Why is this boring rip-off of Citizen Kane so acclaimed?
Kane did this same story structure in half the time and in a 10 times more entertaining and artistic way.
>>71816302
Are you on drugs anon? They are two completely different films, with entirely different stories.
First scene shows the characters death and sets up a mystery as to who this guy was.
Second scene recaps his story and death for the audience where everyone gives their contradictory opinion of him. Again setting up "who was this guy?"
Then we get the guys story, and the mystery as to who he is is never resolved because you can't some up a mans life easily.
The movie ends on a shot visualizing the mystery the film asked.
The Gandhi movie with Ben Kingsley did this same thing.
Biopics are so formulaic.
>>71816366
They're literally the same structure. The rosebud moments even come up at the same act breaks.
>>71816453
Titanic also took this structure.
>>71816453
>OH SHIT THIS MOVIES DONE WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A NEW FORMAT FOR LITERALLY EVERY MOVIE EVER MADE FOR THE REST OF HISTORY AND WONDER WHY MOVIES ARE SHIT
>>71816726
What is this guy talking about?
>>71816726
Why not just tell your story? The Godfather didn't have to rip off Citizen Kane's screenplay, it just told the story from start to finish in order and it was really popular and really, really great.
>>71816766
Structure is repeatable. Almost every classical song is the exact same structure. It's the content and the variation of the format that make it art.
To complain that Lawrence follows the format of Citizen Kane (the movie heralded as the first modern movie as we know it) is like complaining that Beethoven follows the same format as Mozart.
>>71816862
do you just not know why Citizen Kane is significant?
>>71816967
Citizen Kane is the most sophisticated and probably the best movie ever made. Let me guess, you're one of those people who think it's popular because it innovated new techniques that were never done before because you read a book or saw some idiot on TV say that? It's not true- everything in Kane was done before, it innovated nothing, it's acclaimed because it took existing techniques to new heights of artistic use, not technical innovation. Tolland, for instance, was doing Deep Focus in the 1930s Les Miserables movie with Frederic March.
But the screenplay was genuinelly bespoke.
>>71816881
If structure is repeatable why not use a simple structure like telling your story from beginning to end in order like 99% of biopics made before Kane?
Also, there's a difference between the structure of a symphony, which is repeatable, and the structure for a screenplay, which is customized. Every story needs a beginning, middle and an end. Many movies can use the 3 act structure.
Not every movie needs to begin with the character's death that sets up the mystery of who he was, a scene of people arguing about who he was and recapping the story we're about to see, the story of his life showing his contradictory nature, and literally repeating the Rosebud moments in the end of the second act and the end of the movie. That's larceny, not influence.
It's not even a variation on a form, it's literally the artistic choices that were ripped off. This is not ripping off the skeleton, it's ripping off the details and the art.
>>71817161
So, your complaint is the movie doesn't follow the traditional 3 act order that all movies follow.
WEW
I don't even know how to argue that. I think Lawrence deserved the format more then Kane, because that's how he was.
The dude was hero, a pedo, a bachelor, died in an accident, seems that the fictional character should BTFO.
Lawrence was the real Kane.
>>71817556
No, my complaint is it rip offs things it doesn't need to rip off. Both films use the three act structure- Lawrence goes beyond that. It rips off the melody of Kane, not the structure. It rips off the punchlines, not the set-ups.
Kane wasn't real but he was based on Hearst. How can you say Lawrence "deserved" that structure- structure just serves to help the content? Lawrence was not the first flawed, complex, mysterious, seemingly contradictory men to get a biopic, in fact, approximately 99% of the biopics are about those type of men.
Did Gandhi deserve that structure as Attenborough gave him?
Did The Titanic deserve that structure as Cameron did it?
How come Henry Hill didn't deserve that structure, or Lamotta, or Charles Lindberg, or Muhammad?
Weren't half of Shakespeare plays essentially biopics? Why didn't he need that structure?
>>71816493
>"same structure" = same movie
