On the evening of October 6, 2014, new Rope of Silicon writers Mike Shutt (that’s me!) and Jordan Benesh (that’s the other guy…) had a discussion, as a lot of people are right now (Gone Girl, the latest from David Fincher. We talk about how substantive its thematic material is, how fun it is, and where it fits in Fincher’s filmography. You can read the transcript of our conversation below. I thought we had some mildly intelligent things to say.
It should go without saying, but I will say it anyway. This conversation contains spoilers. Don’t say you have not been warned.
Mike: So, Jordan, how should we start this thing? I guess some of your general thoughts on it would be a good jumping off point.
Jordan: Best. Movie. Ever… All kidding aside, I think Gone Girl is another very strong film from David Fincher. Thus far in his career, Fincher has done an excellent job at creating stylish films that have a real pulse. Where most stylistically-driven directors forget about substance, Fincher is able to pull both together and create movies that don’t feel empty. And Gone Girl is yet another example of his skills. It’s a slick, fast-paced murder mystery that is well-shot, well-edited, and well-acted, but it’s also very engrossing and ultimately I think has a lot of interesting things embedded within it that we as an audience can discuss and debate, though we may wind up on opposite sides of the fence.
Mike: The first thing I want to talk about what you mentioned is this idea of it being a murder mystery. I very much don’t think there’s much mystery to it at all. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Jordan: I suppose I call it a “murder mystery” seeing as that’s its general conceit, its selling point in marketing materials. But that falls away after Act One. The film spends its first act building an air of suspicion around Nick, trying to move the audience in one direction and keep them guessing, but once we hit that transition into Act Two and see Amy is alive and planned her own disappearance to frame her husband, you’re right, that mystery is basically gone. So what would you call it then — paranoid thriller? Psychological thriller?
Mike: I’d call it a psychological thriller, I guess. I also think that if the film’s goal in that first act is to build a case against Nick, it totally fails. We see way too much of him alone, trying to figure things out, for me to think he could have done it. So, I’m curious, when you saw the film, were you starting to think maybe Nick had done it?
Jordan: Not at all. From the townspeople’s perspectives, I could understand why they see it that way within the film, but as a member of the audience, I felt it was pretty clear there was a bigger piece to the story than what was being led on. Which brings me to Rosamund Pike‘s character, Amy. Pike gives a stunning performance, which has a lot of people talking, but she couldn’t stay hidden forever and thank goodness she doesn’t. When she enters the frame, Gone Girl really hits its stride.
Mike: I certainly think Pike is the strongest aspect of the film. She is the ultimate femme fatale in a way we haven’t seen in movies since Brian De Palma was still relevant. Personally, I was not that into the film until we see her driving that car with a bandage on her arm. That’s when the movie became really fun for me, and I think the fun aspect of it is something that has not been talked about as much. I never, really, took anything that was happening seriously. I am not saying that as a knock against the film. I’m saying that as someone who had a giant, shit-eating grin on his face from that moment on. Do you think that was what Fincher was going for? Or am I just sick?
Jordan: Well, you’re sick, that’s for sure, but then that means I am as well. I said this to quite a few people after seeing the movie, but I’ll say it again: as much as I liked the first act, I felt quite a bit of it was rather conventional. But then we get our first shot of Amy driving down the highway, and from that point, I had the most fun I’ve had at the theater in a long time.
Regarding Fincher’s intentions, I think he’s always been a filmmaker whose first goal is to entertain the audience, to bring them into a story and keep them interested and invested until it ends. But that said, I do think Gone Girl brings about a lot of interesting discussions on deception, marriage, commitment, and the media.
Mike: Fincher is definitely an entertainer. I think he has the unique ability to take B-movie stories, give them an A-movie sheen, and sort of con people into thinking they are really high art, all while having a sinister smile behind his monitor thinking, “I can’t believe I get to do this.” He likes the same sort of stuff as Quentin Tarantino, or someone of his ilk, does, but instead of yelling, “I love sleaze!” he covers it up. I mean, this film features Rosamund Pike, post-coitus, wearing all white and drenched in blood from neck to toe. It is an image you cannot help but chuckle at.
As for what it says about the issues you mentioned, I do not think the film is as deep as all that. Yeah, it touches on marriage, trust, and how the media manipulates people, but I don’t think it does anything particularly new or inventive with those things, aside from taking them to their logical extremes.
Jordan: Mike, you forgot to mention that it also features Pike grabbing a wine bottle and cramming it up her you-know-what. But I digress. A lot of David Fincher films feature a massively compelling central tale, which makes for a great first viewing, but the themes and subtext beneath the surface are what keep me coming back for more. While he may not delve into those themes as deeply as others claim, he certainly doesn’t shy away from them. Those themes have kept me thinking about the movie over and over since I first saw it, and while I wouldn’t argue what Fincher has to say about marriage, trust, or the media is necessarily “new”, as you said he carries them out to their logical extremes, and I think that in itself is quite refreshing.
I want to go back to something you said about taking a providing a glossy A-movie finish to a B-movie story and conning the audience into thinking the film is high art. That may be the perfect way to describe the work of David Fincher. From Seven, to The Game, to Fight Club, to Panic Room, I don’t think anyone takes those lower-grade, down-in-the-dirt stories and elevates them the same way Fincher has over the course of his career. Where would you place Gone Girl in comparison to the rest of his oeuvre?
Mike: I think it is somewhere in the middle. I haven’t sat down and ranked them. I know Fight Club and Zodiac would be one and two, respectively, and Alien 3 (obviously) and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button would be down at the bottom. The reason Ben Butts is so low is because it gets away from the very thing Fincher does best. Fincher and earnestness do not go well together, in my opinion. He works best with a sly, sinister smile. Fincher’s heart feels false. His wit and cunning feels authentic.
I know me saying the movie feels kind of empty thematically sounds like I am damning the movie. I’m not. In fact, that makes me want to embrace it even more. I love a B-movie. I love a sleazy thriller of the highest order. To see a film just go for it with its cheesier elements makes me smile. That is why I love the section of the film with her trapped in Neil Patrick Harris‘s house, which seems to be a low point consistent amongst people I have discussed the film with. That is when you are totally clued into what this movie is: schlock. Harris plays to type very well as the creepy stalker who you would never want to be in the same room with. Him showing Amy around his house, bragging about his heated floors and comfortable beds, or his smug, self-satisfied smirk as Amy compliments him about quoting Proust in French, had me laughing so hard.
That kind of stuff seems to rub people the wrong way who were taking the film seriously. I wasn’t totally, so I was having a blast.
Jordan: The first scene where Desi (Harris) takes Amy back to his “hidden getaway” is played so perfectly, with Harris serving as basically a stage-five-clinger version of his Barney Stinson character from “How I Met Your Mother.” He’s the rich guy with all the nice things, but he’s also just a straight-up creepy dude who finally has the woman of his obsessive dreams alone in his home. It all just works so well.
One other performance I think is worth mentioning is Tyler Perry‘s. Most know him for cross-dressing and playing a sassy African-American woman in his Madea movies, but here he is in David Fincher’s Gone Girl as a high-profile lawyer and there are times where he completely steals scenes, even when he doesn’t have a lot of dialogue. For instance, Nick tells him what Amy has done to try to frame him, and Perry responds with a deep laugh, telling Nick the case is perfect and he’ll take it. It’s something small, but he plays his role to great effect.
Mike: I have never watched “How I Met Your Mother” (well, I tried and couldn’t sit through it), so I cannot really attest to that.
I do think Perry is quite good here, which totally surprised me. Seeing him in the trailers just made me upset. I’ve sat through more of his films than I care to admit (I have a policy that you can’t say something is bad unless you see it), and they are just painful. In small doses, with good writing, and a good director, he can add a lot to a scene. Do I want to see him in every movie now? No. But I wouldn’t be one-hundred percent opposed to it. Unless he’s behind the scenes as well. Then we have a problem.
One thing I am curious to get your take on is how you think it will play on repeat viewings for those looking for the deep themes on marriage and all that jazz? I’ve seen it twice, which helped me categorize it as a fun time even more. I think those not accepting the shallow schlock will have a hard time with it again. Thoughts?
Jordan: Without having seen it a second time, it’s hard to say for sure, but I have yet to come across a David Fincher film that doesn’t make for a good second watch. I’ve been thinking about the film’s themes for the last few days, and that makes me want to see it again, but I also want to see it again purely for the fun of it. One thing I particularly enjoyed on first watch is how the film satirizes the media and the way it shapes and shifts public perception. Though that concept isn’t new, I really enjoyed the way Fincher executed it, and I think it serves the story’s themes while also making for a massively entertaining film. But as you said, if you don’t find any enjoyment in the central story and the sleaze it entails, a second viewing may not be what the doctor ordered.
Alright, Mike, we’re getting about as talky over here as a David Fincher film — have you got any closing remarks you’d like to make before we hightail it out of here?
Mike: Why, yes, Jordan. I do happen to have some closing remarks. I think it is fair to say this film generates conversation… Perhaps too much conversation… which is something too few films get to do. I think it is a hugely entertaining film. I will probably revisit it over and over again. I do not love it, but the ride is too fun to ignore.
Jordan: I agree with you there, Gone Girl is a fun film and one I look forward to seeing again and again, hopefully as soon as this weekend. There are just so many things to like about it, from the performances (quick shout-out to Carrie Coon) to the editing to the story to the score. Hopefully, people who haven’t seen it keep hearing the buzz and are implored to check it out.
Mike: Yes! Carrie Coon is awesome! I think that works as a final closing line.
What do you think of our takes on the film? Agree? Disagree? Both? Leave your comments below.
