Golden Globes 2021: Mank
Let’s get something out of the way upfront- I’ve never seen Citizen Kane.
Maybe this doesn’t surprise you, I’m sure lots of people my age haven’t seen Citizen Kane. But, in case you haven’t noticed, my last name is Kane. I’ve been called “Citizen Kane” by people since at least sixth grade. It’s a very easy joke to make. But for some reason, I’ve never felt super compelled to sit down and just watch the film that is largely considered to be one of, if not the, greatest film of all time. Even during my film buff stage in high school, I never got around to it. To this day, all I know about the film is, “Rosebud.” What does it mean? No clue!
It is with this knowledge that I sat down to watch David Fincher’s Mank, the most nominated film at this year’s Golden Globes.
Mank tells the (somewhat) true story of screenwriter Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz’s (Gary Oldman) experience penning his masterpiece, Citizen Kane. The film, shot in black-and-white and scored completely with period appropriate instruments, travels back and forth in time between 1940, as Mank writes his screenplay while recovering from a car accident, and the 1930s, following his career during Hollywood’s Depression era, studio system fueled boom years.
On the surface level, this is pure Oscar-bait. No one loves a movie about Old Hollywood more than Current Hollywood, especially a movie such as Mank which details just how much impact the film industry has on the rest of the world. A key point of conflict through out the flashbacks is how Mank’s politics often come into conflict with those of the higher-ups at MGM, the studio where he is employed, including Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) himself and William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance), who financially backs MGM. This comes to a head during the 1934 California gubernatorial election, where Mank personally supports the democratic candidate Upton Sinclair (played by, I shit you not, Bill Nye the Science Guy) while he is professionally involved with MGM’s smear campaigns on Sinclair in order to support the republican candidate, Frank Merriam. When Merriam wins the election, Mank’s collaborator on the smear films, Shelly Metcalf, who dealt with a similar personal conflict of interests, commits suicide.
While Metcalf is a purely fictional character, MGM did produce phony newsreels about Sinclair that probably cost him the election. I think including this storyline in a film that otherwise glorifies Old Hollywood is incredibly significant, especially in a time that, unfortunately, shares a lot of characteristics with the 1930s, including economic devastation and the rise of fascism. The film points out that despite well-meaning, often politically liberal individuals being a part of the film-making community, those at the top of the hierarchy often benefit from upholding the system as it stands, which often makes everyone below them in the chain complicit.
In addition to the story in and of itself, the film also employs a series of vintage filmmaking techniques that I’m sure the awards voters are going to eat up. While I admit to not having a a highly trained technical eye, I do have a background in film photography and have edited negatives by hand as well as digitally, and I was shocked to find out that the movie was not recorded on actual film, although it was filmed in black and white and utilized framing techniques reminiscent of Old Hollywood. This extended beyond the camera work and into the costume and set design, as costume designer Trish Summerville and production designer Donald Graham Burt had to specifically pick costumes and decor pieces for how they would appear without color.
The behind the scenes elements married perfectly with a cast that was both committed to the period aesthetic and dialect while fully inhabiting their roles realistically and comfortably. This was best exemplified by Gary Oldman (who will always be Sirius Black to me) in the title role and Amanda Seyfried (who will always be Sophie from Mamma Mia! to me) as Marion Davies, the Hollywood starlet and Hearst’s mistress, who were both nominated for their performances. Other stand outs including Charles Dance (who will always be Tywin Lannister to me) as Hearst and Tom Burke (I’m done with this bit now) as wunderkid Orson Welles, although I did find it annoying that they repeatedly mentioned that he was 24, and the actor playing him was 39. He does look a lot like Welles though! (Oldman is also in his early 60s playing Mank through out his 30s and early 40s, but I was less frustrated by these actor/character age discrepancies than I was by those in Pieces of a Woman.) I was a bit underwhelmed by Lily Collins’ performance as Rita Alexander, Mank’s typist while he is recovering from his car accident, but that girl must be delightful because she is literally always working.
I was also incredibly impressed with the dialect work because, as usual in films with spot on accents and dialects, almost everyone in the cast, including Oldman, Dance, and Burke, are British. Whatever they’re doing in theatre schools over there, they’re doing it right, because it’s hard to imagine a group of American actors handling a vintage accent from another country so well. Amanda Seyfried did do an excellent job perfecting Davies’ Brooklynese through.
In conclusion, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed Mank and felt that everything from the script and directing to the design choices and the acting came together to tell a cohesive story about Old Hollywood glamour and political intrigue that can be enjoyed whether or not you have intimate knowledge of Citizen Kane or the work of any of the characters in a broader sense. I do feel more pressed to finally getting around to watching Citizen Kane, especially since it is available to stream on HBOMax. I will be curious to see how Mank does this award season- will voters and nominators be swayed by the homage to their own industry and the technical prowess on display, or will they gravitate towards more diverse and socially aware narratives? Only time will tell, and I look forward to covering all of it here.