Citizen Kane
Would you watch a movie with all the new, inexperienced actors or experienced and popular ones? Also, would you watch a movie with all the newly invented effects or those with simply long shots, and lightings? I suppose you’ll choose the second option for both question. One surprising fact is that Citizen Kane doesn’t possess any of the characteristics that you haven choose, however, it still has attracted several viewers and supporters all over the world. Why so? Many people say it’s because of its acting, while others say it’s because of its great literary elements. But I think it’s because of its unique script writing and ideas. Maybe this ties in to the phrase “nothing/nobody is perfect”. Like every person, every movie lacks in one criterion which other movies might be better at and vice versa. In this case, since Citizen Kane is lacking in its acting and special effects, it has to make up for it by having an amazing script writing and idea. There is another reason why I respect Citizen Kane for its uniqueness: the way the story is told. Unlike other movies, this movie has incorporated several flashbacks, and portrayed different views of different characters. This is different from a normal movie—which starts with an exposition, conflict, and resolution. This movie starts with a mystery instead. Then slowly, the story goes backwards. This type of showing has not only made the movie seem realistic, but it has also made me feel like I’m involved and responsible for solving the mystery of Kane’s life. Citizen Kane has proved to me that complicated filming isn’t needed for a movie to be considered good; instead, it is the script writing which defines what a good movie is.
The acting in Citizen Kane wasn't horrible as you say, "Citizen Kane is lacking in its acting". Just because they are new actors, does not mean that they are not good actors.
ReplyDeleteDid you like the story which the movie was about?
But good job on the writing, I was interested to see why you liked the movie, and you did a good job of describing.
There seem to be a few punctuational errors that need to be tended to in your intro. You make a good point with the fact that none of the characters were particularly famous, but I think that you need some specific evidence from the film to back up what you are saying. For example, when you say that you "respect Citizen Kane for its uniqueness", you should use some specific examples. Tell us about the acting in the film, because just because actors are not famous does not necessarily mean they are bad actors.
ReplyDeleteI can see why you like Citizen Kane for it's simplicity, however you said you also liked it because it's unique. In this case, it's uniqueness is breaking some kind of convention. In this case your saying they used flashbacks. However, if the concept of using flashbacks are new, then the technique of flashbacks wouldn't be simple would it? But overall good job in showing your perspective on the film
ReplyDeleteYour introduction is great, I like how you used rhetorical questions, it made me want to read more of this response, yet I disagree with you on several counts. You say that " I think it’s because of its unique script writing and ideas", whereas I think the storyline of Citizen Kane made it much worse than it could have been, I thought the storyline was overdone, and I expected more from one of the best films created. I think the cinematography should be praised, unlike you who says the film only has "simply long shots, and lightings", I think you need to give Citizen Kane credit where its deserved.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that you like the movie better than normal movies?? I totally agree with Raylen on using the flashback in your paper but the paper is well written.
ReplyDelete