← Back to Reviews
in
That's how notoriously talented yet problematic screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) described the struggle of writing a biopic, specifically Citizen Kane. Two hours is not enough to encapsulate decades and decades of a lifetime, which is why most biopics have chosen to focus on specific chapters in the life of their subject. Mank – the film, not the writer – is no exception.
David Fincher's latest film follows Mankiewicz as he deals with the struggles to write Kane, how he navigated the perilous waters of Hollywood life in the years prior, and his clashes with Orson Welles, while also dealing with his own alcoholism. In a script written by his late father, Fincher chooses to focus on roughly the 10-year period prior to the release of the film.
Mankiewicz was notable for his skilled and witty screenwriting, as much as he was for his excessive drinking, compulsive gambling, and sharp tongue. Most of his collaborators immensely praised the former side while harshly criticizing the latter. Much like the subject of the film, Mank is a technically sound film with lots of things on his favor, but an ultimately spotty script and a distant direction that just doesn't let the viewer get in its drift; particularly if you're not familiar with the context and backstory.
I know I'm in the minority, but in many ways it reminded me of The Social Network; another biopic that's equally impressive from a technical standpoint about a socially problematic subject that has flashes of greatness through separate scenes, but that ultimately feels cold and distant. In Network's case, the iconic scene is when Saverin finally confronts Zuckerberg after being given the shaft, while in Mank, it's the climatic dinner party where Mank drunkenly lashes at magnate William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance).
The scene is impressive in acting, script, and direction. Oldman really conveys the hidden anger and disgust of Mank amidst his drunken slobber, while Dance (who I'm a huge fan of) does so much without pretty much saying anything, and when he does, it's excellence. The way he delivers the final anecdote was priceless, while the whole sequence elevated what can only be described as an unsatisfying film. Not necessarily because it was "bad", but because it could've been so much more.
Much like Mankiewicz himself, who neutered many of his personal and professional relationships because of his excesses, most of the relationships portrayed in the film feel neutered and incomplete. That's the case with how we see his relationships with Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), his brother Joe, his secretary Rita, and his wife Sara. You get the sense that there's something missing, that there are things to uncover in each of those, but Fincher never gets to it. Instead, he focuses on following Mank as he stumbles from here to there. Much like him, there's skill and there's wit in the film, but the issues around it don't let those shine.
Grade:
MANK
(2020, Fincher)
A film nominated for a Best Picture or Best Int'l Feature Film this year
(2020, Fincher)
A film nominated for a Best Picture or Best Int'l Feature Film this year
"You cannot capture a man's entire life in two hours. All you can hope is to leave the impression of one."
That's how notoriously talented yet problematic screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) described the struggle of writing a biopic, specifically Citizen Kane. Two hours is not enough to encapsulate decades and decades of a lifetime, which is why most biopics have chosen to focus on specific chapters in the life of their subject. Mank – the film, not the writer – is no exception.
David Fincher's latest film follows Mankiewicz as he deals with the struggles to write Kane, how he navigated the perilous waters of Hollywood life in the years prior, and his clashes with Orson Welles, while also dealing with his own alcoholism. In a script written by his late father, Fincher chooses to focus on roughly the 10-year period prior to the release of the film.
Mankiewicz was notable for his skilled and witty screenwriting, as much as he was for his excessive drinking, compulsive gambling, and sharp tongue. Most of his collaborators immensely praised the former side while harshly criticizing the latter. Much like the subject of the film, Mank is a technically sound film with lots of things on his favor, but an ultimately spotty script and a distant direction that just doesn't let the viewer get in its drift; particularly if you're not familiar with the context and backstory.
I know I'm in the minority, but in many ways it reminded me of The Social Network; another biopic that's equally impressive from a technical standpoint about a socially problematic subject that has flashes of greatness through separate scenes, but that ultimately feels cold and distant. In Network's case, the iconic scene is when Saverin finally confronts Zuckerberg after being given the shaft, while in Mank, it's the climatic dinner party where Mank drunkenly lashes at magnate William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance).
The scene is impressive in acting, script, and direction. Oldman really conveys the hidden anger and disgust of Mank amidst his drunken slobber, while Dance (who I'm a huge fan of) does so much without pretty much saying anything, and when he does, it's excellence. The way he delivers the final anecdote was priceless, while the whole sequence elevated what can only be described as an unsatisfying film. Not necessarily because it was "bad", but because it could've been so much more.
Much like Mankiewicz himself, who neutered many of his personal and professional relationships because of his excesses, most of the relationships portrayed in the film feel neutered and incomplete. That's the case with how we see his relationships with Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), his brother Joe, his secretary Rita, and his wife Sara. You get the sense that there's something missing, that there are things to uncover in each of those, but Fincher never gets to it. Instead, he focuses on following Mank as he stumbles from here to there. Much like him, there's skill and there's wit in the film, but the issues around it don't let those shine.
Grade: