Next Saturday night, in a city about an hour away from me, they’re going to play The Greatest Movie Of All Time on the big screen. I think I’m gonna go see it – I’m not doing anything else that night. I’ve seen the movie quite a few times, but always only on TV. I like it, but I don’t yet love it, and I wonder if seeing it as it was meant to be seen will make that difference.
Anyways, would YOU drive an hour to see it? What if it was a two hour drive?
Absolutely. I once drove a half-hour through a terrifying rainstorm to see L’Avventura on the big screen; surely Kane is worth twice the drive.
Heck no. I get Homer’s Illiad, Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare’s King Lear, Spielburg’s ET, but I just can’t grasp Welles’ Citizen Kane, excepting of course the technical stuff. It is remarkably dull IMO.
Nope. I saw it (once) on the medium screen in college during film class, and that was enough. Sort of like drinking yak urine, it’s nice to say you’ve done it once, but there’s really no need to belabor the point.
I’d drive **three **hours to see Serenity 2: River Boogaloo, however. 
No.
Count me in this group. I have seen all of Citizen Kane in various chunks but have never been able to sit through the whole thing. I wouldn’t walk across the road to see it again.
Yep, great flick.
There’s something profoundly amazing about seeing a great flick that you’ve only seen on TV on the big screen – I’ve had that experience with The Wizard of Oz and Top Hat.
So, yeah, I would.
twicks, who likes, but doesn’t worship, Citizen Kane
For someone who is into film, it took me a remarkably long time to get round to seeing Citizen Kane. I’d heard about the technical aspects of the film, especially the use of deep focus; but by the time I saw it it was no longer new. I thought the technique was overused. But again: This is from a perspective decades on. At the time it was released it was quite novel.
The story itself was good. I didn’t find it ‘remarkably dull’ at all. I do have it on DVD, so I liked it enough to buy it.
But would I drive an hour to watch it on a big screen? Not if I was alone. If I was going with a friend who just had to see it, or with a group, then I’d probably go. I think it should be seen because it is a landmark film in filmmaking, because it’s an important point of commonality when you’re being a film geek, for the then-innovative techniques, and simply because it’s a good film. If you’ve never seen it and you have the opportunity to see it projected, then I’d say go. Otherwise it’s really a YMMV situation.
Go for it. I drove an hour through pissing rain one Halloween night (therefore seriously running a car-egging risk) to see Nosferatu in a newly restored old church, with the score played live by two pianists dressed as dracula (and the score was updated, riffing slyly on the Jaws Theme, the Star Wars theme, The Halloween theme, and eh, Seven Nation Army, among others). The church was full of kids who were really fucking terrified and there was an intermission in the middle where everyone got Brack and played Halloween games. One of the Best “cinema” trips ever. Seeing a movie in a certain surrounding will make all the difference, so whereas I still havent watched Citizen Kane (cant summon the patience to sit down and watch it on DVD) I would DEFINATLY go see it in the surroundings you describe.
I saw it on the big screen. Unfortunately, it was the first time I’d seen it and I was about 19 or 20. I liked it but didn’t love it. I’ve seen it several times since, taken a college class on it, written more than one essay on it, and it has become my favorite film.
I’d drive three hours to see it on the big screen now.
I won’t stand here on a pulpit and preach, but let me say a few quick words on it. If you’ve seen “all of Citizen Kane in various chunks” then you have not seen it at all. Sit down and watch it or just say you haven’t seen it. Everyone talks about the technical aspects of this movie and, while they’re impressive for their time, they’re 65 years old and frankly not enough to hold anyone’s attention anymore. The true power of the movie, the part no one ever talks about, is the story. Watch it again and forget about chiaroscuro, mise-en-scene, long-sequence deep-focus, and all of the other technical “wonders” you’ve been told to look for. Immerse yourself in Kane’s story, think about it. Start here: The movie has little to do with Rosebud, and knowing what it is isn’t much of a spoiler.
bubastis, that sounds amazing. Where was that at?
I bet the film would have a few more fans if it was the subject of perpetual Saturday night screenings with audience participation along the lines of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Except for Kane, you’d be largely limited to dressing up in a tuxedo or in opera or showgirl drag, shlepping an old-fashioned sled, rolling snowglobes down the aisles, and throwing handfuls of puzzle pieces at the screen.
For that, I’d drive an hour each way. Otherwise, phhhhtttbt.
I suspect that most people who don’t like Citizen Kane think that “Rosebud” is just a sled. I wouldn’t say that it’s the best movie ever made, but it’s definitely a great one with some masterful performances by Orsen Welles, Joseph Cotton, Ray Collins, and others. Particularly noteworthy is the scene where Kane finishes the scathing review of his wife’s performance.
And while it wasn’t the first film to do so, the narrative technique–telling the entire story in flashback, from the outside point of view of a reporter trying to unravel the mystery of Kane’s dying word–was adopted and used by many other filmmakers owing to its effective use in Citizen Kane. (See Raging Bull, Goodfellas, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, and The Quiet American for examples of this.) You can’t watch it piecemeal, though; it moves very quickly–less than two hours to cover the rise and fall of a media tycoon–and gives no quarter to the inattentive. It also helps–though is not strictly necessary–to know the backstory behind the film, particularly the transparent allusions to William Randolph Hearst.
But then, I think that Ronin is a neo-noir/action masterpiece, The Third Man is a better film than Casablanca, and Being John Malkovich is one of the funniest films ever made, and few seem to concur, so what do I know?
Stranger
Yes
Yes.