I’ve never seen it. Yeah, I know. But here is why: I fear it will be anticlimactic after all I’ve heard about it since yonks ago. I know a lot about it, but I’ve never seen it.
So, I am due to start this film on my laptop around 7pm, Central time tonight.
Any suggestions, tips, you can spoil it (I already know about Rosebud).
My only tip is to, as much as possible, let it take you where it wants to go, and just follow the stories and characters. You can wait for the 3rd or 4th viewing to start appreciating all the filmographic excellence.
In my mind, Kane is a fascinating character irrespective of the supposed parallels with W.R. Hearst. He is charming, dedicated, intelligent, and ultimately hollow. Watch for the telltales of what his real character is (which don’t, it seems to me, have much to do with Rosebud).
Roddy
It invented a lot of things, but you’ve seen them already in subsequent movies. So they won’t seem as new to you as they did to its original audience. Also, while it’s a masterpiece, there’s no way any film can have accumulated the baggage that CK has accumulated and not be overrated. Try to watch it with no expectations; just keep an eye on the carefully conceived visuals, and let the story take a back seat, as Welles did.
Here’s the briefest of capsules in this paper’s database. Not terribly informative, but an interesting point to keep in mind nonetheless.
Thank you for not laughing me out of CS. I am tired of being embarrassed that I haven’t seen it, so…
Off to make some tea and I’ll start it. I will come back and comment on it after I’m done.
Oh and, there are some interesting things to watch for under the heading Filmmaking Innovations.
Bring a book or gameboy or something. The film is very long, and much of it is not really interesting.
Orson Welles was a storyteller. Just relax and enjoy; it’s a very entertaining movie.
Ok, boys–I’ll make of that what I will. 
And now I have Endora to look forward to–I hope I don’t get Derwood et al in my head when she pops on the screen…
Off to watch. back later.
Please, don’t. Don’t watch this amazing film on a freaking LAPTOP screen! It was created for the theater and loses so much of it’s impact on a small screen. You should wait to see it in, at the very least, a reasonably sized home theater (50" screen or larger).
Watch the scene near the end where Kane takes Susan on a “picnic” on the jungly grounds of his Florida estate of Xanadu. Watch carefully. You will see what appear to be the shadows of pterodactyls in flight. Wells, for some reason, used some stock footage from King Kong for that scene.
Enjoy all the visuals. Before Wells, few film directors thought of showing the ceilings of rooms.
Appreciate the story as it is intended: A classic Greek tragedy, a great man brought down by his flaws.
I like the series of scenes with the first wife at the breakfast table. And the opera scenes.
Mostly this was because the earliest moviemakers almost always used natural lighting. This was usually achieved by building open-air studios, which included walls and floors but not roofs or ceilings.
The DVD I have of this movie includes a commentary track by Roger Ebert, who does a great job of explaining the significance of the movie, and how, in its own way and its time, was as much of a special effects extravaganza as Star Wars was.
Sit back and enjoy the show. When it seems like Wells is just chewing up the scenery, lean into it. When you see dozens of things you have seen in other movies or parodied on TV, remember, Citizen Kane started it.
It might also help to recall the Hearst hated the movie and felt it was a mockery of him.
I have a few suggestions.
If you close your eyes and squeeze them shut really hard you can see colorful blobs under your eyelids.
Try counting the number of times you breath between scenes, but try to time it so you always end on an even number.
Look at the clock and try factoring the number into it’s primes.
Pay attention to the deep focus. It’s the technique they used that allowed multiple depths to all be in focus at the same time. Watching it casually, you might not even notice it, but if you know to look for it, it’s a pretty neat effect.
also, enjoy it. It’s a great film. The whole rosebud thing isn’t that big a deal anyway, so knowing about it shouldn’t ruin anything. It’s really the little things that make it great.
Ok, this made me laugh out loud. 
I am done–not without some er, technical difficulties. This is the library’s copy of the DVD, so of course it failed just as the butler was about to “spill” about Rosebud. I got the laptop to “accept” the DVD again and did manage to finish it. My watching of it was not improved by the presence of #2 son (who is 10) interrupting with “who is that?” “I thought he was dead” etc. But, despite these issues, I have collected some of my thoughts:
You wouldn’t poo-poo my Macbook, if you could see the contrast/resolution and picture on our current TV. It’s so bad, you can’t read sports scores. The Macbook is quite clear and crisp. That said, I can see where some of the shots and scenes would benefit from a big screen. We did watch it in the dark.
Kane was a jerk. An obvious truism, but I want to get the plot out of the way. He was an infantile, egomaniacal son of a bitch. I will need to watch the first part of the movie again to figure out that wretched mother of his and the drunken lout of a father. I am still not clear on why Charlie had to with the banker. I also don’t quite understand why the deaths of his son and first wife don’t figure in more to the plot. I am also a bit confused on the timeline of the marriages.
Make up has come a loooooong way in film. Just read a very good article about Max Factor in the New Yorker, btw–he did makeup for films, indeed, he revolutionized it.
Miscellany: the shooting of this film is incredible. Some of it overdone to our postmodern tastes, but for sheer emotional effect, it can’t be beat. I especially like the lighting of some of the early scenes–I think it’s when Thompson is going to read Thatcher’s diary–the way that is lit and shot is not only artistic, but adds weight and feeling to the story.
The way his excess is portrayed–the echoes of their voices, the long shots so that no coziness is possible in Xanadu, the vast empty space of that “house”. I also picked up on the closed down ceilings in the newspaper rooms and Susan’s weird cottagey retreat (with the animals all stenciled over the beams)–much of the interior shots were vaguely oppressive, when they weren’t just overwhelming.
The way the monster is revealed in ordinary dialogue and scenes is masterfully done. I started out feeling sympathy for poor little Charlie and ended up thinking of Gatsby: “poor son of a bitch.”
I did recognize lots of shots–they’re so iconic, but it didn’t detract from it at all. It’s not a real fun movie (although it had more humor in it than I expected. I have never heard the humor mentioned).
Questions: of what significance is the scream heard during the “picnic” just after Susan is slapped and says, “don’t say sorry” etc? Is it supposed to be Susan screaming inside her head or what?
And was Leland supposed to be a chronic drunk? Bernstein says no, but he always seems to be drunk, once he’s transferred to Chicago.
Lots is there and I’m glad I watched it. Now I have to see 2001 (which I fell asleep at the first time I tried to watch) among others.
Comments?
I’m late to this (damned laundry) but I would have said this too. I had tried to watch Citizen Kane several times over the years and always got distracted, or bored, or fell asleep, and could not for the life of me understand what people saw in it. Then the 50th Anniversary print was released in theaters and I thought, what the hell, it’s gotta be different on the big screen. I couldn’t have been more right. I was enthralled throughout the whole thing, was able to pay very close attention to little details that got lost on the small screen, was able to appreciate the filming, lighting, sets and storytelling techniques, and by the end, I completely and totally understood why it’s generally considered the best film ever made. Not that I necessarily agree with that, but I wouldn’t argue the point, and it’s certainly not even in my Top 50 of favorite films, but I understood why OTHERS thought of it so highly. It just is not the same film on a small screen.
And a laptop, too. cry
I first saw **Citizen Kane **when I was in high school. I had heard that it was such a masterpiece of cinematic art, etc, etc. I was fully expecting it to be oh so incredibly boring. Man was I wrong!
crycrycry
After 2001, be sure to check out Lawrence of Arabia