Close: The movie is simply Nietzche’s philosophy. “Whatever does not kill me only makes me stronger,” and all that.
Not to simplify the movie, of course. I still think it was brilliant.
That reminds me of a line from Ebert’s review. “[Tyler Durden] sound[s] like a man who tripped over the Nietzsche display on his way to the coffee bar in Borders.”
I think Ebert was way too harsh on the movie (he only gave it two stars) but that line cracks me up every time.
But that kind of superficial appreciation of Nietzsche’s themes was very common among facists of different stripes; the Nazis adopted whole chunks of his work into their ideology. If fact, one could say that the film was about the perversion of Nietzsche’s thoughts.
But the thing is, the film goes to great pains to show the “real” scene in almost every other instance where Tyler and the Narrator (N) interact or play out a scheme. The kiss, screwing Marla, the ball-cutting threat, etc. The only ones I recall without N being recast into the Tyler role are the car ride/crash and the initial fight. I can get past the car ride/crash because clearly someone else has to be driving and the Project Mayhem recruits know at this point about N’s “issues.” But I can’t see any way that anyone would, upon seeing someone beating the crap out of himself, would call next or even approach the guy.
Edward Norton has about 20 minutes worth of ranting on the commentary addressing this very question, as it was a common theme of reviewers who didn’t like the movie.
The key difference, I think, is that the Space Monkeys were possibly the stupidest people on the planet, whereas in general the Nazis were much more thought out.
“Jack” even explicitly states this when he chastises the space monkeys for running around in black shirts like idiots.
Norton also goes into an interesting examination of the Nietzchen (?) message of the movie, about how it seems so appealing when you’re young, but when applied to an adult life seems to end up wanting.
Watch it again and you’ll see that[spoiler]indeed they do show the “real” scene of the original fight. They show “Jack” beating himself up and other guys approaching. My favorite realization flashback, btw, is without a doubt screwing Marla. Norton’s look of surprise is perfect. I’m screwing Marla?! hehheh.
An interesting note about the car crash, which they do not show in the realization flashback sequence, is that Tyler pulls the Narrator out of the driver’s side. Fincher received notes from post-production that they had a continuity error there, to which he responded “Really? Keep watching.” hehheh. Another funny note is that postproduction gae him notes that there was dirt on the early reel, when in actuality it was the subliminal Tylers they were seeing.[/spoiler]
Did I mention how much I dig the commentaries?
Hey, I liked the movie a lot. And I think that that was the whole point - that although the Nazi leaders may have been smart, the followers were stupid, or at least very good at shutting off their brains. Joining a fascist organization is NOT a smart thing to do, no matter how much you hate society, and it doesn’t matter if the organization in question is the Space Monkeys or the National Socialist. The film may have exaggerated the stupidity for effect, but it’s there either way.
I’ve always said that Fight Club is a complete mind fuck. It is a satire from start to finish. Not one single frame of it (except maybe that one at the end ;)) is meant to be taken seriously.
BTW, I loved it! One of the best examples of film story-telling ever made.
One of the very few good movies I’ve seen in the last couple years. Although I can’t seem to figure out the ending. It just seemed a little too “easy” to me or maybe I’m just overthinking it.
Specifically the showdown with Tyler and Ed in the office building. Tyler says, “What is that smell?” and then falls over dead. I can understand it being a “Ed finally overcoming Tyler situation”, but the odd line make me wonder if Tyler was really the one that died.
I’m glad others have brought up Nietzsche, because I wanted to but was afraid it would seem pretentious if I did it. Anyway, since it’s been brought up already, I have to say “Nuh-uh!” Roger Ebert put it more eloquently:
That’s a favorite line of mine as well, and I think Ebert was right on.
There’s nothing wrong with having a character spout a poor-man’s version of Nietzsche, although it is one of the least original things you could possibly have a movie villain do. As Alessan has already mentioned, Fight Club could be appreciated as a movie about how you can go wrong with a corrupt version of Nietzschean thought – but it is that, a corruption. It is not “simply” Nietzsche’s philosophy, and I think it’s unfortunate that some people have the mistaken idea that it is. Nietzsche would have been repulsed by the Space Monkeys, and he would have thought little better of Tyler.
A parable? Both America of 1999 and Europe of 1930 saw a right-wing party come to power who invaded other countries on the basis of non-existent threats, set up offices of “Homeland Security” and concentration camps, and discriminated against gays, Jews and blacks. Why on earth would they need to use a parable to draw that comparison?
You predicted all that in 1999? When Clinton was still in the White House, Al Gore was a sure thing in 2000 and the greates danger to the country was Ken Starr? Wow.
No, that’s all wrong. You couldn’t have possibly interpreted that from the movie. I am embarrassed for both of us. :rolleyes:
The Evil of Bush is so profound that it distorts the space-time continuum for years in either direction. These ripples in the fabric of reality warped Fight Club and The Dead Zone into images of the horror to come, and also were directly responsible for the assassinations of Martin Luther King, JFK and Abraham Lincoln.
At least, that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.
I also noticed that, and I thought that the connection was made stronger by the subplot of the guys stealing the fat of the liposuction clinic (a very disgusting scene, but funny) and got a good profit from the beauty soap they made out of it! (Now you know why the soap appeared in the ads)
It was a reference to the almost false rumor (it seems there were some experiments) that the nazis made soap out of the Jews. The difference here is that the fat providers remain alive.
Am I the only one who saw the attraction to the Fight Club being the ability to FEEL, and to be ALIVE while fighting? Pain and physical conflict brought reality to the surface. It was secret and desirable since the consumerism and mundane lifestyles squashed it so much. The observers behind the bar that first night of fighting recognized the LIFE in the combatants, and wanted to experience it.
You are right! Living on the edge means experiencing life! However, I have no desire to pour lye on the back of my hand, and watch as it eats my flesh away. (I also don’t wish to get my teeth knocked out in a fistfight).
There are other, gentler ways of experiencing life…like taking a walk in the woods, or loving someone, or brushing your dog…why does “experiencing life” have to involve violence and bloodshed?
It doesn’t *have * to, but for the narrator, it does. Not to get too high-falutin’, but what makes it “art” is that it makes you re-examine your own assumptions, or makes you consider that other people’s experiences have left them with a different outlook than yours. I don’t know about you, but I would get terribly bored in a hurry if all books and movies portrayed people who think and feel exactly as I do.
Absolutely. And then the movie went on to say how dangerous that was.
Could it be that there was nothing wrong with the “club” while it was still Fight Club and that it only became more negative when it became Project Mayhem?