Mank (2020)

Mank: Directed by David Fincher. With Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, Tom Pelphrey. 1930’s Hollywood is reevaluated through the eyes of scathing social critic and alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz as he races to finish the screenplay of Citizen Kane (1941).

“Mank (2020)u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe movie that everyone wants to like. But why?u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eOh, Gary Oldman as Mankewitz is rather terrific. And the subject matter should hold water, concerning William Randolf Hearst and that 1930s world of excess, not to mention Orson Welles and that obvious Citizen Kane connection.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eBut there are so many scenes where the writer is straining to make sure the audience is keeping up with things, for example giving us first names (and variations on first names) to clue us in on who is who. The strain of having to inform the audience chokes the intended authenticity. The scene early on where some screenwriters (including Ben Hecht) are chatting about screenplays and ideas is so forced itu0026#39;s embarrassing-especially since itu0026#39;s about screenwriting.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe movie has its beauty, for sure, filmed in greyish black and white that is a softened, more detailed version of classic Hollywood. Films from the time it is set, mid-1930s to 1940, are noticably u0026quot;harderu0026quot; in tonality, meaning deeper blacks and more overall contrast. Citizen Kane is a prime example. Itu0026#39;s worth noting that the photography for u0026quot;Manku0026quot; is generally very poised and luminous, lots of backlighting and delineated grey scales, not much like the photography in Kane.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eNow you might expect the film to grow into its own vocabulary, to have a style of its own whatever the borrowings of its substance. But no, the script is stubbornly derivative and simplistic (almost as if the writers were in their 20s and just discovering Hollywood, and literature). And the reason for this is as old as the hills-the son David Fincher is adapting the screenplay of his beloved departed father, Jack Fincher. A natural mistake, but not one to put $50,000,000 on.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe plot, what little there actually is, blunders along, dull as pancakes in July. The cliches abound, the supporting cast spouts obvious quips, and the name-dropping is endless and revealing. I do love Citizen Kane, and admire Welles, and I also greatly admire many of Fincheru0026#39;s films on another level, so it all is a disappointment.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThe saving grace is certainly Oldman, who acts his heart out, and sustains many scenes, even ones that donu0026#39;t offer much worth saving. True, heu0026#39;s a 62 year old playing the part of a man between 37 and 42, roughly, and that doesnu0026#39;t help. But heu0026#39;s committed and complex. A good job.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eAnd the movie isnu0026#39;t a total wreck…but with all the hype, it really deflates and confounds. How and why, with all this talent, did it end up so underachieving? Or then again, who really cares?”