‘Mank’ or — Hmmm?
I was wondering how long it would be before I started rolling my eyes during David Fincher’s ‘Mank’ (2020). Ten minutes? Twenty minutes? Or maybe there’d just be a low-level, slight, almost imperceptible vibrating constantly throughout?
Turns out it took only 9 seconds for ‘Mank’ to make my eyeballs violently shoot-up into the back of my head as, during the opening on-screen text, it describes Orson Welles as being the “tender” age of 24. “Tender”? Welles?! Now THAT’S not a loaded statement in the slightest! In fact, the entire opening text is loaded as hell and making no bones about where this film’s sympathies lie. Now this isn’t a bad thing as drama needs heroes and villains, no matter if “truth” makes an appearance or not, but it also raises suspicions and my guard was automatically up. Let’s tread carefully here.
Fortunately ‘Mank’ ain’t that bad! Sure, it’s got lots of problems including everything from being somewhat dull, a tad cliché riddled (if there’s a famous quote by a famous 1930’s Hollywood writer then you bet your ass it’ll be crowed-barred in here somewhere!), has a tendency to tie itself up in dramatic knots (is ‘Kane’ about Hearst, Welles or America or all three?), a somewhat anachronistic sounding score (it too often feels more 50’s than 30’s even if the instruments used are period correct) along with an attempt to replicate 1930’s black and white cinematography that often looks great but often feels crunchy and artificial (Fincher can’t even resist adding his beloved faux cigarette burns at the end of “reels” for an authentic look that looks utterly inauthentic). This gives ‘Mank’ an ersatz vibe as opposed to that of homage. Plus, Fincher’s slightly flat direction (striving for perfection can often backfire) highlights just how dynamic and vibrant films looked and felt back then and I was wishing he could’ve captured some of that loose energy rather than doing whatever the hermetic hell Fincher does instead.
So the positives? Gary Oldman is excellent as Herman J. Mankiewicz, capturing both his wit and flawed humanity, giving a real sense of why he was so respected as a writer and one who would fearlessly speak his mind. Mank’s environment is also entrancing and anyone who’s ever imagined what it must’ve been like to be a screen-writer in the 1930’s (I know I have) will find a lot to enjoy here, even if it often descends into a form of Hollywood train spotting (Oh! There’s Ben Hecht and there’s S.J. Perelman! And isn’t that David O. Selznick? That’s Bingo!).
Where ‘Mank’ works best though is in giving the context and background to the conditions that led to ‘Citizen Kane’s (1941) conception. I don’t mean issues of authorship or who wrote what but in the way Mank observes and listens to the corruption of politics, Hollywood and power around him and can see the writing on the wall. Indeed, this could be where ‘Mank’ bites off more than it can chew as it gets a little too ambitious as it attempts to tackle everything from not only the writing of ‘Citizen Kane’ but also the Hollywood system, the sensation that we are witnessing the precise moment of the death of the Left in America, the unholy marriage of the media and politics, personal and social corruption and, ultimately, the rise of fake news. Now that’s a LOT for any movie to take on.
Although it’s when dealing with these social and political issues and not ‘Kane’ itself directly, that ‘Mank’ is at its most satisfying. It helps remind us that ‘Citizen Kane’, despite its nostalgic longing for a distant past (something that’s in nearly all of Welles’ films), is still a strikingly modern movie, one that’s got a contemporary feel and the energetic balls to call out an entire nation with spectacular invention. Welles was given carte blanche to make ‘Kane’ but, as the legend goes, it was Mank who truly understood just what that carte blanche meant; a unique chance that rarely comes along in the system’s life let alone one person’s.
Where ‘Mank’ does lose its way is, ironically, when it concerns Welles and ‘Kane’. Welles is portrayed as too much the pantomime villain, even stepping out of an automobile draped in his Mephistophelian ‘F For Fake’ (1973) garb (did he really look like that in 1941?), popping up at the start to offer Mank a bargain then returning at the end to claim it. This is where the film feels on shaky ground and even if Welles’ tantrum at the end gave Mank the idea for Kane’s room destruction it all feels a little too convenient, a little too tidy and simplistic.
It’s also staggeringly unsubtle with its allegiances, especially when the Oscar is read out for best screenplay, Mankiewicz’s name booming out loud and clear whilst Welles’ name is almost inaudible (an ironic fate for someone who started in radio) under the thunderous applause for his co-writer. It’s cheap, lazy and kinda demeaning to everyone involved.
‘Mank’ is a decent film dealing with interesting subjects in a rather uninteresting way but the authorship of ‘Citizen Kane’ is not one of them. Besides, ‘Citizen Kane’ still screams Welles in every frame and its one thing coming up with an idea or concept for a movie and another putting it up on the screen. And for all the talk of ‘Kane’s script there is so much more going on in ‘Kane’ other than the words, and this is a writer that just typed that sentence.
So it’s a curious, flawed, somewhat lumbering movie that has a touch of split-personality feeling both simultaneously reverential and iconoclastic, so you can feel the film looking at its cake and salivating too. In that respect a straight forward biopic of Mank’s life and work that dropped the ‘Kane’ credit dispute could have been more satisfying and possibly fairer on both Welles plus Mank himself. It’s the film I, personally, would have preferred to have seen.
