By Sydney Ladensohn Stern
Translator: Issac
Proofreading: Easy two three
Source: Criterion (January 14, 2021)
In writing the first draft of Orson Wells's 1941 biopic about William Randolph Hirst, Herman Mankiewicz was a venerable Hollywood screenwriter who seemed unlikely to be the protagonist of a 2020 biopic.
Few people will remember him now except for the fandom, but David Finch's Mank tells his story, paying a loving tribute to Hollywood's Golden Age films, his clear dissection of the studios of the time, surprisingly aptly and appropriately describing the fake news pranks of the 1930s, and his unabashed homage to Citizen Kane, all wrapped up in this trendy and retro film.
Manke (2020)
Wells was well respected as the 25-year-old prodigy behind Citizen Kane, but he was also a promising young man when Helman Mankiewicz entered Hollywood in 1926. At the age of 28, he was not only George W. Bush. Assistant theatre editor for The New York Times under S. Kaufman and the first theatrical critic of The New Yorker, he was also an aspiring playwright who worked with Kaufman and Mark Cornelly.
Unfortunately, Herman was an alcoholic, a good gambler, and was often fired. So despite his disdain for the film industry, he occasionally tried to escape back to his native New York to find his friends in the Algon Round Table writers' group, all of which ended in failure, and he spent the rest of his life in Hollywood.
Herman Mankiewicz
At first he was successful. As head of Paramount's screenwriting division, he recruited journalist friends who created many of the funny, sensual films of the 1930s. He produced "Mischief" and "On your Toes", starring the Max Brothers.
At MGM, David O. Selznick asked Herman to write an all-star adaptation based on George Kaufmann and Edna Faeb's hit play The Dinner. As the first screenwriter of The Wizard of Oz, he objected to an adaptation of the book, then said that if the studio insisted, they should make Oz in color and then present the Kansas footage in black and white, a suggestion that led to the film's use of the iconic dark brown.
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
It was shortly thereafter that Mank began telling the story, and Herman began his journalism career, trying to restart his journalism career on his way to the East, but fate struck him in. In the 1940s, Citizen Kane revived Herman's career, but his career went downhill again, dying in 1953 at the age of 55.
After that, he was largely forgotten until February 1971, when the New Yorker published a two-part, 50,000-word essay by Pauline Kyle in which she took credit for the script from Orson Wells, almost entirely to Herman.
Kyle's inaccurate and unfair description is actually an attempt to refute the critics of authorship, arguing that Citizen Kane is not the product of a man's unique talent and vision, but rather the best example of the film studio system. Kyle's claim to defend Herman was so exaggerated, and her rebuttal of Wells was so heinous that although her argument was debunked at the time, Wells's defenders have been attacking Herman ever since.
Citizen Kane (1941)
In October 2019, I published Herman and his more successful brother, screenwriter and director Joseph M. Biography of L. Mankiewicz (Comet Beauty, Cleopatra). In my mind's eye, after about a decade of living with Herman, I had mixed feelings about the prospect of making a biographical film by David Finch. Like most biographers, I have become an expert on the subject, and although I envisioned the film as a way to elevate Herman's image, film is such a powerful medium that I know that, even if inaccurate, Finch's concept and Gary Oldman's interpretation will be a popular version of Herman for the foreseeable future.
I am greatly relieved that they pay a lot of attention to accuracy. In fact, when I first saw Herman, Joe, and Herman's wife, Sarah, on screen, and heard them say a lot of what they said in my book, it was an incredibly touching experience. They were Herman, Joe and Sarah as I imagined them. It's a wonderful kind of surrealism.
David Finch thought about Herman decades earlier than I did. His love of cinema stemmed from his late father, journalist Jack Finch, who became interested in Kyle's work when he was in junior high school because both father and son highly regarded Citizen Kane. The emotional and newspaper background of the Max brothers portrayed by Herman provided material for Citizen Kane, which intrigued him, so when Jack retired around 1991 and wanted to write the screenplay, David suggested that he take Herman as a subject.
Jack loved the idea, and over the years he wrote one draft after another while David tried to make it a reality. It took nearly 30 years for the film to find a producer, largely because David insisted on shooting in black and white. When Netflix agreed, Jack, who died in 2003, didn't live to see the final result. David dedicated Mank to his father.
Author: I've been reading in reviews the story of someone describing Manke as a battle over the authorship rights of Citizen Kane's script. Many thought you would support Pauline Kyle's one-sided description of Herman's contribution to film. Some complained that Mank despised Wells.
Director: I'm not interested in the conflict between Herman Mankiewicz and Wells or anything about the title fight. I don't know why I say that, but it's clear that it's already drowned in it all: Citizen Kane is a remarkable achievement. Forget wells is only 25 years old. This is an amazing achievement.
His life was full of ups and downs, but he was a master. He is such an artistic person, most of us in the director's guild can only look up to him. I've always thought of Wells's legacy as granite-like, mixed with titanium. I don't think that's going to change that.
Author: If it wasn't for Herman writing Citizen Kane, what drew you to write about this little character in Hollywood history?
Director: To me, what's interesting about Herman Mankiewicz is not that he clashes with anybody. It's that he has a conflict with everyone. Including himself. He doesn't kiss babies. He wouldn't save puppies from a house on fire. He was in a difficult situation. He is contradictory. He was a crazy and intelligent man, and if anyone tried to contradict him, he couldn't help but fight back. It's like shaving your hair while shaving your hair, and you're doing it in two lines. He was like Roger the Rabbit. He had to do it. The reason he said this was the same as the people around him who wrote down what he said. Because it's happy. It's a truth about power that's pleasurable for little people.
Look at how cleverly those bomb-like tricks are used. "White wine and fish have come up together." "How do you get people into a movie theater?" Play movies on the street." "Perfect balance: I'm not going to work in a studio where I'm only half, and the other half won't hire me." However, he never did so much harm that people didn't like him.
Somehow, his human weaknesses and confusions and the power of all of this seemed to temper his vitriol. I thought maybe we could make a movie about him, like "The Son of a Gentleman". About a man whose work is behind the scenes.
Orson Wells and Herman Mankiewicz
Author: At the same time, you also talked a lot about the film industry.
Director: I thought Herman could be the embodiment of exploring Hollywood. I didn't want to watch the filming process of the movie. Aside from watching others type, it's the most boring thing you can do. But what I like is this "killer". Herman is a professional killer who can write nine pages about The Wizard of Oz and end with "I don't think there's a good way to do it, so I don't know why you asked me," but think about it, I make $750 a week. Oh no, I make $1,500 a week, so I'd better figure it out." "Well, make the Kansas scene black and white, and make the Oz scene colorful." That's all I can do." Such ideas – Kansas: black and white; Oz country: color; Kansas: black and white. You let Walker Evans appear in a color movie and then come back to Walker Evans. It's probably the best special effect ever, and that's how this guy filmed it.
Author: Let's talk about the script for Mank. Herman was a clever drunkard who had a gambling habit that left him in permanent debt, and he was fired from all companies for bumping into his boss. This is historically accurate. In another minor episode, MGM created a fake news advertising campaign to discourage voters from supporting Upton Sinclair in the 1934 California gubernatorial race.
This campaign really happened, even though the film exaggerated Hearst's role. But you let Herman casually comment on the studios fooling the public and inadvertently sparking the movement in this way. This is fiction. How did this come into the story?
Director: My father's first draft is a repetition of Pauline Kyle. He identified with Herman and basically wrote a commentary on the right of authorship. When I said I wasn't interested, I thought it was over. He later got an idea from a documentary about Upton Sinclair.
The book says that when Sinclair ran for governor, MGM, Louis F. Kennedy, and others were elected governors. B. Meyer, Owen Saalberg and Hearst all colluded to beat him. I said, "There may be some eighty-somethings whose righteous indignation will take this as a complicating factor in a great second act, but it looks really strange." I don't know how we can get the moral anger you want."
Jack said, "No, don't think of it that way. Think about this person. In his career, 30% of his output is not recognized, and he has no objection to this. He had just signed a contract without authorship and did not hesitate. Then he wrote Citizen Kane. Suddenly, he repented again. Things have changed. What if, like he did with "Kansas in Black and White," flashed ideas turned into something he wanted to drop his name? What if this makes us understand that there are some things we want to be remembered and some things we don't want to be remembered?" This piqued my interest. So, as Jack wrote more drafts, he began to instill a different understanding of the bad Mankiewicz.
He was like Robert Soup. There are some people whose history in the story will be seen more clearly. That's how people think it: Herman is a man who can see better than anyone. He was about to have a drink and a three-hour lunch when he said to Saalberg (who was attacking Herman to support the anti-Sinclair movement): "You know, you don't need me to give you $10. There are cameras, there are people desperately looking for work. They only cost five dollars a day. You can do it. Come on." Then he walked out.
Later the thing came back to haunt him. I was about 30 years old at the time and I thought the concept of inheritance was starting to manifest itself in me. I was already making a movie (Alien 3) and I was very hopeful that a meteor would hit the Deluxe Laboratories so I wouldn't have to put up with it. So I started thinking, the frequency at which this thing vibrates is interesting. That's where we started focusing.
Author: Was it your father who expanded it into a dark story in Hollywood? For example, after owen Salberg's funeral, Herman confessed to David Selznick that he was tight on his hands, and Selznick said he should go and see him?
Director: Jack's next six drafts are closer to Stanley Donan's style, more like "In the Rain" and more like the myth of DreamWorks. After Eric Ross died, he and I have been wrestling with this issue. But Jack did write about the scene between Herman and Selznick after Salberg's funeral, which I loved.
During filming, I said to Eric, "I finally realized what this movie was about. This is a portrayal of "Noir Dahlia": "Hollywood will make a mess of you when you don't know." That's when I realized it was also in the style of James Airore: "I couldn't get your secretary's secretary."
Author: Perfect. When Herman said this, Selznick just shrugged. That's the thing. Another wonderful plot is that Herman is so upset with the fake news that he catches up with Marion Davis, who is leaving MGM, and he asks her to tell Meyer that Hirst wants him to take it down. Marion told him very sincerely, "I can't go back. I've quit."
Director: Yeah, Jack's opposition to perceived reality is interesting because he understands that perfectly correctly. Both of these realities are Jack-esque and explain to me exactly what the Hollywood experience is about—I'm smiling, not discussing it in some dull way.
Author: Making Herman an accidental catalyst for MGM's fake news campaign is the most important fictional plot in the film, but I've noticed that when you use other fictional elements, they seem to serve something real.
For example, When Herman violated their agreement to not have the authorship of the script and said he wanted to sign the script, Orson Wells lost his temper. Wells did have a notoriously big outburst, but it was during a spat he had with longtime partner John Haussman, and a few months later they started filming Citizen Kane.
And the incident did inspire Herman to write about Kane destroying her bedroom after his wife left him. So when Wells exploded in Mank, I liked that you used the moment to get Herman to pick up a pencil and say, "That's it." When Susan leaves Kane, we need this." Then Wells said, "Yes, that sounds good," though he was still angry.
Director: Yeah, because in collaboration, we don't always say, "You're doing a great job." Sometimes cooperation is, "Fuck you, that sucks." Just like my dad did. I could tell him, I think it's. He would say, "What are you?" Twenty-six, twenty-seven, what the fuck do you know?" We can have these conversations so that he will never get hurt and will not go back to his cave and lick his paws and hum and chirp. He would go back to work.
At first I thought, who cares about Upton Sinclair? Two years later, I read it again and thought, oh, it gave us something else. Not just righteous anger, but a mirror that reflects what he desperately wants to be known. I hope Wells will have a chance to get him to speak.
"Why are you doing this?" Herman also admitted, "Because my mother thinks it's humiliating to say that, but I'm proud."
Do you know how hard it was for him to say that?
By the way, I don't think Wells wants to erase all traces of Herman. I think Wells thinks I've arranged everything for you. I'll cover you in the night. I let you sharpen this damn knife and gave you a way to do it and be saved and saved (Hearst's revenge). I think Wells was really thinking, what the hell is going on in town? You came to the desert and no one kept your promise? We know hermann didn't quite write the script.
But when a screenwriter gives you a fully realized world, when he can teach a rigorous understanding of how it works, then a talented actor who is deeply immersed in it can say, "That's not for me." I know, actually, wells go out and talk about it, and they piece it together and have a lot of ideas. But the story is about before that. It's about Herman handing over 327 pages of the script, and then he washed his hands and stopped drying, "I can go find another job now, right?"
Author: I also appreciate Herman's witty remarks that are repeated many times in the script. I had to try to put that in my book so that it didn't sound like crappy stand-up comedy.
Director: You know better than anyone that the script is actually built around them. To the people around him, this guy was funny, and they joted down a lot of what he said. Jack put them all on 3x5 cards, like "Show a movie on the street." And he's going to say, "Okay, now I'll tell you a story." We received a reply from Herman. We just wanted to figure out what he was responding to.
Author: I know every interview asks you about your preference for multiple shots — 10, 20, 30, 100. But I have to ask. When I saw Gary Oldman chase after Marion Davis' car, I wondered how many times he ran himself, not many times? He was sixty-one years old. Aren't you worried that this will exhaust your male protagonist?
Director: I love the idea of a licensed member of the Screen Actors Guild running as fast as they can, trying to catch up with a limousine. Gary ran the whole way, and yes, he ran all day. He chose the most interesting shoes he could find, which were genuine in 1933. So they were Jurassic things—they were stones—and by the end of that day, he was completely bruised and bleeding.
Author: You've made two biopics.
Director: I hate the whole concept of biopics.
Author: All right. You've made movies about real archetypes, and in those movies, your loyalty to the truth far outweighs the requirements of the biographical genre. Why? They are not documentaries. Everyone knows that there will be fictional elements.
Director: Really? Everyone has a terrible responsibility. When the volunteer participants put their lives aside and give you two hours of enjoyment, that's a deadly responsibility. Strong responsibility. In many cases, this is an overlooked responsibility. As long as we blindly cater to it, it will be ignored. We have to be careful.