So I only just watched Fincher's 'The Game' recently and went right to reading what other people thought of it across the interwebs and unsurprisingly, people were comparing it films like Dark City and others of the '90s that tried to really hit it home to us that reality is only a construct. But it would be quite stupid if that was all a 2 hour film tried to say, right? So, I've tried to look for more than just that simplistic message.
And I think I've found something.
Like the horde of films from Dark City to Inception, the film can be seen as a a representation of Baudrillard's simulation and simulacra that tries to tell us that what we believe to be reality can simply be a construct and some of these narratives offer a cautionary tale while others tell us why buying into the con is all we can really do since the simulation is a hyperreality and we don't have an alternative. This film seems to fall in this second category.
Nicholas Van Orten is a corporate biggie who is cold, uncaring and one who seems to care only about his work. Alright, we've heard waaayy too many stories along such lines, right? Hang on, and hear me out.
When Nickie's (as his brother calls hims) brother Conrad presents him for his birthday with a card that lets him into a game that's run by a company called CRS is when Nickie's life has already begun to change. But we must ask the question, is that only when the game began?
As the game takes Nickie through increasingly dangerous (apparently, at least) situations, we see his paranoia set in and how he suspects every person, and every line and every movement to be a part of the game. And as an audience, we do this too. We don't know ourselves when the game stopped being a game and turned into an attempt to rob Nickie blind. And we're supposed to feel this way. We're meant to buy into the movie's con, because quite overtly, the film is about among other things, a film's narrative structure which itself can be seen as a simulation where we temporarily believe that what is happening onscreen is real. A film only affects us the way it does if there is a suspension of disbelief on our part. And for most films, we are quite willing to suspend our disbelief in order to enjoy film and its often ridiculous tales. Except, we're asked to question this very act in this film, but I'll get to that later.
Throughout the film, we see Nickie's reality being destroyed or rather deconstructed by the film. It starts with the creepy clown imitating the manner of his father's death which was by suicide and which has had an obvious effect on Nickie throughout his life. The game is constantly re-contextualizing all the different aspects of Nickie's life, including his relationship with his brother, his brother's role in the game, his money, etc. Actually, speaking about money, you could see the film as also being about Marxist theory in the sense that Nickie's life centered around his money is not based on usefulness but rather based on the desire to have money. It's a simulation in itself, the money that is.
But to see the film merely as being about the uselessness of money and finding happiness in life would be to simplify it without understanding how we've arrived at that answer.
Towards the end of the film, when it is revealed to Nickie that it was all, in fact a con, we see how Nickie doesn't believe them. How could he, after all? It was them who told him that that they were robbing him, and they did try to kill him more than once. But a more appropriate question than how he could believe them would be "What can he believe?". If all of reality could be a construct, then what is left to believe in?
And in a haze of confusion, anger and tiredness, Nickie shoots his brother as he's bringing the champagne out. They'd tried to tell him it was only a con. In his guilt, Nickie jumps off the top of the building, but he's made it out alive. Turns out that his brother dying was a con too. This would be about when you start questioning how far the con goes, and this is where Nickie stops. He's just glad to see his brother alive, because to him, it doesn't matter if it's all a con, as long as he doesn't have to feel the guilt he just did a moment ago when he'd shot his brother and as long as he can feel loved for and be able to love in return.Think of it from Nickie's point of view: he ended up shooting Conrad only because of his disbelief in what appeared to be real, and he realizes that he can't risk disbelieving things since it might cost him something he's unable to live with(or without). Nickie's life changes not because he realizes what is not real, but because he doesn't know- and cannot be sure of- what is real.
Even as Nickie runs after the girl at the closing scene, we can see the biggest con of all: the movie. Everything we're seeing is simply the work of elaborate sets and pretty good editing. Before Nickie had shot his brother, they try explaining that they were simply using movie props and that the people he'd come across were all simply actors. But you've known this, haven't you? You've known that the people you're seeing are actors. But you were willing to suspend your disbelief in order to understand the movie and enjoy it. And I still couldn't believe them. I mean, how could they have known Nickie would jump into where they'd predicted, or that he'd escape from the car underwater? You could argue that they'd known from the tests and maybe they had security measures in place. But that isn't the point. The point is that the narrative from the start was a con. It was always a movie. We just chose to ignore that fact.
Nickie buys into the con because there is no other reality to look for. The girl he has a crush on, his brother, his ex-wife, his father's death: these things are as real as need be. They are real to Nickie. These things have defined him and there's no escaping them regardless of the fact that they may have all been a con.
And that's why the movie is the game. From the start, it was set up to con us, and to con Nickie if you look at it the way The Truman Show narrated its story.
What else can he do but buy into the con?
What else can we do?
And I think I've found something.
Like the horde of films from Dark City to Inception, the film can be seen as a a representation of Baudrillard's simulation and simulacra that tries to tell us that what we believe to be reality can simply be a construct and some of these narratives offer a cautionary tale while others tell us why buying into the con is all we can really do since the simulation is a hyperreality and we don't have an alternative. This film seems to fall in this second category.
Nicholas Van Orten is a corporate biggie who is cold, uncaring and one who seems to care only about his work. Alright, we've heard waaayy too many stories along such lines, right? Hang on, and hear me out.
When Nickie's (as his brother calls hims) brother Conrad presents him for his birthday with a card that lets him into a game that's run by a company called CRS is when Nickie's life has already begun to change. But we must ask the question, is that only when the game began?
As the game takes Nickie through increasingly dangerous (apparently, at least) situations, we see his paranoia set in and how he suspects every person, and every line and every movement to be a part of the game. And as an audience, we do this too. We don't know ourselves when the game stopped being a game and turned into an attempt to rob Nickie blind. And we're supposed to feel this way. We're meant to buy into the movie's con, because quite overtly, the film is about among other things, a film's narrative structure which itself can be seen as a simulation where we temporarily believe that what is happening onscreen is real. A film only affects us the way it does if there is a suspension of disbelief on our part. And for most films, we are quite willing to suspend our disbelief in order to enjoy film and its often ridiculous tales. Except, we're asked to question this very act in this film, but I'll get to that later.
But to see the film merely as being about the uselessness of money and finding happiness in life would be to simplify it without understanding how we've arrived at that answer.
Towards the end of the film, when it is revealed to Nickie that it was all, in fact a con, we see how Nickie doesn't believe them. How could he, after all? It was them who told him that that they were robbing him, and they did try to kill him more than once. But a more appropriate question than how he could believe them would be "What can he believe?". If all of reality could be a construct, then what is left to believe in?
And in a haze of confusion, anger and tiredness, Nickie shoots his brother as he's bringing the champagne out. They'd tried to tell him it was only a con. In his guilt, Nickie jumps off the top of the building, but he's made it out alive. Turns out that his brother dying was a con too. This would be about when you start questioning how far the con goes, and this is where Nickie stops. He's just glad to see his brother alive, because to him, it doesn't matter if it's all a con, as long as he doesn't have to feel the guilt he just did a moment ago when he'd shot his brother and as long as he can feel loved for and be able to love in return.Think of it from Nickie's point of view: he ended up shooting Conrad only because of his disbelief in what appeared to be real, and he realizes that he can't risk disbelieving things since it might cost him something he's unable to live with(or without). Nickie's life changes not because he realizes what is not real, but because he doesn't know- and cannot be sure of- what is real.
Even as Nickie runs after the girl at the closing scene, we can see the biggest con of all: the movie. Everything we're seeing is simply the work of elaborate sets and pretty good editing. Before Nickie had shot his brother, they try explaining that they were simply using movie props and that the people he'd come across were all simply actors. But you've known this, haven't you? You've known that the people you're seeing are actors. But you were willing to suspend your disbelief in order to understand the movie and enjoy it. And I still couldn't believe them. I mean, how could they have known Nickie would jump into where they'd predicted, or that he'd escape from the car underwater? You could argue that they'd known from the tests and maybe they had security measures in place. But that isn't the point. The point is that the narrative from the start was a con. It was always a movie. We just chose to ignore that fact.Nickie buys into the con because there is no other reality to look for. The girl he has a crush on, his brother, his ex-wife, his father's death: these things are as real as need be. They are real to Nickie. These things have defined him and there's no escaping them regardless of the fact that they may have all been a con.
And that's why the movie is the game. From the start, it was set up to con us, and to con Nickie if you look at it the way The Truman Show narrated its story.
What else can he do but buy into the con?
What else can we do?
No comments:
Post a Comment