David Being David
- Mike Fisher
- Mar 7, 2021
- 21 min read
“If I ever go to the electric chair, I’d like him to be sitting on my lap.”
- Herman Mankiewicz
On May 30th 1972, Manuel Arístides Ramírez Onelcida was born. In 1991, he was drafted 13th overall by the Cleveland Indians. Of course the name read at the podium was Manny Ramirez and that is how he has been known to the general public ever since. Depending on where you live and what era you are from, you may know Manny for several different reasons. If you are younger and/or are a fan of the Los Angeles Dodgers, Chicago White Sox or Tampa Bay Rays, you might know him for late career antics that had more to do with off field issues. Injuries, drug violations and weight issues all plagued Manny in the final few years of his storied career. However that is not why I bring him up. I thought of his meteoric and unique rise to almost immediate prominence with the Indians and then his eventful run with the Boston Red Sox that was highlighted by him being a part of the team that reversed the curse of the Bambino in 2004 and finally brought a title to the Red Sox.
It was 2000 and I was moving into residence to start my first year of university. The dorm room was small, but I was going to share it with a good friend from High School who happened to also be a massive Boston sports fan. At the time, we were both fully immersed into baseball, so when the season ended in the fall and free agency started to get spicy, Manny was pretty much all we talked about - and we talked a lot. At this stage, Manny had played 7 seasons with Cleveland (which doesn’t include his first few at bats at the end of ‘93 season). He was already a four time All Star and had been on MVP ballots each of the previous three seasons. Cleveland reportedly offered him a seven year 119 million dollar contract that would have made him the highest paid player in the game at that time. He turned it down and wanted to see what else was out there. Technically the Seattle Mariners were willing to pay, but everyone of that era knew that it was the New York Yankees that would overpay to get players half as promising as Manny. So it was to our collective delights (I wasn’t a Boston fan, but we did share in our hatred for the Yankees), that Manny openly refused the Yankees stating he wanted to bring them down, not keep their dynasty running. So he signed for a crazy amount of money (10 year, 200 million) with the Boston Red Sox. This move fed into the “Manny being Manny” trope that would define him during the majority of his career. He was goofy, lovable (if you liked him), occasionally confrontational, but undeniably great at hitting a baseball. I could gush, but just go and check his stats sheet. Pay special attention to 2001-2007 where he was a pillar of the Boston offense that gave the American League fits. He was an All Star each of those years, a Silver Slugger in all but one and was on the MVP ballot all but one year as well, finishing as high as 3rd in voting. But more importantly, in 2004 he was a part of the team that was down 3-0 to the Yankees only to come storming back to win in 7 games and then go on to sweep the Cardinals in the World Series. If you want to get lost in that run, I would highly recommend this. I bring him up as oddly enough I thought of him when trying to wrap my head around the career of director David Fincher.
The connection isn’t perfect and I bet some would argue it’s possibly non-existent. Even for me, trying to figure out Fincher is going to take me more than the five movies I’ve already watched. This is fine with me because as of now, he has made 11 full length movies, so I’ll watch another five and report on those later on in the year (suck it Aliens 3, you are the odd duck out). Fincher’s tone is down and dark, which is unlike Manny. He is not known for being terribly personable with people outside his circle, which is kinda like Manny but not enough to really push this comparison forward. However, Fincher and Manny have two things that made me connect them. They want to do things their own way but they both care so much about being liked.
In the previous paragraph I took a shot at Aliens 3 which isn’t fair as I haven’t seen it. But I just don’t want to. I’ve read interviews about how the director himself was so upset with the process he was going to quit movies and stick with music videos. In that realm, Fincher was a coveted asset having directed tons of music videos ranging from Loverboy to Don Henley to Paula Abdul. However it was his videos like Aerosmith’s “Janie’s Got a Gun” and certainly two of his three with Madonna becoming landmarks of the time with “Express Yourself” and “Vogue”. So after Aliens, he was fine to go back to where he was happy, felt in control and was winning awards for his work. I mean they weren’t Oscars, but a couple of MTV awards and a Grammy for the Rolling Stone video “Love is Strong” isn’t too shabby. However it was 1995’s Seven and 97’s The Game that seemed to get him back in the big chair. Sure, he still dabbles from time to time with music videos, most notably with 2013’s “Suit and Tie” from Jay Z and Timberlake, but he was given some measure of control in his product and was allowed to make the kinds of movies he envisioned. This was a pivotal first step.
The next part has been a bane of his existence ever since. He knows being unique means being slightly outside of the mainstream, and in theory, he seems like he prefers this. However if you look deep enough, it seems that Fincher really cares about how people see him and his movies. He is notoriously short when questioned but yet still looks for premiere movies that he knows are going to be discussed. He has adapted books that brought with it mainstream appeal, attention and ire when he took on Zodiac, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Gone Girl and arguably, Mank. These were established stories that other directors were fighting over, that he scooped up. He even took The Curious Case of Benjamin Button which was adapted from an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story and The Social Network which was a book and then adapted by Aaron freaking Sorkin (who will be discussed later in the year long quest). These are not the choices of someone who doesn’t want to be noticed and appreciated. Yet, he has been nominated twice for best director and has not taken home the statue. (As I’m writing this the recent Oscar nods haven’t been announced, so if he gets a nomination for directing Mank just add one to the previous tally) In 08, Danny Boyle’s Slumdog Millionaire won for director and picture (the year of Benjamin Button) and in 2010 Tom Hooper’s, The King’s Speech famously stole the honors that many still think should have gone to the Social Network and Fincher. So for as much as he cares, he is always the bridesmaid but never the bride.
If he didn’t care, he would do what other directors do and go really abstract and argue that the Academy just doesn't appreciate him as they should. What does Fincher do instead? He takes a script his Dad wrote about the making of Citizen Kane, a movie that is also famous for being screwed by the Academy only to be named by some as the greatest movie of all time, and gets Netflix to fund a movie so he can make it “his way”, but also, so that everyone will be able to watch it. Even to build on this - I didn’t watch the Golden Globes and I’m sure they and their corruption will come up at some point later - but the fact that Mank was nominated 6 times and didn’t win was not a massive story of interest to me. What was of interest was how Fincher celebrated each loss by doing a shot on live TV. Both premeditated and cool at the same time. Sounds like Fincher.
How does this remind me of Manny? Ramirez wanted to be the one who brought the title to the Sox. And in a way, he did. He hit .412 with 4 RBI’s in the World Series that year which won him World Series MVP. However that is rarely discussed because the win came against the Cardinals that all but threw in the towel during the four game sweep. What people do talk about is the ALCS that was epic and provided countless, I remember where I was when I watched that, moments. But we don’t remember Manny when we think of those moments. He did hit .300 during that series but did not manage an RBI, which was kind of his thing. Plus, if you remember 2004, you don’t think Manny - you think Big Papi. Ever since, it’s Ortiz that is consistently invited back to be the face of that team and title. It’s Big Papi that was the fan favorite who “saved” the series. And while Manny has always been civil about this, you don’t need to be a mind reader when he shows up to these anniversaries (if he is invited) to see the look on his face. He wants to do things his way - but he wants his way to be more popular and celebrated at the same time.
I could go on for hours about Fincher - and for that matter - Manny as well. But you get it. Now onto the first five of ten movies I revisited - as in this case - I had seen all but one before, but some just not in quite some time. But I will say, just like watching old highlights from the turn of the millennium and reading about more stories about that 04 Sox team - these movies all aged pretty well. If you see a scene from any of them on TV, go ahead and try not to watch the rest of the movies.
Notable Names:
Freeman, Pitt, Paltrow, Spacey
Why am I watching it?:
I do not remember watching this in the past decade, so it’s probably been much longer, but I’ve loved every time I watched it. I was honestly worried as I just assumed it would be a really tough re-watch. I was wrong. This movie still holds.
Was Left Wanting More:
I don’t know if there is an answer here. I mean, you like the characters enough that you can argue you want to see more crime solving stories with Somerset, but certainly not right away. I guess part of you wants to see how Mills does, but that answer can’t be a positive one. I could see him returning the force after a decade of therapy or being a copycat killer. It does make me want to watch more Fincher movies though I suppose.
Could Have Used Less:
I don’t know if this counts, as it’s more of a plot hole. I didn’t need to hear about any more reasons why Pitt and Paltrow shouldn't have been there in the first place. She hates it, their apartment was a ridiculously stupid decision and no one in the world seems to like it there. I get it has a connection to the story arc, but how are we supposed to take Mills seriously when he makes that kind of a decision, that isn’t really a solid career move? Was Summerset a well known commodity? Was working with him akin to playing with Jordan? But again, he is meant to (spoiler) eventually become wrath, so I guess they do need to set up that he makes rash decisions and he isn’t super intelligent. Realistically, it just set up the inevitability that Patrow would get fridged. Or in this case, boxed I guess.
This One Was Just Right:
The pacing of the killer. Not showing him until the end made the whole last hour electric. Great decision to treat him like a horror movie monster. Less is more.
Random Asides/Nit Picks:
I recognize that cop procedurals have always been a part of TV canon, but do we have Se7en to blame for the past 25 years of crime scene related content? Perhaps blame is a strong word. Credit, maybe? Either way, this is clearly the crowning achievement in the genre for my generation, but when looking at it’s legacy, it’s hard to separate it from the movement that followed only in a more watered down and palpable manner. It’s kinda like me not being able to think about Barry Bonds without thinking that he was the more hardcore version of ARod.
I will certainly bump into a few movies where I won’t be able to separate the fact that it’s from an older generation. But not this movie. It could have come out last year. Perhaps a few jokes or off hand comments would have been edited out, but for the most part, this holds up scary well.
This movie is a staple in my Brad Pitt would be thought of as a better actor if he wasn’t so pretty, thesis. I won’t get into it now, but be prepared in the near future. If you were on vacation with me in Watamu a little while back - you have already heard various versions of this.
I love Fincher’s opening credits in the 90’s. I would put this one up against Fight Club as examples of two ways to let people know exactly what kind of movie they are about to jump into.
Apparently there was a longer back and forth about if (spoiler) Tracy’s head in the box should be the ending. Clearly Fincher wanted it, fought for it and got it - but when I hear about stories like that I really do wonder who these “studio people” are and how they make their decisions. It makes me think of all the amazing endings or twists we don’t see because Disney now owns 65% of all creative property (this stat is made up… so it could actually be worse).
Go onto IMDB or any site that has lists of random facts to see how each detail of this movie was thought about. It is people like Fincher that make me love movies. Or if you want to hear about some of these things, here is a link to when Se7en was talked about on the Rewatchables podcast. When you do, please don’t judge the sheer number of movies I will be watching this year that also appear on that list. Love that podcast.
Ranking:
It’s not a great habit to give out top marks so early in a process, but if I’m going to have my scale be personalized for me, I can’t lie. 6 Paltrow heads out of 7.
Notable Names:
Gyllenhaal, Downey Jr, Mark Ruffalo (crazy… indie darlings now all in the MCU), I would also throw in Brian Cox, Anthony Edwards and Chloe Sevigny as well..
Why am I watching it?:
Go online and search “Fincher's best movie” and then just watch the fireworks between the Social Network and Zodiac pushers. It seems like right now, it’s trendier to put Zodiac as the best Fincher and Social Network as a “shoulda but didna” for best picture. Both oddly underrated, but again, it’s Fincher. Also, I hadn’t seen it in a few years.
Was Left Wanting More:
It’s funny. I remember the first time I watched it, I was so interested in seeing who they thought was the killer considering I knew it was an unsolved case. Then being immediately disappointed as clearly there was not going to be an answer that gave me any level of satisfaction. Since the first viewing, I pay way more attention to everything else and I leave way more satisfied. I wouldn’t have changed much here, but more Downey or a more developed Sevigny plot would have been nice - BUT - the point of the movie is watching them pass through Gyllenhaal's life, so that would have defeated the purpose. If I had to pick between the two though it would for sure be to show the relationship a bit more. Sevigny is way too talented not to let her cook. Plus, the movie gives absolutely no reason why she would actually want to be with Gyllenhaal.
Could Have Used Less:
Even if I have an edit here, it would be in nitpicks, as it would be by nature, nit picky. Great from top to bottom really. There are several different cuts here and I haven’t spent much time with them, but from what I remember from the ones I saw parts of, cutting one element leaves a hole. For example, if you drop some of the initial search stuff, or some of the later interviews, it becomes harder to see how obsessed Graysmith (Gyllenhaal) becomes. Remember, it’s based on a book written by the lead character. So it’s going to be dangerously biased, but also pacing will be essential.
This One Was Just Right:
It is not my “favorite” Fincher, but I am in the camp that it’s his most complete “Fincher-esque” movie. So if I’m going to like a director, I have to like their vision. Ergo, I’m cool leaving this one alone.
Random Asides/Nit Picks:
Why does Ironman get credit for Downey Jr's return to form? Wasn’t it really this movie or movies around this time? Yes, Marvel didn’t want to hire him initially, but he had already started a bit of a post drug/arrest renaissance. It just wasn’t a billion dollar return to the mainstream. BUT, I’d argue that isn’t what RDJ was about, nor what he wanted. I mean, now he does, because money is intoxicating. Plus, he just went from underrated to overrated in a decade. Although, go back and watch this and tell me you can’t see him as Stark going undercover as a reporter? What can I say, he has a type..
Do People just forget that Ruffalo's voice is weird and inconsistent? I couldn’t stop paying attention to this. It’s always imbalanced and doesn’t always run with the scene. He’s great and everything, but there is a reason that he was the initial muse for The Rewatchables podcast for their overacting award.
I’d love to see the Hollywood trade papers about typecast actors who do exactly what you want them to. Brain Cox has to be there if you want a snarky and sarcastic, but not overly engrossing old school male of authority. He’s more consistent than Chris Paul from the free throw line.
Ranking:
This is going to be dangerously inconsistent, but I’m going with 6.5 smart ass RDJ comments out of 7.
Notable Names:
Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Aaron Sorkin (writer), and for some reason a bunch of sites I was looking at were obsessed with pointing out Dakota Johnson’s one scene. It didn’t seem super exceptional, so I don’t know why. Are people excited she can speak french? Either way, if I’m going to point out an underdeveloped character that is clearly a scene stealer it would be Rooney Mara. Hands down.
Why am I watching it?:
Such an interesting nexus of a great director and great writer meeting at the perfect time. If you haven’t seen it or it has been a while, please go watch it. There is a reason it gets hype for being the best movie of the 2010’s.
Was Left Wanting More:
Now that we know more about all the privacy and ethical issues surrounding Zuckerberg, I always wanted a prologue. I’m not sure it would be as good, but I do think I’d watch a sequel about the previous decade. Not sure it would ever be made though as the same people that have the money to make it are the exact people that wouldn’t want it made. Come to think of it, there are so many sketchy issues with people in this movie now. Prince Albert and his associations have come out since, and that doesn’t look great. But more importantly, Garfield’s character (Eduardo Saverin) has been up to some super unethical practices in Brazil. Essentially, there are about two actually likable people in this movie and they are all female. However, Sorkin wrote the script, so none of them are fleshed out or deemed of interest.
Could Have Used Less:
Since I just zinged the movie for the use of their female characters, I’m going to hypocrite myself and say the one that had a ton of screen time wasn’t needed. Brenda Strong plays Christy Lee, who utters the line, “Facebook me”, hooks up with Garfield in the stall of a bathroom, meets JT in the meeting and then somehow goes crazy and starts a fire in a hotel room. Odd character arc. Everything she did could have been done differently and less problematically.
This One Was Just Right:
It seems like I’m trying too hard if I start pointing out more obscure parts of movie making to seem like I know what I’m talking about - but this one is well documented so I’m not inventing the wheel when I say the score is about as perfect as it gets. The reuse of the tracks with distortion, the perfect way it lets you know when a moment is supposed to have more conviction and overall how it really is the thing that dictates the pace. So, way to go Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Reznor has had the craziest career arc from Nine Inch Nails to an Academy Award winning composer. Either way - if you know the name of a composer of a movie's score, it must mean something.
Random Asides/Nit Picks:
There is something more satisfying hearing the opening girlfriend call Zuck and asshole. I know the conversation didn’t actually happen, and I know that the movie spends most of the rest of the time getting you to kinda sympathize with him, but the Geo teacher in me sees odd gratification in this.
Kevin Spacey produced this. Fuck. Does that mean I’m supposed to feel bad for watching it, or is that only if I have to see his face? I’m not sure how this works.
Fincher movies in general… high class for most… but just high enough for film snobs to put their nose up. Counter culture enough to be cool, but mainstream enough that if someone in the world knew the name of 5 directors, he would be one of them.
It is possible to watch all the hacking to techno music and not have it shift one's opinion of just how influential the Matrix actually has been.
I can’t watch the montage of the exclusive Phoenix club with a mass of marginalization of girls without thinking of Keuchner
I also can’t hear Jesse talk and wonder if this movie created the Big Bang theory. Is this what happens when you go back and watch good movies? Assume they invented everything? (just a note, I’ve tried writing a “if they invented _____ then they would be the inventors of _____ about three times now. I don’t think it works in this particular scenario)
I really appreciate the tactic of getting us to like Zuckerberg by pitting him against the only people worse.. Rich entitled dicks who don’t do anything but want more money. Although it turns out we don’t just hate those people, we also admire them. At least that’s what I can gather from Tic Toc and reality shows. And when we say millennials want things without earning them and they have a feeling of entitlement, do we mean like rich people? So aren’t millennials just a sign of economic equality? So maybe millennials just want what the wealthy have always been able to enjoy, even if it comes without the actual money. Does that make them naive or on to something?
How and when was a cappella singing cool?
This still runs on the premonition that being successful or smart actually just means your an ass. Which kinda had me thinking about the way they write Sean Parker’s character (Timberlake). All buzzwords and no actual substance. I think I’ve had bosses like that.
I don’t think there are any actual scenes in this movie. It just flows so fluidly that I blinked and it was half over.
“You’re not an asshole Mark. You’re just trying too hard to be.” If someone said that to me in real life I actually think I would take it as a compliment even though it really isn’t.
I think this might go down as Fincher's Citizen Kane, which is oddly ironic considering his recent movie choice. Maybe the fact it didn’t win best picture actually helps it so that movie nerds don’t take the time to pull this apart.
Yup - I’ve decided. Rashida Jones and Rooney Mara are the only likable people in this movie.
Ranking:
I need to start watching more shit movies as my average scores are just too high. Can’t help it though. This one is getting a perfect 7 Fuck you flip flops out of 7.
Notable Names:
Michael Douglas, Sean Penn, Deborah Kara Unger
Why am I watching it?:
I put in a lot of thought once I decided I was doing two Fincher write ups. I wanted a balance of ones I knew I loved and ones I was just ok with. Then I realized that I haven’t seen some of the movies that aren’t supposed to be as great, so I had to take one I knew I liked, but was pretty heavily flawed. So… here I am.
Was Left Wanting More:
In terms of characters, Unger’s plotline was the most compelling for me. In terms of random bits from the movie, I loved when the fountain song from Ocean’s 11 popped up. I for sure could have used more of that. Especially if it leads to a shared universe where Rusty and Danny go and steal from the Van Ortons. There is no way Michael Douglas wouldn’t have been just as good a villain if this character was in Ocean’s.
Could Have Used Less:
Family footage. Or wait.. Maybe more footage and less psych testing. It is clear from the first scene that the Dad is a spitting image of Douglas and considering how he died, that the character is ready to go through something similar. You don’t need to run on a treadmill to get to the bottom of those Daddy issues. On a random note though, the videos are being played on the smallest TV in movie history to come from a rich guy. I know the tech is from the mid 90’s, but if you can afford a property like that and car service, you can spring for a model of TV that a guy at Douglas’ age would actually be able to watch from across the room.
This One Was Just Right:
I do love how “Finchery” this movie feels. Clearly this isn’t my favorite of his movies, but it still held my attention and I’d revisit it again with pleasure. A mediocre Fincher is still better than most. However, this era of Fincher is still what I think of when I think of him. Perfect level of cynicism but with a dash of optimism. Great use of tone and angle, but not gimmicky. It also made me really excited to rewatch Fight Club as it’s been years and I’m curious where I will fall on that one. For now though, this is the perfect level of old school Fincher.
Random Asides/Nit Picks:
So much foreshadowing. This may not be a great movie, but it’s for sure a Fincher movie.
Love the vague business on TV to show that he is successful.
Starts to make you think that everything is on purpose. I distinctly remember this being a very mid 90’s sentiment in movies like this. I wonder if I’ll bump into that the more I revisit movies from this timeframe. If you are a paranoid person, this may not be your movie
The ending made me a bit sad. Not the whole (spoiler) throwing yourself off the roof bit. But when it’s all said and done, how sad is it that you would rather have a coffee with a pro liar/actress instead of partying with people who are supposed to be close to you. Maybe that’s the point. Clearly they weren’t.
Ranking:
5 Creepy ass dolls out of 7.
Notable Names:
Gary Oldman, Amanda Seyfried, Lily Collins
Why am I watching it?:
It’s a new Fincher movie, written by his father and about the making of Citizen Kane. I honestly can’t explain it any more clearly than that.
Was Left Wanting More:
I’m bandwagon jumping here, but Seyfried. Big time. Not in the way that I think she should have been in more scenes to make the movie better. But in the way that I think I could have watched her and Oldman rip through pages and pages of dialogue in mere minutes. Give me 45 minutes of that and with their chemistry and the pacing, I’d probably watch the whole time without so much as a glance to my phone.
Could Have Used Less:
I’m not sure I can pin all of this on the film, but I think Fincher has toed this line enough that he at least knows what he is doing with historical misrepresentation. Personally, I don’t have an issue when the movie is clear about being a perspective. It’s a story and not a documentary (which also has a clear perspective, but that’s another topic for another day). So I’m actually not upset with any of the choices here, but I could do without the random piling on that I had to read about. Movies like this are meant to be experienced and discussed. But it gets a bit tiring when it’s the same argument with each Fincher film that is based on something that might be real. No solutions here, just complaining. I suppose I just wish the narrative conversations about this moved forward - but what can you do.
This One Was Just Right:
Capturing the era. For some, it might have been a bit campy, but for me, I loved it. I did watch Citizen Kane beforehand again just to remind myself of a few details as it had been a bit since I watched it (so it will appear on a later blog post), but when I watched Mank it really felt like an homage not just to the film, but to the era. Not surprising from someone who obsessed over every detail of movie making, but just something I found endearing.
Random Asides/Nit Picks:
Speaking of fitting the era, the dialogue was so quick that I feel like I’m listening to a podcast on 1.5 speed. I liked it, as again, fits the era. But it pretty much made watching it just once, impossible.
Fincher's love letter to Hollywood is very different from Chazelle’s. Way more cynical and alcohol infused. Much less dancing overlooking the city. And even though it was in black and white, the modern connection was a bit clearer and seemed more relevant. Not just because LaLa Land was a musical, but the story here was easier to get behind. I mean, we don’t all know billionaire producers we want to tell off, but if I did, I feel like writing a movie about it so that years later a ton of people will hear your message would be the way to do it. There is also something very relatable to looking at the wrongs we see and examining our role in reinforcing what we don’t like seeing in others. I guess that’s why the scene where Oldman comes in drunk and ready to insult was so awkward but satisfying. Even when he was told off. That dialogue with Seyfried was worth it.
I don’t think Mank wins Best Picture, but I do think Seyfried has a shot at Supporting Actress. But if I was able to bet on this, as in Kenya I don’t even know where I would, I would take odds on this winning for an adapted screenplay. This way Fincher kind of gets his Oscar, even though it’s for his Dad, and the Academy can say they noticed the movie without giving it their top prize. I’m writing this at the end of January, so if it comes true, I at least have it documented that I said so. If not, well only you and I would know.
Ranking:
Tough to place as I really do need to watch this again to be sure. For now, I’d say 5.5 snarky but biting comeback lines out of 7.
1 = No attempt or so bad it can’t be defined
2 = Failure, but at least you tried. May actually be worse than a legit
3 = Barely passable. You’re kinda close but you’re actually not.
4 = Passing grade. Nothing else to see here.
5 = Good all around. Tougher to get than you think, but no one seems happy when they get it. It means you tried, and you are just not exceptional. BUT.. you’re still good..
6 = Outstanding. Exceptional in at least a few ways. This is either all around excellence or just insanely strong in one or two vital ways.
7 = Top of the line. Transcendent. I will re-watch this consistently, or I have already.
コメント