David Fincher -- c/d?

Good details about the fact/fiction of that here, by Greg Mitchell who wrote “Campaign of The Century” about Sinclair’s run

The Mank connection to Sinclair is heavily fictionalized it seems, but the studio involvement in scuttling Sinclair’s win was pretty true, if not watered down

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/movies/mank-upton-sinclair.html?smid=tw-share

I think Fincher maybe tried to have it be about ~too much~ and Mank the character gets a little foggy between timelines

But I think Mank’s change of heart in wanting credit is the heart of the movie, and the movie writer in The System is where the richness is

I’ve watched it a couple of times now & don’t believe Fincher is waging any kind of war against Welles the way wellesians make it seem. I think the thought exercise of viewing Welles & Kane through Mank’s gimlet eye makes it hard not to seem like jabs are being intentionally thrown. as Mank says in the movie (paraphrasing) he *is* capable of being serious ... about things that are funny.

The movie is telling this creative undertaking through Mank’s experience of it and trying to underline that whatever Mank wrote, once it was written, was something he was proud of, and willing to stand for, which is something he had never really done, and what a seachange that is for a man who never held his own work in much high regard at all.
I don’t think it’s trying to challenge any accepted facts or say that Welles did less or whatever. imo.

Mank sank by script that's rank

I would have probably like it more if I was an Old Hollywood nerd

lol all the old hollywood nerds I know HATE this movie

A leaden mess. Stick with a topic and develop it: the '34 gubernatorial race, carousing with Perelman, Hecht, et. al, the writing of CK.

The film can't take a "side" because it's an overloaded buffet.

I would have much preferred another season of Mindhunter. Maybe watching this with low expectations helped and despite some of awful dialogue I found it quite enjoyable as far as Netflix productions go!

I'd rank his films thusly.

i feel like you nailed the best two; i'd switch around a bunch of stuff below them, mostly bc i'm the only huge fan of panic room and i actually really love the way he adapted gone girl

I remember panic room being a lot of fun

it’s so fun

I found the cast unattractive but it's been so long.

Gone Girl and Zodiac are basically tied for me lol

the social network is very good

i probably need to see gone girl again but i had read the book before i saw the movie and didn't really feel like the movie added much that wasn't already in the book. i remember it being a fine adaptation but not a special movie beyond that. i'd be curious to hear more from fans of the movie about what it is that appeals to them about it as a movie. this is not a challenge, again i haven't seen the movie since it first came out.

I found it obvious and cloddish. No surprises except when Tyler Perry was onscreen. I wish Verhoeven had directed.

i read the book first too! i thought the movie basically removed everything i found annoying about the book

i'm not sure how to counter "obvious and cloddish" but i found it visually awesome and appropriately creepy and cold

also idk the book has a binary structure right? and fincher had to make that more like an unfolding narrative and i think he did a great job of threading everything together

Not having to read Gillian Flynn’s sentences makes the film an immediate improvement

lol essentially yes

the only thing I'd want excised is the Scott McNairy character/scene

also, v good Fincher commentary track

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIJXB1jfB2o

Maybe the novel (I've only read Sharp Objects) offered interior monologues or a narrator who made Pike's character less...transparent? She practically twirled a mustche. idk this played like a movie whose developments were obvious and took a long time time getting to the denouement.

idk maybe knowing the twist inoculated me against noticing any mustache-twirling, pike seemed to nail the "presents a cool surface beneath which roil the thoughts of a high-key sociopath" 2 me

the book alternates the two main characters as (unreliable) narrators iirc

That's helpful. Maybe Fincher, trying to compensate, emphasized Pike's villainy as a way of reflecting the explicitness of the text.

well this was a crock of absolute shit

Be crueler.

Wouldn't go that far but this was too unfocused. Script needed a lot of work. I like pretty much everything Fincher's done but couldn't get into this one

Gary Oldman's vocal tics started to grate on me too

the performance grated for me. my main issue was that I was constantly thinking "why am I watching this?" throughout the film, which is always a bad sign. I am favourably inclined towards fincher, and the film looks fine, but I think the script just sinks this thing.

Bill Nye as Upton Sinclair was a nice surprise. Would watch that biopic.

also i was watching with headphones and i maybe i'm crazy but it sounded like the dialogue had an effect on it to make it sound like you're watching a movie in a theater - a very slight echo/reverb

I noticed this too! It was fairly disorienting thru my terrible tv speakers.

_also i was watching with headphones and i maybe i'm crazy but it sounded like the dialogue had an effect on it to make it sound like you're watching a movie in a theater - a very slight echo/reverb_


I noticed this too! It was fairly disorienting thru my terrible tv speakers.

well this was a crock of absolute shit

Was that not fairly obvious for most people?

I would imagine so. Mostly just reminded me how much better it would've been at a theater.

my main issue was that I was constantly thinking "why am I watching this?" throughout the film

yeah, I kinda enjoyed it while watching but have thought of it 0 times since

very confused at the casting of 62-year-old gary oldman to play someone who was in their 30s and early 40s during the majority of the story, especially when you also have to make him look like shit.

beyond that, what everyone else said--it's a bad script.

have you seen photos of the real mank

he looked like he was 80 when he was 30
oldman was a good choice!

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/5faeed169475b2442b5d2950/master/pass/Brody-Mank1a.jpg

if anything oldman looks too young lol

i feel like if this movie were internally consistent mank would have written his hitpiece script about louis b mayer

a bad pun ignored develops into a long, slurring ad hom attack, digging up stuff from the past. Mank is an ilxor.