Fight Club me ar&e

philstar

Just got around to seeing fight club, i honestly could'nt understand what all the hype is about....taught it was a load of ol' boll&ks

although meatloaf was good as the tit man

Thrill

:eek::eek::eek: ^^^

Fight club rulez, and one of those rulez is never to call Fight Club ar5e or bollix.




.

Karl Hungus

Personally, I think it's an absolute masterpiece, but in saying that, there certainly was a lot of hype that built up steadily. I remember hearing next to nothing about it when I first saw it, then was astonished by it.

Maybe you were expecting too much from it?

What exactly was it about the film you didn't like though?

Tusky

possibly one of the few films that cannot be hyped too much. Can't understand how anyone would be let down by it. What exactly were you expecting ? Explosions and boobies ?

...I just remembered there are lots of explosions..and some boobies too.

Fysh

I get the feeling this is one of those cases of ten different people telling the OP that Fight Club is great, the OP watching it with particular expectations due to this, and then concluding that the film is crap for not matching his expectations of it.

Which is, of course, daft, but understandable. I thought it was a fantastic film myself, although I had the advantage of knowing very little about it when I went into it (had seen a preview clip showing the first fight between Tyler & Jack - "You hit me in the ear?!" ).

I thought everything about it was damn near perfect - the script (very closely adapted from the book as it turns out which is also worth checking out), the storyline, the direction, the visuals, the soundtrack...it all came together for me as one perfectly self-contained package of sheer cinematic awesomeness.

philstar

Karl Hungus wrote:

What exactly was it about the film you didn't like though?

we're led to believe that some schizo that goes around hitting himself, starts some underground mass movement...ya right:rolleyes:

as for the bird they chosed as the leading (bonham carter) yuk, she'd be last one you'd get yr leg over

and the violence was too explicit and OTT...wasn't necessary in my opinion

it had its moments....but overall....i just didn't buy into it.

philstar

It's late and I'm suffering from a case of sleep deprivation so I'll keep this short, and apologies if it's all nonsensical waffle.

philstar wrote:

we're led to believe that some schizo that goes around hitting himself, starts some underground mass movement...ya right:rolleyes:

All religions are started by just one man, which is what the weekly meetings are to it's members. I always felt that the concept of the Fight Club was a way of saying that one man can change the world.

philstar wrote:

as for the bird they chosed as the leading (bonham carter) yuk, she'd be last one you'd get yr leg over

In real life she's not that bad, but in the film she does look quiet rough. The attraction between her and Norton's character wasn't a sexual one. I felt that the only reason he went after her was because Tyler wanted was with her.

philstar wrote:

and the violence was too explicit and OTT...wasn't necessary in my opinion

The violence feels real which is something few films ever get right. I hate to use the cliche that we live in a violent world, but its the truth and Fight Club perfectly captures that.

philstar wrote:

it had its moments....but overall....i just didn't buy into it.

I think that like a lot of people you were expecting a life changing 2 hours. When I first saw it, I knew very little about it and as such had no real expectations to speak of.Like Donnie Darko, I watched it with a group of people and was the only one to watch it to it's conclusion. It was one of the first DVDs I ever bought, and remains one of my most watched.

For some reason when ever I'm angry or upset it seems to cheer me up no end.

Jesus Wept

Karl Hungus wrote:

Personally, I think it's an absolute masterpiece

.

The Denouncer

Very over-rated movie. Enjoyable none-the-less, but I thought The Machinest dealt better with a similar mental state.

RuggieBear

philstar wrote:

we're led to believe that some schizo that goes around hitting himself, starts some underground mass movement...ya right:rolleyes:

as for the bird they chosed as the leading (bonham carter) yuk, she'd be last one you'd get yr leg over

and the violence was too explicit and OTT...wasn't necessary in my opinion

it had its moments....but overall....i just didn't buy into it.

me thinks you have missed all the points of the movie

Beruthiel

philstar
I think you need to go watch the movie again. In fact, I insist you continue to watch it until you are able to come back here and tell us what a masterpiece it is!

johnny_ultimate

I can see where you are coming from. There have been many an occasion when a film has been disapointing to me due to hype.

However, I do think Fight Club is a terrific film, even after being forced to watch it four or five times for a college essay on themes of consumption within the film, + reading the book, which is pretty much identical except for some of the 'dodgier' lines cut out.
But it is a great example of a good Hollywood film, which seem so rare these days. Great directing from Fincher, as always.

Mossy Monk

One of the best movies I have ever seen.

BKtje

When i saw it i knew nothing at all about it. It gripped me from beginning to end and wouldn't let go. Very few films seem to do that these days.

Petey2006

I'd seen it twice when it came out in cinemas and DVD, and since then, my opinion of it diminished and I came to the conclusion that it was over hyped. Then I saw it last week and I completely reevaluated my opinion of it. It really is a modern masterpiece. Absolutely brilliant. Not Fincher's best work, which is saying something, but still, yeah, I'd say it's a modern classic. Something that really captures the zeitgeist of end of the century society.

Maccattack

philstar wrote:

....taught it was a load of ol' boll&ks

You can't teach Fight Club anything.

Tar.Aldarion

Very good film, I also had heard nothing about it when I saw it. Think people do hypeit up a bit too much though.

koneko

I can only conclude philstar was "watching" the film with his eyes closed, and his fingers in his ears, or watched a completely different film that was mislabelled.

B-K-DzR wrote:

When i saw it i knew nothing at all about it. It gripped me from beginning to end and wouldn't let go. Very few films seem to do that these days.

Ditto, and I'm glad for it, I had only seen a very short trailer that made it look like a film about underground fighting clubs. And as you said aswell, it gripped me right away, even from the start of the title sequence I knew it was not going to be the type of film I was expecting.

RuggieBear

i enjoyed the book immensely as well.

Zapp Brannigan

It's probably a case of people building it up. Sort of like American History X's curb-stomp scene.

Brow

I've always meant to hunt down the book. Apparently improves on what (in my eyes) is already a classic.

DapperGent

I love the film though like others I know basically nothing about it when I saw it.

philstar wrote:

as for the bird they chosed as the leading (bonham carter) yuk, she'd be last one you'd get yr leg over

I'd hit it.

pwd

I thought it was one of very few films that are better than the book they are based on.
Seen it numerous times. It's an excellent film.
I think the theme of repressed masculinity makes some people inspired and some people repulsed.
It's a very homo-erotic film. Chuck Palahnuik is homosexual. Pointing out these two facts to some of the people inspired by it can make them uneasy.
I think it might not have the same impact now as it did when it came out (no pun intended) because so many other films have been made recetly with the same twist.

Jello

pwd wrote:

I thought it was one of very few films that are better than the book they are based on.

As a fan of the book I'd have to agree

I'd heard of all the hype before I saw it but it was in no way whatsoever a let down for me. One of my favourite films too - everything about it is pretty much perfect - the cast, script, directing, etc etc.

I'd definitely give it another chance though OP.

Clank

Karl Hungus wrote:

Personally, I think it's an absolute masterpiece, but in saying that, there certainly was a lot of hype that built up steadily. I remember hearing next to nothing about it when I first saw it, then was astonished by it.

Exactly.
I didn't get sucked into the hype of it at all, then when I saw it I was blown away.
Definitely my most watched DVD.
Still haven't gotten round to reading the book though.

philstar wrote:

as for the bird they chosed as the leading (bonham carter) yuk, she'd be last one you'd get yr leg over

She isn't that bad.She's a good actress though, first and foremost.;)

Karl Hungus

For the record, as far as Helena Bonham Carter goes... I would.

Eirebear

I've only ever watched fight club once.
I did find it immensly enjoyable, but i was left feeling cold at the end. (spoiler in white text

He shoots himself in the cheek?! surely he would have to kill himself in order to kill his "other" peronality? Or does it just mean that he has faced up to what he is/was and that magically makes it go away?

other than that though, a finely acted and directed film.

Basq

Fincher = God...

.. that's all i have to say on the subject!

PS - having just around to seeing 'Zodiac' last night, i'd like to re-instate his status as God after his temporary lack-of-vision in 'Panic Room'.

Slutmonkey57b

that's what he gets for working with Jodie Foster.

koneko

Eirebear, use spoiler tags instead of white text, some people use other themes so their background could be black.

(To use spoiler tags write [spoilerx] text here [/spoilerx] but remove the X's)

CerebralCortex

Beruthiel wrote:

philstar
I think you need to go watch the movie again. In fact, I insist you continue to watch it until you are able to come back here and tell us what a masterpiece it is!

Yep first time it pissed me off cos I didn't get it and I was at an age when the title was misleading.
But having seen it again I was a fan.

Eirebear

koneko wrote:

Eirebear, use spoiler tags instead of white text, some people use other themes so their background could be black.

(To use spoiler tags write [spoilerx] text here [/spoilerx] but remove the X's)

Done, sorry bout that.

Fysh

RE: Eirebear's comment

The ending in the book is somewhat different to the ending in the film in that respect, in that

in the book the closing chapter is the narrator describing his arrival in heaven where he talks to God on a regular basis, but it's made clear that he actually survived his attempt at shooting himself and was interned in a psychiatric ward. However, Project Mayhem did not die with him as his actions were interpreted by its members as demonstrating just how far a member might have to go, so the ward is infiltrated by members of the Project who keep tabs on him and make sure he's ok

.

That being said, the film's ending works too because

it could be argued that confronting Tyler without being afraid was all that Jack needed to do in order to regain control of his life, therefore actually killing himself wasn't necessary

.

ixoy

'Fight Club' is genius. One of about three times at the cinema where I felt a shiver go down my spine because I was so amazed. I think I said afterwards to my friend, in a somewhat stunned tone, "Well that was rather good, wasn't it".

Everything about it was spot on - the fantastic Norton/Pitt combo, a script that was witty, intelligent, and had something valid to say, and of course amazing direction with some brilliant flourishes (the jittering frames, populating the house with IKEA tags, the porno splicing, etc.)

basquille wrote:

Fincher = God...

.. that's all i have to say on the subject!

Correct. Hell, I even really love 'Alien 3' and he doesn't even like it himself

PS - having just around to seeing 'Zodiac' last night, i'd like to re-instate his status as God after his temporary lack-of-vision in 'Panic Room'.

Ah but there's a great defense for him - he didn't want to do "Panic Room"! In order to get permission to do "Fight Club", Fincher had to do an additional (more commercial) movie for the studio - that became the weak "Panic Room". He didn't have the control over David Koepp's script (and AFAIK didn't like it) and was basically doing the movie primarily because he was contracted to.

Vegeta

Fine film

Shawshank redemption was ruined for me by over hype. People said it was their favourite film ever and I thought now this must be one hell of a film. Watched it about 5 years after it came out and after 5 years of shawshank being listed as peoples favoutire film I was thinking WTF. It was such a bitter bitter bitter let down. Nothing in the plot impressed me but the acting was decent i'll give it that.

But be careful of the hype.

My friends also adore 24 and I don't know is it the hype or what but 24 just doesn't do it for me.

Kinetic^

His name was Robert Pulson.........awesome film!!!!!

Eirebear

Fysh wrote:

RE: Eirebear's comment

The ending in the book is somewhat different to the ending in the film in that respect, in that

in the book the closing chapter is the narrator describing his arrival in heaven where he talks to God on a regular basis, but it's made clear that he actually survived his attempt at shooting himself and was interned in a psychiatric ward. However, Project Mayhem did not die with him as his actions were interpreted by its members as demonstrating just how far a member might have to go, so the ward is infiltrated by members of the Project who keep tabs on him and make sure he's ok

.

That being said, the film's ending works too because

it could be argued that confronting Tyler without being afraid was all that Jack needed to do in order to regain control of his life, therefore actually killing himself wasn't necessary

.

Makes sense i suppose, and that was the assumption i came too, i dont know though, seems a bit of a cop out to me.
The books ending sounds a little more in keeping with the religious connotations of the film.

faceman

i have abstained from the vote, not to be controversial but because I reckon time will tell if it is really a classic. That being said it is an excellent film that is alot more than what it says on the back of the box!

as for alien 3, have you seen the re-cut version (as close as you will get to a directors cut) on the quadroligy box set? Slightly different film. (Is quadroligy even a word? shouldnt it have said tetra something or other?)

Basq

faceman wrote:

as for alien 3, have you seen the re-cut version (as close as you will get to a directors cut) on the quadroligy box set? Slightly different film. (Is quadroligy even a word? shouldnt it have said tetra something or other?)

I am ashamed to say i've owned the Quadrilolololology for about 6 months and as a massive Fincher fan, still haven't watched the "director's cut"

Fincher can do no wrong in my eyes!

Just again, i'd like to reinforce how much i absolutely adored 'Zodiac' and news is there will be a 2 disc director's cut of 'Zodiac' released in early 2008. Director's cut? The theatrical release was 158 minutes - how long will IT be?!

I'll write a more in-depth of the film later but i loved everything about the film - the music, the "eerie-ness", Fincher's trade-mark camera work, quick flash through decades.. EVERYTHING!

Galvasean

Fight Club = THE quintessential film of the 90s

koneko

Haven't seen Zodiac yet, but after your glowing comments, basquille.... sold! I'm making it a priority.

stevejazzx

Ok, seriously, Fight Club is one the best movies ever made. If you didn't like it than all I can say is - WHY??
It's absolutely marvellous and one the few movies where the violnece (I don't think it's that bad anyway) is merited beyond any question whatsoever. Brad Pitt is amazing, as is Norton but Pitt in the scene where the Italian guy is hitting him becasue they're using the basement without his permission is unforgettable, his deranged laughter, excellent.
What makes Fight Club great is that it has real purpose and it is one of the few movies (particulary of recent years) where the stroies moral is communicated incredibly effectively.

lostexpectation

one of the few films I can watch again and again, I was going to post about it after seeing it the other night,

you might think the concept and post feminist male society stuff is crap but since its so well made, it doesn't matter.

his name was robert paulson.

philstar

RuggieBear wrote:

me thinks you have missed all the points of the movie

go on then enlighten me:rolleyes: ...apart from getting rid of yr pent up aggression by kicking the living sh*t out of people...what were the points of this movie??

CiaranC

philstar wrote:

go on then enlighten me:rolleyes: ...apart from getting rid of yr pent up aggression by kicking the living sh*t out of people...what were the points of this movie??

Id be interested the hear this also.

Running Bing

philstar wrote:

we're led to believe that some schizo that goes around hitting himself, starts some underground mass movement...ya right:rolleyes:

Wow!

philstar wrote:

as for the bird they chosed as the leading (bonham carter) yuk, she'd be last one you'd get yr leg over

Ever think there might have been the smallest possibility that the director didnt want Martha to look like a beauty Queen?:rolleyes:

philstar wrote:

and the violence was too explicit and OTT...wasn't necessary in my opinion

The Films called fight Club what did you expect?


Okay so the film didnt click with you, fair enough... but they are three absolutely stupid reasons for calling it a load of "B*llocks".

johnny_ultimate

Helenea Boham Carter gets the thumbs up IMO. Kookily attractive.
And careful with this Panic Room dissing. While it is not as good as other Fincher work, as far as thrillers go, I found it enthralling.

Running Bing

CiaranC wrote:

Id be interested the hear this also.

For me the film completely captures the Zeitgeist of fear and disillusionment in todays world as well as the increasing materialism we face(Ed Nortons whole point of existence prior to meeting tyler was to buy stuff out of a catalogue...Their plan in the end is to make everyone equal financially) and even more so the struggle young males experience to find to find a role in an increasingly feminized society. Thats what I always took from the film and thats the way I see it, Im sure others have different views and perspectives about it.


Theres no need to take everything so literally. For me it's not a film about men hitting each other, I would'nt go so far as to call the fighting a metaphor, Fincher is trying to make a point.

johnny_ultimate

philstar wrote:

go on then enlighten me:rolleyes: ...apart from getting rid of yr pent up aggression by kicking the living sh*t out of people...what were the points of this movie??

Spoilers within:

Belk (1995) points out that consumption and consumerism can prove to be extremely addictive ideologies to follow. Despite such negative connotations, many theorists have written about the more positive aspects of consumerism. The purchase of consumer goods can prove to be liberating, providing a sense of self-identity (Bunting 2004, Harper 2002 citing Fiske 1989). In Fight Club (Fincher 1999), the Narrator has become a “slave to the Ikea nesting unit” in an attempt to achieve this sense of liberation and belonging. He tries to find items that define him as a person (Friday 2003) - the distinctions between his needs and wants (Williams 1983) are blurred. The items he purchases – sofas, chairs and other consumer goods – act as signifiers (Belk 1995, Fiske 1990). However, it is hard to say what the attached signified is. He is not interpreting a liberating meaning from these goods. He remains in a “single-serving”, insomniac life, unable to establish self-identity despite his efforts. He is “Jack’s wasted life” (Fincher 1999). He begins to attend support groups in order to feel alive and individual. He loses this liberation with the appearance of “tourist” Marla Singer.

When the Narrator creates his alter-ego Tyler and sets up Fight Club (and later Project Mayhem), he is beginning to truly liberate himself from consumerist and materialist ideologies. He begins to release the “repressed anger due from the failed promise of consumption” (Halnon 2002 p505). A sign of this is when he “[takes] the struggle for freedom back into the workplace” (Bunting 2004 p158). By refusing to wear a tie to work, he is refusing to wear a common signifier of capitalism (Fiske 1990). Tyler is the catalyst of this rejection of ideology. He informs the members of Project Mayhem that “You are not your job. You are not the money in your bank account. You are not the car you drive” (Fincher 1999). The Narrator and the other Project members realise that their consumerist items are “just stuff”. They begin to destroy symbols of consumerism – cars, computers, corporate art and franchise coffee bars. They are destroying the consumerist myth. We find out that Tyler is selling soap made of liposuction waste to department stores – the consumers buying the soap are unaware Tyler is selling “their own fat asses back to them” (Fincher 1999). This echoes other anti-consumerist texts such as the film Soylent Green (Fleischer 1973), in which Charlton Heston discovers a popular food brand is made from humans.

The Project participants are resisting the dominant ideological views. The relationship between the men and the dominant class is no longer hegemonic i.e. the dominant class no longer have the predominant influence (Fiske 1990, Mattlelart & Mattelart 1995). Lodziak (1995) writes about how much of a difference resistance and opposition can make to people’s lives and identity needs. The characters in Fight Club – who successfully begin to fight against materialism and consumerism – begin to achieve a sense of freedom and identity through their oppositional actions.
It is important to examine the characters of Fight Club (Fincher 1999) on an individual basis. The Narrator is anonymous – the viewer is never told his name (Friday 2003, Mendieta 2005). It could be argued that through this anonymity, he acts as a symbol of consumerist, materialist ideologies. As Friday (2005) points out “throughout his narration, brand names intrude…into his consciousness”. In one scene, Fincher illustrates this by superimposing catalogue prices and names over the furniture in the Narrator’s apartment. The Narrator himself wonders “what kind of dining set defines me as a person?”. He is searching for self identity through consumerism. Yet this also supports many theorists’ views that such ideologies indoctrinate social values and false consciousness (Bunting 2004, Belk 1995, Fiske 1990, Harper 2002). The white, American, male protagonist could be interpreted as a symbolic representation of these ideologies.

Tyler Durden represents entirely different concepts. He condones the narrator’s lifestyle choices – he is working a job he hates, to buy **** he doesn’t need (to paraphrase Tyler’s call-to-arms). He represents alternate ideas – such as masculinity, masochism, brutality and later anarchy (Friday 2003, Marks 2003, Mendieta 2005). As Mendieta (2005 p396) points out “Physical violence is always a substitute for immediacy and experience, but also a reaction to frustrated expectation”. Marks (2003 p84) argues that “Boys and men (seemingly) react to their loss of social power by ever more brutish acts”. The Fight Clubs are representations of this brutality – the men’s physical bruises symbols of it. Tyler himself is a symbol of this liberation and rejection of the consumption based ideologies of the narrator. He is a role model of sorts (Mendieta 2005), and when we find out he is the Narrator’s alter ego, it becomes clear that Tyler is a manifestation of the Narrator’s deep rooted desires and ambitions – or as Friday (2003) puts it, the Narrator “acquires his ‘revolutionary’ consciousness”.

Running Bing

johnny_ultimate wrote:

Belk (1995) points out that consumption and consumerism can prove to be extremely addictive ideologies to follow. Despite such negative connotations, many theorists have written about the more positive aspects of consumerism. The purchase of consumer goods can prove to be liberating, providing a sense of self-identity (Bunting 2004, Harper 2002 citing Fiske 1989). In Fight Club (Fincher 1999), the Narrator has become a “slave to the Ikea nesting unit” in an attempt to achieve this sense of liberation and belonging. He tries to find items that define him as a person (Friday 2003) - the distinctions between his needs and wants (Williams 1983) are blurred. The items he purchases – sofas, chairs and other consumer goods – act as signifiers (Belk 1995, Fiske 1990). However, it is hard to say what the attached signified is. He is not interpreting a liberating meaning from these goods. He remains in a “single-serving”, insomniac life, unable to establish self-identity despite his efforts. He is “Jack’s wasted life” (Fincher 1999). He begins to attend support groups in order to feel alive and individual. He loses this liberation with the appearance of “tourist” Marla Singer.

When the Narrator creates his alter-ego Tyler and sets up Fight Club (and later Project Mayhem), he is beginning to truly liberate himself from consumerist and materialist ideologies. He begins to release the “repressed anger due from the failed promise of consumption” (Halnon 2002 p505). A sign of this is when he “[takes] the struggle for freedom back into the workplace” (Bunting 2004 p158). By refusing to wear a tie to work, he is refusing to wear a common signifier of capitalism (Fiske 1990). Tyler is the catalyst of this rejection of ideology. He informs the members of Project Mayhem that “You are not your job. You are not the money in your bank account. You are not the car you drive” (Fincher 1999). The Narrator and the other Project members realise that their consumerist items are “just stuff”. They begin to destroy symbols of consumerism – cars, computers, corporate art and franchise coffee bars. They are destroying the consumerist myth. We find out that Tyler is selling soap made of liposuction waste to department stores – the consumers buying the soap are unaware Tyler is selling “their own fat asses back to them” (Fincher 1999). This echoes other anti-consumerist texts such as the film Soylent Green (Fleischer 1973), in which Charlton Heston discovers a popular food brand is made from humans.

The Project participants are resisting the dominant ideological views. The relationship between the men and the dominant class is no longer hegemonic i.e. the dominant class no longer have the predominant influence (Fiske 1990, Mattlelart & Mattelart 1995). Lodziak (1995) writes about how much of a difference resistance and opposition can make to people’s lives and identity needs. The characters in Fight Club – who successfully begin to fight against materialism and consumerism – begin to achieve a sense of freedom and identity through their oppositional actions.
It is important to examine the characters of Fight Club (Fincher 1999) on an individual basis. The Narrator is anonymous – the viewer is never told his name (Friday 2003, Mendieta 2005). It could be argued that through this anonymity, he acts as a symbol of consumerist, materialist ideologies. As Friday (2005) points out “throughout his narration, brand names intrude…into his consciousness”. In one scene, Fincher illustrates this by superimposing catalogue prices and names over the furniture in the Narrator’s apartment. The Narrator himself wonders “what kind of dining set defines me as a person?”. He is searching for self identity through consumerism. Yet this also supports many theorists’ views that such ideologies indoctrinate social values and false consciousness (Bunting 2004, Belk 1995, Fiske 1990, Harper 2002). The white, American, male protagonist could be interpreted as a symbolic representation of these ideologies.

Tyler Durden represents entirely different concepts. He condones the narrator’s lifestyle choices – he is working a job he hates, to buy **** he doesn’t need (to paraphrase Tyler’s call-to-arms). He represents alternate ideas – such as masculinity, masochism, brutality and later anarchy (Friday 2003, Marks 2003, Mendieta 2005). As Mendieta (2005 p396) points out “Physical violence is always a substitute for immediacy and experience, but also a reaction to frustrated expectation”. Marks (2003 p84) argues that “Boys and men (seemingly) react to their loss of social power by ever more brutish acts”. The Fight Clubs are representations of this brutality – the men’s physical bruises symbols of it. Tyler himself is a symbol of this liberation and rejection of the consumption based ideologies of the narrator. He is a role model of sorts (Mendieta 2005), and when we find out he is the Narrator’s alter ego, it becomes clear that Tyler is a manifestation of the Narrator’s deep rooted desires and ambitions – or as Friday (2003) puts it, the Narrator “acquires his ‘revolutionary’ consciousness”.

You asked for it Philstar:D Great response.

johnny_ultimate

Babybing wrote:

You asked for it Philstar:D Great response.

References available on request