by Reid Williams
There is only a short list of directors whose names will guarantee me going out of my way to see their films. Potentially at the top of this list is David Fincher. That being said, my expectations were naturally quite high for his first film venture since 2014’s Gone Girl. I even feared I would be a victim of my own overly high expectations if the film was simply very good (which happens to me quite a bit), leaving me disappointed that it wasn’t great. Especially after a year when many of the films I was most excited about (Dune, No Time to Die, The Woman in the Window) were postponed, I knew I had a lot riding on Mank, and was terrified I would end up disappointed.
Long story short: I was not. Fincher is in top form in this film, as is Gary Oldman. The film is expertly directed, sharply written, and gorgeous is every frame of its black-and-white cinematography.
The film follows Oldman’s Herman Mankiewicz (generally called “Mank”), an over-the-hill screenwriter as he attempts to complete the script to the legendary Citizen Kane. In one of many homages to the 1941 classic, the story unfolds in a non-linear fashion, cutting between Mank as he attempts to write the screenplay and the years prior that lead to his desire to tell this story, much to the chagrin of his friends and family.
Despite not having directed a film in 6 years, Fincher is clearly in control of his craft. Directing a script written by his late father, Fincher certainly does not let his passion for the material cloud his judgement. The film is as well put-together as Fincher’s best work, which is truly saying something. At almost no point does the plot seem to drag or get tiresome, as the audience learns more and more of the context of what led Mank to the place he is now. Almost every reveal feels earned, and they come at a near-perfect pace. The script is immaculate, with dialogue as sharp as Golden Age-Hollywood deserves. Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) delivers one of the most stylish and fun monologues you’re likely to ever see, and is a perfect study in the cleverness of the dialogue on the whole.
Oldman is in top form, which again is a large claim to make. He plays the subtleties and complexities of Mank’s character with charisma and ease that wins the audience over in an instant. Seyfried steals most of the scenes that she’s in, though there aren’t nearly enough of them. Charles Dance also contributes a convincingly smarmy turn as the notorious William Randolph Hearst which famously inspired Kane. Even beyond this, there isn’t a weak link in the cast. Lily Collins, Tom Pelphrey, Tuppence Middleton, along with several others provide memorable supporting roles to round out the film.
Of all of Fincher’s films, I see this one as the most visually satisfying. Following Kane again, the film is shot entirely in black-and-white, a brilliant creative decision that solidifies the old-Hollywood feel of the entire piece. There are numerous visual homages to Kane’s iconic shots on top of the gorgeous shots of the landscapes where Mank is writing and the brilliantly conceived Hollywood studio lots.
All of this amounts to me being happy to say: I found this to be an intensely watchable film. I didn’t find myself checking my watch or forcing myself to stay awake (which is how I often feel about biopics). The pacing and direction glued me to the screen and I have no hesitations about visiting it for subsequent re-watches in the future. It certainly helps that I’m a great lover of Citizen Kane and old-school Hollywood in general, but I believe even those who aren’t as invested in the time period will have no problems staying engaged in the story. I know of almost no higher praise that I can give a biopic than to say it is fantastically entertaining, and Mank certainly reaches that bar.
One word of warning to anyone who is expecting an in-depth study into the making of Citizen Kane: this film is not entirely interested in giving you that. The film is much more interested in Mank as a character than the precise mechanisms behind the making of the film. I believe that this is to its great benefit. Watching Mank become disillusioned and grow into the man we see in the later shots is an incredibly rewarding experience to watch unfold. There are also a bit more politics in the movie than many will probably expect, but I don’t consider this a negative, as all of the politics are done in service of the characters and truly does enrich how the audience sees each of them. This film uses politics in the best way possible.
I’ll be honest, I’m not too well-versed in the specific details of what exactly happened in the writing and creation of Citizen Kane, but I’ve heard some complaints about historical inaccuracies in the movie. I honestly am not sure if these are founded or not, as I know that much of the facts are contested by various parties, but regardless this is another aspect which I don’t view as an issue. As a lover of great stories, I never mind historical inaccuracies if they enrich the overall story, and I firmly believe that any inaccuracy found in Mank is ultimately in service of the story, as I can hardly imagine liking the story more.
Before I move on to my critiques, I do want to again qualify how much I enjoyed this movie. Alas, there are very few things in life that are perfect, and I’m not convinced Mank quite reaches that bar. That being said, there are a small number of things I took issue with. For starters, as fantastic as Seyfried and Dance are in their respective roles, I would have appreciated seeming them beefed up a bit with some more screen time. There is sufficient development for us to get the overall impact they have on the story, but I maintain that the trajectory the story takes would have been further enriched by further exploring the relations both characters had with Mank. This would have made the ultimate revelations a bit more powerful, in my opinion. In this same vein, there is a “third act complicator,” which I won’t go into for spoiler’s sake. Even though I do enjoy this complicator, I think that having it more ingrained in the story prior to the closing minutes would have made it land a bit more, and lead to an ultimately more satisfying conclusion. However, those are small complaints about a film that I consider to be quite near flawless.
All in all, Mank is a phenomenally written, directed, shot, and acted study of a compellingly conflicted character in an endlessly fascinating time period, even if it doesn’t give us all of the details one might want behind one of the greatest films of all-time. Fincher and Oldman fans can rejoice, as I believe they’ve just given us the film of 2020.
Grade: A