Citizen Kane vs. Jackass: the movie

[Elok]

Which, in your opinion, is a greater technical accomplishment, speaks more to the universal human condition, shows greater innovation and daring, and/or is generally a better movie?

Citizen Kane:
-Pioneered new camera and storytelling techniques, such as ultra-low-angle shots of characters to convey power and height.
-Made a point about the yearning for lost innocence and human contact felt by a wealthy man, and by extension the sorrows of all who succeed.
-Was supressed at first, still loved by many, but is really a pretty stupid movie if you sit down to watch it.

On the other hand, Jackass:
-Pioneered many new techniques of a very different kind. It can safely be said, for example, that never before in the history of the fine arts has a man been filmed while voluntarily inhaling a large clump of Japanese horseradish through his nose.
-Focused on the theme that it is highly amusing when people deliberately seek pain and humiliation for the entertainment of others.
-Was supressed at first, still loved by many, but is really a pretty stupid movie if you sit down to watch it.

Discuss.

[FrustratedPoet]

This thread is really pretty stupid if you sit down and read it.

[Skanky Burns]

Having seen neither, I vote banana.

That said, I plan on seeing Citizen Kane whenever I can be bothered renting it.

[Elok]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
This thread is really pretty stupid if you sit down and read it.

As Truman Capote once said:
Well, duh!

[Boris Godunov]

Re: Citizen Kane vs. Jackass: the movie

Originally posted by Elok
Citizen Kane:

-Was supressed at first, still loved by many, but is really a pretty stupid movie if you sit down to watch it.

How so? I disagree vehemently. I've sat down and watched it several times and find nothing stupid about it.

[Drogue]

I thought this thread was a joke when I first saw it. Citizen Kane, a film regarded by many critics as one of the greats, and praised by many people, against a few kids beating each other up and jumping off things. Yeh Jackass is funny, but it's not a great film by any stretch of the imagination, IMHO. Are people actually serious in comparing it to Citizen Kane? I can understand the new boundaries thing, but Titanic broke boundaries, and I hope we're not going to hail that as a great film?

[Elok]

I was joking and serious at the same time.
Both movies are thoroughly idiotic; Jackass because it intends to be, Citizen Kane because it takes itself too seriously and vastly overvalues the significance of its message. If you grow rich you often regret your lost innocence and find yourself isolated from the rest of humanity by your good fortune, blahblah ghost of Christmas past, blahblahblah. Okeydokey. Why the devil did it take that long of a movie to get that point across? Why was the great Orson Welles apparently incapable of making a movie that said that and was even the slightest bit interesting at the same time? Why did nobody in the studio realize that the idea of a grown man pining over a sled is so ludicrous as to destroy the gravity of any film? The invention of great cinematic techniques aside, the movie sucked. Even Eyes Wide Shut was better. It had a ridiculously unneccessary and obvious but still pretentious message too, but some people were willing to watch it anyway for the graphic sex so it had some mass appeal going for it, which Kane frankly doesn't have.

[CorpusScorpius]

JackA** = Beavis & Butthead Live

[monolith94]

"Citizen Kane because it takes itself too seriously"

Sir. I refer you to the scene at the opera where on opening night, the camera tracks up from the stage to stagehands, where one of them puts his fingers up to his nose.

I laughed more during Citizen Kane than during jackass. Oh and the reason it takes along time to get the message across is because it is done with masterful subtlety, driven by an engaging mystery framework. Much like Nabokov's "The Real Life Of Sebastian Knight".

[Chemical Ollie]

For the first time in the history of the fine arts has a man been x-rayed to reveal a toy car shoved deep inside him from behind.

[The Andy-Man]

Citzen Kane is hardly stupid. Not to mention it is based on a REAL PERSON, who was the one that tried to supress the film.


Its a sad joke to even think of comparing the two films.

[Elok]

Yes, I know about William Randolph Hearst. The film doesn't NEED masterful subtlety, is the thing. Its theme is the life and times of a reprehensible bozo who gets the consequences of his actions and not much more. He could've accomplished the same purpose by having silent-film style placards read, "being an aristocratic snot will not make you happy, so don't." That would take about thirty seconds, and he could have used the remaining time to show something more interesting, like, well, just about anything. Oh, the immense tragedy when rich people do not have perfectly happy lives. Perhaps Mr. Kane should've taken more time to stop and whip the servants. Why on earth it seems like a great film to anyone is beyond me.

[Elok]

While we're at it, Catcher in the Rye is a load of crap too. There was a Holden quote after I posted my last message, and since it's much the same type of overrated artsyfartsiness I figured I'd toss that in the mix. Did anybody else here spend most of that book wanting to pimp-smack the kid and tell him to get over himself?

[molly bloom]

Umm, the Eloked version of 'Hamlet'-

boy is depressed, 'cos he thinks his new stepdad killed his father who was also his stepdad's brother. And boy may have hots for his mum. Can't make up his mind what to do, kills an old scrote accidentally (who also happens to be his on-off girlfriend's dad), eventually stops whining, kills his ex-girlfriend's brother, his mother dies and his stepdad is killed. Oh, and his dad's ghost comes back and tells him to avenge him, which starts the whole thing off. I mean, why not just get counselling for his oedipal issues? And either finish the degree, or get a proper job.

'Hamlet' or 'The Young and the Restless'- which is the best soap opera?

'Oedipus Rex' or 'Coronation Street'?

'Phedre' or 'Chateauvallon'?

'Faust' or 'Kommissar Rex' ?

It's easy to trivialize any work of art by reducing it to its supposed 'message' - I mean, why didn't Michelangelo just write in real big letters 'read the Bible' instead of painting all that eyewash....

[MrFun]

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
This thread is really pretty stupid if you sit down and read it.