 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Attention U.S. TCM Subscribers: Recently in a Facebook film chat room someone asked which film was better, Casablanca or Citizen Kane. This caused me to think about their differences, more specifically their varied approach to dramatic storytelling, to which I responded:
"I think Casablanca for many, has a far more instantly recognisable appeal, including its characters some of whom possess highly emulative qualities. Its emotional pleas are up front and easy to assimilate. Citizen Kane has more complexity, flawed characters who are invested in the past, relationships that are changing and developing, mostly in a tragic way. Casablanca ends with heroic sacrifice and optimism. Kane is dire and ultimately about loss. Casablanca's highlights remind one of its pleasures, immediate and gratifying. Kane is a deeply contemplative journey, requiring a significant investment of thoughtful consideration on the viewer's part in order to uncover its enormous wealth of profound insight into human relations."
I'd be most interested in hearing your thoughts on the question.
Both films are showing on TCM this month practically back-to-back, Casablanca, previously reviewed here http://thecinemacafe.com/the-cinema-treasure-hunter/2014/8/24/top-ten-fools-gold-the-over-rated-part-3 on Thursday, March 22 at 11pm PST and Citizen Kane, previously recommended here http://thecinemacafe.com/the-cinema-treasure-hunter/2014/11/6/now-listen-to-me#Citizen-Kane Thursday, March 22 at (late evening) 1am PST.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In other words, as was to be expected, these two films are perceived as apples and oranges, which clearly makes the Facebook question about which is "better" stupid. Personal preferences, that would have been a worthwhile discussion topic, but "better"? Ridiculous.
Excellent analysis, Arthur, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
