DVDFILE.COM Forum - View Single Post - "Fight Club" discussion : 5/26/02-6/01/02

MrSoze · 05-30-2002, 01:40 AM

Greetings!

Hey all. 'Fight Club' is one of my favorite movies ever to discuss, so I appreciate all the great discussion already. Here comes my two cents, so to speak.

1) The controversy over the book. I have no problem admitting that I haven't read the book, but Theta isn't the only one who holds it in such a high regard- I know a ton of people who do the same. However, the opinion that you should even compare the book to the movie is simply misguided in my view. This may take awhile to write, so here's why.

a) The book and the movie are always written for two very different audiences. This is true of the best and worst adaptions from literary to film. First, writers are allowed to go into character motivation in the book by giving the portrait into the character's mind that a filmmaker is simply unable to do. You are reliant, as a filmmaker, on the actors and the dialogue to get across the motivations of the character on the whole. Because of this, you are just naturally limited not only in the faithfulness of the adaption, but in the scope that you can show, even with tools like the voiceover employed by Norton in the film. You HAVE to rewrite it, sometimes with a different point entirely (Although we are in disagreement about that as well; I'll cover that in a minute.) or you are doing a disservice to both mediums- you get vanilla adaptions like Harry Potter, where the director is clearly frightened to give us anything that would be even one iota different from the printed page. As much as I love Harry Potter, I can't defend it as a great film; indeed, it is a film without soul. Fight Club, like it or not, has a soul and is willing to stand up and say something, even if the message is off. It should be applauded for being different from the book if that is the result. Check out another famous adaption; Spielberg's best film, Jaws. The book is long, plodding, and boring, IMHO, because the main conflict, the shark, is shunted to the side in alot of cases because Benchley is intent on showcasing the intricacies of the politics of a beach town. Spielberg, on the other hand, drops all that crap and goes straight for your throat, putting the other town business in the background and letting it come out when it becomes neccessary to the plot, and it makes for a great film, due almost solely to its relentless focus. That's maybe the greatest ad for why the book has to be different from the movie.

b) Film is much more defined than a novel. The English Patient was, for a long time, considered unfilmable because of the pure density of the novel along with the free-flowing structure. Ditto in alot of ways for Wonder Boys, Curtis Hanson's great film. The way you describe it, Fight Club sounds much the same- therefore, the director has a responsibility to decide what to keep in and take out, due to the fact that, well, he's the fucking director, and that's his job. He has a much, much greater set of limitations to work with, and that stricter definition is tougher for film to overcome to be pure with the book. For an example, in my own opinion, of how not to concentrate on the right aspects of a book, check out American Psycho.

c) As with any piece of art, you have to judge it solely on its own merit, which you aren't doing. You're judging it in CONTEXT of your knowledge of the novel, something I'll point out when I talk about the thematic elements below. You can't do that and claim to be at all objective, because you aren't trying to be- you're judging based on the faithfulness to themes that were presented very differently in the book, which is inherently unfair to the filmmaker. Again, the filmmaker is responsible to make the best film he can, with or without the total adherence to the book's events. If you go into the film and come out pointing out all the differences between the book and movie, that's not judging the film for its own merit, but the film in relation to the book; therefore, your claim that 'Fight Club' has no artistic merit is intrinsically flawed, since you aren't judging it from an any type of artistic merit standard.

Okay, that should about do it for the book to movie thing. Now, on to the thematic elements....

Let me tell you a story about this movie. My girlfriend at the time was absolutely furious when we left the film, and her reasoning was that the marketing and the trailers were drawing in people who were totally unable to access the message properly. Indeed, we had a bunch of teens joking about starting fight clubs in the area behind us. We argued about it on the way home, and eventually she won me over. Simply, this movie should have been given the NC-17. I shock alot of people with that statement, but the fact of the matter is that I'd rather my kids see a piece of trash like Showgirls and laugh about it later, than see something like Fight Club without my supervision. The fact of the matter is that the movie presents themes that are difficult to comprehend for many, many people. You, obviously, are not one of them; I think that you can see the themes in Fight Club, but I disagree with the ones you've presented. Let's look at mine.

1) The Alienation of today's young male. I think the movie could indeed have said more here, but at the same time, the ideas that males of our society do have problems with where we fit in are really, really well presented. I always have dug the support group footage, and I actually am touched very much by Jack's interaction with Bob. Also, you have to consider what the Tyler character actually means to the overall story, especially on this topic. That leads me to our biggest difference of opinion....

2) Tyler Durden, Hero? Of course not. Fincher wasn't deifing Durden at all. In fact, the way you describe the book, it seems like the author chose the easier way out. It's easy to have the bomb be a dud, have the hero swoop in. That's not the case in this movie; he recognizes that things have gone too far to turn back. Far from being the typical hollywood ending, it's the atypical hollywood ending; the bombs go, Durden dies. Your statement that the facists 'win' is the one I have the most issue with. When Norton yells that things have gone too far, he means it in alot of ways. The movie is more of an indictment of facism than almost any other film- this is what happens with people who blindly follow. When Jack is attacked by his own Spacemonkeys, in blind devotion to their leader, it's the indication that things have proceeded to the point of no return. Fincher doesn't let up here. He doesn't give you the easy way out, and tell you that things are going to be alright at the end, because they won't. The hero won't come, and the explosions won't stop. That isn't a victory for the facists- that's a defeat for the human race. That's why Durden must die at the end- far from being a martyr, Fincher showcases him for the true con man that he is, but not until he makes sure we understand that there are consequences for our actions beyond that which we can stop at a certain point. Fincher was trying to make a point for personal responsibility, for accepting the consequences of our actions even when those actions are reprehensible. That's why Norton has to watch the buildings blow, and that's why the 'happy music' (which I thought was a nod to the end of Dr. Strangelove, myself) has to play.

Now, onto David Fincher, director. I've always admired the choices that he made in the movie, for this reason- he knew that most people weren't going to 'get' it, so to speak. He hid the themes deep enough that multiple viewings make them clear, but he does so in a way that is so subtle, so undeniably brillant, that I can't imagine attacking his directing style. If Fincher just wanted to make some jack at the box office, he had the world's number one sex symbol in Pitt and a great actor in Norton to work with. He could have come up with a million different endings that I'm sure would have pleased execs more than "Pitt dies and Norton watches the buildings around him blow up." You don't think that he could have sold the movie without the ending? He would have sold it easier with the ending without the explosions, but he plays it straight to his vision, which simply must end as it does. His directing style must be the perfect cross between frantic and Kubrickian, knowing when to go for the slow pan shot and the quick cut. Say what you will about Fincher, but he can set a mood for a film as well as anyone today working in film- I'll take him over a thousand Michael Bays of the world.

Finally, my main complaint about the film doesn't even relate the film itself but to the marketing of the film. I referenced it above, but the fact of the matter is that the filmmakers should have taken some responsibility for the product they put out and the people who see it. I think that art has great power in this country, and to paraphrase a super hero- with great power, comes great responsibility. The filmmakers and actors had none of that, as they shamelessly promoted the movie on channels like MTV and produced trailers that highlighted all the clever lines, not even preparing the audience for what they were truly about to see, and for the message beneath the surface of the film. If you get to see that message, I think the film is great, a masterpiece. It's pretty rare I say that about any movie.

By the way, theta, great points in your post. Extremely well-written; just 'cause I disagree doesn't change that. I'm only 24 myself, and I now want to read the book because of your post. I think that you and I have different views on the 60s gen to say the least, but I hope you respond in kind to my post on the film, as I'd love to keep the dialogue going on this thread.

Okay, outta here. See you on this thread later, or on Shawshank.

Yours in the Force,
Rick Poehling

Episode III is coming..... in 2005! Damnit!!

05-30-2002, 01:40 AM	#9 (permalink)
MrSoze Supporting Actor Join Date: Apr 2002	Greetings! Hey all. 'Fight Club' is one of my favorite movies ever to discuss, so I appreciate all the great discussion already. Here comes my two cents, so to speak. 1) The controversy over the book. I have no problem admitting that I haven't read the book, but Theta isn't the only one who holds it in such a high regard- I know a ton of people who do the same. However, the opinion that you should even compare the book to the movie is simply misguided in my view. This may take awhile to write, so here's why. a) The book and the movie are always written for two very different audiences. This is true of the best and worst adaptions from literary to film. First, writers are allowed to go into character motivation in the book by giving the portrait into the character's mind that a filmmaker is simply unable to do. You are reliant, as a filmmaker, on the actors and the dialogue to get across the motivations of the character on the whole. Because of this, you are just naturally limited not only in the faithfulness of the adaption, but in the scope that you can show, even with tools like the voiceover employed by Norton in the film. You HAVE to rewrite it, sometimes with a different point entirely (Although we are in disagreement about that as well; I'll cover that in a minute.) or you are doing a disservice to both mediums- you get vanilla adaptions like Harry Potter, where the director is clearly frightened to give us anything that would be even one iota different from the printed page. As much as I love Harry Potter, I can't defend it as a great film; indeed, it is a film without soul. Fight Club, like it or not, has a soul and is willing to stand up and say something, even if the message is off. It should be applauded for being different from the book if that is the result. Check out another famous adaption; Spielberg's best film, Jaws. The book is long, plodding, and boring, IMHO, because the main conflict, the shark, is shunted to the side in alot of cases because Benchley is intent on showcasing the intricacies of the politics of a beach town. Spielberg, on the other hand, drops all that crap and goes straight for your throat, putting the other town business in the background and letting it come out when it becomes neccessary to the plot, and it makes for a great film, due almost solely to its relentless focus. That's maybe the greatest ad for why the book has to be different from the movie. b) Film is much more defined than a novel. The English Patient was, for a long time, considered unfilmable because of the pure density of the novel along with the free-flowing structure. Ditto in alot of ways for Wonder Boys, Curtis Hanson's great film. The way you describe it, Fight Club sounds much the same- therefore, the director has a responsibility to decide what to keep in and take out, due to the fact that, well, he's the fucking director, and that's his job. He has a much, much greater set of limitations to work with, and that stricter definition is tougher for film to overcome to be pure with the book. For an example, in my own opinion, of how not to concentrate on the right aspects of a book, check out American Psycho. c) As with any piece of art, you have to judge it solely on its own merit, which you aren't doing. You're judging it in CONTEXT of your knowledge of the novel, something I'll point out when I talk about the thematic elements below. You can't do that and claim to be at all objective, because you aren't trying to be- you're judging based on the faithfulness to themes that were presented very differently in the book, which is inherently unfair to the filmmaker. Again, the filmmaker is responsible to make the best film he can, with or without the total adherence to the book's events. If you go into the film and come out pointing out all the differences between the book and movie, that's not judging the film for its own merit, but the film in relation to the book; therefore, your claim that 'Fight Club' has no artistic merit is intrinsically flawed, since you aren't judging it from an any type of artistic merit standard. Okay, that should about do it for the book to movie thing. Now, on to the thematic elements.... Let me tell you a story about this movie. My girlfriend at the time was absolutely furious when we left the film, and her reasoning was that the marketing and the trailers were drawing in people who were totally unable to access the message properly. Indeed, we had a bunch of teens joking about starting fight clubs in the area behind us. We argued about it on the way home, and eventually she won me over. Simply, this movie should have been given the NC-17. I shock alot of people with that statement, but the fact of the matter is that I'd rather my kids see a piece of trash like Showgirls and laugh about it later, than see something like Fight Club without my supervision. The fact of the matter is that the movie presents themes that are difficult to comprehend for many, many people. You, obviously, are not one of them; I think that you can see the themes in Fight Club, but I disagree with the ones you've presented. Let's look at mine. 1) The Alienation of today's young male. I think the movie could indeed have said more here, but at the same time, the ideas that males of our society do have problems with where we fit in are really, really well presented. I always have dug the support group footage, and I actually am touched very much by Jack's interaction with Bob. Also, you have to consider what the Tyler character actually means to the overall story, especially on this topic. That leads me to our biggest difference of opinion.... 2) Tyler Durden, Hero? Of course not. Fincher wasn't deifing Durden at all. In fact, the way you describe the book, it seems like the author chose the easier way out. It's easy to have the bomb be a dud, have the hero swoop in. That's not the case in this movie; he recognizes that things have gone too far to turn back. Far from being the typical hollywood ending, it's the atypical hollywood ending; the bombs go, Durden dies. Your statement that the facists 'win' is the one I have the most issue with. When Norton yells that things have gone too far, he means it in alot of ways. The movie is more of an indictment of facism than almost any other film- this is what happens with people who blindly follow. When Jack is attacked by his own Spacemonkeys, in blind devotion to their leader, it's the indication that things have proceeded to the point of no return. Fincher doesn't let up here. He doesn't give you the easy way out, and tell you that things are going to be alright at the end, because they won't. The hero won't come, and the explosions won't stop. That isn't a victory for the facists- that's a defeat for the human race. That's why Durden must die at the end- far from being a martyr, Fincher showcases him for the true con man that he is, but not until he makes sure we understand that there are consequences for our actions beyond that which we can stop at a certain point. Fincher was trying to make a point for personal responsibility, for accepting the consequences of our actions even when those actions are reprehensible. That's why Norton has to watch the buildings blow, and that's why the 'happy music' (which I thought was a nod to the end of Dr. Strangelove, myself) has to play. Now, onto David Fincher, director. I've always admired the choices that he made in the movie, for this reason- he knew that most people weren't going to 'get' it, so to speak. He hid the themes deep enough that multiple viewings make them clear, but he does so in a way that is so subtle, so undeniably brillant, that I can't imagine attacking his directing style. If Fincher just wanted to make some jack at the box office, he had the world's number one sex symbol in Pitt and a great actor in Norton to work with. He could have come up with a million different endings that I'm sure would have pleased execs more than "Pitt dies and Norton watches the buildings around him blow up." You don't think that he could have sold the movie without the ending? He would have sold it easier with the ending without the explosions, but he plays it straight to his vision, which simply must end as it does. His directing style must be the perfect cross between frantic and Kubrickian, knowing when to go for the slow pan shot and the quick cut. Say what you will about Fincher, but he can set a mood for a film as well as anyone today working in film- I'll take him over a thousand Michael Bays of the world. Finally, my main complaint about the film doesn't even relate the film itself but to the marketing of the film. I referenced it above, but the fact of the matter is that the filmmakers should have taken some responsibility for the product they put out and the people who see it. I think that art has great power in this country, and to paraphrase a super hero- with great power, comes great responsibility. The filmmakers and actors had none of that, as they shamelessly promoted the movie on channels like MTV and produced trailers that highlighted all the clever lines, not even preparing the audience for what they were truly about to see, and for the message beneath the surface of the film. If you get to see that message, I think the film is great, a masterpiece. It's pretty rare I say that about any movie. By the way, theta, great points in your post. Extremely well-written; just 'cause I disagree doesn't change that. I'm only 24 myself, and I now want to read the book because of your post. I think that you and I have different views on the 60s gen to say the least, but I hope you respond in kind to my post on the film, as I'd love to keep the dialogue going on this thread. Okay, outta here. See you on this thread later, or on Shawshank. Yours in the Force, Rick Poehling Episode III is coming..... in 2005! Damnit!! __________________ "The Greatest Trick this Post ever pulled was convincing the world that it had merit of some type."