"Mank" is a stylish, well-acted biopic that greatly benefits from it's gorgeous cinematography
“Mank” Film Review
73/100 “sweet/sour”
By Quinn Marcus
You know, I haven’t actually seen another David Fincher movie besides this. Therefore, I’m an uneducated kid who will be known for seeing Mank as his first Fincher film. Look, don’t blame me, before this, I had no desire whatsoever to see Fincher’s films, I barely knew that he existed. Well, yesterday I finally saw one, it was good, but not great. There were a lot of positives about the film, but also quite a few flaws, all of which I will discuss in this review. Mank is an interesting movie, with a lot of compelling aspects to it, however, there’s a lot I would change about the story, and how the character of “Mank” was actually handled. I decided to watch this film on a Netflix Party with my friend, knowing that this would be a movie he would probably like. I was really surprised to see how much he enjoyed the film (also he made a bunch of “Mank” memes, but we don’t need to talk about that).
With that, let’s jump into the story. Mank kicks off with our main protagonist, Herman J. Mankiewicz (don’t try to spell his name, believe me, it takes years) an alcoholic social critic/writer who has been given the task of writing the screenplay for Citizen Kane in less than 60 days. However, there’s only one problem…he’s pretty freaking lazy, and is stretching out the process to the point of annoying those around him. The film jumps back and forth in his life during 1930s Hollywood, ah those were the days, films were really ahead of their time back then, am I right? Anyways, he meets a bunch of people along the way, argues about the “parable of the organ grinder's monkey,” and get’s drunk a lot, REALLY DRUNK. So yeah, there you have it folks, a modern-day masterpiece.
When reviewing Mank, you have to take two things into consideration: 1. This is a weird movie, and 2. It will be even weirder if you don’t take the first thing into consideration. Firstly, I want to talk a little bit about the character of Mank. Let us bask in his Mankness as we explore this intriguing character played by Gary Oldman. There’s a scene in this movie where Mank (Oldman) is at a dinner, and he’s obviously wasted, but nobody stops him from ranting about some movie pitch or whatever, I didn’t know what he was talking about myself. Everybody starts to feel really uncomfortable, at this point, I was too, and then Mank proceeds to barf all over the floor. There’s a drunken, semi-insane side of Mank that we occasionally get a glimpse of, but I wanted to see more of. If writer Jack Fincher had cranked up Mank’s craziness by just a little, it would have made for an even better scene than the one we were given. In fact, everything in this movie felt restrained in a way, the film plays it really safe, and doesn’t use the opportunities presented to make this movie absolutely mad. That was one of my biggest issues with Mank, there were so many chances to dial this movie up that weren’t taken, it was almost infuriating.
To be fair, the story is extremely entertaining, and the script is pretty damn good, it just didn’t hit the bar I wanted it to hit. One of the movie’s main standouts was actually its style, the film own's it’s 30s/40s feel, without ever feeling dated or too modern, there was a healthy mix of both. The cinematography added to this immensely, generating this sleek, vivid atmosphere that just truly seemed authentic and original. Although the story never really had any dull moments, I had an issue with the structure. The first half of the film left me pretty disoriented and confused, it was cool how the plot jumped back and forth, but it’s hard to understand at first glance. Fincher obviously tried to create backstory’s for other characters, and make us care about these supporting roles; for example, there’s this whole thing about Lily Collins’ husband dying, then he doesn’t die, but I just couldn’t care less. The only two people in this movie that I acknowledged were Mank and Amanda Seyfried’s character, Marion Davies, everyone else was sidelined.
Now that we’ve mentioned them, let’s discuss Oldman and Seyfried. Gary Oldman is this whole movie, he plays Mank to the best of his ability, making for some laugh-out-loud scenes, and having impeccable chemistry with his costar. With not much competition this year, I wouldn’t say he’s award-worthy, but he probably will get a nomination at the Oscars. Amanda Seyfried easily has a career best, providing her raw sense of charisma, and owning her role alongside the equally terrific Oldman. The directing in this movie wasn’t on point. There were certain choices made that didn’t always agree with me, characters were formed only to be wasted, many scenes weren’t perfectly handled, but Fincher knows how to make a movie look fantastic. Once again, what David Fincher really took by the reins in Mank was its genuine sense of realism and unique aesthetic. As my friend did, I had a good time watching this movie, it wasn’t perfect, but it sure was a fun ride.
The final verdict is: Style and performances dominate this biopic sadly brought down by otherwise weak characterization and a poorly done structure…$TREAM IT!