Mank

Scott Hardie: “It ruled.”

I wasn't sure that the world needed another version of the making of Citizen Kane, especially one that has a loose relationship with documented facts. But this film is better seen as a character study than a historical recreation. Gary Oldman is very sympathetic as a flawed, contemptuous, lousy drunk and gambler of a man who happens to be a brilliant wit and soulful poet. The movie's best plot thread is the slow moral awakening of a man who didn't think that he had a soul left to lose. I found myself stirred by Mank's growing conscience, culminating in an amazing dinner-party scene where he finally cannot bear to keep his mouth shut any longer, provoking the perfect response from his host.

I'm shocked that the screenplay is not among the film's many Oscar nominations (one more than Citizen Kane itself), given not just that it's such a perfect balance of humor and pathos, but also given its origin, that David Fincher held onto his deceased father's manuscript for decades until Hollywood finally agreed to produce it. This is a screenwriter's kind of movie, and it happens to be about screenwriters, so I thought it would be a shoo-in for that particular Oscar.

You don't need to know anything about Citizen Kane or William Randolph Hearst or 1930s Hollywood to see this, but it would sure help, because the movie is dense with references that enhance the experience. Having visited Hearst Castle on vacation a few years ago, I especially enjoyed seeing some of those grand rooms brought to life on film. The movie's recreation of the era cleverly extends to its title design and even to its trailer. An enormous amount of care and effort went into making this movie just right (including Fincher's notorious preference for endless repeated takes), and it shows.This review contains spoilers. Reveal it.

− April 12, 2021 • more by Scott • log in or register to reply