David Fincher thinks ‘films’ and ‘movies’ are two very different beasts, but is he right?
David Fincher has always been a fiercely meticulous, artistically pioneering director. Over the years, stories of him driving actors crazy by insisting on shooting dozens of takes of the same scene have routinely done the rounds, and his love for digital filmmaking has also set him apart from many of his contemporaries.
Ultimately, the ends have generally justified the means because Fincher has applied his fastidious control freak nature to some of the greatest movies of the last 30 years. However, what if I told you that Fincher thinks he doesn’t just make “movies.” Instead, he believes he makes “movies” and “films” – which are completely different beasts.
In a 2002 interview about Panic Room, Fincher’s perfectly calibrated Jodie Foster thriller, the director was asked about parting ways with cinematographer Darius Khondji early in the production. The two men had worked together to great effect on 1995’s Seven, whose moodily underlit shots are still being aped by countless movies and television shows to this day. Something went awry on the set, though, and after only two weeks of shooting, Khondji was given his marching orders.
“Darius is not a light-meter jockey,” Fincher explained before admitting that his efforts to micromanage every aspect of production likely drove Khondji insane. “He wants to be part of the decision-making process. This movie did not allow that, and it was incredibly frustrating for him.” The problem, at its core, was that Fincher and Khondji didn’t see eye to eye on the project’s artistic purpose, which Fincher framed as, “Darius makes films, and Panic Room is a movie.”
Naturally, this threw most industry figures and cinephiles for a loop because the words “movie” and “film” are generally used interchangeably. In essence, to most people, they mean the same thing – a motion picture. The implication of what Fincher was saying was there if you read between the lines, but when he was asked to explain himself, he duly obliged.
“There’s a big difference,” Fincher insisted. “A movie is made for an audience, and a film is made for both the audience and the filmmakers. 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.”
Fascinatingly, Fincher then seemingly played down the artistic significance of Panic Room, the movie he was supposed to be promoting at the time. “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.”
So, from Fincher’s words, it can be deduced that he believes a movie is a commercial product that is expressly made for the purpose of entertainment. It doesn’t need to say anything or have any kind of deeper meaning beyond what is onscreen. On the other hand, a film could also be a commercial product, but it does have pretensions to a greater meaning. Films can be studied and puzzled over to reveal their hidden depths, and their stories are meant to illuminate aspects of the human condition and potentially even teach the audience something.
By delineating the difference between movies and films, Fincher seems to be getting at the age-old question of art versus commerce. The temptation is to hear his words and think he is demeaning entertainment or casting movies that people enjoy as somehow “less than.” In this respect, many may think he’s indulging in a kind of cinema snobbery that rubs a lot of people the wrong way. I’m not sure that’s entirely the case because, as Fincher suggests, “I give the audience far more credit than most people do.”
Indeed, throughout his career, Fincher has always made commercially minded movies, even if he crafts them with a higher level of skill than many other directors. He’s made many thrillers, mysteries, and detective stories, which are hardly artsy genres that the average Joe isn’t going to be interested in. Even when he has stepped outside that lane with projects like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Social Network, and Mank, they have all tapped into things the average cinemagoer is compelled by.
With his separation of movies and films, Fincher is merely saying there is value in both kinds of cinema, and he doesn’t necessarily see one as less meaningful than the other. He grinned, “Your children are all different, and they all require different things from you. That doesn’t mean you love them any less.” However, he’s equally not going to sit there and try and proclaim something like Panic Room as a work of art – even though it very much is to some people.
That’s what’s most fascinating about Fincher’s theory. I’ve never heard anyone else define the different types of cinema by separating “movie” and “film,” but I definitely see where he’s coming from. It makes me wonder which of his movies fall into which category. He already gave his verdict on Fight Club, The Game, and Panic Room, but I’d imagine the rest break down like this: Alien 3, Benjamin Button, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and The Killer are movies, whereas Se7en, Zodiac, The Social Network, and Mank are films. I can’t decide which side of the line Gone Girl falls on, and the beauty of it is that I could be completely wrong about all of them.
Naturally, there’s also a nagging question at the heart of the matter: is Fincher right? Are movies and films completely different things? There’s probably a lot of grey area in his delineation, and so much of it depends on the eye of the beholder, too. Are there movies that have important things to say about society? You’d have to say yes. Equally, on the flip side, are there films that are as wildly entertaining as they are artistically challenging? I’d probably also argue yes – but then I’m not David Fincher.
