I liked many aspects of it, but also found it needlessly frustrating and seriously up itself. I think someone who isn't aware of, or doesn't care about, 1930/40s Hollywood, Citizen Kane, or interwar California politics, is going to find it as boring as watching the Christmas Log for 24 hours straight. I admit I'm not that person. I admired the attention to detail, particularly regarding the cinematography — though putting artificial reel change dots on the screen is needlessly pretentious (ie: seriously up itself.) I thought the cast was excellent, particularly Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies, Ferdinand Kingsley as Irving Thalberg and Arliss Howard's turn as Louis B Mayer. But structurally the movie's all over the place. The Upton Sinclair/Merriam state election thread is way too long, really goes nowhere and adds nothing to the story. I loved the Hearst Castle dinner parties but that's because I love the era, I'm not sure anyone who didn't already know about that shit would have a clue about what was going on. Anyway. For aficionados only I think.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Current Watching
Collapse
X
-
I don’t know. I enjoyed going down a wikihe reading about reel-change cues, also called “cigarette burns.”
[spoiler]
Some of the election stuff drags a bit, but overall, it adds a lot to the story. It’s actually central to it. He’s asked to support the Republican because his boss does and then his (fictional) friend sells out to make that very Trump-style newsreel thing and ends up killing himself over it, which is one of the things that triggers Mank’s meltdown and puking in Hearst castle, being chucked out of Hearst’s good graces, which contributes to his decision to partly (but not entirely) base Charles Foster Kane on Hearst.
The story is largely about the compromises one is asked to make to get along in business and the costs of making and not making those compromises.
Perhaps it could have included more about what happened after Citizen Kane was released, but all of that was already foreshadowed. He, essentially, never worked in this town again. Neither did Orson Wells, but that story has been told many times.Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 06-12-2020, 03:26.
Comment
-
Yeah. I get all that but I'm not sure anyone who's not already aware of some, or even most, of the context and detail will. It's a movie for cinephiles, critics and industry insiders which is fine I guess, but the lady sitting next to me was totally lost. She knows who Orson Welles was, and Hearst, she's also seen Citizen Kane, but nothing else really made much sense to her. I could see it working perhaps as a docu-drama, but as fiction it seems deliberately exclusive.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View PostI liked many aspects of it, but also found it needlessly frustrating and seriously up itself. I think someone who isn't aware of, or doesn't care about, 1930/40s Hollywood, Citizen Kane, or interwar California politics, is going to find it as boring as watching the Christmas Log for 24 hours straight. I admit I'm not that person. I admired the attention to detail, particularly regarding the cinematography — though putting artificial reel change dots on the screen is needlessly pretentious (ie: seriously up itself.) I thought the cast was excellent, particularly Amanda Seyfried as Marion Davies, Ferdinand Kingsley as Irving Thalberg and Arliss Howard's turn as Louis B Mayer. But structurally the movie's all over the place. The Upton Sinclair/Merriam state election thread is way too long, really goes nowhere and adds nothing to the story. I loved the Hearst Castle dinner parties but that's because I love the era, I'm not sure anyone who didn't already know about that shit would have a clue about what was going on. Anyway. For aficionados only I think.
I'm not sure casting 62-year-old Gary Oldman as a 43-year-old was fair, no matter how alcohol-addicted Mankiewicz was. It sort of missed making the point at how young an age Mank's career was effectively over. Watching Oldham play him (compellingly, I must add), the viewer will be under the impression that the guy was close to retirement anyway.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Amor de Cosmos View PostYeah. I get all that but I'm not sure anyone who's not already aware of some, or even most, of the context and detail will. It's a movie for cinephiles, critics and industry insiders which is fine I guess, but the lady sitting next to me was totally lost. She knows who Orson Welles was, and Hearst, she's also seen Citizen Kane, but nothing else really made much sense to her. I could see it working perhaps as a docu-drama, but as fiction it seems deliberately exclusive.
I don’t know if that makes it “deliberately exclusive,” or if it is, I don’t see that as a huge problem. I’d rather look stuff up in Wikipedia than watch a film with clunky exposition that bogs down the film.
In Mank, in helps to have seen Citizen Kane, which lots of people have, but it might be more important to know who Louis Mayer, Irving Thalberg and WR Hearst were.
... and John Houseman and Orson Wells.
Marion Davies’ story is more obvious from the film, although I don’t know if it ever clarifies that she is not married to Hearst. He had an estranged wife back east.
It seems that John Houseman was always an old man. I recall him from those Smith Barney ads in the 80s and he played the grampa on Silver Spoons (starring budding fascist Rickey Schroeder). I saw The Paper Chase much later. He talked like that because he went to a posh school in England, but was born in Romania and lived most of his life in the US.
I also noted that it seems like just about everyone who was anyone in Hollywood in those days, was a Jew from New York. Or at least a very large number of them were. I guess that says something about the importance of comedy and storytelling in that culture, but I haven’t read enough about it to say what. It may also reflect how movies were not originally regarded as a business for “respectable” WASPs. That’s certainly why comic books were originally all created by Jewish guys.
It certainly says something about why the Red Scare and Black List in the 50s had more than a whiff of antisemitism.
Comment
-
Originally posted by G-Man View Post
Everything in that post is spot-on, though I thought the reel-change dots were a nice touch. This will win a few Oscars, I imagine. The Gregg Toland tribute should get the cinematographer a gong.
I'm not sure casting 62-year-old Gary Oldman as a 43-year-old was fair, no matter how alcohol-addicted Mankiewicz was. It sort of missed making the point at how young an age Mank's career was effectively over. Watching Oldham play him (compellingly, I must add), the viewer will be under the impression that the guy was close to retirement anyway.
Dudes did look older sooner back then, I think. All the smoking and drinking I guess. Orson Wells was only 24, but looks about 40 in Citizen Kane.
Lots of people doing believable accents in the film. Gary Oldman is English, as is Tuppence Middleton (indeed, that’s the most English name I can imagine), and they’re both doing very credible American accents. Lily Collins is a dual citizen, I think, and has an American accent in real life but sounds very English in the film. Amanda Seyfried is from Allentown, but does Brooklyn-but-trying-to-hide-it very well.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View PostI also noted that it seems like just about everyone who was anyone in Hollywood in those days, was a Jew from New York. Or at least a very large number of them were. I guess that says something about the importance of comedy and storytelling in that culture, but I haven’t read enough about it to say what. It may also reflect how movies were not originally regarded as a business for “respectable” WASPs. That’s certainly why comic books were originally all created by Jewish guys.
Another interesting thing about Mank is that though it's a consummately American story, in every way, the cast is almost entirely British. Though the director and writer aren't. I'm not sure what effect that has on the end result, but I'm sure there is one.
Comment
-
I don’t know about “almost entirely.” I count five or six British actors, I think. The guy playing David Selznick is Australian. But they’re all playing Americans (unless you count Houseman as English). I don’t know what Hearst really talked like, but he was from California, so if he had an English accent, it was an affectation.
British and Australian actors are probably over-represented among the most sought-after talent in Hollywood, but that’s true in general, not just in this movie. I suspect its because there’s more public support for theater in those countries.
They seem to be better at pretending to be American than vice versa. Not sure why that is. It might have to do with training, exposure to American accents on TV from a young age or just something physiological that makes our accent easier.
In the US, it seems like 95% of formally trained actors went to NYU or Yale (it’s not that high, but it seems like it). That’s got to be a barrier to entry (in a profession that has a lot of them.)Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 06-12-2020, 22:42.
Comment
-
I haven't counted, but even half a dozen is a lot, when normally there might be one or two. English training is still largely stage-based and quite rigorous. Looks don't count as much as they do in the US film and TV industry.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Right. Most of the house can’t really see the actors faces very clearly anyway, but they can all hear how well they can act (or not).
US theater training seems to be heavily slanted toward musical theater. All of those touring productions need actors. Not sure how many of them can make a living at it.Last edited by Hot Pepsi; 06-12-2020, 23:16.
Comment
-
I'm another who loved The Queen's Gambit, which I binged with my wife yesterday as a treat for her birthday. Beautifully filmed, acted and paced. The last episode has been criticized as too Hollywood but I was OK with it: the Russians are portrayed with humanity and respect and the final scene is wonderful.
The child actor is stunning in the orphanage scenes.
MINI-SPOILERS:
I would have liked a bit more on Elizabeth's implied bisexuality (or pansexuality); the morning after bedroom scene in Paris is a strong hint but can be read as non-sexual by those who wish to pretend that she's straightforwardly hetero. Her black friend is close to cliche in some scenes and is rather too self-sacrificing (hey, it's not like a black character would desperately need to hold on to $3000 in the early 70s) but just has enough scene-stealing lines to stay on the right side of authenticity.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by Benjm View PostThe Cold War Steve documentary on Sky Arts last night was very good. It was illuminating on the what, how, why and where of his work, with a loose structure around him trying to publicly display some large pieces around the country and encountering difficulties because of the political content. He was engaging and honest about what drives him, including his mental health. The West Midlands was a strong presence, both as a location and in the tone of the piece. The relaxed interaction between CWS and his manager might appeal to Gone Fishing fans.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Benjm View PostAs a child of the '70s, I have mixed feeling about the Benny's Babbies piece just because of the prominence of my woolly hatted namesake.
Here they are. The second one is quite striking to me, as my mum and dad have had a print of the original pre-Raphaelite painting in their front room for the past 30 years or so.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Yeah, it's really OK. Look, it's a British rom com set at christmas. So every box is ticked, every clich? rolled out.
It's exactly as good or bad as you image. I found it entirely bearable, mainly because Emilia Clark is very watchable and her timing is fairly good.The love interest is a smug fucker and the twist you can spot from the moon. But it pops along harmlessly.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Walt Flanagans Dog View Post
Famously there was an error in establishing the copyright for Charade which meant it became public domain immediately upon release. It then meant that later anyone could released it on video, then after DVD but the copies were always poor because no one would spend money on improving them. I might have a look (and think it is on streaming as well) to see if it is any better these days.
Comment
-
Originally posted by WOM View PostFair enough. Might give it a go.
(I'm writing a Christmas rom-com at the moment. I'm at 90 pages, which is 90 minutes in movie land. I have an issue in the 3rd act that I'm trying to resolve, but I'm quite liking what I've done so far.)
That normally works.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment