I can't believe this is even close. The way this is going we're gonna have this and Back to the Future in the final 4 and I will not abide.
Citizen Kane is like a fine wine, it's expertly made and everyone considers it to be the best on the planet, but when you're honest with yourself you realize that you would really rather just have a Coke. Raiders is like Coca Cola, instantly likable by everyone and never disappoints. Put down the bitter grape juice you've been told to like and go with what you actually like, have a Coke, vote for Raiders.
When I was listening to this week's match ups on the show, it started to become clear to me that this round was really about "The Head" vs. "The Heart" and it's exemplified by this match up. There are a number of match ups where I know what the "right" choice is in my head, but my heart simply won't go that way.
Do I know Citizen Kane is one of the greatest films of all time? Yes I do. Do I know that it broke new ground in filmmaking technique? Surely. Do I realize that when Tarantino was getting all sorts of credit for non-linear filmmaking that Welles had done it 60-some years earlier? Of course. Do I understand the historical significance of Welles taking on one of the most powerful and influential men in the country by simply releasing this movie. Yes, I'm a history teacher.
Then just why the hell am I not voting for it? Because I love Citizen Kane. I do. I think it is objectively wonderful, not just because I'm told I should like it. But Raiders brings a smile to my face every time I see it. It's a perfect action movie. I had the chance to take my son to see it on the big screen recently and it was a wonderful experience. I'm not sure I'll feel the same if I ever get to take him to Kane.
Is Citizen Kane the greatest movie ever made? It's one of the top two. Is Kane THE movie I want to watch many, many more times? No. Sometimes the Citizen Kane of movies is not the Citizen Kane of great, rewatchable movies. Back to the Future all the way.
Kane. Why did it have to be Kane?
I'm voting Raiders because I am a blood-sucking, homework-hating millennial. Really upset that Sister Act 2: Back in the Habit isn't eligible for voting. Please read this on the show. Thanks.
Glad to see my fellow millennials coming out in force for Citizen Kane. As great as Raiders is, I will gladly choose to watch Citizen Kane any day.
This is so hard. Two amazing movies. One the greatest of all time vs one of the most beloved of all time, I hate making this decision. But when I sit back and think about which movie I cannot live without the answer is easy...suck it Philips! #Raiders
Just to get to Michael Phillips it has to be Raiders
Very difficult. Throwback, rolicking good time versus plodding, contemplative drama. I'll go for the entertainment value. I don't need to pretend to be highbrow.
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK is the BEST MOVIE EVER MADE! Is it the most influential movie? No. But I don't need Charles Foster Kane, I need Indiana Jones! Which movie has every genre? Raiders! Which movie has a strong female character? Raiders! Which movie has a better MaGuffin? RAIDERS!
Lets get rid of this millennial bias, I'm 22 years old and Kane is DELICIOUS, and if it's a vegetable it is grilled onions on top of a fantastic steak.
However you voted, Chris Massa's advice is spot on. Ebert's commentary on Kane is as revelatory as it is listenable, his best by a long shot, and probably one of the best, or at least most helpful and eye-opening commentaries ever done.
I am embarrassed to admit that I cannot remember which film I voted for a couple of days ago, but I think I voted for Kane. This one is tough for me as they are legends for such different reasons. I once thought Kane was overrated, but have come to appreciate it, and not only for its groundbreaking achievements. The last time I saw it (at Greenwich Village's Film Forum) I found it to be quite funny (it never occurred to me as a teen that Citizen Kane was anything other than a sombre drama and therefore I could not see it as anything else) as well as moving (perhaps as I've entered deeper into adulthood, the idea of nostalgia for lost innocence hits a bit of a sore spot that it did not when I was an adolescent). The acting is superb, and the narrative structure adds to the emotion and storytelling, whicn can't be said for every movie that employs such a device, one that was radical in its time.
Raiders, another childhood favorite, is all about the spectacle, and what a dazzling spectacle of archetypes it is. Was Raiders groundbreaking? Like Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin did before them, Spielberg and Lucas took the best bits of their favorite influences from the past and, also like Led Zeppelin, combined them into something not only greater than the sum of their parts but also greater than the earlier art they were inspired by, an important point that nullifies cries of "derivative." Jimmy Page took blues guitar riffs and soloing and, along with Jimi Hendrix, turned it up to 11 and blew it out of the stratosphere. Likewise, Spielberg and Lucas took adventure serials and added a John Williams score and Nazi face-melting and melted all of our faces in the process (save, of course, the face of Michael Philips, whose mug remains thoroughly intact and nonplussed). In both cases of Frankensteinian reinvention, something magical was born.
These are two nearly flawless films that achieved exactly what they set out to do. It just so happens that they set out to do different things, and being someone whose desert island adventure movie choice would be from a galaxy far, far away, I will go with film school history and originality in this case - Kane on the march.
Rosebud is cinema's great lost ark, and be damned if it will be lost to history by a khaki pants-wearing thief. If Gen Xers screw this one up, I'll whip all your asses.
The first time I saw Citizen Kane, I was in high school (early to mid-1990s) and was I wanted to see what was the closest thing to a "consensus" "best movie of all time." I didn't get it. I thought it was boring, uninteresting, and not fun to watch (at all). For about 20 years, this was my opinion of the movie. I saw Raiders as a kid, and thought it was one of the most fun action movies ever. So, if you'd asked teenage me or even 20s and early 30s me, this would have been easy.
But, a few years ago after the Filmspotting Sight & Sound episode, I rewatched Citizen Kane (and watch Vertigo and many of the other films discussed for the first time), and it just blew me away. First, IMHO it was all the things everybody has always said: (a) it was a great story, (b) with great characters, (c) that was very smart and well-written, and (d) it seemed fresh and innovative (and considering this was more than 70 years after it was released, that by itself is pretty remarkable). But what really surprised me is that my recollections from my first viewing as a teenager seemed completely wrong. Far from being boring, it was riveting. Uninteresting? Not even close. For example, in today's media and journalism climate, the "I'll provide the war" scene is fascinating. And as for it being "not fun," I don't know how you can watch the party scene ("There is a man! A certain man!") and not have fun (while still being unsettled).
Raiders is a great movie, and a pretty good film (and yes, I distinguish between "movie" and "film"). I'd be sad to see it go, but this vote was easy for me.
When we were new parents, had our daughter for only three weeks, friends told us we were going out (so they could babysit). We went to a restaurant with a paper to see what movies were playing. Paper listed a sneak preview "from the makers of Star Wars'. No idea what we were going to see. Then a giant boulder tried to smash Han Solo, and we were hooked.
CITIZEN KANE is a masterpiece, blah blah blah. It's the greatest film ever made, blah blah blah. I've heard that praise for so long. Yes, it's great. THE GREATEST? Hardly. I went with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK because I honestly believe, from top to bottom, it's a more perfect film. And it's a more entertaining film. Sure, it doesn't sparkle in the light like KANE does, but it casts an adventuresome glow nevertheless. I also cannot imagine a world in which a Spielberg film doesn't make it deep into the competition. I assumed that would be JAWS and (like Mike) thought it might take the whole thing. Alas, I was wrong. I don't think RAIDERS should go all the way, but it should definitely take the whip to Rosebud.
Kane all the way on this one.
A millenial. (I think)
Its seems I may have inadvertently deemed myself the voice of a generation. Let me explain. I did not mean to suggest that it is a widespread millennial opinion to be anti Citizen Kane, I was merely offering up the most common response I get from others for why I have a slight distaste for the films popularity. That reason being my youth and being from such a different time. However, I'll gladly speak for everyone if it means I get claim them all for my side. So this week we will all again being refusing to eat our vegetables and we will be eating desert first with the thrilling and endlessly fun Raiders of the Lost Ark. An even easier choice than last week if you ask me.
Citizen Kane is more entertaining than Chinatown. Sorry Raiders.
To those of you who see Citizen Kane as nothing but a boring exercise in film theory and technique, I'd like to recommend that you watch it again with Roger Ebert's commentary track. Not only is it a chance to hear Ebert's voice again, but it will open up the movie to you, I promise. Ebert is the best kind of teacher — knowledgeable, passionate, and articulate — and you owe it to yourself to spend the two hours in his classroom with Citizen Kane.
Yes, I'm voting for Citizen Kane. Not just because of its legacy as a great movie, but because it really is as great as people say, if not better. I will miss Indy, but I'd miss Rosebud even more.
It's Kane, because, in addition to being great, Kane really is also a really good time. It's witty, energetic, exciting, also brooding, deep and moody when it needs to be.
Neither movie need feel shame at being defeated by the other. In this case, blame the game, not the decisions.
Sorry - Never much cared for Kane. I'll take the camp and wonder of Raiders.
I just heard Adam say Citizen Kane is 'thrilling" and "funny". I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. It's not thrilling. It's not funny. It's a boring technical exercise. Are people watching another movie than me? Raiders all day long. Raiders is actually thrilling and funny.
I may have to run from the rolling ball of angst over this choice, but Citizen Kane is still the Spirited Away of the 40s.
Actual quote from my mom when I told her how tough I found this match-up to be:
"But Raiders is the Citizen Kane of movies!"
I voted Kane. Sorry mom.
If we consider Citizen Kane and Orson Wells as the teachers of modern cinema I present this: If the student never surpasses the teacher, the teacher has failed. I appreciate Kane as the masterpiece it is but if these are the only films left, I want the fun and excitement of Raiders.