The Films Of David Fincher

[thecolorsblend]

I guess maybe we can put this down to SN's Alien thread and my at best passive interest in Alien 3. But whatever the reason, I've been making my way through the films of David Fincher lately. I can't fully explain why other than I've had a bit of a yen to watch some of his movies.

As with any filmmaker, I'll say that I enjoy some of Fincher's films more than others. While I have not worked my way through his entire filmography, I have at this point taken in a fair number of his movies. And overall, I rather enjoy them.

Probably my favorite is Zodiac. I've had a passing interest in the Zodiac case for a pretty long time now because, as serial killers go, I find the whole thing strangely fascinating. To this day, it's mind boggling to think that the killer was never arrested and put on trial. But with the film Zodiac, the case itself is only part of the allure. The cast really makes this film. It is officially no longer clever to point out all the MCU connections this movie has so I won't do that.

Rather, I'll just say that each actor gives a bravura performance. For me, this is what film should be. This is the kind of movie I want to watch rn.

At this point, Fincher has directed a lot of films and there's a lot to say there. But I'm hoping some of you have a few thoughts you want to kick in.

[The Dark Knight]

Haven't seen Zodiac in a while but it's my type of movie and subject matter. Really well made.

Zodiac is really a movie about the corrosive passage of time. The initial attacks in the late 60s. The years pass with the weight of those crime weighing on people, until the face to face meeting at the hardware store. That downbeat ending is amazing with its understated tension. They both know.

"I need to look him in the eye, and I need to know that it's him."

And then the message that Allen died before he could be questioned. Allowing the mystery and doubt to remain. Unfulfilled. Chilling genius. I live for that type of mystery. That complexity.

These personalities, for example:

Ted Bundy: saving lives on suicide hotlines, then taking lives using that same persuasive charm.
Lance Armstrong: waste your sporting life losing, with NO chance of winning, or follow what the rest do?
L. Ron Hubbard: turning life failures into perceived successes, then becoming the prisoner of his own cult.
Charles Manson: not personally killing anyone, but having a feared reputation through manipulation.
Robert Mugabe: from hero to villain, or just a hero or a villain depending on your point of view.
Jim Jones: promising utopia but giving fear, control and ultimately death.

This stuff is my breakfast. You could call me a cereal killer. I devour what's on my table.

[Silver Nemesis]

I don't know any more about the real Zodiac killings than the next person. It's not something I've ever read up on, so I can't comment on how accurate Fincher's movie is. But I thought it was a good film. It manages to be unnerving, and at times horrific, without being unduly sensational. It also presents an interesting counterpoint to Se7en, which, being a work of fiction, was free to handle the serial killer subject matter in a more overtly gruesome and stylised manner. Zodiac eschews the neo-noir aesthetic of Se7en in favour of a more staid approach that feels as much like a forensic reconstruction as a dramatisation. It's one of the more memorable American movies of 2007.

[thecolorsblend]

Mank. I knew going in that this wasn't going to be another Seven or Zodiac or Panic Room or whatever. This isn't a gritty, gripping crime film (although the fact that most of that stuff should be illegal could challenge that thesis).

It's a good film. I'll even say it's an enjoyable film. Clearly, Oldman and Seyfried are the heart of the film. Mank's witty comebacks start getting a little old after a while tho. Oldman does the role proud but that persona gets kind of aggravating after a certain points. It's sort of like how annoying Lorelai Gilmore could be starting in, say, season 5.

All of this is to say that Mank just left me kind of cold. And there were some strange creative choices. In a stupor of some kind, Mank gets his first look at Orson Wells... who is dressed as and behaves as much like The Shadow as copyright law will permit. Okay, well, I get that gag but will most modern audiences? Maybe. But I think not. I mean, 1930's pulp characters are still waiting for a major resurgence in the minds of the public. This is a reference that will probably fly over most people's heads.

Unpopular Opinion: I don't really get into Citizen Kane all that much.

I think in some other thread, I compared Watchmen to Citizen Kane from the standpoint that they were both medium-changing works that achieved an amazing level of prominence and influence. I grew up on post-Watchmen comics so the innovations and originality of Watchmen don't hit me as hard as they do the people 5+ years older than me, who lived through Watchmen and understand what Moore was up to. Just about every major comic book these days owes something back to Watchmen. And in that same way, just about every major film these days owes something back to Citizen Kane.

I'm aware of all that stuff on an intellectual level but, so far, it hasn't deepened my appreciation for Citizen Kane.

I think Mank might've been better off explaining why Citizen Kane is so important and contrast that against the plot to stop Citizen Kane from being produced in the first place. To be fair, the film does feature Hearst's attempts to stop the film but that happens well beyond the halfway point of the movie. I think it's wrong to criticize art based on what you think it should be rather than what it is. But I'm making an exception for Mank because I really do respect Fincher and I have trouble working out what he was going for her.

A story featuring a washed up writer recovering from a car crash while trying to write a screenplay while all these invisible forces range against him is simply more compelling than the Mank basically failing his way from one boardroom to the next. If the agenda of the film is to give us an idea of who Mank was, mission accomplished. But if the agenda of the film is to invest the viewer in Mank's struggle... well, idk about that.

It's Fincher so I reserve the right to change my mind on the rewatch. But as it stands, I'm a bit disappointed in Mank.

[thecolorsblend]

How much of Citizen Kane is Orson Wells actually responsible for?