Kane on Blu-ray

[Colmena]

What does the CK on Blu-Ray package offer, either in regard to image or the materials that come with it?

I've been poking through this past thread and, to my surprise, have not been able to find this topic addressed. If it's in there, my apologies for not locating it.

I'm wondering if I should buy it or not? As it stands, I own the DVD, the one that comes with the (late) Ebert commentary, and the disc about "The Battle over CK."

-- thanks,

Colmena

[Wellesnet]

@Colmena, You can find a detailed description from Warner Bros. on the main pages. Check out http://www.wellesnet.com/?p=1373

[Roger Ryan]

Also, I believe it's important to point out that the Blu-ray version presents a new restoration of the film which corrects the problems that the DVD issue had. The Blu-ray image is darker and has a more natural film grain texture whereas the DVD image has been considered too bright and suffers from an over-application of DNR (digital noise reduction) which not only gave the actors' faces a waxy look but actually removed important details from the image (the rain outside Bernstein's office window). Apart from that, the increased data capacity of the Blu-ray automatically allows for greater detail and better definition. As I've noted elsewhere, I believe the Blu-ray issue is the closest we've gotten to how the film actually looked when first released in 1941 (far better than the 50th Anniversary film prints that were issued theatrically in 1991).

Now having said that, I'll add that the improved quality of the feature itself is the only reason to upgrade to the Blu-ray. The deluxe package offers a few production documents along with the HBO film RKO 281, which is so-so as far as drama is concerned and very inaccurate in regards to history; otherwise, it carries over the extras from the DVD issue with no improvement in visual quality.

[Le Chiffre]

I haven’t seen the KANE Blu-ray yet, but from Roger’s decription it sounds like they finally got the film itself right. The extras though, are questionable at best. RKO 281 is a fairly enjoyable rendering of the story, although I agree it is filled with inaccuracies and distortions, not to mention speculation based on hearsay (for example, there’s no proof Hearst and Davies ever watched Kane, as this film asserts). No way does it belong in the same DVD set as the real Kane. Less objectionable is THE BATTLE OVER CITIZEN KANE, a very well-done documentary containing a lot of fascinating archival footage, but even it’s inclusion is debatable, since it ultimately makes a rather negative appraisal of Welles’s post-Kane career. If not for the commenties by Bogdanovich and the late Roger Ebert, the whole DVD set would seem designed to bolster the old mainstream Hollywood idea that Orson Welles was the ultimate one-hit wonder.

[atcolomb]

Criterion just released their January news letter which includes hints for future releases. There is just speculation that a image of a bamboo sled could mean that for Criterion's 1000 spine number they might release Citizen Kane?

[RayKelly]

Criterion just released their January news letter which includes hints for future releases. There is just speculation that a image of a bamboo sled could mean that for Criterion's 1000 spine number they might release Citizen Kane?

Some think the bamboo sled means they are releasing the 2000 Spike Lee film Bamboozled.
With spine #1000 on the way, I'd like to think it was a sled made up of giant candy canes (Kane) .

[CineCraft]

I want to believe this as well, but I think Bamboozled is probably more likely. There is always the chance that this could be a "double clue," but that seems to be more of a phantom than an actually occurring visual device. Those Criterion folks are devilish at these sorts of things.

BR

[atcolomb]

Criterion's spine #1000 belongs to Godzilla box set which I am a little disappointed since I am not a big fan of the Lizard King. Was hoping it would be Citizen Kane but Criterion can release the film at a later time along with The Eyes of Orson Welles?

[Wellesnet]

In addition, a likely assumption might be that the fire which destroyed the original negative of CITIZEN KANE probably incinerated any extra footage, including the brothel scene, had any been kept.

What really happened to the camera negative for "Citizen Kane"?
The answer might not make you happy. Nick Falacci, co-creator of the television series "NUMB3RS," recently related a story about a past restoration effort.
https://www.wellesnet.com/citizen-kane-negative/

[Florinaldo]

The answer might not make you happy. Nick Falacci, co-creator of the television series "NUMB3RS," recently related a story about a past restoration effort.
https://www.wellesnet.com/citizen-kane-negative/

I am trying to remember the 6 seconds described in that article as a "section that was hideously scraped by white emulsion scratches. [All the emulsion was scratched] off the base until nothing but the base was left and light shine through" but I am drawing a blank (no pun intended).

The last few times I watched the movie was the 2011 BD 70th Anniversary edition of the movie. Do others have a better recollection and can identify that damaged section? Unless it has been corrected since the work done in the 90s.

I can well believe the negative was sent for silver reclamation. It used to be a very active and profitable business. I had a friend whose family operated a company devoted to it; they even designed their own machines. Their main customers, as I recall, were hospitals and medical clinics over a very wide territory; the older techniques of radiography produced a lot of prints, whose usefulness was most often short-lived; silver could also be reclaimed from the liquids used in the developing process. They may also have serviced some big photography studios. Newer techniques like CT scans have eaten substantially into this market, which was profitable for both the company and its customers (who got a share of the value of the reclaimed silver).

[JMcBride]

I went to the Filmex (LA) re-premiere of the rediscovered, long-lost version of the 1922 OLIVER TWIST,
directed by Frank Lloyd and starring Jackie Coogan and Lon Chaney. It is a good
movie. Afterward I saw Coogan (by then an old man, aka Uncle Fester) talking with
the film's producer, pioneer Sol Lesser, next to the screen. I went over to
eavesdrop. Lesser was apologizing for burning the negative of OLIVER TWIST
to get ten dollars worth of silver. I will never forget the aghast look on Coogan's face.

[jbrooks]

While the loss of the original negative of "Kane" is a true tragedy, we should keep things in perspective. The current blu ray of "Kane" looks very good -- and very likely looks better than any film print struck in 1941.

Would it look better if we we had the original negative? Sure, but the differences would be subtle. The following is overstated.

But it’s not even in the same universe with what we would see from an image that would have been generated from a truly pristine first-strike FGM or even better, scanned from the original negative. And while we still have a great-looking copy of a masterwork, we don’t have an inkling just how magnificent Gregg Toland’s cinematography was. Fine grain masters of the era and restored frame stills from Kane reveal that trying to understand how beautiful his Kane work was is like if Toland was shooting HD and we’re viewing it in standard def.

I have studied the "It's a Wonderful Life" (1946) 4K Blu Ray in HDR -- which is about 90% scanned from the original camera negative. Does it look better than "Kane"? Yes, it does. It has less grain, and the image is a bit crisper and sharper with slightly better contrast. But the parts that are taken from an interpositive look about on par with "Kane" And here's the kicker, one cannot tell the difference between the two sources used for the "It's A Wonderful Life" disc unless one is looking for them closely. You can't see them at all unless you're fairly close to the screen (and I was watching on a brand-new 85-inch Samsung 4K). I suspect the difference would be imperceptible to someone viewing from the back of the typical movie theater.

So, yes, it's surely terrible that the original negative of "Kane" is lost (whether to a fire or to egregious negligence), but what we have is "in the same universe" as what Toland was doing. In fact, we can get a better view now of what Toland was doing than the view anyone had who went to movie theaters in 1941 to see "Citizen Kane."

[MVerdoux]

I found reading the Nicolas Falacci article (https://www.wellesnet.com/citizen-kane-negative/) intensely fascinating - as it brought me back to that time when I was also working in Manhattan, at a motion picture archive - which often had me picking up and dropping off things at the Film Center Building (once passing Martin Scorsese in the elevator). The fellow he mentions working with, the "crazy, secretive Yugoslavian chemist that had devised a treatment that could remove most scratches from film", I remember - as our archive occasionally brought him film to treat (I want to say it was called "Accu-Treat"?) - which involved humidification - and meant that you had to do whatever you were going to do with the film - copy it or transfer it to video - quickly before the process wore off....

I also remember going to one of the art houses to see the CK 50th anniversary print (and bought a 'one-sheet' poster at the theater) which I hung up in my apartment....

Which brings me to why I'm writing and posting this. A fellow I knew at the time who was involved with producing video reconstructions and releases of silent and classic films on VHS and laserdisc (and later DVDs), was visiting from California on business and stayed at my NYC apartment. He was a MAJOR raconteur and always had LOADS of wild, crazy and amusing stories about stuff behind the scenes involving classic Hollywood - the films and the people involved with the studios.

I'm sure the 50th anniversary poster triggered him - and he told me "you know - the original negative for that no longer exists - and for a stupid reason...."

He then proceeded to tell me that, prompted by the infamous "Silver Thursday" Hunt Brothers fiasco of March 1980 - some high mucky-muck in charge of the RKO library (he probably told me a name -- but I no longer remember) directed that the 10 (or was it 20?) longest films from the nitrate holdings be sent for silver reclamation to cash in on the craze. KANE, being two hours in length was of course one of the ones at the top of that list - as was KING KONG. He may have mentioned some other titles - I don't remember. But I guess if you were to look at some of the longest running times of RKO product from the nitrate era - it would likely have been included and sent off to it's doom at that time.

Just wanted to share this extra kernel of information that I've NEVER forgotten - and prompted by Mr. Falacci's engrossing account.

[atcolomb]

It's being reported on a few websites that in a recent Zoom lecture Jonathan Rosenbaum mentioned that he is planning to record a commentary track on Citizen Kane with James Naremore. Also there is talk that Criterion might release it on Blu-ray or a 4K release by Warner Bros?

[edmoney]

It's being reported on a few websites that in a recent Zoom lecture Jonathan Rosenbaum mentioned that he is planning to record a commentary track on Citizen Kane with James Naremore. Also there is talk that Criterion might release it on Blu-ray or a 4K release by Warner Bros?

That would be exciting news. Can you provide a link or two? I didn't find anything in a search.

While I would prefer a 4K from WB (assuming that Criterion isn't entering the 4K UHD field anytime soon), my guess would be a Criterion Blu-ray based on this reported extra. It doesn't seem like WB really creates new special features and extras these days for their 4K releases (tending to recycle older extras from previous releases), and the Rosenbaum/Naremore commentary sounds like the type of extra Criterion would produce. Those two teamed for a commentary on the Criterion Ambersons Blu-ray.