Best Picture nominee #4. I started out a little unsure of this one, and I maintain that it’s too long, but it won me over quickly enough. A really interesting filming achievement featuring impressive writing/directing and some fine performances.
In 1940, Orson Welles enlists washed-up screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz to write the screenplay for Citizen Kane. As the battered, alcoholic Mank struggles to get the film written under Welles’s punishing time table, he reflects on his life and the fraught relationship with William Randolph Hearst that informs his crafting of Kane.
I admit that I began the film with a slight chip on my shoulder. It’s the sort of navel-gazing, very white story about classic Hollywood that the Academy just loves to recognize, and I was prepared for a well-made movie that was more impressed with itself than I was. However, it didn’t take long before I picked up on the interesting devices being employed to tell the story. This isn’t just a biopic about Herman Mankiewicz or a dramatization of the creation of Citizen Kane. It’s a film that tells those stories very much in the style of an old Hollywood drama that goes miles beyond the black-and-white. From the sweeping opening credits, we see how devotedly director David Fincher has recreated the filmmaking of that era. He mimics the sound, the camera work, the scoring, and more, right down to the slight pop that accompanies the changing of an imaginary reel. With his scrupulous attention to detail, it’s easy to see why he’s nominated for his work here.
Similarly, the screenplay (by Fincher’s late father, Jack Fincher) is filled with dialogue that alternately sparkles and towers. I love the peppy, fast-talking banter of the screenwriters and studio execs, and the more solemn scenes are imbued with such romance and weight. It’s a very conspicuously-written movie, but in a way that enhances it. That said, while the dialogue is really well-done, the plot definitely drags in places and it doesn’t quite come together as it should. While I see what Jack Fincher is doing with the non-linear structure, what’s happening onscreen is never as interesting as how it’s being depicted.
The actors join in on the old-Hollywood recreation thing, all of them broader than life but compelling within that. Gary Oldman, nominated for his work here, is reliably good as Mank, but it’s not my favorite of his. Best Supporting Actress nominee Amanda Seyfried, meanwhile, really makes her role as Marion Davies sing, and the film also features fine performances from the likes of Charles Dance (he’ll always be Tywin Lannister to me) and Tom Burke (who I still remember best from State of Play,) who turns in a strong Orson Welles impression. Also, I’m not very familiar with Ferdinand Kingsley (the son of Sir Ben, per IMDb,) but he really keeps my attention as studio “boy wonder” Irving Thalberg.
One thing I want to mention is the more prominent female characters in the movie. This is undoubtedly Mank’s story, and his world is populated by scores of white guys in suits, but even though the women have smaller roles, I like how pretty much all of them are portrayed. Seyfried’s Marion is a very self-aware millionaire’s mistress, observant and clever with depth that people wouldn’t necessarily expect from her, while “poor” Sarah, Mank’s long-suffering wife, is clear-eyed about what her marriage is like and how she operates within it. Meanwhile, the two women helping Mank while he writes the screenplay, dictationist Rita and caregiver Frieda (Mank is laid up after a car accident,) are both allowed dimension and agency despire their subordinate positions to a very strong-willed man. I compare it to something like The Irishman last year, in which the few women present had absolutely no bearing on the proceedings. This is how a male-centric story can still portray women with complexity and dignity, allowing them to shine in their brief roles instead of using them mainly as props. It also reminded me of some of the strong female characters who’ve surprised me in old movies, like Betty in Sunset Boulevard or Lisa in Rear Window; agency for women isn’t a new concept.
Warnings
Smoking/drinking, language, sexual references, and strong thematic elements (including suicide.)
No comments:
Post a Comment