Follows screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz‘s tumultuous development of Orson Welles‘ iconic masterpiece Citizen Kane (1941).
Chuck says:
For those fascinated by the Golden Age of Hollywood and “Citizen Kane” in particular, David Fincher’s “Mank” will prove to be a fascinating treasure of trove of juicy anecdotes, behind-the-scenes glimpses and fascinating conjecture regarding the machinations of the studio system and the making of a revolutionary work of art that still impacts the medium some 80 years after its release. As for everyone else…well, you’ll likely be left wondering what all the fuss is about.
With such a narrow audience, it’s a miracle the film was even made. That it was speaks to Fincher’s influence and Netflix’s desire to keep him in the fold. Working from a script written by his father Jack, the director has created a meticulously rendered movie that not only mirrors “Kane’s” aesthetic and techniques, but contains a soundtrack replete with a slight echo in an effort to replicate the experience of seeing the film in a movie palace, circa 1941, much as Welles’ production was first seen. The filmmaker hasn’t let anything escape his OCD approach and the movie is all the better for it.
At one point, ghost writer John Houseman (Sam Troughton) refers to Herman Mankiewicz’s (Gary Oldman) script for “Kane” as “a hodgepodge of talky episodes, a collection of fragments that leap around in time like Mexican jumping beans.” And while he may be describing the first draft of film history, he’s also referring to “Mank” itself as Fincher adapts Welles’ approach in telling the story of the Boy Wonder’s most cantankerous collaborator, a writer bent on self-destruction, a man who never let a golden opportunity get in the way of his shooting himself in the foot.
While Victorville, California, where a bedridden Mankiewicz is recovering from an accident and dictating the script to his incredibly patient secretary Rita Alexander (Lilly Collins), is the main setting the of the film, Fincher’s script shuttles back and forth through time. We’re privy to the writer’s tenure at MGM, where we see him toiling on forgettable films under the tyrannical Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard), arguing about politics with wunderkind Irving Thalberg (Ferdinand Kingsley) and being ignored by producer David O. Selznick (Toby Leonard Moore).
However, the key flashback is the 1930 chance meeting between Mankiewicz and actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried) which blossoms into an unexpected friendship that ultimately gains the writer entrance to the inner circle of the performer’s lover, media magnate William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance). The parties and excursions Mankiewicz attends over the years allows him to rub shoulders with Charlie Chaplin, Norma Scherer and other members of the Hollywood elite, yet it’s the interactions he witnesses between Davies and Hearst that provide him with the seeds that will ultimately blossom in the “Kane” screenplay.
Incredibly dense, the more you know about “Kane” and its backstory, the more you’ll appreciate Fincher’s meta approach. Rear projection, overlapping dialogue, low angle shots, and dramatic lighting are all taken from Welles’ playbook, while jump cuts used to replicate the joining of film reels are employed to make “Mank” look and feel as much like “Kane” as possible. Unfortunately, this reflection goes too far. At the end of Welles’ masterpiece, the reporter who’s investigated Kane’s life states that, despite his efforts, he never really got to know the man. The same can be said of Fincher’s subject. Why Mankiewicz has a self-destructive bent, why his long-suffering wife (Tuppence Middleton) puts up with him and how the friendship between the writer and Davies developed are key questions that are never answered. As a result, “Mank” is ultimately an incomplete portrait, but if you’re a film buff, man it’s a lot of fun.
3 1/2 Stars
Pam says: READ CHUCK’S REVIEW FIRST!
Chuck’s in-depth and insightful review says it all. That being said, this is a true cinephile’s or critic’s film. One needs the depth of knowledge and keen understanding of the history of film to truly appreciate the depth of this endeavor and the sheer magnitude of it. And with that, a viewing of “Citizen Kane” and repeated viewings of “Mank” enable you to better see all the subtleties and incredibly important details of the film.
As a film on its own, it’s gorgeous; from the cinematic black and white lending itself to transporting us back in time to the costuming and set design. And as a story on its own, it incredibly complicated with its superfluous storylines meandering aimlessly only to find its target several moments and scenes away.
As transportive as the superficial and easily observed information of this film is, the actors cary their weight in bringing us back to a bygone era. Gary Oldman’s graceful yet boisterous performance brings a film icon to life; bittersweet and quite sad in the end. Oldman is a master in finding the right tone with any character he portrays and this is no exception to the rule. By the end of the film, we can picture only his face as the famous screenwriter and have a true sense as to who he was and how his imagination and experiences influenced one of the most infamous films in history.
Oldman is surrounded by grace and elegance with Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies, an actress and beauty with intelligence and drive that I would have loved to see more of. Her relationship with Mank and the hidden assumptions we all make left me longing for more, but every scene with Seyfried was an engaging one. She embodies the class and sophistication of an early starlet. Additionally, Mank’s relationship with his wife, Sara (Tuppence Middleton) is yet another story unexplored, but perhaps this just didn’t have bearing on the making of “Citizen Kane.” It would, however, have been an interesting path to explore as she accused Mank of his “platonic affairs.”
“Mank” is a masterpiece of style and cinematic substance but one which will appease and appeal primarily to filmmakers, true academicians of the motion arts, and cinephiles who want to explore both the obtuse and the minutiae of making a contextually complex film with more layers than a homemade croissant and just as delicious. Challenge yourself and watch “Citizen Kane” (again?) and then watch this film. You’ll see it in a whole new, crystal clear light.
3 1/2 stars
