Thoughts on the ho-hum film version of a book that I found a knockout (made by a director who’s usually a knockout).
It’s hard to say why an eagerly anticipated movie – like David Fincher’s Gone Girl – doesn’t work for you. Part of the problem may be the eager anticipation itself. A book you really enjoyed reading + a director you really admire = a movie that can never really deliver what you want from it.
Then there are the peripheral factors – rather, the peripheral people. I’ll be the first to admit that few are likely to follow my monastic rules of movie-watching – don’t talk; don’t crinkle wrappers; don’t switch on your phone; don’t tell the person next to you how nice the star looks – but that doesn’t stop me from getting annoyed when someone does any or all of these things and yanks me out of a movie. Gone Girl is all hushed voices, hushed filmmaking – it’s the kind of movie that requires that you lean forward and listen. I was trying to do just that when a girl nearby went “Yay!” when a photograph of the Neil Patrick Harris character appeared. Another chap, one who presumably reads out the names of the films on the certificate when the trailers appear (don’t you hate it when that happens? Yes, yes, we know you’re literate, now just shut up!), went, “Barney Stinson.”
And then, or maybe earlier (I forget the sequence), the Ben Affleck character’s father showed up and began to swear – and a lot of people laughed. What is it about swearing that our audiences find so funny? I’ve seen this with Hindi films too. A character utters a cuss word, and that’s the cue for a laugh. Maybe comedy writers can stop trying to think up situations and simply have people swear at each other. The problem with laughter is that it takes a while to die down, and by this time you’ve missed the next hushed line reading. (I know. You’re thinking, “I never want to be sitting next to this guy during a movie,” and that’s fine by me.) This sort of thing really kills the mood carefully being built up, and Gone Girl is all about mood. And tone. And texture. These are delicate qualities in a movie, and an audience needs to respect that. Otherwise, they’re killing it for others. Gone Movie.
But the bigger problem, for me, was that I couldn’t unread the book, which, with its sensational midway twist, isn’t one that’s easily forgotten. The knots in my stomach while reading the book didn’t resurface while the watching the movie. The shock twist, now, wasn’t shocking enough. Is it this knowing that dampened my enjoyment of Gone Girl? I doubt it, because there have been films I’ve enjoyed, even been gripped by, despite reading the books they were based on. As an example, consider Andrea Arnold’s 2011 adaptation of Wuthering Heights, whose Heathcliff was played by a black actor. This single change makes the movie a fairly different story from the one in the book. But maybe twist-laden books are a tough experience to top – the first time, really, is the charm. (Fincher’s own Fight Club comes to mind. Would I have slapped my head at the end had I read the book?)
Even so, Fincher doesn’t do nearly enough to movie-ise the book. This is a pretty faithful adaptation, and while that’s understandable – rabid fans may be left unhappy; studio execs may balk – it doesn’t help while you’re watching the movie. The book’s format is present day (from the Ben Affleck character’s point of view) followed by the past (a diary entry from the Rosamund Pike character’s point of view), and this is how the movie is structured. The start is sensational. We see the back of a woman’s head as a man says, “When I think of my wife, I picture cracking her lovely skull, unspooling her brains. Trying to get answers: What are you thinking? What are you feeling?” He doesn’t just want to look into her head and read her thoughts; he wants crack her skull and unspool her brains. That’s some nasty stuff right there. And we want this nastiness to continue – this is, after all, a David Fincher film.
But at least one opportunity for nastiness is kept at arm’s length, maybe because even Hollywood’s leading men cannot be seen as too… unlovable. In the book, Affleck’s father is a pretty major character, a horrible, invective-spewing misogynist who may have passed on some of these genes to his son. Part of what stacks the odds against Affleck – as he’s accused of murdering Pike – is that he isn’t this dream husband. At least one part of him is the stuff of nightmares – he worries that he may become his father. By jettisoning this subplot, the story may have become more mainstream, the Affleck character may have become more likeable, but the film becomes less Fincheresque. Affleck’s alcoholism, too, is only lightly touched on, and when he says to his sister (Carrie Coon, who’s so good that her non-nomination in the Best Supporting Actress category is practically a given) that he used to dread coming home, that his stomach would be in knots anticipating his wife’s disapproval, it’s just a line. We don’t sense this inner life.
The parts that allow Fincher to be Fincher – that is, the parts that require his services as a director, and not merely as a traffic cop ensuring the smooth passage of scenes – aren’t many. I liked the scenes after the twist, the scenes where nothing happens. I liked the offhand visual of random people crammed into a random car on a random highway. I liked the scene with the hammer. (Now, that’s nasty.) I liked the scene outside a bar, set amidst a light snowfall. I liked the scene where a character screams into a pillow. And I liked the background score, which is either silent (allowing for the odd police siren to take over) or a low thrum, so the handful of instances where the score is amplified, as if a foghorn had parked itself in the seat next to you, are sensationally effective. For all the problems I had with Gone Girl, it is the work of a real filmmaker. It’s just that, this time, he’s decided that the author wins over the auteur.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here. Copyright ©2014 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
The British Asian Blog
November 14, 2014
I can relate. I don’t often go out to the cinema to watch a movie, unless it is something I really want to watch (reasons which you have touched upon) or because I have the time. One annoying thing which really winds me up is when people pull out their 6 inch smart phone screens and start to fiddle around and going through their messages during the film. The cinema dull and dark room, where the film is projected onto the screen, the last thing I want to see is a flashing bright 6 inch smart phone screen in my face. The light from their smart phone screen can be compared to a torch light.
LikeLike
Rajesh Shah
November 14, 2014
I actually would be very pleased to sit next to you. I want the same thing; complete concentration on the movie and no one talking in between. And its not just in the theatre; even at home. And I also don’t like to starting a movie in middle – even if its only 10 minutes.
LikeLike
Ram Murali
November 14, 2014
Oh, I can so relate to this. Even while watching a movie at home, I can be annoying to the folks around who want to just carry around with some chores while watching the movie! Which is why we start watching movies only after 9:00 after the little one is asleep and I have done the dishes!
My wife laughed out loud when she saw the scene in “Annie Hall” where Woody Allen refuses to go into a movie because he and Diane Keaton were 2 minutes late! That scene had one of my favorite Allen-Keaton exchanges:
“I am anal.”
“That’s a polite word for who you are!”
LikeLike
Shashank
November 14, 2014
I have pretty much the exact same problems as you on the film.The book was way more well balanced than the movie. I was actually rooting for Amy in the book but the movie doesn’t give you that chance? And it may also have to do with Affleck being really puppy eyed in this movie. A line in the book says “He had single handedly de-amazed Amazing Amy.”
And I feel she has been deamazed once again on screen. She is just not a psycho bitch. There is more ,lot lot more to dig in that character. Thoughts?
And of all the billion thought pieces this movie/novel seemed to have inspired I d like to recommend this:
http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/marriage-abduction
LikeLiked by 1 person
cl
November 14, 2014
‘ a director, and not merely traffic cop ensuring the smooth passage of scenes’
Excellent ! 🙂
LikeLike
nikhilrkutty
November 14, 2014
I too read the book first, but I enjoyed the movie as well, probably more than you did. I agree with you that the Nick Dunne character has been portrayed in the movie as considerably less of an a**hole than in the book.
(Spolier Alert?:)The reactions of my friends who watched the movie without reading the book were along the lines of “What a bi***!”, while the book, I thought, was more even handed in its distribution of flaws and unlikeableness between Nick and Amy.
LikeLike
fiteyaal
November 14, 2014
Sir, absolutely agree with what you said, the long lasting laugh kills the built up mood and makes us miss the next lines. i experienced the same, a late night show can be the best one to attend, no college bunked couples around chit chatting, everyone is done with their dinner, no sound of the packets, the theaters is most of the time comprised with the movie buffs who are not there just for a 2 hour entertainment.
LikeLike
Rahul
November 14, 2014
Hi BR,
That way I agree, I am anal too. I cannot stand a distraction while watching a movie…too much to ask for in today’s times, I know.
With regards to the twist, even I felt the same…but the three people I went with, who had no idea about the book, forget reading it, were like wow…that was a neat twist.
Probably, it has to do with the burden of having read the book and then trying to ‘see’ it for the first time…when it can never be the first time, as you can’t unread the book.
I agree with you about the music…it was pervasive even in its absence.
I found the movie…solid and competent. Not Fincher’s best maybe…but certainly very good.
Cheers,
Rahul
LikeLike
Vishak Bharadwaj S
November 14, 2014
I thought it was a masterpiece. Here’s an equation I made up just now.
David Fincher (Gone Girl) = {Otto Preminger (Bunny lake is Missing) x
Digital cinema} + Much more fanatical when it comes to detail
He seems as classical as Preminger,Hawks or Ford to me. Unobtrusive,Atmospheric and thoroughly brilliant. Great compositions,beautiful long takes and obsessed with facts,events,the past and their impact on the present,just as Preminger was.
The scene where they meet is so real( The buzz of party talk that almost blankets what they’re saying,a sense of exhaustion probably because it was the 97th take,the lighting) you can almost taste it.
the scene outside a bar, set amidst a light snowfall is the best scene in the film and contains the most Fincherian shot, a oblique shot of Amy’s motel “friend” exhaling a beautiful pattern of smoke that achieves a fantastic sense of abstraction.Glorious.
Also I think the overriding theme in the film was (as mentioned above) what Nick and Amy “are” (Because of their parents) to what they have to be (Cool girl-Cool guy,Amazing Amy,Caring Husband) and he builds it up to a shockingly cynical ending where he seems to suggest that the latter ultimately dominates the former.
Sorry about the long post.I just loved the film 🙂
LikeLike
Vijayakumar
November 14, 2014
I did not read the book. And I loved the movie.
Fincher has this tendency of staying very true to a book. This reaped amazing results in a movie like Zodiac, but not so much in The Girl with the dragon tattoo. He himself had admitted in an interview that he stayed a little too true to the original material in case of TGWTDT. But he seemed to have done exactly that now. Also, as you say, stories with a lot of twists, especially like this one, I guess is best enjoyed the first time around.
** Spoilers ahead **
Prior to watching the movie, I somehow got to know that Amy Dunne is going to turn out to be bad. In spite of this, I found the movie very enjoyable. I also watched it in a theatre where people got excited when they got a glimpse of NPH. But the same audience was sitting there stunned when he gets brutally killed. The entire cinema was dead silent for the next few minutes. I knew she would become bad, but like this! I certainly wasn’t expecting. Not just the scene where Desi dies, but the one with the bottle and the bathroom mirror, the one with the red paint and the CCTV, in fact all the scenes that happen in Desi’s place, despite being eerie and disturbing, are absolutely terrific and compelling. To top it all, we have an ending that sends chills down the spine.
“Affleck’s alcoholism, too, is only lightly touched on, and when he says to his sister that he used to dread coming home, that his stomach would be in knots anticipating his wife’s disapproval, it’s just a line. We don’t sense this inner life.”
A friend of mine, who had read the book, had a very similar comment. But we always know a movie cannot cover everything that is in a book right? I did not read the book and I still got Nick Dunne is not the best husband around, that he’s lazy, that he did not do anything he promised. Moreover, I was scared for Affleck at the end – probably that was the idea behind making his character a little more likeable?
For some reason I am not able to pinpoint, Gone girl did not give me the fulfillment that Zodiac or The Social Network gave me. However, this is easily the most terrifying, at the same time terrific, movie I have seen in recent times.
LikeLike
Apu
November 15, 2014
I have not seen the movie, and given the fact that we need a babysitter to go to a movie by ourselves, I might never get to watch it. But I am not too taken by the book either, except for that halfway-through twist. These are two sickeningly horrible characters who are really difficult to root for, except for Amy in the beginning. Or maybe that is what a lot of readers would like – that the author does not want to make the characters likable. To me, the book hits a speed bump a couple of chapters after the twist is revealed. After that it seems like a competition between which one of the two can be more deceptive. And I did not think that it warrants a movie, except if the director was going to add more to it – as in, dig deeper into the characters, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bala
November 15, 2014
Found it rather uninteresting myself. Felt it was too faithful to the book and the choice of actors wasn’t great (NPH now is too defined by his role in HIMYM and other comedies. Every scene in which he was in got a laugh from the audience) Second disappointment of the last couple of months (After Interstellar) And of course, the stupid censorship didn’t make it easy to keep one’s mind in the movie either. Weird close-ups during nude scenes and all. And quite honestly,for me the book went downhill once that twist appeared, so I am not too sure the book was much better 😀
LikeLike
M.
November 15, 2014
Regarding the talking/messaging etc during the movie: what do you really do in these situations? I’m genuinely asking, not a rhetorical question. It’s pretty hard to just say, “I’ll be the first to admit that few are likely to follow my monastic rules… but that doesn’t stop me from getting annoyed” to yourself and carry on, right?
I don’t like to do this at all and otherwise I try to be as polite and nice to everyone as possible, but I often end up being extremely rude to such people – I ask them politely once or twice to PLEEEASE be quiete but if they still don’t oblige, I resort to “Why don’t you shut your bloody mouth, asshole?” or complain to the management (the former has more success rate, in my experience). Because you can’t just let them continue to ruin your experience, right? You’re paying for the ticket and deserve a distraction-free experience. Afterall, we’re watching a Fincher (or Nolan, in my recent similarly infuriating case) film at a multiplex, not Khiladi 786 at a single screen. In many cases, that approach doesn’t work, but quietly bearing it without protesting doesn’t work either, right?
I’m an aspiring filmmaker, and I find it extremely discouraging that no matter how good films I end up making, I’ll always be making them for *these* dumbasses.
(Sorry for all the swearing but couldn’t find more fitting descriptions for them)
LikeLike
chronophlogiston
November 15, 2014
As you know, I am completely the same in terms of ‘monastic rules of film watching’ (nice term!). I really wonder why people feel the need to eat during a movie in a theatre (unless it’s running through lunch time) when we can comfortably watch one at home without needing to do so. Fortunately, both in Malaysia and Vietnam, the audiences are so well-behaved, so there’s practically no talking or cell phone usage during a movie. The crinkly wrappers yes, there’s no way to escape that anywhere in the world. We still haven’t got Gone Girl here, so it may be just as well that I will get to watch it in silence at home!
LikeLike
Ramani Reddy
November 15, 2014
I liked the movie! Probably because of the obvious reason that I haven’t read the book! Yes, the sister and the wife were the most unforgettable characters!
LikeLike
Vasisht Das
November 15, 2014
dr,rangan,
i am surprised that you did not even mention it, leave alone make some nakkal puns on it. i’m talking about the particular form of censorship that has been imposed upon Gone Girl and the subversive joke it has become.
a couple years ago director David Fincher (who has a contractual right to approve any cuts/alterations before the release of his films anywhere!) simply refused to release The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo in India when the censor board imposed some cuts on it.
before the release of Gone Girl, an official statement from Fox Star Studios India had said : “the movie was submitted for censorship, and certain cuts were demanded. these suggestions have been sent to Fincher’s team, and he will be sending his cut, which we will submit again to the censors. We are aiming for an October 24 release.”
now, what we saw on screen was, in my opinion, a witty “fuck you” finger from Fincher to the indian censor board. in most of the scenes containing nudity/sex, instead of cutting or blurring the image (as has been the method so far), he has chosen to zoom-in to the frame towards an irrelevant/random part of the visual. and the audio track plays on! (some in the audience i watched this with were confused and puzzled enough to wonder aloud if it was some technical problem in the projection!).
ideppadi irukku, doctor saar? 😉
LikeLike
bart
November 15, 2014
Haven’t read the book yet. Had seen the trailer before. The movie had a creepiness in its mood, music and narration from start to end. In a contest of villainy, the heroine wins the dual for a change. Enjoyed it fully.
P.s.: watched it uncensored @ Bangkok 3 weeks back
LikeLike
auroravampiris
November 15, 2014
To be fair, I think Fincher was going for keeping up the suspense throughout the film – the first half is a classic “Did he? Or did she?” mystery. The second half practically starts with the reveal – THEN the suspense is flipped on its head… then it’s all about whether Nick shall clear himself before Amy’s caught.
And that’s why the film is so great. Most films are content to bask in a single mystery – this one flips the mystery of the first half for the suspense of the second half.
And my goodness was this film funny – I think the lighter portions, as well as the darker portions at the end, where Pike (who’s absolutely phenomenal, IMO) “reveals” the “truth” about marriage, are MEANT to elicit laughter.
LikeLike
brangan
November 15, 2014
Shashank: And I feel she has been deamazed once again on screen. She is just not a psycho bitch.
Absolutely. This is very strange, this (relative) puppification of the Affleck character. He’s quite a dick in the book, and Fincher of all people, I thought, would revel in putting across that dickishness.
I’d really like to know why this happened. Is it a case of softening a character to suit an actor’s image? Did the author have second thoughts about the character? Did they feel it was too much for one movie to handle a dickish guy AND a dickish girl, and some streamlining had to happen? I really wonder.
Vishak Bharadwaj S: Oh yes, he’s a very classical director — despite his choice of material. “Zodiac” is just one of the most amazing procedurals of all time. It gets better each time I watch it.
Apu: These are two sickeningly horrible characters who are really difficult to root for
But that IS the point 🙂
M.: I’m not one of those who can say things like “Why don’t you shut your bloody mouth, asshole?” I’ll say “excuse me, I’m trying to watch,” and if that doesn’t work, I’m screwed.
Vasisht Das: I didn’t even know about these cuts? Are these really graphic sex scenes?
LikeLike
Anuja
November 15, 2014
I don’t understand what the fuss is all about… Flynn’s book started out great especially with a diary entry by a starry – eyed Amy gushing that the boy she met looks like he would f**k her good. And then the ‘sensational midway twist’ happened which in truth is hopelessly gimmicky and its all downhill from there.
Amy and Nick who had showed so much promise suddenly become douchebags animated with pop psychology pap. The former is a psycho bitch because her momma and poppa made a fortune by being passive aggressive pricks and typical psychiatrists to boot (like the overwritten Leonard’s mom character on the Big Bang Theory) and the later is an ahole because he has daddy issues. Geez Louise! Why do people assume the mind is like any other bodily appendage that can be dissected and read under a microscope, then write a whole lot of droll, extremely unconvincing crap? Answer: They win critical acclaim (from BR no less) and a Hollywood movie deal. And if you are Neil Mukherjee you get nominated for the Booker Prize. Fortunately Neil did not win but Amy played by Pike will no doubt win the Academy Award for having the balls to play a woman who was not afraid to admit that she hated blowjobs and anal sex but would nevertheless move heaven and earth and her husband’s non-existent heart to keep him chained to her for eternity, everything in fact, short of getting a job worthy of her so-called brilliant brain. Because that is what all women want – a loser hubby and his bratty baby. Thank you Flynn and Fincher.
LikeLike
ramitbajaj01
November 15, 2014
@Vasisht- I was one of those confused spectator. When the camera zoomed in, Pike’s face got cut very unevenly. Just right eye and ear were shown and the guy kept working on her and the sound too went on. I wondered if it was some new type of direction. Because if the girl’s face had been visible then the scene would have been a lil more erotic I feel. Still the scene felt very awkward. Now you have told why it was so.
LikeLike
Sam
November 16, 2014
Getting a great audience is a rare, special thing. I’m with you on your requirements (excluding masala movies, of course), but I think the best audiences are appropriately vocal. This is so rarely achieved that complete silence is often preferable, but the communal reaction to a thriller or horror film is essential to the experience. The perfectly timed “No, no, no”s and gasps and groans and laughter when suspense is relieved are wonderful things. I recently saw a brilliant film Goodnight Mommy at a festival, and many parts had the audience yelling at the screen. I don’t think you would have complained.
I loved Gone Girl, and I think you would have too had you not read it. With that said, while watching it I thought it would have been more interesting if it were more even handed with its characters, even though I did not know the book was that way.
I sense we expect something different from Fincher though. I would have just expected a great translation of the book, not so much a re-interpretation. I’m not sure if he’s ever given us anything different. I know he’s closely developed some of his scripts but many he was hands off with and directed as is. He always brings his filmmaking touch, but not necessarily his storytelling voice.
I love Fincher and I don’t feel he is “overrated” but I definitely view him differently than most. He’s always been an incredible stylist and an incredible craftsman, but at some point he started to get compared to Kubrick, which doesn’t actually make any sense. This came from his reputation as a perfectionist, his technical precision, and Fight Club and Benjamin Button, two films that, like most of Kubrick’s films, people didn’t really know what to make of at first. However, were those elements Fincher or the material? Aside from those films, Fincher has been more a modern Hitchcock, or Polanski working in thriller mode, but I don’t think he had the story sense of those guys. Perhaps the best comparison I can think of is a digital slicked up version of Alan Pakula, but not 70s Pakula, moreso the 90s thriller Pakula. And I say that with respect. I have great fondness for Consenting Adults :p (but really, I do). With every film of his I sense fans are looking for something more, some Kubricky way of viewing the film as though there is more to it than what we’ve been given, and they’re consistently disappointed when what they get is straightforward. He lives or dies by his material, and his weakest films are just the weakest stories. That doesn’t make him a bad director, it just makes him a…director.
“The parts that allow Fincher to be Fincher – that is, the parts that require his services as a director, and not merely as a traffic cop ensuring the smooth passage of scenes – aren’t many. “
To go off of what I said above, I see Fincher differently. He’s not a De Palma where I would be just as happy to see him toss the script away and do his thing. I do see him as a traffic cop, but a brilliant traffic cop. And I thought he brought a ton to this. It has less visual splendor than his other films, which is what may have disappointed you here. The craft is more in the editing and sound design and in the deceiving simplicity of the visuals. As I said, I haven’t read the book so I may be off with some of my thoughts, but books that are heavy on internal monologues are very difficult to translate to films, and they translated that greatly. Voiceover is tricky to do in film, 90% of the time it is so tacked on and clunky that I don’t even bother paying attention. In Gone Girl I was hooked the entire time as the film created a fever dream weaving through monologues and passages of time with plenty of grace. I think many directors could have created this lurid suburban nightmare world, but nobody could have given us a tour of it like Fincher. But when you’re given a tour of a place you’ve already lived in, there’s only so much a tour guide can do. 🙂
LikeLike
Govardhan Giridass
November 16, 2014
Dr Rangan,
Please find below the cuts that the CBFC demanded. Fincher and co got around them in the way brother Vasisht Das suggested, leading to some truly weird framing (zooming in, focusing on inanimate objects within the scene etc);
1 Deleted the bare buttock (Replaced with approved shot with face of man and woman)
2 Added anti-smoking disclaimer & Health spot of Health Ministry in the beginning and middle of the movie and static message with scene wherever smoking scene appear on screen
3 Delete the visuals of bare breasts wherever it occurs in the film. (Replaced with approved shot with face of man and woman)
4 Delete the visuals of man going down on woman (oral sex) (Replaced with approved other visuals of man and woman face)
5 Delete the love making scene in the library on the false. (Replaced with approved other panning shot of Library)
6 Delete the visuals of woman going down the waist of the man also reduce by 50% the thrusting movements. (Replaced with approved visuals of man and woman face)
7 Muted the word pussy from the dialogue wax my pussy raw
8 Muted the word Cunt” wherever it occus in the film
LikeLike
M.
November 17, 2014
BR:
Point taken, I know it’s not very polite to cuss that way and I’m not very proud of it either but I wanted to ask you, what do you do if this kind of thing happens at a screening of a film you’re supposed to review?
I often tend to get nitpicky towards the movie if my mindstate is messed with those around me. Or, I realise that maybe I am being too nitpicky and become very self aware and try to nullify that effect. Basically, that thing called immersion is broken and I can’t trust my own opinion of the movie in such cases.
It must be especially difficult when you’re supposed to review the film, right?
LikeLike
brangan
November 17, 2014
Anuja: Amy and Nick who had showed so much promise suddenly become douchebags animated with pop psychology pap.
Oh come on. What more do you expect in genre fiction? 😉
Sam: Oh yes. There are certain films for which audiences are great — comedy, in my case. I love being part of a film that makes everyone laugh. But this was about dramas, especially the silent, slow ones.
About translation versus re-interpretation, I was more annoyed with the jettisoning of material that *would* seem right up Fincher’s alley, because he’s never shied away from unpleasant characters earlier. And yes, I agree that he’s almost a pure “director”, perhaps in the Hitchcockian sense — just in the way he *directs*.
This is the first time I’m hearing of the Kubrick comparison with Fincher (isn’t Nolan the modern Kubrick? 😉 ) — but speaking of Pakula, I can totally see Fincher doing a “Klute,” for instance.
Govardhan Giridass: Thanks for that list. But how depressing is it that people find a butt offensive? Then again, I’m probably grateful — had the shot been there, some idiots in the audience would have surely giggled or whistled. 🙂
M.: Oh no. I was saying I wish I could cuss like that — because these guys deserve it. And yes, this does mess with the mindstate for a review — but that’s the nature of the beast. Everything from how well you slept to the fight you had with your SO or boss that morning to the degree of the a/c in the hall affects your viewing in a subtle way (in other words, the state you are in at that point is not in your control, and I don’t think anyone approaches movies after an hour of meditation) — there’s no getting around it 🙂
LikeLike
Bala
November 17, 2014
@anuja : Exactly what I felt about the book. (at least the part about the gimmicky twist and it going downhill from there) 😀
LikeLike
Vivek Gupta
November 17, 2014
I liked the movie well-enough despite having read the book. I thought the movie did what it could have done with the material and stayed quite faithful to it. It is the book that I found uneven. I thought there were two books in the ‘Gone Girl’ shoehorned into one. The first book which is an examination of a modern american marriage worked spectacularly well at times. The writing is inspired especially in the first few chapters. The conceit of both Nick and Amy narrating their own versions of the story is wonderfully executed .The writer is at her best when she takes us inside the mind of these characters and their disintegrating marriage. Even the twist is quite good and though I wished that the book had stayed with its theme of the dissection of a modern marriage, some ground had to be given to the ambition of being a popular novel. However, at that point second book, which is a psychological thriller, kicks in with full force and that one though good in its own right is certainly a notch below the first book. I felt that the second book didn’t belong with the first one. I didn’t buy into the central conceit of the second book – the evilness of Amy- at all. The slow reveal of Amy’s character as something approaching that of Satan himself might have played well if the first book hadn’t raised our expectations from the book so much. Our sympathies were with Amy first and then they shift decisively in Nick’s favor in the second half of the book because Nick may have been merely a douche but Amy is diabolical, and that transformation of Amy felt forced, a twist for twist’s sake which blows all believability out of the water. That kind of thing may work well for a movie in the thriller mode, but when you have a novel where you build a character one way for a considerable length of time and then throw away that character just because you want to pull a rug under the reader’s feat then you as a novelist are making a compromise for the sake of commerce. It worked out well for Flynn with best-seller status and movie deal with top notch director but as a reader I felt that this book could have been much more, perhaps even a modern literary classic if the author had stuck to the first book.
LikeLike
Vijayakumar
November 19, 2014
Regarding the Kubrick – Fincher comparison, here’s an interesting article. http://yaledailynews.com/weekend/2012/01/13/finding-kubricks-heir/
Surely a work of a Fincher fan 🙂
LikeLike
anon
November 19, 2014
Not having read the book but having been witness to the hype about the film, one got a sense that we were watching two films rolled into one.The first one a chilling exploration of mind games and teh second that descended into some kind of psychopath like flick.(the house where the blood spills, the paranoia of the old flame etc)Somehow the two did not seem to tango well in the overall movement of the film.
Somehow revolutionary road came to mind and that was a movie were one had a hangover for days .The whole tone of the film maintained that violence in the ordinary dialogue between spouses.
And yes, there were plenty of wrappers and phones and conversations.What better way to practice zen and the art of movie watching!-God bless a superhero who demaded in her loudest voice for silence.And then we could really hear hushings of Affleck and cast!
!
LikeLike
neena
December 1, 2014
Konjam late reaction, I know. But, just finished the book and haven’t seen the movie. Couldn’t resist reading this, though. I was curious to find out how the movie handled this kind of a book, which is almost all internal action.Not very happy to read this 😦
I mean, the internal action is not just in Amy and Nick, I found myself asking questions about myself. Before the twist, I was worried why Amy was coming off as the obvious victim in a predictably failing marriage and whether I felt so only coz I’m a woman. Maybe, someone else would sympathise with Nick even before the twist. After the twist, I still cudn’t see Amy as a psycho-perpetrator (bitch, sure, why not? but, perpetrator, I dunno) or stand Nick’s self-righteous victimhood.
Was that because I had formed an impression of Amy at the beginning and didn’t want to change it? I’m not convinced by that explanation. I’m thinking that is the point of the book – to reach within yourself and consider your assumptions about relationship, romance, marriage, gender… I hope so, at least.
LikeLiked by 1 person
neena
December 1, 2014
From what is written here, looks like the film pivots on the plot, the twist rather than this ambiguity. The book was so not a whodunnit, it was supposed to be ‘we all dunnit’. The movie only seems to reinforce the gothic/horror archetype of psycho-woman unleashing terror on her husband/men in general. Yes, the book goes down that road as well – Amy’s supposed ‘pattern of behaviour’ and the developmental, psychoanalytical explanations for Nick’s and Amy’s personalities, actions, and especially the bit with Desi and his lake house. But, I chose to read them all as perspectives, events recounted differently by people with vested interests.
LikeLike
vpoeta
December 15, 2014
I read the book first then recently watched the movie..
it was economical story telling unlike in the book,yes of course its a movie… but as you have mentioned many aspects of the book was missing like, the dads relation with nick, then i felt there was not enough emphasis on why nick behaves in a cold manner, and i felt that the drunk interview outside the bar was brilliant rather than the one in the movie, which later upon seeing nick knows he was natural in that interview..
above all i felt that some mind voices of characters could have included in the ending, where nick actually feels he needs to be there for his child, he needs to out think amy, and the climax in the book was awesome with amy thinking nick said something unusual, in the end really sums up a fucked up marriage. But in the movie it all felt rushed up to the end. Really dunno how it would have felt if not for reading the book, anyhow i felt the book was way more awesome than the movie. There were few moments in the movie which felt better, especially when amy gets robbed during her hiding, which was again economical story telling bang on.
LikeLike
mudit
January 15, 2015
I agree with you on the movie hall etiquette. This is the reason I have stopped going to cinema halls altogether, unless it is a Hobbit and demands to be seen on the big screen. I hope Mr. Modi launches a public campaign for “Shant Cinemas” as well. I would vote for him till my last days, or my fingers’.
LikeLike