The Week of Letters: Today, Entertainment

Dear Wall Street Journal,

I faithfully read and enjoy your paper. I think it is one of the few remaining journalistic endeavors that actually requires its writers to be able to put together a sentence more complex and eloquent than "See Spot run." I enjoy your financial analyses - especially regarding the financial crisis. I couldn't get through the end of my week without Henninger and Noonan. Evan Newmark expresses 90% of my inner hostility to the masses.Your Real Estate section makes me drool with house designing envy and your Life and Style section always provides interesting insights.

So, when I saw that you had launched the "Speakeasy" entertainment and culture blog I was ecstatic. No more embarrassing trips down the TMZ road I thought. No more having to stoop down to New York Times reviews. No more messy and inaccurate Drudge Report posted articles from the UK. I imagined I would be able to combine my high interest in television and film (and all the messy gossip revolving around them) with tasteful writing and thoughtful analysis. I assumed you would pick some bright up-and-coming writers who actually enjoy entertainment to write these pieces. I was wrong.

So wrong that I perpetually deceive myself into thinking that I will enjoy the recaps of my favorite shows only to read the article and think, "Wow, did you even bother to watch this episode... without the distraction of your European boyfriend drizzling hot Swiss chocolate all over your face to 'improve the mood of boorish American television?'" Or, maybe detract yourself enough from your dissertation on the lack of whit in Woody Allen films to realize that television is actually supposed to be enjoyed? Despite popular belief, it does do more than rot one's brain. Actually, I'm fairly confident no "brain-rotting" actually occurs.... certainly far less than reading the editorial page of The New York Times.

Now, I am a firm believer in criticism. I don't think that something should be deemed "good" that clearly is not. However, these writers do not even depict the events of the shows accurately which is typically a pre-requisite to critiquing an event. Sadly this trend has crossed mediums in this country and is now the rampant form of expression: pre-forumlated criticisms based on your own views regardless of circumstances or facts. Empiricism is sadly dying, but the arts (including banal television) should not be a place where such lack of regard is EVER applied. It's a disservice to readers and the atrocious writing is a disservice to your distinguished publication.

I hope you sincerely take my criticisms under advisement and proceed to rectify the situation at Speakeasy. It can only help to improve the blog itself as well as the goal of you becoming a more broadly encompassing paper of high quality.

Best Regards,
Prudence

A Confession

I hate the movie Citizen Kane. Yes, that Citizen Kane. The one that is typically placed number one on the top 100 lists of movies of all time... or at the very least in the top 10. I figure that I do enough political, societal, and economic ranting and decided to expand my horizons. To those who know me best, there is no surprise when a rant begins about anything that might be conceived as stupid. Stupid books. Stupid restaurants. Stupid people (of course.) Stupid behaviors (of people, businesses, government, animals, etc.) Stupid customs (see, I also don't discriminate based on religious, cultural, or geospatial influences either.) Stupid research. Stupid philosophies. Stupid and inappropriate commercials about medical or personal hygiene products. Stupid uses of resources. You get the idea.

So, why Citizen Kane?

I first watched this film only a few months ago after hearing about it for years. No one could ever describe to me what was so wonderful about it, but I figured it must be good. After all, people for years have heralded it as the greatest film ever made, so, really how could it be bad? And, it's not like I don't appreciate a classic film every now and again. I'm by no means a classic movie aficionado, but I certainly enjoy most standards. I also love Woody Allen films (which aren't classic, but are certainly artistic and provocative in many cases.) Among our collection of over 250 movies, I don't own a Woody Allen film. Probably because I would never turn it off and proceed to become a pompous, head-up-my-ass, miscreant. The same goes for any book by Walker Percy. The intellectual fervor they cultivate is great in the moment, but I believe should only be taken in small doses to prevent oneself from taking on the persona of Socrates in The Clouds.

I was hoping that Citizen Kane would have this same effect... or at least have a good, character-driven plot that wonderfully cultivated intrigue in the resolution of the story. Maybe I would have been less disappointed if I had studied Hearst more beforehand, or read the synopsis online. However, despite being somewhat interested in who Rosebud was, I hated the film. It was coarse and left a bitter taste in my mouth. I can stand watching films that don't end happily, but still were a work of art or probed an important question. After all, there is not comedy without its tragic counterpart. But this was just ugly and below depressing. In ways, it showed the ugliest parts of human nature, society, business, journalism, family relations, and government. Maybe that was its brilliance. Yet, it also showed none of the redeeming qualities. In the end, you were sickened by Kane, and would have felt bad for him never returning to his family and experiencing more good memories of which Rosebud was emblematic, except he had become so despicable it just made his life all the more worthless. With all he had "achieved" in his life including his [unfinished] home and its museum of beautiful possessions, all he ever cared about was his rosebud sled that he hasn't used since he was a boy. Many people experience tragedy and separation from loved ones or their home environments, yet still can love and value their lives. Not Kane.

Maybe I just hated it because Kane's character is an affront to every value I hold dear - in life and art - or maybe because if this film is what critics and the masses have deemed to be the "best" of all time then human nature is more ugly that I care to believe. And, while there certainly are people like Kane in the world, I'd like to think their numbers are few and should not be celebrated.

This does not mean that I think art in any form should be censored or that Orson Welles should not have made Citizen Kane. And, while I still would not personally like the film, I would hesitate to disparage it so greatly if it was not consistently deemed the best.

So, film critics and movie aficionados out there, why am I wrong? What am I missing about this supposedly great film? It could be that the topic was so harsh that I missed something vital, so I would love to learn why my opinion differs so vastly from the masses.