‘Mank’ Review

Director David Fincher has made some of the finest, intense thrillers such as Se7en, Gone Girl, and Fight Club. Even The Social Network was given a boost from Fincher to make a normally bland story like the development of Facebook and turned into an intriguing, legal drama. While Mank may be his most impressive film on a technical level, it lacks the characters & storytelling that makes us invested.

Plot

Herman J. Mankiewicz was an American screenwriter who worked for MGM. The film revolves around Mank’s assignment to write Citizen Kane, working alongside Orson Welles. Mank explores the inspiration Herman used to write Citizen Kane and the politics involved in 1930’s Hollywood. Mank switches between Mank’s time at MGM and his writing of Citizen Kane, which he does bedridden while recovering from a car accident.

An incredible feat of filmmaking

The most impressive thing about Mank is the way it not only recreates 1930’s Hollywood, but also a film in that era. The sound design, production design, and fantastic score from Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross make the film feel like it was released almost 80 years ago. 

The decision to shoot in black & white works perfectly with the tone and atmosphere. It truly feels like a blast from the past. Even the way it’s edited is reminiscent of a film from that decade.

It also pays lots of homage to Citizen Kane in its filmmaking techniques and its storytelling. It features plenty of overlapping dialogue & visuals, along with playing with depth of field. The narrative balances between flashbacks and the present day. Citizen Kane switches back and forth from flashbacks to Kane’s life to the present where a journalist is investigating Kane’s dying word “Rosebud.” 

Mank switches between Mank finding inspiration for writing Citizen Kane to the present where Mank is actually writing it. For those who are expecting behind-the-scenes of the development of Citizen Kane, Mank focuses more on Mank himself and the parallels between Mank’s life and the film he wrote.

The performances across the board are great. Gary Oldman is perfect as always in the lead role. Amanda Seyfried turns out what may be her best performance as Marion Davies, the lover of William Randolph Hearst, played excellently by Charles Dance. Seyfried perfectly captured the personality traits of a film star from the 30s and her relationship with Mank is the most emotionally investing part of the story.

Mank struggles in its storytelling

Where Mank suffers is the execution of its plot. It’s hard to follow at times. I caught myself at many points trying to figure out how what was happening connected to everything else. The flashbacks don’t do enough to connect back to the present. It was also hard to connect emotionally to the characters. 

I know who they were, but there isn’t enough exploration into their background or why I’m supposed to care about them. When the emotional moments hit, it’s hard to feel impacted when I’m not invested into the characters themselves.

Many of the scenes felt like sketches in Mank’s life that didn’t really connect to each other. There’s plenty of Mank and his cohorts discussing politics but I didn’t understand how the politics connected back to the central narrative of the story. It just felt like Fincher was trying to create the atmosphere of the 30s so much without taking time to establish his characters inside that world.

Final verdict

While I can’t say Mank is a bad movie, it certainly isn’t one that I’ll be revisiting anytime soon. Fincher normally does such a good job at making me invested in the movie, but this one just didn’t grab me. I can definitely see critics and film nerds loving this movie, but this just didn’t do it for me. However, it’s hard to not be awestruck by many of the technical accomplishments and great performances on display.

Final score: 7/10