Seriously. Fight Club is a movie about not being the kind of man who looks like a Calvin Klein model (among many other tropes spliced together in a fast, jarring, violent, philosophical clusterbomb of Nietzsche-esque cool). It’s a great point, especially because the advocate for this point is Brad Pitt.

.

(this guy)

The movie centers around a guy who is bored with his life because he’s got too many IKEA furniture pieces and an office job, so he blows it up and starts making soap bombs with an imaginary best friend that he’s created (that he becomes when he’s asleep- the logistics of this are never fully explained). Starting out by fighting in the basement of a dirty bar, Fight Club eventually evolves into something much grander: a plot to sow discord and mayhem in the streets of New York (?) culminating into a master plan to “set the world to 0” by destroying five buildings that credit card companies own (because computers/external hard drives didn’t exist in 1999/there aren’t other buildings in the world with credit information).

He eventually decides its all too much and destroys his imaginary friend by shooting himself in the mouth (literally) and then watches the five skyscrapers collapse onto the city below (BUT Brad Pitt assured us there would be no casualties because the buildings were vacated prior to detonation) (??!!??) and spends the rest of his life with Helena Bonham Carter.

I worshiped this move as a 15/16 year old. In fact, I loved it so much that my friends and I took to our basements to beat each other senseless in this spirit of (genuinely felt at the time) “letting go of everything”, so that we too could be free.

This was my first time watching this movie in many years, and although I concede to the fact that there are some great, thoughtful scenes (particularly when Brad Pitt rips the clerk out of the gas station), philosophically its not as deep as I once thought it was. I realize the political relevance to Fight Club was Berkely, and I think I have the same sentiment about them both: Brad Pitt/AKA Edward Norton via exploding buildings and the Yiannopoulos riots via exploding buildings ultimately accomplished very, very little.

“They call me Muslim” was a 30-minute documentary film which was produced in 2004, after the French Republic started instituting laws against women in France wearing Hijab (veil or a headscarf) –of course, this headdress is usually worn by Muslim women around the world, and it’s a symbol of Muslim women’s identity in may cases.  However, this documentary seems to be revolving around Hijab or the veil. It attempts to do a comparative case of Hijab in the French Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran in the mid-2000’s (~2005).  I am not sure what was the message this documentary intended to convey, but it could be easily mistaken and misrepresented. The French Republic, under the disguise of secularism, targets Muslim women and ban them from wearing the Veil in Public places- particularly in public schools. And, the documentary interviews some French Women affected by this law- who felt as their government was attacking their core of their identity- and their resistance to this law. Also, the documentary included some French officials claiming that the law was meant to protect the Muslim-French women from oppression and to protect the French Republic’s founding philosophy- “secularism and separation of church and state”.

Then in the other half of the documentary revolve around an Iranian woman, who grew up in the United States, who is targeted by laws regarding women’s attire by the Iranian Theocracy. The documentary portrays her creative methods of dissenting against the requirement to wear a veil/Hijab in public places. By juxtaposing these two cases in a 27 min video, without giving adequate context this documentary could be taken as the story or the two sides of the story of Hijab; thus, the documentary was presenting two sides of the same coin. But the only common thread in this documentary was women’s oppression – in the French Republic and in the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Not the Hijab. Also, the modern nation states that were presented here seems to be portrayed as equally guilty. I want to take a step back and consider the fact that the French Republic presents itself as a secular democracy whereas the Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocracy.  Women’s oppression in Iran is clear, visible and voiced in international arenas. However, the despotic and the oppressive nature of French Republic is neither clear, to many, nor visible and never voiced in the international arena. Couple of the women interviewed in the first half of the documentary mentioned that in the public schools there was no laws restricting   wearing of crosses or Yakama- in the very secular French Republic- in fact, one girl pointed out, the public school buildings had Christmas trees decorated for the celebration of Christmas. Thus, arise the question what secular democracy, then French president Jacques Chirac, bloviate about?  Neither this a unique problem for France nor this is uncommon in the “secular liberal democracies”. In almost all cases, where there is a form of government that legitimizes itself through the “people” or to be even more accurate, through a “majority opinion”, what does secularism mean?  But, ultimately if this documentary’s objective was to portray the oppression of women by the state, it could have juxtaposed Iranian case with the women’s reproductive rights in the U.S or French case with some other example of women’s oppression. But doing this comparison, this documentary did not get to the heart of the issue surrounding Hijab neither in France nor in Iran.

I want to take a step back and consider the fact that the French Republic presents itself as a secular democracy whereas the Islamic Republic of Iran is a Theocracy.  Women’s oppression in Iran is clear, visible and voiced in international arenas. However, the despotic and the oppressive nature of French Republic is neither clear, to many, nor visible and never voiced in the international arena. A couple of the women interviewed in the first half of the documentary mentioned that in the public schools, there were no laws restricting wearing a Cross or a Yakama- in the very secular French Republic- in fact, one girl pointed out, the public school buildings had Christmas trees decorated for the celebration of Christmas. Thus, arise the question what secular democracy, then French president Jacques Chirac, bloviate about?  Neither this is a unique problem in France nor is this uncommon in other  “secular liberal democracies”. In almost all cases, where there is a form of government that legitimizes itself through the “people” or to be even more accurate, through a “majority opinion”, what does secularism mean?  But, ultimately if this documentary’s objective was to portray the oppression of women by the state, it could have juxtaposed Iranian case with the women’s reproductive rights in the U.S or French case with some other example of women’s oppression. But doing this comparison, this documentary did not get to the heart of the issue surrounding Hijab neither in France nor in Iran.

Last Friday the Flora Rose Movie kicked off the semester with Dr. Hill’s interpretation of the meaning behind Fight Club. While the violence in the movie was sometimes hard to bear, our discussion beforehand gave the movie a much deeper meaning. Several scenes in the movie symbolized how our primitive instincts can overtake us if we let them. The script also explored the issue of how and why we conform to society’s expectations. Dr. Hill’s discussion and insight added to the movie’s depth and to my experience watching it. The group also discussed how cultural expectations were both defied and reinforced throughout the movie, especially for the main character played by Ed Norton. Dr. Hill wore a kilt, a family heirloom, to demonstrate how something that is traditionally thought of as a sign of feminism, could be seen as a sign of masculinity in some cultures. I have to say, I enjoyed the chat before the movie and was excited to learn that Dr. Hill had written several papers on Fight Club. His insight, his enthusiasm, and his costume, all made for a memorable event! I am looking forward to the next movie night at Rose.

Fight club, a movie that must be watched-I was told as a teenager by my friends. And I have watched this twice before; however, watching it this time in Rose with Dr. Hill’s preamble and closing and also with my evolved value system gave me a different impression. Fist time when I watched fight club, the fight scene and the surface level visibility of masculinity was something that I admired and revered. I think when I watched it the second time, after developing a critique of materialism and state-supported corporate capitalism may be 6/7 months ago, I admired the revolutionary theme in the movie. Given, that I didn’t expect my reading of the movie to change much. But, watching it this time my impression of the movie did change, I saw and felt differently.
I definitely saw the very deep, but subtly placed critique of masculinity and violence. Also, I am not very sure about its radical revolutionary message either. The brilliance of the movie lies in the ambiguity of the message it carries. I got the impression that the movie was conveying a message that radical revolution leads to mindless violence and total destruction; therefore, it will behoove us to not rocking the boat too hard. After watching the movie for the third time and hearing Dr.Hill’s closing remarks on the movie, I understand this movie’s messages are deeply woven in the script, only a close reader of the film will understand it. I think Fight Club is a movie that I want to watch every couple of years to see, how my understanding and values have evolved.

I was excited to see that Fight Club was the first movie being shown for movie night. It is a movie that’s reputation precedes it. It is nearly two decades old, but I’d taken great care to make sure that I went in without any spoilers. I will stick to analyzing a few small aspects of the film since there are literally books written about the film.

After the film Professor Hill discussed some of the cinematography choices in the film. He highlighted how the background will often contrast what is being said in the film. That was something I hadn’t noticed, but I think it is very important to understanding the underlying themes.

The fight scenes were some of my favorite scenes. They were executed very well, and I would disagree that they were gratuitous. I heard a few comments after the film that the violence was over top. I think that is one of the places that Fight Club showed it’s age. Compared to something like Game of Thrones, the fight scenes were downright subdued. Even the most violent scene between Norton and the underlying he is jealous of won’t make a top 10 list for violence in 2016. If a message of the movie depended on the amount of violence depicted, I think that message is a little lost watching it now.

In terms of the plot twist, the split personalities was given away a little too early for my liking. It was fairly obvious in the first few scenes of Marla in the house. Maybe keeping the plot twist a secret wasn’t the point of the movie, but I feel a little more mileage could’ve been gotten of the Pitt and Norton dynamic without the audience knowing they were split personalities.

The actual plot twist for me was the explosions to me. I was expecting for the other members of fight club to be figments of Norton’s imaginations. I am still not convinced that they aren’t. The whole theme of Norton fighting his true desires doesn’t seem to fit with him successfully destroying credit card companies. Norton seems to live in his world yet he is someone how able to successfully execute such a huge plan.

I can’t really go into dissecting the ending more than that since I still am trying to process all the themes from the movie.  The movie is still well worth a watch almost two decades after it initially premiered.

It’s been a week since I watched Fight Club, and I’m still not sure exactly what to make of it. Obviously I had heard all the pop culture references to the movie, and I knew it was popular. I was expecting a thrilling blockbuster similar to The Matrix, but Fight Club was something entirely different. I felt uncomfortable throughout almost entirely the entire movie. When fights were shown, I wanted to look away. I felt horrified when Tyler pointed a gun at the shopkeeper in order to get him to pursue his dream. Even at the end of the film, when the protagonist defeats Tyler Durden, instead of feeling release and relief, I only felt sickness from the bullet wound in his face.

I’m guessing the emotions that I felt are intended. The purpose was to get me to understand something about masculinity or violence or something like that. And I guess I did feel a bit of resentment towards Durden’s values. But the point seemed forced. The big reveal at the end was that the narrator was Durden all along. Seriously? Talk about an underwhelming deus ex machina. It was almost as bad as the “it was all a dream” cliche. In the end, I didn’t have any big epiphany about human existence. I didn’t particularly enjoy the film. I just walked dazedly to my dorm room and sat in the dark for a minute just trying to figure out what the hell I had just watched.

The movie Fight Club, which I saw last Friday, examines the loss of the masculine identity in gray-collar workplace. This is the second time I have seen the movie Fight Club. This movie succeeded in being thought provoking. The movie starts out with a nameless individual that we later know as Jack, and shows how he met Tyler Durden. It is later found that Tyler Durden is actually Jack’s alter ego. Jack had a boring, routine life: wake-up, go to work, and go to support group meetings, while Tyler was a rebel who wanted to live his life the way he saw fit. Tyler and Jack created an under-ground, male-only fight club. As the movie continues, the under-ground fight club evolves into Project Mayhem, which is made up of gray-collar workers. The movie succeeds in analyzing the masculine identity created by our society. Overall, I thought that the movie was very interesting as it played out moments in our every-day lives and the struggles that arise. I feel that this movie needs to be seen multiple times in order to be understood completely.

Last Friday, I watched Fight Club at Flora’s Film. Having never heard of the movie, I naively expected it to be an overall dry movie with sporadic fight scenes dispersed throughout the movie. However, I was surprised by the depth of themes portrayed within the dialogue and unique cinematography, extending the themes far beyond those typically associated with fighting. Perhaps it was the intention of the film, but I left with my eyebrows cramped into a permanent furrow — feeling utterly rattled and disturbed. Yet, I didn’t seem to observe anyone else’s discomfort. Though I am not someone who particularly enjoys violent films, I have watched them in the past and my overall takeaway has never affected me like it did with this film.

Prior to watching the film, Dr. Hill urged us to look beyond the misogyny and focus on masculinity that is often associated with the film. I would have to say that this was a wise point, as the film covered much more than these themes, especially focusing on self-identification and the difference between the projection of oneself and the ideal of oneself.  I think it is primarily the disconnect between these two and the actions that manifested that made me so disturbed. Without realizing it until the end, the narrator was responsible for making soap out of human fat, pulling a gun on people, forming an amoral, robotic army from humans, and being the ringleader of a group oriented solely to bring mayhem to different places. Until it was revealed at the end, I could not fathom how the narrator willingly worked with Tyler Durden, especially with the narrator’s growing disapproval and understanding of Durden’s actions. Perhaps it is the notion that someone is capable of so much damage yet cannot attribute it to his own responsibility that scares me; the greatest loss of oneself is the loss of control over separating what you believe yourself to be and what you are.

This brings an concept of identity into consideration that is unrelated to the less obvious themes of the movie. Does one’s true self present itself as a combination of who you think you should be and who you think is you? If you adopt entirely different mannerisms, values, and attitudes than those in your past, are you abandoning them or are you merely attempting to hide them with the chance of them escaping?

Last week I watched the controversial 1999 film “Fight Club.” After watching it, I was initially shocked. The movie probably intends to give the viewer that feeling, with its jarring dream like sequences (which reminded me of modern Baz Luhrmann movies) and its extreme violence, Fight Club is meant to make the viewer feel out of place, and it succeeded. Since it became a cult classic, viewer have tried to decipher the other intentions and themes of Fight Club. People say it’s a coming of age movie that exposes the flaws in cult thinking, sexism, and violence by showing the sorrows of people who indulge themselves in those behaviors. People say that the movie uses gory violence as a story telling device, and to highlight the pointlessness of such behavior. However, I think these messages and themes can be told without resorting to the gore and brutality that fight club had viewers watch. The shots of violence seemed like a cheap way to make viewers feel something, similar to how jump scares are a “cheap” method used in horror movies. Much of the premise of the movie is based on the un-named protagonist’s view that society is repressing men from doing “macho” things like fighting, but it’s the opposite. Society is filled with messages encouraging men express their animal instincts. People think violence is in vogue, MMA is one of the most popular sports around, and that shooting guns is cool. So… what exactly are the men in Fight Club rebelling against?

With that said, the movie is partly redeemed in my eyes if it was intended to deliver a good message. Still, even if fight club says it shows all these terrible things (violence, sexism, anarchy) to convince the viewer that they’re pointless, the film did it in a perhaps too subtle way. Not everyone going to see this movie across America went home and analyzed it as a piece of art with a message, it is without a doubt that these good intentions went over some peoples’ heads. These stances may exist and the movie well intentioned, but if that is the case then the messages weren’t presented in any coherent way that sticks. In many ways, Fight Club sells the same deplorable ideologies that it wants to stand against. If most people don’t think the movie is a satire on masculinity and violence… then is it still satire?

When we first get a glimpse of Jack’s apartment, the camera pans across the space and CGI fills in the rooms with furniture and tools marked by descriptions and price tags as if from some shopping catalogue. Jack’s obsession with material goods is reflected in the consumerist society of today. But while Fight Club itself does not address the consumerism, I noted that the concept of consumption and waste is present throughout the film. In nearly every scene, there is a Starbucks cup somewhere, for instance, and in multiple times the flicking of a cigarette is made extremely apparent.

But there is also a theme of carpe diem as found in movies like Dead Poets Society and Bladerunner. What really struck me was the scene where Tyler held the convenience store owner at gunpoint. He asked the owner what he wanted to be when he grew up, and said that he will kill him in six weeks if he wasn’t on his way to becoming one. “The breakfast he eats tomorrow will be the best breakfast he’s ever tasted.” While slightly comedically relieving and thought-provoking; after all, we are all guilty of taking much of our lives for granted. But the method in which Tyler brought this to his attention is certainly troubling: should we all be held at gunpoint and be forced to believe we’re living our last seconds? Probably not.

It’s still uncertain to me what the message the Fight Club had to tell, but at the moment I believe that the purpose of the film is solely cathartic. While the writers cannot (and probably should not) hold me at gunpoint, he can bring me into a film and put me in the victim’s shoes. In that moment, I feel like the convenience store owner. I feel that I’m being held at gunpoint, being entranced in the dear hope that I am not murdered by Tyler Durden. But in that way, the director gives me the benefit of being thankful for my life without actually making me kneel on the wet pavement grasping nothing but my life’s failed dreams.

Your life is precious. Don’t waste it. Don’t waste it like the huge heaps of used consumer goods you waste every day and forget about.

I attended the first Flora’s Film Friday programming, and although I had heard about it before and certainly about the first rule, Friday was actually my first time seeing the film Fight Club.  I had assumed that the film would be about a secret fight club (which, in a sense, I suppose it was).  However, I was surprised by the other aspects of the film: how the group went from being an underground fight club to a cult-like, almost military structured terror/chaos organization, the social commentary on things like masculinity, etc.

I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and from the flashing images of Tyler in the beginning (which I initially was unsure whether they were actually there or if I was just seeing things) to the twist at the end, Fight Club was definitely more than what the name implies.  But what stuck with me the most was not necessarily the frequent and visceral portrayals of violence and terrorism (elements from which I was not personally put off by, but I certainly understand why it might for others).  Rather, the realization that the film is perhaps just as relevant (maybe even more so) as when it was released.

Dr. Hill gave a small introduction and spoke briefly at the end of the film regarding his own analysis of the film, from the scenes themselves to themes to the social implications that arose when it first came out, as well as how the film might be applied to the world 18 years later.  For one, we watched Fight Club in a post-9/11 world, and thus the imagery of buildings falling due to an act of terror certainly carries more weight and perspective than perhaps it did in 1999.  One could draw connections between people of the contemporary world and the anti-corporate and anti-capitalist members of Project Mayhem.  I believe that Fight Club is one of those films that you could watch and every time notice something new or something that makes you consider something in a way you may not have thought of previously.

Back in high school, we would make the (obvious and although actually relevant) connections to our lessons on power projection and US Naval aircraft capabilities to justify to the substitute teacher why we should watch Top Gun during Naval Science class.  And while the relevance of Fight Club to our world today may speak to things that a (honestly) unnecessary beach volleyball scene would not, I would highly recommend watching Fight Club, and looking at it as more than a violent movie.  Just don’t talk about it.

I always heard a great movie’s a one that raises questions not a one that answers them. Fight club was definitely one of them. I found it quite impressive how the simple fight club in the movie became into a professional crime group of the society. I was thinking all the time what happens that cults take shape. Maybe people have a need to adapt to a very odd ideology or maybe it’s just boredom with normal life. The main character of this movie was definitely bored with his normal life, so bored that he had insomnia and he started taking part in therapy groups with people that he didn’t have similar problems with and then he became the founder of the fight club.

Other than raising so many questions for me about cults and boredom with normal life, this movie also made me question whether this movie had a message in a wider sense about the society. The fact that the fight club had entire influence over the society made me think that maybe there’s a secret cult that has huge influence and control over the society or maybe we’re all part of a cult that we don’t know about. Maybe the cultish ideas make us so blind that we don’t see the people who suffer from cult practices. These thoughts kept occupying my mind all the time. At the end I thought the movie was trying to make people think of what would happen if power fell in the hands of people with cultish types of ideology.  

Last Friday I attended the first Flora Rose Film Friday, where we watched the movie Fight Club. I had never seen the film before, but I’ve heard a lot about it. Before starting the movie Professor Hill mentioned that it was released in 1999. The turn of the century was a turbulent time, as many were afraid that society might fall apart due to the formatting of dates in computers.

Today could also be considered a turbulent time. The main character’s resort to violence and isolation can be paralleled with the approach of the current US administration. However, I think that the film uses the extreme isolation and violence as sarcasm, using the extremes to show how ridiculous the main character’s lifestyle becomes.

To me it seems that the main character may have been suffering from insomnia, and bipolar and/or multiple personality disorder. I didn’t like that the film maker took his behavior to an extreme. It seems like he could have been taking advantage or making light of metal disorders just to make a point. Seeing this film could influence people to think that people with mental illness are totally crazy and unbalanced and discourage people who are struggling from reaching out.

I was taken by surprise that the Tyler Durden character was actually the narrator. However, I was wondering pretty early on in the film (and am still wondering) whether the Marla character was real, or a figment of the narrator’s imagination. Although Professor Hill mentioned that the film is often written about as being misogynistic, I think this is a rather one-dimensional view. I think that Marla could be another projection of the narrator, or even that rather than fighting, as he claims, Marla is the narrator’s true reason for living. The later interpretation is actually rather romantic.

I think for future film viewings it would be interesting to have a short conversation afterwards to ask questions and share interpretations.

dear julia,

my first rose scholar event for the semester was watching fight club–as you well know since i brought you along! i’d seen it once before so it was nice to catch some of the lines of dialogue and use of the mis en scene that foreshadow the film’s conclusion. naturally most of that had gone over my head on my first viewing a few years ago. i stand by what i said when we finished the movie the other night. while fight club is undoubtedly a good movie, and very well made, it’s a weird one to have as your favorite. whether or not it embraces or satirizes anarchism and violence is likely a fruitful topic of discussion for students of film, but nevertheless i doubt i’m alone in thinking that i walked out of the movie with more desire to get in a fight than when i walked in. this to me speaks to a certain fetishization of violence and hyper-masculinity–even if the film is, beneath the surface, rejecting that perspective. i certainly see the arguments for it being a commentary–a critique–on what it depicts of course. to that end though, you and i often discuss the nuances between merely depicting something morally reprehensible and saying something about that morally reprehensible activity through the depiction. so what do you think julia, if fight club‘s commentary works so subtly that you need to speak with someone with a PhD in film to fully grasp how, does the film really succeed at conveying its message? (or as the saying goes, if you have to explain a joke then isn’t it not a very funny joke?) then again, maybe this line of questioning is exactly what fincher intended–that you could get out of fight club what you put into it so to speak. from my experience with a couple of his other movies, i certainly enjoy his work. of the other movies in his canon i’ve watched–the social network, se7en, zodiac, and gone girl–all were impeccably made films. (i’ve read that the game is good too; we should add it to our list of movies to see at some point) with those films though, while they were each challenging, the challenges felt like they were driven from the characters, not the film itself if that makes sense.

love,

rob

p.s. where is my mind by the pixies is a great song–and a well chosen one for fight club‘s closing credits–but i still think gouge away is my favorite pixies song. the guitars hit you harder in gouge away than edward norton hits jared leto in fight club.

I read three or four of Chuck Palahniuk’s fiction books during high school and whenever the subject came up between me and my friend, he would urge me to read Fight Club. After reading a couple of his books, there’s a pattern that you can discern and the different stories start blurring together. Each story starts somewhat normal, and then oddities are introduced and a series of ridiculous events happen until the story devolves into chaos (with variation in ideas and themes, of course). I think that’s why I didn’t want to read Fight Club, as I’d heard enough about it and expected a similar experience to reading Palahniuk’s other books. As I was watching the movie this past Friday, I was surprised to find myself settling in to the reading-a-Palahniuk-book mindset I’d experienced maybe five years ago.

As for the movie itself, it stirred up some primal sense inside me and made my testosterone pump, as I’m sure it did for other guys in the room (Robert Boehlert). At times, it made me feel like punching someone and starting a fight. I didn’t act on these feelings, obviously, but the fact that the movie elicited this response from me was impressive. The themes mentioned by Dr. Hill were pretty blatant, and I couldn’t help but think that showing this movie to the wrong people at a time like this might spur them to actually incite violence, given our country’s situation. Considering the riots going on right now, I don’t think that it’s far-fetched to think that some of those people rioting might have been influenced by watching this movie at some point in their lives.

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.

Fight Club struck me as the movie to incorporate many themes of every day life that we neglect to discuss without probing. One overarching theme evident in the movie deals with oppression and perpetuity, the primary reasons for the start-up of fight clubs. We can compare this club of fighters to children acting up in search of attention. Those to join the club sought to channel their anger and  discontentment, at having their day-to-day concerns overlooked, as well monotony in every day life, into actions that would attract public interest and attention. Fight club attracted these people because it provided variance from their every day life. They dealt with their problems in a “secret club” and left them there, with their suppressed feelings towards social structure.

Another interpretation for fight club could be that these men merely sought companionship and camaraderie. For instance, Bob appeared to me a symbol of loneliness because he is introduced as a man who has lost everything. His children didn’t care for him; his career was compromised after being diagnosed with testicular cancer; his wife divorced him; and the first person he sought out at the testicular cancer meetings was the protagonist, whose sole reason for attending the meetings was to have his feelings acknowledged. Yet after his death, fight clubs across the US acknowledged him and his name as someone who sacrificed his life for standing up for the lower-class and castaways of society. His death was the protagonists first attempt at acknowledging that the members in fight club were real people, with real stories, that they should all care about. He acknowledged that he had lost one of his true friends.

Yet the loneliness analogy can be translated into lack of love. While I agree that the movie was in ways misogynistic, the protagonist tells us from the very beginning of the movie that none of the chaos would have occurred if it wasn’t for Marla. We see her in many scenes primarily as a symbol of lust in sex scenes, yet she is also the reason that our protagonist comes to realize his psychosis and errors. Marla, as I see it, is the reason our protagonist realizes he wasn’t alone in feeling disregarded by his boss and the rest of the world. She, like him, would attend the illness-related group therapy meetings in anticipation of death and hope of compassion from others without actually being ill. I believe his courage for standing up to his alter-ego, Tyler, was a result of his realizing that Marla was back in town and would not be safe if he did not own up to his makes and acknowledge his problems. Marla, our only female character, was the catalyst for resolution in the story.

With respect to masculinity, it can be argued that it materializes differently with corresponding social status. I think it is safe to say that if masculinity is the male display of power, people of higher status exercise their power through bureaucratic means as opposed to the violent displays of the disregarded and oppressed.  When the protagonist’s boss attempts to fire him, he does not initiate any physical confrontation. Instead, he calls security guards to exercise that power. As for all the members of the club, they embrace their masculinity through acts of violence, such as destroying landmarks, blowing up condos, kidnapping, and fighting.

These are all issues that are relevant in today’s society, and will likely remain relevant for the rest of time. Oppression, loneliness, love, and power are universal topics that most of man-kind can relate to in one way or another. It is part of a journey of self-discovery, but how we choose to deal with these issues are what will set us apart from the events of the movie. After all, they aren’t entirely far-fetched.

The movie Fight Club left me with a lot of confusion and mixed feelings. Dr. Hill’s explanation about the significance of the year 1999, which is the year the film was released shed some light on the ultimate point of the film. It was critiquing the anonymity of young professionals at the time. The nameless main character seemed to be yearning for an outlet, a way to display his dissatisfaction with his life. He did so by creating a “fight club,” in which he used violence to express himself. While violence is never the answer, Dr. Hill explained to us that the point was not for the audience to focus on the extremely violent, disgusting, and vulgar scenes, but to understand the anti-consumerism message of the film. However, I feel as if whatever broad world-view the writers and producers meant to convey to the audience was lost in the distasteful vulgarities displayed in the story.

Another aspect of the film that I found disturbing was that the film’s main character had no family or actual, proper friends. His divorced parents seemed to have really impacted his life in that he had trouble building normal, real relationships with normal people. He even had a difficult relationship with himself. He seemed to not really know who he was or who he wanted to be in most of the scenes. He also went to support groups in the beginning because he was emotionally unwell. I think that the support groups did not really help him with his problems, since he eventually spiraled out of control. In fact, I think what he needed was faith. He needed to believe in a positive power bigger than himself. It would have helped dispel his loneliness and given him better ways to improve his life and his dissatisfaction with consumerism. He needed to believe in a higher power instead of his material possessions.

In conclusion, I am not really sure what the point of the movie was, but I think that it would have been better without the extraneous violent and vulgar scenes. I definitely did not like the movie overall. However, I think that seeing Tyler’s many issues demonstrate the flaws in his dangerous lifestyle, and the fact that he had not faith in anyone other that himself.

Fight Club is the first film of Rose House film series. Dr.Hill started off by giving us a brief introduction about 1990s when this film, along with other great film like Star Wars were made.

I have seen this movie before and I remember it to be violent and imaginative. [Spoiler’s Alert] The Protagonist (interestingly unnamed) is a automobile specialist who suffers insomnia and loneliness. He lives in a comfortable combo but feel mentally empty. After another regards business travel, the protagonist goes home, only to find his condo has been blown away during to a gas leak. So he called up Tyler, a person that he just met on the airplane and went to live with him. In contrast to the protagonist, Tyler present himself to be free, wild and brave. The protagonist see in him everything he want to be, so they became friends. Soon after, Tyler former the Fight Club, a daily night event where everyone can come and duel fight. With the club becoming increasingly popular across the country, the protagonist found himself isolated from rest of the group. Determined to find out the cause, he tracked Tyler’s whereabouts around the country, only to find out that Tyler is actually his illusions self.
Fight Club begins to get more violent and Tyler created the Project Mayhem, a secret operation to destroy multiple construction through extensive explosives around the country. Realizing what his other self has done, the protagonist is determined to stop the madness. He ended confronting Tyler and put a bullet through his cheek, killing “Tyler” but surviving himself. The protagonist ended the film, holding hand with Marla.

To be honest, I found the idea of the film quite disturbing and twisted, not just the physical violence but also the psychological disorder of the protagonist. Dr.Hill suggests its link to the ongoing political drama but I didn’t really understand his hint. Please excuse me for not wanting to discuss further about this film because when I think of the fighting and death scene I find it hard to go to bed with it. Still, it is a classic movie that have a IMDB score of 8.8. So if you are interested in a complicated psychological movie, by all means, you should check it out.