A convo about "Mank."

Discord chats, tweets, gifs, and memes.

Much of the film world has been waiting for Mank, David Fincher’s retelling of the making of the cinematic classic, Citizen Kane, and 11th feature film. For the occasion, Andy and I fired up the #general channel in the Discord and traded thoughts — Nic

---

Nic

i fell asleep before the end

Andy

Lol. Here’s the thing: I’m sure you’re in good company. Nature of the beast these days. It’s interesting with all these Netflix movies from big directors lately - they all have a kind of drawn-out, meandering, puzzle box quality that a) lends itself to repeat engagement because you’re not going to get everything the first time (or just fall asleep before the end) and b) would probably be more, idk, “successful” as first viewings in a theater setting.

Other example: I saw The Irishman at the Egyptian when it showed for a week or whatever. SUPER rewarding as a theatrical experience on such a huge screen.

Really got lost in the story and felt like I had lived this guy’s whole life by the end, which is also kind of what the movie is about. Incredibly effective and moving and the theater setting really serviced what Scorsese was trying to achieve there. And because I saw it in that way I’ve really enjoyed revisiting it on Netflix in snippets, which I’ve done a lot.

Most people I know who only watched The Irishman on Netflix either never finished it or watched it over like three days or had a couple false starts before finally watching it all the way through. Fulfills Netflix’s goals of increasing engagement but kind of depleted the movie to some extent. But I also think it can be a rewarding movie to explore on a streaming platform at home over time, if you’re really into it.

Point is, I imagine Mank will be a similar experience for most people who interface with it amidst everything else they’re interfacing with on Netflix. Not attributing value to that either way, just interesting to me that these directors who have transitioned from tradish Hollywood studios to Netflix are now occupying this weird no-mans-land space with their new movies, if that makes sense.

I’m sure this is the long, laborious response you were hoping for when you said “i fell asleep before the end ” lol

Nic

haha, no, this is great. lemme finish it and come back to you

[Sometime later]

So, I finished Mank and I liked it!

I think you're right about it losing some of the grandeur of "cinema" that comes with being in a theater. I think that some of that just can't translate to watching at home.

I don't know if that's good or bad, or some sort of indictment on David Fincher or the movie, but you're probably right that being in a theater and being more in a "we're going to watch a movie" vibe probably helps. I feel like going to the theater is like surrendering to a film and committing to the experience, where being at home is more on your terms, so it's easier to be distracted or resist a movie (I'm always resisting, Andy).

anyway, it was a lot of fun. I really loved the Herman Mankiewicz character more than I thought I would going in. I felt like I already knew that he was an under-appreciated genius alcoholic from film school, and the idea of spending 2 hours with that person felt potentially punishing -- but he was way more fun than I expected!

Andy

That was a big surprise/takeaway for me as well. The Mank character was, like, deeply enjoyable to go on the journey with in a way I hadn’t expected.

And Oldman was GREAT. I’m generally not a huge fan of his (hit or miss for me) but he really made me love the character in this one

Also thought Amanda Seyfried was great and the Marion Davies character was really well written. She’s an interesting, integral player through the whole thing and the relationship with Mank was more interesting than I thought it would be.

Curious, how did you feel about the Orson Welles scenes?

Nic

Underwhelming.

To me, he's the secret "villain" of the movie. The person who I think hurt Mank the most. But all that was really underwritten and quietly (not) resolved.

I have more thoughts, but they get into other thoughts, so I want to know: what did you think of the Welles scenes?

Andy

I felt a little underwhelmed by them as well, but I also liked them. I think that’s largely because any attempts at portraying or replicating Welles will inevitably be underwhelming. That said, thought Tom Burke did as good a job as could be done playing Welles. I didn’t really see him in the movie as the secret villain per se, but I think you’re onto something there. His position in the film actually made me think of Hannibal Lecter in Manhunter or even The Silence of the Lambs. He’s got little screen time and he’s not really the villain of the main story, but he’s kind of an omniscient, menacing specter over everything. The movie starts and ends with him.

Sean Fennessey @SeanFennessey

The MANK Discourse has been tabled for The Nolan Discourse. Helluva year.

Also, I listened to the Big Picture on Citizen Kane earlier this week and Adam Nayman pointed out that Welles looks like David Fincher in it, which he totally does, so I couldn’t stop thinking about that. What might Fincher be saying about himself as a director in relation to the writer, especially since he’s showing Hollywood from the writer’s perspective?

Bottom line, I’m not sure if the Welles stuff was underwritten or intentionally sparse, but it definitely seemed, idk, flawed? Will have to watch again to be sure.

Now that we got that out of the way, any thoughts on cinematography, black and white, lighting, etc? Seems like opinions on all that are already strong and varying.

Nic

I think that feeds into a larger criticism I have for the film: it was style over substance, and it hurt the movie.

To me, the stylization of making it feel like watching Citizen Kane wasn't necessary. And the 100% focus on Mank made it impossible to see the story from any other character's POV and made the story more shallow.

I think I'm also a viewer who is kind of immune to that kind of thing. I didn't get any kind of enjoyment of it looking/feeling like watching Citizen Kane. It was cute for a minute and then I just felt like it was just in the way. Like reading a novel about real people and the font is all old timey and hard to read.

like, imagine reading a book and this is the font:

I haven't read / listened to any of the commentary yet, but I have Vox's Alissa Wilkinson and Richard Brody of The New Yorker reviews tabbed right next to this discord channel.

I think the feeling I felt after watching it was that the two things I found the most interesting was 1. how Hollywood got into the business of propaganda, and 2. the drama over the authorship of this story we're seeing. But that was partially obscured by the need to tell Mank's story and make him into this tragic clown genius character that feels straight out of Shakespeare, and to tell that story as stylized as possible. It felt a little like Forrest Gump, where you get brief glimpses of recognizable history, but only through the lens of this one character.

Noel Ceballos @noelceballos_

Mank (David Fincher, 2020)

I felt it would have been a much more dramatic and provocative film if he had allowed himself to approach it with the same cold, calculating eye as Social Network or Gone Girl. And worried less about making it a profile of one character, and more of an ensemble mystery with overlapping accounts/POVs and flash backs and forwards.

I know I'm essentially rewriting the movie and totally changing the focus (like an asshole), but that's what I left wishing!

But I guess I don't want to really leave on that note, because it makes it seem like it was a bad film, which it wasn't. I liked it and thought it was fun. Gary Oldman as a tragic clown genius character straight out of Shakespeare is pretty fucking fun and makes for a great watch. I'm seeing this as a fine entry into what I'm calling a revisionist history trend I'm noticing directors go with Blackkklansman and Da 5 Bloods and Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

I'm curious to hear your thoughts and to read the coverage and I guess see where ^^^^ lands in all of that.

Andy

Goddamn I had so many similar thoughts relating to everything you touched on. Where to start?? First off, I'm thrilled you also thought of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Seems like all these directors of a certain age are making big, sort of final statements on Hollywood and their place in it -- all while the industry as we know it draws it's last breath (I think PTA's current production is also a Hollywood period piece).

Which I think is why the black & white and the Citizen Kane-nodding visuals ultimately worked for me. It’s funny, I can totally see the color version of this movie and it’s beautiful. And I get why people have some issues with the black & white and all the fake film-stock shit, etc. thrown in there when the photography itself is, like, sooooo digital and the aspect ratio isn't period-specific. It’s kind of a jarring choice, but I tend to defer to Fincher’s aesthetic impulses because I’m aware of how relentlessly purposeful and meticulous he is with literally EVERYTHING. Mank is like the intersecting entity between reality and story and we're stepping inside his mind, or at least that’s what I got out of the cinematography and the Kane visual cues and fade-to-black cuts and all that.

Visually and otherwise, I think Mank contains all of David Fincher’s idiosyncrasies as a director, only applied to something he’s never quite done before. As you’ve already pointed out, this movie was legit fun. It was a real “writer’s movie,” which I think accounts for both of us enjoying it the way we did. It’s also hard to make a good writer’s movie because the act of writing is so anti-cinematic, but Mank indubitably succeeds in that regard. And as you also pointed out, the protagonist is such a delightful, Shakespearean hang. There’s also a humor, wit, and whimsy to the whole thing that really sings. It’s exciting to now know what a “fun” Fincher joint looks like.

Granted, there’s still plenty of Fincher-brand cynicism and loneliness to be had in this film, especially when it comes to the political and historical statements it’s making. Honestly it’s incredible to watch a movie this big from a major director that goes all in on investigating the terror of The Hollywood system just as Hollywood is on the verge annihilation. It’s also quite satisfying to watch Fincher be so direct about the way money and media ALWAYS squash socialist movements in this country, especially after we JUST watched that happen in real life. Honestly the 2020 of it all is quite staggering.

And yes, this is a now-establishment filmmaker commenting on all that, and Fincher’s whole “anti-establishmentarian working in the system” vibe doesn’t carry the weight it once did. But he successfully skewers the Hollywood machine in this movie and ACTUALLY speaks to working-class politics, which is so goddamn rare.

Man, I need to watch it again, like immediately. Seems like a lot of people (who like it) are saying it's a real must-watch-twice thing, which I'm definitely feeling right now.

Nic

yeah, I totally see where you're coming from when it comes to it being an exploration on Hollywood and the writing process, which Hollywood loves to make movies about mostly for themselves and cinephiles.

I think Vox's Alissa Wilkinson (positive) review kind of sums it up for me:

I can’t imagine many Fincher-heads being thrilled by Mank, though. No serial killers, no fistfights, no bloody murders. Its target audience is almost impressively niche: Cinephiles, film critics, and people who are deeply interested in the history of Hollywood circa 1940. It’s not that a person outside that audience can’t watch and, in broad strokes, understand the story of Mank. It’s that to an extent, the film feels like inside baseball.

I think I'm somewhat of viewer with a weird, guilty conscious about being a "cinephile" and feeling like something was made for my enjoyment and not for others. I don't know, maybe I should let myself enjoy things more.

Ben "Ben Pack” Pack @PackBenPack

I refuse to learn what Mank is

I think we should wrap this convo up for the sake of getting this to the readers.

BUT FIRST, I'm going to have us place this in our Fincher ranking. And I'm not going to let either of us worm out of it. So, on first view, where does this fall in your Fincher rankings?

Andy

As far as ranking, off the top of my head here’s about where I’d put it...

1. Zodiac

2. Se7en

3. Fight Club

4. The Social Network

5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

6. Gone Girl

7. Mank

8. Panic Room

9. Alien 3

10. Benjamin Button

Didn’t include Mindhunter (which I’d put at about 5 if I did) and haven’t seen The Game.

Nic

Mine, after looking at a list of his films on wikipedia, goes:

1. Fight Club

2. The Social Network

3. Zodiac

4. Seven

5. Gone Girl

6. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

7. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

8. Mank

9. The Game

10. Alien 3

Haven't seen: Panic Room.

Ok, this was fun. Bye!