Today, at Blood Stained Ink, we continue our exploration on the nature of humanity, particularly as we see ourselves through the unique lens of films that look into the future. To date, the series includes the following posts:
Literary debuts don’t get any bigger than the Millenium trilogy authored by Swedish journalist, Stieg Larrson. With worldwide sales of over 53 million copies, it was only a matter of time before the books would inevitably be turned into American films. And when that time came, it was almost equally inevitable that David Fincher, director of thrillers such as Seven, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room, and Zodiac, would be the auteur of choice to helm such nihilistically, dark material.
So does the film work? Sadly, that question is not as easy to answer as one might expect. On the one hand, Fincher’s extensive experience honed over the past 26 years in the industry has taught him how to focus this story, which, in its original printed form, was a bit meandering at times. Moreover, he knows how to frame a scene, and so, as one would expect, the film looks and sounds stunningly beautiful. There is a raw elegance in the landscapes he captures that perfectly mirrors the hollow nature of the main characters’ souls. And likewise, the brief, but shockingly potent, bursts of extreme violence are captured in such a way as to actually advance the storyline as opposed to being voyeuristic outlets for those that fancy the emerging genre of “torture-porn.”
So what’s missing? The heart of the novel. Prior to making its way across the Atlantic, the novel was published in Sweden under the name Man som hatar kvinnor, which translated into English means: Men Who Hate Women. At its core, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is about misogyny on scales writ both large and small. While Fincher expertly captures the larger, grotesque acts of violence perpetrated against women, he misses the small acts found in his main character, Mikael Blomkvist. For you see, in the book, Blomkvist’s defining characteristic is his alarmingly, insatiable sexual appetite. He regularly sleeps with every single major female character in the book, the likes of which include: a woman half his age (Salander), his married co-owner of the magazine he works for, as well as the married niece of the man who hired him to solve the 40-year old cold case. But here, in Fincher’s film, he is only ever shown sleeping with Salander, which completely alters the meaning of the closing scene.
*** MILD SPOILER ALERT ***
When Salander comes to give Blomkvist a gift at the end of the film, she sees him walking off into the night with his colleague. And the rage she feels isn’t merely the rage of jealousy, as it is in the film. The rage she feels, in the book, is the rage of having once again been violated by a man who took advantage of her to satisfy his own sexual urges. In other words, in the book, Blomkvist is among the misogynistic offenders who violate women by their casual willingness to sexually use and discard them. But here, in the film, it simply comes across as Salander being jealous of a new lover, because Fincher never sees fit to show Blomkvist, the ostensible “hero” of the film, as guilty in his own way.
But this should not come as a surprise in American culture. For ours is a culture that hypocritically glorifies the sexual promiscuity of men, even as it purports to uphold female dignity and empowerment as a national virtue. So, in the end, Fincher’s curious decision to white-wash his lead character is not surprising, and yet, it is absolutely fatal to the film because it effectively neuters Larrson’s central message, and reduces the film to nothing more than a visually splashy who-dunnit shot in exotic locales. And in a society that openly degrades women in the manner that ours does, this is a shame because Larrson’s core theme is one that could really have challenged people to think.
This film has been rated R by the MPAA for language, violence and sexuality.
On the heels of a less than stellar movie-going season in 2010, it appears as if Hollywood is gearing up to give us another mediocre batch of flicks. From Transformers: Dark Side of the Moon to Bridesmaids, theaters have been filled with a glut of vacuous, idea-free diversions that are completely devoid of both substance and style.
Having said that, there have been some interesting smaller films released in the last few months and there appear to be a few more on the way. So as a occasional screenwriter and as a lover of film, I offer these to you in the hopes that you might give them a chance.
The Adjustment Bureau (Available on DVD / Blue Ray). A highly stylized and very enjoyable look at the “free” choices we make and the powers that lie behind them. It was nothing like what I expected; and far better than I would have imagined.
The Ides of March (Currently in wide release). Set during the frenetic last days of a heavily-contested presidential primary race, this is an intimate look at one man’s choice to become part of the machine or to reject it. Quite possibly, the finest political thriller I have seen in recent memory.
Source Code (Available on DVD / Blue Ray). This is the second major film by Duncan Jones, and an excellent entry point into the work of a promising young director. Entertaining, tense, and surprisingly filled with questions surrounding issues related to the quality of life and the right to die.
The Tree of Life (Available of DVD / Blue Ray). Without a doubt, this will be the most ambitious, poetic film on this list, due to one reason and one reason only: Terrence Malick. In two-and-a-half hours, Malick explores all of the major God-questions through a coming-of-age story interspersed with extensive, meditative shots of nature. In all honesty, this will be a film unlike anything you have likely seen before.
The Descendants (Nov. 16). Already being touted as a front-runner for the Best Actor Oscar, George Clooney stars as a man whose life begins to fall apart after learning that his wife, who is in coma, is in the middle of an affair. Of course, the true start may be Alexander Payne, director of such notable works as Sideways, About Schmidt, and Election.
Hugo (Nov. 23). Based upon the acclaimed chidlren’s novel, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, this is the latest film from the legendary Martin Scorsese. Added bonus: several inspired casting choices including Chloe Grace Moretz, breakout star of Kickass and Let Me In.
The Muppets (Nov. 23). If you don’t understand why this is on the list … well, what more can I say? I pity you.
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (Dec. 9). My wife and I have a mutual love of well-crafted spy movies. This film, starring the incomparable Gary Oldman, is based upon the classic Cold War novel by the master story-teller, John le Carre. While I suspect Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol will clear more money on opening weekend, true lovers of spy fiction will know where the wise money is to be spent.
We Need to Talk About Kevin (Dec. 9). Based upon a novel by the same name, this psychological thriller explores the divide between nature and nurture, as a mother (Tilda Swinton) struggles to come to grips with her son’s evil inclinations.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (Dec. 21). David Fincher, the director of Se7en, The Game, Fight Club, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Social Network gets to play with the source material by Steig Larrson. And if that doesn’t excite you as a film afficianado, I don’t know what will. (Warning: This film wrestles with the notion that our society dismisses and then legitimizes violence against women. Some content may be highly offensive and/or disturbing.)
Finally, I give you three more films that show some promise, but for one reason or another, haven’t fully caught my attention just yet.
Rampart (Nov. 23). The main draw here is Woody Harrelson, an underrated actor, in the role of a Vietnam veteran-turned-L.A. cop. As for the main concern: it’s Woody Harrelson, a man not always known for judicious choices.
The Adventures of Tintin (Dec. 21). The pedigree is impeccable. Based upon a popular comic book series, the film is produced by Peter Jackson of Lord of the Rings fame and directed by Steven Speilberg, the acknowledged master of the modern day blockbuster. Still, I’m not there yet.
We Bought a Zoo (Dec. 23). This film intrigues me for one reason and one reason only: Cameron Crowe. Back in the day, he wrote and directed such films as: Say Anything, Singles, Jerry Maguire, and Almost Famous. But more recently, he’s given us the far more lackluster: Vanilla Sky and Elizabethtown. Will this be a return to form?
Late last week, cnn.com, Time magazine and other similar news outlets carried a story about the appearance of Guy Fawkes masks at various Occupy Wall Street protests around the world. Having just written on the subject of David Fincher’s Fight Club, I was not terribly surprised to see this, for I had concluded my review with a prediction that the Occupy Wall Street movement, modeled as it was on the Arab Spring, could only move in the direction of violent resistance. So where’s the violence you ask? How does a mask equal violence? Well, in order to understand that, you need to understand another recent film that popularized the mask and explained its origins.
Still feeling a bit confused? Let me break it down for you. V for Vendetta is a film based on the now-famous graphic novel written by Alan Moore in the early 1980s. The film itself is set in the near-future Britain, which is under the control of an extremist, right-wing government called Norsefire. Having survived a nuclear war that has decimated other parts of the globe, “Britain prevails” by submitting itself to the policies of a planned economy, government-controlled media, and concentration camps that segregate racial and sexual minorities. Moreover, the government itself is legitimated – or propped up – by religious images and language that are used to justify the harsh, totalitarian actions of the leader, who can only be charitably described as a Hitler-esque figure.
The cross depicted in the film is a papal or archiepiscopal cross, marked by two transoms of uneven length.
As for the protagonist of the story, V is a man that has been deeply scarred by the appalling experiments carried out under the authority of this government. Enraged, and permanently disfigured, he adopts the persona and mask of Guy Fawkes, a true-to-life historical figure that attempted to blow-up Parliament in 1605. As an anarchist, V’s violent plan of action is driven forward by two overwhelming desires:
The desire to expose the lies that undergird the actions of the government.
The desire to awaken the political consciousness of the dulled masses that have been drugged into a stupor by the idiocy of the television and propaganda.
Sound familiar? At the heart of the Occupy Wall Street movement — at the heart of the Arab Spring and the G20 protests – lies a deep, globalized dissatisfaction with the way that governments have conducted themselves. Moreover, these movements are founded on populist ideals that don’t propose a way forward, so much as they propose a revolution in which society is reordered for the purpose of meeting the needs (or wants) of those that are either legitimately oppressed or those that mistakenly see themselves as such.
So the only questions that truly remains are these:
How long will it be before one of these mask-wearing protestors takes their dissatisfaction to the next level?
How long before “Fight Club” becomes “Project Mayhem?”
How long before the people tire of “peaceful resistance” and go looking for salvation in the form of revolution?
V for Vendetta is rated R by the Motion Picture Association of America. It contains: strong violence, some language and a scene with dead, naked bodies being tossed into mass graves.
This is the first post in an ongoing series on the subject of film and culture. Please be aware that many of the films reviewed in this series will contain material that is highly antithetical to the Christian faith. Nevertheless, there is value in understanding these films for the role they play in the formation of the greater culture at large. Any decision you make to either watch these films or not is entirely up to you.
Fifteen years ago, in 1996, a struggling writer by the name of Chuck Palahniuk published his first novel entitled Fight Club. Three years later, a young director by the name of David Fincher decided to adapt the book to film, and the world witnessed the birth of a genuine “cult phenomenon.”
So what was Fight Club about? And why are we still talking about it 15 years later? Well, let’s start by taking a look at the trailer:
Right away, you can that this is an incredibly violent film, filled with all sorts of nihilistic aggression. But the real question we have to ask is this: is that all there is to Fight Club? Is Fight Club just another violent film in the same vein as Resevoir Dogs, Saw, or A Clockwork Orange? I would argue that the answer is “no.” Fight Club is far more than an orgy of mayhem. It’s about one central idea that is best summed up in the words of one of the central characters, Tyler Durden (played by Brad Pitt):
“I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who’ve ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don’t need. We’re the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War’s a spiritual war… our Great Depression is our lives. We’ve all been raised on television to believe that one day we’d all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won’t. And we’re slowly learning that fact. And we’re very, very pissed off.”
What begins as mere disillusionment, however, rapidly escalates into something much more electrifying, much more insideous:
“Fight Club was the beginning,” says Durden. “Now it’s moved out of the basement, it’s called Project Mayhem.”
You see, genuine disillusionment is not a static entity. By its very nature, disillusionment must progress in one of two directions. It either degenerates into personal apathy, or it escalates into a state of confrontation. In Fight Club, apathy is not an option because apathy itself is viewed to be part of the problem. So in Fight Club, there was never a question as to where this disillusionment would take us. And thus, we shouldn’t be surprised when Pitt’s character finally states his real philosophy:
“Fuck damnation, man! Fuck redemption! We are God’s unwanted children. So be it!”
Now unfortunately, this is the part of the post where I now have to betray the famed ending of the movie. For in order to understand what Fight Club is really about, in order to understand why it still resonates in 21st century, you have to understand the conclusion. Throughout the film, you have watched “The Narrator” (played by Edward Norton) take a journey out of apathy into a place of action. But as he witnesses the greater and greater extremes of Durden’s (Pitt’s) nihilistic actions, he becomes more and more concerned. By the end, “The Narrator” has learned two great truths:
Durden has planned to blow up buildings in the financial district of the city.
Durden is not actually real. He is “The Narrator’s” alternate personality; and thus “The Narrator” is actually responsible for everything that has transpired.
So what does he do? Does he “fuck redemption” as the movie has lead us to believe he will? No, he does not . Instead, he fashions his own form of redemption as he shoots himself in the head (thus killing his alternate personality), and then grabs the hand of the his girlfriend and watches in satisfaction as the buildings come crumbling down.
“You met me at very strange time in my life …” Now stop and think about that. What’s he really saying? In short, he sees himself as someone who changed: ” I was apathetic, but I no longer am. My disillusionment has become action. I was a follower, but I no longer am. Now I stand alone, in complete control of my actions. I was weak, but now … now I am Nietzsche’s ubermensch. I define my own morality; and in my world, the corporations that sell us dreams are to blame for everything that makes society ill. I … I am a savior; and if you follow after me, I can redeem society by tearing it down …”
So why are we still talking about Fight Club? Why am I writing about it this morning? Because I believe the themes of Fight Club are still being played out in society today. I believe we see the massive dissatisfaction with the transnational corporations that dominate our world. I believe we see apathy in the youth and a growing sense of powerlessness amongst the “middle class” of the Western World. In the G20 protests, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the Arab Spring, we see the seeds of dissatisfaction growing and I wonder whether we see the beginning of a far more violent revolution. I wonder what this new form of “redemption” will really look like?
Today, at Blood Stained Ink, we continue our exploration on the nature of humanity, particularly as we see ourselves through the unique lens of films that look into the future. To date, the series includes the following posts:
