What's Your Sin?

There aren’t a lot of directors working now that have a clear voice and vision. Hollywood doesn’t support that kind of filmmaking at this point. The press for franchise filmmaking, the need for everything to have the same (lack of tone), the same “house style” precludes people with vision and voice actually being hired to make the kinds of movies they want. Marvel wants all of their Marvel Cinematic UniverseWhen it first began in 2008 with a little film called Iron Man no one suspected the empire that would follow. Superhero movies in the past, especially those not featuring either Batman or Superman, were usually terrible. And yet, Iron Man would lead to a long series of successful films, launching the most successful cinema brand in history: the Marvel Cinematic Universe. films to look like “Marvel movies”. To not stand out due to their artistry because they want the characters, and the overarching story, to be what people come for. Anything that looks “too outside” the usual style is discouraged.

This isn’t to say all Marvel films are bad, mind you, as I have watched, and enjoyed, a fair number of them over the years. But it is an observation that very rarely will Marvel bring in a director with a voice and let them create their unique vision their way. Sam Raimi is the exception, being allowed to make a weird and horror-filled Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness that certainly suited his horror movie oeuvre, but more often a director is brought in with style and then that style is wiped away to create the Marvel Vision. That’s just the way of franchise filmmaking.

Which explains why David Fincher, director of films like Fight Club, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Se7en, absolutely abhors franchise filmmaking. He has a very particular (at times cold and calculating) style that suits the kind of movies he wants to make, and he rejects working in established franchises for paycheck films, especially after the terrible experience he had working for Fox on Alien 3. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the closest he’s come to returning to franchise filmmaking, making the first film in what was supposed to be an adaptation of the whole book series, but he did it with his style, his eye, and once the studio suits decided to meddle and get in the way on sequels, he walked.

Fincher likes the kinds of films that don’t tend to lend themselves well to franchises and sequels. He likes dark stories about flawed characters, without a lot of sunshine or optimism. He has that calculating eye, verging on perfectionism, and it creates very interesting (although sometimes visually cold) films. If you like his works, and you like the stories he’s interested in, then you know just what to expect from the next Fincher release, the next film that has caught his attention.

Certainly his style and perspective came into focus fully with the 1995 thriller Se7en. This was Fincher’s second film ever, after Alien 3, and was, by far, a better example of the kind of filmmaking the director was capable of. It’s dark and moody and depressing, with an unflinching story (and absolutely gut-wrenching ending), all carried by Fincher’s eye for broken, nasty stories. It’s less cold and calculating than many of his later works, existing more in his “dark and grimy phase” (from which also came Fight Club), but it does show his interest in films about evil men and serial killers, something that would become a recurring theme through many of his works.

Se7en focuses on two detectives, brash and headstrong Mills (Brad Pitt) and older, more introspective Somerset (Morgan Freeman). Somerset is working towards his retirement, with a house out in the country, away from the bleakness of the city, all picked out. Mills is new to the homicide squad, ready to get out there and make a name for himself. He doesn’t have the control or insight of Somerset but he is eager to work and to learn. The two strike a bond, quickly becoming partners that can rely on each other as they work through one absolute doozy of a case.

It starts with a corpse, a man who seemingly ate himself to death. But it wasn’t an accident, as the clues reveal the man was forced to commit this act, to eat and eat until his stomach burst. Checking everywhere in the apartment, Somerset finds the word “Gluttony” scrawled in filth, leading the detective to suspect something more at play. This is then followed by another victim, one who was forced to cut away a pound of their own flesh, causing them to bleed to death, all for the sin of “Greed”. More bodies begin to show up, with other sins of Sloth, Lust, and Pride, and the case becomes clear: someone is killing people based on the Seven Deadly Sins, and if the two detectives can’t find the man soon, he may just be able to complete his sick, twisted vision.

For some, Se7en could be hard to watch. It’s a very dark, at times quite twisted movie, that takes everything in with a clinical, unflinching eye. These are hallmarks of Fincher’s style, the way he documents depravity and doesn’t turn away from it. He makes films about some really messed up, dark people, letting their actions speak for themselves. He doesn’t revel in it, though, and there’s never a sense that he necessarily enjoys the subject matter he’s documenting in his films, just that these are stories that interest his brain and, clearly, they have to be shown. Analytical filmmaking through some of the darkest stories you can think of.

The villain of the movie, known only as John Doe (and played by an uncredited Kevin Spacey), is the kind of character you expect in a Fincher film. Doe, in a way, set the template, in fact, as a mysterious serial killer that’s more of a threat than a screen presence. He’s central to the story without ever really being seen (not until the end), but his actions speak loudly enough that you feel him looming even when he’s not there. Fincher would use this same presence in his later works about various serial killers, including both Zodiac and Mindhunter.

But while the story is about John Doe, the film keeps its focus, rightly, on Mills and Somerset. That’s how this movie about a serial killer can be analytical about the actions without reveling in it. Mills is our audience surrogate. Being so raw means we can feel his emotions at seeing these horrible crime scenes and know what it feels like to be stuck having to chase after a monster. Meanwhile, Somerset is a kind of surrogate for Fincher, analyzing everything clinically, working through the case piece by piece. He takes it all apart, goes over it again and again, and brings it back together in a thoughtful whole. He really represents how Fincher approached this film and many of his others after this.

Of course, the shock factor is part of what makes this film so memorable. Each twisted, horrible crime leaves you with a gut punch of emotions. The ugliness, the gore, the terror. This isn’t a horror film but it does manage to walk right up to the line and toe along it, saying, “look at these disgusting things. What kind of monster would do this?” It’s part of why when I watched Saw I felt like that film was just a low-rent version of Se7en. It doesn’t have the smart storytelling or the eye for investigation. It goes for cheaper thrills and horror to approach a similar story about a man punishing people for their “crimes”. Se7en did it better, Saw just did it cheaper.

Se7en really is a masterclass in Fincher filmmaking. Everything you’d expect from him and his works is on display here. He had his eye set, he knew the kinds of stories he wanted to tell, and with this slice (no pun intended) of thriller movie making he created one of the best serial killer genre films ever. Fincher has made many great films since Se7en but, in a way, his films have constantly chased the high that this 1995 film set. It’s hard to top such an excellent sophomore effort.