Skip to content

David Fincher is a Genius: The Game


“The screen is a magic medium. It has such power that it can retain interest as it conveys emotions and moods that no other art form can hope to tackle.” –Stanley Kubrick.

(Caution: Spoilers herein.)

David Fincher is a genius.

I mean, I knew this before.  Zodiac, Seven, Fight Club…  all masterpieces of style.  But it was rewatching The Game a few days ago that placed the final chip in the motherboard; something about his oeuvre clicked suddenly, and I had a eureka! moment.  I hadn’t seen the film since it was released to theaters in 1997 and remembered it only as a mildly entertaining thriller.  That was the critical consensus at the time; like a Kubrick film, it was too much to see all the buried meanings and intricacies of Fincher’s direction one just one viewing.

“I think that for a movie or a play to say anything really truthful about life, it has to do so very obliquely, so as to avoid all pat conclusions and neatly tied-up ideas.  The point of view it is conveying has to be completely entwined with a sense of life as it is, and has to be got across through a subtle injection into the audience’s consciousness.”–SK

I’ve interpreted the above quote as meaning that Kubrick was concerned that films were only about what their plots were about.  The plot of The Lost Weekend, for example, involves an alcoholic writer going on a mother of a bender.  Its themes concern themselves mainly with that of alcoholism, disease, help, and recovery–that is, not much more than what its plot would indicate.  This isn’t to say it is a bad film; quite the contrary, I regard it quite highly.  It won four Academy Awards in 1946 including Picture, Actor, and Director.  But what you see in the film is what you get, basically; it would work just as well on the stage as on the screen.  The theme is not tied to the medium.

From 2001: A Space Odyssey onward, Kubrick’s themes and meanings were quite definitely tied to cinema.  Barry Lyndon can only work as a film; the very point of it is the tightly-controlled image Kubrick lets you see.  The slow zooms out, the painterly regard of his subjects, could not be duplicated in any other medium.  Eyes Wide Shut bored people who felt it was a shallow, slow-moving story about marital issues.  But he had so brilliantly coded his ideas of fidelity, jealousy, the bourgeoisie, celebrity and stardom, sex in the modern age, oneirism,  his lead actor’s sexuality, and so on, that they flew over his audiences’ heads at first.

Not since Stanley Kubrick has a director so completely mastered subliminal suggestion.  The trend continues throughout David Fincher’s work, but let’s examine The Game, as it is fresh in my mind.


The first shot we see of Van Orton suited up and in his beemer, he is speeding down a San Francisco thoroughfare to work.  His car is the only one in the frame driving over trolley tracks, seemingly tied to them.  This shot sets up an important theme in the film: the idea that Van Orton’s path is set, that his free will is illusory at best, that an invisible hand guides every situation.  (This idea is very important at the film’s end.)

How guarded Van Orton is.  The only real relationship Van Orton has in his life is with his brother Conrad, yet even he is held at a distance.  See how Fincher frames the first conversation we see between Van Orton and his brother.  Conrad’s black shirt blends into the black background, so his face is highlighted.  There is nothing to separate Conrad from his environment–indeed, he almost seems to blend in to it.  Nicholas, however, is contrasted with the white sheet of the window.  He is flanked by two pairs of glasses, the lamps against the wall and the table lamp.  Between him and his brother are the service plates, serviettes, and cutlery.  There is so much around him, he may as well be in a bubble.

After he is given the gift card for CRS by his brother, we again see Van Orton again driving his RichDoucheBagMobile.  We see his car under the electric lines for the trolleys, again suggesting that, though in a vehicle designed for free movement, there is something unseen guiding his progress.

When Van Orton finally enters CRS, we for the first time see him in sync with an environment in the film.  The offices are stark and clinical, the walls black and gray illuminated with white lights.  Note Nicholas’s wardrobe: gray, black, and white.  CRS obviously reaches for Van Orton, as the Overlook does to Jack Torrence (though in a very different way).

“I think that the best plot is no apparent plot. I like a slow start, the start that gets under the audiences skin and involves them so that they can appreciate grace notes and soft tones and don’t have to be pounded over the head with plot points and suspense hooks.”–SK

Then, the plot takes off: Nicholas comes home to a figure laid out on his driveway in the same manner as his father after committing suicide.  It turns out to be a clown, which Van Orton takes inside, and in whose mouth he finds a key.  Look at this shot: the clown is in the foreground, the shallow depth of field obviously indicating that this should be the viewer’s focus.  But the movement is to the left, as Van Orton twirls the key around.  Our eyes go from the clown to the out-of-focus Van Orton.  Though he won’t discover it until later, he is being watched by CRS through a camera in the clown’s eye.  It’s a brilliant–and brilliantly subtle–bit of foreshadowing.

Nicholas is entirely out of his element once his Game begins.  He is quite an outlier among the sodium-lit backwaters of San Francisco.  The contrast between the warm, earthy tones of Van Orton’s bourgeois domiciles and the nocturnal neon of the Game is drastic.

The film was not entirely naturalistic to begin with, but the post-CRS office scenes exude such an oneiric quality that one wonders how much of what we are seeing is meant to be taken literally.

This is where I often lose people, this symbolism talk.  Consider: Nicholas wakes up in a graveyard in Mexico.  Come on–when looking at the gravestones, is Nick’s all-white suit really a coincidence?

The image of him in white, on the same scale as the white graves, almost indistinguishable from them…  Fincher handles these images as Kubrick does: the symbolism is there, but you don’t have to see it if you don’t want to.  The situation isn’t too off to be unbelievable, but does seem oddly improbable.

These symbolic images I’ve displayed do not do justice to the tone Fincher manages to set.  Yes, Van Orton is isolated from those around him, but Fincher actually gets us to feel that.  The viewer is awash in a sensation both lonely and void.  This turned some critics off, but Fincher here is always true to the material.  At the time of the film’s release, criticism was heavy on the perception that Fincher had given the viewer no one to root for.  Nicholas Van Orton was a prick, yeah?  And who wants to spend two hours with an asshole?  But was Fincher’s decision to keep the unpalatable aspects of Michael Douglas’s character in the best interest of his material?  I say yes.  It is a much stronger choice to let a character act true to his nature than act the way the audience would like him to.  Fincher does not ingratiate, does not pander to his idea of an audience.  And certain critics shallowly assumed that by the end Nick Van Orton had learned the meaning of true happiness and joy, even though there’s really nothing in the film itself to support that hypothesis.

The is the last one-shot of Van Orten in the film:

Maybe some critics saw something I missed, but he doesn’t look like George Bailey at the end of It’s a Wonderful Life to me.

And this is the film’s last shot:

If things are wrapped up so neatly, why do we leave the main character again in the world of nocturnal neon?  It would be like Capra leaving George Bailey in the Bizarro Bedford Falls.  And I’m sure it means nothing that Fincher closes this shot with Jefferson Airplane’s “White Rabbit”…

Critics also rolled their eyes at the tidiness with which Fincher wrapped up the plot.  How could CRS have known Van Orton would jump off the building at that very spot?

'X' most definitely marks the spot. ...Mission accomplished?

In fact, Van Orten seems to do everything just right, doesn’t he?  Plot holes abound! they declared.

But I believe they were viewing the film quite superficially.  Let’s start with this: exactly what is “The Game” anyway?  Who is playing it?  While the film is set up to make you believe Nicholas Van Orten has been given an elaborate game to play, this really doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny.  He never seems to be ‘playing,’ does he?

From Wikipedia: “Play refers to a range of voluntary, intrinsically motivated activities that are normally associated with pleasure and enjoyment.”  Does anything in The Game‘s world seem very voluntary?  True, Nicholas goes to CRS in the first place, but without knowing anything about it.  Van Orten doesn’t seem to have much free will at all–this is not Fight Club, where you “choose your own level of involvement.”  He is playing whether he wishes to or not.  Is there a single circumstance where Van Orten’s actions seem to affect the game at all, or its outcome?  Because it seems to me that one outcome was written before “gameplay” began.

Again looking at Wikipedia’s definition, do his actions really seem intrinsically motivated?  Based upon what I see, everything Van Orten does in the film is a reaction against external pressure.  “Reaction” may be the best word, since Van Orton cannot be said to take any action, not really.  Fincher’s images in the beginning set up the possibility that Nicholas’s conduct is being guided somehow, and it Nicholas’s path does seem eerily supernaturally governed.  (The screenwriters missed an opportunity to add a golden marketing line; at one point, Michael Douglas could have screamed at the camera, “I’m not playing a game here!  The game’s playing me!”  Actually, it’s probably better that they didn’t.)

Yes, you can enjoy this film only at the level of plot.  It’s very entertaining on that level.  Fincher doesn’t push you to see more than you want.  But there is much to mine, if your eyes are open.

The Game is an overlooked masterpiece in David Fincher’s oeuvre that deserves re-evaluation.  Kubrick, I feel, would look upon Fincher’s filmography with high regard.  If ever there was a worthy successor to my favorite director, Fincher is it.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. toomey2k9 permalink
    2011.03.5 21:15

    I have never really been a Kubrick fan (perhaps everything you say is true and perhaps everything you say is lost on me) but I think Fincher is, easily, the best director working today.

  2. Peter Theroux permalink
    2013.12.24 10:50

    Don’t forget the conspiracy aspect to the film. The CRS logo is a inverted pyramid after all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s