By Nadia Ranaputri

Image credit: CLTure

Director: Pete Docter
Cast: Jamie Foxx, Tina Fey, Rachel House, Alice Braga, Graham Norton, Angela Bassett, Richard Ayeoade.

Pixar films rarely ever miss, they're filled with not only fun, but they're also imbued with love and care. They come with the most unique ideas, and execute them in the best way. Inside Out was about the emotions in our minds, Up was about an elderly who traveled the world with a bunch of balloons tied to his house, Coco ventured into the world of the afterlife in the Day of the Dead, and this year's Onward took place in a modernized society filled with fantasy creatures, where the use of magic was replaced with technology. All have very unique stories, with talented people working behind them. This time, Pixar's latest film Soul is an exploration into life itself, as well as the world in between life and death, sprinkled with some hearty jazz.

Soul starts off with Joe Gardner (Jamie Foxx), a music teacher and piano player that teaches jazz at a local school. In his spare time, Joe relentlessly chases after potential gigs that will give him his big break. He finally gets to do exactly that when he is offered the chance to perform in a band with Dorothea Williams (Angela Bassett), an acclaimed musician. However, Joe stumbles upon an accident that leads him to the mysterious world of the Great Beyond. Unwilling to give up his life, Joe becomes desperate to find any opportunity to get a second chance at life, and eventually finds himself mentoring a fellow unborn soul named 22 (Tina Fey).

It may feel as if Soul could be similar to its fellow Pixar relative, Inside Out, but rest assured, Soul is its very own thing. The title itself perfectly represents the film, full of life, full of heart, and full of soul. But it's also a film that dabbles in the notion of death as well. When it comes to the subject matter of life, it contemplates on the very concept of it, and how important it is to live your life to the fullest. It encourages an introspective on our purpose in the world. What is our true purpose? We may not even know it yet. It's evident in scenes where Joe Gardner constantly convinces himself and others that his purpose in life is to play jazz and become the great artist that he has always wanted to be, but eventually is questioned as to whether or not fulfilling a purpose equals a fully lived life. It has an interesting retrospective on life and how we spend our time with it. It also questions how one deals with death, how easy it comes and takes, no matter how far you've come in life. Once you're taken from this world, what do you take with you? And what do you leave behind? These are the concepts that Soul explores. 

Image credit: IMDB

The visuals are also worth noting. It's already well documented that Pixar films have incredible animation, and Soul is no different. They always have their own unique style. Soul explores the crowded city of New York, and the lively music that hugs the city. While the characters make the heart of the film, jazz is the soul (pun intended) of it. The contrasting style between the film's depiction of The Great Before and life in New York is vastly different. The Great Before imbues many blue tones and other-worldly atmosphere, while the world of the living is filled with neutral colors that feel very lively and fresh. It feels like the visuals are imbued with music, it pops, it's vibrant, it's a visual treat for the eyes. It's like how Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse utilizes its animation to draw you in to the streets of New York. And despite being an animated film, the color grading and lighting is quite spectacular. The music by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross just adds a whole other level of emotion to the film, and it's the only one this year that has made me cry. There's a fine mix of upbeat jazz, techno beats, and piano-centric music. Some of the other jazzy tunes are brilliantly written and performed by Jon Batiste, which are nothing short of soulful and sanguine.

There is really no major flaw I had with Soul. As an animated film, it succeeds in conveying its subject matter, moral message, and emotional beats. For an animated film, it's well-paced and a lot of fun. Kids will still have a stellar time with the comedic moments, but the older will also find plenty of things to love. Moral messages and creative world-building had always been Pixar's forte, and Soul is one of many wonderful creations from Pixar's imaginative minds. It rarely ever becomes dull, since it's so upbeat despite its subject matter. While it talks about life and death, it leans more towards the aspects of life, and the relationships we make. You can say it's a little similar to Onward, another Pixar film that came out earlier this year. Onward dealt with loss from the perspective of those who are still alive, while Soul deals with the first-hand encounter of death itself. Of course, it isn't an actual depiction of the afterlife, but it has a very creative way of putting it. The subject matter doesn't seem like a typical concept for younger children, but Soul also keeps it light enough with plenty of jokes and the usual Pixar slapstick. One of the funniest scenes for me was a sudden jump cut involving a cat that took me aback, and I had to pause the film for a second to take a breather because I was laughing so much.

I went in to Soul expecting a wholesome and meaningful animated film that I could watch to lift my spirits, and it does, but it also did so much more. Pixar has proven time and time again that animated films are not only reserved for the young, but it can also resonate with the older. It's made even better with the fact that Pete Docter is in the director's chair. He's made some of my favorite Pixar films like Monsters, Inc, Up, and Inside Out, so it's no wonder that Soul is able to join the ranks alongside the best ones. Pixar films can be many things, but lazy is never one of them. Even some of the underwhelming ones never felt like it lacked effort. But once a film is able to elevate many of its elements, that's when they become truly special. It's why many of Pixar's films are such much loved, because it's more than just an animated film, they're films with a lot of heart, and it's made by storytellers and animators with genuine passion. Soul brought this indescribable feeling, somewhere between dealing with loss and accepting the inevitability of life. It struck this deeper feeling inside me that I never knew I had. I found myself smiling much of the time. It's heartwarming and so full of goodness, you really can't help but be emotionally invested. You're really going to go out of Soul with a smile on your face.

Image credit: IMDB

Overall verdict: Soul is a lively film, despite its subject matter on life and death. And it doesn't even lean much towards death, but more to life itself, and how we live it. It's a film about appreciating life and living our lives to the fullest. Though it deals with a mature topic, it's also very upbeat, complete with the ever soulful music. It is clear that it's a film that is made with so much passion, on a visual note, on an artistic note, on a musical note, and in terms of storytelling. Like many Pixar films before it, Soul is a feast for the eyes, bringing in fresh and eye-catching animation that are just as lovely as the music that accompanies it. And the music itself is soulfully composed by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, as well as other additional jazz tunes performed by Jon Batiste that are simply divine. In terms of story, Soul isn't as straightforward as prior Pixar films, it's definitely a little more mature, but it never strays too far to the point of alienating younger audiences. It is still able to tell a story that is not only easy to follow, but also filled with many fun elements and genuine, heartwarming moments. Soul is a film about living your life to the fullest, to appreciate the small things in life, and to value every minute of it. With that, Soul joins the ranks as one of the best that Pixar has made. 

Stars: 4.7/5

Soul is available to watch on Disney+

By Nadia Ranaputri 

Image credit: IMDB

Director: George C. Wolfe
Cast: Viola Davis, Chadwick Boseman, Colman Domingo, Glynn Turman, Michael Potts, Jeremy Shamos, Jonny Coyne, Taylour Paige.

Netflix has been on a roll lately. In a time where cinemas are no longer the pinnacle for a movie going experience, streaming services have taken over that spot, and Netflix wastes no time delivering strong films as the year comes to a close. First, we had Aaron Sorkin's The Trial of the Chicago 7, a spirited and moving film, then we had David Fincher's Mank, an homage to the films of the 1930s (both films that I have already reviewed). Now, director George C. Wolfe and screenwriter Ruben Santiago-Hudson are taking us to the music scene in 1927 Chicago, complete with a stunning list of powerhouse performers like Viola Davis and Chadwick Boseman. Adapted from August Wilson's The Pittsburgh Cycle, Ma Rainey's is one of  a series of ten plays that chronicles the African-American experience in the 20th Century.

In the hot swelling summer of Chicago, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom tells the story of the legendary "Mother of Blues" singer Ma Rainey (Viola Davis), who is about to record her album at the recording studio. However, several conflicts arise during the recording session. Ma Rainey has a dispute with the owner of the studio over the control of her music, while Leevee (Chadwick Boseman), the trumpeter and wild card of the band, is determined to make his stance with his lifelong dream of starting a band of his own. As the band wait to record, tension and a series of discord become center of the story; as Leevee, Cutler (Colman Domingo), Slow Drag (Michael Potts), and Toledo (Glynn Turman) engage in a series of conversations and stories regarding their battles, hopes, and dreams.

Viola Davis is magnetic as the film's headliner Ma Rainey. She's practically in charge of the whole band, holding so much power that no one even dares to question her decisions and requests. Davis is as always, a powerhouse, and this role further justifies that. She absolutely relishes playing this soulful yet stern singer. While Viola Davis is the main star, the film undoubtedly belongs to the late Chadwick Boseman. Boseman's performance is nothing short of electrifying. Everytime he's on screen, he demands on every bit of your attention. His monologue is riveting, and his delivery is powerful. So many of the film's emotional moments go to him, and it is his to command. His character arc is tragic, but it's something that he's always hidden behind his seemingly cheery demeanor. When his character does get the chance to take his arc on another level, Boseman's performance from one scene to the next just gets even more stellar. But that isn't to say that the rest of supporting cast play second fiddle, most of their performances are just as strong as Davis and Boseman. Ma's fellow bandmates join in with a chorus of performances worthy of the highest praises, particularly Colman Domingo, whose back and forth dynamic with Boseman is riveting to watch. 

Image credit: IMDB

As an adaptation of a play that takes place in one day, it succeeds at elevating the stakes for each character, particularly Davis' Ma Rainey and Boseman's Leevee. You understand each of their motivations. It does get more to the tell than show territory, which is something that I usually find as an issue, but given the time constraint and the context of the story, I can understand why they choose to go with this route. And it isn't just that, a film that tends to tell than show can actually be good if done well. Ma Rainey's Black Bottom is a good example of that. The dialogue doesn't feel shoe-horned or unnecessary, it tells the story it needs to tell. Whenever a character goes into a monologue, it's effective enough that you get a sense of who they are and what they're facing. You understand enough about the essence of the characters from their movements, their stories, the way they talk. It goes hand in hand with some neat visual storytelling, subtle but efficacious. There are moments where actions speak louder than words, and once it does, it really amps the film to a different level. If you're already familiar with Fences, another adaptation of August Wilson's work starring Viola Davis, chances are you'll have an easier time comprehending and familiarizing yourself with what the film wants to go for. 

An important thing to note when going into this film is that it is an adaptation of the stage play that feels like an actual stage play. When films are adapted from screenplays designed for the stage, it rarely ever feels like a play and mostly fitted to something more cinematic. Ma Rainey's Black Bottom however, is more like a stage play that happens to be captured on film. It takes place in the span of a single day, and much of the film is entirely dedicated to dialogues, long monologues, and rapid decisions. This isn't a bad thing in and of itself, it's just something worth noting before you see the film, because some may be taken aback by it. It is one of those in-the-moment type of films. Most of the film takes place in one setting: the recording studio. Every conflict, every development, it's all in one place. You won't see much beyond that. But there's something so ineptly powerful in a film that is able to tell so much and still catch your attention in such little time, and limited variety of places to tell it through. Ma Rainey's, for the most part, does this incredibly well. It knows how to hit the right notes, and is unashamed to aim for the highest of notes. 

Ma Rainey may have gotten her way most of the time, able to get the respect of most of the people in the studio to the point where they fulfill ridiculous requests like getting her a bottle of coke before she could sing; but Ma Rainey herself also has her own battles. Despite being able to command the room, it is clear that the producers behind her album are only interested in milking her success for their own profit rather than actual genuine interest towards her craft. "They don’t care nothing about me", Ma says in one scene, "All they want is my voice.". The film's real tragedy though, is through the band itself, particularly through Leevee. The film's core is the struggle of black artists, of how difficult it is to make music that is soulful and so truly them, and how white people can so very easily take their craft away from them. A shining and haunting example of this is when a white artist and an all-white band perform a song written and crafted by Leevee, but it is completely devoid of passion and soul that Leevee so greatly displays in prior scenes. It's uninspired and hollow, and it hits you just how much this white artist has stripped the song of any identity. In a short amount of time, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom is able to tell just a glimpse into these particular struggles, whilst also being able to hit the right emotional beats that lingers on as the film comes to a close. 

Image credit: IMDB

Overall verdict: If there's one reason to watch Ma Rainey's Black Bottom, it's for the incredible performances. Viola Davis commands every scene in great fashion as Ma Rainey, bringing in yet another electric performance. But while Davis is the headliner, it's Chadwick Boseman that takes center stage and delivers one of his best performances. Taking in some of that cheery, soulful, and emotional aspects that are slightly reminiscent of his performance as James Brown in the brilliant yet underrated film Get On Up, Boseman continuously elevates the film in every scene that he's in. The rest of the supporting cast are also just as brilliant as Davis and Boseman. Colman Domingo as Cutler in particular, makes a lasting impression and plays off with Boseman incredibly well. As a film, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom is an effective yet poignant piece that utilizes it runtime to tell as much as it could, and leaving an everlasting mark behind. It isn't just a film about black artists, but it's a film about the struggle of being one as well. Every band member, including Ma Rainey, is given time to voice their own battles, and it's hard to take your eyes off the screen when they do. While it mostly consists of dialogue and veers off to the tell than show element, the subtle visual storytelling is also worth noting for. The term actions speak louder than words is especially prevalent here. Despite taking place in the span of one day and one particular setting, Ma Rainey's Black Bottom is still able to hit all the right notes, elevated even more by the stellar performances.

Stars: 4.4/5

Ma Rainey's Black Bottom is available to watch on Netflix

By Nadia Ranaputri 

Image credit: IMDB

Director: Christopher Nolan
Cast: John David Washington, Robert Pattinson, Elizabeth Debicki, Kenneth Branagh, Dimple Kapadia, Clémence Poésy, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Michael Caine.

Is there anything Christopher Nolan can't do? He is arguably one of the best directors working today, and the fact that he doesn't even have an Oscar yet is a crime. Nolan always seems to raise the bar on every film. Just when you thought that he couldn't get any bigger with his movies, he strides in with a head full of seemingly impossible ideas, each more complicated than the other; and the budget to bring it to life. He has indeed come a long way since his small neo-noir film Following. After giving us the epic war film that is Dunkirk, I was excited to see what Christopher Nolan would do next. What idea was he going to bring in this time? Well, if you're already familiar with Nolan's films, you'd probably know of his fascination with time, as emphasized by films like Memento, Dunkirk, Inception, and Interstellar. But this time, Nolan is bringing the concept of time to new heights. 

Tenet is about a CIA agent, only referred to as The Protagonist (John David Washington); who is recruited into the Tenet organization after unknowingly passing a test. The Protagonist is made aware of the concept of time inversion, where people and objects are able to move backwards in time. This eventually leads him to partner with Neil (Robert Pattinson) to uncover and stop a potentially dangerous weapon that could wipe out the past.

Christopher Nolan does not take visuals lightly, and it shows. From the moment you hear that he used a real plane that he could crash for the film, you're just baffled and impressed by the sheer determination that Nolan and his team put. This isn't anything new for Nolan, he has always put a sense of realism and will go the extra mile to do so, even to the point of using as little CGI as possible. Tenet is no different from the rest of Nolan's masterworks. What Nolan has done this time is unreal. The film starts off with a bang, a thrilling action-packed sequence in the Kyiv Opera House. From there, Tenet turns the gears around and takes us on its inversion-filled ride. There are several sequences where people or cars move forwards and backwards, sometimes even simultaneously. You're just strapped in the moment and joining in for the ride. It is, as others have called it, Christopher Nolan's very own James Bond movie, but with a Nolan-esque twist. Much like Nolan's dream concept in Inception, the time inversion concept in Tenet is complex yet so intriguing, I was excited to know more about it as the film goes on. I have no idea how Nolan even comes up with these ideas, he's a true genius. There is one particular scene halfway that takes place in two different rooms, and it was so brilliantly done that I had chills upon watching it. This was where the film took itself on another level, and suddenly it just elevates it, both in terms of visual and story. 

Image credit: IMDB

But beneath of all that, Tenet has some flaws too. As someone who has very much admired Nolan to the point where he is at the top of the favorite directors list, I can admit that Tenet combines the best of Nolan and unfortunately, his weaknesses. Tenet feels like a movie fit for those who are already familiar with Nolan's work, or the very least, with the likes of Inception  or Intersetellar. It requires every bit of attention, and most of it requires the audience to have already followed along as it goes. But even if you do try to decipher every detail in the film, it doesn't guarantee that you'll fully comprehend what's going on. It wants you to think, yet at the same time, it leaves you no choice but to go with the flow. Sometimes it goes for a more realistic and logical route, then other times it would simply go, "screw it," and go all out. It manages to be both cohesive and a mess at the same time, does that make sense? For some, it may not be an issue, but for others, it can make it a little difficult to get invested if most of the things that are presented goes over our heads without allowing us any time to even comprehend it. And the sound design is very much just as everyone has already said: it tends to be muddled at times to the point where you can't even tell what they're saying, because the music, though beautifully composed by Ludwig Göransson; is somewhat louder than the dialogue itself.

At times, it can feel like it stuffs itself full with an overly complex narrative, not to mention the lack of development and connection with the characters. You may feel the high stakes of the situation, but it's hard to resonate with the characters if they're mostly there to explain the plot to us. They may tell you how to feel about a certain character and the connection they have to the bigger picture, but they don't emphasize that in a visual way. Compare this with Nolan's previous film, Dunkirk. While we don't get a lot of exposition or reason to connect with the characters, Nolan is still able to raise the stakes for them with visual storytelling, staging the film in such an immersive way, so that we as the audience get to experience those stakes alongside the characters. Take Inception as another example. Despite relying on exposition, it's accompanied by visual storytelling, like how Cobb's backstory is told in both exposition and a series of flashbacks, making him a character worth resonating with. We are told what's at stake for him, both through visuals and exposition. Tenet, on the other hand, relies more on exposition than visual emphasis. You do understand the stakes, but the connection with the characters isn't there. But again, even if there is, it feels more as if the film is telling you that should be feeling some sort of emotional connection with the characters rather than letting you connect in a genuine way.

Tenet can be a mess story-wise, especially since it has questionable editing choices in some places. The first half of the film does go off to a rough start, and it's practically dedicated to information drops from various other characters. If you're already familiar with Inception though, then you know that this is one of those cases where expositions are necessary, due to the confounding nature of the film, though unlike Inception, some of the exposition in Tenet could be very glaring and overdone. It's one of those films where you don't quite understand most of what is happening until the end, and that's when it clicks, when your brain finally goes, "Oh, I get it now!" For me, that was part of the experience. Essentially, the saying in the film, "Don't try to understand it, feel it," is the only description for it that you will ever need. That aside, the ambition behind this film is out of this world. Nolan is the type of director that likes to keep the audience guessing, and even if there are exposition scenes, some of them are cleverly placed, like trinkets or clues left in various places for people to find and piece together on their own. You can still find a lot to like in Tenet, but it really feels like one of those films where your opinion on it could change over time, be it positive or negative. It took me a while to wrap my head around how I really feel about it, but it's a film that I was willing to watch again over time to see if my views change, because it seemingly changes every time I watch it. While Tenet is Nolan's most ambitious film yet, I wouldn't say that is this is best.  

Image credit: IMDB

Overall verdict: Tenet is not a movie that you can simply go in and get a fully satisfying experience. You're constantly trying to piece everything together and figure out what Nolan is going for. It's not an entirely bad thing in itself, but this won't be your run-of-the-mill sci-fi action. On the surface, it may seem like it's going to bore you out or perhaps feel like you're being spoon-fed information when you could try to decipher it on your own. However, the film's exposition dumps don't really feel like it's spoon-feeding the audience, rather it tells The Protagonist (and the audience) something, and what The Protagonist does with this information as well as the events that come to play later, that's being left to our interpretation, though it can be overdone at times and fall dangerously close to the tell than show. This is especially prevalent in the lack of character development. On a more positive note, Nolan takes visuals very seriously in his films, and Tenet is no exception. The lack of CGI in most of the action sequences add to the excitement and adds authenticity. The concept of inversion is well executed for the most part, and it further acknowledges Nolan's fascination with time. Tenet is probably going to be a divisive film from Nolan, and even I was very conflicted on this film on the first watch, despite being a huge Nolan fan. I saw the film two more times in the following days (in the comfort of my own home, of course), and that was where I started to warm up to it and understood where the film was going. Despite being a  mess at times (particularly in the first act), it ramps up halfway and that's when the film really became riveting. Overall, it is a solid film from Nolan, the most ambitious even. While it unfortunately isn't his best, the sheer scale and dedication for this film makes it worth watching.

Stars: 3.5/5

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

By Nadia Ranaputri

Image credit: The Film Stage

Director: Orson Welles
Cast: Orson Welles, William Alland, Joseph Cotten, Everett Sloane, Dorothy Comingore, Ruth Warrick, Erskin Sanford, Agnes Moorehead. 

If you look at any list of the best films of all-time, there is no doubt that Citizen Kane is on that list. In fact, it has not only been considered being one of the greatest films of all-time, but the greatest film of all-time. It has been referenced countless times in other films and TV shows, and the techniques that made the film revolutionary at the time became the staple aspects of the films made today. Sometimes is even used to describe other films to the highest degree, like a friend of mine saying that a certain film was "the Citizen Kane of superhero films", or the infamous description of Tommy Wiseau's The Room as being "the Citizen Kane of bad movies". If a film is considered Citizen Kane levels of good (or in The Room's case, bad), then it must be worth seeing, right? Point is, even if you haven't seen Citizen Kane, there's a chance that you might have at least heard of it. But how did it become the icon that it is today? There are many aspects that made Orson Welles' masterpiece into what it is now, from the technical aspects to the storytelling, Citizen Kane is a film that opened the doors to new and exciting ways to present a story, with elements that were uncommon at the time, but inspired many future films to follow in its footsteps. 

Citizen Kane tells the life of Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), a wealthy businessman in charge of a newspaper company, The Inquirer. On his deathbed, Kane utters his last word: Rosebud. Kane's death becomes a front and center topic of the news, and with it, his last word. This eventually leads to the driving point of the story, with reporter Jerry Thompson (William Alland) being tasked with the case of discovering the meaning behind Kane's last word by interviewing former colleagues, wife, and estranged friend.

There are many things that Citizen Kane juggles, from an ill-fated romance, political pursuits, power dynamics, and living the American Dream. Most of the film is told through flashbacks and through the lens of those who knew him, but not from Kane himself. By the time "News on the March" segment begins, it might have already hinted that much of Kane's life will be told through the viewpoint of an outsider, with each viewpoint being either similar or differ from one another, depending on how you look at it. While we do get a much deeper look through flashbacks, they're simply fragments that shape the outline of his life. Charles Foster Kane was someone that flourished and at the top of his game, yet he is flawed and lonely. We may know his life story, but we don't really get to know who Kane truly was as a person, we only know him from the lens of others. Hence "Rosebud", the word that appeared at the end of his life, and the word that started the basis of the entire film. Despite Kane's success, he was an enigma from the beginning, and remains to be one at the very end.

Image credit: IMDB

On a technical note, Citizen Kane's cinematography is stunning and while the camera angles used in the film has been used in others before it, the film's cinematographer Gregg Toland uses it at the advantage telling the story in a visual way. It utilizes deep focus shots that shows you everything that is happening in the room as characters talk or do something, rather than simply cutting to focus on different aspects of a scene (One Hundred Years of Cinema's take on the film describes this better than I do). Almost every single scene seems meticulously crafted, shaped similarly to that of a stage play. Instead of doing multiple cuts in one scene, the camera roams freely across the screen in continuous takes that allow the audience to move alongside the characters and the setting of the scene itself, like the breakfast scenes between Kane and his first wife that symbolizes a steady decline of their marriage. The camera knows where to place itself where it is most effective in both providing striking cinematography whilst giving the audience a complete picture of everything that is happening during a scene. This is emphasized by the staging of the scene and placement of the characters in each frame. 

Nowadays, it's no longer unusual for films to follow a non-linear structure, but back in the 1940s, it was a new way of storytelling. It doesn't open in the middle nor the start of Kane's life, but rather at the end of his life. The rest of his life story is then carried out by a broadcaster, hence the iconic News on the March section, and later other figures who were integral to Kane. Best of all, it remains captivating from start to finish. You're just as eager to find out about this relatively vague figure of Charles Foster Kane as the characters, and just as eager to know what the heck "Rosebud" actually means. The non-linear structure of the film made it the revolutionary piece of art that was truly ahead of its time, and sets the foreground for new and exciting ways of storytelling, all while still being compelling. Even the editing is worth applauding for, not a single cut felt jarring and made the scenes consistent, never too short, never too long; just enough to give fragments of vital information for the audience. Every scene felt integral to the film, if you took even one scene out, the film would feel incomplete. 

Image credit: BFI

Citizen Kane earns its reputation for being one of the best films of all time. With the limits of film at the time, it's hard to deny that this film could be considered ambitious for its time. It was able to break the standard norms of storytelling and film-making itself. The cinematography, whilst stunning, is also a fine piece of visual storytelling in itself. The closer you look, the more you see the reasoning behind every angle, every character position, the lighting, and even the significance of inanimate objects. And beneath the visuals is an interesting character study told from the perspective of those that knew him. Despite the controversial debate regarding screenwriting credits between Orson Welles and screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, Orson Welles still played a vital part in shaping the film to be the icon that it is today, particularly when you consider the fact that when Welles was only in his 20s when he starred, produced, wrote, and directed Citizen Kane. In the process, it paved the way for modern film-making, inspiring many filmmakers to step out of their comfort zone. Citizen Kane is a film that withstands the test of time, so much so that it is still talked about even more than seven decades later, and it's easy to see exactly why it remains to be timeless masterpiece. 

Stars: 4.8/5