Throwback quirks aside, David Fincher’s Citizen Kane origin story Mank is conventional to a fault
Film Reviews Movie Review
It’s the spring of 1940. The alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) has come to a secluded ranch outside of Victorville, California to write his masterpiece, a scathing portrait of the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst that will eventually be known as Citizen Kane. Orson Welles, the boy wonder actor-director, is nowhere to be found. As Mankiewicz (whom everybody calls “Mank”) lies in bed with a broken leg, he remembers the days when he was the drunken wit of Hearst’s inner circle and a frequent guest at San Simeon, the palatial estate where the tycoon’s movie-star mistress, Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), hosted the kind of celebrity and politico parties of which Tinseltown conspiracy theories are born.
The truth is that Mank has only been hired as a ghostwriter. He has come to the ranch straight from the hospital (one of the few personal misfortunes for which his drinking and gambling have not been to blame) and though he badly needs the money, he knows that this particular script might destroy what’s left of his flagging career. Still, Mank continues to dictate dozens of pages a day to his young English amanuensis, Rita (Lily Collins). Like the characters of Kane, who are haunted by young ladies with white parasols and beloved childhood sleds, he is addicted to retrospection. It’s only later that we come to realize that he is suffering from a condition that is all too familiar: the long-term, post-traumatic effects of election brain.
Which is to say that, for a movie that’s nominally about Citizen Kane, one of the greatest artworks on the subject of memory and lost time, Mank is very invested in the forgotten 1934 California gubernatorial election and that critical commodity known as “timeliness.” For David Fincher, the king of the digital control freaks, it’s all part of a tongue-in-cheek experiment in anachronism: the staginess, the gloomy black-and-white cinematography, the archaically compressed mono sound, the cutesy faux cue marks and film scratches that indicate nonexistent reel changes. If such perverse post-modern quirks seem essential to Mank, it’s because they are sometimes the only things keeping this quasi-biopic together.
Among the manifold ironies of this overtly political passion project (which was based on a decades-old script by the director’s father, the late Jack Fincher) is the fact it is both a catalog of Fincherisms and a very atypical work—a feature-length excuse for the master stylist of minutiae to clown on his usual hyperrealism by indulging in all of his favorite movie-movie affectations. The parading of influences via cameo, name-check, and homage goes far beyond the Kane-mania that was already obvious in the The Social Network. But while Mank succeeds on certain personal terms, it fails by largely conventional means. There are parts that bear an uncanny resemblance to the kind of awards-bait middlebrow drama usually essayed by BBC-trained hacks.
In its worst stretches, it is repetitive, muddled, and even dull, sagging under the thesis of its uncredited source material, “Raising Kane,” the notorious Pauline Kael essay that claimed that Mankiewicz was the true genius behind the film. The fact that this nearly book-length hit piece was completely discredited decades ago is arguably irrelevant; Fincher has devoted a sizable chunk of his career to the art of turning junky source material into great movies, and neither Zodiac nor The Social Network are exactly models of journalistic integrity. The problem is that Mank never transcends its borrowed cornball arc, depicting its title character as a genius in eternal conflict with villains and phonies like Hearst (Charles Dance, terrific), Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard, even better), and Welles (Tom Burke, blood-curdlingly bad).
But this is really a movie about the backstory behind the backstory, delivered in flashbacks that are announced with helpful typewritten sluglines like “EXT. MGM STUDIOUS – DAY – 1934 (FLASHBACK).” The occasionally mischievous pseudo-analog craftsmanship of these 1930s-set scenes—which extends from the tracking shots to the playful Reznor-Ross score—helps break up the dimly lit monotony of the ranch, even if their attempts to establish an emotional center for the film are sometimes clumsy. It’s worth noting that while Mank draws on “Raising Kane” for its characterizations and clash-of-personalities drama, the movie’s politics are exclusively its own. (Kael’s essay is, among other things, an anti-left-wing diatribe.)
If the film never manages to sell the grumpy Mank as an artistic hero, it does make him into a credible figure of disillusionment whose populist ideals fade with the failure of Upton Sinclair’s campaign for governor of California. There is a lot that can be read into this subplot about a socialist Democratic candidate defeated by a consortium of hegemonic media interests and a self-loathing writer’s complicity in astroturfed capitalist propaganda. Fincher’s films are filled with puppet masters, sociopaths, and cynical, fascist appeals, but this is about as close as he’s ever come to vocalizing his politics, with a kiss-off from Hearst that oozes the most menacing qualities of his style.
Still, the phoniness of Mank often gets in the way, as unintended clumsiness and miscasting undercuts the more deliberate and self-aware distractions. The ideas are there—something about authoritarian forces and studio notes, smuggled subject matter and creative self-gratification, and the fine line between movie magic and deception. But like Mank himself, they are searching for a purpose, bitterly lost in a mix of funereal atmosphere and retro glitz. For Fincher, this long-lost Hollywood is both a digitally simulated surface texture and a costume party; sometimes it resembles a Vanity Fair photo spread, sometimes a crypt. Here, even a hardened critic must defer to the immortal wisdom of the commentariat: Not every movie has to be Citizen Kane.
57 Comments
this was unknown fact for me . However i enjoyed it too . nice concept kudos to you guys . https://techstatement.com/https://techstatement.com/gadgets/how-to-cancel-subscriptions-on-iphone/
*reads review**pauses momentarily**shoves Ignatiy into locker, watches Mank anyway*
I’m going to watch it too, but mainly for this Welles performance that’s “blood-curdlingly bad.” Vincent D’Onofrio could still play 26, couldn’t he? Why not get him?
I don’t think D’Onofrio even did the voice in Ed Wood.
Right, it was Maurice LaMarche.
Brain is still the best Welles.
You’re right. I believe it was the voice of the guy from Pinky & the Brain.
Correct, Maurice LaMarche.
I mean Brain is like 95% Welles voice anyway .( also LaMarche will always be the voice of Egon for me)
I haven’t seen the movie, but I wonder how much of it is that everyone knows what Welles looked and sounded like. We don’t really know the mannerisms or voice of Hearst or Mayer, so it’s perfectly fine for them to be played however. Welles has baggage they don’t.
Vincent D’Onofrio can barely pull off 50 at this point.
did vincent d’nofrio write this?!
Wait, you can watch a movie even if it gets a bad review? THIS OPENS SO MANY NEW CHOICES!
I finally watched this. Self indulgent Hollywood crap. Perfectly set up to win awards, they sure love themselves. It’s not terrible just, looks cool, done well, but sure whatever. Let’s beat the dead Hearst.
Goddamn it, its still based on Raising Kane!?! The original draft is still on the internet and its awful. To use one of Pauline Kaels worst works as the basis for a script is nonsense. She lied about so much that it was theoughly discredited not even a decade later. Fincher is good at turning shit into gold, the novel Zodiac is pretty worthless and clearly shows the author is obsessive in the worst kinds of ways. But the films a masterpiece. The fact this reads like just Raising Kane is more then a little disappointing. I’d rather have more seasons of Mindhunters frankly.
I haven’t seen the film, but my understanding (from this interview) was that Fincher deviated significantly from the first draft. His father wrote it from the anti-auteurist perspective of a writer, and being a director himself David decided that merely reflected ignorance of directing and an uncritical acceptance of Kael’s attack on Welles.
I saw that interview and was hopeful. But the reviews I’ve read make it sound like the final draft isn’t that far off from Jack’s original draft. Maybe I’m wrong and if I’m wrong I will more then gladly eat crow. Kael is an interesting critic because while she was a prominent female writer and could be very eloquent, she had a nasty habit of homophobia and my way or the highway attitude. If I had a dime everything she called something fascist I’d be rich.
Did Kael call “Citizen Kane” fascist? I know (from Andrew Sarris’ critique of her & other critics) that she praised “Straw Dogs” while also calling it a “fascist classic”.
I don’t believe she called Kane fascist. The list of movies she did call fascist is rather high. Pretty much anything Clint Eastwood did or was in was nazi propaganda to her. Granted Dirty Harry 1 can absolutely be read like that, but not his whole career. Although his last few films are suspect.
No, in fact she loved the movie and celebrated it as one of the great works of American pop culture. Her book was just part of a sincere, if overly strident and somewhat misguided crusade against the prevailing notion of the auteur director (much as Welles hated and railed against the popular image of the auteur producer.) Her core thesis was prejudiced, poorly resurched and flat out wrong but she still had some otherwise good insights into “Kane.” A lot of movies she labeled as “fascist” were frankly reactionary or pretty dodgey at best and the product of regressive, aging white men. She was especially hard on the avenging vigilante genre of the seventies.
Peter Bogdanovich’s takedown of Kael is pretty classic.
Hes why Raising Kane is debunked crap. He pulled out old letter Orson wrote and said dispute this!
As was Welles’s subsequent takedown of Bogdanovich.
Almost makes you forgive Texasville. No scratch that, Texasville is unforgivable.
The man has made some real clunkers, sadly.
I haven’t seen the film, but my understanding (from this article) is that “while Mank draws on “Raising Kane” for its characterizations and clash-of-personalities drama, the movie’s politics are exclusively its own. (Kael’s essay is, among other things, an anti-left-wing diatribe.)”
Im aware, I will recommend anyone take a crack at the original script. Its not remotely hard to find. And the worst part about Raising Kane isn’t Kaels political beliefs, its just her constant lying. Lord be it for me to say Wells wasn’t a gigantic asshole, but to claim he didn’t write anything in Citizen Kane is horribly insulting and is a blatant lie.
I just finished season 2 of Mindhunter and was devastated to learn that it was announced in late October that would be it. This feels like when HBO cancelled Deadwood so Milch could do that stupid John from Cincinnati.
I’ve read great reviews about this film.
Just from its style and cinematography I thought it would be received more favorable reviews than this. Then I noticed who reviewed it – Ignatiy Vishnevetsky. The guy who hates all the same films as me – but unfortunately also hates all the films I like too.
He also hates the movies you haven’t seen, and he hates you and me. It’s true!
Fincher movies always feel like they could use a real precise editor. His movies tend to be 45 minutes too long, generally speaking. Apatow has this same issue.
Be honest, though. You were just going to waste those 45 minutes anyway.
yeah, probably so.
i don’t think finchers movies meander like apatow’s though. if you’re simply talking about raw movie length, maybe, but fincher’s movies always feel very precisely edited to me.
Having just seen Mank, it once again falls into that issue with Fincher’s movies where they’re too long, but the minutes you’d lose are frankly pretty good minutes. Zodiac is like the platonic ideal of this; I’m constantly going back and forth between “Jesus is this movie still going” and being totally riveted, and it makes you go as crazy-obsessive as the characters in it.
All I got from this review is that Vishney (it’s fine if I call you Vishney, right bud?) really hates both stylistic devices and Pauline Kael. And the BBC, I guess.
I just saw The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw give it five stars in his review. Surprised a Fincher film got a C from the AVClub. Without looking up the other movies, I just had assumed his work always got higher marks here. Though Ben Button may have. Liked that film when I saw it but don’t want to rewatch because it feels long this time.
I watched Benjamin Button some months back and didn’t care for it, comparing it to Forrest Gump. Then I read that Eric Roth, who adapted it, also adapted Forrest Gump.
Funny you should bring up Peter Bradshaw, because like him, Ignatiy is a gormless review troll.
So Fincher for the best director Oscar then.
Well movies about old Hollywood traditionally give academy voters a boner , so yeah.
This is entirely a movie Hollywood made about itself. Perfectly made to win awards. I kinda wish I skipped it.
Well, C+ means better than average so that’s not bad and I can’t think of a biopic that has ever rated higher than that and certainly not a single Fincher film. I’m not crazy about the antiauter angle, particularly when the alternative narrative is that of the tortured screenwriter. Mank was reportedly an arrogant egoist who openly mocked Hollywood and bragged to his east coast writer friends that he was taking the studios for all he could. He could have walked away after a few years with some serious money in the bank and gone back to New York to write all the plays he wanted to but he chose to stay. Mank also cultivated a circle of acolytes and was as cruelly capricious with them as Kael was with hers. There is also ample archival evidence that a lot of hands touched the many, many drafts of the “Kane” screenplay and that Welles’s passes at the thing were the defining ones. My expectations for this are rather low but what the hell, it may still have its moments and at this point what else is there to watch? As for Kael’s take on “Kane,” her take was long ago discredited and her later career did a lot to undermine her early, best work. People who didn’t grow up reading her don’t realize just how much she was initially the anticritic, offering fresh, unpretentious perspectives that alienated the established critical community. She also did in fact appreciate much of Welles’s work and championed many of his later, neglected work.
C+ here gets you a thumb down on Rotten Tomatoes. I know this from Infinity War which IMO really should have gotten at least some kind of a B.
Mankiewicz In Love
I will watch this movie as soon as it’s released here but the trailer alone scares me. The cinematography looks terrible. They seem not to take into account that this movie will be in black and white and things get lost in the darkness (and from what I can gleam from the trailer, it’s not for aesthetic or thematic reasons). I looked up who the cinematographer was and it’s Fincher’s guy from Mindhunter who doesn’t appear to have much non-Fincher experience and I’m wondering if Fincher just got some new guy he could bully into giving him what he asks for instead of a more seasoned pro that would challenge him..
This film is neither about a person from Manchester or a really filthy person , so this title is very misleading..
So this isn’t a sequel to Mant! where the guy gets turned into a half-man/half-mink?Disappointed.
Something goes awry when Fincher doesn’t have a psychopath in his films. I had a feeling this was on par with another of his well intentioned misfires, Benjamin Button…
Is Robert Wise mentioned anywhere? Kael was not a fan of him at all but his editing is part of what makes Citizen Kane memorable.
The film isn’t about the actual making of KANE at all. John Houseman appears, but no mention of Gregg Toland, Robert Wise, Bernard Herrmann, Linwood Dunn, or Maurice Seiderman, and no sign of the Mercury Players either.As Ingatiy notes, it really is much more about 1930s politics. Adjust expectations as best you can.Positive note: Amanda Seyfreid is very appealing as Marion Davies. Those giant eyes are perfect for a silent star.
I watched this tonight. It felt like Oldman was doing a feature-length impression of Twilight Zone Burgess Meredith. Except I think I’d have rather watched the Twilight Zone. This was ok. Fincher’s Good German.
Just watched it, thankfully without reading this review. I’d give it a A- grade.
I think that sometimes knowledge of a certain subject can make you see all the strings in a work about that subject. Where Ignaty found phoniness, I found excellence, as precise and crafty as any Fincher’s previous films. And I did found the love in this passion project and none of that corniness of Oscar-baiting biopics. Dunno, it worked for me.
That was the most disappointing attempt at a Coen Brothers film I’ve ever seen. Every line delivered as if vying to make the world’s most quotable movie trailer.
Great review. The thing is the film is dead (and the Coens very well show how). But you don’t mention the best part: Amanda Seyfried, even if the photo chosen here says why.
18th best movie of the year…C+