Caveat: There will be some spoilers, this is a critique not a synopsis.
It's been three months and I just can't get over it. David Fincher, renowned for his masterful storytelling and impeccable detail driven film direction, takes an unexpected detour from an otherwise unblemished career with his latest film, The Killer, starring Michael Fassbender. This marks Fincher's first apparent misstep since his debut feature film Aliens 3 in 1992, a film plagued by notorious producer interference and for which the film community has long since forgiven him as he was truly not to blame for the blunder that was Alien 3. While the genius filmmaker has always pushed boundaries, my opinion of his character and the larger conversation about The Killer raises questions about artistic experimentation versus a potential lapse in judgment.
At the outset, it's crucial to acknowledge Fincher's unparalleled skill in visual storytelling and his ability to create cinematic experiences that linger in the audience's mind. However, "The Killer" is an exception, leaving even the most devoted Fincher fans (me) puzzled and disappointed.
Although there is no doubt the film is well made and still has moments of cinematic gold, the glaring issues with the film is its lackluster plot and character development. Fincher, known for his painstaking attention to detail on set fails to draw the audience in. The protagonist is not only an anti-hero or villain, but he's not even particularly interesting. His only saving grace being his good taste in music, the sound track is essentially The Smiths, which I feel this might be a lazy insertion of Fincher's own musical tastes, but honestly I don't know. Does anyone know his musical tastes? I can only be sure he's a fan of fellow genius Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails. The Killer also is very stylish in a intentionally forgettable kind of way with that murderously stylish bucket hat.
The only other character feature of note is his dogmatic adherence to his own code of ethics or lack thereof. Many times repeating his mantra, "stick to the plan", "trust no one", "anticipate, don't improvise", "empathy is weakness" amongst others. However in story telling, there needs to be personal conflict, aka personal development.
This is the major problem that leaves the audience wanting for more. The killer's protagonist, who remains more or less nameless in the film, so let's call him Jimmy, does not change. Even as Jimmy fails for the first time in his assassin career to successfully kill his mark. He ruthlessly sticks to his assassins' code and even when his only romantic tie is endangered, we are not let into his life. Instead, he immediately goes on the offensive to kill everyone involved in putting his name on a hit list. It makes sense, too much sense. In fact his lack of emotion about the whole situation is why I have an interesting opinion regarding the film and why it should not be considered a failure to deliver, but an interesting experiment that simply didn't turn out as planned.
I believe there's only three possibilities, so here's what I'm arguing.
Option 1: Fincher failed for the first time to read a script and make a wise decision of whether the film was good enough to devote over a year of his focus to. I don't really believe this either, because it stands in deep contrast from all of his other works that almost stand in a league of their own for their quality of compelling narratives. So how else can we explain the lack of depth we see in all of his other films?
Option 2: This is David's first film where he really just sold out. He needed money for something in his life and he picked up the first big budget film that he was offered. I think this is totally possible, but I don't want to believe it either. Especially because from my modest degree of Fincher fandom, I believe he's actually a rather humble and unself-absorbed person for his degree of fame. Yet it's almost as if he disregarded his own instincts, or worse, succumbed to the pressure of commercial expectations.
So what on David mind could have caused this failure?
Option 3: What if it wasn't a failure but an experiment that just didn't succeed? In todays cinema landscape the major studios are too fearful to try new things. So I can imagine Fincher, being one of the most successful directors of all time, may have considered it his unique opportunity if not a responsibility to try something new. If you dissect the story from David's point of view, perhaps what was most appealing about the story was it's lack of traditional story arc.
I would like to attribute this apparent under performance not to a lapse in judgement of the script but to a desire to challenge traditional storytelling arcs. Although The Killer fails to provide a satisfying alternative, it is very different from your average story of any kind. Even other "anti-hero" films like Venom or the ingeniously sinister 2006 anti-hero story Perfume captured an interesting new take on the traditional story arc where the protagonist goes through a radical change and becomes something, new.
Au contraire The Killer's protagonist, played convincingly by Fassbender, although certainly an anti-hero, remains devoid of many redeeming qualities. Fincher might have intended to subvert expectations, but the lack of character-driven conflict makes it difficult for the audience to empathize or engage with the story.
One cannot help but wonder if Fincher, in his pursuit of novelty, underestimated the importance of character development. The film's protagonist lacks the complexity and depth that would make the audience invest emotionally in his journey. As a result, the narrative feels hollow, and the audience is left yearning for the psychological journey that characterizes all of the best film works.
Playing devil's advocate, one might argue that Fincher deliberately sought to challenge conventional norms and toy with the idea of an unconventional protagonist. After all, the term "hero arc" implies a positive transformation, and "The Killer" intentionally steers away from that trope. However, challenging norms should not come at the cost of a compelling and engaging story.
It's essential to recognize Fincher's track record of success and innovation, but it's equally crucial to hold him accountable for missteps. The Killer may be a departure from the director's signature style, but it's not a departure that adds value to his body of work. It's a deviation that feels more like an anomaly than a deliberate artistic choice.
In conclusion, "The Killer" stands as an unfortunate blip in David Fincher's otherwise illustrious career. While the film may have been an attempt at experimentation, it lacks the finesse and narrative depth that define his best works. As devoted fans, we may hope for Fincher to bounce back from this stumble and continue to deliver the thought-provoking and visually stunning films that have solidified his status as one of the greatest directors of our time.