There was never any doubt in my mind what film I would use to lead things off with were I to be given the chance to show classic American films as part of the film series. So when at the start of my second year English Fans Association gave me the green light, the only question was whether I would be able to find what was in my mind the sine qua non of any American film series. Weeks of scouring DVD booths had netted a reasonable collection of titles on the American Film Institute’s list on top one hundred American films: On the Waterfront, Harvey, Taxi Driver, The Godfather, Patton, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Casablanca, Rocky, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Dr. Strangelove, The Graduate, and Singin’ in the Rain. But it was about a week before the deadline for me to submit my film list that I was able to track down a copy of Citizen Kane with Chinese subtitles.
Granted, it was not the most original choice.  Indeed, it is worth asking, in a film series intended to teach about American culture, what exactly one learns about the aforementioned subject from Citizen Kane. The larger than life Kane is something of an iconic American figure. Not quite a self-made man but one who through the sheer force of his personality manages to impose himself on the American consciousness. On display as well is the opulent wealth many associate with America. But at the heart of the movie, and one of the elements responsible for its greatness, is the tragedy of Kane, a man unable to love, and this tragedy is universal more than simply American. For all of this, it still seemed to me safer to include than to leave out what is by general consensus the greatest American film..
 I begin the post-film discussion with the familiar Citizen Kane mantra just to make sure everyone is on the same page. “Rosebud is the name of the sled, right?” Before the film I had advised them to pay special attention to the term not only because understanding it was crucial to understanding the movie but also because I would ask them about it at the end. In response to my query, they all nod. But it is that way they have of nodding here when they have no idea what you said but do not want to appear clueless. I have witnessed that nod enough times in my classroom to recognize and dread it. Indeed, by now I should know better than to ask any question remotely formulated as “do you understand?” because they will invariably say “yes.” To say no, you do not understand, would be to risk losing face.
After asking the fifth person and getting no response, it dawns on me that no one here knows what the hell a “sled” is. They had never learned the word and who can blame them? It is doubtless not a high frequency term in a climate without snow and a culture without a Christmas tradition. But I also think the problem was not merely informational but metaphysical as well.  In The Geography of Thought, Richard E. Nisbett argues for differences in the way Easterners and Westerners perceive reality. Westerners tend to view the world as made up of discrete objects, while Easterners focus more on the relations between objects. A sled in the snow and a sled about to be tossed in the fire is still the same sled for the Westerner. But take the sled out of its context for the Easterner, and it is has an entirely different reality. This explanation, which did not occur to me until I had read through Nisbett’s book much later, still seems to me the most accurate explanation for their confusion at the end of the film.
In any case, we soon moved past this mix up to discuss some of the more substantive issues of the movie. One of the things I admired about the audience for these films, perhaps because it reflected one of my own tendencies in watching movies, is that they invariably wanted to know what moral of the movie was, what the filmmaker wanted us to take away from the film. Granted, there is nothing wrong with watching a film just to be entertained. But my student audience in China perceived of this as a less important aspect of a film that what lesson it was supposed to teach
When it came to discussing the moral of Kane’s life, we returned, if not to the sled itself at least to the idea of the sled. Here, Nisbett seems relevant as well to understanding the shape of the discussion, though again it was not until months afterwards that I ran across his book. He argues that while Westerners attribute behavior to personal agency, Easterners are much more likely to ascribe it to the context of the situation. As a result, they tend to be more sympathetic to the idea that external events cause people to behave the way they do. This, at least, was precisely how the audience interpreted Kane’s actions. The main reason offered up to explain his difficulty in loving others was that he himself failed to receive love growing up. This group seemed to be channeling Aristotle as well, describing Kane as not a particularly virtuous person but  not a bad person either, which is of course one of the main attributes of the classic tragic figure according to the Poetics. By the end of the discussion I was far from certain that I had been able to convey the greatness of the film, or that they were particularly impressed. But I at least felt I had discharged the duty on my end. They had watched the greatest American film.

How to follow this up? Can anything that follows the greatest American film but be a disappointment? Fortunately, as I said, they were not that taken with Citizen Kane. I doubt most American undergraduates would be either. I was pretty sure, though, that the next movie would go over well. Chinese students love a good love story, especially a tragic one. Titanic is far and away student’s favorite film as my culture class surveys showed. Of course, this is in part because roughly ninety percent of my students are female. But so was ninety percent of the audience for movie night. So I felt pretty sure that the classic version of Titanic would be a hit. Like the Leonardo DiCaprio movie, the hero in Casablanca does not get the girl in the end either. But at least Bogie has the good sense not to die.
I only found out afterwards that the Communist Party had originally booked the room for the evening, but that they graciously gave it over to the foreigner. I would like to think nostalgia had something to do with it. After all, we were allies during World War II. In addition to this auspicious event, the film started with the most lavish introduction to any film in the series, as the student who had taken control of the English Fans Association, Lionel, put together a full fledged power point presentation, beginning with taking the students on a Google earth flight from Chengdu to Casablanca and ending with a recorded version of the song “Casablanca”—a song which I had never even heard of—while stills from the movie flashed across the screen
But despite the good omens, the film faltered out of the starting blocks as the movie was plagued with technical difficulties. To begin, it turned out the DVD had a commentary track on it, which we were never able to get off the screen. It kept flashing tidbits of information in Mandarin at fairly regular intervals throughout the film. In addition, the subtitles kept switching languages. I counted five: Mandarin, Korean, Spanish, Arabic and English. But I think I may have missed one. Whenever this would happen someone would have to jump up and switch back to the original. Fortunately, things calmed down enough for the audience to laugh during the famous “shocked, shocked” line, as Claude Rains tells Bogie he is shutting down the Café because he found there is gambling on the premise—just as he is being given his winnings. But the problem reemerges near the end so that no one knew what the hell was going on when Bogart shoots the German general and Louie lies about it and I have to spend the first ten minutes of the discussion time clearing this up.
The discussion afterwards demonstrated at least that they had understood the basic dynamic of the movie as we begin to engage in the classic “should she or shouldn’t she” have stayed with Bogie. I was pretty convinced I knew where they were going to come down based on a recent culture class where I had shown Lady Chatterly’s Lover, or at least the first twenty or so minutes, which was all that was really safe to watch on the version I was showing. At the point where Lord Chatterly suggests that his wife take a lover, I stopped and I asked the students what they thought she should do. Sentiments ran pretty strongly in one direction. The following comments were typical: “If she loves her husband, she will not do this. Because the love exists in spiritual, not sex.” “As you and your husband love and respect each other, you shouldn’t have the affair as it will do harm to your relationship.” One of the more novel and popular suggestions was that she divorce her husband but continue to look after him.
In any case, there was a strong sentiment towards marital fidelity, and I thought that would probably win the day here.  But in fact, the majority of students wanted her to stay with Bogart, and when I mentioned that one version of the movie had actually been written with that ending, they said that is the one they would have preferred.
I had missed one crucial difference between the Casablanca scenario and the Lady Chatterly scenario. The latter was about sex, not love. Once they became convinced that Ingmar Bergman loved Bogie, all bets were off.
The next film was a bona fide hit, surprisingly so. Who knew a film about a six foot invisible rabbit would be such a big hit? But Harvey was the runaway favorite of the film series. I think it speaks well of the character of anyone these days if they can appreciate and enjoy this film. I am pretty sure my students in the States would be much too cynical. All the worse for them. But their reaction endeared these students to me forever. Here are some of their reactions:
          “This is a real classic film. After seeing the film, I think everyone has a Harvey. Because, in my opinion, Harvey stands for the good or happy things which we are looking for. What's more, Harvey may also be a representation of the wonderful things that remain in our memory for a long time.”
           “Although the rabbit in the movie is invisible, he exists in Elwood's heart. When Elwood is lonely or depressed, he could turn to the rabbit for help, so he feels happy together with the rabbit...And Elwood is very friendly and kind-hearted to everyone. In our real world, we need more of this kind of people. Maybe this is what the movie teaches us.”
            “I don't think Elwood is crazy and I believe Harvey really exists. In fact, many people like to talk with themselves or other symbols of themselves. Sometimes it's a rabbit, a tiger, etc. The only thing distinguished us from Dowd is that we have not the courage to introduce our "Harvey" to others.”
          “I don't think Elwood is crazy. Elwood just want to get happy life and a loyal friend. Harvey is the pookey that Elwood imagine and want to share is happiness and sorrow with. I think Elwood is very lovely and kind and clever. He want everyone who he loves and all his friends to be happy.”
       “Maybe the film just want to tell us something about our dream or something that is difficult to gain. At this time, people may imagine something just like the pookah to console themselves. I'm not sure, but I think this is a good film. I learned a lot from this movie.”