Mank

Once in a blue moon, David Fincher does something unexpected. The meticulous director is best known for crafting sprawling dark thrillers full of dread like Gone Girl and Zodiac. Films with disturbing scenes of violence or characters being brought to their breaking points. But every now and then he tries something more accessible like a high concept romance, see The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, or in today's case a black and white view of 1930s Hollywood through the lens of screenwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz.

The Setup

After seemingly burning every bridge in Hollywood, screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz or "Mank" is given the opportunity of a lifetime, write the script for Orson Welles new film. But as Mank rushes to finish the script in record time, he reflects on his work in Hollywood and what put him on the outs in the first place.

Based on the description you can guess why awards voters are stumbling over themselves for this movie. It's a modern director looking back at old school Hollywood drama through the lens of an uncompromising artist/writer with familiar discussions to the modern era. And it's shot in the typically crisp David Fincher cinematography, but this time in black and white with clear visual homages to old Hollywood classics and filmmaking. It's a movie made today that's meant to look and feel like a movie from way back when.

Is it watchable? Yes. Is it a movie a lot of people will watch and understand why it's a Best Picture contender? Absolutely not.

The first hurdle is the film's old Hollywood approach. That's not to say audiences can't or wont' watch black and white movies, but that everything in this movie from the dialogue to the shot composition and even the effects is harkening back to an old film era. This applies to every scene whether it's a big dinner party, a movie set, or Mank writing with a giant cast on his leg. While I get what the film is going for, it also makes everything on screen feel artificial.

The other problem is that the film's visuals and tone are at odds with the script. The film's thematic goal is to point out the hypocrisy and flaws of Hollywood's early days. Like a refutation of the legends of the "good old days" when art was made for art's sake etc. And it is not subtle. We get dinner parties where studio heads try to tone down the threat of Adolf Hitler, directors who are forced to make anti-Socialist films for the studio funded by political opponents, and lots of pointed talks about workers making sacrifices so "the studio" can survive the Depression. 

Conceptually I think this is great. I think it's important to remind people that the glamorous image of old Hollywood is a lie and that powerful people have always used media to manipulate the images of political figures or ignore others.

There's two problems. The first is casting Gary Oldman in the lead role. Oldman is a fine actor and does well in the part, but Mank in real life was...in his early thirties when this film takes place. Why does this matter? Because Oldman looks older than everyone else in most of his scenes. Which means when he gives speeches about political ideology or behaves recklessly or comes up with a brilliant idea, it feels like a culmination of a lifetime of work vs. a young firebrand who's been quickly burnt out by the cynical movie-making business. It means every time he gives a speech there's an added air of authority the man wouldn't have had in real life, and I think that disconnect is important. If he's young it makes him appear prophetic. If he's old, well he must've seen it all.

The other problem is the visuals. This is a problem in a number of David Fincher films, namely Fight Club, but as seedy as this world is, it looks pretty glamorous and fun. The visuals keep telling us how upbeat and fun and lovely this era of Hollywood was whether it is a contentious dinner party, or a meeting on set. Which means the critiques either won't get through or feel toothless. It's hard to view this era as awful and fraught when it looks this good. Oddly enough this is a film when Fincher's typically gritty and low lit approach would be perfect.

Which is a shame because the ideas and cast are all fantastic. Oldman is great, despite the age gap, and Amanda Seyfried turns in one of her best performances ever. It's just a shame the movie can't decide what it wants to be.

Verdict: Mixed Messages

Though the film's stated goal might be to deconstruct Old Hollywood, Mank's visuals don't support that narrative. 6/10