Cole: Thanks for posting that Top 26 list. I'm glad to see that S. Ray, Vigo and Dreyer haven't fallen too far. Nice also to see that The Searchers
hasn't completely plummeted ethier. But The Third Man
tied with Modern Times and [I] The Magnificent Ambersons
? I like The Third Man
, but I wouldn't rate it on a par with those two. Of course, it's all debateable, that's what makes these things fun. Someone somewhere probably can't believe that The Third Man
isn't in the Top Ten, or that Modern Times
is so compartively high.
CBanks & mteal: It suprises me to think that anyone could watch Kane
without enjoying it. The wonderful nuances that the film has seem to me to be great fun, and expressive of Welles' great enthusiasm for his new medium (I get the feeling this has often been said before, but then I suppose everything has when it comes to Kane
). There seem, judging from Nicky James' comments, to be a lot more people who are unable to see the entertaining, exciting side of a cut or a dissolve than I thought. Or have I got completely the wrong idea about cinema here? It worries me to think that in years to come only "the initiated" might watch Kane
, and then only to analyse it. I tend to think the film's greatness resides greatly in it's amazing density, the fact that you can look at it from all kinds of angles and it still works, and that cinematically it's un-unravellable (is that a word?
). If the only people who watch it are people who've already seen it, then it won't be getting the wide audience it deserves, the people who have the great experience of being hurtled through such an amazing, suprising film for the first time. Hopefully though, the film will get past these intimidating comments to
people, unless great films are going to become like certain great books, famous, imposing landmarks everyone's heard of but many are nervous of reading. I hope not.