Fight Club

[Fawkes]

What did you think of it?

I made an obnoxiously long post in the "classic movies" thread about it, but I think this movie deserves its own discussion given its popularity among the left.

An abridged version of my opinion on it is I see it as a sexist reaction to a fear among many men that American culture is becoming feminized through consumerism and that the means by which to combat this is through a reclamation of ones masculinity through mindless violence against one another as part of a quasi-fascist group as a means to feel something real at the expense of furthering heteronormativity and offering a short-sighted, ahistorical, and easily consumable view of capitalism.

Here's the original post I made:


Yeah, I agree that that was a major part of the movie, but that "seriousness" was blatantly and negatively deemed a sign of femininity and the encroaching womanizing of humanity, and the only way to embrace oneself and reject this consumerist culture is through an overt show of masculinity. The movie had a lot of thematic potential (I haven't read the book), but it was sexist in everything from its dialogue ("we're a generation of men raised by women") to its symbolism (the testicular cancer meetings, Bob the former bodybuilder's "***** tits", and the sexual significance of the opening scene where Norton is on his knees with a gun in his mouth) to its characterization (early on, Marla is already set up as an amoral and self-destructive pseudo-villain, serving to justify the sexism throughout the rest of the movie given that she is the only female character).

This fear of emasculation is prevalent in a lot of American movies from the late 80s into the 2000s, and was a reflection of the anxiety many men felt about their perceived loss of dominance as women began to obtain higher positions in the workforce. The "Michael Douglas Trilogy" are great examples of this: Disclosure, Fatal Attraction, and Basic Instinct. It's almost as if those movies said "shit, we've got a problem here" and Fight Club came along a few years later with the "solution".

Also, in addition to the sexism and pseudo-primitivism, Fight Club's got a lot of fascist undertones:

Humanity needs saving because of this false sense of degradation resulting from a permeation of femininity (or Judaism). The means by which humanity can be saved is through the formation of this small, secret, and regimented group led authoritatively by a seemingly omniscient and mythical person (Nazis and Hitler). All of the members of this group are nameless until they die, at which point they are made into legends (Robert Paulson) that are used to justify the reactionary war they're waging. This group's existence can only be validated through violence, because it is only through destruction that they can show their power while simultaneously obscuring the reactionary underpinnings of their politics (fascist fetishization of war). Fight Club is like the NSDAP. Also, could the Holocaust soap reference be any more blatant....

Lastly, even if it wasn't for the sexist, primitivist, and fascist elements, I would still see Fight Club as a failed critique of American culture because of its focus on consumerism while totally ignoring the other effects of capitalism, particularly those that more greatly effect poorer sections of the working-class. The blame is placed all on the consumers as being the ones that perpetuate their own "meaningless existences" -- and that's supposed to be stopped by punching each other in the face? Throwing out all your Ikea furniture and bombing the Bank of America isn't gonna change shit. Consumerism is an effect of capitalism that aids in its perpetuation, it's not the root cause of our unhappiness and feelings of emptiness.

Yeah, I mean, all of that said, the movie is amazing in most of its compositional and formal elements. Almost everything about it, particularly the editing and effects, is really great, and I definitely appreciate it in that regard, I just can't get on board with the notion of it containing anything revolutionary.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/classic-movies-watchi-t155747/index2.html

[Aurora]

That's certainly an interesting take on it, i saw the film before reading the book and while they're both great pieces of work as usual in adaptations the book is better :p

At the moment i tend to see Fight Club as a reflection on the individuals alienation within capitalism, the complete unhappiness of being in a meaningless(and sickeningly profit-driven and dehumanising) job you hate, the feeling of being trapped within the structure of the workplace and the inability to make this emotional distress go away by, doing exactly as your supposed too, buying commodities.
Through the early stages of the story these pressures build up, the insomnia becomes worse with no solution available, until the individual is so disconnected and numb that the only way he can express himself is through the sort of alternative not-so-restricted culture of the support groups, he can cry because it's acceptable when you have a physical illness while it's not acceptable to acknowledge how mentally distressed you are.
Marla upsets this by not only making him unable to reconcile his emotional distress in physical terms but also by becoming another worry in his life, he may be exposed.

Tyler is the result of being unable to deal with all the factors in his life that he finds threatening or insurmountable, he becomes a repository of pent up anger, frustration and probably most importantly Tyler is assertive and in control while the character is powerless and domesticated.
Through Fight Club the character is able to feel in control of his own reality by changing it destructively, the same way someone might self-harm, because even if the feeling is negative at least it's better than nothing at least your in control.


Anyhoo theres some rambling bullshit, which probably makes no sense since its 7am and i havent slept.
I think what makes some art so great is that you can interpret it in a way that has meaning to you at that point in your life, you can even come back later and think of it completely differently. I'd definitely recommend you read the book.

[Sir Comradical]

Submit your review to WSWS.

[bcbm]

furthering heteronormativity

chuck palahniuk is gay and there are lots of theories about fight club being a metaphor for basically underground gay societies

[praxis1966]

chuck palahniuk is gay and there are lots of theories about fight club being a metaphor for basically underground gay societies

That's funny, especially in light of what I was going to say. If you're going to interpret the film's opening scene as psycho-sexual, then you have to do the same for the closing scene.

In that final scene, Norton's character again has the gun in his mouth... well, not again, because the entire movie is actually all a flashback so this scene is a return to present. What happens in it? Well, if we assume that the gun is phallic, then the fact that he pulls the trigger and fires a round out the side of his own face must be seen as symbolic of ejaculation.

What's intriguing about this is his motivation for doing so. By this point in the movie we've been made aware that Pitt's character, Tyler Durden, is really just Norton's alter ego and Norton is engaging in an act of purgation. Further, what is Tyler if not hyper-masculine? So this can be seen as an overt attempt to eliminate sexism from one's own psyche... After all, everything that took place in the film was Tyler's idea. With the realization that Tyler is not actually a separate entity, nay a creation of his own mind, and that Tyler must be stopped because of all the harm he's caused, Norton is compelled to act. Also, I don't think it's unimportant that it's only after Norton's excised this hyper-masculine, sexist, alpha male part of his psyche that he and Marla are allowed to reconcile.

As for the blowing up of the buildings, well, I think you haven't really scratched the surface. Sure, they're all financial institutions so it would be an easy mistake to make that this is somehow related to capitalism or consumerism, but I have my doubts. Basically, I've always interpreted this as a straight jack from the Graham Greene short story The Destructors. In it, a group of teenaged boys destroy a historic old house and a crapload of cash they find inside of it (seeing the parallels yet?). It's commonly accepted that in this case, the story is meant to be ironic. As such, what's being argued is that destruction is a form of creation. I think it's the same with Fight Club, personally.

As for Marla's amorality, well, she isn't amoral... She's just fucking crazy just like everyone else in the film.

[the_red_pickle]

I like the posts made by Anarion and praxis1966. Particularly love the part about eliminating the sexism from own psyche. The only thing I'd like to add is that it was Tyler's idea to blow up the buildings. One can go on to argue that the message being conveyed isn't even about destruction being a form of creation. But if we supposed that it were, is it really painting in a positive light? Because I certainly didn't get that impression. In the end: Tyler became a demon that needed to be destroyed, this is the only message I got. Narrator had to put an end to his mental disorder. This he was able to achieve himself by putting a bullet through his alter ego's head. I was actually disappointed to learn later on, that when he shot himself, the bullet came out of his cheek and didn't reach his brain. I've heard of a true story where a guy with ocd shot himself through the mouth and the bullet ripped the front of his brain giving himself a lobotomy, thus curing himself of his ocd. I thought this is what happened to the narrator. That would have been bad ass.

I did not get any sexism from the movie. There was no objectification of Marla as a character nor were there any violence against women in that movie.

What's missing from the movie is a marxist solution to alienation and emptiness and other problems faced by the narrator as a product of the capitalist society. Perhaps 20th century fox would never have went for if it did contain any hints of marxism in it. lol

[praxis1966]

The only thing I'd like to add is that it was Tyler's idea to blow up the buildings. One can go on to argue that the message being conveyed isn't even about destruction being a form of creation. But if we supposed that it were, is it really painting in a positive light? Because I certainly didn't get that impression.

Well first off, thanks for the praise, lol... And in my defense I wrote that post half asleep; I literally turned off the ol' 'puter and flopped into bed immediately afterward which accounts for why that particular bit may have seemed a little undercooked.

Personally, I like to think that the whole film, including the destruction of Norton's apartment, the fight clubs, the destruction of the buildings, have to be viewed in a dualistic sense. After all, Tyler and Norton are the same person... There's this constant push and pull between the two, and I think compartmentalizing their activities might be a bit of a mistake. To put it another way, a little less Freud and a little more Jung.

Anyhow, I think there's an argument to be made that while the demolitions were Tyler's idea, they were in fact a necessary externalization of the internal conflict going on in Norton's head. I think there's a detail that I missed in my initial post that's of import here: That soap and explosives are made from the same shit, something Tyler explains to us. So this particular act might be said to be an externalized "washing" related to to the purgative act Norton engages in when he shoots himself. To couch it in Eastern mystical terminology, you gotta die before you're reincarnated, right? So this old self with all it's macho spiritual malaise has to be destroyed in order for a more healthy intellect can be "reborn" in it's place. In that sense, it is creative.

The other thing that bugged me about my earlier post is that I didn't take the psycho-sexual interpretation far enough. Let's ask ourselves this, what's the one thing that sexist men hate more than women? Gay men, that's what. If the gun is phallic, then that scene can be described as homoerotic, which explains why my interpretation might work as a concept.

Anyway, don't anybody take this like I think I'm right and Fawkes is wrong. I'm just one guy talking over here... I'm willing to admit that I could be completely off the mark, lol.

[thesadmafioso]

I made a similar argument a while back on the sites chat, though the connection to Fascism is not something I immediately picked up on. But yeah, that really sums it up. I have no idea why so many leftist types love the movie, once you get beyond the incredibly thin veneer of destroying credit card buildings and ranting blindly against consumerism there is not much useful ideological meaning to it.

[bcbm]

nor were there any violence against women in that movie.

at the end on the bus they basically kidnap marla and, at least in the book, they give her a chemical burn on her hand

[praxis1966]

at the end on the bus they basically kidnap marla and, at least in the book, they give her a chemical burn on her hand

Well, I haven't read the book so I couldn't personally say, but would you characterize it as a sexist book or a book about sexism? To draw an analogy, was it more Birth of a Nation or Glory? I only ask because that seems to be the primary source of disagreement, not whether it actually contained sexist acts/characters (which it did).

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What does the ecoterrorist/primitivist aspects of Project Mayhem represent, anyhow?

[Manic Impressive]

I still don't really get the fascist reference tbh. Fascism being that a strong state is to the benefit of the states inhabitants. There's also no demonizing or placing of blame on a minority group. The group they form is basically just a paramilitary organization the hierarchy within the group would be found in most groups like that. I also don't get the soap - holocaust reference.

[bcbm]

Well, I haven't read the book so I couldn't personally say, but would you characterize it as a sexist book or a book about sexism? To draw an analogy, was it more Birth of a Nation or Glory? I only ask because that seems to be the primary source of disagreement, not whether it actually contained sexist acts/characters (which it did).

i think the book is basically about the "crisis of masculinity" in generation xers and subsequent generations as so many people get tied to shit service jobs, etc and lose their role as "head of family" or really having any status. its been awhile since i've read the book or even seen the movie, but i think despite the narrator killing tyler in the end i don't think the conclusions presented about a response to the "crisis" from men are necessarily negative. its a sexist movie and a movie about sexism, i think it tries to reconcile it in the end but yeah its not wholly disowning it either.


What does the ecoterrorist/primitivist aspects of Project Mayhem represent, anyhow? return to an era of male importance basically



I still don't really get the fascist reference tbh. Fascism being that a strong state is to the benefit of the states inhabitants. . . The group they form is basically just a paramilitary organization the hierarchy within the group would be found in most groups like that.hypermasculinity, dissolving of individuals into group identity, the violence... i don't think project mayhem is necessarily fascist but they have some qausi-fascist elements in their ethos


There's also no demonizing or placing of blame on a minority group.

fascism at its base is about exulting the nation/group more than demonizing others, denying the individual in the service of the larger group or w/e

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Regarding Fight Club:

I've always seen Fight Club as a Nihilist esque film, as opposed to being overtly Fascist. While Fight Club can be interpreted as Fascist in nature to a degree, it is not fully in its own a Fascist film. (However it can be taken to a degree as Proto-Fascist as opposed to actually being Fascist.)

*Tyler represents the epitome of nothingness and apathetic attitude (Nihilism) as a direct result to Consumerist Society and is the direct reaction to Norton's distaste with his life within the Consumerist Society.
*Fight Club represents the beginning of a 'New Culture' as shown by the way that Fight Club progresses into Project Mayhem and seeks to expand its form of a New Culture that seeks to destroy the Consumerist Society and replace Consumerist Society Post-Destruction.


*Project Mayhem as opposed to being Primativist represents the destruction of the currently existing Consumerist Society in order to push the world into a sense of nothingness and to allow Fight Club's idea of culture to be successful.

The Norton/Tyler 'Suicide' Scene represents Tyler's overcoming of his past cog-like actions within Consumerist Society and shows his overcoming of nothingness into creating his own meaning of life.


The Chemical Burn scene for example can be seen as the primary stage in which Norton begins his transformation of Semi-Nothingness towards Complete-Nothingness, in which the Chemical Burn Scene represents the death of Norton's existing faith (The Death of God) and him beginning to complete his overcoming of Society.

Afterward-- The Scene begins with him confronting his Manager. (He previously had confronted his manager when he had began to dwell into Semi-Nothingness.)


Of course though as previously said Fight Club is tainted with traces of Proto-Fascism and Machismo.

[praxis1966]

Not for nothing (pardon the pun), but you're talking like a Zen Buddhist, Lunacharsky. The whole concept of a return to nothingness and cessation of existence as a positive are intrinsic to that philosophy, one which is thousands of years old. I'm not calling you religious, mind you, I'm just saying that this isn't exactly a new idea (assuming your interpretation is something resembling the artist's intent).

[Decolonize The Left]

I thought Fight Club was a really cool movie and the first time I saw it I was blown away by the twist at the end.

In retrospect, having seen it many times (in fact, I think I own it), I fail to see all these sexual undertones without reading into the film pretty deep. I feel as though a more realistic interpretation of the film is that it's a a highly satirized iconoclastic exploration of modern day psychosis and neurosis.
But that's just me.

- August

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Not for nothing (pardon the pun), but you're talking like a Zen Buddhist, Lunacharsky. The whole concept of a return to nothingness and cessation of existence as a positive are intrinsic to that philosophy, one which is thousands of years old. I'm not calling you religious, mind you, I'm just saying that this isn't exactly a new idea (assuming your interpretation is something resembling the artist's intent).

'I'm just saying that this isn't exactly a new idea'
I never implied that it was. :lol:

However I was more or less referring to Nihilism as opposed to Zen Buddhism, Nietzsche spoke of Nihilism as being a temporary phase that more or less was meant to be overcome as opposed to being a permanent phase of human existence. Those within Fight Club more or less were simply the enlightened that were overcoming the phase of nothingness.

[Jose Gracchus]

return to an era of male importance basically

I think this is kind of weak. The kind of society Tyler wanted restored, if anything, exhibited levels of female autonomy and authority unrealized at any level of subsequent class and sedentary society.

[Decolonize The Left]

'I'm just saying that this isn't exactly a new idea'
I never implied that it was. :lol:

However I was more or less referring to Nihilism as opposed to Zen Buddhism, Nietzsche spoke of Nihilism as being a temporary phase that more or less was meant to be overcome as opposed to being a permanent phase of human existence. Those within Fight Club more or less were simply the enlightened that were overcoming the phase of nothingness.

Well to be fair Nietzsche thought that nihilism was what needed to be overcome in order to move as a bridge to the superman. He also thought that nihilism was becoming the norm in society and would result in, what he called, 'the last man.'

- August

[praxis1966]

'I'm just saying that this isn't exactly a new idea'
I never implied that it was. :lol:

However I was more or less referring to Nihilism as opposed to Zen Buddhism, Nietzsche spoke of Nihilism as being a temporary phase that more or less was meant to be overcome as opposed to being a permanent phase of human existence. Those within Fight Club more or less were simply the enlightened that were overcoming the phase of nothingness.

Word. I think there's a certain argument to be made, though, that a good chunk of Western philosophy is basically Eastern philosophy repackaged a couple of thousand years later. I don't know enough about Nihilism to say, but what little I do know suggests a similarity, however superficial it may be.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

Well to be fair Nietzsche thought that nihilism was what needed to be overcome in order to move as a bridge to the superman. He also thought that nihilism was becoming the norm in society and would result in, what he called, 'the last man.'

- August

'Well to be fair Nietzsche thought that nihilism was what needed to be overcome in order to move as a bridge to the superman. '

And in Fight Club as well, Norton through Tyler had used Nihilism into transforming into the Übermensch and overcame his previous tendencies of being weaker.

[praxis1966]

And in Fight Club as well, Norton through Tyler had used Nihilism into transforming into the Übermensch and overcame his previous tendencies of being weaker.

I don't know that I agree with your reading of the film necessarily, but I like your logic if it means anything to you.

[bcbm]

I think this is kind of weak. The kind of society Tyler wanted restored, if anything, exhibited levels of female autonomy and authority unrealized at any level of subsequent class and sedentary society.

"we are a society of men raised by women and i am beginning to think maybe another woman isn't the answer we need" or the fact that there are no women in fight club or project mayhem, the only female character in the whole thing is basically just a fuck buddy for tyler, etc. maybe the world he wants to return to is more friendly to women, but emasculation and the re-creation of masculine identity is still a theme of the movie/book itself. i mean its a bunch of guys half naked and sweaty beating each other up in basements srsly

[Octavian]

"we are a society of men raised by women and i am beginning to think maybe another woman isn't the answer we need" or the fact that there are no women in fight club or project mayhem, the only female character in the whole thing is basically just a fuck buddy for tyler, etc. maybe the world he wants to return to is more friendly to women, but emasculation and the re-creation of masculine identity is still a theme of the movie/book itself. i mean its a bunch of guys half naked and sweaty beating each other up in basements srsly
I feel you're point is on the right track. The quote itself is an expression of Tyler being the ultra masculine side of the narrator. The narrator in his mind has been alienated from society by consumerism and has directed this alienation to feelings of emasculation. This is manifested by the character of Tyler which drives him to do things to rectify his masculinity and cope with reality. He then realizes that he can't escape the society that alienates him so the only way he can be free is to destroy it. So by means of Tyler who says " I look like you wanna look, I fuck like you wanna fuck, I am smart, capable, and most importantly, I am free in all the ways you are not" he goes about achieving this. First he has to cause destruction to himself(the fight club), then what he believes is responsible for his alienation(The women), next he has to bring others in to not only validate his beliefs but spread them as well, and finally he has to attack what he believes is the keystone in thing he wants to be free from which is of course consumerism/society. After he completes what he believes will free him from his alienation he removes the hyper masculinity(Tyler) because he no long needs Tyler to drive him to do the things he himself could not accomplish but pained to not.

[Cleansing Conspiratorial Revolutionary Flame]

I don't know that I agree with your reading of the film necessarily, but I like your logic if it means anything to you.

Certainly though Fight Club is Nihilistic in nature.

As far as the Sexist relations are to go in terms of Fight Club, Fight Club does indeed to a certain point have a fetishism over masculinity, however this fetishism is being used as a means of conveying a discontent with Consumerist Society and existing Social-Functions of Society.

[praxis1966]

Certainly though Fight Club is Nihilistic in nature.

Meh I think that's a bit of an overreach. Sure, I can understand how one could come to that conclusion. I think it lacks an easily definable political ethos, but I don't think that necessarily makes it nihilistic.

Basically, I think some of the conclusions people are coming to are a defenestration of the film's ending.

As an aside, I wanna say I take bcbm's disagreement with me the most seriously because he's the only person (so far) who seems to have read the book. I can't even say that, lol.

[Aloysius]

All I can say of Fight Club is that I really enjoyed it.

[Lyev]

As regards the masculinity element (I saw Fight Club only once, and that was a while ago, but this applies a lot of films I guess): I heard an interesting theory that the male form cannot be presented purely* in Hollywood cinema. With Terminator, Rambo, Diehard or whatever, the protagonist is ultra-masculine, ultra-violent, a very strong dominant male, but this is counterbalanced by the fact that they are always cut and bruised or sweaty and dirty (it goes so far in Terminator etc. that Arnie is not even human). Their shiny muscly bodies have to be marked or injured in some kind of way.That they cannot be represented 'purely'* fits in line with the "heteronormative" narrative that mainstream cinema is mostly pulling; this kind of movie is filmed through a man's eyes. I guess you could say Fight Club is a pretty extreme example of this because they are basically just beating the hell out of each other, right? Maybe not, perhaps this is a bit tenuous.

*I don't think "pure" is the best wording here, but I can't think of anything else.