1104 Citizen Kane

[swo17]

Citizen Kane



In the most dazzling debut feature in cinema history, twenty-five-year-old writer-producer-director-star Orson Welles synthesized the possibilities of sound-era filmmaking into what could be called the first truly modern movie. In telling the story of the meteoric rise and precipitous fall of a William Randolph Hearst–like newspaper magnate named Charles Foster Kane, Welles not only created the definitive portrait of American megalomania, he also unleashed a torrent of stylistic innovations—from the jigsaw-puzzle narrative structure to the stunning deep-focus camera work of Gregg Toland—that have ensured that Citizen Kane remains fresh and galvanizing for every new generation of moviegoers to encounter it.

SPECIAL FEATURES

• New 4K digital restoration, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack
• In the 4K UHD edition: One 4K UHD disc of the film presented in Dolby Vision HDR and three Blu-rays with the film and special features
• Three audio commentaries: from 2021 featuring Orson Welles scholars James Naremore and Jonathan Rosenbaum; from 2002 featuring filmmaker Peter Bogdanovich; and from 2002 featuring film critic Roger Ebert
• The Complete "Citizen Kane," (1991), a rarely seen feature-length BBC documentary
• New interviews with critic Farran Smith Nehme and film scholar Racquel J. Gates
• New video essay by Orson Welles scholar Robert Carringer
• New program on the film's special effects by film scholars and effects experts Craig Barron and Ben Burtt
• Interviews from 1990 with editor Robert Wise; actor Ruth Warrick; optical-effects designer Linwood Dunn; Bogdanovich; filmmakers Martin Scorsese, Henry Jaglom, Martin Ritt, and Frank Marshall; and cinematographers Allen Daviau, Gary Graver, and Vilmos Zsigmond
• New documentary featuring archival interviews with Welles
• Interviews with actor Joseph Cotten from 1966 and 1975
• The Hearts of Age, a brief silent film made by Welles as a student in 1934
• Television programs from 1979 and 1988 featuring appearances by Welles and Mercury Theatre producer John Houseman
• Program featuring a 1996 interview with actor William Alland on his collaborations with Welles
• Selection of The Mercury Theatre on the Air radio plays featuring many of the actors from Citizen Kane
• Trailer
• English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
• PLUS: Deluxe packaging, including a book with an essay by film critic Bilge Ebiri

[dspector]

Well, it's about time somebody came out and stated this - or am I just late and this conversation has been going around the room for some time? Like everyone, I awaited the DVD Region 1 release of Kane, and when the spectacular reviews started coming in, looked forward all the more to the arrival of my copy. Very soon into the viewing, however, I realized I HATED it for all the reasons mentioned in the previous post - the visual life of it had been drained. This still hasn't stopped reviewers from giving it five stars, etc. To his credit, the guy who handles WBs transfer restorations has commented that he thinks he went too far and would like to revisit this film. One can only hope. I am old enough to remember seeing prints of Kane in the theater in 1961 - I don't know how those would stack up against 1941 prints, but the 1961 prints have remained my touchstone for what the film should look like. (Though as a P.S. I saw the film in a large theater in 1998 and though the print was not the best Kane on a large screen is as powerful as the cinema ever got or gets. )

[headacheboy]

When I purchased this DVD I began watching the bonus disc The Battle Over Citizen Kane. I made my wife watch this so I could be sure of my sanity: within ten minutes of beginning the documentary there is a commercial for Scott's Weed & Feed (or a similar product). I took the DVD back to the store and explained that if I wanted commercials during the film I would watch television. They gave me my money back. I wrote Warner and never heard from. I'll await a new version of the set and buy it only after I'm certain the commercials are gone.

[swingo]

When I purchased this DVD I began watching the bonus disc The Battle Over Citizen Kane. I made my wife watch this so I could be sure of my sanity: within ten minutes of beginning the documentary there is a commercial for Scott's Weed & Feed (or a similar product). I took the DVD back to the store and explained that if I wanted commercials during the film I would watch television. They gave me my money back. I wrote Warner and never heard from. I'll await a new version of the set and buy it only after I'm certain the commercials are gone.

I haven't had time to look at the 2nd dvd, but after reading your post I went and take a quick look, yes, I couldn't believe it... it's around the minute #2 just at the very beginning... how could they ever let that pass it?!?!

[leo goldsmith]

My biggest problem with the dvd (aside from the Weed 'n' Feed?) is that it's just too damn bright. You're not supposed to see Joe Cotten's face in the screening room scene in the beginning, and yet there he is, plain as day.

Pretty good movie, though.

[Jeff]

When I purchased this DVD I began watching the bonus disc The Battle Over Citizen Kane. I made my wife watch this so I could be sure of my sanity: within ten minutes of beginning the documentary there is a commercial for Scott's Weed & Feed (or a similar product). I took the DVD back to the store and explained that if I wanted commercials during the film I would watch television. They gave me my money back. I wrote Warner and never heard from. I'll await a new version of the set and buy it only after I'm certain the commercials are gone.

It's not like some guy at Warner taped it off TV and forgot to edit the commercials out. That doc was produced for the PBS American Experience series, and was probably underwritten by the Weed & Feed people. Perhaps they stipulated that their ad must be included. I doubt that you will ever see The Battle Over Citizen Kane without it. If it had popped up during the middle of Kane itself, there might be cause for outrage, but as is, it's not much more than a minor annoyance.

[hearthesilence]

YES, I'm glad people are noticing the lack of grain, and don't get too upset, Mr. Lowry himself has admitted the mistake numerous times. I think in one interview he said "Kane" was one of the first DVDs he did, since then he's done a lot more, so he pretty much chalks it up with his 'inexperience' at the time.

It's still the best "Citizen Kane" you can get on video, but the processing that removed the grain and the brightness (WAY, WAY too bright) screams for a re-do. Maybe in 2011 or 2016, for the 70th or 75th anniversaries.

Here's another article (from the NY Times) that mentions Lowry's take on it, towards the bottom.

I found another article, same writer, NY Times again, this is the one that mentions plans to re-do "The Godfather" on DVD, something that hasn't materialized yet: When Bad DVDs Happen to Great Films

[GringoTex]

That doc was produced for PBS American Experience series, and was probably funded by the Weed & Feed people. Perhaps they stipulated that their ad must be included. I doubt that you'll will ever see The Battle Over Citizen Kane without it. If it had popped up during the middle of Kane itself, there might be cause for outrage, but as is, it's not much more than a minor annoyance.

This is correct. PBS programs usually have single funders. And the underwriting spot does not interrupt the program- it comes between the prologue and the opening of the program. These prologues are expressly designed to to accompany an underwriting spot. So if anything, showing the doc without the underwriting spot is to screw with the original intentions of the filmmaker.

[Sai]

When I purchased this DVD I began watching the bonus disc The Battle Over Citizen Kane. I made my wife watch this so I could be sure of my sanity: within ten minutes of beginning the documentary there is a commercial for Scott's Weed & Feed (or a similar product). I took the DVD back to the store and explained that if I wanted commercials during the film I would watch television. They gave me my money back. I wrote Warner and never heard from. I'll await a new version of the set and buy it only after I'm certain the commercials are gone.

Talking about over-reacting. I saw The Battle over Citizen Kane on the International Documentary Festival Amsterdam, and the spot was included there also. By not watching it any further you're only depriving yourself of a very good documentary. The Searchers DVD also has extra's with commercials for some cigarette brand, and I'm not the least bit bothered by them. Maybe it's because those are from the fifties and therefore add a little atmosphere and cheekiness, but I haven't heard anyone complaining about them, and I never even thought of returning the DVD because of them*. Just use the fast-forward-button of your remote if you don't like them. I'm not encouraging DVD producing companies to include commercials in their programs, but when it's just one tiny commercial by a company that has most likely financed a good deal of the movie and it's been like that since the beginning, I couldn't be less bothered.

* Except maybe when a new SE comes out and I have to get rid of my current one in some way, of course.

[hearthesilence]

Michael Wilmington of the Chicago Tribune trashed "The Battle of Citizen Kane." It wasn't a review, he just said it was awful in something he wrote in Welles. Any Welles experts find any faults with the documentary? I thought it was missing key elements, like the role gossip-mongers Hedda Hopper and Estelle Parsons (I think that's her name) played, among other things. Also the voice-over narration was a little over-done.

[Michael Strangeways]

FYI: it's LOUELLA Parsons....Estelle Parsons is the character actress best known for her Oscar winning role in Bonnie and Clyde and playing Roseanne's mom on Roseanne....

[Brian Oblivious]

Any Welles experts find any faults with the documentary?

Clinton Heylin, in the appendix to his militantly pro-Welles (and why not?) book Despite the System writes this:

(Battle Over Citizen Kane...) has everything you'd expect from a contemporary American TV documentary - a gratingly annoying narrator, blindingly obvious historical "insights," overstatements and understatements in almost equal proportions, and the kind of cutting better reserved for the pop videos its directors doubtless once directed. Even when it digs up a valuable piece of footage - as in the clip from the WPA's Macbeth production - it is needlessly edited (the entire three-minute segment has been issued on DVD, though only as part of an eleven-DVD boxed-set!). High production values wasted on such twaddle.

That seems to jibe with my memories of my impressions of the doc (except for the line about pop videos; I don't remember its editing style). I also remember thinking that the filmmakers were trying too hard to draw meaningless comparisons and contrasts between Welles and Hearst's own lives in the way they structured the film.

[Steven H]

Does anyone else feel the comedic aspects of this film are largely ignored or swept under the rug? I laugh my head off every time I see it, from Welles' smirks, and the newsreel satire, to Dorothy Comingmore's grating accent. I connect with it as a drama as well, but the humor is there for me. The last time I attended a screening, I distinctly remember not a chuckle coming from anybody but myself and the few friends that came with me.

[skuhn8]

Does anyone else feel the comedic aspects of this film are largely ignored or swept under the rug? I laugh my head off every time I see it, from Welles' smirks, and the newsreel satire, to Dorothy Comingmore's grating accent. I connect with it as a drama as well, but the humor is there for me. The last time I attended a screening, I distinctly remember not a chuckle coming from anybody but myself and the few friends that came with me.

I honestly didn't find anything intentionally funny. Unintentionally, there's the bad aging makeup, Joseph Cotton's attempt at playing an old man, and on the DVD Bogdanovitch trying to do commentary (ok ok I've beat this horse to death a dozen times over).

[ben d banana]

I'm with you Steven, and not necessarily limited to this case. I'm no guffawer, but I find that many older films are viewed with a sort of reverence that implies that the directors/writers/actors had no sense of humor. Of course the reverse is also true with some viewers thinking everything is unintentional camp. While I like to laugh at people as much as the next guy, I doubt most viewers are sufficiently erudite to be laughing at, and not with, the likes of Welles, Hitchcock, Sternberg, Sirk, etc, or contemporarily Lynch, amongst others, and their films.

[Andre Jurieu]

I'm with Steven and ben on this one. Kane is always unfairly perceived as a lesson, when it's actually quite entertaining if you get over the attempts to justify or dismiss it's "greatest film ever created" label. There are many line deliveries and moments throughout that I laugh at, with Welles delivering some killer lines when Kane is youthful and brash. Of course, Kane is one of the few films that I actually have a stronger emotional reaction towards the more I watch it, I assume because I identify with Kane more as I grow older.

[Steven H]

I'm glad some of you agree with me. The more I think about it, there's even a humor in the editing and rhythm. Welles had a brilliant sense of humor (what magician isn't inclined to make the audience laugh every now and then), and I would think it hard to ignore in the film.

[Narshty]

Welles had a brilliant sense of humor (what magician isn't inclined to make the audience laugh every now and then), and I would think it hard to ignore in the film.

While Welles is often hilarious in interviews, the kind of comic skits he did featured on the One Man Band documentary are just toe-curlingly bad (mostly based around overplayed stereotypes).

[Arcadean]

I recently saw this on the big screen. About 20 people showed up. People seemed to enjoy the cartoon before the movie more than Kane itself. People clapped and laughed at the cartoon which I found to be one of the lesser cartoons that I have seen before a movie.

No one seemed to laugh but me at the obvious zingers and I also got the great humor in this. I think it has a little bit of everything. Getting back to the point, when the film ended people lined out very quickly and I was the only one standing and clapping. The scene in the theater mirrored the scene in the movie when Kane is at Susan's performance. Except that Kane was much better than Susan's performance.

Am I in a minority for loving this? After that night I felt I was.

[skuhn8]

Am I in a minority for loving this? After that night I felt I was.

In general, yes; on this forum, probably not. I love Kane, think it is definitely one of the greatest films ever. Still blows my mind that after making this masterpiece Welles had to put up with so much shit to have his ideas put to film.

[Jaime_Weinman]

I read an interesting piece in some magazine -- one of those old-movie nostalgia publications -- where the author quoted some comments made by theatre exhibitors who were showing Kane in 1941. They were, almost without exception, brutal. At least one of the quoted exhibitors liked the picture himself, but they all agreed that their audiences hated the movie, that it was a lousy draw, that they didn't want RKO sending them more pictures like this one, etc. It really does seem like this was one of those movies that was successful in certain urban areas -- New York, especially -- but bombed in most of the country. I don't think I'd ever really understood just how unpopular the movie was until I read that article. As I recall the reasons cited for audiences hating it didn't have anything to do with politics or Hearst or anything, and were more geared towards the style (too artsy), the story (too slow) and the characters (too unsympathetic).

I think the failure of Kane was probably a bigger factor in killing Welles's career than anything else. RKO gave him total freedom (within their usual tight budget) and he gave them a flop. Maybe Hollywood wanted to get rid of him anyway, but that gave them a hell of an excuse.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I think the failure of Kane was probably a bigger factor in killing Welles's career than anything else. RKO gave him total freedom (within their usual tight budget) and he gave them a flop. Maybe Hollywood wanted to get rid of him anyway, but that gave them a hell of an excuse.

I disagree. I think that the failure of The Magnificent Ambersons is what killed Welles' career... at least in Hollywood. He made the mistake of going off to South America to shoot It's All True and the studio took Ambersons away from him, re-cut it and butchered what could have been an even greater masterpiece than Kane. It was all downhill from there for Welles in Hollywood and he remained marginalized ever since (even though he did do the occasional Hollywood gig -- The Stranger, The Lady from Shanghai, Touch of Evil, etc.) and never enjoyed the same kind of creative freedom as he did on Kane.

[Jaime_Weinman]

I disagree. I think that the failure of The Magnificent Ambersons is what killed Welles' career... at least in Hollywood.

But the failure of Kane was what made RKO feel free to re-cut Ambersons -- if Kane had been a success, they'd probably have left Ambersons alone.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that there are all these theories as to why RKO was out to get Welles, and I think the most plausible explanation is just that they got burned, financially, on Kane.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Maybe. There is also a school of thought that Welles was his own worst enemy. He should've dropped everything he was doing in South America and gone back to the States and tried to protect Ambersons from being re-cut. If he had done that, maybe things might have been different. Who knows?

I think that if RKO had really been pissed at Welles over the financial failure of Kane than they would've never green-lighted Ambersons.

[porquenegar]

There is also a school of thought that Welles was his own worst enemy. He should've dropped everything he was doing in South America and gone back to the States and tried to protect Ambersons from being re-cut. If he had done that, maybe things might have been different. Who knows?

I think that if RKO had really been pissed at Welles over the financial failure of Kane than they would've never green-lighted Ambersons.

The way he tells it, he was asked to go to film in South America as part of a good will policy and didn't feel he could refuse. It was a fairly unexpected request which is why he didn't have a script. Prior to leaving, besides finishings Ambersons he was working on Journey Into Fear working 16-18 hour days. He left with the agreement that he would mail detailed editing instructions from there. He also claims to have had a couple of long meetings with Wise regarding what he wanted before he left. The death kneel was the preview night in Pomona, California, the armpit of California, where it was paired with Mexican Spitfire sees a Ghost. How could it not fail under these circumstances? The audience opinion cards were about 60/40 negative. The movie was polarizing, where some either thought it was the best movie they have seen and others thought it was terrible. Many of the comments were along the lines of "I come to the movies to be happy, not depressed". Other comments were along the lines of , "This may be the best movie I have ever seen, too bad the majority of movie goers here are to ignorant to appreciate it. "

He also didn't think Kane got a fair shot at the theaters either with all the Hearst papers refusing any advertising for it. He also claims that Kane had a limited release because the chains were afraid to run it but that it did very well in the metropolitan areas it did show.