Hey! They’re talking about FIGHT CLUB!
September 18th, 2008 at 10:37am Will Pfeifer
The Onion AV Club’s excellent New Cult Canon finally works its way around to David Fincher’s 1999 masterpiece about office drones, broken bones and DIY explosives, FIGHT CLUB. Writer Scott Tobias delivers a smart defense of the film, and the peanut gallery chimes in with hundreds of comments (some smart, some less so).
When FIGHT CLUB hit theaters nine years ago, many mainstream critics — most of them baby boomers — called it irresponsible, fascist and downright dangerous. These were some of the same writers who praised earlier controversial films, such as A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and STRAW DOGS, but having the message aimed at a younger generation apparently upped the fascism factor. Here, for instance, is what Roger Ebert said…
FIGHT CLUB is the most frankly and cheerfully fascist big-star movie since DEATH WISH, a celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up.
What’s funny is how the condemnations of the boomers solidified FIGHT CLUB as a Gen X movie. (In his AV Club piece, Tobias calls it “the quintessential Generation X film.”) The DVD release, in fact, included many of those critical quotes in its self-aware packaging. Its cult has only grown in the last nine years, and though many people — even its fans — miss some of its complexities and ambiguities, it still ranks as one of the best films of the last 25 years.
Entry Filed under: Cult movies, Controversy, favorites
8 Comments Add your own
1. Jason Bellamy | September 18th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Will: Total coincidence, but “Fight Club” is the topic of debate over at The Cooler today, too.
One of the best movies of the past 25 years? Strong statement. How big is the pool its swimming in.
Hope you and some of your readers might come on over and join the debate.
Check it out.
2. Brian M | September 18th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Strong statement? Yes it is. But 100% accurate.
…actually make that 99% accurate, because the truth is it is THE best film of the last 25 years.
3. Jerry | September 19th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I could care less about the over-the-top violence or supposed fascism. It’s not a particularly valid argument because we’ve seen much harsher examples in mainstream cinema before and since.
The problem I have is that unlike the over-acclaimed A CLOCKWORK ORANGE or under-acclaimed STRAW DOGS (which are both well-written, performed and directed) FIGHT CLUB is simply a mess. Probably on purpose yes, but that makes it no less of a mess.
FIGHT CLUB is the ultimate example of preaching one thing and showing another. Mainly style (superficiality) over substance (true to one’s self). The film is a bunch of possibly interesting scenes that don’t say anything important. The strongest aspect are the performances, but even they can’t carry me through this film. It doesn’t make any real attempt at character development except for a weak early try at the Norton/PItt character. Even that seems rammed down our throats to merely get things going. (Story 101 - Just because your character exists doesn’t mean anyone gives a damn.) Even if he/she’s an anti-hero compel me to why I should care what happens to them. I don’t care what style (yes, even satirical) you use.
Marla is under-developed and contrived as are most of the secondary roles. The way the film plays her character she should have been excised from the start in my opinion. Then they could have explored the more interesting angle of the narrator hating himself, and not just being excited by Durden but “loving” him as well. I say if you’re going to push it, push it all the way. The Bob character is pretty interesting, but when he is killed so are any chances of this film coming back from nowhere.The supposed twist is seen coming forever and the ending is completely untrue to that as well.
I’m not going to say it’s the worst film of the past 25 years because it’s far from it. It’s not interesting enough to be that. (McTiernan’s ROLLERBALL anyone?) Sure the film is an artistic failure and terribly average but it’s greater sin is that it is exactly an exercise in what it claims to rebel against. Superficial style over relevant substance.
4. Will Pfeifer | September 19th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Jerry — We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one. If there’s one thing FIGHT CLUB isn’t, it’s a mess. The film (and the script behind it) are meticulously constructed. You might disagree with how successful the movie is, but it’s hard to dispute that every scene, every frame, every line of dialogue is there for a reason. The progression of Norton’s narrator from office drone to Gex-X bad boy to — and here’s the key — a guy who sees all that mindless anarchy and trendy nihilism is a dead end is perfectly charted, partly thanks to Norton’s performance (from bored to amused to alert/nervous) and thanks to Jim Uhls screenplay.
The death of Bob confirms the narrator’s feeling that Tyler’s crusade has gotten way out of hand, and these post-adolescent games are dangerous and stupid. These are a bunch of boys playing at being grown-ups, and it’s not until Norton actually grows up a bit, takes responsibility for his actions and turns his back on his imaginary playmate that he can move on.
SPOILERS
As for the twist, I’ll admit I didn’t see it coming, and I don’t know many people who did.I read an interview with David Fincher in FILM COMMENT around the time of the film’s release, and he was surprised anyone guessed the twist, saying they spent several million dollars hiring two big-name, very different actors to prevent people from putting two and two together. And even once you know the twist, the entire sequence leading up to it — Norton on the planes, checking out fight club locations, meeting that bartender and making the call to Marla — is a beautifully shot, thrillingly edited piece of filmmaking.
FIGHT CLUB is a movie with loads of style, sure, but I’d say there’s plenty of substance to back it up.
5. Jerry | September 19th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
It is a polarizing film that’s for sure.
I think some other “love-or-hate” films from the last ten years are LOST IN TRANSLATION, MAGNOLIA, MULHOLLAND DRIVE, and even NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN. I’ve heard strong, interesting arguments for and against all of them.
6. Nick | September 19th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I have to agree that FIGHT CLUB is more superficial than substantive for one simple reason: the so-called “twist ending”.
SPOILERS
Fincher presents two characters who are, in the last third, revealed to be one in the same. However, for the first two thirds of the story the characters act and react independently. Are there “clues” that they’re one character? Yes. Does the fact that they’re one in the same impact their actions? No. They can’t because very definition of multiple personalities is that they’re independent of one another. So after the revelation, Norton’s character has but one choice to stop his enemy: kill himself.
Except he doesn’t. He shoots himself in the mouth and lives.
Consequently, there IS no consequence. There is no point to the characters being one in the same. It’s a twist for the sake of a twist. A superficial one, at that.
7. Brian M | September 19th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Jerry, you’re right, though I’m firmly on the hate it side of all 4 that you mentioned.
Of course, I’m also on the “love it” side of another real love-or-hate film, MOULIN ROUGE, so to each his own, right?
But c’mon…. how can anyone with taste hate FIGHT CLUB???
8. Jerry | September 20th, 2008 at 12:09 am
I wouldn’t knock MOULIN ROUGE at all. (The people I talk with that hate it, usually hate all musicals. And wouldn’t admit they liked it even if they did.)
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed