Mank Movie Review

A Disappointment

David Fincher is perhaps one of my favorite Directors, so I was excited going into watching Mank, but I had severe disappointment coming out.

I'm going to let IMDB describe the plot for me, "1940. Film studio RKO hires 24-year-old wunderkind Orson Welles under a contract that gives him full creative control of his movies. For his first film he calls in washed up alcoholic Herman J Mankiewicz to write the screenplay. That film is Citizen Kane and this is the story of how it was written."

Mank is a hot mess of a film and I have no idea why it's getting so much attention. The acting is stiff, the music is anachronistic, the camera work is insulting, and this movie has no sense of pacing. This is without a doubt the worst David Fincher film I've seen.

From my understanding, Mank was made to emulate the 1930s style of filmmaking, but I've also heard some say it was 1940s. (MINOR SPOILER) Since most of the film takes place in a series of flashbacks in the 1930s I'm going to treat it as such for the era. 

Gary Oldman portrays the lead character and his performance is flat. There is no life to Mank, you barely get a sense of who the man was. It's very monotonous throughout and that's so dang disappointing because Gary Oldman is such a good actor. 

Amanda Seyfried portrays Marion Davies, and her performance is decent enough, but she isn't in the film long enough to garner a connection with the audience. I think Amanda Seyfried was undersized in the making of Mank.

The worst part about Mank was that it was boring. I blame this due to the pacing. The pacing of this film is also over the place. It's fast, it's slow, it's fast, it's slow, it's a slog. From someone as talented as David Fincher I expected more.

I'm going to get into some more technical complaints about the film, if this doesn't interest you dear reader, then feel free to skip to the final paragraph, otherwise come along! Let's tear into this gosh dang thing.

I've heard some people online say that this was a "love letter to old Hollywood" but in reality it's a different type of letter known as a "Dear John" letter. If Mank was supposed to be made in the old style, then it should have been made in the old style. There are hints of Old Hollywood throughout, but the only go halfway with it and never fully embrace the richness of 1930s cinema.

Let's start off with the sound design. Did anyone else notice the echo when most of the characters were talking? I know that 1930s cinema wasn't as crisp and clear as modern sound, but Mank was nowhere close to what it should have been.

They should have filmed Mank in 1.375:1 aspect ratio or more commonly known as Academy Ratio. This aspect ratio was the standard in 30s filmmaking. Mank was filmed in 2.39:1 which is more akin to widescreen. I have no idea why David Fincher decided to shoot Mank in a later aspect ratio than what was the aspect ratio for the time his film is set in. This was an easy and obvious choice that he failed to make.

Now getting on to the soundtrack. This sounds nothing like a 30s soundtrack in the slightest. Some of the tracks sound like something that would come out of Alfred Hitchcock's later works. It's amazing how anachronistic the music is. If they wanted to go dark with some of the tracks then they should have taken inspiration from someone like Cab Calloway.

The image quality of the Mank looks way too modern to be a 30s flick. You do get the occasional noise or crackle, but the image looks too damn smooth. Also, what's with the lack of long shots? There are tons of long shots in 30s films. The modern style of the film's shots don't seem to fit the 30s tone.

David Fincher's cinematographer, Erik Messerschmidt was quoted as saying, "It was an exploration,' added Messerschmidt. 'I was worried about being seduced by the opportunity and lured in side directions of a noir-expressive type of lighting. I didn’t want to distract from the story.'" I remember at least one scene in Mank that was filmed like a Noir style film. Granted there were a few film noir movies in the 30s, but the 30s are not known for their noirs.

There are a few optional things they could have done while filming Mank. The first being actually filming on 35mm film. And don't give me that excuse, "it would have been too hard" or "it would have been too limiting" because Tarantino shot The Hateful Eight on 65mm film only a few years ago. Yes you still can shoot on film, and a man like David Fincher could have easily gotten his hands on period accurate film. The second gets more of a pass than the first, but it would have been fun to see all the actors speak in a Transatlantic Accent. This would have been a fun thing to consider, and most centennially many films from the 30s didn't use the accent, but it would have been fun to see it used. 

There are some good ideas in Mank and they did use some old film techniques but they only ever go halfway with the project and it could have been so much more, especially for a passion project. Mank is a technical failure, and a failure of storytelling.

final score: 2/5