If we’re putting together a list of the best directors of the new millennium, David Fincher is definitely likely on there. Tackling a wide range of movies, Fincher digs deep into his subjects and strives for a level of perfection that intimidates even his close peers. It makes sense then, that Fincher would be into a story about the man who wrote one of Hollywood’s perfect stories, Herman Mankiewicz, and how that man was seen by society. Fincher applies his perfection to an imperfect man, resulting in something that’s sumptuous, Hollywood introspection. Meaning: Mank = Oscar bait!
Told like one of his famous screenplays, Mank (Gary Oldman) opens the movie at a “dry out” remote location with a broken leg, cared for Fraulein Frieda (Monika Gossmann) and accompanied by stenographer Rita Alexander (Lily Collins). The stenographer is there because Orson Welles (Tom Burke) has decided Mank is going to write his big first feature, Citizen Kane. Fincher then sporadically jumps back and forth in time, showing us who the gregarious Mank was, and how his experiences with William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried) inspired the screenplay for what most people believe is one of the greatest films ever made.
Mank feels a bit like we’re through the looking glass with Alice. The movie is David Fincher’s vision of Herman Mankiewicz’s vision of William Randolph Hearst. That’s some Inception level layering right there! Fortunately, Fincher knows the movie is titled “Mank” not “Hearst”, which keeps the story from going off the deep end. And if you’re going to honor/plagiarize someone, might as well plagiarize the storytelling of the best right? The Citizen Kane like nonlinear flashbacks certainly make for a more compelling tale, as critical past pieces inform Mank’s present behavior and decision making. It also paints a picture of a very charming, fascinating character. The movie version of Herman Mankiewicz is the “smartest person in the room” every time he walks in, delivering prose like Shakespeare himself. That brilliance, Fincher shows, carries with it a bravado and fearlessness that results in Mank putting his foot in his mouth on more than one occasion, unafraid to speak truth to anyone. Those mistakes and desire to entertain also created a drinking problem, which always leads to a fun drunken tirade or emotional breakdown somewhere in the story. Admirable and reckless certainly must have made Mank a fun character to write and center a piece around, considering he was also conveniently at the center of old Hollywood too.
And that depiction of old Hollywood is probably Mank’s biggest selling point. Shot superbly in black and white, Fincher weaves us through several movie shoots, studio back lots, writing rooms, and soirees at Hearst Castle, showing what the Hollywood Elite were up to during the Depression/early years of WWII. Ohh, hot 30s TMZ goss! Now Fincher knows that there’s a relatively tiny audience for Hollywood’s 1930s inner workings, so he intersperses Mank and Co’s conversations about the politics of the day as well, which included a rise in white nationalism and a Republican party orchestrating race baiting fear mongering in a Governor’s race. Gee, I wonder if people will relate to that? 😜 Some of that is interesting, but with Fincher keeping the scope just on Mank’s perspective, it feels a tad undercooked. Maybe the studio interfered and asked for some cuts…
Mank is a movie Holllywood lovers are going to enjoy for a myriad of reasons. Gary Oldman and Amanda Seyfried are excellent. 30s Hollywood is filled with unchecked egos and gorgeous evening wear. Black and white Citizen Kane shooting styles and Kane’s nonlinear storytelling are fun homages. And some good old fashioned dressing down of Nazi supporters is always going to be a win. So listen Academy, if Mank doesn’t win anything for Netflix, they’re going to get needier and creepier, so just give them their Best Picture Oscar and they’ll leave you alone. It worked for Neville Chamberlin right? Right?