The story of Citizen Kane's restoration

[David Ferguson]

I saw an interesting thread on Twitter by Nicolas Falacci talking about his involvement in the restoration of Citizen Kane, and the sad state of the original material:

After NYU, I was working in a film restoration lab in NYC. It had two employees. Me. And a crazy, secretive Yugoslavian chemist that had devised a treatment that could remove most scratches from film. We restored any and every type of film. From the oil-slicked pornos of the Old School Times Square theaters to Ira Gershwin’s and Gary Cooper’s home movies. I inspected and restored the technicolor fine grain masters of the racist 30s and 40s Warner Bros cartoons - cartoons so odious in their racial content you’ll never see them broadcast again. The original financiers of the Coen Bros brought in their early dupe negatives of Blood Simple to clean up. We restored the entire collection of Josephine Baker movies. And much to my delight as a climber, the surviving relative of a member of the U.S. 1938 K2 expedition came to us to restore and video transfer the original expedition film.

I worked on 16mm Kodachrome originals from the 30s. Worked on nitrate originals. Dupes, negs, masters. Everything.

Then one day film cans began to arrive. Lots of them. Pallets stacked with canisters of prints. Boxes and boxes full of dupe negatives and fine grain masters. We were stacking it all right up to the ceiling. And it was my job to go through all of it ... ALL of it ...

Frame by frame. Literally. Frame by frame.

The film, of course, was the motherload. The film that continues to produce Cinematic Microwave Background radiation that permeates everything in American cinema without you even knowing it. In other words, it is the Big Bang of American film art: Citizen Kane.

I was confused. Why was what seemed to be every single lab and print element of Citizen Kane doing stacked like a Great Wall of cinema behind my inspection desk? And why was there this older RKO executive showing up every day nervous and sweating? Eager to read every single one of my inspection reports?

The answer was - the 50th anniversary of Kane was approaching and suddenly someone very important had told this older RKO executive to find a pristine copy of the movie for a video master. And this RKO man seemed to be incredibly anxious about that task. It was like ... he knew I wouldn’t find any pristine prints. Or dupes. Or FGMs.

And I did not.

Reel after reel had problems.

Deep emulsion scratches. Negative dirt. Missing frames. Poor sound.

As the days went on, even more pallets and boxes showed up. There was no room to walk in our lab. I had to crawl over and around the canisters and crates and boxes. And as the days went on, the RKO executive grew more agitated and distraught. The phone kept ringing. Just so you know ... the phone rarely ever rang in the lab. We were in the Film Center building in Hell’s Kitchen. Most of the major labs were in the building. Most work walked in the door.

Now ... the phone was ringing. All day.

But every time I opened a fresh box and pulled out another Fine Grain Master or Dupe negative and loaded up the spools on my inspection table ... disappointment struck again. Often in the form of emulsion scratches but also in the form of poor contrast and exposure. There were registration problems. The blacks were not black. Not deep. Or the shadows were too black, too contrasting.

And the RKO man began to show up each day looking more frayed and desperate.

More people started to show up. Technicians from Technicolor. Fotokem. Other labs. This was a big deal.

One day, I naively asked, "So ... what about using the camera negative?" And two lab techs looked at me like I just asked them something incredibly stupid and incredibly dangerous. I got no answer.

So after 4 weeks I handed over the best elements I could find.

I had been instructed to simply grab the best of what there was regardless of the element. Print, dupe negative, fine grain master. Mix and match. I did the best I could. Much of it was decent. But I could not find a replacement for one 6 second section. A section that was hideously scraped by white emulsion scratches. White because they scratches ALL the emulsion off the base until nothing but the base was left and light shine through.

Months later - the 50th Anniversary release of Citizen Kane arrived in small art house theaters. I went to see how it looked. The six seconds of brutal emulsion scratches were still there.

A week later, one of the lab techs who had helped came by and I brought up the issue. Why wasn’t there a pristine copy? Why was RKO man so upset? WHERE was the camera negative? Now, if you Google Citizen Kane original negative, you’ll be taken to sites that mention the story of how the Kane camera original negative was burned in a storage/warehouse fire.

And you’ll notice that the most recent restoration of Kane STILL relies on prints and masters.

STILL to this day, no really good "pristine" HD or 4K master exists. The newest "pristine" master out there was cobbled together from private collection prints, masters and dupes. Slate did a piece on it. In that article is a fascinating quote. The person who supervised that restoration said, "I've never seen any documented proof that it was destroyed."

He says that in a hopeful manner. As if maybe someone just came along before the fire and checked out the negative. The problem is ... I think someone did. But it’s what he did with the camera negative that’s a problem.

See, when that lab tech came by a week after the release of the 50th anniversary and I asked him again about what was going on with the RKO executive ... he looked at me then looked around to make sure we were alone.

And then he said, "He was worried the real story would come out." I shrugged. "Real story?" The tech leaned in close and told me quietly ...

"He used to be in charge of the inventory. He sent the Kane camera original to—"

And now he dropped his voice down a whole other level of volume. "—a reclamation plant."

The confusion on my face led him to be more specific. "By mistake ... he sent it to a silver reclamation plant."

The tech arched his eyebrows and then pantomimed zipping his lips.

So I have no way of verifying that story. But as of yet, there is no verification of Citizen Kane being lost in a warehouse fire either.

But if there are people still holding out hope like Ned Price that the original negative might just show up somewhere ... I hate to say it, but the odds are this will never happen.

The odds are this story is likely true. And Welles’ and Toland’s camera original negative was destroyed in a silver reclamation plant that strips the silver that used to be in the emulsion of older films.

[William Uhlhorn]

What a great story. Thanks.

[Leo Enticknap]

Ironically, Hearst tried to pay off RKO to send the negative to a recycling plant about 30 years before that allegedly happened!

I had always heard that after the o-neg's disappearance in the 1970s, the best surviving element was generally accepted to be the dupe neg that was shipped to the UK to strike the release prints for that market, and which is now held by the British Film Institute. I've seen one or two prints that derive from it, and can't remember any scratchy 6-second section, though. There again, I haven't seen the movie since 2014 (I did so on BD to refresh my memory, shortly after a visit to Hearst Castle), and on 35mm since the 1990s.

[Jim Cassedy]

Having worked for at a film lab for awhile many years ago, I was often surprised and/or shocked at how poorly many film-makers treated their negatives or other elements after the original print run. Some time back in the late 80's, I was tasked to help find the 'missing' original title elements for a major film, produced by an academy award winning film-maker, that were needed for some reason I can't quite recall. (I think it had something to do with the film about to be released to either HBO or DVD, and the wide-screen titles were going to have to be re-formatted to fit the smaller screen) They were finally found, somewhat mislabeled, in a stack of cardboard lab-boxes and film cans that were stashed in the back of a closet in the reception area of the film-makers office- - where on rainy days employees hung their wet coats & umbrellas, which then dripped water onto the cans & boxes below. Fortunately, most of the water damage was to the ink on the can & box labels, making a few illegible, - - but still- - I just couldn't believe they had been stored that way for several years, especially given that this was a major motion picture.

[Randy Stankey]

I wonder how much this has to do with Orson Wells being blacklisted?

At one time he would have been considered "poison" and people might have done things like scrap his film, either our of spite or because they thought nobody cared.

Later, Citizen Kane became famous and people who, at first, shunned Wells and his movies suddenly realized that he was popular...AND...they could make money with that movie. They find themselves scrambling to find parts of the movie so that they can remaster and re-release it.

Also, toss in the fact that Wells had a reputation or being rather "difficult" and you've got a recipe for disaster.

[Leo Enticknap]

You could have something there. I've just done a brief five minutes of Googling, expecting to find that the movie didn't become an arthouse classic, and celebrated by critics and professors, until the '70s and '80s. This would perhaps have accounted for no special due dilligence (over and above what any commercial lab or vault facility would be expected to do) being done to prevent the accidental loss of the o-neg.

Actually, what seems to have happened is that the French auteurist critics started talking and writing about it in the late '40s and '50s, and then repeated broadcasts on US television in the '50s and '60s cemented its reputation as a classic. The film actually received a new lease of critical life in the early '70s when this book challenged the "Welles as creative genius" position, arguing that most of the innovation came from Mankiewicz (a theme taken up much later in Mank), and almost going as far as to suggest that Welles was essentially a charlatan. Maybe the o-neg was at that lab where it accidentally either burned or was sent for recycling, because the controversy stirred up by Kael's book resulted in demand for more prints?

My point is that critics and professors have the power to turn a movie from something that costs a nonprofit archive money to preserve, to one that makes significant money for its current rights owner. Another case in point is Vertigo: overlong, pretentious, ham acted, and in serious contention with Waltzes from Vienna for IMHO, Hitchcock's worst movie. But the feminist and psychoanalytic critics of the '70s and '80s celebrated it as a masterpiece, which I'm sure is the main reason why Universal invested, in the mid-1990s, in what was then probably the most expensive commercial film restoration project ever undertaken. When every 19-year old liberal arts student is forced to watch the thing at metaphorical gunpoint, that will translate into a lot of DVD and streaming sales.

So, however much Welles had a reputation for being a unpleasant narcissist, his communist sympathies, and all the other reasons why, like Fritz Lang, he pissed off the Hollywood establishment so royally that he spent the last part of his career scratching together low budget arthouse projects, by the time that the loss of the Kane o-neg happened, the movie's IP had established long-term commercial value. I would therefore be surprised if the o-neg's destruction were deliberate. However, accidentally sending it for recycling is a pretty embarrassing mistake to make, so I can easily believe that those responsible were seriously touchy about it! If someone accidentally threw out the o-neg of Wombling Free now, it would hardly make the front page of the Journal of Film Preservation. But if that happens, and then in a decade's time, a big cultural personality comes along and "rediscovers" it as some sort of masterpiece, that earlier decision would likely come in for a lot of flak.

[Mitchell Dvoskin]

I had access to a 35mm print of Kane from the 40th anniversary reissue in 1990 up until a few years ago. I can tell you that there were no bad sections anywhere in the print. However, looking at the reels on hand rewinds, every kind of soundtrack imaginable (bi-lateral, single lateral, density, etc.) was there, all without any splices in the release print reel. This indicated to me that this was not really a restoration but rather the composite negative was pieced together from the various best elements that the studio had laying around.

[Sam Chavez]

I'm in agreement with Leo regards his research on CK. And on Vertigo being a bloated effort, definitely his worst film. Orson Welles was a regular visitor to San Simeon and was quite a willing participant in the scene there. Can you imagine an ego maniac like Heart being amused by one of his houseguests trashing him on film? (Insert Trump here). The poster art on CK was quite modest, it was never intended to be an epic, it was partially the story of Hearst trying to destroy Welles that was legend. Alexander Korda's grandson was interviewed at a festival about various Korda productions, including the making of "Third Man". They chased the elusive Welles around Europe to book him for that role because of he was the perfect Harry Lime, and he owed Korda money. They are flying back to post war London in a chartered plane, Welles in the back sampling each and every treat in a giant exotic fruit basket meant for folks back home who had seen little in the way of fresh fruit throughout the war. And this is how Art gets made.

[Sam Chavez]

"19 year old liberal arts student forced to watch at metaphorical gunpoint" made my morning. I projected most of the films Leo alludes to at Pauline Kaels Rep house in Berkeley in the mid '60's.

[David Ferguson]

Actually, what seems to have happened is that the French...

Speaking of "the French", if you've not seen the outtakes from Orson Welles's "Paul Masson" commercials, then it's well worth seeing! Very funny, but in a sad way that he was reduced to acting in commercials in order to try and finance his other projects.

[Sam Chavez]

I have seen these commercials. He seems to state with some irony, "This may be the best wine YOU have ever tasted."

[Leo Enticknap]

The implication being that YOU (the little people watching the ad) are unlikely to pour anything more exotic than Two Buck Chuck down your throats, whereas HE would never settle for anything less than Chateau Wanquer '59? Sounds about right for Welles.

I think what turned me against him was having to QC a new DCP of F For Fake a few years ago when I was working at the Egyptian. The programmer was paranoid about it (VIPs were to be in the audience), so she had me sit through the whole show. Such self absorbed, self promoting garbage does not make it onto the screen very often, but this qualifies. And when an American shoots a movie in 1.66, YOU know that's a pretentious BS alert! That having been said, there's a lot that I like about The Magnificent Ambersons - including the studio's decision to reshoot the ending. After wading through the novel, I formed the view that Welles did a brilliant job of condensing and focusing it, but I shudder to think how depressing and wrist-slitting his original last four reels must have been. Probably not as downbeat as the infamous 37-hour director's cut of Greed (or however long it actually was), but a respectable second.

Orson Welles was a regular visitor to San Simeon and was quite a willing participant in the scene there.

I wonder if Marion Davies was mean to him, and that explains why the movie is, arguably, even more vicious to her than to Hearst himself? Hearst was a high profile individual by his own choice, and therefore arguably fair game; but Davies had retired completely from public life by 1937, which makes me queasy about Welles's hatchet job. In particular, the opera scenes, in which he portrays her as a sort of Florence Foster Jenkins (i.e. completely untalented) are at best grossly exaggerated and at worst flat out wrong.

[Mark Gulbrandsen]

I have seen these commercials. He seems to state with some irony, "This may be the best wine YOU have ever tasted."

Here are some Orsen outtakes from the Paul Mason commercials...

[Martin Brooks]

Actually, what seems to have happened is that the French auteurist critics started talking and writing about it in the late '40s and '50s, and then repeated broadcasts on US television in the '50s and '60s cemented its reputation as a classic. The film actually received a new lease of critical life in the early '70s when this book challenged the "Welles as creative genius" position, arguing that most of the innovation came from Mankiewicz (a theme taken up much later in Mank), and almost going as far as to suggest that Welles was essentially a charlatan. Maybe the o-neg was at that lab where it accidentally either burned or was sent for recycling, because the controversy stirred up by Kael's book resulted in demand for more prints?

Back in the 70's, I was a recording engineer and producer at a NYC recording studio that produced its own syndicated radio shows. We tried to do a show with Pauline Kael, but when the studio owner couldn't initially sell the show, he had me cut it up in five minute segments which Kael hated and she bailed saying, "if this what commercial radio is like, I'll go back to Pacifica." But we had her interviews with Woody Allen, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Alfred Hitchcock and Peter Bogdanovich already in the can. (They were never aired.) During the recording of the interview with Bodanovich, they got into a fight over the part in "Raising Kane" where Kael maintained that one scene happened because the cinematographer just kept the camera rolling and I believe she also maintained that there was some improvisation. Bogdanovich got so angry that he walked out, but later called to apologize. (I guess he figured he would never get a positive review again.) I was begging them to "just do five more minutes", but they refused.

In the end, Kael should have stuck around because it did wind up being a half-hour show with some interviews spread over two or three shows. It wound up being aired five days a week, with four different hosts: Nat Hentoff (Jazz critic and Village Voice columnist), Richard Reeves (NY Magazine), Gerard Piel (Scientific American) and Paul Finney (Business Week). Hentoff wound up doing most of the entertainment industry interviews. We initially replaced Kael with film history author Arthur Knight, but that didn't last long. He did manage an interview with Paul Mazursky.

While the story told in the OP is a great one and sounds authentic, I have the 70th Anniversary Blu-ray boxed set and while I haven't watched it in a number years, I remember it looking quite good. So either they found more elements or they created some new magic to make it look better. (There's also a similar 75th Anniversary edition, but I suspect it's the same master and I suppose there's a possibility we'll see an 80th anniversary edition later this year).

[Sam Chavez]

Bogdanovich got so angry that he walked out, but later called to apologize. (I guess he figured he would never get a positive review again.).

Great reading after all this time. Bogdonavich's story is quite interesting as well. His continuing role in Soprano's as a shrink where he's called a smug cocksucker pretty well sums it up.