Gone Girl and When Good Movies Happen to Bad People

[Nixou]

Or in other words being thrown into the grinder so that their homes are not in danger is shown to be a good thing. There is no ambiguity as to whether the war they are fighting is justified. I don't see how any of this can be construed to be an indictment of their leaders at home. Especially since experiencing this kind of service is required of them to become leaders in the first place.

And once again, because it deserves to be spread as much as possible, I'll point people toward Moorcock's essay [http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/moorcock.html] about the creepy fascination Heinlein's stories arouse in people who'd be among the first to be disenfranchised in Heinlein's ideal society.

 

[Quadocky]

Oh yeah because there's TOTALLY only one way to interpret a piece of art.

Give me a fucking break.

Yes and no.

In good films, everything is done for a reason. There is usually a main theme and message hovering about. What happens is sometimes people take in the meaning at face value. Like how 'conservatives' don't see Colbert as satire. Fight Club is a dark satire that was taken in at face value.

This happens all the time really with all kinds of media.

Its not always bad to take something at face value as interpretation, but it doesn't necessarily mean its the best or most accurate one. (perhaps concise is a better word)

 

[Quadocky]

Also on another note, what the fuck do you have against masculinity. Are you still pissed off that some douche-bag in high school bullied you? Or are just trying to make yourself seem more "progressive"?

I am curious, how do you define masculinity in this context?

Anything like the Captcha: Rugged and Capable?

 

[irishda]

God that fucking ending though. Grrr. I'm more of a fan of open ended movies when the environment is left open, or when there's a loose thread side plot that's left to complicate the characters down the road. But the central conflict usually should be reconciled, or at least heavily imply what will happen like with The Fall.

Spoiler: Probably not necessary, but I'll cover my thoughts on the ending out of courtesy

Still, I think the biggest thing that left me angry was Amy's story to the cops after it all. That story had so many holes in it, I thought it was ambushed by the Barzini's at a toll booth. So he kidnapped you with a toy, then put that toy in the box and put it in the shed? That also rests on the hope that there's no contradictory evidence that Neil Patrick Harris wasn't anywhere else the day of the kidnapping. He has cameras all over one house, what are the odds he's got them at his other home? And we're just going to drop the whole, "my husband is going to kill me" thing? But even beyond all of that it boils down to two things: the evidence she herself set up of her crying in front of the cameras after looking like the victim of violence (since she's not tied up, and is left alone for a long period of time) and the question of how she got the boxcutter if she WAS always tied up. WHICH IS EVEN ASKED STRAIGHT TO THE COP WHO JUST BRUSHES IT RIGHT THE FUCK OFF! The cops may cover shit up to protect their own, but they don't stop doing their job just because of popular fucking opinion.

Anyways, now that that's off my chest, glad there's people in here already proving Bob's point about Fight Club and Tyler Durden

 

[gridsleep]

In light of the inevitable anti-FemiNAZI backlash that this film will be used to fuel, I only recall the words of some anonymous source I read recently but can't remember where (sorry): Men resent women because they fear women will laugh at them. Women resent men because they fear men will hit them and kill them.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Regarding fans liking something for the "Wrong Reasons", that argument has noodles for bones. Why someone likes or dislikes something is subjective, and it's extremely possible for one person to love something and another to hate something for the exact same reason, or for one person to take something entirely differently than the author/creator intended up to and including the exact opposite of how they intended it. And none of those are "wrong" - they're just opposed to your own viewpoint. The only place it starts to even potentially move into an authentic discussion about "right" and "wrong" is in how fans express their liking and even more importantly, what actions they take based on that influence. Posting on Facebook "Durr... Amasing Amy is totes evil girl, all grls are Amasing Amy!" is not a "wrong" way to like this movie; it's an expression of free speech. Whether we agree with it or not is barely relevant and for the most part, completely subjective. If we agree with it than it's the "right" way. If we disagree with it it's the "wrong" way.

If you like Tyler Durden's nihilistic fascist nonsense, then you are a bad person, as that is bad stuff. The fact that the work also clearly condemns it is secondary. Likewise, if you like this movie because you think all women are evil, then you are a terrible person.

Regarding Fight Club, it's also possible to see Tyler Durden for what he is... but at the same time see that he has some points with merit. Dismissing those points because the messenger is objectionable is a form of the ad hominem fallacy and should be no more welcomed than accepting them simply because someone accepts the "authority" of Tyler Durden. (Which, amusingly, Bob did with extreme prejudice by Godwinning that part in the actual article. So now if anyone actually tries to debate those points, they may have to prove they aren't a nazi. Good job, Bob. Good job.)

That would be ok, except his points are nihilistic fascist nonsense. There is little merit to them. All of it is worthless, but it feels valuable. That's the damn point. This isn't some "Well, Hitler was a vegetarian too!" situation, this is dismissing Hitler's populist rhetoric about the importance of the Fatherland.

Ironically what may come out of this is an understanding that women are actually complex beings; we pigeonhole them into the Sinner or Saint, Mother or Prostitute, Pure or Sullied dichotomies all the time. And we rarely actually give them control over their own actions; why is Woman X "Evil"? She was abused (generally raped) by a man in her past. Why is Woman Y so saintly in the face of so much adversity? Because she's a Strong Woman. But from the sounds of it, the woman in this movie (Amazing Amy) is just straight up evil. There isn't a flashback scene to where 10yr old Amy backs into her bedroom in fear as a shadowy (male) figure approaches, or a flashback to where she was a happy and nice girl who got victimized by a jerk. She's just straight up evil and as such, she's responsible for her actions. She has Agency. No one chose her path for her.

Getting people to actually internalize the idea that women can have agency over their lives, that they aren't simply victims of the agency of men, that could be a very good thing that might come out of liking Gone Girl for the "Wrong" reasons.

Yes, that is the intended point of the book, but coming up with the idea that all women who say any of the things that Amy does are lying bitches would be a bad thing, and is in no way the same as viewing women as "actually complex beings."

 

[Nixou]

Also on another note, what the fuck do you have against masculinity. Are you still pissed off that some douche-bag in high school bullied you?

I do remember Bob stating that in his case bullying stopped in high-school when he became taller and heavier than your average bully. The type of "masculinity" toward which he has always expressed contempt is an empty "tough-guy" posture which cowardly deflates itself as soon as it meets someone who can punch back.

More generally, the revealing thing about Bob's standing within the english-speaking e-nerdom is that from his early before-the-escapist-gig days as an internet show-man, Bob professed such an opinion, but used to associate it with the assumption that the hierarchies of the schoolyard remained unchanged in adulthood: an assumption which reeked of class-contempt since it pretty much surmised that the well-off, educated, geeky scions of well-off, educated, geeky upper-middle-class families like his were predestinated to always be the righteous fending off intellectually inept mobs (a theme you can find in terrible, badly written, heinous "art pieces" like Atlas Shrugged and Idiocracy, which is used to praise -a lot-). And he was seldom, if ever, being called out for being yet another pseudo-progressive arrogant gentry specimen.
Then, he started backing down from his early statements, noticing that once they reached a system of social stratification which privileged them over the reached-puberty-earlier schoolyard tough guys, the erstwhile harmless geeks were perfectly capable and willing if not downward eager to use their newfound clout and influence to indulge themselves in the very same type of behavior. And that's when the shit hit the fan, where he went from Guy who dislikes modern FPSes, like games with lots of primary colors and give too much praise to Nintendo (which is basically what 70% of gamers born before 1985 are) to Despicable Traitor who must be shunted by via a campaign of systematic denigration.
Basically, the less he acted and spoke like another self-serving privileged bourgeois pretending to be enlightened and progressive to fuel his feelings of superiority and settle old scores, the more he was accused of being one.

***

That would be ok, except his points are nihilistic fascist nonsense. There is little merit to them. All of it is worthless, but it feels valuable.

There's also the fact that Tyler never manage to convince anyone outside of his little clique of like-minded individuals who all share Norton's character power fantasies. Tyler's is not even a particularly gifted charlatan and: his only "talent" is finding people who are already like the guy whose brain engendered him and assembling an already pre-packaged insular cult.

 

[the December King]

mabye not masculinity but [i/]toxic[/i] masculinity?

I'm beginning to wonder if there is any other kind, to some. And that's why I commented on this article. I am a man, and I watch films. And if films are art, then I reckon that we can take from them what we like, and if the creator/creators cannot provide enough information in the piece itself to convey clearly a specific message, then they should learn to speak clearer before they spread said message around, otherwise it can and should be interpreted differently by all. If you paint a work of art and put it in the gallery, and then stand beside it and deride anyone who likes it because of the use of red, then you should practice illustration or commercial art more, and save your breath.

And I'd like to add that I haven't seen the movie, but embrace the concept that I might see it, get that it is saying that women can be complex characters, or not, that the key here is that women can fill any role that the creator desires and that this freedom should be applauded, and will allow for rich and fulfilling, or challenging, or heck just more diverse, narratives. And I respect that.

What I'd rather not have is the derision that, because I liked some of Tyler Durden's rhetoric and commentary, that I'm a moronic hyper-male neanderthal man. I thought that complex characters could have many facets, and didn't need to be completely cartoonishly evil or saintly good? I thought Tyler fit that description quite well. And some things that Tyler said were beautiful- or at least appealingly romantic enough to make me appreciate what he had to say on some level.

 

[the December King]

What the hell is wrong with you people? Outside of some bullshit meta commentary this movie (and book) is nothing to do with gender or feminism,
Fight Club is barely about masculinity.

You people are obsessed, you need to watch yourselves or you'll end up consumed by hatred just like MovieBob here.

I notice that this seems to be your first post, so welcome to the Escapist.

And yeah, for some reason I have lately gotten my head all full of these issues, I should be careful. Although Fight Club does have that element to it, about how men are unsure of their roles in modern society and such. Or at least can be interpreted that way.

 

[Lieju]

Like Frozen. People keep pairing Elsa and Anna together as a romantic couple...

What?

How in the fuck?!

WHAT?!

Well, there aren't terribly many movies with focus on love between two girls/women like that.
So, (and I'm speaking as a someone who consumes as much of even slightly ok lesbian fanart/fanfiction as she can find) many people are just kinda desperate to have that.

A lot of the stuff I've seen puts the characters into a situation where they are not sisters, actually.

I mean, I'd be happy if there were more quality stories with lesbian relationships in them, but since there is a distinct lack of it, I have to do with fans taking established characters that are a part of a good story and writing them in those kinds of relationships.

 

[Biran53]

Ok. I see what you possibly mean, Bob, in worrying that some might use this film to reinforce the idea that women are just manipulative bogeymen, but it's a little unfair to make that assumption without really giving anyone a chance to prove you otherwise. Sure, I had a friend who walked out of the film more concerned with Amy as a psychopath than any of the justification Amy could have for orchestrating such an elaborate plot, but I don't see him citing this film as a source for woman hatin'.

A feminist critique of Gone Girl is as relevant as most other critiques (the points in Bob's review that Amy and her scheme really isn't that nuts in our world that instills values forcing women to do anything to make themselves look beautiful is fantastic), but I personally found the film to be (at its core) about marriage. By the end, neither Amy nor Nick come off as better or worse than the other, having effectivly trapped themselves in a toxic marriage neither one can escape from. With the unnerving back drop of a typical domestic household, the final act of Gone Girl (at least to me) has the most chilling and gut wrenching scenes, with Amy and Bick just... talking to eachother. Acting and putting on a show just like any married couple.

 

[Machine Man 1992]

Oh yeah because there's TOTALLY only one way to interpret a piece of art.

Give me a fucking break.

Yes and no.

In good films, everything is done for a reason. There is usually a main theme and message hovering about. What happens is sometimes people take in the meaning at face value. Like how 'conservatives' don't see Colbert as satire. Fight Club is a dark satire that was taken in at face value.

This happens all the time really with all kinds of media.

Its not always bad to take something at face value as interpretation, but it doesn't necessarily mean its the best or most accurate one. (perhaps concise is a better word)

Buuuuuuut....

Authorial Intent is separate from Audience Interpretation. You can intent to have your movie be anti-war, or pro-gay rights, have it examine the dark underbelly of the American Midwest, or show the breakdown of the American dream. However, not everyone is going to interpret a movie how it's "supposed" to be interpreted. That anti-war film could make war look exciting or glorious, the pro-gay rights film may make the gays look like terrible people, the American Midwest looks just fine, and the breakdown of the american dream just leads to a non-stop avalanche of hookers and blow.

Point is, it doesn't matter what the author intended. They can hem and haw all they want about how "nobody understands!" when the long and short of it is that they didn't tell the message right.

 

[Entitled]

Point is, it doesn't matter what the author intended. They can hem and haw all they want about how "nobody understands!" when the long and short of it is that they didn't tell the message right.

If I interpret your quoted comment as a declaration that all artists are idiots, does it mean that it's your fault for not telling your point well enough? Just because there is such a thing as badly sent communication, it is also possible to misunderstand someone else's message.

"Death of the Author" style alternative audience interpretations can be a thing, but it's far from the most self evident way of looking at works.

 

[LostPause]

Point is, it doesn't matter what the author intended. They can hem and haw all they want about how "nobody understands!" when the long and short of it is that they didn't tell the message right.

I agree. Of course, I'd prefer to take it that your intent is not to sneer at artists frustrated by those who consciously or unconsciously misinterpret the meaning of their work for the sake of being comfortable / finding something to be offended by. That kinda would suggest that it might be better for artists not to expect much from their audiences but rather make their intentions crystal clear so they're not surprised by how capable human beings are twisting to suit their mindsets. Instead, I'm gonna assume you're merely suggesting that artists should be less protective of their works or simply less concerned by those who misconceive what they meant to say.

Similarly, I think the whole internet could benefit from paying a little less attention to the 'outliers' of every discussion and definitely show more restraint when it comes to letting them define our perceptions of a group. Whether you're arguing with groups of conservatives, liberals, religious people, feminists, "Gamergaters", etc. it almost always helps to assume you're talking with the best of their kind rather than the worst, at least when it comes to making points in public. Of course it also helps to analyse the specific points other individuals are actually making and subsequently judge whether they are likewise listening to your points and giving you the benefit of the doubt [and thus worth your time or not].

Thus, while Bob is likely correct in his predictions that some guys will use dumbly use the female character in this film as a demonstration of what men have to watch out for, he's being rather overdefensive here, not to mention using the wrong attitude in dealing with them. The point has been earlier in the thread but is the fact that some dudebros adopted 'Fight Club' as their symbol really that big a deal rather than just something ironic to laugh about?

But then again... this all goes back to the flexibility of human interpretation- if all you heard when someone talked about #gamergate was either the sound of MRAs beating their chests to shut out an abused woman or alternatively the protective collective cry of SJWs refusing to hear any criticism... then I guess it makes sense if you're generally worried about the threatening influence of others and constantly fighting to defend yourself and draw support for your cause.

The reality of course is that the blinkered extremists on both sides of so many issues scupper anyone's chances to have meaningful [internet] discussions because not enough people objective enough not to dehumanise their 'opponents' in some small way actually care enough to wade into a controversial debat. And, of course, when they do, too often both sides often ignore them in order to keep arguing against strawmen they know how to burn.

By the way, I thought I'd better point out I'm aware I'm being guilty of exactly what I'm talking about right here and that positive, beneficial and respectful discussion is happening all the time too. After all, I wouldn't want my audience to misinterpret my words and think me an insufferably superior snob...

 

[Quadocky]

Oh yeah because there's TOTALLY only one way to interpret a piece of art.

Give me a fucking break.

Yes and no.

In good films, everything is done for a reason. There is usually a main theme and message hovering about. What happens is sometimes people take in the meaning at face value. Like how 'conservatives' don't see Colbert as satire. Fight Club is a dark satire that was taken in at face value.

This happens all the time really with all kinds of media.

Its not always bad to take something at face value as interpretation, but it doesn't necessarily mean its the best or most accurate one. (perhaps concise is a better word)

Buuuuuuut....

Authorial Intent is separate from Audience Interpretation. You can intent to have your movie be anti-war, or pro-gay rights, have it examine the dark underbelly of the American Midwest, or show the breakdown of the American dream. However, not everyone is going to interpret a movie how it's "supposed" to be interpreted. That anti-war film could make war look exciting or glorious, the pro-gay rights film may make the gays look like terrible people, the American Midwest looks just fine, and the breakdown of the american dream just leads to a non-stop avalanche of hookers and blow.

Point is, it doesn't matter what the author intended. They can hem and haw all they want about how "nobody understands!" when the long and short of it is that they didn't tell the message right.

But in my mind it could also easily be that people don't necessarily have the capacity or wherewithall to comprehend certain aspects.

A good example I can think of is that one supposedly 'anti war' animated film by studio Ghibli. While it did demonstrate the horrors of wartime, it wasn't meant as an 'anti-war' message so much as "This is what your grandparent's generation went through you ungrateful punks!" kind of message. That isn't to say that anti-war themes may or may not exist, some themes and messages may not be heard because not everybody has the same background or experience.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Bob's pretty much spot on here. And, if you're of the "Nah, that'll never happen" opinion all you have to do is jump over to the comments section of Bob's review for Gone Girl and you'll already see it in motion.

 

[m00se]

Hi, MovieBob. Interesting article. I read your review of Gone Girl as well, and felt you hit the nail on the head with it.

I'm new to this community, and since the topic of my first article was also Fight Club, I feel obligated to chime in. I am a big David Fincher fan, and love Fight Club, but was never inspired to pursue a life of violence or terrorism as a result of watching it. Different people take different messages from the same movie. When the movie was fresh (over a decade ago) I remember hearing about fans starting ther own fight clubs, and shrugged it off.

You are annoyed by fans who take the opposite message from films than that which was intended, but rather than getting mad,or shrugging off their interpretation, why not use the real message of the source as a way to enlighten those clinging to an incorrect interpretation?

The opportunity lies in explaining their misunderstanding of a favorite film, by the standards of the film, as a means to point out a flaw in their world view. This tactic would stand a better chance to be absorbed than any attack could. People hate to hear flat out that they are flawed in their thinking, they tend to reject such bold statements. But proving to them the flaws in their interpretation of one movie (which seems much more harmless) might lead them to reconsider the thought process that led them to their first interpretation.

Just a thought.