“Mank” is directed by David Fincher and features an original screenplay written by his father, Jack Fincher, about the supposed true story of the writing of “Citizen Kane.” “Mank” is nominated for 10 awards this year, more than any other. These are Best Picture, Gary Oldman for Best Actor, Amanda Seyfried for Best Supporting Actress, Best Director, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Makeup and Hairstyling, and Best Sound.
My main issue with this film is David Fincher himself. A bit of backstory, Fincher’s father, Jack Fincher, wrote this screenplay in the 90s before his death in 2003. Of any person to adapt Jack Fincher’s screenplay, his son, a now prolific director, is the obvious choice. Some traits of “Mank” follow Fincher’s filmography thus far, including stories about “great men,” like Mark Zuckerberg from “The Social Network” and the detectives in “Zodiac.” But the biggest issue, and most pressing visually, is Fincher’s choice of filming digitally. Fincher famously loves shooting on digital instead of film, which is generally fine. For most of his films, this gives them a polished and somewhat modern look, paired with Fincher’s infamous blue, green, and yellow color palette. Fincher unsurprisingly chooses to shoot digital, but also black and white. This is to achieve a look reminiscent of “Citizen Kane,” whose writing process the film is based around, but simply does not work. Fincher puts cue marks every 20 minutes or so to imitate that this movie is being shown on old film reels, but only distracts and makes you realize even more that this movie is not on film. The film adds a texture to what would be pure colors in a color film, and Fincher chooses not to add a film filter after filming. This has been common in recent digital black and white films, and without it, Fincher’s characters look unnervingly smooth and completely unreal. I usually am not this focused on the technical aspects of a film, but they were so incredibly distracting that I hardly paid attention to the story of the film. Aside from the very technical details, all other elements are mediocre. Technical wins like costume design or makeup and hairstyling could be fine by me, but an Oldman or Seyfried win seems unearned. I am in no way surprised that this was nominated for so many Oscars– the academy loves old Hollywood, especially “Citizen Kane”– but I will be disappointed in just about any awards it wins this year. – Allie Remhof
To preface my review, I am writing this as someone who had no expectations for this movie. I didn’t know who Herman J. Mankiewicz was, I had never seen “Citizen Kane,” and I don’t watch many old-Hollywood style movies. This movie was entertaining to me in a hypnotic, almost boring kind of way. I felt as though it was made to be appreciated by movie buffs, leaving me, the general public, a bit lost. Based on my basic knowledge of cinematography, I thought the movie was well shot and included some great setting aspects that really separate the life Mankiewicz was living from the grandiose of Hollywood at the time. I am not 100% sure about the accuracy of the story, but it was interesting nonetheless to have a glimpse of the ups and downs of being a Hollywood writer during that time period. My message to viewers like me is if you struggle to pay attention during slow movies, don’t watch Mank, but if you like being transported into history and learning about the lives of influential people, then I recommend this movie. P.S.: You should probably watch “Citizen Kane” first. – Molly Bennett