“Meanwhile, Fincher has proven better able to handle bad material (even The Curious Case of Benjamin Button had some good aspects to it, to my recollection)”
Absolutely. Although I would point more towards The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo as an example of taking weak material and making something passably interesting out of it. Ditto even on Panic Room.
I think what people might get hung up on Fincher regarding his aesthetic is thinking he’s all about dark and gritty. But I think that’s only one aspect of Fincher’s distinct style and this is why I say his style has matured over the years. If you look at Dragon Tattoo and Zodiac, they both have an acute ability to pass along information quickly and usually visually. His use of montage in contemporary cinema is unlike anyone today. For how convoluted the story in Dragon Tattoo is, he is so precise and methodical at conveying to the audience what is going on. On the surface it may look easy but it’s really extremely difficult. Knowing exactly what to shoot, how to shoot it, how to cut it, and what music to use – he creates sequences that are incredibly dense with information but easy to swallow. I think this ability stems from his work on music videos and commercials but if you compare his recent work to his earlier stuff (in say Alien 3 and Se7en, you can see how much more accomplished he’s become in working with this distinct style).
A. Smith said, Now, I do think that Scott is still talented, but it seems to me that he is now,…just not savvy or persistent enough to use his talent for projects which have a quality beyond what he can provide them. Meanwhile, Fincher has proven better able to handle bad material (even The Curious Case of Benjamin Button had some good aspects to it, to my recollection), but he has not shown himself to be above making poor choices in material…
I agree with this. I would add that one of the big differences between the two filmmakers is that Fincher has shown to handle the content and ideas of a film better than Scott—at least this separates Fincher’s really good films from Scott’s good ones, imo. Here, I’m thinking of what I think of as Fincher’s “existential period”—i.e., Se7en, Fight Club and The Game (which isn’t as successful, imo). The quality of the ideas and expression of them—the way the filmmaking and ideas complement each other—is very good, and it’s something that doesn’t seem to happen in Scott’s films, imo; the story or ideas/themes are mediocre—the exception being Alien. But Social Network and Zodiac remind me of Scott in that the filmmaking is good, but the ideas and story are either not that interesting or not conceived very well.
As for Se7en, I will probably read your defense, “Jazzaloha,”http://mubi.com/users/29114 when you present it because, though it was well composed from a directing point of view (visuals, acting, editing), the characters, dialogue and story seemed trite and relatively pointless to me.
Well, I’m willing and eager to convince you that the film story and ideas are not pointless.
@Joks
My point is that Fincher is more of a craftsman than a bonafide auteur.
You don’t think Fincher’s early films make him an auteur—both stylistically and content?
What I will say that what Fincher and Ridley clearly have in common is their ability to make films that are completely rewatchable. Alien is a movie I revisit often and every time I watch it, I enjoy myself. The same can be said for several of Fincher’s films; the worlds that these guys create are just fun to be in. I think this probably comes from being visual directors.
With all the (justified) talk of strong visuals, Fincher should also be recognized as someone whose films have a strong use of dialogue. He uses other writers, so can’t take full credit, but he knows how to make the most of collaborators like Chuck Palahniuk and Aaron Sorkin. Many of Fincher’s films are very quotable.
“Disagree, i think his last few films could have been directed by just about anyone.”
O_o
Many of Scott’s recent films are passable but disposable. I don’t recall many details about American Gangster or Black Hawk Down, for example. They were worth watching but not a second time. I think his best work (certainly his visionary work) is behind him a few decades. We will likely end up saying the same thing about Fincher in 10 or so years. The Social Network was a throwaway. Zodiac was good, but it was not Seven.
The Dude: The factors to which I was referring were primarily related to story, characters and the inherent ideas. I realize that they do have control inasmuch as they can choose to not take something, but if they do not possess or practice discernment in their selection, then it is effectively out of their control (and I think in this both have shown lacking, Fincher’s worst being Seven, Panic Room and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; I can ignore Alien 3, and possibly Seven as first films, and I have not seen The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo).--
Both Jazzaloha and Joks have mentioned how Fincher makes his films in a way that is more complementary to the material than most, and I think they are right about this; because of the amount of control he seems to exert, perhaps this is why his films are more consistent.--
I have not read the article that repeat references, but I do find it odd if Fight Club is not referenced as an inspiration to the “internet crowd” given that that movie was as much of, if not more, a declaration of ideology which seems to permeate much of the internet culture.--
Bobby Wise, what do you find superior about Seven?
I find Seven to be an absolutely brilliant policier. It is among the greatest of all neo-noirs. The film is so well-crafted with regards to mood and emotion. We’ve discussed Seven a great deal here on MUBI, so sorry for re-hashing the same qualifiers. Fight Club is fine, but it suffers from its surprise ending that makes the film age very quickly. There is a fine line in that film between gimmicky and satirizing gimmickry. I don’t know that it walks it well.
Ridley Scott is the contemporary Ridley Scott.
For what it’s worth, I think the topic really relates to the larger conflict between the ‘visionary director’ and mainstream studio production needs. When the director is let loose to indulge in his… well… indulgences (both Fincher and Ridley Scott are indulgent but I think Fincher is more aggressively so and Scott is more politically so) they have more room to pull off something singular and visionary, but when they’re constrained they only deliver half of what they intended. However, I mean, Fincher’s movies cost a lot of money and it’s hard to imagine him even being capable of pulling off a low-budget indie production, whereas Scott seems capable of working with what he’s got (except good scripts, apparently, since Nottingham became what it became). In that sense, I believe Fincher should be let loose and Scott should be constrained, esp. as regards politics (again, Nottingham going from something actually interesting to white guilt revisionism).
—PolarisDiB
I think Scott is essentially a facilitator, give him great source material and he can make a fair to great film, but his bland commercial instincts let him down. After his first 3 films which were brilliant he’s been patchy at best.
No truly great filmmaker would have made the ‘Robin Hood’ he made, if he had it, he lost it.
Fincher has been much more consistent and has the stronger claims of being a legitimate artist rather than a journeyman who got lucky early on.
bless you, Ruby
“You don’t think Fincher’s early films make him an auteur—both stylistically and content?”
I think he showed signs back then, definitely. maybe he is one of those guys that moves in and out of auteur mode, which is something i mentioned on here a while back and got slammed. my point was more general though, and the responses were essentially ‘once an auteur, always an auteur’, which is true for most cases, but there are a few exceptions.
Hats off to Fincher for getting a film like Zodiac made for the budget he did though. Although 65 mill is a modest budget in Hollywood, for a film like that, it’s quite a lot really, esp considering that it isn’t very ‘mainstream’ and requires the sort of viewer attention that ‘commercial’ films generally do not.
MUS: Yeah but even the look of The Duellists was Kubrick lite though, wasn’t it? Kind of like a b-grade Barry Lyndon, whereas the Kubrick influences from 2001 on Alien were a little less obvious hahah.
maybe Scott needs to go back to ripping off Kubrick again eh? hahah.
“He uses other writers, so can’t take full credit, but he knows how to make the most of collaborators like Chuck Palahniuk and Aaron Sorkin. Many of Fincher’s films are very quotable.”
That is true Brad, but i think it also goes back to what i was saying earlier about being good at directing actors. A big part of that is line delivery. Fincher is definitely very good with actors.
having great dialogue is one thing, but making it noticeable is another entirely.
@Joks
I think he showed signs back then, definitely. maybe he is one of those guys that moves in and out of auteur mode, which is something i mentioned on here a while back and got slammed.
Or maybe he just moved into a different phase?
That is true Brad, but i think it also goes back to what i was saying earlier about being good at directing actors. A big part of that is line delivery. Fincher is definitely very good with actors.
To my mind, the bigger issue is that Fincher seems to find good scripts/writers, while my sense is that R. Scott (and his brother) don’t seem to. Is that because they don’t work with good writers/find good scripts or because they don’t do a good job with them?
^^^maybe they don’t care as much?
“Is that because they don’t work with good writers/find good scripts or because they don’t do a good job with them?”
I would say it’s the latter. They had a (supposedly) great script with Nottingham and then proceeded to completely change it and screw it up. It’s amazing because Scott Free, Ridley and Tony’s production company, develops and produces a lot of stuff – much more so than Fincher. They certainly seem to have the opportunities and support behind them. This is why I think it’s just them – they screw everything up.
I think Duelists is beyond a rip-off to fine art on it’s own, Lyndon too was built on the back of many brit period pieces. Alien was elevated because he took it more seriously than it’s B movie overtones and I think Blade Runner was his true masterpiece. After that he’s a journeyman commercial director for me.
if you’re gonna rip someone off it might as well be the best… now he seems content to rip James Cameron off.
or worse, Michael Bay.
ouch
No-Limb Joe
Scott and Fincher may be visualists and have distinct visual styles, but I think Fincher is methodical, analytical even, in his direction, compared to Scott (or any “visual” director, for that matter), so no, I don’t think that Fincher is the contemporary Scott, mainly because I think Scott is more concerned with how something looks, while Fincher is also concerned with how something feels.
@a smith:
certain tendencies in both which allow them to make very good (if not great) films if the factors outside of their own direction allow it, but mediocre (or poor) films otherwise
Disagree definitely that Fincher has made any mediocre movie, except Alien 3, of course. What factors are you talking about?