Fincher signs on for "Mission: Impossible 3" (FLASH! replaced by Joe Carnahan) (1 Viewer)

[Luc D]

Visual styles are shallow...be they Hitchcock's, Spielberg's, Kubrick's or Fincher's. Either a visual style works or it doesn't. That's why it's a style. Great filmmakers have substance. That's what we are debating. FWIW, Michael Bay has great visual style. His use of color and textures is incredible. But he can't do drama to save his life, and thematically, he sucks.

I disagree, the great filmmakers like Hitchcock and Kubrick incorporated appropriate stylistic motivations as a way of complementing the weight of the narrative and its themes. In that sense, style is not shallow. It becomes shallow if style simply becomes an exercise of "look what I can do" (i.e. style for style's sake). Style then becomes gratuitous. From what I've seen of Fincher, much of his style is gratuitous. Case in point, the now repetitive use of those CG extreme close up/camera movements. Panic Room is fresh in my mind so I'll use that example. What is that special effect trying to tell us, if anything? What does it add to the narrative?

I don't think he's a sellout. As I said before, he's a commercial filmmaker to start with. All of his films, including Fight Club, are commercial in nature. The difference is that while Fight Club is a powerful commercial film, something like Panic Room and MI:3 are commercial films that, once they've made their money, will most likely be forgotten.

I'm not trying to predict or interpret his motives, and good for him if the scripts for Panic Room and MI:3 interested him, they don't interest me. You're absolutely right about that, Chuck and it's perfectly viable to say so. But I think I can safely say with a certain amount of assurance that as entertaining as people may find Panic Room, it's not really that interesting or memorable. It's funny, this concept of picking "low culture" material is something Hitchcock did with almost all of his films. He would challenge himself into making good, interesting films from bad source material. He did so almost every time. If Panic Room is any indication, I'm not sure Fincher is capable of doing the same.

I wont dismiss MI:3 right out, doing so would be down right arrogant and idiotic, but I still say that his choices of late are disappointing.

I've enjoyed this debate so far but there is no reason for it to get so personal. Let's keep this civil.

 

[MickeS]

He could take his "violent" ideas for MI3 and make a wholly original movie. Hell, he could even choose Cruise to star in it. Its cashing in on the franchise which is disheartening - especially when he had a promising future as a director. He may still - but when his filmography is looked over, the MI3 will always stick out like a piece of Hollywood bullshit.

In other words: you would be happy if he made the exact same movie, but titled it "A really tough task to accomplish", and changed the name of Cruise's character. Gotcha. Glad to see you don't have any preconceived notions about movies based on their names.
/Mike

 

[Paul_D]

Of couse CO was made 20 years after Killer's Kiss. I'm not the one holding FIGHT CLUB!! up with it. My god.

By refering to 'this point in [Fincher's] career' you're drawing a comparison between the relative ages of the director's. In that sense, Fight Club can't be compared with Clockwork Orange fairly.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Its a sequel to a franchise thats not that great to begin with

Isn't it possible that Fincher feels he can change this fact? Isn't it also possible that he WILL change this fact?

Perhaps MI3 will be considered an artful departure from the series. Heck, FWIW I thought DePalma's style was a pretty good mesh with the concept as well, except for the goofy action sequence at the end.

As for Fincher's "shallow" visual style, I strongly disagree. As I just mentioned in the 2002 film thread, all the "Fincher visuals" in Panic Room serve the underlying theme of the film...the house as the full environment and even as a character itself.

Fincher's stylish visuals always have something to add beyond "look what I am doing". I find that reassuring of his talent to be honest. I think he sees how the story should be told and can produce the visuals to enhance the emotions/themes he is looking to push at the time.

2 examples:

1) the key in the lock zoom in for Panic Room - he takes a simple action, barely noticeable and amplifies it into a critical moment basically. Something for the audience to truly be worried about rather than barely recognized.

And he continues to tie the environment together by having the camera flow continuously from place to place in the house as the intruders look for a way in. It shows the audience how all the spaces relate to each other to enhance the thriller aspects, but it also brings the house to life as I said before.

2) the long continuous tracking shot following Pitt/Norton into the FC bar swinging around the room and coming back to Pitt. Again the flowing shot is tying something together for the audience. This time the group of FC members. It adds a connection between the men since they are all in the same shot. And it puts the audience right in among them to feel this bond.

Scorsese used the same type of shot for the exact same effect in Goodfellas when they go into the club via the back door. We saw then how tight this group of guys was with everyone, there was an added intimacy that the flow of the shot added along the audience's proximity to it via the closeness of the following/tracking shot.

Or maybe Fincher is just a hack.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Paul --

You don't have to like my opinion. I don't care if you do or not. You seem to enjoy being adversarial with my opinions.

The Shining -- of course Kubrick didn't write it. He didn't write ANY of his films. He always adapted novels. Please, watch some of the masters before comparing Fincher to them.

 

[Paul_D]

You don't have to like my opinion. I don't care if you do or not. You seem to enjoy being adversarial with my opinions.

Totally wrong. It's the fact that you are so blunt and disrespectful of others' opinions that prompts my adversarial replies. Also, I don't consider 2 separate instances of disagreement as justification for the belief that I enjoy being adversarial.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

And you wonder why I respond this way...

I'm not the one holding FIGHT CLUB!! up with it. My god.

No. I am. And you are acting like it's heresy...to do what YOU are taking us to task for...having an opinion. You just presume it's ill-educated if it doesn't agree with yours. I welcome your opinions, Patrick. It's the attitude that has some of us riled up.
Luc,
I apologize for the misquotes...I am more than capable of being civil with you I do disagree that by making his more commercial choices he will distance himself from film history...I see him as raising up the commercial into art, while you see him as lowering the art into the commercial. Who's right? It is subjective, so both of us, and neither of us. As for Panic Room, we must disgree on it. I thought it benefitted greatly from Fincher's direction, including the one shot (CG tracking) you mentioned. It set up the geography and the emotions of Jodie's character fairly well. Maybe I was reading into it a bit. Anyways, his "style" speaks to me. It works for me. The themes come across to me.
I really do recommend that interview. Dave's a very cool guy. He doesn't put on airs, he doesn't talk above anyone's head, and he makes the films he wants to make.
I expect MI3 to be special...even if 1 and 2 were so-so.
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Paul --

Thats crap Paul.

My first opinion you took to task was that I believed it was lame that Laura Harring asked to be digtially altered after the fact. How RUDE of me to suggest an actresses motivation! How DARE I?

My second astoundingly RUDE opinion was to suggest that David Fincher was doing a bloated Hollywood franchise flick for the money. How RUDE of me!

Third, I actually objected to someone stating that Fincher will be remembered with Kubrick, Scorsese, et al. What a RUDE opinion that I would actually hold these directors in a slight step above the likes of David Fincher.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Chuck --

I apologize. Your opinion is yours. If you like FC, then so be it. I like FC a lot too. That's why I'm in this thread.

I just hold CO at a much higher level (as does the AFI and many many scholars and historians) as being a near perfect film in every way. I get a bit passionate about it.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

No, Patrick. Stating your opinion is not rude.

The way you did it TO me was. Every time. You have no basis for what you say regarding Fincher and money...even though I do.

That you disagree with Fincher being in the same league as your greats (which I might add, you have plenty more evidence for) is fine. To say I need to see more of the "masters" is rude. You ASSUMED I hadn't. That's rude. I know the page is cold, unlike a real conversation. But I still don't appreciate how you've approached opinions differing than yours.

Take care,

Chuck

EDIT: the first part was written during your second post, Patrick. I get riled up about FC the way you get riled up about CO. I don't care what the AFI said...I think they'll say the same about FC in 20 years, when they have distanced themselves from it. I hold it up to the highest standard for me personally. I didn't walk into FC (or this thread) off the street.

 

[Paul_D]

Quote:

RUDE!

 

[Chuck Mayer]

And accept my apologies as well. Just getting defensive...never a good sign
Take care,
Chuck

 

[Paul_D]

This argument is going no where. I'm bowing out.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Maybe Paramount wants to kill off the franchise but don't have the guts to tell Cruise that and are being passive aggresive.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Extreme close ups and continuous shots are both things the masters used and often relished in, btw.

Just think of 2 other continuous shots - the opening to Touch of Evil and all of Rope.

As I just said, I think Fincher uses those types of shots for the same reasons. And I think the extreme close ups (CGI or not) also have some similar effects as they have for other great filmmakers.

And is Panic Room really a lesser film than something like Rope? I don't really feel so. I think in a career with many Se7ens and Fight Clubs, Panic Room could look just as solid as things like Rope or To Catch a Thief do in Hitchcock's library.

And I think FC is off to a pretty good start to being considered a classic. It's well-regarded by this generation of film buffs. I mean what other film from the last 5 years will continue to stand so tall in so many film lovers minds...that is enough to have the popular regard that Kubrick, Altman, Hitch, Scorsese have.

Was Mean Street this huge moment when everyone stopped and said "Scorsese is now the greatest ever"?? Even Taxi Driver? nope

These thing must slowly grow. I do think there are other great films being done, and I don't put FC above all those. But FC does have more mainstream appeal than any I can think of, which I think helps put it ahead in terms of lasting power or growth in status.

I just wish you guys had been there to say "A KING NOVEL??? Why is Kubrick wasting his time on that mainstream crap? I want more Strangelove, more 2001." or maybe "A remake of his own film, Hitchcock is a complete sell-out now. He's just doing it to make money with as a star vehicle for Stewart and Day."

Then we could have gone on to question their shallow visuals, etc.

Like Hitch was some critical darling at the time rather than a director making popular thrillers.

And Kubrick did this even LATER in his career, so what's his excuse? "The Shining is the only work I can get."

I just think you guys are bringing too much of your MI opinions to the table in regards to this choice, at least this early on.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

As usual, Seth says it with twice my eloquence and none of my wasted vitriol. After 5 films, Fincher has earned a bit of my respect. I am effusive in my praise of FC because I came into my opinion of it ON MY OWN. I saw it October 16th, 1999. The day after it opened. It would have been the day before, but I had to go to a rehearsal dinner for my sister's wedding. She got married on the 16th, so we went a few hours before the ceremony. I had read the negative review by my fairly trusted Ebert. I had seen the awful trailers. I had heard Pete Travers wasted quote mongering. But something in the ads said this was worth my time. I wasn't sure how to take it when I walked out. I felt a bit overwhelmed. So, I saw it again, as soon as I could, with other friends. Most of the critics savaged it. But once I saw it the second time, I knew the movie was for me. FOR ME. Like it had been made for me. It really connected with me...not just intellectually, but visually, aurally, and emotionally. Even to an extent, spiritually. I was there at the beginning, and that was where my high opinion if the film began. And obviously, respect for the creator goes with it (both the author, screenwriter, and director). This movie was built to last. I don't claim it's better made than some of the greats, but I will claim that it is as good. But it'll just be my opinion.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Seth Paxton]

What did the AFI say about Fight Club?? It is not a film from the first 100 years, so it was not considered for any of their lists. That has nothing to do with any AFI opinion of the film.

I don't see anywhere that Fight Club was eligible to actually be noticed by the AFI for anything. They hadn't expanded out to 10 nominations/recognized films in 1999 either.

In fact a search of the AFI website provide NO HITS at all. So again, how does the AFI compare Fight Club to CO? And even if they do, how will they after FC has been around for 20 years?

While IMDb is certainly biased to more modern films, and is not the end all/be all on film opinion, the rankings there have Fight Club ahead of CO by almost 30 positions.

So I'm just really confused as to where these millions of film fans are saying that FC is not so hot?

I'm also hearing lots of "this is fact" attitude in many opinions without actual data, along with a certain arrogance of "you need to see films and understand them before your opinions count", and I don't mean directed at me so it's not something where I'm personally being attacked and blinded by my anger.

I definately think some poor attitude is being used in some parts of this thread.

 

[TheoGB]

I think Fight Club is awesome. It would in my opinion rank above Clockwork Orange.

I just hold CO at a much higher level (as does the AFI and many many scholars and historians) as being a near perfect film in every way. I get a bit passionate about it.

Hmm. You see the problem I have here is that I seriously doubt people like the AFI and the scholars and historians you talk about have much time for any modern movies.
Listening to Ed Norton on the commentary you hear him lay into a series of critics who he felt failed to see the Zeitgeist before their eyes. I can totally emphasise with pretty much everything he says - including his point about he VW Beetle (or 'bug' as you guys call it).
Maybe it's an age thing primarily. Maybe it's a single-parent-upbringin, hate-the-conforming-ideas-of-society thing, but Fight Club speaks to me. I would say it is definitely a classic and in 20 years people will be saying this, just as I'm sure when Clockwork Orange came out people would have been quick to say it wasn't a classic regardless of how they felt.
On the thought of Fincher 'selling out' I have two things to say:
1. The Game was an obviously commercial vehicle, starring the very bankable Michael Douglas in a very straightforward thriller. It's good and I really enjoy it but it's not particularly special or original.
2. If Fincher wants to pick and choose movies and be able to get an audience in (unlike Fight Club) he could do with some 'crowd pleasers'. If he can make a success of M:I-3 then I would say the world will be his oyster and we could expect a lot of fairly off-the-wall projects from him.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

seth --

imdb? and you wonder where my bad attitude is coming from. kubrick's CO is a masterpiece.

i love fight club. that is why i am so disappointed by fincher's choice in projects. maybe i just overestimated him and he's just another in a long line that made a couple good films.

like Bryan Singer who made Ususal Suspects.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

I don't see anywhere that Fight Club was eligible to actually be noticed by the AFI for anything. They hadn't expanded out to 10 nominations/recognized films in 1999 either.

i mentioned AFI merely as a reference to how CO is regarded. This forum is writing the film off as insignificant. Even going as far as calling it "shit."

Maybe it is an age thing. Perhaps younger audiences don't give time to older films. On the other hand, I do give props to FC. Never did I call any of Fincher's work "shit." Think what an X rated violent movie meant in 1971.

The level of disrespect that is given to Kubrick here is appalling. And you wonder why there is perceived condescension.