MovieChat Forums > Gone Girl (2014) Discussion > Isn't it interesting how...

Isn't it interesting how...

posted 7 years ago by TheMan18 (13182)
12 replies | jump to latest

... in a movie like this, where we have a female character who is a psychopath who does wrong and destructive and even criminal deeds, including escaping from her husband and making people around him believe he is the one responsible for her disappearance, faking her own disappearance/possible kidnapping and alerting tons of authorities, framing a man for sexual violation and committing at least one act of murder (against someone who didn't deserve it and who possibly hasn't done anything bad to her either) and yet...

Critics and audiences alike, apart from questioning whether or not the movie is "feminist" or "mysoginistic", go out of their way and talk about the evils of men, the victimhood of women and even declare this movie as a justifiable feminist way to fight injustices against women and whatnot (not that in real life in itself those issues don't exist, of course they do and we have had thousands of years of history and sadly modern times as well to prove it), what does this say about humanity in general?

Granted, those issues in and of themselves in real life DO exist, they DO deserve to be debated and contemplated, people and women all over the world need protection and respect, system is at best incompetent and at worst corrupt and downright destructive etc, and its not just limited to America, it is a HUMAN problem and sadly a vicious cycle and whatnot.

But can those issues and elements of catharsis really as such be found in a film whose female character isn't any kind of fighter for justice but a psychopath who does wrong deeds for arguably NO good reason and even kills someone not in self-defense but for her own demented reasons that are wrong and inexcusable?

Or maybe there is a lot more to all of this, and this film for that matter, than meets the eye meaning that its not all that simple either.

And maybe those issues as such aren't meant to be looked at in simple "good vs evil" terms and yes they can be analyzed as such in such a film - because in reality, those issues prevail and concern all of us, no matter how good or bad some people are?

[–] Erland (30) 6 years ago

Can you give examples of those critics and audiences who "go out of their way and talk about the evils of men, the victimhood of women and even declare this movie as a justifiable feminist way to fight injustices against women"?

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Obviously this film isn't meant to be thought of in terms of "good vs. evil", because nobody in it is actually good.

So really, this film can't be looked at as pro-feminist or pro-anything, because nobody in it acts for any sort of cause, or does anything just or worthwhile. In this story, there's just pure fucking evil, and the people who survive it, or don't.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

because nobody in it is actually good.

Just like real life.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

While nobody in real life is unrelievedly good, I will say that almost everyone in my life is a better person on average than the horrible people at the center of this film.

I do wish that real life got better than that, but let's get real.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Nick and Desi were saps, but were they really that repellent?

Desi always gave off a really weird and creepy vibe as if he could break into violence or something equally disturbing any second, but based purely on his actions in the film, did he do anything wrong apart from maybe display some, thankfully unacted upon, possessiveness?

Nick was a bit of a self-absorbed jerk, but once again was he truly any worse than the average real life guy?

And the main cop and Nick's sister were generally sympathetic.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Didn't Desi basically keep Amy a prisoner? If so, h ed definitely acted on his creepy in impulses, not that he deserved the upshot.

And Nick was just a cheating self-absorbed jerk of a husband, unlike the man I suspect of being his real-life inspiration.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Didn't Desi basically keep Amy a prisoner? If so, h ed definitely acted on his creepy in impulses, not that he deserved the upshot.

Did Desi keep Amy as a prisoner though? Was she really prevented from leaving?

Yes, Desi was a creep and no doubt he'd be less inclined to help Amy if she hadn't implied some sort of sexual reciprocation. In some ways he was a typical 'nice guy' who was only willing to do the honourable thing, at least from his perspective (Desi wrongly believed that Nick was abusing Amy), if Amy was willing to give him something in return. So sure, he was a jerk. But I don't think he was violent, or even potentially violent. Although the film kept setting up a creepy, unsettling vibe whenever he appeared on screen, as we later discover, it's not Amy who is in peril, but him.

And Nick was a prick, but, once again, I don't think he was evil.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

Nick wasnt what most people would call evil, he wouldn't deliberately hurt anyone without a damn good reason. But if he wanted to do something, he wouldnt stop to consider whether that act would hurt anyone.

That is IMHO how most people are.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I totally agree with that.

I also will readily admit that my sympathies towards Nick wavered throughout the film. Initially, and during some parts of Amy's early narration, I could see how Amy would reasonably feel some contempt for Nick, not only in terms of his affair but in terms of the way he'd effectively held her back from achieving her potential.

But ultimately, Nick was an unwitting character who was intellectually no match for Amy, and for all his boorishness he didn't deserve to be messed-about by Amy.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

I admit I was prejudiced against Nick, because I've always suspected the whole story was based on the real-life Scott Peterson case, basically, it was the author thinking "What if Scott Peterson was innocent, and his missing wife really WAS alive? How could that have happened?". But of course, he was guilty, and the decaying corpse of his poor pregnant wife turned up in the bay. And I happened to have visited someone in a California maternity ward before the body was found, and the maternity ward was papered with "Missing Person" posters of Laci Peterson, which was kind of gut-wrenching.

So maybe I'm not being fair to Nick, who was just a regular schmuck with the flaws of the average regular schmuck, and who didn't deserve Amy's psychotic rage. Well, didn't deserve much of it.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

That's interesting (and I can understand why you might have thought the film was heading in the direction of Nick being guilty), but I think we need to separate that real-life incident from this fictional scenario in which Nick, for all his flaws, is innocent of anything as heinous as murder.

'Average regular schmuck' pretty much sums up the guy.

[–] captainbucky (15252) 6 years ago

He done truffled