Mank
Year: 2020
Director: David Fincher
Starring: Charles Dance, Lily James, Gary Oldman & Amanda Seyfried
Runtime: 131 mins
BBFC: 12
Published: 10/12/20
Director: David Fincher
Starring: Charles Dance, Lily James, Gary Oldman & Amanda Seyfried
Runtime: 131 mins
BBFC: 12
Published: 10/12/20
I’m sure I’ve mentioned it on this website before, but just in case I haven’t, I consider David Fincher my favourite director. Whilst he’s certainly made some films I don’t consider particularly great (such as Alien 3 and The Game), the vast majority of his films are among my favourite of all time (such as Fight Club, The Social Network, and Gone Girl), and I love listening to the man talk about the process of filmmaking because he is so candid in the way he does so. To him nothing is about chance, it’s all about precision and repetition. That’s part of why his films are so interesting to watch because from a technical perspective they are damn near perfect, even the ones that aren't masterpieces.
I didn’t know an awful lot about Mank, in fact because 2020 has been the way it has, it completely slipped my mind that a new Fincher film was even set to release this year until I saw it on Netflix’s new arrivals. So, I watched it blissfully unaware that it was a biopic about the creation of the screenplay of 1941’s Citizen Kane, widely regarded as the best film ever made and something I had never actually seen before. So, after finishing it and feeling a little lost I went and watched Kane, and then re-watched Mank to try and get a better perspective on it. So, what did I think? Well, it’s no Citizen Kane.
The year is 1940 and Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) is recovering from a car accident. He has recently agreed to write the screenplay for Orson Welles’ (Tom Burke) new film, for which he will receive no credit but will instead receive a substantial fee for his services, a practice commonplace in that era of Hollywood. In order to ensure the screenplay is ready on time Welles has placed Mank in the care of Rita Alexander (Lily Collins), who will ensure Mank’s recovery and sobriety so to not place any further delays on the creation process.
As Mank dictates the screenplay to Rita, he divulges his inspirations for certain characters or scenes from his own life. The film then provides flashbacks to these sequences, particularly Mank’s association with Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard), and William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance). However, as the screenplay nears completion Mank begins to realise that this is the best thing he has ever written and so tries to convince Welles to credit him as writer on what will become Citizen Kane.
I didn’t know an awful lot about Mank, in fact because 2020 has been the way it has, it completely slipped my mind that a new Fincher film was even set to release this year until I saw it on Netflix’s new arrivals. So, I watched it blissfully unaware that it was a biopic about the creation of the screenplay of 1941’s Citizen Kane, widely regarded as the best film ever made and something I had never actually seen before. So, after finishing it and feeling a little lost I went and watched Kane, and then re-watched Mank to try and get a better perspective on it. So, what did I think? Well, it’s no Citizen Kane.
The year is 1940 and Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) is recovering from a car accident. He has recently agreed to write the screenplay for Orson Welles’ (Tom Burke) new film, for which he will receive no credit but will instead receive a substantial fee for his services, a practice commonplace in that era of Hollywood. In order to ensure the screenplay is ready on time Welles has placed Mank in the care of Rita Alexander (Lily Collins), who will ensure Mank’s recovery and sobriety so to not place any further delays on the creation process.
As Mank dictates the screenplay to Rita, he divulges his inspirations for certain characters or scenes from his own life. The film then provides flashbacks to these sequences, particularly Mank’s association with Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard), and William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance). However, as the screenplay nears completion Mank begins to realise that this is the best thing he has ever written and so tries to convince Welles to credit him as writer on what will become Citizen Kane.
Mank’s story is most likely not going to be particularly thrilling to anyone who isn’t invested in the 1930’s film industry, and the politics surrounding it. As such I’m going to stick my neck out right here and say that I found Mank’s story to be kind of boring. Whilst there are certainly interesting things that happen in the film, for the most part the story concerns lots of people I have never heard of doing things that are of little consequence to anyone outside of the film industry. The film was written by Jack Fincher, David’s late father, and was set to be made in the 90’s following the completion of ‘The Game’. However due to production studios not wanting to make that kind of film it got left on the backburner until Netflix agreed to produce the film. It doesn’t really feel like a David Fincher film in a lot of ways, but I guess that this was more of a passion project for him because it was his father’s film that he never got to see come to fruition. It’s also worth noting that most of the events of the film were proven to be false many years ago, making this biopic significantly more fictional than factual.
The story does feel very reminiscent of Citizen Kane though. It’s told primarily through flashbacks, much like Kane was, and the way dialogue plays out has that similar kind of feel to it where everybody’s always talking over each other and everything happens very quickly. That probably explains a lot of why I didn’t like the narrative all that much, because I wasn’t too fond of Kane’s story when I recently watched it.
Also, like Kane though, I did very much enjoy how the film was put together technically. As I expressed earlier, Fincher is a perfectionist and the way Mank is shot, edited, and scored is no exception to that rule. The film is shot in black and white and due to the various effects at play feels like a film that could have come out of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Whilst the cameras filmed in 8K, the footage has gone through several stages of degrading to make it appear as though it was filmed using old cameras. You’ll see cigarette burns before scene changes indicating when a projectionist would need to change a reel; there’s sometimes hairs visible, or even a fuzzy glow around actors when standing in front of something very bright. The audio has also gone through several stages of degradation where it’s been mixed in Mono and the high-end frequencies have been bumped up to make it sound like a film that was recorded using equipment used in the 30’s. This mixed with the outstanding set and costume design makes the film look and sound period correct and straight out of the 1930’s
Combine that with Erik Messerschmidt’s very clean cinematography that echoes what was done in Citizen Kane, as well as what audiences expect from a David Fincher film and you’re provided with a true treat to watch. It’s like it belongs to two very different time periods and that Fincher is really paying homage to Welles’ genius during his creation of Kane.
The story does feel very reminiscent of Citizen Kane though. It’s told primarily through flashbacks, much like Kane was, and the way dialogue plays out has that similar kind of feel to it where everybody’s always talking over each other and everything happens very quickly. That probably explains a lot of why I didn’t like the narrative all that much, because I wasn’t too fond of Kane’s story when I recently watched it.
Also, like Kane though, I did very much enjoy how the film was put together technically. As I expressed earlier, Fincher is a perfectionist and the way Mank is shot, edited, and scored is no exception to that rule. The film is shot in black and white and due to the various effects at play feels like a film that could have come out of the Golden Age of Hollywood. Whilst the cameras filmed in 8K, the footage has gone through several stages of degrading to make it appear as though it was filmed using old cameras. You’ll see cigarette burns before scene changes indicating when a projectionist would need to change a reel; there’s sometimes hairs visible, or even a fuzzy glow around actors when standing in front of something very bright. The audio has also gone through several stages of degradation where it’s been mixed in Mono and the high-end frequencies have been bumped up to make it sound like a film that was recorded using equipment used in the 30’s. This mixed with the outstanding set and costume design makes the film look and sound period correct and straight out of the 1930’s
Combine that with Erik Messerschmidt’s very clean cinematography that echoes what was done in Citizen Kane, as well as what audiences expect from a David Fincher film and you’re provided with a true treat to watch. It’s like it belongs to two very different time periods and that Fincher is really paying homage to Welles’ genius during his creation of Kane.
The performances are also strong across the board but the star of the show would absolutely be Charles Dance as William Randolph Hurst. He’s only in the film for a handful of scenes but he commands attention both in his stern looks, and his softly spoken but very powerful dialogue. Gary Oldman also proves why he is one of the best actors in the business right now as he takes on the leading role, and although I didn’t find the story that interesting Oldman’s performance was largely what made me stick around until the credits rolled.
So, whilst Mank is probably my least favourite Fincher film, and one I very much doubt I will watch again. It is certainly interesting to see David Fincher do something different from what he normally creates. Whilst the story may have left me unsatisfied, his unmatched technical prowess still made the film enjoyable in many ways. So, whilst I personally find it hard to recommend Mank to the average moviegoer, I would say that if you’re a fan of classic cinema then Mank is certainly something you should at least consider.
So, whilst Mank is probably my least favourite Fincher film, and one I very much doubt I will watch again. It is certainly interesting to see David Fincher do something different from what he normally creates. Whilst the story may have left me unsatisfied, his unmatched technical prowess still made the film enjoyable in many ways. So, whilst I personally find it hard to recommend Mank to the average moviegoer, I would say that if you’re a fan of classic cinema then Mank is certainly something you should at least consider.