CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › The Films of David Fincher
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Films of David Fincher

post #1 of 18
9/26/10 at 12:42pm
Thread Starter 
Maybe this thread will get a bit cluttered, I guess we'll see, but this started in the thread for The Social Network and I wanted to move it before it got too off-topic. First, I posted this, which was my rating of Fincher's films thus far:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Foster View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Z.Vasquez View Post
Good to hear its good. Not that I had a doubt. See, I've realized that Fincher has a pattern: one misstep, one home-run, to use a mixed metaphor. He doesn't deviate from this. Consider:

Alien 3--misstep.
Seven--home run.
THe Game--enjoyable misstep, but misstep nonetheless.
Fight Club--home run.
Panic Room--misstep.
Zodiac--grand slam.
Benjamin Button--handsome misstep, but misstep nonetheless.

Thus, Social Network will be a home run. It's just science.
I just saw this post and I feel compelled to rate Fincher's work.

Alien³ [Workprint]: ***½
So many people saw the theatrical cut and it wasn't Aliens and they wrote it off forever, but I think Sigourney Weaver almost single-handedly makes this one worth watching. She has a scene with Charles Dance that only has as much meaning and power as it does because this is a scene in a sequel and the viewer has presumably seen the other ones, and I think that's the sign of a great one: something that could not be as good as it is without building off of what came before. The workprint, since it never got honed, is a little bit long, but I think there's a perfect, albeit extremely bleak movie in there.

Se7en: ****
A masterpiece, and a better and more interesting movie than Fight Club, which I feel is overrated. Everyone is on point and the writing is top-notch, especially Freeman, who does phenomenal work in the whole movie, but really kills in smaller, quieter, less plot-driven moments, like the diner meetup with Gwyneth Paltrow's character.

The Game: ***
A lark, but a handsome one. Easily the most disposable of Fincher's movies, he takes a fine little thriller and elevates it with strong visuals. The potboiler and the treatment he's giving the material never gels, but some of it just looks so phenomenal, like Douglas' mansion, covered in graffiti and bathed in black light.

Fight Club: ***
I'm not knocking Fincher's stylish direction, but there's almost so much of it in Fight Club, the film starts to choke on it. There's so much that's amped-up and slicked over, it becomes hyper-reality, which I would say hurts the film.

Panic Room: ***½
People underrate this movie, but it feels more substantial and less of a B-thriller than The Game, packs a surprisingly solid script -- maybe the only one -- from David Koepp, and fine performances from everyone.

Zodiac: **
I realize no movie based on a true story is really all that accurate, but Zodiac is inaccurate when it has no reason to be, based on Fincher's own goals and the disclaimer at the beginning of the film. He claimed in interviews he wanted to make a film about a man eaten by his own obsession, then hired that same person (who brought an agenda with him) and made his life into a giant wish fulfillment feature film. Almost everything that happened in real life serves Fincher's supposed goals better, and yet the movie aggressively follows other options. Most importantly, I find the movie Fincher claimed he was making more compelling than the one that is.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: **½
Didn't bore me, but didn't move me much either. Technical aspects override the love story, ala Fight Club.
Then, Adrian responded to me:
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianDyka View Post
Fight Club and Zodiac are worse than Panic Room and Alien 3? Wow. On Zodiac- you have to judge the movie for what it is, not what you thought it should have been.
And here is what I wrote in response, which was gonna go in that thread, but I moved it here:

But this is what Fincher said his intention was, repeatedly. Is that not a valid thing to expect the movie to deliver on?

There are things in Zodiac that I love (the Charles Fleischer bit is fucking phenomenal from beginning to end, and Ruffalo is great, as is his chemistry with Edwards) but based on what I knew all of it rubbed me the wrong way: the way the film makes Graysmith into the little guy trying to do the right thing; the smarmy, smug attitude of Lynch as Allen (he might as well be wearing a sign that says "Ha! I'm the killer, but I'm gonna get away with it!"); the way it seems to gloss over the low points in Graysmith's life, just because (in my opinion, this is the reason) the guy is an advisor on the film. The worst things to happen to this guy is that he was a) totally right and completely validated about the Zodiac killer in every way but didn't get to actually catch him, b) some girl he barely seems to have any connection leaves with a kid he seems like he could take or leave, c) he keeps his job at the newspaper for a long time, and d) he gets a five o'clock shadow. So these are points and perspectives that I would have even if I didn't know what Fincher wanted to do, but on top of that, I do, and it only makes it worse.

My feeling is that Fincher really connects you to his protagonists in an emotional, raw way. I got that out of the Alien³ workprint, I got that out of Se7en, and I really got that out of The Social Network, although you'll hear from me about that back in that thread. In Fight Club and Benjamin Button, I feel like Fincher got very overwhelmed by surface details and technology, and I lost some of that connection. I think in the case of Fight Club, you're also supposed to really connect with Marla, but what about all the times she's not on screen? I have trouble feeling for or feeling what the Norton character is feeling for 75% of the film, but then he realizes it's all a sham and I start to gain that bond back.

As for Zodiac, I'd say Fincher just uses that power to bond a person that I just don't like, especially because I know in a sense that bond is dishonest.
Reply
post #2 of 18
9/26/10 at 4:38pm
See, much like THE SOCIAL NETWORK, you can approach ZODIAC from a standpoint of "This actually happened" or you can approach it from a standpoint of a larger contextual meaning. ZODIAC, although it presents the facts of the case in a fairly accurate manner, isn't really about what happened. All film is fiction.

Now, I'm not going by what happened, here. I'm going by what the film is about, and there's a difference. In real life we all know Graysmith wrote two best-selling books on the subject, is probably a rich man, and at the point of the film's release didn't need Fincher to be an advocate for him. I'm going by what the film is about, contextually. And what the film is about, is isolation in obsession and the impulse that drives people to behave the way they do. Much like THE SOCIAL NETWORK in its way.

Graysmith doesn't get off scot-clean here, not at all. He loses his family to his obsession, gets divorced, loses his job and his kids. Granted he becomes a successful writer at the end of it, but in the film it's cost him so much. The obsession with the Zodiac case has cost everyone involved with it - Graysmith, Paul Avery, and Toschi. They're all trying to catch something ephemeral - like sticking a pin in water. And they will never, ever be certain their conclusions are correct. Neither is Fincher. The film's a study of the nature of obsession and I think to consider the moie some kind of fact-finding mission is to miss the point. I think ZODIAC, along with THE SOCIAL NETWORK, FIGHT CLUB, and SEVEN, are brilliant films.

Now with FIGHT CLUB, the movie's a comedy. A strange comedy, but it is. We're not supposed to relate to the Narrator. He's a fucking loon. The funny aspects of the film are that by the time we all figure that out, it's too late and we're on this merry ride with a lunatic. I love how the point of FIGHT CLUB's been missed by about 90% of the people who saw it. Nihilism is a choice, just like any other. The film's stylish for a reason. It's all about the monomyth, how we're all heroes in our own stories, and Norton's character invents Durden because his real life is boring and unsatisfying. At the end he grows up - but the buildings still fall. Durden still gets what he wants, and he gets the girl too. It's all a big joke on the 20-30something American male, that their drives and ambitions have been horribly misplaced. It's not pat and simple, which is why I love it so much.

But for me, letting THE SOCIAL NETWORK sit a bit until I see it again, SEVEN is Fincher's best work - his most moral, his most thrilling, and it has the most to say. I think SEVEN gets short shrift by "real" critics because its heart is on its sleeve. It's deep but in a showy way. But for me, I consider the film an attack on the conservative values mindset. The pivotal scene in the car on the way to the climax kicks this movie into classic status for me. That conversation is probably my favorite sequence in all of Fincher's films. It's difficult for me to articulate my love of SEVEN in the space and time I have, but it's basically the age old argument about what place religion has in the intelligent mind. The value system of religion has warped Doe into a monster. It wasn't society that did this - all Doe can do is judge, in direct violation of the belief system he so vainly adheres to.

Anyway, I'll leave more room for discussion.
Reply
post #3 of 18
9/26/10 at 5:04pm
I would rate Fincher's output differently (I use letter grades rather than stars; it makes more sense to me).

ALIEN 3: ASSEMBLY CUT - **1/2
Despite some admirable moments, ALIEN 3 is a rather dreary affair,, lacking compelling characters (the best supporting character, Charles Dance, is killed off fairly early into the film) and suspense. It's not a disrespectful sequel, but it is an unfortunately limp one.

SE7EN - ***
A very finely crafted, stylish thriller that would have been even better if it had put its thematic concerns before its desire to shock the audience with nastiness. Like Lars von Trier's ANTICHRIST, SE7EN's gruesomeness overwhelms its more thoughtful aspects.

THE GAME - ***
A potentially terrific film let down by some weak points. The ending is a disappointment. Nevertheless, it's Fincher's most underrated affair, even if it is one of his most frustrating outings.

FIGHT CLUB - **1/2
For the most part, it's stylish and well-acted, if a bit too smug for its own good. The real problem is that beneath all the flair, it's quite daft. But that's what you get when you adapt Palahniuk.

PANIC ROOM - *1/2
By far Fincher's weakest effort, this attempt at an intimate, Hitchcockian thriller is a snooze.

ZODIAC - ***
A fine procedural thriller, but never a breathtaking one. With some greater imagination and a preference for the poetic over the prosaic, ZODIAC could have been a breathtaking achievement.

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON - **1/2
A fairly hollow, overblown affair, offering some shallow characters, some truisms, and whole lot of glamor.
Reply
post #4 of 18
9/26/10 at 5:20pm
Charles Fleischer's bit in ZODIAC seems like it is exactly the thing in the film that would exemplify what you say you dislike about the film, no? Why the double standard? You just dislike Graysmith, I think. I don't mind that you have this issue. Ones own personal prejudices is what colors ones own judgement. I just don't share your concerns. At all. ZODIAC is perhaps one of the greatest films of the last few years as well as an amazingly unpredictable move by a director who, while I think is well liked, not many are ready to be surprised by anymore just because his visual style is consistent. I mean, you're saying you wanted more of Graysmith's minutiae? I don't know, man. I think Fincher got it right.

THE GAME is one of my favorite movies period. I don't think Fincher is capable of a "lark." Wasn't PANIC ROOM supposed to be something like that? Anyway, I advise a reconsideration there. THE GAME, for me, is easily as good as or better than VERTIGO.
Reply
post #5 of 18
9/26/10 at 5:43pm
I don't know that I can entertain the thought that THE GAME is equal or better than VERTIGO, which is one of the few movies that can genuinely claim they are worthy for the title of "greatest film of all time." I do think THE GAME is more than a lark, but I've yet to be convinced it's in the "all time" league.
Reply
post #6 of 18
9/26/10 at 5:46pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
See, much like THE SOCIAL NETWORK, you can approach ZODIAC from a standpoint of "This actually happened" or you can approach it from a standpoint of a larger contextual meaning. ZODIAC, although it presents the facts of the case in a fairly accurate manner, isn't really about what happened. All film is fiction.

Graysmith doesn't get off scot-clean here, not at all. He loses his family to his obsession, gets divorced, loses his job and his kids. Granted he becomes a successful writer at the end of it, but in the film it's cost him so much. The obsession with the Zodiac case has cost everyone involved with it - Graysmith, Paul Avery, and Toschi. They're all trying to catch something ephemeral - like sticking a pin in water.
Your points about Graysmith are valid, but even if those things happen in the movie, Graysmith seems, at best, to be in a bad mood about it.

I think the most telling thing I read was that Graysmith said he really thought that if he just looked in Allen's eyes, he would know the truth, and that he would go by the hardware store where Allen worked and sit in his car, lacking the backbone to go in. Then, in the movie, the Gyllenhaal character gets to have that moment, and for what reason? The truth, in which Graysmith doesn't go in, is more compelling as a moment of human weakness, especially because there isn't really anything that I felt was being said with the scene as it is in the movie. It's awkward, but so what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan "Nordling" Cerny View Post
And they will never, ever be certain their conclusions are correct.
Which is why it bothers me that the film doesn't present facts but a fictionalized version of facts where Graysmith is right, but there is no proof. There is a diner scene near the end of the movie where Gyllenhaal and Ruffalo meet, and all of the evidence Graysmith presents is that of an obsessive fanatic, stuff he basically made up. And I think again, that would be a more human, emotionally involving confrontation: you're obsessing, and you've extrapolated so far beyond the facts that you're basically creating a fairy tale.

Instead, not only is Ruffalo's only argument against Graysmith's conclusion that it's circumstantial, but the film concludes with a scene where Simpson picks Allen's photo out of a lineup, further telling the audience that "Graysmith was right, there's just no proof!"

As I said in the OP, the worst thing to happen to Graysmith as far as the film is concerned is that he wasn't there to prove everything happened just the way he said it was. It's like I watched a movie Graysmith himself made, in which he paints himself as the one guy nobody would listen to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpvalentine View Post
Charles Fleischer's bit in ZODIAC seems like it is exactly the thing in the film that would exemplify what you say you dislike about the film, no? Why the double standard?
It's emotionally compelling. It's a moment when Graysmith's detective play, which he seems to view as sort of a fun obsession in some respects, turns into a situation that might actually be threatening. On one hand, I suppose part of my argument is against the fact that the movie is inaccurate, but it's the lack of reasons (or existence of bias) in its inaccuracy that bothers me. The Fleischer scene is pure fiction, but it feels unburdened by anyone's perspective (unlike the rest of the movie being burdened by Graysmith's), and it can be its own thing.
Reply
post #7 of 18
9/26/10 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Foster View Post
Your points about Graysmith are valid, but even if those things happen in the movie, Graysmith seems, at best, to be in a bad mood about it.
You're not understanding how an obsessive's mind works. The point is that he's losing everything but is so gripped with the Zodiac case that he can barely bother to register any emotions about it. Zodiac is less a film about presenting the facts as it is about obsession and how it manifests itself amongst three very different types of personalities.
Reply
post #8 of 18
9/26/10 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agentsands77 View Post
ALIEN 3: ASSEMBLY CUT - **1/2
Despite some admirable moments, ALIEN 3 is a rather dreary affair,, lacking compelling characters (the best supporting character, Charles Dance, is killed off fairly early into the film)...

Completely agree with you here. The film falls apart as soon as Dance is killed. Weaver and Dance had great chemistry together. I'd like to have seen a film that concentrated on these two characters dealing with Ripley's alien impregnation. I think that would have differentiated it from the first two films and would have been extremely compelling given how the first act plays. But then it unfortunately becomes a "monster chasing people through corridors" film.
Reply
post #9 of 18
9/26/10 at 10:36pm
Just wanted to say, since my quote is in the first thread, that I don't think Fincher has ever made an outright bad film (though Panic Room is so boring it almost tips into into full-on fail).

I quite like The Game and Alien 3, butt there flaws, to me, are too big to qualify them as outright successes.

Anyway, by my theory own theory, his next film would be a disappointment, and lo and behold...The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Maybe he can do something interesting with it, but I can't say that's the most exciting project he could have picked.
Reply
post #10 of 18
9/27/10 at 3:05am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbott & Prospero View Post
You're not understanding how an obsessive's mind works. The point is that he's losing everything but is so gripped with the Zodiac case that he can barely bother to register any emotions about it. Zodiac is less a film about presenting the facts as it is about obsession and how it manifests itself amongst three very different types of personalities.
Well, the movie doesn't illustrate other than Graysmith's mild unhappiness. Even if Graysmith isn't going to react, it needs to better illustrate to the audience that he's throwing his life away, and if the guy is right about everything, then he's not. I think the diner scene would be much better if Ruffalo poked holes in all of his arguments and broke Graysmith a little, but instead as it plays it just gives him the motivation to go to the hardware store and get his vindication.
Reply
post #11 of 18
9/27/10 at 2:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Foster View Post
Well, the movie doesn't illustrate other than Graysmith's mild unhappiness. Even if Graysmith isn't going to react, it needs to better illustrate to the audience that he's throwing his life away, and if the guy is right about everything, then he's not. I think the diner scene would be much better if Ruffalo poked holes in all of his arguments and broke Graysmith a little, but instead as it plays it just gives him the motivation to go to the hardware store and get his vindication.
It's about obsession rather than right or wrong though. The fact that the movie posits that he was probably right doesn't really matter- if you are obsessed with something to the exclusion of anything else, it that worth it?
Reply
post #12 of 18
9/27/10 at 4:26pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianDyka View Post
It's about obsession rather than right or wrong though. The fact that the movie posits that he was probably right doesn't really matter- if you are obsessed with something to the exclusion of anything else, it that worth it?
Being right is important because being right or wrong has a big impact on whether one view's Graysmith's actions as futile or not. Obviously, the Zodiac was never caught, so there's that, but still...the movie ends with captions saying that "Arthur Leigh Allen was the prime and only suspect" as opposed to "No proof as to the Zodiac killer's identity was ever uncovered" or something to that effect, and then continues to say that Graysmith has a good relationship with his kids now.

The movie paints too much of a picture where Graysmith was less obsessed in an overwhelming, unhealthy way and more a picture of a guy who was determined to uncover the truth when everyone told him it wasn't possible, and once he gets his man, at least in his own mind, he moves on. If Toschi shot down his argument and the movie ended in a more open-ended way, I think it'd be much more impactful.

Ultimately, obsession and determination are very close to one another. I think the only two factors that will push a cause one way or the other is whether or not that person is right, and whether or not that person's pursuit of whatever goal is at stake involves irrational decisions. I don't think the movie presents Graysmith as being either wrong or irrational, so in what way does he come off all that poorly?
Reply
post #13 of 18
9/27/10 at 4:56pm
My arbitrary Fincher ranking:

ALIEN 3/BENJAMIN BUTTON = Pablo Honey
I want to like it. It's Fincher, so it can't be all bad, right? Wrong. It's shit.

SE7EN/THE SOCIAL NETWORK = The Bends/OK Computer
A revelatory work from an artist bounding back fully formed from utter mediocrity.

THE GAME = Hail To The Thief
Not in any way bad. Not particularly great either.

FIGHT CLUB = Kid A
A bold & subversive masterwork.

PANIC ROOM = Amnesiac
A weak follow up but it has it's meager merits.

ZODIAC = In Rainbows
The artist grows up.
Reply
post #14 of 18
9/27/10 at 5:03pm
PANIC ROOM is no Amnesiac!!!
Reply
post #15 of 18
9/27/10 at 6:05pm
Tyler: Its been a while since I've sat down and watched Zodiac and you've definitely convinced me I need to remedy that. Interesting points regarding Graysmith and the way his character is portrayed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Foster View Post
Even if Graysmith isn't going to react, it needs to better illustrate to the audience that he's throwing his life away, and if the guy is right about everything, then he's not. I think the diner scene would be much better if Ruffalo poked holes in all of his arguments and broke Graysmith a little, but instead as it plays it just gives him the motivation to go to the hardware store and get his vindication.
Perhaps this was more than just a case of Graysmith downplaying the negative aspects of his obsession with the case. This was already a particularly frustrating movie for mainstream audiences; I think without the illusion of Graysmith's forward momentum anchoring the movie and propelling the narrative, it would become even more frustrating for the mainstream. Again, I really need to give this thing a rewatch to decide if I believe that that would make the film better, but Fincher does show us the dangers inherent with this level of obsession with Paul Avery. If we got a double dose of that with Graysmith's character coupled with a more open-ended conclusion, I think that the film, from a strictly narrative standpoint, would be much less satisfying.
Reply
post #16 of 18
9/27/10 at 6:19pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop View Post
Perhaps this was more than just a case of Graysmith downplaying the negative aspects of his obsession with the case. This was already a particularly frustrating movie for mainstream audiences; I think without the illusion of Graysmith's forward momentum anchoring the movie and propelling the narrative, it would become even more frustrating for the mainstream.
I guess I felt the movie you're describing them avoiding here is the movie I thought Fincher was claiming he was making. I don't want to paint Graysmith as an out and out mental case, which I may or may not be inadvertently doing, but there's never much flop sweat, if you know what I mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop View Post
Again, I really need to give this thing a rewatch to decide if I believe that that would make the film better, but Fincher does show us the dangers inherent with this level of obsession with Paul Avery.
It's been awhile since I've seen the film too, so my memory of Downey's thread is fuzzy (dunlop), but I don't remember Avery being all that obsessed. He's called out by the Zodiac, pulled in without his consent.
Reply
post #17 of 18
9/29/10 at 1:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Foster View Post
It's been awhile since I've seen the film too, so my memory of Downey's thread is fuzzy (dunlop), but I don't remember Avery being all that obsessed. He's called out by the Zodiac, pulled in without his consent.
Avery is afraid of the Zodiac in a way that leads to his complete social degradation. Avery is the most compelling character in the film, partly because he has direct conflict with the killer (calling him latently homosexual, which makes him a personal target of interest for Zodiac). As always, Downey sells Avery's downturn well. The scene in his boathouse is one of the best in the film, which is saying something.

And, Tyler, looking for accuracy is kinda fruitless. Not even documentaries get away with no bias. Obviously you aren't a fan of the yellow book, but regardless of that minor controversy amonst Zodiac historians, the film has a stance - Arthur Leigh Allen was most likely the Zodiac. You really should watch the film again, with the eyes of a film fan - try to divest your knowledge of the actual history and go with it.
Reply
post #18 of 18
9/29/10 at 5:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matches_Malone View Post
And, Tyler, looking for accuracy is kinda fruitless. Not even documentaries get away with no bias. Obviously you aren't a fan of the yellow book, but regardless of that minor controversy amonst Zodiac historians, the film has a stance - Arthur Leigh Allen was most likely the Zodiac. You really should watch the film again, with the eyes of a film fan - try to divest your knowledge of the actual history and go with it.
My opinion started with the history, but is ultimately about what Fincher claimed he wanted to present, which was someone obsessing over something that would never be answered. Seeing as the movie tells the viewer the Graysmith character is about everything and gives him a major moment of catharsis, I think Fincher pretty much made the opposite of what he stated, and that movie isn't a movie I'm particularly compelled by.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › The Films of David Fincher