“MANK” (2020) Review

“MANK” (2020) Review

When it comes to biopics about Hollywood history, I must admit that I have a slight addiction to them. I really enjoy reading about Hollywood history. And I especially enjoy reading about the industry’s so-called “Golden Age”. So, when I learned about the upcoming release of “MANK”, a biopic about Hollywood screenwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz, I was pretty eager to see it.

However . . . I never got the chance to watch “MANK” in movie theaters during the fall/winter of 2020-2021. “MANK” had the bad luck to be released while the entire world was in the grip of the COVID-19 pandemic. Although Netflix had released the film in theaters for a limited period in November 2020, the streaming service/production company eventually released it on its streaming service the following month. Because of this, a good number of months had passed before I had eventually watched it on television.

“MANK” began in 1940, when the then young wunderkind Orson Welles hired veteran screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz to write the screenplay for his new movie, “CITIZEN KANE”. Unfortunately, Mankiewicz is in Victorville, CA; recovering from a broken leg he had sustained in a car crash. With the assistance of his secretary Rita Alexander, he becomes aware of the similarities between the movie’s main character and newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. This awareness not only inspired Mankiewicz to work on Welles’ screenplay, but also led him to recall his history with Hearst, the latter’s mistress, Marion Davies; and the smear campaign against Upton Sinclair’s 1934 California gubernatorial campaign.

Since “MANK” is not a documentary, but a historical drama, I knew that its narrative would not be completely accurate. However, I do believe that screenwriter Jack Fincher and his brother, director David Fincher, took a lot of liberties in regard to historical accuracies. Perhaps too much. Yes, the movie featured historical accuracies that included Mankiewicz’s car accident and broken leg, his employment with both Paramount Pictures and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Upton Sinclair’s bid for Governor of California in 1934 and of course, Mankiewicz’s collaboration with Welles and John Houseman on “CITIZEN KANE”.

However, the main problem with “MANK” is that Jack Fincher tried to connect the efforts to undermine Upton Sinclair’s gubernatorial campaign with Mankiewicz’s screenplay for “CITIZEN KANE”. And it did not exactly work. It failed to work due to Mankiewicz’s political beliefs. Considering that Sinclair had ran for governor as a Democrat, it seemed implausible that Mank would have been that upset over the state’s business leaders – which included movie studio chief Louis B. Mayer, studio producer Irving Thalberg; and newspaper magnates like Hearst and Harry Chandler – going out of their way to undermine Sinclair’s campaign. Mankiewicz’s politics tend to skewer toward conservative, except when it came to fascism.

It seems quite obvious that Jack Fincher needed an explanation for why Mankiewicz had been willing to write “CITIZEN KANE”, a scathing portrait of William Randolph Hearst. So he invented one. But you know what? I find myself wondering what topic had really caught the Finchers’ attention – Mankiewicz’s connection with Hearst, Davies and “CITIZEN KANE”; or the 1934 California gubernatorial election. Because honestly . . . it seemed as if both screenwriter and director were more interested in the latter. If that was the case, then the Fincher brothers should have solely focused the movie’s topic on the election.

I have another quibble about “MANK”. One I found some of the dialogue in the film’s first half hour a bit too stylized for my tastes. In one early scene, it seemed as if the Finchers had tried too hard to recapture a West Coast version of the Algonquin Round Table. Also, why did the Finchers shot this film in black-and-white? What was the point? Because to me, this decision to film in black-and-white seemed like another attempt at a homage to Hollywood’s Golden Age via a gimmick. And I am getting weary of gimmicks – especially unnecessary ones in Hollywood productions.

Otherwise, I did not have a problem with “MANK”. There are at least three reasons why I ended up enjoying this film. One, the movie featured a first-rate character study of Herman J. Mankiewicz. I have read a good deal about him. Granted, the movie was not completely honest in the writer’s characterization. The latter’s political beliefs would have never led him to get upset, let alone outraged over the campaign against Upton Sinclair. However, David Fincher’s screenplay did a very admirable job in capturing Mankiewicz’s other traits – including his wit, his addictions and air of weariness. If I must be frank, I believe Gary Oldman’s superb performance achieved this even more than the Finchers’ screenplay and direction.

Two, although I found the creation of “CITIZEN KANE” rather interesting, it did not strike me as particularly unique. Well . . . I take that back. “MANK” did tell this story specifically from the screenwriter’s point-of-view. The 1999 HBO film, “RKO 281”, told this story mainly from Orson Welles’ point-of-view. However, the movie’s depiction of Hollywood’s connection to California’s 1934 gubernatorial election struck me as the film’s more interesting and original aspect. This was especially apparent in scenes that featured a montage of the phony newsreels criticizing Sinclair and the election’s final night.

One aspect of “MANK” really impressed me – namely the performances featured in the film. They either ranged from competent performances from the likes of Tom Pelphrey as Joseph Mankiewicz, Charles Dance as William Randolph Hearst, Ferdinand Kingsley as Irving Thalberg, Joseph Cross as Charles Lederer, Toby Leonard Moore as David Selznick, Sam Troughton as John Houseman, Bill Nye as Upton Sinclair and Arliss Howard as Louis B. Mayer. Mind you, I believe there were times when Howard’s performance threatened to become a bit too theatrical. But I still enjoyed it. I was very impressed by the performances from Tuppence Middleton as Sara Mankiewicz, Tom Burke as Orson Welles and Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies. As much as Seyfriend’s performance impressed me, I do not believe she had deserved an Oscar or any other acting nomination for her performance. I do not believe her performance was that exceptional.

There were a handful of performances that I really enjoyed. I thought Jamie McShane gave a very emotional performance as test director Shelly Metcalf, who shot the anti-Sinclair newsreels. Frankly, Lily Collins’ performance as Mankiewicz’s no-nonsense secretary Rita Alexander impressed me a lot more than Seyfriend’s performance. And I thought she and the leading man had managed to create a superb screen chemistry. Although I believed that Seyfriend’s acting nominations were undeserved, I cannot say the same for Gary Oldman’s performance as Herman J. Mankiewicz. I thought he was superb as the screenwriting icon agonizing over his earlier apathy toward the governor’s election, while struggling over his alcoholism and creation of the “CITIZEN KANE” screenplay. He truly deserved his acting nominations – especially in one scene in which the main character went into a drunken rant against the Hollywood machine and Hearst.

“MANK” was definitely not the best movie of 2020. Perhaps it was one of the better ones. I still believe it could have been a better film if David and Jack Fincher had not attempted to connect the creation of “CITIZEN KANE” with California’s 1934 governor election. But its re-creation of the latter proved to be one of the film’s highlights. And the movie also benefited from excellent direction from David Fincher and excellent performances from a cast led by the always superb Gary Oldman. Honestly, I would have no qualms about buying a DVD copy of this film.

“LES MISERABLES” (2012) Review

 

“LES MISERABLES” (2012) Review

There were a few movies released in 2012 that I was very reluctant to see in the theaters. One of those movies turned out to be “LES MISERABLES”, the recent adaptation of Alain Boublil and Claude-Michel Schönberg’s 1985 stage musical of the same name. And that musical was an adaptation of Victor Hugo’s 1862 novel. 

Directed by Oscar winning director Tom Hooper, “LES MISERABLES” told the story of early 19th century French convict Jean Valjean released from prison on parole by a guard named Javert in 1815. Nineteen years earlier, Valjean had been imprisoned for stealing bread for his sister’s starving family. Because of his paroled status, Valjean is driven out of every town. He is offered food and shelter by the Bishop of Digne, but steals the latter’s silver during the night. Valjean’s former prison guard, the police captures him. But the Bishop informs them that he had given the silver to Valjean as a gift. The former convict eventually breaks his parole and Javert vows to capture him. Eight years later, Valjean has become a wealthy factory owner and mayor of Montreuil-sur-Mer. Some of Valjean’s factory workers discover that one of their own, a woman named Fantine, one of his workers, has been sending money to an illegitimate daughter named Cosette. Fantine uses her salary to pay an unscrupulous innkeeper named Thénardiers, his equally shady wife and their daughter Éponine to take care of Cosette. However, Valjean’s foreman dismisses Fantine and she resorts to desperate measures to support her daughter by selling her hair and teeth, before becoming a prostitute. Javert, who has become the town’s chief inspector, arrests Fantine for striking an abusive customer. Valjean saves her and has her hospitalized. He also learns that a man believed to be him, has been arrested. Refusing to allow an innocent man to become condemned in his place, Valjean reveals his identity during the man’s trial. Then then returns to the hospital and he promises the dying Fantine that he will look after Cosette.

Javert arrives to take Valjean into custody, but Valjean escape with a jump into the local river. He then pays the Thénardiers to allow him to take Cosette. The pair elude Javert’s pursuit and begin a new life in Paris. The story jumps nine years later in which the grandson of a wealthy man and student and named Marius Pontmercy becomes involved in a growing revolutionary movement following the death a government official sympathetic to the poor named Jean Maximilien Lamarque. He also falls in love with Cosette, much to Valjean’s dismay, who believes he is an agent of Javert’s. Meanwhile, Marius is unaware that Éponine Thénardier, the daughter of Cosette’s former caretakers, has fallen in love with him. Most of these storylines – Valjean’s reluctance to acknowledge Cosette and Marius’ love; Éponine’s unrequited love for Marius; and Valjean’s problems with Javert, who has joined the Paris police force, culminates in the long and detailed sequence that features the June Rebellion of 1832.

After watching my DVD copy of “LES MISERABLES”, I cannot deny that the movie has some great moments and struck me as pretty damn good. The sequence featuring Fantine’s troubles greatly moved me. After winning an Academy Award for her outstanding performance as the doomed woman, Anne Hathaway had expressed a hope that one day the misfortunes of Fantine would be found only in fiction in the future. That is a lovely hope, but knowing human nature, I doubt it will ever happen. And watching Fantine’s life spin out of control, due to the narrow-minded views of society and male objectivity of her body, I think my views on human nature sunk even further. Some critics had the nerve to claim that Fantine’s situation was something from the past and could never be considered relevant today. I am still amazed that adults – even those who considered themselves civilized and intelligent – could be so completely blind and idiotic. Even Valjean’s attempts to make a life for himself, following his release from prison struck me as relevant – echoing the attempts of some convicts to overcome the criminal pasts and records in an effort to make a new life. Usually with little or no success, thanks to the chilly attitude of the public. Hugh Jackman’s performance beautifully reflected the struggles of many convicts – past and present – to make new lives for themselves – especially in the movie’s first half hour. Although many people tend to view the police officer Javert as evil, I suspect they view his villainy as a product of any society that creates rules – at times rigid – to keep the general population in check. While watching “LES MISERABLES”, I realized that I could never view Javert as a villain of any kind. He merely seemed to be a foil or object to Valjean’s chances for a new life. More than anything, Javert seemed to be a victim of his own rigid views on good, evil and upholding the law. Russell Crowe did a beautiful job of expressing Javert’s inability to be flexible in his views on morality . . . even when his own flexibility comes to the fore when he allows Valjean to finally escape in the end. And it is a shame that he never earned an Academy Award or Golden Globe Award nomination.

“LES MISERABLES” has a running time of 2 hours and 38 minutes. Yet, only 50 minutes of the film focused on Valjean’s early years as an ex-convict, his tenure as mayor of Montreuil-sur-Merhis, Fantine’s troubles and young Cosette’s time with the Thénardiers. The rest of the movie is set in 1832 Paris, leading up to the outbreak of the June Rebellion. And if I must honest . . . I found that a little disappointing. Mind you, not all of the 1832 segment was a waste. Thanks to Tom Hooper’s direction, the segment featured a well directed and detailed account of the June Rebellion – especially from Marius Pontmercy, Valjean and Javert’s viewpoints. It featured more fine performances from Jackman and Crowe, as Valjean and Javert continued their game of cat and mouse. It also featured an excellent performance from Samantha Barks, who made a very impressive film debut as Éponine Thénardier, the oldest daughter of Cosette’s cruel caretakers. Many filmgoers and critics had complained about the romance between Cosette and Marius Pontmercy, claiming that it seemed forced. I do not know if I could agree with that assessment. I thought Amanda Seyfried and Eddie Redmayne did a pretty good job in conveying the young couple’s romantic interest in each other. The problem with their romance centered on Cosette’s character.

I realized that Seyfried did all she could to infuse some kind of energy into the role. I could say the same for Isabelle Allen. Both Seyfriend and Allen gave first-rate performances. Unfortunately, both were saddled with a one-dimensional character. At times, I found myself wishing that Éponine and not Cosette had ended up with Marius. In fact, I felt the movie could have explored Cosette and the Thénardiers’ relationship with a little more depth. As for the Thénardiers, they proved to be the story’s true villains. Unfortunately, Helen Bonham-Carter and Sascha Baron Cohen injected a little too much comedy into their performances. The couple came off more as comic relief, instead of villains. And I blame both Hooper and the screenwriters. Cosette and the Thénardiers were not the only problems. Although I had complimented Hooper’s direction of the June Rebellion scenes, the entire sequence threatened to go on and on . . . almost forever. I ended up as one relieved moviegoer when the sequence ended with quick violence and Valjean’s rescue of Marius. I have a deep suspicion that “LES MISERABLES” was really about the June Rebellion. Many claimed that Hugo was inspired by his witness of the insurrection. Which would explain why the story’s earlier period between 1815 and 1823 were rushed in a span of 50 minutes or so. Pity. Other moviegoers complained about Hooper’s constant use of close-ups in the film. And I have to agree with them. For a movie that was supposed to be a historic epic wrapped in a musical production, the balance between wide shots and close-ups somewhat unbalanced. During Valjean’s death scene, he envisioned not only the long dead Fatine, but also the insurrectionists who had fought alongside Marius before getting killed. One of those insurrectionists turned out to be Éponine Thénardier. Only she had died before Valjean had arrived at Marius’ barricade. So . . . why was he experiencing images of her?

I could comment on the singing performances of the cast. I thought they had more or less did a pretty good job. Many had criticized Crowe’s singing, but I honestly felt nothing wrong about it. Hathaway’s acting during her rendition of “I Dreamed a Dream” impressed me a lot more than her singing voice, which struck me as pretty solid. I had expected Jackman’s singing to knock my socks off. It did not quite reach that level. Like Hathaway and Crowe, his acting impressed me a lot more than his singing. Both Redmayne and Seyfried sang pretty well. So did Bonham-Carter and Cohen. But the one musical performance that really impressed me was Samantha Barks’ rendition of “On My Own”. The actress/singer has a beautiful voice.

I liked “LES MISERABLES” very much. The movie featured fine performances from the cast. And Tom Hooper did a very good job in directing the film, despite the many close-ups. And I do believe that it deserved a Best Picture nomination. Do not get me wrong. I enjoy musicals very much. But I simply could not endure a musical that not only featured songs, but dialogue acted out in song. It stretched my patience just a little too much – like the drawn out sequences leading up to the violence that ended the June Rebellion. I would like to say that I regret missing “LES MISERABLES” in the movie theaters. But I would be lying. I have no regrets . . . as much as I like the film.