“Pitt's most unique talent as an actor is his self-awareness. He knows he's beautiful. That people are naturally drawn to him.” *edit: Such an insightful read on him in ways I haven’t quite heard so sharply articulated. TY!
I liked Fight Club at the time. I was young, too. I was 18. But there was something about it that never sat right with me, and not just the toxic masculinity part. Older me understands that if you make a fable about terrorism as you so aptly put it, there should be some kind of moral lesson, or at least it should operate as a cautionary tale. I think it was prophetic in predicting the "male loneliness" epidemic, and the rising misogyny in the culture, but doesn't really give any ideas on how to change it.
The film ends with what looks like a rejection of Tyler Durden, but what really happens is that Norton's character embraces Durden so hard that they integrate. The former two selves (metaphorically, of course, I understand they were the same person!) are now one, psychologically. He didn't kill him. He folded him in so deeply that he'll never be able to get him out.
I think there are left and right-wing aspects to Fight Club, which is why it's so powerful. It doesn't really sit easily on either side and that's why it sticks in your head.
From the left, you have critiques of consumerism and to some extent what we'd now call toxic masculinity, as others have said.
From the right, you have the point that men do need brotherhood and purpose and struggle, and modern society--what the manosphere now calls the longhouse-- doesn't give it to them. That's where Tyler steps in, to destructive effect.
I first saw this movie on DVD in high school a year or two after it was released and not long after an English teacher had spent a school year hammering home “the eternal battle between masculinity and femininity” in the novels we read. So I thought it was very sophisticated because I could easily map it onto themes I was being taught in school.
When I bought/was gifted the DVD also in high school I watched it with the audio commentary, which I recall being somewhat fascinating, with Norton and Pitt at odds on the film’s anti consumerism message.
Anyway, thank you very much for this essay. I haven’t watched the movie in years but this makes me want to revisit it. It does seem highly relevant—maybe even directly influential —to current circumstances. Last time I watched it I remembered agreeing more with Ebert’s legendary pan that the twist and final act really suck. But I thought the first 2/3, which is the “meat” so to speak, still worked on all levels.
The book is about closeted gayness rage. There's nobody who hates women more than a closeted homosexual, look at Mishima or Tom Cruise. Palahniuk wrote those physical violent scenes because if he wrote about the crazy male orgies he fantasized about the book would be regarded just as gay porn (which it is). Fincher understood this, by the way. There is a reason why all these contrived "male spaces" like manosphere podcasts and whatnot are so gay.
“Pitt's most unique talent as an actor is his self-awareness. He knows he's beautiful. That people are naturally drawn to him.” *edit: Such an insightful read on him in ways I haven’t quite heard so sharply articulated. TY!
This is terrific work.
I liked Fight Club at the time. I was young, too. I was 18. But there was something about it that never sat right with me, and not just the toxic masculinity part. Older me understands that if you make a fable about terrorism as you so aptly put it, there should be some kind of moral lesson, or at least it should operate as a cautionary tale. I think it was prophetic in predicting the "male loneliness" epidemic, and the rising misogyny in the culture, but doesn't really give any ideas on how to change it.
The film ends with what looks like a rejection of Tyler Durden, but what really happens is that Norton's character embraces Durden so hard that they integrate. The former two selves (metaphorically, of course, I understand they were the same person!) are now one, psychologically. He didn't kill him. He folded him in so deeply that he'll never be able to get him out.
not sure what this is about but i enjoyed it
I’ll take it. Thanks for reading
I think there are left and right-wing aspects to Fight Club, which is why it's so powerful. It doesn't really sit easily on either side and that's why it sticks in your head.
From the left, you have critiques of consumerism and to some extent what we'd now call toxic masculinity, as others have said.
From the right, you have the point that men do need brotherhood and purpose and struggle, and modern society--what the manosphere now calls the longhouse-- doesn't give it to them. That's where Tyler steps in, to destructive effect.
excellent
thanks jeff
I first saw this movie on DVD in high school a year or two after it was released and not long after an English teacher had spent a school year hammering home “the eternal battle between masculinity and femininity” in the novels we read. So I thought it was very sophisticated because I could easily map it onto themes I was being taught in school.
When I bought/was gifted the DVD also in high school I watched it with the audio commentary, which I recall being somewhat fascinating, with Norton and Pitt at odds on the film’s anti consumerism message.
Anyway, thank you very much for this essay. I haven’t watched the movie in years but this makes me want to revisit it. It does seem highly relevant—maybe even directly influential —to current circumstances. Last time I watched it I remembered agreeing more with Ebert’s legendary pan that the twist and final act really suck. But I thought the first 2/3, which is the “meat” so to speak, still worked on all levels.
the great irony of this movie is that it wanted to “free” men from their consciences but mostly just gave a generation of guys body dysphmoria
That's more than 150 words. ;)
I am PurpleAmerica's cynical side.
I have never actually seen this movie, however your piece was not about that at all really but was a great reflection of what it evoked for you
The book is about closeted gayness rage. There's nobody who hates women more than a closeted homosexual, look at Mishima or Tom Cruise. Palahniuk wrote those physical violent scenes because if he wrote about the crazy male orgies he fantasized about the book would be regarded just as gay porn (which it is). Fincher understood this, by the way. There is a reason why all these contrived "male spaces" like manosphere podcasts and whatnot are so gay.