Film: Fight Club
May. 11th, 2016 02:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackAnother film I think I watched once, but then absorbed a lot more of from popular culture. I think it held up pretty well.
As with many films *about* violence, it walks an uneasy line between talking about it and exploring why some people are drawn to it, and exploring why it's bad.
Spoilers:
The big reveal, that Tyler actually is the narrator under a psychotic episode, is very well done. Watching it again, I see that almost every scene with Tyler works comprehensibly (with a few hints) when you assume they're separate people, but that it all makes *more* sense when you know they're the same person. Lots of things, like when he beats himself up and it reminds him of his fight with "Tyler", and when people talk about the founder of fight club never sleeping, and that applies to the narrator and Tyler as a unit, Tyler doing his thing at night when the narrator is suffering from "insomnia", all of that clicks.
Viewing it as a mystery, I couldn't have put it together without being told the reveal[1]. But you were given the first part of the film up to the reveal and told "which is more likely, Tyler is a separate person, or Tyler is an aspect of the narrator", you would find it completely compelling, no other explanation hold up to that.
[1] Well, ok, NOW I could because "they're actually the same person" is my go-to guess for anything weird, but if I didn't know that was a traditional twist, probably not.
Which in a way is odd, because I respect that craft, but the experience of watching the film for the first time would be the same if those hints were there or not, since they were subtle enough I didn't hold them in my mind as "things that needed explaining".
The first time I saw it, I was slightly confused, because the scene with him being accosted by the policemen Project Mayhem members was so surreal, I assumed that and other parts of the film were just his imagination. Which might be an interesting alternative hypothesis -- it would make sense if he imagined how pervasive Project Mayhem was. But now I think the most natural reading is that everything apart from Tyler really happened.
The ending seems actually quite sad. The narrator and Marla hold hands against a dramatic backdrop of buildings collapsing, supposedly without killing anyone. But almost certainly, project mayhem is going to lead to other people dying. And he's bound to be arrested/killed/kidnapped in short order. There doesn't seem to be a good "afterwards".
I'm also looking at the moral, if any, of the film. One moral seems to be a bit like Breaking Bad, "fund mental health services for people who need them, have decent sick pay, have a fallback for people who need support, and it will pay for itself in what you DON'T need to spend elsewhere".
Another is that, the enemy in the film seems to be faceless corporations and people being consumed by apparently pointless and soul-destroying work. Which I kind of agree is a big problem. But I'm pessimistic that randomly smashing stuff will make anything better. And also pessimistic that anything less will produce gradual change fast enough to make any difference :(
As with many films *about* violence, it walks an uneasy line between talking about it and exploring why some people are drawn to it, and exploring why it's bad.
Spoilers:
The big reveal, that Tyler actually is the narrator under a psychotic episode, is very well done. Watching it again, I see that almost every scene with Tyler works comprehensibly (with a few hints) when you assume they're separate people, but that it all makes *more* sense when you know they're the same person. Lots of things, like when he beats himself up and it reminds him of his fight with "Tyler", and when people talk about the founder of fight club never sleeping, and that applies to the narrator and Tyler as a unit, Tyler doing his thing at night when the narrator is suffering from "insomnia", all of that clicks.
Viewing it as a mystery, I couldn't have put it together without being told the reveal[1]. But you were given the first part of the film up to the reveal and told "which is more likely, Tyler is a separate person, or Tyler is an aspect of the narrator", you would find it completely compelling, no other explanation hold up to that.
[1] Well, ok, NOW I could because "they're actually the same person" is my go-to guess for anything weird, but if I didn't know that was a traditional twist, probably not.
Which in a way is odd, because I respect that craft, but the experience of watching the film for the first time would be the same if those hints were there or not, since they were subtle enough I didn't hold them in my mind as "things that needed explaining".
The first time I saw it, I was slightly confused, because the scene with him being accosted by the policemen Project Mayhem members was so surreal, I assumed that and other parts of the film were just his imagination. Which might be an interesting alternative hypothesis -- it would make sense if he imagined how pervasive Project Mayhem was. But now I think the most natural reading is that everything apart from Tyler really happened.
The ending seems actually quite sad. The narrator and Marla hold hands against a dramatic backdrop of buildings collapsing, supposedly without killing anyone. But almost certainly, project mayhem is going to lead to other people dying. And he's bound to be arrested/killed/kidnapped in short order. There doesn't seem to be a good "afterwards".
I'm also looking at the moral, if any, of the film. One moral seems to be a bit like Breaking Bad, "fund mental health services for people who need them, have decent sick pay, have a fallback for people who need support, and it will pay for itself in what you DON'T need to spend elsewhere".
Another is that, the enemy in the film seems to be faceless corporations and people being consumed by apparently pointless and soul-destroying work. Which I kind of agree is a big problem. But I'm pessimistic that randomly smashing stuff will make anything better. And also pessimistic that anything less will produce gradual change fast enough to make any difference :(
no subject
Date: 2016-05-12 09:30 am (UTC)Oh yeah, that's an excellent point. I think that is the case -- I wouldn't say NOT violent, but it shows a desire to understand and respect violence, not automatically let it run rampant.
But in the film, it turns quite quickly into project mayhem, which is maybe intended to sometimes be funny and anarchist, not murderous, but plans things like blowing up buildings which are probably going to get people killed even if you pretend to ignore the likely consequences.
lots of art/entertainment works don't really have messages and morals, so much as questions and presuppositions.
Yeah, good point. "moral" wasn't the best description. I think I agree with *some* of the premise and questions, like, I think a lot of people DO feel alienated by not having any physical conflict. Even if I'm not sure of the implications of that, if any.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-12 10:20 am (UTC)The question as to whether/to what extent/what sorts of nonconsensual property damage and destruction count as violence (or, for that matter, terrorism) is an interesting one. I think, when watching Fight Club, I, possibly hypocritically, don't really see it as violence, even if I don't approve.
(I'm now contrasting my feelings about Project Mayhem and my feelings about riots.)
no subject
Date: 2016-05-12 09:45 pm (UTC)But going with my best guess, I'm still not sure how violent I see the second half. Partly, I'm overwhelmed with real world knowledge that however non-violently you try to blow up buildings, that's pretty much never going to be safe. But also, even within the film, the narrator is clearly scared, he clearly thinks it's not ok.
Although, I only just thought about this, maybe in the last scene the two halves of his personality are supposed to have come somewhat more into harmony, combining his normal self's sense of self-preservation and restraint, with Tyler's insight and gung-ho-ness. Maybe that is supposed to represent a reasonable medium, whether or not I agree.
I guess, it also depends how much you sympathise with their goals. To me, their undirected resentment, whether sympathetic or not, doesn't have any clear goals, so I assume their property damage is only going to get worse. And if they don't have clear goals, I feel like blowing up credit card companies is not actually going to help anyone in spirally debt, it will just suck money out of the economy without actually bankrupting anyone. But maybe if they kept up a sustainable campaign it might "work", that just didn't seem likely.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-13 11:10 am (UTC)I did a little googling and it seems that, for example, vandalism isn't considered violent crime even if it's considered criminal, the Wikipedia page on violence doesn't mention vandalism, the wikipedia page on vandalism doesn't mention the word "violence".
I think things might be complicated by the way some forms of smashing things up sort of come with (or can be interpreted as coming with) a tacit threat that people will be smashed up next time. Especially when it's committed as part of a larger thing that includes unambiguous acts of violence.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-17 01:52 pm (UTC)I hadn't thought about it like that, now you point it out, unsurprisingly I'm not sure what I think of as violence and what isn't.
To me, I think, violence is smashing stuff, generally in an unconstrained way. Spraypainting over a famous painting -- maybe metaphorically violence, but not central to the concept. Smashing an object -- yes, violence. Hitting someone, hurting someone, damaging someone, violence. Firing a gun at someone and missing, probably violence but less certain. Waving your fists at someone, maybe. But I'm not sure if other people would agree.
I'm not sure what language to use to describe it, but it seemed like project mayhem involved reckless property damage in a way likely to get people killed, which made it unacceptable (unless it had specific achievable goals that were clearly worth that). And I'm similarly less blase about property damage -- I try not to be MORE precision about property than people, but if I see hundreds of millions of damage, I think "is that just going to go away, or is it going to be less government funding for education, for healthcare, etc, etc".
OTOH, your example of the "get in a fight and lose", and some of the other early homework projects, are ones I'm not sure of -- I think they're risky, in that that sort of thing led to project mayhem, but also, testing your limits can be a valid way to learn to stay within them.
no subject
Date: 2016-05-13 11:11 am (UTC)