Chandler hates his corporate jobs and is unable to commit to a relationship
Ross has anger issues and is unable to make a marriage work
Joey is a perpetually out of work actor who is lucky to not be homeless
Monica is an obsessive compulsive with an eating disorder
Rachel is running away from her wealthy family’s expectations of her and is underemployed for a significant portion of the show
Phoebe is a free spirit with no interest in conforming to societies conventions who actually was homeless
ALL the characters have troubles with jobs and relationships and family expectations. But it’s shown in a light and funny way. The message of the show is that 20-something Gen X people may not have their shit figured out, but they can get by with each others help until they do.
The show ran from 1994 - 1995 which would technically make the 15 year old protagonists on the border. However the style and tone of the show was definitely Gen X (case in point, slacker heartthrob Jordan Catalano’s (Jared Leto) classic 90s Kurt Kobain long hairstyle and flannel shirts).
The O.C. would be a Gen Y high school show. All the characters are affluent, good looking and popular. Even the “nerd” is dating a super hot girl. Gen Y tends to embrace materialism and conformity while Gen X tends to rile against it. Gen Y likes to be marketed to while Gen X tends to distrust it. That is not to say one is better than the other. Both attitudes have their place and too much of either isn’t a good thing. A world of anarchists is just as bad as or worse than a world of mindless sheep.
It’s far worse - a world of anarchists would mean an anarchistic society, and given that anarchy only ever exists long enough until a system of laws and structure is introduced it suggests that it’s not a natural state for an advanced human society. Besides, it’s only materialistic societies that create cheap internet porn, so I know which I’d prefer.
I think the message of the film (and why it appeals so strongly to Gen X’ers) is that following the rules doesn’t work. Narrator was following the rules, but his life was pathetic and unfulfilling. I think that’s the motif of Gen X-- we tried to follow in our parents’ footsteps, but the rules they taught us don’t really apply anymore, and we don’t have anything to replace them with, so we wander around, trying to fill the hole with material things and hollow careers and unsatisfying relationships. The answer to this anomie as offered by Fight Club is to reject the whole premise handed to us and start over from scratch. However, since the story is allegorical, Narrator finds out that you don’t want to go too far with the starting over, because then you’ll have nothing to start from.
I completely agree, but it's fascinating how this movie can make somebody agree with Durden's speech and disagree so completely with his tactics at the same time. He did something horrible to that clerk, even though the clerk probably would be happier pursuing his dream. The dozens of licenses on the back of the door later on in the movie were freaky too.
It's the same with the car crash scene; he may have a point but he's still *fucking nuts!*
That’s absolute bullshit. I’ve known people who were the victims of pretty severe violence. Some of them have the resilience to overcome it, but some go numb from the trauma. Their breakfast tastes like nothing. They can’t experience beauty at all.
It’s not total bullshit. The clerk wasn’t hurt. Scared shitless, yes. Tyler tells him he only has to fear Tyler killing him is if he isn’t well on his way to becoming a veterinarian in a year. That’s why he kept the license, so he could look up the clerk to see if he was studying ‘stuff’.
The breakfast comment seems like it reads better than the reality of it, though.
Having someone point a gun at you and tell you they’re going to kill you is a lot worse than being punched in the face. Much much worse. I’d be surprised if the clerk could leave his house the next day, let alone apply to vet school. If he follows his dream of becoming a vet it would be in spite of Durden, not because of him.
The book was great and the movie is fairly faithful to the book- it started me off on reading some of Pahlaniuk’s other stuff which I found rather enjoyable. He might be all of these things that people are saying, but he has some imminently enjoyable and great stories and a flair for writing.
I your point, but how many times have you watched a documentary about some tragic event and heard the survivors talking about how it gave them a new perspective on life, made them really appreciate what they had, etc. I think that was the point of the that scene.
This is so convincing I almost believe this is what Pahlaniuk (or at least Jim Uhls) had in mind when writing it!
I’m also impressed that it considers Marla an important character. I find it interesting that almost nobody (besides me) in this thread has even bothered to mention her.
That, and Tyler’s graphically pointing out ‘You are wasting your life. Is there any reason I shouldn’t take it from you?’ ‘What are you capable of, what do you want?’
Later, that’s repeated in the car crash scene - “What do you want to do before you die?”
These are tough questions, and Tyler made the clerk confront them head on, at gunpoint. Sheep aren’t tough to train, but first you gotta get their attention.
ETA: Larry Borgia, It’s the difference between What Tyler did, and Why.
If your only point is Tylers action was likely to cause psycological trauma, Of course it would. He’s Tyler fucking Durden. But if you miss his motivation, you miss the point of the scene. Tyler’s trying, in his warped way, to improve the world. One young man at a time. “One fight at a time, fellahs.”
Fight Club is one of my favorite movies, but I really can’t stand the way some fans of the movie interpret it.
To me, the appeal of the movie was (A) the dark, nihilistic sense of humor to it all, and (B) the major plot twist that forces the viewer to reevaluate everything they’ve seen to that point.
What drives me nuts is when people seem to like the movie because they think Tyler is cool or that his philosophy was somehow profound. As I saw it, Tyler is the villain of the movie. He’s driven by adolescent angst about his father and a trite, immature philosophy (basically “money and material things are bad” – who hasn’t heard that before?), and he turns it into a campaign of violence and terrorism. He acts recklessly and without any serious consideration of the long term consequences of his actions. Basically, he’s dangerously unhinged, as the narrator gradually comes to realize.
I sincerely hope the point of the movie wasn’t supposed to be “Tyler is right, everyone should be like him.” If it was, then that’s a stupid message. But I didn’t interpret it that way. The narrator certainly doesn’t seem to think Tyler is doing something sensible – I think he at first is sucked in by the superficial appeal of Tyler’s words like his other followers, but eventually sees Tyler for the dangerous maniac that he is.
Regarding Raymond the store clerk, I think realistically holding someone at gun point and threatening to kill him would be much more likely to leave him with a crippling case of post traumatic stress disorder than to give him a new lease on life.
But I agree that Tyler genuinely believed he was doing Raymond a favor. This is what I mean about Tyler not giving adequate consideration to the consequences of his actions. From his juvenile perspective, pointing a gun at someone’s head and saying “Go follow your dreams or I’ll kill you,” is doing them a favor, not inflicting grave psychological harm. This is why he’s such a dangerous villain – because he believes he’s acting nobly.
Within the context of the movie, I’m sure the breakfast the clerk had the next day was the best he’d ever had, and he was exhilarated and alive for the first time in his life, and immediately went and enrolled in veterinary school. If the same thing happened in real life, though, he’d spend the next six weeks shaking under his bed, and the next six months minimum in therapy for his PTSD.
