INTRODUCTION
David Fincher's Gone Girl is bloated, horribly paced shell of the mystery/thriller genre that sympathizes with the so called "plight" of the white heterosexual male. This is the worst film I have seen in 2014, and it is also the worst time I have had at the movies this year, leaving me both agitated and depressed. This film was so bad that I decided to write this review as a form of catharsis, instead of finishing my review of The Dark Knight Rises.
PLOT
Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) comes home to signs of a struggle and his wife (Rosamund Pike) missing. While Nick begins searching for his wife with the aid of his small Missouri town, the evidence in the police's investigation begins to implicate Nick. As the evidence begins to mount, and the media picking his life apart, Nick tries to make sense out of the perplexing cryptic clues and stalking strangers that were left in the wake of his wife's disappearance, determined to find the truth.
GENERAL ANALYSIS
First, clocking in at 149 min (2hrs 29min), this film is far too long. It is difficult for a perfect film to maintain audience attention for that long let alone one filled with so many flaws (like this one). The reason for this length is that this is two films masquerading as one. The first film (the first 90min) is a pretty good thriller; keeping the audience in the dark as to character motivations and raising doubt as to the likelihood of Nick's guilt or innocence. In the second film (the remaining 90min) we are given answers, which seems far less satisfying than the questions.
The end of the first film, is a shocking reveal of Hitchcockian proportions. The twist was captivating and riveting (at least while you were watching it for the first time) that left me at the edge of my seat. This is where most thrillers end, leaving the audience shocked and amazed; this film unfortunately keeps going. Coming off such a big reveal, leaving the audience in such a state of shell shock, the rest of the film quickly deflates into hammy character tropes (woman scorned) and unbelievable plot devices (learning how to frame someone by watching police procedurals) that quickly loses the audience's interests, while trying to cash in on (their rapidly depleting) goodwill and over investment.
Spoilers ahead
The second major problem with this film is the writing. Written for the screen by the book's author Gillian Flynn there are many problematic tropes, tonal shifts and toying with the audience that left me angry. I can understand and appreciate an author wanting to maintain creative control over their content and characters as their story(ies) are adapted across different mediums of entertainment. However, since I have not read the book I cannot say if it was changing the story to fit the screen that caused the film to falter and fail for me, or if it was adhering too close to the source material. Either way, the character motivations and development are difficult to digest. This all culminates in the climax of the film that leaves the audience empty and depressed.
The biggest problems of the writing is the character of Amy Dunne (Rosamund Pike). Her initial motivations for framing Nick are confusing and convoluted. While to some this may seem like part and parcel of the thriller genre, it comes off as unclear, lacking focus. It seems that Amy's reasons throughout the film seem to change with the wind, the film by the end, at last settles on the very tired and retreaded stereotype that she is crazy.
SOCIAL ANALYSIS
"Hell Hath No Fury like a Woman Scorned"
This film is a patriarchal fantasy, supporting the Men's Rights Movement; reiterating their anti-feminist doctrine that as women have gained more power in social institutions and become empowered as a result, men have been systematically emasculated (the masculine image that Nick seems to represent in the film). Essentially, this film serves as a cautionary tale to men regarding the "inherent dangers" of female equality and justice. The film subtly frames Amy's psychosis as the result of her power both in and out of her relationship with Nick. Additionally reinforcing the sexist stereotype that all women, especially wives, are jealous manipulative, conniving gold-diggers; Amy manipulates Nick in their relationship at every turn. This is illustrated by the reveal of Amy's set up of Nick for her disappearance. With Nick's emasculation on full display, the film prompts men to desire more control and command in the relationship by controlling women....which is usually achieved through violence. This violence is shown (symbolically) in the film when Amy is falling on hard times (losing money and being imprisoned by a former boyfriend (Neil Patrick Harris)).Through these sequences the audience is urged by the score, lighting, and cinematography, to revel in her fear; knowing that all that she will endure (physical or psychological) she will have "deserved it". Thus through the symbolic violence that she experiences, the audience is manipulated to want to see her hurt and punished...as a lot of men want to see women hurt and punished as a way to regain their "lost" masculinity.
Yet, not only does this film vilify women (at least those that don't follow binary gender norms), thereby justifying their own sexual assault, it also sympathizes with the white heterosexual male. Nick is the Men's Right's Movement's image of the "post-feminist" male that has been belittled and ignored causing men to lose their power. Therefore, his affair with one of his creative writing students is a result of wanting to gain some of that power back, and the audience is supposed to forgive this act as a minor indiscretion because he takes "minor" ownership of it ( but does not care about his girlfriend's feelings). This is playing off of the biologically deterministic stereotype that "men need sex, and it is in their nature to philander". As mentioned, since Nick has no power , the only thing that he can do to prove that he is still a man is to sacrifice himself and his happiness for his unborn child. Through that act he then regains his masculinity.
What troubles me more than the anti-feminist, pro-white dude message that this film touts, is the film's success and what that reflects about our culture. This film is very popular. With a 88% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a lot of positive critical buzz this film is warmly embraced. I find this troubling, mainly because of the film's indictment of both marriage, feminism and women in general. Is the film's critical buzz due to the covert and invisible and visible forms of misogyny that have been embedded in our culture for the last 50 years? If so, will we see even more films being more openly misogynistic (like pornography) in the future? It bothers me to no end not only that these sexist stereotypes are still present in 2014, but that they are being repackaged and presented to see white heterosexual men as the victim. If this continues male privilege will remain completely invisible and any 3 dimensional strong female characters will be seen as nothing more than angry manipulative arrogant bitches and whores. This is the tide that we need to fight against, we can not have this wave gain ANY momentum.
CONCLUSION
I respect David Fincher and his (previous) work. Which is why I am hurt and confused that he would direct a film such as this. I hope this is not one of those issues where, due to social and political ideologies, I have to stop consuming the content that Fincher produces (as I have done with restaurants). I hope it was an oversight and a mistake on his part. Please do not see this film.
