Delayed Reaction: Mank

Premise: Herman Mankiewicz reflects on 1930s Hollywood as he works on his draft of Citizen Kane.

 

I've gotta say, I'm feeling uncomfortably targeted by this movie. I'm a big fan of old Hollywood stories. I love the You Must Remember This podcast. I got a kick out of the Bette vs. Joan season of Feud. I even love the fake old Hollywood of something like Hail, Caesar! There's something so fun about that old studio system when everyone was still figuring out the rules. I'm a huge fan of Citizen Kane. It's one of my favorite movies, much to my surprise. I used to roll my eyes at it topping the AFI list, because it seemed like a pretentious pick. Then I watched the movie and I totally get it. Mank is directed by David Fincher who snuck up on me as one of my favorite filmmakers. I've pretty much always known him due to 90s output like Se7en, The Game, and Fight Club. His more recent movies have snuck up on me too though. Gone Girl is one of the movies I've watched the most since it came out. I rewatched Zodiac and The Social Network in the last year and found a new appreciation for them. Hell, Mank even has Lily Collins, who I've proven I'll see in just about anything. Finally, I'm a sucker for movies about the writing process. I mean, my favorite movie is Stranger Than Fiction and I still ardently defend something as mediocre as Alex & Emma.

 

So, I must say, I'm very surprised that my opinion of Mank is a full throated "meh".

That's not a negative "meh". It's an undecided "meh" if anything. On paper, it's a movie I should've come away from raving, and I do think I liked it. I just haven't found a strong opinion about it. Not yet.

 

The movie is very watchable. Anyone with a decent familiarity of old Hollywood will be thoroughly entertained by all the famous figures who show up. In addition to the obvious people like Herman Mankiewicz, Orson Welles, and William Randolph Hearst, other big names like Louis B. Mayer, Irving Thalberg, and even Marion Davies play prominent roles. Savvy film historians will surely pick out a dozen more names easily. The movie zips through the 1930s Los Angeles nicely, using Mank tucked away at a remote ranch writing his draft of Citizen Kane in 1940 as a framing device. In flashbacks, Mank reflects on his many interactions with William Randolph Hearst, who inspired much of Citizen Kane. It spends a lot of time on the 1934 California gubernatorial election in which Hollywood studios helped a smear campaign to prevent Upton Sinclair from getting elected. Not a lot really happens in the movie, so I can understand why some people have called the movie dull. I could feel the length of the movie, but I also wasn't bored at any point. I think engagement was in spite of the story though.

 

I'm not a very technical movie watcher. I can't talk lenses or cinematography. I can say that this movie was nice to look at and full of visual references to Citizen Kane in particular. I think shooting in black and white is almost always a stunt these days, but it works for Mank. I think part of that has to do with the fact that it's not trying to bring old Hollywood back to life like a Hail, Caesar! It wants to live in how that era was seen by movie watchers, not the people who actually lived it. I know this is a lazy compliment, but I hardly noticed it was black and white by the end. The only times I did notice was because of how great certain shots looked. Like, there's a circus themed party at Hearst's estate late in the movie where Amanda Seyfried looked striking in a way that color would've ruined.

 

Speaking of Amanda Seyfried. I've liked her ever since Mean Girls. She's been just present enough ever since in movies like the Mama Mias, Jennifer's Body, and Les Miserables that she's remained a known quantity. This is the first time I'd say she's undeniably in Oscar consideration though. She plays actress Marion Davies, who was Hearst's mistress for years and had a particularly ugly counterpart in Citizen Kane. She's friends with Mank in this and the movie really comes alive every time she's on screen. Her ease and confidence make this my runaway favorite performance in the movie, and I kind of wish it could be a movie about her instead. Everyone else is pretty good too. Gary Oldman, while not passing for 43, sure gets all the performance aspects right about the intellectual, elitist, self-sabotaging writer. Charles Dance is quite good as William Randolph Hearst. He captures Hearst's master of the universe stature. He likes that everyone walks on eggshells around him, even though he's thick skinned enough to handle it if they didn't. The reason he's so bemused by Mank is that he's the one guy who doesn't seem to care about how powerful he is. Tom Burke does a really solid Orson Welles impression, although it's a pretty small role in the movie. Lily Collins' role is mostly perfunctory. She's there to give Mank someone to disapprove of him in 1940. She sure fits into this era perfectly though. No doubt that's why she's also been in The Last Tycoon and Rules Don't Apply before this. Also. credit to Tuppence Middleton as Mank's wife who plays up her weariness so much that I almost didn't notice the 29-year age gap between her and Oldman.

 

I clearly have a lot to say about the movie. I think over time, it will grow on me. I do wonder if this is too much of an inside Hollywood movie though. If I wasn't a person who's listened to a hundred episodes of You Must Remember This and has gone on Wikipedia dives about old Hollywood, would I really be that invested in what's going on in Mank? Would I even know what's going on? I'll have to let someone else answer that. I know I liked the movie but thought I should've loved it, which concerns me. I hope other people have success finding a stronger take on this movie than I've found.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend