24 Comments

  1. You attempt to describe Male angst in a modern unNatural world by chastising your latent masters. The book is about being young men being dissatisfied by the reality that their greatest skills are not only no longer needed, but seen as archaic and obsolete.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. And the society who eventually conquers "The West" will surely prize masculinity.

    You know nothing of Culture or of Mankind.

  2. A woman was never meant to understand. You stupid bitch. Women have built nothing, invented nothing. Man invented written language and the printing press and Novels, and cameras and film school. The frustration is the lowercase man living in a Female world that He built and created.

    You know about as much about it as a man knows about growing tits or having a period

  3. In light of this interpretation, I also think it's interesting how Fincher changes the ending. In the book, the bombs don't go off, and when the narrator/Jack/Tyler shoots himself he wakes up in a mental hospital, with the hospital employees revealing themselves to be Project Mayhem members eagerly awaiting the return of their leader. So in the book he's confined in a place that explicitly labels him as a crazy person (where he seems to want to be), but his power is revealed to be the true nightmare, one that he cannot escape. In Fincher's Fight Club, it ends with the narrator triumphantly basking in the victory of a successful plan and newfound ownership/control of this power.

  4. Another film which encourages the audience to disavow terrorism is They Live. I’m thinking specifically of the scene towards the end with the shoot out at the television news studio. If the film is a metaphor for humanity then I would say this approves an act which I would consider a form of terror. I once heard Zizek say that They Live is a “classic of the left.” I don’t necessarily disagree but the film can just as easily (or more easily) be interpreted as a classic of the ultra-right.

  5. I like this video, but some of the arguments really seemed like a stretch to me.

    How is the question "How did you know?" = praise?

    I get what you're saying about Tyler wanting to present himself as this all knowing messiah, but "how did you know" is not praise.

    It's certainly fear, fear that this lunatic might be a stalker, fear that he really will show up one day demanding a report card or graduation certificate, but it is not /praise/ in any sense of the word.

  6. I think you miss the point completely so down voted. We are not faceless consumers, we are faceless philosophers. We may not be buying into consumerism but we are buying into the next ideology that clearly states what it wants to be.

    We are not our jobs. We are not how much money we have in the bank. We are not our khakis. But we are not the all seeing all dancing crap of the world either.

    We can be what we want to become, what we idealise (if we are being honest with ourselves). if we want to be a father figure we will move toward that.

    And most importantly if we have the will power we don't have to bend to anyone, even ourselves.

  7. I feel like you completely missed that the point of the movie was to create a false sense of escapism, and then crush that ideology for as vapid as it truly is. Tyler is quickly made out to be an irredeemable sociopath, and his allure is very obviously destroyed within the basic text of the film. It is never, at any point, idealistic. The fact that the beginning moments of the movie are frames as "cool" or "funny" is a reflection of how these things naturally come about in real life. It's part of what makes the film so honestly terrifying. When you stated the irony of Tyler Durden viewing freedom as a gun pointed at the back of the skull, I was screaming in my head "That's the point." For Fincher, the film is "an attack on all those things that complicate and confuse our sense of maleness. It's a condemnation of the lifestyle seekers and the lifestyle sellers and the lifestyle packagers."
    https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2002/apr/24/artsfeatures2

  8. The who losing a fight tactic was for the purposes of recruiting new members. You let someone win a fight against you and they feel empowered, and then you recruit them. You actually see the priest from the sequence, later in the film, in Fight Club.

  9. I gotta say. I think your analysis is sound, but YOU were well aware of the fact, that there are multiple readings of this film. I think you are intentionally sticking to a reading that is less common among viewers, perhaps to illicit a reaction, or perhaps to take the review less traveled. My reading is that the Narrator, Jack, is tempted out of his life by two forces. First Marla, which he rejects and creates Tyler. Tyler takes him down a path that's far too extreme, and he realized that he should have stuck with Marla, who also rejects the status quo, but to a safer extent.

  10. Gamergate was racist!
    …but why would anyone need an excuse to be anonymously racist on the internet…?
    Cuz they’re racist!

    Proud Boys are racist!
    …but why would white supremacists have families with non-white spouses…?
    Cuz they’re racist!

    For a video that is asking people to challenge what they are being fed, the smug blindess of your real world references is staggering.

    You and your narrating friends are artist class people pretending to support the working class, yet you throw the working class under the bus at every opportunity based on propaganda you have been given by the ruling class.

    Then you close the video by e-begging, just like all the other faux-socialists.

  11. I always find it sad to see women embarking on the absolutely, absolutely hopeless task of trying to understand how a man's mind works. Lady, you got it all wrong, having it dressed up in the fashion of the day that is "toxic masculinity".

  12. I hope this is not your last video, i like your take on it all. I wrote a comment before both agreeing/disagreeing with your thoughts. I see your statements as being very straightforward and hard to disavow, perhaps I am unable to fully justify motivations for watching. Oh i used disavow and i forgot it was in the review, nice! I watched this a few months ago and was very interested

  13. If you only view the world in terms of victims and oppressors you end up with project mayhem. This analysis is based on the assumption that all narratives should be read in terms of winners and losers. It's easy to see how you would come to the conclusions that you have if narratives are just weapons to be used against the enemy or propaganda to recruit people to your cause. Fight Club is not a weapon or propaganda – it's a mirror, like most fiction.

  14. This critique is great a lot of the time. All around good work, great citations. I agree sixty percent, and I hope you don't mind me saying, in good faith,

    Two things aren't that clear from viewing: Do you think that Palanuk or Fincher were trying to make anti-cult or anti-fascism media? It always seemed to me that they just fell into that old trap: 'you can't make a war movie that doesn't make war look sexy.' Certainly, I'd agree with you that this film goes out of its way to make these things look sexy, though I'm not always sure when it's intentional. It's a maximallist, splattery film. Secondly: you don't give the anti-consumerism themes any time of day. The people who worked on it say they were moved by that Buddhist, reject the physical world ideal. (again, quick aside: Buddhism has plenty of misogyny problems), but the anti-consumerist themes, woven in with an embrace of visceral experiences are a major part of the films appeal. While these themes and ideals may be undercut by the film at times, so are most of the olive-branch/carrot not stick/ anglerfish 'good ideas' you talk about. You seem really dismissive of the anti-materialistic bent of the movie, but I think it's something that the people making it wanted front and center. I'd like to know how you feel about it.

  15. Marla is Chloe, Marla Singer has the surname of the real actor who played the role of Chloe, remember her speech "i have oils, dildos …..etc " which we see in Marla's room? Tyler is an agent of chaos who was created by the narrator's insomnia and his struggle to take a nap happens in his mind "fight club". Fight club is the narrator's mind, with all those personalities fighting to prevail, in the end Marla wins. There are many mirror characters, Marla-Chloe, Bob-Lou, Tyler-Narrator … and many more. In the end the narrator learns that whoever we hate and fight lives in our minds, but whoever we love lives in our hearts, and in the end the void is covered with love! All the movie is a struggle of an insomniac guy (caused by anxieties) to go to sleep.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*