Off the Air
What happened to the forum for...?
Official Direct Thread: Fight Club
Consider this your official thread for David Fincher's
. What are your favorite moments, fan theories, characters, camera moves and themes? What's your take on Fincher's take? Join us!
I read the book and watched the movie in college. I was taking a Literature and Film Adaption course in college when it was in the theaters. We would read the books and watch the movies and discuss. Best. Class, Ever.
I as much as I was disappointed in them changing the dynamic of the relationship between Marla and the narrator (and the course of the fat for the soap), I can say that this change did send a message that probably hits home to society/Hollywood than how it was written in the book.
Overall, I think that the movie was excellently done, even if they changed/left out some key elements. I can appreciate both mediums independently. It's by far one of my favorite movies and books still to this date, and it's the first time I've ever seen Brad Pitt as a real good actor and not being there to be eye candy.
Rewatching the movie, it just makes me realize how much of this Mr Robot has taken as its own. Mr Robot is essentially a reboot/reworked for modern times Fight Club - even down to the music.
This was the first time I'd seen Fight Club since it was released. I wasn't a huge fan of it then, and I must admit, I didn't love it this time either. And I can't really pinpoint exactly why. For whatever reason it just does not appeal to me, even if I do appreciate so much of the fantastic film-making on display.
It's an incredibly well-crafted film and is so different from most other mainstream Hollywood fare of the time, so I definitely can't dismiss it. It's a film worth reckoning with and it really captures a moment in time in America pre-911. It's weird how often I thought about the fact it was very clearly a film that came out before 911 as I was watching it this time around.
In any case, I'm still trying to figure out what it is about the film that doesn't quite work for me. I used to think it was because of the reveal that the narrator invented Tyler Durden. I'm generally not a fan of this device, but I have to say it is well executed here and does have a real point, so maybe that is not it.
I've also seen arguments about the big tonal shift, where you've got two hours seducing the audience into wanting to join Tyler in his nihilism and anarchy and then pulling the rug out and telling you that maybe it all wasn't such a good idea after all. These arguments have compared it unfavorably to things like Boogie Nights or Goodfellas, movies which spend an inordinate amount of time making you want to be a gangster or work in porn, but then go on to spend a lot time really unraveling and de-glamorizing it. Whereas here, some argue the Norton's arc is not earned and not enough time is really spent on actually dissuading the audience.
Then you've got people arguing that the point of the movie is not to moralize and that it's just satire and is over-top-ridiculous from the get-go, so that tonal shift is actually not a problem and that people who actually took Tyler's words seriously were kind of dumb for thinking the character profound and just played into the satire by believing it and that these people totally missed the point of the movie. It may very well be a satire, but I do think the execution of much of the film plays it pretty straight and I can understand people missing the satire of it all. Though, one big clue that we are being fucked with and the whole thing is not meant be taken seriously, is the single frame of the penis at the very end of the movie, calling back to the earlier scene of Tyler fucking with audiences.
I haven't heard the A.Ron/Jim commissioned cast on it yet, but I think I've heard A.Ron somewhere recently say that he can enjoy the movie and think it's awesome while also thinking Tyler Durden is full of shit. I certainly agree with that point, though, I did not really enjoy the movie all that much. My question though is, at what point in the movie do people realize that Tyler Durden is full of shit (if in fact he is full of shit)? For me it was really early on when he's talking about not being able to know what kind of man you are if you haven't been in a fight. Maybe that's why I didn't enjoy the movie all that much. I just kind of wrote him off from the get-go. Still, even if I don't agree with what he's espousing, I do think he's so appealing at first blush because he is tapping into a lot of the frustration that I think young men, especially of that generation and time period were experiencing. Perhaps I was too young when I saw it and hadn't really experienced the same frustrations a lot of these men were experiencing.
The funny thing is I am a massive Tarantino fan and I also don't buy into the worldviews of so many of his characters and yet I find them so interesting and compelling, much more so than either of the lead characters here. Tarantino even listed Fight Club as one of his favorite films that has been made since 1992, so it really should be up my alley.
Sorry if this post is too long, a bit incoherent and unformed. I just have a lot of thoughts floating around, but am having trouble putting them down into words. I'm just trying to puzzle out what exactly it is about this film that I'm not responding to. Maybe I'm just thinking too deeply and it's not for me. But I do think there is a lot to unpack here and I do think the film has worth and I can't wait to hear both the commissioned cast and the Direct cast. There's so many great discussion possibilities.
Lastly, there's so much of this film's visual style that carries on into Panic Room, so I'm really interested to see the two back-to-back.
Just wanted to say, I listened to both the commissioned cast and the Direct cast this week, but both were hugely enjoyable! You guys had a great discussion that really helped me to appreciate the film more and even though, I didn't enjoy watching it all that much, I really do respect the movie a lot and I love the amount of interesting discussion that it brings about.
We are Jared Leto's busted face. Trippy, like the Narrator himself, just wanted to destroy something beautiful.
That is a really solid debunking.