I never thought anything could be worse than suffering through an hour-and-a-half of Chemistry notes on ionic nomenclature. “Mank,” added to Netflix on Dec. 4 somehow proved me wrong.
Set in Hollywood during the 1930s and 1940s, the movie follows the true story of alcoholic screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz as he writes the screenplay for “Citizen Kane” — a classic that’s often acclaimed as one of the greatest films ever made.
At first glance, Netflix’s charming description of the movie gives high expectations. I was looking forward to the glamour of old Hollywood and learning about the drama that ensued the creation of this iconic film. What I got instead was an obnoxious lack of explanation about the historical situation, which ended up being the foundation of the entire movie.
Every time I sit down to watch a movie, I never intend to have to play back scenes to understand their cryptic meanings, but “Mank” said otherwise. The further I got into the movie, the more I realized that no explanation would be given for the storyline. Even after rewinding some scenes multiple times, my understanding of the movie was practically nonexistent.
It felt like Fincher’s intended audience was catered only to those who happened to know everything about the historical context of the movie and the political climate of early Hollywood. Watching that movie was akin to being in AP European History after missing a week of notes, and researching everything I had just watched felt like studying for a DBQ.
I’m not saying that movies shouldn’t have complex allusions in them. In fact, often times they can add depth to a movie or TV show — proved to me by the many outside references embedded in the witty banter of “Gilmore Girls.” The Gilmores’ nonsensical talk at least has direction whereas “Mank,” makes it impossible to follow the plot if you don’t understand all the movie’s allusions.
While my brain was being attacked by puzzling scenes and elaborate phrases, I had to find some way to cope through two grueling hours, so I focused on the cinematography. While it wasn’t enough to change my mind in my opinion of the movie as a whole, I couldn’t ignore the dazzling costumes and historical charm. The transatlantic accents of the actors and black-and-white filter transported me to the time period and satisfied my expectation of experiencing early Hollywood. But the movie would’ve been all the more captivating if it explained even a little bit of what was happening at the time.
If you are a lover of great cinematography and could care less about following the storyline of a movie, don’t hesitate to add this to your Netflix list. But if you’re someone who watches movies with the intent of understanding them, either spend some time doing research on the old Hollywood era or avoid this movie entirely.
As Print Co-Editor-in-Chief, senior Francesca Stamati knows by now what to expect when walking into the J-room: cackle-laugh fits at inappropriate times, an eye-roll or two from Tate (who is secretly smirking) and impassioned debates with people who care way too much about fonts. But her experience doesn’t make 2 a.m. deadlines any less thrilling. In her last year on staff, Francesca has her eyes wide open to learn something new — whether it’s how to edit a story in less than an hour, or how many AP style jokes she can crack before Co-Editor Peyton Moore hits the ground. »
Leave a Reply