I am so utterly disappointed by my lack of enthusiasm for this film, which was my most anticipated of 2020, that I am willing to give it another shot, a fourth viewing, in the coming week. Fincher is such a great visualist, and his peering inside the mind of the genius Herman Mankiewicz —filled with innumerable alcoholic blackouts and illuminating discoveries— feels so out of step with 2020, but something tells me it’ll play better over time. That’s why my frustrating grappling with this movie is a losing battle, for the time being. “Mank” develops quite well Mankiewicz as a character, albeit a static one completely out of step with the hivemind around him. He’s an engaging protagonist, but one lacking the ripple effects needed to enhance the narrative and the cast of characters around him. The characterization is not especially interesting when compared to the massive stakes at hand (the makings of the “greatest movie of all-time). Of course, the subject of the film is, in essence, about the set of events that would inspire the making of “Citizen Kane” and “Mank” tries to do that in the style of Welles’ film; in black and white, using a cinnamon-rolled, and flashback-induced story. However, in “Citizen Kane” we get numerous opinions (and thus a multi-facetted portrait) of Charles Foster Kane. In “Mank” we see all the action through the eyes of Herman Mankiewicz himself and that results in a less hefty movie. Contribute Hire me
Advertise Donate Team Contact Privacy Policy
