Search
Search results
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated The Moonstone in Books
Nov 20, 2019
Of all the books I had to read at school, The Moonstone was probably the only novel I really enjoyed. It is one of the first 'whodunnit' type of books and, remarkably, it manages to hit virtually every requirement of the genre dead centre. If this book was written today, it would still be a classic.
The Moonstone of the title is a rare yellow diamond, stolen from an Indian shrine by colonialists. Thought to be unlucky it is left to the young Rachel Verinder. The night after her 18th birthday party the stone is stolen from her rooms, and the rest of the novel describes how the various players eventually manage to solve the crime.
The plot features twists and turns galore, false trails and red herrings enough for two detective stories. Although the crime involved is 'only' theft rather than the more usual murder it is no less engaging as a story. The characters are well drawn and - social reformer that Collins was - there are strong women and intelligent and interesting servants as well as the landed gentry and philanthropists that inhabit the world of country estates in the mid 19th century that the novel is set in.
One feature of the book is that the story is told from the viewpoint of a number of the players. Firstly (and for nearly half the book) we are introduced to the Verinders and the theft by Gabriel Betteredge, a long serving family retainer who is head of the staff and a sort of de facto butler. Betteredge's narrative is charming and witty, full of dry asides and observations. His habit of picking passages from Robinson Crusoe and applying them to daily life is a quirk that is completely in keeping with his character.
Once the story moves to London, the narrative is taken up by various other characters, sometimes just for a short journal entry, sometimes for extended periods of time. Collins imbues each of these parts with a different voice really skillfully, keeping each character very separate.
The solution to the mystery of who stole the diamond and why is convoluted but also very simple. The whole story is well crafted and fits together really well.
The only negative points really are those imposed on Collins by the time he was writing this. There is an overlong introduction about the diamond in India (it seems that in Victorian novels the long winded introduction is somehow expected by the reader) and the pace slows somewhat in London as there is a lot of description about the character's social standings and financial affairs that just aren't as relevant today.
Nevertheless this really is as good a book as I remember. I certainly rate Collins a lot higher than Charles Dickens as a writer. Definitely recommended for anyone who likes a detective mystery which will keep the reader guessing until the very end.
The Moonstone of the title is a rare yellow diamond, stolen from an Indian shrine by colonialists. Thought to be unlucky it is left to the young Rachel Verinder. The night after her 18th birthday party the stone is stolen from her rooms, and the rest of the novel describes how the various players eventually manage to solve the crime.
The plot features twists and turns galore, false trails and red herrings enough for two detective stories. Although the crime involved is 'only' theft rather than the more usual murder it is no less engaging as a story. The characters are well drawn and - social reformer that Collins was - there are strong women and intelligent and interesting servants as well as the landed gentry and philanthropists that inhabit the world of country estates in the mid 19th century that the novel is set in.
One feature of the book is that the story is told from the viewpoint of a number of the players. Firstly (and for nearly half the book) we are introduced to the Verinders and the theft by Gabriel Betteredge, a long serving family retainer who is head of the staff and a sort of de facto butler. Betteredge's narrative is charming and witty, full of dry asides and observations. His habit of picking passages from Robinson Crusoe and applying them to daily life is a quirk that is completely in keeping with his character.
Once the story moves to London, the narrative is taken up by various other characters, sometimes just for a short journal entry, sometimes for extended periods of time. Collins imbues each of these parts with a different voice really skillfully, keeping each character very separate.
The solution to the mystery of who stole the diamond and why is convoluted but also very simple. The whole story is well crafted and fits together really well.
The only negative points really are those imposed on Collins by the time he was writing this. There is an overlong introduction about the diamond in India (it seems that in Victorian novels the long winded introduction is somehow expected by the reader) and the pace slows somewhat in London as there is a lot of description about the character's social standings and financial affairs that just aren't as relevant today.
Nevertheless this really is as good a book as I remember. I certainly rate Collins a lot higher than Charles Dickens as a writer. Definitely recommended for anyone who likes a detective mystery which will keep the reader guessing until the very end.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A film for all those women who dream of chivalry, but want to kick some ass.
Contains spoilers, click to show
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Jan 7, 2021
Good companion piece to CITIZEN KANE
Orson Welles’ 1941 masterpiece CITIZEN KANE is truly a remarkable work of art (especially for the time it was created) and it regularly lands in either the #1 or #2 spot on my list of all-time favorite films (battling back and forth with THE GODFATHER - the one that ends up at #1 is usually the one I have watched most recently), so I am a sucker for films that are about (or around) the making of this classic.
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And…the Netflix film MANK does not disappoint in this regard.
Starring Oscar winning actor Gary Oldman (he won the Oscar for portraying Sir Winston Churchill in DARKEST HOUR), Mank tells the tale of the writing of the screenplay of CITIZEN KANE by screenwriter Herman Mankiewicz. It is an intriguing story of a self-destructive, alcoholic artist (is there any other kind in this kind of film) that (ultimately) produces one of the best scripts in Hollywood history, despite (or maybe because of) his condition and the people he interacts with along the way.
Directed by David Fincher (FIGHT CLUB) - who is one of my favorite Directors working today - MANK starts slow but brews to a satisfying conclusion as Fincher focuses on the man and the relationships he has with the people around him, rather than the circumstances, which then draws to a forceful conclusion.
Gary Oldman is, of course, stellar as Herman “Mank” Mankiewicz, the writer at the center of the story. This film hinges on this performance as the titular Mank is in almost every scene of this film - and at the beginning I was worried that Fincher was going to let Oldman revert to his “hammy” ways (a very real possibility with Oldman if he is left unchecked by a Director), but Fincher reels Oldman in just enough for him to bring a portrait of a troubled man, who has sold his soul to work and alcohol. This character needs to find that soul if he is to succeed. Since Mank won the Oscar for his screenplay - and I’ve already stated that I think the CITIZEN KANE screenplay is one of the best written of all time - you know how it will turn out, but it is fascinating (and satisfying) to watch Oldman on this journey.
Fincher, of course, is smart enough to surround Oldman with some very good Supporting Actors, most notably the always evil Charles Dance (Tywin Lannister on GAME OF THRONES) as William Randolph Hearst (the inspiration for Charles Foster Kane). Dance spends most of the film observing Mank but in the final “confrontation” scene between the two, the screen sparkles as two wonderful thespians throw down.
Others in the Supporting cast - like Lilly Collins, Tom Burke (as Orson Welles), Jamie McShane and, especially Arliss Howard (as Louis B. Mayer) bring heft and the ability to go “toe to toe” with Oldman, not a small task.
Special notice has to be made of the work of Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies - Hearst’s mistress and a character that is used as a “throw away toy” in Citizen Kane. Davis and Mank form an interesting bond and the platonic chemistry between Seyfried and Oldman is strong. I gotta admit that when Seyfried first burst on the scene in such films as MAMA MIA and MEAN GIRLS, I figured she was just the “pretty young Rom-Com girl of the time” and would come and go quickly, but she has rounded into a very impressive actress and I can unequivocally state that I was wrong about her. She can act with the best of them.
The Cinematography by Erik Messerschmidt is also a very important part of this film - as he (and Fincher) attempt to recreate in this film the look/feel of CITIZEN KANE and they pull this off very, very well.
If you can get through the slow start of the film - and if you can stomach a protagonist that is not a very nice person in most of this film, than you’ll be rewarded by a rich film experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
