created a motion picture as renowned as his first feature film.
Although Citizen Kane had a disappointing initial release, it was rediscovered by film critics and historians twenty years later. Since then, many articles and several books have praised its artistry and intelligence. In university classrooms, in art houses, and at film festivals worldwide, Citizen Kane is frequently screened. It is included on almost every significant listing of the world's greatest films.
—Audrey Kupferberg
For More Information
Carringer, Robert L. The Making of Citizen Kane. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
Higham, Charles. The Films of Orson Welles. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1970.
Kael, Pauline. The Citizen Kane Book. Boston: Little, Brown, 1971.
Lennon, Thomas, producer. The Battle Over "Citizen Kane" (video). Boston: WGBH Boston Video, 1996, 2000. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 83 | https://www.goldderby.com/gallery/best-orson-welles-movies-ranked/ | en | Orson Welles movies: All 13 films as a director ranked worst to best | [
"https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=6035310&c4=&cv=3.9&cj=1",
"https://www.goldderby.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Orson-Welles.jpg?w=620&h=360&crop=1",
"https://www.goldderby.com/wp-content/themes/vip/pmc-goldderby/assets/images/logo-white.png",
"https://www.goldderby.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Zach Laws",
"Chris Beachum"
] | 2024-05-04T17:42:46+00:00 | Tour our photo gallery including Citizen Kane, Touch of Evil, The Magnificent Ambersons and more. | en | GoldDerby | https://www.goldderby.com/gallery/best-orson-welles-movies-ranked/ | After making what many people cite as the greatest film ever made, “Citizen Kane” (1941), multi-talented actor, writer, director and producer Orson Welles struggled to live up to the success he achieved when he was just 26 years old. Yet seen today, many of the films he made afterwards have attained a similar acclaim. Let’s take a look back at all 13 of his completed feature films as a director, ranked worst to best.
Born in 1915, Welles first came to prominence as a stage director, mounting groundbreaking productions of “Macbeth,” “Dr. Faustus,” and “The Cradle Will Rock” before forming his own repertory company, The Mercury Theater. In addition to Welles, the Mercury Theater Players included Joseph Cotten, Ray Collins, Agnes Moorhead, Everett Sloane, George Coulouris, Norman Lloyd, Martin Gabel and Paul Stewart, many of whom would go onto appear in the director’s films.
It was the Mercury Theater’s transition into radio that brought them the most acclaim… and notoriety. A 1938 adaptation of H.G. Wells‘s sci-fi classic “War of the Worlds” was made to sound like a news bulletin, and many listeners thought that aliens were actually invading Earth. Once the widespread panic had settled down, Welles’s ticket to Hollywood was printed.
He arrived at RKO Studios with almost unlimited control to make “Citizen Kane” (1941), a loosely autobiographical portrait of a William Randolph Hearst-esque newspaper publisher (played by Welles himself) who rises to great heights before losing his soul. Working with cinematographer Gregg Toland, Welles pushed the envelope visually, setting the camera at odd angles and using deep focus to broaden the frame in ways never seen before. His script, co-written by Herman J. Mankiewicz, utilized a nonlinear, flashback-heavy structure that was equally daring. And he brought along his Mercury Theater performers to chew the scenery with juicy supporting roles.
The film was very nearly lost forever when Hearst tried to bury it, displeased with its unflattering portrait of him. Despite the tycoon’s best efforts, “Kane” did earn nine Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, and bids for Welles in writing, directing and acting, winning for Best Original Screenplay. It didn’t turn much of a profit, however, and the director’s reputation was further hindered when his follow-up feature, “The Magnificent Ambersons” (1942), had 40 minutes slashed from its runtime and a happy ending tacked on before failing at the box office. (It did manage to score four Oscar nominations, including Best Picture.)
Welles struggled throughout the rest of his career to achieve the same amount of creative control afforded him on his feature debut, and in several instances, his films were slashed almost beyond recognition. He kept himself afloat with acting gigs, most notably as the villainous Harry Lime in Carol Reed‘s “The Third Man” (1949), but spent most of his life in debt. He never stopped mounting ambitious productions, however, and remained active until his death in 1985.
Yet time has rendered a different verdict on Welles’s subsequent films, and many of his later efforts, most notably “Touch of Evil” (1958), have been restored to their original versions. (Unfortunately, the 40 missing minutes from “Ambersons” are thought to be lost forever.) In 2018, his long-incomplete final movie, “The Other Side of the Wind,” was finally finished and released on Netflix.
Appreciation for “Kane” has grown significantly, with the American Film Institute naming it the greatest American film of all time in 1998 and 2007. The revered “Sight and Sound” poll, conducted every 10 years, ranked it #1 on their list of international films from 1962-2012, when it was displaced by Alfred Hitchcock‘s “Vertigo” (1958). (“Kane” placed second.)
Welles earned an Honorary Oscar in 1971, American Film Institute life achievement award and Directors Guild of America life achievement award.
Tour our photo gallery above of Welles’s 13 completed directorial achievements, including the titles listed above, as well as “Othello” (1951), “Chimes at Midnight” (1965), “F for Fake” (1973) and more. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 95 | https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/citizen-kane/production.html | en | Citizen Kane: Production Design | [] | [] | [] | [
"Production Design",
"Citizen Kane",
"behind the scenes",
"analysis",
"director",
"writer",
"producer",
"studio",
"genre",
"title",
"ending",
"symbols",
"tropes",
"motifs"
] | null | [] | null | Get all the details on Citizen Kane: Production Design. Description, analysis, and more, so you can understand the ins and outs of Citizen Kane. | en | https://www.shmoop.com/study-guides/citizen-kane/production.html | Insanely Innovative For Its Time
For starters, you can thank a dude named Gregg Toland for the quality of this film's cinematography. Let's not forget that this movie is from 1941. It's old. It's so old that when they talk about "The Old War," they're talking about the American Civil War, not World War I or II.
Now that you've got some context, let's dig into what really made Citizen Kane one for the books.
Deep Focus
Citizen Kane is especially famous for pioneering something called deep focus, which means that everything in a scene is in sharp focus regardless of whether it's close or far away from the camera.
Normally when you watch a movie, you'll only see the thing that the director wants you to pay attention to in focus (the hero and heroine are obvious examples). But Welles was interested in composition as well as narration, and devised a way to make sure everything in the shot was in focus. As a result, you'll see action taking place on multiples planes: some in the foreground, some a small distance away, and some in the extreme background.
Check out this scene for an example. Note three specific fields of action: Kane's mother in the foreground, his father a little ways back, and Kane himself in the background out the window.
What's the point? Well besides giving the shot a more artistic composition (and seriously, doesn't it look pretty?), it allows Welles to make multiple points about the drama onscreen without disrupting the main action. Take the scene above. It's very important since it shows us young Charlie Kane enjoying his last day of childhood innocence with his sled. It also show us why his mother is sending him away and the not-especially-nice man she's sending him away with.
On the surface, the scene needs to be about Mom and Banker Guy talking about what's to be done with him. But by using deep focus, Welles adds in a little nugget—the happy boy and his sled—that doesn't seem to be a big deal, but sets up the famous reveal at the end.
Oh yeah, and the notion was so good that other filmmakers made use of it as well. Just one example of how Welles' efforts here defined the language of the whole darn medium.
Low-Angled Shots
Another big innovation in this movie is the use of low-angled shots, where you have characters shot from beneath so that you can see the ceiling in many scenes. This has the effect of making the scenes really ominous and menacing, especially when Kane is involved.
Montage
Here's another good example of filmmaking innovation in Citizen Kane: the idea of montage. The concept had been around a while, actually. Communist filmmakers first posited it as a way of "filling in the blanks" by making unspoken connections between two shots. That's a fancy way of saying that, with careful filmmaking, the audience can pick up on unspoken cues to infer meaning where it isn't directly stated.
In Citizen Kane, Welles took that notion and turned it into an art form, most notably with the famous "breakfast table" scene. It's a few brief snippets of dialogue captured over several years of Kane's first marriage, showing the love between Kane and his wife first cooling and then giving way to open resentment. The whole thing only lasts about three minutes, and yet we find out everything we need to about the dissolution of a union over the course of a few years. And thanks to the fantastic editing, he let us "fill in the blanks" without having to spend huge amounts of time explaining what happened. Talk about efficient time management.
Welles likely perfected the art of the montage with that scene, but you've probably seen countless examples of the same technique. Any kind of training scene, for example, uses montage, and commercials use it all the time since they have a very short period to make their point. Welles didn't quite invent it, but he knew how to do it right.
Put all this together, and you've got yourself a piece (arguably the most important piece) of movie history. | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 34 | https://citizenkanebook.com/chapters/ | en | Chapter excerpts and highlights | [
"https://citizenkanebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/citizen_kane_a_film_makers_journey_portrait_logo_no_shadow.png",
"https://themecanon.com/booker/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/about.jpg",
"https://citizenkanebook.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/rosebud-19.gif",
"https://citizenkanebook.com/wp-content/upload... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2018-06-24T07:06:07+00:00 | The complete story of the greatest film ever made | en | Citizen Kane: A Filmmaker's Journey | https://citizenkanebook.com/chapters/ | Harlan Lebo, a senior fellow at the Center for the Digital Future at USC Annenberg, writes about the arts, sciences, and digital technology. Lebo has written books about Casablanca, The Godfather, and Citizen Kane, the three top movies in the American Film Institute’s list of the 100 greatest motion pictures of all time. (more)
Citizen Kane is perhaps the most studied and discussed motion pictures of all time, but unanswered questions persist.
Here are answers to some of the most commonly-asked questions and misunderstood issues about Citizen Kane, along with some dispelled myths. (more) | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 18 | https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Over-Citizen-Kane/dp/B0000507OD | en | Amazon.com | [
"https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/captcha/xzqdsmvh/Captcha_ofuuaivktz.jpg",
"https://fls-na.amazon.com/1/oc-csi/1/OP/requestId=7EF8E0M0XXQ2G7X13RPB&js=0"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | null | Enter the characters you see below
Sorry, we just need to make sure you're not a robot. For best results, please make sure your browser is accepting cookies. | |||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 15 | https://www.heraldweekly.com/box-office-flops-that-became-cult-classics-over-time/65 | en | Citizen Kane - Box Office Flops That Grew Into Beloved Cult Classics | [
"https://www.heraldweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/cmg_images/623124/rid_ee32e1257bb412dda0a76c0fc8d05091/sfn_1713432757-EFAT61-Decoding-the-Most-Baffling-Movie-Endings-in-Cinema-History-citizen-kane.jpg.pro-cmg.jpg",
"https://www.heraldweekly.com/wp-content/uploads/cmg_images/623124/rid_9e3693fdfbe5d0e717c00515ec0... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2024-06-13T06:06:00+00:00 | Despite being considered by many as one of the greatest films ever made, "Citizen Kane" wasn't exactly a box office hit. Orson Welles' masterful filmmaking … | en | /wp-content/uploads/2019/06/cropped-favicon-32x32.png | Herald Weekly | https://www.heraldweekly.com/box-office-flops-that-became-cult-classics-over-time/65 | The Shawshank Redemption
Forget cult classics, "The Shawshank Redemption" is just a pure classic! Despite initially performing poorly at the box office, this Stephen King adaptation is widely regarded as one of the greatest movies ever made. When it was released in 1994, the film had to compete with blockbusters like "Forrest Gump" and "Pulp Fiction," leaving it with a box office total of just $16 million in its first ten weeks.
However, after receiving critical acclaim, the film gained real momentum. Even Tim Robbins, who played the lead role, admitted that the title was a bit hard to remember: "Let's be real, it's not the catchiest title... But, hey, at least people aren't calling it 'Shimmy, Shimmy, Shake' anymore."
True Romance
"True Romance," the 1993 romantic crime film, made just $12.6 million on a budget of $12.5 million. It's like they didn't even try to make a profit! Maybe they should have hired some marketing geniuses, or people were too busy watching "Speed" or "Jurassic Park" that year.
But fear not, "True Romance" has since reached cult status, with a star-studded cast including Brad Pitt, Patricia Arquette, Gary Oldman, Dennis Hopper, and Christopher Walken. And, of course, it's written by Quentin Tarantino, the guy who would go on to become an icon in the movie industry. So what are you waiting for? Watch it!
Dazed and Confused
Alright, alright, alright, let's break down a little flick called "Dazed and Confused." This movie, which had a budget of only $6.9 million, was a box office flop back in 1993. It only made around $8 million in theaters. But don't worry. Once it hit home video, it quickly became a cult classic.
And it's no surprise to us. This movie captures the true essence of the '70s and teenage life like no other. The young ensemble cast was just top-notch. Critics and audiences alike praised this movie for years. It's become a part of pop culture and a must-watch for anyone looking to relive the glory days.
Showgirls
Ah, the infamous "Showgirls" — the movie nobody wanted to see in theaters, but everybody wanted to rent on VHS. With a budget of $45 million and a global gross of just $37 million, it's safe to say that it didn't exactly do well financially. But once it hit Blockbuster Videos across the country, it raked in over $100 million in home sales.
Sure, the lines are cheesy, the costumes are outlandish, and the pool scene is...questionable. But who cares? Director Paul Verhoeven, screenwriter Joe Eszterhas, and "Saved by the Bell"'s Elizabeth Berkley created a movie that has captured our hearts (and made us cringe) for over 20 years.
Fight Club
Released in 1999, "Fight Club" had a tough time at the box office ($37 million domestically) due to its violent content. Director David Fincher even got into a fistfight with the marketing team at Fox, blaming them for the film's underperformance. But hey, younger audiences were all about the movie's rebellious attitude and crazy plot twist. And after its release on home video, it gained a loyal following of fans.
Edward Norton also pulled no punches at the marketing team: "I think they were too busy trying to make it look like a serious drama when in reality, it's hilarious. Who doesn't love a good fight club, right?"
Wet Hot American Summer
When "Wet Hot American Summer" hit theaters in 2001, it was about as popular as a vegan hot dog at a Texas barbecue. It only brought in $295,200 on a budget of $1.8 million! But little did the world know that the movie was actually a satirical masterpiece that was just too ahead of its time.
Plus, it had a cast of future superstars like Bradley Cooper, Paul Rudd, and Elizabeth Banks. Now, it's an absolute camp classic that has since spawned a sequel AND a prequel series on Netflix. You could say its cult status is only getting higher and higher!
Cry-Baby
"Cry-Baby" was about as popular at the box office as a pop-up ad for nose hair trimmers. It cost $12 million to make but only raked in around $8 million. That's like ordering a pizza that's missing a couple of slices. However, the film's unique blend of kitschy musical numbers and Johnny Depp's lame haircut drew in a cult following of fans who love everything weird and wacky.
"Cry-Baby"'s absurdity has aged like a fine wine, becoming a cherished favorite among those who appreciate campy humor and over-the-top satire. It's no wonder the Broadway musical adaptation won a Tony Award — the movie was ahead of its time, man.
Donnie Darko
The 2001 film "Donnie Darko" struggled to make a splash at the box office, barely earning over $500,000 on its $4.5 million budget. Despite boasting a cast of future Hollywood stars, the movie's release was hindered by unfortunate timing. It came out on October 26, 2001, and featured a scene in which a jet engine crashes into a house.
It eventually gained a cult following thanks to home DVD sales and a successful U.K. release a year after its disappointing U.S. box office intake. Today, "Donnie Darko" is considered one of the best teen dramas of the 21st century and launched the careers of the Gyllenhaal siblings.
The Big Lebowski
Did you know that "The Big Lebowski" was a bigger flop than your average bad date? With a budget of $15 million, it only made $18 million domestically, which is just one big bummer. But hold on to your White Russians because this movie has become a cult classic and even inspired its own religion, "Dudeism."
That's right, The Dude abides, and so do over 600,000 ordained priests worldwide. Not bad for a movie that wasn't exactly an instant hit! Plus, with comedic legends like John Goodman, Steve Buscemi, and John Turturro, it's no wonder "The Big Lebowski" has earned a spot on the list of greatest cult movies ever.
The Princess Bride
Once upon a time, there was a movie that was so great; people just didn't get it. Of course, we're talking about "The Princess Bride," a film that was a bit of a dud when it first came out in 1987. Maybe it was Fox's marketing campaign, or maybe people were just confused about whether it was a fantasy, action, comedy, or children's movie.
But, oh boy, did it catch on when it came out on VHS! It was like everyone had been living under a rock until they saw it. To put it in numbers, the movie had a budget of $16 million but only made around $30.9 million at the box office.
Idiocracy
So, there's this movie called "Idiocracy," right? It was made for like $2.4 million and only made back $495,000 at the box office. That's, like, not a lot of money, you know? But then, like, people started watching it on T.V. and stuff, and they thought it was really funny.
It's all about this future where everyone is super dumb, and everything is run by corporations, which sounds pretty crazy if you ask us! So yeah, the movie didn't do so great when it first came out, but now it's like a cult classic. People love it, man. Give it a watch!
Heathers
"Heathers" didn't exactly set the box office alight upon its release in 1988, only bringing in $1.1 million out of a $3 million budget. But it seems the film's snarky high school vibes and twisted humor were too good to stay buried. The film tackled tough topics like social hierarchy and violence in a way that made it a must-see for any misfit teen.
Winona Ryder and Christian Slater brought their A-game to the project, giving us some truly iconic performances. And let's not forget the slang this movie introduced into the teen lexicon, which we definitely won't repeat here. "Heathers" may not have made a big splash initially, but it's definitely made a lasting impression.
The Iron Giant
"The Iron Giant" — a critically-acclaimed animated film that nobody went to see! Despite having a budget estimated between a whopping $70 and $80 million, the movie only managed to make a measly $23.2 million at the box office. The marketing team rushed the campaign, and it failed to create any buzz.
Perhaps people were put off by the movie's mature themes, lack of fairy tale elements, and Cold War setting. And there was no singing, which you'd come to expect from Disney! But fear not, dear readers, because "The Iron Giant" found a new life on home release and has become a cult classic.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
"The Rocky Horror Picture Show" wasn't always the cult classic it is today. It made just $22,000 at the box office on a $1.6 million budget. But then something magical happened. Fans started dressing up, dancing, and acting out scenes at midnight screenings, creating a completely immersive experience.
It's like the movie got a shot of adrenaline straight to the heart. Fans started hosting conventions, clubs, and even live stage productions. Since then, it has grossed over $170 million worldwide. And, let's be honest, who wouldn't want to dress up in fishnets and heels and sing "Time Warp" at the top of their lungs?
Children of Men
Despite having an impressive budget of $76 million, "Children of Men" didn't do so well at the box office, only grossing $35.6 million domestically. However, this bleak dystopian film has since gained a cult following due to its gripping storytelling and stunning cinematography.
Alfonso Cuarón's vision of a world without children, and the political upheaval that follows, struck a chord with audiences. The film follows Clive Owen's character Theo, who embarks on a mission to protect the first pregnant woman in almost two decades. Cuarón created a thought-provoking meditation on society and the consequences of unchecked power. What a classic.
Hocus Pocus
In the Sanderson sisters' words, "It's just a bunch of hocus pocus" this film was initially considered a box office flop. But like a spell cast by the witches themselves, "Hocus Pocus" has resurrected itself as a cult classic.
Despite its lackluster box office performance in 1993, the film has become a staple of the Halloween season, charming audiences young and old with its spooky, whimsical tale of three witch sisters wreaking havoc on Salem, Massachusetts. With a budget of $28 million, it may have been a financial disappointment at the time, but now, its immense popularity knows no bounds.
The Room
Oh, hi, Mark! "The Room" is an absolute trainwreck of a movie, and yet, it's a masterpiece of unintentional comedy. Written, produced, executive produced, and directed by the mysterious Tommy Wiseau, the film had a budget of $6 million but made a pitiful $1,916 at the box office.
Critics savaged it upon release, and its Rotten Tomatoes score sits at a dismal 23%. But somehow, people began to see its so-bad-it's-good charm. It's now a cult classic, with fans buying copies on home video and packing theaters for special showings. In fact, a comedy movie about the making of "The Room," called "The Disaster Artist," was released in 2017.
Dune
David Lynch's "Dune" was a risky move. The movie was based on Frank Herbert's complex sci-fi novel, and Lynch was determined to stay true to it, even if that meant alienating newcomers. That's why the movie tanked at the theaters, only making $30.9 million domestically against a $40 million budget.
But as the sands of time passed, "Dune" has become a cult classic, thanks to its epic world-building and Lynch's unique vision. The special effects may not have aged well, but the movie still offers plenty of fun for Lynch fans, especially as it marked the director's first collaboration with Kyle MacLachlan. Many agree that Denis Villeneuve's recent remake is a far superior version.
Office Space
This movie made us all want to take a baseball bat to a printer. Unfortunately, 1999's "Office Space" had a dismal performance at the box office, barely earning back its $10 million budget. But once it hit home video, it became a cult classic, beloved by college kids and office workers alike. Who knew that a movie about TPS reports, flair, and a red stapler would resonate so profoundly with the 9-to-5 crowd?
"Office Space" is now considered a masterpiece of workplace satire, inspiring many to "jump to conclusions" and "have a case of the Mondays." So if you're stuck in a job you hate, remember: at least you're not working at Initech.
Reservoir Dogs
"Reservoir Dogs" wasn't exactly a box office smash when it was first released in 1992. Despite wowing critics at Sundance and Cannes, it only made a fraction of its $1.5 million budget at the box office. But thankfully, the film's gritty dialogue, iconic soundtrack, and Tarantino's unique style eventually earned it a cult following.
And let's face it, who doesn't love a good heist movie with many guys in matching suits? Nowadays, "Reservoir Dogs" is considered a classic, and it's hard to imagine a world without Mr. Blonde's infamous dance scene or the ear-slicing scene that still manages to make us cringe.
It's a Wonderful Life
The ultimate Christmas classic, "It's a Wonderful Life" was anything but wonderful at the box office. Despite a solid budget of $3.7 million, it only managed to scrape together $3.3 million in domestic gross, causing RKO Pictures to lose over half a million dollars. In fact, the film was such a flop that it almost bankrupted the studio.
But fast forward to today, and it's a beloved holiday movie that gets more airtime than Santa's sleigh. And really, isn't that the ultimate comeback story? If George Bailey can bounce back from financial ruin, then surely there's hope for your own failed project, right?
The Master
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, "The Master" is a 2012 film about a guy who really, really loves Scientology. Starring Joaquin Phoenix and the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, the film made a grand total of $28 million at the box office, which is about as much as Tom Cruise makes in a week.
But despite its lackluster performance, "The Master" has since become a cult classic. It turns out that people really love watching Joaquin Phoenix yell and twitch for two hours straight. And since then, Phoenix’s career has only reached crazier heights, especially after winning Best Actor for his role as the Joker.
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
"Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was the sweetest flop of all time. Despite the movie's colorful candy-filled world and Gene Wilder's captivating performance, it didn't quite win over audiences in 1971. In fact, it was such a flop that Paramount didn't want anything to do with it. Thankfully, Warner Bros. swooped in and picked it up.
The film only made about $4 million, but it found a new life on T.V. and became a beloved family classic. Now, we can't even imagine a world without Gene Wilder's iconic portrayal of Willy Wonka and the unforgettable Oompa Loompa songs that get stuck in our heads for days.
The Last Duel
Ridley Scott's 2021 epic "The Last Duel" combines the charm of medieval times with the drama of Matt Damon sporting a mullet. Starring Adam Driver, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and Jodie Comer, this movie promised to be a medieval hit. Sadly, the film only grossed $30.6 million at the box office, which is about as much as it costs to make a suit of armor these days.
However, "The Last Duel" is now being hailed as a modern classic. Apparently, people have realized that medieval knights are way cooler than superheroes. The film's intense action scenes and drama have made it a favorite among fans of epic medieval tales.
The Thing
"The Thing" may have been overshadowed by "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" when it first hit theaters in 1982, but this isn't a story about a friendly alien. No, "The Thing" was a full-fledged body horror masterpiece set at the South Pole, and its grotesque special effects initially scared off moviegoers. But as with all good horror flicks, the film found its audience later.
John Carpenter's tense and terrifying direction and incredible practical effects are unforgettable. The movie cost $15 million to produce and only earned slightly above its budget, making just over $19 million at the box office. However, fans soon found their way to this body horror gem.
The Matrix Resurrections
"The Matrix Resurrections," the long-awaited fourth installment in the Matrix franchise, hit theaters in December 2021 with a resounding... thud. Despite the return of Keanu Reeves and Carrie-Anne Moss, the movie's box office performance was more "The Matrix Reloaded" than "The Matrix." With a budget of $190 million, it only managed to make $40.4 million domestically, which is enough to buy a few red pills and not much else.
But like a phoenix rising from the ashes of a crashed hovercraft, "The Matrix Resurrections" has developed a strong fan base. The film's mind-bending plot twists, stunning action sequences, and deep philosophical musings about reality have made it a must-watch for sci-fi aficionados.
Cleopatra
Ah, "Cleopatra," the movie that made Elizabeth Taylor look like she owned an entire pyramid of diamonds. It was the biggest-budget film of its time, with a production cost that would make modern-day movie executives tremble in their boots. But alas, all that glitters is not box office gold. Despite earning $26 million upon release, it still fell short of the $31.1 million budget.
But "Cleopatra" has since been celebrated for its epic scale and Elizabeth Taylor's captivating performance as the Egyptian queen. It's a must-see for anyone who loves glitz, glamour, and a lot of sand. And don't forget the juicy behind-the-scenes gossip, including multiple director changes and on-set romances.
Dredd
"Dredd" may have been a flop at the American box office back in 2012, but it was a hit with audiences who loved watching Judge Dredd kick some in his own unique style. Unfortunately, the movie's $45 million budget didn't quite make it back, but that didn't stop it from gaining a loyal cult following. The gritty dystopian thriller was like a breath of fresh air for critics.
Unfortunately for them, Hollywood's overlords had other thoughts. However, the film's loyal fans continue to worship at the altar of Judge Dredd, and the movie is now considered a cult classic that's just as cool as a leather jacket on a summer day.
Cutthroat Island
Ahoy, matey! Let us tell ye a tale about "Cutthroat Island." This pirate flick, starring Geena Davis and Matthew Modine, was supposed to sail its way to box office glory, but it sank like a cannonball instead. Made with a budget of $98 million, it only managed to loot a measly $10 million at the box office. Critics weren't kind to it either, calling it a scurvy mess.
But don't walk the plank just yet, because this cinematic shipwreck is so bad it's good! So hoist the Jolly Roger and give "Cutthroat Island" another chance. Who knows, maybe you'll discover some hidden treasure in this cinematic sea.
Blade Runner 2049
"Blade Runner 2049" may have struggled to ignite the box office, but that doesn't mean it's not a total triumph in its own right. The sci-fi sequel made more than enough to cover its $150 million budget, but it fell short of expectations at the domestic box office.
Some folks complained that it was too long or too slow, but that's just because they're not used to having their minds blown for two and a half hours straight. For fans of the original "Blade Runner," though, the movie was a total masterpiece. It built perfectly on Ridley Scott's groundbreaking vision and brought the story into the 21st century with style and flair.
Highlander
"Highlander" was the Scottish action-fantasy movie we never knew we needed. And in 1986, no one else thought they needed it either! The big-budget film cost about $19 million to make but only made a wee $12.8 million at the box office. Talk about a financial beheading!
But the power of the Scottish warrior couldn't be denied, and as time went on, "Highlander" gained an army of cult followers. Maybe it was the sweet tunes of Queen that hooked them, or perhaps it was the promise of immortality, but whatever the reason, people couldn't get enough. So even as the sequels and spin-offs kept rolling out, the original film was the most beloved.
Josie and the Pussycats
Remember that time in 2001 when "Josie and the Pussycats" hit theaters and then quickly disappeared without a trace, like a cat burglar in the night? Yeah, neither do we. With a budget of $39 million and a box office gross of only $15 million, it's safe to say the movie was a total flop.
Despite its lackluster performance, "Josie and the Pussycats" has since gained a cult following for its catchy tunes, hilarious humor, and biting commentary on corporate marketing. Starring Rachael Leigh Cook, Tara Reid, and Rosario Dawson as members of the girl group, the film tells the story of a sinister plot to control the minds of teenagers through popular music.
Hugo
It's not often that a critically acclaimed movie with 11 Oscar nominations can be considered a box office flop, but that's exactly what happened with Martin Scorsese's 2011 film "Hugo." Despite its breathtaking visuals and captivating storyline, the movie struggled to break even at the box office, earning only $73 million domestically against a budget of $170 million.
However, in the years since its release, "Hugo" has become a beloved film for families to watch together, with its charming story about a young boy's journey of self-discovery and the early days of cinema. And who can resist the thrill of trying to solve the mystery of the cryptic clues?
Waterworld
Ah, "Waterworld," the movie that sunk at the box office harder than the Titanic. Despite earning a mere $88 million domestically on a $175 million budget, the film has since become a cult classic among fans who appreciate its wacky world-building and Kevin Costner's inexplicable gills.
Set in a future where global warming has turned Earth into one big ocean, the film follows Costner as a mutated mariner who gets embroiled in a quest for "Dryland" with a young girl who has a mysterious map. Sure, "Waterworld" may have drowned at the box office, but it's now a beloved cult classic for fans of cheesy '90s blockbusters and over-the-top action.
Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping
Picture this: a movie about a pop star that was destined for stardom but instead ended up flopping harder than a fish out of water. Made with a budget of $20 million, "Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping" failed to make a splash at the box office, earning only around $10 million.
But this mockumentary musical comedy is a hidden gem that has slowly but surely gained a following of die-hard fans. With its catchy songs and satire of the music industry, "Popstar" is a hilarious commentary on the absurdity of celebrity culture. Plus, it stars Andy Samberg and his Lonely Island buddies, so you know it will be a riot.
The Wicker Man
Nicolas Cage's rendition of "The Wicker Man" is a movie that proves that some actors will do anything for a paycheck. Despite a budget of $40 million, this wacky remake made only $38.8 million worldwide, which is about as much as Cage's tax bill. And yet, "The Wicker Man" has gained a devoted following among fans of "so bad it's good" cinema.
Cage stars as a detective who travels to a remote island to investigate the disappearance of a young girl, only to find himself in the middle of a cult with some truly bizarre rituals. Nicolas Cage punching a woman in a bear suit? Seriously, what more do you need?
Event Horizon
"Event Horizon," the sci-fi horror film, was one of those movies that didn't quite strike the right chord with audiences in 1997. Maybe it was too gruesome for some or too expensive for others; who knows? With a budget of $60 million, it only managed to gross $26.6 million in the U.S.
But don't let those numbers scare you away. The film stars Laurence Fishburne and Sam Neill and creates an atmosphere of dread that slowly builds until it unleashes the terror in its second half. For everyone else, it's more like a nightmare but for horror fans, it's like a dream come true.
Steve Jobs
"Steve Jobs," the guy behind Apple and the iPhone, had a movie made about him that was supposed to be super cool. The movie had a budget of $30 million but only made $34.4 million, which is like a penny to a millionaire. Critics loved it, calling it an "exhilarating portrait" with a "scorching script" and a "commanding performance," but the audience didn't come to the party.
The movie was directed by Danny Boyle, who said that they didn't release it right. Maybe they should have put it on TikTok or something. Anyway, it was overshadowed by a director change, but now it's a cult classic, like when you have a bad haircut that grows on you.
The King of Comedy
"The King of Comedy" was the box office flop that refused to go down without a fight. Despite its star-studded cast featuring Robert De Niro and Jerry Lewis, the movie failed to make any real waves upon release. In fact, it barely made a splash at all, earning only $2.5 million domestically against a budget of $19 million.
But decades later, people still love watching De Niro's character, Rupert Pupkin, fail miserably in his quest for fame and fortune. These days, "The King of Comedy" is considered a cult classic, with critics and audiences alike hailing it as one of Martin Scorsese's finest films.
Speed Racer
When "Speed Racer" first raced into theaters, it was like the filmmakers went full throttle and ended up hitting a banana peel on the way. The movie, made with a budget of $120 million, only managed to make $93.9 million, leaving the studio in the dust.
But years later, people can't get enough of the "Speed Racer" cheesy dialogue, neon-colored visuals, and zany action scenes. It's like "Fast and Furious" meets a psychedelic dream. So, hop into the driver's seat with "Speed Racer" next time you want a good laugh and a wild ride. It’s in pole position for cult status!
Jack Frost
Once upon a time, the movie "Jack Frost" was a flop. No one wanted to watch it. The budget was $50 million and it only made $34.6 million. But lo and behold, like a snowman coming to life, the movie gained a cult following. People couldn't get enough of the heartwarming story about a dad coming back as a snowman to spend time with his son.
And let's not forget the awesome soundtrack with songs from Hanson that everyone still loves. Who would've thought a movie about a snowman could melt so many hearts? Despite its icy start, Michael Keaton playing a snowman never thaws out!
Labyrinth
Jim Henson's fantastical film "Labyrinth," starring the iconic David Bowie, might not have had the box office success it deserved back in the day, only making back around half of its $25 million budget. But it seems that time has been kind to this fantastical adventure, as it has gained a cult following and earned critical acclaim.
Bowie's role as the Goblin King is especially memorable and has become a beloved part of the film's legacy. While the movie's commercial performance may not have been a hit, its quirky characters, catchy songs, and imaginative sets have cemented its place as a cult classic.
Warrior
A movie about UFC, "Warrior" might not have been a knockout at the box office. But it sure did win the hearts of its cult following. With a budget of $25 million, the movie only managed to punch in $23.3 million at the box office. Despite this, the movie was praised for its powerful story and brilliant performances.
Nick Nolte's portrayal of the coach won him an Oscar nomination, and the movie has been described as a "sports-pic-cum-family drama" that is both moving and brilliant. While it didn't have the Hollywood stars of "The Fighter," which came out the same year, "Warrior" still managed to pack a punch.
Harold and Maude
In 1971, the romantic comedy "Harold and Maude" was a box office disaster. People couldn't wrap their heads around the May-December romance between a young man and an 80-year-old woman. It had a budget of $1.3 million and made only $2.2 million, hardly the financial success the producers hoped for.
However, it's now considered a cult classic, with screenings still held in theaters and festivals worldwide. Who would have thought that "Harold and Maude" would become such a hit? Perhaps it's because it's a love story transcending age and time, or maybe people enjoy watching a hearse used as a makeshift car.
Mulholland Drive
David Lynch's "Mulholland Drive" had a lot going for it, including a $15 million budget, but unfortunately only made $20.1 million at the box office. Despite this initial lack of success, the film has gained a cult following since its release, with critics hailing it as one of the best films of the 21st century.
Originally planned as a T.V. series, the mysterious, mind-bending commentary on Hollywood has become a favorite of Lynch fans who enjoy delving into the film's complexities and theorizing about its mysteries. "Mulholland Drive" proves that sometimes it takes time for a film to find its audience and appreciate it for the masterpiece it truly is.
Battlefield Earth
It seems like with every Travolta hit, there's an even bigger miss! Enter "Battlefield Earth." This sci-fi trainwreck may have been a critical and commercial bomb, but it has since become a cult classic that's out of this world. The film had a budget larger than the GDP of a small country, yet it only made a mere $29.7 million at the box office.
John Travolta's performance as the alien villain is as over-the-top as an intergalactic disco party, and the movie's cheesy special effects are more outdated than a VHS tape. Despite its initial failure, "Battlefield Earth" has found a loyal following of sci-fi fans who appreciate its so-bad-it's-good appeal.
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen
Buckle up, folks, because we're about to take a ride on the wild side with "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen." This fantasy flick from director Terry Gilliam took a hit at the box office when it was released in 1988, making only $8 million against its whopping $46.6 million budget.
Maybe it was the mostly British cast nobody had heard of or the failure to market the one star (Robin Williams) properly, but whatever the reason, audiences didn't get it. But hey, critics loved it, and those who saw it remembered it. And who can blame them? With dazzling art direction, costume design, and visual effects, this movie is a feast for the eyes.
Newsies
In 1992, Disney released a musical movie called "Newsies," and boy, did it tank. But like a good loaf of bread, it only improved with time. Starring a young Christian Bale, the movie tells the story of the Newsboys' Strike of 1899. Unfortunately, despite its all-star cast, including Bill Pullman, and Robert Duvall as Joseph Pulitzer, it only earned $2.8 million at the box office against a $15 million budget.
However, the movie became a cult classic thanks to its popularity on VHS. Families everywhere watched and sang along with the catchy tunes, making it a household name. Who knew that a movie about newsboys could be so fantastic?
The Wizard of Oz
"The Wizard of Oz" is a movie that’s become synonymous with Hollywood magic. Who can forget the iconic characters, the famous yellow brick road, and the unforgettable songs? But did you know that the movie actually started off as a box office flop? The movie was released in 1939 and made only about $3 million in its initial release, which was less than what it cost to make.
Despite this setback, the film has stood the test of time and become a cult classic that’s beloved by audiences and critics alike. It’s had multiple home video releases and re-releases and has earned around $29.7 million.
Cloud Atlas
Remember that movie "Cloud Atlas?" The one with the crazy time-hopping plot and an A-list cast led by Tom Hanks and Halle Berry? Well, it turns out audiences weren't quite ready for its mind-bending storytelling and six different plotlines. Despite a whopping $128.5 million budget, it only made $27.1 million domestically.
But now, many years later, it's gained a cult following for its ambitious scope and impressive performances. Plus, who wouldn't want to see Tom Hanks play a tough-talking Irish gangster or a futuristic tribesman with a nose piercing? It's never too late to give "Cloud Atlas" a second chance.
Brazil
In 1985, Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" was released with a budget of $15 million, but it failed to make an impact at the box office, grossing only $9.9 million domestically. Despite its lackluster financial performance, the movie's place at #17 on "The Guardian's" all-time sci-fi and fantasy list shows its lasting impact.
The movie boasts an impressive list of attributes, including quippy one-liners, crazy special effects, political references, sets that are very retro-futuristic in nature, and an ending that was a real gut-puncher. However, it lacked an obvious target demographic, possibly contributing to its initial failure. Regardless, "Brazil" has inspired filmmakers ever since and is a must-watch for sci-fi fans.
A Cure for Wellness
Gore Verbinski's "A Cure for Wellness" was a box office disappointment, earning only $8.1 million domestically against a $40 million budget. Despite its initial lack of commercial success, the film has since become a cult classic for horror fans. The movie's unsettling imagery, including disturbing eels, creepy dental procedures, and eerie mazes, draws viewers into its mysterious plot.
A marketing campaign that played into "fake news" confusion may have contributed to the film's initial struggles to find an audience. While the movie's gothic twists may be a bit stressful, "A Cure for Wellness" casts a spell on those who appreciate a horror flick that resists easy classification.
Big Trouble in Little China
"Big Trouble in Little China" is a cult classic that proves the box office isn't always the final word on a film's success. With a budget of $25 million and a domestic gross of only $11.1 million, this John Carpenter-directed movie starring Kurt Russell was a box office flop upon its release in 1986.
But as the years passed, the film's brilliant action scenes and mix of genres, including kung-fu cinema and romantic comedy, have earned it a dedicated following. Despite its problems with stereotypical humor, "Big Trouble in Little China" has become a beloved cult classic. Fans appreciate its ambitious attempt to combine Carpenter's diverse interests into one fascinating concoction.
The Fountain
Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" is a film that was ahead of its time. With a budget of $35 million, the movie was a box office flop, earning only $10.1 million in the U.S. However, it's since become a cult classic, and for a good reason. The movie tells the story of love, life, and death through three intertwined timelines.
The visually stunning movie is a journey through space, time, and the afterlife. The complexity of the film may have put some people off, but those who are willing to take the journey will find it to be an unforgettable experience. Plus, it's always fun to see Hugh Jackman play a time-traveling conquistador.
Blow Out
It might not have been a hit at the box office, but "Blow Out" has become a classic in the eyes of many movie lovers. Brian De Palma's Hitchcockian thriller cost $18 million to make and only made $12 million at the domestic box office. Despite that, the movie has stood the test of time thanks to its stylish direction, imaginative plot, and brilliant performance by John Travolta.
"Blow Out" tells the story of a sound engineer who accidentally records a murder and becomes embroiled in a dangerous conspiracy. With its tense atmosphere and suspenseful scenes, it's no wonder why "Blow Out" has become a cult classic for fans of the genre.
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck are no strangers to big-screen success, but their 2007 collaboration, "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford," was a different story. Despite the movie's big budget of $30 million, it only managed to earn $3.9 million domestically.
It seems audiences were expecting an action-packed western. Still, instead, they got a slow-burn exploration of jealousy and fame that could put even the most caffeinated viewer into a meditative state. However, the film has gained a dedicated cult following over the years, thanks to its stunning cinematography and understated performances by Pitt and Affleck.
Clockers
Spike Lee's 1995 crime drama "Clockers" didn't get the love it deserved when it was first released. Despite Lee's solid reputation as a director and an all-star cast that included Harvey Keitel, John Turturro, and a young Mekhi Phifer, the movie failed to make much of a dent at the box office, earning just $13.1 million on a $25 million budget.
But in the years since, "Clockers" has developed a cult following thanks to its searing portrait of inner-city life, sharp writing, and performances that pack an emotional punch. If you're a fan of Lee's gritty, thought-provoking work or enjoy a good crime thriller, "Clockers" is definitely worth a watch.
Annihilation
"Annihilation," the science-fiction thriller adapted from Jeff VanderMeer's cult novel, failed to capture audiences at the domestic box office with a budget of $55 million and a domestic gross of $32.7 million. However, the film was released on Netflix overseas, where it gained a following. Despite the poor box office performance, the film's stunning visuals and eerie score were praised, and Natalie Portman's performance was particularly acclaimed.
In the film, she portrays a scientist leading a rescue mission into a mysterious area. The movie is designed to be experienced at a high volume and with a captivated audience, with each surreal image taking viewers on a journey through psychological nuance and emotional depth.
Beloved
"Beloved" had all the ingredients for a surefire hit: a talented director, an acclaimed novel, and a star-studded cast. But despite the hype, the movie failed to connect with audiences and only made $22.9 million domestically against its $80 million budget. Perhaps the film's challenging subject matter, which explored the trauma of slavery and the weight of inherited pain, proved too much for some viewers.
But over time, the movie has earned a devoted following as a haunting and deeply moving masterpiece, anchored by powerful performances from Beah Richards, Danny Glover, Thandie Newton, Kimberly Elise, LisaGay Hamilton, and of course, Oprah.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
Edgar Wright's "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" came out in 2010 with a whopping $85 million budget. But, unfortunately, the movie-goers didn't think it was worth their time, only paying a collective sum of $49.3 million to see it.
Despite its rocky start, the film quickly gained a cult following, thanks in no small part to its talented young cast, including Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and Chris Evans. It's now hailed as one of the most innovative comedies of the 21st century, proving that sometimes, audiences don't know a good thing when it smacks them in the face with a bass guitar.
Magnolia
Despite its impressive cast, its ambitious story, and its $37 million budget, 1999's "Magnolia" only managed to earn $48.5 million worldwide. However, as time went on, this three-hour-long epic developed a pretty passionate fan base. Many viewers appreciate its unique storytelling, incredible performances, and beautiful Aimee Mann songs, amongst other things.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson crafted a sprawling drama that weaves together the lives of several characters in Los Angeles, and it's not exactly a light-hearted romp. The movie has been praised for its bold vision and striking visuals, and Tom Cruise's performance as a motivational speaker alone is worth the price of admission.
Barbarella
It's easy to see why "Barbarella" reached cult status. Jane Fonda looks absolutely out of this world as the titular space adventurer. Maybe audiences weren't ready for such a wild ride in 1968 when the film came out because it only made $2.5 million domestically against a budget of $9 million. But hey, at least it did better overseas, becoming a hit in Europe.
It wasn't until later, when the sci-fi craze really kicked off thanks to "Star Wars," that people started to appreciate "Barbarella" for what it is — a wild, wacky adventure through space and time with Fonda rocking some of the most iconic outfits in movie history.
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
"Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" was a movie that couldn't catch a break from the beginning. They went through a revolving door of potential stars, from Jack Nicholson to John Belushi to Dan Aykroyd. Still, it wasn't until Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro took on the roles of Raoul Duke and Dr. Gonzo that things finally got moving.
But the film cost $18 million when it was only supposed to be $5 million. The box office returns were equally disappointing, with only $13.7 million in ticket sales. However, the movie gained a following on home video, with fans loving the crazy, smoke-fueled antics of the main characters.
Citizen Kane
Despite being considered by many as one of the greatest films ever made, "Citizen Kane" wasn't exactly a box office hit. Orson Welles' masterful filmmaking was ahead of its time, but unfortunately, audiences just weren't ready for it. It had a budget of $839,727 and only earned $1.8 million after re-releases, which was not great.
These days though, "Citizen Kane" is regarded as one of the greatest movies of all time. It even received nine Academy Award nominations but only won one for its screenplay. It's certainly made up for it with its lasting impact on the world of film.
Sid and Nancy
The punk rock biopic about the tragic love story of Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungen had all the right ingredients for success, with great actors and positive critical reviews. However, "Sid and Nancy" only managed to make $2.8 million at the box office, failing to break even, making it a rock flick flop for the ages.
One of the reasons for its initial lack of success may have been due to the lack of input from John Lydon, aka Johnny Rotten, who was not consulted about the film. Despite this, the movie's dark and gritty portrayal of the punk rock scene has resonated with audiences over time.
Clue
"Clue's" box office numbers may not have been a winner, but its multiple endings kept audiences guessing. With a budget of $15 million, the movie only brought in $14.6 million. To add insult to injury, theaters split up the different endings, leaving moviegoers scratching their heads about which version to watch.
But "Clue" has since become a cult classic, thanks to its cast of quirky characters and hilarious performances. Fans can't get enough of the film's slapstick humor, and it's easy to see why. Tim Curry may not have had much luck at the box office with "Clue," but his role as the butler Wadsworth is one of his most memorable.
Starship Troopers
There was a time when Neil Patrick Harris wasn't playing a lead in a popular sitcom. Between his roles as Doogie Howser and Barney Stinson, he was playing one of the titular characters of the sci-fi cult flick "Starship Troopers." With a budget of $105 million and a box office gross of just $121 million, it's safe to say that audiences didn't know what to make of this film when it was first released in 1997.
But like a giant bug that won't die, "Starship Troopers" has since crawled its way into cult classic status. It's a movie with everything you could want: giant alien bugs, over-the-top action, and political satire that hits harder than a tank shell.
Matilda
"Matilda" may not have made big bucks at the box office, but it's a movie that truly stands the test of time. With a budget of $36 million and a gross of just over $33.5 million, it's safe to say that the film's financial performance was not as magical as Matilda's telekinetic powers.
"Matilda" has become a beloved film for anyone who loves a good underdog story, a dash of magic, and a lot of laughs. With memorable characters like Trunchbull, the evil principal, and Ms. Honey, the kind-hearted teacher, "Matilda" is a movie that will always hold a special place in our hearts.
Jupiter Ascending
Hold onto your hats as we discuss the box office flop turned cult classic, "Jupiter Ascending." This sci-fi space opera was released in 2015 and had all the makings of a blockbuster hit, with a star-studded cast including Channing Tatum, Mila Kunis, and Sean Bean. But alas, the Wachowskis' latest film didn't quite meet expectations.
The film raked in a decent $183.9 million at the box office, but with an estimated production cost of over $210 million, it's no wonder studios were seeing stars of a different kind. And it's not just the studios who were disappointed; critics gave it a meager 28% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
Blade Runner
Despite Ridley Scott's best efforts, "Blade Runner" was a bit of a snoozer at the box office (earning $41.6 million on a $30 million budget) when it was first released in the 80s. Maybe it was because audiences were still dazzled by Harrison Ford's other iconic roles in "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and weren't ready to see him running around a bleak and rainy future city.
But it didn't take long for the film to develop a cult following. Over the years, "Blade Runner" has been re-edited and re-released several times, cementing its place in pop culture history as a true masterpiece and one of the most groundbreaking sci-fi flicks ever.
Death to Smoochy
This dark comedy, directed by Danny DeVito and starring Robin Williams and Edward Norton, tells the story of a disgraced children's show host who tries to take down his replacement, and boy, is it a wild ride! Unfortunately, when it first came out, "Death to Smoochy" was a bit of a flop.
Made with a budget of $50 million, it only managed to make a measly $8.3 million back. But this film has since found a new lease on life as a cult classic. Maybe it's the all-star cast, or perhaps it's the absurd storyline, but whatever the reason, fans can't get enough of it.
Barton Fink
Before the Coen Brothers ran away with Oscars for movies like "No Country for Old Men," they were busy making box office flops like "Barton Fink." With a budget of $9 million and a box office gross of just $6.2 million, you could say that the movie didn't exactly set Hollywood on fire (if you saw the movie, you get the reference).
But for those in the know, "Barton Fink" is a masterpiece of the surreal, the bizarre, and the downright strange. With its mind-bending plot and unforgettable performances from John Turturro and John Goodman, it's a Coen brothers classic that's not to be missed.
Dudley Do-Right
Brendan Fraser seems to have done it all in his bizarre career. Not only has he made some incredible blockbusters and Oscar-winning performances, but he's also starred in his fair share of box office flops. "Dudley Do-Right" is a perfect example, with a cult following that's more loyal than a Mountie to his horse.
The movie's budget was as big as the Great White North itself, but it only raked in $10 million at the box office. Brendan Fraser's portrayal of the titular hero is as endearing as a beaver gnawing on a log. The film's ridiculous gags and puns are more abundant than maple syrup on pancakes.
Grindhouse
Double-feature horror flick "Grindhouse" got mangled in the box office blender like a zombie caught in a propeller. But now it's a cult classic that's hotter than a Texas chainsaw massacre. Despite costing $67 million to make, it only earned a disappointing $25 million at the box office.
"Grindhouse's" extreme gore and ultra-violence, mixed with its campy dialogue and retro flair, are like a love letter to the cheesy B-movies of the past. Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez's ode to exploitation cinema has attracted a devoted cult following of fans who appreciate its twisted sense of humor and unbridled love for all things blood-soaked.
The Boondock Saints
"The Boondock Saints" didn't make it big when it first came out in 1999, but it’s a cult classic now. The movie was written and directed by Troy Duffy and stars Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus as two fraternal twin brothers on a mission of vigilante justice.
After defending themselves against Russian mobsters, they decide to take the law into their own hands. Despite the impressive $6 million budget, the movie only made $30,471 during its theatrical run. However, the film’s cult status has grown tremendously over the years. Fans appreciate the film's gritty action, witty humor, and well-crafted story.
The Man Who Fell on Earth
Oh boy, talk about a rocky start! "The Man Who Fell to Earth" was a British sci-fi flick with all the makings of a hit, but it was plagued by disagreements between film companies that led to a limited release. As a result, the movie barely broke even at the box office, with a budget of $1.5 million and only grossing $1.8 million.
To make matters worse, the critics absolutely shredded the film, with Roger Ebert calling it "preposterous and posturing." But despite the poor reception, "The Man Who Fell to Earth" has developed a cult following over the years. "Rolling Stone" even ranked it as the second-best sci-fi film of the '70s!
Ishtar
When it was released in 1987, the comedy adventure film "Ishtar," directed by Elaine May, was considered a box office flop, with a budget of $51 million and only grossing $14.4 million domestically. But nowadays, it has found a new life as a cult classic.
The film stars Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman as two bumbling songwriters who find themselves embroiled in a Cold War conspiracy while performing in Morocco. Though the two leads might seem out of place in their roles, their chemistry and comedic timing make up for it. The film's clever writing, hilarious gags, and charming performances have earned it a devoted following over the years.
Treasure Planet
Disney originally didn't want to invest in "Treasure Planet" because it was costly to make, using tech that was on its way out. They even botched the advertising, giving away major plot points in the trailer. To make matters worse, they released it at the same time as "Harry Potter" and "Santa Clause 2" — talk about poor timing!
The movie's budget was a whopping $140 million, but it only managed to make back $38.1 million at the domestic box office. Created by the brilliant minds behind "Moana" and "The Princess and the Frog," Ron Clements and John Musker, the movie has gained a loyal following.
Heaven’s Gate
The movie that sunk United Artists: “Heaven’s Gate” proves that sometimes a box office disaster can be a masterpiece. Director Michael Cimino’s extravagantly expensive Western starring Kris Kristofferson failed to recoup even a fraction of its $44 million budget, making it the most notorious flop in cinema history.
But who cares about money when you have a movie this good? Set in 1870 Wyoming, “Heaven’s Gate” is a breathtaking epic that follows Kristofferson’s Jim as he becomes Marshal and finds himself in the middle of a class war. There are battles, love stories, Christopher Walken monologues, and even roller skating. Yes, roller skating.
Almost Famous
Listen up, groupies! We want to tell you the story of "Almost Famous" — the flick that nobody cared about until everyone cared about it! It's got everything: style, substance, and rock 'n' roll! This movie was Cameron Crowe's masterpiece and boy, it was a total steal. Made on a budget of just $60 million, this baby only brought in $47.4 million at the box office. Can you believe it?
But hey, like any good rockstar, we don't play by the rules of the mainstream. And over time, the world finally caught on to the beauty of this film. We’re pretty sure every aspiring musician out there has seen it at least once. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 59 | https://www.okbutwhy.org/why-is-citizen-kane-considered-best-film/ | en | Why Is Citizen Kane Considered Best Film? | [
"https://www.okbutwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/OkButWhy-White.png",
"https://www.okbutwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/OkButWhy-Black.png",
"https://www.okbutwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Newton.png",
"https://www.okbutwhy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Asu-Pelin-Akkose-150x150.jpg",
"https://w... | [
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/-r0b_XeRkG4?feature=oembed",
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/DQ5AOkPablY?feature=oembed",
"https://www.youtube.com/embed/uNaDrnxp3L0?feature=oembed"
] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Asu Pelin Akköse",
"www.facebook.com",
"mete.esencan"
] | 2022-10-14T15:16:40-05:00 | AFI Catalog of Feature Films. AFI. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2022, from https://catalog.afi.com/Film/27624-Citizen-Kane | en | OkButWhy | https://www.okbutwhy.org/why-is-citizen-kane-considered-best-film/ | Asu Pelin Akköse
4 minute reading time
There are many interpretations regarding the greatest movie of all time. We agree with some of these comments and strongly oppose to others. So, if the best movie in the world had to be chosen, which movie would it be?
The answer to this question, according to many authorities, is Citizen Kane, which was produced in 1941. So what makes this movie so good?
Citizen Kane, which is at the top of the American Film Institute’s (AFI) list of the 100 best films, was a literal failure in 1941 when it was released. The film did not find what it wanted at the box office and was not well-liked by the audience. It was awarded one Oscar despite its 9 nominations. During its acceptance of the award, shouts of protest rose from the hall.
As the years went by, however, these ideas have completely changed. Now, the movie has an unshakeable success. How is it that this movie, which was seen as almost a complete fiasco at the time, is so appreciated after so many years? This question has several answers:
The movie begins with the death of our main character, Charles Foster Kane. The rumor has it that the main character was inspired by William Randolph Hearst, the owner of the largest newspaper chain of the time, which caused the film to be discredited before it was released. Hearst didn’t know how he would be portrayed in the movie but he feared that he would be shown as a bad guy, so he started to revile against the movie right from the start.
The film starred and directed by Orson Welles, was released in such a hostile environment and started to confuse people with its first scene, because after the name of the film was written, the film started immediately before another text appeared on the screen. This was very unusual for that period. Audiences were used to seeing the names of the actors and the characters they portrayed after the title of the movie. The fact that the movie started so quickly and that the first scene came to the screen with a piece of music reminiscent of a horror movie gave the audience a second confusion.
Citizen Kane – Opening Scene:
A famous scene that completely puzzled the audience, and was to be used in many productions years later, was towards the middle of the movie. The main character, Charles Foster Kane, stands in front of a famous newspaper’s window, and while Kane is looking at the picture of the newspaper’s editorial team, his friend’s voice is heard saying “It took 20 years for the newspaper to build such a team.” With this line, the camera approaches the picture in the showcase and suddenly there is movement in the picture. During this movement, Kane begins to speak; “Well, six years ago I looked at a picture of the world’s greatest newspapermen. I felt like a kid in front of a candy store. Well, tonight six years later, I got my cand. All of it.”
As today’s audience, it is perhaps very easy for us to understand what has happened in this scene. A character looks at a picture, the picture gets closer and closer to the screen, and then, the picture suddenly starts to move. We understand that we have gone into the time when that picture was taken, we are watching the events that happened at that time. However, this was not an easy situation for the audience in 1941. Because they had never witnessed a change of time and place through a picture before. So no one understood how or why this picture was moving and what it was trying to deliver. Confusing the audience this much did not work well for Orson Welles at the time and caused many people to leave the theaters after this scene. Today, the importance and value of this scene, which took Welles 3 struggling days to shoot, is considered the work of a great genius.
Citizen Kane – Revived Photo:
Of course, the great ideas Welles used for his film were not limited to this. He had a meager budget and was already vilified by the press. Therefore, it was impossible to recruit the necessary number of extras for the rally speech of the main character, who was running for governor. But the character needed to speak to a very large audience. So Welles once again came up with an ingenious idea. Instead of placing hundreds of people in a big hall and shooting a scene, he had a drawing of a large hall with hundreds of people in it. He placed these pictures at the perfect angles around the camera, giving the audience the impression that they were watching a view of a large hall. However, there was a problem; No one was moving in the hall. How could a drawing be shown as if it were alive? Welles’ ingenuity solved this problem as well. He punched many tiny holes in the picture with the help of a needle and continuously moved a flashlight behind these holes during the recording. With this illusion, the people in the hall had become alive, moving people. Welles used the pictures for the rest of the movie to bring certain locations to the screen.
Citizen Kane – Governor’s Election Speech:
In addition, Orson Welles’s character Kane grows older as the movie goes by. The aging make-up that was applied to Welles to make him look older was extremely successful for its time.
Of course, as a member of an audience living in 2022, it may be difficult for us to be impressed by what we see in Citizen Kane. However, if we watch the movie and imagine that we are in 1941, in a world without computers, television, and visual effects, we can understand how much the movie is beyond its time. Thanks to these reasons and many more, Citizen Kane is seen as one of the best feature films of all time.
References and Future Readings
AFI Catalog of Feature Films. AFI. (n.d.). Retrieved October 14, 2022, from https://catalog.afi.com/Film/27624-Citizen-Kane
Pasch, T. (2022, May 4). Why citizen Kane is considered to be the best film of All time. MovieWeb. Retrieved October 14, 2022, from https://movieweb.com/citizen-kane-is-it-the-best-film/#:~:text=Of%20course%2C%20Citizen%20Kane%20is,best%20movie%20of%20all%20time.
The proofreading has been done by Asu Pelin Akköse and Mete Esencan.
Would you like to support us?
If you wish, you can support us by making a monthly or one-time donation via our Patreon account.
I Would Like To Support You!
For more detailed information, you can check our “Support Us!” page!
Asu Pelin Akköse
4 minute reading time
Asu Pelin Akköse
Hello everyone! My name is Asu Pelin Akkose. I am a graduate student at METU Chemistry Department. All my life, my favorite thing to do has been to read and learn. I have always thought that researching, learning and sharing knowledge is the best part of life. I am very happy to share with you the taste of learning new information through OkButWhy!
LinkedIn | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 40 | https://lfq.salisbury.edu/_issues/50_2/rosebud_and_poets_fascination_with_citizen_kane.html | en | Rosebud and Poetsâ Fascination with Citizen Kane Laurence Goldstein , Literature Film Quarterly | [
"https://lfq.salisbury.edu/images/issues/50_2_imgs/goldstein1.png"
] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | null | Rosebud and Poets’ Fascination with Citizen Kane
Laurence Goldstein (University of Michigan)
What is the most memorable single-word utterance in the history of film? That parlor game question would be as readily answered in today’s Zoom meet-ups as it did in real parlors of the latter half of the twentieth century: “Rosebud!” Orson Welles might be astonished to hear that the deathbed word and snow scenes of Citizen Kane have attracted more attention from poets than any other language or images in his oeuvre. Poets have construed the film’s structure and symbolism in ways that characterize those scenes as fertile ground for anecdotes and epiphanies. In this essay, I will focus on two such poets, Sherman Alexie and LaWanda Walters, placing their work in the context of similar poetry and literature and reflecting on their fascination with Orson Welles and with the mysterious Rosebud as a fundamental trope that can be traced to psychoanalytical texts and artistic forms.
Indeed, the beloved sled named Rosebud holds the opening and closing of the film narrative together. Some who first viewed the deathbed scene in 1941 may have been surprised that the camera’s eye focused on a dying man whose single spoken word kicks the narrative into motion rather than the ruined grandeur of Xanadu. Rosebud is not only a fragment of Kane’s memory bursting loudly into the present, but also the keyword that everyone, including the audience, goes on believing will unlock the secret of this strange place, this strange man. Viewers must have been chilled and thrilled at the impertinence of creating a character based on William Randolph Hearst, whom Welles, after all, condemned in an interview as a figure of American plutocracy, “a detestable man” (Rosenbaum 310). Two questions linger throughout the film. First, “Who is this one. / This favorite son. . .?”âtwo lines from the choral tribute by showgirls to Kane as he assumes control of an influential newspaper. Second, who or what is Rosebud?
In interviews, Welles sometimes spoke of the sound of movies being as interesting to him as their pictorial or thematic features: “I judge a scene by how it sounds. . . I think the sound is the key to what makes it right” (Estrin 50). “Makes it right” is the perfect phrase. The experience of a career on stage and his mastery of radio technology contributed to his sensitivity to auditory effects: the co-presence of words, music, and occasional significant noise in the shaping of a storyline. In the opportunities of pungent speech, Welles drew most significantly on the range of Shakespearean oratory and witty dialogue from classic novels and plays he had adapted for performance by the Mercury Theatre on the Air. Poets, of course, rely on varieties of sound to draw readers or listeners toward the wizardry of their art. Later in this essay, I will be describing the affinities of poems either productive of Citizen Kane’s oral effects or responsive to its memorable content.
British poems of the nineteenth century, especially, trained readers to listen for evocative keywords that intensify the resonance of rhythmical lines and profound meanings. In John Keats’s “Ode to a Nightingale” (1819), the final stanzas highlight one special word in a rush of emotion as the poet imagines the presence and affect of the bird’s song in previous centuries:
             Â
                The same that oft-times hath
      Charm’d magic casements, opening on the foam
         Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.
     Forlorn! The very word is like a bell
       To toll me back from thee to my sole self!
     Adieu! the fancy cannot cheat so well
       As she is fam’d to do, deceiving elf.
      Adieu! adieu! . . . (68-75)
The word “forlorn,” repeated as a chime or echo, is definitional in the sense of summarizing in a single adjective the condition of the speaker, which is the condition of all humankind as it undergoes the trials of existence and the prospect of death. The word is rendered as an appeal for life experience that is not forlorn but bountiful and, most important, timeless as the hypothetically immortal bird’s melodious and fleeting song. “Ode to a Nightingale” has the quality of auditory presence that Romantic poets cherished as essential to a poem’s exhibition of its seductive voice, its shaping creative energy, its tangible thingness.
Welles as filmmaker cautioned studio executives about the power of such poetic speech, “Obscurity in dialogue often results from a single wordâeven a single syllable,” he complained to Charles K. Feldman, an executive producer of Macbeth at RepublicStudio . He worried, for instance, about the company’s strained efforts to articulate dialogue accented in a Scottish burr, especially during the last few minutes of the film when several crucial noises threatened to obscure the significance of Macbeth’s death: the triumph of the enemy army assaulting his castle, the groans of despair from the inevitable victims, the shrieks of the witches. Constantly he had to remind the studio bosses that “in a film which is spoken in verse the words are the chief thing.” Welles was pained by substandard dialogue in any film, but the special case of the Bard was sacred, always. (Welles 214-220)
As we reflect on famous lines in Macbeth, we cannot help but feel the presence of a transfer of articulate energy from centuries of manuscript to the slow-but-sure triumph of celluloid at century’s end, specifically the astonishing presence of new forms of language and their transmission from one kind of artist to another. The visual presences of artistic painting flowed swiftly (it now seems in retrospect) toward the machinery of cinema, an artistic phenomenon that began to change the sensibility of the twentieth century and all centuries afterward. The label of “auteur” settled on many new voices before it reached Welles, but he became a key figure of transformation as he seized upon innovations in every art movement. He became the Promethean maker of new sources of pleasure and revelation. Robert Stam describes the process succinctly:
Auterurism was . . . a palimpsest of influences, combining romantic expressive notions of the artist, modernist-formalist notions of stylistic discontinuity and fragmentation, and a “proto-postmodern” fondness for “lower” arts and genres. The real scandal of the auteur theory lay not so much in glorifying the director as the equivalent in prestige to the literary author, but rather in exactly who was granted this prestige (Stam 87).
The spirit of image creation and the music of stage rhetoric advanced throughout the nineteenth century. Poets asserted their privileges as their art became more accessible in phonograph recordings and radio presentations. One can imagine that a dramatic audio reading of Keats’s plangent appeal to the nightingale inspired Edgar Allan Poe to gift the melancholy word “Nevermore” to his bird of ill omen in “The Raven.” Through the agency of the intrusive bird, the forlorn speaker has been sent a message that his beloved Lenore can never haunt his reveries again. As with Keats’s ode, the repeated word resonates in a manner entirely provocative and unforgettable. The speaker declaims the poem aloud to invisible listeners, drawing their attention to his profound “sorrow for the lost Lenore” and his isolation among “fantastic terrors” taking him “Deep into that darkness” of his burrow-like chamber. (10, 14, 30) Â
By general agreement, however, the dactylic “Nevermore” was rendered unrepeatable in poetry by the shrill melodrama in which Poe encased it. The word’s renown has generated abundant laughter along with its pathos. Numerous cartoons found in a Google images search of “New Yorker cartoons Poe nevermore” are among other responsive artworks that render the word ridiculous, in the same way that James Thurber undermined the effect of Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem “Excelsior,” which features the constant repetition of that word in a series of stanzas.
The frequent repetition of words and phrases in a poem or film is often a signal of psychological conditions tending toward the neurotic. If a poet, or a filmmaker, wants to characterize a speaker as nostalgic for lost happiness, the most effective device will be the creation of a blunt obsession in which the customary freedom of speech is restricted through repeated conceits that bind the speaker to traditional images of loss. Mutlu Konuk Blasing has provided an illustration of this habit in a three-chapter presentation of poems that lock language into repetitive designs: Poe’s “The Raven,” T. S. Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock,” and Sylvia Plath’s “Daddy.” The closure of each poem heightens the shrill intensity of dramatic phrases that hold the speaker in chains. “Daddy. . .Daddy, you bastard, I’m through” looks back to “I grow old. . .I grow old” and both have the metrical/musical tone of “Quoth the raven, ‘Nevermore.’” (Blasing 17-63 ). All three of these poems document a failure to recapture a ruined joy.
And that is the dramatic structure, Welles and co-screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz adapted to the screen by the deployment of their uncommon word. Both image and word demand a narrative to transcend their stark presence in the opening scene. Garrett Stewart has pinpointed the most memorable connection that distinguished Welles’s intentions: using anamorphic distortion and eerie music as the spectator watches a moral parable being shaped by the imagery of snow falling over the elderly Kane’s mouth as he utters the word Rosebud. The conjunction of music, word, and visual scene communicates a visceral sensation to the viewer: “the chill of death” (Stewart). Nobody else is in the room when this word is uttered, not even the nurse and butler who enter seconds later. The enigma of the fugitive word demands that its identity be unmasked, like the identity of Kane, who now becomes the plaything of the world’s press, as the sled, a toy really, became Kane’s most fascinating ornament.
Welles the director divides the cohort of reporters from the Yellow Press into separate camps. The newspaper’s staff editor matches the simplicity of the strange word with the difficult task of explaining Kane’s complicated life. This core of questers assumes throughout the film that Rosebud refers to a woman in a kind of conundrum that filmgoers have been trained to consume rapidly as the narrative proceeds. A cultish, signifying word transforms the plot structure into an engine of detection and discovery. Robert L. Carringer notes that in the pre-Kane years in Hollywood, working up a script for a film never consummated, The Smiler with a Knife, Welles and Mankiewicz “came up with an ingeniously simple plot deviceâa mysterious deathbed utterance that is presumed to be the key to everything. Rosebud is a rather shameless piece of melodramatic gimmickry but it is arguably a more effective device than Welles’s original idea of making the object of mystery something literary, such as a line from a Romantic poem” (Carringer 19). Carringer’s dismissive attitude belies the staying power of a word of universal recognition, one that has entered common usage ranging from crossword puzzles to poetic utterances. But at the same time his well-taken exception to its “melodramatic” tone does give us pause to consider what other strange word or line(s) Welles might have selected, and from what source.
In a discussion of Touch of Evil, James Naremore suggests how Welles may have consciously indulged in this habit of presenting a poetic location and tarted-up dialogue in order to enhance audience attention toward the concluding scene showcasing Welles as a border sheriff and Marlene Dietrich as a madam who runs the bordello in Rancho Grande:
A good many viewers are likely to dismiss her entirely as a simpleminded gimmick more patent than Kane’s sled, like the glass toy Kane grasps in his dying moments, Tanya’s house of sin is a self-enclosed realm reminiscent of the past. . . Quinlan’s visits there are a pathetic attempt to return to pre-adolescence, a stage in life that Welles’s heroes seem unable to transcend, and as always this stage is associated with a pre-industrial past, when things were not so degraded.(Naremore 182)
Naremore makes a connection of Rosebud with a sea-shell in The Immortal Story: “The symbolic meaning of the object is also reminiscent of Welles’s first film; it suggests an ideal realmâglobed, compacted, and pureâwhich in this case gives the listener an intimation of immortal beauty.” (Naremore 29 ).
Such haunted fictions draw together both small “r” romance and upper-case “R” Romanticism, just as they draw together poetry and film in borrowings or exchanges of mutual benefit to the two media. Readers of classic and modern poetry are likely to identify numerous poems that treat things with the piety and symbolic resonance that Welles expresses toward seemingly ordinary objects. Welles and Mankiewicz would have had no trouble locating an abundance of poems to add to the glamour of the burial chapel at Xanadu, which features a verse inscription from 1001 Nights--“The drunkenness of youth has passed like a fever”-- as they designed the timeframe and plot dynamics of their melodramatic film. The Oedipal foundation that links the child Kane with the adult Welles remains. Charles Kane received a fortune at the age of eight thanks to fierce mother love; as the saying goes, the rest is history, or at least a version of history reflected in a snow globe that tumbles from a dying man’s hand.
The word Rosebud did not escape mockery and complaint, but Welles and Mankiewicz foiled all satirists by letting not just the hardboiled newspaper reporters but others in the cast of characters make fun of it in the course of the narrative. The word is a titillating mystery that requires, but finally withholds, the solution of a dignified closure. Even after multiple viewingsâand most cinéastes have scrutinized the relevant scenes dozens of timesâthe magic of that word retains a rewarding ambiguity. As the characters remind us throughout the film, the word can mean everything or nothing. It is a sign of language’s absolute presence and of its baffling elusiveness. It is a figure of the Romantic Agony, like Keats’s “elf” (the never visible nightingale), and Poe’s beloved Lenore, “Nameless here for evermore.” In many poems a single note becomes the inner human voice of dispossession; often poets have used it as the focus of poems burdened or enchanted by its singularity and celebrity. A common observation by critics about the haunted word is that it forms the essential piece in the jigsaw puzzle of Kane’s unconscious, externalized by his wife Susan’s hours on the floor of Xanadu compulsively manipulating fragments of puzzles into coherent form.
Pauline Kael, in her long essay “Raising Kane” (1971), argued that “the mystery in Citizen Kane is largely fake, and the Gothic-thriller atmosphere and the Rosebud gimmickry (though fun) are such obvious penny-dreadful popular theatrics that they’re not so very different from the fake mysteries that Hearst’s American Weekly used to whip upâthe haunted castles and the curses fulfilled” (5). In her reviews for the New Yorker, Kael notoriously swung between populist and elitist taste, praising one side or the other to persuade readers that her judgments were tolerant of different styles and genres. Her jocular denigration of the single-word key that unlocks the psyche of a complex character like Kane surprised readers who had seen her on numerous occasions applaud plot mechanisms far creakier. One might as soon criticize Shakespeare for exploiting the exhausted device of a lost handkerchief in Othello or the obsessive use of the word “blood” (109 times) in Macbeth. Poems and films often rely on repeated keywords to open up legitimate mysteries of human obsession, making the single word a dramatic crux, more often than not, a centering device or complicated nest of meanings articulated with economy and ingenuity. The oft repeated word “Freedom” in Braveheart, for instance, sets a tone for heroic deeds, and “Bueller” in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off focuses the narrative on Ferris’s madcap antics.
The issue of keywords rises again when we watch the opening minutes of Citizen Kane and notice how swiftly the raucous voiceover of the News on the March episode proceeds. First, there is the quotation from Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s mystical, faux-historical poem “Kubla Khan” scripted across the screen as a reference point for Kane’s world of luxury in Florida: “In Xanadu did Kubla Khan / A stately pleasure dome decree” (see Figure 1). The thematic rhyme of Kane and Khan underscores not only the splendor of Kane’s mansion and florid grounds but the identificationâno doubt resting on Kane’s lifelong bragging comparisonsâof the two named characters as types of the superman. The voiceover repeats the motif when shots of the great man’s funeral appear in the documentary tribute; he is called “America’s Kubla Khan,” a luxury-loving tyrant presiding over a magnificent kingdom much visited and admired by wealthy society.
More than this, the presence of the opening lines of Coleridge’s poem blazoned across the screen bestows one form at least of Kane’s supposed stature as a magus who integrates the splendor of history with the vulgar appeal of the present. He owns the “biggest private zoo since Pharaoh,” and that’s something remarkable. Implied throughout the opening passages, and the brief newsreel as a whole, is a commentary on Kane’s wishful connection to an exalted past. The Romantic Movement produced many poems expressive of historical spectacle not only in Wordsworth and Coleridge’s joint publication Lyrical Ballads, but as long-form autobiographical, sociological and philosophical commentaries, especially in mystical poems like Shelley’s Hellas [“The World’s Great Age Begins Anew”], Byron’s Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, and William Blake’s Jerusalem, all designed to create a new form of thinking and feeling in genre poems tagged ever after as “Dark Romanticism.”
What literary works appeared in Welles’s early life to explain and sustain the glamour of confessedly extravagant gestures? Aldous Huxley’s novel After Many a Summer Dies the Swan (1939) lampoons the Gothic atmosphere popular in Romantic literature at least since Horace Walpole’s seminal text of 1764, The Castle of Otranto. (And of course, still a thriving motif in new novels, poems, and films.) When the first guests of the novel’s host appear, the tone presents playful intimations of menace and bad taste:
On the summit of the bluff and as though growing out of it in a kind of stony efflorescence, stood a castle. But what a castle! ...The thing was Gothic, medieval, baronialâdoubly baronial, with a Gothicity raised, so to speak, to a higher power, more medieval than any building in the thirteenth century. . . but out of pure fun and wantonness. ... Jeremy was startled into speech. “What on earth is that?” he asked, pointing to the nightmare on the hilltop. (Huxley 18-19)
Welles spoke nostalgically of Coleridge’s nomenclature in a late interview in the 1982 Christmas issue of the French version of Vogue where he discussed his happy years with his first wife Virginia Nicolson in New York City. They rented a duplex on the edge of the Upper East Side and named it Xanadu, expressing the same aspiration to domestic gigantism and career success as Kane did in Florida. (Welles and Virginia divorced early, as did Kane and his young wife Emily Monroe Norton.)
Citizen Kane artfully adapts the melodramatic shape of surly moods, taunting dialogue, and sordid events, both in the film’s narrative and its frequently dark atmosphere. The keyword Rosebud is an apparition borrowed from the lexicon of the past, including the classical, medieval, and Romantic past, just as the sled is a signifying image of an exuberant but abruptly terminated childhood. Moreover, the snow is apparitional, “magical” and “poetic.” Moviegoers ever after joined the reporters’ quest for the two-hour-plus secret behind the mysterious single word, all of them (us) Marco Polo figures in search of the historical despot Kublai Khan and his glorious residence, Shangdu.    Â
Exhibit A of the recurrence of a keyword as effective device in Welles’s signature film can be seen in a few lines from Sherman Alexie’s poem “Citizen Kane”where the poet breaks each stanza with the resonant word, Rosebud.
           Rosebud
Listen: when the sun falls
           audibly on the reservation
           each of us chooses the word
           that determines our dreams:
whiskey       salmon       absence. (17-22)
The poem first appeared in The Kenyon Review and afterward reprinted in his volume of 1993, Old Shirts & New Skins. Alexie draws upon unique literary and cultural traditions growing up as a member of the Spokane Indian Reservation in Wellpinit, Washington. We are far from the rhyming sestets of “The Raven,” those shaped six-line stanzas in which the terminal chime of the mournful o sound--“nothing more,” “chamber door,” “Lenore,” “Nevermore”--saturates the poem’s already manic script, like the chiming in Poe’s other onomatopoetic performance, “The Bells.” Simplified language and minimalist stanza form in Alexie’s poem critiques the lushness of Romantic practice, representing as they do a glamorous excess of speech belonging to a haunted culture available only serendipitously to the twenty-first century reader.
Alexie’s lines change the reader’s perspective on the presence of “the word” in our shared word-hoard. “The word” is essentialized; it is what we take into our mouth and swallow whole, and also what arises from our heart and stomach and moves outward as speech, “past the throat and teeth.” For Alexie and the reader, any remarkable poem must be a showcase for fresh rhetoric. It must feature the voice of the unconscious. It must be savored slowly word by palpable word. At the center of poetic speech, one word may be delegated to link sentiments and opinions in often ambiguous conjunctions. The word Rosebud mystifies readers because it remains throughout Alexie’s sermon a teasing abstraction, a gimmick or red herring or MacGuffin, as puzzling as the line “The word within a word, unable to speak a word” in T. S. Eliot’s “Gerontion.” (18) For Eliot the word word is a symbol of our hope of a redeemed world, of heaven on earth. We recognize that Alexie, like Eliot, is gesturing toward the Word, the healing and loving figure imagined as the bride in the Hebrew Scriptures’ Song of Solomon and in the Christian Scriptures as Jesus. He is “The Rose of the World” and “The Rose upon the Rood of Time” familiar to readers of mystical poetry if only by way of W. B Yeats’s seminal volume of neo-Romantic lyrics, The Rose (1893).
David Thomson identifies Rosebud as a “talismanic concept” in his biography of Welles. Laura Mulvey uses the term “fetish” to characterize both the sled and the word Rosebud in her essay on Citizen Kane in Fetishism and Curiosity:
The sled. . .functions as lost object and as screen memory. Buried in the snow, it is both hidden and preserved, perfectly in keeping with Freud’s picture of memory within the unconscious. It is displaced, within Kane’s psyche and the spectator’s interpretation, onto the little glass paperweight which contains a log cabin and snow scene, and which activates the memory of his first loss at the moment of his last. (Mulvey, Fetishism)
Alexie’s poem does not adapt a Freudian structure of symbology or deep memory, but it certainly places words of visceral meaning within an oral tradition of poetry reserved and held sacred for Indians. Any word suggestive of exploitation and colonialism belongs in the lexicon he creates to endow more resonance upon the words he isolates by italics and by the process of language he deploys to reveal more vivid life in the social and sexual relations of his family and tribe. Superficially straightforward, Alexie’s poems, too, require what Laura Mulvey calls “the decipherment of unconscious meanings” in his challenging texts. (Citizen 16)
Among other virtues Citizen Kane tests the tension between the cinematic image and the voice of its central character. Kane’s speaking voice takes many forms in the course of the narrative, beginning with the amplified, throbbing, ghostly voice on the verge of the grave that poses the locution “Rosebud,” which every person in the film seeks to interpret and identify. Michel Chion argues in The Voice in Cinema for the power of “vococentrism” in film. The spoken word, he asserts, is not merely the means to carry narrative forward but “It’s rather the privilege accorded to the voice over all other sonic elements.” (6) Here again, the act of cinema presents a derivation from poetry which employs versification techniques that complicate otherwise banal or random assembly of syllables. Background voices and overlapping dialogue present welcome challenges to the attentive listener, providing cues for emotion just like foregrounded speeches clear as a bell. Sound effects are the screams and sighs that mimic and distort the voice we cherish in distinguished verse.
Even the unexpected cessation of sound can haunt the filmgoer. “Yet if Citizen Kane is figuratively and literally about one’s last word, it is also about the sound of that word and all the noise and silence that frame the sonic eventâthe preverberation and reverberation which holds that utterance center stage in the film’s narratological auditorium,” Philip Brophy explains in “Citizen Kane: The Sound of the Look of a ‘Visual Masterpiece” (2).  Indeed, silence creates its own impact as when Kane threatens his rival for election as governor, Boss Jim W. Gettys, by yelling from the landing of a staircase Gettys is descending after exposing Kane’s adultery: “Sing Sing, Sing Sing, Gettys, Sing _____.” The final iteration of the second word of that maximum-security prison is abruptly silenced by the noisy slamming of a door, followed by the beep of a comical car horn from the street. The sound of the door does not enhance the drama, but the unheard word, the closing “Sing,” resonates in the viewer’s sensorium as one more trope for confinement and failed conjugal sympathies--the foul underside of Xanadu.
Rosebud is a word that everyone recognizes. For centuries it was understood as, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (Shorter) entry, “the bud or unopened flower of a rose; fig. a thing likened to this, esp. for its beauty, delicateness, or pale red or pink color.” A second definition calls it “a term of endearment for a pretty young woman. A debutante.” It is a challenging stretch to insist on a doctrinal connection between a boy’s sled, even one with the decal of a rose on it, with the standard usage above. Probably the most famous use of the word in English or American literature is Robert Herrick’s anthology favorite, “To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time” (1648). The preacher-poet’s advice to his flock of fair maids (and, presumably, lads) is “Gather ye rosebuds, while ye may.” (1) “To the Virgins” is customarily read and taught, along with Andrew Marvell’s character poem “To His Coy Mistress” (1681), as major texts of the carpe diem tradition, in which young auditors are urged to seize the day and enjoy sex before Father Time disables and discontinues their desires. Some readers, myself included, have sensed some gender confusion in the seventeenth century idiom that is seemingly a call to maidens to “gather” or pluck the blossom of sexual pleasure of other maidens, rather than an urgent case for marriage and reproduction in one’s tender years. Herrick may have carried a memory of Sappho (by way of Ben Jonson) from the Mediterranean past; credit belongs as well to the feminist turn in later centuries that makes a reading of the poem as a reference to lesbian sexuality viable. Gertrude Stein made sure that readers would warm to the bravura style when she wrote “Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose” in her poem “Sacred Emily” (1922) (315). Is this misnomer a proleptic insert of Susan Alexander’s siren spell upon the unhappily married Charles Foster Kane? A metaphor of the sexual misfortune cast upon Kane that leads to the plot’s catastrophe(s)?Â
Welles often remarked that Herman J. Mankiewicz had proposed giving the sled that name simply as an insider joke. William Randolph Hearst, according to rumor, used the term for the intimate bodily part of his mistress, the film actress Marion Davies. Welles stated in an interview, “I was very lucky to work with Mankiewicz: everything concerning Rosebud belongs to him.” (Sarris 555) If this is true, the screenwriters’ antic chutzpah in nominating the word for the satisfaction of joyful physical ecstasy hangs over the retrospective narrative like a bomb awaiting its moment of explosion. That moment would be the climactic scene of the film when flames dissolve the sled in the furnace below Xanadu’s sumptuous parlors. In interviews later in life Welles felt sheepish about all the attention given to the word Rosebud (as in this essay!). “Rosebud remained [in the film],” he confessed to Peter Bogdanovich, “because it was the only way we could find to get off, as they used to say in vaudeville. It manages to work, but I’m still not too keen about it, and I don’t think that he was, either. The whole shtick is the sort of thing that can finally date, in some funny way.” (Rosenbaum 53)
In her poem “‘Rosebud,’ He Whispered,” LaWanda Walters may be channeling Freud or perhaps historical literature when she announces that “Rosebud, of course, was her clitoris” (1). Her sensational opening line exploits the rumor passed along by Mankiewicz to Welles and Welles to choice groups of listeners: (“Clitoris” is a word as rare in the poetic tradition as it is in everyday conversation). The boy Kane is depicted, at the end of the poem, enacting a type of sexual deflowering in his passionate, phallic thrust of the sled over the snow, matching the later “momentum and velocity” (21) of his forward movement as an adult into the sexualized milieu of an antagonistic and often rapacious society. The painted or stenciled rose partakes of the same ambiguity as in the Herrick poem. It is both the object of lust, upon which the small boy sits or lies prone as he pushes himself forward, and the subject of “transport” as we see it in the film, from the cabin window, displayed in the boy’s ecstatic joy in being partnered by the rose in his aggressive masculine careening through natural space, a scene suggestive of pre-adolescent erotic passion.
The rose is presumably factory-applied as a favored cultural icon, a decal signifying the pleasure of every child, male or female, who indulges in the abandonment of play. That the adult Kane cannot exorcise from his memory this profane ecstasy but is fated to keep sliding on that “tragic arc” that brings his sled, and his empire, into the consuming fire, is the central preoccupation of poem and film alike. Welles is fated to repeat this very same trajectory in his career, as illustrated in Walters’s punning poem when she writes of the aged thespian’s descent into “acting / in a commercial for Paul Masson rosé wine.” (28-29) Walters settles on the standard elegiac sentiment about this formulaic fall from Eden by the great artist, as a caution to the reader, and to herself, about the power of what Herrick called “Old Time” in its swift flight onward and downward through the life cycle.
Walters too is a blossom who takes to heart the carpe diem wisdom of the ages, reenacted for her in the treasure-and-trash cycle of life in the consumer society of modern America. If “Rosebud” is both “clitoris” and “little red tongue” and the signature motive of every body in every nation, then it’s needful to remind readers of the home truths Walters articulates about a character whose private life (especially with his marriage to Rita Hayworth) made him for a while the envy of every male of whatever age.
LaWanda Walters’s determination to make her poem an entertainment with a moral punch is consistent with the aims of both Hollywood and the muses of high art since the classical period. Â She resolves the question of Welles’s choice of the word by linking it to an unforgettable image from the movie:Â
          Â
So how could the great director resist
           such a trite and famous Â
           endearment, its multifold and useful
           associations and democratic
           thrust, the innocent little rose imprint
           an American kid could could sit on to ride down
           a slope of snow. . .” (8-14)
Such an ekphrastic mode depends for its full effect on imitation of classic texts and graphic artwork, and this approach was accelerated by the popular art of movies, anatomized by Vachel Lindsay in The Art of the Moving Picture (1915) and Gilbert Seldes in The Seven Lively Arts (1923), both of which emphasize the prolific borrowing of techniques and themes by all the media. In his great novel of 1947, Doctor Faustus, Thomas Mann has his main character Adrian Leverkühn lament as he begins his vocation, “Why does almost everything seem to me like its own parody? Why must I think that almost all, no all, the methods and conventions of art today are good for parody only?” (Mann) Neither Alexie nor Walters is submitting Citizen Kane to parody, in the strict sense. But both authors have reused the word Rosebud to apply such “methods and conventions” as Mann describes to Welles’s film, as well as to the trajectory of the director’s career, in order to build upon the Babel-like structure of imitation, irony, and parody that constitutes performance in modern and postmodern poetry as well as cinema.
Walters’ pleasure in locating “le mot juste” in the spectator’s amused, erotic response to the body part that could not be named in polite society or commercial film proceeds from her sympathy with the thwarted child who enacts the fate of pleasure. She philosophizes at a distance about the irresistible topic that will occupy the boy’s future. The original script for the film specifies that the boy is around five years old, a long way from puberty. (Later estimates insist that the boy must be at least eight years old.) The object-love that Freud related to narcissism moves to the foreground in Citizen Kane, as the libido of the film’s main character naturally gravitates toward sexual objects (beautiful women) and the pleasures of collecting desirable antiques and art objects in order to enhance his self-regard and social status as a plutocrat and connoisseur.
Sherman Alexie remarks in an interview: “I’m a fanboy, across all genres, from the most mainstream pop culture writers to the most obscure literary theorists” (Peterson). Here, too, Welles serves as a model, capable of the most exalted theatrical performances all the way down to roles that exploited his negatives: his girth, his orotund speech and uncertain movements, his willingness to act “out of character” not only in commercials for wine but in vehicles like Ferry to Hong Kong (1959), The V.I.P.s (1963), I’ll Never Forget What’s ‘Is Name (1967), and Get to Know Your Rabbit (1972). LaWanda Walters deplores “the director’s career / careening downward” (22-23) like a runaway snowball but commentators have found some of Welles’s late work, often a two-person conversation about art composed for television like the superficially frivolous F for Fake, faithful to the complex demands of linguistic and visual expression.
And even more compelling is Welles’s late film, The Immortal Story, which draws together the dominant themes of his major work, those of sexual desire, aging, the wandering searcher’s passion for some prize object of human desire. Joseph McBride has written a persuasive account of this brief (“scarcely an hour long”) parable of a surrogate sexual performance underwritten by an old man, Mr. Clay. The aged and wealthy donor enables a young sailor to spend a night of love with Clay’s young wife and impregnate her for the sake of the future. The characters disperse the next morning, with hidden feelings. McBride links a mysterious shell, another “lost object,” that Clay gives to the young man as a profound symbol of the mystery of life:
The Immortal Story approaches legend from the inside out. It is centripetalâKane           in negative. But because the making of legend is itself a subjective process, its meaning determined in the mind of its beholder, The Immortal Story seems to me to        strike into the heart of the matter. . . This is Welles’s Tempest. (McBride)
Shakespeare’s last comedy, The Tempest, depends for its comedic tone on the powerful sexual attraction of the young lovers Ferdinand and Miranda. Royalty themselves, they will reap the crowning pleasures of lust in due time, as social and political forces guide their destiny. Likewise, in Welles’s late film The Other Side of the Wind (released in 2018) the complications of sexual passion interpenetrate the negotiations by actors, directors, and the crew of workers who gather to construct a viable feature film.Â
Some poets and critics cannot restrain themselves from taking one step back and contrasting the beginning of a great career via the Citizen Kane masterwork with Welles’s supposed descent in later decades into the degradation of minor roles in stupid studio movies and product advertisements on television. Welles himself proclaimed in more than one interview, “I had luck as none had; afterwards, I had the worst bad luck in the history of the cinema.” But even in the bad luck times he never lost his audience of prominent scholars, talented poets, and alert, sensitive filmgoers of various ages. Alexie’s and Walters’ poems are examples, for better and worse, of what poems about Orson Welles look and sound like. While Alexie uses the keyword as a refrain between stanzas to give pause for melancholy and longing, Walters has chosen to secure the reader’s full attention to the keyword in her opening phraseâ“Rosebud, of course”âbringing the poem to an elegiac closure at the terminus of the symbolic ride where the sled Rosebud “takes you, headlong, where it will.” Others have invoked the keyword including acclaimed poet Adrienne Rich in “Amnesia” where she invites the reader to supply the name of the abandoned toy in the snow scene by referring simply to the pathos of “. . . . the something that gets left behind.” (Rich) New versification of such intense nostalgia will certainly follow as further evidence of the persistence of fascinating characters and language in Welles’ imagination, all in the mingled voices of poetry. | ||||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 49 | https://rpubs.com/naren_10/DC_Group_Assignment_2 | en | IMDB Top 250 | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | 2016-10-22T11:35:23+00:00 | null | |||||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 6 | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/faq/ | en | Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://fls-na.amazon.com/1/batch/1/OP/A1EVAM02EL8SFB:140-1813422-8159962:1G3YATD84G72F9X0G18X$uedata=s:%2Fuedata%2Fuedata%3Fstaticb%26id%3D1G3YATD84G72F9X0G18X:0",
"https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZDgyOWIwYTYtOTJmZi00NTFmLWFhYzYtNWE0Y2ZmYTBjYzRlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTYzMDM0NTU@._V1_QL75_UY133_CR2,0,90,133_.j... | [] | [] | [
"Frequently Asked Questions"
] | null | [] | null | Citizen Kane (1941) - Top questions and answers about Citizen Kane (1941) | en | IMDb | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/faq/ | Susan suggests that Thompson talk with Kane's butler Raymond (Paul Stewart) ("He knows where all the bodies are buried"), but all Raymond can tell him is that he was in the room when Kane died holding the snowglobe and uttering "rosebud." Later, as all the reporters gather at Xanadu in the big entry hall where the packing crates and statues are being taken prior to sale, Thompson admits to the other reporters that he never found out what "rosebud" meant, adding that it doesn't matter. "I don't think it explains anything. I don't think any word explains a man's life," he says. "Rosebud is just a piece in a jigsaw puzzle...a missing piece." The camera then pans across the piles and piles of items that Kane collected, finally resting on the sled he was playing with just before his mother turned him over to Walter Thatcher (George Coulouris) to raise. A worker picks up the sled and tosses it into a furnace along with other junk they are burning up. Across the top of the sled, the word "Rosebud" is clearly visible. As the flames consume the sled, the scene shifts to an exterior shot of Xanadu where smoke can be seen billowing out of the massive chimney. In the final scene, the camera pans out past the chain-link fence with the "No trespassing" sign on it.
Citizen Kane won a reputation as the greatest film ever made when it topped the 1962 Sight and Sound poll. It held the top spot for 50 years until it fell to second behind Vertigo: Aus dem Reich der Toten (1958). The film is commonly praised for its intricate plot, filled with flashbacks that shuffle the chronology of Kane's life, its extraordinary performances, its marvelous technical stunts, and its deep-focus photography. Few if any of the technical effects are entirely original to Kane, but Orson Welles and his crew's masterly use of so many of them in one film has made Citizen Kane an influence on nearly everything that came after. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 13 | https://www.filmsinreview.com/post/on-his-birthday-why-orson-welles-citizen-kane-is-still-the-best-movie-ever-made-by-david-rosler | en | ON HIS BIRTHDAY: WHY ORSON WELLES' "CITIZEN KANE" IS STILL THE BEST MOVIE EVER MADE by David Rosler | [
"https://static.wixstatic.com/media/e43ba2_28e1b0fdf80e4784a9418e6b6b16b833~mv2.png/v1/fill/w_645,h_105,al_c,lg_1,q_85,enc_auto/e43ba2_28e1b0fdf80e4784a9418e6b6b16b833~mv2.png",
"https://static.wixstatic.com/media/9104e8_c5b004ab256844048936f8d7184c2024~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_147,h_83,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,blur... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"FIR Reviews"
] | 2021-05-06T13:17:47.617000+00:00 | The production year was 1940. The movie was released in 1941. The efficiency and artistic quality of the Hollywood RKO studio machine was at the top of its power. The Co-writer, Producer, Director and wunderkind visionary was Orson Welles, who was only 25 years old when he made the film. This seems astonishing but only out-of-context: 2 years earlier he panicked the entire nation with his terrifying simulation of a live, on-air radio broadcast of the earth being invaded by Martians. So realistic | en | Films in Review | https://www.filmsinreview.com/post/on-his-birthday-why-orson-welles-citizen-kane-is-still-the-best-movie-ever-made-by-david-rosler | The production year was 1940. The movie was released in 1941. The efficiency and artistic quality of the Hollywood RKO studio machine was at the top of its power. The Co-writer, Producer, Director and wunderkind visionary was Orson Welles, who was only 25 years old when he made the film. This seems astonishing but only out-of-context: 2 years earlier he panicked the entire nation with his terrifying simulation of a live, on-air radio broadcast of the earth being invaded by Martians. So realistic and effective was that radio Trick or Treat show for Halloween in 1938 that laws were enacted so that no one could ever do it again. And before that, Welles had conquered the New York stage with a string of hits while most New York theater producers and directors often had only one hit in their entire careers, if that.
For many years Citizen Kane was regarded as unarguably the finest American motion picture ever made, but somehow, in the last few years, there appears to be some kind of determination toward taking Kane off the top. This can be a nasty business, and when the herd mentality goes sour and nasty, as seems to be the cycle, they will eat anyone alive for the gamesmanship of the act. Rotten Tomatoes, a movie review website which averages movie reviews from up and down the spectrum, made news when it managed to dredge up an old bad review - one bad review - that took Kane off the 100% list and in some cold juggling of the numbers put a Paddington Bear movie on top of Kane. Maybe this is what happens when an outfit is a repository of over 1,000 reviewers and calculates the quality of classic motion pictures based on an average of reviewers, good and bad. It sounds like an impressive approach at first glance, but it's a nonsensical approach to movie reviewing, because, in-essence, it assumes Roger Ebert would have been equal to the hypothetical reviewer of the fictional Nebraska Post Examiner Gazette; you don't compare proven, thoughtful and insightful experts who have made motion picture analysis and assessment their entire lives with people who simply voice part-time opinions outside of their non-movie day jobs. It's absurd and damaging to the posterity of the art.
Several years ago, Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo inexplicably rose to the top in one list, overtaking Kane and again, this was reported with some kind of perplexing glee, as though this was a moment of celebration. While somewhat interesting, Vertigo is nevertheless a dreary and confused, slow-moving mess with fairly standard cinematic eye, average performances and on occasion a few embarrassingly obvious camera tricks; a movie that was mercilessly panned by critics when it came out and was low on everyone's list until it somehow shot to the top very recently. There are too many reasons for this event to nail down one, including a possible sudden societal shift from normal people talking about a sick character (Kane) and a modern audience relating to one (Vertigo). It is, of course, always in the mix that the recent tendency to try to take Citizen Kane down may simply be chalked up to the possibility that Kane is simply too good with which to compete for today's generally poor movie directors, so they put Vertigo on top so the top spot more resembles their own substandard offerings with a venerable name attached. This might be the answer for one list, because herd anxiety over competing with a genius usually leaves the genius struggling against the crush of the jealous crowd, as indeed was Welles for most of his career.
But Citizen Kane, this reviewer/filmmaker is happy to assure you, remains, in the aggregate, the finest motion picture ever created. As well it should be. You know the history and ability of the creative mind behind it all. But the entire creative ensemble of Citizen Kane was at its industry peak at that window-of-opportunity moment. The majority of the other lead and supporting actors came from Welles' own New York radio Mercury Theater who were the best of their time and trained under Welles; all were immensely talented from the start and learned well under their young genius director.
Cinematographer Gregg Toland was regarded as the finest cameraman of his day and between he and his young maverick director, re-defined how movies looked on the screen. To this day, Citizen Kane remains a foundational example of the pinnacle of the cinematographer's art.
Composer Bernard Herrmann was another young actual artistic genius who, in the late 1930's, connected with Welles on radio. Herrmann wrote his first film score when he created the music for Kane and Herrmann would go on to be regarded by most film aficionados as the finest film composer to this very day. Herrmann's brash, relentlessly American score in the upbeat moments of Kane, and his brooding low tones, with unconventional orchestral arrangements for the equally-brooding on-screen moments of Kane were entirely unique to motion pictures in 1941. Like Welles, Herrmann wanted to re-invent his medium, and Herrmann bucked everything film music had established by 1941, which up to that point was based on scores with large, rich, swelling vibrato strings mimicking the romantic styles of the Vienna concert hall, which made sense considering many of the Hollywood movie composers up to that point literally came from Vienna. Just as Welles and Toland re-defined the look of the movies, in a seeming instant young Bernard Herrmann re-defined forever how movies would sound and, more importantly, how movies would emotionally feel to the audience; an artistic conviction he would continue for the rest of his life.
The film is thick with endless magnificent visual effects to tell its grand-scale tome and the crew handling the matte paintings, scenic miniatures, rear projection and superimpositions were none other than the by-then-well-versed visual effects crew (minus Willis O'Brien's animation-specific pals) from RKO's King Kong, made in 1933, a film which astonished the world with its visual virtuosity upon its premier, just as Kane did, 8 years later, in 1941.
Indeed, even if Citizen Kane was not the greatest movie ever made, it surely would remain the greatest movie accomplishment on its union budget ever created, and in this regard, Citizen Kane is nothing short of entirely miraculous for its time. Kane, a Hollywood union film, was made for only $839,727.00. In today's numbers, when movies for TV are made for a few million, most average TV episodes are between $1 million - to - $2 million, national commercial spots cost upwards of $300,00.00 to produce, and movie budgets from major studios usually start at around $70 million, Citizen Kane, as a union film, in today's dollars would have cost an approximately astonishingly low $13, 130,700.00 ($13 million-plus), yet Kane looks like the most expensive movie of its day. And be sure, no other $800,000.00 movie from that day looked fractionally near as huge as Kane. 1940's The Grapes of Wrath and 1944's Laura, both fine movies and made for approximately the same budget each, look not remotely near the scope and nowhere near the visual artistry of Citizen Kane.
Citizen Kane is what it is not for money spent, but because it was a collaboration of artistic geniuses led by the most impressive dramatic genius of his time. The very notion that such a spectacle on a modest budget could be produced by a 25-year-old with no prior motion picture experience whatsoever, let alone producing, at a time of simple but cumbersome and expensive antique cameras, with no internet from which to learn and books all very basic, at a huge union Hollywood studio would be, without this singular example, regarded as entirely beyond the remotest possibility. It would be a total and complete fantasy. Yet Welles produced Citizen Kane as well as acted in and directed it, and in so doing, created a staggering masterpiece.
And then there is Welles' own performance as the title character. A plainly resentful Academy denied him one of the most deserved Best Actor Oscars in motion picture history. As we see Kane in different ages in his life, from brash young maverick (Welles playing himself, perhaps?) to stiff, reclusive old tyrant (very much the reverse of what Welles would become in his actual old age), Welles' performance is entirely Oscar-worthy by any standard and almost beyond comprehension for an actor directing himself for the first time in front of a camera at the impossibly tender age of 25. If nothing else, Welles' on-screen sense of genuine older-age maturity is mind-bending. Over the years, the many people who did not previously know of Welles' age when he made Kane, upon viewing Kane and being informed of Welles' age by this reviewer/filmmaker, were and continue to be universally stunned by the revelation. It just doesn't seem possible, yet there it is.
Like the movie's mystery of Rosebud, the movie itself has a mystery. Why has it endured and remained so incomprehensibly fresh and original - as so many experts have correctly noted - after not simply all these years, but after all these decades? At the risk of pointing the way for imitators who might, in lesser efforts, shave off the film's edges over time with poor imitations, I have a suggestion as to that answer; as to why Citizen Kane remains so powerful, so vibrant and fresh.
The answer may well be that never before and never after have two cinematic aesthetics collided so powerfully and masterfully on-screen. The film's complex and darkly atmospheric photographic quality; the stylized, classic compositions; the plays with distortion of light and reflection and the elegant artificiality of the old-school visual effects techniques, in other words - the powerful visual qualities - ladled heavily onto the foundation of the story, give the film an intimate and excessively dreamlike quality. Yet the story itself is a hard-bitten, razor-edged and merciless tale told on a gigantic scale. And these two diametrically-opposed dramatic aesthetics collide with amazing harmony insomuch as the story is told in flashbacks, memories - which can be much like dreams, if you will - in which Kane is recalled sometimes with sentimental affection, other times startling pathos and other times as a sinister, barbaric monster controlling the lives of all around him; the perfect stuff of dreams and nightmares, perfectly translated onto the screen. These two dramatic harmonies of story and picture being brought together by a true and mesmerizing genius discovering for the first time his sudden, passionate love for the ultimate storytelling media, leading a small army of geniuses all at the height of their skills, might well be the answer to the film's own aesthetic Rosebud; that of its seeming Fountain Of Youth. The odds of this ever happening again are a million-to-one. The odds of the styles used falling into fashion once again make it many, many millions-to-one.With odds like that, the kind that define Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, regarded by many critics as the greatest painting ever created; Shakespeare's Hamlet, regarded by most experts as the greatest play ever written; and Beethoven's 9th Symphony, which seems to be near the top of most scholars' greatest symphonies lists, it is no wonder that Citizen Kane, in the minds of most, remains the greatest movie ever made. With odds like that, and time spans like those of the other artistic examples mentioned, it is also quite possible that Citizen Kane will remain the greatest movie that ever will be made.May 6. Happy Birthday, Orson. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 11 | http://filmreviewfeast.blogspot.com/2013/07/ew-1-citizen-kane-1941.html | en | Film Review Feast: EW #1: Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjAXVZ84u5tAkGfeZm9u7VXK4CtPuAwOXMKoDb53RW-VA7ECcVvQQvY54EFlElhdJxi_ilcd1I2soMYKAm73SbTt0la-r9sAasxWfwe2zqeR8_E5OpM82Y8mdlpWwVGFMrCpEN6z-6qQQ/s400/Welles+bio+cover_crop.jpg",
"https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEijpAaC27hTeRbp3R33jv... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Carter Soles",
"View my complete profile"
] | null | Welles as depicted on the cover of Simon Callow's superb biography, Orson Welles: The Road to Xanadu * I am still in the process of ... | en | http://filmreviewfeast.blogspot.com/favicon.ico | http://filmreviewfeast.blogspot.com/2013/07/ew-1-citizen-kane-1941.html | ||||||
7501 | dbpedia | 2 | 85 | https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1993/05/13/the-lost-kingdom-of-orson-welles/ | en | The Lost Kingdom of Orson Welles | Joseph McBride | [
"https://www.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/nyrb081524.jpg?w=360",
"https://www.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/nyrb081524.jpg?w=652",
"https://www.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/1993/05/orson-welles_1993-05-13.gif",
"https://www.nybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/1993/05/1993-05-13.png?w=165",
"... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"JOSEPH MCBRIDE"
] | 1993-05-13T00:00:00 | "A certain great and powerful king once asked a poet, 'What can I give you of all that I have?' He wisely replied, 'Anything, sir…except your secret."' | en | https://www.nybooks.com/wp-content/themes/nyrb_2020/img/favicon.ico | The New York Review of Books | https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1993/05/13/the-lost-kingdom-of-orson-welles/ | “A certain great and powerful king once asked a poet, ‘What can I give you of all that I have?’ He wisely replied, ‘Anything, sir…except your secret.”‘
—Orson Welles, epigraph to Mr. Arkadin
One of Orson Welles’s best stories, though not one of his best films, Mr. Arkadin (1955) tells of an aging tycoon of mysterious origins who becomes terminally anxious that the guilty secrets of his past will come to light. He hires a venal adventurer to seek out the people who still remember the truth—and then has them systematically killed. When it becomes clear that the scheme has failed and the truth has been unmasked, Arkadin kills himself by jumping from his plane, vanishing (literally) into thin air.
Though filmed in Welles’s most grandiloquently baroque manner and studded with dazzling performances from such character actors as Akim Tamiroff, Katina Paxinou, and Michael Redgrave, Mr. Arkadin falls far short of Citizen Kane as a meditation on biography, not only because of wholesale reworking by other hands (“More completely than any other picture of mine has been hurt by anybody, Arkadin was destroyed,” Welles told his biographer Barbara Leaming), but also because of its curiously indifferent portrayals of the two central characters. Hiding behind egregiously phony beard and makeup as Gregory Arkadin, Welles seems determined to keep him as hollow and insubstantial as possible, a symbol rather than a human being, as if illustrating too literally Jorge Luis Borges’s description of Citizen Kane: “a centerless labyrinth.” Welles allows Robert Arden to play Guy Van Stratten, Arkadin’s researcher, as an utter fool, devoid of any but the most self-serving motives. Arkadin’s contempt for Van Stratten is matched by that of the director, who displays wrath at those who dare to reveal the darkest secrets of others, even if they’ve been invited to do so. The emotional “No Trespassing” sign Welles erected in Arkadin helps to explain why he was so skittish about having his own life probed by interviewers, and why he never managed to write a full-fledged autobiography.
Nearly twenty-five years ago, Peter Bogdanovich, then a young film journalist and budding director with one undeservedly obscure B-movie (Targets) to his name, was invited by Welles to interview him for “a nice little book” intended to “set the record straight” about his life and work. It was a chance to explore and understand the mysteries of a film maker long absent from the American scene, a man whose life had become as quasimythical as those of his protagonists. But Bogdanovich found that the unexpectedly lengthy and contentious process took on unsettling resemblances to Mr. Arkadin: “There were times when I seemed to play a variation of Van Stratten to Welles’ personal version of Arkadin, because during our talks (on or off the record), he would get particularly agitated and annoyed about connections made between his work and his own life.” Their fragmentary but fascinating interviews, edited by Jonathan Rosenbaum and now belatedly (very belatedly) published as This Is Orson Welles, follow the jigsaw-puzzle method that Welles favored in approaching the mysteries of a great man’s life, but they reveal as much about Welles’s stubborn resistance to the autobiographical impulse as they do about the man and his films.
During the seven years in which these interviews were conducted and in the remaining years of his life, Welles was seen by the public mostly in embarrassingly silly television appearances, trading quips with Johnny Carson, clowning with Dean Martin, doing magic tricks for Merv Griffin, and serving as a commercial pitchman who vowed to “sell no wine before its time.” Even as his youthful triumph with Citizen Kane became the subject of increasing reverence, the living Orson Welles became a national mockery: the butt of Carson’s fat jokes and, even more damagingly, the object of condescension from those who felt that he was “wasting his talent.”
Made with virtually unprecedented artistic freedom when Welles was only twenty-five, Kane became both his glory and his curse: everything after it couldn’t help seeming like an anticlimax, no matter what else he achieved. In retrospect, all of Welles’s later problems could be traced back to their roots in that too-early success, the unrealistic expectations it raised, and the virulent reaction against it by Hearst and Hollywood. Kane barely escaped being burned to placate the powerful publisher who served as the partial model for its central character, and though the film was a critical sensation, RKO had trouble finding theaters willing to play it. “Nobody would book it—they were scared,” Welles recalled.
Welles’s second feature, his adaptation of Booth Tarkington’s The Magnificent Ambersons, might have surpassed the artistic achievement of Kane if it had not been mutilated by the panicky and increasingly hostile studio following a disastrous preview in Pomona. This Midwestern equivalent of Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard—a somber tale of a city that “befouled itself and darkened its sky” with the coming of the automobile—had the misfortune to be released when audiences were flocking to sunny fare as an escape from the dark headlines of World War II. After being cut by forty-three minutes and partially reshot, Ambersons was dumped onto the market on a double bill with the Lupe Velez comedy Mexican Spitfire Sees a Ghost, and was pulled from distribution hastily despite promising box-office results in several key cities. Bogdanovich has described its cutting as “the greatest artistic tragedy in the movies,” and Welles lamented, “They destroyed Ambersons, and the picture itself destroyed me.”
Advertisement
Welles was recalled from South America, where he was in the midst of shooting a goodwill documentary for RKO and the US government, It’s All True. With that film forcibly taken from him and abandoned, he was stripped of his studio contract and sent on the road for a lifetime as what he called “a migratory worker. I go where the jobs are, like a cherry picker…. I had luck as no one had. Afterwards, I had the worst bad luck in the history of the cinema, but that is in the order of things: I had to pay for having had the best luck in the history of the cinema.”
The major achievements with which Welles followed Kane and Ambersons also tended to fall into the category of film maudit—whether because of bizarre filming difficulties (Othello, recently “restored” in a crisp new print but with its music and dialogue altered in ways that would have appalled the director); reworking and contemptuous burial by the front office (Touch of Evil, which can be seen in a longer version containing more of Welles’s footage as well as more scenes interpolated by a studio hack director); or because of repeated attacks by the New York Times’s reviewer Bosley Crowther, who almost singlehandedly scared off US exhibitors (Chimes at Midnight, which the philistine pundit called “a confusing patchwork of scenes and characters” with a “fuzzy and incomprehensible” soundtrack).
Chimes at Midnight (1966) is based on Shakespeare’s cycle of plays about King Henry IV, Prince Hal (later Henry V), and Hal’s corpulent boon companion, Sir John Falstaff, whom Welles called “one of the only great characters in all dramatic literature who is essentially good.” Anticipating his own end, Falstaff tells Ha! with urgent warmth, “[B]anish plump Jack, and banish all the world!” I’ve always felt that line—indeed, Welles’s whole glorious performance as Falstaff—was Welles’s own passionate rebuff to those who used his girth to belittle him. Not only was Falstaff a character Welles was born to play, but Chimes was a film he had spent much of his life preparing to direct. He first played Falstaff when he was a boy, at the Todd School in Woodstock, Illinois; at the age of twenty-three, he played the role again in his 1939 Theatre Guild/Mercury Theater condensation of several of Shakespeare’s history plays, Five Kings. Telescoping and editing Shakespeare further for his and Hilton Edwards’s 1960 Belfast and Dublin stage production titled Chimes at Midnight, and finally for the film version, Welles sharpened his focus on the larger-than-life figure of Falstaff and on the themes that concerned him most. He poured into the rich, melancholy story a lifetime of thoughts and feelings about such profound matters as old age and mortality, the betrayal of love and friendship, and the true meaning of honor, fatherhood, and kingly responsibility.
For all its virtuosity, and even while performing the rare feat of believably conjuring up a long-vanished world, Chimes resolutely avoids “technical surprises or shocks,” Welles said, because “everything of importance in the film should be found on the faces.” In Chimes at Midnight, as in the similarly elegiac The Magnificent Ambersons, Welles’s usually dominant camera remains the servant of his characters: for as he remarked, “There is a more personal feeling in those films, a deeper emotion.”
The first time I saw Chimes was on the last night of its three-day run in Chicago in 1967; the theater was scheduled to turn into a soft-core porno house the following day, so I sat through it three times that night, not knowing when I would ever be able to see again the film I considered (and still do) Welles’s masterpiece. I remember how the grizzled old winos who made up much of the audience reveled in Falstaff’s humor, not fazed by the Elizabethan language; if Welles’s film could please these groundlings, it could have pleased anybody, I felt at the time, but it was not to be. Welles’s last chance for popular success had passed, and his career would be increasingly marginal from that time forward, despite his valiant efforts to reclaim his reputation. What I wrote of Welles’s Falstaff in 1969 could be applied to Welles himself:
Advertisement
He has none of Kane’s guile and worldly ability, and his greatness presents itself as a monstrous jest impossible to ignore but easy to dismiss. He demands nothing but attention, and offers all of himself in return. His egocentricity, like his body, is carried past the ridiculous into the sublime, to the point of melancholia. He fears nothing but death, and reproaches Doll Tearsheet with, “Thou’lt forget me when I am gone.” It is unlikely that Welles as director or actor will achieve again so moving a scene as that of Falstaff’s expulsion. With the author’s consent we may feel superior to Kane, but we are never superior to Falstaff. He is naked before us. Chimes at Midnight is Welles’s testament.1
The only two theatrical films Welles managed to complete in the last seventeen years of his life, F for Fake (1973) and Filming “Othello” (1979), were delightful intellectual divertissements, but since they fell into the hard-to-book category of “film essays,” they barely left a trace in this country. Most of Welles’s creative energies in his later years were invested in shooting an ambitious film that hasn’t (yet) reached the screen, The Other Side of the Wind, writing scripts that never made it before the camera, and trying to raise completion money from people who feared his largely undeserved reputation as a wastrel. That reputation, I can’t help thinking, stemmed as much from his corpulence as from his track record as a director; if you’re a maverick film maker weighing close to four hundred pounds and constantly in need of money, people are going to assume (however irrationally) that you’ve been gobbling up the equivalent of a movie each year.
In fact, despite his occasional budget overruns, Welles was a remarkably economical director who invested much of his own money into his work and performed cinematic miracles with modest resources. He proudly told me he used only 180 extras for the Battle of Shrewsbury sequence in Chimes at Midnight, an overwhelming distillation of the horrors of war into a percussively edited five-minute montage, which moves from the glorious spectacle of charging knights to the ignominious agony of hand to hand combat in the muddy battleground. Welles’s entire body of work no doubt cost less than one of today’s monstrously budgeted extravaganzas. The real problem with Welles was that though he functioned in a popular art form he was not the sort of ambidextrous popular artist who, as he once said of John Huston, “can make a masterpiece or turn you out a block-buster—or both.”
In the view of the critic and biographer Charles Higham, whose books on Welles are riddled with factual errors and reductive judgments, Welles’s problems in later years all boiled down to a crippling “fear of completion.” It is a facile explanation that leaves out much in the way of historical and cultural context but nevertheless contains a germ of truth. After returning to Hollywood feature film directing for the first time in nearly a decade, hoping to exorcise the RKO experience, Welles was lastingly traumatized by Universal’s takeover of Touch of Evil (1958) and his dismissal from the final stages of cutting while the studio tried to reduce the complexity of his unorthodox style.2 He never directed another Hollywood studio film, and resisted some of the occasional offers that came his way to do so, while others he didn’t resist never came to fruition; he told me in 1971 that he had turned down a chance to make a studio film in the late Sixties because he knew he no longer could get up at six o’clock every morning. That sounds flippant, but the fact was that Welles was temperamentally unable to work on an assembly line. As a member of the ensemble cast of The Other Side of the Wind throughout its five years of production (1970–1975), I saw firsthand that he preferred to work on his own schedule, as only Chaplin before him was able to do, because Chaplin also invested his own money in his films: Welles took days off when he felt like it, to think about the next scenes or simply to nap and gather his energies—and then he’d wear out his young crews by working eighteen hours straight, day after day, night after night, until they dropped or rebelled.
Welles’s reputation for not completing films had begun with his ill-fated departure for Brazil in early 1942 to make It’s All True, leaving the post-production of Ambersons in the hands of subordinates who proved unable or unwilling to stand up to studio pressure. Although Welles unquestionably bears a large share of the responsibility for what happened in his absence, it is simplistic to blame the Ambersons debacle primarily on his self-destructive tendencies, as Robert L. Carringer does in his new book The Magnificent Ambersons: A Reconstruction (University of California Press).3 Carringer, like Higham before him, downplays the combined effect of the inhospitable wartime mood and the other powerful factors that were operating against Ambersons: Welles’s feeling of patriotic obligation to make It’s All True because of his draft-deferred status; his simultaneous conflicts with RKO over that film; a disruptive change of studio administrations; and the studio’s reneging on promises to keep him involved in the cutting of Ambersons by long distance, even though he had surrendered the right of final cut in his contract.
It’s All True, a three-part film about peasant life, had to be hastily started in time for the Rio Carnival, and experienced a myriad of production calamities on the far-flung locations, including the death of a leading cast member when a raft capsized. Welles was blamed, unfairly or not, for most of what went wrong. But RKO’s displeasure with Ambersons and with It’s All True’s sympathetic treatment of impoverished blacks also contributed to its decision to pull the plug on the offbeat film: the studio’s unit production manager, Lynn Shores, complained that Welles’s “continued exploitation of the negro [sic] and the low-class element in and around Rio” was “in very bad taste.” Welles told Bogdanovich that an RKO executive watching the Carnival rushes described the footage as “a lot of jigaboos jumping up and down.”
Hollywood always looked askance at Welles after that, occasionally tossing him an offbeat crime thriller to direct (The Stranger, The Lady from Shanghai, Touch of Evil), but greenlighting only one of his pet projects (Macbeth, filmed with panache as a Republic quickie), while giving him more frequent employment as a prematurely aged, glowering character actor. His many years in European exile after the late 1940s saw him, out of necessity, embracing what François Truffaut called “his position as an avant-garde director,” evolving a looser, even more daringly idiosyncratic style in such films as Othello, Mr. Arkadin, The Trial, and Chimes at Midnight, breaking out of studio sets into expressionistically transformed natural surroundings and relying more on elaborate sleight-of-hand montage than on the long takes he favored at RKO. While his output abroad was intermittent, his difficulties completing films did not become chronic until his later years, when old stories about his youthful misadventures scared away potential investors and the films he did start shooting often were bedeviled with financial and legal problems, some of his own making, since he was never a good businessman.
But whatever anxiety Welles undoubtedly felt about his career, no “fear of completion” or surrender to feelings of victimization stopped him from continuing to shoot film until the very day of his death, while continually pouring into his work the money he earned by making himself a figure of ridicule on TV shows, in other people’s movies, and in even more demeaning commercial appearances. He paid a high price in public derision for his tenacity in continuing to make his own mostly unseen movies: the jokes gradually became conventional journalistic wisdom.
Anyone under the illusion that Welles was slothful or creatively dormant at any time of his life should start by browsing through This Is Orson Welles’s exhaustive, and exhausting, 131-page chronology of Welles’s career, which takes the reader almost day-by-day from 1918, when the subject was three (“Makes his stage debut as walk-on in Samson and Delilah at the Chicago Opera”), to October 10, 1985, when he was seventy (“OW dies of a heart attack early in the morning at his house in Hollywood while typing stage directions for the material he plans to shoot with [his cameraman, Gary Graver] at UCLA later today”). The vast body of work listed in films, TV, theater, radio, recordings, journalism, literature, and other fields would be enough for several normal lifetimes. To Welles’s great credit, his work is so varied that it can’t be categorized, and if he had been allowed to make some of his unmade film projects, it would have been even more impossible to pigeonhole him; yet that gloriously unpredictable diversity also made his work less accessible to the mass audience, by preventing the emergence of a “typical Orson Welles movie” to compete with the typical Alfred Hitchcock, Frank Capra, or John Ford movie.
Those of us who have written about Welles have only begun to describe the full richness of his career, in part because his career still is not finished. Much of Welles’s late work was left uncompleted when he died—notably The Other Side of the Wind, his satirical meditation on film making and machismo, with John Huston playing an aging. Hemingwayesque director. Welles managed to put together only a partial rough cut of the film before he died, but he did shoot virtually all the footage he needed, aside from a few insert shots. I remember Welles once directing me to look down and turn my head slowly from right to left as I spoke my lines in one scene. “Why?” I asked. “Because you’re looking at midgets!” he bellowed. “Where are the midgets?” “I’m going to shoot them later!” He never did shoot those inserts, but I believe he meant to, because I once found 8×10 glossies of midget actors strewn around Bogdanovich’s house when we were filming there.
Like the unfinished Welles movies—which also include a thriller called The Deep and a shortened version of The Merchant of Venice, as well as his decades-in-the-works adaptation of Don Quixote4—This Is Orson Welles, based on Bogdanovich’s interviews with Welles between 1968 and 1975, has had a checkered, somewhat mysterious past. The book was put aside after Welles decided he wanted to write his memoirs first (he never wrote more than a few pages before he died), and it seemed destined to be buried, like Rosebud, in some dusty warehouse before being tossed in the fire after Welles’s death because of an unpaid storage bill. “I thought from the mid-Seventies that we’d never see it,” Bogdanovich told me recently. “It was Orson’s idea to do it, Orson’s idea how to do it, and his idea not to publish it, so I couldn’t really argue.”
For such a notorious egoist, Welles showed a surprising resistance to the confessional genre of literature, going only so far in the field of formal autobiography as to produce haunting fragments for the French Vogue’s Christmas 1982 issue. Those reminiscences of his mother and father, suffused with equal amounts of wonderment and gloom, have the tantalizing effect of a door being briefly cracked open onto the darkest recesses of Welles’s psyche, and then as quickly being closed. The seriocomic word-picture of his father, eccentric inventor and bon vivant Richard Welles, ends with a startling and mysterious coup de théâtre: Welles confesses that as a boy he was “convinced—as I am now—that I had killed my father. (I’ll try to write about this later.)”
With such a topic looming on the horizon, it’s little wonder Welles resisted the autobiographical impulse his admirers and vicissitudes of fortune might otherwise have dictated. The sheer volume of the reminiscences he gave to Barbara Leaming for her 1985 Orson Welles: A Biography—which the subject was promoting with the author in his last TV appearance on The Merv Griffin Show the night before his death—seems to have overwhelmed Leaming, who uncritically adopted his point of view throughout. Welles’s apparent generosity was, in fact, a smokescreen to keep Leaming (or a less malleable biographer) from probing more deeply. “I think there is a movie in the story of somebody who’s getting a biography written about him,” Welles told her. “I think finally the biographer comes with a pistol and shoots the subject.” Leaming’s entertaining but mostly superficial book may have been all Welles thought he owed the public, but it left the reader yearning for something more substantial.
“It somehow seems fitting that in order to piece together Orson Welles’s autobiography, we have to turn to his creative work.” Jonathan Rosenbaum notes in his afterword to the unfilmed Welles screenplay The Cradle Will Rock, scheduled for publication later this year by Santa Teresa Press, a small company in Santa Barbara, California, which brought out another unproduced script from Welles’s later years, The Big Brass Ring, in 1987.5 Similar in tone to the nostalgic reminiscences contained in F for Fake and Filming “Othello,” the Cradle script (written in 1984) gives Welles’s account of his youthful adventures in 1937 while staging Marc Blitzstein’s labor opera. A landmark theatrical event that brought Welles and the WPA’s Federal Theater into fateful conflict with anti–New Deal reactionaries, the guerrilla production of Cradle in defiance of a government lockout helped hasten the end of the WPA’s experiment with a people’s theater.
Looking back in a mellow, generous, often self-critical mood, Welles pokes fun at his own self-absorbed flamboyance at a time when, according to the screenplay, he was gripped more by the sheer theatrical kick of confronting the establishment than by Blitzstein’s political message, which by the 1980s he considered dated. At the time of the production, however, he said he had been “waiting for a good worker’s play; The Cradle Will Rock is just that, offering a tale that is ideologically sound and a perfect fusion of music and drama.” Welles’s ambivalent attempts in the screenplay to put distance between himself and Blitzstein’s agitprop don’t always convince, however, and may reflect a residual anxiety over the political persecution he subsequently suffered for his own leftism at the hands of the FBI, William Randolph Hearst, the blacklist era publication Red Channels, and their cohorts, a pressure that no doubt contributed to his exile from America during the McCarthy era. 6
This Is Orson Welles, despite its large and incidental pleasures, doesn’t live up to the all-embracing autobiographical promise of its title. It’s too loosely structured and too concentrated on film making to be entirely satisfying as a substitute autobiography of a man with such a multi-faceted personality. Welles imposed the book’s free-associating organizing principle, and Rosenbaum’s editing sometimes seems weighed down by the disorderliness of the material. But given the subject’s brilliance as a raconteur it probably would have been foolish to stop him from following his own conversational course in order to rearrange the book into a tidy chronological package. “I like digressions, don’t you?” Welles remarks while discussing a joke cut by RKO from The Magnificent Ambersons. “Look at Gogol. Read the first few pages of Dead Souls again and you’ll see how one mad little digression can give reverberation and density to ordinary narrative.”
The digressions into subjects that relate only tangentially (or not at all) to film making—The War of the Worlds, comic books, FDR—or Welles’s ruminations on such diverse literary sources as Shakespeare, Tarkington, and Bram Stoker are so enthralling that one wishes for more, not less, of such asides, drawing from other aspects of Welles’s personality. Such as his comment on why he was happiest as an actor on radio: “It’s as close as you can get, and still get paid for it, to the great, private joy of singing in the bathtub. The microphone’s a friend, you know. The camera’s critic.” Or his reflection on history:
This hand that touches you now once touched the hand of Sarah Bernhardt—can you imagine that?… When she was young, Mademoiselle Bernhardt had taken the hand of Madame George, who had been the mistress of Napoleon!… Peter—just three handshakes from Napoleon! It’s not that the world is so small, but that history is so short. Four or five very old men could join hands and take you right back to Shakespeare.
The virtue of the book’s rambling style is that it allows the reader the opportunity of eavesdropping for a few hours on a great conversationalist. In the four-hour companion package of audio tapes, the pleasure can be savored even more palpably. Welles’s magisterial baritone and his great convulsing, Falstaffian laugh, accompanied by the intimate sounds of his match lighting a cigar and ice cubes clinking in his glass of Scotch, are preserved in these highlights from their conversations. After the tapes were transcribed, Bogdanovich edited them, added contextual material from production memoranda and other documents, and sent each chapter to Welles,
typed as he had requested, the left side of the page blank for him to rewrite. Eventually, a few months later, a chapter would come back, thoroughly revised, heavily rewritten at times (including some of my own remarks). I understood Orson occasionally altered things for dramatic purposes, and if it was good for the “cause” to have me a little more gauche or pushy, why would it matter?
Welles shaped the book in much the same way he edited his films: Welles’s film footage, as Truffaut once put it, was “shot by an exhibitionist and edited by a censor,” attaining an intensified musical intricacy and dialectical tension in the process. The book’s careful reshaping from the more spontaneous raw material not only gives the illusion of a free-flowing conversation but also allows Welles to skip over or obfuscate topics he doesn’t want to explore more fully or precisely.
Welles’s often merciless ragging of Bogdanovich—a very good sport and cheerful masochist—served as a sort of rough draft for the film that was germinating in Welles’s mind at the time these interviews began and whose start of production, as the tapes reveal, was triggered by something Bogdanovich said to Welles about Hollywood’s neglect of old directors. The Other Side of the Wind is centered around a birthday party for the legendary director played by John Huston, and it mocks and decries the interview process by which overly possessive film buffs, in Welles’s view, simultaneously worship and assault their idols. When the film started shooting, Bogdanovich and I were cast as a pair of fatuous interviewers (Charles Higgam [sic] and Mr. Pister) who follow Huston’s Jake Hannaford around, peppering him with incessant questions. During one scene in Hannaford’s car, I ask him, “In the body of your film work, how would you relate the trauma of your father’s suicide?”—and get thrown out of the car in retaliation.
When Bogdanovich became a celebrated director himself with The Last Picture Show in 1971, he helped Welles with the independent production of The Other Side of the Wind, even letting him live at his Bel Air mansion and shoot parts of the film there when Bogdanovich was in Europe making Daisy Miller. But the tensions between him and Welles increased considerably, especially after Bogdanovich tried and failed to find Welles a directing job in the Hollywood studios. Welles recast Bogdanovich in The Other Side of the Wind as a Prince Hal–like director and left me with most of the arcane and intrusive film-buff questions.
Welles’s resentment of what he saw as the curse of overly intellectualized probing of the artist’s mind comes across throughout the Bogdanovich interviews. “He felt like certain comics do, that if you have to explain a joke, it must be bad,” Bogdanovich reports. When Bogdanovich prods him to verbalize “the meaning of the exchange of looks [among] Prince Hal and the king and Falstaff over Percy’s body”—one of the most beautiful, purely visual scenes in Chimes at Midnight—Welles replies with exasperation, “If that isn’t clear, it speaks pretty badly for me.” He repeatedly mocks Bogdanovich for asking “one of those searching, penetrating questions I thought we’d avoid,” and admits, “The whole purpose of a book like this is what I quarrel with.” When Bogdanovich tries “to argue about your impatience with the search for themes,” Welles responds, “Luckily, we know almost nothing about Shakespeare and very little about Cervantes. And that makes it so much easier to understand their works…. It’s an egocentric, romantic, nineteenth-century conception that the artist is more interesting and more important than his art.”
But Bogdanovich was unrelenting in his quest for connections between Welles’s inner life and his work.
Bogdanovich: Why did you decide to begin Othello with the funeral?
Welles: Why not? [Laughs] I don’t know. Have another drink.
PB: Well, it couldn’t be coincidental that Kane, Othello, and Mr. Arkadin all begin with the death of the leading character….
OW: Just shows a certain weakness of invention on the part of the filmmaker.
PB: You can give me a better answer than that.
OW: Peter, I’m no good at this sort of stuff. I either go cryptic or philistine.
Of course, Welles doth protest too much, for no film maker was ever more articulate, or less of a philistine. When he turned his mind to it, as he did much of his time with Bogdanovich, Welles could give the kind of interview that justifies the existence of the process. A powerful example: when Bogdanovich made Welles “so sick, I couldn’t sleep” by telling him about John Ford and the other old directors who couldn’t find work in the “with-it” Hollywood of the late 1960s—the discussion that led Welles to start filming The Other Side of the Wind—Welles exploded: “It’s so awful. I think it’s just terrible what happens to old people. But the public isn’t interested in that—never has been. That’s why Lear has always been a play people hate.”
“You don’t think Lear became senile?” asks Bogdanovich, and Welles responds,
He became senile by giving power away. The only thing that keeps people alive in their old age is power…. But take power away from de Gaulle or Churchill or Tito or Mao or Ho or any of these old men who run the world—in this world that belongs only to young people—and you’ll see a “babbling, slippered pantaloon.”
It’s only in your twenties and in your seventies and eighties that you do the greatest work. The enemy of society is the middle class, and the enemy of life is middle age. Youth and old age are great times—and we must treasure old age and give genius the capacity to function in old age—and not send them away….
Such moments of unguarded passion are all too rare in This Is Orson Welles. Some of Welles’s sparring exchanges with Bogdanovich are wry and revealing—especially the running joke about Bogdanovich deviously steering the protesting Welles back to the painful (to him) subject of Citizen Kane—but more often we share the interviewer’s frustration over Welles’s reticence, which ultimately becomes exasperating. Reading this book helps us to understand why Welles never was able to complete a conventional autobiography. His participation in this enterprise seems half-hearted; he sits for a lengthy session of analysis but displays an almost neurotic aversion to introspection, evidently stemming from the fear of having to share his deepest feelings to the public, or from a self-protective need to portray himself as a “centerless labyrinth.”
Welles’s films show some of the same ambivalence toward the necessary process of artistic self-revelation; the twin roles of exhibitionist and censor always vied for his attention. Despite his reputation as a ham, which stemmed in part from the inescapable largeness of his body and voice, Welles never seemed entirely comfortable as an actor, and (especially in later years) he accepted parts mainly to make money to finance his directing ventures. He frequently seemed studied, guarded, and stiff on screen, taking refuge behind theatrical floridity and tongue-in-cheek jocularity. He worried that he seldom “really felt” what he was playing, and he almost never (except as Harry Lime in The Third Man) appeared on screen without a false nose and other makeup to transform his appearance. He tells Bogdanovich, “I read once—Norman Mailer wrote something or other—that, when I was young, I was the most beautiful man anybody had ever seen. Yes! Made up for Citizen Kane!” Hiding his naked face was a lifelong obsession for Welles, as if he had a terrible secret to hide, something shameful to cover up—something for which his face was his actor’s metaphor. He used makeup as “camouflage” to fend off invasion of his emotional privacy, just as, at the age of ten, he scared off bullies at Washington Grade School in Madison, Wisconsin, by carrying his makeup kit to school and making himself up with a bloody face.
In the films he directed, Welles typically played emotionally barricaded, self-disguising characters whose moral makeup was far removed from his own, or whose flaws exaggerated his own more pardonable vices and failings for dramatic effect. He hid behind the grotesque corpulence of the corrupt cop Hank Quinlan in Touch of Evil, the waxen face and walrus mustache of the moribund Macao merchant Mr. Clay in The Immortal Story, or the protean features of Charles Foster Kane, revealing his feelings about their moral dilemmas less through his acting than through his intricately rhetorical and frequently ironic camerawork, giving himself a dual presence in the films. Rarely did he allow himself to express a naked emotion on screen through his acting alone, although when he did so as Falstaff, in the great rejection scene when Prince Hal/King Henry V (Keith Baxter) says, “I know thee not, old man”—a scene devastating in its simplicity—it became the defining moment of his career.
Bogdanovich recalls the “strangely conspiratorial quality Orson and I fell into almost at once,” and it was the younger man’s ability to discern the areas of greatest emotional vulnerability in Welles that made Welles try to retreat so vehemently from the revelations demanded of him. “Orson had been burned in so many places in his emotional and personal life, he was afraid of being hurt again,” Bogdanovich realized. “He preferred to talk about something new, something that wasn’t in the past, something that was possible to change.”
Bogdanovich’s patient wheedling, his willingness to put up with so much mockery, and his thorough grounding in Welles’s work counterbalance his limitations as an interviewer, which are most glaringly seen in his lack of awareness of the sociopolitical aspects of Welles’s work: of Ambersons, he confesses to Welles, “You know, it wasn’t until about the fourth or fifth time I’d seen the picture that I saw any social points.” But Bogdanovich’s tenacious cajoling of his recalcitrant subject arose from a fervent curiosity about Welles which wouldn’t take “no comment” for an answer.
“No, Peter, I have no ‘Rosebuds,”‘ Welles insists when Bogdanovich probes into Welles’s cinematic reflections of his relationship with his mother, whose death when he was nine caused him lifelong emotional devastation. But that line triggers the book’s most moving personal reminiscence, about the young orson’s stays with his father, who in his later years owned a hotel in Grand Detour, Illinois, which he operated as a retreat for his friends:
Well, where I do see some kind of “Rosebud,” perhaps, is in that world of Grand Detour. A childhood there was like a childhood back in the 1870s. No electric light, horse-drawn buggies—a completely anachronistic, oldfashioned, early-Tarkington, rural kind of life, with a country store that had above it a ballroom with an old dance floor with springs in it, so that folks would feel light on their feet. When I was little, nobody had danced up there for many years, but I used to sneak up at night and dance by moonlight with the dust rising from the floor…. Grand Detour was one of those lost worlds, one of those Edens that you get thrown out of…. I feel as though I’ve had a childhood in the last century from those short summers.
Welles’s reverie about this “marvelous little corner in time,” his own personal Twilight Zone—which he readily concedes found lasting resonance in Ambersons and his other work—comes to a painfully abrupt end when his memory inevitably turns to the fire that destroyed his father’s hotel not long before Richard Welles’s death in 1930. “Can I go now?” Welles asks Bogdanovich, and you can hear the childish plaintiveness in his voice as the chapter closes.
Strikingly similar in mood to the autobiographical fragments about his childhood in French Vogue, this story shows what we lost when Welles found that he couldn’t write a book about his life. In bringing the Grand Detour story to an elliptical conclusion, Welles barely elaborates on what his solitary dance in the moonlight meant to him, although we can take that dance as an image for the odd, lonely childhood that shaped him as an artist and to which he kept retreating symbolically for his cinematic “lost Edens”—as geographically disparate as Mrs. Kane’s Colorado boardinghouse, the Ambersons’ Indianapolis mansion, Don Quixote’s Spain, Falstaff’s medieval England. Perhaps Welles never allowed us closer to his “secret” than he did in his mysterious reference to his responsibility for his father’s death, which may have been a prototype for the betrayals of close friends and flawed father figures in his films.
Although Richard Welles’s death certificate says he died of natural causes (chronic heart and kidney disease) in a Chicago hotel, Higham’s 1985 biography Orson Welles: The Rise and Fall of an American Genius and Frank Brady’s Citizen Welles (1989) report that the elder Welles may have been a suicide. According to Barbara Leaming, “the young Orson told people that he was present at his father’s suicide,” but she thinks that didn’t literally happen and that Welles’s claim “only reflected his own intense guilt…at having betrayed Dick when he needed him.” Welles felt his alcoholic father “drank himself to death,” and blamed himself for pushing Dick Welles over the edge by listening to the advice of friends and refusing to see his father again unless he stopped drinking. This story calls to mind Peto’s epitaph of the dissolute, abandoned Falstaff in Chimes at Midnight: “The King has killed his heart.” Welles subsequently considered his action “inexcusable,” telling Leaming, “I don’t want to forgive myself. That’s why I hate psychoanalysis. I think if you’re guilty of something you should live with it.”
Welles’s reminiscences of his father and Grand Detour reverberate in This Is Orson Welles when Bogdanovich succeeds in eliciting from Welles a precise definition of his work’s thematic core. In an exchange on the gracefulness of Tarkington’s lost Eden, Bogdanovich asks, “That’s the thing you admire most, isn’t it? That and gallantry. Isn’t Ambersons as much a story of the end of chivalry—the end of gallantry—as Chimes at Midnight?” Welles corrects him by saying, “Peter, what interests me is the idea of these dated old virtues. And why they still seem to speak to us when, by all logic, they’re so hopelessly irrelevant. That’s why I’ve been obsessed so long with Don Quixote.” Welles was, in many ways, his own best critic, pointing the way for professional critics to see his work more clearly and precisely.
In talking with Bogdanovich about Joseph Cotten’s character in Citizen Kane, the drama critic Jedediah Leland, who in the bitterness of old age muses that he might have served both as Charlie Kane’s “stooge” and his only friend, Welles points out, “I’m a totally different kind of person from Jed Leland. I’m not a friend of the hero.” When dealing with Welles and other legendary directors, the young Bogdanovich cast himself in the role of “friend of the hero,” and his surprisingly intense argument with Welles about Jed Leland is one of this book’s most revealing passages.
Welles vehemently objects to Bogdanovich’s notion that Leland betrayed Kane by writing his negative review of Kane’s pathetically inept opera-singing mistress, Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore). “He didn’t betray Kane,” Welles says of Jed Leland. “Kane betrayed him. Because he was not the man he pretended to be…. If there was any betrayal, it was on Kane’s part, because he signed a Declaration of Principles which he never kept.” “Then why,” wonders Bogdanovich, “is there a feeling that Leland is petty and mean to Kane in the scene when he gets drunk?…[M]aybe one feels that Leland could have afforded to write a good review.” “Not and been a man of principle,” Welles insists. “Then why do I somewhat dislike Leland?” asks Bogdanovich. “Because he likes principles more than the man,” Welles replies, “and he doesn’t have the size as a person to love Kane for his faults.”
I suspect that Bogdanovich may have been thinking of that exchange when he wrote, “There are quite a few things I didn’t agree with Orson about in those days, but most assuredly I do now. Age and experience.” The Bogdanovich who wrote those words in his conciliatory introduction to what Welles initially proposed as “a nice little book” now has the size as a person to love Welles for his faults. Welles displayed jealousy over his protégé’s commercial success, resented the failure of Bogdanovich’s efforts to help him find work in Hollywood, and feuded with him over this book, which, Bogdanovich relates, eventually became “lost somewhere in the depths of a storage facility while I was going through a personal and financial crisis.”
When Welles accused Bogdanovich of saving the manuscript to release only after his death. Bogdanovich retrieved it and sent it back to him “with a note saying, in effect, it was his life, and here it was for him to do with as he saw fit.” Welles was “very touched” by the gesture. Bogdanovich writes of their last conversation over the telephone, shortly before Welles’s death: “We had been laughing, and then I said something about having made some terrible mistakes. He said, suddenly serious, that he had made so many mistakes, and that it seemed to be almost impossible to go through life without making an incredible number of them…. I came to realize our last conversation had been a kind of apology from both of us for having made mistakes about each other.”
Though it might have seemed so to Welles, and to Bogdanovich at many times over the past seventeen years because of the obstacles Welles placed in the way of its publication, this book is not one of their mistakes, but a fitting, if imperfect, memorial to their complex and passionate friendship. | ||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 26 | https://123helpme.org/essays/citizen-kane-movie-analysis/ | en | Citizen Kane Movie Analysis Sample | [
"https://123helpme.org/wp-content/themes/123helpme.org/img/location-US.png",
"https://123helpme.org/wp-content/themes/123helpme.org/img/location-CA.png",
"https://123helpme.org/wp-content/themes/123helpme.org/img/location-US.png",
"https://123helpme.org/wp-content/themes/123helpme.org/img/location-CA.png",
... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"admin"
] | 2019-07-25T09:34:17-04:00 | Free film review essay sample on movie Citizen Kane. Gripping story of a man of his epoch who rises and falls, and whose actions impact the society around him making a memorable tale of the period. | en | 123HelpMe.org | https://123helpme.org/essays/citizen-kane-movie-analysis/ | Citizen Kane Movie Analysis
Among the many great films of the previous century, Citizen Kane is the one that stands out from the rest due to its original plot and talented acting and directing. It is a gripping story of a man of his epoch who rises and falls, and whose actions impact the society around him making a memorable tale of the period.
The movie was produced in 1941, with a budget a little more than $686 thousands. Due to controversies while releasing the movie, it lost money during the opening weekends, and it did not earn enough to cover the initial budget. Altogether, before 1991, the movie had a chance to make around $1.14 million in the US and less than $100 thousands in Europe (“Box office/business for Citizen Kane”, n.d.). Mercury Productions produced the film while RKO Radio Pictures distributed it. Orson Wells who starred and directed the movie also produced it. Gregg Tolland was responsible for the photography and the lighting of the movie, and the film was shot in various locations in the state of California and New York City. Perry Ferguson designed the set decorations, and Edward Stevenson designed the wardrobe. Bailey Fesler was responsible for the sound in the movie, and Russell A. Cully was responsible for visual effects.
In the movie, Orson Wells stars as the main character portraying Charles Foster Kane. Among other leads, there is Joseph Cotton and Dorothy Comingore. The movie has been well received by critics although it did not get as much publicity as it could. The thing was the fact that the movie’s main character appeared very similar to William Randolph Hearst, a famous media publisher. Since the latter disliked the similarity, he and his employees tried to sabotage the movie release, and that was the reason it did not attract as much audience as it could. In addition, despite warm reception of the critics, the contemporary viewers did not like or cherish the movie as much as it is regarded and praised now. As a result, the difficulties Orson Welles experienced with making and producing the movie caused further complications in his career. Although the movie is regarded as one of the greatest films of all times, it was not equally appreciated in 1940s.
The movie tells a story of Charles Kane from his early childhood to his death, and shows the various aspects of his life. The audience sees Kane as a poor and young child, with little prospects in life, who, however, is happy to live with his caring family. After his family discovers oil on their property, Charles gets better prospects in life since he can get a good education and his financial situation improves. After turning twenty five, he begins to control his financial assets to run a newspaper with scandalous leads and titles. The film shows how Kane sinks from an aspiring and romantic young man who wants to make a change into a distant and isolated individual who dominates others but is extremely lonely and unhappy. He is unfaithful in his first marriage, which causes a great damage to his career and possible political reputation. After marrying for the second time, he brings nothing but misery for the woman who loves him. As a result, she leaves him, and he is left alone. The movie shows a devastation and ruin of an individual who had amazing ambitions and opportunities but who did not remain true to his initial goals and lost himself in the process. As he dies, people try to discover many things about this charismatic individuality; however, all is lost since he did not live a full life he expected but became someone he did not want to be when he was young.
The movie is very powerful due to the many themes it uncovers. It was praised by the critics and is popular with the audience because it focuses on personal issues and loss of an individual in the process of development. The important theme is isolation, which can be individual’s isolation from the public or the country’s isolation from the war. Welles raised some very important ideas in relation to the war and the place of the United States in it. The movie was released in 1942 when the rest of the world has been fighting in the Second World War, and when the US officials have been discussing whether to isolate themselves or get involved in order to change the situation. Therefore, the movie was the product of the many ideas in the American society since the citizens had similar doubts. The film’s main character, Charles Kane decides to promote isolationism as he believes there would be no war, and the USA should stay out of the possible conflicts. Showing how Kane was wrong and using his character as a negative example, Welles urged the American society to become more involved in the world affairs in order to defend itself and fight against Nazism and fascism. Therefore, a very influential theme of the movie is isolationism and political manipulations. Isolationism is also connected to the main character of Kane who spent a life full of meetings and events, and who had many acquaintances but then, died alone and lonely in his huge mansion. Thus, the movie depicts isolation as it impacts a person’s life.
Another important theme of the movie was the development of free media that were supposed to respond to the expectations of the contemporary audience. Welles showed how media were used to manipulate the audience and change the public opinion in favor of the newspaper’s owner and particular goals. The movie was successful in showing the way the audience reacted to different messages and the seemingly free media. It proved that it was quite easy to fool the readers and use the public in order to promote particular ideas even if they were untrue or unjust. Henceforth, Citizen Kane managed to show the audience how easy it was to manipulate people by various tycoons. Ironically, the public was unable to understand that the same happened during the movie’s screening, with Hearst sabotaging the film, and the viewers disliking it as a result.
When analyzing the movie, it is also important to speak about original approaches toward storytelling. The film is unusual for its time because everything the viewers see is shown through flashbacks; the film also has many different perspectives and narrators that make the story more interesting and developed. Although some directors did use flashbacks for their movies before, those were just the episodes while Citizen Kane approached this technique as the main storytelling tool in the film. The movie is also famous for using deep sharp focus, which is present in most of the scenes. The moviemakers used original approaches to lighting as well as new lenses during shooting. Low-angle shots also appear as an original innovation that makes the movie so rare and original. As a result, Citizen Kane was not that well received with the audience that was not prepared for such innovations, but it did influence the moviemakers who followed and used Welles’ style and examples from the film.
The movie is black and white, and nevertheless, its visual effects are very impressive. For instance, there is a scene with many Kanes who are seen through the mirrors, and the film uses low-angle shots that enable the viewers to see the entire picture, without missing out on anything. The moviemakers also presented an innovative approach toward the use of shadow because they use it with the characters in order to portray the mood and the feeling of different episodes.
Check our film review writing service, you can buy film review on this or any other topic at 123HelpMe.org. Don’t waste your time, order now! | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 24 | https://www.strike.money/stock-market/movies | en | 15 Best Stock Market Movies To Watch | [
"https://www.strike.money/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/close.png",
"https://www.strike.money/wp-content/themes/ampcome/assets/images/logo/blog-logo.svg",
"https://www.strike.money/wp-content/themes/ampcome/assets/images/icons/search-icon.jpg",
"https://www.strike.money/wp-content/themes/ampcome/assets/images/ic... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Arjun Remesh"
] | 2023-07-21T19:11:56+00:00 | Stock market movies are mostly movies are related to stock market in some way. | en | Strike | https://www.strike.money/stock-market/movies | Stock market movies are movies based on stock market events. Stock market movies have varying levels of relation from movies that are entirely related to the stock market from the characters just having a minor connection to the movie. But these movies provide some educational information about the stock market in some way. Below is a synopsis of the 15 best stock market movies to watch.
Watching finance movies help you understand the basic concepts related to the stock market and investing, but they should not be taken as an accurate representation of reality. Many finance movies illustrate the concepts of risk and reward in investing, showing both the potential gains and losses that come with more speculative investments. They help you understand that higher potential returns often come with higher risk. Movies also often feature different kinds of investors with varying strategies, from value investors to day traders to risk-seeking speculators. This exposes you to different approaches and helps frame your own investing style.
1. The Wolf of Wall Street
The Wolf of The Wall Street is a movie about a scammer that stole millions from everyday investors. The plot of “The Wolf of Wall Street” is based on the true events that occurred in the life of a businessman who founded a brokerage company but saw his personal life and economic fortunes deteriorate as a result of his greed and unscrupulous behavior. It is an adaptation of the real-life events of John Belfort, who is portrayed in the film by Leonardo DiCaprio. Martin Scorsese, the film’s director, has crafted a movie that focuses on black comedy crime and analyses Stratton Oakmont, on which the movie is based, it is shown that he was involved in widespread corruption and committed fraud with a variety of agencies. Scorsese’s movie was based on the true story of a man named Stratton Oakmont, who was portrayed in the film.
People are made aware of cybercrimes and given lessons on the financial repercussions as a result of seeing this movie. The film’s leading man, Leonardo DiCaprio, played the role of Jordan Balfort, who was depicted as having a number of different partners as well as business partners involved with him so that corruption could be carried out in an intelligent manner. On the other hand, friends and family members were involved in carrying out corrupt activities with the website. Agents from the FBI looked into the problems and discovered that they were connected to corruption on a much broader scale after conducting an investigation. It was discovered that Stratton Oakmont, the main character in the film, was involved in all of the illegal activities shown in the film, including acts of widespread immorality and extortion committed in conjunction with several groups. The film places a significant amount of attention on the brands that are associated with the discussion. Jordan Belfort, a penny stockbroker, is responsible for the degradation that took place in Long Island. When the government subsequently out more about the extortion he committed, he was sentenced to 22 months in prison and spent his time there. The study of financial factors demonstrated an accurate description of how he perpetrated the fraud, and the audience appreciated Leonardo DiCaprio for his portrayal of a real-life figure when the movie was aired.
In the film, Jordon concealed the money by opening an account at a Swiss bank with the assistance of Jean-Jacques Saurel, a crooked British citizen who had connections to American law enforcement. Jordon did this with the aid of Jean-Jacques Saurel. Jordon traveled to Switzerland, the location of his Aunt Emma’s death from a heart attack so that he could close out the bank account. Following that, Belfort was found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison, although it was a minimum security facility.
There was a whole movie about stockbrokers in New York City, according to the perspective of Jordan Belfort, who was one of them. Agents from the FBI were sent in to investigate, and through their efforts, a connection was made between the concerns and the debasement. Because it is one of the greatest films that were released in 2013, this movie comes highly recommended.
The domestic box office for the film was $116,949,183, while the international box office was $272,866,953. The worldwide box office for the film was therefore $389,816,136. In terms of home market performance, it is estimated that the film generated $20,123,760 in domestic DVD sales and $19,923,770 in domestic Blu-ray sales, for a total of $40,047,530 in estimated domestic video sales.
2. Edison, the Man
The life of inventor and businessman Thomas Edison is shown in the movie “Edison, the Man,” which is a biographical account of Edison’s life. The movie traces Edison’s life from his early days as an inventor and telegraph operator to his subsequent successes as a company owner and as one of the most well-known innovators in the annals of human history. It discusses his failures as well as his achievements, such as his contributions to the invention of the phonograph, the light bulb, and the motion picture camera. Edison is portrayed throughout the entirety of the movie as a driven and determined individual who was always seeking to improve and innovate, and whose contributions to science and technology had a lasting impact on the world. The film also highlights the fact that Edison was a pioneer in the field of electric lighting.
“Edison, the Man” is not connected to the stock market in a direct manner. Although Thomas Edison was a prosperous businessman and inventor, it is more customary for biographical films to concentrate on the subject’s personal and professional accomplishments than on their financial investments or engagement in the stock market. Edison’s story is no exception to this trend. Having said that, it is quite probable that the discoveries and commercial initiatives undertaken by Edison had some effect on the economy as a whole and may have had some bearing on the stock market.
The budget for the film was $893,000, and it made $1,787,000 at the box office.
Clarence Brown is the man behind the camera for the biographical movie “Edison, the Man,” which was originally made in the English language. On May 10, 1940, it was first released in cinemas, then on March 23, 2009, it was made accessible online for streaming for the first time. The movie had a total running duration of 1 hour and 47 minutes, and Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer was the company responsible for its distribution. His early years as a telegraph operator and inventor are covered, as are his later successes as a business owner and one of the most well-known inventors in the annals of human history. It covers his life and accomplishments from the time he was one of the first to invent the telegraph to when he became one of the most famous inventors in history.
3. The Big Short
The Big Short is one of the most brilliant movies about stock markets.
“The Big Short” is a film directed by Adam McKay and written by Charles Randolph and Adam McKay. It is based on the book “The Big Short” by Michael Lewis. The film was produced by Brad Pitt, Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, and Arnon Milchan, and stars Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, and Brad Pitt. It was shot by cinematographer Barry Ackroyd and edited by Hank Corwin, with music by Nicholas Britell. The film was produced by Regency Enterprises and Plan B Entertainment and distributed by Paramount Pictures. It was released on November 12, 2015 at the AFI Fest and on December 11, 2015 in the United States. It has a running time of 130 minutes and is in English. The budget for the film was $50 million and it made $133.4 million at the box office.
The film “The Big Short,” released in 2015, is an adaptation of the best-selling book of the same name written by Michael Lewis. It tells the story of the mounting problems in the mortgage and housing markets in the United States that preceded the Great Recession, as well as the few financial professionals who not only saw the recession coming but also managed to turn that bet into tremendous profits in the midst of the financial crisis.
Michael J. Burry spent his childhood in San Jose, which is located in California. At UCLA, he concentrated his studies on economics and pre-med, and he received his medical degree from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Tennessee after completing his studies there. Burry began dabbling in financial investment on his evenings off after returning back to California to complete his residency at Stanford. After that, he continued to call California home. Soon after that, he quit school before completing his degree in order to launch his own hedge fund, which he named Scion Capital.
The main protagonist of the story is Michael Burry. Michael Burry had a difficult time relating to other people throughout his life, which led him to eventually give himself a diagnosis of Asperger’s syndrome. When Burry first started his profession, he did not have many friends and he had not yet established himself in the financial community, despite the fact that he was incredibly intelligent.
Burry has stated that his investment strategy is founded on Benjamin Graham and David Dodd’s book “Security Analysis,” which was published in 1934. This book is considered to be the foundational text for value investing. Burry has also stated that all of his stock pickings is based entirely on the concept of a margin of safety.
As a result, he was one of the first people to predict the dot-com bubble by doing an analysis of overpriced firms that had very little revenue or profitability. Almost immediately, he started selling short those stocks, and he was swiftly able to generate huge returns for his clients.
The financial crisis that hit the property market in 2007 and 2008 is not an easy subject to tackle, yet authors Adam McKay and Charles Randolph made it seem so straightforward. Because of the nature of the subject matter, there is a significant amount of financial jargon and analysis that has to be presented so that a layperson may grasp it. Not only does the movie do this via its superb narrative, but it also explains all of these difficult concepts by using examples from daily life that are simple to grasp. Take Selena Gomez’s segment on synthetic CDOs, for instance; she did it through the lens of a blackjack game. Scenes like this one put the audience on the same page with the protagonists, while simultaneously providing them with additional opportunities to be amused by another star.
Because the housing bubble is such a weighty subject, it is intriguing to consider how The Big Short was able to become a comic program despite the fact that it tackles such a serious subject matter while still including a large number of comedic scenes. The characters play a significant role in these, and the performers did a fantastic job of portraying them in their roles. Despite portraying the character of a harried and often always irritable fund manager on Wall Street, Steve Carell, in particular, provided us with a good deal of laughs. The movie has some hilarious one-liners, and there’s something about making light of such a tragic subject by injecting some humor into the conversation that just seems appropriate.
The conclusion of the movie, on the other hand, is quite disheartening since we see that the aftermath led to a financial catastrophe as well as soaring unemployment rates. In spite of the presence of comic parts, “The Big Short” successfully managed to conclude on a more sombre tone, which was appreciated by the audience. It causes us to question if we are still putting blind confidence in our financial institutions, which, according to the portrayal, are composed of persons who are greedy for financial gain. As consumers of financial goods, are we knowledgeable about our options? Do we have a comprehensive understanding of our investments? Does it give you a sense of satisfaction to be correct, like the Baums, Gellers, and Shipleys, even if you have to watch other people struggle during an economic downturn? All of these things should definitely be considered.
4. Margin Call
“Margin Call” is a film directed by J. C. Chandor, who also wrote the screenplay. It was produced by Joe Jenckes, Robert Ogden Barnum, Corey Moosa, Michael Benaroya, Neal Dodson, and Zachary Quinto, and stars Kevin Spacey, Paul Bettany, Jeremy Irons, Zachary Quinto, Penn Badgley, Simon Baker, Mary McDonnell, Demi Moore, and Stanley Tucci. The film was shot by cinematographer Frank DeMarco and edited by Pete Beaudreau, with music by Nathan Larson. It was produced by Myriad Pictures, Benaroya Pictures, and Before the Door Pictures, and distributed by Lionsgate and Roadside Attractions. It was released on January 25, 2011 at Sundance and on October 21, 2011 in the United States. It has a running time of 109 minutes and is in English. The budget for the film was $3.5 million, and it made $19.5 million at the box office.
Margin Call is a depiction of a day in the life of a Wall Street investment bank during the early stages of the economic collapse that occurred in 2008. The firm has just come to the realization that its previous transgressions are going to come back to haunt it. Peter Sullivan, a young investment banker who is also a rocket scientist, is played by Zachary Quinto. Sullivan makes the discovery that the company’s future is in serious jeopardy at a time when the bank is ruthlessly laying off employees, including long-tenured employees like Eric Dale, Head of Risk Management, played by Stanley Tucci. Peter continues Eric’s work from a USB drive that Eric gave him after his unexpected departure. In the simplest terms possible, he calculates that due to the trading history of the company, the value of the bank’s stock is set to decrease to such a level that would be greater than the value of the company; the result is that the bank’s stock will be worth more than the value of the company. As is well knowledge, the collapse of the world’s financial system. Will (Paul Bettany), Sam (Kevin Spacey), Sarah (Demi Moore), Jared (Simon Baker), and finally CEO John Tuld (Jeremy Irons) try to assess how to save the company in an all-night meeting as the panic gradually spreads to the upper echelons of the bank’s hierarchy.
The first feature film written and directed by J.C. Chandor is not so much concerned with the events that transpired on the day of the collision as it is with painting an engrossing image of the events that occurred in the moments leading up to it. It is to his credit that he has produced a film that is capable of captivating an audience member who may or may not be familiar with investment banking. Although there is a lot of financial jargon throughout the movie, and the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle may not fall into place until about halfway through the narrative, the plot is so extraordinary that you want to keep watching it even if you already know how it turns out. Having said that, there is maybe an impression at the conclusion that there are still an excessive amount of questions unanswered, but this is consistent with the way things really transpired in real life.
Although the characters are not very endearing, they provide an interesting image of the kinds of individuals that live in this setting. Even though John Tuld, played by Irons, is a cold guy whose top priorities are avarice and self-preservation, pity is evoked for the character Eric, played by Tucci, when he suffers an early setback in his career. Chandor is trying to convey to us that there is no such thing as innocence in this world; the slaughter that occurred during the collapse of 2008, the ramifications of which can still be felt today, is obviously the responsibility of each and every person who works on the floors of these buildings.
Zachary Quinto continues to contribute to his ever-growing reputation as one of the greatest young actors available, while Kevin Spacey and Jeremy Irons, maybe not unexpectedly, are the stand-out performers. The performances are as superb as can be anticipated from such a brilliant group. The path that Chandor chose to take is really impressive, with some lingering images over the metropolis of New York City that are at times gorgeous and lovely.
In general, Margin Call is an interesting look at the events leading up to the global financial catastrophe that occurred in 2008 and from which we are all still recovering. Even while it is enlightening and instructive, by the time it is through, you could get the impression that there wasn’t enough of a boom or wallop to accompany the crash.
5. Citizen Kane
Citizen Kane is not related to the stock market but business. “Citizen Kane” is a film directed by Orson Welles and written by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Orson Welles. It was produced by Orson Welles and stars him as well as Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, Everett Sloane, Ray Collins, George Coulouris, Agnes Moorehead, Paul Stewart, Ruth Warrick, Erskine Sanford, and William Alland. The film was shot by cinematographer Gregg Toland and edited by Robert Wise, with music by Bernard Herrmann. It was produced by RKO Radio Pictures and Mercury Productions and distributed by RKO Radio Pictures. It was released on May 1, 1941 at the Palace Theatre and on September 5, 1941 in the United States. It has a running time of 119 minutes and is in English. The budget for the film was $839,727, and it made $1.8 million at the box office during its re-release.
Charles Foster Kane, a fictitious newspaper mogul, is the protagonist of the film Citizen Kane, which tells the tale of his life. At the beginning of the film, Kane is shown passing away while holding a snow globe. Immediately before to passing away, he utters the single word “Rosebud.” One newspaper has decided to zero in on that one word in order to shed light on Charles Foster Kane’s personality in the midst of other newsrooms debating how best to cover the events surrounding his life and death. A reporter is sent to conduct interviews with Kane’s friends and acquaintances in order to discover the reason behind Kane’s last comment.
The reporter is seen while he conducts interviews with Kane’s ex-wife, Susan, and with Thatcher, who was Kane’s guardian when he was a youngster. Despite the fact that Thatcher has died away, the reporter is granted access to his memoirs. These essays provide a glimpse into Kane’s past, when he was younger. Thatcher’s initial encounter with Mary Kane, the mother of Charles Foster Kane, is recounted in her book. In the state of Colorado, Mary is the owner of a boarding house, and she had agreed to take payment from a tenant in the form of shares in a gold mine. Thatcher contacted Mary Kane to let her know that the stock that was placed in her name had resulted in an enormous increase in her fortune. The decision is made by Mary Kane to have the child Kane go and live with Thatcher. As a result of these occurrences, Kane becomes frustrated and lashes out at Thatcher with the sled that he has been using to play in the snow since Thatcher’s arrival.
The next time the audience sees Kane, he is an elderly man who has just purchased a local newspaper called the New York Inquirer. Kane continues to seek advice from the banker he knew when he was younger and who had previously spoken with his mother. Kane and the banker seldom come to an agreement over how to invest Kane’s substantial fortune. There are no exceptions, even the newspaper. Kane’s popularity rises in tandem with the expansion of the Inquirer’s readership. After some time, he is successful in luring the writing team from the most successful newspaper in New York and finally extends the Inquirer throughout the nation. Kane becomes a larger-than-life celebrity in New York with the assistance of a college friend named Jedediah Leland and the manager of the newspaper named Mr. Bernstein. Kane even enters politics after marrying Emily Kane, who is the niece of the president of the United States at the time, President Monroe. Emily Kane is the niece of President Monroe.
Poster in colour advertising the film Citizen Kane, featuring portraits of Orson Welles and the film’s two female characters.
Kane, who is already married, gets discovered in an illicit connection with a lounge singer named Susan when he is running for the governor’s office. Kane’s refusal to break up their contact with her ultimately causes him to lose his marriage to Emily and his election bid. After a while, Kane is married to Susan, and he encourages her to pursue a career as an opera singer. He is certain that she has potential, and as a result, he gets preoccupied with everyone else viewing Susan in the same light that he does. Due to the stress, Susan makes an effort to take her own life. After fleeing the city, the two establish a haven on roughly 50,000 acres in Florida, which serves as the site for the construction of Kane’s Xanadu palace. Susan is sick of being on her own in Xanadu and longs for the bustling nightlife of New York. Susan breaks up with Kane because she is dissatisfied with his failure to actually provide her with anything throughout their time together. In a fit of rage, he searches for and locates a snow globe that brings back memories of his childhood spent in Colorado, and while holding it to his ear, he murmurs the word “Rosebud.”
The only other occasion that Kane is ever known to have said the phrase “Rosebud” is when the reporter is conducting an interview with the butler of Xanadu. At the same time as the reporter is departing Xanadu, some less valuable items of Kane’s are being thrown into a fire. The reporter is certain that he will never figure out the secret that lies behind the word. One of these things is the sled on which Kane was having fun with his friends in Colorado on the day when Thatcher went to see his mother. Rosebud may be seen imprinted throughout the whole surface of the sled.
6. Wall Street
“Wall Street” is a film directed by Oliver Stone and written by Oliver Stone and Stanley Weiser. It was produced by Edward R. Pressman and stars Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, Daryl Hannah, Martin Sheen, Hal Holbrook, and Terence Stamp. The film was shot by cinematographer Robert Richardson and edited by Claire Simpson, with music by Stewart Copeland. It was produced by American Entertainment Partners and Amercent Films and distributed by 20th Century Fox. It was released on December 11, 1987 and has a running time of 126 minutes. It is in English and was produced in the United States. The budget for the film was $16.5 million, and it made $43.8 million at the box office in theatrical rentals.
The first thing that occurs in the film is the introduction of Bud Fox, who works as a junior stockbroker for the New York City-based company Jackson Steinem & Co. On the occasion of his birthday, Bud Fox goes to see Gordon Gekko at his office carrying a box of illegal Cuban cigars. Fox’s objective is to get a job with Gekko, one of the most influential players on Wall Street.
Gordon Gekko acknowledges Bud’s bravery and kind gesture by extending an invitation to an interview, something that Bud has always yearned for but never had the chance to accomplish. In light of the fact that Bud is unable to pique Gekko’s interest, he decides to play his last card. He shares with Gekko some intimate knowledge about Bluestar Airlines that he learned from his father but was not intended for him to hear.
As a result of being moved by the performance, Gekko eventually places an order for the stocks of Bluestar Airlines and becomes one of Fox’s customers. Over the course of the subsequent several months, Fox executed a number of stock transactions for Gekko, but none of them resulted in an increase. An enraged Gekko gives Bud one more opportunity to retain his job before firing him. Fox, who is eager to keep working with Gekko, agrees to conduct surveillance on Lawrence Wildman, a British CEO and corporate raider, in order to learn more about Wildman’s future investment intentions. By following him, Fox is able to uncover that Wildman intends to make an investment in a big steel business called Anacott and seize the majority stake there. Gekko purchases the controlling shares in the company before Wildman does, and then he sells them to Wildman for a substantial profit by leaking the news to the press.
The transaction results in Bud having a considerable increase in wealth and bestows upon him a great many more luxuries. After that, he becomes involved in some shady business dealings and ends up making a lot of money for both himself and Gekko. Bud is unaware that the SEC is putting him on their watch list since he is in the dark about the situation.
Gordon Gekko is presented with a proposal by Bud, who intends to grow Bluestar Airlines after purchasing the company. Bud makes every effort to ensure that the business transaction is successful. But it doesn’t take long for him to figure out that Gordon’s objective is to liquidate all of the company’s holdings as soon as the stock reaches its highest point, so bringing the business to its knees. Bud, who is tormented by the guilt of being responsible for putting everyone else in the company out of work, schemes to manipulate the stock. In addition to this, he organises a covert meeting with Lawrence Wildman and successfully persuades him to purchase a majority interest in Bluestar Airlines at a substantial discount.
On the day of his execution, Gordon Gekko, who is aware that his stocks are falling, follows Bud’s recommendation and sells off the last of his investment in the firm, which results in financial losses for him. However, Gekko quickly becomes aware of the scheme that Bud Fox and Wildman devised in order to fool him.
Gekko reports illegal insider trading and other unethical business activities carried out by Bud Fox to the Securities and Exchange Commission in order to teach the young broker a valuable lesson. Despite this, Bud ultimately decides to aid the SEC in their investigation and arrest of Gordon Gekko in exchange for a reduced sentence.
7. Trading Places
“Trading Places” is a film directed by John Landis and written by Timothy Harris and Herschel Weingrod. It was produced by Aaron Russo and stars Dan Aykroyd, Eddie Murphy, Ralph Bellamy, Don Ameche, Denholm Elliott, and Jamie Lee Curtis. The film was shot by cinematographer Robert Paynter and edited by Malcolm Campbell, with music by Elmer Bernstein. It was distributed by Paramount Pictures and was released on June 8, 1983. It has a running time of 116 minutes and is in English. It was produced in the United States and had a budget of $15 million. It made $120.6 million at the box office.
In the beginning of the film, we are introduced to Randolph and Mortimer Duke, also known as the Duke Brothers. These two brothers are the proprietors of the prosperous commodities brokerage business Duke & Duke, which is located in the state of Pennsylvania. The brothers, who live their lives with very different perspectives from one another, make a bet and conduct an experiment in which they switch the life of two men named Billy Ray Valentine and Louis Winthorpe, who reside on vertically extreme end of the spectrum of the social hierarchy and are unaware of each other’s existence. The purpose of the experiment was to monitor the conduct of the two persons involved and to determine whether or not a person who makes a living by hustling on the street would be capable of effectively running a business.
Panhandling is the only means of subsistence that Billy Ray Valentine, a homeless street hustler, has at his disposal to support himself. On the other hand, Louis Winthorpe is a chief executive at the firm Duke & Duke. Winthorpe is falsely accused of being a crook and a drug addict by Clarence Beeks, a man who works for the Duke Brothers. As a result of this false accusation, Winthorpe is fired from his position at the company and is sentenced to time in prison.
In the meanwhile, the Duke Brothers have decided to promote Billy Ray Valentine to the position of managing director of their business. As time goes on, Valentine is able to make a name for himself in the business community by using his street smart expertise, and he also earns a great deal of recognition among his coworkers.
Valentine overhears the unjust intentions and the plot that was set up by the brothers to frame Louis Winthorpe in order to satisfy the requirements of their experiment while they were talking about how well their experiment went. This occurs while the brothers are discussing how well their experiment went.
Because Valentine is a man of principles, he goes looking for Winthorpe and devises a strategy to bring down the brothers by using the situation against them.
Clarence Beeks, in his capacity as a representative of the United States Department of Agriculture, was going to release a “orange crop report” in the first week of January, and the Dukes were planning to make use of confidential information in advance of this announcement. Winthorpe and Valentine devised a scheme to get the report from Clarence Beeks before it was sent to the Dukes. They then intended to replace it with a fake report that stated poor orange crop yields, which would lead to an increase in the price of future commodities. They are able to carry out their strategy and deliver a fake report to the Brothers with no problems.
The day that the report is scheduled to be declared is the day that Duke Brothers begins purchasing future contracts for frozen orange juice. In response to their call, other traders begin building long positions in the frozen orange juice commodity, which has the effect of driving up prices many times more.
On the other hand, Valentine and Winthorpe are engaged in the practise of short selling these contracts at the higher price.
Commodity prices begin their downward trend as soon as the crop report is made public and it is stated that a typical crop harvest is expected. Valentine and Winthorpe liquidate their position by purchasing these contracts at a reduced price and making enormous profits, which ultimately leads to the bankruptcy of Duke Brothers, who have an accumulated debt that amounts to 394 million dollars at this point.
8. Arbitrage
Arbitrage is a movie directed by Nicholas Jarecki and written by him as well. Arbitrage was produced by Laura Bickford, Kevin Turen, Justin Nappi, Robert Salerno, and Mohammed Alturki, and stars Richard Gere, Susan Sarandon, Tim Roth, Brit Marling, Laetitia Casta, and Nate Parker. The cinematography for the film was done by Yorick Le Saux and it was edited by Douglas Crise, with music by Cliff Martinez. The production companies for the movie were Green Room Films, Treehouse Pictures, and Artina Films, and it was distributed by Lionsgate and Roadside Attractions. It was released in January 2012 at the Sundance Film Festival and in September 2012 in the United States, with a running time of 107 minutes and in English. The movie was produced with a budget of $12 million and had a box office total of $35.5 million. It was filmed in the United States and Poland.
The movie “Arbitrage” is a drama about a successful hedge fund manager called Robert Miller (played by Richard Gere), who is attempting to sell his trading business to a large bank before his fraudulent practices are discovered. The film is directed by Steven Soderbergh. However, his intentions are derailed when his lover, Julie (played by Laetitia Casta), is involved in a car accident, and he is forced to cover up the truth in order to preserve both his image and his company’s interests. While he is struggling to keep up appearances and cope with the repercussions of his actions, he is followed by a detective who is desperate to learn the truth. Tim Roth plays the role of this investigator. The movie deals with topics such as avarice, corruption, and the repercussions of making immoral decisions in one’s life.
9. The Pursuit of Happyness
The Pursuit of Happyness is a movie directed by Gabriele Muccino and written by Steven Conrad, based on the book of the same name by Chris Gardner and Quincy Troupe. The Pursuit of Happyness was produced by Will Smith, Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal, James Lassiter, Steve Tisch, and Devon Franklin, and stars Will Smith, Thandiwe Newton, and Jaden Smith. The cinematography for the film was done by Phedon Papamichael and it was edited by Hughes Winborne, with music by Andrea Guerra. The production companies for the movie were Columbia Pictures, Relativity Media, Overbrook Entertainment, and Escape Artists, and it was distributed by Sony Pictures Releasing. It was released on December 15, 2006, with a running time of 117 minutes and in English. The movie was produced with a budget of $55 million and had a box office total of $307.1 million. It was filmed in the United States.
In the year 1981, Chris Gardener, played by Will Smith, is living in San Francisco and attempting to earn a career by selling bone scanner equipment to various medical facilities and physicians. Although it is a nuisance for him to carry about the cumbersome devices, he takes pleasure in establishing relationships with individuals. This African-American guy feels that he is destined for a more successful professional path, despite the fact that he has always had a natural talent for sales. They are falling behind on their rent, despite the fact that his wife Linda, played by Thandie Newton, is working two jobs to help pay the expenses. Their son Christopher, who is five years old and goes by the stage name Jaden Christopher Syre Smith, attends a day care facility, and his father finds it annoying that the phrase “the pursuit of happiness” is spelt incorrectly on the exterior of the building. He is certain that seemingly little aspects like these may have a significant impact on one’s life.
Because Linda is unable to cope with the persistent anxiety that comes with being in a precarious financial situation, she makes the decision to work with a relative at a restaurant in New York. In spite of the fact that her spouse is a letdown for her, she is certain that he will figure out a way to look for their kid, Christopher, and for this reason she chooses to entrust him to her husband’s care.
Chris’s doggedness paid off when he was accepted into the internship programme of a reputable stock brokerage business. It seems that the fact that he solves a Rubik’s Cube in a record amount of time was the deciding factor in his favour. In addition to his natural talent for business, it is unmistakable that he has an exceptional ability for mathematics. His new lease on life comes with a few caveats, the most significant of which are that the programme does not provide any kind of financial compensation, and only one of the twenty interns will ultimately be employed. In the meanwhile, his financial situation becomes even more precarious as a result of the theft of many of his bone scanning devices and the subsequent eviction from the apartment he shared with his son. They check into a hotel and stay in a tiny room there, but they are ultimately driven out into the street. Both the father and the youngster end up having to sleep in the lavatory of the bus station. They are fortunate enough to be able to turn this terrifying experience into a game by acting as if they are trying to avoid dinosaurs while hiding out in a cave.
In the meanwhile, Chris is having a difficult time at the brokerage business, which is engaged in a fierce competition for customers. He takes a risky step to land a new client by paying a visit to the house of a CEO, and as a result, both he and Christopher are asked to accompany the CEO and the CEO’s son to a football game in San Francisco. They are completely taken aback by the fact that here is a peep into the world of the affluent, where everything is done to the highest standard. However, the chief executive officer ruins the intern’s aspirations by informing him that he won’t be allowed to have the intern manage his account because of how new the intern is to the company.
The struggle that Chris Gardner went through to realise his piece of the American dream serves as the inspiration for the film The Pursuit of Happyness, which is based on the actual tale. Gabriele Muccino, the Italian filmmaker, had many of opportunities to condense the running duration of the film, particularly with regard to the excessive amount of time that was spent depicting Gardener pursuing those who had stolen his scanners. A homeless guy who believes it to be a time machine is one of the group members.
The portrayal of an African-American man who turns out to be an outstanding single father earns the drama some emotional points, and it does get some points overall. He displays remarkable sensitivity and affection for his kid, whom he raises and cares for. The leading part in the play that took place at Glide Memorial Church in the Tenderloin section of San Francisco was another highlight for us. Chris and Christopher join other homeless individuals who are able to get food and accommodation there if they are fortunate enough to get in line early enough. Chris and Christopher are both Christopher. Along with the famous choir of the church, the Reverend Cecil Williams makes an appearance in the film.
Happiness is equated with flashy automobiles, high-paying jobs, and opulent residences in the script that was written by Steve Conrad (who also wrote “Weather Man”), which gives a pretty narrow vision of happiness. Gardener is a good player of the competitive game, and he has a strong belief in capitalism. We have no choice but to cheer him on as he overcomes one challenge and setback after another because we have no other option. Certainly, the love and trust of his son are a driving force behind his success, but the movie would have us think that anybody can make it big in the financial world if they are willing to put in the effort. That may have been the case fifty years ago, but it certainly isn’t the case now, when the economic divide between the wealthy and the impoverished has ballooned into a chasm. The Pursuit of Happiness is pushed by Will Smith’s energising performance, and the closeness with little Chris comes effortlessly due to the fact that he is portrayed by Will Smith’s own real-life son.
10. Boiler room
Boiler Room is a 2000 American drama film directed by Ben Younger and written by Younger and Brian Koppelman. Boiler room stars Giovanni Ribisi, Vin Diesel, Nia Long, Nicky Katt, Scott Caan, and Ben Affleck, and follows a college dropout who becomes a successful stockbroker, but ultimately realizes the corrupt nature of his company. Boiler Room was produced by Jennifer Todd and Suzanne Todd and released by New Line Cinema. The film was released on January 28, 2000 at the Sundance Film Festival and on February 18, 2000 in the United States. It has a running time of 120 minutes and was shot in English. The film had a budget of $7 million and grossed $28 million at the box office.
Seth Davis (Ribisi), an aspiring underground wealthy businessman from Queens, New York, who finds work at J.T. Marlin, a less-than-reputable brokerage firm, is the protagonist of this film, which takes a look into the world of “boiler room” (seedy, dishonourable, and often fraudulent) brokerage firms. The story centres on a college dropout named Seth Davis, who is told from Davis’ point of view. Nevertheless, at the moment, Seth is completely oblivious of the company’s history of illicit activity. The story is driven by Davis’s resistance to his condemning father, a court judge, as he digs further than he would like into the business at J.T. Marlin, discovering how the company exploits its customers. The company engages in a practise known as “pump and dump” in which it creates an artificial demand for the stock of defunct companies among investors who are not paying attention and then sells the investors’ shares at prices that are determined by the brokerage firm and include a significant commission for the brokerage firms (up to three dollars a share for a penny stock). When the company that is pumping the stock is finished, the investors will be unable to sell their shares to on the market, which will result in a significant drop in the price of the stock.
Ben Younger’s real-life incident, in which he attended a meeting with a buddy at a location that was really a boiler room, served as the basis for this fictional movie. The buddy, who was driving a brand new sports vehicle, stated that Younger could work there for a year, earn a million dollars, and then travel to the Bahamas, and he urged that Younger take the job. Younger was given a position by the company, but he turned it down because he wanted to write about it instead. A few years later, the company went out of business.
11. Glengarry Glen Ross
Glengarry Glen Ross is a 1992 American drama film directed by James Foley and written by David Mamet, based on his Pulitzer Prize-winning play of the same name. The film stars Al Pacino, Jack Lemmon, Alec Baldwin, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Kevin Spacey, and Jonathan Pryce as salesmen who are struggling to survive in a cutthroat and ruthless real estate market. The film was produced by Jerry Tokofsky and Stanley R. Zupnik and released by New Line Cinema. It was released on October 2, 1992 and has a running time of 100 minutes. It was shot in English and had a budget of $12.5 million. Despite receiving positive reviews, the film only grossed $10.7 million at the box office. The plot of both the play and the movie are as follows.
The movie is about four real estate salesmen in Chicago who are attempting, through a variety of unethical acts, to trick unsuspecting customers into purchasing undesirable property at inflated prices. Glengarry Glen Ross was set in 1984. The drama focuses on a pair of separate pieces of real land, both of which are mentioned in the play’s title. Glengarry Highlands is a piece of real estate that everyone is attempting to unload, and Glen Ross Farms is some land that several individuals mention as having been highly lucrative for real estate brokers in the last few years.
Four salespeople with the names of Levene, Roma, Moss, and Aaronow report to Williamson, who serves as their boss. As the action gets underway towards the end of the month, Mitch and Murray, two of the higher ups in the firm, have made the decision to hold a sales competition for the employees. One of the salesman will be given a Cadillac as a reward for reaching a predetermined monetary goal according to the quantity of sales they have achieved. The jobs of the two salespeople who make the fewest sales will be eliminated. A whiteboard is used to keep track of the levels that they have completed. While the other three are having trouble and getting more apprehensive about their situation, Roma has found himself at the top of the list. The first act takes place at a Chinese eatery located not too far from the real estate agency. In order to get an advantage over his rivals, Levene is working to improve the quality of the sales leads he receives from Williamson. Nothing that Levene attempts, including showing off, employing flattery, and paying Williamson with money, is successful in persuading Williamson to act in a manner that is contrary to the rules of the corporation.
As the act progresses, Moss and Aaronow have a conversation concerning the discriminatory practises of the company’s policies. They talk about an old coworker called Graff who went on to create his own business and how his practises are superior to those of Mitch and Murray. Moss advises to Aaronow that they should burglarize the office of their superiors, take the most promising leads, and then sell them to Graff. Moss tells Aaronow’s coworker that he wants him to commit the break-in, and if he does not do it, Moss will do it himself, and if he is caught, he will implicate Aaronow as having been a part of it. Aaronow had thought that what he was experiencing was just a daydream brought on by his frustration, but in reality, it is more real than he had thought. Moss tells Aaronow’s coworker that
At the conclusion of the first act, Roma is shown seated in a restaurant booth while giving a monologue. In it, she discusses how morality seems to be absent in the world and how every person is responsible for his or her own fate in life. An someone by the name of Lingk is nearby and overhears Roma’s jumbled speech; regardless of whether or not it makes sense to him, he is intrigued by it and pays it a lot of attention. As this particular scenario draws to a close, Roma is about to go into his sales presentation in the hopes of converting Lingk into a customer for his real estate company.
Act 2 takes place the next day at the real estate office where Act 1 ended. The workplace has certainly been broken into by an unknown person. The salespeople are now being questioned by Baylen, who is a police investigator who is there. Roma walks in and, having just found out about the event, asks whether the Lingk contract was one of the items that was taken. If it was, then his opportunity to win the automobile would be eliminated, since he will no longer have possession of the contract. Williamson relays the information to Roma that the contract has been submitted. When Levene finally makes it inside the office, he is overcome with joy. A transaction with an elderly couple called Bruce and Harriett Nyborg has recently been finalised by him. This has led him to believe, contrary to his prior beliefs, that after a dry spell, he has regained his previous level of salesmanship ability. Moss comes out of the room in which Baylen questioned him and complains about the treatment he has got. Baylen was the one who questioned Moss. Levene is boasting to Moss about the large transaction he just made, but Moss is not paying attention to him. Levene is defended by Roma, while Moss accuses Roma of bragging about his accomplishments.
Lingk arrives at the office just as Moss is storming out of it. Because of pressure from his wife, he has decided to back out of the deal he had made with Roma. Roma sneaks out of the scene while maintaining the pretence that Levene is a customer who needs him to get to the airport. He assures Lingk that they will discuss the terms of their contract at their meeting on Monday. They are both aware that if they wait until Monday, it would be hard for Lingk to get out of the deal they have agreed to. Lingk is split between the desire to uphold his end of the bargain he made with Roma and the need to appease his angry wife. Lingk will likely report Roma to the Attorney General after he realises that Roma has been giving him conflicting information regarding whether or not the contract has been filed. Lingk came to this conclusion after realising that Roma has been contradicting himself regarding whether or not the contract has been filed. A conflict arises between Roma and Williamson, whom Roma holds responsible for the collapse of the transaction. Williamson eventually puts all of the pieces together and comes to the conclusion that Levene must have been the one who broke into the office based on the information that he has regarding the filing of the contract. Williamson gives Baylen information on Levene, and Baylen subsequently arrests Levene.
12. Barbarians at the Gate
Barbarians at the Gate is a 1993 American television film based on the book of the same name by Bryan Burrough and John Helyar. The film was written by Larry Gelbart and directed by Glenn Jordan. It stars James Garner, Jonathan Pryce, and Peter Riegert and tells the true story of the leveraged buyout of RJR Nabisco in the 1980s. The film’s score was composed by Richard Gibbs. It was produced by Rastar Pictures, HBO Pictures, and Columbia Pictures Television and distributed by Warner Bros. Television Distribution. It aired on HBO on March 20, 1993.
The first scene of the film introduces F. Ross Johnson, who is the current president and chief executive officer of RJR Nabisco, a tobacco and food conglomerate with its headquarters in New York City. The tobacco division of the company has been very busy working on the development of a smokeless cigarette that will be called “Premier.” It is believed that the introduction of this product will cause an increase in the stock prices of the company, which have been rather stagnant for a considerable amount of time.
Henry Kravis is a banker that Ross Kelly’s buddy Don Kelly introduces him to. Henry Kravis is a specialist in leveraged buyouts (LBOs) and helped Don Kelly carry out a leveraged buyout for his own firm.
Ross makes the decision to take the firm private in order to keep it from suffering more stock declines and public humiliation as a result of the unfavourable feedback he obtained during market sampling of Premier. He is thinking about using a leveraged buyout as a viable method to pay his stockholders, with the operation of his firm continuing to serve as collateral. In order to carry out the buyout, he recruits Shearson Lehman Hutton, which is a part of American Express, to serve as his principal banker. Peter Cohen serves as the guy in command of the operation. To entice the company’s owners, Ross makes an initial offer to the Board of Directors that is far greater than the stock’s current market price of $53, which is $75 per share (equating to $17.6 billion in total payables).
Henry Kravis did not approve of the way Ross carried out the act of going behind his back and employing another business to look after the acquisition since he was the one who first exposed Ross to the concept of a leveraged buyout. In spite of the fact that Kravis lacked significant financial knowledge about the firm, he made an offer of $90 per share, which resulted in a total cost of $20 billion and sparked a bidding war. The first step in a series of conversations begins with a large number of prominent Wall Street bankers and attorneys inundating Ross with their proposals. In the meanwhile, the specifics of the secret deal that Ross provided become leaked to the media, which results in Ross receiving unfavourable exposure.
Due to the fact that Ross and Kravis have been unable to agree on a compromise, the Board of Directors has requested that final bids be made before the general meeting. Although Ross makes an offer of $112 per share, Kravis’s offer of $109 per share is the one that is considered by the Board of Directors and ends up being the one that is approved. The Board of Directors explains its action by presenting a hacked story from the New York Times that claims Ross’s management business would have gained $2.5 billion in earnings if they had acquired a 20% interest in RJR Nabisco. Ross wanted to buy the firm not for the purpose of enhancing the worth of the company to shareholders but rather so that he could continue to enjoy the profitable perks. After learning of his plans, the Board of Directors came to the conclusion that they should work with the private equity business that the movie’s title refers to as “Barbarian.”
13. Working Girl
Working Girl is a 1988 American romantic comedy-drama film directed by Mike Nichols and written by Kevin Wade. The film stars Harrison Ford, Sigourney Weaver, and Melanie Griffith and follows a secretary who takes advantage of her boss’s absence to try to start her own business. Working Girl was produced by Douglas Wick and released by 20th Century Fox. It was released on December 21, 1988 and has a running time of 113 minutes. It was shot in English and had a budget of $28 million. The film was a commercial and critical success, grossing $103 million at the box office.
Tess McGill (Melanie Griffith), a young secretary who works in New York City at a financial office, is the protagonist of Working Girl, a film that combines elements of romantic comedy and drama. Tess is a driven person who puts in a lot of effort, but she is unable to succeed since she does not have a formal education or many contacts. Tess is put in control of her boss’s office when Katherine Parker, played by Sigourney Weaver, takes a vacation and puts her in charge of running the workplace. During Katherine’s absence, Tess makes the startling discovery that one of the firm’s customers is considering a hostile takeover bid for a shipbuilding business. Tess views this as a chance to show everyone how capable she really is, so she gets to work on making the transaction a reality.
Tess must assemble all of the required data and give the client with an argument that is compelling in order to accomplish this goal. She enlists the assistance of Jack Trainer, a rich and successful businessman played by Harrison Ford, who offers to assist her as a personal favour in exchange for the assistance. Tess and Jack develop affections for one another throughout the course of their collaboration, which leads to the growth of a love connection between the two of them. After returning from vacation, Tess’s supervisor Katherine develops feelings of envy toward Tess because of her success. She devises a plan to undermine Tess’s business transaction and undermine her prospects of promotion.
Tess outsmarts Katherine in the end and is able to successfully seal the transaction, demonstrating not just to herself but also to everyone else that she is capable of achieving a great deal. She also comes to the realisation that in order to be successful in the professional world, it is not necessary for her to give up her personal life. The film Working Girl is both a charming and uplifting tale of a woman who defies her circumstances and strives for what she wants in spite of the obstacles that stand in her way.
14. Rogue Trader
Rogue Trader is a 1999 British biographical drama film directed by James Dearden and written by Dearden and Nick Leeson, based on Leeson’s memoir of the same name. The film stars Ewan McGregor as Leeson, a young and ambitious financial trader who is sent to work at the Singapore office of Barings Bank, one of the oldest and most prestigious financial institutions in the world. Leeson becomes increasingly successful and begins to make risky investments, ultimately leading to the collapse of the bank. The film also stars Anna Friel and is narrated by McGregor. It was produced by Janette Day, James Dearden, and Paul Raphael and released by Pathé Distribution. Rogue Trader was released on June 25, 1999 in the United Kingdom and has a running time of 101 minutes. It was shot in English and had an estimated budget of $12,800,000. The film grossed £969,565 at the box office in the UK.
Nick Leeson, who begins his professional life by working for Barings Bank in Indonesia and is later promoted to work as a derivatives trader at the trading seat of the bank in Singapore International Monetary Exchange (SIMEX), the movie begins by introducing Nick Leeson. Nick Leeson is a person who begins his career by working for Barings Bank in Indonesia and is later promoted to work as a derivatives trader at the trading seat of the bank in Singapore. He was given the responsibility of overseeing the transactions as well as the administrative duties associated with them, including entering and settling the trades at the end of the business day. His goal is to produce profits for Baring’s customers by trading futures contracts based on the Nikkei 225, a stock index that is traded on the Japan Stock Exchange. He does this by arbitraging the minor price gap that exists between SIMEX and the Japan Stock Exchange. He employs a group of individuals to work as floor traders for him and provides them with the necessary training in order for them to carry out the orders. Nick was doing well until he realised that a trader had made a mistake, which resulted in a loss for him. Nick begins trading futures under a newly established account numbered 88888, an illegal account, which is forbidden by the regulations governing banks in order to repay the losses that were incurred as a result of the trader’s actions. Soon after, his transactions began to fail, and he began to suffer losses that amounted to millions of pounds. Nick manages to secure a major customer and generates enough commission from his trades to make up for the money he lost while trying to hide the truth from his superiors. But since he wanted to participate on a larger scale, Nick decided against arbitraging his holdings in order to make a profit and instead started holding on to his positions in the hope that future prices would go up.
However, since he did not hedge his holdings, he suffered significant losses when a huge earthquake struck Japan in 1995, which coincided with a downward trend in the stock market. Nick is still dead set on recouping his losses, so he begins to make significant purchases of Nikkei futures in an effort to influence the market in his favour. Nick requests the main office in London to transfer him additional money so that he may get into larger agreements so that he can satisfy the margin calls. However, if the decline in market value continues unabated, the amount of money lost might reach hundreds of millions of pounds. The management of the bank continues to be unaware of the losses that are piling up in the account number 88888, which is an account that is maintained in the name of a customer. Losses of 800 million pounds were incurred as a direct result of the inadequate compliance system and improper conduct of regular audits that were in place at Barings Back. This was almost equal to the amount of capital that Barings Back had available.
Nick is becoming more aware that his game is nearing its conclusion as the market continues to move against him. Nick and his wife are making preparations to depart Singapore in the hopes of avoiding more legal trouble for Nick. But in the end, Nick is apprehended at the Frankfurt airport and extradited to Singapore, where he is found guilty of his crimes and sentenced to six years in jail.
15. American Psycho
American Psycho is a psychological thriller film directed by Mary Harron and based on the novel of the same name by Bret Easton Ellis. The film stars Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman, a wealthy and successful investment banker who is also a psychopathic killer. The screenplay for the film was written by Mary Harron and Guinevere Turner and the film was produced by Edward R. Pressman, Chris Hanley, and Christian Halsey Solomon. The film also features Willem Dafoe, Jared Leto, Josh Lucas, Samantha Mathis, Matt Ross, Bill Sage, Chloë Sevigny, Cara Seymour, Justin Theroux, Guinevere Turner, and Reese Witherspoon in supporting roles. The film was released in the United States on April 14, 2000 and received a limited release in other countries. It was a commercial success, grossing over $34 million at the box office against a budget of $7 million. The film received mostly positive reviews from critics and is considered a cult classic.
The story centres on a rich individual named Patrick Bateman, who is committed to a woman named Evelyn at the beginning of the film. The year is 1987. Through the use of his credit card, he enjoys showing off his wealth in the same way that his coworkers do. On a fateful night, as he observes his colleague named Allen showing off his business card, he is overcome with feelings of envy. In fact, his jealousy drives him to take the life of a man and his dog. As soon as he has the opportunity, he takes Allen’s life and stages the murder so that it appears as though he fled the country.
An officer questions Bateman in regard to Allen’s disappearance after the latter was reported missing. After that, he invites two prostitutes to come to his house, and a short while later, they are seen leaving his house covered in blood. When he returns to his place of employment, he sees the business card of another one of his associates named Luis, which reignites his feelings of envy. He makes an attempt to kill him, but Jean interprets his advances as signs of sexual lust, and Bateman ends up running away. In his rage, he chooses to take the life of a model instead and then invites his secretary into the room with the intention of taking her life as well. Their evening, however, is disrupted when he receives a message from his fiancee Evelyn.
The officer who he had been speaking with earlier informs him that he is no longer being investigated as a possible suspect in the disappearance of Allen. Bateman kills two of the women he knows through mutual acquaintances at a party that he hosts at Allen’s house. This takes place just before he informs Evelyn that he wants to call off their engagement. After he has killed yet another woman, the authorities are looking for Bateman, but he is able to elude them by destroying the gas tanks of their vehicles.
Bateman, while attempting to escape, goes into an office, which it is later revealed was not his, and kills several people there before leaving a confession for his attorney. The next day, he anticipates that Allen’s apartment will be the setting of a crime; however, he is surprised to find that the apartment has been cleaned and is currently for sale. The real estate agent claims that it is not Allen’s apartment, and while Bateman is out to lunch with his coworkers, Jeans discovers the details of the murders written in Bateman’s journal.
When Bateman finally sees his lawyer, he spills the beans once more, but this time the attorney laughs it off as a joke and says that he just recently ran into Allen. He is aware that he will never be punished for his crimes, and he maintains that his confessions have been meaningless in this regard.
What is Stock Market?
A stock market is a trading marketplace where securities like shares, ETFs, etc are sold and bold. Stock markets primarily host shares. A share of a firm, which is sometimes referred to as stock or equity, is a unit of ownership in that company. There may be several owners of a share. You are considered a shareholder of a corporation and are entitled to a claim on a part of the firm’s assets and income if you possess shares in that company.
Exchanges are the usual entities that make up the stock market. Exchanges are organizations that facilitate the trading of securities by bringing together buyers and sellers. The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASDAQ) are two of the most well-known stock exchanges in the whole globe.
Brokers are registered professionals that operate as mediators between buyers and sellers of stocks. Investors purchase and dispose of shares via the services of brokers. When you purchase a share of a firm’s stock, you automatically become a shareholder in that company and are given a stake in a proportional part of the company’s assets and income. The price of a share of stock is established by supply and demand, and it may change in response to a wide range of circumstances. Some of these factors include the financial performance of the firm, the status of the economy as a whole, and the trends in the market.
People put their money into the stock market for a number of reasons, including to build up savings for their retirement, to broaden the scope of their investment portfolio, or to increase the likelihood of a financial return on their investment. However, it is essential to keep in mind that investing in stocks comes with a certain degree of risk since the value of your assets may change at any time and there is no assurance that you will get your money back. Before you make a purchase of stocks, it is essential to give serious consideration to the investing objectives you have and the level of risk you are willing to take.
There are two types of stocks markets in general – primary and secondary stock market.
Primary share market is the place where enterprises or corporations register themselves and offer their shares for the very first time. This is done when the company needs more capital. Initial Public Offering is the name given to the process that a business goes through in order to list itself on the major share market and make the initial offer to sell its shares . Shares are a concrete manifestation of a percentage of the company’s overall worth, and the fact that you possess shares indicates that you are a part-owner of the business in proportion to the number of shares you have.
Secondary stock market refers to the market where real trading of a firm’s shares takes place after the company has been listed on the “primary market.” After the shares of a firm have been listed on a stock market, investors may trade them, which means they can sell or buy them via the assistance of a broker. The current era of digital technology makes it simple to register both a Demat Account and a Trading Account; once you do so, you will be able to participate in stock market transactions using various brokerage platforms.
Where can I watch Movies about Stock Market?
There are four main to watch movies about stock market – streaming online, television, rental or purchase or watch it in theatres.
Streaming platforms: Many streaming platforms, such as Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime, have a selection of movies about the stock market available to watch.
Cable or satellite television: Some cable and satellite television providers offer movies about the stock market as part of their programming.
Online movie rental or purchase: You can also rent or purchase movies about the stock market from online retailers such as Amazon or Google Play.
Depending on your location, you may be able to find movies about the stock market playing in theatres. It’s a good idea to check with each platform to see which movies are available and to make sure they have the movie you are interested in.
Does watching Stock Market Movies help me learn about trading in Stock Market?
No. Movies that are about the stock market may be entertaining and present a dramatised depiction of the financial world, but they may not always provide a comprehensive or accurate grasp of how the stock market operates or how to trade stocks.
Although movies about the stock market may touch on some aspects of the financial industry and include some real-life terminology and concepts, they are typically dramatised for pure entertainment and might not accurately depict the realities of the stock market or the financial industry. Movies about the stock market are often made for the purpose of providing a certain level of excitement.
It is crucial to do your own study and look for credible sources of information if you are seeking to learn about the financial markets and trading stocks. If you have this desire, the stock market may be a lucrative investment opportunity. Understanding about the stock market may be accomplished in a variety of ways, including taking a course online, studying books or articles on investing, speaking with a financial adviser or expert, taking part in a stock market simulation, or reading about investing in books or articles. In addition, it is a smart move to educate yourself on the possible downsides as well as the upsides of investing in stocks, and to acquire a deep comprehension of both your own investment objectives and your level of comfort with taking on risk.
Can watching Stock Market Movies help me learn about Investments?
No. While viewing movies might be a way to pass the time, it’s possible that they aren’t exactly the finest source of knowledge when it comes to comprehending investment and the stock market. The following are some of the reasons why:
Movies almost always include elements of fiction; the vast majority of films are fictional works and are not generally based on actual events or situations that occurred in real life. The majority of films about the stock market, despite the fact that they may include some true-to-life language and ideas, are often dramatised for entertainment reasons and may not reflect the real-life workings of the financial sector in an accurate manner.
There is a possibility that movies might not convey a full or correct understanding: Movies about the stock market may touch on some aspects of the financial industry, but they typically do not provide a comprehensive or advanced perception of how the stock market operates or how to invest in stocks. Movies about the stock market may also touch on some elements of the entertainment industry.
Movies about the stock market may not always represent the current market circumstances or trends since the stock market is always shifting and developing.
Movies do not always address particular circumstances. Because the financial objectives and levels of risk tolerance of every person are different, financial strategies that are successful for one person may not be suitable for another. It’s possible that movies about the stock market don’t take into consideration individual situations or provide unique counsel or suggestions that are customized to the requirements of an investment.
To summarise, watching movies about the stock market can be entertaining and may provide some insight into the world of finance. Despite these benefits, however, movies about the stock market are not necessarily the most reliable or comprehensive source of information for comprehending investing and the stock market. It is important to conduct your own research and look for credible sources of information if you are interested in learning about investing and the stock market. Some examples of such sources include books, articles, courses, and financial advisors. If you are interested in these topics, it is important to do your own research. In addition, it is a smart move to educate yourself on the possible downsides as well as the upsides of investing in stocks, and to acquire a deep comprehension of both your own investment objectives and your level of comfort with taking on risk.
Is it better to watch Stock Market Movies than Stock Market Documentaries?
No. Stock market movies are often functional and may be dramatized. Stock market documentaries may be a more accurate depiction since they are non-fictional.
Documentaries and movies are both types of visual media, but there are significant differences between the two in terms of their intended audience, narrative structure, production, and content. Documentaries are designed to enlighten or educate the viewer about a real-life subject or situation, while movies are often made for amusement and involve fictitious characters and storylines. Additionally, documentaries may incorporate actual individuals and interviews. Documentaries are often made by a single individual or a small team of filmmakers, in contrast to feature films, which are often produced by a group that includes both directors and actors. Stock Market Documentaries, on the other hand, may be more informative in nature and may not necessarily follow a standard plot arc, in contrast to the narrative framework that is often followed by films. Documentaries may be aimed at a more specific or niche audience, while movies are often designed to appeal to a large number of people. Documentaries, on the other hand, are made with the intention of informing and instructing viewers about a specific subject or issue. This is the primary distinction that can be drawn between movies and documentaries, as movies are made for the purpose of entertainment, while documentaries are made to educate viewers about a subject or issue.
Below is a list of documentaries that you can watch to gain proper insight about the stock market.
The China Hustle
Jed Rothstein is the director of the documentary film The China Hustle, which was released in 2017 and examines the high-stakes industry of investing in Chinese firms that are traded on stock exchanges in the United States.
Short sellers are investors who bet against the performance of a business. The plot of the movie revolves on a gang of short sellers who discover a plan involving Chinese firms that are listed on U.S. stock exchanges but do not disclose their financial information to investors. Short sellers have the suspicion that the firms are not as successful as they claim to be and may be engaging in fraudulent activity. These companies are able to attract millions of dollars from investors who are unaware of the risks they are taking.
As the short sellers continue their investigations, they discover a labyrinth of dishonesty and corruption including accountants, attorneys, and investment banks, all of whom are tasked with protecting the interests of investors. The movie explains how these businesses are able to falsify their financial statements and deceive investors, as well as the repercussions that might occur when the truth is ultimately disclosed.
The documentary The China Hustle delves further into the greater problem of the absence of control and regulation of Chinese firms listed on U.S. stock exchanges, as well as the dangers that are presented to investors when they choose to put their money into these companies. The movie brings up some very critical points about the responsibility of corporations and the role that financial institutions play in safeguarding the interests of investors.
The China Hustle is, all in all, an enlightening and thought-provoking documentary that shines light on the dangers and possible repercussions of investing in Chinese firms that are listed on U.S. stock exchanges, as well as the lack of control and regulation in this sector.
The Corporation (2003)
The Corporation is a documentary film that was released in 2003 and was directed by Jennifer Abbott and Mark Achbar. The film investigates the function and influence that corporations have on society, as well as the effects that their actions have had on the economy and the environment on a global scale.
The book “The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power” was written by Joel Bakan, and the film is based on that book. In the book, Bakan argues that corporations, as legally-defined entities, exhibit characteristics of a psychopath, such as a lack of empathy and a tendency to prioritise profit over the well-being of others. These characteristics are portrayed in the film.
The history of the company and its development from a relatively small role in society into one of the most powerful and influential organisations in the world is investigated during the course of the film. It investigates the influence of corporate power on a variety of topics, including the environment, labour practises, and global economy, and tracks the evolution of corporate law as well as the rights and protections afforded to businesses.
The documentary includes discussions with a wide range of authorities and commentators, such as Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, and Milton Friedman. It also employs a number of different types of video, such as archive footage, animation, and theatrical reenactments, to convey its ideas.
Overall, The Corporation is a thought-provoking and educational documentary that brings up crucial concerns regarding the role and influence of companies in society, as well as the effect that their activities have on the environment and the global economy. It urges viewers to think critically about the role that companies play in our lives and to evaluate the repercussions of the power that businesses have.
The Wall Street Fix
The Wall Street Fix is a documentary film that was released in 2004 and directed by David Leboff. The film analyses the role that Wall Street analysts had in the dot-com bubble that occurred in the late 1990s.
The main character of the movie is Jack Grubman, a prominent Wall Street analyst who is most remembered for his optimistic outlook on technology companies. Grubman, who was employed by the prominent investment firm Salomon Smith Barney at the time, was widely regarded as a pivotal figure in the tech boom that occurred in the late 1990s.
In spite of this, it became abundantly evident that Grubman and other analysts had mislead investors about the actual worth of these firms when the dot-com bubble burst and a number of tech stocks fell. The conflicts of interest that may have played a part in influencing the recommendations of the analysts are investigated in this film, as is the role that investment banks played in marketing equities that they knew to be expensive.
In addition to this, The Wall Street Fix investigates the regulatory lapses that led to these activities being permitted to continue unchecked as well as the repercussions for investors who suffered financial losses as a direct result of these actions. The documentary features interviews with a wide range of industry professionals and insiders, such as former analysts, regulators, and investors. It also makes use of archive video and theatrical reenactments to highlight its arguments.
Overall, The Wall Street Fix is an enlightening and thought-provoking documentary that shines light on the dangers and possible repercussions of depending on Wall Street analysts for investing advice, as well as the inherent conflicts of interest that may affect their recommendations. It urges viewers to engage in critical thinking about the information sources on which they depend in order to make choices on their investments and to assess the possible dangers and benefits of participating in the stock market.
What are the best Indian Stock Market Movies?
Scam 1992
Scam 1992 is an Indian financial thriller, biographical drama television series that was released on SonyLIV in October 2020. The series is based on the 1992 Indian stock market scam and is written by Sumit Purohit, Saurav Dey, Vaibhav Vishal, and Karan Vyas. It is directed by Hansal Mehta and Jai Mehta and stars Pratik Gandhi, Shreya Dhanwanthary, Hemant Kher, and Satish Kaushik. The series has one season with a total of 10 episodes and has a running time of 42-60 minutes per episode. It is produced by Studio NEXT and Applause Entertainment and is distributed by SonyLIV. The series explores the events leading up to and the aftermath of the 1992 Indian stock market scam, which was one of the biggest financial scandals in Indian history. It follows the story of Harshad Mehta, a stockbroker who played a key role in the scam, and the investigations and legal proceedings that followed. The series received widespread acclaim for its performances, writing, and direction and has become one of the most popular Indian web series of all time.
Baazaar Baazaar is a 2018 Indian crime drama film directed by Gauravv K. Chawla and written by Parveez Sheikh and Aseem Arora. The film is produced by Nikhil Advani, Viacom18 Motion Pictures, Kyta Productions, Emmay Entertainment, and B4U Movies and stars Saif Ali Khan, Rohan Vinod Mehra, Radhika Apte, Chitrangada Singh, and Denzil Smith. The film is narrated by Rohan Vinod Mehra and has music by Tanishk Bagchi, Yo Yo Honey Singh, Kanika Kapoor, Sohail Sen, and Bilal Saeed, with a score by John Stewart Eduri. Baazaar was released in India on 26 October 2018 and has a running time of 137 minutes. It is distributed by Anand Pandit Motion Pictures, Panorama Studios, and Viacom18 Motion Pictures.
The plot of the movie centres on a young man called Rizwan Ahmed, who aspires to be a stockbroker and gets entangled in the world of high finance and corporate greed. Rohan Vinod Mehra plays the role of Rizwan Ahmed in the film. Rizwan works his way to the top of the corporate ladder after becoming the protégé of a powerful and vicious businessman called Shakun Kothari (who was portrayed by Saif Ali Khan). However, as Rizwan’s career advances, he finds himself embroiled in a web of lies and corruption, and he is forced to face the repercussions of his actions. The background of the Mumbai stock market provides the setting for this drama, which delves into ideas like power, greed, and unscrupulous behaviour. Upon its first release, it was met with a variety of reactions.
Gafla
Gafla is a 2006 Indian film directed by Sameer Hanchate and written by Sameer Hanchate, Rajiv Velicheti, and Bijesh Jayarajan. The film stars Vinod Sharawat, Shruti Ulfat, Vikram Gokhale, and Brijendra Kala and has a running time of 127 minutes. It was released in India on 6 October 2006.
The narrative of Rakesh, a young stockbroker, who becomes caught up in the world of financial fraud and corporate greed is told in the film Gafla. Rakesh is a modest stockbroker who has aspirations of being a major player in the world of finance. He meets Gafoor, a wealthy businessman, and views this as a chance to achieve his goal of becoming a major player in the world of finance. Gafoor makes an offer to mentor Rakesh and instruct him on the ins and outs of the industry. However, as Rakesh’s career progresses, he not only becomes more successful but also more corrupt and starts to participate in acts that are immoral.
Rakesh’s money and influence continue to increase, and as a result, he gets more and more involved in the world of corporate deception. As a result, he begins to lose sight of his beliefs and morality. Rakesh is forced to face the consequences of his actions when a string of financial scandals are brought to light, and he finds himself the subject of an investigation. He must then decide whether he wants to continue down the path of greed and corruption, or whether he wants to choose a different path.
Gafla is a film that, as a whole, is thought-provoking since it investigates topics such as corporate greed, financial deception, and the risks that come with giving in to temptation. Viewers are encouraged to engage in critical thought on the function of money.
The Big Bull
The Big Bull is a 2021 Indian biographical drama film directed by Kookie Gulati and written by Kookie Gulati and Arjun Dhawan. The film is based on the life of Harshad Mehta, a stockbroker who played a key role in the 1992 Indian stock market scam. The film is produced by Ajay Devgn, Anand Pandit, Vikrant Sharma, and Kumar Mangat Pathak and stars Abhishek Bachchan, Ileana D’Cruz, and Nikita Dutta. It has cinematography by Vishnu Rao and editing by Dharmendra Sharma and music by Sandeep Shirodkar. The Big Bull was released in India on 8 April 2021 and has a running time of 154 minutes. It is distributed by Disney+ Hotstar.
The film tells the narrative of Harshad Mehta, a stockbroker who started out on the bottom but rose up the ranks to become a major player in the financial world in the 1980s and 1990s. Mehta becomes one of the most successful and renowned stockbrokers in India, being recognised for his high-risk, high-reward style to trading along the way. On the other hand, as Mehta’s influence grows, so does his level of corruption, and he begins to indulge in unethical behaviours such as insider trading and manipulating the stock market. When the truth is at last exposed and Mehta is probed, he will be forced to face the repercussions of his acts and the influence they had on the lives of other people.
The Big Bull is, as a whole, a picture that provokes thinking and is dramatic in its exploration of issues such as greed, corruption, and power. It gives the audience a look into the world of high finance and the perils of giving in to temptation. | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 71 | https://www.ucpress.edu/blog/55326/mank-citizen-kane-and-the-true-legacy-of-marion-davies/ | en | University of California Press | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | Scholarship is a powerful tool for changing how people think, plan, and govern. By giving voice to bright minds and bold ideas, we seek to foster understanding and drive progressive change. | en | /favicon.svg | University of California Press | null | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 4 | https://time.com/archive/6764681/cinema-kane-case/ | en | Cinema: Kane Case | https://time.com/favicon.ico | https://time.com/favicon.ico | [] | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"TIME"
] | 1941-03-17T05:00:00+00:00 | As in some grotesque fable, it appeared last week that Hollywood was about to turn upon and destroy its greatest creation. That creation was Citizen Kane, the film which Orson Welles and his... | en | /favicon.ico | TIME | https://time.com/archive/6764681/cinema-kane-case/ | As in some grotesque fable, it appeared last week that Hollywood was about to turn upon and destroy its greatest creation. That creation was Citizen Kane, the film which Orson Welles and his Mercury Players had spent more than a year talking and thinking about and 70 days shooting, with $750,000 of Radio-Keith-Orpheum’s money.
The film was in the cans. A magazine advertising campaign had begun. But no release was set by R. K. O. for the picture to be shown to the public, and it seemed very likely that none would ever be. Old Mr. William Randolph Hearst, who had only heard reports of the picture through his cinematic eyes, ears and tongue, Columnist Louella Parsons, thought the life of Kane was too close a parallel to the life of Hearst.
The Picture. The objection of Mr. Hearst, who founded a publishing empire on sensationalism, is ironic. For to most of the several hundred people who have seen the film at private showings, Citizen Kane is the most sensational product of the U. S. movie industry. It has found important new techniques in picture-making and storytelling. Artful and artfully artless, it is not afraid to say the same thing twice if twice-telling reveals a fourfold truth. It is as psychiatrically sound as a fine novel but projected with far greater scope, for instance, than Aldous Huxley was inspired to bring to his novel on the same theme. It is a work of art created by grown people for grown people.
The Story begins with the death of Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), at one time the world’s third richest man, overlord of mines and factories and steamship lines, boss of newspapers, news services and radio chains, possessor of a vast castle in Florida, a staggering agglomeration of art, two wives, millions of enemies. The MARCH OF TIME is running off rushes of its Kane biography in its projection room. But when they are shown, the editor does not think the facts reveal the man. “It might be any rich publisher—Pulitzer, Hearst or John Doe,” he complains. “Get me something that will show it is Kane. Find out his last words. Maybe they meant something.”
Kane’s last word was “rosebud.” Thompson (William Alland), the newsreel reporter, spends two feverish weeks in interviewing five people. Thompson talks to Kane’s trollopish second wife (Dorothy Comingore), whom he tried to make a singer, finally established in the castle. There she passed the years assembling jigsaw puzzles until she walked out in boredom. Then there is Kane’s rich guardian (George Coulouris) whom Kane hated; Kane’s general manager (Everett Sloan), the sad, loyal, philosophical Jew who stuck by to the end; his former drama editor and best friend (Joseph Gotten) with whom Kane broke after Kane’s disastrous try for the Governorship of New York; Kane’s butler (Paul Stewart). None knew the meaning of “rosebud.” But each in his way understood a little of the man: he was not cruel, but he did cruel things; he was not generous, but he did generous things; he was willful, capricious, and he wanted to be loved—on his own terms. The MARCH OF TIME never finds the meaning of “rosebud,” nor the key to Kane’s frustrations, but, almost by accident, the audience does.
So sharply does Citizen Kane veer from cinema cliche, it hardly seems like a movie. There are some extraordinary technical novelties through which Welles and wiry, experienced little Photographer Gregg Toland have given the camera a new elo quence — for example, the “stolen” newsreels, the aged and streaked documentary shots. When Susan makes her disastrous operatic debut, the camera tells the story by climbing high up among the flies to find two stagehands — one with his hand pinching his nose in disgust. Always the camera seems to be giving the narrative a special meaning where it will help most: picturing a small bottle beside a tumbler when Susan Kane is lying drugged with an overdose of sedatives, exploring the love nest and the family breakfast table like a pair of prying eyes and ears.
Orson Welles treats the audience like a jury, calling up the witnesses, letting them offer the evidence, injecting no opinions of his own. He merely sees that their stories are told with absorbing clarity. Unforgettable are such scenes as the spanning of Kane’s first marriage in a single conversation, the silly immensity of the castle halls which echo the flat whines of Susan.
Hollywood claimed Welles never would make the grade. From the moment he arrived there its citizens resented him and his Martians and his youth and his talent. When he grew a beard for his first film, a sporty pressagent sent him a bearded ham for Christmas; while he was dining out one evening, a playful actor cut off his tie with a table knife; columnists dubbed him with nicknames like “Little Orson Annie.” At announcements that his first two productions had been called off, the town nodded knowingly. He was just a big bag of publicity.
But whatever Orson Welles did do, Hollywood was pretty sure it would break all the rules. Hollywood was right. | ||
7501 | dbpedia | 1 | 68 | https://cinemaloversclub.com/citizen-kane-review | en | Citizen Kane (1941) | [
"https://cinemaloversclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Color-logo-with-background.png",
"https://cinemaloversclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Color-logo-with-background.png",
"https://cinemaloversclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/cropped-White-logo-no-background.jpeg",
"https://i0.wp.com/cinemaloverscl... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"Cinema Lovers Club"
] | 2021-02-17T23:58:00+00:00 | The Greatest Film Of All-Time, OW's new-age opera, political-drama, black comedy, mystery-noir, satirization, romance, & biography/psychological-pièta evolved ciné: complex, plot-eclectc, avant-garde metaphor of power, love, money, tragedy. 10/10. [category:all-time-favorites/drama/experimental/comedyromance/film-noir/psychological/italian-neorealisme/political-drama/mystery/classics,date:1941-02-17,rate:10,type:movies] ......... | en | Cinema Lovers Club | https://cinemaloversclub.com/citizen-kane-review | The Greatest Film Ever Made [& by a 24 year-old wünderkind], O.W.’s 1941 new-age opera, political-drama, black comedy, romance, satirization, & noir biographical/psychological-pièta changed everything, catalyzing a bloom-evolution of the history & artform of cinema; a complex, beautiful avant-garde metaphor of power, love, money, news, & tragedy. 10/10.
…
Plot Synopsis: When a reporter is assigned to decipher newspaper magnate Charles Foster Kane’s (Orson Welles) dying words, his investigation gradually reveals the fascinating portrait of a complex man who rose from obscurity to staggering heights. Though Kane’s friend and colleague Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten), and his mistress, Susan Alexander (Dorothy Comingore), shed fragments of light on Kane’s life, the reporter fears he may never penetrate the mystery of the elusive man’s final word, “Rosebud.”
*Possible Spoilers Ahead*
Official CLC Review
The Greatest Film Of All-Time. Over 500,000+ movies have been made since Louis Le Prince & Eadweard J. Muybridge created the first motion picture using zoöpraxiscopes and glass discs to settle tavern wagers over the locomotion of animals back in the 1870’s – all desperately craving the crown and throne. The title breeds inevitable discourse across the cinematic world: from mafiaic undergrounds to whistle-tuned desert westerns to noir private-eyes to galaxy star-children. No other project title in history, though, evokes such a prestige, bone-chilled awe, depth of passion, and communal eulogization as one: Citizen Kane. A poverty-stricken film landscape and struggling RKO Pictures fueled the unimaginable in 1940: offering a 24-year old NYC wünderkind named Orson Welles a carte-blance & absolute creative freedom to make any picture of any genre with any cast – on any subject. The result of O.W. & his chosen lineup’s [headed by sardonic, acclimatized drunk-screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz] ambition with perilous endgame to hunt impossible sociopolitical game is a chef d’oeuvre masterpiece just as celebrated & immortalized nearly a century post-release. The project boasts the king mantle of ‘greatest film ever made’ by the ~complete-universe of critics, literary/academia publications, and pop-culture – holding 100% scores on both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, while being so complex and layered, it’s been analyzed-and-reanalyzed for generations with not an end in sight. The film changed everything for its artform – the biggest legacy in cinematic history, challenging every preconception of what cinema is, was, and will be and saving a dying medium by proving it can be literature, art, and music combined and as complex [or more] as Shakespearen theatre. Does it still hold up in 2021; does Citizen Kane still merit its hierarchical moniker as The ‘G.O.A.T.’? The answer: yes. The Greatest Film Ever Made [& by a 24 year-old wünderknd], OW’s 1941 new-age opera, political drama, black comedy, romance, satirization, & noir biographical/psychological-pièta changed the history of movies, catalyzing a cinematic bloom-evolution to the movie landscape we know today: a complex, layered, plot-eclectic, beautiful avant-garde metaphor of power, love, money, news, & tragedy.
The opening scene of Citizen Kane is the greatest ever filmed: a pure textbook showcase of cinematic technique and bravura optical intelligence able to lay important groundwork for the entire film without more than one single spoken-word. To pay homage to the classic, reverberate its avant-garde plot-structure, and because it’s packed with so much analyzable content, social-commentary, and hidden meanings/metaphor in every line & frame, we’re going to do this review differently than others here at CLC. A dichotomized review in two self-contained threads, one thread will be prefaced by Roman Numerals (I-XX) analyzing each major scene of the film and how it synergizes with others to elucidate the overall meaning of the film, and the other thread prefaced by Alphabetical Letters (A-I) will be a classicized film review analyzing the backstory, technique, innovations, cinematography, score, performances, direction, legacy, etc. Beginning with the opening flickers of film, the first shot that bludgeons our view is of a grimy sign with the words ‘No Trespassing’ zoomed-in so closely, it takes up nearly the entire frame. The cinematography, dusk-set sky of storm-clouds, and heavy chiaroscuro create a dark atmosphere of palpable dread – one whose score parallels its thematic [cimmerian] smokiness and caliginosity with spine-chilling, ominous strings. The shot begins to pan up the fence – highlighting its geometric shape with movement before bringing in rich slow-burn fades of other geometric gate/fence decorations to both disorientate and melt our senses into the environment, while also establishing themes of importance and ritzy opulence; only a very celebratized and wealthy figure could even afford to spend such endless resources on the gate outside his house. A dual-staged shot sees us outside the gate looking at the K family crest and larger-than-life castle in the distance: Xanadu – how far it is from us further highlighting the riches of its owner with miles of backyard, how much he/she values privacy, and how physically out-of-reach we are – a sharp difference of class-status & bourgeoise established solely by scale. The shot-cycling begins to further antagonize us with the impossible wealth of Xanadu: a private zoo, lake, golf-course, mountain, & more braggadocios impracticalities no homeowner could ever privately-own except in their wildest dreams/fantasy. However, cues in the audiovisual canvas [sharp, jagged edges and gothic architecture alongside a minor key woodwind score creating disharmonic cryptograms as they glide across the scales, alternated with deafening silence] paint a mystery through juxtaposition and atmosphere: why is everything presented with such a bleak and desolate view? Where is everyone? Where is the magnate owner of such palatial opulence? How could anyone ever be sad & alone in a place like this?
The backstory of Citizen Kane begins in The Mercury Theatre. Orson Welles was a prodigal rising star Hollywood had been trying to woo since the mid-1930’s after the breakout financial and critical success of his plays and The War Of The Worlds broadcast CBS radio series. Studios like Warner Bros. had offered multiple scripts and hand-invited him to make obscene amounts of money in the far-easier landscape of film than theatre – but O.W., like his own version of a young, idealistic Kane, couldn’t have cared less about the money and instead prioritized his burning passion/love for theatre. Financial trouble struck after a couple of his plays like Five Kings and The Green Goddess were not-as-well remunerated at the box-office [despite being critically-so], and Welles finally humored the incessant knocks at his door by Tinsel-Town elites out of necessity. The first studio tour he was taken on exposed Welles to a new cinematic world amongst the bright lights and rolling green hills of Los Angeles: what he called ‘the greatest electric train-set a boy ever had’ and fell head-over-heels in love with, having far more possibilities and endless budgets to make the masterpieces of his hyper-ambitious young mind [without such real-world limitations or considerations in the comparatively-small/dying theatre]. RKO Pictures offered him a blank-check contract with final cut privilege and absolute creative freedom – to the shock, controversy, and mock/ridicule of the cinematic world/press having never seen such a massive, risk-frought, groundbreaking contract.. & all on a first-time, unproven director. Official newspaper headlines called the move ‘laughable’ and ‘the biggest mistake any studio ever made.’ [Who’s laughing now?] The collaborator on the screenplay chosen by Welles was Herman J. Mankiewicz: a sardonic, acclimatized drunkard viewed as a washed-up has-been by the Hollywood landscape, but whom O.W. saw fleeting greatness within beneath the whiskey-breath and slurred exterior façade. Pitching the bold/groundbreaking idea to make a film about the life and psychology of one of the world’s richest and most famous men [who also happened to have been in Mankiewicz’ social-circle, before he grew to hate him after being exiled from his castle post-melée], Welles put a sniper lens on the hunt of impossible game: William Randolph Hearst.
The editing progressively brings us closer and closer to the one window light in the otherwise shadow-overwhelming, desolate canvas until we find ourselves right outside the window and the orchestration crescendoes. We see a man alone on his deathbed, clutching nothing and no one but a snow-globe of a wintery scene as his lips curl off a single word ‘Rosebud’ & his hand goes lifeless – leaving the globe to shatter as he dies to startle us with iconography and perplex our empathy and interests of who this mystery person is.. and why we should care? The scene is perhaps the most content-packed, thematically-complex, viewer-hooking, striking, and avant-garde in cinematic history – a piece that instantly evokes your sensibilities and draws you into the mystery while also being critical to understanding the film’s codex of ecosystemic innerworkings, establishing a non-linear plot structure from the opening second: telling the story from the end instead of the beginning. The bizarre double-take of the light in the window cutting off as the crescendo silences perhaps symbolized CFK’s death, connecting Xanadu and Kane synergistically by syncopation before taking us back inside his final moments [a proto-replay, if you will] to see what he told the world & us beyond the fourth-wall about himself in his dying breath. After the gloom and tragic despair of the previous scene, Citizen Kane reverses tone like a Mexican jumping bean to complete antithesization: a celebratory, jubilant news featurette doubling as a real-estate docufeature on the palace of Xanadu. Of critical importance here is that mentioned even before the man who owned it is his possession. The scene backgrounds the impossible building of a modern wonder of the world – a Florida gulf coast kingdom named after Kublai Khan as labor-intensive as the pyramids: 100,000 trees, 20,000 tons of marble, and the treasures of the world where money was no object. The acicularity of contrast between this hyperidealized, luxurious vision of Xanadu [what we’d imagine of its experience by preconceptions] and the real one we saw in the opening scene kickstarts multiple running themes throughout Citizen Kane: the futility and multi-reflexive moralization of the news, a caustic eschewal of capitalism, cynical nihilism of riches, & psychoanalysis of the incomplete puzzle and [ironically Christian-divergent against our core principles] point of view America takes on celebrities.
Though a principal source for Charles Foster Kane [hereby abbreviated: CFK or Kane] was never officially confirmed by the duo – claimed a synthesis of different personalities and life events from the giants of journalism like Pulitzer, Northcliffe, & Bayard and a few of Welles’ childhood business-tycoon friends like Insull and McCormick – it was clear to the world and press that Kane was referential to Hearst. Both CFK and Hearst: 1) were the sons of parents earning a fortune in mines, 2) attended Harvard before 3) getting expelled, 4) inherited newspapers they turned into empires with 5) yellow journalism [splashy headlines & sensationalism over true, objective reporting based on facts], 6) ran as leftist politicians ironically 7) promising as silver-spooners to be ‘champions for the working class’ but 8) failing to achieve elected office, 9) had scandalous romantic affairs with 10) showgirls whom they 11) used their news resources to try jumpstarting their entertainment careers, 12) used the word Rosebud [Hearst claimedly using it as a pet name for Davies & her genitalia], and most obviously: 13) built impossibly-grand kingdom estates on 14) thousands of coastal acres (California and Florida) over decades that 15) were never finished. News On The March satirized the journalistic style of The March Of Time docuseries, Walter P. Thatcher was based on J.P. Morgan, and the inspiration for Rosebud was born from a treasured childhood bicycle stolen from a young Mankiewicz [with the name also being from the famed racehorse he bet on at the 1914 Kentucky Derby, symbolizing his loss-of-innocence from that childhood carefree kid to meld with an overarching theme of Citizen Kane’s biggest symbolized mystery, as we’ll definitely explain later]. The wildfire that followed when news of this broke to the press is a circus just as theatrical, proving-of-concept, and entertaining as the film.
Sugar-coated simplification of complex, multi-faceted, diverse world problems into superficial tidbits spoon-feedable for the public has been a problem with the news for generations – one that’s only gotten 100X+ exacerbated by the instant gratification & TL:DR culture of The Social Media Age it’s a borderline miracle Citizen Kane was able to predict nearly a century ahead of its time [and is the reason I founded CLC in the first place]. The sequence begins meta-analysis of American capitalism: how we idol-worship celebrities, covet their possessions like Xanadu while proclaiming religious piety/holiness, prioritize what a man owned over his contributions and good paid towards society, and overequate money as a cure-all medicine to solve all problems – when it’s not always that simple. This is all done contemporaneously as the film introduces its prismatized protagonist: Charles Foster Kane. The newspaper headlines exaggerate and sensationalize with bold audacity that ‘the entire nation mourns the death of an outstanding American and sponsor of democracy; the greatest newspaper tycoon of this or any other generation after a lifetime of service. This laughable puff-piece editorial clearly-satirical in farcical tone and disingenuous (as we’ll learn from the rest of the film) further establishes the futility and exploitable propaganda-machine of the news, while reverberating how society does celebrate people like this CFK over [truly] outstanding Americans who actually do give lifetimes of service like doctors, teachers, firefighters, etc. without ever a headline or thank you. This isn’t a localized phenomenon either; civilizations across the world engage in the same self/sociologically-destructive behavior [as hinted by the splice-montage of headlines in various languages from Japanese to Egyptian to Italian] that psycho-conditions us to wow at the wrong things; America just does it far more than most as the perfect stage for the allegorical tale of Charles Foster Kane. The film shifts gear once again from a Greek tragedy opening to documentarian real estate news vignette to semi-autobiographical piece chronicling the rise-and-fall of the capitalist bourgeoise newspaper-tycoon billionaire.
The pre-release controversy of Citizen Kane only further italicizes the magnitude of its achievement, real-world implications, and artistic significance. Orson Welles knew the film would send shock-waves throughout the industry and world by the Moby Dick-sized whale they were hunting like Cpt. Ahab – so he kept access & publicity strictly-limited to the bare minimum required by studio execs and contract. A private, credentialed screening for members of the press was infiltrated by an uninvited columnist working for a paper in Hearst’s news conglomerate by the betrayal of someone involved with the film [a noir/spy-like gritfest in real-life] – and she immediately recognized the sharp-edged satirization and references to her boss. The only one to give it a negative review amongst the critics at-presence, she ran an article highlighting point-by-point comparisons between CFK & WRH before threatening a lawsuit if the film were to be released. News got to Hearst – who enacted the Old Testament fiery-wrath of an unforgiving God and iron fist of a dictatorial and tyrannical/corrupt megalomaniac: commanding every newspaper of his conglomerate of hundreds or thousands to ban any mention or promotion of Citizen Kane or RKO Pictures. To give an idea of the power & influence William Randolph Hearst had over the public, he ~single-handedly (along with a racism-fearmongering Harold Anslinger) ran a smear campaign against marijuana to protect his interests/investments in the timber industry that experts attribute to the lasting delegalizing of the drug even today in the 2020’s worldwide – over half a century later by the commandments of one man. When power-abuse and media-shaming failed to douse the fiery ambitions of Welles & co., WRH resorted to blackmail with threats to expose the private lives of people throughout RKO/Welles’ circles and film studios alike – plus threats to ruin the reputation of any theatre deciding to premiere or show the film.
The ~10 minute NOTM backstory of Charles Foster Kane is loaded with so much subtext and hidden metaphor/meaning, it could be its own film – and serves the purpose of an origin one, outlining and synopsizing the major events of CFK’s entire life so that the rest of the film is free of plot-shackles and able to go wherever and whenever it wants to put a finer lens. The newsreel frames Kane as The Ultimate American: The American Dream personified; the rags-to-riches story we should all bow down to and one day aspire to become like. From humble beginnings in Colorado, he grows up the son of a boardinghouse keeper coming into a supposedly-worthless deed to an abandoned mine-shaft – one stricken with hidden gold. The sudden extreme wealth sees his parents give Kane up for psuedo-adoption to a wall-street businessman to learn his ways, one he physically-assaults with a sled on their first acquaintance [extremely important symbolism later-on]. Nevertheless, he’s powerless as a child to obey his parents’ wishes – later building his inheritance into an empire of 27 newspapers, two syndicates, a radio network, grocery stores, paper mills, apartment complexes, factories, etc. reaching from coast to coast. The puff-piece editorial previously-outlined becomes more grounded in reality here – exposition on both the good and [shockingly]-bad of Kane on his stance-taking/partnerships on every public issue for 40+ years. He fights for low-income families against the wealthy one-second, and sips tea with world leaders like Hitler another: extremely complex moral dichotomization that only further-fuels our blazing intensity of fascination with him while establishing the importance of the figure through association to some of history’s most powerful and infamous men he breaks bread with. The brilliance of Charles Foster Kane as a protagonist owes major credit to Orson Welles’ performance: the most impressive multi-achievement in cinematic history in his directing/acting/writing/producing/etc. hats for every role behind-the-scenes. The ability to play a man throughout his entire life [young to old; adolescence to deathbed] like he does in this one film is a miracle of thespianship – even more impressive given his age of only being 24 years old, barely a man himself tasked with the herculean labor of understanding life and humanity from a God-like omniscience perspective, when he delivered Citizen Kane to screen.
The looming apocalypse of studios and execs being exposed to the general public [their customer-base, which WRH showed proof he wasn’t bluffing on by running a story that studios were profiting off free labor by immigrants without fulfilling promises to pay them afterwards] led to even the biggest sharks and presidents of the cinematic world coming forward. MGM patriarch/founder Louis B. Mayer hand-offered RKO & Welles ~$1M [today: $20M+] personally to destroy all prints of the film and burn the negative to wipe it from existence. Though RKO refused, they started to feel the hot grips of panic and doubt of whether they made the right decision backing their prize racehorse – violating their contract’s promises of non-interference by frequently sending spies onto the set whom were supposed to report back updates on what they saw to gauge the risk mitigation. O.W. and the cast kept sharp eyes out for the 007-esque secret-agents, and would cease shooting to play softball every time they found one until they left. One RKO spy managed to evade detection long enough to slip between the seams and steal a copy of the Citizen Kane script, which they subsequently leaked to the press: the ultimate cinematic sin and slap-of-the-face of a film crew/director, perhaps to soften the blow – more so, a spite of O.W. The director responded by further-trolling and revengefully provoking the news and circus: the long-awaited trailer for the cinematic event of the decade thrown to the pack of ravenous wolves salivating after months of silence.. didn’t feature even a single second of footage of the actual film itself: an original, tongue-in-cheek, behind-the-scene five [sic] minute pseudo-doc conjuring on the film’s production with trick-shots and studio-introductions instead of any narrative material or footage. Talk about revenge and god-tier trolling a near-century before memes, GIFs, or any tools internet heathens use today. Real-world dystopia like a sci-fi film, hijinx/satire like a comedy, secret agent stealth missions like a spy thriller, and fear-based corruption like a political drama paved way to horror if the real-world genres Citizen Kane faced weren’t enough – when WRH’s rage at not getting what he wanted [likely, for the first time in his life] opened a Pandora’s Box in the trenches. On his way home from a speaking engagement after studio-time one day, Welles was notified by police not to go back to his hotel. A malicious frame-plot involving a little girl trapped in the closet was waiting for him there, according to intel & witnesses, to decimate the name, legacy, and career of Orson Welles before Citizen Kane could ever make it to-screen. The plot thickens!
The regal authoritarian presence, booming thunder of a voice built for teleprompters, robust comportment, and clean-cut opulence of a news-ready banker’s smile with a hearty chuckle make you both love and hate him at the same time – one of the most indescribable chemically-equilibrized mixes of a performance I’ve ever seen on-screen. The characterization is just as complex and dichotomized: the newsreel claims ‘few lives were more public’, but there’s a lot going on behind-the-scenes. Thrice married and twice divorced, the timeline and personal life of CFK are extremely-suspicious – hiding dots just-enough-connectable without outright proof to limitlessly provoke our curiosities. His first wife divorcing him in 1916, then dying of a sudden motor-accident with their son in 1918 implies a frightening plausibility: did Kane’s superiority complex and lust-for-control lead him to order a hit on his ex-wife, with his child as a casualty or even.. fellow-target? Two weeks later remarrying a showgirl named Susan Alexander, the turnaround without ostensible grief/mourn gives further credence to the ghastly conspiracy above – while adding a scandalous affair that makes him lose the governorship of Kansas with The White House next-in-view by a wife perhaps being the one to leak the story and turn CFK’s own vehicle/weapon against him: the press. The tragedy of being divorced again after flaunting his money and building his opera singer Suzie her own opera house in Chicago at a cost of $3M ($56,000,000+ in 2021, adj. inflation) and the palace of Xanadu at hundreds of millions somehow evokes pity and empathy in the pith of our souls & hearts for a man with everything on paper – a man many of us thought we’d give anything to be like at the beginning of the scene. Three important themes are hinted lightly here to be further-developed later: money vs. love, abandonment, and childhood-trauma. Does CFK hate divorce and abandonment so much because it brings him back to that childhood pain and event of his parents giving him up for adoption? Can money buy happiness and love, or does it shield/falsify it for us? All of these questions linger on the palate as the featurette comes full-circle back to where we started: Xanadu on the dusky night of the death of Kane before it cuts black – leaving exponentially-more questions than answers of who is and what happened to Charles Foster Kane?
One night shortly after the ploy failed and the movie was days away from release, a documented chance-encounter between Orson Welles & William Randolph Hearst in an elevator at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco pit the two archenemies and their egos/tension in a box merely feet-wide. Welles wryly offered him a ticket to opening night of Citizen Kane, to which he never responded and couldn’t even look him in the eye. As WRH got off on his floor after perhaps the most humiliating and humbling experience the world’s most powerful man ever had, Welles said one final line to him as the elevator closed: “Charles Foster Kane would have accepted.” The kaleidoscopic mix of real-world genres Kane went through en route to the big-screen is just as packed, diverse, and extensive as the film itself – the craziest backstory in the history of movie: one we hope gets its own movie made one day outside the perspective of the film itself and proof of the validity of every psychoanalytical and social-commentary point the film makes on the machination of the news & William Randolph Hearst. The trench-warfare Citizen Kane experienced in its journey to release made the premiere of this David v. Goliath miracle the greatest triumph of artistic freedom in moviemaking when it finally opened at the RKO Palace Theater on Broadway in New York City on May 1, 1941. Kane failed at the box office by the looming shadow of its patriarch’s influence and strong-arm corruption tactics on any theater or company talking about the film – but, without its herculean bravery and intensity of strength/conviction to not bend in the face of unfathomable adversity, cinema would never have evolved and become what it is today; a savior’s parable. Not the slightest bit of an exaggeration or superlative, movies could have remained nothing more than toys or propaganda-vehicles for the rich, famous, and powerful – and the fact it’s now an artform of artistic depth and 500,000+ films of every kind, genre, demographic, and orientation we have to majorly attribute ~singularly to Citizen Kane.
After the newsreel concludes and fourth-wall is broken to take us into a backroom mini-theatre of newspaper editors watching the same vignette-reel we just did, one man sparks a discussion on the merit of the segment. The cinematography in this sequence is impeccable – proto-noir ocular majesty by its heavy chiaroscuro, deep-focus mise-en-scene, atmospheric light/smoke so thick-you-could-cut-it-with-a-knife, and tricky shadow-play as the editors are both physically and metaphorically in the dark about who Kane really was. The depth and analytical perspective of the N.O.T.M. is criticized – one man named Thompson emerges, vowing to go beyond the superficial newspaper headlines ‘everyone knows’ on which the newsreel predominantly focuses. This is one of the few positive representations of journalism in the entire film; he nails the driving principle and raison d’être of true journalistic reporting and writing: ‘it’s not enough to know what a man did, who was he?’. The angle and pivot he cleverly thesisizes to decipher the codex-puzzle of Charles Foster Kane is his dying final word’s meaning: Rosebud. Going hard-boiled detective mode straight out of Dick Tracy comics, the film shifts genres yet again [after a twinge of black comedy/satire in the line ‘Rosebud: it’s probably something very simple!’ (Yeah, not so much.)] with a booming thunderbolt lightning-clap used as cover-transition for a startling buzzsaw jump-cut to a larger-than-life mural of Susan Alexander Kane atop her new nightclub in the rain-soaked cityscape. The fast-pan over the top of the building by the El Rancho Nightclub sign through a rooftop window into the lounge of a washed-up alcoholic Ms. Kane below is perhaps the first [& best] establishment of the aesthetics of the genre of film-noir in cinematic history: heavy rain, neon-signs, chiaroscuro, xylophonic and flute minor-keys, and thematization of private eye detectives investigating grimy, sinful venues aestheticized with crime, sex, murder, mystery, and the dark edges of humanity. Though films in the 1930’s had proto-noir characteristics like The Maltese Falcon, Crime And Punishment, M, Pépé Le Moko, The Beast Of The City, etc., none truly defined and fueled a resurgence of its popularity beyond the fringes of indies like Kane – and an argument can certainly be made that it should be regarded as the founder defining what we know the genre as today. The introduction to Susan Alexander Kane is a phenomenal one – the bitter snarl of Dorothy Comingore’s performance as the vehemently-rude drunkard wallowing in self-pity [humorously-dichotomized by Will Alland’s fizzy, effervescent Mr. Thompson] is sensational: further evocative of our curiosities of why a divorced woman given everything by Mr. Kane has turned to substance-abuse to drown her ostensible pain and sorrows.
The Greatest Character In Movie History, Citizen Kane’s portraiture of its central emperor of newsprint is one for the textbooks and ages – like being in the presence of God, hand-crafting a perfectly-cinematized painting of a man’s life & everything about him in 1hr59min. A child playing in the snowy winter of Colorado is put up for adoption to a bank against his will, and his life is never again the same. The core-stricken tragedy and traumatization of that event shapes the rest of Charles Foster Kane’s life: he grows up alone and isolated, internalizing self-worth doubts and trust issues without a real guardian or the love of parents before inheriting a fortune he doesn’t want on his 25th birthday. Rebuking every penny of it except for a newspaper he flips as a weapon to attack the institution responsible for his life’s woes, the rich and powerful are hunted by CFK’s The Inquirer as their newspaper-circulation grows by honest, grassroots journalism reverberated by Kane’s handwritten declaration of principles/morality to ‘always fight for the average joe and little guy’ [symbolically-representative of him as a child]. The drug of money, fame, and notoriety poison the veins of that plucky, charming, suave, principled Young Mr. Kane and his editorial staff – & he begins to change, eventually becoming the fatcat capitalist villain he so vehemently opposed and promised he’d never become. The Jekyll-turned-Hyde transformation begets tragedy in facets in stark juxtaposition to the material luxury driving [& ruining] his life: rejection by lovers, the public through politics, and his friends – eventually rewriting his newspaper’s raison-d’être as dishing out types of corruption and fake-news by the complete loss of everything he once stood for. Finally, with no one left besides Suzie, his God-complex tries to fabricate a world of his own at Xanadu filled with only lifeless statues [symbolized of his ignorance of how to love/trust, preferring slabs of marble that look like people, but are metaphorically-and-physically without heads and free-will to betray him] he can rule along with her over in a dictatorial monarchy mired in tragedy, pain, childhood-trauma, and the cruelty of fate. This is Godlike character-development of a tier you simply won’t see in any other film ever made – brought to life by a perfect performance and echoed by the rest of Citizen Kane’s cast.
The suicidal-depths of behavior and erratic rebukes of any conversations to before Charles died, when she’d been reported by employees [humorously getting their memory jogged by crisp dollar bills in classic noir black comedy sin] as ‘just as soon talking about him as anyone – even sooner’, further draws us into the existential intrigue/complexity of their relationship: if she loves and mourns him, why’d she divorce and speak ill of him beforehand? The revelation that even Kane’s own wife doesn’t know what Rosebud is similarly fuels and adds depth to the mystery guiding the film. If this is a secret so deeply-entrenched in a person’s psyche, they’d hide it from a wife they built the biggest castle ever-made & a $56M+ operahouse for, it must go back to childhood or family – Thompson’s next stop. The Walter P. Thatcher Memorial Library is a grand, cold, sterile, plain/unimaginative, marble-laden spectacle farcically-exaggerated by the clever use of echo-distortion of its receptionist’s and Thompson’s voices and fitting for the personality-deprivation of its patriarch banker. Finally getting to the unpublished memoirs of Thatcher [further-mystery as to why they went unpublished even post-death: perhaps forbade by Kane’s legal iron-fist? Perhaps out of guilt?], we’re detailed his first encounter with Mr. Kane on a snowy day back in Colorado in 1871. A 5 year-old CFK frolics in bliss on a winter morning of childlike innocence and not a care in the world: sledding, snowball-fighting, and building snowmen in a canvas of visuals and score that feel almost like a cartoon or Christmas-special in how sugar-coatedly happy/celebratory it is. Unbeknownst to the cavorting youngster having the time of his life, a sinister plot amongst the worst that can ever happen to a child is being mechanized by his parents backstage: consideration of giving him up for adoption – worse, to the farthest thing from a parent: a fatcat banker-capitalist named Walter P. Thatcher. The dichotomization of the best and worst days of CFK’s life happening synchronically mere feet away from each other is highlighted by a masterpiece shot of cinematography and movie-innovation by Toland, ASC: staging both antithetical scenes in different planes of view within the same frame so we can see both scenes happening at the same time. Perhaps commenting on how life and one’s world can change in the flick of an instant by the cruel hand of fate, the inevitable dark prospectus on the horizon uncomfortably approaches as we view the pure cowardice of its parents’ conversation and paperwork.
The performance of Orson Welles is a life achievement. Being only 24 years-old and also the writer/director/producer of the film, it’s a damn cinematic miracle one man was blessed with such multi-talents – he hits every note of the ensemble beyond the touch of directors 2-3x his age and with absolute perfection, foremost in acting. The herculean task of playing a character throughout their entire life was – and, is even today – a ludicrous proposition for one actor, rarely-if-ever asked: an impossible task solely plausible by homework to capture the physicality and nuance of things like old age while still in youth, without life experience to have experienced anything like it. The young, clean-cut, suave, charming boy-wonder straight out of college dripping with energy wanting to start a newspaper to fight injustice to the grandiose, booming-voice, thunderous presence of a mid-career politician magnate succumbed to the temptations and delusions of money/power to the frail, hopelessly-alone old man mourning the simplicity and loss of yesteryears are all beautifully painted: entirely different characters even antithetical of one another Welles plays flawlessly – with surgical precision and theatrical thespian pedigree. The rest of the performances are just as sensational; Citizen Kane boasts a once-in-a-lifetime cast & characterization canvas of stars-aligned it’s borderline-impossible was filled by new actors/resses to the screen. Dorothy Comingore’s performance as Suzie Alexander Kane is the masterpiece alongside Welles’ – just as diverse and characterizationally life-long, going from the delicate, feathery, compassionate, effervescent Bronx-talky showgirl and chemistry-fizzy love interest to shrill, angry, suicidal public-slave of CFK singing operatic hymns pleading the gods to strike her down to the alcoholic woe and snarling bitterness we first see her with alone at the El Rancho nightclub. George Couloris is perhaps the shining cinematic example of a snooty, privileged, proper fatcat banker capitalist, Will Alland’s Mr. Thompson the perfect journalist placeholder for audience experience overflowing with charisma and wisecracking jokes to lighten the heaviness of the journey, Everett Slone a humorous and loyal right-hand man, Agnes Moorehead a cold mother ice in her veins but twinges of motherly care, Joseph Cotten the heavy-hitting best friend turned public enemy and emblematic reminder of CFK’s fall from grace, etc. The fact such a cast of diversification and breathtaking character-balance/development was crafted from a series of first-times to movies plays by the rules of Italian Neorealisme, while breaking the ones of Hollywood: proving the greatest performances can come from anywhere, not just the mansions of L.A.
The inexorably-dark, morbid, offensive brutality of the idea is recognized by Harry Shannon’s drunk/rugged-yet-caring Mr. Kane, belligerently-rebuking Agnes Moorehead’s frigid, ice-cold mother as old-fashioned and conservatively-rigid as her hairstyle. Presented as a villain even colder than the winter day outside putting a price on her child with barely a hint of emotion or facial expression, Mary Kane ignores the cries of her husband’s spot-on analysis we echo in the crowd: this being wrong and ‘a banker being no substitute for a mom and dad’ [even effectively making us hate her by having the audacity to dismiss the argument as ‘nonsense’] and signs to give Thatcher custody in exchange for 50k/year for them for life. The religious iconography and twisted allegory in this scene is breathtaking: a mother named Mary sells her boy-child to a money-crazed, sweet-talking, and expensively/ornately-dressed man with a contract. This could be re-interpreted and packs the existential power of a ‘what if’ scenario of The Virgin Mary selling Jesus Christ as a child to the Devil – supported by details like the suspicious name-sharing of its mothers, namelessness of the fathers in the scene, and well-established pop culture imagery/urban-legend of the devil being connected to banks & using contracts/money to steal souls and first-born children. The power of money plays a big role in the scene – even pacifying Kane Sr. when the amount of money is stated out-loud, driving the betrayal of unfathomable proportions [even though he still objects in powerlessness to his wife’s will, being the owner of the mine/wealth in her name]. As she’s signing the papers, there’s a hint of sorrow in her voice and eyes as Moorehead’s performance and the dynamic shifts – finally displaying some regret and forlorn self-resentment as she reveals some clashing details in sharp juxtaposition to the evil figure we saw for a character as complex as CFK. Revealed is that she’s had his trunk packed for a week, calls out in mother tone to ‘be careful’ of the cold and ‘keep his scarf on’, and leaves the inheritance and principal of the company’s monies in a trust-fund for Charles to be opened on his 25th birthday – reframing the act as perhaps one of [misguided] love and ignorance. Newly-rich, maybe the weight of the pressure of having all that money convinces her to seek a guardian who is well-versed in the subject and knows how to be a rich gentleman in society – something that would be difficult for low-class Coloradoans like the Kanes to even be able to fake amongst the high society now merited by their net worth.
The chip-on-shoulder hunger and youthful tenacity by the cast to prove wrong the critics and naysayers doubting their resumé/abilities is tangible – paralleling The American Dream & underdog ambitions, as well as a major theme throughout the rest of the film’s architects behind-the-scenes. The veritable encyclopedia of techniques and pioneering avant-garde stylistics in Citizen Kane include: deep-focus cinematography, chiaroscuro lighting, temporal jump-cuts, ceiling shot considerations, flashback-dominant storytelling rejecting linear/chronological narratives to reimagine storytelling through multiple divergent POV’s, omniscient perspective only in the beginning and end scenes with personable/unreliable narration between, vignettes, cigarette burns, overlapping montages, panchromatic film, and newsreel footage outlining the highlights of its protagonist’s life story from birth to death at the beginning of the story – only to fill in the gaps later-on. The film is perhaps the most technically-diverse of cinematic history: an achievement even more impossible by the comparatively-nescient time in movie progression to work with and outright-lunacy of being a one-try, freehand masterstroke by a new directorial prodigal son in his first-ever outing on the big-screen. Imagine painting Van Gogh’s ‘Starry Night’ the first time you ever held a paintbrush, scoring Beethoven’s ‘Ninth Symphony’ the first time you ever pressed a piano key, or writing ‘The Iliad & The Odyssey’ having never written a book before: that’s the equivalent of how insane the accomplishment of Citizen Kane is. Ignorance being bliss, Welles’ naïvety of cinematic preconceptions and Hollywood/directorial customs-and-traditions proved to be his emancipation – profiting off his previous theatrical experience, stylistic flamboyance, and attention-to-detail to translate them to a new, bigger canvas he nevertheless paid extensive research/analysis.
Perhaps Ms. Kane truly believes this will be best for him in the long-term no matter how tough it is now, deluded by fantasies of the rich-and-famous/bourgeoisie panderative to Marxist proletariats and the scary prospect of raising a child in a new reality out of your comfort-zone/experience. Of course, there’s also the possibility the Kanes just gave him up out of selfishness to enjoy their money for the next 20+ years without having to raise Charles – supported by the fact they didn’t even try to see if they could raise him to be a fine young man who just happens to have money, and the fact he’s so young. The real motivations and benevolence/morality of the scene are left ambiguous and up to the multiple interpretations as the conclusion finally reaches: how to tell a young child that they’re leaving forever and will never see their parents again. The reaction of CFK is heartbreaking: palpable disgust, fear, and anger escalating into physical assault of Thatcher with his sled [extremely important symbolism for later exposition]. As if the dynamic wasn’t complex enough, Kane Sr. threatens Charles with a ‘good ol’ thrashing’ for his outlandish and rude [yet understandable] behavior – and the statement by Mary of ‘that’s why Charles is going to be raised in a place where you can’t get at him’ while she hugs him implies this a regular occurrence or pattern, further calling into question our preconceptions. The scene exemplifies the film’s master-craftsmanship of being able to flip characters developmentally with surgical precision/touch and create impossible-decisions/scenarios: here eviscerating our first reactions by reframing Kane Sr. from hero to villain and Mary from villain to hero, while letting both be partially-correct with no clear solution of what to do about Charles Foster Kane. The time-lapse of snow piling on the sled outside Kane Boardinghouse, graphic-matched to a Christmas present of a new sled for an uncaring CFK is spliced mid-sentence into a fast-forward/jump-cut of 20+ years: one of the most ambitious and unheard-of editing progressions in cinematic history.
Rumors of O.W. having film textbooks delivered to him on-set and watching such works as The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari, Stagecoach, & the films of Frank Capra, Fritz Lang, King Vidor, John Ford, and Jean Renoir with studio-execs and technicians who worked on them to ask how/why things were done paint a young man with unbridled ambition to learn the medium. The work-ethic was never-before-seen – according to reports, Welles spending 16-18 hours/day on set from 5AM to nighttime [including weekends, when most hollywood fatcats would be passed out in their multi-million dollar hillside mansions with a bottle of hennessy hungover with their own Suzie besides them]. It got to the point that he would be the only car parked in the studio-lot and be only greeted by security-guards on night-shift at the insane hours he worked: the legwork to achieve a masterpiece refreshingly more like a military bootcamp than the glitz, glamour, and egocentrism of classical Hollywood. The big dreams of the director went so far as to reject the usage of master shots because he had learned his idol John Ford never used them – almost impossible and unheard of at the time [master shots being historically the most important shot of any scene of a film beforehand, recording an entire dramatized scene from a camera angle that kept all players in view so as to function as an establishing shot and foundational camera coverage] only rebuked by a master of the craft with decades of experience this first-time director wanted to emulate. This is, quite literally, the cinematic equivalent of first learning to ride a bike at the tour-de-france.. down a hill.. without training wheels – and it’s matched by reports that Welles frequently demanded perfection of the cast and himself in a clockwork-mechanized studio schedule, requiring rehearsal on your own time so as to capture scenes in one take without reshoots. The techniques in Citizen Kane might not be the first-times they were ever used: deep-focus, chiaroscuro, and temporal jump-cuts being found in German Expressionist films of the 1920’s, VFX in the films of Méliès, ceiling shots in von Stronheim’s 1925 Greed, newsreel montages by Dziga Vertov, flashbacks in 1933’s The Power & The Glory, etc. Kane was the first one with the balls to bring them all together simultaneously and perfect each, though: deserving credit for giving them meaning & cinematic life historically.
The earliest possible symptoms point to CFK’s eschewal of money/materialism and prioritization of fun. On the telegram-proclamation of his 25th birthday and inheritance of the sixth largest private fortune in the world [one 99% of us would gladly accept, or think we’d be happy with] Charles Foster Kane writes back none of the enterprises ‘interest’ him but The Inquirer – only because ‘it’d be fun to run a newspaper’ as a ghastly-faced Thatcher elicits laughs from us in the audience. At 25, CFK is still bright-eyed, rebellious, pugnacious, immature, and fun-minded – much like his childhood-self, perhaps signifying he was developmentally-stunted by the psychological trauma of that Colorado day. This goes even farther: the projects of The Inquirer almost exclusively attack big corporationalism and business – true underdog journalism to hold the rich & powerful accountable, and which can be seen as the ultimate flex rebuke/rejection of the position he was put in as a kid; he attacks the institution that took him away and everything Thatcher stands for out-of-spite and revenge in the most unforgiving way possible: public humiliation to a growing worldwide audience, flipping the voicelessness and powerlessness he had as a kid to a weapon: absolute brilliance of characterization, screenwriting, farcical-satire, and psychology by Mankiewicz. CFK embraces his own duality and fractured-psyche here to make Thatcher’s [& the likes of Thatchers around the world] life a living hell – pure comedy as the film shifts genres once again. The rebelliousness and FU attitude Kane displays is something we see a lot in 21st Century tech/media companies & start-ups today, nearly a century beforehand as it’s revealed he was expelled from ‘lots’ of colleges and and doesn’t seem to give a damn about anyone or anything besides his crux of a personal compass. The mission he wears like a heart on his sleeve of ‘protecting the hard-working, small-business Americans of the community because they haven’t got a voice for themselves’ is personal and applicable to himself metaphorically: he as a man is now protecting the helpless and beaten-by-life/fate he once was, realistic vigilantism of the types straight out of a comic book hero origin. This ‘philanthropic’ enterprise is even revealed to be costing the young Kane $1M/year, but plans to continue it anyways – flexing his money like a young Bruce Wayne/Batman [a year post-creation of the pop culture icon].
The most diverse and hyper-ambitious film ever made, Citizen Kane is a new-age opera, political-drama, black comedy, romance, satirization, & noir biographical/psychological-pièta, all in the same 2-hour movie perfectly-achieving each one of its genres in a flawlessly-blended mixture. This is not only the textbook film of any cinephile’s or critic’s dream technique-wise, but also genre-wise – the exemplification of how to alchemize flavors to create new blends & cocktails of movies and film I would first recommend to anyone looking to get into film analysis. Beyond, the most innovative technical aspect/fundamental of Citizen Kane – as we begin to go criterion-by-criterion – is its avant-garde cinematography style. Toland, ASC was the one veteran in the film’s crew of newcomers and hungry youth in their 20-30’s: a makeshift father-figure for Welles and the still ~immature group of importance & experience: cited amongst the top cinematographers in the world at the time. Being procured only because of the coverage of a first-time director – giving him opportunities to try new experimentalist styles no established name would co-sign, Toland lived up to that promise 10x over. The cinematography signature of Citizen Kane is its extended use of deep focus: staging the foreground, background, and everything in-between all in sharp focus at the same time, a new once-in-a-generation development in the science of motion pictures he called ‘pan-focus’. The masterstroke achievement gave the experimental camera-lens the ability to see an entire panorama in-view/focus at once with everything clear and lifelike – akin to the anatomically-complex lens of the human eye for a prismatic level of realism and evolution of cinema stylistically. O.W. praised Toland’s innovation while demanding more – pushing low-angle shots by their dynamic look/feel, extreme close-ups, mise-en-scène, and challenging studio conventions of foregoing ceiling shots by constantly craning the camera upwards [correcting what he viewed as bad theatre, pretending a ceiling was there when it was really fabric concealing microphones]. Welles demanded hyper-realism and wanted the camera to see real room, shots, and geometric angles as we do – also spicing up the interiors of sets. Perry Ferguson’s art direction and set design was created with O.W. by rough draft-sketches being made into miniature models experimented on through periscope to perfect each shot beforehand.
As the plot-structure becomes increasingly avant-garde, we’re tossed around in ~anti-chronological vignettes breaking every narrative rule of cinema and challenging the viewer to stitch the plot together out-of-order – each vignette of importance to solving the puzzle of Charles Foster Kane, too. After the snow-day tragedy and coming-of-age shenanigans [both establishing CFK’s hatred for Mr. Thatcher, one that’s never resolved], we jump to 1929 and The Great Depression. The recession and bankruptcy wave hits Kane’s empire and syndicates hard – to the enjoyment of Thatcher at the expense of Kane Jr.’s misfortunes. Multiple lines in the dialogue here are very important: Kane tells Thatcher ‘you’re too old and were always too old’ [not speaking to his physical age, being only 20’s-to-30’s when he adopted CFK, but his personality age of a boring banker he couldn’t confide or reconcile friendship within], never made investments but only used money to ‘buy things’ [indicative of an addiction to the transactional and instant-gratification natures of money – critical in understanding the psychology of Kane in how the mindset later soaks into his personal relationships and multifaceted downfall], cries he always ‘gagged on the silver spoon’, bemoans he ‘might’ve been a great man if he hadn’t been rich’ but thinks he did okay under the circumstances, and responds to Thatcher’s question of what he’d like to have become if he hadn’t gotten his fortune so young with ‘everything you hate’. The unmistakable establishment of someone with such a revulsive abhorrence of money continues, but there are hints he’s become partially dependent on; the idea of having to sell or lose inheritance money to Thatcher would’ve rolled like water off a duck’s back to the young CFK, but here: there’s a melancholy in the atmosphere like he’s ~disappointed and introspective woe-is-me that unspools a lot of subconscious string – as well as being one of the only times Kane actually laments and physically-references his past/backstory on-screen. The film briefly detours into more comedy as a present-day, disgruntled Mr. Thompson begins to even asks even random secretaries and security guards if they ‘happen to be [mythical] Rosebud’ & transitions to interviewing is closest circle. The crotchety old Mr. Bernstein [there before the beginning of Kane’s rise and after the end of Kane’s fall] posits it must be a girl or lost-love, while wisely parabolizing that ‘money’s easy to make if all you care about is making money’ like Mr. Thatcher but Kane was never about making money. The man being an enigma even in death to two of the closest branches on his tree of life, Bernstein suggests Leland – Kane’s best friend since the beginning, and one who grew up what Kane ‘wanted to be’: poor and carefree. The revelation of Leland’s backstory is just-as-dark [if not more so], his previously-rich father shooting himself in the head out of debt – again highlighting the dark side of money and its grip on the poor souls it catches in its web, the key words of the description being ‘one of those situations’ like Bernstein sees them often.
Of course, Xanadu is its own masterpiece achievement – a mixture of Gothic and Renaissance stylistic elements perversely juxtaposing incongruous architectural motifs to satirize and thematically-parallel the labyrinthine of Hearst’s mind through his castle. RKO cut the film’s budget by 1/3 mid-filming – what would be a fatal blow to most crews but a stroke Kane’s worked through to shoot around and stage different pieces of the pre-made 106 sets/miniatures to give the impression grandeur and the multi-billion $ paradisiac castle it appears on-screen: majestic, opulent, and visually-sumptuous by ocular trickery. The editing is just as much a character in the film as any of its cast: boundary pushes by Robert Wise and Mark Robson [who would both go on to become prominent directors later themselves]. The detailed instructions O.W. left them on each scene gave the perfect fragments to stitch together: bones they infused with flesh and life by stylistic transitions to collapse time and space. Slow-dissolves signify long passages of time and their psychological effects on the characters, episodic sequences on the same set see characters change only costume/make-up between shots like the transition packed years between a singular cut, and other techniques like cigarette-burns, curtain-wipes, and whip-pans maximize expressiveness and vicissitude. The lack-of-coverage by the presence of no master shots made ‘in-camera’ editing easier too , and the film typically favors mise-en-scène over montage – a bold evolution of cinematic worldview O.W. provoked by things like jarring cuts of wild contrast in the opening deathbed of Kane to News On The March and breakfast sequence chronicling 16 years of [progressively-devolving] marriage into two minutes of rhythmically-cycling screentime. The make-up/VFX are yet another work of pure cinematic witchcraft for the time. Not only is experimentation with optical printer VFX trick-elements by Dunn avant-garde to catalyze major changes post-production – but as is its extrapolation of miniatures to look real by scale considerations, matte-shots, and rear-screen projection in the background of scenes. These cutting-edge stylistics can be found, for example, in the ocean background at Xanadu when it was shot land-locked and when Suzie tries to commit suicide [the foreground shot with the background dark, then vice-versa and the film rewound to put all action physically spliced together in-frame].
The cinnamon swirl of a plot/tonal structure flashes back from forlorn remembrance to [momentary] joy once again as we jump like a cat on a hot tin roof back to the youth-energized, slapstick/joke-filled startup venture of The Inquirer. The meaning of the eponymous title of the movie is also revealed by CFK’s declaration of principles – a personal promise he hand-writes and plasters on the front page of the newspaper to always tell the news honestly, without special party interests/interference & be a champion of the people and their rights as citizens [humbling himself to the level of Citizen Kane, rebuking the privilege, wealth, aristocratic/upper-class status, and silver spoon status his family title gives him to try to be one of them]. Touching as it is representative of Kane’s burning desire for love/acceptance, the scene paints a warm, jovial, slightly-rotund Robin Hood-esque CFK it’s certainly easy to get behind as a protagonist – the scene bolstered by audiovisual cues like the blasting of light from NYC windows on cloudless days and cavorting, silly-horns juxtaposed with light orchestration that beams with optimism, innocence, and good intentions [feeling like a Chaplin or slapstick/farce film]. Again stylishly crashing all previous aphorisms and semblances of a rulebook-thrown-out, we see a photograph on a wall of a newspaper CFK wants to buy – touted as ‘the greatest newspaper staff in the world’ & of which he seemingly walks us into the picture with six years past and consolidation of The Dream Team under his name. The nuances change in Kane’s personality over the meantime: he boasts a braggadocios douchiness and superiority complex far diverged from the wet-behind-the-ears young man-of-the-people we saw before. Indeed, CFK is almost nauseatingly-pretentious as he brags about having the biggest circulation in New York City, sends a picture of his new staff to the previous newspaper he stole them from, & celebrates in a backroom adorned with K-shaped ice sculpture. The evisceration of innocence and morality is striking, its Jekyll-to-Hyde transformation being hard-hitting commentary on the deleterion of fame & having more money than anyone could spend in a lifetime – ensnaring even a pure-of-heart young Kane given every reason to hate it deep in his bones.
The behind-the-scenes crew captured magic a century ahead-of-its-time with its ability to age through make-up. Today in 2021, billion-dollar corporations like Netflix pay tens of millions of dollars to de-age actors like Robert De Niro [The Irishman] digitally – and can barely do it convincingly, even with 80+ more years of scientific and technological advancements. Kane did it back in the 1940’s: before there were even computers, color televisions, microwaves, or even the damn slinky.. on a shoe-string budget, not through over-reliance on technology – but through practical VFX, zeal, and old-fashioned craftsmanship. Make-up artist Maurice Seiderman wasn’t even viewed as important enough to be accepted to the union of his workplace, a junior member of the RKO make-up department only recognized as an apprentice and [yet another] disrespected young talent with something to prove to fit snugly in the overarching pattern of Kane behind-the-scenes. Thoroughly-analyzing each principal actor/ress’ face, ‘Mo developed plans for aging them by making plaster casts. The crowning achievement, though, was the full-body mold for Welles’s Kane – one he created by sculpting pieces of white modeling clay onto its surface and casting the clay in a soft plastic material he chemically-formulated himself, on which he put paint, wigs, red earth-tone [fauxing bloodflow], scleral lenses to dull the brightness of young eyes, and colorless translucent talcum with the physiological accuracy and depth/detail of an M.D. [down to even the detail of blood-vessels to replicate the arcus senilis of old age.] The magic of movies to be able to film an entire man’s life for psychoanalysis and entertainment is even more so pure witchcraft technically here. The make-up and VFX capabilities of film overall have blossomed in the near 100+ years since – from TDK’s Joker to Harry Potter’s Voldemort to Nightmare On Elm Street’s Krueger to Mystique and Game Of Thrones’ Night King, but perhaps none of these are as impressive by the forced innovation in the stark absence of technological cruxes.
The scene is a woozying, overblown circus of excess/sin that’s easy to get intoxicated on – ice sculptures of each-and-every board member, a round table of wild booze-drinking & cigar smoking men, scantily-glad showgirls twirling batons in nothing more than lingerie & thigh-high bousties, and a freaking marching bad as if the procession wasn’t crazy enough. The cinematography and score wildly-twists and turns in quick celebratory successions to add to the hallucinogenic brew of substances and endorphins, as we’re given a frightening view into the new Kane’s worldview. Taking a vacation to Europe and buying-up ‘all the statues in Europe’ while lamenting he’s behind because ‘they’ve been making them for thousands of years and he’s only been buying for five,’ Leland and Bernstein make him promise to buy more – to which he makes a snide, daggerful remark: ‘you don’t expect me to keep those promises, do you?’ What happened to that charming young man we just saw in the previous scene: the one who couldn’t care less about money and had moralistic depth in even the promises made in his own Declaration Of Principles? The conversation mimics the one the trio had back when Kane wrote the declaration – Leland and Bernstein pleading him to ‘not make promises he can’t keep’ but reassuring them he will. Here, the sly innuedo and double-entendre plus singular attention to the way he delivers the same word ‘promise’ implies he knows he’s gone against his moral code and everything he once stood for.. and worse, has the audacity to make jokes about it in a sardonic black comedic way! Toto, we’re not in [Colorado] with that young, innocent kid anymore. As Kane’s escapade through Italy and France begins, we see an Inquirer-backroom filled with busts and marble statuettes [indicating CFK wasn’t bluffing: blowing money on nonsense items no one needs, perhaps for the thrill]. A telegram he sends to the crew about wanting to buy the world’s biggest diamond prompts another classic line of introspective clues to what drives Kane’s spending: Bernie claims ‘he’s not collecting diamonds; he’s collecting someone who collects diamonds’.
The acoustic soundtrack of Citizen Kane is every iota as diverse and innovative as its visual one. Bernard Hermann delivered a career work, making full utilization of the 12 weeks afforded him – a century by comparison to the 2-3 week industry-norm. The extra time gave him opportunity to characterize, work-and-rework, double/triple-check, and nail every sequence in full orchestrations and conductions from pen-to-paper-to-screen. Again highlighting the overlooked and underrated young prodigal talents thread running through the lineage of Kane’s behind-the-scenes artists, Hermann was offered near-nothing by an RKO playing contractual hard-ball on what was his first big motion picture. Welles stood by his pick and demonstrated great character by demanding he get paid the same rate as the greats with the ultimatum he’d stir up trouble or leave – and RKO obliged. The films of 1930’s Hollywood ~never deviated from the basic pattern of how sound is recorded and used in movies, but O.W. demanded [as he did in every aspect of Citizen Kane] innovation, complexity, and perfection in soundscape. Techniques he brought over from his radio experience helped create a new feel in cinema: overlapping dialogue, divergent perspectives to create the illusion of distances, echo, creation of audio montages, and sound VFX created by himself and the crew instead of using the RKO Studios library for stock/basic effects [like any other filmmaker would’ve]. There’s also extensive usage of ‘lightning mixes’: complex montage sequences liked via a series of related sounds or phrases, such as in the scene where Kane grows from a child to young man in just two jump-cut shots: ‘Merry Christmas – [cut] – And Happy New Year’ like a continuation of the sentence linking over two decades of stoppage time in two shots/seconds. Bernard worked in these techniques beautifully, while bringing majestic touch and stylistic competence all his own and far beyond the realms of his experience. Embrasure of the sound-of-silence rejected the hackneyed hollywood commonality of scoring films with non-stop music, and his orchestral/instrumental sequences burst with character, timbre diversity, & emotionalism.
Returning to The Daily Inquirer, Kane makes an announcement of his engagement to Emily Monroe – the president’s niece in a sudden twist that symbolizes both CFK’s happy-go-lucky view/ignorance of love by how little he must know about her from only a few weeks/months and perhaps an objectification of people by the suspicious timing of marrying the daughter of the world’s most powerful political figure soon before he decides to run for governorship himself. Regardless, the happy vignette is marked by serenado violins that feel like floating on La Seine or a concerto on seasons: a scene of newlywed bliss that perhaps shows how different things look in hindsight-vs.-experience by far different from what we know later happens in their messy divorce and [murder]/vehicle-‘accident’ we’re dying to see how it fell apart. Concluding that she was no Rosebud by how violently and murkily it ended & summarizing Suzie as just having ‘ended’ too like it was no big deal, Bernstein remarks that it must be something he lost – although Mr. Kane lost ~everything he had in the end. Taking that clue [one that’s actually right, looking back post-film] to CFK’s ‘best friend’: Jedidiah Leland, who recalls ‘everything’, equating memory to the great curse of mankind and saying ‘maybe [he] wasn’t [Kane’s] friend, but if [he] wasn’t, [Kane] certainly never had one’. This beautiful, sad revelation of Leland even questioning if he was his friend and being the closest thing he ever had to one in life humanizes and brings us back to feelings of pity instead of hatred of Kane – ones that get certainly further developed by the middle and final acts of the film. Leland recounts headbutts with Kane going back to the Spanish-American War – one J.D. and Bernstein viewed as an abuse-of-power/influence and ‘Mr. Kane’s War’ and one he perhaps started and killed millions of lives.. just because he could. The psychoanalysis CK fosters on Kane gains new perspective from his right-hand-man and Robin like ‘nobody ever having so many opinions in everyhting, but never believing in anything except Charlie Kane – going to his deathbed without one conviction.’ Even Leland doesn’t know about Rosebud, but gives us further insight into CFK’s first marriage as another dazzling avant-garde transition places his figure in frontal projection as the background warps to a flashback: a proto-greenscreen.. only a few decades before it was ever popularized like it is today [NBD!]. If that wasn’t enough – the two antithetical realities of Kane and Emily’s marriage are merged by a brilliant technical masterstroke scene showing the dissolve of their marriage: the now-famous breakfast table montage.
Recording of musicians in direct, by-the-hour sessions gave Hermann opportunities to score avant-garde combinations of instruments never-before-heard in film – like the opening Xanadu leitmotif of low woodwinds juxtaposed with quartet alto flutes and even xylophonics. There are tons of experimental orchestral sequences that parallel narrative themes throughout the film, like the breakfast table montage beginning with a graceful waltz and getting progressively darker with repetition in each variation of the melody as Kane and Monroe’s marriage falls apart: pure brilliance. Then, there’s the opera. The damn impossibility of a film having its own opera is reason alone why Citizen Kane is the greatest movie ever made: a perfectly-crafted, sardonic meta-parodization/satire of the timeless medium fringed with thematic analysis of the relationship of CFK & Suzie. The aria from Salammbô of Rossini’s Il Barbiere Di Siviglia flipped upside-down and key-transposed to a pitch high out of the register of Comingore’s Suzie by-design, the film ostracizes and bullies the small girl into a quicksand punching bag for audience laughter – as Kane has out of misplaced love [or self-ingratiation] by forcing her to go up there. Other music in the film comes from eclectic sources in O.W.’s life experiences – the publisher’s theme of ‘Oh, Mr. Kane’ from Mexico, Xanadu’s from Gunga Din by Alfred Newman, News On The March’s from Belgian March by Anthony Collins, and a 1939 jazz trio by Nat King Cole with lyrics centering around the phrase ‘can’t be love’ played outside the tent of the finale’s picnic and Thompson-Suzie interview for maximum narrative/thematic-parallels that work on every level. Even the smallest of details in the soundscape of Citizen Kane were considered and parsed for sonic expressiveness – like Comingore having the inside of her throat sprayed with real-life chemicals in the El Rancho nightclub scene to give her voice a harsh, raspy tone of pain & regret epitomizing the character’s post-Kane rock-bottom we first see.
~20 years spliced together in two minutes by whip-pan cycles of editing genius, the newlyweds’ lovey-dovey eyes and marriage bliss grows progressively apart by the metaphorical and physical space between them in the scene – pushed by a noticeably elongating and ornate luxury table: further symbolizing money and its pursuit by Kane’s long work hours being the object catalyzing the division. There’s one critical [seemingly-benign] line in CFK criticizing Monroe’s policies and Emily defending him by saying ‘He’s President; you aren’t, Kane’ – perhaps the condescensive remark that planted the seed of Kane’s political campaign or what further drove the splinter down their marriage. They finally aren’t even speaking to each other, as Leland analyzes that he ‘married looking for love, but that’s why he did everything – even politics – so millions of people would love him’. This all returns to that one day in Colorado, for now setting the stage for a future political-drama vignette as the film first transitions into the romance of CFK’s second-wife: Suzie Alexander Kane. Painted with breathtaking passion and beauty, the romance is as soft, elegant, vivacious, and star-crossed as any romance film I’ve ever seen – looking like Kane finally got his happiness and found his soul-mate, all a byproduct of something as small as a toothache. More satisfying to both Charles and us in the audience is that Suzie doesn’t know [or at least: acts like she doesn’t know, impossible to tell but more likely being she just doesn’t know by her personality/traits] who he is – someone liking him for who he is beyond his money, fame, and status. The chemistry of the pair – especially Comingore’s delicate, feathery, compassionate, Bronx-talky showgirl – lights up the screen dazzlingly: a collection of little moments and physicality tremors evolving the more the duo gets to know each other [while also giving further glimpses into CFK’s psyche by how vehemently and with merciless bloodthirsty rage he reacts to being laughed at, even when a side-effect of novocaine/nitrous oxide laughing-gas by Suzie’s dental procedure]. The fate of meeting when CFK was on his way to go through his childhood belongings (the only time the act is mentioned in the film, what would be a highly-traumatic one as perhaps why he avoided it) after the passing of his mother is highly-coincidental – feeling like destiny.
The legacy of Citizen Kane goes far beyond its triumph of artistic & journalistic freedom against the rich-and-powerful elite; the film is perhaps the ultimate piece of human expressionism through the arts. Themes in Citizen Kane are so foundational to our core and intensely-relatable, the film is just as cutting-edge and applicable to all of us 100+ years later as it was on opening night – and which is will be 1,000+ and 10,000+ from now. Themes of religion, news, greed, politics, tragedy, psychology, trauma, emotion, and the mysteries of life, fate, and our experience in mankind are all deftly weighed and analyzed by the once-in-a-millennium achievement of Kane: all through the life-story of one man used as a prism for all of us. There’s truth, depth, elegance, & symbolic/allegorical beauty beyond any other film I’ve ever seen in my career in Citizen Kane – it challenges us, makes us reevaluate how we view the world, tells us about ourselves, and makes us feel a kaleidoscope of emotions that makes it the foremost example of what film is and should be at maximum performance. The legacy of CFK goes beyond artistic value and freedom; it also film catalyzed a bloom-evolution of cinema as an artform – perhaps the biggest [& most important] legacy of any film ever made. The dark message that can be found at the heart of Kane’s cynicistic nihilism [the futility of aspiration and pursuit of riches/success failing to mask real-world tragedy in our deepest subconscious] was not a popular one at the time: perhaps the first true counter-culture picture in the history of movies, rejecting the shackles of feel-good/mindless bubblegum expected of movies as nothing more than escapist gimmick to elevate the medium. Due to its lowbrow competition and apathetic status-quo, cinema was considered a lesser artform – the ugly cousin of complex mediums like literature, music, and painting & meritless kitsch. Citizen Kane changed the entire world’s view on what cinema is and could be – taking a sledgehammer to preconceptions and everything Hollywood & the world knew from the comfortable, ritzy, low-hanging fruit of an era pre-May 1, 1941.
A whirlwind of emotions and psychological resurgences in juxtaposition of the age difference is perhaps what shifts Kane’s position with Suzie towards being more that of a parent in the guise of a lover; he sees in her the love-opportunity to give back what never was his and be what he most desperately wanted in childhood: his mother, merged with the inescapable modernized influence of money on is life/psyche in how he parents. This can be seen in how strongly he reacts to Suzie’s passive remark of her mother always wanting her to be an opera-singer – latching onto the idea with an asphyxiative grip out of importance to him that would define [and deteriorate] the rest of their relationship. The couple bonds over the chansons – in the meanwhile, Kane growing a political campaign for governor in massive public hall speeches feeling [& looking by iconography/aesthetics] more like a third-world country dictatorship than U.S.A. democracy. One of the few times we see Kane feel at-home [along with Suzie’s apartment, being the closest thing to unconditional love he’s seemingly felt thus far in life] on that podium, we see him laugh and smile and make promises to roaring, thunderous applause. Promises, once again, are a huge theme in Citizen Kane – being what an idolized young Kane made in benevolence to himself and the public when he founded The Inquirer, what he started breaking in pursuit of money and materialist excess when its vices started to get to his head, what his parents broke when they gave him up for adoption, and here what he’s making again [at least, superficially to get elected]. The character-arc in this theme has gone full-circle, reversed by the fact that his promises are the same ones he made back in The Declaration Of Principles in The Inquirer years ago: to protect the average joe and working citizen from big corporations on a bigger scale, without the moralistic code/values to believe what he’s rattling off from the teleprompter/notes. Nevertheless, he sells the idea to crowds of supporters [a banker: no different from Thatcher now] and bursts with a smile that could light up a room as every aspect of his life is clicking on-all-cylinders – the calm before a storm of tragedy strikes.
RKO studio-execs reportedly told O.W. & Mankiewicz to ‘dumb the film down’ and that ‘people aren’t paying their hard-earned 25 cents to see Shakespeare’ – even resorting to hard-ball, strongarm tactics the crew vehemently rejected to stay true to their mission to bring heart, soul, and a brain to cinema: The Wizard Of Oz to its artform. Kane not only challenges and stands its own against artforms with centuries of lore and pasts; it exemplifies why cinema is the best and ultimate artform even only a few decades into its existence. The visual expressiveness and ocular power of painting in every frame of its beautifully-cinematographed canvas, sweeping melodies and soaring auricular ensembles of music in highly-diverse and thematically-paralleled score leitmotifs, and power of critical-thinking/analysis & social-commentary of literature in its byzantine and labrynthian script, Citizen Kane shows through its mad-science chemistry that cinema can be a combination of the best aspects of each traditional medium for maximum artistic experience beyond the sum [or any singular one] of its parts. The film is a neo-Mona Lisa with a score evocative of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony and screenplay of cues from The Great Gatsby. The Da Vincian complexity and multi-interpretability of its psychological, quasi-biographical character portraiture on CFK [as well as metaphysical themes on the search for identity and meaning of life] was groundbreaking for the medium – a Baroque masterpiece delivered at a time its competition was drawn with crayons. Citizen Kane was just as innovative stylistically and behind-the-scenes: extremely-potent auterism, mise-en-scéne in diametric opposition to soviet montage theory, non-linear plot structure, heightened cinematic realism, long takes, deep focus, low angles, chiaroscuro lighting, depth-of-field, & the achievement of youth and inexperience [+ bold ideas/ambition] over only-stars and big names. The film paved the way for the entire multiverse of cinema we know today: convincing studios to make more dark-horse bets and audiences to demand them to continually cycle evolution of the artform: mutual symbiosis.
The cruelty of fate everpresent, Kane’s high and a guaranteed campaign win by early polls crashes to rock-bottom as his two halves and private worlds collide and clash: Suzie and his family. The revelation he was still married to his first-wife Emily this whole time scandalizes the situation and Kane – a front page news-worthy affair that tempers our see-sawing opinion of him, and one his election opponent fully capitalizes on: J.W. Gettys. The backroom dealings of politicians here against shifts to noir aesthetics – the darkness, crime, corruption, and grime being the antithesization of its light and airy romance, replacing the milky and dreamlike filters of Suzie and Kane’s piano conversations with heavy chiaroscuro and shadows near-fully obscuring the faces of all involved in this coup of blackmail. Gettys is humanized beyond being just a villain like any other film would: he brings up the public humiliation he’s suffered at the hands of Kane by his trump-card of wielding public opinion through the news and dragging his family’s names through the mud. Given an ultimatum of dropping out of the race or being subject to the same humiliation in the news: the dynamic being even more perfect by the fact Kane runs as a Democrat preaching family/moral values while embroiled in lurid adultery, Kane stiffens up and you can feel the stringent pain of every word he struggles to get past the precipice of his lips. A masterclass in physicality acting, Welles captures the power of the scene’s reversion of fortune: powerlessness and the hot grips of panic/fear he hasn’t felt so potently since the snowy day he lost everything back in Colorado, refusing to bow out of the race and let anyone ‘take the love of the people of this state away from me’. Even in the face of a predestined end of tragedy, Kane puts himself ahead of those he claims to love dearest – regardless of consideration of the effects such a headline would have on his son’s, marriage’s, and Suzie’s reputations. The ironic twist of it being the news that kills CFK is brilliant screenwriting by Mankiewicz and O.W.: destruction by Kane’s own device also further highlighting the exploitability of news and journalism being used as a weapon for personal gain/agendas by both himself and Gettys.
The choice between two vastly-different headlines at The Inquirer evokes more sardonic black comedy – baseless claims of ‘Fraud At Polls!’ being the only way Kane could’ve lost according to the newspaper whom, like its patriarch, refuses to accept a reality in which he loses. This moment is of special historical significance, because it has been directly applicable on the biggest stage of world politics nearly a century later to join an esteemed collection of single-digit films to ever be able to prognosticize like this. The 2020 Presidential Election saw incumbent Donald J. Trump [who is extremely like Charles Foster Kane: a celebrity-businessman with superiority-complex, masculine insecurities, silver-spoon upbringing, and multiple divorces who leapt to the political stage; Twitter being a modernized version of The Inquirer] lose to Joe Biden in a fair election verified by the FBI as ‘the most secure one in the nation’s history’ – but that didn’t stop Trump from smear-campaigning the entire process of electoral democracy by claiming, exactly the same as Kane predicted, as a politician that there was ‘Fraud At The Polls’. A post-op confrontation with Leland, as the newspaper headline is seen on the ground being stepped-over like trash: perhaps commentary on news headlines fading into oblivion/irrelevance after a brief fifteen minutes of spotlight or to link it to garbage, brings more important hard truths to Kane by the filter-removal of booze & inebriation. Leland tells CFK he ‘talks about the people as if he owns them’, ‘talks about the working man but won’t like it once the working man learns things are his rights and not Kane’s gifts‘, and that ‘when he does, Kane would go to a deserted island so he could be lord of the monkeys’. Themes of emancipation, Marxism, freedom, rights, and possessiveness of politicians/news-magnates are deconstructed surgically by the conversation: Kane acts like he cares about people, but only cares about himself – convincing the public he loves them, so they ought to love him back, love on his own terms, according to his rules. Having lost both his best friend and [ex]-wife, the film transitions from one headline to another – from divorce to marriage, again mocking the news’ futility and exploitability by the rich-and-famous & a Kane always having to be in control of the story, flipping the headline from negative to positive to escape humiliation.
The landscape of movies today – from the galactic space-depths of 2001: A Space Odyssey to mafioso famiglia of The Godfather to noir-romance of Casablanca to CBM vigilantism of The Dark Knight to meta-slasherisms of Rear Window to spaghetti-western desert glory of The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly simply would have never been born or plausible without Citizen Kane proving movies could be that – and that alone signifies its impossible legacy and importance, second-to-none. The official polls and honors the film has received throughout the cinematic industry aptly-recognize and celebrate the masterpiece. Citizen Kane has been voted the #1 [or one of the top] film ever made by publications and platforms spanning The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Forbes, TIME, The Hollywood Reporter, Deadline, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, Cinema Lovers Club, etc. Beyond that, it’s also been so by a list of prestigious and endless filmmakers: Woody Allen, Michael Apted, Les Blank, Kenneth Branagh, Paul Greengrass, Michel Hazanavicius, Michale Mann, Sam Mendes, Jīrī Menzel, Paul Schrader, Martin Scorsese, Denys Arcand, Gilian Armstrong, John Boorman, Roger Corman, Alex Cox, Miloš Forman, Norman Jewison, Richard Lester, Richard Linklater, Paul Mazursky, Ronald Neame, Sydney Pollack, Yasujiô Ozy, Fracois Truffant, The Coen Brothers, Steven Spielberg, Brian De Palma, Ridley Scott, Sergio Leone, Francis Ford Coppola, and Stanley Kubbrick – to name a few. Conclusively the most ~universally-respected/consecrated film ever made by critics, directors, and everyone whom has devoted their lives to cinema, it’s the ‘official answer’ as Roger Ebert joked to the biggest question of filmic legacy and one that could drive analysts mad in debates – if there wasn’t such a clear solution of Godlike omnipotence. ‘Favorite Movie Ever’ yields contrastive results depending on a range of psychological, sociological, and life experiences, but everyone knows how to answer the postulate of ‘Greatest Movie Ever Made’.
The remarriage begins in bliss and celebration of money, as can be seen by the two’s ostensible happiness leaving that courthouse: Suzie bragging about Kane building her an operahouse. This brings up the fixlike high of the drug of money, and dynamic of gold-digging, at first – ones that wear off in novelty with the years, leaving only regret, resentment, and loneliness instead of a companion to truly confide in and share life with. The new Mrs. Kane hesitates when Kane tells reporters she’ll be singing opera there, further exemplification that the opera career was more important to CFK [since it was important to her mother] than her and commentative on the meaninglessness facade of money in the fact that share brags about the operahouse, not the opera. A chef d’oeuvre achievement, Citizen Kane being a film with its own opera is absolutely insane. A reinterpretation of Rossini’s ‘Il Barbiere Di Siviglia’ hand-written by Mankiewicz and Welles, the aria can reveal hidden meanings allegorically representative of Mr. and Mrs. Kane’s relationship by its thematic evocation of the gods to strike down the singer [Suzie] and end her suffering of public humiliation through opera singing she didn’t even want to do, but was forced to by CFK. The opening shot of the opera arc is a frame of SAK singing with tears in her eyes and her lips almost curling into a scream – furthering the horror-like nightmare of how she views the act as a chaos-swirl of people around in costume, make-up, and set design camera-pans up to the rafters and even a janitorial staff laughing at her. The dynamic is fascinating: Kane can’t be oblivious to the fact his wife’s being laughed at by the world, but perhaps ignores or even wants it by the fact she gets to experience his pain and he gets to be in the audience instead of butt-of-the-joke – a sad desperation to be part of a crowd, even if it means laughing at your own wife. This is all within the guise or perhaps realism of still loving her: the most complex romance in the history of cinema it’s a PhD topic in itself to fully understand. Kane walks in on The Inquirer’s newspaper staff discussing in secretive hushes every aspect of the newspaper’s covering of the opera: floating puff-piece editorials to try to put lipstick on a pig and even further highlight the ghastly corruption of the news. What happened to the promise to ‘always speak only the truth’ these same people made back in the Declaration Of Principles; does that only apply when it’s not something of personal importance to them – morality and journalistic integrity only when convenient?
Leland is the one staff-member to hold out on Kane’s personally-okayed destruction of news integrity – the most important one relative to this piece being the drama-critic and further cycling the deterioration of once-best friends into enemies for maximum entertainment value. He writes a scathing review of bite and savagery – punishing the contrastive, conflicting emotions he must feel by blackout-drinking. Kane gets a hold of his unfinished byline and – shockingly – decides to finish it for him in the castigatory, excoriative view he intended before firing Leland. As if the multiple character-dynamics weren’t already complex enough, Kane seemingly agrees with Leland but fires him for speaking their truths – and finishes a negative review of his wife’s work by his forcisure to sing in the first place, further meriting the idea he knows Suzie is bad and secretly resents her or himself for the situation, but continues on perhaps-freed by the anonymity of a pseudonym withhout risk of losing his wife. Beyond writing it, he decides to even publish the review in his own newspaper – a question that still mystifies us to this day: why publish it unless their relationship really is that dichotomized and love/hate or masochistic. Leland posits Kane finished that review to try to prove he was an honest man: always trying to prove something to someone, and that it was the one thing he ever finished in life. There’s a hint of tragedy in the revelation CFK invited Leland to Xanadu to likely apologize and try to salvage his one true friendship, only for Leland to ignore him, rejecting a man who’s been nothing-but-rejected his whole life. The frame then shifts to the faux-world Kane constructs for himself and Suzie when their real one is crashing down on them from every angle: Xanadu – one CFK could rule in absolute monarchy and make his own rules for. Returning to El Rancho, we see a sobering Suzie – perhaps freed by the ability to tell finally tell the full story and get closure on her conflicting emotions about Kane as the weather and score lightens and clears in parallel. She posits she never asked for anything – flipping the remote possibility of gold-digging and spiraling it into the tragedy of Kane trying to use his money to buy love & force transactional companionship like it’s as simple as buying a statue.
We’re flies on the wall of one of Suzie’s [brutal] music-lessons – the opera-instructor berating her with stroke-like bemoanment of her off-pitch false expressionisms before finally quitting: ‘some people can sing, and some cannot’. Kane overhears and again flexes his power and corruption – threatening to slander him and ruin his career to put the puppet back into place. The refusal to listen to opinions other than his own [even going so far as to stifle them] has further-developed the nightmare fascist reversion of everything he once was and the news is supposed to be: Charles Foster Kane is now the antithesis of news/journalism, while its biggest name and patriarch. Pure masterpiece screenwriting and the greatest character development of all-time. The characterization of Suzie is also complex and perplexing – making us feel sorry for her being a glorified pet and pawn dancing public and private eyes for her ‘owner’, jealous/envious of her lifestyle of limitless wealth, and confused by her rejection of the easy solution to just leave Kane if she doesn’t love him or how he treats her [symbolizing, again, Da Vincian-complexity and ambiguity to what their relationship is]. The cinematography here is the film’s best: presenting us the same scene of her getting ready for her opera performance 2x in opposite views: front-and-back, and delivering what’s quite likely the greatest [or easily a Top 5-10] shot in the history of cinema in the one of Kane watching a flailing Suzie singing her heart out from above like a dark God gaining amusement from her turmoil. People around him in the box-office laugh as he goes silent and into his own world as the aria ends – where doe he go? [Perhaps to Rosebud for comfort and security in the face of public humilation?] Scattered applause begins around him, and he finally snaps back to reality a few seconds later, applauding triumphantly. We see ‘Leland’s’ negative review on the front page of The Inquirer to the rightful scorn of Suzie and a disinterested Kane conflicting his love from the previous scene with indifference/hatred. Leland, forever the voice of reason and refreshing realism-grounder across the film, gets the ultimate revenge on CFK by mail-delivery of his ripped-up severance paycheck alongside a copy of The Declaration Of Principles back from the very beginning: a knife in the heart of Kane itemizing his fall from grace, unflinchingly.
The rage prompts a dark side of Kane unlike we’ve previously seen: standing over a nasily-nagging Suzie begging out of hateful rhetoric for him to leave her alone like she’s his pet and abusively telling her she will continue singing. The cycle of pain and embarrassment continues, reaching a climax of the darkest possible action in life: Suzie attempting to commit suicide. The act is the thunderstrike enough to finally get Kane to listen to her pleas to stop singing – her comment of Charlie ‘not knowing the feeling of everyone in the audience not wanting you’ even more tragic by the fact that is the exact [only] feeling CFK has felt his whole life of rejection from that snowy day in Colorado, one that brings the two together in their experience. Kane asserts ‘you have to fight them’, while Suzie wants to give into them – a dichotomization of their reactions to rejection of grand importance as he finally, under the gravest of circumstances and prospect of losing the last thing he has, agrees to let her to stop singing. The film ends in Xanadu: the large, lonely, forlorn palace again darkened and contrasted as it was looking in the tragic beginning death-scene – foreshadowing the end. Suzie works on a jigsaw puzzle: a detail so simple and ostensibly-benign, it would be glossed over by most audiences and ignored by most films but is one loaded [again, as every detail in Citizen Kane is] with hidden meaning and allegorical potency. Kane as a man, their entire relationship, meaning of Rosebud, and palace of Xanadu are puzzles we’re all trying to piece together throughout the entire film – ones Suzie exemplifies on-screen in both physical and metaphorical jigsaws doubling as a boredom-cure. The two ant-sized figures [made to look even smaller by the zoomed-out camerawork and echo VFX as epic as the Grand Canyon] highlight how alone the two are, even in the same room of Xanadu. Again indicating unhappiness she bizarrely doesn’t capitalize on, Suzie asks what time it is in NYC – 11:30PM meaning people are getting into restaurants and nightclubs, while they’re stuck there alone on a terrestrial island of 50,000+ acres of nothing but scenery and statues. Suzie might’ve lost her reputation because of Kane, but Kane did likewise backing Suzie – the rest of the world eventually seeing past the thinly-veiled corruption and moralistic destruction, leaving two people perfectly-alone in each other.
The palace and grandeur of Xanadu is insane: a fireplace so large, a full-grown man like CFK can walk under its lip to establish scale, furthered by the grand hallways and luxury on the fringes of our view. There are statues in the periphery of every frame watching over the film’s events, giving a pseudo-horror feel by their eerie silence fusing brilliant metaphorization once again in the littlest of details. Statues are humanistic and lifelike by design, just enough to look-and-feel like real people from afar but lacking the soul and life behind the eyes of marble and stone. The statues exemplify Kane’s twisted outview on people and delusions of companionship: wanting not to be alone with nothing but his memories and sadness, but scared and ignorant of how to love – settling for fabrications of people that won’t talk back to him, but also can’t leave/reject him. The psychoanalytical themes transition to money, Suzie claiming Kane never gives her anything ‘she really wants’ or ‘that mean anything to her’ – positing that life’s free joys like having fun in NYC and learning more about him are what she really wants, not the meaningless objects he gives to her not out of love, but power/control exploiting mankind’s hard-wiring to be thankful for gifts and want money. Kane loses it, physically-striking her – telling him ‘don’t tell me you’re sorry’ and him admitting he’s not as the marriage bliss has finally devolved into an inexorably-dark nightmare of domestic life. On the revelation to him the next day that Suzie’s packing her bags, his first instinct is to question why she’d do so when they have guests: black-comedically always looking after himself and not wanting people to gossip, even in the face of certain divorce. She is about to walk out the door when CFK begs like a child, stiffening up as he did back on the snow day and Gettys-blackmail – powerless as he makes one honest, sincere, genuine attempt to reason and promise her he’ll change. Going fine and working by the expressions on Suzie’s face, he ends it with a line of major importance: ‘you can’t do this to me’. Revealing his cards after the world’s biggest poker-face, the first moment of genuine humanity we see from a post-20’s Kane is all a lie: inability to contextualize others’ experiences, clinging to the notion the universe truly revolves around him like a single-child mentality he was both-deprived of by his real parents and given by his makeshift one: money. ‘Oh, yes i can!’ says a Suzie who reverse the dynamic and leaves Kane powerless where she one was to beautifully end her arc.
Back in modern day, one line of dialogue shocks in its spoken word: ‘you’ll want to talk to Raymond, he knows where all the bodies are buried’ – signifying Kane murdered people and hid their bodies on Xanadu’s grounds, far from that kid in Colorado. All the same, Thompson says he feels sorry for Kane and she agrees. Ending on Kane, the presence of bags-packed and act of leaving home symbolizes both the beginning and end of CFK’s story, flipped in prerogative but equally-tragic. Thompson finally asks Mr. Kane’s staff about Rosebud, one of them [with the classically-noir comedic language of a $1,000 bribe in the shadows] remembering ‘he would act weird sometimes’ like the day Suzie left him. The fit of rage Charles goes into feels ~childlike; a grown-man temper-tantrum resorting to physical violence and destruction of his own artifact that works thematically as well. The filter-removal of tragedy shows how little he thinks of priceless material possessions like vases and objects, destroying them without a second’s hesitation. It also reverts him back to childhood-trauma metaphorically in parallel to his physical hysterics – as symbolized by the hemorrhage concluding the second he comes across a snowglobe and sibilates ‘Rosebud’ in a hypnotic, catatonic-trance with tears in his eyes [a masterclass of acting]. A zombie-like somnambulation through Xanadu, he walks past halls of endlessmirrors that fracture his reflection a million times like his psyche is symbolically as he clutches that same snowglobe we saw in the beginning scene of the film past legions of concerned housekeepers. The staff | |||||
7501 | dbpedia | 0 | 32 | https://www.theprojectorjournal.com/the-politics-of-cinema-history-textbooks | en | The Politics of Cinema History Textbooks | https://static.parastorage.com/client/pfavico.ico | https://static.parastorage.com/client/pfavico.ico | [
"https://static.wixstatic.com/media/d3b63e_6659cd6ebf9442cc995487f9d2a20973~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_147,h_42,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,blur_2,enc_auto/d3b63e_6659cd6ebf9442cc995487f9d2a20973~mv2.jpg",
"https://static.wixstatic.com/media/d3b63e_1ae9739144a84716b654ac4eaf93b1cd~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_532,h_352,al_c,q_80,us... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [] | null | en | https://static.parastorage.com/client/pfavico.ico | theprojector | https://www.theprojectorjournal.com/the-politics-of-cinema-history-textbooks | The boundaries that have separated film from other forms of moving images are blurring as new media technologies continue to evolve. The first year a movie shot in a digital format took the top spot at the box office was 2002 (Follows 2016). In 2011, three of the largest film camera manufacturers, Aaton, ARRI, and Panavision, announced that they would no longer produce celluloid cameras and would instead focus solely on digital formats (Koo 2011). Even with several notable films from 2020 shooting on celluloid, including Tenet, directed by Christopher Nolan, and Wonder Woman 1984, directed by Patty Jenkins, most movies are now shot in a digital format (Follows 2016). With news like this transforming the contemporary film industry, it is curious that survey cinema studies textbooks contextualize this moment of radical change as an endnote rather than a call for canonical reexamination. Instead of looking back at outliers in cinema history who also worked in different but related formats, like video and television, cinema history textbooks are doubling down on framing film history as an artistic endeavor involving feature-length films produced in Global North countries by white cisgender men. This raises questions about the selection of who and what to put in the cinema history canon and about how it was, and is, a political process. Historically, the politics of cinema history canon formation have been hidden by the ability of scholars to discriminate based on the technical differences between moving image formats. However, just as there is room today for works shot in a digital format to be called “films,” there has always been space for other media and makers in the historical record of cinema.
This essay concerns what has been excluded, minimalized, or hidden in the cinema history canon present in survey cinema history textbooks. My analysis focuses on books that have been released between 2009 and 2018 and examines the historiography of film through an ideological lens. It considers the eleventh edition of A Short History of the Movies (2010) by Gerald Mast and Bruce Kawin, the sixth edition of Flashback: A Brief History of Film (2009) by Louis Giannetti and Scott Eyman, the second edition of Douglas Gomery and Clara Pafort-Overduin’s Movie History: A Survey (2011), and the most popular contemporary survey cinema history textbook according to Amazon.com, the fourth edition of Film History: An Introduction (2018) by Kristin Thompson and David Bordwell.[1] All the books were chosen because they did not explicitly state they had narrowed their focus by distinguishing one specific type of film to discuss, such as David Cook’s A History of Narrative Film (2016), nor did they specify an obvious methodological approach, such as Henry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin’s America on Film: Representing Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality at the Movies (2021). Therefore, the inference is that the authors were writing about major moments and makers in cinema history without regard to the genre or geographic location of the filmmakers.
I employed a textual analysis of each book using an ideological framework derived from cultural studies scholarship and work that is already being done in education regarding textbooks, subject canons, and cultural politics. I looked at whether the writers’ methodology shifted between chapters. If references were used, I examined the kind of sources included in them. I analyzed what was included, as well as what was absent, considering ways that women, people of color, and Global South filmmaking traditions were framed. I also paid attention to the ways non-feature length narrative films were discussed, if at all. This project sought to uncover the politics of cinema history textbooks that have long been buried within their pages.
An evolution of thought
A close examination of cinema history textbooks may be novel for cinema studies, but education theorists have long looked at textbooks used in primary and secondary education to critique what they include and exclude. Critical pedagogists Michael W. Apple and Linda K. Christian-Smith state in the introduction to the 1991 anthology The Politics of the Textbook that “it is naïve to think of the school curriculum as neutral knowledge” (2). They reference Raymond Williams’s discussion of the selective tradition and apply it to textbook creation, noting that the books signify interpretations of reality, “someone’s vision of legitimate knowledge and culture, one that in the process of enfranchising one groups’ cultural capital disenfranchises another’s” (Apple and Christian-Smith 1991, 4). They also point out that, while scholarship and methodology may change over time, few things tend to be dropped from textbooks between editions, things are only added. However, the things that are added are rarely given the same space and attention as topics included in the original edition. As Apple and Christian-Smith explain, “Dominance is partly maintained here through compromise and the process of ‘mentioning’” (1991, 10). Their point is that textbooks are political endeavors masquerading as factual inquiries into a given subject. This is the position I will use to explore common cinema history textbooks.
In “Problems of Film History,” James Card writes, “The student turns to the film histories and there finds confusion, gossip, and the wildest sort of speculation. He quickly sees that scholarship is no prerequisite to the writing of motion picture history” (1950, 279). In fact, each volume of the original print run of one of the first cinema history textbooks, A Million and One Nights: A History of the Motion Picture Through 1925 (1926) by Terry Ramsaye, was signed by Thomas Edison himself. There is also a full-page picture of Thomas Edison before the title page of the book with the caption, “Thomas A. Edison, inventor of the motion picture film, the camera and the Kinetoscope – the technological foundation of the art of the motion picture.” But Edison’s contributions may not have ended there. In Film History: Theory and Practice, Robert C. Allen and Douglas Gomery note that Edison was also rumored to have co-authored A Million and One Nights (1985, 58). While Edison did have a hand in the early development of motion pictures, it is disputed as to whether his invention, the Kinetoscope, was truly cinema’s genesis. Undoubtedly, because Ramsaye worked closely and possibly collaborated with Edison on A Million and One Nights, it allowed Edison an opportunity to solidify his own reputation as the pioneer of the medium, even though there were similar inventions leading to the origin of motion pictures that came out before Edison’s Kinetoscope was patented in 1897.[2]
One of the inventions that predated the Kinetoscope was the camera/projector combination created by Louis Le Prince. On October 14, 1888, Le Prince filmed several people walking in a garden in the short Roundhay Garden Scene. Le Prince’s apparatus used silver nitrate on paper to record and project short clips (Youngs 2015). The difference between the use of paper and the plastic celluloid from which “film” derives its name is one way that Le Prince’s machine has sometimes been categorized as a pre-cinematic device. There is also the “Birthday of Cinema,” when the Lumiérè Brothers showcased their invention, the Cinematographé, to the public at the Grand Café in Paris on December 28, 1895. The key difference between Edison’s Kinetoscope and the Lumiérè Brothers’ Cinematographé was that the latter both recorded images on film and projected them. Even if one accepts the idea that the Kinetoscope was the beginning of the film medium, Thomas Edison did not invent it. William Kennedy-Laurie Dickson was the inventor of the Kinetoscope. Dickson worked for Edison, and when the invention seemed like it could be profitable, Edison patented the Kinetoscope under his name. In The History of the Kinetograph, Kinetoscope, and Kineto-phonograph, Dickson even describes (allegedly) perfecting synchronized sound in 1889, thirty-eight years before The Jazz Singer graced the screen and thirty-seven years before the lesser-known talkie Don Juan premiered in 1926. Dickson states that when Thomas Edison returned from the Paris Exposition of 1889, Dickson “stepped out onto the screen, raised his hat and smiled, while uttering the words of greeting ‘Good morning, Mr. Edison. Glad to see you back. I hope you are satisfied with the Kineto-phonograph’” (1970, 19). Of interest here is not the synchronized sound system that predated other attempts to marry film with audio by decades, but rather that Edison was away during its perfection, which calls into question his place in any history that notes he was the inventor of the medium. Card’s critique of early film history documentation as a place of “gossip” was, undoubtedly, the most truthful description of the burgeoning field of cinema studies in the early part of the 1900s.
It was not until the 1950s that academia started taking cinema studies seriously as universities expanded in the United States of America. In his 2001 essay, “Intellectualism and Art World Development: Film in the U.S.,” sociologist Shyon Baumann notes, “Television and the expansion of higher education in the 1950s allowed the space for film studies being considered art and culturally significant” (407). In the popular thought in the 1950s, television was mass entertainment, not art. This separation was aided by theoretical arguments that connected film to other art forms like poetry, sculpture, and theater, and thus deemed it worthy of serious study. The artistic importance of film was solidified through the introduction of the auteur theory by French New Wave artists and critics like François Truffaut and André Bazin. Truffaut first published his thoughts regarding the importance of the auteur in French cinema in the journal Cahier du Cinema in a 1954 essay entitled “Une certaine tendance du cinéma français.” In it Truffaut criticizes cinematic realism and the French cinema’s adoration of screenwriters. He argues, “That school of film-making, which aims for realism, always destroys it at the very moment when it finally captures it, because it is more interested in imprisoning human beings in a closed world hemmed in by formulas, puns and maxims than in allowing them to reveal themselves as they are, before our eyes” (1). To Truffaut, the auteur theory was the idea that the director is the most important person on a film and that true auteurs leave an indelible mark on each film they create. Thus, it is possible to find common threads among a director’s body of work.
Auteurism made its transatlantic journey via American film critic Andrew Sarris, who published an influential book used in early film studies classrooms, The American Cinema: Directors and Directions 1929-1968 (1968). As Janet Staiger points out in her essay “The Politics of Film Canons”:
When Andrew Sarris published The American Cinema in 1968, he explicitly appealed to the rationale of evaluative standards
for cultural good: 'Film history devoid of value judgments would degenerate into a hobby like revelatory. Or, as has been more
the fashion, the collectivity of movies would be clustered around an idea, usually a sociological idea befitting the mindlessness
of a mass medium.' His decision to rank directors (and, hence, films) was to 'establish a system of priorities for the film student'; Sarris was disturbed by 'the absence of the most elementary academic tradition within cinema.' (1985, 11)
However, auteurism did not just clarify the academic field for scholars, it changed the way that cinema history and players within it were popularly viewed. For instance, Robert E. Kapis pointed out that, before the auteur theory began to take film scholarship by storm, director Alfred Hitchcock was popularly considered a director who made enjoyable thrillers. However, in moving to legitimize the French New Wave’s claim that auteurism was the theory that should define cinema as an art form, Truffaut raised Hitchcock to the level of transcendent auteur and canonized him. As Kapis notes, “The transformation of Hitchcock’s reputation is an intriguing case study of how an ‘artist’ or ‘auteur’ is socially constructed and the force of which influence reassessments and cultural meaning” (1989, 15).
This does not mean that everyone in cinema studies was on board with the near-ubiquitous singularity of the auteur theory. In 1972, the first edition of Women and Film was published. Founding editors Siew-Hwa Beh and Saunie Salyer denounced the auteur theory as one of the top six threats to feminist cinematic scholarship and practice. They write, “Even if the auteur theory should include an equal number of women directors, it is still an oppressive theory making the director a superstar as if filmmaking were a one-man show” (5-6). Women and Film was not the only publication that argued against the limitations of the auteur theory. In 1977, Charles F. Altman wrote about a multifaceted, pluralistic framework of 13 ways to approach film history in his essay “Towards a Historiography of American Film.” They include the following: technology, technique, personality, film and the other arts, chronicle, social, studio, auteur, genre, ritual, legal, industrial, and sociological (4-21). The expanded ways of exploring film were and are a breath of fresh air. Yet despite the options, the popular stronghold of the auter theory and the notion that film is an art has consistently pushed against those who want to discuss film in any other way.
Cinema studies saw a proliferation of questions, many ideologically based, raised by film scholars in the 1980s regarding the framing of cinema scholarship, but the focus on aesthetics never really faltered. In “The Politics of Film Canons,” Janet Staiger criticizes film scholars’ tendencies to talk about film as if there were no political implications at stake. She points out, “many auteurist critics tended to suppress historical, class, and social issues” (1985, 12). Staiger wanted to see film scholarship move away from the auteur theory as the dominating framework. One of the scholars she criticized was Mast, writing:
Gerald Mast is even more explicit: ‘The best American films of the present (and of the future), like those of the past, can and
will succeed in transcending their immediate temporal, commercial, technological, and cultural limitations…’ For a Romantic auteurist, the value of a work is claimed to be in its cross-cultural, cross-temporal benefits. (1985, 12)
Staiger was critical of those, including Mast, who declared that artistic merit was timeless and universal. She called for a reformation of the canon. Staiger did not believe that it was possible to eliminate the process of canon formation but that other considerations, outside of the auteur theory, needed to go into which films, filmmakers, and movements cinema scholars deemed important.
Many agreed with Staiger, but not all scholars were swayed to investigate or privilege non-aesthetic approaches. One of the loudest opponents to ideology in cinema studies has been David Bordwell. He states in his 2005 essay, “Film and the Historical Return,” published on his blog, “When someone suggests that we must go beyond aesthetics, I want to reply: Please show me that you’ve gotten to aesthetics in the first place.” He criticizes ideologues:
Ignoring the art-centered research programs isn’t a new habit. As late as 1985, Gomery and Allen, in their Film History:
Theory and Practice treated the aesthetic history of film as a relic, disparaging it as “the masterpieces tradition.” Allen and Gomery’s worry seemed to be that one couldn’t study film as art without injecting evaluations about the great works. (2005, 5)
His textbook co-author and frequent collaborator, Kristin Thompson, agrees with his concerns about the encroachment of ideology into cinema studies and its lack of empirical data, stating:
Arguing that all representations are ideologically determined, some theorists questioned the idea that historical research could ever reveal anything true about the past and an “anti-historicism” arose. Historical studies based on the gathering of statistics
and other kinds of data were blanketly denounced as “empiricist.” (1993, 360)
Bordwell states in an essay on his blog that all good research comes from a program with a certain framework and that a researcher must ask questions, provide evidence, and create an argument. He also notes that Bordwell and Thompson’s work, in general, strives for objectivity and empiricism and they stand in contrast to the qualitative nature of most cinema studies scholars (“Doing Film History,” 2008). This is curious, because even David Bordwell acknowledges a pluralistic way of looking at cinema history, although not in the latest edition of his co-authored cinema history textbook, Film History. In the essay “Doing Film History” on his online blog, Bordwell notes that there are five general catagories a historian can use to investigate cinema history:
Biographical history: focusing on an individual’s life history
Industrial or economic history: focusing on business practices
Aesthetic history: focusing on film art (form, style, genre)
Technological history: focusing on the materials and machines of film
Social/cultural/political history: focusing on the role of cinema in the larger society. (2008)
This essay was actually part of the first edition of Film History that was released in 1994, but it has been removed over the years and does not appear in the fourth edition. Even as Thompson, Bordwell’s collaborator, revisted aesthetics in her writings about neo-formalism in the early 2000s and expanded her approach to cinema, their collaborative textbooks appear to grow narrower in their focus with each edition.
The commitment of Thompson and Bordwell to the artistic tradition of film history is evident in a comparison between the differences (or lack thereof) between the first edition (1994) and fourth edition (2018) of Film History. The first chapter is entitled “The Invention and Early Years of the Cinema 1880s-1904.” In a side-by-side comparison, it is apparent that the chapters contain identical text between the first and fourth editions. Despite new discoveries of important contributors to the birth of cinema, like prolific film pioneer Alice Guy-Blaché, nothing has been added, updated, or changed in the opening chapter of Film History between the first edition (1994) and fourth edition (2018).
This lack of updates reinforces the assertion from Apple and Christian-Smith that virtually nothing is taken out of textbooks and that, when things are added, they are not afforded the same attention. The absence of updates is radical, as the field of cinema studies has changed dramatically in the 27 years since the first edition of Film History. This transformation can be traced through the evolution of the Society of Cinema Studies (SCS) to the Society for Cinema and Media Studies (SCMS). The official change occurred in 2002 after years of discussion amongst the SCS/SCMS membership. SCMS notes on their web page regarding their organizational history, “By the mid-1980s television studies had been incorporated into the organization’s mandate, after some controversy, along with considerations of such ancillary areas as sound and non-theatrical film. The late 1990s saw the debut of digital media as a growing field of study.” The narrow focus on cinema studies as an artistic medium separated from other motion picture mediums was formally denounced by one of the major academic organizations in the field. It is curious, then, that work actively updated after this transitional period, like Film History, is not subjected to a more in-depth edit that better aligns with contemporary scholarship.
Thompson and Bordwell’s position as popular scholars in cinema studies reflects contemporary tensions between academics who consider film an art form first and those who prefer ideological, economic, or technological approaches. The power and longevity of the auteur theory is one example. The auteur theory has transcended academic scholarship and been absorbed into popular culture and continues to be used nearly 70 years after its initial inception.[3]
No matter what framework a scholar uses, the inclusion or exclusion of each person or film in a textbook is still a political act. Everything in a subject canon has been chosen by a person with human fallibilities. In addition, all scholars have frameworks and biases, whether they are articulated or not. My argument is not that we should work to eliminate bias but that the complexity of chronicling the history of cinema should be centered. Students who read these books should not just be able to recite names, dates, and films, but also be able to engage critically with the politics of canon formation and historiography.
Contemporary Survey Cinema History Textbooks
Thompson and Bordwell state in the preface to the fourth edition of Film History that there is no one definitive film history, but rather “histories” (2018, xiv). Gomery and Pafort-Overduin, as well as Mast and Kawin, agree with this pluralistic stance. In contrast, Giannetti and Eyman state they “set out to write a really brief book. Just the basics, no frills” (2009, xxi). The preface to their book, stating their condensed approach, reflects this brevity – it is less than one page. With brevity comes a lack of pronounced engagement, as the complicated history of any discipline cannot be covered in a condensed manner without leaving out quite a bit. Despite some differences, there are concerning trends throughout all the texts:
A methodological preference that focuses on film as art.
An overemphasis on American feature narratives and the impact of work from the Hollywood studios.
A tendency to obscure the contributions of women and people of color in film history.
A lack of references.
A simplification of film history that ignores the complexity of the past.
Film as Art
Each textbook critiqued in this essay clings to the idea that film is an art form, first and foremost. The slant towards an artistic take on cinema history is most blatant in the way that Mast and Kawin continually compare film to the high arts in A Short History of the Movies. This phenomenon begins at the outset: “The history of the movies is, first of all, the history of a new art. Though it has affinities with fiction, poetry, drama, dance, painting, photography, and music, like each of these kindred arts it has a ‘poetics’ of its own” (2010, 1). The connections between film and high art become dismissive when contrasted with the discussion of television, which is only framed in terms of how film has influenced television. For example, the book notes that the film sequel influenced the television serial (2010, 262) and that Citizen Kane cinematographer Gregg Toland developed the three-camera system used on the television show I Love Lucy (1951–1957) (2010, 187).[4] When the reverse is mentioned – the influence of television on film – it is framed negatively, as an impediment to the progression of the cinematic medium, because it kept audiences from going to the movies (2010, 319).
Giannetti and Eyman convey a sense of political neutrality in their extremely brief preface to the sixth edition of Flashback, stating, “Eclectic in our methodology, we have adhered to a broad consensus tradition of film history and criticism; except for a humanist bias, we have no theoretical axes to grind” (2009, xxi). This leads the reader to believe that the authors have no political or methodological slant. However, this statement is quickly followed by: “Our main concern has been with film as art, but when appropriate we also discuss film as industry and as a reflection of popular audience values, social ideologies, and historical epochs” (2009, xxi). Thus, they reveal that they do indeed have a methodological focus. The prioritization of film as an art proves true throughout their book. However, film as a representation of popular values, ideologies, and moments in history proves less integral to the authors’ foci. For example, while they discuss the political ideology behind films produced in the U.S.S.R. (2009, 52-63), they do not always discuss the political leanings of filmmaking in the United States. In fact, the authors spend just one paragraph discussing the connection between ideology and cinema in one of the most obvious points in American film history where politics and cinema history met up, the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings of the late 1940s and 1950s, (2009, 136). They continuously minimize the intersection of politics and film to forefront artistic considerations.
Even the most methodologically broad textbook, Movie History by Gomery and Pafort-Overduin, devotes a sizable number of pages to the artistic paradigm of the Classic Hollywood Narrative Style employed in the Hollywood studio system. In fact, Chapter 3 is the only section that breaks the historical continuum of the narrative, and it is devoted to the establishment of Classical Hollywood Narrative Style. The authors repeatedly mention that, in history, those who elected to challenge Classical Hollywood Narrative Style were ostracized from the film industry, noting: “Griffith’s contributions to the Classical Hollywood Narrative Style were limited. Directors were inspired by Griffith, yet so as not to lose their jobs they did not follow his inability to adapt to the Classical Hollywood Narrative Style” (2011, 70). Even the final chapter of the book, which primarily focuses on the major Hollywood conglomerates, refers to this aesthetic model in a frank way: “The Classic Hollywood Narrative Style will remain dominant” (2011, 411). But why the authors believe the Classical Hollywood Narrative Style will continue to dominate is never unpacked. They merely state that, since 1921, Hollywood has been the economically dominant film force in the world and that “the story-driven use of cinematic technology will persist” (2011, 411).
Overemphasis on American Feature Narratives
In the first chapter of Mast and Kawin’s text, they outline their focus by stating that “the history of the American film is most relevant to American readers” and therefore “this short history allots more space to a discussion of American movie practices” (2010, 7). While no survey textbook in any discipline can completely introduce every important work due to the general limitations of books, the length to which American and European filmmaking traditions are discussed in this text gives readers a false sense of complete historical dominance of the industry by white American and Western European male filmmakers, when the history of film is much more international, complex, and dynamic.[5]
Thompson and Bordwell are more inclusive in their scope, touching on a wide range of national cinema traditions that the other three texts ignore. However, the style in which the authors discuss non-Hollywood and non-Western European feature narratives tends to undermine the films’ importance to cinema history, especially as one gets closer to contemporary times. In a chapter titled “A Developing World: Continental and Subcontinental Cinemas since 1970,” the authors emphasize the lack of financial impact of these works: “Most films produced in the continents of Africa and Latin America and the subcontinents of the Middle East and India seemed marginal to international film commerce. That was defined by Hollywood, which commanded over half of the world’s theatrical revenues” (2018, 619). Box office gross is not as important a factor in their discussion of what they feel are important American films. When discussing Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane (1941), they do not talk about the dismal initial box office take, but rather call it “one of the most admired of all films” (2018, 203).[6] The same treatment is applied to Fight Club (1999), directed by David Fincher. Thompson and Bordwell call it a “daring film” (2018, 683) and do not mention its poor box office performance.[7] These examples highlight the political nature of the choices of what to include and how to frame films and filmmakers. The section on Blade Runner (1982), directed by Ridley Scott, breaks this trend. It discusses the film as a “box-office failure, [which nevertheless] proved to be one of the most influential films of its period” (2018, 665). The pluralistic stance that brings into question two seemingly contradictory statements encourages further rumination and reveals what is needed in textbooks.
While films originating from America’s studio system do regularly make the most money worldwide, films originating from India tend to sell the most tickets per year internationally. India also has the highest studio output of films (Santoreneos 2019). Despite this, India’s distinctive film form only receives a five-page subsection in Mast and Kawin’s text. The treatment of Indian cinema gets worse in Giannetti and Eyman’s book; it only receives a sidebar paragraph on page 200 regarding the 1955 film Pather Panchali and director Sayajit Ray. Although Ray is briefly mentioned in other parts of the book, the sidebar is the only time that Indian cinema is given any significant space in Flashback. The Indian film industry is given more space and time in Gomery and Pafort-Overduin’s book. In fact, they devote a section to describing how films associated with the Bollywood tradition differ aesthetically from mainstream Hollywood productions (2011, 383). However, the authors do not fully embrace other non-Hollywood, non-Western traditions. In fact, they conclude one chapter, “Contemporary World Cinema History – 1977 and Beyond,” with a warning about the global dominance of Hollywood, noting, “all these nations had governmental subsidy efforts to maintain a cinematic culture in the national identity. Why? The threat of Hollywood dominating their culture remains real” (2011, 385). This continues the reductionist trend of softening the global importance of non-Hollywood film traditions by emphasizing the economic power of the American studio system.
Obscuring Women and People of Color
There are two stark differences in the way that all the textbooks approach the contributions of women and people of color: 1) Female filmmakers and filmmakers of color tend to be lumped together based on their gender and race versus aesthetic considerations, and 2) Women and filmmakers of color are not generally allowed to enter the narrative flows in the books.[8]This leads to women and people of color being isolated as anomalies and, seemingly, unimportant to the story of film.
In most of the textbooks, the discussion of women working behind the camera is generally relegated to contemporary times. Mast and Kawin approach women’s contributions to contemporary film by trying to make the case for modern equality in a passage called “Julie Taymor and Others,” where they list female directors for nearly half a page with a couple of the movies they directed after a short passage regarding feminist film theory in the academy.[9] They ignore the fact that not all female filmmakers were or are interested in feminist politics.
Gomery and Pafort-Overduin’s Movie History does not completely ignore issues of power and privilege behind the camera, but they do buck the trend of lumping female filmmakers together. Instead, director Gillian Armstrong is a part of a discussion of Australian filmmakers in a chapter titled “Alternative film industries: The Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, South America, Australia, and Japan.” They mention that Armstrong “went on to become the first woman to direct a film in Australia in 45 years” (2011, 343). However, this is the only time that inequity behind the camera is mentioned in the 481 pages of their book. This results in a disservice, because it does not encourage readers to investigate gendered power dynamics in the film industry and, again, ignores the complexity of history.
Like the fate of female filmmakers, African American filmmakers are cut off from being an integral part of the historical flow. In Mast and Kawin’s book, early African American film pioneer Oscar Micheaux is mentioned as a pioneer of race films, but when early independent filmmaking is brought up on page 587, he is decidedly absent from the discussion: “the history of independent filmmaking in America goes back before Morris Engel, Ruth Orkin, and Ray Ashley made Little Fugitive (1953) and John Cassavetes directed Shadows (1959)” (2010, 587). Before, yes, but who are they referring to is never mentioned. Micheaux’s inventive and independent business practices that predate the above examples by almost forty years are ignored because his place as a filmmaker in this history is tied to making race films.
Micheaux is completely absent from the narrative in Giannetti and Eyman’s book. The first American director of color they mention is Melvin Van Peebles, who is described as having “popularized a new genre, the so-called blaxploitation picture” (2009, 275). His work is not connected to earlier race films, because they are not mentioned in the book. Nor is his work placed in the continuum of independent filmmaking traditions, even though the authors state, “Van Peebles financed the picture himself” (2009, 275). This is odd, because financing a movie outside the studio system is a hallmark of independent film. The title of independent film maverick is reserved for white filmmakers like John Cassavetes. Van Peebles’s work and the blaxploitation genre are labeled a flash-in-the-pan moment that “died out by 1975” (2009, 276). Films that draw heavily on the genre are equally isolated or ignored, such as urban gangster pictures of the early 1990s like Boyz N the Hood (1991) directed by John Singleton, Menace II Society (1993) directed by Allen and Albert Hughes, and Juice (1992) directed by Ernest R. Dickerson.
Gomery and Pafort-Overduin obfuscate issues of racial inequality in their book by ignoring them altogether. African American filmmakers like Spike Lee, Melvin Van Peebles, and Oscar Micheaux are not even mentioned. While the goal of Movie History was to be brief but methodologically inclusive, it is revealing to see who and what goes missing from the canon as it is condensed to make room for pluralism.
Admittedly, the trend of lumping female filmmakers and directors of color together is not as consistent in the fourth edition of Thompson and Bordwell’s text. In a section devoted to Spike Lee, they quote the director as saying: “Race, Lee remarked, was ‘America’s biggest problem, always has been (since we got off the boat), always will be’” (2018, 671). While Lee has self-identified as a director who likes to tackle issues of race and racism in his work, he is not lumped with other African American filmmakers, but rather identified as a director that began making a popular impact in the 1980s alongside white filmmakers like Michael Mann and Oliver Stone (2018, 677). The incorporation of Lee into the overall history is progressive and allows the director to be included in the narrative of history instead of being siloed as a black filmmaker.
I will note that the choice not to group filmmakers together by their gender or race is new in the fourth edition Film History by Thompson and Bordwell. In the third edition, released in 2009, there are passages that put women filmmakers together (676), then African American filmmakers (676), before discussing female African American filmmakers (676-677). The revision in their approach to these directors demonstrates that it is possible to rethink approaches to writing film history as cinema studies evolves as a discipline.
Lack of References
One of the major problems in all the books is the lack and consistency of references. Three of the four textbooks only cite where their images are from, while the fourth, Thompson and Bordwell’s Film History, cites photos and direct quotes but does not reveal the sources of the many statistics used. It is not required that authors cite statistics in their work, but because Thompson and Bordwell have emphasized that their work is empirical (Bordwell 2008), the lack of citation makes it difficult to trace the origins of the data from which they draw their conclusions. This lack of consistent citation provides a poor example for students regarding the expectations of academic scholarship.
In Film History: Theory and Practice, Allen and Gomery state, “the absence of footnotes and detailed bibliographic references in survey film histories makes it impossible to trace conclusions back to their evidentiary sources” (1985, 46). However, Gomery’s textbook, Movie History, fails to live up to his own critique. In the first chapter, “The Invention and Innovation of Motion Pictures,” Gomery and Pafort-Overduin write:
Pathé-Frères boomed and in 1904 opened a second studio which a year later was producing 12,000 meters (more than
39,370 feet) of positive film stock per day – the vast majority of which were short story films. A year later film production
had tripled and the movie-making division was employing 1,200 people. (16)
In their “Reference and Further Reading” section at the end of the chapter (2011, 32), the authors indicate several works that could include the above-mentioned statistics. However, they do not identify which author(s) did the primary research to produce such numbers. It is up to the reader to sift through the sources to verify the accuracy of their statement or find further information that expands on this point. In the preface to the text, Gomery and Pafort-Overduin state: “No historian of the cinema can do all the primary research for a survey which covers millions of movies made and shown in different countries throughout the world. He or she must rely on the work of others” (2011, xxii). While relying on the work of others is understandable in a survey textbook, not explicitly citing sources makes it difficult for students using the works to go deeper with the material. The lack of references provides a poor example for introductory students about the expectation of college-level scholarship, and, as Gomery himself stated in the 1970s, this practice needs closer attention.
Not citing the source of statistical information and paraphrased material is a glaring issue in Giannetti and Eyman’s book. For example, in their chapter “American Cinema in the 1970s,” they write, “feminist film critics complain, for the most part correctly, that females in American movies were portrayed primarily as sexual playthings for the boys” (2009, 281). Offering no citation or indication of which feminist film critics they are referencing, Giannetti and Eyman leave readers questioning where this information comes from. It sounds like something gleaned from Molly Haskell’s book From Reverence to Rape: The Treatment of Women in Movies (1974) or Laura Mulvey’s essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” originally published in 1975 in Screen. However, without a clear citation, students will not know where to look for further information because none of the books listed under “Further Reading” at the chapter’s conclusion have anything to do with feminist film theory.
Not citing their sources also allows authors to pass off film history myth as fact. In discussing the work of film director John Ford, Giannetti and Eyman claim that “he was initially influenced by Griffith. (Ford rode as one of the Clansmen in The Birth of a Nation)” (2009, 112). However, Ford’s work as an actor on The Birth of a Nation has never been substantiated. It is thought to be a tall tale that Ford told to enhance his own reputation in Hollywood by aligning himself with the film’s director, D.W. Griffith (Eyman 2000). In addition, Scott Eyman knows that Ford’s involvement with The Birth of a Nation has not been verified, because Eyman wrote both Flashback and an article nearly a decade earlier called “The Day They Blew Up John Ford,” in which the rumor of Ford’s ride is mentioned and correctly catagorized as gossip (Eyman 2000). This raises the question of why the standards for fact versus rumor shift so drastically between publication types. Stating that Ford was a hooded Klansman in The Birth of a Nation is an interesting anecdote. Undoubtedly, it is not as scintillating to suggest it to be mere Hollywood lore, even though that is the case. If cinema history textbooks are not accurate, they are still, as Card writes, places of “confusion, gossip, and the wildest sort of speculation” (279).
Simplifying Film History
All the issues discussed in this piece feed into the final aspect of my critique: the simplification of cinema history in survey textbooks. The texts leave little for students to question regarding the narrative of film history. This is problematic. Bordwell admits in “Doing Film History” that the percentage of early films that have survived to contemporary times is roughly 20% (2008). In addition, he states:
More recent films may be inaccessible to the researcher as well. Films made in some small countries, particularly in
Third World nations, were not made in many copies and did not circulate widely. Small archives may not have the
facilities to preserve films or show them to researchers. In some cases, political regimes may choose to suppress
certain films and promote others. Finding reliable copies to study is a major challenge for the historian whose questions
center on the films. (2008)
The irony of this passage from Bordwell’s website is that the entire “Doing Film History” essay was in the first edition of Film History but was cut in later editions, presumably to save space. Thus, Bordwell’s point about the extent to which cinema history is based on limited material is not included in the actual book that draws conclusions about film history using limited extant materials. Cinema scholars can draw conclusions from a smaller sample of films, but we need to note in our own work that the historical record is incomplete. We also need to note that history is a dynamic story that changes as social perceptions and priorities shift. Otherwise, we run the risk of eliminating the options for new conclusions to arise as more material is uncovered and methodologies evolve. Further, as I have already pointed out, new methodologies can be embraced. For example, the revisions that occurred in the third and fourth editions of Film History halted the practice of lumping directors together based on personal identifiers.
Only Gomery and Pafort-Overduin indicate in A Short History of the Movies that writing history is a meaning-making process that is subjective and shifts over time. They explain: “Buster Keaton was considered a silent comic of lesser rank than Chaplin at the time his films were released. Movie historians who have closely studied the silent films of Buster Keaton have come to view him as one of the greatest stylists of the cinema” (2011, 76). However, they are still susceptible to the trap of simplifying film history. The dominant thread in their book is the framework of Classic Hollywood Narrative Style, and they use it at times in ways that are questionable. This is apparent when the authors discuss the 1922 “documentary” directed by Robert Flaherty, Nanook of the North. They write:
Who cared if… Nanook was in fact named Allakariallak, while the wife shown in the film was not really his wife? . . .
No filmmaker who wanted to reach a mass audience in the USA could do this without using the Classical Hollywood
Narrative Style – even when it was called a documentary. (2011, 81)
While they espouse in the beginning of their book that they aimed to be more methodologically inclusive in their version of film history, their reliance on film as an art form first trumps any consideration of the social (or technological or economic) factors.
The problematic coverage of Nanook of the North continues in Giannetti and Eyman’s text. They describe Robert Flaherty as a “pantheistic poet” and a “one-of-a-kind genius” (2009, 169). When covering Nanook of the North, Thompson and Bordwell state “Flaherty spent sixteen months in the region of Hudson Bay, filming Nanook and his wife and son” (2009, 164). While they later note “Every scene was planned in advance” (2009, 164), this does not adequately address the colonialist lens that was used to film Allakariallak (Nanook’s actual name).
The simplification of history also occurs when technological progression is portrayed as inevitable. An example is the simplification of the evolution of synchronized sound films. In Film History, Bordwell and Thompson introduce the progression of synchronized sound by stating, “from the cinema’s beginning, inventors attempted to join the image to mechanically reproduced sound, usually on phonograph records. These systems had little success before the mid-1920s, primarily because sound and image proved difficult to synchronize and because amplifiers and loudspeakers were inadequate for theater auditoriums” (2018, 172). Warner Brothers is widely cited as the studio that took on the project of releasing the first sync sound films, even though various artists and technicians had been tinkering with the idea for years. When Jack Warner pitched the idea of “talkies” to his brother Harold, the latter has been quoted as saying, “"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" (Moviequotes.com 2019). Indeed, until sound proved to be commercial successful, many studios and filmmakers viewed it with the same skepticism allotted to less successful cinematic innovations like 3D, Smell-o-Vision, and the Tingler. Again, complexity is needed to encourage students to think critically about historical progress in any field. In this case, pluralism could have been easily achieved with a note about how the inclusion of synchronized sound advanced the film medium but simultaneously devastated smaller film theaters because the substantial cost of retrofitting their systems put many out of business (Dubitsky 2020).
Another example of this simplification of film history is in the discussion of D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation (1915). While the chapter on D.W. Griffith in Mast and Kawin’s book acknowledges the racism integral to his “masterwork,” it frames it as an issue solely concerning “liberals” past and present:
The film, which contributed significantly to the resurgence of the Klan in the 20th century, is a very difficult morsel for
today’s liberal or social activist to swallow. It was just as difficult for the liberals of 1915. The NAACP, the president of
Harvard, social activist Jane Addams, and liberal politicians all damned the work for its bigoted, racist portrayal of the
African American. (2010, 82)
However, they deflate the issue and defend Griffith’s film by stating that his “treatment of these blacks is not an isolated expression of racial prejudice; it is a part of a lifelong distrust of the ‘evils’ of social change and disruption” (2010, 83). Despite this passage of tepid criticism, they go on to state, “the key to The Birth of a Nation is that it is both strikingly complex and tightly whole. It is a film of brilliant parts carefully tied together by the driving line of the film’s narrative” (2010, 83). The Birth of a Nation is a difficult work to discuss in film history, but in the six pages they devote to the work, less than one is paid to discussing the social response and effects of the film. This is incredibly important because The Birth of a Nation sparked a revival of the Ku Klux Klan and was used for white supremacist recruitment for many years after its release (Clark 2018).
In the fourth edition of Film History, Thompson and Bordwell call The Birth of a Nation a “bigoted account of African Americans’ role in southern history” and note that it “aroused heated controversy” (2018, 62). This is different than the first edition of Film History, which described The Birth of a Nation as a “bigoted account of African Americans’ role in Southern History” that “aroused great controversy when it was released, but it was enormously successful and influential for its dynamic and original style” (1994, 74). The historical record does note the financial success of the film, but to say it was “influential” for “its dynamic and original style” softens the white supremacist message of a film in which the Ku Klux Klan ride on horseback in full hooded regalia at the end to terrorize African Americans and “save” the day for the white protagonists.[10] In the end, both editions work towards a pluralistic approach to the film but do not fully embrace the complexity of the film or its concerning message.
Gomery and Pafort-Overduin quickly mention The Birth of a Nation in their book. However, that brief statement complicates the social issues surrounding the film, past and present, in a much deeper manner than the other texts. The authors explain: “When the film opened in Boston protestors demanded it be stopped. The president of Harvard denounced it. Griffith felt it necessary to publish a booklet The Rise and Fall of Free Speech in America to defend himself” (2011, 52). Gomery and Pafort-Overduin do not segregate those who objected to the film’s original release as either “liberals” or groups primarily concerned with African American causes. Instead, they discuss the film as the first blockbuster, a film that was wildly popular, and as something that evoked strong social opposition. This does not mean the rest of their book follows suit, but this one passage is a pronounced example of the intersectional nature that can and should be incorporated into every survey textbook, especially with works as complicated as The Birth of a Nation.
Institutional Power
Every textbook I critiqued included Thomas Edison, D.W. Griffith, the Golden Age of Hollywood, Charlie Chaplin, John Ford, Orson Welles, Alfred Hitchcock, the auteur theory, the French New Wave, the American Renaissance, Stephen Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and contemporary American blockbusters. While there were additions that offered variety between the texts, it was nominal. This is problematic from a cultural studies standpoint, as it continues to push to the fringes those already marginalized, such as women, people of color, and those from the Global South. In Suzanne Pharr’s book Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism, she notes that institutional power is maintained through a “defined norm” (1997, 53). The lack of variation in cinema history textbooks is one way that structural power is maintained, and other options and people are silenced. It does not fundamentally matter which survey book a professor chooses, their students will get a grasp of the French New Wave. Whether or not they learn about New Queer Cinema, Third Cinema, race films, or the work of film pioneer Alice Guy-Blaché will vary, because these movements and artists are not universally acknowledged as central to the canon of film.
The issue of a single canon can also be tied to Pharr’s concept of the myth of scarcity “which suggests that our resources are limited” (1997, 54). Scarcity is emphasized by Giannetti and Eyman through the terseness with which they approach film history. In their Preface, they state, “We set out to write a really brief book. Just the basics, no frills” (2009, xxii). However, the connotation of such a statement is that the “frills” are all those things that fall outside of the narrative films created by white Global North cisgender men. Even in the other textbooks, which pay more attention to the work of female filmmakers and directors of color, there is a lack of depth in the discussion of inequity in the entire film industry. All the authors often opt to focus on film as an art form rather than approach cinema history from a political or even sufficiently pluralistic stance. If we continue to highlight individuals and films in the great works tradition without discussing the technological, economic, and social factors involved in cinematic production, we will continue to alienate students and scholars who are not cisgender white men.
As technological shifts cause the lines between film, television, the internet, and other mass media to rapidly blur, we need to integrate the history of these technologies into the cinematic past to connect film to the future. The average American engaged with media for eleven hours every day in 2010 (Phillips 2010), and that number was up to an average twelve hours and nine minutes in 2019 (He 2019). The significance of this engagement needs to be studied and understood in an interdisciplinary context. However, without connecting cinema studies scholarship to the work of colleagues in television and media studies, cultural studies, ethnic studies, feminist studies, and queer studies, we will not be part of the conversations around what it means to be a culture engrossed with moving images. Instead, we will be stuck trying to defend the disciplinary lines in an antiquated argument about how film is primarily art, instead of looking at its intersecting political, economic, and technical implications. It is time to let the primary focus on film as art rest, not only to add complexity to the discipline’s past, but to ensure its relevance in the future of the academy.[11]
Notes
[1] Amazon.com accounts for roughly 50% of the physical book market in the United States and accounts for roughly 75% of the eBook market. Thus, sales on Amazon.com are a solid indication of any title’s popularity in the United States (Evans 2019).
[2] The Kinetoscope was patented by Thomas Edison in 1897, but Edison’s employee, William Kennedy-Laurie Dickson, alleges it to have been completed and in use by 1887 in his book History of the Kinetograph, Kinetoscope, and Kineto-phonograph (Dickson 1970, 1).
[3] While revising this essay, the author found a recent example of the use of auteur in contemporary film criticism without even looking. It popped up in her social media feed. The popular scholarship is titled “Denis Villeneuve Is the Latest Auteur Director to Critique Marvel Movies and We’re Very Tired” written by Chelsea Steiner and published on TheMarySue.com. This is a demonstration of the permeation of the auteur theory into popular consciousness seven decades after its introduction.
[4] In actuality, the development of the three-camera system used in filming broadcast TV programming began with television production. It did not originate in cinema. The pioneering German Expressionist cinematographer, Karl Fruend, who also served as the director of photography on I Love Lucy, is more commonly credited with perfecting the three-camera system, though he did not invent it. It had been used as early as the 1947-1948 television season in the NBC series Public Prosecutor (see Krampner, Jon. 1991. "Myths and Mysteries Surround Pioneering of 3-Camera TV Broadcasting." Los Angeles Times, July 29, 1991. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-07-29-ca-176-story.html).
[5] Only two chapters out of nineteen in Mast and Kawin’s book explicitly deal with non-Global North film history.
[6] Citizen Kane has made $1,585,634 domestically since its release in 1941. It cost $839,727 to produce (Box Office Mojo).
[7] Domestically, Fight Club made just over $37 million at the box office in its initial release. It cost $63 million to produce (Box Office Mojo).
[8] It is key to note that this only happens if the filmmaker is something other than male and white.
[9] “ . . . and Others” is often used in A Short History of the Movies to group filmmakers together and is not necessarily something I am taking issue with.
[10] Many of the African American characters in The Birth of a Nation were played by white actors in blackface. Actors who were in blackface included George Siegmann who played Silas Lynch, Walter Long as Gus, and Jennie Lee who played Mammy. | |||
7501 | dbpedia | 3 | 67 | https://cinemontage.org/orson-welles-citizen-kane-1941/ | en | Orson Welles’ ‘Citizen Kane’ (1941) | [
"https://cinemontage.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/IA-700-logo.png",
"https://c8za76.p3cdn2.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Cinemontage_2144-300px.png?time=1724967087",
"https://c8za76.p3cdn2.secureserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/A11Feat-1.jpg?time=1724967087",
"https://c8za76.p3cdn2.secure... | [] | [] | [
""
] | null | [
"uncredited"
] | 2006-07-01T16:04:58-07:00 | I was thunderstruck. From the opening sequence, with Kane breathing, 'Rosebud' on his deathbed, to the final revelation of what that word meant, I was in its thrall. | en | - | https://cinemontage.org/orson-welles-citizen-kane-1941/ | by Paul Hirsch, ACE
My fascination with the movies started in Paris when I was a child. My father was a painter, and my mother was a dancer. We lived in Paris for four years, and part of my connection to “the States” was going to American movies. The French have a real love/hate complex about America, and though they claim feelings of cultural superiority, Paris is in love with Hollywood.
(When Jean-Luc Godard made his film Masculin-Feminin, he included a card that read: “This film could also have been entitled ‘The Children of Marx & Coca-Cola.’”) Luckily for me, they insisted on showing pictures VO (original version), ie, with subtitles (in French of course). So we American ex-pat kids loved going to the movies. One of my favorites was King Solomon’s Mines. I also recall seeing Scaramouche, Ivanhoe, The Greatest Show On Earth, The Crimson Pirate with Burt Lancaster and Road to Bali with Bob Hope and Bing Crosby.
I remember going to An American In Paris numerous times. When I was a kid, if I found a movie I liked, I would see it over and over again. I wonder if this capacity for repeated viewings was an early indicator of my future career. In any event, this film was a natural for me, since it told the story of a painter (like my Dad) who falls in love with a dancer (like my Mom), and of course, I was the American in Paris!
So it is altogether fitting that I saw the movie that propelled me into my career while in Paris. A senior in college, I was already enrolled in Columbia Architecture School in the fall, but I needed a few more credits to qualify for my degree. By luck and good timing, I was able to do this by taking two French classes in Paris. Class was over each day by noon, and I often would spend my time seeing old Hollywood pictures that played in art houses on the Left Bank. The auteur theory and the Cahiers Du Cinema in full tilt, there were festivals devoted to the work of a single director––like Raoul Walsh or Howard Hawks. It was the first time I paid any attention to who the director of an American movie was.
The breakfast scene, with dazzling economy, told the story of Kane’s deteriorating marriage as it demonstrated time passing.
That summer, the Cinematheque at the Palais de Chaillot was having an Orson Welles Festival. I had seen him once or twice, as an actor on TV. He would make himself up onstage while reciting a scene from Othello, or as Falstaff, but I had never seen any of his pictures. So I went on a Monday night to see Citizen Kane, which I had vaguely heard of. To my surprise, although the print had no subtitles, film enthusiasts filled the theatre nevertheless, even though they didn’t speak English.
With no foreknowledge about the film, I was thrilled to the core. The joy of discovery is hugely underrated, and I have never understood why people want to know beforehand the story of a movie they are going to see. I was thunderstruck. From the opening sequence, with Kane breathing, “Rosebud” on his deathbed, to the final revelation of what that word meant, I was in its thrall. The brilliant manipulations of time and space, and the fascinating character exploration of this tragic “great man” excited me to no end about the potential of film as a medium.
In particular, I was fascinated by the breakfast scene, which, with dazzling economy, told the story of Kane’s deteriorating marriage as it demonstrated time passing. The framing device of the newsreel researcher, the various points of view of the recollections of Kane’s associates, the fascinating visual compositions, the evocative lighting, the magnificent sets, that music, the camera moves––like the one that went through a rooftop sign and down through a skylight––and especially that final shot: flying over all the art he had collected in his lifetime right to the shattering realization of what Rosebud meant, told through visual means. All were part of the magic for me.
Citizen Kane affected me profoundly. I returned every night that week, and saw The Magnificent Ambersons, The Lady from Shanghai and Touch of Evil! On Friday, the Master himself was appearing with Macbeth, and you couldn’t get near the place. Those pictures, all in a week, excited an ambition in me to participate somehow in making movies.
When I went back home, and enrolled in Architecture School, I knew deep down that it was not for me. After a couple of months, I dropped out and was able to land a shipping room job at an industrial film house in New York City. But it was in Paris that my career really began.
Paul Hirsch is an Academy Award-winning picture editor and a member of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and the American Cinema Editors (ACE). |