Mank (2020)

By: Mike Ward on Saturday, December 05

R Running Time: 131 mins

SHOULD I SEE IT?

YES

David Fincher’s return to film, Mank, is a robust, lengthy tribute to Old Hollywood and the intricacies of politics, personal gain, and cutthroat world of 1930s Hollywood.
A stellar ensemble cast has great fun with the words written by Fincher’s late father, Jack, and the rapport between the characters leads to the film taking on a jazzy, carefree rhythm and cadence.
Technically impressive - from the score to the cinematography to the production design and editing choices, Mank is exquisitely made.

NO

More than a few watching this are going to find this far too inside baseball, made for an audience conversant in Old Hollywood names and legacies, and rather boring.
The most interesting characters in the film never get to have their stories told. As a result, the potential of great performances are snipped off and left for a great Gary Oldman to dominate and pontificate more and more.
Emotionless. The movie left me feeling rather empty, and I am in the camp of believing that Citizen Kane may very well be the greatest movie ever made. I think it’s safe to say that a lot of this movie may fly over the heads of many watching.

OUR REVIEW

One of the most anticipated films of the fall takes us back to 1930’s Hollywood. In David Fincher’s highly anticipated Mank, now available on Netflix, we dig into the machinations and side-hustles and deep-seeded politics which surrounded Hollywood screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz writing his legendary Oscar-winning screenplay for Citizen Kane, widely regarded by many as the greatest movie of all time.

As a potential expose into the sleazy dealings and cutthroat world defined by the Irving Thalbergs, Louis B. Mayers, and Orson Welles’ of the world, Mank has a lot of potential meat on the bone as a dramatic romp. Oddly, Mank is an intriguing film for movie lovers and those with an interest in the subject matter, but it lacks emotion and heart – two necessary truths needed in truly effective storytelling.

Fincher’s first feature since 2014’s Gone Girl finds the auteur delivering a film which replicates the tone and presentation of Welles’ Citizen Kane. The black-and-white film offers scenes which fade to black, the characters are plentiful, and the dialogue is delivered crisp and snappy, with rhythmic cadence that carries from scene to scene. With an impressive score by Oscar winners Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (The Social Network), Mank should be a slam dunk of a winner.

But let’s remember…Citizen Kane only won a single Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay, coming up short in eight other categories. Many have looked back and believe that Welles and Mankiewicz’s criticism of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst (often called W.R. here, played by Charles Dance) led to Hearst playing politics with Academy voters and getting the film blackballed. Nothing has been proven, but Hearst’s omniscience in and around Citizen Kane is a key component to Fincher’s energetic analysis.

Working with a script penned by his late father, Jack Fincher, Mank begins with Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) arriving to a rental home, saddled with a badly broken leg. He is given a transcriptionist/assistant (Lily Collins) and is teased with the whisper of alcohol existing just outside of his grasp. Seems the alcohol is the bait necessary for Mank to deliver a screenplay draft in 60 days to John Houseman (Sam Troughton), a producer working with Welles on his film projects. Welles is not a key figure in the film, little more than a talking head who has a few conversations with his scribe and bumps the movie along here and there.

Oldman is a scattershot harried drunkard, who we see was much inclined to play the Hollywood game in Fincher’s various flashbacks to various moments in the 1930s. Time felt easier for him in those days, and his rapier wit made him a fun verbal jousting partner for the Hollywood moguls of the time.

The Finchers dig deep and attempt to contextualize the world which would give rise to Kane. In the densely spoken dialogue, characters seem to constantly be analyzing their work against others, against the backdrop of the Great Depression and a world which would seen find itself on the cusp of World War II.

All seems well enough, but where Mank falters is that the film feels like a jazz composition where some of the most talented people never take a solo. The film is stuffed full of famous names from the era, but very little context is given to those who may not be familiar with the 1930s Hollywood scene or stories of the MGM and RKO Pictures years. Characters arrive in waves and at times it feels far too tasking to keep track of all of this. Subsequently, we constantly return to Mank. And as good as Oldman’s performance is throughout the film, the most interesting characters never really get their due.

More of Welles would certainly help. Amanda Seyfried’s buzzworthy turn as actor Marion Davies is the start of something great. Seyfried builds a striking character. She portrays a savvy young actor finding great joy in playing the game and seeking out opportunities to rejuvenate a stalled career. Unfortunately, the Finchers relegate her to the sidelines too often and there just isn’t enough of her in the film to connect with her journey.

Hearst flits in and out and other than Jack Fincher’s tell-all script (as in tell all of the dialogue), we never see Hearst and Mank’s feud truly organically come to life. The controversies surrounding whether Hearst is truly the subject of Kane is there, but passed by, and there just feels more to explore with that story than we ultimately receive.

From a technical standpoint though, Mank checks all the boxes. Eric Messerschmidt shoots the film beautifully, enhanced with a digitized version of black-and-white that looks almost too perfect. Lavish production design by Donald Graham Burt shines through Messerschmidt’s shadowy visuals and editor Kirk Baxter seems to have a great deal of fun fading out scenes and cutting rhythmically with the dialogue.

Yet the movie is almost savant-like. Mank is steadfast in its direction and mission. However, in its zeal to whisk through the story of Herman Mankiewicz’s final screenplay, we are left with a whole lot of names to dig up on Wikipedia. Viewers are left to sink or swim when it comes to trying to make sense of the scope and importance of the people, places, and things the Finchers have thrown at them for just over two evolving hours.

CAST & CREW

Starring: Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, Tom Pelphrey, Arliss Howard, Tuppence Middleton, Monika Gossmann, Joseph Cross, Sam Troughton, Toby Leonard Moore, Tom Burke, Charles Dance, Ferdinand Kingsley, Jamie McShane, Jack Romano, Adam Shapiro.

Director: David Fincher
Written by: Jack Fincher
Release Date: November 13, 2020 (theaters); December 4, 2020 (Netflix)
Netflix

David Fincher’s return to film, Mank, is a robust, lengthy tribute to Old Hollywood and the intricacies of politics, personal gain, and cutthroat world of 1930s Hollywood.

A stellar ensemble cast has great fun with the words written by Fincher’s late father, Jack, and the rapport between the characters leads to the film taking on a jazzy, carefree rhythm and cadence.

Technically impressive - from the score to the cinematography to the production design and editing choices, Mank is exquisitely made.

More than a few watching this are going to find this far too inside baseball, made for an audience conversant in Old Hollywood names and legacies, and rather boring.

The most interesting characters in the film never get to have their stories told. As a result, the potential of great performances are snipped off and left for a great Gary Oldman to dominate and pontificate more and more.

Emotionless. The movie left me feeling rather empty, and I am in the camp of believing that Citizen Kane may very well be the greatest movie ever made. I think it’s safe to say that a lot of this movie may fly over the heads of many watching.