1930s Hollywood is reevaluated through the eyes of scathing social critic and alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz as he races to finish the screenplay of Citizen Kane.
- Released: 2020-11-13
- Runtime: 132 minutes
- Genre: Drama, History
- Stars: Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins, Arliss Howard, Tom Pelphrey, Sam Troughton, Ferdinand Kingsley, Tuppence Middleton, Tom Burke, Joseph Cross, Jamie McShane, Toby Leonard Moore, Monika Gossmann, Charles Dance, Jack Romano, Adam Shapiro, John Churchill, Jeff Harms, Derek Petropolis, Sean Persaud, Paul Fox, Tom Simmons, Nick Job, Colin Ward, Cooper Tomlinson, Julie Collis, Arlo Mertz, Craig Welzbacher, Jessie Cohen, Desiree Louise, Amie Farrell, Ian Boyd, Jay Villwock, Lou George, John Lee Ames, Bill Nye, Richmond Arquette, David Lee Smith, Mario Di Donato, James Patrick Duffy, Flo Lawrence, Sebastian Faure, Randy Davison, Christian Prentice, Leven Rambin, Rick Pasqualone, Gary Teitelbaum, Eden Wattez, Roslyn Cohn, Mark Fite, John Patrick Jordan, Ben Mankiewicz, Natalie Denise Sperl, Brian Michael Jones, Camille Montgomery, Craig Robert Young, Paul Carafotes, Anne Beyer, Joey Hagler, Sean Donnellan, Stewart Skelton, Malachi Rivers, Keith Barber, Kaytlin Borgen, Madison West, Elvy, Ali Axelrad, Adrienne Evans, Wylie Small, Dana Lyn Baron, Jaclyn Bethany, Cary Christopher, Michelle Twarowska, Kingston Vernes, Jordan Matlock, Anthony Molinari, Daniel Hoffman
- Director: David Fincher
Comments
- malmevik77 - 26 February 2024
A cautionary tale of the power of media
Mank
A film that explores the life of Herman Mankiewicz during his work writing Citizen Kane, deserves its multitude of Oscar nominations. Gary Oldman gave such a great performance that I was swept up in his tragic story.
Mank, as we learn, is a very unhappy man that finds comfort in a strong wit that allows him to hide behind comedy and humor. And also, alcoholism. The black and white film evokes the era quite well when a lot of films reflected this method of performance.
I have seen Citizen Kane, and I am familiar with the rumors surrounding its true meaning, so it was nice to see those fleshed out with the characters of William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies. The film switches between "the present of 1940" and most of the 1930s, reflecting events in the state of California that include a contentious gubernatorial race, and the firm grip held by the major motion picture studios. Presenting the idea that films and newspapers can influence the public shows an eerie foreshadowing to today's news channels doing the same thing.
I can understand feeling isolated and having to turn to substances to feel anything else, and I really felt for him as his life didn't turn out the way he felt it should. Addiction can ruin lives. I wonder what might have happened had he not written a not-so-thinly veiled attack on Hearst. I wonder what might have happened if he managed to forge a stronger bond with Marion. But wondering can not change what happened.
The film ends with the mess created by Citizen Kane's release, and a very short summary of the last 12 years of his life before he succumbed to alcoholism. To summarize 12 years in a sentence is tragic and sad, when the man was so complex. I recommend giving it a chance for the amazing acting, political commentary, and learning about a man that really existed. All we can do is learn from the past, and try not to repeat it. In 2024, nothing was learned as the public continues to rely on escapism and avoidance that ironically provides messages of either fake news, or tragedy that continues this circle. OK enough of that commentary. Go enjoy the movie. - lee_eisenberg - 4 July 2023
it's something that can only happen once
Orson Welles's "Citizen Kane" is widely regarded as the greatest movie of all time. Lesser known is what happened behind the scenes. The 1999 HBO movie "RKO 281" depicted William Randolph Hearst's unsuccessful efforts to prevent the movie's release. Now we have David Fincher's "Mank". The focus here is on screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz, with Gary Oldman in the title role.
The movie goes to great lengths to create the feeling of an old movie: black-and-white cinematography, cigarette burns, and sometimes underexposed lighting. Herman Mankiewicz's screenwriting gets about half the screen time, with the other half focusing on flashbacks of his early days in Hollywood, and the 1934 election.
Without a doubt, the movie gets unwieldy at times, with the glut of information. Even so, I liked this look at old Hollywood and the early stages of what would become the most renowned movie in history. This combination of talent could only happen once. As for Hearst, he was truly the devil incarnate. This movie doesn't make Marion Davies's views of Hearst clear; "RKO 281" depicts her irritated by his greed and support of fascism.
All in all, I think that the movie's worth seeing, if not great. - MovieCriticOnline - 7 July 2022
Nah ah, what a waste...
Uhhmm that was a MEH from me. The writing wasn't that good. It was too much tennis dialogue where no one interrupts but everyone carefully finishes their lines and then throws it to the other actor. Also known as repartee. I can't think of one time anyone interrupted each other. It was a perfect tennis match. It was ridiculous because the problem is no one speaks like that so it comes off as phony.
The second issue was the structure. Just because you can mix up a story chronologically doesn't mean you should. It is generally a sign of a weak narrative where they think to save it by shuffling up the scenes to make it more "interesting" but it just makes it worse.
The third issue was the main character, Mank, is just not that interesting, nor am I sure the story needed to be told. Not every Hollywood anecdote makes a good film. I think there was a desire of the filmmaker to give a wink and a nod to old Hollywood. Kinda like when Scorsese made Huge.
The fourth issue was the constant big band music.
The last issue is it was too over-directed, which means I constantly was reminded of the director, which can be okay sometimes, but most times I prefer letting the story, and characters take the center stage, and not be aware of all the camera moves, lighting, etc which is done to show off and/or for aesthetic purposes, but as Roger Deakin says, lighting should never feel intrusive or make you aware it is a movie. Citizen Kane obviously had all those elements, but it fits that movie since it felt more of a comic book tale. This, however, becomes "look at me, look at what I can do" and essentially tried to look like Citizen Kane.
It was just slowly paced with no real purpose or entertainment value resulting in a snoozefest.
SKIP! - born_naughty - 22 March 2022
Who? What? Why? When? How?
After watching for about half of it and finally giving up I looked up some reviews. So what I'm going to write here is nothing new. I can understand this is a good movie for those that are already familiar with this era of cinema and many of the key figures behind the scenes. I personally have never interested myself deeply in directors, writers and the like. I have no idea who any of these people are. So all those references are completely lost on me. Mank doesn't do a single effort of breaking anyone in and giving you any idea who they are and what they are about. Even emotionally the movie doesn't seem to have much depth. It's not only that that no one is introduced or fleshed out though. The movie also moves at a breakneck pace. It goes from one scene to the next without pause and everyone talks really fast. Sadly I see this in a lot of movies lately. I consider myself an intelligent person but it is important to have a breather and let things sink in I think it's made for the select few that understand all the references, know who everyone is and know basically all of the background information. That's a very small group of people. Everyone else will feel cheated, I think. Luckily I saw it on Netflix. It's difficult to give a score to something you really don't understand. That's why I like to write something so I know why I gave the score. - unclesamsavage - 30 December 2021
Succinct in Sixteen
Gary Oldman aside, the film drags along at a snail's pace with little to excite audiences.
Screenplay...................................... 6 / 10 Acting............................................... 8 Cinematography................................ 6 Sound...................................................... 6 Editing................................................ 3 Score...................................................... 2 Timeless Utility................................... 3 Total.................................................... 34 / 70 ~= 4.9 (rounded to 5) Verdict................................................. Only watch if you have the patience for drawn-out character studies.
