Review - Mank

 

Mank is David Fincher's first film since 2014, when he released his trash pulp masterpiece Gone Girl. He has been busy since with TV projects but as a feature director, it's a welcome return, though not into territory that feels familiar for the director. He's got a hell of a filmography, mainly covering serial killers but also veering into sci-fi, home invasion and whatever the hell The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was. The most important touchstone though is The Social Network, as that was Fincher's last attempt at a biopic and also widely regarded as a drop dead masterpiece by many, including yours truly. And so, into that waiting void, Fincher drops Mank, his return to biopics, though this time about a much less prominent figure: Herman Mankiewicz.

I admit I didn't quite feel the emotional punch I was hoping to.

Because you are likely unaware, Herman Mankiewicz was one of the screenwriters behind Citizen Kane, a film often regarded as one of the greatest of all time. He wrote a bunch of stuff before Citizen Kane but Citizen Kane being Citizen Kane, you understand why this is the one he's now famous for. Anyway, Mank delves into two periods of his life, across which we bounce. First there's the actual writing of Citizen Kane, in which Mank is stuck in Victorville in 1940 and attempting to sober up, all while writing a new script for this plucky up and comer called Orson Welles. Meanwhile, the bulk of the film is a series of flashbacks to the mid-thirties, where Mank is a waster of an alcoholic, bumbling his way through Hollywoodland and meeting a series of real life people who will (allegedly) inspire characters in Citizen Kane (I promise this is the last time I'll write Citizen Kane in this paragraph). The two stories are handsomely told and weaved together in a way that makes their connections clear enough to not feel too easy, though I admit I didn't quite feel the emotional punch I was hoping to. I'll return to this later, so for now I'll just say that while I did wonder what the point of telling this particular story was, it felt like a story as well told as could be.

Regarding performances, I have nothing to complain about and plenty to praise. Mank is one of those films where a huge ensemble deliver top tier work and I will only have time to highlight ones that stand out to me. First of them is the man himself, Gary Oldman as Mank. Oldman has never been bad and though his performance here is less "actor-y" and obvious than his Oscar winning turn in Darkest Hour, he's much better. Though not always subtle work (prepare yourself for a few cracking drunk scenes), his performance as Mank effectively creates a character who many of us will not be particularly aware of. Another consistently great performer is Charles Dance, who here plays William Randolph Hearst, the (alleged) inspiration for Charles Foster Kane. I've never seen Dance fail to bring gravitas to a role and though he doesn't pop up often in Mank, you'll be very happy to see him every time he does.

Amanda Seyfried embodies the kind of deliciously smoky, old-Hollywood glamour of iconic actresses like Barbara Stanwyck or Katharine Hepburn.

A familiar performer who delighted me here was Arliss Howard. He's been in stuff as varied as Full Metal Jacket and Birth and though he's never stood out enough for me to actually look up his name, I kinda loved him as Louis B. Mayer. Mayer is one of Hollywood's most famous producers, but not instantly recognisable by face or mannerisms to even many dedicated film fans. As such, he's got loads of room to work and play and really make Mayer into a brilliant character whose presence I welcomed. In an adjacent vein, there is Tom Burke. Now, I loved him in The Souvenir, but know him from pretty much nothing else. In Mank though, he is given perhaps the largest shoes to fill of anyone in the cast; Orson Welles. Welles is an iconic figure in film and is going to be hard to portray in a way that doesn't feel like parody, yet Burke somehow pulls that off. His voice is instantly recognisable, yet not in a way that undermines Welles as a character. Finally, I also loved Amanda Seyfried. She's great in stuff like Mean Girls or the Mamma Mia films (and of course Twin Peaks: The Return), but this feels like the most impressive performance I've seen from her. As Marion Davies, she embodies the kind of deliciously smoky, old-Hollywood glamour of iconic actresses like Barbara Stanwyck or Katharine Hepburn, but cracked open just enough to allow you to see through the veneer. Like so many of the other performers in this film, she lit up the screen whenever she turned up.

Of all the elements that deserve an almost embarrassing amount of praise, the technical elements are the most deserving. Fincher is famed as a director who craves attention to detail (you will not have to look hard to find tales of him pushing actors with over 100 takes of scenes) and he turns that attention to detail to the feel of an old Hollywood movie. Though I know there are plenty of people who don't enjoy black and white or older Hollywood films, I find they have a charm, brought largely through their tactility. Sure, the colour isn't there or the sound track is a bit echoey, but that obvious artifice somehow makes the film feel even realer. Those elements are all brought through to the modern day by Fincher, be it the sound presented in mono, the era-appropriate instruments on the (excellent) score or even the delightful little cigarette burns in the corner of the screen during a "reel change". Every single technical element of this film is truly immaculate, especially the bits that are attempts to emulate the inaccuracies, which is what makes my emotional detachment to the film so frustrating. The only real emotion I had was a feeling of "this is really nice", because I love being inside even the most mediocre of classic Hollywood. I was glad to get that emotion, but I couldn't help feeling like I should be feeling more.

However you react to Mank, it is an undeniably incredible recreation of the past.

Though it clearly isn't a love letter to the business and moviemaking of Hollywood, there is an undeniable affection you walk away from Mank with. I've personally been considering a bit of an old movie marathon after it, having fallen back in love with all the perfect imperfections of films of the past. However you react to Mank, it is an undeniably incredible recreation of the past, whose emotional power may vary from viewer to viewer. Though I wish it did more for me, I still had a very lovely time watching it and am happy to bestow it with a