KingDowahs

*Fight Club *is simultaneously a very interesting and very difficult film to talk about, both because of its societal and cultural impacts and the actual nature of the story itself. There are primarily two main ways we can break down *Fight Club *as a film: the first being through the lens of its political implications and its analysis of both Class consciousness and populism as a whole, and the second being its analysis of masculinity and human nature. To break down the first point, Tyler Durden(Brad Pitt) acts as a sort of ideal Marxist from one perspective, but can also be a manifestation of Fascism from another. When looking at Tyler Durden’s actions throughout the film and his believed intentions, it’s clear that he shares a great deal of views with classical Marxism and the ideas of what Communism should be presented with *The Communist Manifesto *and other works. First off, Durden is wholly capable of developing Class consciousness, aware of both his position in society and how corporatised the world has become. Durden’s main concern is the concept of “consumerism”, that the world has become a sort of market where he, himself and the rest of the world are nothing but “consumers.” Durden instead seeks to establish an essentially classless society through Project Mayhem, where individuals work as a collective and seemingly focus on collective goals. Durden also allows Project Mayhem and the narrator to live within his house seemingly free of charge as long as they themselves contribute equally towards the House itself through cleaning the lawn and working on Project Mayhem as a whole. Durden also primarily targets corporations and consumerism within the world through Project Mayhem, and his final plan is an attempt to undermine the economy as a whole through eliminating Global Debt and creating as he describes “Global Equilibrium.” It’s important to recognise however that while Durden does do all of this with the intention of undermining Capitalism and Corporate society as a whole, the act of destroying all the banks is much less of a solution than it is a simple act of crippling capitalism. It doesn’t inherently replace the system as it stands, or provide any alternative, only creating complete chaos and so only seems to recognise the need for revolution, but fails to fully institute a following system of government. Interestingly, Durden’s ideology seems to hinge a great deal on individualism as well, as he shows through his interactions with the convenience store employee. Simultaneously however Durden strips members of Project Mayhem of their identity, creating a sort of paradox as he seeks for people to be more than the systems they exist in yet promotes this identity of collectivism. Durden also tries to deliberately insight Class consciousness in the narrator by preventing him from distracting himself from the pain he’s experiencing. All of this suggests that Durden could be an example of a naive approach to Marxism; aware of how society should operate and the need for collective responsibility as well as the increasing dehumanisation of people within society (Marx’s description of workers becoming “commodities” or “tools” instead of people) however his approach to undermining said system seems reckless and in nature irresponsible, and his approach to identity is contradictory with him simultaneously desiring people to be more than who they are within Capitalism, but also wanting them to be a collective within “Project Mayhem.” On the other hand, one could just as easily view Durden as a commentary on the rise of Fascism and the influence of Populism within said rise. Durden’s society within Project Mayhem is collective and priorities this concept of “group over self”, in the same vein as Fascism prioritises “Nation over Self.” Durden uses the struggling conditions of the people within Fight Club to inspire a feeling of injustice, that their position is unfair and should be changed, just as many fascists in history have. Durden also prioritises this concept of “rebirth”, both personally and within society as a whole as presented with his final plan. This idea could be a deliberate representation of the palingenesis and national rebirth. Fascism typically thrives on the concept of violence and its importance for social change, and Durden does the exact same with his creation of Fight Club and his violent methods of changing people(the convenience store owner and the chemicals with the narrator.) Even the nature of Durden’s relation to the narrator is inherently quite fascist, with them being the same person perhaps being a statement on group collectivism and this idea of a “bundle of sticks.” Durden and project Mayhem also follow Stanley G. Payne’s fundamental three concepts of Fascism: > "Fascist negations" – anti-liberalism, anti-communism, and anti-conservatism. Durden is in nature anti-liberal, as his ideas are primarily centred on extremism and the idea of complete abolition instead of political reform. With Anti-communism its much more difficult to argue but anti-conservatism is very easy to given his outright refusal to support societal norms or principles, and his seeming apathy to any notion of traditional values in his Apatheistic nature. > "Fascist goals" – the creation of a nationalist dictatorship to regulate economic structure and to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture, and the expansion of the nation into an empire. Durden’s expansion of Fight Club and Project Mayhem to essentially world-wide is very reminiscent of that of an empire’s expansion, with a hypocritically strict nature to society both through his approach to culture(creating essentially an army of nameless, faceless brutes) and his attempt to undermine global debt could be viewed as an attempt to regulate economic structure first through chaos, and then if we’re being generous to him a following system. > "Fascist style" – a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilisation, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth, and charismatic authoritarian leadership. This is probably the one Durden fits most, as Fight Club and Project Mayhem inherently romanticises violence, their generation and youth and their masculinity. Durden’s charisma is also a key factor that lead to creating such a strong community. Inherently, Durden’s rule of Project Mayhem is simultaneously dictator-esq. and also somewhat closer to a constitutional monarchy. He argues that the group is bigger than him, yet they are undeniably dedicated to him and his ideas and Bobby even dies for them. Durden creates a dictatorship while simultaneously vetoing it, with the members of Project Mayhem essentially doing everything he wants of them. But then, beyond the political implications of the movie, it’s crucial to look at the much more psychological statements the movie has to say about Masculinity and Human nature. It’s unavoidable when talking about this film to talk about the somewhat damaging social impacts it has(potentially unintentionally or counterintuitively) had on society. This movie has been twisted alongside films like American Psycho to represent “real masculinity”, ironically being used by the alt-right to romanticise violence, misogyny and traditional masculinity. Tyler Durden(Brad Pitt) has been romanticised as the ideal man by these people in the say way that Patrick Bateman has. But beyond those interpretations, what does the movie itself have to say about Masculinity and what a “man” is? Well, the best way to look at that is to look at the portrayal of essentially the only major girl in the movie, being Marla. In relation to Tyler Durden, Marla is treated in ironically the same objectifying manner that Durden criticises Society as a whole of doing to the people. We rarely see Marla and Durden speak, with their only consistent interactions being when they have sex. The Narrator, on the other hand, actually talks and interacts with Marla, treating her like a person while Durden only treats her like an object. This dynamic is fundamental to understanding the greater analysis of masculinity at play here: with the two sides of Durden(Pitt and Norton) treating her differently being a representation of the duality of human nature. Like Yin and Yang, while Durden preaches this idea of human enlightenment and growth beyond how society is “using” them he ultimately treats Marla the exact same way, while the narrator is ultimately much less focused on any of that or helping other people whatsoever, even dehumanising them through his work with cars, ultimately he humanises Marla much more than Durden ever does. Through this, the film could be attempting to portray society’s own double sided nature to actual gender equality and independence, simultaneously arguing humanity deserves freedom and autonomy and yet still finding a way to dehumanise women and treat them as objects. This could then even be a criticism of 1984 and its objectification of Julia while portraying Winston as the free-thinking man believing in human independence. But what about Marla as a character? We’ve spent so much time discussing her in relation to Durden and the Narrator but we’ve barely discussed her actual importance and characterisation. Primarily, Marla is portrayed as nihilistic in nature, just as quickly willing to forfeit her life as she is to have sex with Durden. While the narrator goes to the meetings for personal peace, she says she goes simply for the coffee. Or at least that’s what she says, you see when we look closer at the character we can recognise that she has a deep desire to not feel alone in the same way that Norton's character does. She calls up Norton’s character because she feels alone and is high, pretends to have breast cancer because she feels alone and I suspect she goes to the support groups because she’s alone, too. She attempts to portray herself as completely uncaring but ultimately she is, like Norton’s character, just extremely distressed by her own loneliness. The condom joke is actually crucial to understanding this, because her elaboration that she’s talking about throwing away the condom and not the stranger is integral to understanding her psychology. She presents herself as someone who is so completely uncaring about the world around her but deep down she desires comfort and community. The joke is her attempt to portray herself as completely uncaring to Durden but ultimately it merely reveals that she inherently cares a great deal and is not the person she seems. She likens a condom to a glass slipper, which is extremely important to focus on because the glass slipper in cinderella made her appear as someone she’s not, just as Marla desires to appear to Durden. Marla wants to treat Durden as expendable for one of two reasons: one, because she WANTS to feel like that, like her life is meaningless and that she doesn’t care about Durden and Two because she believes Durden doesn’t care about her. Marla wants to simultaneously play the nihilist and the hedonist: living without caring and living simply for pleasure. Ironically, Marla’s character is a direct critique of the type of people who so frequently misinterpret the film. She is a direct criticism of the human nature to appear anything but what you are, and the desire to do so with the intention of gaining others approval. *Fight Club *as a film is, like I said, a very complex and difficult thing to talk about. It’s not perfect but it’s very, very, very good and more could and should be said than what I’ve said here.

Love the fact that the blind dude (seemingly) didn’t remember Odysseus by his voice but DID remember this one guy simply because he disliked him so much

Some of the best sound design I’ve ever had the pleasure of experiencing. Makes every moment investing and makes every arrow, sword, scream and cry feel real.  From a filmmaking perspective this is more than perfect. Arguably Nolan’s most incredible work from that view, as beside the sound design there was incredible visuals, acting, music and editing.  Nolan is not a perfect director, that much is clear, but god if this isn’t a beautiful film. Not a perfect film, but an excellent one. (I’d talk of the story but there’s very little to say that would not be instead talking about Homer’s classic, but obviously the modernisation of the dialogue is slightly irritating but ultimately ineffectual to the quality of the film. Loved Robert Pattinson)