necessary American film

Rating: 10/10 (1 August 2006)

general statement of principle; I am sick to death of commercial filmmakers preying on the young by obscuring the fact that, as filmmakers, they have nothing original to say or do, by chewing up the past and spitting it out again with "new, improved" special FX.
yet, judging from some of the reviews i read here is that the sad fact is that many young viewers are not only ignorant of film history, they earnestly wish to remain ignorant.
what could possibly be gained by a surrender to one's own ignorance. an ignorant man has to be told what to do and what to think. simply rejecting the advice of one's elders does not constitute freedom of thought - it is exactly when we reach a decision contrary to that of our peers that we discover what it may mean to become an individual.
this means, of course, that statistical arguments concerning the uselessness of history are wholly unconvincing. to say that 'most people agree with me on this point' doesn't say that the point is well-made; possibly everyone in agreement with it is simply wrong.
to assert one's independence and then turn around and say that the 'majority agree' is self-evidently contradictory. to abide by such statements despite evidence and reasonable disproof, is not simply exposing ignorance - which can be corrected through education - it is simply stupid.
furthermore, since an ignorant person has to be told what to think, it follows that such a person is a victim waiting for a crime to happen. such people seem proud of their ability to thumb their noses at people who reach out to help - but they easily and quickly fall victim to con-artists, who usually know how to make such people feel good about the victimization.
knowledge of history means; not getting scammed for want of it. it means deepening one's awareness of the strengths and faults of those we admire. it means that we learn the tricks used to produce something of value, thus making it easier to find and judge value.
in film it is also well to bear in mind that good film-makers are precisely those who have studied film history the most. this gives them a stock of film-techniques developed by others on which to draw for increased effectiveness of their own films. i find it unclear, why it is young viewers of today wish to remain in ignorance of where the contemporary film-maker draws inspiration.
this fact blasts away the commonly proffered assertion, 'we do things better now than anything they did 'back when'. if that were true, then the film-makers of today would not need such inspiration; but they do.
finally, it is simply a fact that those who profess ignorance - as a desirable quality - have nothing new anyone might be able to learn. they always get basic facts wrong.
citizen Kane is not about a 'newspaper editor' - to suggest so is merely to admit one's ignorance. Charles foster Kane is a 'media mogul' - as we would call him today - which means that he belongs to the 'upper ten percent' of the population that decides the future for the other 90 percent. he helps to reform politics in new york city; he intimidates a president into going to war with Spain. he gobbles up entertainment media in new york and los angeles, simply to give his wife a stage on which to sing.
and - all of this is misguided. even his attempt at political reform fails because it has little to do with 'helping people' as he claims at first, and everything to do with his own ego and ambitions.
one of the tell-tale signs of ignorance to be found in reviews of it is the harping reference on the 'rosebud' motif.
the movie has nothing to do with rosebud - that's just a little joke on Welles' part.
finally one has point out the tasteless ignorance of insisting that a film is weak because - heaven forbid - it's not in color. that's sort of like saying 'your father's a fag because he hasn't gotten your mom pregnant in years'. - it is wholly irrelevant to any movie whatsoever, to be sure, a director can handle color well - but he or she can handle black and white lighting and composition equally well.
citizen Kane is one of the most innovative films in cinema history, and it has been used as such by filmmakers literally ever since its initial release. yet these innovations are still as striking as ever - from the use of convex glass reflection in the opening sequence, to the amazing tracking in and out of the fireplace at the end.
if you care about film, you owe it to yourself to see the film; had it never been made, neither would any contemporary films that you enjoy today, or that you may enjoy tomorrow.
and if that doesn't sink in - then, screw it - i've no patience for fools.
still one of the best films in the history of cinema, and still a film necessary to see and appreciate.