Diana Le – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Fri, 20 Oct 2017 17:12:21 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Diana Le – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 The legacy of The Stanford Prison Experiment lives on at Sundance https://stanforddaily.com/2015/02/06/legacy-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment-lives-on-at-sundance/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/02/06/legacy-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment-lives-on-at-sundance/#respond Fri, 06 Feb 2015 08:43:21 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1095053 Often cited as one of the most influential studies in human behavior and social psychology, the Stanford Prison Experiment has spawned numerous films and cultural references over the past four decades. Just this past week, “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” a film based on the events of the study, had its world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.

The post The legacy of The Stanford Prison Experiment lives on at Sundance appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The basement of Jordan Hall, previously converted into a makeshift prison for Philip Zimbardo's 1971 study. Photo by Nafia Chowdhury.
The basement of Jordan Hall, previously converted into a makeshift prison for Philip Zimbardo’s 1971 study. Photo by Nafia Chowdhury.

Often cited as one of the most influential studies in human behavior and social psychology, the Stanford Prison Experiment has spawned numerous films and cultural references over the past four decades. Just this past week, “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” a film based on the events of the study, had its world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah.

In conjunction with the film’s debut, The Stanford Daily caught up with members of the Stanford psychology department — including Philip Zimbardo, the lead researcher during the experiment and a current professor emeritus at Stanford — to learn more about the experiment and why the results of the study continue to remain relevant today.

Originally conducted in 1971, The Stanford Prison Experiment was designed to shed light on the underlying causes of abusive behavior in prisons. Professor Zimbardo planned a two week experiment in which he created a mock prison environment.  In preparation for the experiment, Zimbardo sought out 24 male undergraduate student volunteers to be prison guards and prisoners and elected himself prison warden. Though Zimbardo supervised the subjects of the study, he did not interfere. The guards were allowed free rein to run the prison as they saw fit — so long as no physical harm came to the prisoners.

A hallway in the basement of Jordan Hall, the site of the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. Photo by Nafia Chowdhury.
A hallway in the basement of Jordan Hall, the site of the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment. Photo by Nafia Chowdhury.

Within 36 hours of the start of the experiment, prison revolts broke out, and the guards began to institute sophisticated systems of punishment. Well-behaved prisoners were assigned to  “privileged” rooms while the less subordinate were denied bathroom privileges. Soon, volunteers began to internalize their roles; one prisoner even begged for the termination of the experiment so that he might receive “parole.”

Though Zimbardo was forced to stop the experiment after only six days, his findings have become a permanent fixture in psychology textbooks and an inspiration for many artists. On the experiment’s cultural legacy, Bridgette Hard, Ph.D., Psychology 1 program coordinator at Stanford noted, “it’s a very, very old question to ask why people do bad things. The easy answer we usually come to is because bad people do bad things and good people do good things. But the Stanford Prison Experiment showed that people can be transformed and molded by the situation around them. Realizing that we can be so easily shaped in such a powerful way was eye-opening.”

In the years since the experiment, Zimbardo’s controversial methods have spawned several American films and documentaries — one of which was even scripted by Philip Zimbardo himself (available for purchase here) — while films such as “La Gabbia (The Cage)” and “Das Experiment (The Experiment)” have made the study known to foreign audiences. Even television series such as “Veronica Mars” and “Life” have aired episodes inspired by Zimbardo’s research.

Scene from "The Stanford Prison Experiment," courtesy of Sundance Film Festival.
A scene from “The Stanford Prison Experiment.” Courtesy of Sundance Institute.

Now at Sundance, Kyle Patrick Alvarez’s film “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” which The Daily reviewed last week, features a historically accurate account of the now-infamous events that occurred in the basement of Jordan Hall.  At the festival, Alvarez’s film won both the Waldo Salt Screenwriting Award and the Alfred P. Sloan Feature Film prize, which is awarded to films for their outstanding depiction of science. To remain true to the experiment’s timeline, Alvarez recruited Zimbardo to serve as the main consultant to the film’s production, providing guidance on how the prisoners and guards were to be dressed and how the events of the film transpired.

The film’s inclusion in Sundance’s famed US Dramatic Competition line-up underscores the continued relevance of the Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo notes, “I only realized afterward that the experiment had a message. It had a message that the general public needed to know about: You need to begin self-questioning. If you were in this situation, how would you have reacted? What kind of prisoner would you be? What kind of a guard would you be? Use these questions to think about your motivations and values.”

“The Stanford Prison Experiment” is currently in the process of finding distributors, and based on early reviews, it is well poised to shock movie-goers when it eventually hits theaters. Zimbardo, however, hopes the movie will act as a means of increasing empathy and compassion for people who commit contemptible acts. Hard agrees with Zimbardo. Each time she gives a lecture about the experiment she references the words of Martin Luther King Jr.: “There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.”

Since the conclusion of the experiment, Philip Zimbardo has been regarded as an expert on the effects of prison environments on guard and prisoner behavior, even testifying as an expert witness during the Abu Ghraib torture trials.

Contact Diana Le at dianale ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post The legacy of The Stanford Prison Experiment lives on at Sundance appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/02/06/legacy-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment-lives-on-at-sundance/feed/ 0 1095053
Top five feel-good films of 2014 https://stanforddaily.com/2015/01/08/top-five-feel-good-films-of-2014/ https://stanforddaily.com/2015/01/08/top-five-feel-good-films-of-2014/#respond Thu, 08 Jan 2015 23:06:47 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1093230 Some films just make you feel like you’re wrapped up in a blanket having chicken soup in front of a fireplace. They leave you feeling a little lighter, and 2014 thankfully had no shortage of them. Here are five 2014 films that will make you relish the quirks of life and feel happy to be […]

The post Top five feel-good films of 2014 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Some films just make you feel like you’re wrapped up in a blanket having chicken soup in front of a fireplace. They leave you feeling a little lighter, and 2014 thankfully had no shortage of them. Here are five 2014 films that will make you relish the quirks of life and feel happy to be alive.

  1. “What If”

    (Left to right) Daniel Radcliffe and Zoe Kazan in WHAT IF to be released by CBS Films.
    (Left to right) Daniel Radcliffe and Zoe Kazan in “What If”.  Courtesy of CBS Films.

“When Harry Met Sally” finds its modern remake in “What If,” a romantic comedy about a man and a woman who are friends. Just friends. Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe) and Chantry (Zoe Kazan) first meet at a Toronto house party, instantly connecting over magnetic poetry and bacon sandwiches. While Chantry is in a long-term committed relationship and Wallace is just getting over his most recent breakup, their compatibility suggests they could be more, even though their circumstances say otherwise. The film deftly deals with the myth of “the friend zone” without appearing too unforgiving of either sex and provides just enough variation from the romantic comedy blueprint to please the most die-hard fans of the genre. Although it is a slow burn from start to finish, the grand romantic gestures and heartfelt confessions will likely leave you aww-ing at the pair’s eventual partnership.

  1. LEGO® minifigure Emmet (voiced by CHRIS PRATT) in the 3D computer animated adventure "The LEGO® Movie," from Warner Bros. Pictures, Village Roadshow Pictures and Lego System A/S. A Warner Bros. Pictures release.
    LEGO minifigure Emmet (voiced by CHRIS PRATT) in the 3D computer animated adventure “The LEGO Movie.” Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.

    “The Lego Movie”

A surprisingly huge hit among audiences, “The Lego Movie” is a comical, self-aware romp through one Lego mini-figure’s journey of self-discovery. Emmet Brickowski (Chris Pratt) is a rather ordinary construction worker in Bricksburg, when he finds that he is the prophesied “Special” who will defeat the evil Lord Business. The film takes you along for the ride, from one ill-planned misadventure to another, as Emmet is confronted with the possibility that he is not the Special. Star voice performances from Chris Pratt, Will Arnett and Morgan Freeman, coupled with smart dialogue and fantastic Lego explosions, make “The Lego Movie” a light-hearted adventure comedy film that also deals with the big issue of self-doubt and learning to trust yourself again.

  1. “Pride”

    (Front row, left to right) Faye Marsay as Steph, George Mackay as Joe, Joseph Gilgun as Mike, Paddy Considine as Dai and (second row, with megaphone) Ben Schnetzer as Mark in PRIDE to be released by CBS Films.
    (Front row, left to right) Faye Marsay as Steph, George Mackay as Joe, Joseph Gilgun as Mike, Paddy Considine as Dai and (second row, with megaphone) Ben Schnetzer as Mark in “Pride.” Courtesy of CBS Films.

“Pride” is a British dramedy about the very unlikely partnership between London gay and lesbian activists and the small-town miners on strike in 1984. During the government-mandated pit closures, the LGSM (Lesbians and Gays Support Miners) decide to offer help to the initially reluctant miners in the small Welsh town of Onllwyn, as both are oppressed by the police and the media. What follows is the eventual coming-together of the two communities and the humorous cultural clash that results. Director Matthew Warchus manages to balance raucous laughs with the drama of being a young gay man in Great Britain during the ‘80s. You will see the older Onllwyn folk party at gay clubs, and you will be there when an activist realizes that he has HIV, all in one beat. But the tearful moments do not diminish the triumphs for long. It’s a movie that leaves you hopeful about people coming together despite their differences, and it will have you cheering on this motley crew of activists fighting for a political voice.

  1. “Chef”

    Jon Favreau as Carl Casper, Emjay Anthony as Percy Casper, and Sofia Vergara as Inez.
    Jon Favreau as Carl Casper, Emjay Anthony as Percy Casper, and Sofia Vergara as Inez. Courtesy of 2014 Tribeca Film Festival.

In this great feast of a film, “Chef” is like comfort food. Warm and inviting, Jon Favreau’s indie comedy manages to create a happy mixture between familial values and gratuitous food shots. Favreau plays the titular chef, Carl Casper, who incurs the wrath of a food critic, forcing him to leave his job as the head chef of a well-respected, though creatively stunted, restaurant in California. With the encouragement of his ex-wife (Sofia Vergara), Carl decides to work out of his own food truck, bringing along his estranged son. As they drive across the country, Carl embarks on his journey of rediscovering what it means to be a good chef and father. Supported by a star-studded cast, “Chef” traverses the great American hubs of the culinary arts, and is peppered with easy laughs and heartwarming father-son scenes. Though certainly predictable, “Chef” will leave you smiling and hungry for a gourmet meal. Be sure to stick around until after the credits for a film treat.

Liv Lemoyne, Mira Barkhammar, Mira Grosin in WE ARE THE BEST! a Magnolia Pictures release. Courtesy of Magnolia Pictures

5.  “We Are the Best!”

Set in 1980s Sweden, “We Are the Best!” follows the lives of three middle school girls  — two of whom cannot play instruments while the other comes from a no-nonsense Christian background — who try to create a punk rock band long after the punk movement has died. Empathetic, funny and honest, “We Are the Best!” offers an amusing look at the seemingly larger-than-life issues of being a misunderstood kid in Stockholm. Documentary-style visuals and utterly natural, convincing performances by the leads will keep you invested in Bobo, Klara and Hedvig’s journeys towards self-actualization through punk. As the film builds up to a final performance of their original song “Hate the Sport” (“People die and scream, but all you care about is your high jump team”), together, the girls battle through boy problems, self-esteem issues and dysfunctional families. It’s a coming-of-age film that will have you cringing from remembering your own rebellious teen years while also remaining assured that Bobo, Klara and Hedvig’s friendship will help them navigate adolescence.

Contact Diana Le at dianale ‘at’ stanford.edu.

 

The post Top five feel-good films of 2014 appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2015/01/08/top-five-feel-good-films-of-2014/feed/ 0 1093230
‘Ivory Tower’ review: documentary challenges the effectiveness of higher level education without a course of action https://stanforddaily.com/2014/12/01/ivory-tower-challenges-the-effectiveness-of-higher-level-education-without-a-course-of-action/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/12/01/ivory-tower-challenges-the-effectiveness-of-higher-level-education-without-a-course-of-action/#respond Tue, 02 Dec 2014 06:53:29 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1092708 Directed and produced by Emmy-nominated filmmakers Andrew Rossi and Kate Novack, “Ivory Tower” takes a hard look at the college debt bubble and the future of higher education in America. Traversing the lecture halls of Harvard and Stanford and the offices of education startups Udacity and Coursera, “Ivory Tower” aims to bring to light the […]

The post ‘Ivory Tower’ review: documentary challenges the effectiveness of higher level education without a course of action appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
al.120314.IvoryTower3
ASU graduation as seen in Ivory Tower. Courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films.

Directed and produced by Emmy-nominated filmmakers Andrew Rossi and Kate Novack, “Ivory Tower” takes a hard look at the college debt bubble and the future of higher education in America. Traversing the lecture halls of Harvard and Stanford and the offices of education startups Udacity and Coursera, “Ivory Tower” aims to bring to light the unsustainable arms race for prestige that colleges find themselves in. It questions whether Americans have strayed from the original intent of this education. The documentary never provides solid solutions to the questions it poses, but its emotionally gripping student narratives and startling statistics will encourage you to think more deeply about the value of your Stanford education.

“Ivory Tower” first sets the stark landscape in which high school seniors applying to college will find themselves. Student loan debt in the U.S. is over $1 trillion and rising, graduation rates have stagnated or decreased, and college tuition rates have increased by 1120% since 1978, faster than either the price of health care or food. Using interviews with education experts such as Andrew Delbanco of Columbia University and Clayton Christensen of Harvard Business School, the documentary accuses colleges of falling into the trap of buying their way to the top of college-ranking lists, creating a punishing cycle in which tuition rates climb higher and higher every year.

al.120314.IvoryTower4
Office hours for Harvard’s CS50 class as seen in Ivory Tower. Courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films.

Frustrations with the rising costs come to a head during the Cooper Union student protests in 2013, when for the first time in the university’s 150-year history, students were charged with tuition. Cooper Union’s president, Jamshed Bharucha, is made out to be the villain of the documentary, a figurehead for the corrupt “college-as-a-business” model. His twitchy nervousness and ineloquent responses to his interviewer make him unlikable to audiences. His icy pragmatism in charging tuition to balance the college’s debt stands in direct opposition to the Cooper Union students’ more idealistic desire for a free education. The documentary’s heavy emphasis on Cooper Union’s shift to a charging tuition indicates a future that does not bode well for high school seniors who do not have the means for a quality education.

But hidden underneath all the bleak premonitions regarding the future of higher level education is an earnest call for change and a slight glimmer of hope. Daniel Boone, a freshman at Harvard at the time of filming, tearfully admits that his dorm room at Harvard is the first bed in which he has slept in a year. Brooke Brewster of Spelman College fervently believes college to be a safe space where conversations about race, sexism and personal growth can occur. Their histories of struggling in low-income households and belief in college as an opportunity for social mobility makes the case that higher level education still has value, but colleges’ original goals of creating learned citizens, set forth by the GI Bill, Higher Education Act of 1965 and Morrill Act of 1862, were lost somewhere in university financial statements and the constant push for prestige.

al.120314.IvoryTower5
Stanford University as seen in Ivory Tower. Courtesy of Samuel Goldwyn Films.

In contrast to the money-hungry universities of today, the documentary does attempt to point out some alternatives to traditional college education. Most notably, Deep Springs College in California’s Death Valley provides free education to 26 college-age men where students spend half of their time in class, engaged in Socratic discussions, and the other half on the ranch, doing chores for the small community, all in preparation for a life of service. Former Stanford professors Daphne Koller and Sebastian Thrun and their online education startups, Coursera and Udacity, respectively, are featured extensively. However, Udacity’s failed partnership with San Jose State University and Deep Springs’ lack of name recognition leaves audiences ambivalent as to the effectiveness of these different forms of education. Though the documentary breaks down the myth that traditional college is the only surefire way to a job in a depressed economy, it does little to build confidence in these failed or failing forms of alternative education.

“Ivory Tower” manages to provide a wide-ranging overview of the issue of student debt and the future of college education but only skims the surface of these differing perspectives, perhaps leaving room for audience members to form their own opinions. While we are left with the odd feeling that the current issues with higher level education seem almost insurmountable with no clear solution in sight, we are also left with a feeling of hope — hope that there are students benefiting from the system in place and hope that there are people working to help the students who are not.

Contact Diana Le at dianale ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post ‘Ivory Tower’ review: documentary challenges the effectiveness of higher level education without a course of action appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/12/01/ivory-tower-challenges-the-effectiveness-of-higher-level-education-without-a-course-of-action/feed/ 0 1092708
‘Did We Offend You’ highlights the controversial side of musical theater https://stanforddaily.com/2014/11/20/did-we-offend-you-highlights-the-controversial-side-of-musical-theater/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/11/20/did-we-offend-you-highlights-the-controversial-side-of-musical-theater/#respond Thu, 20 Nov 2014 08:00:59 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1092540 In the small, intimate Roble dorm theatre this past weekend, Stanford student performing arts group At The Fountain Theatricals performed “Did We Offend You,” a rousing cabaret of musical theater’s more controversial songs, from “Populism, Yea, Yea” of “Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson” to “If You Were Gay” of “Avenue Q,” in an attempt to provoke […]

The post ‘Did We Offend You’ highlights the controversial side of musical theater appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
AL.112014.cabaret-3
“Did We Offend You” performed at Roble dorm theatre. Photo by Chris Sackes, courtesy of At The Fountain Theatricals.

In the small, intimate Roble dorm theatre this past weekend, Stanford student performing arts group At The Fountain Theatricals performed “Did We Offend You,” a rousing cabaret of musical theater’s more controversial songs, from “Populism, Yea, Yea” of “Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson” to “If You Were Gay” of “Avenue Q,” in an attempt to provoke conversations about America, religion and sexuality.  The cabaret was expertly created with talented singers and actors and a tightly-run production. My gut reaction to the performance’s title might be a “No, I was not offended.”  However, the production’s intention might not be meant to invoke discomfort but rather to display some of musical theater’s more tongue-in-cheek treatments of controversial topics.

Although the song titles are certainly very titillating, “Did We Offend You” never really strays into truly offensive territory, and one can hardly blame them.  At the Fountain Theatricals was originally producing “Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson” before conversations with the Stanford Native American community brought up the sensitive nature of the play’s themes.  Many of the songs from “Bloody Bloody Andrew Jackson” ended up in the production, but with the offensive narrative of the play excised, the songs are relatively innocuous on their own.  Other songs in the cabaret run the gamut of non-friendly dinner table conversation topics. But the songs are performed at break-neck speed, giving little time in between to really brood on what “Age of Jackson” or “American Idiot” says about the state of America.

'Did We Offend You' highlights the controversial side of musical theater
“Did We Offend You” performed at Roble dorm theatre. Photo by Chris Sackes, courtesy of At The Fountain Theatricals.

Songs such as “The Internet is For Porn” and “Two Ladies” broached the topics of masturbation and sexuality in a humorously frank way.  “Hello” poked fun at overzealous, naive followers of Mormonism and fringe religions. Moody songs like “Second Nature” and “By My Side” balanced out the more camp song choices with sobering perspectives on these same topics.

But, the overall effect could be described as perfectly vanilla. For example, the classic cartoonish voices in “Corrupt Bargain” and jazz fingers in “La Vie Boheme” are staples of musical theater. The cabaret seems to err on the side of politically correct rather than thought-provoking.  It’s hard not to laugh when Graham Roth takes to the stage with his Hitler mustache and faux accent to belt out “Springtime for Hitler and Germany!”  The ridiculously over-the-top ode to Hitler makes it clear that this song is not to be taken seriously, and laughter, rather than philosophical debate, seems to be the more appropriate response for much of the cabaret.

AL.112014.cabaret-5
“Did We Offend You” performed at Roble dorm theatre. Photo by Chris Sackes, courtesy of At The Fountain Theatricals.

But “Did We Offend You” is first and foremost a theatrical production, and in this respect, At the Fountain Theatricals succeeds tremendously.  Sass and attitude are perfectly intonated within the appropriate songs, and the supporting band often added another layer of comedic effect to the performance, with brassy cues to punctuate punch lines, most notably during “The Internet Is For Porn.”  Bright and campy lighting during “If You Were Gay,” and the dark and angsty atmosphere in “Rockstar” complemented the songs, allowing the focus to be placed on the obvious talent on stage.  It’s a tight production, with acts rotating quickly throughout the show.

“Did We Offend You” was a roller coaster ride of a cabaret with a great cast that provided a thoroughly enjoyable experience of humorous sexual antics, irreverent judgments of religion, and a healthy dose of American anti-patriotism.  It’s an entertaining coast through the ages of slightly provocative musical theater. It won’t necessarily shock you, but it also won’t get you to think very deeply about these topics — a missed opportunity.

Contact Diana Le at dianale ‘at’ stanford.edu.

The post ‘Did We Offend You’ highlights the controversial side of musical theater appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/11/20/did-we-offend-you-highlights-the-controversial-side-of-musical-theater/feed/ 0 1092540
“Gone Girl” explores dark side of marriage https://stanforddaily.com/2014/10/22/gone-girl-explores-dark-side-of-marriage/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/10/22/gone-girl-explores-dark-side-of-marriage/#respond Thu, 23 Oct 2014 05:47:36 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1090364 At first, Nick and Amy Dunne might seem like the perfect married couple. But on their fifth anniversary, Amy disappears, and Nick, who often appears inappropriately apathetic, is immediately suspected of foul play. In fact, Amy’s disappearance is the result of cunning manipulation.

The post “Gone Girl” explores dark side of marriage appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) finds himself the chief suspect behind the shocking disappearance of his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike), on their fifth anniversary. Courtesy of Merrick Morton / 20th Century Fox.
Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) finds himself the chief suspect behind the shocking disappearance of his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike), on their fifth anniversary. Courtesy of Merrick Morton / 20th Century Fox.

David Fincher’s film adaptation of “Gone Girl” examines in-depth the relationship of a man and woman perhaps ill-matched but ultimately deserving of one another. And there’s something lurking behind Amy’s elegant facade.

Although “Gone Girl” has an interesting premise, the film falls short of exposing the intimate nuances of Nick and Amy’s marriage.  The narrative worked well as a novel because readers could soak in Gillian Flynn’s fully fleshed out characterizations of the couple.  Even with two and a half hours of screen time, Fincher does not completely capture Amy’s obsessive vengefulness and commitment to dispelling myths about “the perfect woman.”

The first half of the film mostly consists of Nick bumbling around with his college-age mistress and ineptly dealing with the media fiasco during the investigation, but the film neglects what should be its primary focus: Amy’s sociopathic tendencies.  Her psychology is key to the plot twist, and her machinations are what propel the novel forward.  The film, on the other hand, feels bloated, rife with disjointed scenes and little substance. Nick and Amy do a lot, but their motivations are never clear.

While Fincher sometimes muddles character development, his views on marriage are loud and clear.  The devolution of the Dunnes’ marriage reveals a rather depressing view of romance.  We are meant to relate to Nick and Amy’s relationship at first and maybe remember our own first encounters with a special someone. The candlelit lighting in the flashback scenes is warm and inviting, while also foreboding.  Fincher seems to warn that we become more monster than human when engrossed in another person for too long.  Near the resolution of the film, Nick questions his future with Amy: “…Why would you even want this?  Yes, I loved you, and then all we did was resent each other, try to control each other. We caused each other pain.”  Amy replies with a simple, “That’s marriage.”

“Gone Girl” is not a feel-good film, nor is it a particularly enlightening study of a sociopath’s (possibly even sociopaths’) romantic relationship.  Fincher doesn’t completely develop his two main characters, but he does raise interesting questions about the state of marriage in America and whether any of this relationship nonsense is worth it.  Then again, Nick and Amy managed to work out the kinks of the marriage in their own way.  And if America’s most dysfunctional couple can work through it, maybe everyone else can, too.

Contact Diana Le at dianale ‘at’ stanford.edu

The post “Gone Girl” explores dark side of marriage appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/10/22/gone-girl-explores-dark-side-of-marriage/feed/ 0 1090364