I’ll preface this review by saying that I’ve never seen Citizen Kane (gasp!)
Mank is the story of Herman Mankiewicz, a prominent Old Hollywood screenwriter arguably most famous for Citizen Kane, which many film critics and historians cite as the greatest film of all time. While Mank’s writing of Kane is the backdrop of the film, little focus is paid to his actual writing process. This is a shame, since it would’ve allowed the audience more insight into his psyche than we were given. (Plus, I’m always into movies about writers and the process of writing.) Instead, director David Fincher chooses to focus a large portion of the film on the governmental and Hollywood studio politics of the 1930s, which I found hard to care about and be fully invested in, especially since the characters involved in the political arguments, sandals, and intrigue weren’t fully realized.
While the film is decidedly focused on Mank, he really isn’t given the chance to develop as a character despite a fully committed performance from the always reliable Gary Oldman. As the alcoholic Mankiewicz finds himself battling with political and professional adversaries in his personal life, there’s more than enough fertile ground for creating drama and high stakes. However, the narrative structure is so jumpy as it flashes back to events in Mankiewicz’s past that slow down the film and really don’t serve a greater purpose. I understand that Fincher’s intent was to mirror the jumping-around-in-time aspect of Citizen Kane—and in that respect he succeeds—but it really doesn’t work here to propel the narrative or allow us to get fully invested in any of the characters. The pieces are there but they remain jumbled instead of clicking together.
The rest of the performances are fine (though not of the flashy Oscar-bait variety as some of the others in this year’s crop of nominees), with the other standout being Amanda Seyfried as actress Marion Davies. But despite the clear acting chops on display, the performances can’t make up for a poor screenplay without true character arcs or growth. I suppose you could argue that Mank going from not caring about receiving screenwriting credit for Kane at the beginning of the film to desiring it at the end counts as growth, but even then it’s flimsy.
I will say that Fincher did a good job making Mank look and feels like a film straight out of the 1930s, with great attention to detail paid to production design, sound, and costuming. It’s also a handsome looking film, with deep blacks and sharp, crisp whites. Unfortunately, though, Mank is another film in this year’s batch of Oscar-nominated films that I’d qualify as Just Okay. There’s solid source material and the framework of interesting characters, but little attention is paid to developing them into fully realized people or creating an engaging plot with real stakes.
While some viewers will no doubt be swept away by the film’s Old Hollywood charm and technical successes, solid production values can’t make up for a poor story. Had Mankiewicz himself written the film, I wonder if he would be so eager to take credit?
6/10
Reviews from the Couch 