Mank - Review

Heed this warning now, casual moviegoers: this is not the same David Fincher who brought you the stylized violence of “Fight Club” or “Zodiac,” nor is this the slow but energetic direction of “The Social Network” or “The Game.” This is the kind of Fincher who brough us “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” but if it were clearly a love letter to the old style of cinema and his father.

“Mank” is the story of Herman Mankiewicz, a screenwriter and playwright most famous for writing “Citizen Kane.” It follows his life, flipping back and forth between Mank writing “Kane” in 1940 and his life in the decade prior. This is a densely packed and deliberately paced period piece chocked full of great performances and technical merits.

Gary Oldman (“Sid and Nancy,” “Darkest Hour”) plays Mank with a drunken suaveness that’s easily likeable. Yes, he’s a drunken reprobate who loves his booze and cigarettes, but even as he’s acclaimed as one of the best writers working, there’s not a shred of pompousness to him. He might spout out literary quotes, but there’s a genuine everyman quality to him.

He’s the kind of person who looks after the little guy and seems to care about everyone around him. Oldman truly embodies this aspect and brings it to the forefront. Even as he’s making demands or asks questions that cause things to unravel around him, he never raises his voice or loses that wide-eyed creative spirit.

While there is a revolving door of people and cast members throughout the film, they all are acted well enough, even if they don’t make a particular impact because of their performance. Mank’s wife Sara, played by Tuppence Middleton (“The Imitation Game,” “Downton Abbey (2019)”), is a beacon of joy and lightness in his life and on the screen, as is Mank’s secretary and moral confidant Rita Alexander, played by Lily Collins (“Emily in Paris,” “Okja”). Tom Burke (“Strike,” “Only God Forgives”) is absolutely uncanny as Orson Welles, and Charles Dance (“Game of Thrones,” “Gosford Park”) is just as delightfully slimy as possible as William Randolph Hearst, as is Arliss Howard (“Full Metal Jacket,” “To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar”) as Louis B. Mayer.

The only other actor who makes as much of an impact, performance wise, as Oldman does is Amanda Seyfriend (“Mean Girls,” “Mamma Mia!”) as Marion Davies. She nails the Brooklyn accent and sensibilities of this early Hollywood starlet. She exists as a sort of idealized version of the Hollywood actress, separate from the schmoozing and greed of the era like a perfectly polished angel in both her costuming and Seyfried’s performance.

Each inch of the production of “Mank” is immaculate. The black and white film crackles and pops like an old popcorn cooker, and the music is also appropriately timely, a surprise given the composers are Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (“The Social Network,” “Soul”). It’s has a fuzzy and old timey disposition to the entire affair that makes it feel dreamlike. Even the way objects movie towards the screen, and how closeups and driving sequences are shot returns to the sensibilities of a bygone era.

Cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt (“Mindhunter,” “Raised By Wolves”) has shot a film that would be gorgeous by itself, but the techniques of old Hollywood that he uses to further enhance the experience are delightful. The way shadows loom, wipe fades cruise across the screen, circle wipes take over everything in their path, even the pure whiteness of sunlight lends the entire experience an otherworldly feel. It’s modern only in its pure resolution, and a gem of old technique in every other aspect.

The script is also an absolute gem. Perfectly blending the speaking pattern of the era and the kind of Sorkin-esque dialogue of modern cinema, Jack Fincher () has delivered a script that crackles with nearly every line. It demands your attention as names, quotes, and events are spouted off regularly. It’s not a script for casual filmgoers; the more you know about cinema history, the better it becomes.

David Fincher has long been a filmmaker’s filmmaker, taking subjects most would think unfilmable and turning them into gems. Here he’s created possibly his best work from a technical standpoint, but the spirit of the piece might be too dense for some. “Will “Mank” be enjoyable to you” can likely be traced back to one simple question: how much do you love the movies? It’s an undeniably gorgeous and spirited dream of a film, that’s for sure. For film lovers, it’s a must see. For casual viewers who only know Fincher from “Fight Club” and “the Facebook movie”, your mileage may vary. 4.5/5