Inaccurate, uneven, and a rushed biased ending I'm still trying to get over.
I'm very familiar with old hollywood, in particular with the present time this film is projecting. I appreciated the filmmakers had an affinity for this era as well. I found, personally, where they would introduce a plethora ("do you know what a plethora is?") of the persons of old Hollywood to be overhanded and distracting. Full name to full name to full name at a fast paced editing was dizzying. I could barely keep up and I'm pretty well versed. I can only imagine those unfamiliar trying to keep up.
The story should be simple, but it was hard to find in this bogged down drivel of the first half. It was mostly told in flashbacks during this time instead of centering us with where we're supposed to currently be at and with whom, being Mank, so once we care we can then properly go with him to discover more to the "why" and "how" he came to this point in his life.
Structure aside. The second half is where I woke up. There were some brilliant moments with corrected pacing that allows the scenes and actors of Oldman's caliber to breathe. I really enjoyed his performance. Amanda Seyfried, as Marion Davies, was the breath of fresh air for the film. She had that rare glow where she was truly the living/breathing character she was embodying and not just putting on a performance.
I have a confession: I've been a huge fan of Trent Reznor since 1990. His scores with Atticus for Dragon Tattoo, Social Network, and Gone Girl were some of the best of the 21st, so I was expecting nothing less here. I read where they only used instruments of the era (that might be a grapevine thing). I think that's very commendable but truthfully didn't feel it translated well here. It was largely forgettable, which pains me to say. This is just from the first viewing.
I really enjoyed the cinematogaphy and the choice for the black and white film (I assume it was film). Loved the reel change marks throughout. There was a shot near the opening that did a slow fade to all but a lighted room, which I thought was a nice touch. The film had a lot of promise. The weight of it for me was in the last quarter. The film was a comedy for awhile there, then somehow a touch of a political thriller, before finally getting to where it wanted to be, which was a story about a man's life.
I've read where it was actually Mank's brother that was tied into the political drama about Upton. I understand creative licensing and the need for suspension for disbelief, but it's a hard turn off for me when I begin to think that there's crucial parts of the story here that people will take down as fact. Stripping the writer from the birthplace (if you will) of the "Rosebud" construct seemed completely unnecessary. It's been well documented where that came from and his use of it in Kane is utter brilliance. Don't know what the creative choice was there to ruin it.
What it all came down to for me and my rating of a 3 out of 10 had nothing to do with the technical side or the performances, which were quite captivating (I was amazed at the voice of Orson); it was a disagreement with some of the choices that were made in the script. The very uneven first half that mostly consisted of flashbacks, keeping us from anchoring, and the choices in the last 20 minutes.
The dialogue was sheer brilliance in areas and seemed too overhanded and self aware in others. My problem was that I've seen interviews and read many articles about Orson to know he's the one to make sure Herman got his credit; so much so his name was listed above his own. He also gave Gregg Toland his due in the credits although Orson had his fingers in everything.
Orson Welles didn't even need the film to cement his name. He had the 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds that stirred the nation, the all-black play if Macbeth he oversaw in Harlem that overhauled Shakespeare's witchcraft with voodoo and had lines around the block. Everything he touched turned to gold, especially when there was source material. Mank provided the story and Orson did what he's always done and rewrote it into oblivion until it was ready. It was a team effort, and they created the draft for the "great American motion picture". If he didn't get the writing credit, it would make more sense to the story and create an empathy that would carry more weight.
"It's pretty, but is it art?"
I'm very familiar with old hollywood, in particular with the present time this film is projecting. I appreciated the filmmakers had an affinity for this era as well. I found, personally, where they would introduce a plethora ("do you know what a plethora is?") of the persons of old Hollywood to be overhanded and distracting. Full name to full name to full name at a fast paced editing was dizzying. I could barely keep up and I'm pretty well versed. I can only imagine those unfamiliar trying to keep up.
The story should be simple, but it was hard to find in this bogged down drivel of the first half. It was mostly told in flashbacks during this time instead of centering us with where we're supposed to currently be at and with whom, being Mank, so once we care we can then properly go with him to discover more to the "why" and "how" he came to this point in his life.
Structure aside. The second half is where I woke up. There were some brilliant moments with corrected pacing that allows the scenes and actors of Oldman's caliber to breathe. I really enjoyed his performance. Amanda Seyfried, as Marion Davies, was the breath of fresh air for the film. She had that rare glow where she was truly the living/breathing character she was embodying and not just putting on a performance.
I have a confession: I've been a huge fan of Trent Reznor since 1990. His scores with Atticus for Dragon Tattoo, Social Network, and Gone Girl were some of the best of the 21st, so I was expecting nothing less here. I read where they only used instruments of the era (that might be a grapevine thing). I think that's very commendable but truthfully didn't feel it translated well here. It was largely forgettable, which pains me to say. This is just from the first viewing.
I really enjoyed the cinematogaphy and the choice for the black and white film (I assume it was film). Loved the reel change marks throughout. There was a shot near the opening that did a slow fade to all but a lighted room, which I thought was a nice touch. The film had a lot of promise. The weight of it for me was in the last quarter. The film was a comedy for awhile there, then somehow a touch of a political thriller, before finally getting to where it wanted to be, which was a story about a man's life.
I've read where it was actually Mank's brother that was tied into the political drama about Upton. I understand creative licensing and the need for suspension for disbelief, but it's a hard turn off for me when I begin to think that there's crucial parts of the story here that people will take down as fact. Stripping the writer from the birthplace (if you will) of the "Rosebud" construct seemed completely unnecessary. It's been well documented where that came from and his use of it in Kane is utter brilliance. Don't know what the creative choice was there to ruin it.
What it all came down to for me and my rating of a 3 out of 10 had nothing to do with the technical side or the performances, which were quite captivating (I was amazed at the voice of Orson); it was a disagreement with some of the choices that were made in the script. The very uneven first half that mostly consisted of flashbacks, keeping us from anchoring, and the choices in the last 20 minutes.
The dialogue was sheer brilliance in areas and seemed too overhanded and self aware in others. My problem was that I've seen interviews and read many articles about Orson to know he's the one to make sure Herman got his credit; so much so his name was listed above his own. He also gave Gregg Toland his due in the credits although Orson had his fingers in everything.
Orson Welles didn't even need the film to cement his name. He had the 1938 broadcast of War of the Worlds that stirred the nation, the all-black play if Macbeth he oversaw in Harlem that overhauled Shakespeare's witchcraft with voodoo and had lines around the block. Everything he touched turned to gold, especially when there was source material. Mank provided the story and Orson did what he's always done and rewrote it into oblivion until it was ready. It was a team effort, and they created the draft for the "great American motion picture". If he didn't get the writing credit, it would make more sense to the story and create an empathy that would carry more weight.
"It's pretty, but is it art?"