I think a lot of us think we are movie buffs.
I certainly consider myself a "movie guy," but I've come to the realization that I need to expand my horizons. Perhaps I am a contemporary movie buff - specializing in the work of Leonardo Di Caprio, Brad Pitt, Matt Damon, Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep and the like - but I'm 34 now, and I need to delve a little deeper into the past.
With that in mind, this week brings us Mank, the great David Fincher's latest film, one that immediately screams AWARDS BAIT. Here's a black-and-white film - see recent Oscar winners Roma and The Artist - about old Hollywood starring Gary Oldman, a darling of The Academy.
Sure, Fincher's helmed popular films like The Social Network, Fight Club, Se7en, Gone Girl and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but he's only been nominated for Best Director for Social and Button. He's never won.
Many consider Zodiac his masterwork (including acclaimed director Guillermo del Toro), and his others like Panic Room and The Game are popular in different circles (Steven Soderbergh recently picked Panic as his buddy Fincher's best), but the gold statuette Fincher covets remains elusive.
So, yeah, I'm seeing right through this. Fincher is going for it, whether he says so or not.
Now, the problem with Mank - for the average viewer - is the background. If you really want to understand the proceedings on first viewing, you should probably do a little research and get some context. This ties into my opening; I might think I'm a movie buff, but a real movie buff will have a far greater understanding of the names, places and machinations of Mank on the first go around. Here's where I started:
Part 1: They'll Love Me When I'm Dead on Netflix
Of course I'd heard of Orson Welles, but I've never been to film school. When I heard "Orson Welles" in the past, I immediately thought of The War of the Worlds, and maybe sometimes Citizen Kane. I knew he was a major name - a juggernaut, a giant of the industry - but the documentary They'll Love Me When I'm Dead gave me a lot more of the context I needed.
They'll Love Me When I'm Dead chronicles Welles' many difficulties directing The Other Side of the Wind; but for me, its greatest asset was fleshing out Welles' beautiful mind and eccentric personality. He was once a "boy wonder" and "wunderkind" atop his industry, but it was almost as if the industry didn't want him to remain there. Sure, Welles was to blame for his demise in many instances - he was known as a difficult personality, sometimes his vision led nowhere - but he was ultimately given a very short leash, in my opinion.
So why does all this matter, relatively speaking? Because Mank is about Herman Mankiewicz, the drunken screenwriter of Citizen Kane, Welles' universally-acclaimed masterwork. You need a little context on Welles, and a little context on Kane, to at least get going in the right direction with Mank. Welles was a radio man, stage player, writer, director and on-screen actor. He could truly do it all, and he was only 24 years old when given full creative control over his first film behind the camera.
That film was Citizen Kane, one that many believe to be greatest film ever made.
In Mank, Welles is portrayed by Tom Burke - I'll admit, I don't know much about him, either - who does a fantastic job in a role that looms over the picture. Sure, Orson Welles is a key name within the overall scope of Mank, but the part itself has a come-and-go feel to it. If you watch They'll Love Me When I'm Dead and then Mank, you'll see what a fine job Burke has done. With that as a segue, let's head into the totality of Fincher's newest film...
Part 2: My Review of Mank
I'll admit - I went a little bit out of order, here. Yes, I started with They'll Love Me When I'm Dead a few months ago - that was a "happy accident," as Bob Ross would say - but then I watched Mank before Citizen Kane. I know, I know... you've never seen Citizen Kane??
Some movie buff I am.
In all honesty, I saw Mank pop up on Netflix, and I wanted to jump right into it. I thought it might take me awhile to find Kane, but I ended up being wrong about that (more on that later).
So, coming into Mank before Citizen Kane, I was a little behind the eight ball. First impression: Mank's dialogue is fast and furious. Screenwriting credit is given to David's father, Jack, who passed away back in April of 2003. As you can see, this has been a shelved passion project of David's for quite some time. Jack was undoubtedly a quick-witted writer, and I should also mention Eric Roth (writer of Forrest Gump, The Insider, Munich and A Star Is Born) who certainly appears to be a script supervisor of sorts, here.
So yeah, Mank's dialogue is sharp and snappy. Upon first viewing, for me, that's the unquestioned strength of the film. Immediately I think of a chipper scene where Mank's writing team pitches an unwritten movie on the fly; I also think about the fact that Mank always has to get the last word, and it's usually a zinger. This is a weird intersection of styles for Fincher; we think of Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac and Panic Room and we think "dark and edgy." But Mank is a warmhearted biopic as much as it is a "he said, she said" about the origins of Citizen Kane's genius.
Keeping it simple: I like most of the dialogue, I like Oldman's performance - which I wasn't expecting, because I assumed he would ham it up and overact for another Oscar run - and I like a number of the individual sequences, including walk-and-talks between Mank and William Randolph Hearst (an especially dignified Charles Dance) in one instance, and the legendary Louis B. Mayer (the always-game Arliss Howard) in another.
Let's back up one second to that phrase "walk-and-talk" - that's an Aaron Sorkin staple, is it not? Think of The West Wing and Steve Jobs, among others. And what I'm seeing lately is a hodgepodge of styles swimming together. Fincher was always procedural and dark; Soderbergh was cool and stylistic and Sorkin was wordy and energetic. Now, oddly enough, I see Soderbergh borrowing Fincher's visuals while Fincher falls into Sorkin's fast-talking ways. If you aren't already aware, Fincher and Soderbergh are very close friends, and of course, Sorkin was the screenwriter of Fincher's The Social Network (arguably his best movie).
So, you see what I'm getting at here. Mank doesn't feel like a typical Fincher film.
Since I already laid out the positives, one glaring negative immediately jumps to mind: Mank falters mightily when Fincher tries to get political. When you watch the movie, you will know exactly the section I am speaking of. Look, sometimes people have to simply stay in their lanes. Fincher doesn't belong in that territory, and it shows very quickly.
Also, the film feels thin, on the whole. There are strong performances, snappy dialogue and some innovative shots, but I honestly don't think it all comes together. The whole thing feels like a reach, a stretch. Fincher is reaching and stretching for that elusive Oscar, but I don't believe he should get it. Again, this is awards bait, and I truly feel like Fincher should be above that. He should just do what he does best; but he's 58 years old and I guess he's ready for "proper" recognition in his industry.
Be careful what you wish for... just ask Orson Welles.
Before I move on to Citizen Kane, one more mention of the superb performances: Oldman, Amanda Seyfried (solid as actress Marion Davies), Howard, Burke, Dance and Tuppence Middleton give us immediately memorable characters. Special mention for Middleton, who turns "loyal wife" into a role all her own. There's no overacting or LOOK AT ME stuff from Middleton, but she earns every bit of that "Poor Sarah" nickname the film utilizes quite successfully.
I will definitely watch Mank again soon - now that I have a far better understanding of each character's individual significance - but for now it's a tepid 7.5 out of 10. Maybe, like Sorkin's Steve Jobs, it will grow on me over time.
Part 3: My Review of Citizen Kane
It's pretty tough to be fair when you go in hearing, "This is the greatest movie ever made." That can go one of two ways: (1) You give the film too much credit (essentially, you go easy on it based on reputation) or (2) You are automatically disappointed, because the film has been hyped beyond the realm of reasonable expectations.
My first experience with this phenomenon was The Godfather. It did not disappoint. I can continue to say the same today, including The Godfather II. Two of the greatest films ever made; hands down.
And ya know what? Citizen Kane didn't disappoint, either. We're talking about a film from 1941 here, and the visuals remain jaw-dropping. Some initial reactions, comments and "first impression" feelings:
1. The opening is quite exquisite. Welles' depiction of Charles Foster Kane's dark, doomed mega-mansion "Xanadu" is a marvel of visual acuity and movie magic. The film actually opens with the feel of a horror flick, given the legend Bernard Herrmann's ominous, pounding score and Gregg Toland's knockout cinematography. It's a memorable start, indeed.
2. I immediately think of a young boy's future, being decided without him knowing. He's outside, playing in the snow, seen through the front door. The adults - large in the frame - are making decisions that will impact the course of a child's entire life. Somehow, that shot in the doorway really sticks. Again, I've only seen Citizen Kane once.
3. Another incredible shot in the playhouse theater. The camera pans up and up...and up.
