Mank (2020)

Directed by David Fincher; produced Ceán Chaffin, Eric Roth and Douglas Urbanski

Brilliant but alcoholic writer Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), injured in a car-wreck, is sent to a remote village in the desert to recover – and to work without distractions on his new project, the screenplay for a new film, Citizen Kane. As he struggles with the story, he recalls the various events that led to, and inspired, the script for what would become one of the most famous movies in history. Involving studio politics, personal enmity, love, friendship and death, Mankiewicz’s struggle becomes both typical of, and unique in, Hollywood.

A quietly excellent film, Mank creates a fascinating portrait of a talented man who, though he worked on the scripts of dozens of motion pictures, received credit for very little of his work, except, of course, the biggest movie of them all. Mank is more than a little reminiscent of Citizen Kane’s style, filmed in black-and-white, using flashbacks to tell the story of honesty and talent amid hypocrisy and corruption.

The writing is rich, as one would expect in a tale of those who live in and create make-believe, and if the words spoken are not genuine, then they are certainly credible. Mankiewicz here is very likeable, in a rascally fashion, good-hearted, intelligent and self-destructive. That self-destruction, while it ultimately led to his alcoholic demise, is shown in Mank to be less connected with drink as with lapses in judgement.

Those lapses allow the story to show other famous people of that most brilliant period of cinematic history, including John Houseman (Sam Troughton), Ben Hecht (Jeff Harms) and Charles MacArthur (John Churchill). Indeed, at times, though principally near the beginning, the script threatens to become similar to a Hollywood autobiography, full of name-dropping. This is, I think, more to establish the setting than for anything else.

Mankiewicz’s interaction, though, is less with other writers than with studio bosses. The latter are shown without exception to be interested only in their own success, and that of those they serve. Louis B Mayer (Arliss Howard) is depicted as a vicious humbug, and even Irving Thalberg (Ferdinand Kingsley), whom history usually treats well, is shown as putting profit – if not always money – ahead of principles.

The story does a good job of showing the evolution of the plot of Citizen Kane, as Mankiewicz becomes acquainted with William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his larger-than-life life. There is a memorable speech by an intoxicated Mankiewicz which explains, perhaps too literally, the allegory behind the story.

The great controversy of Citizen Kane – or, rather, the great controversy involving its script – is the involvement of Mankiewicz versus Orson Welles. Both won Oscars for the screenplay and both have their champions, one party believing that Mankiewicz alone wrote the script. That is the version shown in Mank. This is the primary flaw in the movie, as it is generally held that Welles had as great an input as did Mankiewicz, though possibly not at the same time. In fact, the argument over credit creates the impression in Mank that the two men grew to despise each other. Another view of their relationship – and of Welles’s part in Citizen Kane’s production - may be seen in RKO 281 with Liev Schreiber and John Malkovich (both miscast) as Welles and Mankiewicz, respectively.

The acting is uniformly superb. Oldman plays an earnest but broken man, someone who knows his strengths and his faults, and knows he doesn’t always use one set to cover the other. As he mutters to himself, with irony, after a hurtful faux pas, “Always the smartest guy in the room…” Oldman makes the viewer believe that Mankiewicz has both heart and brains, but doesn’t always use them.

Amanda Seyfried offers the best interpretation of Marion Davies, Hearst’s mistress, yet given on film, aided by her remarkable likeness to the earlier actress. There is heart to this character, too, and, if not a great intelligence, then sense, which she has more of than Mankiewicz. A positive element in the movie is the unlikely friendship that grows between her and Mankiewicz, each understanding and tolerating the other’s weaknesses. Dance gives a nearly subdued portrayal of Hearst, and there are times when one is almost sympathetic to the tyrannical tycoon, which is probably not the film’s intention.

The direction is in keeping with the rest of the movie’s quality, though it is not spectacular. It allows the actors to bring the script to life, and provides support, staying in the background, as it were. The sets, costumes and props are all convincing.

As history, Mank is like many films: it takes liberties with what really happen and, unfortunately, a partisan view of events. That aspect, mentioned earlier as the primary flaw, is joined by another, more unavoidable problem, in that it may be most appreciated by an audience already informed of the people and happenings shown. One might benefit from a programme, like those formerly given to play-goers, to describe the cast. In any case, however, Mank is a greatly entertaining, skillfully made movie, not perfect, but a must for anyone with even a vague interest in Hollywood’s Golden Era.