Mank Review

David Fincher is easily one of the most skilled directors working today, and even so it’s rare that he really steps outside of his comfort zone. Fincher is known primarily for his crime thrillers such as Se7en, Gone Girl and Zodiac, but he’s also known for occasionally directing more grounded dramas such as 2010’s The Social Network. His latest, 2020’s Mank isn’t something I’d be reviewing under normal circumstances, as it’s time in the spotlight would have otherwise passed, but seeing as it just received a nomination for Best Picture, I decided I would make an exception.

On first glance, two things become apparent about Mank. One, this is more than fitting in with the kind of films that the Academy tends to nominate. Two, this is possibly the most atypical Fincher movie of them all (aside from maybe The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, but I haven’t seen that one so I can’t really compare the two). On a formal level, it displays all of Fincher's greatest strengths; an impeccable control of his craft, creative cinematography and an attention to detail that really brings out the setting and mood of his film, and a repertoire with his actors that brings out the best in them. But its story about 1930’s Hollywood and the people and events that gave rise to the script of Citizen Kane is a far cry from the dark, murky thrillers like The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and the aforementioned Se7en.

Mank also suffers from an overall lack of emotional intrigue. Compared to so many of Fincher’s other works, this one feels cold and clinical once you get past the novelty of its black and white cinematography and old-fashioned stylings. The most fascinating part of the film for sure is its coverage of the California political process and the entanglement between Hollywood, the GOP and William Randolph Hearst’s media empire. Outside of this, though, there’s not much in this character study of a cynical alcoholic screenwriter that really got me invested emotionally, and coming from the man who made a film about Facebook one of the most energetic, fascinating and compelling character studies of all time, this is especially disappointing.

There’s plenty to like about Mank; Gary Oldman turns in a fantastic performance, the period details are excellently detailed and the filmmaking is a delightful mix of classic styles and modern day techniques. There’s a sort of infectious energy and vibe to it that did a lot in sustaining my interest, and it’s a good film to have on in the background while you’re doing something else. But the strengths of this film are mostly on a surface level, and for all you could probably write about the themes and story of it, it’s just not that interesting once you dig in.

David Fincher directed this film based on a script that his deceased father Jack Fincher wrote. It seems to have been a genuine labor of love on Jack’s part, and I can totally understand why David would want to make this ode to his father’s legacy. But at the same time, this feels like one of the few occasions where David Fincher dedicated his skills as a director to someone else’s vision over his own. It’s an admirable goal, but the results are predictably mixed.