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.


Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.