David Fincher is a celebrated director primarily known for highly-stylized psychological thrillers and social exploits. With “Mank,” Fincher strays from common ground, giving us another taste of his vast versatility as an auteur. In parts, the film is an ode to the golden age of Hollywood, an indictment of it, and a character study of a flawed genius. “Mank” details the perilous process within the conception of one of cinema’s most prestigious efforts in “Citizen Kane.” The film stars Gary Oldman as Herman Mankiewicz and a stellar supporting cast in Amanda Seyfried, Tom Burke, Lily Collins, and Charles Dance as William Randolph Hurst.
With an antiquated, “black and white” aesthetic, “Mank” conveys its audience to a truly authentic rendering of 1930s Hollywood. The film follows Herman Mankiewicz (Oldman) as the controversial, bull-headed, and morbidly alcoholic mind behind “Citizen Kane.” As a radical idealist and quick-witted socialite, we are privy to Mank’s inner turmoil as a reflection of the era’s corrupt political landscape. The narrative is invariably dense and politically textured – enough to put off certain viewers expecting Fincher’s distinctive flair for pitch-black ambiance. The film is prolonged and cerebral, and while it uncannily captures the essence of its space and subject – there is nothing particularly poignant about the experience. With most Fincher films, there’s a dark cloud cast over the viewer that becomes inescapable days after the first viewing. While “Mank” is certainly thought-provoking, it’s lasting resonance pales in comparison to something like the hauntingly ambiguous finale of “Gone Girl.” Though masterfully decorated, “Mank” seems to be a more frivolous effort within his body of work. There’s no denying the film’s staggering craft and beguiling decor, but at the heart of this externally marvelous work is a hollow core. It’s a film far more easily admired than engrossed. That said, there are countless things to admire about the film.
Gary Oldman is transformative as Mankiewicz, portraying a character so easily detestable yet ineluctably lovable. Within that dichotomy is where “Mank” truly finds its footing. His tug-of-war between pride, self-destructive behavior, and radical truth-seeking ultimately carries the narrative and paints a truly layered performance. Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies steals nearly every scene she inhabits in a true break-out performance. When the Academy Awards are announced in April, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see her taking home a supporting actress trophy. She is the heart and soul of the film, lending an unexpected emotional foundation. Speaking of Academy Awards, the film is destined to land a nomination in nearly every category. The production and costume designs are lavish and tasteful, along with crisp cinematography and a fitting musical score. However, “Mank” is a long shot at winning Best Picture due to all the aforementioned criticisms.
“Mank” is a story that will appeal to a smaller demographic than it is targeting. Along with being a real “film lover’s film,” it’s also aimed at history buffs and avid political spectators. While the common moviegoer may find “Mank” sailing straight over their heads, those who appreciate the art of filmmaking will be pleased with what the film has to offer – even if they are left emotionally inert from the experience.
