If I were to compare Mank to one film it would be Citizen Kane. This may seem a pretty blatantly obvious comment, but let me elaborate.

Credit

Mank, written by the late Jack Fincher, father of the film’s director, the always excellent David Fincher, follows the creation and writing of the first draft of the seminal “greatest film of all time”, Citizen Kane. Cutting between Herman Mankiewicz (our titular Mank) preparing his first mammoth draft of what was originally entitled American, and his life and relationships that influenced the film. In particular his relationship with William Randolph Hearst, who was without a doubt the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane, and his mistress Marion Davies, who may or may not have been the inspiration for Kane’s mistress Susan Alexander. The film repeatedly does what Fincher’s best has always done, pairing the most epic scale productions with the most intensely intimate of moments. Mank brings its own stories and comments in politics and media, whilst also in a way re-stepping the path that Citizen Kane makes. If one were off the mind to, then the phrase “spiritual remake” could very well be flouted, in the sense the film is a montage-esque tale spanning multiple timelines and points of view, all in the aim of attempting to tell the story of a man’s rise to power and effect on the media landscape. The work of the Fincher’s in this film is quite simply stellar and the film is one that I already cannot wait to see on the biggest screen possible when available, for me it really is a brand of tragedy that I have to watch this on a small TV with my computer plugged into it. It is films like this, that maximise the cinematic experience to the fullest, in their visuals, their storytelling, their performances and their overall feel that make one long for the long-awaited and possibly non-existent return to theatrical normality.

Credit

It comes as no surprise to me that this film is supremely well directed, with David Fincher being one of our greatest craftsman of the modern era, and subjectively one of my personal favourite directors. Perfectly building worlds and characters that defy caricature and welcome heaps of depth. The film is built around the style of such a 30’s film as Citizen Kane was, but never hinders Fincher's ability to fill the piece with his own rather idiosyncratic flourishes of visual dynamism, the sort that we are so used to with his other extraordinary work in film. The writing however of Fincher's seeming counterpart in this endeavour, his late father Jack, is also a marvel that propels this film and keeps it thoroughly entertaining throughout. The character of Mank is ungodly witty, but never borders into a world where everything he says is a zinger that could only be thought of by a cunning writer, despite the character being just that. A realism inhabits the film and enriches it, effecting the performances and certainly the writing, whilst also allowing for those sorts of zingers that did fly about in the drawing rooms and the like that we are entered into. This enriching atmosphere of perfection that pervades the film can be viewed in almost every regard. From the delicate and beautiful black and white cinematography of Erik Messerchmidt, to the dynamic and visceral editing of Kirk Baxter, to the painstakingly accurate and marvellous costume design of Trish Summerville and even in the work of the numerous special effects workers who added invisible yet extensive work to the vistas of old Hollywood that we see. The invisibility of their work in such a film as this, highlights the skill of it. Once more Fincher has collaborated with Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for the film’s score and once more the pair have developed an overwhelming first-rate series of compositions that perfectly bring us into the world and once more enrich it. My lack of vocabulary is simply because I can’t think of a more apt word than “enrich” – when every element helps to define a films stellar nature, as every element of this film does, there simply is no better way to describe it.

Credit

Gary Oldman as our eponymous hero gives us the best work I’ve ever seen him do and for me, this is his Oscar for the taking. Although “tricks” is a dangerous word, I’m still going to use it. All the tricks that led him to win his Oscar for Darkest Hour, but that I felt hindered the performance, are gone and all that remains is a relentlessly sturdy study and examination of a figure that we never knew, but will now never forget. Oldman embodies Mank so completely, that certain scenes pass with the whole surroundings fading away around him. The greatest exemplification of the talent of Fincher’s writing, is also the greatest exemplification of Oldman’s acting; an extended climatic monologue fashioned as a Hollywood pitch – some of the most riveting and excruciatingly wonderful and visceral acting and writing, that I’ve seen in some time. But Oldman is not alone in his performative excellence, the rest of the cats join him in this world of sublime acting too. From Amanda Seyfried’s subtle and varied exploration of Davies, giving us all the heart and warmth and intelligence that she perhaps wasn’t allowed to give us in real life (another Oscar shoe-in). To Lily Collins passionate companion to Mank, Rita Alexander, a less showy performance that still inhabits and delivers exactly what was needed. Seyfried’s is a clear standout, but there are other standouts too. For instance both Charles Dance’s Hearst and Tom Burke’s Welles are both used sparingly and are made all the more effective when their wholly exceptional performances are given platforms, once more never bordering on caricature and lending deeply to the film’s mythic examination of reality. Used a little more than Dance and Burke, is Arliss Howard as Louis B. Mayer, a very unexpectedly brilliant turn that creeps up on you with how good it actually is, and has become one of the turns in the film that I keep thinking about it more and more. 

Credit

As much as the film explores the deepest darkness’s of the politics and industry of Hollywood, the film is also very playful too, never ever indulging in cutesy references, instead rather having the influence of Kane seep into the film’s marrow, with subtle visual nods and the odd comment here and there. However the tone created by the two Fincher’s lends to an overall film without a single camera wink in sight, and is ultimately all the more refreshing for it. Perhaps the intertitles of script structured location settings could be perceived as a little kichy for a film of this clear grandeur and elegance, however they didn’t take me out of the viewing experience for the most part. Albeit they never enriched it, whereas the enormity of the array of other minor details, did nothing but enrich the overall experience. The film is also very playful with its meta understanding of what the film actually is; a film forever in the shadow of what is largely regarded as the greatest film of all time in many circles. If anything the most important image in the film is our introduction to Welles; a shadowy figure looming over Mankewiescz, and in many ways Mank. But Mank is its own beast and is all the better for it. Tone and influence are boundless, but never overpower what is in its own right a seminal film, soon to be a modern classic and undoubtedly an Oscar front runner. I just hope to god that the argument isn’t made that any Oscar acclaim is based off the old Hollywood patting itself on the back syndrome, for this is a film with its hands firmly in its pockets.

-

A sublime 10/10 (my first new release 10/10 on the blog), certainly the film of the year so far. Another masterwork in Fincher’s ever-growing catalogue of excellent cinematic pieces. A film with heart, power and humour in the most unexpected places and an over-riding undoubted quality that leads to a vision close to perfection that I haven’t seen in some time in the modern film landscape. A throwback. A zeitgeist. A marvellous feat. Watch this as soon as possible, and then watch it again, then watch it again. As rewarding and depthful as any of the great films of that Hollywood the film recreates, even if it doesn’t surpass its greatest shadow.

P.S. The one pervading question surrounding the film is whether or not one needs to watch Citizen Kane to enjoy the film. I believe that there is more than enough to enjoy without any knowledge, but it certainly is no chore to finally get around to watching one of the greatest films of all time. And I do believe that even the slightest knowledge of the film makes Mank an all the more sumptuous and whole piece.

-Thomas Carruthers