MOVIE REVIEW By Lucas Allen: ‘Mank’ is stylish, but slow

Mank
(Netflix)

By Lucas Allen

In his first feature since 2014’s “Gone Girl,” director David Fincher turns his eye towards the Golden Age of Hollywood with a true-to-life Hollywood story. Written by the director’s late father, Jack Fincher, “Mank” is not about making a classic movie, but a realization of it from the man who first wrote it. It’s also a story of power and corruption, as well as the risks of exposing all that with the magic of art.
After surviving a car accident in 1940 Hollywood, screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) is on the verge of ending his career because of his alcoholism. He tries to recover with the help of his young secretary, Rita (Lily Collins). He’s hired by the then-25-year-old Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to write a script for the actor/director’s first film for RKO that will eventually become “Citizen Kane.” Mank sees it as an opportunity to create a story about the rise and fall of a rich magnate, and based the lead character on newspaper titan William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance). Despite the broken leg and his drinking, the creative juices continue to flow with little concern especially from Welles’ colleague John Houseman (Sam Troughton).
Flashbacks throughout the film reveal Mank’s inspirations as well as his interaction with the reclusive Hearst. In the 1930s, when he worked for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) at MGM with brother Joseph (Tom Pelphrey) and fellow writer Charles Lederer (Joseph Cross), he struck up a loving friendship with actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried), who was under Hearst’s control. However, the writer’s constant drinking and partying threatens his career, while his new script presents further problems.
The most positive thing about this film is how authentic it is to the look and feel of Hollywood’s Golden Age. The black and white cinematography and the use of film scratches and reel changes makes it look like an old film about that period. With it being widescreen, making it like a 1950s Hollywood period piece actually works no matter if it’s intentional or not. Either way, the look of the film compliments the locations and set design in a timeless fashion. It’s more of a pleasing film to watch for any fan of old-school cinema.
While the movie is certainly well-made, its script seems to be more interested in the politics of the time than Hollywood itself. In the flashbacks, there’s a major subplot with studio moguls using their powers to make socialist Upton Sinclair (TV personality Bill Nye The Science Guy) lose the election for state governor. This would’ve been fine for a thriller, but when it’s used in a movie about a struggling screenwriter, it slows down the pacing considerably. It doesn’t help that there’s too much dialogue that doesn’t carry much weight and doesn’t add to the entertainment value. Maybe a solid rewrite could’ve toned down the political angle and concentrated more on the script writing process.
However, the actors remain steady and professional in their roles. Oldman is in his usual high commitment, delivering another excellent performance as a brilliant but flawed personality with a knack for showmanship. Seyfried deserves an Oscar nomination looking and acting much like a 1930s starlet with both a physical and an emotional presence. The only questionable piece of casting is Burke looking and sounding absolutely nothing like Welles. It should’ve worked better if the legendary wunderkind himself was shown from behind or in shadow and his voice was done by notable Welles impersonator Maurice LaMarche.
“Mank” wins points in its look, style and some great acting, but its sluggish pace and unnecessary political subplot makes it difficult to recommend. Maybe this movie will appeal to you more if you enjoyed the political chaos of another Netflix film, “The Trial of the Chicago 7.” But if Hollywood filmmaking is what you’re more interested in, then read up on the history of “Citizen Kane” and its controversies as that film remains a cultural milestone which not even Hearst himself could destroy.
THE MOVIE’S RATING: R (for some language)
THE CRITIC’S RATING: 2.5 Stars (Out of Four)