the controversy behind David Fincher's MANK
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 11. 2020
- The first 1000 people to use the link will get a free trial of Skillshare Premium Membership: skl.sh/theroyaloceanfilmsocie...
Want to see every new Royal Ocean video EARLY? Check out our Patreon page! - bit.ly/2TnEs66
Sources / Further Reading:
Raising Kane by Pauline Kael - bit.ly/37fuMOa
The Citizen Kane Book - amzn.to/3mlgNwr
The Kane Mutiny by Peter Bogdanovich - bit.ly/3qdiFKe
Bogdanovich's Interviews w/Orson Welles - bit.ly/33s7689
The Scripts of Citizen Kane by Robert L. Carringer - bit.ly/39oCjNi
Films in Focus by Andrew Sarris - bit.ly/33nDfxm
Music:
"Highlight Reel", "Rollin at 5", "Faster Does It", "Night in Venice" by Kevin MacLeod - incompetech.com/
You can follow me through:
Twitter- andymsaladino
Vimeo- vimeo.com/theroyaloceanfilmsociety - Krátké a kreslené filmy
The real controversy: Mank distracted Fincher from Mindhunter and now he doesn’t want to finish it.
Absolutely. Mindhunter was the best thing on Netflix.
This is far more important than who came up with the two hour story about a sled.
Mindhunter is some wickedly good stuff. I cant stand the hiatus (cancelation)
Eh, Mank is far better than Mindhunter ever was
Holy fuck it’s been killing me! He better return
As someone who has already seen Mank, I’ll warn you that the film does not depict any of the nuances and variety of perspectives that this video explores
Oh no. Anyways how was the film? Top-tier Fincher like Zodiac?
Yeah, based on my viewing and subsequent research, it's an extremely biased account and most of the aspects to do with Mank's heroic political stance were entirely fabricated. Apparently the original script written by David Fincher's father was anti-Welles to an even greater extent, but the final product was toned down somewhat.
It's probably no more distorted a picture of true events than Zodiac or The Social Network tbf. I do find it more irritating in this case maybe because of the simple pettiness of it. But what's new? Citizen Kane itself was after all a kind of character assassination.
It’s weird that it was written by Fincher’s father, who has no other screenplay credits to his name. Would you say the writing is of a good quality?
I kind of expected that. I mean if I were to judge a movie by its title, I'd expect it to be at least on Mank's side
The Royal Ocean Film Society remains one of the most entertaining and informative video essayists on CZcams!
Mank (2020) f'u"l'l M'o'V'i"E
Watch Here ▶ movieatcinemax.blogspot.com/tt10618286/.html
`All Subtitle`
ê Lorsqu'une pilule qui donne aux utilisateurs cinq minutes de super pouvoirs inattendus arrive dans les rues de
la Nouvelle-Orléans, un adolescent marchand et un policier local doivent faire équipe avec un ancien soldat pour
faire tomber le groupe responsable de sa fabrication.
Is it good?
I look at clips from Citizen Kane and it still looks incredibly modern. The camera angles, camera movement and blocking are on a different level from anything around at that time.
It has a certain something you can't put your finger on, but you know you're witnessing something special. It still holds up against modern films.
@@APerson-dq4hl basically, no one went back to "recorded theater", or if they did, no one remembers them.
I don't think there's ever been a more successful marriage of film and theatre. That alchemy is still impressive nearly 80 years later.
Some of the camera angles & lighting in Citizen Kane comes from the German Expressionist Film style of the 1920s.
@@APerson-dq4hl A lot of the visual vocabulary of Citizen Kane came from German Expressionist Films from the 1920s.
In my opinion, the most damning evidence against Kael's position is Welles' previous play, Marching Song, which is effectively a proto-Kane about John Brown, and was written a full nine years before Kane was released. It has a lot of the same themes and elements as Kane did, and so it's just ridiculously absurd to claim he didn't make as great a contribution to Kane's script and story and Markiewicz did.
Add in the fact that Welles was basically screwed over by Hearst and movie studios that either recut his films or refused to fund them at all, causing him to have to fight for the ability to make films for the rest of his life; and trying to take Kane away from him just comes off as a bit disgusting.
@@themetaphysicalgentleman9677 You're right, I've corrected my mistake.
@@DellDuckfan313 As have I.
“Disgusting” is the right word.
Didn't know about Marching Song. Thanks!
Also, Welles continued to make masterpieces that eclipsed Kane in every way except recognition at the time they were released.
I've never really got the line about Orson being an egomaniac. In most of his interviews he's crediting other people who helped him. He even outright dismissed the idea that he helped Carol Reed direct The Third Man. It doesn't paint a picture of some power-grubbing narcissist. He was however openly disdainful of work, and people, he didn't like. Which might have inspired some of these attacks on his character.
i agree. If you watch the 1982 BBC interview he did, called on CZcams 'Orson Welles Documentary', he comes across as a brilliant, funny, self depreciating man, not the egomaniac as you mentioned
You might like my new comment : )
I went searching through the comments to see if anyone had said this for me so I wouldn't have to. Thank you.
Maybe he matured from then? People change over time.
I suspect Welles *was* a bit of an egomaniac, but you have to be naïve to think that being an egomaniac somehow disqualifies you from making great art. I remember once seeing an interview with a daughter of William Faulkner describing a birthday party she'd had as a child that her father interrupted because the noise was distracting to him. When she protested it was her birthday he was complaining about, she recalls Faulkner cruelly replying that "Nobody remembers Shakespeare's children." Assuming the novelist actually said such an insensitive thing, should you dismiss his work because he's an egomaniac?
Welles’ curse is that more people were emotionally invested in insisting that he was NOT a genius than ever proclaimed him to be one in the first place.
Really? I never hear that he is NOT a genius, I only heard that he's a genius, so those people you're talking about got less vocal, less invested as you say etc. with time?
Only Pauline Kael would make such a wrong claim.
@@RenegadeShepard69 I believe Orson said it himself, something to the effect, and I’m paraphrasing here - ‘I never said I was a genius, but people have been making arguments that I wasn’t before anyone ever claimed I was.’
Yes, those people have become less invested in taking him down because he’s, you know, dead.
The issue of his "genius" was largely a matter of his age. It isn't common for even talented entertainers to be wildly successful in their early 20s, as Welles was. And making an innovative movie like "Kane" as an outsider to Hollywood -- a place where envying the success of others is a nearly universal affliction -- meant that Welles was unlikely to be hailed as a genius in a company town like Los Angeles.
@Stellvia Hoenheim It didn’t help that young Orson was an egotistical entitled asshole who equally inspired and o offended those around him. It always came back to bite him in the ass, and he ended up regretting making so many enemies. There was so much of Welles in Charles Foster Kane, you’d have to be blind not to see it.
It's not just the script. Guy played in the movie and directed the movie and supervised the editing. You can't take that from Walles. Of course, masterpiece is not happening by chance: Mank, Tolland, Wise....all with their mastery and collaboration helped it out. But the glue and the main engine was still Walles.
Plus he had a prolofic career later on and became an influential figure to several generations of filmmakers to come. Mank never did any of that, with all due respect of course.
@@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747 Well, because Mank died in 53.
@Paul WT The screenplay is the most most important part of any movie, it is literally the skeleton upon which every other component sits. A movie can be badly produced despite a good screenplay and still be decent, but there is no good movie that follows a shitty screenplay, and without a screenplay at all you literally don’t even have a movie.
Paul WT LOTR is special case because it was based on an epic book saga which is the primary source material. For most other movies the script is the original document upon which every other element of production rests. Screenplays encompass more than just character dialogue, without it you don’t even have a story board and no scene structure, which is not something you can just improvise as filming is extremely scheduled. Without a script you cannot even begin to start filming because a narrative without without a script doesn’t even have a scene structure.
@Paul WT you’re literally describing mumblecore films and they’re all awful.
Hi. I produced the film Mank. Your video is outstanding, and thank you for that. (You did leave out one critical but important detail. Firstly why it was that Mank's credit issue was an open issue going into this--thank you Arnold Weisberger. And Secondly that Orson did not dispute giving it to Herman! In fact, it was Orson who not only approved of the credit, but instructed that Mank's name go ABOVE his!!! He did this by drawing a circle around Mank's name, and drawing an arrow pointing above his own name.)
You are profoundly correct, I could find NOTHING to indicate that Orson was a credit hog, or even an egomaniac. He had confidence, which in the young and talented is often confused with egomania.
Our film deals with Herman's "perspective" and in that sense it is 100% accurate. One can learn that from Orson's comments. "Mank always was looking for a villan" or "he went to Victorville as my friend and returned as my enemy." Also, reading John Houseman's 3 humorless (and somewhat self aggrandizing) memoirs the story of perspective tracks. Moreover, Houseman spends the rest of his life backtracking from his conversation with Kael. He ultimately concludes, as does Carringer and others, that the onscreen credit is the accurate and appropriate credit. Case closed? So, I ask myself, what exactly is the controversy--since there is none! Unless the controversy IS Kael herself--who clearly was a huckster who knew a good thing when she saw it--which explains why she never dug deeper or interviewed anyone.
Worth also mentioning also is this--Orson was asked if he had any enemies. He said, "only one, John Houseman".
One last thing---your technical abilities--you wanted a comment--well here it is--sensational, honestly--talented and impressive.
Swell to see a comment like this for *this* video 😏👏
Neat comment. I guess what rankle some about it was put succintly by Jonathan Rosenbaum on his website so I'll just quote him:
"Movies drawn from real events take liberties all the time, but what’s different about “Mank,” which implies (with maybe a bit of plausible deniability) that Mankiewicz deserved sole credit for the script, is that *it resurrects a debunked idea that has a history and a subtext.* The question of who should receive screen credit for “Kane” dates back at least to Mankiewicz’s contract with Mercury, but I think it’s fair to say that Pauline Kael would never have revived the issue - or, as Robert Carringer, Harlan Lebo, et al., have demonstrated from looking at the screenplay drafts, used selective evidence to elevate Mankiewicz’s contributions - were it not for the broader debate over the auteur theory in 1971."
Mank was a rich and profound film - thanks for helping bring it to us - and thanks for your other work - can't wait to see Flying Horse w Oldman directing - and your stage work - I wish our media industry focused on the wealth of our theatrical heritage like it does on the MCU
Anyone who knows how Orson is on a film set knows he throws everything he has into it. Those posters in the alleys that got the acid tossed on one of them in Touch of Evil were done by Welles, staying up all night working on them. He didn't just make films. He wrapped and presented them as gifts.
While I admire Kael's contribution to championing films and directors during the New Hollywood era, and inspiring other critics like Roger Ebert, I just could never get into her work itself. It always seemed to come off as needlessly scathing and mean-spirited, and she just seems like a person I'd never want to meet. I mean, for example, even though she praised Steven Spielberg's first feature, The Sugarland Express, after the success of Jaws and Close Encounters, she basically told him in a radio interview that she was waiting for him to fail. I mean, who does that? (She also seems to have not liked George Lucas' work very much either, even his more personal stuff like American Graffiti)
But after hearing about this, I dislike her even more now. It just seems like she got a big head from her success and turned into the Hedda Hopper of film criticism
She also had a nasty habit of calling directors she didn't like fascist. Also she really wrote a lot of cruel things about gay and lesbian films. Her review of The Childrens Hour is genuinely awful.
Not to mentioned she hated Clint Eastwood for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
@@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747 Intensely.
There is a list of films the size of your arm that she was wrong about .
@@twomindz79 There's wrong, and I hate David Lean wrong. She is the latter.
By sixteen years of age, Orson Welles had already adapted & rewritten hundreds of pages of Shakespeare. You know, Shakespeare. The most prominent example is his Three Kings.
I thought it was discovered that was written by Sir Kevin Bacon.
@@auldthymer Hahahahahahahahahaha
This movie is actually a lot like Anonymous. I liked it though.
@@chtulubarnes9045 Love Anonymous even tho its bullshit
@@jacklines147 so do I!
This video was so informative and well edited. Great job as always.
It sure is. Not many ppl can edit like this mans.
Kael’s article was a complete hatchet job likely done more for trying to puncture Auteurism and fans of Andrew Sarris than even attacking Welles. I will never have any respect for her works whatsoever as it goes against everything a critic should do. The article’s damage continues to haunt Orson’s legacy because so many only know the general ideas and not what actually happened much in the same fashion that Spoto’s Dark Side of Genius warped the story of Hitchcock.
The credit issue was primarily due to RKO’s insistence on wanting to sell a picture as completely done by the boy wonder of radio. Contractually he was supposed to write, produce, direct and star. This was something that fell into gray areas but went back and forth with all parties aware until Mank decided he did want credit and went into arbitration.
One could also make the case for there being input by others involved like John Houseman who stayed with Mank to make sure he wrote instead of drinking. But there is no question whatsoever that it was developed and written by both Mank and Orson.
I just hate that all this effort went into a new picture that couldn’t even be bothered with trying to do anything factual or to be honest worth anything. The real story of Mank is fascinating and was beautifully chronicled in the recent book THE BROTHERS MANKIEWICZ which was a sort of double biography of both Herman and his vastly underrated brother Joe.
You might like my new comment critiquing Kael...
@Paul WT
Wow.
Antisemitic much??
So, what's the deal with Spoto's book?
People remember mostly the direction of Citizen Kane rather than the screenplay
@@gerardorodriguez7858 But Ben is right : if you say that the authorship of Citizen Kane is not Welles' because the screenplay hasn't been written by him, but at the same time imitate the visual style of Orson Welles for you own movie, then your mouth says something and your camera says something else.
Because if that script was directed by someone else it probably wouldn’t be the masterpiece that Citizen Kane is.
@Gerardo Rodriguez Are you so sure of that? Casablanca didn't have a complete script when shooting began, Jean Luc Godard made several films without scripts, and where do you put documentaries?
@@gerardorodriguez7858 Oh, I absolutely agree. But my point was that it more plausible to make a movie work with a bad, or non existent, or incomplete script but good direction than a movie with a brilliant script but incompetent amateur direction.
Just to prove how bullshit is to claim Orson Welles doesn't deserve credit for Citizen Kane even though he crafted everything beyond the writting.
Well it won the Oscar for screenplay and not directing
4:43 what a twist. This channel doesn’t get enough credit
Subscribed!
With so many video essays on this website being so self indulgent... an in-depth video about such an interesting subject and iconic figure is appreciated.
The people will think-
*WHAT I TELL THEM TO THINK*
my favourite part of Kane. It’s so hilarious how abruptly maniacal he becomes.
I've never had the feeling that Pauline Kael ever really liked movies. Every review of hers i've tried to read was an exercise in her placing herself 'above it all'.
She was a horrible critic .
Time has proven a list of films she hated became classics .
Wow, your editing and animation just keeps getting better. Really interesting topic and just fantastically well made!
EXCELLENT video essay. Thanks for making and posting it!
This is fantastic. I adore your use of visual Saul Bass references and inspirations, and your animations are clean and fitting with the story.
God, I love this channel. Your research and editing is top notch. I feel so guilty I can't afford to be a Patron, since this is definitely something that deserves my money.
i don’t think people realised how much welles contributed to the script by being its editor-in-chief. you gotta keep in mind that the original screenplay was WAYYYY too long for a feature film then. without welles, the rhythm would be way too draggy.
also, mank’s script mostly depicted kane as a villain (because mank had beef w/ hearst), and welles added more depth to kane by making him a lil more charismatic & lovable
The real controversy: that this channel doesn't have 1M + subscribers.
Seriously, the presentation alone deserves such high praise.
It's like classical music or expensive wine: it's there for people who appreciate this sort of thing, small though their numbers may be. Everyone else can play Minecraft - those ignorant swine don't deserve this channel!
No offense intended, of course. ☺
Citizen Kane is only PARTLY based on Hearst's life. It also uses material from the legend of the Lyric Opera house in Chicago , (where Kane builds an Opera house for wife to sing in) . It was close enuf that Hearst offered MGM $$$ to destroy the negative. The film is also a kind of Rashamon where numerous people tell the same story differently (that is they each show a different side of Kane while making themselves look good).
Citizen Kane has more special effects shots than Stars Wars.
Some people see Kane and are not impressed: pearls before swine.
Kane is literally film making 101.
4:50 OHHHH! I just realised that Herman J. Mankiewicz and Joseph L. Mankiewicz (director of All About Eve) aren't the same person! I feel so dumb.
yes, in fact they were brothers
@@MacIntoshMann huh, that's really interesting actually
And Tom Mankiewicz, uncredited writer of Superman The Move, was the son of Joseph Mankiewicz. Funny how these things repeat themselves.
Wait....which one hosts Turner Classic Movies?
@@ianstratton neither: both have been dead for decades.
The sound effects and animation are as informative as the references! So magnificently edited.
This is in my opinion your best video essay...so far.I love them all, but this just stands out.
Best graphic design on CZcams. I have a hard time thinking of other videos with even half this much style and polish. Amazing work!
This was an amazing story told so creatively. Amazing work!
Brilliant video, great work on the in-depth research and stellar editing. Keep doing what you do!
That is one of the best produced, slickest (in a good sense) videos I’ve seen. You are really good at telling a story visually. Keep up that excellent quality and you will go far.
Wow, your graphics and animation work in every video is great! It's really inspiring, keep it up
amazing essay, the editing skills are fantastic. i enjoyed it very much
Your videos are brilliant works of art. Not just because of the topics and the amount of sheer insight you put in them, but because they genuinely are well-crafted documentaries with brilliant storytelling techniques implied.
Truly amazing work here! Thanks!
The direction movie is what made it a masterpiece...
Exactly, but Kael was against authorhsip and director worship because it made for repetitive movies or some shit. I'll never understand her, she was so against Auteur theory yet aleays refered to the movies's directors as their creators and blamed them when she didn't like a movie.
Seriously awesome video. My filmmaker buddy just showed me the trailer for Mank and explained how Welles wrote none of the script. Time to send him this! Cheers and thanks
I've read essentially this account recently in a New Yorker piece by Richard Brody, but it's so much more fun to hear it in video essay form! Great work, Royal Ocean Film Society. You've earned yourself a new and fervent subscriber!
That was super interesting and your editing keeps on getting better and better. Amazing!
Bless you, brilliant composition of video editing. Subscribed, I love Welles. 🌹
You have reached a very high level of quality in your videos, congratulations!
I probably watched almost all of this channel's video. They all are so good.🙏🏻
The things that convinced me that Kael were wrong were three things in the Kane Mutiny article: that Kael never attempted to contact Welles to get his perspective on the matter; that although pretty much everyone involved with the production was still alive at that time, Kael didn't attempt to contact any of them; and that nothing else Herman Mankiewicz ever wrote even remotely reached the level of Kane. (If we're talking Joseph Mankiewicz, we might have an argument.)
This is such beautiful video work, impressive and well written as well.
This is genuinely one of the best channels on CZcams!
Pauline Kael worked for Hearst and she was upset someone made a brilliant film about her sponsor 🙄. The power of the pen. How many great films has any critic including Pauline Kael , given us? None last I checked. Welles will forever be one of the greatest directors that walked the earth.
Great video! The best I have seen so far about the subject. Besides, the animation is fantastic!
Damn, amazing video! Very informative and well made. Thank you!
Orson Welles is a Sociopath? I've never heard such a ridiculous claim.
She said the same of Clint Eastwood because of his emotionless reactions to killing people in his westerns, completely ignoring the playful nature of said films.
@@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747 Definitely an odd person.
Excellent video, and well executed. You've earned a subscriber.
Great video. It serves as a reminder that the so-called "fact checkers" and wannabe narrators of our history are often as a "problematic" as the people they write about.
I still can't believe people still respect Pauline Kael's journalism. I agree with some of her opinions, but Welles's slander was shameful.
@@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747 Those that can, do. Those that can't... get jobs in newsprint and snipe at those that do. 😉
@@californiumblog Jean Luc Godard once said the only way to truely criticise a movie is to make another movie. I thinks that's why Ebert was more laid back, he tried to write scripts and they were subpar to say the least.
@@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747 It requires a different skill set to write about films and to make films. Ebert´s work was immensely valuable to people who enjoy movies. Artists who dismiss critics as just failed artist are arrogant and salty.
Like most opinion makers, Kael’s sensibility was extremely subjective and she had a HUGE ego. Just like most of the great directors, to be frank. Except that, in compensation, they were true artists, while the lady never became one, in spite of her being a skillful writer. She even had a few quite brillant intuitions in her career ; however, basing that notorious ´Kane´ theory upon one single-and very early-draft of the screenplay may also be considered kind of a professional mistake, which tells a lot about her methods. No honest scholar would ever do that without considering at least also the shooting script.
Umm love the editing. Great video!
Great video as always, excited as well to see how MANK would depict the controversy. BTW, the marriage scene is a cinematic achievement... hats off to Orson Welles.
Love the graphic style… thank you!
Once again I’m blown away by the honesty, research, and the care you put in your videos. Watching this video should be a requirement before anyone watches Mank.
Kael's over the top praise of Last Tango in Paris was kind of demented so I never really trusted her opinion.
Last Tango is a fantastic film and deserves all the praise it gets especially for Brando's performance. Kael is someone i usually disagreed with on almost every review i've read of her's but occasionally she got it right.
@@exittored
I do agree with Kael on “Last Tango in Paris”, but she was very subjective in who she liked.
She praised even some of Brando’s weakest performances, and she panned Meryl Streep’s performance in “Sophie’s Choice” (to me, a great performance).
James, Lol~😂
You might like my new comment...
@Paul WT
**Js**--?
That's two antisemitic remarks I've spotted in this thread. This one the worst.
There are Valid Criticisms of Kael that don't resort to Nazi-esque bs...
Wow.
@Paul WT
Oh I see BOTH antisemitic comment are by the same J-@ss...
Bernard Herrmann in 1973: " I think the greatest thing that ever happened to Herman Mankiewicz, whatever his contribution, was that he met Welles, not the other way round. If Welles hadn't created Kane, he would have made some other equally remarkable picture. Mankiewicz's credits don't show any other remarkable scripts. His only moment in the sun was when he came across Orson Welles. . . .
You know, most screenwriters of the period were 'the Great American Novelist' being whores and hoping for better things. They were always about to write a great novel or great play while demeaning themselves with movie writing. I was at a party at William Dieterle's house which Thomas Mann attended. One of these writers, quite drunk, came up to him and said something like 'How could a wonderful writer like you even talk to miserable whores like us?' Mann looked at him and said, 'My dear sir, you are not big enough to make yourself so small.'"
First of, I want to appalud you for quotin Bernad Hermann, a genius who always knew how to recognize a genius (Hitchcock, Welles, Truffaut, Scorsese).
But on your coment about writers, I thinks Kael was utterly wrong on them. At the time most people went to watch a movie for the actor, not the director, and most high budget films at the time would be adaptation of famous books showcasing the writting, not the direction. What auteur theory wanted to bring was the rightfully recognition of the director's work in making a movie work in contrast to the writters who would just make a script and wait for everybody else to make the hard work. Truffaut even said that this misconception and overestimation of the writers made for terrible movied as you'll have a group of overpaid writers treated as gods while the director would be limited to follow the script and never experiment or create something different.
@@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747 No one can seriously argue that writers are overvalued in film industry. This is certainly not the case now and i don't know that it has ever been. Good writing is a very important and difficult task and very few people want to do it. Now you can argue that tv is a writers medium and they do have all the power when it comes to episodic television. But given how good and engaging television shows are today i would say that if anything more power and value should be given to writers.
Now considering Bernard Hermann' s comment i'd say that one could also argue that Welles didn't produce anything of remotely similar quality ever since. So no, it's not at all certain that he would have produced a masterpiece anyway. It was the peak of their achievements for both of them.
@@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747 Both quotes are from Herrmann. I've added nothing.
From what Mark Kermode said in his review, it looks like that Fincher leant more towards the Kael version, probably because it would be better drama.
It should be clear by now that Fincher never goes to 100% truth and prefers to work the drama and themes of the film.
But what buggs me is, why go after Welles of all people. I've always thought of David Fincher of an auteur, so going after THE quintessential american auteur seems so bizarre.
@@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747 he never goes after orsone welles in the movies, it's more about celebrating mank than discrediting welles.
@@376ayasmohammed3 He goes pretty much against Orson Welles at the end of the movie. He even goes so far and let him say: "You will never work in this city again".
@@karlkarlos3545 yeah and that was just the bleak truth, his brother Joseph warned him too... "Mank" doesn't villainize Welles but Hearst, Mayer and Thalberg. The only anti-Welles quote is spoken at the end by Mank ("in the absence of Orson Welles"), but it comes across as tongue-in-cheek and he propably only said it to piss of his estranged friend and co-writer lol
This was Brilliant! Great Job!
Great episode!
Fascinating video man.
Just want to say that your editing and animation are incredible!
What a great video essay!
love this! keep it up!
Amazingly done video!
This was so well done and engaging.
your style has gotten so clean cut! keep it up
A fascinating, well told piece. Bravo!
That was wonderful, thank you. My kid was an extra in MANK and according to him, it's gonna be great..
The editing in this video is phenomenal
Dude I love you, please keep making videos
dude, BRAVO on your research, this was fantastic.
I don't know how I found this but so fascinating bravo
Great essay!
Some great information here, I’m looking forward to seeing the perspective fincher takes with his movie. Thanks ROFS!
Orson Welles carried the germinal idea for "Citizen Kane" in his head for nearly a decade BEFORE the making of the film. In 1931, while waiting in New York for the ship that would take him to Ireland (where he would begin his career as a professional actor), Welles attended a performance of the Susan Glaspell play, "Alison's House." And while there's no Rosebud in "Alison's House," the plots could hardly be more similar. Alison is a world-renowned poet about whose personal life almost nothing is known. So, a newspaper tasks a reporter to get behind her public image and reveal the real Alison. After a series of unsatisfactory interviews, the reporter realizes what how futile his research is going to be. I came upon the Glaspell connection during my own research, for "The Theatre of Orson Welles," but (regrettably) withheld it because of the focus of my book. By the time he boarded that ship at age 16 -- Welles' thoughts were on radio and the theatre, not the movies, and how - if given the chance (which turned out to be soon enough in coming) - he wanted to transform the germinal ideas he also had in his head for such landmark stage productions as "Dr. Faustus" (1936), "Julius Caesar" (1937) and "Five Kings" (1938). In 1965, Welles would turn again to "Five Kings" to make his TRUE cinematic masterpiece, "Chimes at Midnight."
Great assessment. Well done!
Incredible content as per usual.
Kael's the kind of writer every "smart" kid who hated their parents loved.
A lot of her work is truly some of the finest and most brilliant film criticism ever written, and a lot of it is truly some of the most baffling and misguided film criticism ever written. That’s what makes her so great, and that’s what you want out of a critic. Who wants a critic who agrees with them about everything?
@@nickrigdon8883 That's fair. But the Kael as described here is so wildly off base in her actions, a precursor to everything wrong with both journalism and cancel culture today. It's one thing to be a controversial critic; it's another to be a genuinely terrible person.
Paolo Malagar Yeah, Raising Kane was a deeply wrong and immoral piece of journalism, no doubt about that.
@@nickrigdon8883 Why would anyone want a critic to be “baffling and misguided”. I don’t want to always agree, but I don’t want to understand their reasoning and judge it to be fair, or at least entertainingly written, even if it’s wrong.
I think you are wrong. She was full of sarcasm and wit because she started writing for "The New Yorker" at a very mature age and by that time she gained a lot of knowledge and expierience. It may be that she didnt't like Walles as a person, and tried to defend Mank who was also a fellow Jewish. Anyway, I like them both.
Masterfully done video, with an excellent narration! I'm always reminded why I subscribed in the first place. You are doing God's work!
Thank you for this corrective of Kael's ridiculous book, and Fincher's movie. It's far past time her theory be taken behind the barn and shot, and I'm very sad to see Fincher, quite a researcher in his own right, swallow whole the lies of Kael, the most overrated author of the 20th Century... and, as you point out, a HUGE hypocrite.
Norman Mailer: Am I a joke to you?
Every film is a collaboration and credit rarely is only deserved by one person. Who deserves how much credit is often difficult to define perfectly.
Having already seen 'Mank' at one of my local theaters (#SaveYourCinema), well, let me just say I'm hoping for a follow-up to this video.
Another fun and intriguing essay from Royal Ocean. Keep it up.
Was it any good?
@@luismarioguerrerosanchez4747 I liked it. It drags at parts, gets a little too occupied with Mank's politics, and isn't really fair to Orson Welles.
But it looks nice and the acting and dialogue are what you really wanna stick around for.
@@SaundersBro1 Sounds about right, I'll check it out.
Very informative! I believe the acknowledgement of Gregg Toland by Welles was because of the visual styles he brought to Kane. For instance, deep focus being prevalent in many scenes. A skit by Second City portrayed Welles as a man who lived his professional life in reverse. From wine commercials and magic tricks, he became a highly respected director with Citizen Kane being the acme of his talent. Humorous and sad at the same time.
Pauline Kael remains me of Armond White, a contrarian for contrarian’s sake.
and then we get Rex Reed.
@@thecinematicmind
His “review” of “Oldboy” still boils my blood.
Wonderful video!
I think the important thing to remember about all this is: No matter what draft you’re at, the script is NOT the final film! While scripts are important, they’re really just the foundation. All they are are words on paper.
It’s important to have a solid story as the foundation for your movie, but it’s the director’s job to interpret what was written in a way that can get the desired emotional reaction from the audience. If things like performances and shot choices were written, I think they’d break the page per minute rule.
Always such a good day when it begins with some royal ocean
They will always try to tear down the greats. Its terrible. Thank you for the video.
a great egomaniac
It doesn't help that Welles wasn't guilty of the same. He constantly diminished others directors works and could Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo "a bad movie, worse than Rear Window" like WTF?
Woow that's an amazing video.. If more CZcamsrs would even do an iota of research of this video.
Kudos keep them coming.
I loved this, I will follow now, but my favorite part was the photo at the 9m 10 seconds mark, I mean imagine how amazing that dinner was and the stories over many bottles of wine, to be a fly on the wall with that group and the amount of film genius there
There are more problems with David Fincher's tale: His account of the 1934 gubernatorial election leaves at least two things unsaid that need highlighting: 1) Upton Sinclair wasn't an "idealist," a naif as the incredible, literally incredible, writers room of Hecht, MacArthur, Kaufman, Epstein, et al. describe him. He was a Stalinist. Hardcore. He met with Stalin. He corresponded with Stalin. Sinclair's defenders even tout how Sinclair tried to save a Soviet writer's life by interceding with Stalin. He defended the Show Trials, the first of which took place in 1935, the year after his run for governor of California. I'd recommend doing a Google search and reading "Upton Sinclair on the Soviet Union" which was published in the "New Masses" on 8 Mar 1938; it's available on-line. It includes one of his favorite lines: "Fascism is capitalism plus murder." 2) William Randolph Hearst was a *Democrat*. He opposed Sinclair, but Sinclair had only changed his party affiliation from Socialist Party of America to Democrat for the 1934 election. Hearst was part of the majority of the DP who hated Upton Sinclair and opposed him. Louis B. Mayer was a Republican. I don't know about Irving Thalberg; I suspect Fincher made up the story about having his testicles crushed by Tammany Hall thugs. If it happened, Fincher should have made clear that Tammany was the New York City Democrats. The liberal American Federation of Labor also opposed Upton Sinclair for his radical Marxism and hatred of the United States. Heck, many SPA members opposed Sinclair because of his admiration for the Soviet Union; it's surprising he was in the SPA at all.
As I was watching MGM engage in every imaginable dirty trick to defeat Upton Sinclair, the thought occurred to me "Mank" might be a subversive take on today's media and the way it did the same thing to defeat President Trump. For a minute I started to think there might be something more to David Fincher's film. Then I recalled Fincher's unknowing, silly celebration of Upton Sinclair and realized, No, there's nothing here.
As an aside, I just finished reading Donald Rayfield's "Stalin and His Hangmen" (2004) and there's a healthy section on pages 229-230 on Western writers' culpability in the mass murder of 10,000,000 Soviet peasants. And I'm now reading Simon Sebag Montefiore's "Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar" (2003) which describes in passing Upton Sinclair's friendship with the Joseph Stalin.
And lasty, the whole business about the suicide of "Shelly Metcalf" was made up entirely. If David Fincher meant the audience to be believe it happened, then Fincher lied.
It’s a movie, not a documentary lol. It may twist the story around, but the essential message remains; film and media as dangerous tools for persuading masses, like you mentioned the Trump election yourself. I don’t know why historical inaccuracy in a fiction drama would affect the general message
The royal ocean film society once again being at the top of the game. Great video man!
Welles considered suing Kael over this but instead got his posthumous revenge via The Other Side of The Wind, which has a clear Kael stand-in character, and she wasn't around to critique it. Now that's lastwording.
It took decades but that movie eventually saw the light of day and was great. Wells won this argument even if it took 30 plus years after he died and 15 plus after she died.
@@LadyTylerBioRodriguez Agreed! Poetic justice at its finest.
@@Retrostar619 If I recall correctly the Wells stand in at one point punches the Kael stand in it the face. Its amazingly thinly veiled. I love it.
@@LadyTylerBioRodriguez Yup, it's so satisfying. I think there's a line like "Don't worry if you don't know, she'll just make it up anyway" which made me smile!
@@Retrostar619 Oh yeah there are several jabs at Raising Kane. I'd call it petty but for a woman who plagerized someone its fine. Far more enjoyable then a likely failed lawsuit.
Excellent visualization. I did, however, wince when you identified Houseman as "actor John Houseman." Not in 1940. His association with Wells was as a writer and producer in theatre and radio.After splitting with Welles, he worked as mainly as a producer in films and TV. His acting career came late in life (beginning with his role as Professor Kingsield in "The Paper Chase," 1973).
: Welles shared his director card in the credits because as he didn't hesitate to admit his gratitude to Toland for helping him put his vision of the film on the screen, as in imagewise, getting the film images he wanted captured to tell his story.
I have watched many interviews with Orson Welles, he seems to have no difficulty giving credit where credit is due, he was also quite vocal in criticizing his own work (like most great artists) Also, when offered "Touch of Evil" (called Badge of Evil at the time) Welles agreed to direct if he could rewrite the entire script himself. He did it in 2 weeks and according to Charlton Heston it was vastly improved. Clearly Welles could write, and according to Robert Wise (the editor) Kane was Welles' complete obsession while making it because it was his first film. It makes perfect sense then, that he would be involved in some aspect of the writing as well as every other aspect of production including even the lighting. It was his baby. GREAT VIDEO!
Terrifically detailed and entertainingly constructed video essay! For someone who has been regularly watching They'll Love Me When I'm Dead since its Netflix release, this is fab viewing. I also recommend Despite The System by Clinton Heylin for those seeking more Welles-sympathetic illustrations of his time in Hollywood. Thanks for the video! 5*!