Mank

Rather than a burst of cinematic energy, 'Mank' is a considered, meticulous, subtle and ultimately furious film, one that continues to grow in your mind hours after seeing it. Even after two viewings, I can still hear my mind chewing over every second, my heart quietly racing as I consider its individual moments of genius. This isn't some nostalgic elegy to a great film or a great artist, but a damning portrait of how systems of power can be misused, and how good men find themselves complicit. It speaks ferociously to our contemporary world, and reminds us of the important role of art in a functioning society. In that sense, 'Mank' isn't a film about cinema; it's a film that asks what the point of cinema even is. It's a powerful, rebellious question to ask, and the kind of question only a filmmaker as skilled as David Fincher would dare to, and the imagination to find the answer. In the process, he may have just delivered the best film of the year.

• Daniel Lammin

Read Daniel's full article... https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-mank-a-dazzling-damnation-of-the-hypocrisy-of-power

If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog @ https://www.msbreviews.com

This last week of mine has been one of the most challenging I've ever had since I started this project. Not only due to the number of David Fincher's films (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Social Network, Gone Girl) I (re)watched in preparation for Mank (plus Citizen Kane), but also because these aren't exactly movies I usually review this quick. Since Zodiac was the only first-watch of this bunch, I was able to surprise myself and fly through the writing process, actually managing to deliver each article daily as I idealized. Finally, the time for one of Netflix's biggest baits for the upcoming awards season had arrived, so I watched Fincher's latest yesterday night.

Clearly, I'm a fan of Fincher's style, as my opinions about his filmography prove, so I always expect one of the best films of the respective year to come out of his work. However, having in mind the biographical premise, I know that this type of movie heavily relies on its storytelling. In my case, if a film like this isn't able to offer me new relevant information about a subject I already possess some knowledge of, then inevitably I'll end up disappointed. Even if I still receive these new story details, the transmission must be performed in a compelling manner, which usually these movies fail to do, basing their scripts too much on lazy exposition. So, I tried to keep my expectations moderately high yet realistic and hopeful.

Before I share my thoughts, a quick disclaimer. Mank will undoubtedly generate quite a divisive response from the general public. Why? From something as simple as the fact that the film is on black-and-white to the crime that is people not knowing a single thing about Citizen Kane (including never seeing it) but still choosing to watch Mank, there will be countless examples of viewers who will watch the latter with terribly unrealistic expectations. Audiences all around th...

A fascinating look about what supposedly went into 'Citizen Kane'.

'Mank', a biopic about screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, is a very good watch. A lot goes on and it's pretty much all interesting to see, admittedly you'd need to have seen the 1941 film. I like that they done this in a non-linear format and in black-and-white, à la in '41.

Kudos to the cast. Gary Oldman (Herman) is impressive, I did feel he was overacting - likewise with Amanda Seyfried (Marion) - just a little bit in parts but for the vast, vast majority he (and she) is top notch. Arliss Howard (Mayer), Lily Collins (Rita) and a few others are also pleasing to watch.

This features another quite impressive, powerful, performance from Gary Oldman as David Fincher uses his stylish and authentic portrayal of the borderline iconoclast Herman J. Mankiewicz to take us on a tour of Hollywood in the 1930s. It's told by way of flashback, as the bed-ridden Oldman is working on his screenplay for "Citizen Kane" and through his frequently drunken hazes we experience much of the politics, bigotry, misogyny, and pretty blatant corruption that prevailed in the upper echelons of the studio system as espoused by the likes of Louis B. Meyer (Arliss Howard); Irving Thalberg (Ferdinand Kingsley) and most especially the king of the hill - WR Hearst (Charles Dance). The monochrome photography adds much to the rich look of the film, and Jack Fincher provided the star with some wonderfully eloquent (often wittily loquacious) monologues - particularly towards the end as his battle against the booze starts to become more of an effort for him to fight and his friends begin to redefine their relationship with him. I was less impressed with the supporting cast - Dance dressed like a circus ringmaster for much of the time and Amanda Seyfried and Lily Collins struggled to make much of an impact, even though both roles are significant in the lives of Mankiewicz and Hearst respectively. It's a considered work, this - it doesn't dwell on the salaciousness of the scenarios; indeed it seems hell bent on avoiding dirtying it's hands with any of the concomitant scandal that accompanied the era, and that is quite odd. It robs the storyline of the oxygen of the underling politics and power-broking that created the ambience Mankiewicz so resented - even loathed. I saw it on the big screen about a day before Netflix rolled it out, and on balance I think a television viewing is all this needs. It's good - but not great.

The sequence of events was the reason for repeating the movie and watching it more than once. Never mind if you are not following the history of Hollywood, you will feel weary and bored.

Mank (2020)

Directed by David Fincher

This isn't my favorite David Fincher by a mile. To be fair, it's visually awesome; the recreated 1930s Hollywood is well done, shot in meticulous black-and-white that feels like it could have been made in the era it depicts. Fincher's technical mastery is on full display, and Gary Oldman is, as usual, amazing. He is probably the best character actor alive, and he brings Mank to life as a brilliant, acerbic, self-destructive wit navigating studio politics and personal demons with equal cynicism.

The screenplay is great in the sense that Mank is bright and witty, and that was probably true of Herman J. Mankiewicz. The dialogue crackles, the one-liners land, and Oldman delivers them with perfect timing. But here's where the film falls flat: it seems to be a Hollywood movie that plays to Hollywood folk. Not in that business, I don't have any empathy with the story or any of its actors. This is insider baseball, a film about screenwriters and studio executives and the politics of who gets credit, and if you're not deeply invested in that world, it's hard to care.

There is a long-running controversy about who really wrote Citizen Kane: Mankiewicz or Orson Welles. Mank takes a clear side, positioning Mankiewicz as the true author and Welles as the credit-stealing auteur. My guess is that both Mank and Welles were brilliant individuals, and the truth is probably somewhere in between. So outside that, and the fact that Citizen Kane was an incredible film for its time, who really cares? I don't. The film wants me to be outraged on Mank's behalf, to see this as a great injustice, but I can't muster the emotional investment.

What you're left with is a beautifully crafted film about a subject that matters intensely to a very small group of people. If you're a film historian, a Citizen Kane devotee, or someone who cares deeply about screenwriter attribution, Mank will probably resonate. For everyone else, it's a technical...

For all its cynicism, it is too easy to assume David Fincher’s MANK simply offers a nostalgic glimpse of Hollywood’s Golden Age. Instead, Fincher’s film — from a screenplay by his late father, journalist Jack Fincher — exposes the rot and treachery beneath the studio system, particularly the influence of Louis B. Mayer and media baron William Randolph Hearst.

MANK tells the story (albeit, with some fantastical liberties) of Hollywood screenwriter Herman J Mankiewicz and what may have inspired the Welles classic CITIZEN KANE (1941), while also wresting away some of the legacy of the film from the self-aggrandising Welles.

Gary Oldman plays the acid-tongued Herman J. Mankiewicz, a man who continues to fascinate and horrify with in vino veritas quips aimed at the rich and powerful Hollywood elite of the 1930s and ’40s. At 62, Oldman carries the film with a devil-may-care weariness befitting the hard-drinking 42-year-old screenwriter, delivering a performance that comfortably blends truth and myth.

Fincher underscores the film’s nostalgic tone with screenplay-style title cards — “INT. MANK’S BUNGALOW – FLASHBACK” — that punctuate the film’s shifting timeline.

Sam Troughton’s John Houseman serves as the pragmatic intermediary nudging Mankiewicz to complete a draft of a screenplay Orson Welles (Tom Burke) has commissioned him to write.

With a looming deadline and a broken leg confining Mankiewicz to dictate the script from own bed, as grist for the mill, we follow Mankiewicz into his past and present dalliances – including his platonic relationship with Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), the caged bird arm candy of Hearst for inspiration.

One of the film’s most memorable sequences comes during a drunken dinner party in which Mankiewicz castigates Hearst (Charles Dance) and Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) with his characteristic dry wit like a mad Prince Hamlet suddenly speaking truth to power. (Apparently, the drunker Mankiewicz becomes, t...