David Fincher’s “Mank:” A Grand Disappointment

By Josh Lanmcan ‘24

Herman Mankiewicz was a disappointment to his family and bosses. A brilliant playwright who moved to Hollywood during the beginning of the sound period, he succumbed to alcoholism, only writing one great script in his life. But that script became “Citizen Kane,” a film that many proclaim to be the greatest ever made. Similar to the feelings his family holds for him, I too was disappointed by “Mank;” not the man, but the new movie, which is about him and his trials and tribulations while writing his greatest, and only great, script. 

I mentioned before that Mankiewicz was an alcoholic, so the obvious choice by the screenwriter would be to make the movie about him writing the script while trying to overcome his addiction. “Mank” does adhere to that overused formula and also includes his searching through his memories for creative inspiration to write his script.
​Mankiewicz finally settles on his tumultuous relationship with famous newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. This is another obvious, yet unnecessarily poor choice, considering that Charles Foster Kane, the protagonist of “Citizen Kane,” was supposed to have been inspired by Hearst. Jack Fincher, writer of “Mank,” chooses to explore the writing of “Citizen Kane” by focusing on that creative inspiration and, in a great choice, has nearly the entire movie take place in flashback, just like “Citizen Kane.”
Those flashbacks are easily the most interesting parts of the film as they explore the intersection of Hollywood filmmaking and politics through Mank’s eyes, a topic that becomes the central theme of the film as the flashbacks take up such a large portion of it.
Specifically, the center point of these ideas comes when the film focuses on the 1934 California gubernatorial elections, an interesting part of history that has received much more focus due to this film. That election, which notably had famed socialist Upton Sinclair running in the democratic position, featured the big Hollywood studios creating fake newsreels in support of the republican candidate, with funding provided by Hearst, in an obvious showcase of the film’s main theme.
The conflict in this part of the film comes when Mank, a studio writer and part of Hearst’s inner circle, chooses to support Sinclair in the elections. But the most emotionally engaging part is the conflict that the director of the fake newsreels, another Sinclair supporter, feels. The climax of that arc provides Mank with enough hatred for Hearst and the Hollywood studios to inspire “Citizen Kane.”
Now I mentioned that this small section of the film is the most emotionally engaging part, which is odd, considering that the strongest emotions felt during the film should be for the main character and his conflict. That is the problem at the core of “Mank:” the film does not make you care about its titular character. 
The film constantly insists on his importance by having him at the center of everything without communicating why he is so important, causing it to seem vain and self-important. I’ve constantly asked myself why this movie is even about Mank, and why it can’t just be an engaging drama set during the classical Hollywood period with the 1934 elections at its center. I simply don’t understand.
The disappointment I felt while watching this was not due to a lack of investment in the main character but because of my unfulfilled expectation that the movie would be much greater than it is. I had this expectation because “Mank” is directed by David Fincher, someone who, over the last 25 years, has proven himself not only as one of the greatest directors of this generation, but one of the greatest ever. His films, which include “Fight Club,” “Seven,” “Zodiac” and “The Social Network,” are so well directed that they inspire jealousy even for those with no directorial aspirations. And because his most recent film, “Gone Girl,” was his best, I was expecting a lot more from “Mank” than what I received. 
His films usually focus on the consequences of a character attempting to gain some sort of control and feature themes of power and obsession, such as the quest that Jake Gyllenhaal’s cartoonist goes on in “Zodiac.” They usually feature brutal and bloody violence, like the fights in “Fight Club,” and often have severely distorted points of view, with entire scenes of “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” taking place in a time view consistent with the protagonist’s backward aging journey. But “Mank” does not feature any of his usual trademarks, an unsurprising fact considering he likely made the film because his father wrote it before dying.
There is one Fincher trademark here, that being a score from the Nine Inch Nails’ band leaders Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. While their compositions usually have an industrial feel, the score for “Mank” harkens less to their previous work and more towards Bernard Herrmann, the composer of “Citizen Kane.” The score, while far from their best, is still great, and ends up being the best part of the film. But even then, it is still far from their best, and, fitting in with the running theme of this review, is slightly disappointing. 
But even though ‘Mank’ features few Fincher hallmarks, is it still a good film regardless?
Yes, but it is not as good as it could be, and the flaws are not because it doesn’t fit in with the rest of Fincher’s work, but because the viewer simply doesn’t care about what’s going on. Viewers will leave ‘Mank’ nonplussed and probably won’t remember what happened in it a week later. And yet I still enjoyed it, and I would recommend it to those who love “Citizen Kane” and are Fincher completionists.
But for those who do choose to see it, the most important piece of advice I can offer is to have seen “Citizen Kane” beforehand, as “Mank” expects the equivalent of a college degree in the knowledge of it. At least then, you’ll get to see a true masterpiece and not a film that merely thinks it is one. 
7/10