Seven, directed by David Fincher

Résumé du document

We will study Seven, a thriller directed by David Fincher in 1995. This film deals with a serial killer (John Doe) who kills seven people who represent one of the seven deadly sins. I have chosen to study the last sequence but one, in which John Doe punishes the two deadly sins remaining: the envy represented by himself, and the wrath represented by the detective Mills. It is an interesting sequence because there are many twists in the plot, and we see how the killer manages to accomplish what he has planned. Moreover, we can say that this sequence is on the side to the whole film; it differentiates itself by the mise en scène. Indeed, it is the only sequence which happens in broad daylight, under a blazing sun, and in a desert place, whereas the rest of the film happens in the city, generally in interior, in driving rain, and in the darkness. We will see why we can talk about marginality, and how it is dealed with in that sequence.

Extraits

[...] Seven (1995) directed by David Fincher We will study Seven, a thriller directed by David Fincher in 1995. This film deals with a serial killer (John Doe) who kills seven people who represent one of the seven deadly sins. I have chosen to study the last sequence but one, in which John Doe punishes the two deadly sins remaining: the envy represented by himself, and the wrath represented by the detective Mills. It is an interesting sequence because there are many twists in the plot, and we see how the killer manages to accomplish what he has planned. [...]

[...] On the one hand, we see Somerset opening a box received by a delivery man. He discovers something which seems shocking him and disgusting him, but Mills, the policemen in the helicopter, and the spectator don't know what it is., and what there is in the box. And, on the other hand, Mills is absorbed in what is doing Somerset, and so doesn't listen what John Doe is saying to him until he begins to talk about his wife. At that time, Mills turns his attention to what John Doe is saying, and so, he flits from a visual attention to an auditory attention. [...]

[...] So his guilt is highlighted, and he can be spotted. We can deduce that he is in a weakness position, but it is only in appearance, only physically. Indeed, he controls the situation. His superiority and his domination on the event and on the other characters is shown by the low angle shots. In fact, he was sensible to tell to the policemen where are the two last victims, but he manipulates them, because from start all is planned. Moreover, he knows things that they do not know. [...]

[...] However, when Mills learns that his wife has been killed by John Doe, he is between Good and Evil. Somerset and John Doe try to influence his reaction and his “decision” to kill or not John Doe. Somerset tries to calm Mills down, and John Doe encourages him to be angry, and to kill him. Thus, we can say that Somerset symbolizes Good and Reason, and John Doe symbolizes Evil and Passion. The spectator feels that Evil has the upper hand on Good, and that Passion gets the upper hand on Reason. [...]

[...] Moreover, the society is run by laws which have to be respected and followed by everyone. Mills will be marginalized and put aside, and he will be treated as someone who makes something bad. Mills is an anti-hero but is he as unforgivable as John Doe? To conclude, we can say that in this film, and in that sequence, we can talk about a marginalization, because it deals with a murderer, and more precisely with two murderers. This marginalization is above all shown and highlighted through the mise en scène which plays an important part in that sequence. [...]