Part of that is that Fight Club has so many good quotes. It’s a rare animal , a movie with a strong narrative voice that is beautifully written.
It is sort of like the Batman V Superman discussion thread in that way
I’m kidding…Seriously, I’m just kidding.
‘Fight Club’ IS a movie about crazy people. Literally insane, and the last third of the film is the protagonist, having realized the craziness, trying to stop the consequences of that insanity.
I’m sure that is lost of some people, but the concern overit is very much an older generation worry, just like previous “older” worries about rock and roll or long hair etc.
In terms of filmmaking skill, it’s as good as Fincher has ever been and it lasts because it has something to say.
‘The Game’ is brilliant filmmaking too, as is ‘Panic Room’, but they have no real depth, they’re just clever magic tricks, so they get forgotten.
Maybe that’s the moral of the film but I’m not sure that’s inherent in the book. Also, while he tries to stop their craziness, he still embraces the “liberty” that it gave him from his old life.
It’s years since I read the book, but regarding the film; I don’t think he embraces the results of Project Mayhem, he is actually happier because he’s free of it, and specifically of Tyler, and able to decide things for himself.
Symbolically there might be something in the clearing of the skyline etc. but his change is personal he’s rejecting Tyler and his way of life more than anything else.
Oh I don’t think he was necessarily embracing the results of Project Mayhem. He doesn’t necessarily reject the whole of Tyler’s philosophy either. He is happier for being rid of Tyler but also for being rid of the old life that Tyler freed him from. He doesn’t reject Tyler’s intentions just his methods. The former are just as angst ridden and problematic as the latter.
The end of the book hints at and the comic sequel strongly confirms that Tyler is far from dead. The comic begins in a similar way except now the narrator (who I think has a name now) is stuck in suburban, married midlife instead of single, 20 something life. Palahniuk’s other books have a strong “fuck society” theme as well. Fincher may have tried to change it a bit but I think the intention is to see Tyler as a misguided hero not a villain.
I’ve only read two Palahnik books and, to me, they don’t really offer answers so much as articulate questions? I think Tyler isn’t the hero of the book (and definitely not the film), instead I think Tyler is presented as the wrong response to some worries people had, and still have, about their lives?
That’s fair. I guess it could be view a bit like Banky in Chasing Amy. Kevin Smith talks about how he got lots of flack from people assuming it was anti-lesbian when all the lines along those thought patterns are meant to be the wrong responses.
Yeah, I think Paluhniak always intended there to be a warning underneath about Tyler Durden primarily being like a cult leader or dictator rather than liberator.
I think that the problem is that Jason Lee was incredibly likeable and even a bit innocent, even when playing someone as obnoxious as that.
I think Fight Club is the best movie ever, and frankly I don’t understand the people who think the move has a message. It is clearly about people who are crazy and do crazy things. If there is any message at all it is that if you question authorities, and questioning those authorities make you jump into the arms of another authority who happens to be a crazy domestic terrorist, then bad things will happen.
Continuing to think about this, I think part of my problem is that to see the narrator as the hero and Tyler as the wrong response, you have to ignore a lot of lives that the narrator ruined on his own without Tyler there telling him what to do. He still benefited from those actions.
It’s a bit of a flaw that would be hard to reconcile in a film and would destroy some of the narrative structure. I would probably fault it less if the sequel had some of that but it returns to the same rut. Tyler is liberating and exciting for the narrator and Marla who both dislike the narrartor without him.
I was waiting for someone to start this thread after I hijacked Mark’s movie thread
But Ronnie, you are breaking the first two rules of Fight Club! What, do you think you are a unique and beautiful snowflake? You are the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world (or something like that, I can’t remember the quote exactly).
What hijack? This thread was always here.
The way you break someone’s power over you is by not recognizing their rules in your life.
They did, but those are exactly the people the movie (and book) is making fun of.
It’s much in the same manner as the Beastie Boys first album. They were playing a part, sort of an “out of control white frat boy” type of thing. But they almost did it too well, as huge swaths of the population didn’t get the joke.
I’m actually reading a history of Def Jam records right now and there is a part where somebody (I think it is Jam Master Jay from Run DMC) talks about how funny it was to compare the Beastie Boys (during the License to Ill era) doing their “snotty brat” thing on stage as opposed to their, “nice dudes hanging out” off stage personas.
I’m not sure, in either case, that this is the fault of the artists if their work is misinterpreted.
But the Beastie Boys recognized that at one point and purposefully changed tactic.
What if everything Donald Trump is doing is an act? Is he still responsible?
I think why I like the book is that it, outside of Tyler being a charismatic symptom of a larger mental disorder that is plaguing the Narrator, is that it is about a man coming to terms with his sexuality.
And not the homosexual aspect, but rather that he has feelings for a woman.
Tyler is that part of him that is attracted to Marla, and the Narrator really can’t jive with that feeling and so this other side of him runs with it.
It’s not until he is able to really accept this heterosexual side of him that Tyler is, somewhat, banished.
It’s like Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2.
Sure. Because in his case (if it is an act) it is an act where he is intentionally trying to deceive. I think that the BB and the Fight Club people mostly thought everyone would get the joke.
I think it is important to view FIGHT CLUB in the context of the Landmark Forum.
In 1989, a man named Chuck Palahniuk enrolled in a Landmark Forum workshop. He was twenty-six years old and, like many of his co-participants, struggling with his life and what to do with it. Despite his lack of vocational direction, Palahniuk had no problem navigating his way to the closest exit after the first forty-five minutes of the workshop, repelled by the program’s cultiness and rigidity. Later that day, however, he returned to complete the training, and that night began writing what would eventually become his best-selling book, Fight Club—a sequence of events which suggests the Landmark Forum was more successful in helping Palahniuk redirect his life than a barrage of inconclusive personality tests, forlorn meetings with career counselors, or years of expensive psychoanalysis.
I’ve gone to the Forum here in Los Angeles. I really can’t recommend it one way or another. It’s something each person has to decide individually, but I can say it was useful for me. It emerged from what used to be est founded by Werner Erhard, but he left a while back and it changed significantly.
You can see in Durden that he greatly resembles and acts like a Forum leader. Also, you can see the same sort of process occurring in the way “Cornelius” wakes up to the fact that there is really this other guy in him running the show - an alter ego. However, in these stories, the alter ego is a stand in for the “ego” period. The persona you put on that eventually puts you on.
In a lot of ways, we all have these sorts of characters in us driving our behavior. The protagonist of the story is neither Durden nor Cornelius. There is the person we are in the world in our relationships to people at work, in family, friends, the city or town where we live and at home - the Cornelius or whomever - the name changes are akin to the way we are different people in different situations.
Then there is the person who we are “inside.” The person we want to be outside. The Tyler Durden that we feel we have to repress but we also feel we’d like to let loose. At the same time, though, we’re not in control of any of the egos we put on to either get through life or those inner fantasy heroes that make ourselves feel above the life we lead.
Guy Ritchie’s much reviled REVOLVER is essentially the same story.
I always felt that Tyler was, in essence, that part that makes sense of whatever delusions you can fall prey for.
The part that makes it attractive.
The Narrator is suffering from something that creates that break, and his disease focuses on such nebulous concepts like masculinity and consumerism.
If he had focused on Area 51 and Government conspiracies, we would likely have gotten a Tyler who espoused the virtues of alternate dimensions etc.
I thought that the plot was sort of setting up that punchline.
Like, there’s this message of inter-personal relationships and detachment…but then nope, the Narrator is a huge nutball and his mental imbalance has created this cult of personality.