when a director knows how to start a movie

Three minutes. This is it. The beginning.

One of my favorite things to look for in movies is how filmmakers start their stories. Exposition is tricky. You need to give the audience enough information to follow along, but you shouldn't overwhelm them.

And David Fincher is a true master of this. His opening sequences flow so seamlessly and hook the audience so effortlessly that we barely notice how or when we receive all the key details that shape our understanding of the world and characters. In the age of visual hooks, ads and TV commercials that fight for our attention, it's easy to overlook just how ahead of his time, Fincher has always been.

In the cinema, where people have already paid for their tickets and are committed to a two-hour film, making the first few minutes exciting might seem unnecessary, but not for Fincher. A lot of people were just like, what the fuck, who is this twerp? To him, the first 15 minutes are just as important as the entire film, if not more.

He doesn't just want you to sit through it. He wants you to absorb it. Every moment is designed to plant ideas, setting up lines of dialogue, shots, or details that will click into place later.

And there's no better example of this than the prologue and first 30 minutes of Fight Club, an exposition so perfectly executed that it sets up the entire film and pulls you into its world of chaos. Gentlemen, welcome to Fight Club. Fight Club is one of my favorite book adaptations because it not only improves on several aspects of Chuck Palahniuk's novel, but also perfectly captures its humor and stream-of-consciousness style.

From the very first moment the film places us inside the narrator's mind. Deep in his amygdala, the part of the brain responsible for fear, before zooming out to reveal the gun in his mouth, held by Tyler. We are inside his head not just visually, but sonically.

With a gun barrel between your teeth you speak only in vowels. Hearing and experiencing his thoughts as much as we see them. The scene immediately plants the most important questions in our minds.

Why is the narrator in this situation? Three minutes. This is it.

What's going to happen in three minutes? People are always asking me if I know Tyler Durden. Who is Tyler Durden?

And right away, it offers some answers. The Demolitions Committee of Project Mayhem wrapped the foundation columns of a dozen buildings with blasting gelatin. Before introducing a third key character: A girl named Marla Singer.

And transitioning seamlessly into the past. This flashback structure frames the narrative, showing us the moment of highest tension, which ultimately bookends the story. But this prologue isn’t separate from the rest of the exposition.

The quick pace of the montage and the narrator's chaotic thinking pull us into his mind, carrying us through the setup. The film’s space-time is unplaceable. It takes place in a city that feels like nowhere and everywhere.

No, wait. Back up. Let me start earlier.

Over the next 25 minutes, we see flashbacks within flashbacks, introducing Bob, the Narrator's insomnia, his consumer-driven lifestyle, his morally questionable addiction to support groups, his narcolepsy, the cave, Marla Singer, and finally Tyler Durden. All of these elements are packed into a single-serving portion of exposition without ever feeling like a forced information dump. Despite the rapid pacing, Fincher ensures that the audience follows along effortlessly.

What's amazing here is how we move through a sequence of montages, with moments from the Narrator's life transitioning one after the other. The editing and narration makes this both unique and easy to digest. The entirety of act one of this film really is like a long montage that explains Jack and his world.

The inciting incident, which marks the end of the first act and the exposition, comes at the 28-minute mark when the Narrator’s apartment is destroyed, wiping away his old life. This moment pushes him to reach out to Tyler Durden, setting everything in motion. To better explain why this 30 minute sequence is perfect and how Fincher achieved it, let's take a look at how a screenplay typically looks like.

This is Syd Field’s paradigm, which organizes stories into structured timelines. It's a simple formula we've seen countless times in movies, but the key elements to highlight are the inciting incident and plot points, both crucial in driving the screenplay forward. They're often confused, but the main difference lies in timing and the protagonist's role.

The inciting incident disrupts the protagonist's normal world, something that happens to him making his role passive. Plot points, on the other hand, are events and decisions that redefine the story's direction. Here, the protagonist takes action, actively shifting the narrative into the next act.

In Fight Club, the inciting incident is the destruction of the narrator's apartment, forcing him to start over and seek shelter. This leads him to Tyler Durden, and his decision to live with him ultimately results in the creation of Fight Club. So really, that's the moment of the beginning of true psychosis there.

Plot point #1. Now the first act is over and the real story begins. Tyler?

Later on in the film, Tyler disappears and he looks for him around the country, only to realize that he remembers these places. Do you know me? Are you sure this isn't a test?

Plot point #2. This starts the third act and will lead us back to the place of the first scene. These two plot points anchor the story.

The first one is the start of it all. The loss of control for the character. Which leads to the inception of Fight Club.

And the second is where he wants to take back control and end Project Mayhem, which has taken on a life of its own. But we are talking about Fincher. It's not that simple with him.

You see, Fight Club is a peculiar case because, as we later learn, the narrator blew up his own apartment. So was he active or passive? From his perspective and ours, following his unreliable narration, it seems like an external event.

But by the end we realize he was never truly passive. This perfectly aligns with the film's themes of self destruction, identity crisis, and repressed desires, making it a story that resists a standard structure. Part of the praise has to go to the original author of the book, Chuck Palahniuk and screenwriter Jim Uhls, who worked together with Fincher to present and get studio execs to make Fight Club.

I said, here's the two ways you can go. You can do this $3 million version of this movie and make it on videotape, or maybe it may go straight to DVD, or the real act of sedition here is the $50 million version. We went off, and when we came back we had a schedule, we had a budget, we had a cast, we had storyboards, and we had a script.

We put this giant thing on the table and we said, here it is, it’s Brad Pitt, it’s Edward Norton. You have three days. , let us know.

He had everything figured out, securing Brad Pitt and Edward Norton early on and later casting Helena Bonham Carter, who had mostly played very different roles, but became just as essential to the film as her co-stars. Look, I want to take the book, make it into a movie. I don't want to change it that much.

I want to try to maintain as much of this voice. The strongest thing the film has going for it is Chuck's voice. But for an auteur as detail oriented, and hands on as Fincher, the screenplay is just a guideline.

A film like this evolves through continuous adjustments with key decisions made throughout production. While text has many tools to explain, and describe, in film visual cues shape the logic, making the director’s role crucial. So how does he build these perfect stories?

Let's go back to the first scene. Déja vu, all over again. The technique of a deadline is one of the most common tools to create tension in a film.

You got about 30 seconds. By establishing that in 3 minutes everything ends, the filmmakers create a world which hinges on whether there will be resolution in this time frame. Think of your favorite films, and I'm sure you will find that certain scenes, or even the whole film is built around a critical deadline.

Find the president and bring them out in 24 hours. And here Fincher uses the type of deadline that Hitchcock talked about. The bomb under the table.

But Fincher tricks you again, because when we return to this moment, the two things that build suspense at the start are no longer relevant. One, the bomb beneath them was never a threat. It's in a different building and they are safe.

Jack passes out so we fade to black, and then when we come up, they're in a building, but they're not in the same building. Its purpose in the opening is to get your attention, to look for information and possible solutions on how to resolve the danger. And two, the threat Tyler seemed to pose was never real.

He's not physically there, and the danger we assumed was external turns out to be something entirely different. The flashback structure also shows that the film's nonlinear narrative is conscious of the viewer's presence. The narrator has all the information, but he only shares a limited amount, keeping most of it secret.

Even though we get clues to the twists from the start, I know this because Tyler knows this. Or think of what Fincher calls the ‘Subliminal Brads’. Subliminal.

Dink. I love using a subliminal advertising technique to introduce a character. The fractured storytelling mirrors the Narrator's already disturbed mind, making the eventual twist feel perfect and inevitable in hindsight.

This unreliable storytelling extends beyond structure. Breaking the fourth wall isn't just a stylistic choice. It's a side effect of the film playing out inside the narrator's head.

And to emphasize this even further, Fincher makes the film even more meta, turning it into a film within a film. For example, Tyler's exposition isn’t just a backstory. It's a performance.

He addresses the audience directly, pointing at objects on screen as if he's presenting a manifesto. It's as though Tyler knows he's not just selling his philosophy to the narrator, he's selling it to us, the viewers. Showing us that we are also consumers right at this moment.

And the intertextuality goes even deeper since we are watching a film which he is operating within the film as well. It's also about power. Up until the narrator meets Tyler on the plane, we see him judging those around him, making smart remarks, which positions him as superior in our eyes.

But with Tyler, the dynamic shifts instantly. Tyler you are by far the most interesting single-serving friend I’ve ever met. In just a moment Tyler takes control by pointing out the very characteristic the Narrator relies on to feel superior.

How's that working out for you? What? Being clever.

And don't forget that with the difference between the two expositions, Fincher keeps the theme of the opposing characters in mind as well. The Narrator's exposition was similar to his character: a passive observer showing us his furniture, etc. While Tyler is actively presenting us what he does, only another part of his mind talking to us.

One is chaos, the other is order. On the topic of order, David Fincher is the most precise and economical director in my eyes. The reason why he can keep us on the edge of our seats is because every shot and every scene he implements has a place in the film.

He only uses what's really necessary. If I can make the movie shorter I would, but given my intimate knowledge of all the material I just couldn't get it any shorter. And he means that.

Take this scene from The Girl with the Drgon Tattoo. The character is invited to a remote town far up north so he takes to train. That's it.

A simple scene, but there are several ways to handle it as a director. Do you show him leaving and then cut to the estate when he arrives? Should he drive there by himself?

Maybe a taxi could take him and just skip through the drive itself. Each of these choices would omit details that become relevant later. So instead, this is how Fincher does it.

The location is far, so getting there takes a long time, and it's much colder than in Stockholm, so he feels uncomfortable. The character lacks crucial information about the one inviting him, making him slightly concerned and skeptical. The head of the estate is wealthy but unable to travel, so he sends his right-hand man to pick Mikael up.

This establishes the man's importance while leaving his trustworthiness uncertain. By stating that he wants to go home: It foreshadows how important this place will be throughout the film, and the bridge they cross itself is one of he most crucial locations to the investigation. In the car, it’s established that the right-hand man has already lied or manipulated him: That Mikael wants to leave as soon as possible: And the reassurance that the ones inviting him pose no threat, so he can relax.

This also implies that he might change his mind after hearing their proposal. But as we later see, the more he's captivated by the story of the Vangers, he's less and less insistent on going back with the train. But simpler moments like this arrival sequence Fincher adds layers of meaning and foreshadows important character moments.

Every shot has a place here, even if he makes them as short as possible. He's a perfectionist, and leaving out these elements would take away from the meaning of this journey. On the topic of his methods, let's also mention some of his other openings, because Fight Club is just one example, but I believe he nails it every time.

The first scene of Zodiac shows you the second murder of the serial killer. The audience might wonder why not the first one? We get hints, but the full answer only becomes clear toward the end of the film.

Fincher not only ties a key clue of the investigation to the beginning, but he also bookends the film by bringing back the young man who survived the attack, 20 years later, providing a final potential answer to the unsolved mystery. Or take the opening of The Killer. Arguably the strongest part of the film.

It doesn't just offer a glimpse into the assassin’s mind, it sets up the repeated lines that shift the meaning with each chapter. All of his films establish character conflict and intrigue from the very first moments, laying the foundation for everything that follows. And then there are his infamous title sequences, showing just how much emphasis he places on a film’s opening.

They’re frontloaded with spectacle and information. The first ten to twenty minutes of his films are mini masterpieces, short films that could stand on their own. As Field said in his book about screenplays: Endings are manifested in the resolution, and the resolution is conceived in the beginning.

In Fight Club, a film so famous for its ending, it’s just as important to look at its beginning. David Fincher is a master of control, and he's not afraid to remind you that you are watching a film. His attention to detail, whether through subtle CGI, precise camera movements, or deliberate casting choices, creates an immersive experience that is truly his own.

His visuals are further elevated by the work of sound designer Ren Klyce, along with the unforgettable scores of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross in most of his films, or, in the case of Fight Club, The Dust Brothers. Together, these elements help him craft timeless masterpieces that continue to captivate audiences. So next time you watch one of his films, pay attention to how every element is carefully placed to shape the whole.

Listen, take notes of the small things, and recognize how everything he provides you from the first moments is crucial. Fincher doesn't just craft films, he creates complete experiences that demand more than simple viewing. His films are not only endlessly rewatchable, they are endlessly worthy of study.

You met me at a very strange time in my life.