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

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

I’m giving you a choice. Either put on these glasses or start eating that trash can.

They Live * (1988) (SPOILERS) Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of They Live – I was a big fan of most things Carpenter at the time of its release – but the manner in which its reputation as a prophecy of (or insight into) “the way things are” has grown is a touch out of proportion with the picture’s relatively modest merits. Indeed, its feting rests almost entirely on the admittedly bravura sequence in which WWF-star-turned-movie-actor Roddy Piper, under the influence of a pair of sunglasses, first witnesses the pervasive influence of aliens among us who are sucking mankind dry. That, and the ludicrously genius sequence in which Roddy, full of transformative fervour, attempts to convince Keith David to don said sunglasses, for his own good. They Live should definitely be viewed by all, for their own good, but it’s only fair to point out that it doesn’t have the consistency of John Carpenter at his very, very best. Nada : I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.