Low angles convey a sense of importance or greatness of the observed object. But, in this case, the extreme low angle, where Kane's head is framed by the bland ceiling and his slow stride across it, exudes a sense of loss and loneliness for a towering giant, who is Charles Foster Kane.
For all the tricky camerawork and writing all the splendid acting and the rest this remains a very deeply flawed movie. Made by a young and arrogant man ( unlike Spielberg decades later) this was a silly choice of movie subject to choose as a debut. Maybe- and I mean that very tentatively- a more accomplished and powerful director backed up to the hilt by a powerful studio ( this latter being particularly hard to find in the days when studio heads ruled and were very sensitive as to what actually got the green light) this movie could have been made. Still.. it would have been like producing a movie about the life - and particularly the sex life of Rupert Murdoch today.With all taboos broken This remains off bounds.Whatever happened to that film which George Clooney was going to make about the ‘ telephone hacking scandal’ of a few years back?. But the main flaw remains in the screenplay. Low angle or high if your story has a hole a mile wide it really is not so much a classic as a catastrophe. This is what puts me off “ The Shawshank” film; brilliant in many ways it is ruined by the end in which we are expected to accept that the leading character is able somehow to replace a poster of Rita Hayworth showing outside from inside his tunnel. How? What we hang it on? Stephen King never answered his question in his original short story and Frank Darabont failed to find a solution for his movie. So it is with ‘Kane’. All that talent and nobody could explain how the last word(s) of Charles Foster Kane could be recorded for history when the guy died alone. Welles was reckless. He tried to getaway with the perfect film as his debut whilst breaking all kinds of rules - including a sensible script- and ended up failing from the start. What could have been a golden career was a disaster from movie one and in the end he had a life of bits and pieces, of movies that had great passages but were mostly rather dull, of cameos and supporting roles under the hands of other less gifted directors and mostly being famous ( particularly amongst the art movie people) for just Orsen Welles. Now and again - as happened recently- someone comes across an old battered reel or two of some project he began but was never able to finish because after Kane he became Hollywood’s longest lasting ‘ bad boy’ notorious for making controversial films that never got finished because he was like Madame Curie’s papers long lastingly radio active. “ They Will Remember Me After I Die” he apparently said.Well you have to be careful with people with his surname. They do tend to make predictions that do not in fact come true. Perhaps if he had been called Orsen Verne things would have different.
Richard Purcell so simply because Rosebud and it utterance being heard is a conflicting issue within the plot , the movie is a failure ? I don’t understand this POV. So many people disagree on the importance of “rosebud” , let alone its meaning . How could it’s delivery be the reason why the movie is a failure ? Also, plot holes are more common in great movies than they are in forgotten ones , so history disagrees with this POV also. I understand this frustration for Shawshank but this movie is pretty substantial regardless of the word “rosebud” ever even being said ... I don’t even think it needed to be said , this was just the bait , the cherry on top to get the viewer to dig in deeper if they hadn’t already .
This is the most absurd criticism of a movie I've ever read. It's bordering autism !... Picking a detail that has no importance and declaring the WHOLE thing failed because of it ! Any great movie has little logic plotholes here and there. Actually, a writer or director obsessed with strict logic would make stale, uninspiring stuff. Hitchcock had a great remark once about that when making North by Northwest.
Every movie has flaws. There is no such thing as perfection. You sound like you have no idea what you're talking about. It's not just "tricky camera work" once again displaying your ignorance of cinematography. You have to be against it because it's popular. How trite.
![The Low Angle Shot [Best Camera Angles in Film] #lowangleshot](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HnZsFS8I4bQ/mqdefault.jpg)
does anyone know why the angle is film from down low
Low angles convey a sense of importance or greatness of the observed object. But, in this case, the extreme low angle, where Kane's head is framed by the bland ceiling and his slow stride across it, exudes a sense of loss and loneliness for a towering giant, who is Charles Foster Kane.
For all the tricky camerawork and writing all the splendid acting and the rest this remains a very deeply flawed movie.
Made by a young and arrogant man ( unlike Spielberg decades later) this was a silly choice of movie subject to choose as a debut. Maybe- and I mean that very tentatively- a more accomplished and powerful director backed up to the hilt by a powerful studio ( this latter being particularly hard to find in the days when studio heads ruled and were very sensitive as to what actually got the green light) this movie could have been made.
Still.. it would have been like producing a movie about the life - and particularly the sex life of Rupert Murdoch today.With all taboos broken This remains off bounds.Whatever happened to that film which George Clooney was going to make about the ‘ telephone hacking scandal’ of a few years back?.
But the main flaw remains in the screenplay. Low angle or high if your story has a hole a mile wide it really is not so much a classic as a catastrophe.
This is what puts me off “ The Shawshank” film; brilliant in many ways it is ruined by the end in which we are expected to accept that the leading character is able somehow to replace a poster of Rita Hayworth showing outside from inside his tunnel. How? What we hang it on? Stephen King never answered his question in his original short story and Frank Darabont failed to find a solution for his movie.
So it is with ‘Kane’. All that talent and nobody could explain how the last word(s) of Charles Foster Kane could be recorded for history when the guy died alone.
Welles was reckless. He tried to getaway with the perfect film as his debut whilst breaking all kinds of rules - including a sensible script- and ended up failing from the start. What could have been a golden career was a disaster from movie one and in the end he had a life of bits and pieces, of movies that had great passages but were mostly rather dull, of cameos and supporting roles under the hands of other less gifted directors and mostly being famous ( particularly amongst the art movie people) for just Orsen Welles.
Now and again - as happened recently- someone comes across an old battered reel or two of some project he began but was never able to finish because after Kane he became Hollywood’s longest lasting ‘ bad boy’ notorious for making controversial films that never got finished because he was like Madame Curie’s papers long lastingly radio active.
“ They Will Remember Me After I Die” he apparently said.Well you have to be careful with people with his surname. They do tend to make predictions that do not in fact come true. Perhaps if he had been called Orsen Verne things would have different.
Richard Purcell so simply because Rosebud and it utterance being heard is a conflicting issue within the plot , the movie is a failure ? I don’t understand this POV. So many people disagree on the importance of “rosebud” , let alone its meaning . How could it’s delivery be the reason why the movie is a failure ? Also, plot holes are more common in great movies than they are in forgotten ones , so history disagrees with this POV also. I understand this frustration for Shawshank but this movie is pretty substantial regardless of the word “rosebud” ever even being said ... I don’t even think it needed to be said , this was just the bait , the cherry on top to get the viewer to dig in deeper if they hadn’t already .
This is the most absurd criticism of a movie I've ever read. It's bordering autism !... Picking a detail that has no importance and declaring the WHOLE thing failed because of it !
Any great movie has little logic plotholes here and there. Actually, a writer or director obsessed with strict logic would make stale, uninspiring stuff.
Hitchcock had a great remark once about that when making North by Northwest.
The Sex Pistols of movies. Simplicity, passion and complex themes that are all intermingled.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
Every movie has flaws. There is no such thing as perfection. You sound like you have no idea what you're talking about. It's not just "tricky camera work" once again displaying your ignorance of cinematography. You have to be against it because it's popular. How trite.