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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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*
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1336 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You still haven't answered the question of the convenience store worker, TL. What was the point of that scene under your interpretation?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm watching Fight Club as we speak. I rented it from Movie Gallery. I'm four minutes in, and I already love it.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.
