The film degenerates rapidly into a figurative strike on a few parts of present day life that are so uncontroversially risky and obviously over-investigated (pair-holding, media craze, television show demagoguery, JonBenét Ramsey child rearing) that our exclusive trust here is that Fincher is ridiculing the parodies in some sort of second request incongruity.
I can guarantee you that Fincher (and Flynn, the writer/screenwriter) are firmly not softening new ground up the historical backdrop of incongruity. At the point when individuals in this motion picture snap on their TVs, they mystically begin at the very same lachrymose stations. At the point when individuals open their mouths (counting the louche new “companions” that Amy makes amid her inconsistently described outing into how the other half lives) they all speak Fincherois, a colloquialism that satiated years back. Why do these stilted idealizations exclude the work as a vanguard occurrence of incongruity? We do not have the space here, yet the short answer is that new types of incongruity never start as the prop of social study, they rather offer ascent to it.
Is it true that this is dim parody, however, you may sensibly inquire? No, for it would first must be interesting.