One side of the contested story of how Citizen Kane came to be. Take it with the grain of salt as is practical with cinema.
When the dream factories start running out of fabricated realities, all loose ends tied and happy endings delivered, to give us, what then? Well then you turn to the individuals; the visionary writers, the cynics, pessimists, the ones who look at the world with a sliver of scorn for what it’s done to them, for it’s through the hands of these people that the most compelling stories are written.
David Fincher’s newest offering Mank (2020) is the story behind one of the greatest stories we’ve come to know. Herman Mankiewicz, the witty writer with a thirst for booze, serves as our eyes into the world of 1930’s Hollywood when one era ended and a new one began. Talkies being the new hip-drug on the screens, there’s plenty of room for writers, so through Mank we see the oligopoly of the studios and their unrelenting grip on the film industry and the start of their demise. When the film isn’t jumping back in time to Mank’s dealings with Hollywood big-cheeses, it’s keeping us in bed with him as he writes the script for Citizen Kane (1941) at Orson Welles behest. A sharp commentary on the cinematic landscape during the 30’s, it explores the bloody ruthless business of Hollywood and how one should compose themselves if they’re to make it behind or in front of the camera and having enough pride in ones work to not let it go without your name written on it.
Fincher’s pro-filmic style is something that’s a hit or miss for me. I love that the film is in black and white with scene headings to guide us through each scene whether it’s a flashback or not, it gives us a sort of peek behind the artifice of cinema something that classical Hollywood at the time desperately tried to avoid. When in doubt, go for more verisimilitude, I hear some Hollywood execs say in my imagination. It’s clear that digital filmmaking is where Fincher shines wonderfully, but I think given the aesthetic and time period, this film would’ve looked elegant had it been shot on film but I’m not going to fault him for that. Hey, at least he made an effort to make it look like film with the random film stains appearing throughout.
The dialogue is superb, absolutely engaging and hilarious at times but it doesn’t at all fit Fincher’s camera style. The script penned by Jack Fincher, the father in this duo, is written so lovingly because he lived through the time this film portrays, but his son’s camera doesn’t give it time it deserves. The camera lazily cuts away from the faces too quickly and onto the next, especially in a conversation with more than three characters with no cinematic flair to it. It doesn’t at all take away from what the characters are saying but it certainly doesn’t add anything either, my girlfriend finding this crazy cutting quite disorienting. A pan would work quite nicely here in the opinion of a person who’s never touched a camera in a cinematic capacity before.
The cast are all pulling their weight to keep this ship sailing, Gary Oldman especially becomes Mank so fittingly.
With all said and done, this film is fantastic, it’s a history lesson in cinema showing the characters who were instrumental in the industry at the time. It also brings into debate the idea of credit. I certainly wasn’t aware of the story behind Citizen Kane’s script, should’ve Mank gotten credit for his writing? Should he have more pride in his work and asked for exactly the treatment it deserved? These are but some of the questions that the film throws up for you and leaves you pondering.
Comments