David Fincher: The Career That Almost Wasn't - Part 2

Partial Education Presents

David Fincher: The Career That Almost Wasn't - Part 2

Featuring Partially Educated Reviews of

Zodiac

The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button

The Social Network

The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo

and Gone Girl

Just a quick note. Following feedback, all of my reviews will now feature shorter versions, in 50 words or less, before the in depth review. That way, if you're one of those people who only like reading my bad reviews, you can easily find out which they are.

In 50 words or less: It suffers slightly from similarities to earlier films inspired by the real life case, but a focus on those trying to catch the killer, as averse to the man himself, provides differences. With great performances and Fincher's sure-footed direction, Zodiac is a very good, though not quite excellent, film.

In Detail: It's a slightly curious occurrence when a film features great acting, writing and directing, yet you can't quite put your finger on why you still thought it was good, but not great. It's infuriating though when you can put your finger on why, but know that your reasons shouldn't be something that you hold against the film. See, when I first watched Zodiac, I struggled to get over what felt like an overly familiar narrative and the fact that it just didn't excite me as much as certain other crime thrillers that may or may not have been made by the same director. Yes, alright, Seven. The fact that thrillers like that probably wouldn't exist (and certainly not in the same form) if it weren't for the real life Zodiac killings means that it's a bit like criticising the tutor for sounding too much like the student. So, I kept quiet and agreed with everyone else who was saying how great it was. Some 8 years later and I return to the film, ready to admit to my previous lies and accept the consequences like a man. Hooray for martyrdom. Turns out I don't need to because I just re-watched Zodiac and can pussy out with actual honesty this time. It's really good. If you don't know the basics of the Zodiac story, look it up, or just watch the film. Suffice to say, he wasn't a nice man. This film isn't overly concerned with who the Zodiac was though and is far more concerned with those investigating. Jake Gyllenhaal and Robert Downey Jr. are a couple of newspaper workers (Downey Jr. a reporter, Gyllenhaal a cartoonist), while Mark Ruffalo and Anthony Edwards are the two lead cops in the case. All are focussed on tracking down the killer, but that obsession affects their outside lives to varying degrees. Gyllenhaal suffers the greatest obsession as Robert Graysmith and, given that Graysmith is the author of the film's source material, also gets the best deal when it comes to screen time. All four characters are well-served though and all four actors deliver great performances. Their conversations invariably focus on the Zodiac, but Fincher's focus always remains on them, putting just as much attention on their own destabilising private lives. Perhaps this is where a flaw lies though because surrounding characters don't get much of a look-in. Wives are mentioned, but when seen may as well be plucked from The Big Book Of Female Stock Roles, while the effects of these crimes on the victims' families isn't just begrudged the time of day, it's brushed past like a tramp on the street corner. This doesn't stem out of bad intentions on the filmmaker's part, but does prevent Zodiac from feeling like the complete package. The enormous period of time that the film covers (1962 through to 1983) means that huge narrative jumps are also present that often make this feel more in the style of a docudrama than a cinematic offering, but it just manages to pull itself out of that with the odd glimpse of each character's life outside of their work and some truly epic cinematography. Fincher came into his own with Zodiac in a directorial style, managing to bring everything into a tight vision and finally master some of the areas where I felt he'd struggled before (the use of music is Scorsese levels of good here). It's just a shame that the film, while still very good, isn't quite the masterpiece that the efforts perhaps deserved.

FOUR out of five

In 50 words or less: Once again, strong performances push this film along, but there's an inferiority to similar films (most notably Edward Scissorhands). Throw in some suspect directorial choices and some not entirely successful ageing effects and …Benjamin Button stands as good enough, but no more.

In Detail: A month or two ago, I reviewed Edward Scissorhands and (unbearably?) gushed about one of my favourite films of all time. My love of that film is one of the main reasons why, though I still like The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, "like" is about as far as I will go. The idea of the afflicted soul going through life just brings about too many similarities and …Benjamin Button is definitely the inferior product. In this case, our character's hindrance is a reversed ageing process. Born with the body and poor health of a 70 year-old man, Button (Brad Pitt) is given days to live at best, but miraculously begins to show signs of getting better. With cries of a miracle going on around him, Button is more focussed on not allowing his unique situation to prevent him from living a normal life. Cue entry of love interest, Daisy (Cate Blanchett), who naturally sees Button for the person inside and not the characteristic that defines him (*cough*WinonaRyderInScissorhands*cough*). This is a film that is always enjoyable, mainly because of the strength of it's performances. Pitt manages to use that detached vacancy that's often present in his performances to the film's advantage, mainly because detached is exactly what Button is for half of the time. His only true experiences of humanity's emotions come when he is with Daisy and he's good enough here, but Blanchett is stealing the floor from under his feet. For most of this film, she is it's greatest asset, as she often is to a lot of her films. I say "most", because she plays the character through all stages of her life, bar childhood, and her "old person voice" is fairly horrid and irksomely distracting when she takes over narration (thankfully, this isn't often). Taraji P. Henson also needs mentioning because this is the role that got her an Oscar nomination. She deserved it without question because her performance is very strong here, even if the character feels a little like the stereotype "black mother" figure. The only real question is why is that she has categorically failed to create a memorable performance anywhere else. I've checked and I've seen quite a few of them, but just don't ask me to tell you anything about them because I can't. In a similar way to Zodiac, this is a film where Fincher knows that the strength of his performances is the best bit and he keeps the attention on them, but there is the odd glimpse of some suspect decisions. Some narrative sections jar, feeling a little out of place. That one of these comes right at the end of the film means that the ending just doesn't work. All the loose ends have been tied up, but it feels abrupt and lacks the emotional heft that you feel they were going for. Some of the effects don't work for me either, notably in the ageing process for Button. Though they do use other actors than Pitt for some periods of his life, they seem determined to use him for a little too much of and the make-up and effects can't quite do enough to stop him from looking like a carnival sideshow performer. These flaws don't stop …Benjamin Button from remaining a good film, but they do prevent it from becoming something more.

THREE out of five

In 50 words or less: It's treatment of Mark Zuckerberg is grossly imbalanced and almost unforgivably sensationalist. Outside of that, it's a blisteringly compelling example of the biopic that somehow falls into all of the pratfalls that often destroy these films, but makes them work in it's favour.

In Detail: In most conversations about Facebook, I will be the last to jump to it's defence, ranking it on my necessary evils list somewhere along the same level as fashion (t-shirt, jeans and trainers, nothing else is needed). Why is it then that I'm the only one who finds The Social Network a tad disingenuous? Mark Zuckerberg isn't a saint, but this film pretty much turns him into a comic book villain. People question whether Jesse Eisenberg can play Lex Luthor well, but here Zuckerberg is only a few steps shy of Luther in the pre-MPB days. This is a portrayal of a real-life man that gets the general story just about right, but plays to the public (and likely inaccurate) perception of how the real people act and behave. That is something that really sticks with me when it comes to the film and I know I'm in the minority there, but it's a shame because it puts a sour note on what is otherwise a fantastic film. Gratefully, we're spared all the childhood tales of Zuckerberg growing up and we arrive straight away at Harvard, where he takes a verbal caning from Rooney Mara in a brilliant, but sadly small, performance. This directly leads to him creating the Facemash app, presenting you with two girls (all fellow students) and a simple question: who is hotter? The hate flies, but so too does the admiration towards how much of a stir he caused and things take off from there. The story of Facebook's turbulent creation and growth has been fairly well documented and to tell it here would be to spoil almost the entire film. Suffice to say, the film doesn't hold a whole lot of revelation for people already well versed in the website's history. Once again though, this is a film in which Fincher is more concerned with his characters and he's come loaded with some brilliant performances from a handful of the best young actors out there. Though their careers have had varied levels of success, Eisenberg, Mara, Andrew Garfield, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella and Justin Timberlake have all proven their charisma and skill as performers. This film contains all of them at their absolute finest and that is what allows this film to breeze by, even if you know everything that is going to happen. To be fair to the film, it knows that's it's strong point too. There's never a feeling that what it's just sprung on you is supposed to leave you aghast at what has occurred. It's purpose is purely to dramatise these events in a compelling manner. In that respect, it definitely succeeds. Aaron Sorkin's script is also nothing to sniff at when it comes to it's contribution to that success. Again, I stress how much I dislike the sensationalist view of it's lead character, but Sorkin's way with words is rarely rivalled in the industry. The fact that he can create an entire scene dedicated to Zuckerberg nonsensically babbling about his genius programming methods and turn that into a complete non-issue, as the scene's intentions becomes readily apparent, really demonstrates why he's one of the masters. The Social Network is a truly excellent film, but those issues I discussed at the start really stick for me. That's why I'm not willing to give it the perfect score.

FOUR out of five

In 50 words or less: A story that should be exactly my sort of thing is, instead, just OK because of an annoyingly slow place and a competent, but nondescript, performance from Daniel Craig. As the titular girl, Rooney Mara lights up this film, but that alone isn't quite enough to take this beyond acceptable.

In Detail: 16 years after Fincher's career was rejuvenated with Seven, it all came full circle with his adaptation of the first novel in Stieg Larsson's Millennium trilogy. There are so many parallels between the two films, with a slow, understated opening giving way to the holistic sounds of Trent Reznor over imagery designed to unsettle and alarm. The downward spiral then continues as the unrelentingly bleak atmosphere grows and grows until every character within it will never be able to erase the mental scars of what has occurred around them. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo is not here to make you laugh and will likely leave you utterly depressed, but that's exactly what it wants to do. It's a shame then that it couldn't have been a little more interesting. Daniel Craig plays reporter Mikael Blomkvist (apparently Swedish, despite Craig's zero effort to adopt the accent), who has just found himself on the losing end of a libel case. With his professional integrity considerably damaged, he is hired by Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to help him investigate the disappearance (and likely murder) of his grandniece that occurred many years ago. The exchange for this service being the proof needed to restore his career. The titular girl (Rooney Mara) with said tattoo is the girl who was responsible for the background checks on Blomkvist and to say more would probably give too much away, but Mara's presence is one that invigorates this film with life. Her character is the archetypal outcast, fleshed out and provided with much needed personality. Mara's oft understated performance contains a darkness that displays itself only when she needs it to. Some of her actions may be brutal (the film's physical and sexual violence makes Fight Club look tame), but, in context, it's hard not to justify them. Craig, on the other hand, isn't all that exciting and quite often seems to be straining to not ask someone for a martini. The character is fine and his performance isn't terrible, but it's merely existent: the necessary lead who will take us between far more interesting characters than he. The film's near two and a half hour running time is in serious need of a trimming, with far too much time spent without feeling like it's actually taking us anywhere. A slow pace suits this sort of film, but this is nearer static at times. Perhaps with that trimmed running time, this would have made for a really good film, but it's taken me multiple viewings before I can feel like I actually remember this film. Maybe it's just not the story for me, as I feel the same about the Swedish version, but it feels like it should be a story that I want to see and though I know I will watch the other films in this series at some point (currently only Swedish versions exist, but that should never be an issue), I'm just not overly enthused about the idea.

THREE out of five

In 50 words or less: For me, the best film David Fincher has ever made. Considering some of the other film's he's made, that alone should be enough of a recommendation.

In Detail: Unlike The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Gone Girl was a film that didn't intrigue me beyond the desire to see anything made by Fincher. I'd never read the novel (still haven't) and the trailer rang all the alarm bells for me: a deep risk of pretension, pacing that looked like it would make …Dragon Tattoo look like a Fast And Furious film by comparison and the underwhelming prospect of Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike in lead roles. Shut me the hell up though. I was wrong. This next statement is one that a lot won't agree with when it incorporates a number of the films I've reviewed over the last two posts and that's fair enough, but, for me, Gone Girl is the best film Fincher has made to date. On Nick And Amy Dunne's (Affleck and Pike) fifth wedding anniversary, Nick returns home to find that Amy has gone missing. That is everything to be said about this plot because this film's narrative is told in a way where it holds back things that you would ordinarily know from the beginning, starting at the disappearance itself and then flitting between the aftermath and the preceding events. What could have been an overly complicated disorientation of the film's timeline is it's greatest asset though, as the events unravel fluidly, dangling a tiny bit more information in front of you with each scene. It's confident enough that it wants you to guess, but doesn't think you'll suss out what is going on. For me (and anyone else I know who'd seen it without reading the book), it was right, packing one of those twists that makes you kick yourself for not getting it, but also providing the film with that necessary push into great storytelling. Are Affleck and Pike good leads though? Yes, but doubly so for Pike. Affleck is really good in the lead role, utilising the casual style that some hate him for, but making it suit the character. For a huge portion of this film, you don't know whether you're meant to like him or not and his performance leaves you open to decide for yourself. As for Pike, it's not just the strongest performance of her career, it's one of the strongest female performances I've seen from anyone in a very long time. I can't quite sum up how much it shocked me with how good she is in this, as I had previously considered her to be one of the most pedestrian supporting players working today. The part has so many layers to it and she brings every single one of them out, utilising what has to also be one of the best written female roles in a long time. With that in mind, credit must go to Gillian Flynn for her fantastic script. That said, so too must it go to anyone involved in cinematography, sound, lighting, music, direction and any other department that you care to name. I'm struggling to name a flaw in Gone Girl. Perhaps if I looked hard enough, I could find one, but I really don't want to.

FIVE out of five

Next Time (9th April)