MANK

When I first became serious about film, it was taken as given that CITIZEN KANE was the greatest film ever made and that Orson Welles was its single-handed auteur.  Great directors made great films. As I grew older and wiser, and thanks mostly to a second hand copy of Pauline Kael's Raising Kane, I realised that movies are the product of many diverse talents and that auteur theory is largely there to puff up the director's ego. In Kael's seminal essay, published orignally in the New Yorker in 1971 - link here - she explored the making of Kane and restored credit principally to its screenwriter, the legendary Herman Mankiewicz.  

Mank was one of the bright smart young jounros lured to Hollywood by the phat cash on offer. (Kael quotes the iconic telegram he was sent by the equally gifted screenwriter Ben Hecht.) Like Hecht, Mank held the industry that lauded him in no little contempt, always feeling novel writing or pure journalism were the higher forms of his craft. In particular, Mank was too smart not to see through the hypocrisy and cyncism of the studio system and hated himself for loving the luxury it brought him.  And this is why we find him, in 1933, in the first tiemline of this film, sitting in the palatial Xanadu of that nasty, jingoistic punblisher William Randolph Hearst, playing court jester. Mank knew full well what Hearst was, and how he and the studio system were undermining (yet another!) iconic writer - Upton Sinclair's - progressive bid for the California governorship. And he knew just what was going on between Hearst and his squeeze, actress Marion Davis.  And before long, his inability to keep on being court jester, to shut up and keep on cashing the cheques, got him into trouble. He became a nasty alcoholic, and sabotaged his career, coming up with the final act of revenge, a script for the thinly veiled attack on Hearst that was Kane. Hearst tried his best to keep it from being made, and went after Mank in the gossip columns. And that's how we find Mank in the second tieline of this film in 1940, drunk, cared for by a secretary, tussling with a credit-hogging Welles, being begged not to anger Hearst by his brother.

MANK is a cinematic tour de force and passion project for its director, David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) based on the screenplay written by his sadly deceased father Jack.  Shot in sparkling, expressionistic Black and White by Erik Messerschmidt (TV's Fargo), Fincher gives us the movie version of Kael's essay, restoring Mank to co-credit for making Kane, but also as a hero to all of those on the progressive left who refuse to be bought. The film features another superb performance from Gary Oldman in the title role, a kind of grown-up self-righteous scabrous rogue halfway between Oldman's Sid Vicious and Churchill.  But there's a chillingly sinister cameo from Charles Dance, perfectly cast as Hearst and a wonderfully sympathetic performance from Amanda Seyfried as a remarkably self-aware Marion Davis to enjoy too. In smaller roles, I also liked Tuppence Middleton as Mank's wife Sara.  The result is a film that is in love with the golden era of Hollywood but has no illusions as to what it truly was - a film both cynical and nostalgic - dazzling and glamourous - but seedy and sinister. I found every frame ravishing and entertaining but worry it will not appeal beyond cineastes. Mank isn't the kind of activist hero we look for nowadays. He was too mean, too mired in the studio system, too ego-centric. But by god, what a man he was. 

MANK is rated R and has a running time 131 minutes. It was released on Netflix on December 4th.

THE EYES OF ORSON WELLES

THE EYES OF ORSON WELLES is a deeply frustrating film. On the one hand, it's a must-see for any connoisseur of Welles' work, showing us line drawings, pastels, paintings that Welles made throughout his life - never before seen sketches of faces, Christmas cards, lovers notes. Never intended to be seen by a wide audience, the thesis of director Mark Cousins (STOCKHOLM MY LOVE, I AM BELFAST) is that these pictures can tell us about how Welles saw the world - his preoccupations, his literal points of view, and illuminate our understanding of his films. The most useful thing that Cousins does is curate those drawings and juxtapose them with the settings in which they made - Morocco to New England and everything in between.

The problem with the film is that we are never left to contemplate the images for ourselves. Instead, we have the incessant, lilting voice of Cousins with his - to be generous whimsical - to be harsh - indulged and narcissistic voiceover - interpreting them for us. Personally, I found his voice intrusive and his imagining of some kind of personal relationship wince-inducingly embarrassing.   I mean, who on earth is Mark Cousins to be addressing Welles in some fictive first person interrogation, explaining to him what a mobile phone is.

I came to the conclusion that what I wanted was not this film but a coffee table book, handsomely produced, of a curated selection of Welles' art as shown in this film, with a few concise captions for context.  Luckily, those of you close to Edinburgh can approximate just that by visiting an exhibition of his work at the Summerhall Festival. Or you can watch this film on mute so it doesn't become THE VOICE OF MARK COUSINS.

THE EYES OF ORSON WELLES has a running time of 115 minutes.  The film played Cannes 2018 where it won the Golden Eye - Special Mention.  It is currently on release in the UK and USA - in cinemas and on streaming services. 

Pantheon movie of the month - A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS

What is a Pantheon movie? A movie whose every component is perfection; the combination of which is greater than the sum of its parts; and whose perfection is untouched by the intervening years. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS is not just a Pantheon movie; it's a deeply relevant, deeply personal film for me.

The subject matter is the bedrock to its greatness. A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS is one of those films that perfectly articulates a rupture in a nation's intellectual and political life. More particularly, it has that rarest of things as its protagnists - a hero who is also a warm, loving, witty man. We are in Tudor England and Henry VIII is desperate for a male heir. His desperation leads him to betray the Church of which he was a staunch Defender. The nobles, Bishops and Universities all assent to a parliamentary decree making Henry supreme governor of the Church in England. That Church gives him a divorce and then marries him to Anne Boleyn. This is not simply a sacrifice of principle to statescraft. After all, one might rightly have criticised the Catholic Church for its corruption. However, Henry's Cardinal Wolsey makes it clear that English political expediency trumps all.

Against such turbulent times, step forward Thomas More, an honest lawyer. ("When was there last a Chancellor whose possessions after three years in office totaled one hundred pounds and a gold chain?") While friend to the king, his integrity prevents him from publicly assenting to the Act of Succession or approving of Henry's marriage to Anne. But as a loyal subject he will not publicly denounce Henry. Instead, he aims to tread a tightrope of silence and absence from public life. More is clever and witty but he is also naive. His wife, Lady Alice, points this out. The establishment will not allow More to sit quietly. "His silence bellows" because he is known to be honest. Thus we see a slow grinding of the wheels of state - More is thrown in the Tower of London and, when Richard Rich perjures himself, More is executed.

Screen-writer Robert Bolt (LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, DOCTOR ZHIVAGO) crafts a brilliant drama out of this superb material. He captures More's bizarre mix of intellect and naivety. He is careful to show Henry's close relationship with More early in the film, but equally careful to keep Henry absent in the latter half. Henry is too careful - too squeamish - to prosecute More directly. I also like what he does with the minor characters - essaying their character quirks very quickly. There's a great scene where Henry meets More's daughter Meg for the first time. More is known for having eccentrically educated his daughter. Henry tests her on her latin and she responds in fluent, eloquent latin. As she rattles on, Henry loses interest and actually turns away. His ego has been piqued. He turns back, showing off his fine calf! Pure machismo!

But for me, the best innovation is Robert Bolt's handling of the relationship between More and Richard Rich. Rich is a poor boy of ignoble birth but he knows that his intellect can propel him to greatness, Wolsey-style. He begs More for employment, because he knows that he is of weak character, and will be tempted by worse men. More seems fatally dismissive, and casually suggests that Rich becomes a teacher, so putting himself out of temptation's path. But Rich wants power, and eventually will sell himself for a rich position, Attorney-General of Wales. This prompts two of the more profound but also most witty of More's exchanges:

Sir Thomas More: Why not be a teacher? You'd be a fine teacher; perhaps a great one.
Richard Rich: If I was, who would know it?
Sir Thomas More: You; your pupils; your friends; God. Not a bad public, that.
-----------
Sir Thomas More: Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?

The subject matter of this film is, then, of the highest importance: moral conscience versus state expediency. But there is also an exchange in this film that speaks more loudly to contemporary audiences, especially those who do not watch the film as hagiography. Even for me, as a Catholic, the following exchange is the most resonant and personally affecting in the film. Richard Rich has just left More and More's family are desperate for Rich to be arrested. They are right. Rich s a dangerous, traiterous man and will eventually do for More. But More refuses to arrest him. So follows an exchange that defines for me the battle between "security" and "liberty" and comes down firmly in favour of the latter. It is the exchange that defines my views on this issue to this day, especially in the context of the War on Terror.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

The story and script make A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS a Pantheon film but it takes great direction and acting to breathe life into an intellectual, abstract film. Fred Zinnemann (OKLAHOMA!, FROM HERE TO ETERNITY) knows better than to distract from the script with flashy camera angles or over-wrought emotional displays. He also assembles a perfect cast. Zinnemann had the balls to eschew higher-wattage actors (Charlton Heston, Laurence Olivier, Alec Guinness) in favour of class British thesp Paul Schofield in the role of Thomas More. He surrounds him with exeptional character actors - notably Wendy Hiller as Lady Alice More and Leo McKern as Thomas Cromwell. In the minor parts, he casts actors who would go on to be great, showing his eye for talent. So we have John Hurt as Rich, Susannah York as Margaret More, Corin Redgrave as William Roper and Vanessa Redgrave as Anne Boleyn. Robert Shaw is also fantastic as Henry VIII. Where Zinnemann does go for a big name, there is no sense of compromise. A bloated, domineering, insidious Orson Welles embodies the realpolitik of Cardinal Wolsey. Apart from the casting, the technical aspects of the film are well-handled, with nicely photographed colour shots of the river and costume design all winning Oscars.

All in all, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS is one of those films that engages you on an emotional and intellectual level and has the capability to change the way in which you think about the bed-rock issues of life. It's a shame that it sometimes gets cast as a movie for Catholics or history buffs. After all, the battles between Church and State; private and public morality; state security and individual liberty; remain painfully relevant today.

A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS was originally released in 1966. It won the Oscar for Best Film (Fred Zinneman), Best Director (Fred Zinneman), Best Actor (Paul Scofield), Best Cinematography (Ted Moore), Best Costume Design (Elizabeth Haffenden, Joan Bridge), Best Screenplay (Robert Bolt.) In addition, Robert Shaw and Wendy Hiller were nominated for their supporting roles. The film is widely available on DVD.

THE THIRD MAN - a personal appreciation

What can I say about THE THIRD MAN that has not already been said by film critics of greater talent over the decades? It's the British film-noir par excellence and was recently named as the best British film ever made by the British Film Institute*. It picked up awards at Cannes and the Oscars on original release and is viewed by most cineastes as a must-have DVD. Just google the title and you'll come up with a wealth of erudite appreciation.

Well, perhaps I can add a point of information. A newly restored print of THE THIRD MAN is doing the rounds of art cinemas in the UK. As the movie was originally released in 1949, this is likely the first chance fans of the movie will have to see it on the big screen. And boy is it worth it. If ever a movie was made for a cinematic release it is THE THIRD MAN, with its Oscar-winning black and white expressionist photography - all sharp contrast and distorted camera angles.

The other thing I can add is a sort of personal appreciation - an explanation of why THE THIRD MAN is important to me. Years before I started hanging out with R.I.A.K.s** on an almost permanent basis, my only mental images of Vienna were those given to me by cinematographer Robert Krasker in THE THIRD MAN. It was the first movie I watched where I actually noticed the deliberate use of the camera, which I guess influenced the fact that I later studied cinematography rather than cinema history or anything more "soft". This was not your usual bland glossy Hollywood flick. Vienna was all shadowy cobblestone streets and filthy sewers, accompanied by that demented repetitive zither music from Anton Karas. When I finally made it to Vienna I was somewhat disappointed to find it was rather Habsburg Disney - all fairy snow or stunning sunshine. Of course, that didn't stop me scaring myself silly on rides at the Prater or taking the Third Man Tour of the Sewers. I did this about an hour before attending the Concordia Ball, much to my more civilised friends' bemusement.

But more importantly, for me THE THIRD MAN was one of the signposts along the way to growing up. By which I mean, the moment at which you stop thinking that James Bond is how spies are and that the world is essentially A-okay. To quote John le Carre: "I despise Bond. I despise the short answer to the perfectly made world." It started off with reading a lot of Graham Greene, who also wrote the script to THE THIRD MAN, because his sort of uncomfortable Catholicism fitted a lot better to my experience than the usual hagiography you're forced to read as a kid. Once you realise that a whisky priest - an alcoholic with a mistress - can be the Good Catholic Hero - all doors are open. And then I started reading John le Carre, mainly because he went to my old college and apparently one of the old tutors there used to recruit for MI5. Both Greene and le Carre write books about the way the world is, not how it might be in some Boys Own Adventure. And both have a great sense of the absurd. Both deal with the clash of ideology and pragmatism and those grey areas of morality. They also both knew Kim Philby, who was allegedly Greene's model for THE THIRD MAN's most famous character, Harry Lime.

Harry Lime, played in an outstanding cameo by Orson Welles, is a racketeer. A man who has no morality but a profit motive. He has made money in post-war Vienna by running goods from one side to the next and is really rather proud of his hard-headed pragmatism. He lays out his life philosophy in an infamous speech at the Prater: "Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock." It's a sort of Satanic argument for meritocracy and the advance of man. Utterly chilling and yet very, very charming.

This is basically what Kim Philby was meant to be like. Kim was one of the "Cambridge Spies" who betrayed British and American secrets to the Russians from the 1930s up until the 50s, was it?, when Philby was caught and shipped off to Moscow. By this point he was very senior in the British secret service. Le Carre's take seems to be that Philby was basically on the make. In an interview, he said: "Philby had an innate disposition to deceive that preceded his Marxism. But his Marxism was a rationalisation, which came later. His deceitful nature derived from.....an over-whelming vanity about his own worth."

What does all this have to do with THE THIRD MAN? Well, for me, THE THIRD MAN is a story of a young man who comes to Vienna, to quote le Carre again, in the spirit of John Buchan and leaves it in the spirit of Kafka. The movie tells us how that happened. The hero of the story is Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton) - a young innocent American writer of pulp fiction. He has been summoned by his old friend Harry Lime with the promise of employment, but he arrives to find Harry dead. Still, he is offered some work as a lecturer so hangs around, probing into the circumstances of his friend's demise. As he pokes around he hears several versions of the event and discovers that there is a Third Man who cannot be accounted for. To cut a long story short - SPOILER - Holly is disabused of his innocence and falls in love with Harry's old girlfriend who is entirely indifferent to him. He also, dramatically, finds that Harry faked his own death to escape the people after him.

Like I said, there are plenty of people who will tell you how great THE THIRD MAN is. They are not wrong, and any chance to see it on the big screen is not to be missed. For me it will always be the quintessential great film about the loss of innocence and about the charismatic nature of amorality. As a young kid of around twelve, this movie mapped out for me what the world was really about. As they say, the devil has all the best lines. Still, again to paraphrase le Carre, I'd rather be Holly's kind of fool, than Harry's.

*The British Film Institute's Top 20 British films list is: 1. The Third Man. 2. Brief Encounter. 3. Lawrence of Arabia. 4. 39 The 39 Steps (Hitckcock's version.) 5. Great Expectations. 6. Kind Hearts and Coronets. 7. Kes. 8. Don't Look Now. 9. The Red Shoes. 10. Trainspotting. 11. The Bridge on the River Kwai. 12. If...13. The Ladykillers. 14. Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. 15. Brighton Rock. 16. Get Carter. 17. The Lavender Hill Mob. 18. Olivier's Henry V. 19. Chariots of Fire. 20. A Matter of Life and Death.

**Random Inter-changeable Austro-Krauts. (A friend of mine wishes a correction to Austro-Struedels. However, RIASs is less catchy.)

THE THIRD MAN originally showed at Cannes 1949 where it won the Grand Prize. It is currently on re-release in the UK in a shiny new print. The old print is available on DVD.