(This essay on "Fight Club" was originally published in 1999. I'm re-posting it now in preparation for a coming piece...)
by Jim Emerson
"A fascist rhapsody!" — David Denby, The New Yorker
Ooof!
"Morally repugnant! Socially irresponsible!" — Anita M. Busch, The Hollywood Reporter
Ugh!
"Deeply misogynistic!" — Susan Stark, The Detroit News
Orgh!
"Macho porn!" — Roger Ebert, The Chicago Sun-Times
Ouch!
Don't expect to see any of the above quotes in movie ads for "Fight Club" (although, come to think of it, if Fox did decide to use 'em, it would certainly be in keeping with the gleefully subversive, anti-consumerist spirit of this major studio movie). "Fight Club," a brutally funny and provocative satire directed by David Fincher ("Se7en"), may have scored a late-round box office victory in its first weekend, but it also received a vicious pummeling from a number of (mostly mainstream) critics. While some reviewers praised the film as "an apocalyptic comedy of rage" (Jay Carr, "Boston Globe") and "an uncompromising American classic" (Peter Travers, "Rolling Stone"), those who felt less enthusiastic about the picture didn't just dislike it — they loathed it, reviled it, demonized it.
A number of these critical low-blows and wild punches, however, were almost as irresponsible and off-target as the writers accused the movie of being. Hollywood Reporter editor Anita M. Busch was so outraged that she suffered premonition fits: "'Fight Club' will, no doubt, become Washington's poster child for what's wrong with Hollywood. And Washington, for once, will be right. The film is exactly the kind of product that lawmakers should target for being socially irresponsible in a nation that has deteriorated to the point of Columbine." (Them's fightin' words, and in response to the Reporter's ranting, 20th Century Fox pulled all advertising from the trade paper indefinitely.)
In the aftermath of the Columbine High School massacre, some writers were genuinely concerned that the movie might inspire copycat beatings or bombings. Roger Ebert, in the Chicago Sun-Times, acknowledged that the film has "levels of irony and commentary above and below the action," but he worried: "[W]hatever Fincher thinks the message is, that's not what most audience members will get." Wrote Ebert: "I think it's the numbing effect of movies like this that cause people to go a little crazy."
Meanwhile, both Busch and the Los Angeles Times' Kenneth Turan were aghast that the movie's flash-frame nudity and relentlessly barbaric (but highly stylized) fight scenes had not earned it an NC-17 rating from the MPAA. They have a point — and, of course, if certain major newspapers would agree to accept advertising for NC-17-rated movies, and if certain major theater chains would agree to show them, and if certain major video store chains would agree to stock them ... then Hollywood might actually be allowed to create and exhibit movies made by and for adults that are rated for adults only. Indeed, the way that corporations such as these exert repressive, paternalistic control over so many parts of our lives — and the barely contained rage that builds up inside people as a consequence — is one of the themes of "Fight Club."
Oddly, a few of the critics who excoriated "Fight Club" actually applauded the mindless thrill-ride violence of "Natural Born Killers" a few years back. What's easier to understand is how some of them found the trite and smug "satire" of the recent "American Beauty" so much more appealing ("Oh, look — that suburban American family lives in a red, white, and blue house with a white picket fence! How scathingly witty and insightful!"). At any rate, it's been a while — since David Cronenberg's "Crash," or even "NBK" — that a movie has so profoundly disturbed and polarized people who see movies for a living. (I've seen it twice, by the way, and I'm pleased to report that audiences themselves seem to "get it" just fine. I've witnessed plenty of cathartic laughter, but no cheering of the movie's mayhem, the way bloodthirsty audiences audibly rooted for the exuberantly wacky purveyors of carnage in "NBK" — mainly because the thought-provoking, authority-questioning "Fight Club" doesn't encourage knee-jerk crowd responses the way the pandering "NBK" so shamelessly did.)
But, wait, let's back up a little bit and see what this fracas is really about by actually examining what "Fight Club" does and how it works. (WARNING: If you haven't seen "Fight Club" and don't want to go in with preconceptions, you might want to delay reading further until you've seen the movie for yourself.) I suppose it's best to begin at the beginning, and "Fight Club" begins (and stays) deep inside the brain of its nameless, hilariously unreliable Narrator (Edward Norton), a nearly catatonic insomniac who twists, rewinds, flashes forward, and otherwise manipulates every frame of the story. Everything that happens in the movie happens inside his consciousness — or unconscious or subconscious.
You can debate all you want about what's "real" and what's "fantasy" in a movie like this (or "Eyes Wide Shut," or "The Wizard of Oz") but that doesn't really get you anywhere. All that matters is that what's on the screen reflects what's going on inside the protagonist's head. (I mean, you may as well waste time pondering whether Dorothy really goes to Oz and meets a Scarecrow, a Tin Man, and a Cowardly Lion who teach her about her own intelligence, compassion, and courage ... or whether it's all "just" a dream. Who cares?)
It's been said that all good movies tell you how to watch them, but you do have to pay attention — something a few of "Fight Club"'s critics failed to do. "Fight Club" continually reminds viewers that they're watching one man's illustrated interior monologue; all the characters are seen as projections of his own psyche — his desires, his fears, his frustrations. The film also continually tinkers with the properties of the medium to emphasize the sheer movie-ness of what's on the screen. (This must surely be the first movie to point out the projectionist's changeover marks on the print.)
Keeping all this in mind (heh-heh), the "Sixth Sense"-like shift in awareness that happens in the third act of "Fight Club" shouldn't come as that much of a surprise to the audience; it's the Narrator who finds himself waking up into a nightmare of his own making. "Fight Club" is a lot of things all at once — a grim fairy tale for adults, a consumerist revenge fantasy, a portrait of a disintegrating personality, and, for all its hyper-active stylization, an astonishingly vivid portrait of the berserk materialist wasteland in which (like it or not) billions of city dwellers live today.
"Was I asleep? Had I slept? Was Tyler my bad dream or was I Tyler's? I was living in a state of perpetual deja vu." — the Narrator
The Narrator doesn't have a name, but let's call him "Jack" (as the script does), after his penchant for ironically identifying himself with various parts of the physical and psychological anatomy ("I am Jack's medulla oblongata," "I am Jack's inflamed sense of rejection"). Jack is a white-collar urban drone who is so alienated from everyone around him — and, most of all, from himself — that he views his life as if it were "a copy of a copy of a copy." If he were in therapy, his shrink would say he's having an "existential crisis" and diagnose him as clinically depressed. Over the course of the movie, Jack falls (apart) from depression into manic depression into paranoid schizophrenia. Even when he thinks he's getting better, he's getting worse. The big question is, how far will he sink before he hits bottom?
Like Kevin Spacey's narrator/protagonist in "American Beauty," Jack is figuratively and/or literally dead (and it doesn't much matter which). His soul is numb and empty and, in a kind of compulsive re-enactment of ancient hunter-gatherer instinct, he keeps trying to fill it with retail goods. But he's never satisfied. "What kind of dining set defines me as a person?" he finds himself wondering. Jack tells himself that he's acquired a good couch, a decent stereo system, and a nice wardrobe; that he's just on the verge of feeling "complete." But, instead, he's suffocating under the weight of his purchases. He imagines himself a prisoner of his IKEA catalog. Shopping becomes his only outlet for self-expression, sexual or otherwise, in a society ruled by the cult of consumerism. To anyone who's ever felt possessed by his/her possessions, this is painfully familiar — and funny — stuff.
Pathetic, tormented Jack discovers that the only way he can find any peace (or get any sleep) is to attend support groups for people with terminal conditions. Being that close to death and hopelessness somehow soothes him and makes him feel, perversely, more alive. And, besides, when people think you're dying they tend to actually notice that you exist. "Fight Club" explores modern modes of addiction — to consumerism, to 12-step programs, to ritualized "extreme sports" risk-taking — as Jack goes from being an IKEA addict, to a support-group addict, to a fight club addict. (The "Fight Club" itself could be an offshoot of a bungee-jumping fraternity.) Turan accuses the movie of "playing like the delusional rantings of testosterone-addicted thugs" — which is exactly the point, though he misses the movie's irony. Unlike Turan, "Fight Club" and its Narrator do not unquestioningly accept these characters' patently grandiose delusions at face value.
When (upon abruptly awakening from a self-destructive wish-fulfillment nightmare that his plane is exploding in mid-air) Jack meets Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), he's encountering nothing less than his own Id, his alter-ego, his doppelganger. Tyler (decked out in garish red duds to suggest danger, excitement, bloodlust, and a complete lack of anything resembling taste) is a volatile guy — cocky, confident, spontaneous, irrational, irrepressible, infantile, aggressive, anti-social, hedonistic, uncontrollable. Jack is fascinated by him, drawn to him, and also scared of him. Like any (in-)decent Id, Tyler is prone to crude, impulsive, and reckless behavior: He splices frames from porno movies into family films, pees in the soup at his restaurant job; he is a mess of raging appetites who likes to drink, fight, screw, and blow up things. But for all that, Jack sees Tyler as his breakthrough, a way out of his rut, the voice that will finally tell him: "You are not your f***ing khakis!"
In one of the film's most inspired metaphors (and there are lots of 'em), Tyler is also the consummate soap salesman, the personification of untamed capitalism. You see, Tyler's special deluxe soap is made from the fat of liposuction patients. The by-products of these people's own gluttony and vanity (their fat) are sold back to them as a luxury cleansing item. (Taking the metaphor one step further, Tyler later uses the soap, combined with other common household ingredients, to make bombs that rock the foundations of the very capitalist enterprises his soap business would otherwise appear to epitomize.)
Anyone familiar with the history and methodology of advertising will notice a few salient themes emerging here. Advertising is most often not about selling you a product, it's about selling you an image of your own identity, and about creating an identification with a product, which leads to the addictive phenomenon known as "brand loyalty." And some of the most successful early advertising campaigns (in the late 1800s) were for soap products that sold themselves as solutions to an advertiser-defined "problem" (whether it was "germs" or "b.o." or, later, "ring around the collar"). First you package and sell the problem, then you package and sell the solution to the problem.
And that's pretty much what Tyler and Jack do with their invention, "Fight Club" — they articulate the impotent rage and disillusionment felt by so many wage slaves today, give it a name and a structure and a set of rules, and sell it back to them as a means for achieving cathartic release and feelings of empowerment. The idea is patently absurd, but on some level it makes sense — not unlike what David Cronenberg did with sex and car wrecks in "Crash." These guys have to beat the life back into themselves. "Fight Club" is not about "winning" or beating up somebody else; it's a form of manual electro-shock therapy, a way of jolting themselves out of their numbness and reconnecting with reality. The metaphor is so clearly a psychological one that to say "Fight Club" is about fist-fighting is like saying Taxi Driver is about cab driving.
What begins as Tyler and Jack's exclusive basement ritual soon spreads and becomes a very successful corporate franchise (I kept expecting an IPO), a messianic cult — and a fascist, terrorist paramilitary organization that its co-founder is powerless to stop. Jack's life suddenly turns into "Frankenstein Meets Life of Brian" as he desperately attempts to tame his own creation-run-amok. But no matter what he says or does, his followers doggedly continue with their apocalyptic plan, blindly hailing him as a genius every step of the way. The critics who accuse "Fight Club" of promoting fascism and terrorism don't seem to notice that Jack is appalled by the monster he has helped to bring into the world, and that has now gone out of control — which is what happens when you let the Id run wild. On one level, "Fight Club" can be seen as the story of a guy who wakes up one day and discovers to his profound horror that that he is Jim Jones, David Koresh, Ted Kazinski, and Timothy McVeigh all rolled into one.
Tyler takes capitalism, and then anti-capitalism, to the illogical extreme of fascism and terrorism, but that doesn't make the movie a "fascist tract," as some have claimed. In the final third of the film the devotees of Fight Club (now re-christened Project Mayhem) turn into mindless, "Invasion of the Body Snatcher"s pod people and Jack turns into Kevin McCarthy, hysterically trying to warn everybody that the sky is falling. I was reminded, too, of the ravenous undead zombies in George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead," who instinctively flock to the shopping mall because "it was once an important place in their lives."
"Fight Club"'s jabs at consumerism seem to have particularly upset certain critics, because the movie doesn't typecast its corporate villains. "Why pick on IKEA?" wonders David Denby. It would have been easy to get an audience to hate ruthless, faceless, monolithic monsters of greed like IBM or Microsoft. Everybody hates them already. But "Fight Club" targets a more insidious kind of corporate enterprise — the kind that markets itself as your best friend and uses cutesy branding images to get under your skin and into your wallet: IKEA, Volkswagen, Apple, Starbuck's. If you don't get some sort of vicarious thrill from seeing one of those insufferably precious (and overpriced) new VW bugs receive a facial with a sledgehammer, or from watching that smug Apple logo blown to bits (how's that for "Think Different"?) ... well, as they say, check your pulse.
Awesome post Jim! I think its about time to revisit this film, which I think was vastly underrated when it came out in 1999. All the press was devoted to American Beauty, which I really liked at the time, but it has not aged well at all and each time I see it now (my friends still enjoy it) it seems way too glib and smoothed over, preferring to take the easy way out (ah-ha! it was the secretly gay cartoonishly homophobic ex-military man with the catatonic wife who did him in!)
Anyways, I saw Fight Club in theatres three times when it came out, and I was in my first year of university. It was one of the first films I had seen that really opened my eyes to how films could be Directed, with a capital D. It seemed dangerous, which my seventeen-year-old self thought was impossible for a movie to do. With all the negative press this film got (and I love that they included pull quotes from the most scathing reviews in the Special Edition DVD booklet) I thought I was the only one who really really loved this movie when it came out. Good to see it getting some retrospective love, Jim!
Any more ideas for criminally underrated yet recent films? If I could add some:
Magnolia
Solaris (2002)
Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (I know you'll agree)
Spider
A Scanner Darkly
"Fight Club" may be on of the best modern examples of critics panning a great film because they don't "get it." Your analogy to "Natural Born Killers" is perfect. In that film, sex and violence are so extreme that it's clear to thoughtful critics that they're not really being glamorized. They're in on the joke. "Fight Club" showed a form of depravity and violence that is truly enticing, promises liberation, looks and sounds and feels good. And then we find ourselves with Jack, alone in an abandoned house, realizing that all of this has gotten way out of hand.
Brilliant.
The actual fight club in "Fight Club" may be a metaphor, but that doesn't mean it's not real. I don't expect many film critics have been involved in recreational fighting, but that's what happens in, say, Judo clubs. One of the themes of "Fight Club" that struck home with me is how silly the fear of conflict and fighting becomes, after you're able to safely experience a controlled fight with a guy (or more rarely, a gal) that you can go out for a beer with after. You spend your life afraid of getting hit, then a friend clocks you one, and you think, "That's it?" It's hugely liberating.
Oh, and thanks for giving me the opportunity to discuss one of my favorite films, long after its supposed expiration date.
Rob asks: "Any more ideas for criminally underrated yet recent films?" I would add Kubrick's 'Eyes Wide Shut" to that list. It was a brilliant examination of another virtually dead culture, a nearly dead man searching out in vain for love and lust after internalizing his jealousy. Kubrick examines the doctor/patient oddity that allows a complete stranger to view us naked -- but to be so contained with a someone near -- like a husband or wife. And Tom Cruise's character, again and again, narrowly escapes death. (Getting AIDS by the simple ringing of his phone from his wife's call.) And doesn't even touch on the cinematography itself. It is not quite a masterpiece, but wonderful viewing. Critics either enjoyed it -- or missed the boat entirely -- calling it aloof, false, stilted in dialogue. When in fact it was introspective, touching, mysterious and beautifully shot.
Oh no! I enjoyed both American Beauty and Fight Club, for different reasons. I wish I'd read your piece back in 1999, then I'd have known that I was actually obliged to choose one or the other...
Rob - I am not sure I agree with your list of "criminally underrated films."
Magnolia is loved by cineastes, critics, and third-rate film nerds everywhere. If anything, the bloated excess that was There Will Be Blood inspired me to reevaluate the film's greatness (it's still great).
Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada, Spider and A Scanner Darkly are all equally well revered. They didn't break any box office records, but those that saw them loved them (including a vast majority of the aforementioned critical community).
Jim, I frequently wonder what you are sniffing when I read your reviews, but here I agree with you. I find it especially disturbing that so many supposedly intelligent people blasted the film as being too subtle in its satire - as if *we* are smart enough to get it but, you know, those *other people* who aren't as smart, well, they might get funny ideas... Thanks especially for calling out Ken Turan, BTW, he deserved it. Here's a question for you - what would it take to get the film industry to actually understand there is a market for 'adult' films that are not 'adult' in the way we currently understand it (i.e., strictly pornographic)?
one of the scariest aspects of the character of Tyler Durden is that you can't really argue with his logic and observations, even though he is clearly insane. He represents that primitive truth that emanates from thousands of years of human brutality: we love violence, but are afraid of its consequences.
I read this piece of yours a while ago from a link on your sidebar and thought the same thing then as I do now: How utterly comical it is now looking back that people actually believed this movie would cause problems. Ha ha ha ha ha haaaaa! Oh that's hilarious. My god people overreact to things. While movies certainly do influence us, as well as advertising, they only provide a step by step how-to guide for the most criminally insane to begin with.
I wonder if any of those critics feel a little embarrassed now.
Thanks Jim --- wonderful post! I hope your upcoming piece addresses how numerous critics continue to misunderstand Fincher's film, as can be seen in their citing "Fight Club" as a point of comparison in their reviews of "Wanted" (a TRULY morally bankrupt film if ever there was one, in my books!).
I agree entirely with what Roger Ebert says about the three act structure of Fight Club. I've always felt like the film fails to deliver on the promise of the first act (although in your defense of the film you point out that I may have merely misinterpreted that first act). However I disagree violently when Roger goes so far as to write that "a lot more people will leave this movie and get in fights than will leave it discussing Tyler Durden's moral philosophy." In the many years since Fight Club has been released it’s become clear that Roger Ebert was dead wrong. I've never seen anyone react to Fight Club in the way he suggests. Fight Club invariably arouses discussion and that’s one reason why I won't dismiss even though I don't really like it. Another reason is your eloquent and well-argued defense of the film.
Goddamn I'm sick of websites trying to sell me on how "classic" "Fight Club," "Se7en," "The Usual Suspects," and "Lord of the Rings" are.
"Fight Club's" a fine movie, but outside of the one ear-punch, all its violence and grime is so aestheticized, accessible, and SLICK that it's "anti-consumerist" message results in khaki-clad frat boys clogging Best Buy to get the biggest flatscreens and loudest speakers to watch "Fight Club."
Not really a constructive comment but it feels good to vent.
i disliked the movie not because i felt it was a call to real-life violence (if violent movies really, truly caused violence in people, i believe we would've hit WW3 a long time ago), but because the last act was the most howlingly bad last act i'd ever seen. the first two acts are brilliant, but then the movie didn't just shoot itself in the foot, it launched an atom bomb on it. just my opinion, and i know most people disagree with me, but i thought the ending was just ridiculous.
cheers
KZ
I agree that this film is an brilliantly ironic commentary of the Id-based adrenaline that it glorifies...until I watch the ending. Jack's survival of his suicide attempt seemed an easy way out, and the film just became another Hollywood movie for me. What do others think?
Awesome post, Jim! (I believe that's required)
The one sticking point that has always made me see "Fight Club" as a cheat (and nobody has been able to rationalize away), is before the "Fight Club" turns into a messianic cult, it's just "Jack" and Tyler pummelling away at each other to attract said devotees.
But if Tyler is Jack's "id"--what is attracting people? The inner conflict of "Jack?" Is the sight of "Jack" beating himself up (since there's no Tyler) enough to create a movement? We see people watching "Jack" and Tyler pummel each other, but what are they watching, really?
Really?
"Jack" is certainly an unreliable narrator. But at that pivotal turning point, Fincher is also an unreliable director--he can't get from point A to point B without fudging the transition.
And once you start making excuses for the director, well....
Still, I love everything else about "Fight Club," but that one VERY IMPORTANT plot development makes me go "Hey, WAITAMINNIT!" And the idea's to keep my head in the picture.
I liked the film, but didn't love it. I actually thought it would have been better without the twilight zone ending, which seemed a bit tacked on. However, you are right on in my opinion with the analogy to Taxi Driver. I ranted and raved about the film to a co-worker who saw it and said it was just Death Wish with better acting.
Why do critics sometimes confuse the message with the messenger? Of all things, I am reminded of the reviews to "Team America". I can see critics laughing at the first 25 minutes of the film, until it takes a turn and bludgeons the hollywood left. I imagine nervous laughter and then faigned outrage at the "potty" humor which was funny enough when it looked like all it was poking fun at was the right-wing chicken hawks.
Fight Club reminds me of this curious, hypocritical phenom. Is it possible that the vitriolic response is due to fact that many critics agree with the themes but are embarrased and feel almost betrayed when their anti-hero is actually just another creep?
I hope not but it is curious how films like this get responses like this almost every time.
Jim, maybe I need to revisit "Fight Club". I've seen it twice, and I've never thought it was horrible, just that it wasn't all the rage.
But I'm not sure everyone out there does "get it". Many of the fans that I've known seem to like it for bloodlust reasons. None of them are pointing toward the anti-consumerist ironies imbedded in the film. They all seem to love Ed Norton (who can blame em') and Brad Pitt. They think the directing is "cool", and it is kind of visceral in an rebel-indie sort of way.
Again, I think it's an alright movie. But I wonder, because I honestly don't know loads of NBK fans. "Fight Club" does seem to be a fav of cinephiles and culture mavens, but I never see NBK in peoples movie collections, or hear any friends saying, "Hey, lets get NBK tonight. I'm really in the mood for that one."
Peckingpah's "Straw Dogs" was called facist and misogynistic when it first came out but over the years it has gone up in reputation.So "Fight Club" might be that kind of movie that people were repelled and horrified by when it first came out but are begining to be viewed as a classic
P., I fail to see why anyone should get worked up over other people's enthusiastic evaluations of certain movies—unless the movies in questions represent some morally bankrupt idea that people are just not recognizing.
Otherwise, they're just movies. And other people's opinions are just opinions. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but why get angry? It's the epitome of silliness and pettiness.
What is unfortunately true is that while Ebert and most detractors have been wrong about Fight Club's supposed effects on its target audience, they haven't been completely wrong. There are plenty of fans of the movie who miss or pervert the message, enjoying it for visceral thrills or believing that violence really is the way to regain the vitality sapped by our consumerist, corporatist culture. And of course, you can't deny the stories of real life youth fight clubs that arose in the movie's wake.
My lingering problem with the movie is that its message is muddled, or else it says that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. If whatever the Narrator does simply makes things worse, than the human race is doomed, and it has doomed itself. What are we supposed to do about the crippling disaffection caused by our culture?
I'm delighted that someone has finally brought the complicated implications of this film to the surface. In my opinion, "Fight Club" is an entertaining, thought-provoking, well-written, well-acted, but deeply flawed film. But my opinion doesn't matter. What matters are the constant, stewing undercurrents of blind rage and misogyny. Granted, the filmmakers were trying to make a satire, and they have succeeded, to a certain degree. The film is intended as a portrait of the violent, masochistic, and erotic fantasies of repressed men, and the terrifying realities that can arise when those fantasies are brought to fruition. According to "Fight Club," our society holds back the simple animalistic impulses of men, causing them to bloat and inflate like the water inside a sealed-off hose.
The "deep flaw" I mentioned earlier is that about 50% of men who watch "Fight Club" miss this point completely. And, yes, that is a problem with the movie rather than the audience. What was intended to intrigue and disturb has become a rallying cry for outbursts of male violence. All across the nation, violent, borderline-sociopathic bullies have adopted Tyler Durden's macho, charismatic quotes as personal mottos, insisting that they release all the fury that has been building up inside them through any means readily available. My question is: how much of that fury was truly there to begin with?
I'd like to close with a personal story about a friend of mine. We'll call him the Narrator. At one time, he was a smart, friendly, popular honors student and varsity wrestler with prodigal math skills. One night towards the end of our senior year, my friends and I rented "Fight Club." Besides the Narrator, we had all seen it before. I had to leave early. The next day, the Narrator came to school ranting and raving about the film. "Yeah, it's a good movie, isn't it?" I said. Little did I know, this movie would change his life. He started a real fight club, where he and his wrestling friends would pummel each other in dingy alleyways and clearings tucked inside forest preserves. He became prone to anger, lashing out immaturely (and occasionally with physical violence) at his friends and family. He began to treat women with a loathsome degree of disrespect, leafing casually through one after another without any regard for their emotional stability. He also developed a fetishistic love of receiving blows, asking people to punch him at random times during the day. His schoolwork plummeted and his friends became increasingly alienated from him.
At one point, I confronted him about it, and he broke down. He wasn't so much defending his behavior as he was defending the film. "It's a cautionary tale. You're not supposed to admire these people! It's not suggesting that the evils of society should be countered with random violence," I said. He responded: "Shut up! How do you know? You didn't write the movie! You don't know everything!" Nowadays, we are all adults, and the Narrator continues to fight recreationally. However, he has toned down his violence and has had a steady relationship for some time. But he has never quite returned to his old self, and I can't help but blame the film. Seeing a good person submit to tendencies that, quite frankly, are better left unseen (or at least channeled through healthy means) is a slow, terrifying descent. The creators of "Fight Club" wanted to stimulate introspection in their male viewers, hopefully inspiring them to tame their raging, irrational libidos. For my friend the Narrator, it has done the opposite. Not since "A Clockwork Orange" has a film so badly hurt society through good intentions mired by an unclear narrative.
Fight Club is a litmus test among many hipster film geeks. Over the years those who don't enjoy it have caught a lot of flack for not liking it and we resent that. We can deal with the wannabes who like it because "dude did you see meatloaf get totally owned that was awesome!" They aren't worth the time. It's those who think people that don't like it have a "conformist mind" or "don't get it." We do get it, but we can also all name name at least 10 films about the same topic that are much much better, smarter, and more affecting. It's a line that starts with "Network" and follows through "The Incredible Shrinking Woman," "Repo Man," and "Wall*E."
For me it boils down to one thing, and one thing only. I don't like the film. I get it, in some ways I agree with it. The third act flies so far over the top that you have to admire the sheer guts it had to follow it's premise to it's totally crazed conclusion despite the gaping plot holes that Yojimbo_5 pointed out so well. I just don't feel anything towards the film. In fact after writing this stream of consciousness I realize that I have stronger feelings towards the hipster "litmus test" fans of the film more than I have the film itself.
By the way:
I wrote my last post before I read the other reader comments, and I am shocked to see the number of people who laugh at the concept that this film would cause violence in the real world. Although I usually read Roger Ebert's reviews religiously, I hadn't read his review of "Fight Club" until it was mentioned by Chris. And, in my experience, Roger Ebert was horribly, horribly correct. My friend the Narrator wasn't the only one affected by the movie in the way I mentioned in my previous post. He managed to draw some of my other friends in, and he joined worldwide clubs over the internet dedicated to living based on Durden's ideals. Soon, I felt quite a bit like the Narrator, frantically running between zombie-like nihilists and fascists, trying to convince them that they were going down a very dark path. "I mean, the narrator is schizophrenic! You were supposed to be disturbed." "Well, I wasn't. I was inspired."
I know I'll be criticized for being over-dramatic, but my story is completely true, and if you dig deeper into this you'll see that the movie has had a truly detrimental effect on a number of male psyches.
But I'd like to get two things straight:
1. I like the movie. Its social criticism is nothing short of brilliant, and its insight into the psychology of the stupid, angry male is as well. Tragically, it failed to take into account the fact that stupid, angry males would a) see "Fight Club" for all the wrong reasons, and b) completely misinterpret it. I know I sound like an elitist, but, frankly, the public is NOT smart enough to understand the satire in this film. Ebert was right. I'm not saying the movie should dumb down its message. Instead, maybe it just shouldn't have been so gleeful in its depiction of violence and so charismatic in the psychopathic rhetoric of the Narrator's projected id, Tyler Durden.
2. No movie should be censored or held back due to its content or its reception. "Fight Club" is a work of art, and deserves to be seen and discussed. I mentioned that the film's inability to adequately present its thesis is a flaw, but it can't be blamed for the fact that men all over the United States replicate the movie like a game of cops and robbers. In most cases, when a movie has one, gaping flaw, it gets a 65% on Rottentomatoes and drops a few million dollars in the box office. In this rare case, the movie hurt people. But it belongs in the canon of cinema, and earned every bit of reverence and criticism it received. So please don't think I'm some right-wing zealot screaming for censorship. I'm just a humble observer, interpreting what I've seen.
And... that's that. I hope you're thinking instead of punching people.
@ Nathan
I love NBK, have it my collection. My girlfriend loves it, too. Great film. I think Fight Club is pretty impressive too, but NBK is the more thoughtful, more daring film. One of Stone's best. Stone's a great director, his 10 year 10 film stretch from '86 to '96 is one of the most impressive runs by any director in the history of film.
I may also have to revisit Fight Club. I really enjoyed it when I first saw it, and watched it on video shortly after. What stuck with me though was a nagging sense that it was a film made by a young, single, maybe even slightly naive person, even though Fincher may have been my age when he made it. I couldn't put my finger on it, but for all the clever jabs, intelligent writing and slick directing, the ending felt like the visual equivalent of a teenager giving the finger and playing air guitar. I get that we are in one character's head, and I went along for the ride, but I felt like David Fincher himself missed something. It's as though he got all excited by the clockwork mechanism of the story and somehow... damn, I'll have to see it again to figure out what disappointed me about that ending.
Jim --
This is why I love this blog! I completely disagree with you, and yet I read the piece as if I loved the movie.
I remember seeing the film in theaters and not liking the taste it left me with. I am 26 now and I think it's safe to say that Fight Club is one of those movies that my demo usually lists as one of the best ever made.
I always felt like I was missing out on something. When the film came out on DVD I was immersed in my core Lit curriculum at college. I was reading up and understanding all about postmodern literature and unreliable narrators (two of my favorites being Saleem Sinai from Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children and Tom Crick from Graham Swift's Waterland), I was affected by those stories, so I borrowed my roommates copy of Fight Club and tried again.
But to no avail. I like the opening of the film and the way Fincher visualizes the ordering from an IKEA catalog. However, the militia stuff, and the whole Tyler Durdin thing just never clicked with me...he came off (to me) so annoying and exactly the type of personality that I would want to rebel against; not join with in rebelling.
I tried even a third time to watch the film, and the best I could come up with was that Fincher was a talented director and that someday he would make a great film (and he did with Zodiac).
All that to say, I loved your essay. It gave me yet another shot in the arm to go out and give Fight Club a fourth viewing.
I think part of my disdain initially was that I was one of those theater-goers, as you mentioned in your essay, that listened to too many established critics taking pot shots at the film. I think it shaped the way I first thought of the film...but subsequent viewings still haven't been kind.
But what's funny is that it's not the violence that's so bothersome, it's the same hipster attitude the film has that got you so fired up over Juno.
Some movies just don't jive with us I guess. Which is why I love the discussions on this site. Great essay. Even though I don't like the movie, I really liked reading what you wrote about it.
One question Jim: Wasn't '99 when you were in your weaning period of movies and media, while you took care of canine companions?
Other than his remark about the movie possibly causing people to get in fights, I agree with pretty much everything Roger wrote in his review. Yes, the movie could be explained as a "satire", but I do think it's a have your cake and eat it too kind of picture. As a few other posters mentioned, the ending is too easy: the bad guy gets blown away at the last minute, letting the audience off the hook. I saw the movie once when it first came out, and the times I came across it on TV never inspired me to watch again.
I didn't "like" Natural Born Killers, certainly not as much as Roger did (I've never seen it twice either), but I agree with what Stanley Kauffmann wrote: "Natural Born Killers is much closer to free-flying fantasy-on grave themes-than to satire. Stone isn't investigating techniques. He's on fire."
My favorite similar films from 1999 (Someone should write an essay about the year 1999 in terms of cinema beginning with the passing of Stanley Kubrick and Gene Siskel) isn't Fight Club or American Beauty, but The Limey and Bringing out the Dead. I was surprised by the mediocre review Bringing out the Dead got, Roger being a notable exception, and The Limey has sadly been forgotten in spite of many good reviews at the time.
NOTE: Comments may be down for a while as they upgrade us to a new version of MovableType.
Dan: I'm amazed you remembered that! Actually, I was Editorial Director (or something -- I don't remember my various "job titles" very well) at Reel.com when "Fight Club" came out. I understand what you're saying, but [SPOILER ALERT] it's all happening in "Jack"'s head, anyway -- at least until Tyler disappears at the last moment. He has to kill off the Tyler part of himself because he's gotten out of control. (Tyler becomes an addiction.) I loved the ending: "You've met me at a very strange time in my life..." As the skyscrapers of downtown L.A. tumble. Edward Norton said it best (I believe it was on the commentary track on the DVD): that it's a story about a man who had to destroy the world in order to have a relationship. That's a profound metaphor for what (some or all) men go through -- giving up/destroying part of their world (and themselves) in order to accommodate a woman in their lives! I know more women who "got it" than men, and who think "Fight Club" is an uncommonly powerful and accurate insight into male psychology in our era. And that's obviously what it's about: What constitutes being "a man" in this age. Looking like the guys in underwear ads? Having that "couch thing" covered? Holding down a job and living in an Ikea catalog? Fighting Shatner?
Also: "The Limey" really does need to be rediscovered. I don't know why it has slipped through the cracks somehow...
@Tony Immergluck:
Yeah, I don't believe you. This sounds like the sort of urban legend that was popular around the movie's debut, quickly debunked. It was always somebody's "friend." Dan Savage has an excellent criterium for spotting frauds: too many details. You peg my BS meter.
But your post brings up a good point: too many people thought that the movie was prescriptive, instead of merely descriptive. It describes how (some) men feel in modern culture and digs into the "Mens' Movement" ideals of primitivism and violence. It reveals these principles for what they really are: some misguided fool's attempt to make sense out of his life.
The viewer is supposed to see the mindless drones supporting "Project Mayhem" as dupes being used for Tyler/Jack's purposes, not monks on their way to real enlightenment. Witness them parroting Tyler's sayings and acting as martyrs for him, when that is the last thing he would ever do for them. In the end it's not a social, but a deeply personal message: work out your own demons, be your own man. Getting over his fear and his aimlessness was Jack's thing. What's yours?
Tony Immergluck, it seems to me your friend had a lot of psychological problems and Fight Club was just an excuse he used to lash out. To completely blame Fight Club for this is ridiculous. His problems were going to come to the surface sooner or later. He obviously wasn't a very emotionally stable person. Let's face it, we men are naturally violent people and history shows this perfectly well. You can't completely blame Fight Club just because some men use it to justify their blood lust. Blaming Fight Club is the easy way out.
And P.S. I'm probably confused, Jim, but are you saying that women don't have to go through the same process of compromise when beginning and building a relationship?
Here are my three problems with Fight Club:
1: I think it's good, but not great. I think that it attempted to do something excellent, but because of how powerful some of it is, the major theme is actually lost, to a degree, in the noise. As a story of a man unhappy with his life, and allows that unhappiness to take him to a dangerous extreme, before he ultimately does what he should have done in the first place and take responsibility for himself and his actions despite how uncomfortable his new choices might make him... that's a great story, and the undeniable talent and skill that went into the film ought to make it into a fantastic movie. But it felt very bogged down--the narrator's final self-correction doesn't carry the weight it should (and it doesn't come in time to prevent the dire consequences of his actions, anyway--the audience still gets the schadenfreude enjoyment seeing the buildings blow, even as the film would have you believe it's a bad thing.)
2: Being 26, I'm also surrounded by people who, as teenagers, thought the movie was a "revelation" of biblical proportions, and didn't seem to understand that the movie was *not* endorsing Durden's nihilistic worldview any more than it was endorsing Jack's initial emasculation. That gets frustrating.
3: I liked the book (and Seven, for that matter) better.
I understand what you're saying, but [SPOILER ALERT] it's all happening in "Jack"'s head, anyway -- at least until Tyler disappears at the last moment. He has to kill off the Tyler part of himself because he's gotten out of control. (Tyler becomes an addiction.) I loved the ending: "You've met me at a very strange time in my life..." As the skyscrapers of downtown L.A. tumble. Edward Norton said it best (I believe it was on the commentary track on the DVD): that it's a story about a man who had to destroy the world in order to have a relationship. That's a profound metaphor for what (some or all) men go through -- giving up/destroying part of their world (and themselves) in order to accommodate a woman in their lives!
You're joking right? I of course know you're not but that all seems a little ripe to me. I'm sorry but if it's all about killing off a part of him in order to have the relationship then why have that part exist at all? Wouldn't it be much more challenging to have the same idea (killing off a part of you or the world to have a relationship) where the id wasn't so obvious ( Man like fight, man enjoy blowing up thing, man like fire, man beat chest and growl) but instead make the part of the Narrator that has to be abandoned is suburban contentment. Make her the Tyler Durden, the woman in his life, not his id.
I know it's hard, if not impossible, to change someone's mind on a film they love, so I know none of this will sway you but don't you think the whole ending, the quip, the buildings coming down - isn't it just a little too adolescent and self-satisfyingly clever? I don't know. I like much of the movie as I said before but the end still feels like a teenager's wet dream.
Oh, as an aside--
I did *not* like Spider. Great cast, but I thought it was a 20-30 minute short film stretched to a painful length with little to fill out its runtime. As great as Fiennes is, his muttering and demeanor made me think more of Mr. Bean than of a genuinely disturbed individual. And this may all be related to just how deeply, deeply predictable I found it. Which is a shame, 'cause it had a really great cast, and Cronenberg is clearly capable of great things.
Jonathan: I don't disagree with anything you've said! But that's what I think is so funny about the movie. It's totally over-the-top from the first moment -- and it's about a guy who sees the world in adolescent terms (I love when he bitterly calls Marla a "tourist" because "she doesn't have prostate cancer" -- though neither does he -- and is sitting in on the support groups.) His metaphor for making contact through his depression ("a copy of a copy of a copy") is guys punching each other. The apocalyptic ending is as hilarious to me (and as "adolescent") as, say, the ending of "Dr. Strangelove." The satire is intentionally overblown -- and I think it works wonderfully.
Mister Emerson,
RE: The Limey.
ditto. bought that as a 2-pack with Ghost Dog. 2 very powerful films that challenge our quest for meaning in a nihilistic and violent world, much like Fight Club.
Ugh...you've brought up one of the films that I adamantly disagree with you on Jim. And more to the point, you've re-hashed what I believe contains one of your sloppiest, most dismissive pieces of film writing ever (and I write that as someone who holds you in high regard for taking OTHER critics to task for dismissive soundbites). It really makes my blood boil when you praise "Fight Club" and dismiss what remains to me one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented films of recent times: "American Beauty". I think "American Beauty" is a great film, but not because of its supposedly "insightful" satirical barbs toward suburbia. I agree with you that anyone who sees "American Beauty" as particularly original and/or insightful in its depiction of suburbia is quite naive. But I don't think the film is even intended to be a satire...rather, it's a Wilderesque comedy that has a real core of empathy for its characters' foibles.
Conversely, I've always found "Fight Club" unforgiveably smug, self-satisfied and (this is a strictly subjective response) not even very compelling as a piece of filmmaking. This is where film criticism may break down: nothing I could argue could convince you that "Fight Club" is less than a masterwork, just as nothing you could say will hurt my opinion of "American Beauty". The best that can be done is to illuminate each point-of-view, which is why I am re-watching "Fight Club" and preparing detailed notes that will eventually be organized into a cohesive (I hope) essay on the film. I'll post the link to that essay when you present your follow-up post on "Fight Club".
I read this essay way back when you first wrote it, and it was this essay that first led me to conclude you are definitely a man who knows what he's talking about when it comes to movies, and their politics and philosophy.
Ellen: I assure you that was not my intention. It's just that this film is clearly about being male. Not until the end do we fully understand how Marla fits into the picture. And, of course, there's the great bit when Jack gets upset with her for coming to prostate cancer support groups and complains that she's a "tourist."
Alex: This is one of my favorite pieces! We clearly have different interpretations of "Fight Club" and "American Beauty," but do I not spell out my reasons (and at least convince you that this one comes, as they say, "from the heart")? Remember, it was written in the context of "Fight Club" arousing virulent loathing from some quarters, while "American Beauty" got raves and went on to win the Oscar for Best Picture. It is written as a dissenting opinion.
Yes Jim, you do spell out reasons for liking "Fight Club" well, and while I think you are seeing the film for what it hopes to represent instead of what it actually represents, I can understand where you're coming from. However, the one paragraph that as a fan of "American Beauty" I can't forgive is:
"What's easier to understand is how some of them found the trite and smug "satire" of the recent "American Beauty" so much more appealing ("Oh, look — that suburban American family lives in a red, white, and blue house with a white picket fence! How scathingly witty and insightful!").
You are assuming that people who love "American Beauty" and praise it are doing so because they find a red, white and blue fence witty and insightful. I assure you that is not the reason for my enjoyment (in fact, I had not even noticed it!) That, I hope you could acknowledge, is as irresponsible and detrimental to a constructive discussion as me writing the following hypothetical praise of "Fight Club":
"Dude, did you see that scene where the guy got his head pounded into the cement and then there was, like, blood all over the cement! Fight Club is the best movie I have ever seen!"
I will be very curious to see your follow-up piece on "Fight Club". One thing that I think is interestingly subjective when talking about movies (it's something you raised before in a discussion about Kubrick, the Coens, etc.) is the idea of smugness or misanthropy. I personally find "Fight Club" to be one of the most smug, smarmy films that I can remember seeing, and you seem to feel the same way about "American Beauty", a film that, as I see it, is ABOUT some characters who are smug but does not have an overarching smug viewpoint. It is a fine line to walk for a movie, and I think we could both agree that "Fight Club" and "American Beauty" risk accusations of smugness because they delve into the difficult genre of satire. What one viewer sees as successful satire may be trite and nasty to another...yet the debate rages on!
Jim, your reverence and serious consideration for the callow sneering in "Fight Club" explains a lot.
Ali Arikan's comment is so ass-backwards, I don't even know where to begin dissecting the obliviousness of it.
I liked "Fight Club"...well, kind-of that is. It was just an "okay" movie. But really, it's quite preposterous and in the end it's really just a gimmick movie.
I can't understand why people fawn over this movie. I get it, and quite frankly there's not much to get. But I tend to look at things quite differently than most people. For instance, the entire premise depends on these people finding Ed Norton beating himself up in a parking lot and then they all "follow him" as if he's some new messiah. Now really, if someone were to actually do that in a parking lot he's probably get laughed at then hauled away.
Of course you don't know he's beating himself up until the gimmick of the movie is revealed. And when the gimmick was shown, what a huge let-down that was. A let-down because it was just so pedestrian and will forever relegate this movie to "just another gimmick film" for me. Yes, I suppose one could argue that a film such as "Citizen Kane" was also a gimmick film, but that had so much more going for it than the gimmick. "Fight Club" depends so much on the gimmick that it would fail without it. "Citizen Kane" could totally lop off the Rosebud reveal and still be a masterpiece.
This was a boring, just plain bad movie when it came out and nothing has changed since.
Jim-How do you go about determining who gets to post on your precious blog? I submitted something days ago and it never got posted. Is this blog just for you and your "friends"? Why should I care to read it if I can't participate?
Callen: I'm sorry, but as you can see from my two most recent posts, our whole system was down from sometime Wednesday to Saturday (with the exception of a brief window on Thursday). Nobody could make ANY comments -- and I couldn't publish any entries to explain why. I hope you can re-post whatever you had submitted before. I can't remember the last time I didn't "approve" a post anybody contributed -- mainly because the level of discussion and participation among readers is generally so high... and among the thing I enjoy most about publishing this blog.
Ali Arikan's comment is so ass-backwards
Isn't that a Samba move? Like a Natural Fallaway Whisk? One, two, cha-cha-turn... Three, four, backwards, turn...
Maybe the film would have been more effective if it didn't make getting punched in the face look like being on the cover of GQ. My issue with the film is that it takes great pains to destroy the modern myths of consumerism, yet it still looks and feels like a music video. If you want to skewer consumer culture, skewer ALL of it and don't make your film look like a Mountain Dew commercial. Fail.
While I give it a C, "Fight Club" is definitely about something and strikes a lot of nerves in a lot of people. I found it morally repugnant and rather silly.
I think the single clearest message is that many young men grow up fatherless, raised by women, and emasculated by political corectness, corporate America, and conspicuous consumer culture. They feel empty and they are looking for something meaningful in their pampered lives.
The book (as well as Alan Morre's graphic novel --but not the film adaption--"V for Vendetta") takes the logical philosophical stance that we should overthrow the status quo and live in a state of true anarchy, that we abandon our leaders and live to our full human potential. I'm all for that. Unfortueantely, the movie devolves into fascist group think. What kind of "Project Mayhem" worth it's name would have homework? Why do so many of these Space Monkeys abbandon their individuality and play follow the leader?
I suspect that the true fans of this movie are directionless and want to follow a leader. I bet a lot of the fans are closet Nazis and I guarantee that the reason this film is so popular in frat houses is that Brad Pitt, Ed Norton, and Jared Leto look so damn homoerotically sexy shirtless. This movie is gayer (and I don't use that word pejoratively) than the volleyball scene in the equally macho, mindless and fascist "Top Gun."
The film strikes me as reprehensible in its encouragement to beat up an innocent stranger. I'm all for smashing a stranger's VW Bug, but the movie failed to point out that one well-placed punch can kill an unsuspecting opponent. I doubt that fans of this movie have ever been beaten senseless in a brawl.
When guys tell me they love "Fight Club" I'm quick to tell them that I thought it was lame, but if they want to fight about it we'll step out into the alley.
"Fight Club" definitely struck a cord for young males in their thirties, and you can't deny that. It's overrated? Maybe. But it's still a powerful film made by a director who usually knows what he's doing.
"American Beauty" was overrated and quickly forgotten. Oh, and it wasn't very relevant abroad. Surprise! Fight Club was.
The semi-anonymous posters have curious names. Luckily, there's no "Tyler Durden" in sight (arguably one of the most misused nicknames in cyberspace), because Jim Emerson's readers are mature and know better. But "Richard K."? Richard Kelly? Of "Donnie Darko" fame, another cult hit (or cult fluke, if you want) from the 90s?
I just hope "Ian H." is not the hideous Ian Halperin. That would really suck.
I love these ill-supported arguments that are presented as fact, such as the one by Alex Valero:
"American Beauty" was overrated and quickly forgotten...it's #35 on the IMDB Top 250 Movies, in the same area as other forgotten movies as "Taxi Driver" and "Apocalypse Now".
And it wasn't "relevant" abroad...it only grossed $220 million overseas.
No, Alex. My name is actually Richard and my middle initial stands for Kennedy.
I am just wondering if any of the writers here have read the book? The book ends differently than the movie.....not so "smugly" I guess is the word everyone is using.
For anyone who has seen the movie but not read the book, I would suggest you give it a shot, it's not long, and Palahniuk (the author) writes in a fashion that makes his works rather quick reads.
Most of his works deal with the "outliers" of humanity, the sort of weird extremes that are out there, but most normal people never encounter.
And "Fight Club" is #23. So what? IMDB is US-centric, anyway.
Of course ticket sales were strong at the time overseas: it was over-hyped and won some Oscars, while "Fight Club" was a sleeper hit. But I would like to know the current video sales.
Fear is the ultimate monkey,
The Narrator takes Marla’s hand then they turn to face the large window as buildings start to collapse in a hypnotic mesmerizing display of glass, light and controlled mayhem, then… splice in a quick shot of a d**k before the screen goes black…romantic, shocking, abstract, comic and ultimately brilliant.
Men are asked to hide their feelings so they’re not too girly, then to tone down their natural testosterone so they’re not too aggressive. People are brainwashed to follow fashion waves from the clothing on their back to the car they drive to the furniture and accessories that fill, most of the time unused and unnecessary, their homes. Most get jobs they don’t want to buy an artificial life they don’t need but are implanted with daily over-dosage of advertising so they submit. Society has created a time bomb waiting to explode (or wake up).
Fight Club is a satirical commentary on our modern way of life that speaks to the masses and shakes us to see the bigger problem that is consumerism. When a film stirs this kind of emotion in people it ignites debates and therefore the film speaks a greater truth and isn’t that the basis for a great film? Almost 10 years later Fight Club is still relevant. I predict Fight Club will be as important, if not more so, in 25 years from now especially in light of the environmental crisis.
Tyler: In the world I see, you’re stalking elk through the damp canyon forest, around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You’ll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You’ll climb the 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 carpool lane of some abandoned superhighway.
We need more films like Fight Club (based on Chuck Palahniuk’s book of the same name), films that are meticulously made with craftsmanship and a relevant storyteller’s eye, films that stay in our minds and let us talk about the many interpretations, and most of all, films that are not afraid of the outcome and go all the way.
At the end of Fight Club the Narrator needed to live so he could complete his journey and take responsibility; to man up to what he believes in. But to do so he had to “kill” the dictatorship Tyler had become inside of him.
But please, let’s not take this all too seriously… splice in a d**k right about now!
do you think it was some kind of generation gap that hindered Fight Club to be recognized as the great film it really was?
I got the feeling that more younger people (till their end 30ies) could relate to Fight Club than older critics. it's like Tyler Durdens speech: "We're the middle children of history... No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our great war is a spiritual war... our great depression is our lives."
"Why does Tyler have to be an Id? Isn't that an outdated term? Tyler is everything the Narrator wants to be. And just like the consumerism he was addicted to, he expects Tyler to save him. Tyler was a warning from his unconscious. Take responsibility for your life or it will finish without meaning and in chaos. This movie is not so much about the evils of consumerism but of the evils of letting your life be controlled by forces outside yourself that include consumerism. This movie is about growing up and taking responsibility for your life. That's why they create a fight club. It substitutes for a violent initiation rite that marks the end of boyhood and the beginning of manhood (a custom missing from our culture). It's about being a man. Not a spineless whinger that blames Starbucks and Ikea for his woeful existence. It's only when the Narrator takes responsibility for Tyler (shooting himself) and starts treating Marla respectfully and honestly that the movie ends. It's a cautionary tale.
And oh yeah, awesome post Jim!
What about something about the best movie of 2007, TAOJJBTCRF? Do you think Dominik wasn't nominated for best director cause he's not a guild member and they kicked him off The New World? Boo, DGA, Boooo!!!"
I am astounded that in all of the commetns in this article, there is barely any mention of Chuck Palahniuk, author of the book upon which the film is based. David FIncher did not write this film, but you'd never know it form the comments. He directed the hell out of it, and it remains one of the most successful translations of a novel to film in existence, but he only deserves partial credit.
The Voice that is so apparent in the tone of the film is Palahniuk's. Jim Uhls did an amazing job on the screenplay, and while there are some differences between the film and the book, the tone and essence of the book shines through brilliantly in the film.
It seems that a lot of critics completely missed the fact that the film is an adaptation of a novel, and a damn good one at that. They may have issues with the content, but the film is nearly perfect as an adaptation. Palahniuk himself raves about how well it turned out.
I'm eagerly awaiting the film release of Choke, another great Palahniuk novel.
A little note regarding the possibility of using negative quotes to advertise Fight Club - when BBC 2 first aired the film in the UK, they trailed it using a particularly frothing comment from the late British film critic Alexander Walker - "Anti-capitalist, anti-society and anti-God".
It got quite good ratings, if I remember rightly.