Seeing Kane on the Big Screen

[Michael O'Hara]

The Palace Theater in Albany NY is showing Citizen Kane on Wednesday (11/29) and I am planning on heading down to see it. I have not seen Kane on the big screen and I am very excited. I do have a question, though. What sort of print do they use when they show an old film like this? I am not familiar with present day procedure. Nor have I ever seen a film at this theater. I’m sure many of you have already experienced Kane on the big screen so I wanted to see what you had to say about the experience.

Seeing Kane in an original RKO Palace is pretty special, I feel. I almost want to wear a suit to the theater. And for only $5? Who would waste $9 on any of the current Hollywood trash when they could sit in luxury and see true motion picture art at its finest?

My wife refuses to go (she was supposedly "bored" when I showed her the Kane DVD), so it looks like I'll be going it alone. Sheesh. She has no taste. If it were Texas Chainsaw the Sequel she'd be already out the door.

[Roger Ryan]

I don't think Warner Brothers has done a 35mm transfer of the digitally cleaned up version they used for the DVD release (a lot of Welles fans have complained about that version being overly "clean" and overly bright, but I admire it). So, the print may very well be one of the ones struck for the 50th Anniversary release in '91. Unfortunately, those prints were dark and blurry and I consider them inferior to prints struck years earlier (you may or may not be aware that the original negative to "Kane" was lost in a fire around 1970). I do hope that they project the film in the proper 1.33:1 ratio; the last time I saw it in a theatre, the top and bottom of the picture was cropped so it would fill the standard 1.85:1 ratio screen. The result was a lot of shots where the characters' eyes and noses were cut off!

At any rate, it's a great film to see with an audience; you may be surprised by how people respond to various moments you may be taking for granted now. Enjoy.

[Tony]

Roger:
Hasn't it been firmly established that the 2001 dvd print is overlit? For example, you can see Joe Cotten in the screening room at the beginning; as his character is obviously not supposed to be there, ipso facto that scene is overlit, and I believe the light quality is the same for the whole 2001 print. Rosenbaum et. al. have already discussed this in detail.

[Tony]

deleted

[Roger Ryan]

Roger:
Hasn't it been firmly established that the 2001 dvd print is overlit? For example, you can see Joe Cotten in the screening room at the beginning; as his character is obviously not supposed to be there, ipso facto that scene is overlit, and I believe the light quality is the same for the whole 2001 print. Rosenbaum et. al. have already discussed this in detail.

Yes, it has been firmly established that the DVD is "too bright", but I much prefer it to those hideous prints from the 90s (widely distributed as the 50th Anniversary VHS release). The clarity of the image and the improved soundtrack outweigh the negative brightness issue in my mind; others feel differently which is why I alluded to the dissatisfaction many Welles fans have with the DVD release. It's true that Cotten is recognizable in the screening room (Erskine Sanford and Gus Schilling are there as well), but I don't believe any first-time viewer is going to pick up on this; for repeat viewers, it's merely an amusing in-joke (is anyone troubled that Eugene Morgan apparently writes theatre reviews under the pen name "Jed Leland" in addition to running an auto company in "Ambersons"?). Ultimately, it would be nice if Warners would someday remaster the DVD to tone the brightness down, but given that no "Ambersons" or "Journey Into Fear" discs have been forthcoming, we should consider ourselves lucky to have the "Kane" disc as is.

[atcolomb]

I saw Kane on the big screen in 1997 at my 10 screen megaplex and i was angry because they did not show the film in it's original aspect ratio of 4:3 but letterboxed which distorted the picture and cut the top and the bottom of the image. I told the theater manager afterwards and said he was sory but still the projectist should have played the film corectly....not every film made was widescreen!.... ???

[Michael O'Hara]

I saw Kane on the big screen in 1997 at my 10 screen megaplex and i was angry because they did not show the film in it's original aspect ratio of 4:3 but letterboxed which distorted the picture and cut the top and the bottom of the image. I told the theater manager afterwards and said he was sory but still the projectist should have played the film corectly....not every film made was widescreen!.... ???

That's my biggest fear. But this is a highly respectable theater and they show many classic films there, so I assume they know what they are doing. I can't imagine watching it the way you describe. It would have been torture.

[Tony]

There's no such thing as projectionists anymore, at least in Canada. When the multiplexes all came in, the projectionists were all fired. Now some kid who was hired last week presses a button to start the film- if there's something that needs to be adjusted or fixed- forget it.
:p

[Glenn Anders]

Michael: I presume that this showing of CITIZEN KANE is a special occasion. I would call up the sponsors to make sure that, at least, the aspect ratio is the correct one. I'm sure that they would be concerned, too, because at least half the audience will no doubt be older film buffs.

The outdoor showing I attended in Union Square, San Francisco, last Summer was done with a DVD projector, and though the sun had not entirely set when they began, the event was fine otherwise.

In regard to Tony's question, I have pointed out a number times, that the nicely named Widescreen expert, Joe Kane, urges home viewers to bring down the brightness and contrast adjusments on their TV sets' factory settings, in order to produce truer blacks, viewings closer to theater projection, and to extend the phosphor life of our video systems. I have used CITIZEN KANE and THE MALTESE FALCON to make the adjustments Kane recommends, and I find that screening room sequence of the CITIZEN KANE DVD is easily corrected, without spoiling the balance in the rest of the film. I have used that sequence as my test pattern for two TV sets.

I recommend Kane's advice, in general. [Things like hanging dark drapes (or painting the wall black) behind your TV set, to reduce ambient light.]

Glenn

[Terry]

I saw it for the 50th anniversary release, at the then-newly refurbushed Fox Theater in Detroit (a glorious deco monstrousity.) The print was much too dark, but at least it had the original aspect ratio. Pheeuuuuu, there was a cropped widescreen release? That's like performing Beethoven but clipping all the high and low notes out of the score - it's just wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.

If the Kane dvd is too bright, I'd never know, as I readjust the brightness, contrast, sharpness, saturation and hue for every film I watch (every one I care about watching.) It's unfortunate the negative was lost, though the remaining positives seem of excellent quality.

Anyway, it's worth seeing on the big screen. Back in 91 the audience received it as high art and very enthusiastically at that, and its a rare and cool thing to see a Welles film do that

[Tony]

Painting the wall black? Glenn- tell the truth- you ARE a vampire!
:angry:

[Roger Ryan]

Pheeuuuuu, there was a cropped widescreen release?

This was not deliberate, just negligent. "Kane" was featured as part of a Turner Classic Movies festival that ran for one weekend at a number of megaplexes. I knew I was in trouble when the opening title card read "...Production By Orson Welles" ("A Mercury..." was cropped out). I complained to management after the screening (as "atcolomb" did) and was told that the theatre didn't think it was worth it to change the projection lens for just a few weekend showings!

Also, I agree with Glenn wholeheartedly: never leave your TVs at the factory settings. I ended up reducing the brightness and contrast levels on my rear-projection set by more than half in order to get an acceptable picture.

[Terry]

That sounds like a megaplex I'd be happy to boycott for the rest of my life. Actually, I haven't ventured to the cinema since Return of the King first ran, and I don't intend do.* Anything worth seeing I'm happier watching on dvd at home. Huh, when Other Wind finally premieres I will go see that, provided it plays on a continent near me. Maybe it will even have a wider release than Kane.

Did people actually sit through that showing of beheaded Kane? Macbeth would have been more appropriate. Talk about low ceilings. I would have walked out after 30 seconds and asked for my money back. Then gone home and watched it on tv.

* Okay, I will drive 200 miles round-trip to see Tideland in Birmingham, but that's where I draw the line!

[atcolomb]

The manager did give me a free pass to another movie but still how often does one see Kane in a theater!. I did see It's All True at the Music Box in Chicago and they did show it in it's correct 4:3 aspect ratio!.....

[Glenn Anders]

Tony: When Todd Baesen lures you out here to Frisco, perhaps he'll have you along to my apartment at Leavenworth and Geary, otherwise known as "The Miles and Irma Archer Memorial Information Center," and you will see that wall is painted flat black behind the new TV set which bankrupted me. At night the picture seems floating in a night sky.

"Try it; you'll like it!"

One preservationist theater owner told Baesen and me that even he did not show enough films of a certain vintage to afford the rare expensive lens (a European one, in this case), which might get scratched, broken, or stolen. Seems crazy, but that's what the man, a dedicated guy, said.

Glenn