By Nadia Ranaputri
 |
| Image credit: Netflix |
Director: David Fincher
Cast: Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, Tom Burke, Sam Troughton, Tom Pelphrey, Charles Dance, Tuppence Middleton
Citizen Kane is, without a doubt, one of the most iconic films of all time, perhaps even the greatest film ever made. It was a revolutionary film that was ahead of its time, it broke the norms of storytelling and film-making in general. In the process, it inspired many other filmmakers in the future to step out of their comfort zone.So when the prospect of a film centered around the creation of the greatest film ever made, I couldn't help but be intrigued, especially since this marks David Fincher's return to film in six years since the masterpiece that is Gone Girl. After years in development (as this was Fincher's intended project in 1997 after The Game, but was pushed back due to a disagreement with a studio regarding his desire to shoot the film in black and white), Fincher was finally able to adapt his late father's screenplay and imbue delightful homages to the bygone era of 1930s Hollywood.
Mank tells the story of screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), or Mank; who is hired by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to write the screenplay of his debut film, Citizen Kane. However, due to Mank's tendency to drink and occasionally stir trouble, he is accompanied by Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and John Houseman (Sam Troughton) to assist and check up on him, making sure that he completes his screenplay on time. It is then through a series of flashbacks that we get to see Mank's relationship with the power figures of Hollywood, from the newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance), who is first seen funding a motion picture, to actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), whom Mank has a fond friendship with. This eventually raises speculations that many of Mank's associates were the inspiration for the characters in Citizen Kane, leading to concerns regarding the possibility of betrayal and controversy between Mank and these fellow figures, particularly towards the powerful looming tycoon, William Randolph Hearst.
Gary Oldman is as always, a stunner as Herman J. Mankiewicz. His performance brings plenty of depth and charisma, it is simply impossible to tear your eyes away. Fincher's script gives Oldman plenty of fine material to work with, from quick quips, to moments of somber, Oldman truly relishes in playing the famed screenwriter. With him boasts an equally impressive supporting cast, the standout being Amanda Seyfried as actress Marion Davies. Seyfried is charming and plays off wonderfully with Oldman, creating a fun dynamic whenever the two of them are on screen. Their scenes are my personal favorites from the film, as they give such good chemistry that I found myself smiling at their banters. Not to mention Tom Burke, who despite his limited screen-time, is able to bring the iconic figure that is Orson Welles to life in a very admirable performance that doesn't oversell, but is enough to give a good impression that leaves you wanting more of him. Lily Collins, Tom Pelphrey, Charles Dance, and Tuppence Middleton also give fine performances as some of the integral figures in Mank's life.
 |
| Image credit: IMDB |
Will those unfamiliar with Citizen Kane be able to watch
Mank? It's a difficult question, but the short answer is no. See, I
never saw Citizen Kane prior to watching Mank. I decided to watch Mank
before Citizen Kane to see it from both sides. I wanted to see the side
that wasn't familiar with the iconic film that Mank was based around to
see if I was able to comprehend it. In a way, I could still appreciate
the film on its own, even without knowing anything about Citizen Kane.
However, when I did get around to watching Citizen Kane, I will say that
Mank is much better experienced if you've seen it. This
will probably be an issue for some, as it feels like it's alienating the
general audience that hasn't seen Orson Welles' masterwork. It's like
if someone went into Avengers: Endgame knowing nothing about the MCU,
therefore is likely to be confused with everything that is going on.
They'd probably enjoy Endgame for what it is, but it's just more
satisfying if they've seen the prior MCU films. That's essentially what
Mank feels like. You can get plenty of enjoyment from it, but a watch
of Citizen Kane is a must if you really want to understand the entire
thing.
Mank is a film that might be heading towards the treacherous path of alienating general audiences, but the same time, it doesn't deliver a lot for those who want to see the backstory that led to the creation of an iconic film. While it leaves certain bits of pieces that those who have seen Citizen Kane will certainly catch, it leaves little to the imagination. And that is the main issue: Mank presents many interesting ideas, but does little to go in depth into any of them. It's understandable that the structure of the film replicates Citizen Kane, with the constant going back-and-forth and glimpses into Mank's past, but it feels like we don't learn much about who Herman J. Mankiewicz is. Most importantly, it doesn't really dig into the creation of Citizen Kane itself, on how it came to be; apart from a couple of hints of dialogue discussing possible inspirations for the film's screenplay. While Citizen Kane doesn't go too much detail on who Charles Foster Kane was as a person other than from the perspectives of his former associates, at least it fulfilled its main premise. We wanted to know what Rosebud meant, and in the process, we got to know who Kane was according to the people in his life. Mank, on the other hand, doesn't really know where it wants to go at times, it's as if it is lost in its own world that it forgets that it needs a main story to tell.
That's not to say that Mank is a bad film. It has the right idea, but it just slightly stumbled and got a little lost in the process. Fincher explores several different things within the main narrative, and many of these things were what inspired the creation of Citizen Kane itself. Whether it be the character of Charles Foster Kane being based on newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, or the 1934 election that perhaps sparked the storyline of Kane's short-lived Governor campaign; it is still interesting to see how all these things come together. Once you've familiarized yourself with the film to beat all films, it's easy to see what Mank is trying to do and connect the dots together. Then of course, there's the discourse of screenwriting credits. Who really wrote Citizen Kane? Mank doesn't really answer that, rather it implies its support over the Pauline Kael's Raising Kane theory (though this theory has been debunked by some), that Mankiewicz was the one who had written most of the screenplay, while Orson Welles was merely in charge of the directing, which explains why Welles had limited presence in the film, only appearing to remind Mank of his responsibility to finish the screenplay on time. Even to this day, the Welles-Mankiewicz debate still stands. It's a very interesting story on its own, but don't expect this film to dive into that, because it won't.
 |
| Image credit: IMDB |
The message that the film presents is quite clear, that Hollywood is very much an image factory, setting a false sense of fantasy ("This is a business where the buyer gets nothing for his money but a memory. What he bought still belongs to the man who sold it. That's the real magic of the movies," one character emphasizes). Through Mank's eyes, Jack Fincher's screenplay showcases the power-hungry side of Hollywood, particularly towards the politics, a machinery where money buys power, and the people in power are openly supportive of Republican figures, so much so that the notion of propaganda films aimed at the opposing figure was created. At its very lightest, sometimes it would poke fun at other film studios ("I don’t make cheap horror pictures, Universal does," as Selznik quips). When Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a love letter to Tinsel Town, Fincher's Mank is quite the opposite. While it pays homage to 1930s Hollywood, it barely holds back on its criticism of how Tinseltown operates. However, it still gives an appreciation towards the craft of old Hollywood itself. The production design is lavish, recreating the classy 1930s era in riveting fashion. Even the look of it is divine, having been stylized to look as if it was a film made in the bygone era, and it isn't just from the black and white look, but also the sound design and the addition of film grains that instantly transports you into that time period.
However way you look at it, is is clear that this is David Fincher's passion project, especially since he is adapting a screenplay written by his late father, Jack Fincher. Mank is a film built for lovers of film itself. While it may seem like it is a film that occasionally stumbles, there is still a lot to unpack on several viewings and it's a film you can start to appreciate after multiple watches. Mank won't be a film for everyone, the same way Citizen Kane won't appeal to everyone, no matter how many people have praised it. It's a film that requires your full attention, particularly towards the dialogue. Personally, I really like those kinds of films, so it wasn't a surprise that I liked Mank more than I should. If you're already familiar with Citizen Kane or the history of film during the 1930s, then you'll get enough enjoyment out of it. But to the audience that neither fit in those categories would perhaps find it a little hard to see the point that it is trying to make. If you were to sum up Mank in a dialogue, take the conversation between Mank and Houseman, where Houseman describes Mank's script as, "A hodgepodge of talky episodes, like a collection of fragments that leap around in time like Mexican jumping beans." To which Mank asnwers, "Welcome to my mind, old sock."
 |
| Image credit: IMDB |
Overall verdict: Mank might feel like a bit of a gamble, because there's a chance that a general audience who is unfamiliar with Citizen Kane won't connect to it. Moreover, even if you have seen Citizen Kane and want to know how the creation of the film came to be, Mank doesn't delve too deep into it. It instead focuses on mere glimpses of stories and figures that became the inspiration for the characters and arcs of Citizen Kane. It isn't a bad thing in it of itself, as Fincher manages to address these plot lines in a cohesive way, but doesn't fully emphasize on how Citizen Kane was actually made, or came to be. Depending on how you see it, this might be either a good thing or a bad thing. For me, it didn't bother me too much, but I did wish that the film would delve in more to the creative process of a film that is considered one of the greats. Despite that, Mank is still able to present its ideas in intriguing fashion, particularly about the politics and mechanics of 1930s Hollywood, whilst also paying homage to the time period. From its stunning cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt, who previously collaborated with Fincher in the brilliant Netflix show Mindhunter (if you haven't seen that show, please do, it is fantastic), to the lively score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, Fincher is able to transport us into this whimsical world of the 1930s. Mank is a welcome addition to David Fincher's already impressive filmography. Though it isn't my personal favorite film of his (The Social Network and Gone Girl still hold those titles), it is still a remarkable entry from Fincher.
Stars: 4/5
You can read my review of Citizen Kane here
Mank is available to watch on Netflix
0 Comments