Mank (2020)
I went into
David Fincher's 'Mank' with a large dose of scepticism because the script was originally based on a pack of lies (
Pauline Kael's infamous 1971 New Yorker article
'Raising Kane') suggesting that
Orson Welles was responsible for 0% of
'Citizen Kane' and
Herman J. "Mank" Mankiewicz for 100%. Where as it was more or less a 50-50 collaboration (as stated in the CK titles). The recently completed
'The Other Side of the Wind' aside, none of Welles' 15 or so movies were based on original concepts entirely of his own invention. He was always a bold re-shaper and re-interpreter of other people's work, books, plays, a lot of
Shakespeare and even his famous
'F for Fake' documentary is a radical reworking of an existing documentary. I don't think he was guy that could start with a blank page but when he was handed what is described in
'Mank' as "300+ pages of drunken ramblings", Welles could leap on it and see all the opportunities for improvements and revisions and start cutting away. Welles said many times that cutting things up and cutting them down was his favourite part of the process of movie making. The fait-accompli script as presented towards the end of 'Mank' was in fact only one of the two first drafts and was re-written by Welles, by Mankiewicz and by Welles again.
Thankfully, up to a point, little of the 'Raising Kane' controversy is reproduced by Fincher. So, up to a point, I thoroughly enjoyed 'Mank'.
Gary Oldman is terrific in the lead role (although 20-years too old to play Mankiewicz) and
Tom Burke has a note-perfect Welles voice.
Amanda Seyfried as
Marion Davies is excellent and sympathetic to the real person behind the CK character assassination. Seyfried and Oldman's scenes together were the best ones. As much time is devoted to the politics of late 30s Hollywood and the crazy studio system, as it is to Mank writing the script and his encounters with
William Randolph Hearst. Fincher structures the film and orchestrates the look to evoke scenes and story telling techniques from 'Citizen Kane'. Both goals are only partly successful. Sometimes the black & white visuals look genuinely "Noir" but other times they just look "black". Or worse he has lights shining in your eyes, obscuring the actors faces (see below), which is almost eye strain inducing. There is also this weird blur filter he's put over some shots and digitally manipulated others to extremes for reasons I'm unsure of. Fincher very unusually (for today) mixed the movie in Mono, shot it in B&W and adds "cigarette burns" all the way through (very distracting) as nods to old fashioned analogue movie presentation. Plus Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross do a nice pastiche of Bernard Herrmann's CK score. So with all that effort to look oldskool, why the heavy digitally graded, CGI look? 'Mank' replicates CK's revolutionary decades-spanning non-linear structure but where as in CK it felt so smooth flowing and clearly defined by superb age makeup, it just feels jumbled here, when applied to the events of a few short years, with no such makeup and costuming to anchor the viewer in time. Like the visuals, it comes across as an affectation.
Sadly, right at the end, when the film proper has finished, Fincher decides to dump a big bag of anti-Welles lies. In rapid succession he shows Mankiewicz receiving his Oscar as Welles' name is drowned out by applause (I can find no evidence for this), then a snarky fake Radio interview with Welles presented over black as if it's a real historical recording (I can find no evidence for this), then a newsreel of Mank claiming all the glory (I can find no evidence for this) and lastly a little on screen text to put the final knife in. Why did he feel the need to do it when he had wisely resisted until that point? It leaves a bad taste in the mouth after a generally excellent and engaging movie.
A highly recommended and concise video essay to watch with 'Mank':
RKO 281 (1999)
After watching
'Mank', for balance I decided to rewatch the BBC/HBO's 1999
'Citzen Kane' making of drama
'RKO 281'. It can't compete for filmic glamour, visual daring and juicy dialogue but it's definitely more accurate and earnest. It's a TV film and occasionally looks it in places but the cast is quality and the British country house locations add realism and scale.
Liev Schreiber makes a fine
Orson Welles, having enough of the look, the youthful vigour and the voice to convince, few actors manage all three. Another advantage it has over 'Mank' is that it attempts to tell the overall story of how CK came to be and captures the fun and excitement of a group of artists creating something that truly nobody had seen before. Both films are kind and sympathetic toward
Marion Davies and 'RKO 281's portrayal of
William Randolph Hearst (played by
James Cromwell) is measured and compassionate too.