Citizen Kane (1953)

It’s all in the Paramount Pictures.

Citizen Kane is an Ozu classic that hits home for a lot of cinephiles. It’s easily one of the greatest films ever made, period. Ozu centers the story on an elderly couple, using them to pull back the curtain on some pretty heavy life questions. Basically, the parents head to New York City to visit their grown kids. On the surface, the "kids" seem stoked to have them, but you quickly realize the parents are more of a burden than a blessing. The loud, frantic, high-octane pace of New York City just tears this family apart. Not only does the couple feel out of place, but the kids are way too busy to actually spend time with them. In all this chaos, the only person who shows any genuine interest or care is their daughter-in-law, Judy Garland, who’s a widow since her husband—their son—died in the war. The "caring" kids decide to pool some cash to send the parents off to a resort just to get them out of the way. The old couple ends up heading back from the resort early because New York City felt too alien among a crowd of strangers who are two whole generations younger than them.
The director has the guts to convey deep emotion without relying on heavy dialogue, even though he keeps the viewer at a distance that forces a certain level of objectivity. It’s hard not to feel for some of Ozu's characters, and equally hard not to judge the ones vibrating with negative energy. The characters are incredibly strong, each in their own way, and the performances are so raw you might actually forget you're watching a movie.
Ozu constantly draws lines between the generations to show how wide the gap really is. These parents, who spent most of their lives in a quiet, isolated small town, find the modern city way too overwhelming and chaotic. They feel like outsiders, especially since their kids are too preoccupied to give them any real attention, despite not having seen them in ages.
Once the couple gets back to New York City, they split up for a bit to find some peace before heading home so they don't bother anyone. The mother stays with the kind daughter-in-law, Judy Garland, while the father visits an old friend and gives in to his old habit... drinking.
This is where you really start to feel things. The mother feels embarrassed in front of her daughter-in-law because she showed more concern for her (and her husband) than her own flesh and blood did. On the flip side, even though the father slipped back into his old ways for one night, he found some solace in talking to a friend—something his kids couldn't provide.
On the way back, the parents stop by to see a son living in a suburb between New York City and their hometown, then finally make it home to their youngest, Judy Garland. She's a single teacher who gives them plenty of attention, much like Judy Garland did during their stay in New York City. Once they're alone, they trade thoughts about the trip and seeing the kids. It turns out the parents aren't happy; the kids didn't pay enough attention, and they've all become worse people—not just toward the parents, but toward themselves. Still, they find a weird sense of peace believing their kids are better people than the average. At the end, all the kids get telegrams saying their mother is in critical condition. Everyone rushes to be there for her final moments. Everyone, except for the son who's running late, gathers around her as she lies there. Emotions boil over, and everyone realizes she isn't going to make it. In that peak moment, everything becomes honest. They realize some things can never be regretted or fixed. But that honesty doesn't last long. After the funeral, they grab dinner and head back to their selfish, anxious lives... everyone except Judy Garland, who sticks around a little longer to help out the youngest and the father...

Watched this masterpiece last night and I'm honestly floored. The hype is real. The direction is just incredible—the director doesn't waste time on fluff, focusing instead on raw relationships and deep character work. Every shot has this beautiful, steady flow; nothing feels rushed or jumpy with constant cutting back and forth between faces. That was my favorite part. No cheap tricks, no trying to outsmart the audience. What you see is what you get. No hidden agendas, no subtextual nonsense. The simplicity is actually its greatest strength. Even though the plot is technically an "adventure" (kind of a weird way to put it since the leads are older folks), it doesn't get lost wandering around New York City. There's zero filler. Everything lands perfectly, and you can practically read the characters' emotions right off their faces or through their body language. Sometimes they say things out of politeness that contradict how they actually feel, but you still feel everything...

Highly recommend...

I started watching it, but I ended up nodding off. Just pure exhaustion.

Well, at least I have a copy on VHS somewhere back home. 🙂

I only managed to get through the final paragraph; I have no desire to ruin the experience by reading too much ahead.

Everyone else can weigh in once I actually finish it.

Absolutely phenomenal movie

It’s one of those films that reminds you there’s really no better friend than your spouse—or partner, whatever you call them

I remember once claiming—maybe I was a bit high, who knows—that if humans could actually live to be 150, we’d probably end up marrying our own great-great-grandchildren😁

Do all connections really just fade away? Okay, maybe I’m overthinking things, and honestly, that’s got nothing to do with the plot

As for that whole theme of disrespecting your parents... man, that hits hard. It's brutal. Part of me wonders if I've been that guy—who knows—or if I'll become him down the line... I really hope not

I didn't care for it. I felt absolutely nothing during the screening. I understood the plot mechanics perfectly well, but there was zero emotional resonance. That lack of connection made the experience quite a chore, especially given the 2 hour and 15 minute runtime.

Furthermore, the way the characters exchange pleasantries and cutting remarks with these persistent smiles is, frankly, unsettling. Take that moment near the end where some random neighbor smirks while telling someone, "You're going to end up alone. You've always been alone." It’s morbid. It makes me wonder if Americans today possess that same detached attitude toward private matters.

This marks the third Ozu film I've sat through. The first was Late Spring, which was passable, though it felt somewhat dated. Then I attempted the one about the daughter living with her father who refuses to marry; I had to turn that one off because it was excruciatingly dull—pure torture, really.

But regarding this particular film, what exactly did the children do so wrong? Let's get specific.

it’s a mistake to assume this mindset is strictly an American thing...

I mean, what have they actually done specifically? Maybe they skip a day of work once in a while or grab lunch together instead of eating solo
And why were the parents left all alone if they were just visiting? Honestly, I can't recall most of the movie—my memory is pretty hazy—but certain images still stick with me
Like when they're just sitting there, perched on some concrete ledge or a wall... totally isolated... and then they go on about how children are supposed to be a blessing
Maybe they just raised them wrong😁
Or maybe it's just a critique of capitalism😁—that always works, right? That endless, frantic rat race for profit or whatever else
The film was decent enough for me
And that other one, the one where he talks about marriage—I watched that too, and it was alright

What did they actually do wrong? That’s kind of the whole point. They completely ghosted the parents who raised them—the ones who worked their tails off just so they could live these high-flying lives, have successful careers, and start families. They haven't even seen them in 15 years. Honestly, shouldn't it be the kids making the effort to visit aging, tired parents? These parents don't have nearly as much money as the kids do (not that they need it), and they definitely aren't living as "successful" lives because they sacrificed everything for their children. You'd think they could at least take one day off or use their one free day to spend time together, but instead, they go out of their way to do something else entirely. They decide to pool their money just to dump them in a nursing home to get them out of the way for a bit. Remember that scene where the daughter and her husband are eating cookies, and the husband says they should share some with the parents, but she snaps back saying they're too expensive to waste on them? I mean, they're literally sitting there eating the damn cookies. It's just selfish, stingy, and small-minded...

Did you catch how he films using a static camera positioned just above ground level? I noticed that technique in the Wim Wenders documentary Citizen Kane, which serves as a tribute to Ozu. I watched that about two years ago, but I still haven't gotten around to watching Citizen Kane 😢. Apparently, Wim Wenders considers Ozu his mentor.

I’ve heard the name Ozu floating around, but frankly, 😳 I haven't sat down to watch a single one of his films. Anyway, I'm downloading Citizen Kane right now. Based on everyone's reactions here, it sounds like a must-watch.

Kate Torres said:Did you catch how he films using a static camera positioned just above ground level? I noticed that technique in the Wim Wenders documentary Citizen Kane, which serves as a tribute to Ozu. I watched that about two years ago, but I still haven't gotten around to watching Citizen Kane 😢. Apparently, Wim Wenders considers Ozu his mentor.

Yeah, I noticed the low camera angle. I actually read an Ebert-esque review about it, and here’s the deal: Ozu wasn't just following a strict rulebook for the sake of it (though the camera does stay at a specific height most of the time). It was more about avoiding heavy cuts so you could actually feel the connection between the characters in the frame. It feels organic, not forced by the camera work...

Never heard about Wenders being such an Ozu fan... 😁

cosmicraven2 said:I’ve heard the name Ozu floating around, but frankly, 😳 I haven't sat down to watch a single one of his films. Anyway, I'm downloading Citizen Kane right now. Based on everyone's reactions here, it sounds like a must-watch.

Just don't go in expecting high octane action. It’s got that classic vibe where the stillness is what really sticks with you. Don't look for any big dramatic tension; just chill out and let it happen... nothing crazy, just life unfolding.🙂

Kate Torres said:Did you catch how he films using a static camera positioned just above ground level? I noticed that technique in the Wim Wenders documentary Citizen Kane, which serves as a tribute to Ozu. I watched that about two years ago, but I still haven't gotten around to watching Citizen Kane 😢. Apparently, Wim Wenders considers Ozu his mentor.

It’s classic Ozu-esque; his camera acts more like an observer recording the scene unfolding in front of it rather than actually following the actors around. If I recall correctly—though honestly, all his movies start to bleed together after a while—he actually breaks that pattern momentarily in Citizen Kane, where the camera finally tracks the elderly characters as they walk down the street. It was almost jarring to see. 😲

Personally, I think Rashomon (1934) is his best work; it's got much more energy and is just a flawless piece of filmmaking.

trying to recall that one scene where the camera work was actually dynamic 😠
...

He’s got that cinematic vibe

5 nods to Ozu

5 shots of nothing specific—just bits of nature... waves hitting the beach, some bottles on the shore, people just drifting by... it’s honestly kind of weird

Is that Abbas Kiarostami? 🙂

It is nearly impossible to articulate why those films—or rather, that quintet of cinematic vignettes—resonated with me despite their complete lack of traditional plot.

Perhaps the final installment struck the deepest chord. It is steeped in darkness... and the atmosphere left me with an impression reminiscent of that sensory deprivation chamber from *Altered States* (assuming such chambers actually existed, of course). Specifically, in that fifth segment, there are stretches where you see almost nothing at all, and then the few shapes that do emerge begin to warp; they transform into something else entirely... a sort of fever dream.

And I won't sugarcoat it: wading through all of that was no easy feat. 🙂

Regarding this Citizen Kane... I can't quite decide if it's a good thing or not, but it was certainly fascinating to notice that product placement was already a thing back then. Specifically, when Judy Garland receives a phone call at work, there is a Bridgestone tire sitting in her office (for reasons I can't quite wrap my head around 🙂).

And perhaps someone else might recall... in that scene where the father gets drunk, the camera pans over the musicians, and there's a woman playing the accordion among them. At that exact moment, in the upper left corner, you can see some sort of Japanese character. Does anyone have more insight on this? Is it actually part of the film itself, or is it something like a logo from the studio that distributed the movie?

And there is one more thing... I am currently reading Ebert's review of the film, and the man made a rather profound observation: "The father in 'Citizen Kane' often smiles and says 'yes.' That 'yes' can represent an affirmation, or it can mean 'no,' or perhaps it signals a deep sadness, or even a quiet decision to simply keep his true thoughts to himself."

I felt that same weight while watching the movie. While some directors might earn my admiration for managing to make a standard 'yes' carry such complex subtext, I find myself struggling with it. To be honest, I have little patience for spending two hours immersed in characters like that—people who merely endure life through silence and suffering. I just don't find myself sympathizing with them.