Mank - Review Thread

No. But Kane does rule.

So if the last time I watched it was February 8th, 2013...probably yes?

HBO Max to the rescue.

Do you even movie PK??

I own Chopping Mall on blu-ray but not Citzen Kane and I intend to keep it that way.

Doomsday can't be hip. He just blows his hip out.

Citizen Kane needs no introduction. While the film certainly splits people, many of whom were "forced" to view it in film school or out of prodding by fellow film aficionados, its legacy as the greatest film of all time is well known and catapulted director and star Orson Welles into the stratosphere of artistic prodigies the likes of which we still haven't seen matched in the art world since. Welles' career after Citizen Kane is the subject of as much controversy as his debut feature, and despite some incredible accomplishments like Touch of Evil was never able to regain the high of his initial effort. This was due to numerous reasons, from studios making foolish cuts to his movies as was the case with his second film, The Magnificent Ambersons. Or plainly due to Welles' brilliance making a toxic mix with his arrogance and perfection which resulted in many projects being started but never finished. Whatever side of the Welles argument you're on (or even care enough to indulge in), clear consensus will always be that Citizen Kane was his landmark achievement and he never reached those astronomical heights that the "boy wonder" set in 1941 ever again. Detractors of Welles (and there are plenty) will point out that Welles received far too much credit for Citizen Kane. Those incredible deep focus shots he achieved? Well that's due to legendary cinematographer Greg Tolland. The incredible production design and makeup? Also not done by Welles. We all know that despite our fandom for directors that films are never made by one person, but it's hard to not see Welles' influence on every frame and decision in Citizen Kane.

And yet, the most controversial and potentially damaging blow to Welles' legacy with Citizen Kane has always been the dispute of how much of the story he conceived, if any at all. Lost in the shuffle of the greatness of Citizen Kane was its true screenwriter: Herman Mankiewicz, the older brother of prolific director Joseph Mankiewicz who gave us classics like All About Eve. It's one of those interesting bits of old Hollywood trivia and rumor that's ripe for a movie, and sure enough the father of filmmaker David Fincher, Jack Fincher, thought so too. Now, his son has dusted off his screenplay and made his return to feature films with his first movie in six years to delve into this very topic. Mank is a success in multiple ways, though those seeking a film that focuses on much of what I've discussed here will be sorely disappointed as this is in no way a story about the battle over the artistic rights and recognition to "the greatest movie ever made". Instead, Mank is a biopic and character study of the boisterous and brilliant screenwriter who's finally getting the Hollywood accolade that's been long overdue and the various relationships he formed that inspired the principle characters of Citizen Kane. While the film may only appeal to the niche group of people who love cinema and give a damn about Citizen Kane's legacy in the first place, Mank is a delightfully entertaining glimpse into the classic Hollywood system and the nasty politics that dominated it.

Mank is told through a non-linear timeline, jumping back-and-forth between the past and present and cleverly doing so with titles of screenplay slug lines to eliminate any confusion. The central storyline focuses on Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) being paid by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to live in a remote home in Victorville, California, a literal desert, to craft the screenplay for Welles' much anticipated jump from radio to movies. RKO, as Welles tells him, has granted them unfettered artistic control, but Welles has also shaved off a month of preparation time and needs Mank to deliver the extensive treatment in just sixty days. Mank, whose leg is broken due to a road accident, is attended to by Rita Alexander (Lily Collins), who transcribes his thoughts and attempts to keep him focused and sober through the process. It becomes clear that Mank is basing Citizen Kane off of his friend Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried) and her relationship with newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance), and that what he's doing is highly dangerous and potentially career damaging. In flashbacks, we view Mank's relationship with both of these characters as well as his place within the highly structured Hollywood studio system of the 1930s and 1940s.

While some viewers will be dismayed at how little of interactions between Mank and Welles there are, I found the flashback scenes of Mank to be the most compelling and interesting elements of the film. For classic film buffs, there's a lot of cameos by prominent figures in Hollywood history that are a lot of fun to see, though most pivotal is MGM studio boss Louis B. Mayer (Alriss Howard), who demands his employees sacrifice their wages while fighting a political battle against Upton Sinclair (Bill Nye) who's fighting for worker's rights and holding the wealthy accountable. Mank, who's able to keep his unpopular opinions to himself as well as he does his chronic gambling and drinking, bears no allegiance towards the studio system and its operators despite being within their company and is constantly at odds with these morally dubious powerhouses throughout the movie. It's certainly a parallel with his present battle with Welles for artistic integrity and his voice as a human being, something virtually nonexistent in the classic Hollywood studio system during this time.

Oldman is, per usual, sensational to watch as Herman Mankiewicz and is masterful under Fincher's taut direction as he keeps all of these events moving with humor and wit all the while battling his own personal strifes with worthiness and belonging in this unfair business. Though Mank is a film made by one of the world's greatest filmmakers for film enthusiasts, Oldman's turn as Mankiewicz should appeal to anyone that can appreciate drama that arises from sharp back-and-forths through dialogue, a trait that Fincher has excelled at throughout his career and especially with his masterpiece, The Social Network. Like that film, Mank may appear to be a simple character study containing some nice wordplay, but it contains immensely insightful discussions of ownership, moral obligation, and maintaining identity and purpose in the face of corporatized interests. Mank is perhaps Fincher at his most fun, but that shouldn't be dismissed as the master making a lighter effort in his return to feature films. We largely know the story of Mank vs. Welles: Welles won and Citizen Kane was his magnum opus while for Mankiewicz it was the golden Oscar nail in his coffin. What we didn't know were the complexities and circumstances behind why that was the case for Herman Mankiewicz, and that perhaps our own adoration for the "geniuses" behind classic Hollywood should be reevaluated entirely.

8/10

Pauline Kael was at the heart of the "Mankewicz is the real genius" crowd, but she was kind of trolling.  She was a critic of the auteur theory and was using this argument to undermine it.  

I think the larger point too is not so much to anoint Mank as the genius of Citizen Kane. It's more that he wasn't given the credit he deserved, stifled by Welles, the studio system, and just the general small fish in the big American pond idea that many people are still plagued with today.

The bosses of the studios don't care about art, they care about churning out a product. Look through Hollywood history and even the greats of these systems were treated like dirt. Howards Hawks, William Wyler, Michael Curtiz, etc. Shit, do people even know the name of the director who did The Wizard of Oz AND Gone With the Wind IN THE SAME YEAR!? I think that's more of what's at the heart of this film then Fincher seeking to give Mankiewicz credit for the genius behind Citizen Kane. He's a director, he knows that what Orson Welles contributed is what made the film what it is.