Fight Club

It is the Fight Club an overrated movie? what's the real meaning of this movie and what try to show us?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=5CTN5nzBqVw&list=PLLdyZxf-DTzVC5v2TvGWVZ5enPM7sKXm8
youtube.com/watch?v=BWf-eARnf6U
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

It's not overrated. I like that noticing shit second time through aspect. Say what you will about edgy teenagers latching onto it.

Yes its over rated.

Its really quite a sterilised film, ironic as its meant to be all about male vitality

It is overrated. Not a bad film just criminally overrated.

The film is about the emasculation of the modern-day white male through consumerist culture.

But being overrated means it's a bad thing?

maybe kind of unique, not sure what to compare it to. Training day sort of has similar vibe maybe

No, it's not necessarily a bad thing, it's just a fact.

>A nigger movie
>similar

what?

I was 15 when I saw this movie the year it came out and it was the only movie that I watched and then immediately rewatched (because of the twist).

I loved it because it tapped into my teenage angst. It resonated so well with a lot of guys because the 90s was a resurgence of mainstreaming masculinity before the current period of male pussification and wymyn-pedestalling that's been going on ever since.

It represented the innate drive in a man to engage in camaraderie, destroy shit, and change society. It also represented the inherent stupidity of clinging to "doing manly things" just for the sake of "doing manly things to feel like a man". By the end, all of Durden's followers were just as castrated in their blind pursuit of his goals as they were before when they were blindly pursuing society's goals.

It's only overrated if someone is saying it's some masterpiece, which it's definitely not, but it's still a solid movie with great performances, stellar music, and innovative visuals, and it struck a chord with a lot of people in a deeper way than say the pointless capeshit drivel that gets churned out every year.

> create movie about self destruction
> Literally have main character denounce self improvement and working out
> only be ripped because Pitt was skinny
> becomes icon of fitness movements

>The film is about the emasculation of the modern-day white male through consumerist culture.
lol

>>The film is about the emasculation of the modern-day white male through consumerist culture.
>lol
What did he mean by this?

What's so funny about that? It's true.

This

> movie attacks the idea of white males living productive lives and getting wives
> becomes alt-right kino

The idiots described in the movie are basically the ones loving it the most.
Not a bad movie, just deeply misunderstood.

>The idiots described in the movie are basically the ones loving it the most.

You mean every single one of us being shitty idiots dependant of the system?

The first rule of thesaurus club is you do not talk about, mention, comment on, divulge information pertaining to, or bring up in conversation thesaurus club

Rather men child whining about the system or anything else, and just ripe to be manipulated by anyone.

>main villain is black
>nigger movie
??

>stellar music
Fuck yeah.
youtube.com/watch?v=5CTN5nzBqVw&list=PLLdyZxf-DTzVC5v2TvGWVZ5enPM7sKXm8

First rule of Fight Club.

>I haven't seen the movie
>I want to get fucked by a rampaging nigger

exactly this

I watched Fight Club at least 20 times but I just love it because it's funny and comfy, simple as that. I don't think I've ever felt teenage angst specifically ever, but maybe that's because I've always been anxious 24/7 even as a toddler.

Please stop posting Lena Dunham

Overrated by most people? Not really.

Overrated by its fanbase? For sure.

It's a really good movie. I'd say it's made for men that were in their mid-twenties to early thirties who felt like life had failed them and wanted to latch onto something that made them feel like they mattered. Edgy anarchism meme can fuck off.

I enjoy that this movie is also a masculine version of a love story. The guy succeeds at his plan of blowing up all of these buildings and, presumably, wiping out credit card debt, but underneath of this "the guy gets the girl" is going on.

Hold up - you mean there are people who watch Fight Club and don’t realise that Tyler Durden is meant to be full of shit?

I mean, his doctrine of radical individualism is a sham that ultimately reduces his followers to faceless conformity. This isn’t deep metatextual wankery - it’s the literal text of the film.

How do you see the film and not get that?

The end was to target financial buildings.

What if it was the Twin Towers? How would the movie fared? More popular, less? Taught in schools?

Yeah, in the film he’s a total con-man. His grand speeches sound good if you don’t think about them too deeply, but they’re not meant to be insightful - they’re meant to be a snake-oil salesman’s patter, calculated to bamboozle dumb, angry young men into doing his bidding.

Trouble is, they’re sufficiently well-written that apparently they work on the dumb, angry young men in the audience, too.

It's the male version of Dirty Dancing.

I’ve actually written about this academically! There’s a really specific genre I call bro cinema that includes fight club, all of kubricks work, some Scorsese, and Tarantino (all of which I love DESU.) These directors don’t explicitly condemn toxic masculinity and instead trust the audience to have COMMON SENSE and realize that Alex from A Clockwork Orange or Tyler Durden or Travis Bickle are horrific misogynists. But without the film telling the audience how to feel about these characters, men misinterpret the objectivity as glorification. Fight Club is about how shitty masculinity is, but it’s been warped by men grasping for justification for their misogyny

Also, Fight Club is just an amaericanized version of what's happening in the middle east.

Young men with not country, not future, completely dominated and emasculated by foreigners, being radicalized and masculanized by cults, and carry out similar attacks.

The real issue here, I think, is the passive consumption of media, and moreover, creators and critical viewers underestimating just how passive the average audience member is in their consumption of media.

In the book Nurture Shock, which is a child psychology book that identifies common parenting mistakes, the author spends a chapter on children’s television. The author specifically talks about how media designed to teach morals often backfires – children who watch morality lessons express *more* behavior problems and become *more* cruel.

Now the author says it’s because of how these programs are structured. First they depict bad behavior, and then they explain why the behavior is bad, showing consequences, and tying up the program with a moral.

Small children aren’t smart enough to understand the moral. Small children learn by emulating behavior they see. They see a bad behavior and they learn the bad behavior. Just exposing children to bad behavior is enough to make them internalize that the behavior is something lots of people do, and therefore something acceptable for people to do to do.

If you try to explain to them after the fact that the behavior is harmful and to be avoided, that message is too complicated and goes right over their heads. You can’t tell little kids “do as I say, not as I do.”

Now the author of this book says “small children aren’t old enough to understand the moral.”

But honestly? Adults have the exact same problem.

Tyler Durden loses in the end. That’s the moral of the movie. Unfortunately that moral is too complicated for the vast majority of the audience. The typical adult audience member does not think critically enough about film media to process this moral.

A critical viewer thinks – the point is that Tyler is wrong! The point is that Tyler is doomed by his own hubris! HOW CAN AUDIENCES HAVE MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT IF THE MOVIE?!?!?

And then there's this shot re-used at the end to essentially say:

>masculinity, amirite

It's a shame that discussion of this movie usually gets lost in the overrated vs. classic argument because there's a lot of great shit going on. Fincher layered a lot of easter eggs into it.

Easily, considering the movie only really devotes 5% of its screen time to explicitly denouncing Tyler’s behavior, and that explicit denouncement only arrives at the very end of the film.

The other 95% of the screen time is spent watching Tyler Durden jerk off.

Look – you can’t film two hours of bareback sex followed by a five minute tutorial on how to correctly use a condom and a 30 second montage of miserable teen parents changing diapers, then call your film a safe sex PSA.

You did not make a safe sex PSA.

You made a porno.

You can try to argue that the bareback sex is an ironic subversive metaphor, and that the “real point” of your film is proper condom usage and an anti-teen pregnancy message, but the fact is, the majority of your audience is going to change the channel the moment the cumshot finishes.

Audiences, outside of our special little corner of fandom discourse, are by and large just straight up lazy. They can’t be bothered to think that hard about the media they consume.

This is why I loved Fury Road so much, and also what I felt was so profoundly revolutionary about the movie. Fury Road is a movie about women escaping violent misogynists. Yet editor Margaret Sixel had the SHEER BRILLIANCE and AUDACITY to cut all the footage of misogynist violence out of the movie.

Mad Max: Fury Road proved that it is possible to denounce misogynist violence without depicting it.

Mad Max: Fury Road showed that refusal to depict misogynist violence is in and of itself a denouncement of misogynist violence.

We don’t need to show what victims went through to make victims sympathetic. In fact, voyeuristically depicting acts of cruelty only further objectifies victims. George Miller and Margaret Sixel understand this.

Similarly, George Miller made a point of using telling his videographers to use camera angels that focused on the action of the scene, instead of voyeristically zooming in the female castmember’s breasts/asses/legs – because he understood that when the camera ogles the female characters in an objectifying manner, the audience, who views the movie through the camera’s lens, is forced to ogle and objectify. George understood that sexist camera work creates a sexist perspective, and a sexist perspective tells a sexist narrative.

The thing is that the narrator is always sympathetic. Intimacy and familiarity breed sympathy. The audience is primed to feel sympathy for the narrator simply because they are speaking more than any other individual character.

No matter how unreliable, or morally dubious you make the narrator, they are still the hero or the story. Every villain is the hero of their own story. And when the villain is the narrator, the audience is hearing the version of the story in which the villain is the hero, and the audience is moved by that perspective.

We can give Fight Club the benefit of hte doubt and look at Fight Club as an intellectual experiment to see whether or not it’s possible to tell a story from the villain’s perspective and still denounce the villain’s actions.

But the fact is, the experiment didn’t work. It was a statistical failure. The vast majority of the audience did not recognize the film as a criticism of toxic masculinity, but rather, a romanticization of it.

Perhaps the author’s goal was for Tyler Durden’s death to be interpreted as a cautionary tale, but the author failed in that goal. He failed. Because by the time Tyler Durden dies in the movie, he has already been painted a hero in the eyes of the majority of the audience, and heroes don’t become cautionary tales when they die; they become martyrs.

It's the opposite. It shows that the traditional masculinity leads to inhuman fascist society. Durden is a fucking sociopath you aren't supposed to sympathise with.

I'd add to your essay that we don't see Durden punished at the end. He blows up the buildings, gets the girl, and still has a legion of devoted followers waiting in the wings to do whatever he says. We get to see the guy succeed at every turn despite his moral half trying to rein him in.

>It is the Fight Club an overrated movie?

No, I still think it's great

>what's the real meaning of this movie and what try to show us?

jeeze you must be thick. the meaning was

STOP WATCHING SO MANY MOVIES AND SHIT POSTING ALL DAY GO OUTSIDE AND DO SOMETHING REAL

Fight Club became so overrated that people started to hate it based simply on the fact that it was overrated.

Becuase of this, it is now underrated.

The Narrator gets the girl. Tyler is fucking dead in the end.

Follow up question: is Fincher the best at adapting source material? Even if he's not the best, he surely loves doing it.

This is equally true of South Park, albeit in a different way. They cling to their insipid ‘equal opportunity offenders’ snakeshit and try to use Cartman as the conduit for their most offensive material, on the assumption that he, as a genuinely unlikeable character, will serve to demonstrate how flawed bigotry is (even though the creators are plenty bigoted themselves in a number of ways) by having his schemes completely unravel due to his own broken, willfully ignorant nature.

The only problem is, some people really like Cartman. They LOVE him. The Family Guy episodes of South Park were, in part, a way for the creators to kick back against people who liken South Park to Family Guy. It clearly REALLY bothers them that, for all that they (accurately) castigated the lazy wriring of Family Guy, a sizeable portion of South Park’s audience simply doesn’t care about whatever satirical point/s the show is trying (usually extremely clumsily) to make. They just want to hear a cartoon 10-year-old say something racist.

While nowhere near the order of magnitude of racism, the ‘gingers have no souls’ episode is one of the best illustrations of this in action; even though Cartman is thoroughly comeuppanced at the end of the episode, what a lot of the audience took away from said episode resulted in ‘GINGERS HAVE NO SOULS LOL’ entering the vocabulary of bullying.

It really feels to me that the creators of South Park think they’re edgy counterculture iconoclasts, when in actuality all they really do is just write new catchphrases for monsters.

So, how do you actually write morals to influence society in a good way?

>He's written a paper on a narrative penned by a openly gay author, adapted into a film where the male 'villain' is an actor made famous by women fans for taking his shirt off.

Tell me more about this toxic masculinity?

kys

Mass male violence is everywhere right now. First it was Orlando. Then Nice. And Bavaria. Munich. Kabul. Fort Myers. Sagamihara.

As each massacre is reported, ministers and media leap to unpick each individual attacker’s motivations. Immediately, the snap judgments come out: if they were brown, they were a terrorist. If not, they were mentally ill.

Further probing exposes then their beliefs and contradictions: the Orlando murderer Omar Mateen worked as an armed guard for security firm G4S for nine years; the Sagamihara murderer worked at the care home he targeted but apparently believed disabled people should be euthanised.

As the attacks mount up, the individual profiling descends into morbid freefall and we overlook the most basic commonality: these crimes were all committed by men. In fact, almost all mass murders are committed by men. This is no coincidence.

I get a kick out of people decrying others as "monsters". The fact is, the human race has and will *always be* fundamentally flawed in how it handles relationships with other people. We're inherently selfish, tribal animals and we're never going to shake that and must accept that it exists while trying to minimize the negative effects of this.

A racist, to me, is just as bad as an SJW. There's no moral difference between someone who is stupid enough to think that someone's melanin concentration renders them a "lesser" entity and someone who finds it completely acceptable to drum up a mob whenever someone hurts their feelings. Considering either side "monsters" is implying that there is some greater morality chiseled in stone to which we must all adhere lest the world ends.

“If masculinity is toxic how can it also be fragile?” is a meme I’m seeing crop up occasionally among reactionaries and it only highlights the complete unwillingness to be able to understand context or what these particular criticisms of masculinity culture actually mean.

>In fact, almost all mass murders are committed by men. This is no coincidence.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Shitposting

Lol if this were posted on Reddit I'd think you were being serious.

>what these particular criticisms of masculinity culture actually mean.

And what do they mean?

How can one thread possibly be this Reddit?
More tripfags here than protective custody

>And what do they mean?

What did he mean by this?

I used to know a guy who watched this movie every day.

But I am also pretty sure I saw a movie once where there was a guy who watched it every day too.

So I guess the guy I actually knew had seen that movie and decided it was something he needed to do too.

Pretty sad. The guy worked at a pizza place ever since he was 18 and he'd be in his 30s now and I hear he still works there.

Influencing society in a good way is impossible due to the fact that collective consciousness always generates a kind of extremism that drowns out all nuances and subtleties that can occur in the reflexion of the individual consciousness, therefore any attempt to summarize a complex issue into a realistic solution to a problem will be met with resistance and incomprehension when the people in the room are as much as two, let alone society as a whole.

>there is some greater morality chiseled in stone
Except 99% people believe there is.

People will never agree, so we might as well be entertained.

>Trump gets elected

>summarize a complex issue
It doesn't have to be complex. There's nothing complicated about "stealing is bad" for example.

I haven't seen this stone posted yet. Can I go to it, or is it somewhere where I have to get my clothes dirty?

Jesus H Christ. This is outright bullshit.

Is Reddit only down temporarily?

True, I agree that the same could be said about what would seem the most simple and humane issues we deal with on an everyday basis, which only highlights how much inept we are in the face of cultural and political conundrums.

Most people on the planet are religious and that comes with a set morality system. Even most atheists follow some kind of code. Only nihilists outright reject moral.

Fuck off, this is the best discussion I've seen on Sup Forums in months.

good synopsis

No seriously. Reddit is down. I guess you use here a lot huh?

My point was that nobody can agree on anything.

>Don't kill people...unless you think they're bad people, then it's cool
>Don't steal property...unless you're just fudging your taxes, the govt is just going to waste it anyway
>Don't cheat on your spouse...unless the person is really into you and things at home aren't so great anyway, let's do this

The line between Don't Do X and Fuck It, Let's Do X varies from group to group and person to person. There is no set of absolute morals and it's foolish to think that they could ever be agreed upon.

How about this moral: don't be a fucking asshole. Is what you're about to do going to ruin someone's day? Don't do it. Do they deserve it? Still don't do it, dick. And we can't even accomplish THAT MUCH. The fact is, droning on and on about morality is a fool's errand. Sure, we can strive to set laws that prevent some of this behavior, but even our system of laws gets compromised, and some people will gleefully break those laws and get away with it.

What I'm saying is when people get on their high horse and start throwing around the term "immoral" it sounds to me like someone who probably smells their own farts.

>All mass murders are men.

>Doesn't acknowledge Hillary Clinton's stellar efforts in the Middle East.

>>/trash/

>It is the Fight Club an overrated movie?
>what try to show us?
You can't speak English, fuck off.

Go back to

You're looking too much into it and talking out of your ass.
>It clearly REALLY bothers them
no it doesn't. Nothing in the show is an angry message to anyone. They're not angry, they're swimming in money. The show's main purpose has always been comedy. It's a fucking cartoon. The "message" of each episode is nothing more than a tool to construct the plot, jokes, etc. They find it easy to make jokes about current events, politics, ironic shit, etc. That's just their sense of humor. They've made it pretty clear in all their interviews. Also, Cartman is Trey's favorite character, so what you're claiming is 100% bullshit.

>A generation of men raised by women. I’m wondering if another woman is the answer we really need.

I always wondered what the fuck was Tyler trying to say with this.

In the DVD commentary Brad Pitt talks about this. Basically he says "We were raised by women, we're fucked up and our life is a mess. Let's figure out what this is and how we can work on ourselves first, then we'll talk about the pussy question."

he's saying that he's a faggot. And yes I'm serious. It's kind of obvious once you think about it

Fuck that you fragile crybaby faggot, you fuck off.

It really does have homosexual undertones. The narrator is everything Tyler wants to be, and he's the exact opposite of a blue collar worker who can't express himself(He dresses conservatively while Tyler dresses in shirts covered in porn films, feather boas, etc.) The idea of the Fight Club seems metaphorical to a gay club where these guys can get away from work, their girlfriends, and wives to release some stress. the Narrator explicitly says he's jealous of Leto's character getting close to Tyler, so he beats his face in and goes on a monologue about how angry he was. It's also worth noting the writer Is gay so I feel like a lot of it was intended.

The book was written by the biggest Homosexual in the 20th Century.
Of course its gay

Of course it was intended, but it speaks about male relationships as a whole. Sexuality is only a small part of it along with friendship, hierarchy, inheritance, family etc.

it's not overrated, it's just been ruined by Sup Forums alt-right anarchist cucks who dont understand that the movie is making fun of them

I think it is a masterpiece. Why not, because its' cool?

You be Michael Jackson

youtube.com/watch?v=BWf-eARnf6U

that, the protagonist's conversation with Tyler in the train, and the dildo scenes, including the first dildo that was found on his luggage. There's even a fan theory claiming Marla is actually another figment of his imagination representing the most feminine form of his repressed homosexuality. I'm not sure if I believe it, but either way the homosexual undertones are still all over the movie

His existence is shit. He gets reborn. He tries to find nirvana.

Literally zen buddhism for a modern audience.

bus* not train

Haven't seen it since around 2001, but I remember it being kino as fuck. Then again, I was like 12.

Exactly what Edward Norton talks about in the DVD commentary too.

I love Fight Club. One of my favorite movies. It's also very strangely comforting and relaxing to watch which is odd given the subject matter.

>Now the author says it’s because of how these programs are structured. First they depict bad behavior, and then they explain why the behavior is bad, showing consequences, and tying up the program with a moral.

Does it go into the correct way of doing it? What is it? Just teach virtues or what?

>Of course its gay
for who