[quote]
He calls himself Jack, but only in the “I am Jack’s brain” sense. So his name is really Tyler Durden!!
[quote]
sigh.
no.
Why not? He had business cards as Tyler Durden, didn’t he? He had customers who knew him by name and reputation. I didn’t hear any competing names…
The movie-goer (Us) knew Brad Pitt as Tyler Derden. The Movie-World (The characters) new Norton as Tyler Derden, because there was no Brad Pitt character to them. Therefore technically, Norton’s character was Tyler Derden.
There are many cool lil things I never noticed before in this movie. I think there are layers to this movie, and I’m interested in reading the book. With each viewing, or reading, a new layer could be pulled away, like an onion.
i will say it again.
go watch the dvd with audio track 4.
edward norton did not have a known name.
edward norton did not play tyler durden. yes, it is with a u.
once again, he does not have a known name. that is why the cast and crew called him jack, to avoid confusion on set.
don’t argue this until you have watched the dvd with audio track 4, at which point you will see no reason to argue.
there is a reason for this. reread this thread and you might find it.
“…there is no indication in either the film or the book what his name is. i knew what his name was, of course, but fincher asked and asked what the name was. but i would never tell him.”
-edward norton on audio track 5 of the dvd. david fincher is the director. if he doesn’t know what the name is, you sure as hell don’t.
that’s just it, he DID play tyler durden (sort of).
the (original) tyler durden we see (brad pitt) did not exist in the world of the story. that is why marla called norton’s character tyler.
the reason Pitt’s character was called Durden in the script (rather than Norton’s) was because for most of the movie we think they are different people.
But because the are the same person, THEY ARE BOTH Tyler Durden.
Seeing as one of the said tyler durden’s doesn’t exist (to the other characters), the one that’s left (norton) is the REAL one.
if you are saying that tyler durden is just a name that norton’s character made up, notice how all the plane tickets (which Norton purchased) had the name tyler durden on them.
I have the DVD, and don’t know which part you are talking about, please enlighten me.
eggo
ok, consider this.
i make an animation of a mule. this mule can talk out of his mouth and his ass.
i get ROY to do the voice for his mouth. i get GREG to do the voice for his ass.
let’s say none of the other characters can see the mule’s ass, but they see the ass voice coming out of the mouth.
meanwhile, the audience of course sees the voice coming out of the ass.
now, just because the other characters see it coming out of his mouth (of course, never showing up on screen), that doesn’t mean that GREG played that part of the mule’s mouth.
GREG played the part of the mule’s ass, much like edward norton played the part of the NARRATOR.
ROY played the part of the mule’s mouth, much like brad pitt played the part of tyler durden.
they are 2 halves of a whole. that doesn’t mean each plays the whole. they each play there own half.
so it all comes down to character. edward norton played a guy who was also tyler durden. edward norton did not play tyler durden. brad pitt did.
CHARACTER. you all keep using this word without actually thinking about it.
we do not know his CHARACTER’s name.
i feel i have said this way too many times, but it doesn’t seem to be working.
your analogy doesn’t quite work. in the story, the other characters don’t just not see Pitt, he **doesn’t exist[/b)](so to the characters who saw the mule, it would have no ass). Pitt played one character, Norton played another, but they were both tyler durden.
I think we are looking at it in to different ways:
you are looking at it (or so it seems to me) as an outside observer, saying that what we see on the screen is the way it is realy happening in the story.
while I’m looking at it as someone in the world of the story would.
the narrator in the story IS tyler durden. that although we see him played as brad pitt, that is not what is “real”, the reality in the world of the story is that the character played by Ed Norton IS tyler durden. although he is a different character from the one named in the script as tyler durden, that tyler doesn’t exist.
ok, you are contadicting yourself here. norton played someone who was durden, but norton didn’t play durden? get it straight.
again, where is this part of the DVD that is going to clear all this up?
eggo
tymp, as you had stated in your first post:
I disagreed with your statement as initially asserted, but with the elaboration which ensued I concur.
Knowing your general attitudes towards possessions, I knew what you intended, but I thought it might be beneficial to others who didn’t have previous exposure to your tenets.
“we do not know his CHARACTER’s name”
To echo Kilgore Trout, we do not know Norton’s characters name. We cannot know his name from the informatiomn proivided in the movie. Just because some characters knew him as Tyler does not mean that he is Tyler. Don’t forget, some characters knew him as Cornelius. Since norton has a penchant for giving false names we can never know who he really is.
John
Perhaps we are missing the point of the movie.
My take:
First of all, it is obviously a parable. All that stuff about what represents what and who is who is valid.
What is Norton’s character’s name? Does his boss call him by name? If so, then that is probably his real name. I guess.
This movie is full of delusions and not just the “Brad Pitt” delusions. Norton’s character certainly constructed a very strange fantasy world in which Meatloaf had breasts, he and his alter-ego stole fat from a liposuction clinic to make soap and in which he was unwillingly treated like a God by members of a “fight club” who plot and apparently succeed in blowing up credit card buildings. Perhaps the debate should be over what was real and what was delusion and you’d have a hard time convincing me that much wasn’t delusion.
The scene in which he blows off his head is obviously delusion. The final scene is his final fantasy in the moments of his death. Perhaps the entire movie was also part of this same delusion, after all the film did start with the gun to his head . . .
. . . which brings me to my next point: Did this movie not remind anybody else of Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil?” The final scene is reminiscent of Jonathan Pryce’s character creating a delusion while he is being tortured at the end of the film. What is real and not in Brazil? You tell me. The scene when they accost the politician in the bathroom reminds me of a bathroom scene in Brazil.
On an aside, I saw the film with a group of people expecting to see a choreographed fighting film ala Van Damme. I seemed to be the only one who didn’t hate it. I believe that the film suffered from what I calll the “Hudson Hawk Syndrome.” Hudson Hawk was a film starring Bruce Willis about a Jewel Thief. It was heavily billed as an action adventure movie but when viewed, one discovered that it was actually a screwball comedy. I believe that Fight Club suffered the same fate.
Discuss amongst yourselves.
i said:
“edward norton played a guy who was also tyler durden. edward norton did not play tyler durden.”
eggo said:
“ok, you are contadicting yourself here. norton played someone who was durden, but norton didn’t play durden? get it straight.”
hey eggo, do you really understand the movie we’re talking about?
i did not contradict myself. read what i said. ok, i will hold your hand.
edward norton played a guy (unnamed) ** who was also tyler durden.**
he did not play the tyler durden part of that human. brad pitt did. how hard is that to comprehend?
my analogy works fine.
do you understand the word character? edward norton’s character was not named tyler durden. edward norton played the other half of the whole, who was not tyler durden. what don’t you get about that?
yes, the human that edward norton’s character was a part of was known to some as tyler durden. but the particular character that he played was not.
how many times do i have to say this?
wasn’t the edward norton quote enough for you? EDWARD NORTON for crissake.
ok, about the dvd. go watch it with audio track 4 (director), and audio track 5 (director, norton, pitt, and HBC). then you might understand it a little better.
this doesn’t work.
in the ‘reality in the world’, there is no Edward Norton.
we are talking about an actor here. you can’t avoid that. he is edward norton. so because we are talking about the actor, and what the name of the character the actor played was, we do not know his name.
for all we know, danny devito played the human that the characters of pitt and norton occupied. since he was never shown in the movie, so how would you know any better?
the director had norton take over for devito when he was that character, and had pitt take over for devito when it was tyler durden.
so if i follow your logic, i can rightfully say that danny devito played tyler durden.
do you see how ridiclous that is?
Hi.
I’m new.
Near the end of Fight Club, Norton’s character realizes that something’s up. He notices that all the members of Project Mayhem are treating him like Tyler Durden. When he speaks with Marla on the phone, it only confirms his suspicions.
Marla: "Is that a pretty accurate description of our relationship, Tyler?"
Norton’s Character: "What did you say… ?"
He is obviously surprised at hearing her call him Tyler Durden, as it’s not his name. His surprise is shown with the “We’ve just lost cabin pressure” voice over.
Soon after, Tyler Durden (Pitt) appears in the chair…and Norton asks him:
"Why do people think I’m you?" and "Why do people think I’m Tyler Durden?"
Norton’s Character has two personalities: One of their names is not revealed to us, and the other is Tyler Durden.
During the moments that we see Tyler Durden (Pitt), Norton is hallucinating and somehow watching himself. People refer to him as Tyler Durden when he is in his fantasy personality, but he doesn’t know this because he sees the Tyler Durden personality as someone else. It becomes apparent to him when Tyler leaves for a bit, and people continue to see Norton as Tyler Durden (we are left to assume that he has introduced himself to them as such). But because the Durden personality is gone, he and we see the truth…he has been Tyler Durden all along. Tyler Durden is a completely fictional character that he created for himself to be…a role he plays. But that is not his real name. His real name is not revealed.
Anti Pro said:
Right before Brad Pitt left was when Ed Norton was feeling sick and was lying down… The speech about kudzu around the Sears tower, remember? Cool speech.
Anyway, here’s how I see it: The Brad Pitt personality leaves (taking Ed Norton’s body with, of course) and goes on a city-by-city hop around the country, setting up new franchises. This is the largest amount of time that Brad Pitt’s personality has been in complete charge of the shared body. One day Ed Norton wakes up as himself and finds all of the tickets from around the country… He’s not following right after himself, he’s taking a big long trip as himself right after Brad Pitt’s personality did.
Does that make sense to you?
Sorry about forgetting the characters’ names. Norton’s character was Jack, but what was Brad Pitt’s?
I jes’ cain’t amembuh.
either you are being a wiseguy, or… or… geez.
What?
Nope, not being a wiseguy (or a wisegirl, for that matter)…
…And what was Tyler Durden’s name in the movie?