Fight Club (1999) ✦ Member of the Month: Full-Length Watchalong Reaction
Added 2024-04-14 16:00:35 +0000 UTCThank you to James M for picking this for their MotM win in March. It is worth watching my intro for this one, because going into this I was 99% confident that I already knew a big thing about this movie simply because of something else that I've previously watched and enjoy, that took inspiration from this film. And because of that, this review is split into two sections. I'm so happy that I have finally watched this! I hope you enjoy this reaction. [Direct link here.]
Cheers,
✦ KL
Comments
Thanks so much!
kaiielle
2024-04-17 06:40:54 +0000 UTCon the one hand, yes, we all love seeing someone get fully blindsided by a reveal, but! it was so enjoyable seeing you suspect early, and then pick up on so many of the hints as confirmation, when so much of that usually goes over the head of a first time watcher - it scratched a different itch (and i'm certain that like anyone else, you will get even more out of a rewatch) ... anyway, i just wanted to confirm for you that it was a very enjoyable reaction regardless of it not being 100% blind (i haven't seen Mr. Robot, but it seems like knowing it had the similarities it apparently has was some kind of semi-spoiler) Great watching this movie again with you!
MoulinNoir
2024-04-17 04:38:18 +0000 UTCThanks for sharing your thoughts! I agree that the L0 men need to be reached and people like Andrew Tate are a huge problem for them. The other problem that I see is that society often expects women to step into this role for those types of men. We need some really good male role models out there and social media can help with this, but I also think social media hinders this as well. It both helps because it's so easy to find other people's experiences and wisdom being shared, but it hinders because the algorithm is so good at hiding so much in your view because it ultra-tailors your experience. I follow some really great channels out there of men, who are talking about the topics that women want men to talk openly about more with other men. Marital stuff, emotional intelligence, attachment styles and how to handle them, domestic labour, parenting, general treatment of women, etc. There are a couple of issues with this, sadly. The big one is that even though their target audience is men, it ends up being mostly women. Similar to how a channel of a woman talking about men's rights towards women is actually going to end up having a 95% male audience because they love watching a woman who "gets it". The other issue is that I doubt many men are willingly seeking this information out to begin with, so unless they're shown it randomly and they engage with it and start watching more, they won't be shown it. Or if they have a partner or friend who makes them watch it. I definitely appreciate what Fight Club was doing and after multiple watches of it, I'll be able to sit here and deep-dive into it a bit more. In the meantime, I appreciate reading thoughts from folks who have had that time to watch this (and read the book) multiple times over the past 25 years.
kaiielle
2024-04-16 17:00:00 +0000 UTCThanks again James! I would definitely recommend Mr. Robot for you since you recommended this for me!
kaiielle
2024-04-16 16:42:55 +0000 UTCYAY! Even tho you knew the reveal still a great reaction and thanks for watching my pick, KL. BTW, I have not watched Mr. Robot lol!
James M
2024-04-16 02:04:32 +0000 UTCP.S. Sorry to monopolize the space, I'm just hoping KL will appreciate the thoughtfulness that went into this movie... ...But one other thing that women tend to miss: The point of the fight club is not violence, but self-discovery. Tyler doesn't say, "I want to hit you as hard as *I* can", he says, "I want YOU to hit ME as hard as YOU can". This is important to everything that follows. Narrator explains that they learn about themselves by knowing what hurts and what they can withstand. Once you've been hit in the liver, you register it: "Oh! My rib cage will be fine, protect the liver!" That information is power - you are in a better position to anyone else on the street who doesn't know that. He explains how your perception changes when you start sizing everyone up and realizing how empowered you are with self knowledge. And who asks to be next? Is it a roided out gym rat looking to crush skulls? No, it's an accountant who meekly asks, "Can I be next?" while timidly raising his hand. He wants a transformation. It's the complete opposite of what you expect, and completely the opposite of any other fighting movie that revels in machismo. It's a consent-based, egalitarian system of self-empowerment. (It's not even a "reluctant hero" trope; there is no "final boss" here and these are not people with main character syndrome). Palahniuk tries to hammer this home pretty consistently, but it gets missed a LOT by audience members (often women). This is what Tyler offers. While Narrator ultimately decides to reject Tyler's message, it's not as though Palahniuk thinks Tyler doesn't have something compelling to say. Narrator has still learned things he didn't know at the beginning of the movie; he's still a more capable person who now possesses a lot of functional skills. Palahniuk leaves the ending ambiguous, because he's just trying to start the conversation.
Dan
2024-04-15 19:53:52 +0000 UTCWhat I love about this movie is that, as you pointed out, there are many angles of interpretation and things to think about. What I find amusing about the responses to this movie is that there are so many views that are predicated on being critical of another view while also missing another major aspect of the story. So, what I hate about this movie is that there are so many "educated" people who presume to speak on its "true" purpose without ever considering a single thing the AUTHOR literally said over and over in every interview he's ever had. The 1st stage (of 3) of the Dunning-Kruger effect is truly at work with so many who pontificate without doing any actual research. So this is my take on the takes on this movie: Level 0: "Tyler is cool, Tyler is smart; he sees what's wrong with the world. I agree with Tyler and want to be like him." Level 1: "No, Tyler is the bad guy. The point of the movie is to NOT be like Tyler. I'm smarter than you because I realize this movie is just a criticism of toxic masculinity," Level 2 (the author, paraphrased): "This movie is not either of those things, in exclusivity. I wrote the book to speak to the male experience, because there are no movies that do that. I'm not here to give you an answer, just shine a light on who we are and what motivates us." Chuck Palahniuk, the author, has repeatedly said that his motivation for writing the book was that there aren't any movies that speak to the male experience. He says that, every season of every year, there's another "Divine Sisterhood of the Traveling Ya-Ya Pants" (or something similar, a satirical and obvious re-combination of multiple women-oriented titles). There are many movies directed AT men and FOR men, but never ABOUT men. We have coming-of-age stories that describe what it's like to grow up from adolescence to a *young adult, but none about what it means to become a man. We only have archetypes, like Bruce Willis' John McClane, or Sly Stalone's Rocky, or Schwarzenegger's whatevers... but these are pre-formed men, not formulas for how to become those men, or be a supportive friend to those men. How do those men relate to each other and identify who they are to each other? What does a man like Schwarzenegger's character in True Lies get out of having a 2D friend like Tom Arnold around, beyond the jokes and favors? Occasionally we get a movie like the 40 Year Old Virgin which criticizes the way men speak about women (kind of a reverse of the Bechdel test), but the way men relate to each other is still treated in a superficial way. (The Barbie movie is actually a rare entry in this category with its "I am Kenough" discussion, but it's still easily lost due to its many other insightful themes, hidden under the superficial dolls who use simplistic speech). This movie resonates with men because it speaks to male motivations and things men are told about who they're supposed to be. Yes, the Level 0 bros are going to attach themselves to the things they identify with (harder to find with all the pink of the Barbie world), but their attachment to this movie is not simply a failing of their intellects; the fact that they identify with it so deeply should -- to the Level 1 bros -- explain that we have a lot more to talk about than who's smarter than whom. That is to say the L1 bros are still basically missing the point. Given the state of discourse about this movie, I'm more interested in how women view it, because it's a window into our psyche that they're normally unfamiliar with (y'know, because there aren't any movies like this...). We're accustomed to speaking of things like "female objectification" without acknowledging -- at all -- that men objectify *themselves LOOOONG before we objectify anyone else (think: Gladiator's "We who are about to die salute you!"). Tyler's mantra about snowflakes and compost heaps and "all-singing all-dancing crap of the world"... is what we believed long before this movie came into existence. It resonates. This is why Eisenhower was so worried when he coined the term "military industrial complex": the fact that men are willing to sacrifice themselves in service to the greater good (because we are only useful AS objects) MEANS that the military industrial complex (dangerously) means we're continually tempted to kill ourselves even in peacetime (violent sports, excessive overtime, high-mortality jobs) because we see an avenue for death-fueled glory without even picking up a gun. Capitalism weaponized. Men consider themselves objects, and most women never consider that when they take offense to being treated the same. It's an entirely different way of viewing the world. Similarly, we speak of "unattainable beauty" in women, but are derisive of men's pressures to act like "alphas" for status and respect (a scientifically debunked idea that's championed by clownish grifters like Andrew Tate). Now, the intention of this comment isn't to come off as some kind of MRA, but the fact that soooo many L0 bros are running around means that we should seriously reconsider how we formulate and consider gender roles on both sides. I certainly agree that women have always ended up on the losing side of FAR too many transactions throughout history (looking specifically at Arizona's newly-revived and ghastly anti-women law from the 1800's), but you're going to have a hard time moving us into the 22nd century if you can't reach the 80% of men who fall into the L0 category. In the kind of democracy we want to have, you can't just vote out 80% of the men -- you have to find a meaningful way of reaching them without just telling them they're wrong. And we have to formulate a new, productive path that will appeal to men. We can't do that if we can't understand what motivates them (we may be simple creatures, but that doesn't mean women understand us).
Dan
2024-04-15 04:24:28 +0000 UTCOne of the MANY reasons I love this movie is that even if you know the spoilers it is still amazing. I would recommend the book as well, highly enjoyable.
RichieRich
2024-04-15 03:09:44 +0000 UTCTo expand on that a little bit, what Steve is describing is not just why Tyler Durden sucks, but also Fight Club's accurate (and concerning) diagnosis of whatever's going on with men and masculinity in general -- it applies to the movie, but you can see it in the real world as well, in incel/MRA/MGTOW communities, where the depression and loneliness and isolation of guys who are unsatisfied with their lives ends up leading them to the only place where they can find community: with other people just like them, which are also echo chambers for festering resentment and dangerous ideas. It's tough because on one hand one would ideally like to think that normal people are not predisposed to becoming violent. Even the movie says it: people don't want to get in a fight. What's complicated is in these worlds have misogynistic and misanthropic ideas about how things are and a potential for violence that make them unsympathetic, but at the root, loneliness is an epidemic that needs to be attended to, and in the 25 years since Fight Club was made, it's only gotten worse, with so much of socialization moving online where you don't really have to leave your bubble to be social, and then also a pandemic that kept many people inside for years and which is still rendering many social behaviors from 2019 a thing of the past. Navigating that tightrope, where men like this are victims of a problem worth tackling, but in a way that does not validate any of their ugly feelings toward people, mostly women, is something we still don't have a solid strategy for.
Tyler Foster
2024-04-15 00:59:56 +0000 UTCThe 'I am Jack's...' self-referential dialogue from Edward Norton is set up earlier on when he discovers the Reader's Digest-esque magazine articles titled 'I am Jack's medulla oblogonta' and 'I am Jill's nipple'. As in the novel, whenever he wants the audience to know what emotion he is feeling, he narrates "I am Jack's raging bile duct" and "I am Jack's complete lack of surprise". The fact that we don't know what his name is through most of the movie makes us question whether or not this is his actual name--I think this is done on purpose, to help keep us from guessing his actual identity. As for the difference between Fight Club and MIster Robot (which I also love), I agree with most of what you said. Of course, Mister Robot had four spectucular seasons to tell its story, as opposed to the 2+ spectacular hours this movie has. As for what the purpose of Tyler's cult is, and why the men follow him for no reason, and seem to have no real purpose, and are so compelled towards violence and destruction, is--I think--the point of the movie. Tyler spits vitriol at the conformist aspects of society and capitalism, only to have everyone follow him, and become conformists who consume his bullshit. He speaks of 'hitting bottom' and 'self destruction' as if they are life mottos; but how can one lead an army of men at the bottom, while self-destructing? Because he's not actually at bottom or self-destructing--he just wants everyone else around him to hit bottom to better control them. The fact that he touches upon a few weighty truths--capitalism bad, men having no purpose beyond consumerism--makes him sound like some kind of guru; but all he does is try to destroy the system--not really create something new. He's pure ego--ego can attract followers, but unfortunately it cannot lead them anywhere beyond the selfish desires of that ego. I think the fact that so many people idolize Tyler Durden, is because they miss this point, and buy into his shit. He's pure ego. He looks cool. He fights like a bad ass. He pushes against society. They want to be that. Therefore, he must be a good thing. Anyway...I've rambled on for long enough. Spectacular reaction.
Steve Mercier
2024-04-14 19:20:15 +0000 UTCFor me: one of the greatest movies ever. Easily in my top ten. A man at war with his own toxic-masculinity-turned-cult-leader...fuck yes. And the performances? Top notch. David Fincher is simply one of the best filmmakers out there. Fucking-A.
Steve Mercier
2024-04-14 16:13:15 +0000 UTC
