So what do people think? It’s beautifully shot in black and white and has yet another stunning performance by Gary Oldman disappearing in the character but otherwise I was disappointed.
First of all it’s based on a largely discredited theory, pushed by Pauline Kael, that the Citizen Kane script was primarily written by Mank.
At a deeper level the film can’t seem to make up its mind about who the prime antagonist is: is it Welles or is it Hearst? Is the film about the screenwriting dispute and the making of Kane or is it about the Mank-Hearst relationship. It does justice to neither storyline. Welles has no real presence in the film till a final confrontation with Mank. Hearst is also largely absent until a climactic drunken rant by Mank at his party. In the film Hearst handles it with restraint and then delivers a rather devastating rebuttal with the parable of the organ-grinder’s monkey. It’s quite interesting but makes no sense in dramatic terms: Hearst is given the last word but if Mank is in fact an organ-grinder’s money why are we watching a film about him?There is also a political storyline about Upton Sinclair’s race for Cal governor and the “fake news” of the day which doesn’t seem to be based on Mank’s actual politics and doesn’t much go anywhere either.
Citizen Kane itself is a masterly script with multiple complex storylines over decades coming together into a powerful whole. Mank is an example of the opposite where the storylines fizzle out leaving an incoherent mess.
I was also disappointed, especially as it’s being hyped for Best Picture. I found it interesting in parts, and Gary Oldman was great, but it was dramatically formulaic. Yeah, I know you need to take some dramatic license with historical movies, but I would have found it more interesting if it had stuck closer to the facts.
That scene is where the movie totally lost me. I really can’t see someone as imperious as Hearst, or his guests, holding still in virtual silence while Mank rants. It provides a dramatic climax, but at the cost of any hint of realism.
That’s the privilege of the court jester. I mostly liked it for the flat B&W cinematography that evoked a cheap movie set from the ‘40s and being able to pretend Burgess Meredith had been resurrected for the lead.
Bump because I just watched it last night. I agree with the criticism. The movie never decides what it’s about.
Is it about the Upton Sinclair story? Mank only seems to care about it sporadically.
Is it about conflict with Hearst? They never build much of a relationship between the two. The friendship between Mank and Marion is interesting, but underdeveloped.
Is it about Mank getting credit for his work? That conflict isn’t even really introduced until the third act.
I get why it would be a Best Picture nominee. It was a technical tour de force. It wasn’t just made in the style of a Citizen Kane-era film, it was a Citizen Kane-era film. The cinematography, the lighting, the editing, the acting styles, the music (by Trent Reznor!), every aspect of what we see and hear on screen is dead-on and period-correct. It really evokes the era in an uncanny way.
But, yeah, the story itself just kind of…wanders around. I’m glad I watched it, I appreciate the work and technical artistry that went into it, but…
Mank leads with 10 nominations though not for best screenplay. 10+ nominations has often been a good predictor for a BP win though OTOH Mank was snubbed at the Golden Globes.