In high school and college, whenever I pored over the vast ocean of films to find the next movie I wanted to watch, the film hovering above all the others was “Citizen Kane.”
I was aware of “Citizen Kane” from watching the HBO film “RKO 281” in high school. It came across as though the story behind “Citizen Kane” was more interesting than the film itself. If that was the case, though, why would it be on so many lists at the top?
“Citizen Kane” (1941)
If you do any kind of reading on “Citizen Kane,” you will get the impression that it is work. Sure, it’s the number one movie of all time, but not because it’s entertaining, it’s important. So, I put it off. If you enjoy movies, why would you want to watch something that’s not at least entertaining?
In college, I took numerous film classes. I told myself I would watch everything that was shown, including the ones that were work to get through. This was school, after all, and the point of going to a film class is to learn what and how a film has contributed to cinema. In the Intro to Film class I took, “Citizen Kane” showed up on the syllabus. I watched it, and I got it. Yes, it’s important, but watching the film was more a crash course in film than anything that I found good. I learned that I didn’t need to like a film in order to appreciate it.
Years later, a special edition of “Citizen Kane” came out and I thought, well, if I am supposed to be a fan of movies, I should have this on the shelf. It stayed on the shelf for a couple years before I thought, “I’ll give it another go.” To my surprise, I enjoyed it. I think it’s because I had more life experience under my belt, and I could relate to or pick up on things I hadn’t before.
There’s not much to say about “Citizen Kane” that hasn’t been better said by others. It is a simple story of a newspaper mogul, Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), a man from humble origins who is raised by a money manager and becomes one of the richest men in the world by the age of 25.
It is a technical achievement for numerous reasons. Many film techniques that were not commonplace at the time were utilized often in “Citizen Kane,” and the most famous is the technique of “deep focus” where all of the frame is in focus, including the background and the foreground. There are also many low angle shots. Welles cut holes in the floor of the sets so he could get the camera as low as he wanted.
While the film plays as a not-so-hidden biopic of William Randolph Hearst, the story of the making of “Citizen Kane” is possibly more interesting than the film itself. “Mank,” the new film by David Fincher, is that story.
“Mank” (2020)
“Mank” is about Herman Mankiewicz, the co-screenwriter (if not outright screenwriter), of “Citizen Kane.”
The screenplay is written by Fincher’s late father, Jack Fincher. The story begins with Herman Mankiewicz, or “Mank” (Gary Oldman), in the California desert nursing a broken leg. He begins dictating the screenplay to his secretary. Upon realizing that the main character in the screenplay resembles Hearst (Charles Dance), she asks if he knows him. The rest of the film consists of flashbacks to different scenes establishing Mank’s relationship to Hearst and his inner circle, including the actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried) and Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard).
In the present, Mank works on the screenplay for “Citizen Kane,” and the film continues to the screenplay’s completion while the flashbacks culminate in the dissolution of Mank’s friendship with Hearst. The sound of the film evokes the era with the filmmaker altering the sound to mimic films from the 1930s. Even the musical score (by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) was recorded on period instruments. Periodically throughout the film, cue marks show up in the upper right of the screen to tell the non-existent projectionist that the reel needs to be switched. All of this evokes the period, but when new movies arrive at the theater on a hard drive and, in this case, you can stream from the internet to your television, it all shows an exacting attention to detail.
The screenplay itself contains some clever dialogue. Mayer, the head of MGM, tells Mank’s younger brother Joseph Mankiewicz, “You may have heard MGM has more stars than there are in the heavens. Do not believe this. We have only one star. That is Leo the Lion. Never forget that. Many stars have, and now they twinkle elsewhere.” At a party in Hearst’s mansion, Mank interrupts an argument about socialism, saying “You know the difference between communism and socialism? In socialism, everyone shares the wealth. In communism, everyone shares the poverty.”
The acting is excellent, and Amanda Seyfried disappears into her role as Davies. Her platonic relationship with Mank is distilled best when she comes to Mank about her unflattering portrayal in the screenplay. He tries to explain that it isn’t a depiction of her per se. She understands, but she knows Hearst will continue to try and stop it from getting made. Mank tells her, “I hope, if this gets made, you’ll forgive me,” and she replies, “and I hope, if it doesn’t, you’ll forgive me.”
Oldman is very good as Mank, and Dance is perfectly cast as the quietly menacing puppet master pulling all the strings. As Hearst, his presence commands every room he is in. Indeed, the film purports to be about the making of “Citizen Kane,” but it works better as a period drama depicting a very specific group of people from the Hollywood of 80 or 90 years ago.
“Citizen Kane” (rated PG) is available for rent on Amazon, iTunes, Redbox and Vudu and for purchase on iTunes or as a Blu-ray Disc. “Mank” (rated R) is streaming on Netflix.
Erik Kampmann is a movie buff who is originally from California. He moved to the Hub City in 2013. Write him a note at erik@jowilmedia.com.
