Written by Jack Fincher
Directed by David Fincher
Starring Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins and Tuppence Middleton
Running time: 2 hours and 11 minutes
MPAA Rating: R for language 

by Rosalie Kicks, Old Sport

“Tell the story you know…”

David Fincher’s first feature flick in six years, Mank is a lot of things. For one, I believe it is important to note the word itself “mank”, is british slang for something that is disgusting. Knowing this and after watching this brief yet epic, fragment in Herman J. Mankiewicz’s (Gary Oldman) life left me finding this nickname to be rather fitting. This is not to discredit the film in the slightest. Characters such as this, not only make life less boring but also serve for an extremely thrilling tale. When you mix the golden age of Hollywood with Fincher’s powerful use of the camera to show an environment, along with his use of lighting design, well, this is a recipe for greatness. This may be a bit bold, but I feel after a couple watches, this may bump Zodiac down a notch on my favorite Finchy flick list. 

At the heart of this mid 1930s to 1940s narrative is renowned, unkempt screenwriter Herman J. and his bumbling, often drunken navigation through the Hollywood studio system. He is taken to a remote guest house outside of Los Angeles to work on a script that inevitably would become his opus, Citizen Kane (the famously well known, quasi-biographical picture of media mogul William Randolph Hearst). Herman, otherwise known as Mank, is initially given ninety days to complete the script. This deadline is instantly cut down to sixty days after a steely call with one named, Orson Welles (Tom Burke). The story weaves social dramatics, political scandals and wondrous fables of a now defunct, whimsical Tinseltown. 

Like most biopics, it is important to proceed with caution. I, myself, have fallen victim to the razzle dazzle and charms of Hollywood (please see: My Darling Vivian aka my new understanding of music biopic Walk The Line) in previously released docudramas. Mank utilizes a non-chronological method of storytelling, similar to Citizen Kane. Scenes are often intercut with a screenplay header to provide the location and time that appears, as if being typed from an Underwood. Much like Mank’s pickled mind, the chronicle of events is a bit scrambled, showing his various encounters with what is believed to be his script’s focus, William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and Marion Davies (an exceptional performance by, Amanda Seyfried). This should not cause fretting, as I found, over time, the dates became somewhat meaningless as I was immersed deeper in the turbulent yarn that was being spun.

As I mentioned out of the gate, this is not a story that has one centralized focus. I feel it is best to imagine it as a ball of string that may have gotten tangled up with other skeins. Essentially, there is not just one definitive piece that will get you to the center. Depending on which string or, in this case, side one chooses to go with, will reveal a different end. It is quite often that Hollywood finds itself as a backdrop to intriguing, gripping and, well, scandalous stories such as this. In this particular saga, there is the question of who did in fact write Citizen Kane while, simultaneously, it depicts Upton Sinclair (Bill Nye) attempting political upheaval in California. 

What makes this picture so interesting, is the way in which the political story is tied into what honestly is a blip in Hollywood history. In 1934, Upton Sinclair ran for governor of California on a platform to end poverty in the golden state. Unfortunately, he was defeated by problems that plague us today: corporate interests. Wellll, and the help of some phony news reels cobbled together by Hollywood. Business men, especially the studio moguls, did not want to see a socialist masking as a democrat finding himself in the prestigious office of governor. 

In regards to the writing of Citizen Kane, Fincher depicts that Mank’s live-in nurse at the remote shelter, Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) was responsible for taking the dictation, which is inevitably how the words made it to the page. Frankly, I suspect there even seemed to be somewhat of a collaboration happening here, as she often seemed to trigger light bulbs for Mank. This is backed up by a New Yorker article “Raising Kane” published by film critic, Pauline Kael in 1971. More importantly though, Kael articulates the moment in which the script found itself with not just a single author (Welles), but a shared credit with Mank. 

The movie paints a picture similar to what Kael describes. There was an understanding that the picture Mank was writing would serve as a dog and pony show for Welles to showcase his vast abilities as writer, director, star, producer etc. Upon completing the script, though, Mank realized he had a hit on his hands, which was only reinforced after people read the three-hundred plus pages and he’d received mountains of praise. This caused misgivings about allowing sole writing credit to Welles. Of course, there are two sides to every story, as one can witness in another film about Citizen Kane, RKO 281. 

In reflecting about this film afterwards, I could not help but wonder if Mankiewicz’s story was really used as a way to send a larger message. Like how Citizen Kane was more than just a story about a media tycoon, Mank is a picture about social injustice, corruptness and the way in which our lives are run by the few. While studio heads spent their time worried about the election results, Herman J. Mank, a man who spent the majority of his life three sheets to the wind, wrote a sensational motion picture with anti-fascist rhetoric, inevitably being produced by the same men trying to control us, which is pretty darn slick. 

Mank is available to watch this Friday, December 4 exclusively on Netflix.