Friday Estimates by Annabelle Ain’t Gone Klady
It’s all perspective. Gone Girl‘s opening day is about 10% better than any Fincher opening day before. It is likely to be his fourth straight opening as the #1 movie of the weekend (though the whole #1 ranking thing is more often than not a worthless stat). And even the reviews that are not stellar are nearly universally admiring. It is a Fincher success. Somewhere around $100m domestic… somewhere around $250m worldwide… Oscar nominations… lots of conversation.
With a budget reported to be under $10 million, Annabelle is easily the big business winner of the weekend. No conversation, no Oscar nominations… just a lot of profit. This, for me, is the fall season of confused studios. Annabelle seems like a wet dream movie for Fox (cheap and hugely profitable) while Gone Girl is more the Warner Bros style (huge prestige being more important than the bottom line) or maybe Sony. Meanwhile, The Equalizer also feels like a WB film, if not a Universal one… but it’s from Sony.
Studio imprint has been fading in recent years, aside from Disney. But this year, it all feels random as hell. Even the producers seem off. Pop Quiz: On which movie is Scott Rudin a producer? A. Gone Girl, B. Inherent Vice, C. Foxcatcher. Answer: None of the Above. The guy behind the last 3 Finchers, There Will Be Blood, and Moneyball is not the guy behind any of those filmmakers this time around. (It’s not like he hasn’t been busy with some great stuff this year, from Grand Budapest to Silicon Valley to Jon Stewart’s directorial debut/perhaps finale’ Rosewater to the Cameron Crowe film that got pushed into 2015.)
Anyway…
55% percent Friday-to-Friday for The Equalizer is pretty good, actually… likely to be down to the high 40s for the weekend.
The new Christian movie, Left Behind, is doing better than FreeStyle’s last Christian movie, The Identical, which I don’t even remember happening a month ago. (Toronto may have distracted me right past noticing its $2.8m opening weekend.) Still, is $7 million a good number or not? Well, it’s well behind the two huge Christian hits earlier this year (Heaven Is For Real and God’s Not Dead), but it’s a solid #2 for the year in this category. Is it a good number for a Nic Cage movie? Well… given the size of the film, it’s not bad versus other recent Cage openings of smaller budget/scale movies. It’s right between Season of the Witch and Drive Angry. Even excellent indies like Joe and Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleanshave failed to do even $2 million in total domestic. So, this looks pretty good, really.
Men, Women & Children is a bust. Makes me sad, honestly. Jason Reitman is a remarkably talented guy and this film, which is surely his least successful effort, is by far his least successful opening. He’s never launched on this few screens before. His other three limited launches were 5/7/8 screens and they did (roughly) $25k/$60k/$50k per screen. On 17 screens, this is looking like $2500 will be the top possible per-screen for the weekend.
Opening with an even worse per screen (but on a lot more screens, making it the biggest pygmy in that race) is Warner Bros’ The Good Lie, a movie abut Sudanese refugees who land in the heartland of America and need to find their way. Fronted by Reese Witherspoon, who has a more high-profile small movie (see: Awards) in play, Wild, this one didn’t get as hard a push as WB might have liked. And even if it had, still a very hard sell… especially for a big-baller like WB. Under $2k per screen on 461.
The only indie release likely to do over $6500 per screen this weekend is Breakup Buddies, China Lion’s Hao Ning release that sounds a bit like the Asian version of SPC’s Land Ho!. Just behind that should be TriBeCa’s Nas: Time Is Illmatic, somewhere near $30k on 5 screens for the weekend.
Whaaaa? Who in the world would rather see the umpteenth creepy doll movie over the new, buzzy, bestseller-based Fincher?
Don’t answer.
Horror usually is strongest on Friday, it’ll drop over the weekend and Gone Girl should top it.
It’ll be a tortoise versus hare contest betwixt this weekend’s chart toppers. Fincher will come out ahead–way ahead–when they end their theatrical runs.
Does that el floppo platform launch mean that Paramount will cancel plans to take “MW&C” wide-wide on October 17th?
Sure, let’s call the movie about African refugees “the biggest pygmy in that race.” Nothing hideous about that at all.
“Left Behind” and “Annabelle” have to be two of the cheapest looking movies I’ve seen on a multiplex screen in years.
My promotional screening for Disney’s “Alexander and the Terrible, etc.” this A.M. was the most sparsely attended promo I’ve ever been to.
If people don’t want to see your movie EVEN WHEN IT’S FREE, I can’t imagine a whole lot of people buying tickets next weekend.
The Nas movie is titled Time is IllmaTic, not IllmaNic.
Thanks, corrected!
“Whaaaa? Who in the world would rather see the umpteenth creepy doll movie over the new, buzzy, bestseller-based Fincher?”
in hindsight i wish i’d seen some creepy doll movie instead
Is anyone LITERALLY concerned whether or not movie A (Annabelle) or movie B (Gone Girl) is going to be number one this weekend? I believe tickets for both movies will still be on sale come Monday morning.
Re: “Annabelle,” what is strange is we recently went through a golden age of horror movies (2004-2008)…and now a movie with worse production values than “Chucky’s Bride” is going to be the biggest horror opening in 13 months.
It’s like everyone went insane this year and decided to stop releasing appealing horror movies and appealing animated kiddie flicks. At this point I’m assuming “Annabelle” or “Ouija” is the top grossing horror movie of 2014. Here’s how I’d rank the top grossing horror film of the year the last 10 years.
Paranormal Activity
The Conjuring
Cloverfield (some may disagree that it’s horror…it’s horror)
ParaNorman/Woman in Black (2012 was weird)
Paranormal Activity 3
1408
Paranormal Activity 2
Saw II
Saw III
Annabelle
Saw 3 is awful. But it came out in a year of greatness for horror. “Slither,” “Hills Have Eyes,” “The Host,” “Rise of Leslie Vernon,” “All the Boys Love Mandy Lane” (festival release), and I’ll defend it forever, “Silent Hill.”
The year Saw II came out had similar depth. We have nothing thing year. It’s the most barren year for horror since….? I feel like 2014 has been a revival for Sci-Fi. But it’s been a nadir for horror and animation.
That’s not saying there hasn’t been great horror. “Honeymoon” scared the living shit out of me, and, ironically in this crappy year, is my favorite horror movie since at least 2011. No one will see it..but that’s where we are.
Hallick: Well, folks at WB and Fox are concerned, because no one likes to come in second. But the rest of us, no. I was simply surprised that Annabelle outpaced Gone Girl, even if it doesn’t hold the lead through the weekend.
i’m ever hopeful for good scary movies i <3 them. but there's never really that many truly good ones out there even in a 'good' year, not that go on to be considered great, or cult, with time at least.
my fave movie this year so far is 'only lovers left alive' but i'm not sure i'd even try to muster a 'true horror' defence for it, still totally sublime though. (and at least PART horror in sensibility so it has to get some points there). i still have some hope for a few others from this year too, like that 'babadook' thing, and that car one with it lost in the woods on the little backroads and something goes terribly wrong (english i think, i can't remember the name), 'dead snow' (horror comedy, plus there's 'what we do in the shadows' for the best in comedy horror of the year) — even some quite pulpy/low-budge looking stuff like 'extraterrestrial' (micheal ironside say it isn't so) or 'jessabelle' could end up giving a thrill, you just never really know with horror, so fickle and subjective, hard to tell if something's going to touch that nerve and deliver. some weird little random thing that at least looks ok/slightly intriguing and you end of really taken with it (like 'jugface', i had pretty much no idea what that was and ended up digging it, a great feeling when that happens). that's why you have to wade through a lot of crud nuggets to find some horror gems, probably true of movies in general but certainly for 'scary' stuff.
(and what is the dealeo with the new 'sequel' i guess to 'the town that dreaded sundown' – the original of which is probably SCARY AS FUCK for anyone who grew up in the '70's and saw that Texarkana baghead fucker as a kid, shudder. and gary cole is in the new one, i'm just trying to wrap my head around that. is it another sign of the apocalypse or brilliant satire/irony)
“Only Lovers Left Alive” is great, and agree it’s not “true horror.” Actually…since we were talking in another thread about great romantic comedies….how about that Tilda Swinton/Tom Hiddleston chemistry? Electric. I know they needed a Macguffin, but Mia Wachikowska’s entry into the film truly seems like girl is the third wheel in one of the great recent on-screen romances. Id rather have seen the leads mope around for another 40 minutes, honestly.
Tilda and Tom are cooler than you.
tilda and tom are truly the bitchinest, true romance, adam and eve for all the movies, they should have at least 5 more movies (there is a certain vein of very dry, wry humour in ‘only lovers’ – “that certainly was visual” – so considering it’s got the romance down dead to rights and the drama, if you were feeling perverse and up for a laugh you could argue ‘OLLA’ the hands-down best romantic dramedy)
“in hindsight i wish i’d seen some creepy doll movie instead”
DING DING DING DING!
Gone Girl is really well made, with some fine performances (although people need to calm down. Pike is serviceable-good but all the OHMYGODANEWSTARISBORN needs to stop. Also, Tyler Perry simply isn’t bad in his extraordinarily small part. Yay?) However all of this is in service to one incredibly stupid story that leans on a decent amount of misogyny. Bitches be shoppin’ and claiming fake rape, amirite? Yeah yeah yeah Nancy Grace TEEVEE culture is on trial, whatever. What a searing and revealing look at our modern day media. Your story still sucks and doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know.
Also, marriage is hell. Okay.
I’m annoyed that we lost a valuable Fincher slot to this dreck.
I haven’t seen GONE GIRL yet, but I’ve read the book. Seems to me the misogyny claims in that instance only hold if you think that one sociopath is supposed to be a stand-in for all women. There are at least two other decent-size female roles that aren’t objectionable. And it’s not like the guy in the story is some paragon.
So going forward, writers should avoid stories that portray a woman in a negative light? Because, what, there’s no such thing as a female sociopath or psychopath? Or there is such a thing, but it’s not good form to write about it? Sometimes I think it’s a wonder that anyone bothers to create anything.
I thought the point of the story was that even if she is a sociopath/psychopath, it’s the husband’s/parents’/society’s fault for demanding her to fit in roles they chose for her regardless of what she would have chosen for herself. I haven’t read the book or seen the movie yet, but that the impression I’ve gotten from all the talk over them.
“haven’t seen GONE GIRL yet, but I’ve read the book. Seems to me the misogyny claims in that instance only hold if you think that one sociopath is supposed to be a stand-in for all women.”
Sure, OR if virtually every woman in the movie is portrayed as one of a slut/idiot/sociopath/psychopath/opportunist. Meanwhile Affleck’s character, once the MAJOR PLOT TWIST (!) is revealed, comes across as simply a poor doofus roped into a fame up. (Yes, his sister is cool. Bully for the writers.)
“So going forward, writers should avoid stories that portray a woman in a negative light? Because, what, there’s no such thing as a female sociopath or psychopath? Or there is such a thing, but it’s not good form to write about it? Sometimes I think it’s a wonder that anyone bothers to create anything.”
Actually it’s a wonder anyone bothers to post to internet blogs with such screeching hyperbole. I don’t recall invoking and condemning all fiction ever created around villains who happen to be female.
Congratulations, you’re arguing over a movie you haven’t seen and comments no one has made. Impressive.
not to get into a big ‘gone girl’ debate – tbh i don’t give enough of a shit – but i kind of agree with amblinman’s initial assessment of the movie above, fincher can polish a turd (mythbusters showed you can in fact polish a ball of lion poop to a high gloss) like nobody’s business, but at the end of the day it still stinks inside.
fwiw i’m not a huge fan of ‘gone girl’ the novel (and flynn is no stranger to criticisms of misogyny) but one aspect of rancidness the book managed to juggle with a degree of success is ambiguity, and the concept of the unreliable narrator as the reader is kept rather off balance for much of the story, never really sure which character is speaking truth to power or delusional or a combination – however there’s little doubt that they’re both just a couple of fucked up fucking assholes and there’s a certain guilty pleasure in getting down in the mud and rolling around in flynn’s brand of skewered gender roles and psychotic marriage pathology; in the longer, more nuanced form of written fiction the overwrought absurdity of it is easier to digest.
the film adaptation is problematic due to the screenplay and execution thereof, which strips out most of the ambiguity and use of the unreliable narrator, and picks sides – a huuuuge no no when it comes to this type of sick ‘gender wars’ pulp, and kind of what i was afraid might happen with a condensed film adaptation and sure enough, ickypooh…
Fincher’s rather puerile attempt at larger social commentary is just a mess, and ——- SPOILERS!!! —— he even fucks up the simple ‘whodunnit’ aspect re nick’s character, rendering it a complete non-starter due to how the scene of nick finding amy missing is portrayed – people who’ve seen the movie will understand what i mean; the sheer and kind of incomprehensible idiocy of this film-making decision foreshadows the rather puerile pointlessness of the rest of movie going forward, which is very well performed (exceedingly so in some cases) but rotten, even at times thematically disturbing re the concept of intimate partner violence and that cry-wolf psycho bitch. i think to pick one thing that speaks volumes about the misguidedness of the film adaptation, it would have to be the addition of the cat and its obvious function re nick’s character. why? why as a film-maker would you ‘need’ the cat? why do you need to tilt the scales? why indeed. therein lies the rub (and why the movie doesn’t really work for me)
“he film adaptation is problematic due to the screenplay and execution thereof, which strips out most of the ambiguity and use of the unreliable narrator, and picks sides ”
I think this nails the issue. The movie absolutely chooses Affleck’s character. The audience is supposed to identify and align itself with him.
EDIT: This is in response to amblinman’s 5:05 pm comment.
I wasn’t screeching. I was asking questions. Rhetorical maybe, but no screeching. Hell, I didn’t even use all caps!
I may not have seen the movie, but my understanding from the reviews and comments I’ve read is that it’s a pretty faithful adaptation that deals with the same themes and issues as the book. If I’m wrong, oh well, never mind then.
But first (SPOILERS FOLLOW): You quoted a comment in which I specifically referred to misogyny claims about the book and applied it to the movie: “Sure, OR if virtually every woman in the movie is portrayed as one of a slut/sociopath/psychopath/opportunist.” [Hey, maybe you’re not opposed to hyperbole after all.] Anyway, I think my point still holds. No matter how many horrible women are in the story, the second and third largest female roles are non-horrible women (the sister and the cop; I won’t count the old friend who was wronged, since I hear she’s not in the film). Is there an acceptable horrible-to-non-horrible ratio that will give a writer a misogyny pass? And by the way, I don’t see how asking such questions in response to your comment implies that you were “invoking and condemning all fiction ever created around villains who happen to be female.” But your comment does seem to suggest that you think there was a “right” way to approach the writing of the female characters in this story. I’m interested in what that might be. Flip the gender of the main characters (GONE GUY)? Make every woman except Amy fall on a scale from “unobjectionable” to “awesome”? Simply NOT write the story? I’m honestly curious.
yancysk, why are you bothering to argue about a movie you haven’t seen, going on ‘what you’ve read others say’, who fucking cares what others say, watch the movie and then see what you think. or what about what amblinman and i have said above, do we not count as ‘others’? why the ‘misogyny denial’ of a movie you haven’t even seen? at least save the denial for afterwards, you’re gonna need it.
and yeah, i just don’t get why (re amblinman’s most recent comment) — there was an opportunity wasted to take the source material and really get down, dirty and bitingly satirical with the concept of constricting, narrow gender roles perpetuated by our media-soaked, image-obsessed culture and how far down the fucked up garden path the marriage of TWO sociopaths trying to ‘conform’ to expectation of gender and marriage can get, that could have been an interesting deconstruction.
but instead they choose to go down the hopelessly cliché route, letting nick off the hook as mostly a gormless tool to dive headlong into perpetuating bs gender stereotypes/bias with nick ‘oh-well-boys-will-be-boys-unfaithful-self-centred-but-over-all-kind-of-affable-dickhead’ dunne worked over and wronged by amy ‘typical-conniving-false-accusation-hurling-complete-psycho-bitch-LIAR’ dunne, this perpetuation of worn-out cultural stereotypes and clichés is sharp social commentary/satire how exactly?
(and when refracted though the lens of reality, when in 2010 in the US just slightly under 40% of all women who were victims of homicide were murdered by their current or former male partners – and this statistic has remained pretty consistent for many years – while conversely about 1 to 2% of male homicide victims were killed by their female partners/former partners in the same year, representing typical numbers — the disparity and shocking gravity of the reality makes the tired, clichéd ‘social commentary’ of fincher’s gone girl all the more disturbingly insipid and banal, quite disappointing)
leah: I thought I explained myself well enough. I’m talking about the themes and issues that I assume the book and film share (considering the latter is based on the former and is written by the same writer). In my first comment I simply mentioned that claims of misogyny against the book seemed to hinge mostly on the depiction of one psychopathic character (again, “mostly”). The rest of my comment was in response to amblinman’s comment, which, except for a mention of some performances, didn’t talk about anything from the film that wasn’t in the book. Do I really need to see the film to respond to his assertions that the story “leans on a decent amount of misogyny,” “Nancy Grace TEEVEE culture is on trial,” “your story sucks and doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know,” “Marriage is hell”? Obviously, I DO need to see the film to see if its depiction of these things differs from the book’s — that’s why I didn’t argue FOR the film.
In fact, I’m not sure why you both insist I’m “arguing” at all. I mostly asked questions about the perception of misogyny in art. Amblinman seemed to take the more rhetorical ones as “screeching hyperbole” designed to mischaracterize his comment. I guess I should’ve taken my ball and gone home, but I decided to ask for some clarity instead — again, mostly focused on the general issue of whether writers can create negative female characters without being labeled misogynistic. But no, I’m just arguing and indulging in “misogyny denial.”
Look, either the misogyny issues in book and movie are the same or they’re not. If they’re not, a simple “Wait till you see the film, Yancy; misogyny is more of an issue there than in the book” would have sufficed. I’d have said, “Okay, thanks” and moved on. If the misogyny issues ARE the same in both media, then it seems to me they could be intelligently discussed by anyone who has either read the book, seen the film, or both.
Sigh. Sorry, I’ll shut up until I see the film, since apparently any opinions about the source material are entirely moot, no matter how faithful the adaptation might be.
er, well hey (ha so much for not getting into a ‘gone girl’ debate, kind of fascinating tho), i know as well as anyone that’s it’s easy to write a bunch of stuff on a blog and assume that you’re being clear and people will understand your intent and where you’re coming from, that tone and sarcasm and a lot of other such nuance can be lost on a blog — but really, is it seriously not clear from all the above, that in fact the tone and content of the movie is NOT exactly the same as the book (which i think i specifically mentioned like 3 or 4 times), that much of the ambiguity and POVs provided by the unreliable narration device, which gave the book a measure of absurdity and shared toxicity for both Nick and Amy, has been stripped out of the film narrative in favour of a far more conventional, cliché approach of ———- MASSIVE SPOILERS —— ‘self-absorbed gormless affable cheater man duped by unhinged vindictive false accusing psycho harpy’ (lying bitches be cray cray bro!). i mean i said exactly this, i even used the cat as a specific talking point to contrast the difference in the depictions of the main characters in the book vs the movie, asking why the film-makers felt it necessary to include so crude a device as a pet with the sole purpose of making nick’s character more sympathetic, to tip the scales obviously in his favour. was this really that unclear? i don’t understand.
(i also don’t understand, who is saying that merely by portraying a psycho woman character in a story, that constitutes misogyny? that’s rather silly, i didn’t see that here, or anywhere for that matter. my criticism is that they’ve taken a story essentially about a couple of pretty horrible, shallow assholes obsessed with image and appearance – who for a variety of reasons grow rotten underneath and victimise EACH OTHER in countless little ways, the death of marriage by a thousand little paper cuts, until one of the assholes snaps and does something unimaginably despicable… why do they take this rather shared poisonous dynamic/pathology and then flatten it down for the film medium, basically tipping the scales to portray Nick Dunne as the victim of liar Amy Dunne, false accuser. and therein lies the banal use of cliché rooted in misogyny; it’s not that amy can’t be a sociopath, of course she can, it’s why are the film-makers so eager to sanitise nick and engender sympathy for him rather than portray him just as unsympathetically as Amy? i’d really like to know the rationale of this, because to me it would appear rooted in deep denial, in not wanting to portray a ‘white leading man’ as a sheer, fucked up, abusive asshole. which is classic sexism and entitled misogyny, couldn’t be a more perfect example. just a thought)
I figured MW&C would do better. You’d think there’d be some interest in Adam Sandler being intentionally unfunny.
leah: Yeah, I kinda figured you could at least commiserate with me on the issue of having one’s intentions misinterpreted in a blog comment. 🙂
But jeez, I’m almost starting to feel like I’m being gaslighted or something. Or maybe I just missed the point of amblinman’s initial salvo against the film, in which he wrote: “However all of this is in service to one incredibly stupid story that leans on a decent amount of misogyny. Bitches be shoppin’ and claiming fake rape, amirite?” One could interpret that to mean that his misogyny issues with the story are centered on one character, but I didn’t say so. My reply was about misogyny claims against the book, but I think maybe my use of the phrase “in this instance” made amblinman think I was referring to his comment rather than the book. Hence his snippy reply, perhaps? He later conceded there was a least one positive portrayal of a woman in the book (the sister), but then basically said “So what?”
I still think my questions were on point, about GONE GIRL specifically and art in general that is perceived as misogynistic. Can a story feature negative female characters without being misogynistic? Do there have to be positive female characters for balance? Does there have to be an even split, or must the split favor the positive portrayals? Even if the portrayal of the main male character is more positive overall, is this lack of balance due to misogyny or just a logical consequence of a plot about a crazy female person taking extreme measures against an imperfect but not completely irredeemable male person? Is such a plot automatically misogynist and therefore to be avoided?
Obviously, I can’t speak to how the movie has upset the balance in the book, so I haven’t tried. But I figured even if I couldn’t participate in a discussion about the book vs. the film, my questions could provide fodder for one.
SPOILERS
I love David Fincher. Easily one of my favorite directors working today. Zodiac is in my top 10 all-time. I like or love every movie he’s made. Until now. Did not care for Gone Girl (I did not read the book). Left me cold. Actually I really liked the first hour. It hooked me quickly. Music is mesmerizing. Cinematography great. Acting solid. But (SPOILERS) as soon as it’s revealed that she’s alive, it slowly lost me. By the time she comes home and reveals herself, I was squirming in my seat and just wanted it to be over. I didn’t care what happened to Nick or Amy at that point. They’re both doofuses. It felt 4 hours long by the time the credits rolled.
SPOILERS DONE
To the argument above, for what it’s worth, the two most sympathetic characters in the movie are the sister and the female detective (huge Kim Dickens fan ever since Zero Effect; great to see her in a good role like this). I loved both of them. Also, my wife and I talked a lot about the movie after it was over, and she didn’t find it misogynist (she also liked the movie a lot more than I did).
“One could interpret that to mean that his misogyny issues with the story are centered on one character, but I didn’t say so. My reply was about misogyny claims against the book, but I think maybe my use of the phrase “in this instance” made amblinman think I was referring to his comment rather than the book. Hence his snippy reply, perhaps? He later conceded there was a least one positive portrayal of a woman in the book (the sister), but then basically said “So what?””
Good lord, for someone who is intent on not arguing about a movie they haven’t seen, you sure do put on a good show of arguing about a movie you haven’t seen.
1.) A couple of instances of “good women” in material such as this amounts to “some of my best friends are black.” The entire movie doesn’t have to be a woman-hating minstrel show in order for the material to be misogynist. As Leanz has alluded to the film wants us to side with Affleck’s character. It chooses sides, lo and behold not only does it select the white guy but the female who not only claims fake rape at every turn but will also cut your throat while yelling fake rape. This is reprehensible. I don’t even have to point to other characters to make the argument. (You do know at some point you’re going to have to just admit you *are* arguing the point I’m making about the movie you haven’t seen, otherwise you may want to stop arguing).
2.) Your initial comments were aimed at my comments, which were entirely about Gone Girl: The Movie. Not Gone Girl: The book; or Gone Girl: The Musical. Your sudden interest in discussing the loss of creative freedom among artists at the conclusion of that post was naturally taken as a defense of the movie because, well, *I* was discussing the movie.
Here, in case you’re still confused as to my stance on things not related to Gone Girl: The Movie: Why NO, portraying women as villains in and of itself is not misogynist.
There! Are creative liberties now safe again since we know my comments on an internet blog were aimed at a misogynist movie rather than all works of fiction involving female characters who are assholes?
“(i also don’t understand, who is saying that merely by portraying a psycho woman character in a story, that constitutes misogyny? that’s rather silly, i didn’t see that here, or anywhere for that matter. ”
That’s okay, he didn’t either. It just sounded good at the time.
I didn’t like Affleck’s character in the movie. I didn’t want him to fry, but I certainly didn’t like him or side with him either.
amblinman: Clearly, the real problem here is either you can’t read or I can’t write. My first post after your comment was primarily about the book, which I had read. My questions about misogyny applied to all art, including both the film and the book. I realize that you were only talking about the movie, but I didn’t know that preempted any discussion about the wider implications of your point.
“Good lord, for someone who is intent on not arguing about a movie they haven’t seen, you sure do put on a good show of arguing about a movie you haven’t seen.”
Actually, what I’ve been arguing about are either your misinterpretations of what I initially wrote or counterarguments to your responses. I’ve only argued specifically about the book. I’ve asked questions about the movie, which have either been ignored or taken as arguments (and most recently, openly ridiculed).
Good talk. Thanks.
The Town That Dreaded Sundown (original is streaming on Netflix now, I need to check it out) is a remake and the reviews so far are so-so. Probably why it’s not getting a wide release. Theatrical horror has been crap this year no doubt (I haven’t seen Oculus yet and I hear good things). Lots of good-to-great VOD stuff though (most of which I’ve watched on Netflix, like Blood Glacier, Almost Human, Grand Piano, Stage Fright, and Wolf Creek 2; going to watch The Sacrament next). I’m dying to see Honeymoon and VHS: Viral.
I haven’t seen the original Town That Dreaded Sundown or its remake, but I want to discuss them anyway and pick people’s brains about the similarities and differences. Let’s go! 🙂
well if anything ‘gone girl’ is sort of an interesting case study for adapted material and how one can view things differently depending on if you’ve read the source material and how you feel about it, how it translates to the visual medium structurally and thematically, and whether or not it succeeds cinematically on its own terms.
i’m not sure how the 70’s ‘town that dreaded sundown’ would play now, i can’t bring myself to watch it after the baghead killer scared me so shitless as a kid, i had a recurring nightmare because of it (how was i allowed to watch so much fucked-up stuff as a kid anyway, this movie, ‘the exorcist’, ‘black christmas’, ‘don’t look now’, probably scarred me for life – i’m way more conservative about this stuff than my parents were). pierce’s rather unique docu-drama style was quite an oddity for that time, dorky faux-realism added to the terror but it might just seem plain dorky now. i can’t believe they’ve remade/sequeled it. no, i can, nothing is sacred.
I haven’t seen Oculus yet and I hear good things
Don’t get too excited. I was also excited to see Oculus and thought it was incredibly silly and contrived. A huge step backwards from Flanagan’s earlier Absentia (which is also streaming on Netflix).
@amblinman
SPOILERS
“It chooses sides, lo and behold not only does it select the white guy but the female who not only claims fake rape at every turn but will also cut your throat while yelling fake rape. This is reprehensible.”
What exactly is reprehensible about a fictional character claiming fake rape and slitting someone’s throat?
What exactly is reprehensible about siding with a character whose wife claims fake rape and slits people’s throats?
I’m not sure you understand what reprehensible means. ISIS = reprehensible. A fictional tale portraying an unhinged character doing unhinged things and then making the husband of said unhinged character slightly more sympathetic than the unhinged one is certainly not.
to be clear i’m not attempting to ‘reply’ for amblinman, who i suspect was hyperbolizing a tad to make a point with the word ‘reprehensible’ – but i find the comment above fascinating: first, it’s necessary to come up to the level of ISIS atrocity now in order to ‘acceptably’ criticize something in the current social consciousness/discourse as ‘reprehensible’? the definition of reprehensible is ‘deserving of condemnation’, ‘disgraceful’; there’s a shitload of stuff in the world people might and do find deserving of condemnation and disgraceful that’s not on par with fucking ISIS mass murder, near the very top of the scale in terms of black-hearted human hatred and depravity.
second, there are two possible narratives: one, fincher’s ‘gone girl’ (the movie) is impeccably made pulpy trash, not relevant social commentary about marriage or gender expectations or damaging media influences, blah blah blah, just a nasty couple hours at the movies telling the ridiculous story of a big dumb self-involved ass and his fucking batshit psycho wifey. and that’s fine.
OR – and this seems to be the narrative that’s being ‘pushed’, and seemingly what fincher may have been aiming for in adapting the book – fincher’s ‘gone girl’ is also thematically sharp social commentary about our current culture, marriage, gender roles, the insipid state of media, blah blah blah – in which case it is problematic in terms of the ridiculous plot and thematic choice to portray the misogynist cliché of a big dumb unfaithful oafish white guy raked over the coals by a maniacally unhinged false accuser. anyone who can’t see how this puerile ‘poor clueless man victimized by false-accusing woman’ panders to a deep strain of stereotypical misogynist gender bias, which currently underpins our actual culture in terms of dealing with violence/assault/sexual assault/abuse etc, is either kind of ignorant or in denial.
i’d be genuinely curious for someone to explain how this simplistic and downright ridiculous depiction of a marriage is relevant or sharp social commentary, i really don’t get this at all, it just seems absurd. don’t be a dummy and marry/stay married to a psycho? got it. divorce is your friend? deep, contemplative stuff. ?
My guess is that the seed of the story was a simple “What if?” inspired by Laci Peterson and similar cases. Because that’s a great hook — what if Laci Peterson faked her death to stick it to that a-hole Scott? But since SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY had already been done, Flynn needed a different twist. The plot she chose (Laci as psychopath, Scott as innocent) was the perfect one for skewering the media (and the public that feeds on it), and the “falsely accused” aspect has been a grabber at least since Hitchcock on through stuff like “Presumed Innocent.” But I agree with leah that it’s not the best story for a serious exploration of the problems, challenges, compromises and deceptions within a marriage. On the other hand, I don’t think a thriller is obligated to have that kind of “relevance” — most “____ from hell” stories lack a message beyond “be careful who you choose.” When such a story hits the zeitgeist, however, it gets over-analyzed, and the tea-leaf readers come out of the woodwork to explain why it’s striking a chord (“the narrative that’s being ‘pushed,'” as leah put it). And I suspect some authors and filmmakers play along rather than admit their capturing of the zeitgeist was unintentional.
As for the misogyny issue, this thread has taught me to avoid discussing it any further until I have seen the film. 🙂
I definitely picked up on the themes of gender identity (“cool girl” speech) and the insipidness of the media in GG, but I found it to be more trashy thriller than insightful examination of modern marriage. And maybe this is stupid of me, but I didn’t find it easy to choose sides, as it were. Nick is a self-involved, whiny doofus. I didn’t like him. I also felt like Doogie Howser was going to kill Amy. He seemed unhinged and capable of it. But why the false rape accusation? Is it possible it’s not made up?
i’m not sure how i feel about the ‘cool girl’ speech as actual social commentary on gender roles; whatever merit it has as an examination/reflection of internalised misogyny by both men and women in the culture is rather muddied/undermined by how (particularly in the movie)simplistically hard-out psychotic amy is portrayed, with her sole purpose as the vindictive false accuser, in itself a misogynist trope, so not sure fincher has the nuance or complexity here to have his cake and eat it too — and also SPOILER another thing Fincher rather fucks up because one thing Amy’s biting ‘cool girl’ commentary certainly is is an incitement of both sexes in her toxified world view, yet from what i remember of the visual context in the film, as Amy’s driving, she’s focused only on women in their cars – yet another subtle way in which Fincher (via Flynn) has sanitized ‘the male’ out of the mixture and subtly lets nick (the male side of the toxic waste dump that is their union) off the hook.
also, i must admit i’m a little bummed nobody wants to discuss the cat as a film-makng device re: nick’s watered-down character in the film — now if nick had ended up killing the cat (which i’m not advocating since using/ killing pets as a device to wring emotion from the audience in any way is a huge dried up snot rag), that might have been suitably black-hearted at least, but that big dumb philandering softie nick loves his kittie! cuddles
Amblinman: “I think this nails the issue. The movie absolutely chooses Affleck’s character. The audience is supposed to identify and align itself with him.”
I would say if you reread the book, it’s pretty clear who comes off as the dumbass, so if you call that choosing sides, it happened in the book too. All this misogyny talk makes me think you should go read The Feminine Mystique or something and take a chill pill. It’s a movie and a popular work of fiction. Flynn set out to be a misogynist like Grisham set out to make murder seem ok by way of sympathetic killers who get off at trial.
Yancy: “Can a story feature negative female characters without being misogynistic?”
I would say Daisy Buchanan and Jordan Baker and pretty big assholes in the Great Gatsby (the book and the movies), as are pretty much all the male characters. I don’t see a lot of balance there.
Um, my question was rhetorical. Perhaps I should have phrased it this way: “Can a story feature negative female characters without being ACCUSED of being misogynistic?”
My answer was meant as a joke. Nobody accused Vince Gilligan of being a misogynist for writing Skyler?
Ryan, why didn’t you tell me to not get my panties in a bunch or accuse me of being on my period? Amerite, brah!!?
I didn’t realize anyone was disputing that it was both a movie and a work off fiction.