What do you think?
Rate this book
David Fincher: Mind Games: A Critical Survey of the Filmmaker
David Mind Games is the definitive critical and visual survey of the Academy Award– and Golden Globe–nominated works of director David Fincher. From feature films Alien 3, Se7en, The Game, Fight Club, Panic Room, Zodiac, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Social Network, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Gone Girl, and Mank through his MTV clips for Madonna and the Rolling Stones and the Netflix series House of Cards and Mindhunter, each chapter weaves production history with original critical analysis, as well as with behind the scenes photography, still-frames, and original illustrations from Little White Lies' international team of artists and graphic designers. Mind Games also features interviews with Fincher's frequent collaborators, including Jeff Cronenweth, Angus Wall, Laray Mayfield, Holt McCallany, Howard Shore and Erik Messerschmidt.
Grouping Fincher's work around themes of procedure, imprisonment, paranoia, prestige and relationship dynamics, Mind Games is styled as an investigation into a filmmaker obsessed with investigation, and the design will shift to echo case files within a larger psychological profile.
Grouping Fincher's work around themes of procedure, imprisonment, paranoia, prestige and relationship dynamics, Mind Games is styled as an investigation into a filmmaker obsessed with investigation, and the design will shift to echo case files within a larger psychological profile.
304 pages, Hardcover
First published November 23, 2021
69 people are currently reading
844 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews
Read
May 22, 2023little white lies hire a copyeditor challenge
the least satisfying of the Nayman directorologies—charitably because it’s the least appropriate subject, but in all honesty I think Nayman’s approach here is profoundly lacking. the bewildering thematic arrangement of the book cuts directly against its most compelling throughline, which is tracking the evolution of Fincher as an auteur through his various stages. reference is constantly being made to what a particular film represents for Fincher’s evolution with respect to what preceded it, making the choice to order the films non-linearly baffling.
but equally baffling is Nayman’s focus on trying to find punny little easter eggs throughout Fincher’s work, which leads to minimal insight—either Fincher left some punny little easter eggs in his work, which, fine, or Nayman simply loves finding ways to take things as punny little easter eggs as an exercise in cleverness, which, also fine, I guess—the difference is between learning little about Fincher and learning nothing about Fincher. a startling section of the Gone Girl essay, where Nayman explicitly minimizes Fincher rejecting the impulse to overinterpret a punny little easter egg makes a pretty clear case that it’s the latter.
in any case, what’s interesting about Fincher with respect to the other directors Nayman has gone long on is that he’s spent his entire career inside the studio system, and does not write his own material. there’s an odd sideways acknowledgment of this, again in the Gone Girl essay, where Nayman points out the contradiction of Fincher being both a control freak and an open-minded collaborator. and yet much of the book relies on interpreting every little line uttered in one of these movies as telling us something about what Fincher thinks—a failure to grasp what it means to collaborate, and to adapt other people’s material.
in general, where the insights here aren’t gleaned from punny little easter eggs, they’re gleaned from tight meshes of cinephilic references—we proceed by noting that something is reminiscent of another movie, and build to the climax of proposing that a character is a coded stand-in for Fincher, and that the whole movie is really a commentary on making movies. maybe I’m not enough of a terminal cinephiliac to be totally jazzed by that—I think the power of art, or at least art that makes me care, is as much about what it reflects about life, and its maker’s worldview, as about the insular ways it connects to other art—but in any case it completely ignores a big portion of what Fincher is about. for Fincher, there’s always a tension between an artistic vision and a commercial goal. though there’s some commentary here on Fincher’s bids for prestige with films like Benjamin Button and The Social Network, the conversation is extremely insular—various highbrow critics are quoted, but these films made bazillions of dollars and were seen by bazillions of people, and were conceived designed and executed with the intent to do so. a focus on film-critical inside baseball is incapable in principle of really grappling with what went into the design of these films, and what their goals were. what was an appropriate way to approach the Coens and PTA is systematically revealed here to lend little insight into a less resolutely idiosyncratic body of work.
the least satisfying of the Nayman directorologies—charitably because it’s the least appropriate subject, but in all honesty I think Nayman’s approach here is profoundly lacking. the bewildering thematic arrangement of the book cuts directly against its most compelling throughline, which is tracking the evolution of Fincher as an auteur through his various stages. reference is constantly being made to what a particular film represents for Fincher’s evolution with respect to what preceded it, making the choice to order the films non-linearly baffling.
but equally baffling is Nayman’s focus on trying to find punny little easter eggs throughout Fincher’s work, which leads to minimal insight—either Fincher left some punny little easter eggs in his work, which, fine, or Nayman simply loves finding ways to take things as punny little easter eggs as an exercise in cleverness, which, also fine, I guess—the difference is between learning little about Fincher and learning nothing about Fincher. a startling section of the Gone Girl essay, where Nayman explicitly minimizes Fincher rejecting the impulse to overinterpret a punny little easter egg makes a pretty clear case that it’s the latter.
in any case, what’s interesting about Fincher with respect to the other directors Nayman has gone long on is that he’s spent his entire career inside the studio system, and does not write his own material. there’s an odd sideways acknowledgment of this, again in the Gone Girl essay, where Nayman points out the contradiction of Fincher being both a control freak and an open-minded collaborator. and yet much of the book relies on interpreting every little line uttered in one of these movies as telling us something about what Fincher thinks—a failure to grasp what it means to collaborate, and to adapt other people’s material.
in general, where the insights here aren’t gleaned from punny little easter eggs, they’re gleaned from tight meshes of cinephilic references—we proceed by noting that something is reminiscent of another movie, and build to the climax of proposing that a character is a coded stand-in for Fincher, and that the whole movie is really a commentary on making movies. maybe I’m not enough of a terminal cinephiliac to be totally jazzed by that—I think the power of art, or at least art that makes me care, is as much about what it reflects about life, and its maker’s worldview, as about the insular ways it connects to other art—but in any case it completely ignores a big portion of what Fincher is about. for Fincher, there’s always a tension between an artistic vision and a commercial goal. though there’s some commentary here on Fincher’s bids for prestige with films like Benjamin Button and The Social Network, the conversation is extremely insular—various highbrow critics are quoted, but these films made bazillions of dollars and were seen by bazillions of people, and were conceived designed and executed with the intent to do so. a focus on film-critical inside baseball is incapable in principle of really grappling with what went into the design of these films, and what their goals were. what was an appropriate way to approach the Coens and PTA is systematically revealed here to lend little insight into a less resolutely idiosyncratic body of work.
April 2, 2022
My favorite things in Adam Nayman's David Fincher: Mind Games are the inspiration boards for each movie and the still shots from the movies, which allow a film ignoramus like me a better chance to appreciate Fincher's eye. I didn't really finish this book with a stronger sense of what Fincher is about. Although there's no harm in borrowing Mind Games from the library and browsing through it, I'd still recommend listening to the Rewatchables podcasts or the "Every Frame a Painting" YouTube video that focus on David Fincher ahead of reading this book.
July 15, 2024
This is my Bible.
January 7, 2022
I never quite got into David Fincher as a kind of auteurist filmmaker; I'd seen Se7en, Fight Club, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but I never really deep-dived into him like this book does; Now I have a newfound curiosity to go through all of these movies.
Nayman's book functions as an excellent, educational collection of film criticism, structured around different aspects and themes in Fincher's work: suicide, control, games, prisons, etc. And it's recursive too. The chapters on individual films bring up stuff from the previous films in order to create a clear sense of cohesion and deliberation in Fincher's work. Nayman's analysis of these films is smart, and also never afraid to criticize Fincher's work either. It's not a book of admiration so much as balanced, analytical criticism.
However, I have to take a star off for two things:
1. The clear obfuscation of some of the language, using five dollar words that are trenched in the academic makes parts of the essays a slog. Academic analysis runs the risk of losing its accessibility to a wider, book-buying audience
2. The book is riddled with typos. In every chapter. This book clearly did not get a good proofreading.
Nayman's book functions as an excellent, educational collection of film criticism, structured around different aspects and themes in Fincher's work: suicide, control, games, prisons, etc. And it's recursive too. The chapters on individual films bring up stuff from the previous films in order to create a clear sense of cohesion and deliberation in Fincher's work. Nayman's analysis of these films is smart, and also never afraid to criticize Fincher's work either. It's not a book of admiration so much as balanced, analytical criticism.
However, I have to take a star off for two things:
1. The clear obfuscation of some of the language, using five dollar words that are trenched in the academic makes parts of the essays a slog. Academic analysis runs the risk of losing its accessibility to a wider, book-buying audience
2. The book is riddled with typos. In every chapter. This book clearly did not get a good proofreading.
January 8, 2022
An enjoyable drive through Fincher's filmography, and Nayman is able to make the director's misses feel substantial, without ever feeling like he was excusing their faults. The chapters on each movie are a little bit slim, and never really escape the suspicion that they are a collection of articles rather than a real interrogation of Fincher. The book sometimes focuses a little too much on surface connections between the movies rather than a deeper dive into the make up of them (although to be fair, the book opened my eyes to how often Fincher references himself in certain ways). But it's fun nonetheless and the accompanying art work is gorgeous. It's also given me the excuse to finally sort out watching The Game and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
April 8, 2025
Written by Adam Nayman, ‘David Fincher: Mind Games’ is a forensic analysis of the genre-defining films made by an auteur of noir cinema. Nayman provides a diagnosis to the themes that define Fincher’s films that are interested in the balance between the order and chaos of societal structures.
It’s not a slight on the book as its intention behind its conception was to explore the seeds of the screenplays, but I would have loved to have gotten more insight into how the fruit grew within the films. To atone, we’re given a handful of interviews from those who have worked in Fincher’s orbit in the final portion where he himself is completely omnipresent, yet absent. It’s an observation of game strategy, not an understanding.
⭐️⭐️⭐️✨
It’s not a slight on the book as its intention behind its conception was to explore the seeds of the screenplays, but I would have loved to have gotten more insight into how the fruit grew within the films. To atone, we’re given a handful of interviews from those who have worked in Fincher’s orbit in the final portion where he himself is completely omnipresent, yet absent. It’s an observation of game strategy, not an understanding.
⭐️⭐️⭐️✨
January 7, 2024
Nayman has an absolutely exquisite command of the languages of both film and English, and he has plenty of filmic insight to bolster his analyses. Unfortunately, a writer of this calibre deserves a better publisher; while the final product is beautifully-rendered, I have never seen as many copy editing errors in a single book! Adam, hire me - I'm diligent as hell and will work for a fraction of the price!
May 28, 2024
The only reason it took me so long to read this book was because it took me so long to finish up my Fincher rewatch. MANK was sitting there for months and I finally knocked it out this weekend, which allowed me to finish the book.
Nayman isn’t always my cup of tea but I really did dig his deep dives of some of my favorite movies ever. I definitely plan on picking it up the next time I rewatch any of Fincher’s movies in the future. The interviews at the end were a real treat as well. 7.5/10
Nayman isn’t always my cup of tea but I really did dig his deep dives of some of my favorite movies ever. I definitely plan on picking it up the next time I rewatch any of Fincher’s movies in the future. The interviews at the end were a real treat as well. 7.5/10
September 26, 2023
Coffee table books are easy to read considering this was thirty percent pages with pictures.
December 21, 2023
If this had come out post-Killer, I would’ve loved to read Nayman dissect Smiths songs for a full page-and-a-half.
February 3, 2024
Великолепное издание (вёрстка, качество бумаги, и т.д), которое, к сожалению, не соответствует своему содержанию.
Автор:
а) абсолютно равнодушен к фильмам Финчера (а то и вовсе ненавидит их, как и самого режиссёра), так что не ждите, что узнаете хотя бы крупицу новой информации о его творчестве.
б) банально не умеет писать – человек недавно для себя открыл такие вещи как «сложносочиненное/сложноподчиненное предложение», «причастный оборот», и поэтому каждый предложение примерно в 8 раз длиннее, чем должно быть.
Эти два факта складываются в какой-то энциклопедический образец самолюбования – «смотрите, как я грациозно нашел отголосок аллюзии на историческую параллель между его фильмом и абсолютно рандомного факта, который пришел мне в голову».
Хочется прям подзатыльник прописать со словами «хватит паясничать, делом лучше займись».
Сука, прям выбесил.
Автор:
а) абсолютно равнодушен к фильмам Финчера (а то и вовсе ненавидит их, как и самого режиссёра), так что не ждите, что узнаете хотя бы крупицу новой информации о его творчестве.
б) банально не умеет писать – человек недавно для себя открыл такие вещи как «сложносочиненное/сложноподчиненное предложение», «причастный оборот», и поэтому каждый предложение примерно в 8 раз длиннее, чем должно быть.
Эти два факта складываются в какой-то энциклопедический образец самолюбования – «смотрите, как я грациозно нашел отголосок аллюзии на историческую параллель между его фильмом и абсолютно рандомного факта, который пришел мне в голову».
Хочется прям подзатыльник прописать со словами «хватит паясничать, делом лучше займись».
Сука, прям выбесил.
January 10, 2022
Never know what to rate these books. Four stars not necessarily for Nayman's criticism (which can be good but I often find pretentious) but because it caused me to revisit and consider all of Fincher's films. That's why I continue to purchase these large books which take up far too much space.
October 11, 2023
Took me 3 different tries to start this in earnest, which tells you something about the density (literal and not) of its text. But I got over the hump this time, and boy am I grateful; this is easily some of the best film analysis I’ve read anywhere, on anyone. Even better that it’s on one of my favorite directors, whose movies were such a thrill to watch and re-watch in sync with this book, which forensically examines each one through the specifics of its making and the wider lens of Fincher’s oeuvre. It’s fantastically intelligent stuff, as heady and academic as a textbook but way more fun to read. I’ve always enjoyed Adam Nayman’s pretentious-sounding-but-grandiloquently-insightful podcast appearances on The Big Picture, and his writing has a similar bent: I had to google a lot of words, but the precision and wit of each literary puzzle piece slots perfectly into the whole. Not a light read, but a great one.
August 19, 2022
This one took me a lot longer to get through than Nayman's last two books. I'm not sure if it's because there's a lot less going on in Fincher's work compared to PTA or the Coen brothers or if it's because Nayman is obviously a lot less interested in him.
I second what everyone else said about these books desperately needing a proofreader or two. Such an impressive object to look at with so many unfortunate little errors!
I second what everyone else said about these books desperately needing a proofreader or two. Such an impressive object to look at with so many unfortunate little errors!
April 18, 2024
I checked this book out because my prior experience with Nayman was brief but decent, and I'm a casual fan of Fincher movies. I thought it'd be fun to take a guided deep dive into Fincher's movies. However, I quickly struggled with this book, and that struggle only got worse the deeper I got.
There is a conceptual organization to the book, but no particular organization or thesis within a given chapter. Nayman says a whoooole lot, yet somehow nothing at all. Chapter after chapter contain heaps and heaps of references, statements, observations, and so many "it could be noted's", "possiblys", and other dissembling phrases that it becomes impossible to get a bead on what Nayman's actual point is. I longed to learn more about Fincher as a filmmaker, but instead the book just reiterates the premise that Fincher is an exacting and technically precise director who frequently deals with dark subjects.
I eventually felt like I was lost in a multifractal, no clue where I was in a chapter or where that chapter was going. Reading became an ornate slog. I have no deeper understanding or appreciation of Fincher movies than I had previously.
There is a conceptual organization to the book, but no particular organization or thesis within a given chapter. Nayman says a whoooole lot, yet somehow nothing at all. Chapter after chapter contain heaps and heaps of references, statements, observations, and so many "it could be noted's", "possiblys", and other dissembling phrases that it becomes impossible to get a bead on what Nayman's actual point is. I longed to learn more about Fincher as a filmmaker, but instead the book just reiterates the premise that Fincher is an exacting and technically precise director who frequently deals with dark subjects.
I eventually felt like I was lost in a multifractal, no clue where I was in a chapter or where that chapter was going. Reading became an ornate slog. I have no deeper understanding or appreciation of Fincher movies than I had previously.
May 23, 2024
I love this. It's not Nayman trying to convince us that Fincher is great - he isn't always convinced of that himself. Reading a good film critic give you insight into more than just the book's subject, it gives you insight into general filmmaking decisions, so you feel more capable of analyzing and understanding any film. I'm very forgetful, so it's a temporary superpower, then I go back to enjoying movies like a dumb idiot. I meant to rewatch some Fincher work while reading but only got around to Gone Girl and the first 20 minutes of The Social Network, and despite promises that season two will be amazing I can't get past the first episode of Mindhunter.
November 14, 2024
Smart, fun, exceptionally designed. I can't quite imagine spending $45 on it because I don't love Fight Club, Zodiac, and Gone Girl that much (but I love them a lot) and Fincher's other movies are just fine. His analysis of stills and scenes from the various films are often surprising and funny, and the interviews in the back of the book are almost as interesting as the reviews of these films.
I ended up watching seven Fincher movies while reading this book and that was also fun.
I ended up watching seven Fincher movies while reading this book and that was also fun.
Currently reading
August 20, 2022I've been reading this in chunks after I revisit different films in Fincher's filmography. I personally find Nayman's writing a bit too dense to be a non-academic read. I appreciate how he discusses all the influential works of particular scenes.
Surprisingly there was no discussion about the basement scenes in Zodiac. I was hoping for something there...
Surprisingly there was no discussion about the basement scenes in Zodiac. I was hoping for something there...
dnf
June 22, 2023i feel like there was a palpable sense that the author was not a fan of fincher’s films, which is fine; what irked me was that this book just didn’t even seem interested in the films outside of a certain perspective. and god little white lies continues their trend of combining beautiful production with an absolutely infuriating lack of proofreading
November 6, 2023
I really love the subject matter but the writing is so pretentious that it is sometime unreadable. There are small parts that allow for some interesting bits, but it is a slog. The highs are super high and the parts at the end of chapter that show inspirations are great, it is just such a chore to get through
December 30, 2023
Used this as a companion to rewatching David Fincher’s entire filmography (didn’t rewatch Mindhunter). Watch a movie, read the chapter, watch a movie, read the chapter. Then finished the TV section and the interviews.
It’s good to read someone smarter than me’s analysis of all of these excellent films and the extra engagement with the material helps the movies all really sink in.
It’s good to read someone smarter than me’s analysis of all of these excellent films and the extra engagement with the material helps the movies all really sink in.
June 22, 2022
A nice assessment of the filmography of one of my favorite directors. The text is perhaps a little more focused on the specifics of references to other films and directors than I need as a non-film school movie buff. I have enjoyed Adam Nayman on podcasts and it continues with his writing.
January 28, 2022
My Favorite Critic on one of my favorite directors.
March 19, 2022
Needs copy editing BADLY. Hard to take seriously when the spelling/grammar/syntax are so glaringly subpar.
June 30, 2022
Adam Nayman is one of my favorite critics working today. Mind Games is a rigorous analysis of Fincher - both appreciative and critical.
Read
August 29, 2022Hardcover from Amazon
August 28, 2023
A book as visually appealing as the films of David Fincher
January 19, 2024
Hardly “authoritative” but some really good analysis and I especially loved all the interviews at the end.
May 16, 2024
I’m only sad that this came out before the killer content could be included. Adam nayman is one of my favorite people who talks about movies. I loved every page of this book.
December 18, 2021
David Fincher is the greatest director working today so I jumped at a current retrospective of all his work (this includes Mank). It’s always hard to review a analysis but I’ll just say this is insightful and never pretentious. Things that don’t work are called out but never in a smug or irritating way. Crucially, this is a thoughtful look at our most meticulous cinematic artist and any fan will devour this in days. On a personal note, this is the 40th book I’ve read this year…or a light number of Fincher’s amount of takes.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 32 reviews