Mank
Year: 2020
Rating: R
Length: 131 minutes / 2.18 hours
When I first saw the trailers for Mank (2020), the premise intrigued me. As a “behind the scenes” look at the screenwriter for Citizen Kane (1941), I was interested to see his process in penning one of the most famous screenplays of all time. On top of that, I’ve generally enjoyed David Fincher’s work and wanted to see this movie based on this fact alone. However, despite all it had going for it, I was ultimately disappointed in what Mank had to offer.
Perhaps the most jarring part of this movie was how it tried to emulate the style of the films from the 1940s while also using more modern cinematography techniques to tell its story. At times, this juxtaposition made me wonder if this was filmed in the ’40s or if it was merely a black-and-white modern film. Additionally, there’s a particular visual style for Fincher’s films distinctly lacking here—which may have been in part due to the monochromatic approach. I’m more familiar with the darker and nuanced movies in his repertoire like Gone Girl (2014), The Social Network (2010), and Seven (1995), and Mank hardly fit my preconceived notions for a Fincher film.
Don’t get me wrong; there was still plenty of good acting here. Gary Oldman seems to play the lush well, which made his performance in the title role feel like a repeat of his Churchill from Darkest Hour (2017). And while I understood some of the background of Citizen Kane‘s origins, even my in-depth knowledge of the Hollywood players of the 1940s had some gaps in it. In the end, it dragged in far too many places, which I should have guessed when it decided to jump around the timeline instead of proceeding chronologically. After all, who wants to watch all that excitement, followed by 30 minutes of an injured drunk penning the greatest scrip ever?
A slightly disappointing film considering the film that it’s about, I give Mank 3.5 stars out of 5.
1/2
