No-one Wishes Mank Was Better More than Me
Days away from the Oscar’s, I have liked a handful of films, loved a couple and disliked more than a few. I have outright hated only one.
The most intriguing scene in Mank takes place in the last quarter. By this point, I was determined to make it to the end only due to loyalty to David Fincher, one of my favourite directors, and the fact that I don’t like criticising films I haven’t seen the end of. In it, Mank (Gary Oldman) and Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), discuss the depiction of their relationship in Mank’s new script. Both are hurt but also understanding, despite being at odds with each other. The history of their relationship informs the whole scene but is never explicitly stated. Up until now, Seyfried has played Davies as ditzy and glamorous – your typical dumb blonde - but in this scene, she’s wistful and nostalgic, describing the intricacies of her relationship with William Randolph Hearst and the way acting was a way for her to have access to a better life. The scene is subtle and sad and delicate, the only time where I would describe Mank as such.
David Fincher is known for his meticulous approach to direction but the best part of my favourite Fincher films (The Social Network, Gone Girl, Se7en) is the rawness shown in the scenes like the one. All the characters Fincher’s films be them Facebook founders or detectives feel nuanced and real – they're messy and loose when the film itself can’t be. The characters and their relationships and motivations provide a beating heart underneath the typical grit. In contrast, everything felt so controlled in Mank that the vast number of character’s felt like they barely had room to breathe. They never seemed defined except in their relationship to Mank. The exception is the scene described above, where Marion Davies manages to layout the affect Mank’s new film could have on her – for the first time a character seems to have thoughts and concerns that don’t involve the titular character.
As for Mank himself, the one character supposed to be centre of the film, the one we’re supposed to root for, never quite clicks into place. Gary Oldman does his best with Mank’s quick dialogue but the character never transcends the pretentious anti-hero archetype - complete with one character telling another of a spectacular good deed they did in secrecy. Secret to everyone of course, except the audience, who are reassured of Mank’s good heart despite his outward cankerous behaviour. Mank is brutish and annoying and instead of ever seeing him demonstrate any redeeming qualities we instead just hear other character’s talk about them over and over. There’s a way to portray loveable assholes, even characters that you don’t like but are still sympathetic. As Mank, Gary Oldman is mainly just boring.
Part of the reason it’s hard to nail down any consistent characterisation or theme is because, simply put, Mank is really confusing. Mank’s screenplay is never explicitly named as Citizen Kane but the audience is supposed to just know this, as obviously every audience member has an inherent knowledge of the writing of Citizen Kane. In fact, there’s a lot of plot points and characters that the film assumes the audience is intimately familiar with and wastes no time in explanations or framing. It makes the film difficult to follow, and hard to get invested in the plot or stakes, let alone any of the supporting characters. There are plenty of performances ranging from fine to good, but every character apart from Seyfried’s seems baffled by the words coming out of their mouth. Even they don’t seem to understand what’s going on. It doesn’t help that the film doesn’t follow a linear narrative, jumping between times and places so often that it’s hard to define any sense of character growth or pacing. Mank has a lot going on but seems to have forgotten any detail that would like the audience invested in its plot developments.
There are glimmers something more than pretention at times – the initial premise is intriguing, and I liked the black and white effect. It’s a Fincher film, so it’s well-directed with beautiful set and costume design. Mank teases you with interesting character’s that aren’t fleshed out, like Irving Thalberg who was made head of production of MGM aged only 26. Every time Mank toys with one with these interesting plot point or characters however, it goes the other way. Any time it feels like the plot might pick up or a character might actually be interesting, Mank squashes that dream as quick as it arrives. Mank seems intent on remaining as soulless and pretentious as possible.
Even the story behind Mank is more interesting and touching than the film itself. The screenplay for Mank was written by David Fincher’s late father over 20 years ago and it's been set to be made since the 1990s. Fincher adapting the screenplay written by his father is the sort of agonising, bittersweet motivation that’s missing from the film itself.
In short, Mank is a mess. In long, Mank is plodding, confusing and boring, which would make it a bad but forgettable film if it wasn’t so convinced of its own importance. Citizen Kane may be famed for its contribution to film but Mank tries its absolutely hardest to make me have no interest in ever finally getting around to watching it.