A few words about...™ Citizen Kane -- in Blu-ray

I can't believe that there is anything that anyone could say about Orson Welles' freshman production about a man who "wants to run a newspaper," that hasn't already been said.

Suffice to say, for those poor souls who have never heard of, or seen in some quality manner, this old black & white film, that it was a 1941 game-changer in many ways.

Filled on a closed set, in secrecy, it is extremely creative, especially for its time in terms of story-telling, cinematography and acting...

Positioning of cameras, use of contrast and shadows, exposure of ceilings (also seen in The Maltese Falcon), diopters for close and normal shots combined, layered dialogue.  One could go one.

Finally arriving on Blu-ray, and apparently from the sole-surviving nitrate fine grain master, the film is generally beautiful.  The original negative was lost in a fire several decades ago.  Has grain been messed with a bit in clean-up?  Hard to tell, but nothing looks wrong or out of place.

A bit of bromide drag, especially in dupes, which is normal, but generally the fine grain looks to have been well produced, possibly only lacking a bit in the differentiation between pure black and slightly more translucent tones just above.

I'm thrilled with this disc, and the entire set for that matter, as proper additional discs have been included -- The Battle Over Citizen Kane and RKO 281.   While I'd love to had seen The Magnificent Ambersons included as a Blu-ray, it's only on DVD, and solely an Amazon exclusive.  I presume we'll be seeing a proper Blu-ray of it in the future, as I believe the OCN survives.  But wouldn't it have made a killer package to have both on Blu-ray, representing the work of Mr. Welles at RKO?

I'm not a big fan of exclusives.

Bottom line, understanding what one is seeing, the new Blu-ray from Warner is as good as this film will ever look, which is just short of stupendous.  Audio is also fully up to the task.

If I were to modify one small thing, it would be to bring down the shot in the screening room that reveals Joseph Cotten, just a couple of points.  Other than that, what I'm seeing is about as perfect as the film can get.  And yes, the rain is back on Mr. Bernstein's window.

Citizen Kane is, without a doubt, one of the most important classic releases of 2011, and may just head up the list.

I'm quite jealous of those who will see this film for their first time on this Blu-Ray.

Extremely Highly Recommended.

RAH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianruns10 

Regarding Ambersons, I believe Warner's statement alluded to the cut OCN not being extant. Several years ago, they commented in one of the chats here that they were delayed because they were searching for better elements, and later they caused a brief, sadly unfounded flurry of speculation that the preview cut, possibly Welles' Brazilian print, had been located, when they made the cryptic statement "We have found new elements." So perhaps they found a fine grain, or maybe a dupe neg. Again, just a shot out there, since I can't say when quality dupe neg stocks came about (Robert, you'd be able to help surely).

Also, Robert, could you enlighten me on what "bromide drag" is? Thanks!

Bromide drag, which has been discussed here before, is seen in dupes that may have not received proper agitation.  The general look is off an adjacent tone moving in one direction or the other, almost as if a slight tail has been attached to an image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollowbrook Drive-In 

Quote:

Positioning of cameras, use of contrast and shadows, exposure of ceilings (also seen in The Maltese Falcon), diopters for close and normal shots combined, layered dialogue. One could go one.

Gregg Toland didn't use diopters (a special lens with a split focal-length, allowing near and far objects to be in focus in each side of the frame). KANE used simple deep-focus, in which the camera's aperture is stopped down to near pinhole dimensions and the set flooded with immense amounts of light to bring up the exposure.

Use of a diopter is easy to spot: the background in the half of the frame featuring the close-up is out of focus, and the foreground of the other half of the frame is similarly fuzzy. With deep focus, everything's in focus, from front to back, and that's what you find in KANE.

Possibly I'm being a bit simplistic.  A normal diopter would leave an area where the differential must be well hidden.  If one examines, for example, the shot in which Kane is signing off on turning over the paper -- Thatcher behind desk at left in MS, Bernstein at R in BCU, there seems to be no line of demarkation.  The shot appears perfect in every respect.  The use of the word "diopter," at least for those who know photography seemed to be the easiest way to explain in a forum atmosphere.

RAH

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianruns10 

I know the shot you mean, and I think for that one it may have been a combination of a longer lens to flatten the scene, on top of the recently available higher speed black and white stock, as well as powerful lighting to stop down a lot to really pump up the DoF.

the shot would have necessitated special optics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brianruns10 

Another possibility: the Bernstein/Kane/Thatcher scene compositionally mirrors a later scene where Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Kane fires Leland

. Kane is in the foreground, Leland situated a bit further back, and Bernstein in the distance watching. I recall this shot was created through optical printing, with Leland and Bernstein shot separately from Kane, and the two combined. Pretty amazing feat of timing between the two.

Maybe they did the same for the former scene?

Interesting thought, but shots comped through optical printed tended toward a bit of jitter and movement, and in this case, steady as a rock.  Apparently Everett Sloane was told not to move a muscle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hollowbrook Drive-In 

Quote:

Possibly I'm being a bit simplistic. A normal diopter would leave an area where the differential must be well hidden. If one examines, for example, the shot in which Kane is signing off on turning over the paper -- Thatcher behind desk at left in MS, Bernstein at R in BCU, there seems to be no line of demarkation. The shot appears perfect in every respect. The use of the word "diopter," at least for those who know photography seemed to be the easiest way to explain in a forum atmosphere.

RAH

What you're describing are traveling mattes, and the film is full of them and practically every other kind of special optical effect developed to that time, including glass shots and the Schufftan Process, but not for the scenes you and the others refer to.

There's no line of demarcation between Kane, Thatcher and Bernstein because there's no matte or split field -- it's all just deep focus, a technique sadly all but lost today in a cinematic world where the typical practice is to photograph two-shots from forty feet away using a telephoto lens.

I would direct your attention to John Frankenheimer's films of the early-mid 1960's, particularly SEVEN DAYS IN MAY, where he uses the same deep-focus techniques to exceptional effect. Again, no special effects employed, only a stopped-down lens and copious amounts of light. Frankenheimer and his cinematographer, Ellsworth Fredericks, had an advantage over Welles and Toland: faster film stocks and lenses, and one big disadvantage: they had to light a (flat; spherical lenses) 1:1.85 frame, meaning more of the set had to be lit brightly, whereas KANE was 1:1.37. In the end, as to the amount of light needed for each fill, it was probably a wash.

Most directors know how to compose a frame side to side and top to bottom, but only a really superior director, like Welles and Frankenheimer, can compose a shot front-to-back in such an exquisite way that it becomes a key component in the story-telling process.
 

If what you're suggesting is correct, that would account for the overall quality of the image.  With apologies for inattentiveness, my mind is not functioning on all cylinders at the moment, as I'm spending most of my time editing into the wee hours.  I presume the shot would have to be taken with a 35 or less with Bernstein not more than a foot or so from the camera, and would account for the effect of Welles coming in from the background right. 

Toland's work, what there is of it, is a master's class in cinematography.  Long Voyage Home is beautifully shot, as are The Westerner, Little Foxes, Best Years of Our Lives and the magnificent Song of the South.  Checking his CV, he started shooting in 1926, at the age of 22 on The Bat, and spent the next 22 years shooting great films.  Had he survived, I love to think of what he might have done in large format.

BTW, welcome to HTF.  If you'll take over this thread, I can work for a bit.

RAH