“We are a breed apart from the rest of humanity, we theater folk. We are the original displaced personalities, concentrated gatherings of neurotics, egomaniacs, emotional misfits and precocious children.” - Herman Mankiewicz

Mankiewicz, the disgruntled screenwriter who helped create “Citizen Kane,” what is considered by many to be the most iconic film of all time, perhaps knew the mind of said theater folk better than anyone. One may even see this quote as the man describing himself: a displaced personality, an emotional misfit. 

“Mank” is a 2020 biographical drama film directed by David Fincher. The movie’s title references the nickname of Herman Mankiewicz, the main character, played by Gary Oldman. “Mank” revolves around Mankiewicz’s writing of Citizen Kane, as well as his encounters with the crooked elites of Hollywood who inspired him to write it.

Throughout the film (and as described in real life), Mank’s style of speaking consists of sharply delivered lines that often come off as very brazen and blunt, and sometimes offend or anger those who are speaking with him. He was an alcoholic, which also hindered his relationships with others. Mank can be described as having been a bitter and cynical man. On the other hand, he was also lauded by peers and critics for his high intellect and creative prowess. In addition to the countless screenplays he is credited with writing, he is also credited with the idea in “The Wizard Of Oz” to make the Kansas scenes black and white and the Oz scenes in color. Looking further into Mank’s conflict with Orson Welles during the making of “Citizen Kane,” as well as his battles with the studio system and Hollywood establishment, it makes sense why he harbored such bitterness, and it reveals the darker side of the Golden Age of Hollywood. 

“Mank” begins in 1940, with Mankiewicz, injured from a car accident, being carried onto a bed in a California ranch from which he will write the screenplay for “Citizen Kane.” Once there, Mank receives a call from the director Orson Welles (Tom Burke), who demands that he completes the screenplay in only 60 days, instead of the original allowance of 90 days. This shows the real-life frustrating pressure put on screenwriters working in the film industry. They are given only a fixed time frame in which to create their vision, therefore limiting the time that they are able to spend thinking creatively. 

Throughout the film, Mank struggles to reach this deadline, and also has a creative conflict with producer John Houseman (Sam Troughton). Houseman feels that the script is too dense, and that the nonlinear structure frequently jumps from past to present, which he fears will make it a struggle for audiences to keep up. This movie showcases the great hardship of being a screenwriter: You shouldn’t hope to see your unfiltered vision on screen, as the director and producers ultimately have the final say.

“Mank” frequently jumps from present to past, much like “Citizen Kane” itself. In the first flashback, set in 1930, Mank meets the aging William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his much younger mistress, Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), after stumbling onto a movie set. There, Hearst quickly takes a liking to Mank, and throughout the remainder of the film, the two are shown to have a complicated relationship. They seem to enjoy being in each other’s company. However, Mank later goes on to write “Citizen Kane,” the plot of which was an obvious satire of Hearst’s life. Mank’s private relationship with Hearst was originally a friendly one, only for Mank to orchestrate a public takedown of Hearst’s persona by way of film.

In a later flashback set in 1933, Mank meets with Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard), owner of MGM Studios. Mank makes his feelings toward Mayer quite clear from the moment he is first mentioned: “If I ever go to the electric chair, I’d like him to be sitting on my lap.” 

From Mayer’s first on-screen appearance, Mank’s harsh sentiments are shown to be more than understandable. Mayer gathers all of the MGM actors and staff to make a dramatic speech, telling them he must cut everyone’s pay by 50 percent in the midst of the Great Depression. He promises that he will pay everyone back in a matter of weeks when the banks reopen, saying all of this with a heavy air of humility. Mayer puts on a great performance, leaving the employees more than happy to have their salaries cut in half, but Mank knows it’s all a lie. (This is indeed a true story, and Mayer never did pay anyone back.) Alas, what can he do about it? He is only a humble screenwriter, in the company of producers, directors, and, in the case of Hearst, billionaire newspaper magnates.

In the film, politics are a substantial part of Mank’s disgust toward Mayer. In the 1933 flashback, Mank attends Mayer’s birthday party. The subject of the conversation turns to Adolf Hitler, the then-new chancellor of Germany, when the Jewish producer Irving Thalberg (Ferdinand Kingsley) and his wife recount their unpleasant stay in Berlin, in which they were harassed by Brownshirts. Mank, who is also Jewish, expresses concern over the book burnings and construction of concentration camps he’s been hearing about, but Mayer and Hearst easily dismiss the subject as not much of a concern. The subject is then changed to Upton Sinclair, a famous author who advocated for left-wing politics. Sinclair is strongly criticized by Mayer, Hearst, and Thalberg. They accuse him of being a communist, but Mank attempts to defend his policies, telling them that Sinclair doesn’t want a totalitarian state, he merely wants their wealth to be divided more evenly through taxes. 

In 1934, one year after Mayer’s birthday party, it is revealed that Upton Sinclair is running for governor of California as a Democrat, challenging the incumbent; conservative Republican Frank Merriam.

Mank roots for Sinclair's campaign over Merriam's. This is a point where the film may have heavily strayed from reality. Mank was known to have generally right-wing politics, and so it is extremely unlikely that he ever would have supported Sinclair. Why did David Fincher take this creative liberty? Perhaps he wanted to emphasize Mank’s unhappiness with the establishment by putting him in a battle with power that was on a grander scale than any real-life events. Leading up to the gubernatorial election, Mank finds out that MGM is producing anti-Sinclair propaganda newsreels, in which actors are hired to praise Merriam and bash Sinclair. He further discovers that the newsreels are being operated by his friend Shelley Metcalf (Jamie McShane). Mank then has a conversation with Metcalf, who clearly feels remorseful for making the propaganda. He reveals that MGM gave him a chance to direct a film as an incentive to create the fake newsreels.

On the night of the election, Mank and his wife attend a nightclub and find Louis B. Mayer, and the votes are being counted as they talk. When the final results for the night are in, Mayer announces Merriam as the projected winner. Mank then gets a call from Shelley Metcalf, who is dejected and guilt-ridden over his role in Sinclair’s defeat. Mank gets concerned about Metcalf’s state of mind, and goes to his office to talk with him in person. There, Metcalf commits suicide.

This was another incident in the film that was entirely fictionalized; nobody named Shelley Metcalf worked at MGM. It is possible that Fincher’s intention for adding this scenario was to illustrate another instance of the corruption Mank sees in the company that employs him: false information being used to influence elections on a major scale. But, again, he is powerless to combat said corruption, which leaves him embittered. And within the fictional narrative of the film, perhaps some of Mank’s bitterness when writing “Citizen Kane” can be attributed to this incident in which a friend of his is driven to suicide by the Hollywood industry. While this particular incident is fictional, it speaks to a greater reality: that show business can drive people involved in it to their deaths.

One year later, a drunken Mank shows up at a party hosted by Hearst. He gives a long, slurred rant in which he pitches a modernized film adaptation of Don Quixote in which Quixote’s character is an allegory for Hearst: a wealthy newspaperman turned failed politician who spends his time tilting at windmills. In response, Hearst compares Mank to “The Organ Grinder’s Monkey,” an old parable about the pet monkey of a musician. Because people show up to watch him dance, the monkey thinks that he is of great importance, when in reality he has no importance at all and only exists for people’s amusement. Similarly, Hearst only keeps Mank around for his own entertainment. 

When the film returns to 1940, Mank has finished the “Citizen Kane” screenplay. He asks Orson Welles to credit him in the film, and Welles is angered by the request, as a credit wasn’t in the original contract, but he ultimately gives in. In the last scene of the film, Welles and Mank are named the winners of an Academy Award for best original screenplay.

All of these scenes illustrate Mank’s identity in Hollywood: a gifted writer respected for his talents, but at the same time a loudmouth and an outcast. He saw the corruption and deceitfulness of his superior Louis B. Mayer, but aside from using his typical sharp wit, he was powerless to truly combat him. He befriended William Randolph Hearst, but later used “Citizen Kane” to cement the man’s persona as a dishonest and power hungry tycoon. He fought with Orson Welles over time constraints and obtaining a credit. Herman Mankiewicz was a misfit in the world of powerful Hollywood figures, and ultimately his struggles helped him to write what was arguably the greatest screenplay of all time.