The Super Bowl is the most widely viewed TV event in America. The culmination of the National Football League's season draws a varied audience from hardcore sports fans to those who only watch one televised game a year. The spectacle provides something for everyone. Even those who know nothing about football can take in the commercials or halftime show. But arguably, being familiar with its rules, strategy, and personnel should heighten the impact the event has on the viewer.
Some sports are easier to appreciate or at least comprehend than American football. 100-meter dash and weightlifting, for example, are largely self-explanatory. But many athletic competitions require familiarity with the game to follow the action. And the same can be said about cinema. Even movies geared for children can be better understood with prior knowledge of circumstances that support the story. The Harry Potter movies, for example, are best appreciated by those who have read the books or at least watched earlier films in the series.
Moreover, some films are so intertwined with pre-existing narratives that the uninitiated will feel like a lost soul at a Super Bowl party waiting for the halftime show. And the David Fincher directed 2020 biographical drama Mank is the Super Bowl of movies. The stakes seem high, but references to 1940s cinema litter the screen, undoubtedly confusing the unprepared audience like a flurry of yellow flags interrupting the action.
Amanda Seyfriend and Gary Oldman in Mank
Mank follows Herman J. Mankiewicz, the screenwriter for the 1941 film Citizen Kane widely considered one of the greatest movies in history. Thus, familiarity with the classic work should elucidate the significance of the narrative, but only to a limited degree, because Fincher packs the film with a seemingly endless parade of Hollywood stars in minor roles. Although the inclusion of cinematic "icons" may be essential to the plot, a 21st-century moviegoer unfamiliar with the historical figures may get lost or disinterested. It's as if watching the Super Bowl without knowing the names of any of the players. It's still possible to enjoy seeing grown men with helmets chasing an oddly-shaped ball, but the level of appreciation may be diminished.
Herman J. Mankiewicz in the 1940s (wikipedia.org)
While countless characters dodge in and out of the screen, Mankiewicz is the quarterback, driving the main plot. Fincher portrays a complex individual struggling to write a screenplay for Orson Welles, the 25-year-old director trusted by a major Hollywood studio to develop a high-budget film. In a non-linear narrative, similar to Citizen Kane itself, the audience learns of Mankiewicz's life and the inspiration for his project. Mainly, the film explores the screenwriter's relationship with the media tycoon William Randolph Hearst whose life serves as a template for Citizen Kane.
William Randolph Hearst in 1910 (wikipedia.org)
Mankiewicz is a charismatic but flawed writer battling alcoholism. His life is interesting but perhaps forgettable. In the Super Bowl analogy, Mank is a close game, decided by 7 points, but not with any lead changes or a dramatic comeback. Mank is entertaining, even for someone who knows nothing about 1940s cinema, but it lacks a last-second game-winning touchdown.
The 2021 Super Bowl between the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Kansas City Chiefs will be known for many things, but the casual fan may not recall any plays on the field. They may remember the Buccaneers quarterback Tom Brady hoisting his record seventh Super Bowl trophy, cementing his place as the greatest football player ever. Perhaps, they will recall the partially filled stadium due to the pandemic. On the other hand, some may only remember the halftime show headlined by the singer The Weeknd. And for Mank, several parallel storylines may be more memorable than the main plot, with perhaps the most interesting involving the writer Upton Sinclair.
Sinclair's story is not analogous to The Weeknd's Super Bowl performance because the writer's ordeal is not superfluous to the narrative. Instead, Sinclair is more akin to the Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes, who tried to overcome injury to win the biggest game in American sports.
Upton Sinclair in 1934 (wikipedia.org)
Sinclair is perhaps most renowned for his 1906 novel The Jungle, which exposed unfair labor practices in the U.S. In Mank, he runs as a progressive in the California gubernatorial race. However, Hearst and the Hollywood executives Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg support Sinclair's Republican opponent, Frank Merriam. In his effort to stop the "socialist," Hearst funds the production of propaganda films denigrating Sinclair. Ultimately, Merriam handily wins the election. Then, another one of the innumerable characters in the movie, director Shelly Metcalf, commits suicide, feeling guilty about making the propaganda films. Phew!
There's a lot to unpack in Mank, with innumerable characters, many with very small roles but large cinematic historical footprints. For those who are not classic movie buffs, the main takeaway from Mank may be the characterization of two well-known figures outside of Hollywood, Hearst and Sinclair. Their narratives show the complex relationship with varied players in the political world, including the wealthy, the media, and the arts. Similar interactions exist today as powerful individuals support candidates (or run for office), the media weighs in on politics, and show business elites actively campaign for politicians. So Hearst can be seen as analogous to the Koch Brothers for contributing to Republicans, Rupert Murdoch (of FOX) for sensationalized news coverage, or Donald Trump because Hearst also ran for public office. If Sinclair is analogous to another progressive politician, Bernie Sanders, the big difference is that the Hollywood establishment supported Sanders' presidential run.
Similar to the Super Bowl, Mank has something for everyone. For the cinephiles, a story about the making of Citizen Kane filled with obscure references should be very enjoyable. The narrative of an alcoholic struggling to create art is rather mundane but sufficiently entertaining to please a casual moviegoer. The foray into the seedy political environment of the 1940s should intrigue those caught up in the crazy current events and thirst to draw parallels with days gone by.
Andrew’s Grade B
Comments