Welcome to The Cinematic Schematic, the official podcast of The Cinematropolis.com.

Today, we’re introducing a new, shorter-form film review format. As detailed in our recent podcast announcement, this post is one of many changes being made to the podcast in order to give you, the listener, episodes more frequently.

According to IMDB “1930’s Hollywood is reevaluated through the eyes of scathing social critic and alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz as he races to finish the screenplay of Citizen Kane (1941).”

Mank is directed by David Fincher and stars Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins Tom Burke and Charles Dance.

Fincher’s latest is a welcome departure in his oeuvre that I quite enjoyed. The set and sound designs are stunning, the performances are outstanding and the screenplay(penned by Fincher’s late father, Jack) carries the type of Hollywood nostalgia the Academy will go bananas over come awards season in spring 2021.

There are three things in particular I want to note about Mank: 

#1. I should clarify when I say “departure…” 

Yes, like most of Fincher’s films, the main character (Mankiewicz in this case) is trapped in a machine, arguably of his own making, and he can’t seem to escape…a theme made pretty explicit within the text. Whether you’re watching Nick and Amy Dunne in Gone Girl, forever trapped in the prison or their marriage, Robert Graysmith, a prisoner of a professional obsession in Zodiac or Ellen Ripley in Alien 3, who is stuck in a literal space prison, this is an idea we’ve seen explored in nearly all of Fincher’s films. 

That said, I can’t think of a more triumphant one of his movies. Without getting into the spoiler details of ACTUAL history, the film concludes in a relatively uplifting manner. Mank is hardly Fincher’s best or most impactful film, but the change of pace is welcome. 

#2. There’s a lack of clear focus

In many ways, this film feels like a series of related but disconnected scenes strung together. Is Mank about the making of Citizen Kane? Or perhaps a reflection on how legacy film studios like MGM push out artists who buck the company line? Is it an exploration of how Herman J. Mankiewicz escapes the proverbial organ grinder described by William Randolph Hearst through self-actualization? The answer is both all of the above and therefore, none of the above. 

#3. The production values are through the roof

In true Fincher fashion, there is a painstaking amount of attention to detail in the sets, sound design and performances. In an interview with Total Film magazine, Charles Dance reported the climatic scene of the film required over a 100 takes before the production moved on. Whether or not this is necessary is up for debate, but there’s not a doubt in my mind the director was striving for perfection. While I can’t call the screenplay a masterpiece due to the lack of focus previous referenced, this film is nothing if not detail-oriented. The sound is somehow both pristine and also sounds how you remember Citizen Kane. Despite being in black and white,