Skip to main content

I never thought one could care so much about a sled.

Mank
(2020)

(SPOILERS) David Fincher probably deserves due credit for doing right by dad and getting Jack’s screenplay into production. Even if it rather waywardly took him more than two decades. Perhaps the length of time is a clue, because for all the meticulousness of Mank’s production, there’s negligible sense that Fincher’s fired up by the material. Indeed, you’re likely to come away from this rather flaccid picture convinced that what Citizen Kane needed wasn’t so much a nostalgically positioned sled as a headless corpse. Or any tell-tale Fincherian sign of murderous despair.

Because Mank isn’t really very good. If you’re going to dive into Classic Hollywood, you want someone calling the shots who is clearly enthused by the era. Someone like the Coen Brothers (Hail, Caesar!) or Joe Dante (Matinee). Fincher’s so utterly impassive, detached and clinical that he constantly underpins the woeful absence of narrative trajectory in Jack’s screenplay. And his stylistic choices are an utter dog. Of course he wants to muster the black and white of Citizen Kane’s making, but in 2.20:1 digital? And no amount of tinkering in a forlorn attempt to garnish Mank with filmic sheen, grain and dust is going to make it other than anaemic, lethargic, depthless screen bleach.

I know Fincher’s a big Chinatown fan (he recorded a commentary track for the Blu-ray release), and I thought I could detect an attempt on his part to imitate that film’s deceptively casual trajectory. But Chinatown is a mystery. As long as that part is clearly in place, you have something for the viewer to invest in. The best Mank can offer is a series of flashbacks leading to a reveal of why Herman J Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman, much too old for the two-decades-younger writer) has the knives out for William Randolph Hearst (a magnificently skeletal Charles Dance). Hearst being, of course, the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane.

Along the very languorous way, we’re treated to frequently clumsy introductions to many of the big names of the period, some standing out better than others. Arliss Howard is superb as Louis B Mayer; it’s the kind of part that ought to lead to a career second wind. Of the “Why didn’t we think of using him before?” variety. Tom Pelphrey is thoroughly eclipsed as Mank’s brother Joseph (perhaps appropriate, since in career terms, he far eclipsed Herman). Amanda Seyfried is exactly as radiant as she needs to be as Hearst’s mistress Marion Davies, and her scenes with Mank tend to find the picture at its most engaging. Sam Troughton makes less of an impression than he should as John Houseman. Lily Collins gets the utterly thankless chaperone role as Mank’s secretary, complete with a thunderously clichéd missing-in-action boyfriend subplot. Tuppence Middleton fares better, but hers is still your long-suffering wifey, if uber-self-aware. Another subplot, straining in its attempts to be relevant, concerns a studio-mandated smear campaign against a prospective governor. It’s banal stuff, right up to the point where Mank’s friend blows his brains out after predictably not giving up all the bullets.

Much of the prior discussion pertaining to the production focussed on how much it would bear out Pauline Kael’s discredited 1971 Raising Kane article, particularly since it was known Jack took his cues from her position that Welles stole the kudos for what was entirely Mank’s work. The forensic analysis determined this wrong (the first two drafts were Mank’s, and Welles was mindful in interviews to affirm just how intrinsic his writer was to the finished picture; it isn’t coincidental that the director’s best film also nurses a deeply rooted cinematic core, and that Welles other pictures were almost exclusively based on existing material). Fincher claimed he ameliorated his father’s position in favour of something more balanced, but you’d be hard pressed to discern that from the finished film.

Mostly because Welles (Tom Burke) is hardly in it. So there’s none of the writer and wunderkind thrashing out the story together or Mank working off Welles’ rough script. Mank is holed up in the heat, dying for booze and receiving periodic cajoling from Houseman, or Welles, or nursey. All of which is fairly tepid. When Welles does finally visit, it’s a shot in the arm. But too late. The last half hour of Mank is splendidly arresting, but it isn’t enough. Mank demands credit from a reluctant Orson (“It’s the best thing I’ve ever written”), and this segues into the picture’s highlight scene as Mank turns up sloshed to one of the regular parties at Hearst’s castle. He proceeds to expertly character assassinate his host in the form of a pitch, to the accompaniment of an increasingly empty dining hall.

If anything else here had been half as electric, Fincher might have had something on his hands, but you have to go back to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button to find him so at a loss with a project (and even that can at least boast to being a curiosity). Fincher denies us what Welles did with Mank’s screenplay, making the entire piece seem dubiously disingenuous when it ends with Herman claiming he would have claimed sole credit had he gone to the Oscars (Welles’ “Mank, you can kiss my half” says more about the humour with which Orson approached the matter).

Mostly, though, I’m not that invested in whether Welles has been hard done by over the credit debate. It’s as important to a fictional movie as whether Salieri was so jealous of Mozart that he sent him to his grave. What’s important is that a dramatic and compelling story should result. Milos Forman had one with Amadeus. Maybe there was one with The Scripts of Citizen Kane, but Fincher certainly didn’t find a way to make it work. If he wanted to scratched a Citizen Kane itch he probably should have adapted Theodore Roszak’s Flicker.

Oldman? He’s very good. And much too old. Tom Burke might have been better. Perhaps he should have played Welles and Mank. He’s serviced with some very good lines, I’ll give Jack Fincher that. On the other hand, David Fincher has no sense of how to emphasise them. The Coen Brothers would have brought them up in the mix, celebrated the actor and wordsmith. With Fincher, everything’s delivered as an unenthused drone. If Mank is a serious awards contender… Well, I wouldn’t be that surprised. It’s not like there’s going to be a welter of options, But Oscars so black and white this year doesn’t seem terribly likely.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.