The Fight Club is definitely one of the most thoughtful films I have ever seen. It has adopted many theories into producing the seemingly violent and ‘twisted’ scenes, such as Herbert Marcuse’s critique to consumerism, Sigmund Freud’s idea about projection and displacement, and Judith Butler’s idea about the performativity of identity.

First of all, the film intends to criticize commodity fetish. At the beginning of the film, the protagonist owns a condo, desires to buy everything in IKEA catalog, and wears designer brands; he points out that everything is single served, even passengers/friends met on the flight. His life, just as any other white-collar workers, is supposed to be perfect–perfectly boring and numb–“The things you used to own, now they own you”. It was until he starts the fight club, where people fight and relocate their emotional instabilities and senses of imperfection. I find these scenes corresponds to Marcuse’ idea about commodity fetish, which criticizes capitalism that makes people think they can find  happiness in commodities. Yet the happiness created by products is not real, as the the fight club members enjoy their violent and vandalizing behavior immensely.

The idea about consumerism is linked to the performative nature of identity. When the protagonist wonders “what type of dining set defines me (him) as a person”, the director not only implies that commodity fetish is so great that it has becomes part of people’s identity, but also alludes to the idea that identity is performative. In the film, the protagonist that follows all the rules of the society until he meets Tyler Durden, who has almost the opposite characteristics. Tyler lives in a dilapidated house–owns a few items, breaks rules, hates goods, and starts the fight club. It was until the very end of the film that it reveals that Tyler and the narrator are the same person acting differently. This has two meanings. On the one hand, what we perceive as one’s identity depends on how one acts–the narrator could be described as an ordinary and obedient white-collar worker while Tyler is a handsome and masculine (starred by Brad Pitt!) vandalizer, rebel, and even leader. On the other hand, there is no essence in one’s identity, as the narrator and Tyler are one person–what he acts decides what we see as well as define his personality/identity. While some might find the plot twisted, I think it is a brilliant adoption of Freudian idea about displacement that makes the performativity of identity clear. In other words, the narrator displaces his discontent (towards commodities and ordinary life) in his subconsciousness onto an imaginary other that he sometimes hates and other times idolizes. Now thinking back, I found many scenes hinting the idea that Tyler is an imaginary self of the narrator. For instance, when they two first meet on the flight, they have the same briefcase; and when he goes to the doctor to fix his face or challenges his boss at the office, he said the exact words Tyler says.

In short, it is a well-crafted film with brilliant ideas. My suggestion to people who want to watch it is that do not get too caught up in the fight scenes but see how the director uses techniques to tell his ideas; just as Tyler tells us not to get too caught up in commodities but see effects of advertising behind them.