Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Here’s Why You Should Read (or Reread) Gone Girl This Week

DF-01826cc - Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) finds himself the chief suspect behind the shocking disappearance of his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike), on their fifth anniversary. 
DF-01826cc - Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) finds himself the chief suspect behind the shocking disappearance of his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike), on their fifth anniversary.

David Fincher's Gone Girl comes out October 3, which means right about now plenty of movie fans are asking themselves: Should I read the book before I see the adaptation? The answer usually varies by project — we recommend watching Game of Thrones before reading "A Song of Ice and Fire" — and in this case, our answer is an uncompromising "Yes." You should definitely read (or reread) Gillian Flynn's 2012 thriller in the scant days before the movie comes out and everything gets ruined for you. Here's why.

(Note: We've tried to make this post as spoiler-free as possible, but like Nick Dunne's internalized misogyny, some may have slipped through.)

Because it's great.
As in a Hitchcock classic, the story logic of Gone Girl is so tight that you don't even notice the impossible flights of fancy the books asks you to swallow. Even if you know the twists in store, there's still a lot to enjoy, from the crackerjack plotting to the needle-sharp characterizations, to the dark notes of social satire (we'd forgotten the incredibly creepy sequence set at the mall).


Because it's instructional. 
Gone Girl is not Aesop, but there are valuable lessons to be gleaned from its pages. Our favorites: "Thinking yourself good is the easiest way to do bad," "An easy lie can be more harmful than an unpleasant truth," "Beware of loving the idea of someone," and, as the denouement proves, "In marriage, one must compromise."


Because you'll need the ending fresh in your mind.
The saga of the Gone Girl ending has undergone more revisions than Blade Runner. First it was completely rewritten "from scratch," then those reports were "greatly exaggerated," then "the bone structure and the muscles" were changed but not "the marrow," and then it was basically the same. Don't you want to be able to examine the minutiae of the changes yourself?


More

No comments: