Directed By David Fincher

Starring – Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins

The Plot – 1930s Hollywood is reevaluated through the eyes of scathing wit and alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Oldman) as he races to finish “Citizen Kane.”

Rated R for some adult language

POSITIVES

– Transporting cinema. To list anything first other than the hypnotically stunning production punch that the movie supplants in attaining authenticity within the golden age of the 1930’s would tragically undercut the magic spell that it holds over the audience continuously throughout. In channeling such an age, Fincher and company hold the color, muffle the microphones, and fade to black on every single scene transition throughout the picture. This not only accurately depicts the consistency of formula throughout an age with very little technological advances, but also produces a feat in 2020 that is unlike anything seen at cinema this year, in that it looks to the past to produce its future. Each one of these aspects completely attain believability in the chosen decade of the movie’s on-going narrative, but for my money it’s the aforementioned monaural sound designs that emphatically won me over, conjuring up as many echoes and atmospheric influence that audibly illustrates the confines of a studio stage. There have been many films done recently in black and white to channel a vintage age, but the contemporary sound design in all of them always breaks my immersive concentration, and proves why Fincher’s talents lend themselves to the perfection attained in mastering the marriage of sight and sound simultaneously.

– Soul-stealing cast. Oldman seems well on his way to earning himself another Oscar nomination. As Herman Mankiewicz, the movie’s titular character, Gary loses himself once more in a performance whose visual transformation, while great, can’t even stand on the same block as his emotional work embodying Mank’s legendary trivial personality. Oldman’s visual likeness isn’t really anything similar to the real Mankiewicz, but his stretched vocal capacity makes him a seamless embodiment that silences disbelief in visual likeness, and makes this another can’t miss performance from one of our generation’s best actors. In addition to Oldman, the work of Amanda Seyfried and Lily Collins were a major compliment to the movie’s variety of characters who move in and out of Mank’s life like dance partners he occasionally asks to dance with. For Seyfried, it’s the twinkle in her soulful eyes that plays aggressively with the disappointment in a career that has typecast her from the roles she desires, and for Collins it’s her delicious banter with Mank that etches out a platonic best friend whom he continuously leans on. It makes this anything but a one man show, despite that one man adding yet again to a career of revolutionary turns as biographical characters.

– Fierce Fincher. David is a man of many talents in earning a reputation as one of the most influential filmmakers of the past thirty years, but his work here is nothing short of spell-binding in redefining himself, and doing it through the lens of what feels like an Orson Welles objective. As Mank says midway through the film, “You cannot capture a man’s entire life in two hours. All you can hope is to leave the impression of one”. Prophetic words there that seem to echo the canvas of Fincher’s line of unorthodox storytelling for the film. Instead of feeling like one cohesive narrative with a conflict and resolution, the script instead is a collection of moments that defined Mank’s legacy, and did so at a time when his personal life was seemingly falling apart. It doesn’t make for the most compelling sit for a wide range audience, but it captures Welles style of filmmaking to a tee, feeling like an autobiographical project that Welles would be making today if he were alive, and had the respect for Mank that the movie frequently conveys he should.

– Behind the scenes. Where this story captured my attention was in the many conversations and occasions leading up to the production that presented us with an advantageous vantage point of moments that have only been rumored to this point. In this regard, “Mank” is a movie about another movie, in that it’s depicting the events leading up to the screenwriting of what some deem the greatest movie ever made; “Citizen Kane”, but it’s a story so chaotic and at times suffocating that it springs to life a compelling narrative of its own, spiraling the pitfalls of inspiration from this alcholic writer’s once capable hands. There are some surprises that I didn’t know (Welles eventual disdain for Mank), as well as some that were further articulated through the engagements of these surreal meetings taking place before our very eyes (Nazi banning). It makes “Mank” feel like a project that is part movie and part documentary because of its abundance of knowledge on the moments it captures, and turns back the hands of time to an era in filmmaking that was anything but easier in the adversities of the time that defined many creative minds.

– Realistic dialogue. There’s a rich sense of authenticity that pertains to the many conversations and interactions throughout the 131 minutes that Mank impresses us with, but none more impressive than that of the vocabulary, which resulted in me using a dictionary more than I would care to admit. I’ll choose not to skewer them here, and instead leave the thrill of discovery to those as confused as I was. On top of this, the structure of the conversations never feel obviously geared towards selling exposition or purposeful intentions which will spring up somewhere conveniently when the picture requires it. This does result in some moments of downtime, which would feel like deleted scenes in other movies, but here illustrates the struggle hanging in the balance between any two sides fighting for power at any given time throughout the film.

– Politically timely. One unique subplot conjuring up a reflection of social deja vu is that of the struggle with Democratic socialism featured throughout the movie, and how that same fear defines a city from overwhelmingly voting it down. Sound familiar? It seems that as much as things have changed in the filmmaking aspect of Hollywood, it’s the world outside of its hallowed halls that remains the same. As an independent voter myself, I won’t bore you with policies, but instead confront the feeling that the same political wars that loomed over our nation then remain as prominent as ever now, even down to the same misconceptions from both sides that alienate and distort on their way to contention. This could play into the fact that world inside of “Mank” was ahead of its time, but beyond that conveys the ironic sense of us trying the same thing and expecting different results, a definition known as insanity for those keeping score.

– Psychological framing. There’s an interesting storytelling device throughout the film that is episodically encased inside of this on-screen text that alludes to the structure of a screenplay, complete with time, location, and interior or exterior establishing shot. This is unique not only because it does it continuously throughout the entirety of the film, but also because you start to learn that it conveys Mank’s sense of memories and inspiration for the things he writes in the foreground of his screenplays. Especially in the case of “Citizen Kane”, which will help fill in the gaps of inspiration if you’ve ever seen that film. So in a sense, this is the movie’s way of telling this from his perspective despite it never using him as an audible narrator of breaking the fourth wall by talking to his audience beyond the camera. It articulates the art imitating life circumstance by turning a series of factual events into a movie in literary form, and offers a unique way of conveying information in places and dates from a movie’s inception point.

NEGATIVES

– Limited appeal. Even though “Mank” is an overall recommend from me, I can’t influence you to watch it without a couple of warnings first. This is very much a movie about the making of another movie, so if those intimate details and behind the scenes aspects don’t interest you from the word go, the following 131 minutes will offer no relief along the way. On top of this, the conflict isn’t exactly one that lends itself to suspense or overwhelming anxiety because of its one-note circumstance. This keeps the tonal capacity of the movie grounded at all times, leaving the film with very little urgency despite its repeated mentions of a race against the clock that it never even remotely capitalizes on. “Mank” is very much a film for the most hardcore of cinematic moviegoers. Everyone else will feel bored or underwhelmed by a Fincher offering that is visually and thematically unlike anything else previously that he has produced.

– Momentum halted. The intentionally disjointed nature of the sequence of events plays into the Mank mentality that I previously mentioned, but it doesn’t mean it makes for a two hour plus sit that will keep you continually invested. This was realized early on for me, particularly after we’re introduced to the essential characters, and the movie still feels like it’s missing that note of relatability to a series of characters who we never fully understand. The characterization is halted a bit, sacrificed for an idea bigger than any of them. Even Mank himself, despite some moments of comedic delivery, feels like a slug of a protagonist who is owned constantly by the bottle, but never to the point of helpless vulnerability that would even earn him a shred of empathy from the audience. Despite learning so much about the making of “Citizen Kane”, as well as Mank the mind, we are none the closer to Herman Mankiewicz the person, and for an autobiographical story, there’s little outside of the movies that I learned about what makes him tick.

My Grade: 8/10 or B+