1. There's a lot of commentary on Mank which re-litigates the old authorship dispute of Mankiewicz versus Welles, which I think is a disservice to both the film & to larger story of the making of Citizen Kane.
-
-
3. On the Mank/Welles credit, I think
@tnyfrontrow is judicious: “Mankiewicz’s work was fundamental, and Welles’s revisions were transformative.” But of course the film was also made by more than just the writer & director: there's the whole rest of the crew.Show this thread -
4. Leaving aside the tired Welles debate, what Mank gets right is Mankiewicz as an emblematic figure of the 1930s Hollywood left, uneasily a pet of the rich, whose folly & corruption he lashes out at.
Show this thread -
5. The real triumph of Mank is that it helps us recover Citizen Kane as a Popular Front movie: an attack on plutocrat made by people who were close enough to wealthy to see the threat the posed to democracy. More here:https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/mank-welles-mankiewicz-kane/ …
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think you can call it a tired debate when most people hadn't heard about it before this movie
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not to be a jerk but it’s Brakhage
-
My mistake was focusing on trying to get the spelling of Mankiewicz’right.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Problem is when it's said the director is the visionary genius, pundits nod sagely, but when it's said the writer is, pundits say it's complicated and a tiresome debate. I don't recall RKO 281 (a Welles-centred drama abt CK) receiving the same flack/criticism as Mank
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.