Mank is the latest from director David Fincher, a passion project years in the making, adapting his late father Jack Fincher’s screenplay, with a few touch-ups from him and producer Eric Roth. It tells the story of Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), a Hollywood scribe who’s perhaps more famous for his hard drinking, outspoken, wisecracking antics. We first meet him in 1940, being bedridden at a desert retreat where he has 60 days to finish a draft of what will eventually be Citizen Kane with the help of a young typist, Rita (Lily Collins), for the hot new director, Orson Welles (Tom Burke).
It doesn’t turns out the process was harder than he anticipated. Of course, it doesn’t help that he manages to get some booze snuck into the establishment, which has not been good for his health. At the point, the film flashes back to moments in the early to mid 1930s that would ultimately inspire the script. It begins when the businessman and newspaper tycoon, William Randolph Hearst, invites Mank – as many affectionate call Herman – into his inner circle. As the flashbacks keep coming, we get more glimpses Mank’s conflicts with some of his peers, including the likes of studio head Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and Hearst himself, building up to what eventually motivated his approach for the screenplay.
On the surface, there’s a lot to like here. David Fincher’s meticulous craftsmanship is at full display here, not only in bringing in countless little period details, but also indulging in a stylistic expression that captures the look and feel of films of the era, complete with black-and-white cinematography, cue marks, a lush orchestral score (courtesy of returning collaborators Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, and many of the actors doing a vocal affectation evoking the Transatlantic accent. It doesn’t take long for you to get in the groove of things, and it can make for a really engaging watch.
It also doesn’t hurt that there’s a really solid collection of actors here. Gary Oldman playing a righteous, opinionated, yet sharp-witted drunk gives Oldman the opportunity to go full Oldman. Arguably a touch too broad at points, and most definitely a couple decades too old for the part, but it’s one that I found really fun and engaging. Plus, he bounces off his supporting players well. I was especially impressed with Amanda Seyfried, who brings a lot to dimension in just a handful of scenes as Marion Davies, an actress who also happens to be Hearst’s mistress and someone that history has not been totally fair to. Howard makes a strong impression as Mayer, and Tuppence Middleton makes the most out of what she’s given as Mank’s wife, Sara, which plays out almost like a meta take on the “thankless wife” role you see in a lot of these movies about great historical men.
As much as there is a lot to like, I found myself desperate in grasping at something to latch onto. The film thankfully isn’t dull, if mostly due to all the great work that is clearly put into it, but it’s approach in telling this story felt odd and at certain points indulgent in all the wrong ways. Obviously, one wouldn’t want to compare something like this to Citizen Kane, but the film itself models so much of its structure after the film, and constantly throws nods towards that film, which I found either pointless or irritating. It’s frustrating because it’s not adding any new dynamic to the legacy of that film. And while the attempts to replicate old school filmmaking is nice, I find it strange that they don’t go all the way. The film isn’t in the Academy ratio, and it’s still very clearly shot on digital, and utilizes a very modern sense of editing rhythm and pacing. At no point does it truly feel like some lost Hollywood classic.
But I can consider that a nitpick. What did bother me was the way it liberally played with historical facts, not just in regards to Mank as a person, but also his involvement with the film’s major interest, which just so happens to be the 1934 gubernatorial campaign between Frank Merriam and Upton Sinclair. Without giving too much away, even a quick glance at any reliable source would show that what the events the film references did not happen that way at all. Historical inaccuracies aren’t inherently a bad thing, but there’s usually a purpose that those inaccuracies serve. Sometimes it’s as simple as tightening up a story, and sometimes it’s just about forming a narrative that builds to a bigger human, universal truth that makes for a good story – like Amadeus. I would be far more forgiving of these changes had the film been more emotionally dynamic and dramatically interesting. The stretches and fabrications in Mank don’t really add up to anything that I would consider substantial, and the attempts at using these events to turn Mank’s story into something more timely and of-the-moment fell flat to me. Perhaps, it was simply too committed to its aesthetic; haunted even, by the shadow of Citizen Kane.
Obviously, Mank is a film that calls for a really tall order. Not only is it a film that attaches itself in several ways to one of the all-time great films, it explores a long controversial theory about its authorship, it’s a work that has deep, personal ties to David Fincher, and on top of all that, it has to be an engaging prestige picture that Netflix needs to prop up for awards season since that Hillbilly Elegy didn’t turn out so great. Despite my misgivings about a lot of the choices made here, I wouldn’t go as far as to call Mank a bad film, but I would call it a misguided and disappointing one. It is the first film from Fincher that didn’t leave a strong, emotional impression after watching it, which is something I would have never expect to say. I really like all his movies, but this one left me feeling cold, and I don’t feel I ever really got inside the head of these characters, including Mank himself, aside from the very general notions of regret and speaking truth to power. The solid work from its cast and crew are honestly enough to warrant a viewing, though I worry most of the film is a bit too inside-baseball for casual moviegoers – which then begs the question, who was this even for? If anything, I hope this inspires people to watch films of that era, including Citizen Kane, which still holds up so well even today. I wish I could say the same for this.
Mank is now available on Netflix.