Hollywood loves to make films about Hollywood, and to turn the stars of the past into the heroes of contemporary films, even at the risk of producing revisionist versions of the history of the seventh art. ‘Mank‘ released in 2020 on Netflix, directed by David Fincher on a screenplay written many years ago by his father, Jack Fincher, brings to screen one of the contributors to film making lesser known today – the publicist and screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz. His name was perhaps unjustly forgotten, as he co-wrote with Orson Welles the screenplay of ‘Citizen Kane‘, considered one of the masterpieces of film history, and shared with him the only Academy Award that the film received, actually the only Academy Award that Welles ever received, if we exclude the honorary one from 1971. If we accept the version of events in the film, Mank was the one who won for Orson Welles this only Academy Award of his career. But let’s be honest, the screenwriters are often overshadowed by actors, directors and producers, and the posthumous glory that ‘Mank‘ creates for the film’s hero is an exception anyway. ‘Citizen Kane‘ is a masterpiece (and in the top 3 of my favorite films), David Fincher is an extremely talented director, the film ‘Mank‘ is interesting both because it addresses the controversy of the creation of the script and because it is originally made cinematically – so we have gathered almost all the premises for a success. Many of the promises are fulfilled, but not all.
The principal thread of the story in the film takes place in a period of 60 days, in a ranch isolated from the world, in which Orson Welles (Tom Burke) secludes Mankiewicz – Mank (Gary Oldman) to write the script of a future film that will become ‘Citizen Kane‘. Mank had just had a rather serious car accident, so he needed the presence of a nurse in addition to a typist. Both women are refugees from war-torn Europe – the echo of the global events that were taking place during the writing and making of the film. In addition, the screenwriter faces alcohol addiction, although it is not obvious that he could create or even live without it. The young director, already considered a genius, had almost complete control of the film by contract, but his success or failure depended on the quality of the script that Mank wrote. Through a series of flashbacks, viewers witness his struggle with the memories of a decade of activity in Hollywood, interleaved with the incidents of a rebellious screenwriter, talented and appreciated for his spirit and sense of humour, but often in conflict with the studio magnates and with the press tycoons. ‘Citizen Kane‘ will mirror these events in Mankiewicz’s life. We know the result, but the road to success was twisted, glory did not come immediately, and life never rewarded Welles or Mankiewicz in proportion to their talent and contributions to the art of film. If posterity already restored Welles’ glory, ‘Mank‘ – the movie tries to do the same for Herman Mankiewicz.
What I liked. The cinematography is extraordinary. David Fincher gave the film a look and feel as close as possible to the style of the period in which ‘Citizen Kane‘ was made. He used black and white, filmed and captured the sound with devices similar to those of the ’30s, framed and moved the cameras according to the rules of the time, and the soundtrack is mono. Gary Oldman creates a notable performance as Mank, but this is no surprise, Oldman is one of the most talented and versatile film actors today. Among the other acting interpretations, Amanda Seyfried stands out in the role of a diva of the time, a role that is likely to bring her a well-deserved Academy Award nomination for supporting female role. What I liked less. Flashbacks include many details and characters that are perhaps familiar to those very knowledgeable in the history of Hollywood in the 30s, but which will be unknown and will lose their effect for the rest of the audience (the vast majority). ‘Mank‘ is definitely a docu-drama, and I think that here David Fincher should have found the creative means to educate his less initiated spectators. Most of the supporting roles around Mank are a bit schematic, and worse, they include lines that sound ‘implanted’ from contemporary political speak. The intention of the authors to give current meanings and resonances to the events that take place on the screen was obvious, but I believe that this effect could have been achieved without explicit rhetoric.
For me, ‘Mank‘ changed the perspective of ‘Citizen Kane‘, which is, as I said, one of my favourite movies. I love Welles‘ film for two reasons – revolutionary cinematic art and courageous political attitude and message. ‘Mank‘ offers a new perspective, and attributes the political attitude, anti-populist message and anti-corporate satire not only to Welles but especially to the life experience of a brave and talented screenwriter, the son of Jewish immigrants from Europe, a rebel against great studios and of the magnates who led them. The future viewings of ‘Citizen Kane‘ will be for me and for many who will see ‘Mank‘, different.
