Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Citizen Kane and Pulp Fiction, Two Overrated Classics Coming to a Blu-ray Player Near You

by Matt Brennan
September 19, 2011 1:45 AM
11 Comments
  • |
Thompson on Hollywood


This week in his “Now and Then” column, Matt Brennan — inspired by the re-release of Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941) and the upcoming Blu-ray edition of Pulp Fiction (Quentin Tarantino, 1994) — tries to explain how a movie becomes a “classic.” Trailers below:

To paraphrase the famous saying, some movies are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. Citizen Kane and Pulp Fiction fall into the latter category. That they’re stylish, innovative, and spectacularly well made is undeniable. But in the end, claims of their greatness say more about what critics and cinephiles think movies should be than about their intrinsic value. To put it more bluntly, they’re overrated.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Citizen Kane is “bad”; in fact, there are numerous ways in which it’s brilliant. (I am suggesting that Pulp Fiction is at least a little “bad,” but more on that in a moment.) Gregg Toland’s deep-focus cinematography, as just one example, is a beautiful analogue of memory itself, flitting out of the shadows for a moment, vivid and clear, then receding into the blurry margins of the mind. Yet it can be hard to watch the film without feeling the critics breathing down your neck.

Thompson on Hollywood


Among them are the voters of the once-a-decade Sight & Sound poll, which has christened Kane “the best film of all time” in every rendition since 1952. When I come up for air after the miseries of Xanadu, I’m often left wondering if I like the movie just because I’m supposed to like it. To call Kane "the best" year after year, as if by rote, ignores its imperfections and the merits of other films — even if limited to the Sight & Sound list, I'd argue that Vertigo is more thrilling, Tokyo Story more deeply felt, Singin' in the Rain more entertaining, Battleship Potemkin more influential.

In so many ways, though, Kane represents our ideal of film as art: the obsessive vision of a singular auteur, the technical inventiveness, the enduring themes, the epic scope. What is not often discussed is the flip side of this. As Pauline Kael argued aggressively, Kane owes just as much to screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. The Rules of the Game (Jean Renoir, 1939) used deep focus with more vigor, animating the upstairs-downstairs chaos of a hunting party. The themes lack enough nuance (“Rosebud…”) to be easy targets of parody, and the film's sheer size is unwieldy.

Other entries in the film-school canon, personal feelings about them aside, fit this mold as well — see The Birth of a Nation, Gone with the Wind, and The Godfather. The critical treatment of Tarantino’s sophomore effort is no different: hotshot genius rewrites film history with master class in visual audacity and narrative complexity, all while taking on archetypal American ideas. Taboos about style and content are broken. The establishment takes notice. A star is born. (The real fiction is that “the classics” emerge from nowhere and shake us awake. The continued appeal of this meta-story suggests that, for all of Pulp Fiction’s ballsiness, the critics were already poised to eat it up.)

I won’t deny that there are moments in Pulp Fiction that continue to thrill me, on what must be my sixth or seventh viewing. (The drug-addled nostalgia-trip freak-out of Jack Rabbit Slim's, and the strange illicitness of Thurman and Travolta dancing there, is evidence of just how striking Tarantino’s visuals can be.) But to elevate it to the level of “masterpiece,” as any number of critics have done, neglects that ways in which the world of Pulp Fiction, however cleverly constructed, is essentially a hollow one. The film’s circular structure has always seemed emblematic of this emptiness: around we go, trapped in a closed loop of pretty pictures that inevitably brings us back to where we’ve been.

A “great” or “classic” movie needn’t be self-serious or tepidly highbrow (pretty much anything by Hitchcock in the Fifties or Sixties will do to illustrate the point), but it does need soul. The pastiche of Pulp Fiction, a mashup of pre-existing material with a dash of S&M and a heavy helping of irony, is more snarky than soulful. At times it feels mannered, an exercise in hip B-movie obscurity street cred that misses out on all the ways in which movies connect to us on an emotional level. You can adore Samuel L. Jackson talking about French cheeseburgers, and I do, but I’m not sure you can get any more out of it than a wry laugh — this isn’t exactly empathetic filmmaking. Sound and fury can be fun, but sometimes they signify nothing.

Citizen Kane: 70th Anniversary Ultimate Collector’s Edition is currently out on DVD and Blu-ray. The Blu-ray edition of Pulp Fiction will be released Oct. 4.

[Citizen Kane photo via Examiner.com, trailer via cgarofani/YouTube; Pulp Fiction photo via seriousland.com, trailer via ThisBeatIsMine/YouTube]

11 Comments

  • Kiara | August 13, 2012 11:13 AMReply

    Great review/critique. I agree with you that it is nothing but a hollow, visually fun piece of escapism. For soulful movies that touch us on a deep level, that reveal those truths about nature, life, the human condition, look to Franco-Italian neo-realism. Now, compare something like "Nights of Cabiria" to "Pulp Fiction" and one realizes that the latter is nothing more than soul porn. Of course, for many to realize this, they need a heavy dose of perspective, so I do suggest they watch some neo-realist films.

  • Aarodama | January 7, 2012 8:35 AMReply

    Don't listen to them you're right about the Fictional Pulp Matt. "Shawn" who makes a detailed analysis of what's behind the cheeseburger has some kinf of a funny similarity with people believing the UU government is controlled by aliens and no one can trust what they see, there is always a world behind things (with a guy ready to tell you what is it).
    My line during Pulp Fiction's viewing : "Who cares about [stuff ] ?

  • david | September 21, 2011 4:59 AMReply

    I could care less about citizens kane, but pulp fiction...... u my friend are a dumbass but hey, everyones entitled to heir own opinion. Its just yours sucks and your arguments mean jack shit. The movie speaks for itself, but Reservoir dogs is way better. Django Unchained cant wait for it 2012.

  • htu | January 9, 2012 1:48 AM

    Are you still continuing to care less? Stupid americans and their 'English.'

  • bonerfights | September 21, 2011 2:59 AMReply

    You are the worst kind of hipster

  • shawn | September 20, 2011 2:57 AMReply

    Matt,

    The point about the cheeseburgers is to make you question the relation between the essence of a thing and its name. Some things are different in name only (a quarter pounder vs. a royale with cheese), other things are truly different (french fries with ketchup vs. french fries with mayonnaise). How do know when a difference is essential? How do know when a label is correct? This problem is repeated over and over in several variations (heroin, waitresses, pot bellies, names). Jules is the character who gives this problem the most thought, and makes it essential to his life journey.

    Was it a miracle according to Hoyle that spared Jules and Vincent, or was it just luck? We don't have to decide, but this much is clear: had Jules not, in a moment of clarity, decided to leave behind the tyranny of evil men, Pumpkin would be dead, Hunny Bunny would be dead, and Butch would probably have been killed when he returned to his apartment, in which case Marsalis never would have been raped, and Maynard, Zed and the Gimp would still be alive. There's a kind of poetic justice in the way things turned out. To say, then, that it lacked soul seems a little off the mark.

  • Scrunge | September 19, 2011 11:48 AMReply

    Who the hell is Matt Brennan anyway? ;)

  • Griff | September 19, 2011 10:28 AMReply

    That's it. Get the hook.

  • Ed Coleman | September 19, 2011 5:19 AMReply

    I doubt 70 years from now, there will be any news or discussions related to your lifetime of work.

    Most critics are forgotten soon after they are gone, as will you.

  • Colin Senhouse | September 19, 2011 5:03 AMReply

    Dear Matt,

    Have you ever wondered that the person who says something is overrated has an overinflated sense of their own opinion?

  • David Bjerre | September 19, 2011 2:15 AMReply

    Dear Matt,
    It's nice that you're trying to write a comedy piece on this blog, but the next time you should probably make the humor a little less subtle. Just a tip.

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • Oscar Predicts Chart 2014Oscar Predictions 2015 UPDATE
  • Participant Joins DreamWorks' Spielberg ...
  • Ben Kingsley's Tightrope with Mythology, ...
  • 'Birdman' Debuts at Venice to Rave Reviews: ...
  • Jake Gyllenhaal's 'Nightcrawler' Will ...
  • Sophia Loren to Receive Career-Honoring ...
  • Drafthouse and Participant Media Pick ...
  • Lake Bell Directs Again
  • TIFF WATCH: Jean Dujardin Is the French ...
  • Rory Kennedy Doc 'Last Days in Vietnam' ...