This article from the Guardian Unlimited might be a solid 5 years old. But it's still a very good and worthwhile read. It's an interview with David Fincher, talking about his then latest movie "Panic Room", why he wants to be Brad Pitt and the difference between "films" and "movies".
I found this interview to be fairly insightful; once again, because David Fincher seems very honest and direct about his work and self-understanding as a director; but also, because I was surprised by the masters own differentiation between his "films" and his "movies":
"A movie is made for an audience and a film is made for both the audience and the film-makers. I think that The Game is a movie and I think Fight Club's a film. I think that Fight Club is more than the sum of its parts, whereas Panic Room is the sum of its parts. I didn't look at Panic Room and think: Wow, this is gonna set the world on fire. These are footnote movies, guilty pleasure movies. Thrillers. Woman-trapped-in-a-house movies. They're not particularly important."
Zodiac should definitely count as a "film" by these standards and from what we have heard so far TCCOBB may tend more towards being a "movie" again. I keep forgetting, who the filmmaker was, but I have once read about a director, who stated, he was making "one for them" and then "one for himself". So what do you guys think: Does Fincher follow this same principle? If you judge by his filmography so far I am guessing this could be true.
Looking forward to your opinions.
Enjoy the article:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/.../0,6737,689769,00.html
No comments:
Post a Comment