posted
In my Film class we spent last week talking about Fight Club . I admit I was terribly happy, because I love that movie like my own children (I don't have children. Aren't you relieved? ), and we got two free screenings. So life was good. And there was some good discussion. But I was quite surprised by some of what was said.
Now, I'm not a gratuitous violence fan, and I'm not a screaming fangirl of Brad Pitt. The reason Fight Club is one of my absolute favorite movies is because, apart from being extremely cool, I think it makes some really clever points about emotion, repressed anger, and the damage that over-civilization has wrought on the human race.
Apparently I'm alone. I realize that one's world view has an enormous effect on how one interprets a film, and that everything I see is filtered through how I connect it with my own life (and I'm an angry masochistic 19 year old girl), but I really don't see Fight Club as a comment on consumerism and masculinity. Which everyone else seems to. Okay, it's touched on, yes, but I don't think that's really what's at the heart of the film. I mean, blowing up all the credit card companies wouldn't exactly bring capitalist society to its knees, and if it was really meant to show that a little more good ol' hunter-gathering is what we need, it would show the whole Operation Mayhem in a much more positive way.
Questions? Comments? Personal attacks? Bring it. I'm angry (joking...kinda...)
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Why the hell would you not only want to follow a complete lunatic that doesn't know where he is half the time, but also run around getting the crap beat out of you all the time? Where is the fun in that? You got to admit it's amusing that something like that could be started by an insane insomniac though. But, I disagree with Tyler Durdan when he talked about going back to a hunter-gathering society. Why would we want to do that? What we need is something like working with what we have now and how to shift that instead of going backwards. We really don't need to go back to the so-called good ol days because the good old days sucked. But, it is true that over-civilization is bad for us.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard to improve on what "Innocent" said on that forum, but I'll give my opinion anyway. Tyler Durden craves wildness, and the only way he can find it is in things that hurt him. But even that's better than the support groups where "now it's your turn to cry."
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haven't read any of the links, but just off the top of my head, I think that, in many ways, it is one of the truest existential, spiritual films of the 20th century. Hell is other people, and it is only by freeing yourself from the stultifying bonds of consumerist, capitalist society that one can find one self and find genuine companionship with other people.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I've been thinking of picking it up. I already read Choke, and I'm currently reading Haunted, which are both by the same author. Except that I can't decide if I like him or not yet.
quote: I remember writing an essay about that when I was 15. I had a lot of growing up to do.
Did you misunderstand the phrase when you wrote the essay, Porter? A lot of young readers interpret "Hell is other people" to mean that Sartre didn't like people, when in reality it's a much deeper statement than that -- and ultimately sums up a philosophical position that's got enough truth in it to be difficult to grow up and out of.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I've been thinking of picking it up. I already read Choke, and I'm currently reading Haunted, which are both by the same author. Except that I can't decide if I like him or not yet.
-pH
The movie and book differ in many ways - the movie is much more expansive, although the dialogue is rigidly true to the book. The book is definitely worth reading, although Pahlaniuk himself thinks the movie is far superior.
Oh, and read Survivor: that's by far his best.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a humongous fan of Chuck Palahniuk's early novels, so it's cool to hear from someone who is both a Palahniuk fan and an Orson Scott Card fan!
Fight Club, to me at least, is a coming of age story set in modern times. It IS a commentary on various negative aspects of American culture, however it's more specifically about the end result of that culture on people. Palahniuk has said that he prefers the movie to the novel in that the movie manages to capture what he was trying to say better than he did, and I agree to an extent.
Anyway, I love them both. ;')
EDIT: and, btw, the bit about it being focused on masculinity is missing the point of the movie (and book). The point being that happiness cannot be bought for a good many people.
Posts: 50 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is weird the topics that bring me out of lurking
Without reading any of the links that people posted I agree that Fight Club is about consumerism. In fact I find it almost entirely about consumerism and the over civilization of humanity. I believe fight club is mainly about two/three topics although they all stem from one another they are, consumerism and what it has done to us, shedding our cultural desire for material posesssions, and as a result of that getting back to the basics and reaching enlightenment.
Since you discussed this in class you probably heard the reasons I am saying this. I believe Fight Club is about consumerism because you are constantly bombarded with diolauge in the movie such as when Tyler says,
quote: Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off.
This kind of sums it up, slaves to the white collar. I take this to mean working without our hands and becoming soft physically and more feminine in ways. I also think it is significant to point out that he talks about everyone being raised to believe they will be movie stars and rock stars, AKA people who can afford any and every material posesssion they will ever need. Tylers point is the material is making us soft and not happy, we need to do away with the material because it never makes anyone happy.
The point of material posessions being emphasized as something which will not make you happy is shown when Tyler and the Edward Norton are talking in the bar and Ed Norton starts talking about his lost apartment. At this time I believe they show a scanning view of his apartment and price tags next to each furnishing as if it is an Ikea catologue. Ed Norton says
quote: I had it all. I had a stereo that was very decent, a wardrobe that was getting very respectable. I was close to being complete.
Tyler responds to this by saying, "Shit man, now it's all gone." Ed Norton believes the material will make him complete and the purpose of Tyler is to show you and Ed Norton that your materials you own end up owning you because you will never have everything, you wont be a millionaire so stop trying. Posessions clutter our lives they dont make our lives better they make them more complicated and stressful.
The reasons above are why Tyler lives in a nasty run down house with a leaky roof next to a glue factory (I think it was a glue factory). The movie is saying once you rid yourself of material posessions only then can you become enlightened, there is alot of talk about hitting rock bottom. It reminded me alot of the Spartan lifestyle.
There is also talk about humans returning to a hunter gatherer society after the car accident when Tyler is telling Ed Norton that he imagines giant Kudzo vines wrapped around the sears tower and wearing one pair of leather clothes that will last a lifetime. Overall this is why I believe it is mainly about consumerism and getting back to the basics, but I do believe there are other important messages that were meant to be conveyed, but I think these are the main ones. I liked the movie and its many messages alot one of my top 10.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The movie's ending is very different from the book, although Palahniuk has said he loves the movie ending Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I think it gives us a glance into how the Nazi party formed... but I'm busy today so I really want to take the time to explain or defend this view. Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's only when you lost everything that you're free to do anythng
I love the book as well as the movie. And even though there were aspects of the book that had to be left out, the movie really nailed the book.
Also, I'd say that Invisible Monsters is Palahniuk's best book.
Jim-me, Palahniuk has said that the space monkeys are dig at fraternities. Though, I don't think you're that far off either.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Think of the Nazi Party as a Frat with a strange mix of Nietschean ideas and an almost Buddhist self-denial and view Fight Club through those eyes and... you get the idea Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I remember writing an essay about that when I was 15. I had a lot of growing up to do.
Just out of curiosity, is this a backhanded barb directed at me?
Sorry -- I didn't mean to direct it at anybody or make any comment about anybody besides myself.
I really did have a lot of growing up to do. I had a lot of anger and blamed my problems on others. I was quite a misanthrope.
quote:Did you misunderstand the phrase when you wrote the essay, Porter? A lot of young readers interpret "Hell is other people" to mean that Sartre didn't like people, when in reality it's a much deeper statement than that -- and ultimately sums up a philosophical position that's got enough truth in it to be difficult to grow up and out of.
Actually, the essay wasn't in response to Sartre at all. My point (not the point I was responding to) was that hell was other people. I don't remember exactly what the essay was in response to.
Just so everyone is clear, I don't think the movie is a blueprint for life. However, I do think it's a really great movie, and for a movie, has a lot of really interesting things to say that are thought provoking along the lines I laid out in my first post.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), and we got two free screenings. So life was good. And there was some good discussion. But I was quite surprised by some of what was said.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
