MovieChat Forums > Citizen Kane (1941) Discussion > CK is like The Beatles of cinema

CK is like The Beatles of cinema

posted 7 years ago by jerryhammond38
9 replies | jump to latest

Highly innovative, and influential. Truly great, widely considered the greatest, but maybe a tad bit overrated.

[–] theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff 7 years ago

Actually, it'd probably be more like the Kinks or the post "Pet Sounds" Beach Boys of cinema. Innovative and influential, highly acclaimed by insiders, but not a commercial success.

[–] jerryhammond38 7 years ago

Fair point. I didn't even think about commercial success when making that comparison.

[–] col_rutherford 7 years ago

I agree with the comparison of Citizen Kane to the Kinks' music. I think Ray Davies of the Kinks was a better and more insightful lyricist than any of the Beatles. Like Citizen Kane, the Kinks' songs often dealt with human flaws, disillusionment, and the emptiness of materialism.

[–] Interlepos 7 years ago

Only problem with this analogy is that The Beatles is not overrated. You can't praise them enough.

[–] theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff 7 years ago

Nah, I've seen people that manage to overrate the Beatles, by claiming they were better at their instruments than Led Zeppelin, better live performers than the Rolling Stones or better singers than Roy Orbison.

[–] Interlepos 7 years ago

Sure they claim this. You can say that many bands are/were better on instruments than The Beatles. Led Zeppelin had a a great guitar player and drummer, but you can easily find bands that were better than Led Zeppelin (Dream Theater for example), but Led Zeppelin makes in my opinion better music than Dream Theater, even though Dream Theater is better technically. And The Beatles easily tops all of them even though George Harrison didn't show off like Jimmy Page, his sound was spectacular.

When it comes to playing live The Beatles quit long before they became any serious live band (Beatlemania concerts shouldn't be counted as real musicianship), while The Stones developed thorughout the years, and never gave up performing. Seeing the Beatles playing live on the rooftop in 1969 is in my opinion better than anything the Stones ever did. And the stones is easily beaten by other great live bands, like The Who. In the end it is not about who is best at individual things, it is about the music and the band as a whole. The Beatles as a whole is not overrated. Roy Orbison has some fantastic songs that he wrote and sang, but he is nowhere near The Beatles. No other band is anywhere near them.

[–] TwoThousandOneMark 7 years ago

I think if The Beatles had remained together (& alive) & kept touring for money through the 00's we could say overrated.

...my essential 50 http://www.imdb.com/list/ls056413299/

[–] theuserformerlyknownasfrantruff 7 years ago

How so? Even assuming they'd have done nothing but crap since 1970 (and a cursory glance of their solo careers shows they wouldn't have), it still wouldn't erase the brilliance of their 60's work.

[–] Naphthous 7 years ago

You can put me down for "The Beatles aren't overrated", too.