Netflix continues its barrage of new movies leaving most of the other streaming services behind, at least until HBO Max starts to release their new movies. This week Netflix released Mank. This new release is supposed to be placed as the new front running contender for best picture in the Oscars and other of the awards as well. Personally, I do not see it. It was a fine enough movie, but I did not find it reaching heights above and beyond to be the movie of the year, even with the extremely limited slate. It was not a bad movie, but it did not stand out to me like Parasite or 1917 did last year.
Mank was the story of Herman Mankiewicz, a screen writer in 1930s and 40s Hollywood, and his perspective on how the industry was being run. The movie went back and forth between him writing Citizen Kane and his role in 1930s Hollywood. This was not just limited to the movie industry, but it also included political elements as well, some on a more global political scale as World War II was about to start, and some on a more local level with the gubernatorial election battle between Upton Sinclair and Frank Merriam. These events and William Randolph Hearst influence upon them catered greatly to the inspiration for Citizen Kane. So the movie paints Hollywood as not as an idealistic place to live as it had been believed to be. The ending of the movie showed Mankiewicz having to share his best original screenplay Oscar with Orson Wells, the director of Citizen Kane, even though Wells had little to nothing to do with the creation of the story. It had been all upon Mank to write the script, so when he had the chance to give his speech when receiving the Oscar at home he said as much himself.
From what I heard before the movie came out, I had been expecting it to be more about the conflict between Wells and Mank, but it seemed like this conflict was more on the back burner. I do think it would have made more of a compelling story if this had been more on the forefront of the movie instead of being saved for the end. The most interesting parts of the movie came from Mank writing the movie in his bed. The dialogue in these scenes was so well done that it was enjoyable to hear, but these scenes were scattered throughout. To watch the movie the viewer does not have to watch Citizen Kane before hand to follow the story, but it definitely helps. There were numerous allusions to the movie, and sense the story is about what influenced Mank to write the screenplay, it made it easier to understand.
They filmed Mank in black and white to give it the old feel, they even had it down to having burn marks that would appear on the screen throughout the film. It did add to the film by giving it the feel that it was closer to a documentary about what occurred rather than a modern-day rendition of what had occurred in the past. It is also rare to see films made in black and white now, there might be one or two mainstream movies made that way a year now, so it adds a gimmick to it, that if done well, it adds to the film instead of taking away from it.
One of the main aspects of both movies was a focus on fake news and its political impact. In Kane, Charles Kane buys a newspaper and eventually runs for political office. This was a time when newspapers were THE source of information for people, so for a want to be politician to have control of such a huge platform to craft his own narrative as someone who would make a great leader, clearly this created an unfair advantage. This narrative was based off Hearst, who also was a media mogul who had control of media and helped influence the gubernatorial election in California. Fake news has been something that has risen to the forefront of society in the past five years mainly in the political sphere, but it seems like this idea held so much more power back in the 1930s due to the lack of access to information. They could not just go on the internet and fact check sources and compare notes between other sources. Whereas now there is an overload of information, so much so that whatever a persons view is they can find a source on what they want to believe. So although the media scope was much smaller then, it is still a lesson that is applicable to politics today. When I was watching Citizen Kane, the story reminded me more of Jeff Bezos than anything because Kane was an incredibly wealthy individual, and he decided to invest his money in owning a newspaper, and Bezos did a similar thing when he bought the Washington Post, and it seemed like he could help craft a better narrative around Amazon.
Essentially this movie seemed like Oscar bait. It was a movie about Hollywood, and its main goal is to win the best picture Oscar. It plays into the role of those in the academy that do the voting, and it gives those people a chance to give themselves self-importance. Hopefully, this movie will go the same way that Citizen Kane did itself. It will be nominated for multiple different Oscars, and it will only end up winning one of the lesser awards that is not best picture. This was the much worst version of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Once upon a Time played into the idea of Hollywood nostalgia and history, but it did it in a more compelling and fun way. It was entertaining throughout, and the story was much easier to follow and appreciate. There was just too much going into Mank. The storyline was followable, but it was not done easily so. It felt like at the end of the movie they should have given a list of reading material so the viewer could go and read about what just happened to have a better understanding. I have heard that Mank deserves multiple watches to fully be enjoyed, and as much as that does not sound like a good idea, I did not like Once Upon a Time…as much the first time, so maybe on the second watch I will have a better appreciation for it.
Between Mank and Citizen Kane, Citizen Kane was definitely the better film, but that should not say much considering that Kane is considered to be one of the best movies of all time. Neither of these movies quite deserve the hype they have been given, which is why this all sounds so harsh. Both have been given so much hype that it would be hard for any film to live up to it. They do a good job of critiquing the media and how misinformation was and still is a rampant problem that affects politics in a negative way, which seems like a common theme in movies being created during this presidential administration. Overall this movie was not Oscar worthy, and I have placed it outside of the top ten movies of this year. I gave it a 79, and I gave Citizen Kane an 83. Mank is worth the watch, but it needs a viewer’s full attention, it cannot be watched in passing, if a true understanding of the story is wanted. For full viewing pleasure, it also probably needs some article reading to go with it to increase understanding of the story and viewing Citizen Kane before.
Comments