I just finished reading the book, I really liked it, and was wondering if the movie is worth renting. Is the movie any good?
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
The movie's far better than the book, in my opinion.
I never got far in the book. Never more than two thirds of the way through. Honestly, it just disgusted me--not in a visceral way, as some sort of physical description that was revolting, but more in terms of philosophy. It made me feel physically ill, and I wanted no part in it.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
The ending to the movie is a little different than the book, and some scenes are left out, but it is very definitely worth watching.
--Enigmatic
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I haven't read the book. I did see the movie and liked it very much. I didn't expect to like it and was very pleasantly surprised.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Everybody talks about how wonderful the movie is. It was pretty meh for me.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Steve, steve, steve.
Don't you remember the first rule of Fight Club?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I apologize. I seem to have forgotten the second rule as well. I apologize. I really do.
(I'll go out and rent IT. I was somewhat worried because Entertainment Weekly didn't give it a very good review, and they are usually a reliable source for that kind of thing.)
*opens can of frozen orange juice concentrate*
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've very jealous, Steve, that you've found a place that, to you, is pretty reliable for that sort of thing.
I haven't.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I usually disagree with Entertainment Weekly's reviews. Other than OSC, who I sometimes disagree with too, I can't find a reliable source for reviews.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
mph- I didn't say they were VERY reliable. I said usually. Sometimes I tend to disagree with them. Actually, a lot of the time.
By the way, check this out! That is just plain crazy. There are two other volumes, as well.
We should start an online Hatrack chapter.
Edit: Yeah, Orson Scott Card's reviews are usually my best bet.
Posted by Black Mage (Member # 5800) on :
I can! He's one of my best friends. He sees movies almost as soon as they come out. And he's always dead on with reccomendations.
Same with books and music, actually.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Chuck Pahlaniuk likes the movie much, much more than he likes his own book.
But that doesn't say much, since he doesn't like the book.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Definitely one I need to rent. And, if I like it, purchase it at Wal-Mart for $13.72 (I can't believe I know how much it costs! I looked at it ONCE! Just once. That is crazy.)
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
All right, gotta ask. Are there any parts of the movie that might be considered objectionable? Like, excessive vulgarity, intense violence, or nudity? I do want to watch it, but I don't care for that kind of stuff.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
AFR,
yes
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Yeah, thought so. Hmph.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Is there a lot of nudity? Or is it mainly just violence and language?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
There are a lot of scenes of people beating each other up, lots of language, one sex scene (mostly CGI, but still), if you rent it (esp DVD) there is more nudity, but it is pretty brief. Best as I recall anyway.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
So, it would be ok to rent?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
It really depends. I know a lot of people that were VERY offended by the movie for various reasons. Some because of the seemingly unnecessary violence, blood and language, others by the ideas presented.
Either way, if you're sensitive to that sort of thing...think twice.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I think I'll be alright. I don't think my mom will want to watch it with me though. My dad might, he was asking about it the other day.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
There's some very short flashes of full frontal male nudity in the movie. It's in reference to working as a projectionist and splicing a few frames from porn films into children's movies. Most go by so quick you don't see anything, but there is one very, um, noticeable one at the very end.
--Enigmatic
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
What do you mean by "noticeable?"
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I didn't expect to like the movie, and so I didn't see it in the theater. A friend of mine forced me to see it, and I think it's brilliant. (I think they marketed it totally wrong, though.)
If you are at all sensitive about vulgarity, violence, or genitalia, then this is likely not a movie for you.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I think I can stand it, for the movie's sake.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I love that movie. Except I cannot understand WHY a person would want to join a fight club or
spoiler
follow a complete and total lunatic. I also read the book too, and it's one of those rare instances where I liked the movie a bit better. Let me know what you think of it. But it is a bit violent, which is an understatement.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can totally understand why somebody would want to do that.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Join a Fight Club, you mean? I probably would. Its something for people who have anger problems but contain them. Let off a little steam. Who cares if you get a few battle scars in the process?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Heh.
-o-
Actually, what I think is unfortunate is that a lot of people who saw the movies were adolescent males who were unable to grap the subtleties of meaning and humor in the movie--present company excluded, of course; I'm thinking here of my students--and just saw it as a glamorization of actual fistfighting. I would say we had a spike in fights in the five years or so after that movie came out.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm an adolescent male. Are you saying I won't be able to grip the subtleties of meaning and humor in the movie? Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:. . . present company excluded, of course; I'm thinking here of my students . . .
Hatrackers, as a rule, are smarter than the average bear. Even the adolescent Hatrackers.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Ah, I see. I didn't see that. Kind of half reading stuff. I've got the not sleeping well blues.
Anywho, I understand now. Lets all laugh. *ha ha ha* I feel better now.
(I appreciate the implied compliment. I need the warm, fuzzy feelings inside.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I tend to agree with what Porter said earlier. Everyone seems to be all in a tizzy about this movie, but I think it's kinda blah now.
I'll be honest though, when I first saw it I thought it was great, and cool, and laaaaa.
But after watching it a couple more times it really wore on me, and I started to dislike it altogether, and now I think it's a lot more hype than substance.
It didn't have the staying power of say, Donnie Darko or Boondock Saints.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I saw the movie and then read the book and I also liked the movie much better than the book. To me, the message was completely different. The book is blatant nihilism, but the movie seems more hopeful and existential.
I don't know what it is about Palahniuk, but I've read three of his books (Fight Club, Survivor, and Lullaby) and I remember all of them incredibly vividly. In fact, I don't want to read any more of his books because of this. I have enough of his ideas in my head for a lifetime. :-P
quote: It didn't have the staying power of say, Donnie Darko or Boondock Saints.
I don't understand the love of Donnie Darko that everybody seems to have. It didn't do much for me. I liked Boondock Saints for one watch, but I wouldn't sit through it again.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
To Lyrhawn:
Funny you should say that, Donnie Darko got from excellent to frustrating for me in three viewings. First time I thought the "unexplained" parts were in fact due to my "narrow" vision of the movie. Second time I was wondering if they didn't forget about a quarter of the movie. Third time I was sure they forgot it. I still want to see the director's cut, heard everything is way better explained.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've only seen the director's cut, I never saw the other version, but now I am curious to see it to know what was left out.
Fight Club bothered me because people I think, keep trying to make it into more than it is, and keep trying to find more to it than there really is. The same could be said of many people and Donnie Darko too, but I'm not sure. I haven't watched DD enough times to be sure there isn't something there. Everytime I DO watch DD though, I'm always left contemplating something at the end.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
If I see more in Fight Club than you do, who's to say I'm "trying to make more of it than it really is"? If I see it, isn't it really there, and aren't you the one who simply doesn't see it?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
::shrugs::
That's entirely possible. Then again, a lot of people saw a homosexual relationship between the Hobbits in Lord of the Rings. Now, I'm fairly positive Tolkien didn't intend for that to be there, and I really don't see it, but a lot of people do. Could it be the rest of us are missing something and there really is a homosexual element to it? Or are they just reading more into it than there is to be seen?
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
I liked Fight Club a lot, it's really worth a watch.
I've been wanting to read the book but I keep forgetting to look for a copy of it. Maybe this thread will help me remember in the future Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Fight Club seems a bit homoerotic to me... The book made it clearer. In L of the R they just love each other a lot though and are good close friends. Very close friends, as they kept nearly dying together.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Fight Club bothered me because people I think, keep trying to make it into more than it is, and keep trying to find more to it than there really is. The same could be said of many people and Donnie Darko too, but I'm not sure. I haven't watched DD enough times to be sure there isn't something there. Everytime I DO watch DD though, I'm always left contemplating something at the end.
I think this is true of a lot of movies, especially movies with complex psychological motifs like the two mentioned.
Also, most people that didn't fully enjoy the theatrical release of Donnie Darko found the Director's Cut to be a much, much more satisfying experience. The hardcore types, on the other hand, despise the Director's Cut because they feel it clarifies too much.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I tend to dislike things that are purposefully so cryptic that they almost don't want you to understand them. I dislike them in the same sense that I dislike elitists who pretend to understand deep philosophy just so they can look down on people who don't, or who don't care, or who think it's all crap.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I had no idea what I was in for seeing Fight Club for the first time and absolutely loved it. I still love it. It's, in my opinion, one of the best movie adaptations ever made. And the movie does have certain elements to it that the book can't compare to. But I think in the end the book is superior.
Though this is coming from a huge Pahlaniuk fan. I love his writing and so naturally appreciate reading the book more than watching the movie.
Icarus, you're right about them marketing the movie totally wrong. And you're also right about how a lot of people missed the point of the movie, as well as the book. I used to post on a Palahniuk forum and some of the people there were ridiculous. I couldn't believe how off the mark people were about it. I had to stop posting there.
Corwin, if you own the original dvd, the directors cut is mostly just deleted scenes from that disc reincorporated back into the movie. There's also some close up shots of the "philosophy of time travel" book, showing the text of the pages. You can also find that in the special features of the original dvd. Then there are a few minor(but important) things that were created solely for the directors cut that really change(or fully explain) the backstory a little more.
I love both versions, but the biggest thing that keeps me from re-watching the directors cut is the change of opening song for the movie.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I often wonder to myself whether or not the people who go around saying 'most people just didn't *get* Fight Club' actually understood it themselves?
It is a pretty open call to arms -
It's not satirizing anything, it's an argument for Anarchy. It's a very political book.
Palahniuk is an Anarchist and he has an ax to grind against traditional American values. There is no doubt about that.
I wonder if the line between people who loved Fight Club and the people who didn't would be better characterized as: people who embrace Palahniuk's Anarchist message, and people who don't, rather than: people who get Fight Club, and people who don't. Honestly I'm not sure there're a whole lot of people who "didn't get" Fight Club.
It's all pretty open and obvious.
Choke, Survivor, Invisible Monsters, and Fight Club are all making the same arguments, by the way. His message is very definitely and very obviously, "Hey, let's scratch this culture out and start over, kids."
I think the people who hate fight club are the people who object to that message.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I also loved DD because it introduced me to Gary Jules' "Mad World" which I think is one of the best songs ever. And it was used to well in the movie.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
TL, in Fight Club, doesn't it matter at all to the overall message of the story that in the end, the anarchist (Tyler Durden) is defeated? Palahniuk has said that he views Fight Club as basically a romance story. In a dark and very twisted way, I tend to agree, about Fight Club and his other books as well, though I haven't read Invisible Monsters yet.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
He's not defeated. You've read the book? The hospital ending?
And I thought sort of the point of Fight Club was that Tyler Durden started something that the narrator couldn't control, no matter how badly he might have wanted to.
In the end, Fight Club was going to grow, and Project Mayhem was going to continue -- they didn't need Tyler Durden anymore.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Even if you forget about the book, and just consider the film version --
Project Mayhem acheives their goals; they bring down the buildings. They destroy what they set out to destroy. Tyler Durden wins, even though he no longer exists.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Invisible Monsters is, IMO, Pahlaniuk's best book.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I loved it too, Strider.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
*** SPOILERS ***
TL, I disagree with you about the point of Fight Club. I think that Edward Norton's character, who I believe is unnamed, is supposed to represent the common man who is ultimately unhappy with his life. He tries a very drastic approach to attempt to find meaning by destroying all of the meaningless things around him. Then after something meaningful is destroyed because of his actions, his friend Robert Palmer, he realizes how very wrong his approach was. He tries to destroy what he has created but it's too late. At this point, the book and movie take two very different approaches. The book essentially offers him no hope and reemphasizes the nihlist point that life is completely meaningless. However in the movie, he defeats the destructive part of himself and reunites with his girl. There is hope that his life will improve and have actual meaning in it. This is what I got out of the movie and I don't think I'm completely off. The scene where Tyler Durton holds up the convenience store clerk and tells him that he needs to hold to his dreams and stop doing something that he hates further reinforces my point of view. I see the movie as a call to arms not to anarchy but to cast off the meaningless and shallow parts of our lives and to instead embrace the things that truly matter.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Palahniuk has said that he views Fight Club as basically a romance story.
Indeed. I prefer the film version to the book because I like that aspect of the story the most, and it's brought out more in the film. I really like the film for that reason. The closing scene is heartwarming to me, in a very strange sort of way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And it is a very beautifully made film.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:I see the movie as a call to arms not to anarchy but to cast off the meaningless and shallow parts of our lives and to instead embrace the things that truly matter.
I agree with everything you posted until this sentence. I don't think we're in disagreement at all. He does make the point that we should cast off the meaningless parts of our lives -- but I think where you lose me is "embrace the things that truly matter."
I don't think Fight Club makes the argument to embrace much of anything.
Fight Club, to me, is making the argument, through the actions of individual characters who represent larger societies, that our culture does not work, and we must tear it down in order to rebuild something from its ashes.
It's a theme that Palahniuk hits over and over again in his books.
And it's there in every aspect of the movie. It's the whole philosophy of Tyler Durden. I could give 50 examples of this just from the Fight Club movie alone; but I'm won't because it would be time-consuming and I'm sure you know exactly what I'm talking about anyway, it was presented so clearly and obviously.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Amanecer, I disagree with where you think the book and the movie split. I agree with your description of Ed Norton's character in the movie. But in the book I remember the character being a lot more similar to Tyler naturally. In the movie he's much more along for the ride, where as in the book I feel he was much more a part of the goings on. Tyler still did keep him in the dark, but he wasn't so innocent himself.
People always seem to find hopelessness and nihilism in his books. I don't see that. I find hope. I see his writing as an impetus to question ourselves and what we know and what we take for granted. He's commenting on our society and showing how his different characters react to it. We don't all have to be space monkeys.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I do see your point TL. Casting of meaninglessness is definately emphasized more than embracing meaning. Part of the reason I probably see that message is because I believe in it and thus am predisposed to see it. However, I also think that this theme is present in the movie. What is the point of the convenience store scene? What is Edward Norton's character's motivation for the chant "His name was Robert Paulson" (or was it Palmer?)? Why does he try to reunite with Marla if he is not embracing what is good? Does he not in the end see destruction as a bad tool that should not be used?
Further, I disagree with the idea that Palahniuk believes "we must tear it down in order to rebuild something from its ashes." He calls himself a nihlist. I see no indication from his books or from that philosophy that he thinks something better could be built. His books are good at pointing out flaws, but they do not offer much in the way of solutions.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'm not sure you've read the book...
Have you?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
To Strider- You may be right about Norton's character being darker in the book. But I don't think that really contradicts anything I said. Further, Palahniuk calls himself a nihilist. It's part of his bio description on at least some of his books. I agree with "I see his writing as an impetus to question ourselves and what we know and what we take for granted". This is what I enjoyed in his books. However, I don't think he offers any societal solutions.
TL- yes, I read the book. I also read Survivor and Lullaby. But like I said before, I think the points of the book and of the movie are different. My comments above were talking about the movie.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Just to clarify: we're in agreement that Palahniuk is arguing in favor of the destruction of society?
And the point of contention is whether or not he thinks something better could be built in its place?
Because that's exactly why I call him an anarchist -- his vision for the future, as presented most clearly in Fight Club (the scene in which Tyler describes about his vision of the future) and Choke (the scene in which Victor talks about the meaningless of names... eh, if you've read it, you know the one I mean)..
What Palahniuk describes, in book after book, is the destruction of our culture.
And then what he describes, in book after book, is the future of living in a lawless society.
The arguments that he uses to explain the failures of the modern age are the arguments of Bakunin; which is why I call him an Anarchist instead of a nihilist. Although the two things are not mutually exclusive.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Another problem, Amanecer, might be that I'm talking about the broad stroke of Palahniuk's work and philosophy -- not limiting my comments to the movie and the movie alone.
Although again, I'm not actually sure we're disagreeing.
Although, no, I don't think a lot of hope is offered at the end of the film. Don't forget who really wins the battle of Jack and Tyler Durden.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I am unfamiliar with the works of Bakunin. While it often does seem that Palahniuk is calling for the destruction of society, I can't see him being any happier with anarchy. If there was an anarchist society I think he would find many, many flaws in that system and want to cast it off as well. I could be very wrong, but in his works I do not see a great future. I only see a bad present. Like what Strider said, I think the aim is more to encourage individuals to reform themselves. I saw an interview with Palahniuk sometime after 9/11 and on it he was saying that after 9/11 terrorist type analogies stopped being a good vehicle for his message. That's why he moved to horror books like Lullaby. I don't think he wants society to be literally destroyed in the sense of anarchy. I think he wants for each person to destroy the meaningless aspects of their own lives and thereby alter our current culture. Again, this is only my interpretation of his books.
quote: Although, no, I don't think a lot of hope is offered at the end of the film. Don't forget who really wins the battle of Jack and Tyler Durden.
I thought it was very clear in the film that Tyler lost and "Jack" won. *shrugs*
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Okay, then we *are* in disagreement. Because Palahniuk *is* calling for the destruction of society, and Tyler Durden won.
Interesting.
I guess in my original assertion that Fight Club was actually easy to understand, I may have been giving people too much credit.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I guess in my original assertion that Fight Club was actually easy to understand, I may have been giving people too much credit.
Wow, that was really rude.
In the movie, why do you think that Tyler won?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Also, I'm debating my statement of "I think he wants for each person to destroy the meaningless aspects of their own lives and thereby alter our current culture." This implies that he wants to build something and I think that might be giving him false motives. He seems only to describe destruction, not building. I think he does this to point out flaws not to literally encourage people to rise against the government.
"Self-improvement is masturbation, maybe self-destruction is the answer." -Tyler
Does this mean that Palahniuk thinks we should all kill ourselves? Or is it maybe part of a larger analogy?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Eh, I don't think I meant that the way you took it. But it sounded bad. Sorry.
In the movie, as in the book, the narrator is powerless to stop the tide which Tyler Durden creates. If you take the story of the movie at face value, and forget about the philosophy of it, it's a story about one man trying to stop another from doing something -- which is blowing up the credit buildings in his bid to begin to create a new society.
That is the thrust of the on-the-surface story, and the climax around which the plot is built.
Jack fails, Tyler Durden wins -- the buildings are destroyed.
If you look at the philosophical underpinnings of the story, you can say, Sure, but that's not really what the story's about. The story is about two men who create their own miniature society to rage against the mainstream through mischief and mayhem... And the struggle for dominance between them.
Which is also a battle that Tyler Durden wins, because even though Jack destroys Tyler -- the specific entity that is Tyler, and at the end of the film Tyler is gone and Jack still exists... He still loses because he's unable to control or stop the miniature society that he and Tyler created. It's beyond his control, now; it's a Frankenstein's Monster.
The whole Twilight Zone third-act (including the "His name was Robert Paulson" chant) in which everyone is a member of Fight Club, including the only people who might've had a chance to stop it -- the Police -- is there to show us that Fight Club will live on. There's one in every city. Project Mayhem will continue, in spite of who came out alive, Jack or Tyler. It can't be stopped, now.
Which of course was a point perfectly punctuated by the the fact that the final shot in the film is Jack and Marla standing at the window watching helplessly as the buildings are destroyed spectacularly, one by one.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Okay, then we *are* in disagreement. Because Palahniuk *is* calling for the destruction of society, and Tyler Durden won.
Interesting.
I guess in my original assertion that Fight Club was actually easy to understand, I may have been giving people too much credit.
Or you were just being narrow-minded and egotistical. Seriously, art allows for more than just your interpretation. I would even extend that to most art allows for more than the artists interpretation as well.
EDIT: I wrote this before your post. I probably took that the wrong way as well. It didn't sound good, but this post was pretty reactionary. Sorry for the attack.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Also, I'm debating my statement of "I think he wants for each person to destroy the meaningless aspects of their own lives and thereby alter our current culture." This implies that he wants to build something and I think that might be giving him false motives. He seems only to describe destruction, not building. I think he does this to point out flaws not to literally encourage people to rise against the government.
"Self-improvement is masturbation, maybe self-destruction is the answer." -Tyler
Does this mean that Palahniuk thinks we should all kill ourselves? Or is it maybe part of a larger analogy?
It's part of the larger analogy. Imagine that Tyler Durden is not actually referencing an individual in that statement, but in fact is referencing our entire culture, our entire way of life, and you'll have the idea.
And I think you are giving him slight false motives; this is the crux of our disagreement. He *does* describe destruction, but he also describes the future that would exist after that destruction...
He does it in at least four different books. (All the ones I mentioned in an earlier post.)
It's just that his vision of the future is not a "rebuilt" anything.
From Fight Club:
quote:In the world I see, you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway.
As to the question of whether or not Palahniuk is literally calling for the destruction of the government, I doubt it. And that's not something I ever said.
His argument is an intellectual one. Does he literally want to see people die in some kind of overthrow?
I'd be very, very surprised if he did.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Or you were just being narrow-minded and egotistical. Seriously, art allows for more than just your interpretation.
At least I am attempting to illustrate a point, rather than just lashing out at people. I am trying to give this matter some thoughtful analysis and an argument that supports my interpretation.
If someone can do the same, and argue an opposite view, I will listen to what they have to say. I am open-minded about this.
Demonstrate to me, using thoughts and ideas and quotes from the work of Palahniuk, where and how I am wrong, and I will flip to your point of view in a heartbeat.
My mind is not unchangeable. This is just what I think and I'm trying to give good reasons why I think it.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
solo apologized for their post. You reacted to the post as if it was a hot potato and threw it away with an insult. Not very nice of you.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I'm sorry, Steve -- where did I insult *anyone*? Saying he was lashing out at someone was an insult?
He was lashing out -- otherwise what did he have to apologize for?
And by the way, did you end up watching the movie and if so what were your thoughts on it?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote: At least I am attempting to illustrate a point, rather than just lashing out at people. I am trying to give this matter some thoughtful analysis and an argument that supports my interpretation.
If someone can do the same, and argue an opposite view, I will listen to what they have to say. I am open-minded about this.
I was referring to that part, actually. You see, where you said that first sentence you were basically saying that everyone else is to stupid and wasn't trying to do the same. I may have just taken it the wrong way.
But it still wasn't very nice. Especially after solo edited the post to apologize.
Posted by solo (Member # 3148) on :
I am not trying to say that you are wrong in your interpretation of Fight Club or Palahniuk. That is my point. I don't think there is a single right interpretation. Art is subjective. You are speaking in a lot of absolutes regarding your interpretations.
Your comment was rude. So was my reaction to it and that is what I was apologizing for.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: As to the question of whether or not Palahniuk is literally calling for the destruction of the government, I doubt it. And that's not something I ever said.
His argument is an intellectual one. Does he literally want to see people die in some kind of overthrow?
I'd be very, very surprised if he did.
I think I might have misunderstood you before. I thought you believed that he did want true anarchy of the type described by Tyler. If you are instead saying that he simply wants people to change their lifestlye from the status quo, I would agree with you.
And I think that solo is right that art is subjective. Even if Palahuik said that he in no way intended to portray the message that I recieved, that would not lessen my enjoyment of his work or the message that I get from it. Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
You still haven't answered the question of the convenience store worker, TL. What was the point of that scene under your interpretation?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm watching Fight Club as we speak. I rented it from Movie Gallery. I'm four minutes in, and I already love it.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
First viewing equals watching for movie's sake. Second viewing equals for hidden meaning's sake. I've only watched it once. I thought it was definitely a powerful, not quite the right word but the first one that comes to mind, movie.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I prefer the film version to the book because I like that aspect of the story the most, and it's brought out more in the film. I really like the film for that reason. The closing scene is heartwarming to me, in a very strange sort of way.