Gary Oldman received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Herman J. Mankiewicz aka the titular character in Mank.
Before watching Mank again, which tells the story of the career of Citizen Kane co-writer, I was filled with some uncertainty as the general opinion towards the film only seemed to degrade. Having watched it again, I enjoyed it again. A flawed film, mainly found within the late Jack Fincher's screenplay which bites off more than it can or needs to chew. The film works as the story of a screenwriter with unlikely connections, it falters more so when it tries to be a closer analysis of the politics of the period and especially when it tries to tack on the Kane authorship controversy. Reading the screenplay, David Fincher is EXTREMELY faithful to his father's work, which while understandable, leaves the film far too scattershot overall where the film could've used a re-write, or at least some reworking, to tighten and focus things, though what's good is good.
Speaking of what's good, let's speak of Gary Oldman, an actor who probably has never been accused of playing himself, or can be seen as playing himself. Always the chameleon perhaps even to his detriment with how long it took for him to be recognized for any film. Funny once one breaks the barrier they suddenly can repeat seemingly with relative ease as Oldman has now earned his 3rd Oscar nomination in less than 10 years time, despite having spent the majority of his career nomination-less. For his third turn, we have what appears to be his least transformative, although I think that itself is also not true. Oldman's performance very much is a creation of Herman "Mank" Mankiewicz, just he created George Smiley and Winston Churchill, it's just a bit different in this regard. This as Oldman seeks to craft Mank, as he always does. Now Oldman, as usual does this really from the top down in crafting a role. This one is no different in that regard even if seemingly at bit less obvious. Oldman always has been adept at American accents, and this one is no different, it is just a given. I think there is a bit more into this though here that Oldman grants a slightly different touch to it. This as he speaks with kind of a slight slur within his speaking making Mank as kind of a man always slightly drunk even when possibly sober. Oldman's vocal choice at the very least both granting a sense of the man as an alcoholic, but also suggesting kind of the wear of his drinking. This is matched by his physical work, where he walks as well with a certain stumbling quality, as again a man who moves as though he is inebriated to some degree at all times.
Now the alcoholism of Mank isn't exactly the focus of the film, it is rather an aspect of the man that Oldman effectively uses to help to define his manner. Oldman's portrayal rather is interestingly a kind of protagonist that he isn't often tasked to portray, this being a more sympathetic sort in being in some ways the guide towards this particular time in old Hollywood. This broken up into different times, where actually Oldman does portray different Manks, if subtly given the time between each of them is relatively brief. The easiest way to broach this is to go in chronological order, against the film's jumbled narrative in terms of time jumping. This as we first run into Mank as he is recruiting other up and coming writers. Oldman is quite good in crafting a kind of different type of confidence in this early scene. This as he doesn't portray Mank as the leaders of the writers, more of the ring leader. Oldman has a playfulness about it, a manner of someone who very much has a kind of fun within the system, or at least some fun. This as Oldman's parts of the delivery of a particular pitch has a panache to it, but just enough of one. His eyes exude this kind of cunning as Mank just as much seems to be understanding of the futility of the pitch, as much as he attempts to sell it as a good writer should. There's a slight bemusement that Oldman has in his little glances, granting a sort of humor within his cynicism. This as he projects Mank both capable of behaving within the studio system, but also showing a man who interacts it with a certain disdain towards it all.
We follow Mank as he seems to wander into the world of William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his mistress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried) by chance, where we get something that Oldman is rarely called upon to project, despite playing so many different roles, which is charm. Oldman is more than game, though this too isn't the charm of the real Oldman, which is distinctly English to say the least, but here Oldman refashions it as something wholly Mank. This as Oldman fashions a style of the man as distinctly the wit. A difficult type to actually pull off given that usually the wit is a bit more of an overtly vicious type, but Oldman is able to find a way around this while also projecting this. This as in his first scene with Dance and more importantly Seyfried, Oldman finds this kind of measured manner within this. This as he kind of always speaks some sort of cutting word to add or throw at some way or another. Oldman's delivery though is essential in articulately this in a way in which Mank kind of fashions his appeal by saying what he means but without exactly saying it as well. This as Oldman manages to mix intentions with this kind of jovial ease that seems to make even his critiques somehow not entirely unappealing despite his state as an obvious drunkard with an opinion that is a near constant. This kind of maneuvering though is so much of the film, and so much of it relies very much on Oldman, realizing the personal style of Mank. This personal style though as the constant wit and critic, much to his own dismay eventually.
We see this as we see him showing his brother, the eventually more successful Joseph Mankiewicz, the ropes in dealing with tyrannical studio chief Louis B. Mayer. Oldman's reactions are very much the heart of this scene in reacting to every bit of Mayer's ridiculousness. Oldman carries a certain satisfaction of man all too knowing of the situation, though reacts towards it with just it as a big joke that he must exist in rather than trying to directly do too much about it himself. Oldman's reaction portray a kind of acceptance of his own inferiority in accepting the situation while also projecting a bit of superiority in his bemused grin. This in being amused by the game, even within a glint of disgust within the game all the same. This though Oldman shows as the weapon of the man in a way who seems to hold nothing too importantly, therefore his jabs can exist mostly without exception. This as we see in one of the best scenes of the film, this being a gathering at Hearst's impressive estate. Mank coming into the affair with little jabs and jives for all the sycophants, while also directly commenting on politics. Every little thing a kind of witticism though spoken by Oldman as these sort of standard asides for Mank. This presenting this as a kind of ease in allowing himself to be both cutting while also in this seemingly almost falsely affable way. Oldman speaking the words as though Mank is making a joke for everyone to enjoy, even though it is still very pointed to particular individual's expense in the room. Oldman making a proper kind of dance about the whole thing as the man always speaking his mind, but doing in a way that he gets away with it, for now.
This leading to what is really the best aspect of the film which is started by a quiet walk between Mank and Marion, leading to a kind of platonic romance of sorts. Oldman is great in managing to realization this kind of specific manner in these moments. This as he reacts to Marion and her words, with a genuine sense of affection in appreciation someone else who in some way shares a mutual spirit with one another. There his most direct charm in his reactions to her that are still witty, though now more than anything so often encouraging and supportive. His reactions though with a man still very much listening, and often in his eyes just truly appreciating the woman for who she is. His delivery of everything to her with a kind of more genuinely loving tone. This making his suggestions with this kind of actual grace to him while he praises Marion's best qualities and seems to create a genuine friendship with her. Each one of these scenes between Mank and Marion are the best within the film. This as both actors are able to capture a natural chemistry between the two, while also not really simplifying the relationship in any way. It isn't quite familial, it isn't quite as a romantic relationship. There is something rather idiosyncratic about it, as the two seem to just inspire each other, and understand each other in their own special way. They craft the sincerity of two friends with an appreciation for exactly who they are rather what it is they are meant to be. It is something that wholly works within the film, and a large part is the actors absolutely deliver on the idea of the friendship being just simply a given.
Now this is where the film gets kind of all over the place, as it explores Mank trying to do something involving Upton Sinclair's run for governor of California, though the real Mank was an anti-fascist conservative, not an anti-fascist socialist, I only mention this as it gets such devotion the film despite having little to do with the real Mank so the inclusion seems somewhat curious. Anyway, as much as I question the swerve, I have to say I think Oldman navigates it incredibly well in making Mank this sort of downtrodden hero of sorts to explore this aspect. This as again Oldman's quiet moments of reaction do say a lot. This in this quiet anxiety in seeing the studios machinations against Sinclair, that builds up to a kind of despondency and urgency to do something. Oldman conducting so well as internalized within a state of the man that becomes increasingly downtrodden. These moments of Oldman trying to fight against it he conveys the certain more upfront desperation of it, and direct venom at times making his act as Lear's fool fall apart a bit. This leading to his downfall. This as like the film I'll flash forward to the man writing Citizen Kane, now as an outcast of the system and seeming to make his attack on those who banished him. As much as the framing device frankly should've been reduced, I think Oldman acquits himself incredibly well by tempering some elements of Mank and accentuating others. This as his attacks are still there however a bit less charming. What is more evident is the self-loathing and depression within the situation. Oldman finding a quiet vulnerability now within the man who can't quite as easily amuse himself, though that gear is still there. I still found these scenes watchable, due to Oldman who is true to giving life to this man even when the scenario isn't the most inspired.
The film, jumbled as is, ends on two separate notes. The first where Mank comes to a Hearst party fully drunk. Oldman portraying the always drunk man drunker, effectively in my view as he just heightens each element a bit more though very much shows that his act of cutting wit becomes a bit more obvious and far too aggressive for his crowd. This with no longer the timing for jokes, making the jabs all the more obvious. Oldman though delivers the man fully going at the prize though in this messy haze of an ad hominem attack. This as his words all more hateful towards those he's speaking to, the derision on display, yet in Oldman's manner showing a sloppy man who can barely hold himself together. This in by speaking the truth, also speaking the truth of presenting himself to be the fool he's been playing the whole time, just now lopsided. This is put parallel against his argument with Welles over credit for the screenplay of Kane, which has no business to be in the film. I like the scene for Oldman's performance. This as he suggests a man who has gained some agency through being humbled a bit. This now the sort of manner of the man is confident and direct in his stance. Oldman exuding not a man hiding his truth within a haze of jokes, rather just speaking what he knows, as he knows it. Oldman frankly makes sense of this scene better than the film does which just makes it a kind of gear shift that feels so poorly connected to the rest. Oldman though makes the connection through his presentation of Mank's kind of determination between the way faces Hearst and Mayer, against the way he faces Welles. It seems I'm suppose to criticize this performance, however I find myself unable to. This is committed and articulate work. Oldman understands and realizes his character artfully and with ease in a style that is in some ways not typically his own. Oldman delivers on the part, highlighting all the merits the film does contain, and more than anything I don't see any other actor capable of better job than Oldman does here. This as much as Oldman's film is the least of the nominees, Oldman does deliver a great performance, though with the least in terms of material, which actually is an achievement that is all his own.
40 comments:
Yes? Another all fives lineup. :)
Yes! I fucking knew it. :)
Louis: Any rating changes.
OOps that queastion mark was supposed to be an exlcamtion point.
Louis and all: Is this year the best year for the Lead Actor Oscar you've ever seen? Looking at the five nominees and the sheer range and complexity of each performance is unreal. Only 2016 comes close to me.
Louis: Thoughts on Mank's editing and screenplay.
Louis: What are your updated top ten gary oldman performances?
Better than 2016, I don't even have to think twice about it.
YEEEESSSS. BEST YEAR EVEEEERRRRR.
Also, yeah, sorry 2016, this is beautiful.
Louis: Your updated Top 20 Hopkins moments?
Wow, another all-fives year and another 5 for Oldman (His 8th overall).
Looking forward to Alternate Supporting next.
Anybody here seen RKO 281? Because in comparision John Malkovich was given pretty much nothing to do in the role
10 fives for the lead overall is now a possibility as I've previously predicted.
8 5’s, 1 4.5 and 1 4 across the actor lineups, more than expected for a year that one might’ve imagined to be a bit empty of great performances before we got down to things (even though two of them are 2021 performances in our books).
I know this is early but my top ten prediction:
1. Hopkins
2. Mikkelsen
3. Lindo.
4. Boseman
5. Ahmed.
6. Yuen
7. Jackman
8. Oldman
9. Ben-adir
10. Rylance
If mikkelsen's review is beyond amazing then I will switch hopkins and mikkelsen.
Anonymous: I'm gonna put Ben-Adir ahead of Oldman, other than that I agree.
I recently reviewed it and David Fincher's film made me admire more the work of Mank's brother: Joe, who is little remembered by people today. So taking advantage of the post, Louis and guys, speak your Top10 of the films by Joseph L. Mankiewicz:
1. Sleuth
2. All About Eve
3. The Honey Pot
4. Julius Caesar
5. People Will Talk
6. The Ghost and Mrs. Muir
7. Suddenly, Last Summer
8. Five Fingers
9. The Barefoot Contessa
10. Cleopatra
I know I'm going to sound like a tiresome asshole at this point but please spell the surname right, Yeun, not Yuen. It's been happening all over awards season and I'm still annoyed by media outlets changing his surname to a Chinese one (I know typos happen, I just wanted to vent again). Anyway, my predictions are
1. Hopkins
2. Mikkelsen
3. Lindo
4. Boseman
5. Ahmed
6. Yeun
7. Jackman
8. Rylance (never underestimate)
9. Ben-Adir
10. Oldman
Calvin: You know, I keep thinking if Rylance is gonna be similar in ranking terms to Kingsley in Death And The Maiden or if Louis sees it as a wholly great piece of work from him.
Luke: funny you mention that because Rylance as a performer always reminds me a bit of prime Kingsley.
Calvin: I am actually not sure if rylance is even gonna get a 5 because louis thought the movie was just okay.
Anonymous: I don't know, Louis have given plenty of great performances in mediocre or even bad films high ratings and rankings before. His ability to admire and praise a performance entirely separate from his feelings about the film itself is something that drew me to this blog in the first place.
Anonymous: Remember Woods in Killer: A Journal Of Murder or McKellen in Apt Pupil. Great performances can come from mediocre films, even bad ones too.
And if you go back to his thoughts when he first saw it, he appeared to be pretty enthusiastic about him.
Louis: David fincher wanted to make mank in the 1990s with kevin spacey playing gary oldman's character and jodie foster playing amanda seyfried's character. What do you think of this version?
Seyfried's the only part of the movie that's really stuck with me, but in terms of "weak link" nominees in otherwise perfect lineups, we've had much, much worse than Oldman.
I think he's great too.
Somewhat related note, I started watching The Crown, and honestly Lithgow > Oldman in regards to Churchill.
1. Mikkelsen
2. Hopkins
3. Boseman
4. Ahmed
5. Yeun
6. Ben-Adir
7. Lindo
8. Stanfield
9. Kaluuya
10. Jackman
Roger: He considers the Judas leads 2021, so they won't be listed.
I haven't gotten round to the latest season yet, but Lithgow is definitely one of the highlights of The Crown. Vanessa Kirby is my MVP overall.
I know you're all hoping for Mikkelsen to take the overall, but after Hopkins review I can't imagine anyone beating him. That was best of all time good.
Louis: have you seen any of Tarkovsky's filmography? If so, have you seen Ivan's Childhood, Andrey Rublev, Solaris, Stalker, or any other of his wider filmography? If so, what are your thoughts on Tarkovsky's rather interesting cinematic style? I heard he cited Bergman as a big influence on his films, do you see that influence?
Robert: Agreed on Lithgow, his scenes with Dillane are tremendous.
Matt: I wouldn't say everyone. I wanted Mads to win but I've already conceded that it's a Hopkins victory.
Anonymous: He's seen Andrei Rublev, Mirror and Nostalghia so far.
Anonymous: And let's just say he's already a fan of his.
Lead Actor is the main reason I switched my personal lineups to 7 slots this year because I realise 5 simply isn't enough to pick all the performances I want to talk about, and I have multiple candidates for my personal win.
My Crown Season 1 top 5 is:
1. Alex Jennings
2. Claire Foy
3. Vanessa Kirby
4. John Lithgow
5. Jared Harris
Tim: *Looks up RKO 281*
Liev Schreiber played Orson Welles? How am I first hearing about this?
Bryan: It's okay btw. In itself a fun watch, but way too short
Luke:
Mank's screenplay is a good starting point for the story of Mank. It has good ideas and scenes, through the idea of this sort of intelligent writer who has found his strange place of both poking at his plight and accepting it, as this kind of pseudo mediocrity within the studio system. It has something within his relationships with his family, friends and Marion Davies. All of these elements are vivid and well explored. If these ideas had been expanded upon, there could've been something entirely special. Jack Fincher's work tries to do too much within this single man, and the main problem with it is he isn't able to justify it. The politics of the period are interesting, but Fincher doesn't quite rationalize its purpose. This even in Mank's own politics which he keeps as relatively vague. There is a lack of stakes, particularly in the guilt ridden technician who is an extremely poorly developed character leaving a whole in what should be the heart of that segment of the film. I think a cardinal sin in this actually is in its depiction of Hearst, which probably relies too much on someone having a historical knowledge of Hearst. This as the actual film depicts him as a slightly affable rich guy just, whose party is ruined by some drunkard he even allowed to have a seat. It doesn't effectively show, allude or even tell you why there's anything wrong with Hearst.
The Welles material, other than just him encouraging Mank to write his revenge essentially, has no place in the film. The authorship controversy, which has been documented that it was both of them, has nothing to do with the rest of the film. It makes for a totally random ending that has little to do with Mank's journey, and seems solely included as it is the most famous thing involving Mank, which is not a good reason. It felt perfunctory as written, it needed to either be cut, or to be reworked so it felt naturally interwoven with Mank's overall story. This would have either been by connecting it to Welles or have the collaboration with Welles a more essential facet of the film. The screenplay as is, has good elements and some good ideas, but it needed a streamlining and reworking.
The editing I think overall was compromised a bit by the Finchers. By Jack Fincher in that everything that seems rushed or somewhat disconnected, is rushed and disconnected in the script. Like how the moment the argument with Welles ends, Lily Collins's character running in with her good personal news, is exactly how it is as written. I think David Fincher probably caused this by being beholden to his father's work, as there is nothing to streamline, tighten or rework them. Everything is set up like it is in the script. The one scene where I'd say the editing is overly noticeable, which is not a good thing with straight drama scenes, is the first conversation with Mank and Marion and the first Hearst party scenes. You feel the cuts, again the Finchers, as Fincher's direction of the scene really made this kind of cutting needed, despite it not really being the best approach for the dialogue. Most of it is fine in kind of an old school styling, but Fincher really should've let his editor edit.
Anonymous:
Spacey at that time I can certainly in the role. Foster seems obvious, though maybe some kind of riff on her Maverick performance.
Anonymous:
1. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
2. Leon: The Professional
3. Sid & Nancy
4. JFK
5. State of Grace
6. The Dark Knight
7. Mank
8. Immortal Beloved
9. Prick Up Your Ears
10. Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead
Post a Comment