Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#76 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Oct 26, 2014 7:54 am

Drucker wrote:
SpoilerShow
You're telling me the cops didn't even look at Desi's cameras to actually ensure she was there the whole time?
SpoilerShow
She could have explained that she was taken somewhere else and kept captive before she really arrived. Purely guessing here but since she was there for however long she was, I'd imagine by the time she left she figured out how to edit or erase footage (that's assuming if there was even an archive to begin with).
Drucker wrote:
SpoilerShow
Lastly, Desi was obviously wealthy beyond all logic, which is oddly never explained (and is it explained how Amy knows he's rich?)...rich people don't just disappear like that (see: Amy's disappearance). She couldn't have gotten away with it as easily as she does, in other words).
SpoilerShow
It makes total sense that he's wealthy, especially if he comes from old money which was my first assumption. Her own family were of similar means so it's not that huge a leap. The only convenient thing I can think of is how he wound up in St. Louis, as well as having a place in Branson to begin with.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#77 Post by warren oates » Sun Oct 26, 2014 10:41 am

I don't, flyonthewall2983. I agree with Drucker's points. I raised similar concerns myself.
SpoilerShow
There's no way that Desi's family or his business associates just accept Amy's crazy story and there are mountains of evidence they could dive into. Starting with the cameras. The cameras aren't just about the timing of their arrival. They also record all sorts of high resolution interactions. None of their body language suggests she was there against her will -- because until she sees that interview and starts planning again she isn't. Or that she couldn't have easily left if she wanted to. She'd have to bend over backwards to explain all the inconsistencies in the visuals alone.

Let's not even talk about the fact that someone with a house and a security system as nice as Desi's would very likely have some kind of audio recording surveillance built into some if not all of his camera locations. Or that his people and Tanner Bolt's wouldn't have access to the very real cutting edge technology that can actually extract sound from a video only image.

Still, forget about that for a second. In 2014 you'd be hard pressed to find even the most basic consumer video security system that didn't include hard drive storage and most likely also some kind of option for automated backup to the cloud. You're going to try and tell me that Desi's system isn't set up the same way? How's she going to erase that? And then, assuming that she'd somehow magically be superhacker for a second, how's she going to explain the missing footage? Which is why I think the film didn't even bother with these details. Because the only remotely plausible way for her to get away with it is pretending we're suddenly, conveniently in some kind of old school world (could have worked a decade or more ago in some alternate Sliver universe!) where she can "trick" the cameras by playing a few angles and acting a little, then erasing or destroying some easily accessible physically limited videotape or disc record of the other days.

We won't even talk about all her Google searches -- likely still archived at her ISP if not somewhere subpoena-able at Google and the Utah Data Center -- for her perfect-crime planning books and other masterminding materials.

It's no fair at all of Flynn and Fincher to introduce or highlight details of certain technologies in order to convince of us Amy's cleverness if they willfully ignore huge looming aspects of those same technologies that would totally undermine their case. That's just bad storytelling on the most basic level.

User avatar
tenia
Ask Me About My Bassoon
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:13 am

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#78 Post by tenia » Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:41 pm

From what I've understood, the cameras in Desi's house only records the entry points and the surroundings. While I agree it would at least shows comings and goings of Amy around, I don't think it would show much more than this. That's also why there would be no need for Amy to erase anything, because it is not filming in this direction.

And that's also what I thought very funny, which goes with the other sub-texts of the movie : being paranoid and filming outside while that's actually not where you should be looking at.

User avatar
warren oates
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:16 pm

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#79 Post by warren oates » Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:43 pm

I think you need to see the film again.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#80 Post by hearthesilence » Sun Oct 26, 2014 5:57 pm

What warren says about the security is true, but cutting Fincher some slack, I thought maybe the director was more interested in how those cameras fit in with the film's major themes of being watched all the time - through social media, news media, and modern surveillance technology, and how all those things are now so deeply intertwined despite the different functions they're supposed to serve. And in this case, it's this character being, as always, very, very aware of being watched, and knowing how to manipulate that.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#81 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Oct 27, 2014 9:53 am

SpoilerShow
I have a theory that this all started with whatever concussion she may have sustained after being pushed by Nick, that it somehow disrupted her logic and increased whatever paranoid and insecure tendencies she may have already had. And so maybe whatever red herrings there might be in the plot is the film itself taking on the results of such an injury. This of course doesn't really explain the scene with the NYC guy, as some of the things he'd described are done much later on when Desi is killed. But the concussion angle has kind of stuck with me since seeing it.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#82 Post by Drucker » Mon Oct 27, 2014 10:02 am

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
SpoilerShow
I have a theory that this all started with whatever concussion she may have sustained after being pushed by Nick, that it somehow disrupted her logic and increased whatever paranoid and insecure tendencies she may have already had. And so maybe whatever red herrings there might be in the plot is the film itself taking on the results of such an injury. This of course doesn't really explain the scene with the NYC guy, as some of the things he'd described are done much later on when Desi is killed. But the concussion angle has kind of stuck with me since seeing it.
SpoilerShow
I thought that push never happened? He doesn't actually push her until she comes back and they're about to do the interview.

I keep thinking about and going back to the moment the money is stolen from her, though. Up until that moment, the plan is going perfectly. Once she's robbed, she freaks out, once again, in a totally down-to-earth way and up until this point, she seems to just be perfectly playing her cards. At this point, she loses it, and the series of events continues from there.

There's very little to suggest to me she isn't in control of her own mental state. She just seems manipulative and desires attention/people to love her. The idea of an untrustworthy narrator does ring true to me, but only because the audience is manipulated, not because our narrator is in a confused state.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#83 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Oct 27, 2014 2:35 pm

Drucker wrote:
SpoilerShow
I thought that push never happened? He doesn't actually push her until she comes back and they're about to do the interview.
SpoilerShow
The way in which it was shown wasn't jibing with the kind of domestic abuse she possibly alludes to in the journal, which makes me think it was real but she embellished it in her writing. It's not the act of a man who is possibly thinking of killing his wife, something about it felt more accidental actually. If I remember it right, you can see some concern on his face after her head hits the railing but it's quickly overtaken by his frustration and he leaves.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#84 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon Oct 27, 2014 5:10 pm

flyonthewall2983 wrote:
Drucker wrote:
SpoilerShow
I thought that push never happened? He doesn't actually push her until she comes back and they're about to do the interview.
SpoilerShow
The way in which it was shown wasn't jibing with the kind of domestic abuse she possibly alludes to in the journal, which makes me think it was real but she embellished it in her writing. It's not the act of a man who is possibly thinking of killing his wife, something about it felt more accidental actually. If I remember it right, you can see some concern on his face after her head hits the railing but it's quickly overtaken by his frustration and he leaves.
SpoilerShow
It wasn't real. She mentions in her narration that it was part of the concoction of the diary, and as we find out as the film progresses, Amy was actually the one who didn't want a child - not Nick. The entire fight was predicated on a wide-eyed Amy wanting to discuss having a child because of her isolation in their marriage, and Nick pushing her, and the idea, away.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#85 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:10 am

SpoilerShow
My theory lay in tatters. But that's okay, the whole "reveal" felt like an overload of information to me so hopefully that can explain it.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#86 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Oct 28, 2014 11:47 am

SpoilerShow
Basically, everything we see in flashbacks to their relationship is, in varying levels of authenticity, from the diary Amy wrote up in the weeks leading up to her disappearance with different pens, etc. So early in the relationship is seen through rose colored glasses, and the abuse, etc is exaggerated or fabricated. We're never truly let into the loop on the machinations of their marriage prior to the disappearance aside from the glimpses we see from Nick's side of things (which are not accompanied by flashbacks) or by the lingering evidence of what was going on (the mistress, for example).

jojo
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:47 pm

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#87 Post by jojo » Wed Oct 29, 2014 2:38 pm

hearthesilence wrote:I think most people here were far more impressed with the media satire than I was. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't all that insightful - it felt like a broad aggregate of fairly typical criticism.
I thought this was actually the weakest part of the film. For one thing, it felt like media satire of an older era--social media barely figures into the film at all. It's basically all TV driven. My other problem with it is the implicit assumption that media still manipulates the public the way the way they INTEND them to be manipulated, but that just isn't the case anymore. There just isn't the public trust in the media that there was 20, maybe 15 years ago. For sure, the media still plays a powerful role in shaping public opinion, mostly based on how much coverage--good or bad--they devote to someone. But just because they present a point of view about a person that's good or bad doesn't necessarily sway the larger public's opinion to the side the media wants them to be swayed. We've seen celebrities get plenty of negative attention who end up gaining a large fanbase based on the negative attention, and vice versa. For the most part, Nick and Amy's image is mostly shaped by how the media chose to shape them. Other than the grungy couple Amy meets up with, we don't see much public backlash to Amy, even at the end of the film which certainly would have opened her up to much public speculation and conspiracy theories if something like this happened in the real world.

What I did find spot on, though, was in showing how it's so easy for one to speculate on someone's character based on his face, body language and overall manners. If you don't cry on cue or you look too disengaged or you talk with your head down etc., people are so quick to crucify you on a stake if you don't display the "proper" social mores in every situation. And the tendency of everyone to play amateur body language expert.

Also, it's also a great deconstruction of the polarizing appeal of Ben Affleck. I can't think of anyone else out there who would have fit this role as well, speaking as someone who is generally not a fan of Ben Affleck the movie star (I actually heard some of myself in that obnoxious blonde newstalk host) :lol:

As for all the gender relations stuff, I think it's mostly people projecting their own worldviews onto the film. Any reading one way or the other seems to be countered by something else that is the exact opposite of any one specific reading.


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#89 Post by domino harvey » Tue Nov 18, 2014 5:48 pm

I finally saw this today after studiously somehow avoiding spoilers for over a month-- I figured I had tempted fate enough and I'm really glad I did get to it before its myriad secrets were revealed. I've seen every Fincher but Panic Room and while I'm hardly a fan, this is easily his best film and one of the best of the year, and it does me some sadness to read a thread of people who've yet again seen a different movie than me.
SpoilerShow
I was, however, relieved to see Bordwell drew comparisons to Leave Her to Heaven, which is definitely one of the cornerstone cultural markers for this film. And that's fundamentally my issue with reading this chiefly as a work of satire at any of the aforementioned targets, in that this film certainly has a cheeky sense of cynicism, it's the sort found primarily in film noir. And this pic is 100% film noir. I was reminded of Ellroy's perfect and divine in simplicity definition of Film Noir: "You're fucked." The whole film is this message over and over for both Affleck and Pike. Your plans will run afoul in the most comically horrific way possible. Your frame is set so expertly that everything you do just tightens the noose. Nowhere is it more clear than in the finale. From what I gather in this thread this is the "changed ending." Good. The film wouldn't be what it is without it. How perverse for the ultimate answer to be what both previously desired to leave behind. How fucked. How wonderful.


User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#91 Post by domino harvey » Fri Nov 28, 2014 6:58 pm

According to the Blu-ray.com listing, it'll be a digipak like the last two Fincher flicks

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#92 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:13 pm

The Amazon listing has disappeared. I'm guessing it'll be rescheduled and we'll get the new release date at some point.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#93 Post by domino harvey » Mon Dec 08, 2014 8:15 pm

Several Fox titles disappeared from Amazon today, including I Origins-- it could be nothing but an Amazon hiccup

User avatar
D50
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:00 am
Location: USA

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#94 Post by D50 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 9:15 am

I was reminded of Gone Girl when I recently saw Inarritu's Amores Perros, and heard this quote:

You and your plans. You know what my grandmother used to say? If you want to make God laugh - tell Him your plans.

User avatar
swo17
Bloodthirsty Butcher
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:25 am
Location: SLC, UT

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#95 Post by swo17 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 11:45 am

D50 wrote:If you want to make God laugh - tell Him your plans.
That saying goes back a lot further than Amores perros!

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#96 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:02 pm

I've heard some people credit that to John Lennon (I think for Double Fantasy), but it must go back even further than that.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#97 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:09 pm

Nah, Lennon said "Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans." Or at least, he's credited as saying it.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#98 Post by domino harvey » Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:10 pm

It's a Yiddish proverb. It goes waaaaaaaaay back

EDIT: Possibly way way back:
Psalm 33:10
The LORD brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates
the plans of the peoples.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#99 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:12 pm

The Yiddish proverb translates to "Man plans, God laughs." All the same shit, essentially, with varying levels of religiosity

EDIT: Yeah, what Domino said. I don't know. PEACE AND LOVE!

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Re: Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

#100 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Wed Dec 10, 2014 2:17 am

The Amazon listing is back, and now features an image of the packaging.

Image

Post Reply