KRR: So, 'Mank' is Here, and It's an Embarrassment of Riches.

You may be familiar with a man who goes by the name of David Fincher. The world-class filmmaker responsible for such classics as Se7en, Fight Club, The Social Network, Zodiac, and my personal favorite, The Game, has finally reentered our lives after an all-too-long absence. After six years away from the big screen, David Fincher has returned to tell a tale as old as Hollywood (literally) with Mank.

Mank, the long awaited picture brought to our screens by Netflix, has been nearly three decades in the making. Originally written by Fincher's late father in the early '90s, Mank's original production was going to begin in 1998. But at the time no production company would agree to Fincher's vision of a black-and-white film about Old Hollywood. So it was shelved. But now, twenty-two years later and in all its black-and-white glory, Mank has finally arrived. 

Fincher's latest tackles one of Hollywood's first pop culture controversies, the release of Citizen Kane. Mank follows the story of Herman Mankiewicz, Hollywood's favorite drunk and the original writer of Kane, as he writes the script of the "greatest film ever made" and reflects on the true-ish events that inspired its creation: His friendship with William Randolph Hearst and Marion Davies (on which Kane's main characters are based), his falling out with Hollywood studios, and his struggle to get the credit and respect of writing Orson Welles' soon-to-be cinematic masterpiece. It is a self-described "cinnamon roll" of a story, swirling back around itself, serving as a multi-layered tale that reflects not just Mankiewicz's life, but the plot of Citizen Kane and an allegory for how little Hollywood has changed socially and politically. 

If that sounds like a lot, believe me, it is. Mank's only restraint is its two hour and eleven minute runtime. Everything else is as grandiose and hedonistic as the time period it represents. It is the spectacle of spectacles, the brightest flashbulb in the twinkling sign reading: "Best Films of 2020." It is Mank. 

-MILD SPOILERS AHEAD-

As with all Fincher movies, Mank offers up too much to comprehend in one viewing. Zodiac's intricacies are more elegant on rewatch, just as the foreshadowing in Fight Club is more apparent after you know the twist. Mank is no exception. In my opinion, its most endearing quality - the extravagance of narrative and set pieces - may also be its biggest flaw. 

I had to watch Mank twice to even begin feeling like I understood the entire story, and even then I knew that there were things I missed, moments left underappreciated, and more viewings down the line. The most common critique of the film I've seen is that there's too much going on, and I'm inclined to agree. The story is especially difficult to follow at times if you don't already know the "true" history, the names of characters come flying at you nonstop, and a fundamental understanding (and prerequisite screening) of Citizen Kane is required to catch all of Mank's beats. There's probably only one person in the world who knows what's going on in every second of the film, and that's David Fincher. 

I bet Sorkin is jealous of how good they walk-n-talk in this.

And yet, Mank is as captivating as it is confounding. Blair, notably NOT a movie person, has never seen Citizen Kane. They're largely unaware of William Randolph Hearst's impact on American media and pop culture. They probably couldn't pick Orson Welles out of a lineup. In other words, they are by no means a student of classic Hollywood. But - and this is a big but - they were as enthralled with Mank as I was, and they were just as entertained. Because at its worst you may be lost, but you're having a damn good time. That's because Mank inhabits the upper echelon of filmmaking.

While detractors will point to the screenplay as flawed, they won't utter a single grievance about the script. It's watertight. Every line sings and every joke hits. "You're not making an opera," Mank is told at one point. He pauses and retorts, "But I am making an opera." You and Fincher both. It's damn near a miracle that they were able to create a script befitting one of Hollywood's greatest script maestros. But it isn't just the words that are beautiful in Mank. Everything else is too.

New releases in black-and-white often feel tired and unnecessary to me, most of the time. With few exceptions - A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night, Roma, Time - modern movies filmed in black-and-white don't work for me. (Sorry The Artist.) Mank, however, is one of those few exceptions. The lighting (and its contrast) is spectacular, the cinematography is seamless, and the costumes jump off the screen not because of their color (obviously) but because of their decadence. This is the rare homage to Old Hollywood that feels like it fits in with the crowd. Pair those technical aspects with a nonstop perfect score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross of Nine Inch Nails and some wonderous set dressing, and you have a beautiful film worth watching, regardless of script and story.

Is this Mank or The Making of Mank? Watch and find out!

While the real winners of Mank may be the people behind the camera, much credit is due to those in front of it. Gary Oldman's depiction of the titular character is one of the best performances of the year by a country mile. Alongside him, Amanda Seyfried (of Mean Girls fame) steals the show as Marion Davies. I will literally riot if the Oscars snub her performance in this film. Even when silent in her final scene, her eyes are electric and the viewers gravitate towards her. Charles Dance (you know him as Tywin Lannister from Game of Thrones) goes toe-to-toe with Oldman as W.R.H., delivering one of the best moments in the film. You'll know it when you see it. The rest of the cast is filled out with stellar performances from Lily Collins, Tom Pelphrey, Jamie McShane, Sam Troughton, Ferdinand Kingsley, Tuppence Middleton, Tom Burke, and I shit you not, Bill Nye the Science Guy. 

OH AND ARLISS HOWARD AS L.B. MAYER!!! An astounding performance!! He kills it! An absolute legend.

Give her the Oscar. Now. Give it to her NOW.

There's so much going on in Mank that if you focus on the less-than-perfect aspects of the film, you could leave disappointed. But, if you focus on what's going right, it's hard to think of it as anything less than one of 2020's best projects. It is, in my honest opinion, an instant classic, a movie that demands multiple rewatches and rewards you for doing so. And just as it serves as a reference guide for Citizen Kane, it is also endlessly self-referential, which becomes even clearer on rewatch.

Besides the, "But I am writing an opera" line, Mank is filled with subtle nods to itself. The most obvious one is, "You cannot capture a man's entire life in two hours. All you can hope is to leave the impression of one." Mank certainly does that. Though, I don't think that line describes the movie best. That honor goes to a little phrase uttered by Mr. Houseman after he finishes reading the completed script for Kane. He looks Mankiewicz in the eye, raises a glass, and says, "It's an embarrassment of riches."

I'll drink to that.

No truer phrase could be muttered - not just about Citizen Kane - about Mank. It is overly beautiful, overly written, overly political, overly intoxicated, overly nostalgic. Fincher clearly didn't trim around the edges, as that must've been difficult since his father wrote it. Instead he just pushed those boundaries away, creating as much room in this work as possible. It's been said that he filmed the climactic dinner scene over a hundred times, pushing Oldman, Dance, Seyfried, and Howard to their breaking points. Fincher, always the control freak, was searching for perfection through Mank's decadence. I'd say for that scene, at the least, he found it.

To watch Mank is to drown in the luxury of Old Hollywood, start to finish. But once it ends - if you're anything like me - you'll want to jump right back in; and, believe me, it feels even better the next time.

Mank, you drunk bastard, I love you.

Mank KRR: 9.5/10