If you have recently checked what movies are playing, among the Italian comedies and the classic Christmas flicks, you have also found “Gone Girl”, David Fincher’s latest film based on the ominous romance by Gillian Flynn.
I bring it up because after reading the widely shared review of the “I 400 Calci” blog, I surprisingly found that there was a controversy associated with the movie, described as being either too feminist or too misogynistic a story.
Before we move on, this is your SPOILER ALERT! Whoever plans on seeing the movie and doesn’t want anything given away, come back and read this article once you have seen it.
“Gone Girl” is about a charismatic woman who goes missing, and all of her mischievous actions before she vanishes. It is also about her husband, who seems not so impatient to find her, until he realizes being with her is the only way to save himself. Lastly, the movie is about the inability to decipher the dynamics that govern an intimate relationship, whatever the vantage point may be: whether the intimacy can remain between the couple itself, or if it belongs to the community, once it is in a public domain.
Well, my purely “cinematic” judgment stops here with a simple and heartfelt “go see it”. It is yet another powerful thriller that you would expect from of the same director of “Se7en”.
Returning to the gender controversy, the part of the movie that caused this issue was the portrait of Amy, the female protagonist. Amy is a woman that wants to preserve her self-determination, and she does so in questionable ways: simulating rapes and murders, organizing evil schemes, and eventually killing others.
This inconsistent moral of the character, which responds negatively to legitimate and fair aspirations, has generated contrasting interpretations. There are those who view “Gone Girl” as a misogynist film, as it depicts an ambiguous and unpleasant woman, whose dishonest behavior puts a stigma on typical feminist motivations. However, there are also those who claim this to be “the most feminine mainstream movie in recent years”, for its ability to demonstrate how a woman can overcome all the constraints that society has put on her in today’s world.
But as I said, this controversy surprised me. This is because as I was finishing the movie, I was happy about what I just saw: an excellent story. The fact is, many other films try tackling this genre in despicable ways, and “Gone Girl” went about it with updated themes and variations on the role of the female. Amy’s questionable behavior is what drew the criticism, as if only males can do what she did, and if a woman does it, it is amoral. This sheds light on gender stereotypes, and is the motive for a critical response from the public.
Looking on the web I actually found confirmation about what I was feeling, and I think that the contribution of Flynn provokes another realization: the author said she finds it frustrating that in the works of fiction, women generally appear as either innately good and loving or bad, crazy sluts. Unfortunately, the idea of a female figure that could be evil and selfish is always rejected.
Thinking about it, I can recall numerous mother-type and whore-type characters from all the movies I’ve seen, but very few independent, evil women come to mind. Perhaps the bride from Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill,” but even in that case there was a strong visceral component. I’d invite you all to try thinking of how many female characters like “Keyser Söze” you’ve encountered.
The debate, however, is resolved in my mind with what the columnist of Time, Eliana Dockterman, says:
And no, you’re not a bad person if you agree with Amy about the Cool Girl. Psychopaths are smart. Her conclusions are valid. It’s just her resultant actions that are problematic. So maybe don’t use it as a justification for murder.
“Gone Girl” is definitely an impressive metaphor for the relationship of the couple and how their balance is influenced by internal and external dynamics, but does not want to deliver a definitive perception of the female figure. It is a film that considers the intelligence of the audience it addresses high enough to consider the facts narrated not as universal rules.
His “radicalness” about feminism, if it ever existed in the first place, is all in an effort to bring the woman to a real dimension, not stereotyped, with all aspects disturbing and unexpected that can achieve the portrait of a controversial person.
This treatment is in hindsight found not only in the main female character, but also in the secondary ones: for example, if we think of Amy’s husband’s sister, or the detective who follows the case, the stereotype would suggest the first character as a lesbian and the second as a shady male figure. Finally, there are characters that caricatured rather than subverted to the stereotype that emphasize it (the dull television host, the stupid neighbor mother of triplets), but these roles are in my view consistent with the intent of the author’s claim “normalization “of the female figure.
In short this is my opinion on the matter, but I would be very curious to know what you think.
P.S. I hope my effort not to be ironic about grotesque Italian title of the film, “Liar love” will be appreciated. It was really difficult. I trust, however, that the person in charge of these translations will be lynched and stoned in front of the Italian population.
