The Game (1997)

Note: This was initially supposed to be a review of the film in less than 100 words, but didn’t work out. It was also supposed to be edgy and funny, but that’s expecting too much of my writing. What it ended up being instead is a warning.

David Fincher. I should’ve known. This movie can be considered interesting and, oh gee, I guess captivating until about half-way through, when you begin to realise you’re just being fucked with and shouldn’t really have bothered. But first, the story: Michael Douglas is the super-wealthy, kind-of-an-asshole businessman Nicholas Van Orton, who, in his 48th birthday, receives a gift from his younger brother, who’s played by Sean Penn. The gift is a live-action “game” that affects the player’s real life, manifesting itself as “real” events. Soon the game turns out to be some sort of con organised by a mysterious company that’s after the guy’s money. Things get out of control, as both character and viewer can’t tell if the game is real, how far it goes and who’s behind it. Eventually there comes a plot twist of Shyamalan-ian proportions that’s supposed to make you gasp, just like that time you found out that the Narrator is the Protagonist.

Only problem is, that revelation isn’t very conclusive, because the writers deliberately chose ambiguity over respect for the viewer. You might think I’m about to spoil it for you, but I’m actually making you a favour here: In the final scenes, Nicholas learns that the game isn’t real, but an elaborate prank devised by his brother as some sort of twisted birthday present. In the very last seconds of the film the protagonist appears pretty sure the whole thing is over, but THEN he looks around suspiciously, as if the game is still on.

Setting aside the fact that at its core this narrative doesn’t make sense anyway [what kind of sick bastard would torture his brother by ruining his life and consider it a birthday present?], this choose-your-own, inconclusive ending means that the writers decided to basically flip you off and deprive you of the reason you decided to watch the film in the first place, which is to find out what’s really happening. Ambiguity is fine when it’s the driving force behind the story, or when a conclusion needn’t be reached for the story to make sense structurally. But mysteries should be solved and this one wasn’t and it kind of pisses me off that they presented this example of awkward narrative asymmetry as a smart use of narrative technique. Answering yes and no at the same time doesn’t apply to the particular question this film was asking, so screw this.

Another major problem I’ve had with this film is that Michael Douglas doesn’t get his token kinky sex scene. An opportunity tragically missed if there ever was one. I mean, come on.

I’m kind of afraid to admit it, but this film is ultimately even more limp than Fight Club was and I still can’t believe I’ve just compared Fight Club favourably to another film.