What's the meaning of this movie?

what's the meaning of this movie?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=pfipIzr4JXE
believermag.com/issues/200305/
youtube.com/watch?v=NOcjQhWN0cM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

soap

The virgin Norton vs the Brad Chad

modern society cuckolds men and will repress them until a breaking point is reached, for better or for worse

It's a romance. It's also about repressed masculinity. And the book actually is about repressed homosexuality as well although that is toned down in the film.

youtube.com/watch?v=pfipIzr4JXE

just be urself man

CAPITALISM BAD

MGTOW and red pills bro

Fighting is cool

It requires you to watch all these other kinos to understand it.

Being a reddit movie before reddit movies were a thing

It was designed to make money

There is no deeper meaning, you are just a huge, lonely dumbass.

...

Conformity is bad but so is non conformity? Idk.

Two guys start a soap-making business out of their garage. Pretty much the entire movie takes place in that garage. Throughout the course of the film, they're visited by various zany characters with their own myriad dramas. Sometimes they have disagreements (hence the title), but in the end they overcome their differences and thrive.

At the very end of the movie, it's revealed that the two friends are actually one person. He's been alone in the garage so long that he's been imagining a parade of friends who never existed. That night, he slumps over on his sofa and dies alone. A single bar of soap tumbles from his hand. The camera slowly zooms on the soap before fading out.

don't be a crazy left-wing nutter

Don't be a soyboy but don't take it too far bro, like chill haha.

kino Sup Forums pretends to hate now

>modern society cuckolds men and will repress them until a breaking point is reached, for better or for worse
This is an interesting interpretation. After all, 99% of who is doing the cuckolding are other, more powerful men. And it's probably always been like this. Actually, it's probably better now for the average non-powerful man than it has ever been before in recorded history.
On the other hand, there is a theory that revolutions happen not when things are desperate, but rather precisely when the condition of the middle class improves enough that they become willing to take a risk to get something even better...

Memes and reddit aside fight club is definitely kino.

I wish I knew how to into mspaint or I'd merge the merchant and brainlet wojack just for you.

I don't think Sup Forums hates fight club

this

bs
>I read the book

kinda actually

>the poster below has the appropriate response
>idk
idk is right

...

The movie has a lot of meaning in it because the writer throws condensed practically-philosophical gems (mostly from Taoism) into it that aren't necessarily related to the story.

Most of all, in my opinion, the film is about utilising the destructive nature of reality (which is demonised in society) for maximising the potential of a human being.
>Or "Destruction is a form of creation"

...

It's a satire on modern feminism

There's a demographic on Sup Forums whose snobbery knows no bounds, who hates FC because it was designed to be popular.
>This demographic is as snobby as Sup Forums snobs

The film is actually a critiscism of the Brad Pitt characters behaviour. He's initially portrayed as a cool rebellious character, railing against what he sees as injustices in life. Society being dominated by consumerism, people no longer willing to stand up for themselves etc. But as the film progresses his beliefs and actions become more and more extreme, eventually resulting in widespread damage and destruction. Norton's character realises that actually he was afraid of being part of a society he viewed as stagnant and boring, but actually the alternative is worse. He discards his immature rebellious beliefs and comes to terms with his place in the world.

It's kind of a more violent Catcher in the Rye. The main character, afraid to grow up, spends most of the story fighting against what he percieves as 'phonies'.

painfully and dangerously wrong
>Norton's character realises that actually he was afraid of being part of a society he viewed as stagnant and boring
there was nothing to "be a part of" more than what he was doing, which is exactly what everybody else around was doing as well
what could he do, in your mind to "be a part" of his society? nothing in his narrative summation in the beginning of the film has any sort of bias, he is literally describing the middle class male existence of a western generation Xer
>He discards his immature rebellious beliefs and comes to terms with his place in the world.
"No!"
he literally carried out tyler and project mayhems plan
just because he regained lucidity after the destruction of the banks does not negate everything that just happened, the world is now in a irrevocably changed state at the end of the story

>he is literally describing the middle class male existence of a western generation Xer
Not really. Not all western Xers are chronically anhedonic and depressed.
>the world is now in a irrevocably changed state at the end of the story
Yes, almost certainly for the worse. What is the most likely outcome of truck drivers and janitors taking political power? It's something like Venezuela.
Historically speaking, populist revolutions tend to result in a period of chaos and violence, followed by a new group of elites, as bad as the previous ones, taking power.

i feel you aren't coming back around to defend your original statements that i countered
you are going off in another direction and stating what may be facts but not wholly relevant to the story in question
i stand by my responses as true to the film's message

I'm not the guy you replied to. Sorry, I should have made that clear.
I agree with you that the film's ending seems to be painting what has happened as, overall, a good thing. True, I'm going off on a new direction when I criticize the idea that it would actually be good. I like the film a lot but this is my main criticism of it - it drops the ball with the ending, seemingly in a rush to tie everything up and end with some happy romantic moment. I wish the film had kept its dark sarcasm even through the ending, and had depicted the new direction of society as being highly questionable.

>no a clockwork orange

>A single bar of soap tumbles from his hand. The camera slowly zooms on the soap before fading out.

Is his last word "Rosebud" too?

ah ok
i get you

You're not supposed to sympathise with Tyler

No the french and russians were fucking starving to death when they rebelled.

A good list but not enough Sandler for my liking

too black and white thinking

Alright:
If you sympathise with Tyler and treat him like the narrator does in the beginning, you're a pushover loser

what's appealing about tyler is the wanting to BE him, not wanting to follow him
honest question, not trying to insult, are you a girl

no I'm an autistic pedo
not that it matters
but neither would being a girl

Tyler is a hollow, beta power fantasy. If you want to be him, you're who the movie is making fun of.

Funny you made this thread OP, I just watched it for the first time last night and am still kinda clueless.

my inference of this post and the many i see like it, is that you are too insecure to admit elements of tyler durden are appealing and have to interpret the entire movie from this point
it feels like when a girl sees a hot female model or actress and says
>ugh who even thinks shes hot shes so blonde and boring and her tits are way too big, i do NOT wanna look like that

Tyler is the unrestrained id, with no thought of consequence or the effect that his actions will have on others. He's the purely selfish, reactionary part of the Narrator. He is not to be emulated or followed, the movie makes this perfectly clear.

you're right but it's also insecure to want to be like a different person

there is nothing wrong with wanting to be better
tyler is clever, beautiful, and influential
if you say you'd rather not be those things i think that's a worse diagnosis

chuck palahniuk was in a self help cult and he later wrote a book about it
believermag.com/issues/200305/

this is the same cult that stefan molyneux would also join

you should be as selfish as possible in almost every aspect of human life
i think you are not giving an objective reasoning of the character or the intent

Not to the extent of actively harming others. You'll find that selfish behavior doesn't win friends or support, and when your actions finally have consequences you'll be left alone with nothing.

Men are pathetic, childish losers.

or in other words

Interesting. Can't find info about it at your link, but a bit of Googling turned up that it's probably the Landmark Forum. One of my friends got into it a couple of years ago. I went to one meeting to check it out. It's some weird stuff, like a combination of a self-help business and a multi-level marketing cult. I mean, it's way way too cultlike for my taste, but he says it helps him and he's usually not completely gullible so eh, whatever, good for him I guess. I wouldn't touch the thing with a ten foot pole. Seems that Pahlaniuk says it helped him too, though. So I guess it's not all bad.
As for Stephen Molyneux, he's always seemed to me to have a cult leader kind of vibe. On the other hand, apparently he disliked LF from the get-go. But sometimes in the whole self-help guru business (which Molyneux effectively is in practice), even those who dislike "gurus" either involuntarily or voluntarily end up acting like them.

It's just a movie about the role of men in modern society. The problem of fitting in, conforming and the inability to, as a single person, make a change for the better. The psychological duality of the mc, represent who he is and who he would like to be.
The capitalism is bad part is marginal at best, the movie could have worked in a socialist country where he blows up some government building.

No. Those are not the same.

It's about men who feel emasculated by society and useless because there's nothing to fight for.

If you try to be a non conformist you will end up conforming anyways

youtube.com/watch?v=NOcjQhWN0cM
vid related

Even from the beginning, Tyler speaks like a rebel but looks like a man from a corporate TV ad - stylish and model handsome with a gym body. I'll give the filmmakers enough credit to say that they did this on purpose.

...

>narrator has a shitty life because he has no real relationships and no individuality (doesnt even have a name)
>imagines an interesting friend with a name
>starts being happier because he rejects some of the BS of modern society
>goes to the other extreme like the retard he his, forces others to drop their individuality (no more names, cuitting their hair, denying they are human)
>things turn to shit again because he overdid it

Message: Just be yourself, brah.

You are wrongIs right.

Alexander the Great died bitter, broken, and clinging on to unfulfilled ambition.

Caesar died much the same way.

The fact that Palahniuk literally parallels them and Tyler should tell you something about that. The fact that Tyler is self-destructive should tell you something about his sense of self-worth.

He wants to stave off the inevitable consequence of boundless and unrestrained ambition.

>this faggot actually thinks multiple people want his faggoty opinions
wew lad, mass repliers must fucking hang

The destruction of corporatism and rotten corporatist oligarchic system can be done if every man does his part to destroy it a much as he can.

If you can buy bread in a small local bakery buy it there avoid the big corporate cancer bread factory and big corporate trading chains. Little things add up fast on a grand scale of things.

It's actually a parody of "revolutionary" retards today. It comes through in the book better. Palahniuk was really hitting a note that resonated broadly when he wrote "we're a generation of men raised by women...", and he goes on to show how the solutions proposed by some for this are fucking retarded. They try to instill masculinity and shore up the missing half in their spirits, and it works somewhat. Beating the shit out of each other was therapeutic for I am Jack. But Project Mayhem and everything else they did was in many ways a parody of anti-capitalist leftists. All they do is go around breaking shit. They haven't created any structures to replace the broken systems, except some bizarre form of communism. They have no creative capacity, and the book's ending is much better than the movie in my opinion. Anybody who has read the book and seen the movie will understand.

I used to really like this movie, and I still do for the most part, but it's not some red-pilled work except in making fun of violent retards like antifa. That's pretty much what the soap company is, except with balls.

a niche on Sup Forums and reddit takes it seriously

um no sweetie massive corporations are diverse and have female ceos so maybe you just didn't get that its a satire and tyler is bad and his abs are stupid ok?

Christ almighty, you missed both the author's intent and the ideology behind tyler durden. Seriously kill yourself you impressionable idiot, because once you quit Sup Forums you'll find something else to latch onto and make everything fit into.

I don't know about that guy but I find it ironic that an idealized masculine image very much associated with who we, as men, are expected to desire to be has the ultimate goal of destroying a society and it's consumeristic corporatistic expectations for how we are to behave, when his ideal itself is created by those conditions.

Maybe that's why he desires self-destruction, because even though he created a new world he's a relic and product of the old with all of the baggage that implies and he can't be free from it without dying.

>you missed both the author's intent and the ideology behind tyler durden
I didn't, but even if I did, it doesn't matter because the fact of the matter is that Project Mayhem was pure retardation. They never accomplished anything.

Except blowing up blowing up the buildings of credit card companies when it could matter because everything wasn't backed up like today.

In the book they failed to accomplish this, which is a much more interesting message, especially considering why they failed.

Why did they fail? I've read the book, but it was years and years ago so I don't remember.

I havent read the book in years either. did they fail?

In the book and the movie they fail to blow up the Parker-Morris building dude.

They fail to accomplish the real objective of the murder-suicide which was to destroy the past and allow us to control our own future.

Early on in the book the narrator mentions that Tyler told him that mixing paraffin in with the explosives gives it a very high chance of failure. At the end the narrator mentions that Tyler intentionally mixed in paraffin with the bombs they made in the building. Tyler didn't actually intend to destroy the buildings; he sabotaged it.

The Parker-Morris building is the largest building in the world in their fictional universe, and it's nearby to the natural history museum, symbolically Tyler is trying to destroy the past and the expectations its set for us as men.

In Tyler's view the past is holding us back from accomplishing our own great things, the greater esteem you hold your heroes in the more impossible they are to overtake, and you're supposed to exceed your heroes rather than stagnate.

So for Tyler, why have heroes at all? Tyler is also the narrator's hero and probably wants to destroy himself before the narrator realizes that in order to grow past Tyler, he has to destroy Tyler.

In an extension of Tyler's own Philosophy against him, the narrator destroys Tyler.

It hardly matters though, Palaniuk's sequel sets it all back to square one thematically.

I always thought the actual message of fight club was missed.

Most people see it as edgy or pretentious, but I've always thought it was an extremely subtle satire. Maybe satire is not the exact word I'm looking for, but let me explain.

Jack creates Tyler in his head as a way of escaping the conformity and capitalistic obsessed state of the world as it currently exists, right?

But who does he create as an idealistic head of this idea? A guy good looking enough to be a fucking model, or Brad Pitt in the movie. A guy who wears extremely fashionable clothes, and is always well groomed.

For all his speeches and his rejection of capitalism and generally edgy attitude, Tyler is at his core, a hypocrite. He's the very ideal of what a man should be in his looks and attire. Jack has actually creates Tyler as an IDEAL of society, not a rejection of it. Tyler is who he wishes he could be.

So in short, the message that Tyler delivers is handled with a huge deal.of underlying scorn and scepticism in both the book, and the Movie. Both are actually a rejection of Tyler's ideals, both are about Jacks final realisation of that same thing. That Tyler is full of fucking shit.

At the same time, you could argue that the narrator represents the past, and Tyler is trying to destroy HIM in order to destroy the past, and with them both dead the legend of Tyler lives on into the future as the only hero.

fuck, how did I miss that? Is it really that obvious, or did you fuckers read it somewhere?

It's not that obscure, several anons ITT came to the same conclusion

...

>or did you fuckers read it somewhere?

Yeah, in a book, called "Fight Club"

just read the book again, it's not very long. It's an important detail, it changes everything.

>I read it in an article titled "five things you didn't know about fight club"
r-right?

one day I will ram a golf club up the ass of that faggot who draws XKCD

Yeah, I'll read it again with this in mind, even though I haven't liked Pahliniuk since I was a teenager. I just cant believe I missed a detail like this.

user... I sentence you to re-read fight club.

I've read that mofo like 5-6 times.