“David Fincher’s The Social Network is Zodiac’s younger, geekier, greedier brother. That means it’s good, as in really good a movie for guys like myself and critics like Eric Kohn, Karina Longworth andRobert Koehler to savor and consider and bounce up against, and basically for smart, sophisticated audiences to savor in every cultural corner, and.…can I just blurt it out? It’s the strongest Best Picture contender I’ve seen so far this year, and in saying this I’m obviously alluding to Inception.”—Jeffrey Wells, “Network News,” Hollywood Elsewhere, Sept. 13, 2010
As I said in the comments section at Wells’ place, “I’m almost 100% sure I speak for Robert Koehler when I say ‘What the fuck?’ ” Also, you gotta love that “Obviously.” Also, you gotta love the distinction between “guys like myself” (tough, knock-this-battery-off-my-shoulder-types, I presume) and “critics” (fucking pussies, and one literal “girl,” I guess).
“Oh, come off it, Kenny, you’re just jealous that Wells saw Social Network before you did,” you’re probably saying. It’s true, I AM, and INSANELY so. What the hell is the world coming to? And I’ll tell you something else: I’m also jealous because I’m supposedly friends with Edward Norton (there, I said it), and Wells fucking saw Stone before I did. God fricking dammit. These are the kind of indignities I’m now waking up to every damn day. So the question is, WHY DO YOU HATE ME SO MUCH, GOD? What do I have left to hang on to? The fact that I did, finally, see Inception five hours before Wells? That was so a couple of months ago. Time doesn’t stand still, appearances must be kept up, etc.…
Anyway. Just thought I’d share that. Discuss.
And you’re probably going to see ‘Social Network’ well before me, because I sure as hell am not shelling out $40 to see it at the NYFF, no matter how kickass the projection at Alice Tully Hall is. Just another tiny piece of evidence that life is horribly unfair. At least from my perspective.
But the NYFF is rolling into town, Glenn, and there will be all manner of great films there that you’ll likely be seeing before Jeff Wells. Mainly because I’m sure Jeff Wells would just steer clear of most of them in general. Like Manoel de Oliveira’s ‘Rite of Spring’ and all the Straub films playing at Views from the Avant-garde. Sweet payback, no? Maybe?
Not only did he see it before you, he jumped a fucking plane from Toronto to see it, then jumped a plane right back – while you were already in NY. Jetsetter!
@ Castle Bravo: Yeah, I’m impressed by that, but only moderately. Back in 2005 I did more or less the same thing from Toronto, to moderate an “SCTV” panel featuring Andrea Martin, Catherine O’Hara, Joe Flaherty, Eugene Levy and Arthur Alexander at Makor in Manhattan. And I was on what is known to be an extremely debilitating medication at the time, which was quite a bit more of a bear to deal with than the customs hassles Wells wants us to genuflect to him for enduring. So, again, the guy can kiss my butt.
For what it’s worth, it is quite an amazing movie.
I hope, at least, that Arthur Alexander sang “You Better Move On” for you.
For the record, I’m not jealous of Kent. He DESERVED to see it when he did. (Cue “deserve’s got nothing to do with it” comments re Wells.) But seriously, yes, I’m dying to see the thing, which will happen some time next week, if it all works out nicely, after which I will get the bonus I deserve, etc., etc.
@ Michael Adams: Yeah, that shoulda been ANDREW Alexander. Where’s my coffee…?
That is really peculiar.
Wow, so Wells said something obnoxious? Well, I’ll be.
Wow. Bye GK! Nice to know ya! Your special place in my heart as a critic has been superceded. Wells is, like, your younger, geekier and greedier brother.
I thought Wells was older than Kenny? Not to get all ageist or anything here.
Wells is 119 years old.
Yes, and that makes him, indeed, older than me, by 68 years. I was born on August 8, 1959. And am still accepting birthday presents.
And a happy belated birthday to you, too, Glenn. I’d be willing to bet that in the near future a screening of ‘Social Network’ may well be gifted to to you in celebration.
Inception a best picture of the year contender? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Dan, they nominated District 9 last year. Good film but if that’s gonna make the list of 10 one shouldn’t have a problem with a cultural juggernaut like Inception, which, love it or not provoked a lot of discussion.
I have a very hard time believing a movie about Facebook is going to garner enough votes to win Best Picture. I guess one could have said the same thing about Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire but geriatrics at least understand game shows.
Fincher is pretty dependable. Of course, I would have said that about Nolan before I suffered through 7 hours of Inception. Or was it shorter than that? I couldn’t tell.
I plan to see ‘The Social Network’ because, however much people may scoff, what’s known as “the David Fincher bad-good-bad-good rule” has never let me down.
Wells actually said he wasn’t sure if 127 HOURS would fly with folks like him…and LexG. He’s truly the biggest wuss on the web.
Yeah, Inception is only a Best Picture contender if there are 10 nominees. Granted, there haven’t been a lot of other contending films released so far this year (Kids Are All Right? Toy Story 3?) but this sounds like him just taking a dig at Inception in order to rile up some more traffic to his site.
I understand that “Social Network” is not seven hours long. In fact, looking at my NYFF press screening schedule, I see it is an entirely normal 120 minutes.
Ah, Wells and Lex. They both love the tough talk, but underneath they’re delicate flowers. Sensitive, poetic souls. Well, fuck that and fuck me—I recently sat through Brakhage’s “The Act Of Seeing With One’s Own Eyes,” aka “You See That? Dude, That Was Some Dude’s SKULL!!!” and it actually made me a little SLEEPY, so BRING ON “127 Hours.” I’ve got a relative who’s a real-life trauma surgeon, for real, maybe I’ll get an expert opinion and shit. With diagrams.
Oh, that’s nothing! After I saw SALO, I was making poop jokes by the NEXT DAY. I didn’t even care.
Oh bill! You missed the perfect opportunity to reenact “2 girls, 1 cup” as a solo perfomance.
Yeah, the scatalogical makes me queasy. It’s supposed to, I guess. I made it through SWEET MOVIE a couple of weeks ago, and it indeed has some amazing moments in it, but it’s… uh… tainted, to say the least. (My wife watched the last hour peering from behind a blanket as if Makavejev had made a slasher movie… well, one moment was slasher-esque, I suppose.)
I had a girlfriend who made me watch SALO as part of what was to be a romantic evening.
Yeah, that relationship didn’t last long.
She sounds like she was probably a wildcat, though.
“…the David Fincher bad-good-bad-good rule”
2 years later, I like BENJAMIN BUTTON even more than I did the first time. It’s one of those movies people feel comfortable dismissing in public because they seem to think everyone else disliked it too, and considered it “Oscar fodder” or something. There are so many clichés flying around it – “a FORREST GUMP remake” at the top of the list. That seems like a perfect description of the script. The film? Another matter. I didn’t really care much for the hummingbird and could have done without the Parisian cause-and-effect montage. Other than that, I think it’s a great movie. An opinion people seem to consider somewhere between aberrant and delusional.
Anyway, THE SOCIAL NETWORK is, among many other things, one of the few movies out there which takes place in a world I recognize as the one we live in. I found it very funny and just as unsettling, and the ending is a killer.
As an aside, it was an interesting experience to see the real Larry Summers (in INSIDE JOB) and the fictionalized Larry Summers (in this movie) within days of each other. Hard to decide who was more of a pompous fool.
The David Fincher bad-good-bad-good rule applies to more than just ‘Button’: that’s why it’s a rule. 🙂
But that dismisses Panic Room, which certainly has its issues, but as popcorn thrillers go, there are few I love more. I guess you could say it was overdirected in the sense of the CGI-inflicted runs through the house, but it’s also ferociously directed when it comes to establishing and milking every second of tension. And you get great, almost Antonionian (that’s the best term I could think of on the fly) meditations on space – really, tell me some of those shots of empty rooms are so different from the end of L’Eclisse.
I also really love Benjamin Button. Had a lot of issues when after the first screening, but it grew on me as the months wore on, and when I caught up with it again on Blu-Ray, I was just blown away. And Kent, as long as you’re reading, your essay in the Criterion edition (and the podcast you participated in) did a lot to clarify what it was I was responding to, so thanks for that.
(I still can’t stand The Game, though, so I am with you there, Oliver)
In the end, you’ll always find something to disagree with a critic, even one you really like. One annoying thing (out of many) about “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is that Pitt and Swinton’s affair in Murmansk pays no attention to the fact that the city was undergoing a very desperate Nazi siege at the time. In fact not only was Murmansk seriously damaged, but its freedom was vital to the Allied war effort. If you don’t want to be associated with “Forrest Gump“ ‘s narcissism, you should pay minimal attention to what’s going on outside the main actor.
Not to be all five-minutes-ago, but @Jason M., the projection at Alice Tully may be good, but the acoustics and sound system are notoriously bad – film-ruiningly bad. At least, that was the case as of 2005. Maybe they nipped it in the bud as part of their storefront facelift. Someone want to chime in with different?
(At the 2002 NYFF, not knowing to blame the venue, I actually asked Paul Thomas Anderson if we were not supposed to understand the dialogue in PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE. Sandler made some self-deprecating remark about his mumbly delivery. Only when I saw it on DVD did I realize I liked it a lot.)
@ Scott Nye.
Those shots of empty rooms are so different from the end of L’Eclisse.
Of course, I revere the end of L’Eclisse as one of the greatest moments/sequences in the entire history of cinema, and I’m not a huge fan of Panic Room, so read into that what you will.
That said, I love Fincher’s work, and though Panic Room is admittedly my least favorite of his films post Alien3, I certainly don’t subscribe to the bad-good-bad-good rule. I actually think The Game is quite excellent; even with a plot that somewhat falls apart upon reflection, it’s really gorgeously shot and edited, and has more than a few moments of insight about the life of privilege and class. And I think it also makes a decent entry into the subgenre of movies about the art of making movies. And a few problems with Benjamin Button’s script (and, of course, CG hummingbirds) aside, it’s a pretty incredible movie. As much as I had a blast watching it back in the day, I think Fight Club is somewhat problematic, and it hasn’t stuck with me nearly as much as I thought it would at the time.
@ Jaime. Having been to a bunch of films at Alice Tully at last year’s NYFF, I can’t say that I ever had a problem with the acoustics there in about 10 or so screenings, and I saw the fragment of the Rolling Stones’ concert film that was bizarrely paired with Manoel de Oliveira’s ‘Eccentricities..’ Remixed in full digital surround, etc. Sounded awesome. And it wasn’t the only film that sounded great. (Independencia and White Material also stand out in memory as sounding really fantastic). They really did make a lot of changes to the place in the facelift, from my limited experience. I saw a few things at Alice Tully at the NYFF about 5 years ago (or whenever it was last back there), and I remember the acoustics being much worse then.
@Jason – I should have clarified my point around the time I made it (I’ll get around to figuring out debate 101 on my own time, thank you very much), but I only meant that those shots in Panic Room are as thematically relevant to that film as those in L’Eclisse are to it. Being that L’Eclisse is a thematically deeper film, naturally the shots have more significance on a grand scale, but in Panic Room they do serve the same function.
Nice to see I’m not alone in being a big Benjamin Button fan.
Of course, I don’t think Fincher’s made a bad film yet. A couple problematic ones, but even Alien3 and Panic Room are better than your average genre fare.
Tully didn’t get a facelift. It was torn down and re-built. The acoustics are very good now.
Partisan, of course your point is well-taken. However, I am dead certain that if you were to call Fincher on it, he’d have an answer for you that justified the choice. He knows his details and his history. Obsessively so.
I disliked THE GAME when I first saw it. I looked at it again a year or two ago and found it an extremely haunting experience. It has to do with the absolute isolation of the hero, I think.
Scott- thanks for the kind words.
Panic Room = Kristen Stewart = MASTERPIECE.
You will bow to her in her earliest role. The top three things we should all drop to our knees to thank Lord Fincher for are:
1) KRISTEN STEWART
2) FIGHT CLUB
3) The Billy Idol CRADLE OF LOVE video.
K‑Stew is so cute in PR, she’s like a little Mini-Stew!
“Panic Room” is quite good, and contains quite a few goodies: those ridiculous cornrows on Leto, Patrick Bauchau. And Kristen Stewart is very good in the picture. More than one critic commented on her peculiarly androgynous quality here. It’s a very offbeat thing to have done in an ostensibly mainstream thriller.
And of course you’ll never have to talk me into “Fight Club,” it’s ruled, it always has. “Button” continues to grow on me and I look forward to revisiting “The Game.”
That “Cradle of Love” video does have its high points, but Idol’s idiot triumphalism within and without, and the awful mugging of that dipshit who comes off like Eugene Levy’s untalented yuppie nephew, are not, I would say, among them.
The Eugene Levy douche from Cradle of Love should’ve done a buddy cop movie with the lecherous dad from the Aerosmith “Janie’s Got a Gun” video. Wasn’t that a Fincher video too? For some reason, those two guys are inexorably linked in my mind… Were they the same guy?
Why does everyone ALWAYS say K‑Stew was so “androgynous” in Panic Room? She’s adorable in that. Eh, maybe she’s a little bit so, but it’s what gave her some distinctive edge. All I know is I was like “Who is this INTERESTING LOOKING girl?”, didn’t think for a second it was a dude. And speaking of Lord Wells, he had some great rant one time (which of course people gave him static before) about sometimes you see a young performer and just KNOW they’re going to go on to have tons of appeal and charisma. That’s what first-round, fresh-out-the-oven K‑Stew was. Then by around 2005 and “Speak,” my jaw was on the FLOOR at both her talent and her obvious physical beauty. She is the greatest actress the world has ever known, and the most beautiful.
K‑STEW 4 EVER.
Stewart’s presence in ‘Panic room’ was indeed curious, and back in the day my main thoughts about that film were ‘why did Fincher chose this skinny boy-looking girl and yet why I can’t stop looking and wondering?’.
It was, however, very far from the ‘where have you been all my life?’ reaction I had when I “discovered” Sandrine Bonnaire in ‘The ceremony’ and then rediscovered her in ‘A nos amours’ and then in ‘Vagabond’ and then in… or August Diehl in ‘Inglourious basterds’, or Patrick Dewaere in ‘Serie noire’.
“I had a girlfriend who made me watch SALO as part of what was to be a romantic evening.
Yeah, that relationship didn’t last long.”
and, uh, why not? is she still single?
@ Scott Nye.
I actually think you’re pretty much right about the shots of empty rooms in Panic Room. Was just taking the bait with your L’Eclisse comment. The film’s relationship with space (CGI and all) is one of the most interesting things about that movie for me. Not sure I quite buy the comparison that Amy Taubin made with ‘Wavelength’ in her review, though I can also see where she’s coming from.
Despite my lukewarm comments above, on balance, I still think Panic Room is a decent film with some standout moments. And I don’t really blame Fincher too much; he directed the hell out of the movie, and got some fine performances out of the excellent cast; in fact, most of the problems I had with it could probably have been fixed with a screenplay rewrite. It is, however, in the unenviable position of being stuck between Fight Club, which I was really taken with at the time Panic Room came out, and the absolute masterpiece that is Zodiac. And it kind of pales in comparison to both.
Which is probably unfair to poor Panic Room, but hey, it does happen at times.
I love Alien 3, always have, always will. Sure there are problems (like not having a script to start with…) but the tone, cinematography (I miss Alex Thomson), production design, score (one of my all-time favourites) and performances from Weaver and Dutton all make the film into something special for me. It’s a mad euro-sci-fi-art movie, and amazing it ever got funding from Fox in the first place, even if they did chop the film off at its knees half-way through production. Greatly looking forward to the restored blu-ray special edition, and the ‘Creative Differences’ portion of the ‘making of’ that was cut from the DVD Quadrilogy, but has now been granted permission to be shown. Should be fascinating to hear all about the bad blood.
I’ve only really liked one Fincher film (well, okay, two, because I thought PANIC ROOM was fun), and that was ZODIAC. I hate FIGHT CLUB, thought THE GAME should have ended with (SPOILER) Penn getting shot (because that would have been an interesting film, not because of how I feel about the guy)(END SPOILER), and think that while SEVEN is entertaining enough, it’s pretty far away from the genre masterpiece it’s held up to be. ALIEN 3 I don’t even think about, and BENJAMIN BUTTON I turned off about ten minutes in.
But I love ZODIAC so much that I’m now automatically interested, at least in theory, in everything the guy does. To the point where I’m even thinking about giving FIGHT CLUB another shot. But I’m definitely interested in THE SOCIAL NETWORK as a result, despite Aaron Sorkin.
I know we’ve already had a ZODIAC Appreciation Thread about a year ago, but man, that movie. I don’t even know what to say anymore.
@Lex – Yes, Fincher did “Janie’s Got a Gun” (featuring Leslie Ann Warren).
I don’t agree with the “David Fincher good bad good bad” rule. I belong to the “David Fincher made a quantum leap as an artist with Zodiac and Benjamin Button confirmed it” club.
“I had a girlfriend who made me watch SALO as part of what was to be a romantic evening.
Yeah, that relationship didn’t last long.”
and, uh, why not? is she still single?
_________________________________________________
As long as she didn’t make you eat her suspicious looking chocolate brownies while shouting “Mange!” at you.
…actually that sounds like more of a euphemism than it was intended to be.
Fincher’s films are mostly great (I haven’t worked up the courage to watch Benjamin Button yet though). The Game and Panic Room have similar ‘flaws’ I think, in that they deal with overprivileged characters having problems that only the most privileged characters have (interesting though that David Koepp went from writing Panic Room to directing the working class version of the ‘secret in the house’ film, Stir of Echoes) – but that detachment I feel from identifying with our heroes in those films is filled by a clinical view of their plights, only emphasised by the CG, not undercut by it.
The Game feels like it is about the city, and everyone in it, literally becoming a playground by the rich (and the twist ending is interestingly narcissistic in confirming that our main character truly is the centre of the universe, rather than someone who has been utterly abandoned, something which turns up in Fight Club). Panic Room is not just a treasure movie or a heist or siege film (though it takes on elements of this), but becomes a fascinating self contained world revolving around the aesthetics of running through corridors and up and down staircases for various reasons, and the way that short term goals build up into one long narrative. It particularly reminded me of playing chase games with friends all around my house when a child!
Plus I love the cameo by Patrick Bauchau as the immediately beaten ex-husband! Though it still doesn’t come close to the state he gets left in at the end of Dario Argento’s Phenomena!
I’d call Fincher one of those directors who always makes movies that are at least well-crafted or interesting, but that don’t always add up to the sum of their parts. Alien3 still makes me angry, both at the studio for butchering it but also at Fincher for pretentiousness. The Game and Panic Room have great premises but neither really follows through on them. Fight Club I take as a masterpiece, and Seven and Zodiac I like very much, but Benjamin Button? Can someone explain why it’s so well-regarded? Do I need to track down Mr. Jones’ Criterion essay? To me, it felt like a movie that only existed for the sake of the gimmick – strip that out of the movie and all you have is a meandering Gump-esque narrative in which a guy is born, grows up, falls in love, goes senile, and dies, but without any real narrative or thematic tension.
Also, when I first saw Panic Room, it took me about twenty minutes to realize that Kristen Stewart was a girl. Because, you know, she looked like a long-haired pre-pubescent kid.
Funny, it took me twenty SECONDS to realize she was the coolest actress I’d ever seen.
K‑STEW POWER.
“long-haired pre-pubescent kid”
Since when is “kid” the same thing as “boy”? I’m pretty sure it means anyone of either gender of a certain age.
Jeff, I have no idea who all these people are who hold BENJAMIN BUTTON in such high regard. The reviews I read when it came out ranged from polite to hostile to uncomprehending. More often that not, when I tell someone how much I like it, I get a laugh, a blank stare, or a semi-sympathetic shake of the head. Other than that, it would seem that we saw two different movies.
Jeff – In addition to Kent’s essay (http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/1125-the-curious-case-of-benjamin-button-the-man-who-watched-the-hours-go-by), I recommend Matt Zoller Seitz’s video essay on the film, which can be found at http://www.movingimagesource.us/articles/present-tense-20090508 (the link for the video is on the right side, kind of tucked away). Both are excellent explications of the film’s many virtues.
But yeah, I’ve gotten to the point where I won’t mention the film in the public space. Not that I’m ashamed – if it comes up, I’ll defend it to the death – but it’s certainly not worth inviting the looks of disbelief anymore. Though I did have a class with one guy who nearly got into a fistfight when a classmate ragged on it, so I guess there is always someone out there more passionate about almost anything.
Jeff, I personally really love BENJAMIN BUTTON. While the story might bear superficial similarities to GUMP, the two movies are actually crucially different in the areas of aesthetics and ideology. Here’s what I wrote on my blog:
FORREST GUMP is reactionary in that it martyrs a man for not questioning authority and always doing what he’s told. Forrest is a simpleton who puts all his faith in what God, Mama and Uncle Sam tell him, fights in Vietnam and is rewarded with wealth and fame. A parallel plot involving his girlfriend, Jenny, sees her do the opposite (she joins the counter-culture, protests the war and experiments with free love and drugs) and then punishes her with AIDS and death. On the other hand, BENJAMIN BUTTON is the tragedy of a man who lives through history (rather than triumphing over it), making tough decisions and taking responsibility for his actions at every turn. Just think of the heartbreaking scene where Benjamin decides to leave Daisy so that she can raise their daughter without him.
More importantly, where FORREST GUMP always calls attention to itself in its use of digital special effects (“Hey look, it’s Tom Hanks interacting with real documentary footage of some famous historical figure!”) the use of CGI in BUTTON is always subservient TO the story, just as it was in ZODIAC. (Whenever I point out to students that there are over 200 CGI shots in ZODIAC, the most common reply is, “I didn’t notice any.” Exactly.) And although I know that computer technology is what allows Brad Pitt in BUTTON to age in reverse, it’s the last thing on my mind when I’m actually watching the movie.
I’d recommend reading Kent’s essay and giving it another try.
@Kyle: “and, uh, why not? is she still single?”
First question: numerous reasons, not least of which was the fact that we actually had very little respect for one another and began dating as something of a practical joke. She dumped me– or, to be more accurate, had a friend call me to let me know I had been dumped. On Valentine’s Day.
Second question: …Last I heard, yes. Funny story: my wife and I were recently at a party, and said ex-girlfriend was also there, and my wife mistook said ex, who has not aged particularly well, for a balding man in his late thirties. That was actually kind of vindicating, admittedly in the shallowest way possible.
Coming back to the actual topic of discussion– I am very much looking forward to THE SOCIAL NETWORK, because of the director. I did not see BENJAMIN BUTTON yet, but found SEVEN to be alright for what it was, rather enjoyed PANIC ROOM (even if, as I’ve said probably at least twice before in these parts, I’m not entirely certain if it needs a 3‑Disc Special Edition) and was flat-out blown-away by FIGHT CLUB and ZODIAC. Even when I’m not as blown-away, he’s always given me the sense that he knows what he’s doing. I might not like everything in every Fincher movie, but it seems like he respects my intelligence and time enough not to faff about; there’s not a single frame of waste in ZODIAC.
That’s one reason why I was disappointed to hear that the film is 120 minutes long, instead of the 170 minutes that was earlier reported; he’s one of the very few Hollywood directors I “trust” to make such a long-haul worthwhile. Whereas if, say, M. Night Shyamalan announced his next picture was going to run over two hours, I’d be very wary indeed.
Tom, I can’t really imagine THE SOCIAL NETWORK being a minute longer. The sense of time is just as powerful as precise as it is in the last two, but here it’s tuned to the attention patterns of people who spend all their time in front of computer screens.
Michael, I agree that the CGI manipulations in ZODIAC and BENJAMIN BUTTON are fully integrated into the movie. In ZODIAC, the only shot that really stands out is the overhead of the cab on its way to Washington and Cherry, but in that case he wanted something that looked unnatural, and it produces a striking effect. The making of extras on the DVD and Blu Ray of the director’s cut are very interesting. As for BENJAMIN BUTTON, it’s just never an issue: it’s all at the service of the material.
But he does something just as stunning in SOCIAL NETWORK, albeit on a smaller scale, with Armie Hammer as the Winklevoss twins.
Those special features on the Zodiac disc, particularly the one on the visual effects, really blew me away. Up to that point, I had no clue whatsoever that Fincher recreated the Washington & Cherry location almost entirely in post. Bluescreened the whole thing; it’s astonishing. I usually have a good eye for these things, and while watching the movie I never in a million years would have guessed that scene was a giant special effect. And it’s not the only one.
There’s simply no filmmaker out there right now who is better at employing CGI and other visual effects than Fincher. Plain and simple. For all the talk of Avatar, and whether actors should be getting awards for motion-captured performances, it’s still a little funny to me to note that Fincher did very similar work with Brad Pitt (albeit on a slightly smaller scale, though technically just as challenging) in Benjamin Button, and Pitt (deservedly) was nominated for various acting awards. Even though half of the shots of Benjamin Button were CGI. And I don’t think anyone noticed, or kicked up a fuss about it in the slightest.
Jason, I was also impressed by the scene with Ione Skye, or the opening shots of the 4th of July. Or the “helicopter shot” of San Francisco Bay.
I know what you’re saying about Brad Pitt, but I think he’s great, mediation aside. An extremely difficult character, a delicately drawn performance.
I completely agree with you about Pitt, Kent. It’s one of his finest performances, and I don’t think the acting achievement is at all lessened by the technical wizardry used to get the final image up on the screen.
Was simply trying to make the point that for all the controversy about digital actors, with a director like Fincher who really knows how to employ these special effects in, well, an effective way, it allows for people to completely forget (or not even think in the first place) about the technical marvel, and focus in on what’s important, namely the performance.
In related news, I’m looking forward to seeing Armie Hammer as the Winklevosses (Winklevi?) in THE SOCIAL NETWORK.
I wonder if ZODIAC’s use of Donovan’s “Hurdy Gurdy Man”/casting of Ione Sky connection is “purely coincidental,” as Christopher Nolan says of INCEPTION’s use of Edith Piaf’s “Non, Je Né Regrette Rien”/casting of Marion Cotillard.
‘Zodiac’ – one of the greatest ever procedural pics, period? I’m thinking also of Kurosawa’s ‘High and Low’, Dassin’s ‘The Naked City’ and Pialat’s ‘Police’ (and these 4 combined are the perfect illustration of how much variety can exist within the ‘confines’ of a genre).
Oliver – Yes, I’d say ZODIAC is absolutely on that level.
Oliver C, Glenn and I got on the subject of a ZODIAC/HIGH AND LOW double feature a while back – I think it would be an illuminating, albeit long, night at the movies (or at home).
On the other hand…as much as I like POLICE, I’m not really sure that it works as a procedural. More like a series of character duels, variations on a theme. As for THE NAKED CITY, have you seen it recently? The location stuff is great, but I find it excruciating. Actually, UNION STATION is a much more exciting movie, completely unsentimental where THE NAKED CITY is relentlessly cloying (the Mark Hellinger influence), with a far better and tougher Barry Fitzgerald performance in an almost identical role.
I should have added that of Oliver’s list of procedurals, I’ve only seen HIGH AND LOW. But if ZODIAC bears favorable comparison to that one, and I believe it does, then it’s automatically in the top tier of procedurals.
The effects in ZODIAC looked digital. The digi-blood was obvious.
BENJAMIN BUTTON rules. I’m 20 and in college and didn’t see it in theaters because of the GUMP comparisons and “attacks” against it. I don’t have money to just go see every movie that comes out ya see and at that running time it was an easy one to cross off. Why even scheme a family movie night out of it? But I hadn’t seen ZODIAC. I saw ZODIAC. I thought it was spectacular (I watched it on my laptop with headphones and, not knowing anything about the digital effects, thought the saturated, bold colors and “rounded” edges were Cool. I don’t know what the hell I thought about the scene with the construction of the Transamerica building. I guess I just didn’t think). Then Google led me to Nathan Lee’s great Village Voice review. And then to his joint podcast with Kent Jones. And on the podcast this dude was raving about BENJAMIN BUTTON and I was like “say what?”. Then on to Mr. Jones’ terrific Criterion essay (which, along with 4 or 5 viewings of ZODIAC, prepares one beautifully for Fincher’s presence in BENJIE). And it sounded awesome now (as a kid who was never able to visit the Big Easy before Katrina, I have an undying New Orleans fetish. I’ll make it there someday). Watched it, must have cried 10 times (again, watching it on a laptop). But gosh darn it, I honestly DO NOT UNDERSTAND the GUMP comparison. It must be how Harold Bloom feels when people claim Shakespeare wasn’t written by “Shakespeare”. Why would someone make the comparison? Who is paying them off? Forrest’s mom? Where do Zemeckis’ and Fincher’s interests match up? The digital manipulation in both films is interesting, but they serve entirely different purposes, don’t they? Take any instance. The love story: Is “Run, Forrest, Run” anywhere near as delicate as Benjamin’s first few meetings with the girl who grew up to be Cate Blanchette? Like…WHAT??!?!?!? Or the difference between Forrest walking past President Kennedy talking about how he has to pee and Benjamin and Cate kissing in their first apartment with The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show or on a boat as a shuttle takes off, rather subtly (I had to rewind), in the background? Or the motor cycle ride Benjamin takes as he is “growing” younger and the bearded Forrest “seeing the sunset”. It’s the same script writer. What else? Why? How? Where?
Since then, I bought Mr. Jones’ book of criticism (from half.com…sorry…but for the last 1/3 of the book every other page is blank. Did I get the bum copy or was that a large-scale printing issue you had to deal with? In any case, major bummer). But it is great. Thanks.
My favorite digital manipulation Fincher uses is for T.V. screens. They are sharper and there’s no…nostalgia?…involved. It’s like seeing the news with the eyes of the characters. The Beatles on Ed Sullivan actually looks exciting instead of an easy “hee-haw, we got you, there’s The Beatles you guys, wow, what a world”. It occurs in ZODIAC during the Brian Cox scene.
Anyway, what I mean to say is this: David Fincher is the only modern filmmaker who would raise my ire enough to post on a random movie blog. And I’m so excited for THE SOCIAL NETWORK.
And EVERYONE ELSE comes to the Ragtag Cinema in Columbia, MO next week (for two screenings) as a part of the “Passport Series”. So very excited for that as well.
p.s. I hope, like, my mom isn’t on here or anything.
To respond to Michael G. Smith re: Forrest Gump, I know that ‘reactionary’ is a pretty strong critique of the film, but I don’t completely agree. For one thing, Forrest remains completely oblivious of his wealth and fame – they’re meaningless to him, because all he really wants is Jenny, and she’s gone all too soon. I think if I had to sum up what Zemeckis’s ideological statement is in the movie, it would be “The 60s: WTF?” To somebody like me who wasn’t part of that era, rather than a pointed critique I take it as a bewildered rumination. I agree with you that Zemeckis’s use of CGI is obnoxiously showy, though (he got a lot better with Contact and What Lies Beneath, then vanished into oblivion with his animated movies).
My issue with Benjamin Button is that, to my eye, he doesn’t ‘live through history’ – history happens around him, but almost always just offscreen, never actually intruding on Benjamin’s life. As mentioned before, the greatest event of the 20th century – WWII – SHOULD be happening around Benjamin when he’s in Murmansk, but doesn’t. I don’t know of any ‘tough decisions’ he makes beyond the one you cited – like Gump, he seems to float through the story without any particular agency.
My other issue with Button is that I think there’s something creepy about the way it seems to fetishize Brad Pitt-as-movie star, especially in the scene when he returns looking like he did in Thelma and Louise, as if he’s been on some kind of saintly mission.
Anyway, I’ll rewatch it, just probably not soon.
One other thing – I love Zodiac, but I kind of hate the sequence in the director’s cut version where the screen goes black and we just hear Super Hits of the 70s for a minute or two. It seemed like Fincher had somehow fallen into the biggest time-passage cliché since ‘pages flying off a calendar’. It really hurts the middle of the film for me. And Christian, yeah, the blood is definitely CGI. I don’t think Fincher was trying to make it look ‘realistic’ as the entire movie has a kind of CGI sheen to it.
Jeff – One of the strengths of BUTTON for me, actually, is that there isn’t an emphasis at all on Benjamin “living through history.” He’s just living, and sometimes his life intersects with what’s going on around him, sometimes it doesn’t. MAD MEN does the same thing, with perhaps greater emphasis, and I find it a lot more reflective of how most people live than trying to cram history into the folds.
As for the ever-present issue of Benjamin’s passivity, really, it either works for you or it doesn’t. I have absolutely no issue with character who don’t have a stated purpose in life, but I will say than Benjamin’s curiosity is a huge driving force for the narrative. From hopping aboard the tugboat to falling into an affair to traveling the world after he leaves Daisy and their daughter, Benjamin’s eagerness to explore and experience everything he can is worth noting. One could even say he’s trying to live as much as he can, because he knows more or less exactly how much time he has left to live.
Well, I guess my reaction to ‘he’s just living’ is, I can see that at home. (Which, yes, is trite but…)
Will, I thank you for the kind words, and I’m distressed that you bought a copy of my book with blank pages in the last 3rd – believe me, it wasn’t intentional.
Well, perhaps it wasn’t the best choice of words but I meant “just living” by the phrase “living through history” (with the emphasis on “through”), which I meant to contrast with what I termed Forrest Gump’s “triumphing over history”. The historical markers in GUMP are just as obnoxiously showy as the CGI. I mean, contrast the ridiculous scene where Forrest teaches Elvis how to dance with the beautiful scene Will cites where Benjamin and Daisy are kissing while the Beatles play on Ed Sullivan on their television. I would argue the latter scene is how most of us experience “history” most of the time – as fleeting moments of personal pleasure or pain without a full understanding of the momentousness or wider context of any particular event.
And while we’re talking about Physical Evidence, I’d also like to thank Kent for writing what I think is the most essential collection of film criticism I’ve read in recent years. After I finished it, I bought two more copies and gave them to cinephile friends. No copy had the problem Will describes.
Yeah, but I take that as the two films operating on different registers. Gump is goofier and more cartoonish, but I still think it’s effective in its own way, mostly (the 20 minutes of that movie where he invents jogging, the smiley face, and ‘shit happens’ should have gone on the cutting-room floor). I don’t think Zemeckis had the same goals in mind that Fincher did in terms of representing the experience of history, I see his film as being more about the Boomer era as a kind of fever dream.
So, I’m the only one who thinks The Game is Fincher’s best film, and Fight Club is his worst, right? Yeah, I thought so.
Also, Jeff Wells is 64. Don’t let his eight-year-old headshot and 19-year-old-douchebag shoes fool you.
Michael, thank you. I appreciate it.