Classicism retrograde
How to tell a story when we have seen and read all the stories? The question which divides the work of Jean-Luc Godard should be a point unavoidable to consider any filmmaker worth his salt. All stories have been told and have all been read, where it plays a real difference in the way, what will tell us what's really inside of things, as you know the French filmmaker. David Fincher in his last film did not want to consider this delicate issue and has chosen a classic, perfect, uniform and seamless, with a flashback that have a stale taste and dialogues stuffy. But David Fincher knows that the contemporary viewer, like film, has long since lost the innocence? "It is not possible to tell a story as told in the 40 and 50 in Hollywood, without falling into a simplistic and topical? What the complexity of the world and human relationships are mere sketches in a style so tight? Something must be suspected Fincher, since half of the film decides to shoot a modern outrageous scene of a race, totally disconnected with the rest of the film. Scene narratively empty and has no weight. As if Fincher would have thought that what I was doing before he sinned an end to classical times.
With this, if David Fincher is guilty of simple and elementary, so does the public feel reassured. They possess all the modern technological developments can provide, they know how to use convoluted functions and applications on their phones, those are very modern with the latest gadgets, are the same as praising a movie backward, topical and simple. Now that's a glaring inconsistency of modernity itself Umberto Boccioni made it clear with this sentence: Public modern life, art retrograde .-
The "great reflection" David Fincher poses with the social network is: the creator of Facebook, Mark Zuckenberg, is a misanthropic, antisocial and withdrawn. This contradiction is raised through a performance without shades, flat, full of cliches and hackneyed. Mark Zuckenberg, how could it be otherwise, is a computer geek, a nerd overflowing with intelligence and a privileged mind, or the Harvard environment portrayed in a very innovative, indeed, a , full of rich kids, children of Dad doing wild parties but elitist, that place where the jet set lives intellectual and economic country, full of Nobel prizes and brilliant minds. We could go on with examples. In part, the responsibility for this disaster as has Aaron Sorkin, thanks to overly bright and witty dialogue that just sounding stuffy and false, about characters who speak like they write on your computer, that is, without doubt, without hesitation completely sure of themselves, some dialogues " whose diction and staging hark back to the screwball comedies of Howard Hawks" said Carlos F. Heir, but in the XXI century sound contrived and spurious. Anyone would think to praise a writer in the XXI century as Shaekespeare write or Cervantes? Already an artist who painted in the style of Leonardo da Vinci? Why, however, the public loves to tell stories as we have always done in the movies?
To me, as Slavoj Zizek, what really worries me are those icons like Bill Gates and Mark Zukenberg. These thugs are marginal now as respectable businessmen. Their faces were friendly and close, to anyone, they hide as Zizek " a new figure of the master who is our equal, our neighbor, our double imaginary and therefore is equipped phantasmatically another dimension, the evil genius ". Of course, this David Fincher gives us equal and the creator of Facebook as being tortured, lonely and selfish attending meetings in pajamas and house slippers (acute portrait of misunderstanding)-something that strikes me as the American director has always been interested in representing the poor showing nothing complacent vision of humanity as Seven or Fight Club. more interesting that the film had been considering how the system capitalist allows a single individual stop much power and money in their hands.
Fincher's vision Zukenberg Mark offers us is not as stark as it seems. Is far from disappointed and disillusioned portraits of both F. Scott Fitzgerald in the Great Gatby or Orson Welles in Citizen Kane made on the life of his characters. The end of The Social Network is marked more by the hope that Zukenberg can regain the love of Erica Albright, the Daisy, through the Internet, which in the gloom and sadness of knows that his life is doomed to loneliness and isolation.
0 comments:
Post a Comment