Wednesday
Dec092020
Podcast: All about "Mank" plus the Best Director Oscar race
Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 8:15PM with Nathaniel R & Murtada Elfadl
We're back!
Index (63 minutes)
00:01 Mank: The stars, the story, and rewatching Citizen Kane
24:00 MVPs of the ensemble. Plus those Norma Shearer asides
32:00 How will Oscar react overall? David Fincher's career acclaim
38:00 Everybody in the (wildly open) Best Director race. Plus female directors rising!
55:30 Mank in male acting categories: Gary Oldman? Charles Dance?
Related Reading:
• Best Actor Chart
• Best Director Oscar Chart
You can listen to the podcast here at the bottom of the post or download from iTunes. Continue the conversations in the comments, won't you?
Reader Comments (26)
Gentlemen: John Houseman?!? The Acting Company? The Paper Chase? Best Supporting Actor?
working stiff - OMG. i just looked it up. It's the same guy. whoa. had no idea he was an uncredited writer on citizen kane before winning his acting Oscar!
And of course Kirsten Dunst has played both Marion Davies and Marie Antoinette...
AND: I really didn't expect to be typing this, but you two were clearly not the ideal audience for this movie, especially if it wasn't seen on a big screen. #shocked
PS. It took Gary Oldman decades to get his first of only two Oscar nominations...
working stiff -- hmmm. not sure what you mean. If Cinephiles who love Citizen Kane (which is both of us) aren't the audience, what is the ideal audience?
A less actressexual, more Gary Oldman-loving audience perhaps? ;-)
I personally loved every black-and-white, Oldman-ridden, Inside Hollywood, Fincheresque minute of Mank, but I also adore Benjamin Button and I'm pretty sure I'm also a little older than both you & Murtada, fwiw...
But I also think this year's small screen challenge is going to dampen a lot of potential enthusiasm for Mank. Oddly (or not), since my childhood was spent watching old black-and-white movies on screens even smaller than the one I have now, this is all comfortingly familiar...
Since Fincher isn't a writer-director his work will fall short in direct comparison to those who are.
I'll be honest I don't get the Fincher obsession everyone else seems to have. He sounds like an awful director to work with. All those takes just mean you don't know what you want or you're terrible at giving direction. The movies themselves are.. fine, I suppose. I think I only really enjoyed one. Besides some interesting shots Mank is nothing special. But it'll be worshipped and admired by film bros just because its Fincher!
I'm also laughing at all those people who complained about Grewig's editing/time line of Little Women but suddenly have no issue with this mess.
I know it’s not cool, but I also loved Benjamin Button (my #1 of 2008). The movie of his with the most emotion (the entire Tulsa Swinton sequence) and had just the perfect closing image (the clock underwater, still ticking backwards).
@ Owen
I think some of the same people who had issues with Little Women are "wrestling" with Mank's structure, although they have no problem with Tarantino's similar flourishes.
@ Paranoid Android
I'm not a Fincher fanboy (still haven't seen Zodiac, embarrassed to say) but Button just did it for me, due in no small measure to Blanchett and the rest of that stellar supporting cast.
What surprised me most about Mank was knowing about the huge amount of digital effects. In the past, directors like Ford and Fellini spent hours and even days finding the perfect cloud or the perfect wave to shoot the take. Now all the director needs is to search for the perfect cloud or the perfect wave in an image bank. Not to mention that Gregg Toland didn’t have the equipment arsenal that the Mank's director of cinematography, Erik Messerschmidt has to his aid to, with difficulty, to try to reproduce what Toland did magnificently in Citizen Kane.
It will be funny to see Fincher and Sorkin fighting at the Oscars. They who, as everyone knows, have previously worked together.
I just thought Mank was boring, to be honest. I do like Fincher, but he selected a dull subject for this film. If I can't recommend a film to my non-cinephile friends because the subject is so niche and the film does nothing to broaden its world, then it's not a good movie.
I'm surprised that you think Regina King is a shoo-in for a Best Director nomination. I thought the direction for One Night in Miami was uninspired and anonymous. It's possible she could be nominated (as you noted, Morten Tyldum got a nomination), but I wouldn't necessarily rank her ahead of Sorkin, Greengrass, Lee, Zeller, Chung, or even Reichardt. In recent years, it's also been tough for actors-turned-directors to receive Best Director nods - yes, Peele and Gerwig did, but they were already multi-hyphenates rather than acclaimed actors like King, and they directed the two auteurist cultural touchstone films of their year with major critical support.
Nat: Considering it's kind of a weaker year than we assumed in Supporting Actor in terms of obvious contenders? Surprised you're not at least considering the strong possibility of Ewan McGregor for Birds of Prey as a surprise Supporting Actor nod. Arguments For: Decently long career of nomination worthy work. Zero nominations. Very good performance. Very showy performance, which, y'know, isn't usual for him. Substantial, but clearly supporting, which is always nice. Gets a Pre Shutdown Memorial Nomination (And at least some people, in Hollywood, have to be arguing FOR such nominations, right...?) SOMEWHERE. Arguments Against: Comic Book Villain. Vaccine Roll-Out is starting, strengthening the argument of anyone actively AGAINST pre-Shutdown Memorial Noms. One Counter Argument: A Comic Book Villain other than The Joker getting an Oscar nomination is only a good thing at this point. After the past decade or so, The Joker is painfully and obviously over-saturated. An Oscar nomination for a comic book villain other than him, ESPECIALLY from the DC camp, might start calming that crap down?
@Volvagia - There’s absolutely no way McGregor’s getting nominated for Birds of Prey. It’s a big performance, yes, but not “serious” or weighty enough to do well with AMPAS. Could the movie get tech nominations? Sure, but that’s it. I could see him getting a Globe nom though.
MJ: To be absolutely clear? I wouldn't say it's wise to put him any higher than seventh or eighth on a prediction slate right now, even WITH all those arguments for him. My confusion is why he isn't even on a fifteen wide prediction slate.
Given that Zhao can win in Adapted Screenplay, I think the double whammo of the Finchers is almost locked for Director and Original Screenplay. Picture will be a toss up between both films, with Nomadland being this year's Moonlight while Mank would be this year's La La Land.
Hopefully now Amanda Seyfried's career is on track.
Mank being this year's La La Land?
Hardly.
It's being received so coldly I wouldn't be surprised for it to even be ignored at Director + Picture.
@Volvagia - Ah, I see your point.
@unknown
My comparison with La La Land is not because of the critical reception, but about how much baity it is, overall, with EVERYTHING that Hollywood loves the most (specially, watching themselves in the mirror and being recognised as artists rather than businessmen)
Volvagia -- not to pour salt on your wound but i wouldn't even place him if the chart extended to 50 men (not with so many huge ensembles around with like 7 famous actors in each. Just the Netflix prestige dramas alone have about 20 men that are way more likely and that's not counting all the other studios with major actors in supporting roles. It's not just that kind of film or performance. To be taken seriously in a genre film (a feat in and of itself) you almost invariably have to have best-in-show reviews and a super grabby villain characters (like Pfeiffer in Batman Returns or Ledger in The Dark Knight or Jordan in Black Panther) and even people who like Birds of Prey hardly mention McGregor. I don't suspect, for instance, that he'll even make my "best villain" list this year because it's just not that interesting a performance /character (and i'm, as you know, a Ewan McGregor fanboy.)
I'm not saying it's right that it's that hard to be taken seriously for awards consideration in genre films (it's not!) but even if it were much easier to be considered for prizes when you're working in the horror, superhero, fantasy, or sci-fi genres, the role has to be more grabby or the performance the movie's big takeaway.
Prajhan -- yes, hopefully! But it's been so quiet with her prior to Mank I wonder if she's not just enjoying being a midlevel star whilst enjoying domestic bliss instead.
@Nathaniel...
... is it wrong to think that McGregor should have nominations but no wins so far (maybe, The Impossible? Moulin Rouge? Trainspotting?) but his Trainspotting co-star (who actually played Renton on stage!), Ewen Bremner should have 2 Oscar wins (Supporting for the original, and maybe lead for the sequel)? Bremner is one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood... his unique physique has limited strongly his career, far from his actual talent... he was one of the few good things in films like Pearl Harbor, Alien vs Predator or Black Hawk Down!
I found the Norma Shearer discussion interesting, as it assumed everything every character said was to be taken at face value. Remember, Shearer’s “limitations” and Marie Antoinette’s box office are first broached by Hearst, who was heartbroken that Marion was passed over for the role. Mayer, a guest seated by Hearst’s side, does a kind of shrugging, “Oh, well, yeah, if only...” And THEN Mank, hearing this exchange, goes into his drunken tirade mocking them via Don Quixote. The audacity of these men to pretend Marion would’ve been better than Shearer, Hearst’s entitlement, Mayer’s (perceived) spinelessness, THAT’S the truth of the conversation, not Shearer’s ability to play the role.
Always enjoy listening to your podcasts (except for one Supporting Actress Smackdown).
As a side note, Amanda Seyfried plays Marion Davies--not Marion Davis.
I do take issue with the argument that someone old should not be voted for, or has enough nominations and should be passed over for someone newer, younger and fresher. This argument has been made a few times in your podcasts. Ironically you used Gary Oldman as an example in this podcast who was passed over early in his career for "Sid and Nancy" and "Prick Up Your Ears". He is someone who was a victim of that argument and now is someone who could benefit from it. Maybe we should just vote for the 5 best performances. Steven Spielberg is another example of this.