Mank: A Well-Crafted Biopic That's Lacking In Emotional Connection
Six years after Gone Girl, America’s most meticulous living filmmaker returns to tackle the true story behind Citizen Kane, which is still considered by many to be one of the greatest film ever made. Working from a script authored by Fincher’s late father, Jack (his only screenwriting credit), Mank is a Fincher family passion project that’s aimed squarely at film enthusiasts. Stacked with an excellent cast and bolstered by Fincher’s immaculate technical prowess, Mank is an interesting glimpse behind the creative curtain of one of cinema’s most beloved films, but it can’t quite form the emotional connection to really command a viewer’s full attention.
1930s Hollywood is re-evaluated through the eyes of scathing wit and alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) as he races to finish Citizen Kane.
David Fincher has never really made an objectively bad film — any bad qualities to his body of work remain purely subjective — and no matter the subject, his films are always handled thoughtfully and with care. Mank, his 11th feature, is no exception, and while it will doubtlessly be heralded as a masterpiece by many, it just doesn’t possess the emotionality or command that’s evident in his best work. On paper, this is a film we should be head over heels for (since it’s aimed firmly at cinephiles and lovers of Citizen Kane), but unlike much of Fincher’s filmography, Mank never fully had us in its grasp. It’s similar to Christopher Nolan’s Tenet in the sense that there’s a lot to be admired from a technical standpoint, but narratively, it keeps a viewer pretty distanced.
As a tribute to Fincher’s late father, who authored the script prior to his death in 2003, it’s quite touching, but outside that, Fincher’s film slides to the back half of his impressive oeuvre. The film was originally set to follow-up Fincher’s 1997 film, The Game, with Kevin Spacey and Jodie Foster set to star, but it never manifested due to Fincher's insistence on shooting in black and white. Flying under the Netflix banner, Fincher got his way (as he often does) and Mank was captured in luscious black and white cinematography, which feels like a vital necessity for this particular story. However, for all his meticulous attention to detail, he makes a few creative decisions that cancel out his insistence to be true to the period.
For instance, while a great deal of care went into making the film look as accurate as possible to the period, Fincher’s decision to shoot on digital prevents that hard work from truly paying off. Fincher has notoriously embraced digital cinematography (which allows him to shoot endlessly without interruption), but because Mank tries to recreate the look of actual film, its digital sheen often kills the illusions and pulls the viewer out of the experience. The film’s digital touch ups, which adds cigarette burns, film grain, and dust/hair to create the illusion of old film, are more distracting than successful; they also feel a bit inconsistent in how they’re doled out. Given the lengths he’ll go to be true to history (like dressing victims from Zodiac in the same clothing they wore when attacked and even having them draped in the same exact position as the crime scene photos), it feels off to not go all the way here.
The film also requires a viewer to have a bit of knowledge on Citizen Kane’s background, which might be its most alienating aspect. Certain pieces can be gleamed in context if you’re paying close attention; however, the film’s barreling pace and non-linear narrative (an aspect which nods to Mankiewicz’ groundbreaking structure on Citizen Kane) make it easy for things to slip by unnoticed, leading to discombobulating feeling. It’s littered with excellent performances though, with Gary Oldman’s Herman J. Mankiewicz and Amanda Seyfried’s Marion Davies shining the brightest, and boasts a noteworthy score from frequent Fincher collaborators collaborators Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, which eschews their usual synth-heavy style in favor of period-authentic instrumentation from the 1940s. Of course, it’s a neatly directed and tightly controlled as you’d expect a David Fincher film to be — it just lacks the emotional resonance that makes most of his other films snap, crackle, and pop.
There are moments and scenes in which a viewer can become absorbed in Mank’s atmosphere, but they’re far and few between. Aside from its strong performances, energetic direction, and noteworthy score, Mank is really nothing more than a film about a film — a much better film at that. It can’t really raise itself to the height of Citizen Kane — though not many films can — but it just might give a new generation of viewers the information they need to be able to appreciate Welles’ film for the ingenious work of Art it is.
Recommendation: If you’re a lover of film history, biopics, or Citizen Kane, you’ll find aspects to be admired; however, due to the film’s dense nature, it’s a bit harder for an outsider to fully grasp.
Rating: 3.5 alcoholic benders outta 5.
What do you think? We want to know. Share your thoughts and feelings in the comments section below, and as always, remember to viddy well!