David Fincher is the kind of director that will always be tied to one movie. he has yet to put out a bad film, but people will always associate him with ‘Fight Club’. and i feel bad for him. ‘Fight Club’ is a great movie, but it’s ‘alternative message’ is only skin deep. the points it makes it beats you over the head with, and the jokes it makes it hits you harder with. because that has become his crowning achievement in the eyes of most film fans, his other, and notably better, work is all forgotten. he directed the stunning and fiendishly underrated ‘Alien 3′ (the assembly cut, or extended cut is far and away one of the best sci-fi films i have ever seen, and yes i know what a huge claim that is), the touching and moving ‘Curious Case of Benjamin Button’, the masterful crime-thriller ‘Zodiac’, the violent and blood-curdling ‘Se7en’, and this film, 1997’s criminally overlooked ‘The Game’.
this film is not to be watched the way ‘Fight Club’ is meant to be watched. you cant sit around with a group of people, eat pizza, laugh, and watch the film, you need to be sitting in silence. you need to be feeling a little introspective, and you need to dig deeper into the film.
if you have not seen the film (which you can find almost anywhere) i would advise reading THIS summary before the review. note that the summary is of the WHOLE film, and thus, contains spoilers and the ending.
the film plays around with ideas of loss and lack of control. Nickolas cant control the things happening to him and around him, and piece by piece he has to fight to get through it all. but if you watch the film a second time, you will notice little things throughout. you can see how he is being helped, how he is being set up to make sure he survives, how he is kept safe while being thrown into dangerous situations. there is an ever-present harness on him.
the best example of loss of control throughout the film is the climactic suicide attempt. when Nickolas jumps off the building after shooting and ‘killing’ Conrad, he is jumping just like his father did. just like he has feared he would. just like the picture stuffed int he clown’s mouth said he would. just like he himself hinted at while talking to his housekeeper/cook/maid. he had no control there. he had to jump. it wasnt even a choice. he was under the impression that he had no money, no family, and nothing to live for. so he had to jump. like father like son. and because the test was built around exhaustive testing and his brother’s own testimony, it was obvious what would happen. he didnt even chose to kill himself, it was forced on him. and he didnt even chose where to jump from. that was chosen for him as well. the film is full of visual representations of his lack of choice. he is so empty, so predictable, that he doesnt make choices anymore. he just follows the fame trajectory. and because he can not chose anything for himself, the actions are obvious to the people who create and run the game for him.
the final twenty minutes of the film is where most people attack. but it is in those twenty minutes that i think Fincher really gets to put his trademark hauntingly ambiguous tricks to work. the film twists ti give you an ending you didnt expect, and then it twists again, and finally there is what most people saw as the final twist, Conrad being alive, and the whole thing simply being a part of the game. but the very last moments of the film, where Nicolas goes out to talk to ‘the waitress’ and he not-so-subtly hits on her, that i think is the final twist. her smile, the darting eyes, her mistaken place of birth, and then finally her offer for a drink, THAT is where Fincher plays with his audience’s head. is that offer part of the game? is that coffee that they will drink another piece of the puzzle? everyone must have known that he would ask her out once everything was safe… so IS everything safe?
Sean Penn offers up a wonderful job as Conrad, but again, Michael Douglas turns in an amazing and powerful job. Michael Douglas is quickly becoming one of my favorite living actors.
i recommend this film wholeheartedly. but, like others i have recommended, not to everyone. i know most people wont be able to get past the ‘faith factor’ of the film. many people will have a problem and say things like ‘what if he jumped off the other side of the building’, or ‘what if he had picked up another gun at a different time’, or ‘what if he hadnt seen that commercial at the restaurant’, but those people are missing the point of the film. explaining to them that he COULDNT have jumped form anywhere else, or he COULDNT have used another gun would be futile. they dont understand his lack of choice in all fields of life. so i wont bother catering to them. i will just say that for those of you who could accept that, this film is a marginalized classic, and you need to see it.