vox--2020-12-03--AI has cracked a problem that stumped biologists for 50 years. It’s a huge deal.

DeepMind , an AI research lab that was bought by Google and is now an independent part of Google ’ s parent company Alphabet , announced a major breakthrough this week that one evolutionary biologist called “ a game changer.
” “ This will change medicine , ” the biologist , Andrei Lupas , told Nature .
“ It will change research .
It will change bioengineering .
It will change everything.
” The breakthrough : DeepMind says its AI system , AlphaFold , has solved “ the protein folding problem ” — a grand challenge of biology that has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the basic machines that get work done in your cells .
They start out as strings of amino acids ( imagine the beads on a necklace ) but they soon fold up into a unique three-dimensional shape ( imagine scrunching up the beaded necklace in your hand ) .
That 3D shape is crucial because it determines how the protein works .
If you ’ re a scientist developing a new drug , you want to know the protein ’ s shape because that will help you come up with a molecule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into it to alter its behavior .
The trouble is , predicting which shape a protein will take is incredibly hard .
Every two years , researchers who work on this problem try to prove how good their predictive powers are by submitting a prediction about the shapes that certain proteins will take .
Their entries are judged at the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction ( CASP ) conference , which is basically a fancy science contest for grown-ups .
By 2018 , DeepMind ’ s AI was already outperforming everyone at CASP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human researchers .
DeepMind took home the win that year , but it still hadn ’ t solved the protein folding problem .
Not even close .
This year , though , its AlphaFold system was able to predict — with impressive speed and accuracy — what shapes given strings of amino acids would fold up into .
The AI is not perfect , but it ’ s pretty great : When it makes mistakes , it ’ s generally only off by the width of an atom .
That ’ s comparable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do physical experiments in a lab , except that those experiments are much slower and much more expensive .
“ This is a big deal , ” John Moult , who co-founded and oversees CASP , told Nature .
“ In some sense the problem is solved.
” Why this is a big deal for biology The AlphaFold technology still needs to be refined , but assuming the researchers can pull that off , this breakthrough will likely speed up and improve our ability to develop new drugs .
Let ’ s start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense of how much AlphaFold can accelerate scientists ’ work , consider the experience of Andrei Lupas , an evolutionary biologist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany .
He spent a decade — a decade !
— trying to figure out the shape of one protein .
But no matter what he tried in the lab , the answer eluded him .
Then he tried out AlphaFold and he had the answer in half an hour .
AlphaFold has implications for everything from Alzheimer ’ s disease to future pandemics .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many ( like Alzheimer ’ s ) are caused by misfolded proteins .
It can help us find new treatments , and also help us quickly determine which existing drugs can be usefully applied to , for example , a new virus .
When another pandemic comes along , it could be very helpful to have a system like AlphaFold in our back pocket .
“ We could start screening every compound that is licensed for use in humans , ” Lupas told the New York Times .
“ We could face the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have.
” But for this to be possible , DeepMind would have to share its technology with scientists .
The lab says it ’ s exploring ways to do that .
Why this is a big deal for artificial intelligence Over the past few years , DeepMind has made a name for itself by playing games .
It has built AI systems that crushed pro gamers at strategy games like StarCraft and go .
Much like the chess matches between IBM ’ s Deep Blue and Garry Kasparov , these matches mostly served @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AI that surpasses human abilities .
Now , DeepMind is proving that it has grown up .
It has graduated from playing video games to addressing scientific problems with real-world significance — problems that can be life-or-death .
The protein folding problem was a perfect thing to tackle .
DeepMind is a world leader in building neural networks , a type of artificial intelligence loosely inspired by the neurons in a human brain .
The beauty of this type of AI is that it doesn ’ t require you to preprogram it with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a neural network enough examples of something , and it can learn to detect patterns in the data , then draw inferences based on that .
So , for example , you can present it with many thousands of strings of amino acids and show it what shape they folded into .
Gradually , it detects patterns in the way given strings tend to shape up — patterns that human experts may not have detected .
From there , it can make predictions about how other strings will fold .
This is exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ networks excel , and DeepMind recognized that , marrying the right type of AI to the right type of puzzle .
( It also integrated some more complex knowledge — about physics and evolutionarily related amino acid sequences , for example — though the details remain scant as DeepMind is still preparing a peer-reviewed paper for publication . )
Other labs have already harnessed the power of neural networks to make breakthroughs in biology .
At the beginning of this year , AI researchers trained a neural network by feeding it data on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then they used it to predict which other molecules — out of 107 million possibilities — would also have these properties .
In this way , they managed to identify brand-new types of antibiotics .
DeepMind researchers are capping the year with another achievement that shows just how much AI has matured .
It ’ s genuinely great news for a generally terrible 2020 .
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing good .

DeepMind, an AI research lab that was bought by Google and is now an independent part of Google’s parent company Alphabet, announced a major breakthrough this week that one evolutionary biologist called “a game changer.”
“This will change medicine,” the biologist, Andrei Lupas, told Nature. “It will change research. It will change bioengineering. It will change everything.”
The breakthrough: DeepMind says its AI system, AlphaFold, has solved the “protein folding problem” — a grand challenge of biology that has vexed scientists for 50 years.
Proteins are the basic machines that get work done in your cells. They start out as strings of amino acids (imagine the beads on a necklace) but they soon fold up into a unique three-dimensional shape (imagine scrunching up the beaded necklace in your hand).
That 3D shape is crucial because it determines how the protein works. If you’re a scientist developing a new drug, you want to know the protein’s shape because that will help you come up with a molecule that can bind to it, fitting into it to alter its behavior. The trouble is, predicting which shape a protein will take is incredibly hard.
Every two years, researchers who work on this problem try to prove how good their predictive powers are by submitting a prediction about the shapes that certain proteins will take. Their entries are judged at the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) conference, which is basically a fancy science contest for grown-ups.
By 2018, DeepMind’s AI was already outperforming everyone at CASP, provoking some melancholic feelings among the human researchers. DeepMind took home the win that year, but it still hadn’t solved the protein folding problem. Not even close.
This year, though, its AlphaFold system was able to predict — with impressive speed and accuracy — what shapes given strings of amino acids would fold up into. The AI is not perfect, but it’s pretty great: When it makes mistakes, it’s generally only off by the width of an atom. That’s comparable to the mistakes you get when you do physical experiments in a lab, except that those experiments are much slower and much more expensive.
“This is a big deal,” John Moult, who co-founded and oversees CASP, told Nature. “In some sense the problem is solved.”
Why this is a big deal for biology
The AlphaFold technology still needs to be refined, but assuming the researchers can pull that off, this breakthrough will likely speed up and improve our ability to develop new drugs.
Let’s start with the speed. To get a sense of how much AlphaFold can accelerate scientists’ work, consider the experience of Andrei Lupas, an evolutionary biologist at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. He spent a decade — a decade! — trying to figure out the shape of one protein. But no matter what he tried in the lab, the answer eluded him. Then he tried out AlphaFold and he had the answer in half an hour.
AlphaFold has implications for everything from Alzheimer’s disease to future pandemics. It can help us understand diseases, since many (like Alzheimer’s) are caused by misfolded proteins. It can help us find new treatments, and also help us quickly determine which existing drugs can be usefully applied to, for example, a new virus. When another pandemic comes along, it could be very helpful to have a system like AlphaFold in our back pocket.
“We could start screening every compound that is licensed for use in humans,” Lupas told the New York Times. “We could face the next pandemic with the drugs we already have.”
But for this to be possible, DeepMind would have to share its technology with scientists. The lab says it’s exploring ways to do that.
Why this is a big deal for artificial intelligence
Over the past few years, DeepMind has made a name for itself by playing games. It has built AI systems that crushed pro gamers at strategy games like StarCraft and Go. Much like the chess matches between IBM’s Deep Blue and Garry Kasparov, these matches mostly served to prove that DeepMind can make an AI that surpasses human abilities.
Now, DeepMind is proving that it has grown up. It has graduated from playing video games to addressing scientific problems with real-world significance — problems that can be life-or-death.
The protein folding problem was a perfect thing to tackle. DeepMind is a world leader in building neural networks, a type of artificial intelligence loosely inspired by the neurons in a human brain. The beauty of this type of AI is that it doesn’t require you to preprogram it with a lot of rules. Just feed a neural network enough examples of something, and it can learn to detect patterns in the data, then draw inferences based on that.
So, for example, you can present it with many thousands of strings of amino acids and show it what shape they folded into. Gradually, it detects patterns in the way given strings tend to shape up — patterns that human experts may not have detected. From there, it can make predictions about how other strings will fold.
This is exactly the sort of problem at which neural networks excel, and DeepMind recognized that, marrying the right type of AI to the right type of puzzle. (It also integrated some more complex knowledge — about physics and evolutionarily related amino acid sequences, for example — though the details remain scant as DeepMind is still preparing a peer-reviewed paper for publication.)
Other labs have already harnessed the power of neural networks to make breakthroughs in biology. At the beginning of this year, AI researchers trained a neural network by feeding it data on 2,335 molecules known to have antibacterial properties. Then they used it to predict which other molecules — out of 107 million possibilities — would also have these properties. In this way, they managed to identify brand-new types of antibiotics.
DeepMind researchers are capping the year with another achievement that shows just how much AI has matured. It’s genuinely great news for a generally terrible 2020.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.


vox--2020-12-04--David Fincher’s new movie Mank is a broadside against Hollywood self-congratulation

Mank isn ’ t a movie for everybody , though it masquerades as one .
Since it ’ s a Netflix original , its viewership will likely dwarf the number of people who might have moseyed on down to an art-house theater in days of yore .
And it ’ s directed by David Fincher , whose taut thrillers — including Se7en , Fight Club , Gone Girl , Zodiac , and The Social Network — have earned him a reputation as a darkly savage crowdpleaser .
I can ’ t imagine many Fincher-heads being thrilled by Mank , though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no bloody murders .
Its target audience is almost impressively niche : Cinephiles , film critics , and people who are deeply interested in the history of Hollywood circa 1940 .
It ’ s not that a person outside that audience can ’ t watch and , in broad strokes , understand the story of Mank .
It ’ s that to an extent , the film feels like inside baseball .
( If you are interested in unpacking that inside baseball — which has to do with turn-of-the-century moguls , 1930s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feuds from the 1960s , check out this explainer . )
Mank is the tale of Herman J. Mankiewicz , the man who co-wrote Citizen Kane , which is still widely ( and , by my lights , correctly ) considered one of the greatest movies of all time .
He shares the writing credit with the film ’ s director , producer , and star , Orson Welles .
Mank runs along two timelines .
In the first , it ’ s 1940 .
Mankiewicz ( Gary Oldman ) , a seasoned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on his luck and laid up by a car accident , is sent by a film producer to a remote house with a nurse and a secretary to write a screenplay for Orson Welles .
He titles that screenplay America , but it eventually becomes Citizen Kane .
Mank ’ s second timeline begins about a decade prior , as Mankiewicz becomes acquainted with William Randolph Hearst ( Charles Dance ) , one of the richest and most famous men in America , and Hearst ’ s mistress , the actress Marion Davies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a busy working writer and an infamous drunk .
Every famous writer and plenty of famous producers from the era show up in this timeline — from David O. Selznick ( Toby Leonard Moore ) to Ben Hecht ( Jeff Harns ) to , most significantly , Louis B. Mayer ( Arliss Howard ) — and Mankiewicz slowly realizes , through a number of experiences , that the industry he works in is both influential in ways that have nothing to do with entertainment , and morally bankrupt .
( This latter bit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election , which means Upton Sinclair , played by Bill Nye , makes a cameo . )
Fincher , working from a screenplay written by his father Jack Fincher , makes obvious nods to films of the period and Citizen Kane specifically .
Mank is in black and white .
There are fake effects intended to mimic what you might see on actual film , even though Fincher shoots digitally .
Certain editing choices and flourishes — like fade-outs at the end of a scene — pay homage to a bygone era of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paying homage , it isn ’ t doing so slavishly ; the film is no love letter to Hollywood .
The film industry loves to make movies about itself , to be sure .
But if , say , a work like the 2013 Best Picture winner Argo is about Hollywood saving the world , then Mank is the exact opposite .
Mank tells the story of a screenwriter for whom working in Hollywood doesn ’ t amount to much more than taking home an easy , enormous paycheck for tossing off silly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ West at the time — including , for instance , F. Scott Fitzgerald — Mankiewicz had been a successful journalist and playwright before he landed on the Paramount lot .
For him , the movies were a diversion , fundamentally silly entertainment that offered a perfectly fine way to make a living , but wasn ’ t of much importance otherwise .
Over the course of Mank , however , he comes to realize there are big real-world implications to the way the movie business runs , from the lower-paid workers who struggle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the films they produce can distort the truth and benefit the powerful .
Citizen Kane , at least in Mank ’ s telling , is equal parts his stroke of revenge and his plea for atonement .
It ’ s a very good movie , tight and layered and complex .
And though it could feel chilly — and I understand that reaction — I found it quite moving .
We live , in a sense , in the world that Mankiewicz and Hearst and Mayer and the rest of them made : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affected the way we perceive reality and what we believe to be true .
In Mank ’ s 1930s timeline , Mankiewicz is just catching on to the power that images , whether or not they ’ re “ real , ” exercise over the ordinary people who watch them .
At one point , he says flippantly that he can ’ t imagine regular moviegoers would actually fall for the messages they see on screen .
He soon learns he vastly overestimated the regular moviegoer .
That lesson resonates at the tail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political reasons I probably don ’ t need to explain .
But it ’ s also why Mankiewicz ’ s dawning realization and slow decision to throw himself under the bus — by writing what turned out to be not just his best movie , but quite possibly Hollywood ’ s best movie — is so poignant .
It ’ s an inkling of the promise of cinema , and also the limitations of cinema .
Meanwhile , it ’ s difficult to ignore the irony of a movie like Mank being produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be viewed , mostly , on people ’ s TVs and laptop screens .
The Hollywood that Herman J. Mankiewicz worked in was on the precipice of a shift , a loss of innocence , as the studio system began to stagnate and new ways of doing business appeared on the horizon .
A similar shift looms now , due in no small part to a decline in the communal experience of going to the theater and studios ’ foregrounding of individualistic movie- ” going ” via small screens .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , though I ’ m not sure we ’ ll know what it is till we get a few years ’ worth of distance .
But what ’ s obvious , from Mank , is that movies aren ’ t built to save anyone .
They never have been .
They can be transformative ; they can do good in the world ; they can change people ’ s outlooks in many ways .
But not simply because they ’ re movies .
Any impact a movie has is the result of an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their own nose and do something vulnerable , purposeful , and risky .
Entering someone else ’ s experience through a movie is different from being presented with statistics , or polemics .
When people in power harness the moving image to benefit their own ends , they do just the opposite of saving the world .
What Mank suggests is that daring to take movies ( and , by extension , TV ) seriously , and seeing them for the cultural bellwether they are , requires some courage and perhaps a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no guarantee that your efforts will be rewarded .
Never mind .
It is work worth doing .

Mank isn’t a movie for everybody, though it masquerades as one. Since it’s a Netflix original, its viewership will likely dwarf the number of people who might have moseyed on down to an art-house theater in days of yore. And it’s directed by David Fincher, whose taut thrillers — including Se7en, Fight Club, Gone Girl, Zodiac, and The Social Network — have earned him a reputation as a darkly savage crowdpleaser.
I can’t imagine many Fincher-heads being thrilled by Mank, though. No serial killers, no fistfights, no bloody murders. Its target audience is almost impressively niche: Cinephiles, film critics, and people who are deeply interested in the history of Hollywood circa 1940. It’s not that a person outside that audience can’t watch and, in broad strokes, understand the story of Mank. It’s that to an extent, the film feels like inside baseball. (If you are interested in unpacking that inside baseball — which has to do with turn-of-the-century moguls, 1930s Hollywood politics, and film critics’ feuds from the 1960s, check out this explainer.)
Rating: 4 out of 5 vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark vox-mark
Mank is the tale of Herman J. Mankiewicz, the man who co-wrote Citizen Kane, which is still widely (and, by my lights, correctly) considered one of the greatest movies of all time. He shares the writing credit with the film’s director, producer, and star, Orson Welles. Mank runs along two timelines. In the first, it’s 1940. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), a seasoned Hollywood screenwriter who’s been down on his luck and laid up by a car accident, is sent by a film producer to a remote house with a nurse and a secretary to write a screenplay for Orson Welles. He titles that screenplay American, but it eventually becomes Citizen Kane.
Mank’s second timeline begins about a decade prior, as Mankiewicz becomes acquainted with William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance), one of the richest and most famous men in America, and Hearst’s mistress, the actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Mankiewicz is a busy working writer and an infamous drunk. Every famous writer and plenty of famous producers from the era show up in this timeline — from David O. Selznick (Toby Leonard Moore) to Ben Hecht (Jeff Harns) to, most significantly, Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) — and Mankiewicz slowly realizes, through a number of experiences, that the industry he works in is both influential in ways that have nothing to do with entertainment, and morally bankrupt. (This latter bit is intertwined with the 1934 California gubernatorial election, which means Upton Sinclair, played by Bill Nye, makes a cameo.)
Fincher, working from a screenplay written by his father Jack Fincher, makes obvious nods to films of the period and Citizen Kane specifically. Mank is in black and white. There are fake effects intended to mimic what you might see on actual film, even though Fincher shoots digitally. Certain editing choices and flourishes — like fade-outs at the end of a scene — pay homage to a bygone era of Hollywood filmmaking.
But if Mank is paying homage, it isn’t doing so slavishly; the film is no love letter to Hollywood. The film industry loves to make movies about itself, to be sure. But if, say, a work like the 2013 Best Picture winner Argo is about Hollywood saving the world, then Mank is the exact opposite. Mank tells the story of a screenwriter for whom working in Hollywood doesn’t amount to much more than taking home an easy, enormous paycheck for tossing off silly ideas. Like many others who headed West at the time — including, for instance, F. Scott Fitzgerald — Mankiewicz had been a successful journalist and playwright before he landed on the Paramount lot. For him, the movies were a diversion, fundamentally silly entertainment that offered a perfectly fine way to make a living, but wasn’t of much importance otherwise.
Over the course of Mank, however, he comes to realize there are big real-world implications to the way the movie business runs, from the lower-paid workers who struggle to make a living to the way the films they produce can distort the truth and benefit the powerful. Citizen Kane, at least in Mank’s telling, is equal parts his stroke of revenge and his plea for atonement.
It’s a very good movie, tight and layered and complex. And though it could feel chilly — and I understand that reaction — I found it quite moving.
We live, in a sense, in the world that Mankiewicz and Hearst and Mayer and the rest of them made: one where the moving image has profoundly affected the way we perceive reality and what we believe to be true. In Mank’s 1930s timeline, Mankiewicz is just catching on to the power that images, whether or not they’re “real,” exercise over the ordinary people who watch them. At one point, he says flippantly that he can’t imagine regular moviegoers would actually fall for the messages they see on screen. He soon learns he vastly overestimated the regular moviegoer.
That lesson resonates at the tail end of 2020, for social and political reasons I probably don’t need to explain. But it’s also why Mankiewicz’s dawning realization and slow decision to throw himself under the bus — by writing what turned out to be not just his best movie, but quite possibly Hollywood’s best movie — is so poignant. It’s an inkling of the promise of cinema, and also the limitations of cinema.
Meanwhile, it’s difficult to ignore the irony of a movie like Mank being produced by Netflix, a Hollywood upstart, to be viewed, mostly, on people’s TVs and laptop screens. The Hollywood that Herman J. Mankiewicz worked in was on the precipice of a shift, a loss of innocence, as the studio system began to stagnate and new ways of doing business appeared on the horizon. A similar shift looms now, due in no small part to a decline in the communal experience of going to the theater and studios’ foregrounding of individualistic movie-”going” via small screens. There’s a lesson in there, somewhere, though I’m not sure we’ll know what it is till we get a few years’ worth of distance.
But what’s obvious, from Mank, is that movies aren’t built to save anyone. They never have been. They can be transformative; they can do good in the world; they can change people’s outlooks in many ways. But not simply because they’re movies. Any impact a movie has is the result of an artist choosing to look past the end of their own nose and do something vulnerable, purposeful, and risky. Entering someone else’s experience through a movie is different from being presented with statistics, or polemics.
When people in power harness the moving image to benefit their own ends, they do just the opposite of saving the world. What Mank suggests is that daring to take movies (and, by extension, TV) seriously, and seeing them for the cultural bellwether they are, requires some courage and perhaps a bit of recklessness. There’s no guarantee that your efforts will be rewarded. Never mind. It is work worth doing.
Mank premieres December 4 on Netflix.


vox--2020-12-04--The tangled history behind David Fincher’s Mank — and its link to Citizen Kane — explained

Midway through Mank , Herman J. Mankiewicz ( Gary Oldman ) is explaining his screenplay — tentatively titled America — to producer John Houseman ( Sam Troughton ) .
Houseman has been tasked with keeping the legendarily alcoholic writer on schedule , and though he likes what he ’ s read , he finds Mankiewicz ’ s script “ a bit of a jumble , a hodgepodge of talky episodes , a collection of fragments that leap around in time like Mexican jumping beans , ” he says .
“ The story is so scattered , I ’ m afraid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The narrative is one big circle , like a cinnamon roll , ” Mankiewicz replies .
“ Not a straight line pointing to the nearest exit .
You can not capture a man ’ s entire life in two hours .
All you can hope is to leave the impression.
” Mankiewicz — “ Mank ” is his nickname — is explaining his elliptical script , which in 1941 would be released as Citizen Kane , the seminal film on which he officially shares the screenwriting credit with Citizen Kane director , producer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet his cinnamon roll analogy is a useful way to describe Mank , which itself is a bit of a puzzle .
On the one hand , the movie is plenty watchable even without much knowledge of the real-life characters and historical story it ’ s telling ; Mank is about a former journalist and playwright who struck gold in Hollywood — like many writers of his era — only to be tossed out by the industry and go on to strike back the best way he can .
Directed by David Fincher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) from a screenplay written by his father Jack Fincher , it ’ s fast , talky , and shot in black and white with old-timey flourishes , and its plot is simple enough to follow even though the film is not very interested in explaining itself .
But on the other hand , it ’ s possible — even likely — to get to the end of Mank and wonder , “ What was that all about ?
” The film is dense with references to multiple real-life feuds , long-running critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the political allegiances and alliances that were so much a part of Hollywood ’ s first several decades .
It ’ s really a movie about a writer who comes to realize the business he ’ s in is being twisted by the powerful , toward terrible ends .
And he decides to take revenge by making a film about the powerful media magnate William Randolph Hearst , whom he once saw as his friend .
So to unroll the cinnamon bun of Mank — especially if you ’ ve found yourself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exists — it ’ s worth understanding everything that ’ s going on beneath it .
The genesis of Mank is in a film critic feud from the 1960s and ’ 70s The first layer of this movie is a decades-long argument over who is actually responsible for the masterpiece that is Citizen Kane .
The comprehensive history of this quarrel — and the question of why anyone cares about it — has filled books and occupied historians , critics , and cinephiles to a degree that can seem baffling from the outside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the late Pauline Kael , one of the foremost American film critics , and the year 1971 .
At that time , Kael was the film critic for the New Yorker , and one of the most prominent critics in the field .
For more than a decade , she had been clashing with the Village Voice ’ s Andrew Sarris over the rightness of the auteur theory , a way of thinking about films developed by French critics in the late 1940s .
In brief , the theory proposes that films ought @ @ @ @ @ @ @ primarily , of the director ’ s vision , and that it ’ s both possible and useful to meaningfully consider a consistency of style or thematic content across one director ’ s body of work .
For some critics , this concept was especially helpful in finding new ways to talk about American films .
In its early decades , Hollywood operated like a series of little factories .
Studios kept a bevy of directors , writers , producers , actors , and many others on their payroll under exclusive contracts .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ directors to have their films distributed by a range of different studios , and for actors to work on a variety of films — even in the same year — that are bankrolled by different studios .
Or a studio might not even be involved ; many modern productions operate independently of the six major studios that make up the Motion Picture Association : Disney , Paramount , Warner Bros. , Sony , Universal , and , as of 2019 , Netflix , the studio that produced Mank .
But until the middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was often billed to the public as an “ MGM picture ” or a “ Paramount picture , ” starring players under contract with that studio ; in those days , the names of the director and writer were usually of little importance .
The emergence of the auteur theory gave critics a handle to grab onto when talking about , for instance , the films of Howard Hawks or Alfred Hitchcock : They were the work of a director with a singular vision , even if their studios preferred not to think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the American critic most responsible for importing the auteur theory to the US .
And Kael , without exaggeration , hated the idea of it .
She saw it as a lot of bunk , reductive in a way that could be exploited to downgrade great movies and praise bad ones , and she ferociously attacked Sarris in her 1963 essay “ Circles and Squares , ” which had the effect of raising the auteur theory ’ s profile as well as Sarris ’ s .
Fights over the rightness or wrongness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever since .
These days , they happen most often on Twitter ; in 2020 , everyone seems to have a different opinion about what the auteur theory even is and what it is meant to do .
But in the 1960s , Sarris ’ s auteur-driven approach to criticism and Kael ’ s rejection of that approach fueled the hottest debate among critics and cinephiles .
( If you ask me , both Sarris and Kael were a little right and a little wrong , but then , that ’ s the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So that ’ s what was swirling in the air back in 1971 when Kael was asked to write the foreword to a published version of the Citizen Kane shooting script , timed to its 30-year anniversary .
She wrote 50,000 words — the equivalent of a short novel — that were published in two parts in the New Yorker before the book came out .
The essay , which has been reprinted in collections of Kael ’ s work , was titled “ Raising Kane ” — a cheeky reference to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means to cause a ruckus or raise hell .
Kael knew what she was doing .
In “ Raising Kane , ” Kael proposed , in a long-winded and somewhat factually inaccurate but highly readable fashion , that Mankiewicz ’ s screenplay was the real reason that Citizen Kane was great — and not , as an auteur-theory purist might believe , mostly the byproduct of Orson Welles ’ s brilliance .
She didn ’ t dispute that star , producer , and director Welles was a huge part of what made the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a genius .
But at its core , she said , Citizen Kane ’ s true auteur was a writer .
Kael ’ s argument was that Mankiewicz ’ s screenplay — for which she strongly suggested Welles took far too much credit — is what makes the whole thing sing .
Kael built this argument by recounting the entire history of the making of the film , pointing out the commonalities between Citizen Kane and other films that Mankiewicz wrote , tracing Welles ’ s arrival in Hollywood , and weaving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her goal in the whole endeavor was to get in another jab at auteur theory acolytes , and so she cherry-picked the facts on which she focused , selectively omitted others , and failed to even talk to Welles , who was very much alive , about his side of the matter .
( Whatever else “ Raising Kane ” is , it is not very good journalism , and for some reason it seems to have evaded the scrutiny of the New Yorker ’ s famously rigorous fact-checking department . )
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an outcry among people who care about movies , not least because Citizen Kane had attained the nearly universal status of masterpiece in the three decades since its debut — not just as Welles ’ s masterpiece , but as one of the greatest films ever made .
The director Peter Bogdanovich , a protégé of Welles , penned a lengthy rebuttal in Esquire ( though it was much shorter , at 10,000 words ) entitled “ The Kane Mutiny.
” He quoted Welles extensively ( and some believe that Welles himself wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of twisting the truth , and said that Kael ’ s account was “ so loaded with error and faulty supposition that it would require at least as many words as were at her disposal to correct , disprove and properly refute it.
” Welles , he argued , did not deserve to be so unfairly maligned .
Mank is on Mankiewicz ’ s side .
But it ’ s also not very interested in the question of who deserves the most credit for Citizen Kane .
Which side of this argument is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slanted toward Mankiewicz , which is no big shocker .
Nobody disputes that Mankiewicz did , indeed , co-write the Citizen Kane screenplay ; the argument is over how much of the resulting masterpiece is due to him and how much is due to Welles , a matter that Mank is happy to elide by skipping from Mankiewicz and Welles fighting about the screenplay draft to the 1942 Oscars , from which Welles was absent as Mankiewicz accepted the trophy for Best Original Screenplay .
Citizen Kane was nominated for nine Oscars , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ won for its screenplay , which seems to underline Kael ’ s point a little if you take it as read that the best films in each individual category always win .
But more to the point , the author of Mank ’ s screenplay , Jack Fincher , used “ Raising Kane ” as the basis for his first draft .
Between looking to Kael as a primary text and fudging some facts the ways “ true ” story adaptations usually do , some parts of the film match the historical record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
( Matthew Dessem wrote a great rundown of Mank ’ s facts , half-truths , and fictions at Slate . )
Still , Mankiewicz is , if not the triumphant hero of Mank , at least a kind of tragic hero , for reasons tied to its story arc .
In the Esquire article , Welles himself , as quoted by Bogdanovich , addresses how the studio system of the era treated writers like Mankiewicz , and how that treatment affected them : The reason the “ who deserves the credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legs is that the film is still venerated as one of the greatest films of all time , and plenty of writers have tackled the question of its authorship .
But for people who first encounter Citizen Kane in a film class or revival cinema , or on a streaming platform today , the fact that any controversy exists may not be evident — and in truth , it ’ s probably irrelevant .
These days , it ’ s much more common for directors to have solo or co-writing credits on their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory is still a widely used lens to look at movies ( and I use it all the time ) , it doesn ’ t have quite the same dogmatic hold as it might have for some in the past .
Besides , Citizen Kane is just a really great movie , pleasurable from beginning to end , which is remarkable given that it ’ s about a would-be demagogue who dies alone and miserable .
( That ’ s no spoiler ; it happens in the first two minutes of the film @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nearly 80 years after its debut , which is notable in itself .
But its continuing relevance is even more astonishing if you ’ re aware that its original audience would have seen it as a thinly veiled tell-all movie about a very , very famous man — and a real guy , not a fictional one .
That man was the megafamous businessman , newspaper publisher , and politician William Randolph Hearst .
Mank is more interested in the contentious relationship between Mankiewicz and William Randolph Hearst than what critics say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central figure is Charles Foster Kane , an avatar of Hearst played by Welles .
Kane is an incredibly wealthy man , a newspaper baron with few scruples about journalism who attains immense power , only to see it start to fade near the end of his life .
In his youth , he buys a newspaper and builds it into an empire ; then he marries the president ’ s niece .
He has political aspirations .
He runs for governor of New York .
But his marriage ends when he falls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ talent , and the ensuing scandal destroys his political career .
So he turns his attention to promoting his wife ’ s opera career , something she doesn ’ t particularly want to pursue ; eventually he brings her to his Florida estate , Xanadu , which is filled with the treasures of the world , objects he can ’ t help but compulsively buy .
Eventually she leaves him , and he dies alone , whispering the word “ Rosebud.
” This story is told in a nonlinear fashion , with flashbacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the film announces Kane ’ s death and tells the story of his life in the style of a newsreel , the sort that would have played before a feature film in a movie theater , as was common at the time .
The men cutting the reel aren ’ t satisfied because they can ’ t figure out why Kane ’ s last word was “ Rosebud , ” and they send a reporter to go figure it out by interviewing Kane ’ s former friends and associates .
So the beats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bits and pieces as Citizen Kane moves between timelines .
( Mank imitates this structure by bouncing back and forth between two main timelines , one as Mankiewicz writes the Citizen Kane screenplay in 1940 and one as Mankiewicz rubs elbows with Hearst in the early 1930s . )
As Mankiewicz explains to his producer in Mank , Citizen Kane is coiled like a cinnamon bun .
And the reason the film holds up so well today is thanks to its very finely tuned screenplay , meaning — most likely — that its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mankiewicz wrote and what Welles did with it .
But Citizen Kane is also a pretty shocking film , given that Kane is very clearly William Randolph Hearst , or a figure who so closely resembles Hearst that most anyone in Citizen Kane ’ s 1940s audience would have recognized him as such .
In the late 1880s and ’ 90s , Hearst built the largest newspaper and media company in America , and became famous for sensationalist “ yellow journalism.
” In the early 1900s , he was elected twice to Congress @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York governor and president — all as a progressive Democrat .
After he left the political sphere , his own politics began to skew more to the right ; he became an isolationist and broke with FDR , whom he had previously supported .
He then spent years building Hearst Castle on a 240,000-acre estate near San Simeon , California , which he never finished but where he collected vast amounts of art and other treasures from around the globe .
It was as though he wanted to have the vast spoils of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — who is played in Mank by Charles Dance — wasn ’ t dead when Citizen Kane came out in 1941 , but otherwise the contours of his life were eerily similar to Kane ’ s .
Susan , the singer who marries Kane , is modeled on Hearst ’ s longtime mistress , the actress Marion Davies ( in Mank , Davies is played by Amanda Seyfried ) .
Like Kane ’ s focus on Susan ’ s opera career , Hearst spent lavish amounts of money trying to put Davies in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quite right ( by all accounts , her comedic chops would ’ ve made her a better fit for comic roles , rather than the romantic leading lady parts he thrust her into ) .
Like Kane , Hearst had the house , the yellow journalism career , the failed political bids — all details that moviegoers of the era would have read about .
The similarities were so striking that friends and associates of Hearst tried to strongarm Citizen Kane ’ s studio , RKO , into not making the film at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release .
( They were partly successful .
When Citizen Kane came out , only a few theaters initially agreed to show it , fearing reprisals from Hearst . )
Welles enjoyed a lot of creative freedom in making the film , and he had no particular connection to Hearst .
He was a 25-year-old upstart when he was hired by RKO after its president , George Schafer , heard Welles ’ s War of the Worlds broadcast and decided to give him a huge contract to make whatever movie he wanted .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hired his own writer : Mankiewicz .
In Mank , Welles informs Mankiewicz of this freedom on the phone : that they will have “ no studio notes , no one but ourselves to blame ” for whatever the final product turns out to be .
Mankiewicz seems to take Welles ’ s comment as a signal that it ’ s the right time to go after Hearst .
Mankiewicz and Hearst were once friends , and their break — combined with 1930s politics — is what fuels Mank The thing is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
They weren ’ t just acquainted ; they were friends , having met when Mankiewicz started writing for Hollywood .
Hearst loved having Mankiewicz around because he was amused by the writer ’ s sharp wit and barbed bon mots .
Mankiewicz loved visiting Hearst ’ s palatial California estate which , among other things , had exotic zoo animals on the grounds .
Davies lived there most of the time , vacating only when Mrs. Hearst ( who lived on the East Coast ) came to town .
Davies and Mankiewicz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his long-suffering wife Sarah were invited to Hearst ’ s lavish parties , along with everyone who was anyone at the time .
So Mankiewicz ’ s decision to target Hearst was shocking , and the explanation for it requires a detour into Mankiewicz ’ s long and winding biography .
To cut to the point , Hearst didn ’ t really approve of alcohol , and Mankiewicz ’ s truly excessive , legendary drinking made him progressively less welcome at Hearst ’ s table .
The result was that Mankiewicz became progressively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the eyes of Louis B. Mayer ( in Mank , played by Arliss Howard ) who ran MGM , where Mankiewicz worked for years .
In Mank , Mankiewicz calls Mayer Hearst ’ s “ lap dog ” and the Sancho Panza to Hearst ’ s Don Quixote ; he does not have much respect for Mayer at all .
And he slowly grows to realize that the two of them are responsible for the industry that ’ s trying to shove him out the door .
All of this backstory makes Citizen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revenge , and a profoundly surgical one , calculated to dissect Hearst ’ s greatest weaknesses on a big screen for everyone to see .
The film portrays Hearst as both pathetically power-hungry and desperate to be loved .
In writing Mank , Fincher goes a step further , integrating a political backdrop that is both accurate and smudged around the edges .
The movie flashes back frequently to a story that takes place about 10 years before the “ present , ” in the early 1930s , when Upton Sinclair ( portrayed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delightful cameo ) was running for California governor .
Sinclair was a self-avowed socialist and a muckraker whose journalism was partly responsible for exposing Hearst ’ s brand of “ yellow journalism ” — a kind of “ fake news ” — and showing how it pushed the limits of the American ideal of the “ free press.
” He wrote many books ( including The Jungle , about the horrendous conditions in the meatpacking industry ) and ran for governor in 1934 .
There ’ s no real evidence that Mankiewicz was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mank , he is depicted as becoming one .
He is also what one might call “ socialism-curious.
” Mankiewicz resists when his younger brother Joe ( Tom Pelphrey ) , another screenwriter , urges him to join the newly formed Screen Writers Guild , a union designed to protect writers against labor exploitation by the big studios .
Mank then adds another layer to Mankiewicz ’ s frustration with Hearst , and one with perhaps a little more heart .
He seems to develop a growing empathy for the people who don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he and other screenwriters , to say nothing of film stars and directors , have at their respective movie studios — the scenics and camerapeople and others whose salaries would take a hit as the Depression went on .
Everyone in Hollywood is affected when the movie business hits rocky ground , but 50 percent of Lionel Barrymore ’ s salary is easier to live on than 50 percent of a makeup girl ’ s salary .
Over the course of Mank , you can see Mankiewicz ’ s sympathies growing .
Eventually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , largely because many of Hollywood ’ s richest men — including Mayer , who ’ d soon be the chair of the state ’ s Republican party , and Hearst himself — backed the conservative , Frank Merriam .
Mank ties the reason for Sinclair ’ s loss to a newsreel played in movie theaters that mixes truth and fiction .
In it , Californians are asked who they are voting for .
White , middle-class folks with American accents say they are voting for Merriam to “ preserve our way of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from being taken away .
The Sinclair backers are a Black man , shown in a truck that signifies he ’ s a migrant , and a Russian man who says that socialism worked in Soviet Russia , so why not here ?
In Mank , the director of that reel ( a fictional hybrid character ) feels immensely guilty over his part in sinking Sinclair ’ s chances .
And after Mankiewicz sees the effects of that guilt , he seems to turn entirely against Hearst and Mayer .
When Mankiewicz ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no reason to make nice anymore .
And so we get Citizen Kane .
Like Citizen Kane , Mank gives an impression of a man rather than a biography That ’ s a lot of background just to understand a movie like Mank .
But it also suggests something important : Mank is not really a movie about who really wrote Citizen Kane .
Nobody suggests that Mankiewicz doesn ’ t deserve his writing credit , not even Welles .
And since Mank skips right over the actual production of Citizen Kane , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the film itself .
Rather , Mank is a movie about a man who left a career in journalism and the theater to write for Hollywood , and found it to be almost stupidly easy .
He develops drinking and gambling habits , and he makes friends in high places who love his keen wit .
But then he falls out of their good graces and starts to feel uncomfortable with Hollywood hypocrisy , including his own .
He catapults his own life into ruin , and he knows it .
So he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how : by refusing to be deterred from writing a movie about the man , his former friend , whom he believes harbors a pathos more pathetic than his own .
And damn it , even if people will pay him to relinquish his imprimatur on Citizen Kane , he wants his name on the movie .
He wants to make sure Hearst knows that Citizen Kane is not a jab from some upstart kid ; it ’ s from Herman J. Mankiewicz , his former friend .
So Mankiewicz stands his ground @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s why we ’ re still talking about him today .
And Mank attempts to capture his legacy by crafting a dramatic story out of fact and fiction that poses at its center a different tragic , heroic-ish figure who dies broken , if not entirely alone .
If it doesn ’ t quite reach the heights of Citizen Kane , well — with so much real-life history and drama in the mix — who could blame the Finchers for trying ?

Midway through Mank, Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) is explaining his screenplay — tentatively titled American— to producer John Houseman (Sam Troughton). Houseman has been tasked with keeping the legendarily alcoholic writer on schedule, and though he likes what he’s read, he finds Mankiewicz’s script “a bit of a jumble, a hodgepodge of talky episodes, a collection of fragments that leap around in time like Mexican jumping beans,” he says. “The story is so scattered, I’m afraid one will need a road map.”
“The narrative is one big circle, like a cinnamon roll,” Mankiewicz replies. “Not a straight line pointing to the nearest exit. You cannot capture a man’s entire life in two hours. All you can hope is to leave the impression.”
Mankiewicz — “Mank” is his nickname — is explaining his elliptical script, which in 1941 would be released as Citizen Kane, the seminal film on which he officially shares the screenwriting credit with Citizen Kane director, producer, and star Orson Welles.
And yet his cinnamon roll analogy is a useful way to describe Mank, which itself is a bit of a puzzle. On the one hand, the movie is plenty watchable even without much knowledge of the real-life characters and historical story it’s telling; Mank is about a former journalist and playwright who struck gold in Hollywood — like many writers of his era — only to be tossed out by the industry and go on to strike back the best way he can. Directed by David Fincher (Gone Girl, The Social Network) from a screenplay written by his father Jack Fincher, it’s fast, talky, and shot in black and white with old-timey flourishes, and its plot is simple enough to follow even though the film is not very interested in explaining itself.
But on the other hand, it’s possible — even likely — to get to the end of Mank and wonder, “What was that all about?” The film is dense with references to multiple real-life feuds, long-running critical arguments, and, perhaps most of all, the political allegiances and alliances that were so much a part of Hollywood’s first several decades. It’s really a movie about a writer who comes to realize the business he’s in is being twisted by the powerful, toward terrible ends. And he decides to take revenge by making a film about the powerful media magnate William Randolph Hearst, whom he once saw as his friend.
So to unroll the cinnamon bun of Mank — especially if you’ve found yourself confused as to why the film even exists — it’s worth understanding everything that’s going on beneath it.
The genesis of Mank is in a film critic feud from the 1960s and ’70s
The first layer of this movie is a decades-long argument over who is actually responsible for the masterpiece that is Citizen Kane. The comprehensive history of this quarrel — and the question of why anyone cares about it — has filled books and occupied historians, critics, and cinephiles to a degree that can seem baffling from the outside.
A quick sketch requires turning to the late Pauline Kael, one of the foremost American film critics, and the year 1971.
At that time, Kael was the film critic for the New Yorker, and one of the most prominent critics in the field. For more than a decade, she had been clashing with the Village Voice’s Andrew Sarris over the rightness of the auteur theory, a way of thinking about films developed by French critics in the late 1940s. In brief, the theory proposes that films ought to be seen as a reflection, primarily, of the director’s vision, and that it’s both possible and useful to meaningfully consider a consistency of style or thematic content across one director’s body of work.
For some critics, this concept was especially helpful in finding new ways to talk about American films. In its early decades, Hollywood operated like a series of little factories. Studios kept a bevy of directors, writers, producers, actors, and many others on their payroll under exclusive contracts. Today, it’s common for directors to have their films distributed by a range of different studios, and for actors to work on a variety of films — even in the same year — that are bankrolled by different studios. Or a studio might not even be involved; many modern productions operate independently of the six major studios that make up the Motion Picture Association: Disney, Paramount, Warner Bros., Sony, Universal, and, as of 2019, Netflix, the studio that produced Mank.
But until the middle of the 20th century, a film was often billed to the public as an “MGM picture” or a “Paramount picture,” starring players under contract with that studio; in those days, the names of the director and writer were usually of little importance. The emergence of the auteur theory gave critics a handle to grab onto when talking about, for instance, the films of Howard Hawks or Alfred Hitchcock: They were the work of a director with a singular vision, even if their studios preferred not to think of them that way.
Sarris is the American critic most responsible for importing the auteur theory to the US. And Kael, without exaggeration, hated the idea of it. She saw it as a lot of bunk, reductive in a way that could be exploited to downgrade great movies and praise bad ones, and she attacked Sarris ferociously in her 1963 essay “Circles and Squares,” which had the effect of raising the auteur theory’s profile as well as Sarris’s.
Fights over the rightness or wrongness of the auteur theory have continued to erupt ever since. These days, they happen most often on Twitter; in 2020, everyone seems to have a different opinion about what the auteur theory even is and what it is meant to do. But in the 1960s, Sarris’s auteur-driven approach to criticism and Kael’s rejection of that approach fueled the hottest debate among critics and cinephiles. (If you ask me, both Sarris and Kael were a little right and a little wrong, but then, that’s the fun of being a critic.)
So that’s what was swirling in the air back in 1971 when Kael was asked to write the foreword to a published version of the Citizen Kane shooting script, timed to its 30-year anniversary. She wrote 50,000 words — the equivalent of a short novel — that were published in two parts in the New Yorker before the book came out. The essay, which has been reprinted in collections of Kael’s work, was titled “Raising Kane” — a cheeky reference to the idiom “raising Cain,” which means to cause a ruckus or raise hell. Kael knew what she was doing.
In “Raising Kane,” Kael proposed, in a long-winded and somewhat factually inaccurate but highly readable fashion, that Mankiewicz’s screenplay was the real reason that Citizen Kane was great — and not, as an auteur-theory purist might believe, mostly the byproduct of Orson Welles’s brilliance. She didn’t dispute that star, producer, and director Welles was a huge part of what made the film work, or that Welles himself was a genius. But at its core, she said, Citizen Kane’s true auteur was a writer. Kael’s argument was that Mankiewicz’s screenplay — for which she strongly suggested Welles took far too much credit — is what makes the whole thing sing.
Kael built this argument by recounting the entire history of the making of the film, pointing out the commonalities between Citizen Kane and other films that Mankiewicz wrote, tracing Welles’s arrival in Hollywood, and weaving in many other related matters. But her goal in the whole endeavor was to get in another jab at auteur theory acolytes, and so she cherry-picked the facts on which she focused, selectively omitted others, and failed to even talk to Welles, who was very much alive, about his side of the matter. (Whatever else “Raising Kane” is, it is not very good journalism, and for some reason it seems to have evaded the scrutiny of the New Yorker’s famously rigorous fact-checking department.)
The result of “Raising Kane” was an outcry among people who care about movies, not least because Citizen Kane had attained the nearly universal status of masterpiece in the three decades since its debut — not just as Welles’s masterpiece, but as one of the greatest films ever made. The director Peter Bogdanovich, a protégé of Welles’s, penned a lengthy rebuttal in Esquire (though it was much shorter, at 10,000 words) titled “The Kane Mutiny.” He quoted Welles extensively (and some believe that Welles himself wrote the whole thing), accused Kael of twisting the truth, and said that Kael’s account was “so loaded with error and faulty supposition that it would require at least as many words as were at her disposal to correct, disprove and properly refute it.” Welles, he argued, did not deserve to be so unfairly maligned.
Mank is on Mankiewicz’s side. But it’s also not very interested in the question of who deserves the most credit for Citizen Kane.
Which side of this argument is Mank on? The film is definitely slanted toward Mankiewicz, which is no big shocker. Nobody disputes that Mankiewicz did, indeed, co-write the Citizen Kane screenplay; the argument is over how much of the resulting masterpiece is due to him and how much is due to Welles, a matter that Mank is happy to elide by skipping from Mankiewicz and Welles fighting about the screenplay draft to the 1942 Oscars, from which Welles was absent as Mankiewicz accepted the trophy for Best Original Screenplay. Citizen Kane was nominated for nine Oscars, including Best Picture, but it only won for its screenplay, which seems to underline Kael’s point a little if you take it as read that the best films in each individual category always win.
But more to the point, the author of Mank’s screenplay, Jack Fincher, used “Raising Kane” as the basis for his first draft. Between looking to Kael as a primary text and fudging some facts the ways “true” story adaptations usually do, some parts of the film match the historical record while other parts veer wildly away from it. (Matthew Dessem wrote a great rundown of Mank’s facts, half-truths, and fictions at Slate.) Still, Mankiewicz is, if not the triumphant hero of Mank, at least a kind of tragic hero, for reasons tied to its story arc.
In the Esquire article, Welles himself, as quoted by Bogdanovich, addresses how the studio system of the era treated writers like Mankiewicz, and how that treatment affected them:
The big studio system often made writers feel like second-class citizens—no matter how good the money was. They laughed it off, of course, and provided a good deal of the best fun—when Hollywood, you understand, was still a funny place. But basically, you know, a lot of them were pretty bitter and miserable. And nobody was more miserable, more bitter and funnier than Mank. ... A perfect monument of self-destruction. But, you know, when the bitterness wasn’t focused straight onto you—he was the best company in the world.
The reason the “who deserves the credit for Citizen Kane” controversy still has legs is that the film is still venerated as one of the greatest films of all time, and plenty of writers have tackled the question of its authorship. But for people who first encounter Citizen Kane in a film class or revival cinema, or on a streaming platform today, the fact that any controversy exists may not be evident — and in truth, it’s probably irrelevant. These days, it’s much more common for directors to have solo or co-writing credits on their own films, and while the auteur theory is still a widely used lens to look at movies (and I use it all the time), it doesn’t have quite the same dogmatic hold as it might have for some in the past.
Besides, Citizen Kane is just a really great movie, pleasurable from beginning to end, which is remarkable given that it’s about a would-be demagogue who dies alone and miserable. (That’s no spoiler; it happens in the first two minutes of the film.) The film holds up splendidly, nearly 80 years after its debut, which is notable in itself.
But its continuing relevance is even more astonishing if you’re aware that its original audience would have seen it as a thinly veiled tell-all movie about a very, very famous man — and a real guy, not a fictional one. That man was the megafamous businessman, newspaper publisher, and politician William Randolph Hearst.
Mank is more interested in the contentious relationship between Mankiewicz and William Randolph Hearst than what critics say about Citizen Kane
Citizen Kane’s central figure is Charles Foster Kane, an avatar of Hearst played by Welles. Kane is an incredibly wealthy man, a newspaper baron with few scruples about journalism who attains immense power, only to see it start to fade near the end of his life. In his youth, he buys a newspaper and builds it into an empire; then he marries the president’s niece. He has political aspirations. He runs for governor of New York. But his marriage ends when he falls in love with a singer of moderate talent, and the ensuing scandal destroys his political career. So he turns his attention to promoting his wife’s opera career, something she doesn’t particularly want to pursue; eventually he brings her to his Florida estate, Xanadu, which is filled with the treasures of the world, objects he can’t help but compulsively buy. Eventually she leaves him, and he dies alone, whispering the word “Rosebud.”
This story is told in a nonlinear fashion, with flashbacks and retreads. The first stretch of the film announces Kane’s death and tells the story of his life in the style of a newsreel, the sort that would have played before a feature film in a movie theater, as was common at the time. The men cutting the reel aren’t satisfied because they can’t figure out why Kane’s last word was “Rosebud,” and they send a reporter to go figure it out by interviewing Kane’s former friends and associates. So the beats of Kane’s life unfurl in bits and pieces as Citizen Kane moves between timelines. (Mank imitates this structure by bouncing back and forth between two main timelines, one as Mankiewicz writes the Citizen Kane screenplay in 1940 and one as Mankiewicz rubs elbows with Hearst in the early 1930s.)
As Mankiewicz explains to his producer in Mank, Citizen Kane is coiled like a cinnamon bun. And the reason the film holds up so well today is thanks to its very finely tuned screenplay, meaning — most likely — that its magic stems from some combination of what Mankiewicz wrote and what Welles did with it.
But Citizen Kane is also a pretty shocking film, given that Kane is very clearly William Randolph Hearst, or a figure who so closely resembles Hearst that most anyone in Citizen Kane’s 1940s audience would have recognized him as such. In the late 1880s and ’90s, Hearst built the largest newspaper and media company in America, and became famous for sensationalist “yellow journalism.” In the early 1900s, he was elected twice to Congress, and mounted unsuccessful bids for New York governor and president — all as a progressive Democrat. After he left the political sphere, his own politics began to skew more to the right; he became an isolationist and broke with FDR, whom he had previously supported. He then spent years building Hearst Castle on a 240,000-acre estate near San Simeon, California, which he never finished but where he collected vast amounts of art and other treasures from around the globe. It was as though he wanted to have the vast spoils of the world all for himself.
Hearst — who is played in Mank by Charles Dance — wasn’t dead when Citizen Kane came out in 1941, but otherwise the contours of his life were eerily similar to Kane’s. Susan, the singer who marries Kane, is modeled on Hearst’s longtime mistress, the actress Marion Davies (in Mank, Davies is played by Amanda Seyfried). Like Kane’s focus on Susan’s opera career, Hearst spent lavish amounts of money trying to put Davies in roles for which she wasn’t quite right (by all accounts, her comedic chops would’ve made her a better fit for comic roles, rather than the romantic leading lady parts he thrust her into). Like Kane, Hearst had the house, the yellow journalism career, the failed political bids — all details that moviegoers of the era would have read about. The similarities were so striking that friends and associates of Hearst tried to strong-arm Citizen Kane’s studio, RKO, into not making the film at all, and then into canceling its release. (They were partly successful. When Citizen Kane came out, only a few theaters initially agreed to show it, fearing reprisals from Hearst.)
Welles enjoyed a lot of creative freedom in making the film, and he had no particular connection to Hearst. He was a 25-year-old upstart when he was hired by RKO after its president, George Schafer, heard Welles’s War of the Worlds broadcast and decided to give him a huge contract to make whatever movie he wanted. Welles brought in his own acting company and hired his own writer: Mankiewicz.
In Mank, Welles informs Mankiewicz of this freedom on the phone: that they will have “no studio notes, no one but ourselves to blame” for whatever the final product turns out to be. Mankiewicz seems to take Welles’s comment as a signal that it’s the right time to go after Hearst.
Mankiewicz and Hearst were once friends, and their break — combined with 1930s politics — is what fuels Mank
The thing is, Mankiewicz had been close with Hearst. They weren’t just acquainted; they were friends, having met when Mankiewicz started writing for Hollywood. Hearst loved having Mankiewicz around because he was amused by the writer’s sharp wit and barbed bon mots. Mankiewicz loved visiting Hearst’s palatial California estate, which, among other things, had exotic zoo animals on the grounds. Davies lived there most of the time, vacating only when Mrs. Hearst (who lived on the East Coast) came to town. Davies and Mankiewicz were pals, too. Mankiewicz and his long-suffering wife Sarah were invited to Hearst’s lavish parties, along with everyone who was anyone at the time.
So Mankiewicz’s decision to target Hearst was shocking, and the explanation for it requires a detour into Mankiewicz’s long and winding biography. To cut to the point, Hearst didn’t really approve of alcohol, and Mankiewicz’s truly excessive, legendary drinking made him progressively less welcome at Hearst’s table. The result was that Mankiewicz became progressively less welcome in Hollywood, especially in the eyes of Louis B. Mayer (in Mank, played by Arliss Howard) who ran MGM, where Mankiewicz worked for years. In Mank, Mankiewicz calls Mayer Hearst’s “lap dog” and the Sancho Panza to Hearst’s Don Quixote; he does not have much respect for Mayer at all. And he slowly grows to realize that the two of them are responsible for the industry that’s trying to shove him out the door.
All of this backstory makes Citizen Kane look like a needling act of revenge, and a profoundly surgical one, calculated to dissect Hearst’s greatest weaknesses on a big screen for everyone to see. The film portrays Hearst as both pathetically power-hungry and desperate to be loved.
In writing Mank, Fincher goes a step further, integrating a political backdrop that is both accurate and smudged around the edges. The movie flashes back frequently to a story that takes place about 10 years before the “present,” in the early 1930s, when Upton Sinclair (portrayed in Mank by Bill Nye in a delightful cameo) was running for California governor.
Sinclair was a self-avowed socialist and a muckraker whose journalism was partly responsible for exposing Hearst’s brand of “yellow journalism” — a kind of “fake news” — and showing how it pushed the limits of the American ideal of the “free press.” He wrote many books (including The Jungle, about the horrendous conditions in the meatpacking industry) and ran for governor in 1934.
There’s no real evidence that Mankiewicz was a big Sinclair fan, but in Mank, he is depicted as becoming one. He is also what one might call “socialism-curious.” Mankiewicz resists when his younger brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey), another screenwriter, urges him to join the newly formed Screen Writers Guild, a union designed to protect writers against labor exploitation by the big studios.
Mank then adds another layer to Mankiewicz’s frustration with Hearst, and one with perhaps a little more heart. He seems to develop a growing empathy for the people who don’t have the big contracts that he and other screenwriters, to say nothing of film stars and directors, have at their respective movie studios — the scenics and camera operators and others whose salaries would take a hit as the Depression went on. Everyone in Hollywood is affected when the movie business hits rocky ground, but 50 percent of Lionel Barrymore’s salary is easier to live on than 50 percent of a makeup girl’s salary. Over the course of Mank, you can see Mankiewicz’s sympathies growing. Eventually, he backs Sinclair, who loses, largely because many of Hollywood’s richest men — including Mayer, who’d soon be the chair of the state’s Republican Party, and Hearst himself — backed the conservative, Frank Merriam.
Mank ties the reason for Sinclair’s loss to a newsreel played in movie theaters that mixes truth and fiction. In it, Californians are asked who they are voting for. White, middle-class folks with American accents say they are voting for Merriam to “preserve our way of life” and to prevent their wealth from being taken away. The Sinclair backers are a Black man, shown in a truck that signifies he’s a migrant, and a Russian man who says that socialism worked in Soviet Russia, so why not here?
In Mank, the director of that reel (a fictional hybrid character) feels immensely guilty over his part in sinking Sinclair’s chances. And after Mankiewicz sees the effects of that guilt, he seems to turn entirely against Hearst and Mayer. When Mankiewicz’s work evaporates too, he has no reason to make nice anymore. And so we get Citizen Kane.
Like Citizen Kane, Mank gives an impression of a man rather than a biography
That’s a lot of background just to understand a movie like Mank. But it also suggests something important: Mank is not really a movie about who really wrote Citizen Kane. Nobody suggests that Mankiewicz doesn’t deserve his writing credit, not even Welles. And since Mank skips right over the actual production of Citizen Kane, it’s not super interested in the film itself.
Rather, Mank is a movie about a man who left a career in journalism and the theater to write for Hollywood, and found it to be almost stupidly easy. He develops drinking and gambling habits, and he makes friends in high places who love his keen wit. But then he falls out of their good graces and starts to feel uncomfortable with Hollywood hypocrisy, including his own. He catapults his own life into ruin, and he knows it. So he makes good the only way he knows how: by refusing to be deterred from writing a movie about the man, his former friend, whom he believes harbors a pathos more pathetic than his own.
And damn it, even if people will pay him to relinquish his imprimatur on Citizen Kane, he wants his name on the movie. He wants to make sure Hearst knows that Citizen Kane is not a jab from some upstart kid; it’s from Herman J. Mankiewicz, his former friend. So Mankiewicz stands his ground and gets his credit.
That’s why we’re still talking about him today. And Mank attempts to capture his legacy by crafting a dramatic story out of fact and fiction that poses at its center a different tragic, heroic-ish figure who dies broken, if not entirely alone. If it doesn’t quite reach the heights of Citizen Kane, well — with so much real-life history and drama in the mix — who could blame the Finchers for trying?
Mank premieres on Netflix on December 4.


vox--2020-12-04--The best $294 I ever spent: Getting my hair braided

Share All sharing options for : The best $ 294 I ever spent : Getting my hair braided “ Have you ever grown your hair out ?
” Michael , my boyfriend , hummed while combing through the curls that crowned my head .
Usually , this question came from the mouths of intrusive acquaintances or opinionated aunties , leading me to shut down or dodge the discussion entirely .
But the careful hands of my lover successfully disarmed me .
In the bathroom mirror , I watched his fingers carefully untangle my ends and make way to my roots @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : poised , unhurried , precise .
It was the sort of grace I thought I gave my hair but at that moment realized I didn ’ t , and maybe never had .
My morning routine offered compassion to my T-zone and its dry patches , offered time to my lash lines and their wont for bold cat eyes .
But as for my hair , I was often impatient , tactless , lacking the due care for its needs .
“ Yes .
Well , I ’ ve tried , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just don ’ t really understand my hair.
” “ You have a lot of hair , ” Michael said , still combing .
“ You just need to be gentle.
” Truth is , I hadn ’ t just tried — I yearned for long hair .
I dreamt of an Angela Davis fro , a Diana Ross fro , a Nina Simone fro .
I wanted my kinks to bounce and bounce , to shamelessly block people ’ s view , to bear witness to the beauty of Blackness .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of perm damage and hair loss .
I had memorized all the golden rules , the nappy hair commands : Yet all my shea-buttered attempts to properly care for my 4C curls seemed to do nothing .
And after a nightmarish experience that began with a stylist ’ s heavy hands and ended with a bald spot in the middle of my head , I completely gave up on trusting the growth process .
Each time it grew to an awkward length — a.k.a .
the length that begged for more attention than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the scalp — I ran to the nearest barbershop and surrendered my confused TWA ( teeny-weeny afro ) to the decisiveness of a hair clipper .
Though I yearned for a big , brilliant fro , it was less disappointing to maintain a routine of getting a buzzcut every so often .
With a shaved head , no one asked uncomfortable questions or made unwarranted comments .
Best of all , I didn ’ t have to confront the appearance insecurities that time-warped my mind back to tweendom .
Still , despite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grow out my hair , a teeny-weeny-sized desire to keep trying persisted .
“ I ’ ve thought about getting my hair braided , but I ’ m a little scared , ” I said , as Michael worked through the tender baby hairs .
I was still staring in the mirror , but now I was looking at myself .
After a few days , I journeyed down the rabbit hole that is the natural hair YouTube universe .
I usually made this voyage before making a major decision , like choosing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coconut oil , or ditching chemical treatments for good .
Now , though , nine years after first discovering this part of the internet , all the advice for healthy curls was still the same .
Like chants , these digital sisters reiterated all the nappy commands , and they echoed in my head over and over again : Eventually , I said a reluctant amen to that last nappy command and Googled braiding salons in Harlem .
The abundance of shops in my area overwhelmed me a bit .
I was so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lack of options , but here , there was practically a salon on every other block .
I chose a shop with 4.5 stars , Covid-19 safety guidelines , and zero reports of lost edges as the winner .
The salon ’ s website listed 19 different braid and twist styles .
My favorites ranged in price from $ 200 for spring twists to $ 300 for hip-length box braids .
In the past , I would ’ ve tapped out at this point and opted for my mom ’ s friend of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend , who might charge closer to $ 100 or $ 150 , tops .
But lower rates , though more alluring , would most likely result ( at best ) in a random stranger tugging and pulling and texture-shaming my hair for six to eight long , long hours ; at worst , in another bald-spot disaster .
Although my budget was admittedly tight , spending a few hundred dollars on a reputable stylist felt justifiable .
Especially since , if done right , these styles can often last for up to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forth between box braids and passion twists , I settled for the classic braid ’ do , which was priced at $ 250 for a length that reached mid-back .
Deciding on box braids evoked a sense of reconnection to girlhood .
When I was a teen , my mom encouraged me to pick this style , and I always happily agreed .
If she had the time and energy , she might even make the plaits herself .
I ’ d sit between her knees and embrace the extended closeness — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ head , the Nollywood film loudly playing in the background , the tiny breaks we ’ d take to eat plantains or chin chin , the buoyancy of her thick Nigerian accent when she affirmed me .
“ You ’ re going to look so pretty !
” As I booked the appointment , I crossed my fingers that I might feel a sort of cosmic reunion with the safety I ’ d experienced while settled in my mom ’ s lap .
On the day of the appointment , the Harlem sky @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sun ’ s shine radiated mildly .
Outside the brownstone salon , a brown man was selling watermelon and mango , which I accepted as a good sign .
As I walked in , the watching felt intensified by everyone ’ s masks .
All I could see was round eyes , almond eyes , small eyes , big eyes , all eyes on me until three or four seconds passed , and then the room returned to its light chatter .
Soon enough a friendly voice greeted me , and all of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ melody in the air , the cocoa , the tea tree oil , the lavender , and I was breathing deeply again .
As Corinne Bailey Rae played , a glowing woman introduced herself as Sonnie .
My companions often tease me for being sentimental , which is 100 percent true .
I try ( and usually fail ) to avoid that part of my nature , but a few things here made it impossible : • Sonnie touched my hair and did not groan about the kinkiness .
• Sonnie touched my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Sonnie touched my hair and told me to speak up if she was tugging or pulling or yanking .
• Sonnie touched my hair and told me to never let my friends or boyfriend , or anyone for that matter , tug or pull or yank .
• Sonnie touched my hair and started singing along with Corinne .
And I swear I ’ m not being dramatic when I say this appointment redeemed me , when I say that for the first time it didn ’ t feel like my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ each braid as if she was cradling a baby or teaching someone how to be held .
Every so often , she ’ d ask how I was doing , sometimes two or three times in a row .
As she braided , she told me about her cats , her iguanas , her dogs .
Sonnie told me she was too extroverted for quarantine , which made me wonder if she was trying to say that she was lonely .
There was no chin chin or Nigerian accents , but the soft @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sonnie ’ s hands too .
Maybe every Black femme has it .
After a four-ish hours of scalp-kissing castor oil , the extensions finally and fully enveloped my head .
For two packs of hair , the styling fee , the service charge , and tax , the total cost was $ 294.73 .
I swiped my card , feeling satisfied and cared for .
Later , I FaceTimed my mom to show her .
“ Looks beautiful , ” she said .
“ But how much did it cost ?
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ screamed .
I rolled my eyes and frowned .
I wanted to tell her about the cocoa smell , the brownstone mango , about Sonnie and her soft power .
But before I could , my mom giggled .
Loré Yessuff writes poems and essays about the intersection of intimacy and identity .
Her work has appeared in the New York Times ’ s Modern Love column , Man Repeller , Voicemail Poems , and more .

Share All sharing options for: The best $294 I ever spent: Getting my hair braided
“Have you ever grown your hair out?” Michael, my boyfriend, hummed while combing through the curls that crowned my head.
Usually, this question came from the mouths of intrusive acquaintances or opinionated aunties, leading me to shut down or dodge the discussion entirely. But the careful hands of my lover successfully disarmed me.
In the bathroom mirror, I watched his fingers carefully untangle my ends and make way to my roots. The tenderness mimicked a slow peck: poised, unhurried, precise. It was the sort of grace I thought I gave my hair but at that moment realized I didn’t, and maybe never had.
My morning routine offered compassion to my T-zone and its dry patches, offered time to my lash lines and their wont for bold cat eyes. But as for my hair, I was often impatient, tactless, lacking the due care for its needs.
“Yes. Well, I’ve tried,” I responded. “Honestly, I just don’t really understand my hair.”
“You have a lot of hair,” Michael said, still combing. “You just need to be gentle.”
Truth is, I hadn’t just tried — I yearned for long hair. I dreamt of an Angela Davis fro, a Diana Ross fro, a Nina Simone fro. I wanted my kinks to bounce and bounce, to shamelessly block people’s view, to bear witness to the beauty of Blackness. However, desire can’t undo years of perm damage and hair loss.
I had memorized all the golden rules, the nappy hair commands:
thou shalt moisturize regularly
thou shalt deep condition
thou shalt wear a silk scarf to bed
thou shalt cling to protective styling
Yet all my shea-buttered attempts to properly care for my 4C curls seemed to do nothing. And after a nightmarish experience that began with a stylist’s heavy hands and ended with a bald spot in the middle of my head, I completely gave up on trusting the growth process. Each time it grew to an awkward length — a.k.a. the length that begged for more attention than a quick combing and some sloppy oiling of the scalp — I ran to the nearest barbershop and surrendered my confused TWA (teeny-weeny afro) to the decisiveness of a hair clipper.
Though I yearned for a big, brilliant fro, it was less disappointing to maintain a routine of getting a buzzcut every so often. With a shaved head, no one asked uncomfortable questions or made unwarranted comments. Best of all, I didn’t have to confront the appearance insecurities that time-warped my mind back to tweendom.
Still, despite the shame I harbored for failing to grow out my hair, a teeny-weeny-sized desire to keep trying persisted.
“I’ve thought about getting my hair braided, but I’m a little scared,” I said, as Michael worked through the tender baby hairs. I was still staring in the mirror, but now I was looking at myself.
After a few days, I journeyed down the rabbit hole that is the natural hair YouTube universe. I usually made this voyage before making a major decision, like choosing a deep conditioner, breaking up with coconut oil, or ditching chemical treatments for good. Now, though, nine years after first discovering this part of the internet, all the advice for healthy curls was still the same. Like chants, these digital sisters reiterated all the nappy commands, and they echoed in my head over and over again:
thou shalt moisturize regularly
thou shalt deep condition
thou shalt wear a silk scarf to bed
thou shalt cling to protective styling
Eventually, I said a reluctant amen to that last nappy command and Googled braiding salons in Harlem. The abundance of shops in my area overwhelmed me a bit. I was so accustomed to the Texas suburbs and the lack of options, but here, there was practically a salon on every other block. I chose a shop with 4.5 stars, Covid-19 safety guidelines, and zero reports of lost edges as the winner.
The salon’s website listed 19 different braid and twist styles. My favorites ranged in price from $200 for spring twists to $300 for hip-length box braids. In the past, I would’ve tapped out at this point and opted for my mom’s friend of a friend of a friend of a friend, who might charge closer to $100 or $150, tops.
But lower rates, though more alluring, would most likely result (at best) in a random stranger tugging and pulling and texture-shaming my hair for six to eight long, long hours; at worst, in another bald-spot disaster. Although my budget was admittedly tight, spending a few hundred dollars on a reputable stylist felt justifiable. Especially since, if done right, these styles can often last for up to eight weeks.
After going back and forth between box braids and passion twists, I settled for the classic braid ’do, which was priced at $250 for a length that reached mid-back.
Deciding on box braids evoked a sense of reconnection to girlhood. When I was a teen, my mom encouraged me to pick this style, and I always happily agreed. If she had the time and energy, she might even make the plaits herself. I’d sit between her knees and embrace the extended closeness — the soft power of her hands adorning my head, the Nollywood film loudly playing in the background, the tiny breaks we’d take to eat plantains or chin chin, the buoyancy of her thick Nigerian accent when she affirmed me.
“You’re going to look so pretty!”
“Wow, you’re looking good, oh!”
As I booked the appointment, I crossed my fingers that I might feel a sort of cosmic reunion with the safety I’d experienced while settled in my mom’s lap.
On the day of the appointment, the Harlem sky swayed like cerulean cloth, and the sun’s shine radiated mildly. Outside the brownstone salon, a brown man was selling watermelon and mango, which I accepted as a good sign.
As I walked in, the watching felt intensified by everyone’s masks. All I could see was round eyes, almond eyes, small eyes, big eyes, all eyes on me until three or four seconds passed, and then the room returned to its light chatter. Soon enough a friendly voice greeted me, and all of sudden I became aware of the scent melody in the air, the cocoa, the tea tree oil, the lavender, and I was breathing deeply again. As Corinne Bailey Rae played, a glowing woman introduced herself as Sonnie.
My companions often tease me for being sentimental, which is 100 percent true. I try (and usually fail) to avoid that part of my nature, but a few things here made it impossible:
Sonnie touched my hair and did not groan about the kinkiness. Sonnie touched my hair and asked if I was tender-headed. Sonnie touched my hair and told me to speak up if she was tugging or pulling or yanking. Sonnie touched my hair and told me to never let my friends or boyfriend, or anyone for that matter, tug or pull or yank. Sonnie touched my hair and started singing along with Corinne.
And I swear I’m not being dramatic when I say this appointment redeemed me, when I say that for the first time it didn’t feel like my hair was a burden. Sonnie made each braid as if she was cradling a baby or teaching someone how to be held. Every so often, she’d ask how I was doing, sometimes two or three times in a row. As she braided, she told me about her cats, her iguanas, her dogs. Sonnie told me she was too extroverted for quarantine, which made me wonder if she was trying to say that she was lonely. There was no chin chin or Nigerian accents, but the soft power that my mom possessed was in Sonnie’s hands too. Maybe every Black femme has it.
After a four-ish hours of scalp-kissing castor oil, the extensions finally and fully enveloped my head. For two packs of hair, the styling fee, the service charge, and tax, the total cost was $294.73. I swiped my card, feeling satisfied and cared for.
Later, I FaceTimed my mom to show her.
“Looks beautiful,” she said. “But how much did it cost?”
Hesitantly, I told her. She screamed. I rolled my eyes and frowned. I wanted to tell her about the cocoa smell, the brownstone mango, about Sonnie and her soft power. But before I could, my mom giggled.
“Well, you’re looking good, oh!”
Loré Yessuff writes poems and essays about the intersection of intimacy and identity. Her work has appeared in the New York Times’s Modern Love column, Man Repeller, Voicemail Poems, and more.


vox--2020-12-04--What happened to department stores?

What happened to department stores?

Department stores , once a symbol of the American middle class , have been declining for years , along with the shopping malls they anchor in communities across the US .
Just last year , both the high-end Barneys and the country ’ s oldest department store , Lord & Taylor , went bankrupt and announced plans to close all their locations .
Then came the coronavirus pandemic , which shocked the economy , hitting lower- and middle-income Americans the hardest by forcing them out of work and deeper into debt , with little or no relief in sight .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ physical retail stores and kept people at home for months , giving them more reasons than ever before to shop online at e-commerce giants like Amazon or from the smaller direct-to-consumer brands whose ads follow us all around the internet .
As we near the end of 2020 , the prognosis for the American department store is grimmer than it ’ s ever been .
The reasons extend far beyond Covid-19 or even the continued rise of online shopping , and have more to do with trends in the American economy that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the already wealthy .
That ’ s why the decline of these retail giants is something to pay attention to .
They employ hundreds of thousands of people and occupy an outsize space in our communities ; their gradual disappearance , as well as what is replacing them , tells us something about where we ’ re headed .
The death of the department store and the American middle class The collapse of America ’ s middle class crushed department stores .
Amazon and the pandemic are the final blows .
Pop culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to want The death and rebirth of America ’ s department stores , in charts What one of Amazon ’ s biggest critics thinks the future of the retail industry means for workers How retailers track your every move in exchange for coupons and convenience

Department stores, once a symbol of the American middle class, have been declining for years, along with the shopping malls they anchor in communities across the US. Just last year, both the high-end Barneys and the country’s oldest department store, Lord & Taylor, went bankrupt and announced plans to close all their locations.
Then came the coronavirus pandemic, which shocked the economy, hitting lower- and middle-income Americans the hardest by forcing them out of work and deeper into debt, with little or no relief in sight. The crisis also temporarily shuttered most nonessential physical retail stores and kept people at home for months, giving them more reasons than ever before to shop online at e-commerce giants like Amazon or from the smaller direct-to-consumer brands whose ads follow us all around the internet.
As we near the end of 2020, the prognosis for the American department store is grimmer than it’s ever been. The reasons extend far beyond Covid-19 or even the continued rise of online shopping, and have more to do with trends in the American economy that have been shrinking the middle class while enriching the already wealthy. That’s why the decline of these retail giants is something to pay attention to. They employ hundreds of thousands of people and occupy an outsize space in our communities; their gradual disappearance, as well as what is replacing them, tells us something about where we’re headed.
—Samantha Oltman, editor of Recode
The collapse of America’s middle class crushed department stores. Amazon and the pandemic are the final blows.
by Jason Del Rey
by Constance Grady
by Rani Molla
by Shirin Ghaffary
by Sara Morrison