Tag: streaming

Categories
Uncategorised

Mank (2020)

There are few films that have generated such concersation this year than David Fincher’s new film, Mank. Following Hollywood screenwriter, Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) and the inception and creation of Orson Welles’ masterpiece, Citizen Kane, Mank is not your regular run-off-the-mill Hollywood film that glorifies filmmaking. Fincher looks into the dark side of film production and the manipulation that happens behind the scenes. Admittedly, I wasn’t sure what to expect going in beyond it having an amazing cast and crew and the backlash it appears to be receiving on social media but I personally loved it. Not only in its black and white appearance but the tone and direction reflects Citizen Kane which at points blends fact and fiction as Mank begins to succumb to the alcoholism that haunts him.

David Fincher’s direction is fantastic as ever and I truly think this may be the film that puts an Oscar in his hands. Based on a screenplay written by his late father, Jack Fincher, Mank is an intricate character study into the mind of a brilliant man who is challenged by the rules and regulations of the Hollywood Studios. In many ways, Mank feels as though you are watching a film from the Golden Age at points but from a behind-the-scenes vantage point. What is fantastic about how Fincher directs is the shift in tone. There are many points that feel like a thriller or even horror as Mank descends in madness while writing the project. The whole span of the film is sixty days and yet the amount of action feels as though it spans years. The passion Fincher has, arguably in part due to adapting his late father’s script, is evident and I think he does a flawless job at conveying the darkness that lies beneath the glamour. What is brilliant about Fincher’s films is that each one is completely different from the other. He truly is one of the most exciting filmmakers working today, even if his filmography isn’t the most extensive.

Gary Oldman’s performance has played a major part of the discussion in the conversations regarding the film. Playing a man 20 years his junior does seem a little miscast but look beyond this and there lies an amazing performance. Mank is such a layered man who loves his craft and his lifestyle yet isn’t afraid to bite the hand that feeds him. He treasures his friendships but risks it all in the name of his sharp wit and even harsher writing. Oldman is undoubtedly one of the best living actors and although Mank isn’t the best performance of his whole career, it’s still a fantastic turn.

The support in this film comes from Amanda Seyfried who, in my opinion, is the highlight of the film for me. Playing 1930s Hollywood icon, Marion Davies was no easy feat. During the Golden Age of Hollywood, Davies was well-known and admired and unfortunately her affair with William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) is what history associates her with. Seyfried will no doubt be nominated for a Best Supporting Actress and I really hope she wins. She’s given flawless performances, particularly in comedies in her early career such as Mean Girls (2004) and Jennifer’s Body (2009). Mank is a welcome dramatic stretch for her while still maintaining the intelligent wit Davies possessed. From her first scene, Seyfried is magnetic in the same nostalgic way the leading ladies were commanded to be.

There are many scenes in Mank that have stayed with me but the one that is the true standout is when Mank begins to discuss his plans for his upcoming film at a dinner that is attended by Marion Davies, Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and William Randolph Hearst no less. Oldman’s phenomenal acting in this scene is horrendously intense and extremely uncomfortable as he insults and berates the guests at the dinner before setting his attention on Hearst and discrediting his name and political career. Watching Mank make his way slowly around the table as the guests start to leave one by one until only Mank, Mayer and Hearst are the only ones left.

Overall, Mank is a fantastic insight into the overlooked mind behind what is often considered the greatest film ever made. The similarities in filming style of Citizen Kane and Mank are evident that go beyond the black and white stylistic choice. Citizen Kane may be about Hearst but really the creation of the film is primarily about Mank himself and his outlook on the world. Watching Citizen Kane with this new outlook will definitely make it a different experience. I have also been thinking of writing a David Fincher ranking list and it’ll be interesting to see where Mank would fall.

What did you think of Mank? Let me know in the comments below!

Mank is available to stream now on Netflix.

Categories
Uncategorised

The Two Popes (2019)

The first film I watched this decade is a surprising choice in the form of biopic The Two Popes following the conservative Cardinal Ratzinger (Anthony Hopkins) who becomes Pope Benedict XVI and his eventual friendship with the more liberal Cardinal Bergoglio (Jonathan Pryce), who later becomes Pope Francis. Directed by Brazilian director Fernando Meirelles with a script written by Anthony McCarten based on the latter’s novel The Pope, The Two Popes manages to successfully avoid falling into the trap of becoming another studio churned out biopic. There is no doubt that the two leads are the stars of the show and contribute a lot to the film’s overall acclaim but Meirelles control on the tone of the film and McCarten’s deeply intense script make The Two Popes a thrilling watch, particularly scenes when it is the two gentleman by themselves. The film’s strength comes in its constant shift in dynamic. The opening scenes follow the death of Pope John Paul II and the deciding vote on who will be his successor and the differences between the two eventual popes are crystal clear. Cardinal Ratzinger does everything in his power to become Pope and succeeds by persuading his fellow Cardinals during breaks from voting whereas Bergoglio is discomforted by the prospect of becoming pontiff. There seems to be a projected rivalry on the two men which Ratzinger seems to act on but Bergoglio is perplexed by this narrative.

The power from this film comes from the brilliant screenplay by McCarten. His script reads like a power struggle at times as the dynamic shifts between the two popes’ favour throughout. The inclusion of flashbacks and context into their histories also helps the film to avoid being just a simple story of one Pope’s decline and another’s ascension. There is no bias for either one as we are just presented with facts such as Ratzinger’s admission that he knew about the molestation within the Church before the scandal came to light. Despite the two men being a part of the same religion, they have completely different viewpoints. Ratzinger feels that resigning is the only way to seek absolution whereas Bergoglio thinks that he should remain Pope and see the scandal through to the end. Bergoglio’s upbringing and story is filled with a lot more turmoil than Ratzinger who seems to have had a more privileged upbringing. Their conflicting interests and differing politics result in Bergoglio coming across as more compassionate than Ratzinger because he is more accepting and open to change. The ending scene with the two men watching the football is funny to watch and makes for a light tone to suggest that their friendship is on good terms.

The two leads excel in their roles as expected. Jonathan Pryce is absolutely brilliant in the leading role as Bergoglio who is the quietly outspoken of the two. Constantly having to justify his stance on controversial topics that differ from the conservative Church teachings, Bergoglio is seen equally as a disgrace and a revolutionary within the Church. It comes to light that this has been the case all his life with his complicated background during the Argentinian militaria regime. Whereas Ratzinger revels in the tradition and opulence of the Catholic Church, Bergoglio is happy with what he has. He doesn’t understand why those high up in the Church live in such luxury. Pryce is perfect casting in both his appearance and his characterisation, truly becoming the future pope. You never know what he is going to do or say next because he is unpredictable. One minute he will be conversing in Latin with Ratzinger and the next he will be teaching him how to tango.

Anthony Hopkins’ performance is his best in film for years. Bringing out mannerisms subtly with an understated accent and acting that seems effortless but is really meticulous, Hopkins is fantastic as the newly elected Pope. Ratzinger is not necessarily a likeable character because he is so set in his ways and has many dated opinions that don’t fit in with the times. He is clearly a highly intelligent man and extremely well-read but also detached from modern society. In some ways Bergoglio tests him to embrace the present world more and try to adapt. We don’t see as much of Ratzinger’s background as Bergoglio’s but Hopkins gives us enough to know that he has always been a lonely figure. The scene in which Ratzinger gives Bergoglio his confession is fantastic. The audience lingers on Hopkins’ words as he reveals his difficult time growing up and being saved by God.

In terms of awards buzz, The Two Popes has garnered attention for Pryce and Hopkins’ performances. I don’t think either will win due to strong competition in both categories but they are deserved nominations. I didn’t think I would find this film particularly enjoyable but I was pleasantly surprised. The performances alone are enough to the grip the viewer but it proved to be even more. It’s not a film about religion but more of a character study about two very men who are connected because of that religion. There were many gripping scenes filled with tension as the two popes debate about various aspects of the church. I also wasn’t expecting the film to have so many funny moments as well and it doesn’t feel too heavy in subject matter. I think following it primarily from the point of view of Bergoglio was a smart choice as we see the events from both the inside and the outside depending on what is happening.

What did you think of The Two Popes? Let me know in the comments below!

Categories
Uncategorised

Marriage Story (2019)

Finally got around to watching this one and boy, was it worth the wait. Noah Baumbach’s tale of a couple coping with the struggles and heartbreak of divorce had received a lot attention and more than deserving of the hype. Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver play New York based married couple Nicole and Charlie Barber who are pitted against one another by their lawyers when going through their divorce. Directed and written by Baumbach and containing many signature improvised scenes in true Baumbach fashion, he truly has outdone himself with this flick and created a film that is deeply human and resonating on many levels. He does not want the audience to pick sides as each side is justified and wrong in their own ways. Both characters lay out the others’ strengths and weaknesses in the opening monologues, setting the tone for the rest of the film. The film seems more stripped back in direction than Baumbach’s previous endeavours but then this feels like his most personal project and in many respects, the most heartfelt.

Johansson and Driver bring the best performances of their careers to date and both will receive nominations for sure and stand a very good chance at bringing home Oscars. Johansson takes a break from the Marvel franchise and it seems that she revels in being Nicole, an actress who longs to return to her native Los Angeles to make TV shows and films. Nicole is deeply passionate about being an active member of the family unit, particularly when it comes to being a mum to their son, Henry. She plays with him for hours on end and constantly rewards him for completing simple and menial tasks. Driver’s Charlie on the other hand resents rewarding his son for going to the toilet and instead wants to instill maturity and push his son to do his homework and work on his skills. What both parents share is an undying love for their child and the mutual understanding that the divorce outcome must be beneficial to Henry’s needs most of all.

As Nicole’s lawyer Nora, Laura Dern is glamorous, unstoppable and manipulative. She swoops in with compliments for Nicole on their first meeting, decked out in a beautiful outfit and sky high heels that become a signature throughout. She is a hugely intimidating character who begins to create a narrative on behalf of Nicole. In the courtroom scene, Nora refuses to back down and the articulation and intelligence that Dern brings to the role is surely going to bring that overdue Oscar. Dern has always been a reliable actress, wowing time and time again but with Marriage Story, she is able command the control of the scenes that she is in. She is truly mesmerising in her speeches and empowering in her confidence.

There are many scenes in this film that caused me to pause and take in the perfection but the big one has to be Nicole and Charlie’s huge argument as they cannot agree. It’s brutal, real and incredibly improvised. What starts as neutral smalltalk soon turns into a hurtful explosion full of abuse hurled at both sides and Nicole and Charlie both rip into each other for their weaknesses and expose the problems in the marriage that had been bubbling the surface and kept from the audience until this point. This honesty soon makes way for the ridiculous as they begin to insult each other for points and it soon ends with Charlie’s meltdown in which he curse Nicole and hopes she is smited with illness before being run over and wishing she was dead. Immediately, he falls to his knees in defeat as he instantly regrets his words and the two apologise. The exhaustion of the scene radiates off the screen. Before this scene, the tension is clearly brewing but both parties delude themselves and pretend everything is ok and can be relatively normal given the circumstance but here we are presented the reason and the breaking of the foundation.

This film subverts the usual divorce storyline in that the characters do not get back together at the end. This isn’t to say it isn’t a happy ending. In fact, both characters are much happier for it and we see the positive outcome and newfound respect that the protagonists have for each other. The end scene being a breath of fresh air in the aftermath of their court session. It’s a film that you cannot help but feel affected. The realism and authentic approach makes it seem like you are watching a real marriage fall apart. The genius of Baumbach’s writing is that he makes you sympathise with one party then the other and then you end up feeling sorry for both and wanting the best for them. Nicole and Charlie have done bad things during the course of their marriage but that does not make them bad people.

I think that Marriage Story will be a film discussed for many years and has revolutionised filmmaking for streaming culture. The film does not make any attempts to blend in nor does it want to be trendy. Baumbach is simply delivering quality cinema and making it accessible for everyone. There is an audience for it and I think a simple film like Marriage Story is a perfect way to break the ice further in the same way Roma did. I would give this film some major awards, particularly for its writing and acting. It’s a well-rounded film that is truly captivating from start to end. You feel that you truly get to know Charlie and Nicole equally throughout.

What do you think of Marriage Story? Let me know in the comments below!