Directed by David Fincher, Mank centers on the life of Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) as he wrote the screenplay for Citizen Kane, and the problems that arose with Orson Welles (Tom Burke) during production and leading up to the film’s release.
Many people have been eagerly waiting for David Fincher’s newest work, after having delivered many numerous and fantastic films before. However, similar to Martin Scorsese with The Irishman and Spike Lee with Da 5 Bloods, Fincher was forced to make his newest film on Netflix after studios weren’t eager to make or release it. Despite this setback it did manage to get a limited theatrical release and is now streaming on Netflix for all to see.
So what did I think of Mank? I think it is absolutely amazing and beautiful in every single way. This is a brilliantly crafted character study, and a love letter to cinema of the 30s and 40s. This isn’t some fan service film for the hardcore lovers of Citizen Kane or just a simple biopic of one of the makers of Citizen Kane, this is a film focused on a tortured genius who’s own struggles were reflected within his work, including the script of the most acclaimed film of all time.
While most people consider directors as the brains of the film industry, it’s the writers that are the heart and soul. Herman Mank, beautifully played by Gary Oldman in one of the best performances of this year, is just one of many famous writers in a guild in 1930s/40s Hollywood, one who is passionate about creating stories in a time when people needed movies most to escape the reality they live in (sound familiar?). They always love sharing ambitious ideas with each other and studio executives, feeling the need to bring creative energy to the film industry every chance they get.
Funnily enough, studio executives were just as unsure about ambitious original film ideas back then as they are now, which is what led to many clashes between them and various filmmakers and writers.
Herman Mank is an intelligent and ambitious writer who is very passionate about his work but struggles with addiction (alcoholism specifically) and other issues. As well as dealing with his own demons, he also deals with the political battleground of the film industry at that time, including several clashes with studio executives and even Orson Welles, an equally ambitious but highly controlling artist. And yet despite his struggles Mank was still able to deliver incredible material, even reflecting his own life in the pages of screenplay. There’s a lot of narrative parallels between him and the main character Charles Foster Kane that you notice, especially visually.
Gary Oldman really sold me on his performance emotionally, and his interactions with other people in his life felt so real and not just acted. Also, as someone who has done a lot of writing, I can also relate to some of his struggles, as well as how it feels when ambitious ideas get turned down or manipulated without consent.
Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies was a truly transformative performance. She was unrecognizable, and this is probably her best work in her entire career, no joke. There are also some really great supporting performances, like Lily Collins, Tom Pelphrey (seriously underrated actor), Charles Dance and others. Also Tom Burke absolutely and shockingly nails Orson Welles both in look and voice. I know there are a lot of people out there who can do Orson Welles impressions, but when I listened to Tom Burke I didn’t hear an impressionist, I heard Orson Welles. That’s no small feat, so serious props to Tom Burke for playing one of the most influential individuals in film history.
The style of the film is probably one of the most amazing aspects of the film, since both the narrative structure, themes and technical aspects of Mank make it feel like it’s a film that was made in the 1940s. Everything from the cinematography to the editing to the audio quality to the dialogue to the music, it is all done in such a pitch-perfect way that you could hardly tell this was a movie made today.
In fact David Fincher was so detailed with it he even goes further, by not only making the whole film black and white, but also including white scratches, black dots and specks that you would only see in films of that time period. It’s absolutely incredible! The cinematography is pitch perfect, as are the sets, which offer a lot visual parallels to Citizen Kane in a similar manner to what Doctor Sleep did in some cases. The music absolutely fits the time period and again makes the film feel like it was made in the 1940s.
This was totally a love letter to all the major films of 1930s and 40s, including Citizen Kane. Yet despite looking and feeling like a film from that era it is still very relevant similar to how Citizen Kane is also relevant to today.
But this begs the question… do you need to watch Citizen Kane to watch this? In my opinion… kinda, for a few reasons. It helps give understanding to the visual and narrative parallels, as well as an understanding of the narrative structure, since this film goes back and forth in time similar to Citizen Kane, as well as shared some themes. It is important to understand that while Orson Welles did craft a truly magnificent film, it was Herman Mank who made it come to life with his writing. And then after you see this film and look back at Citizen Kane you will know that the heart and soul was its script, not just everything else.
Now is everyone going to love this film? Probably not, since this is very much like Citizen Kane in various ways, and it might not be truly appreciated on first viewing. But if you are someone who not only loves film but specifically writing and creativity, then I think this is a film you will greatly appreciate and understand for what it is. It’s a brilliant character study and a love letter to a truly special era. I’m going to give Mank an A+.
You can find more of my writing on instagram!