David Fincher Kinda, Sorta Implies Orson Welles Was Overrated

It’s hard not to love a straight-talking David Fincher doing press whenever he has a new movie out. Fincher, this time around at least, is giving us more exciting press junkets than the actual movie he is currently promoting. I’ve seen his latest “Mank” three times, not because I am absolutely in love with it, but because it was such a letdown on first viewing that I desperately wanted to like it the second and third time. Its tackling of “Citizen Kane” scribe Herman J. Mankiewicz will no doubt adhere to the tastes of the producers in the Academy aging voting body who’ve always had a nostalgic yearning for the Golden-Age milieu depicted in Fincher’s film.

“Mank” is a very dry, dialogue-driven ode to a bygone era of industry guys wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. A passion project, if you will, shot in black and white, and semi-inspired by Pauline Kael’s (in)famous essay, “Raising Kane,” which made the case that Mankiewicz was the main driving force behind the ‘Kane’ script and not Orson Welles, who ended up getting co-credit and winning the Oscar.

The esteemed Fincher, unsatisfied by the negative portrayal of Welles in his latest movie, doubled-down on the legendary ‘Kane’ director by insinuating that he was, sorta, kinda over-rated — a lucky theater prodigy who was aided by Gregg Toland’s groundbreaking photography and Mankiewicz’ brilliant pen.

Fincher to French Premiere, but actually captured in an 11.14 Indiewire piece by Charles Barfield:

Welles “was above all a showman and a juggler with this immense talent. [His] tragedy lies in the mix between monumental talent and filthy immaturity. Sure, there is genius in Citizen Kane, who could argue?

“But when Welles says, ‘It only takes an afternoon to learn everything there is to know about cinematography…pffft. Let’s say that this is the remark of someone who has been lucky to have Gregg Toland around him to prepare the next shot…Gregg Toland, damn it…an insane genius!”

“I say [this] without wanting to be disrespectful to Welles. I know what I owe him, like I know what I owe Alfred Hitchcock, Ridley Scott, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas or Hal Ashby. But at 25, you don’t know what you don’t know. Period. Neither Welles nor anyone. It doesn’t take anything away from him, and especially not his place in the pantheon of those who have influenced entire generations of filmmakers.

“But to claim that Orson Welles came out of nowhere to make Citizen Kane and that the rest of his filmography was ruined by the interventions of ill-intentioned people…it’s not serious, and it is underestimating the disastrous impact of his own delusional hubris.”

My own take on Welles is quite simple; He was his own worst enemy. That's clear, even if you're a fan. Despite all that, he did make some very good movies after “Citizen Kane,” but, with the exception of “Touch of Evil,” no other all-timers. I was never onboard “The Magnificent Ambersons” being regarded as this God-like cinematic statement — it was meddled and destroyed by its own studio, the resulting film was a messy, ambitious and fascinating one, but no masterpiece.

Yes, his first film was his best. Even if he had died right after ‘Kane’ or never made another film, he'd still be a legend. Hell, even if all he had done was radio and stage, his 1938 War of the Worlds radio broadcast would be legendary, the episode became famous for allegedly causing panic among its listening audience. That is the legend, although, much like the ‘Kane’ credit, it has been disputed by some scholars.