MGS, Battletech, Mechwarrior, Front Mission, Gundam, Macross, Armored Core, Steel Battalion, Iron Brigade, Titanfall, Xenogears, Zone of the Enders… https://giphy.com/gifs/CeggsTJQyUYTu
The feelings it inspires! Yoko Takahashi, the woman who sang the theme song, did a surprise performance at a restaurant while pretending to be a server, one dude there started crying, and I get it. I can't watch the video on my phone screen without getting goosebumps, I can't imagine being right there, maybe just a couple dozen feet away.
Here's the clip of the whole thing, she sings Cruel Angel's Thesis at 9:30. Before that she sang Beauty & The Beast, which is pretty great, too.
Meh. I’m not blaming anyone for not seeing a trans allegory in the Matrix, regardless of it’s creators intentions. The thing about the Plato’s Cave allegory is that it’s both super evocative and fully general. Literally any possible claim is justified if you accept a divine revelation, inaccessible to the normies.
I love how enough people missed that in the first RoboCop, that they had to double down and make it an over-the-top satire for RoboCop 2. Which is also why it's best RoboCop.
I see everyone discussing the toxic masculinity themes of the book & movie but that's still missing the full depth. Fight Club posits that existential dissatisfaction is a disease of privilege and comfort, and that it breeds reactionary, radical, and authoritarian sentiments. It is a scathingly accurate prediction of what we're living through right now.
In the words of Fukuyama, which slightly predate Fight Club:
"Experience suggests that if men cannot struggle on behalf of a just cause because that just cause was victorious in an earlier generation, then they will struggle against the just cause. They will struggle for the sake of struggle. They will struggle, in other words, out of a certain boredom: for they cannot imagine living in a world without struggle. And if the greater part of the world in which they live is characterized by peaceful and prosperous liberal democracy, they then will struggle
against that peace and prosperity, and against democracy."
Excellent quote. Definitely need to learn more about the author.
I rewatched the film recently because, "it's been at least a decade and it's Fincher."
I couldn't believe how different my take was watching several times near release (99', at about 20), and now in my late 40's. This movie spoke so profoundly to men of my age, the movie version of Nevermind or Downward Spiral. I think there was a deep dissatisfaction in my generation with a range of topics, materialism, corporatism, etc. What I think was missing from the discourse was a sense of responsibility, "Great. You're dissatisfied. So what are you going to do about it?"
Durden felt like some kind of role model at the time. Watching it this last time was a completely different experience. Durden, or the main character depending on your point of view, seemed like a madman. Sure the critiques still resonate, but the prescription?
"In the world I see - you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Tower. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying strips of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway."
I couldn't believe how I missed the Apocalypse Now parallels before. Durden's literally talking off-screen to a dazed 'main character' about his vision. Kurtz and Durden are perfect parallels, critique without answer, a certain logic followed to the point of the illogical.
Since those early watching's near release and now, I finally found a career that I find rewarding in healthcare. The money's fine, the real treasure is in the feeling of making a difference, helping people because "it's the right thing to do," and it makes me feel good.
What I would say to my past self, or young men like you referenced with Fukuyama's quote, is "there are other struggles." You can struggle for justice, struggle to provide resources to those without, struggle reveal that which we do not know or haven't explored. Tearing things down for the sake of it does nothing besides fulfill a selfish desire to feel righteous among the ashes.
Thanks for the perspective from someone older than me. I also used to be a lot more revolutionary, even if my heart was in the right place and my causes were just: equality, safety, self-expression.
But I'm now in my 30s, and with more and more people supporting different versions of radical "progress" -be it AI, communist revolution, fascist takeover, whatever else- in the name of a promised utopia, I think Fukuyama was proven completely right.
I have decided that the problem is inside, and there is no solution, only treatment. I find meaning in community and art, and sometimes that's not enough, but those times pass.
I still want equality, safety, justice, self-expression, access to opportunity for everyone. But I've come to believe that any kind of major systemic upending will result in suffering, corruption, and, at the end, someone being oppressed. Democracy, education, and strong communities provide a slow path to progress, but it is the fastest path available.
I don’t think you’re exactly wrong but honestly, that take itself feels somewhat or extremely privileged. There are people in the world today who are starving to death, homeless, enslaved, or for whom anxiety about those things is realistic.
The Russian, French, and Chinese Revolutions happened in part because people were actually starving to death while being worked through at times unfree labor into the ground by others at the same time; it wasn’t because they had nothing better to do. Many in the world are in horrific conditions. That doesn’t mean we should embrace “fixes” that also bring tragedy if it could be avoided, but there are still actual issues.
The difference is, these people aren't revolting against democratic systems with relatively stable economies and social safety nets.
Of course, neither are a lot of the fascists now, but their progenitors were. And I'd argue the whole conceited effort to weaken democracy that started in the US during Nixon's presidency, has been this kind of revolt against liberalism.
Edit to add: In general if you look deep enough in history, the people don't overthrow the rulers on their own. As long as the ruler has control of the army, and the will to use it, any revolution can be suppressed. The army must join the movement or stand down.
So more often than not it's either a ruler who doesn't have the willpower to violently suppress, or a ruler who lost his court, and by extension his army.
So this is a very complicated topic, but I do think the exact anatomy of a revolution from “left” can differ substantially in many aspects with one from the “right.” While both require the participation of elements of force such as the military and powerful figures fascism can metastasize within extant institutional structures more easily while a “socialist” revolution generally seeks more substantial disruption to the status quo although it seeks allies with expertise, force, authority, etc.
Regardless, this genuine movement from the left has tended to spring from a much more dire situation where people feel they have no other choice and therefore in some cases accept a price paid in blood.
Fascism is complex and controversial to expound upon but conventional wisdom has been it’s more related to anxiety regarding loss of status etc. from those who regard themselves as traditionally, currently, or once having had some vs. people who view themselves as having always been oppressed and exploited (“the proletariat”).
I agree that America certainly is not at the “millions of people starving in the streets without even a pretense of rights or democracy” stage, though. I hope we don’t get there.
You make a great point, and I think in your point is what I'm worried about. The revolutions you cited were all because things "had to change," people were literally starving or being sent to the slaughter.
Problem is, things didn't exactly "get better." Take the Chinese Revolution. Would more or less people died if Mao never existed, the Nationalists basically had a free hand to fight the Japanese? Impossible to say. The Great Famine was mind boggling horrific, and born directly from the revolution.
Things are wildly better in China today. I'm sure the French don't regret their revolution, as bloody as it was. Russia... oh Russia... too big a can of worms. I just think revolutions should carry warning labels: "make sure reform is impossible, because a lot of people will die for this 'necessary' change."
Durden's pursuit of the pure naive experience is also thoroughly childlike in lacking any real answer to the problem or the question of 'what then?' as a civilization.
Exactly! Plus, you're just starting over. Is this going to magically put mankind on a better course, or are we just going to fuck it up again? Why "pound corn" and make "leather clothes?" Feels to me like you either get rid of all of it, or try to fix what we have.
I appreciate your commentary here, but I think it somewhat takes the issue and just creates its opposite. My view - and this aligns with many of my takes on several philosophies - is that there is often an attempt at arriving at binary conclusions, when such is usually inaccurate, and more, even unnecessary.
The example you use - the return to simplicity. In one view, it is a regressive concept. In another view, it is not. The same goes, generally, with the appetite/motivation to tear things down. Tearing things down and destroying can be good, and necessary. On the other hand, tearing things down and destroying, can also be bad, and unnecessary.
Additionally, I think Kurtz and Durden certainly have parellels, but I disagree with your analysis. For instance, I think Kurtz does not necessarily champion war, rather, he speaks to life in the context of war - this is easier to ascertain in Apocalypse Now, precisely because the setting is so strong - they are in war. Durden may have a similar dichotomy (nonwar vs war setting), but Durden exists in the whole context of the modern reality, not simply one aspect of it.
So, where I think the parallel exists, is in their destruction of a value system within their worlds. Kurtz argues for a destruction of values when in war. Durden argues for a destruction of values in the context of the modern world.
Kurtz has an easier argument to mount, as the premise is narrower and easier to defend its goals - wining/victory and survival are all that matter.
Durden's argument is more tenious, precisely because the defense of its goals are so amorphous - destroying the values of the modern world requires a solution that is better than the current one/the modern world values.
In the end, the problem I have with your comment, is that it diminishes the real thrust of Fight Club. You point out the extremes and short-sightedness of the fight club philosophy, but ignore the defensible elements of it, namely, that (at least some, many, etc.) modern world values need to be destroyed and there is an inate feeling many (especially men) have toward that end.
Indeed, at its most macro, Fight Club (and Apocalypse Now) are rebellions against values - very Nietzche-esque.
The point of that revelation wasn't that the world being perfect was a problem, it's that they didn't have a choice. One premise of The Matrix is that deep down everyone in The Matrix knows it's not real, and they unconsciously accept or reject the false reality. People who reject it strive to find the truth - this is how we meet Neo.
They made a system with flaws that can be rebelled against and a cause that manifests as an individual - The One.
I think both were true. The perfect world also failed because too many people were unconsciously rejecting a reality with no struggles. The version they settled on had to have a balance of rejections and acceptances, while also providing an outlet for the rejectors.
This comment sent me down a rabbit hole trying to remember which Soprano's episode had a similar theme and I found it, S2E7: D-Girl. Every character's thread in the episode revolves around grappling with feelings of existentialism or lack of fulfillment/meaning in their life, even though they (mostly) recognize their wealth and privilege. One of the best episodes of the series.
That actually perfectly explains why so many people get sucked into grifter/grind culture as well as "witness me doing good" charity culture.
Whether its the complete and total downfall/extermination of their perceived enemies or the attainment of infinity money, they would still not be happy because they take their privileges for granted and ultimately their locus of control is the joy of fighting against a perceived oppressor.
Well no, that's misrepresenting what they're talking about.
No one cares if your motivation for helping the homeless is to look good, or to a lesser, but still selfish-ish degree, feeling good about yourself. We judge ourselves by our intentions and maybe negatively project them onto others, but in general we judge others by their actions and actions are pretty much the only thing that really matter.
A fed homeless person doesn't give a fuck what was going through your mind when you give them a healthy snack, a bottle of water, and a dollar. It's objectively a good deed and the world is slightly better for it having been done.
The sometimes choice is that deed being not done at all or that deed being done along with internet clout which may be cringe but, again, as long as you're not putting that person's identity on blast and actually interfering with their lives negatively, it's still good that "fake virtue" was put to use doing the good thing. And that's not a poison merely better than being evil, that's a net good.
This was somewhat poorly articulated but I think you get my point.
I would agree that a lot of 'toxic masculine' types tend to be attracted to movies like Fight Club, but I would 100% disagree that the movie was aiming to critique Toxic Masculinity.
If anything, it was hitting on a lot of truths of masculinity that I think most would have a tough time arguing against. How the narrator goes from feeling empty and disaffected to being enticed into a secret club and finding rebirth and new meaning in fighting, and connection, and sheer nihilism towards society. I feel like the movie had a lot to say to those boys who grew up hearing 'Men don't cry'.
I generally agree with the sentiment. But I feel like that, along with the golden age of the US, ended with 9/11. There is no shortage of things worthy of struggling against nowadays.
There was no shortage back then. You could have just causes like gay rights. A lot of people didn't engage with those because they had nothing to gain personally.
Of course there were certain worthy causes, but none that the majority of people would care about. The commentary is about the cultural zeitgeist of mid-90s consumerism. This zeitgeist probably would have started in the 80s were it not for the constant existential threat of nuclear annihilation.
I think that ties into the toxic masculinity aspect of fight club. Why do men feel like they need to struggle, why do they think they need to be warriors instead of poets. If it is a time of peace and prosperity why does society still tell men they have to be ready to fight.
I never read Fukuyama's "The End of History" but I was aware of it at the time. That particular vision of endless liberal democracy sits next to Seinfeld's nihilist and soulless rendering of american life in my brain as what the late '90s felt like. I freely admit I did not understand the message of the movie until much later. It so perfectly articulated the dissatisfaction (and despair) of living without purpose and gave a voice to otherwise unspeakable ideas (fighting back against the control of the financial system, abandoning civilization for a hunter-gatherer lifestyle!) that the critique was easy for me to miss. As a teenager I was confused about what shaving one's head and becoming a nameless, faceless follower of a charismatic leader had to do with the rest of it. As a depiction of an unfortunate tendency in human psychology (male psychology?) it makes much more sense. Maybe I ought to give Francis another go.
I agree with this and have always thought men need a heat sink. I think martial arts is one good way to go about this. Society lost a lot of its ability to use male strength correctly and is going to end badly.
Hope you guys enjoy. I’ve been submitting cartoons to the New Yorker for about 2 years now and they just recently published my first one (they passed on this one, but it did find a home elsewhere).
For more of my cartoons, come stop by my subreddit: r/BummerParty
Fight Club, Star Wars and American Psycho join in as the most notable films to have fanbases that have wildly different interpretations of the art that is… concerningly bad to say the least
You would think the final shot showing the globe with "the world is yours" over Tony's dead body would have telegraphed the message about insatiable greed and ambition leading to his downfall, but apparently not.
It’s only wannabe gangsters who idolized him. That’s why so many rappers popularized that sentiment. It was part of the “live fast, die hard” persona they used to sell records.
Normal people believed Tony’s own words…”take a good look at the BAD GUY, last time you gonna see a BAD GUY like ME”.
ask a fan of "the wire" who the bad guy is. it's either stringer, marlo, or omar. omar is my fav! omar's comin yo! classic line. come at the king best not miss!
no one wants to talk about institutions, capitalism. it's all in the game!
The bad guy in the wire is poverty-induced crime and a system that has failed to address the inequalities that make crime a viable economic option for those in poverty.
But it's fun to think of the orientation of each of the characters. Stringer Bell is lawful evil, Omar is neutral evil (ends will justify the means but still lives by a personal code). Bubbles is probably true neutral. McNulty is absolutely chaotic good (especially in the final season) - he was willing to do anything to get the funding they needed, and do anything to catch Stringer Bell.
The guy who subverted a religion and implimented a galactic Jihad that killed billions specifically because it was the only path where he would get vengence for his father is the good guy though.
Bro, Muad'dib speaks to the gathered masses from his perch of power, and the act of doing so calls down the rain. Like, Lynch's work is assuredly a mind-fuck, but I think his intent there was clear.
Did you mean Starship Troopers? What do people disagree on with Star Wars?
And I'm generally of the opinion getting people to think for themselves by evoking radically different interpretations is one of the main purposes of art. If it can only ever be seen through a single lens you're not making good art - you're making boring propaganda.
The subtlety of the bugs throwing a rock from across the galaxy that would be impossible to aim and take millions of years to even reach earth was lost on people. You have to have a basic understanding of just how absurdly big the galaxy is to catch the satire of it being a false flag. The nazi uniforms and child soldiers went right over peoples heads too.
The subtlety of the bugs throwing a rock from across the galaxy that would be impossible to aim and take millions of years to even reach earth was lost on people.
I thought the false-flag fan theory was put to rest, when the director (??) stated the bugs did throw the rock - they (director/writers/whoever) just didn't account for the physics involved.
Not that I mind - the movie is hardly subtle with its fascist symbolism and language.
It's science FICTION, my guy. If the good guys can break physics with faster than light travel the bad guys can as well. And it's both explained, as well as shown that what humans can achieve through technology the bugs can through mutation. Ie, they discovered Earth's location through eating Mormon settler brains, and focused it down by concentrating bio energy into Zerg style worm holes.
The Nazi style uniforms and child soldiers made it obvious to everyone what Verhoeven's INTENT was, however he results were mixed because it was an adaptation of a completely earnest work that still showed Earth as an otherwise perfect utopia without racism or sexism where everyone is rich and hot.
The movie is intended to be anti-fascism. I don't think such a broad intent necessarily makes a movie boring. Most great movies have some kind of point they are trying to make.
I mean Star Wars fans of a certain group actually think unironically the Empire did nothing wrong. And I guess Starship Troopers I know about has some folks still think the bugs are meant to be the real villains instead of the human faction
If you want to see some really unhinged loony, borderline fascist apologists head to the Robert Heinlein subreddit. All they do is bitch about the movie and extoll the virtues of how a society where only people that serve in the military being allowed to vote is actually a good idea. Some real whackadoodles over there.
Unironically? I always took them as a "flat earth society" movement that deliberately tries to argue for the wrong viewpoint as an exercise in argumentation.
I used to feel that way, too, but the problem with those groups is that they always end up being overrun by true believers. Flat earthers used to be tongue in cheek, now they are mostly true believers.
There will always be some people satire simply doesn't work on because they're extreme enough that there's no satirical version of their world view you could show them that goes too far. They'll just nod along and say, "Hell yeah."
Death of the artist has to the lamest movement that has ever graced the philospical space when it comes to media
It wouldnt even be remembered if it wasn’t for fanfic writers wanting to have legitimacy so in turn putting out video essays about how important death of the artist is and how actually your own interpretation of the art is actually what matters
If instead people realized that the creator was actually the God of their world and unless they specifically said they meant for you to interpret however you want it, then it has a specific meaning. We wouldn’t be inundated with a generation/s that has zero media literacy thanks to further video essays telling people their theories should actually be canon or having people get upset when their theories don’t come true
Death of the author has been an influential philosophy in literary criticism since the 70s. It's also not about how the author's intent is meaningless, or that you should separate the art from the artist. Those are pop culture simplifications of the theory. Instead, death of the author is better summed up as, "What the author was thinking or feeling when they wrote something is less important than what they actually wrote."
Since you mentioned fanfic, take 50 Shades of Grey as an example. The author felt, and has repeatedly stated, that she was writing a normal, healthy relationship between the main characters. Of course, thousands upon thousands of readers disagreed and saw the relationship as toxic and abusive.
By your logic, how E. L. James feels about the story she wrote is the only true interpretation of the text, and everyone that disagrees with her is wrong.
No, not how she feels, but what she intended. She can feel whatever she wants, that's not an objective thing. Let's use Birth of a Nation as an easy example. It is a movie about how the KKK are good and pure and how they're important to American identity. That's the intent. How you feel about that intent is for each to decide, but nobody gets to redefine the intent.
Whether a particular Star Wars media is good, especially anything post-Disney. You got some simply enjoying parts of new stuff that came out, and others (at worst) screeching as if they would be happier if Star Wars disappeared completely tomorrow. Just look at online discourse for the Last Jedi. You'd be forgiven to think TLJ slept with took people's lunch money, slept with moms, and kicked their dads down stairs.
Every minutia or interpretation of the lore is also fair game. To this day, there's still argument what "Balance in the Force" means, who is or is not a "Grey Jedi" (it's a fan interpretation) and if/how superior it is to regular Jedi/Sith, and plenty of other things.
It seems the only thing "fans" of Star Wars can agree on most recently was "Andor was good."
...but that then devolves into arguments of whether Jedi/Sith/the Force should henceforth be completely cut out from future Star Wars media because one show without the Force was good.
TLDR from a non-geek, got it explained thru beers by a colleague in an office party: while using the dark force, Palatine (or some other) could predict the future and he foresaw that a new alien race, way stronger, would invade their Galaxy. The Death Star was a prototype weapon to fight them, and he wanted to create a militaristic society ready for that intergalactic war.
For anyone more curious, that was mostly (or exclusively) in the Expanded Universe, or books/comics that were published throughout the 90s/2000s. There's literally hundreds of books and comics from those decades. Not to mention the games.
The Expanded Universe is full of loads of wild and crazy stuff that's more contradicting than the movies themselves.
When Disney bought the franchise they specifically decided only the Movies and Clone Wars TV Show would be 'canon', only later taking certain characters, plots, or stories and adapting them into the new canon. Like Thrawn or Teras Kasi.
The idea that Palpatine knew a greater threat was coming also never justified his actions or how he went about preparing to deal with it. There's no good or rational reason for his tyranny, oppression or fascism. The dude legit was just in it for power.
Even if a new danger was looming, he still wanted to be top dog.
Yeah, think that this comes from a folk that also loves the Legion in FONV xD I'm not that geek. And to add a film, Starship Troopers xD when Neo Facism planet wise is presented as a good thing xD
Well Starship Troopers is satire. It being presented as 'good' is part of the critique. Paying attention to what's actually happening on screen should make it clear that it wasn't meant to be seen as positive.
Look, I'm a fan of a lot of the EU stuff that got decanonized, but the Yuuzhan Vong were some edgy 90s bullshit that belongs more in Warhammer than Star Wars. (I am also a fan of Warhammer, this was really just a way to demonstrate how tonally inconsistent they were.)
Lol, my brother and I used to "basement box" with my dad's 50-year old 8-ounce gloves.
If you don't know, 8-ounce gloves don't provide much protection...especially antique ones. You can feel the individual knuckles if you get hit just right.
We'd go "50%" for a while, but it would slowly escalate.
You can't be prepared for when you get your bell run when someone puts all 165 pounds of their weight behind a punch to the side of the head...or when you get a liver punch that lifts you off the ground. It takes a lot of work to get "used" to that and want to get back in the ring/basement/whatever and take more punches.
A lot of people think they can take a punch when they absolutely cannot and should not. It takes a lot of getting used to. Another friend of mine and tried to bareknuckle box once and he called it quits after a single hit.
Even these days I wouldn't dare try to box or fight with someone. If I'm boxing its against a bag, I don't have the stamina or fortitude to get hit in the head anymore.
Basically: Everyone has a plan (to start a fight club) until they get punched in the mouth.
our fight club lasted two weekends. the second weekend my then best friend got nocked unconscious, but not before he broke the other guys nose. i guess they thought every one went too soft on the first meet up. i got challenged on the first meet up, but i didn't want to fight. i got jumped by the whole group for chickening out. good times. they didn't beat me up too bad
You had a shitty teacher that didn't understand what media criticism is at a very fundamental level. There isn't a One True Meaning like that. The paper should be judged on the ability to frame and discuss your position, not whether the teacher agrees with it. Christ, the whole point of using literary analysis to critique media in an English class is because it's all subjective!
More than that, even if they didn't follow Death of the Author, prior literary criticism revolved around the intentions of the author... and Chuck Palahniuk has said that it's about toxic masculinity! Like what the fuck else does Bob mean?
“Masculinity” and fascism are fairly related especially with regards to fight club. Hear me out
the manosphere biggest problem is that women aren’t masculine, and while act is if men have to be dominant they are all making men be conforming in line (often through violence) which is ironically more submissive to that world view than challenging the masculine model like dying your hair and being “feminine”, because for them masculinity is more about not being something than anything else.
With fascism it demands people to be in an ordered and traditional way often through violence. When I mean that it adheres to the in group and anything outside is deviant.
In both ways violence is used to dehumanize people in the outgroup by excluding them but also strips any form of individuality that people in the in group may have, for the purpose of creating a society (or gender norm) with everything being fixed roles and unable to be different
I'm gonna say that Clockwork Orange builds on its themes then delivers actual criticism while Fight Club flounders at that mudding the overall message.
It's a generational split, I think. Clockwork Orange came out when you were expected to make your point clearly. Fight Club came at a time where it was more permissible to ask pointed questions rather than necessarily provide the clear answer.
And it's interesting being of the later generation and feeling like a clockwork orange (while its own masterpiece that I love) is a bit too on the nose/in your face while preferring the nuance of fight club.
Toxic masculinity, consumerism, new age bullshit, and a bunch of other semantic bullshit floating to the top of the rancid bowl that was 1990s society. Things only only festered and gotten worse for the most part but this piece of art and others like it help us identify this stuff and give us a vocabulary with which to discuss it. Similarly to how Marx created the modern vocabulary we use to discuss and analyze class issues to this day.
Satire wasn't dead (yet), but it was super easy for the intended audience (myself included) to miss it when they made Tyler Durden so. fucking. cool.
I didn't read the book until after I'd seen the movie, so I couldn't get Brad Pitt out of my imagination of the character. But...
They could have made some ridiculous, over- the- top Macho Man (tm) archetype. They could have leaned into the grime, made everything look dirty and like it smelled like piss. They could have done a better job showing the Narator as a disheveled man whose life was falling apart around him as he spiraled into a psychotic break. They could have made Marla truly unattractive, nasty and potentially sick and look like she was in the process of dying.
Instead, they glamorized all of it. Because they were making a fucking movie. And then (qoute) "they" were (quote) "surprised" when young men took the (quote) "wrong" message.
It’s like that for all these “you missed the point!” arguments. They made the movie cool AF, I mean can you even think of Brad Pitt in any role he’s done as not being cool? They put the hottest most stylized director at the helm.
Same with Natural Born Killers. People will say it’s a commentary on violence in the media. And sure, it is. It’s also a hyper violence that puts asses in seats at the theater because at its heart it’s actually an exploitation film. If you don’t like violent movies you aren’t gonna like that movie, regardless of the underlying message.
Wolf of Wall Street. The bad guy goes to jail and has a bender, but he spent most of the movie doing whatever the fuck he wanted and sleeping with beautiful women and gets out of jail still able to get a roomful of people hanging on his every word. Fucking over the poor looks like a lot of fun
I mean, yes. And no. Again, it was the fact that they glamorized how he acted, by dressing it all up in a stylish, attractive veneer that makes it toxic. He didn't look cool because of his actions; his actions were (mistakenly) legitimized because he looked cool. My argument is only that the filmmakers are as much to blame as the audience for the satire going over most heads.
Tyler was a depressed man's imaginary, idealized version of himself. Of course, he is going to be a cool and stylish. Why would the Narrator imagine himself as an unattractive and lame person?
Ya, like... wtf? The house they lived in was putrid. Literally everything, including the actors, looked like they were constantly dirty and they lived in utter squalor. Even Marla was far from traditionally "sexy" and all of tylers outfits were the sort of gaudy, ridiculous clothes that only a loser like the main character would think a "cool" person like tyler wears.
Like that was 90% of Tylers character: he was what a "loser" like the main character thinks some cool and powerful man looks like, a boys idea of manhood. The movie literally spells it out that Tyler "talks like he wants to talk, looks like he wants to look, fucks like he wants to fuck", he is the delusion of all the times he wanted to lash out against his stupid consumer lifestyle or job and actually did it instead of going along with it all, the fantasy of being a "strong" man made uo by a character that explicitly had no male role model.
Tyler explicitly is the force that tries to drag the Main Character to their lowest point, to Rock Bottom, who was a squatter skinhead that went to shitty dive bars and got beat up in parking lots, but a pretty face and some smooth talk made a bunch of kids think he was "so cool" and follow his bullshit which is EXPLICITLY THE POINT OF THE MOVIE like holy shit, how do people miss this?
I don't think Tyler Durden looks cool, nor does the world look glamorous. Everybody is strung out. They look exhausted and dirty. It's all washed out and dingy. Tyler Durden is creepy and clingy. He's also pushy and mean. There's nothing really cool about him except maybe his coat.
But even if that is your aesthetic, I would have to argue that it's just a shallow reading to think anything good is happening in that movie. Beyond the style, nobody is making good decisions. Like, he's holding soap made out of humans on the poster. How can that be cool?
You mean that the special snowflake commentary was being used for cult indoctrination and I shouldn't build my life around telling people that they aren't special snowflakes?
It's always a problem when media that is supposed to be critical of something without doing so explicitly is being taken as supporting that thing
Same thing with Squid Game, which has been taken by some people as something to imitate, as in Beast Games. People need to be reminded that art can show bad things for the purpose of opposing it. Even relatively small stuff like Sokka's teenage sexism being removed from the live action series, which then also removed his arc of seeing how strong women are and learning respect for them
Everybody right about this movie/book is being downvoted. The author has said as much. It is much deeper than “toxic masculinity”. It’s weird so many refuse to see that. You are all the same as the people who just take “Tyler Durden is cool” from it.
To expand on the topic for the people down voting, you really can't "critique" toxic masculinity in a story, because it's not an ideal or creed, but a description of behavior. Toxic masculinity is the side effect of the gender roles surrounding being male. You have to critique how society pushes roles on to men and then puts them in scenarios where it breaks people. MC/Tyler do have aspects of toxic masculinity by virtue of being a man at past the breaking point, but the book is not critiquing them for how the act out, it's critiquing society, more specifically how capitalism has replaced community and has enshrined consumerism in it's place.
Tyler Durden is the MC's absurd ideal self, and that is informed by toxic masculinity, but again it's not a critique of the concept.
Ive always thought of it as a battle between the Id and the Ego. Tyler represents pure Id, the primitive instinctual desire. The fleeting urge to jump when on a high bridge, or scream out loud in the middle of a packed lecture or seminar. The narrator represents pure rational thought, his life is totally structured and planned, completely safe and risk adverse. IMHO the true meaning of the film is that either of these two forces are toxic if they exist in a vacuum, and in life there must be balance. Which is why I’ve always felt that the end isn’t the “death” of Tyler, but rather the reintegration of the character.
I’m a big fan of this analysis. I agree, and to build off of that, it’s all stemming from the mundane, repetitive lifestyle lived in a capitalist, consumer driven society. It’s about finding that balance to not be a depressed robot, or a reckless nihilist.
It’s about the dangers of not having a healthy outlet for primal traits or not feeling any purpose, therefor staying stagnant, waiting for death, or going to unhealthy extremes to escape the banality of day to day life.
I think our two takes together explain the themes and messaging very well.
Agree completely. Everyone focuses on the fighting or the “Project Mayhem” acts and gloss over what I think this the most important scene, the “Let go” scene in the car. Not because Tyler admits to blowing up the narrator’s apartment, but the part where he asks everyone what they wanted to accomplish before they die. The narrator has no response to the question, and to your point demonstrates the complete lack of purpose in his old life. He has so muted his primal instincts he’s become just a reflection of late-stage capitalist consumerism.
IMO it’s an examination of society and the worst it brings out in people. This is my opinion because I’ve read like 90% of his books and that’s basically what they’re all about. Every character he writes is purposefully over exaggerated because that’s what he finds interesting about people, finding the absolute worst possible qualities, inflating it, then trying to make those people the heroes of his books
I have a bit of my own interpretation of the movie…
I always saw the themes of the movie as ultimately revolving around the treatment of women. These 2 extremes of masculinity that are best reflected in the way Marla reacts to them. Both versions flawed in their own way.
I saw the conclusion of the movie as a kind of ‘growing up’ or maturing so that our main character becomes someone who learns to understand Marla’s needs rather than just seeing her as some kind of extension to his own ego
If you like this trope, there's a Brazilian movie (Elite Squad) that criticised police brutality, which included torture of witnesses, but is still to this date celebrated as a fair tool against organised crime. It had so much cultural effect that it's closely connected to the rise of Jair Bolsonaro.
Are you talking about the movie or the book? In the book he gets the girl, so being a toxic schizo worked for his personal life. In the movie they succeeded in destroying the credit companies, so the message is that embracing cultish violence is 100% effective at getting important shit done.
To be fair, the film only shows that project mayhem successfully destroys a number of high-rise buildings - none of their stated goals are shown to be accomplished by the end of the film.
I think you have to take the premise of what happens when the buildings blow up at face value though. If you're trying to critique the message I don't think there's any value in being like "achtuallyyyy blowing up those buildings technically wouldn't actually erase the debt record and achieve any of their goals and society wouldn't change at all". I think you just kind of have to accept that their goals were accomplished.
In the movie they succeed in blowing up a couple buildings.
That would do just as much to destroy credit agencies as 9/11 did to destroy Cantor Fitzgerald, Morgan Stanley, the Port Authority of NY & NJ, or the New York Stock Exchange.
Let's be real, they blew up a few skyscrapers. It'll make the news for a few weeks to few months (depending on how many innocent people die), have a memorial made, insurance companies will cover the losses for the credit card companies, and those companies will just go back to business as usual in a month's time.
In the worst case, some sleazy politician will use that tragic event to pass some draconian legislations to make the country into a surveillance state, which certainly wouldn't have happened already in the real world, right?
The most "shit" they will have gotten done is becoming terrorists and getting hunted by the entire country.
Can you tell that I am old, curmudgeon, cynical, and soured on the childish "blow up something important and everything is fixed" fantasy these days?
The most realistic depiction of a similar action is Cyberpunk 2077: Johnny Silverhand "blew up" the Arasaka building, and it just came back and built another one in the same spot later.
Edit: I got carried away a bit so I'll actually respond with something more relevant.
so the message is that embracing cultish violence is 100% effective at getting important shit done.
Basically what I am trying say with so many words is that the part about being able to get "shit done" with cultish violence falls apart with any degree of foresight, longer-term thinking, and rationality.
I feel like people added a lot more philosophy to that movie than ever was intended. You don't talk about Fight Club because you'd have to explain how you discovered it by talking to yourself more or less etc.
Clockwork Orange had a similar thing happen. The Matrix came packaged with all sorts of metaphor but it could be argued the sisters did the same thing there which is why the other ones that sucked. Etc.
•
u/shellbullet17 Gustopher Spotter Extraordinaire 23d ago
Not sure who needs sources on Fight Club but I guess have at it?