Just got done watching it tonight with some friends, and I wanted to write something up about it quickly while it was still fresh in my mind. If this seems a bit less formal than usual, that’s probably why.
I was amazed (yet again) how ahead of its time it is. One of the things I often hear about it is how “overrated” it is. Often this comes from my idiot friend who’s often trying to impress others with his edginess, but what really bothers me is the condemnation that comes from the elite. They say the movie is far too violent, fascist, and ultimately pointless dribble. Vapid philosophical nonsense. Certainly nothing of value here. No “useful truths.” Could it be that someone writing for a major metropolitan newspaper who gets paid double the median income might not be the best judge of what is essentially a study of social problems among regular people?
“I’ve been going to Debtor’s Anonymous… You want to see some really fucked up people?” – Marla
I’d argue that if anything, it’s more relevant now than ever. I’m sure most people here would agree. The narrator’s primary affliction is that he’s can’t sleep, but he states “you’re never really awake,” a pretty simple metaphor for seeing the world in the wrong way. Other themes include the corporate distribution of power (and therefore responsibility) for immoral actions, man’s desire to be non-feminine, having the ability to control your life and to provide for yourself, and of course, the central theme of the entire movie, so important that the movie begins and ends with it, the concept of debt. Its an invisible enslavement of our whole society, mental and physical. It’s something only briefly discussed explicitly, but its the central theme.
Tyler Durden’s solution is to move everyone under one roof where they philosophize, read, work and regain their independence. This wasn’t lost on me after thinking very intensely about Occupy Wall Street for the last few days and how those people, whether they realize it or not, are striking out not just against their government or the banks, but personal and mental enslavement. So much of what they are protesting about is debt based. Financialization, the preferred tool of neo-colonial oligarchs.
The narrator, like us, has a dual personality. One is masculine to the extreme. He is stronger in most respects, but also violent. Superficially, violence seems not only justified and inevitable, but also desirable to someone continually oppressed. To quote author H.L. Mencker, “Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”
The injustices brought about in society are papered over with cheap consumerism. The solution proposed by Tyler Durden is to use violence and force to free society from debt and by extension, free peoples minds and expose them to the broader problems that can no longer be ignored.
It’s an obvious and immature fantasy to think that violence, regardless of scale, can sufficiently wipe out debt and consumerist tendencies or solve any social problem for that matter. The narrator is portrayed valiantly spending the final act working against Tyler Durden’s plan.
In Fight Club, violence is used as a theme, but it is not advocated as a practical solution. If it were, there would be no internal conflict. It would simply be an adventure novel for right wing radicals, dreaming of a war with the establishment.
Fight Club has value because it dares to suggest there is no easy answer, that the ends do not always justify the means, that violence has negative consequences.
Maybe I’m taking this too far, but it affected me in a deep way. I recommend reading some of what has appeared on Naked Capitalism about the protests, starting with Matt Stroller’s recent piece.
Additonal Reading:
Quotable Diatribe on Fight Club
Another quick comment