or am i the only one? i love the game and se7ev and think he's got some good shit in him. so i'm not just fincher bashing but did the last act of fight club seem lame to anyone else? every good reveal in a film comes from the audience not anticipating the twist but playfuly regret not forseeing it. the whole multiple personality thing came out of left feild. he didn't hint at it in the rest of the film (the little frames of Pitt do not count). he even admits this in the commentary, he originally wanted to keep pitt and norton isolated whenever they talked but found it to be too hard to acomplish. this, in my opinion, hurt the film. whereas something like the sixth sense was able to appropriatly handle the same delema.
I do enjoy Fight Club but the twist isn't set up very well.
i think fight club turned into a peice of shit at the end of the first act, but thats ok
yes i do think the ending is not handled well
Fight Club was one of the last masterpieces of the 90's. It will endure.
The twist was brilliantly set-up.
"The Twist"....that thanks to M. N. Shamahfhdsfhgfdghd5775...has become cliched as scrambled eggs and milk......but i like fight club ..its not perfect (like Young Guns)..but it s "though provoking" and "provocative", and "gut-wrenching", and "brilliant", and ".....nihilistic fodder for Generation X-ers"...............
Quote from: SoNowThenFight Club was one of the last masterpieces of the 90's. It will endure.
The twist was brilliantly set-up.
What he said. And though I know SoNowThen hates American Beauty, for me, it was those two films that really started to push me towards a serious interest in film. And the scene where Tyler puts a gun to a convenience store clerk's head and tells him to go back to school in six weeks or be dead, well, that's the most any film has ever motivated me. If you ever need motivation to live, watch Fight Club. That's one of the reasons it's so brilliant.
As for pretentious? All the most brilliant films have hordes of people crying "PRETENTIOUS!" There are worse things a film can be called. Like boring. I'll take "pretentious" over that any day. See also: http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=4110&highlight=makes+pretentious
it's great that people have their films that inspired them to become filmmakers or at least cinephiles, but the word pretentious has never been overused. the film relied on obvious techniques that have holes in the plot. this is not exposed of because the filmmakers also garnered appealed to what is "cool." and no i don't think the movie is boring, which is good, but that doesn't have anything to do with it. you can't compare the two characteristics.
I don't think it was pretensious. I mean, the ending was to contradict any great statement on society that anyone was expecting and considering the movie answered corporate greed with the idea of people bombing some buildings, I'm kinda glad it didn't go for anything dramatic. Doesn't mean I liked the movie or the ending. The movie is too much of a style circus and the ending is a gimmick.
Pretentious, I can handle. Sixth grade spelling, I cannot.
lol, fine. i can take the shit you fling at me. I'll be the first to admit you're right, my spelling is horrible. :wink: sorry, can't help it. i think fast and therefore i type fast, you get my point anyway. so now, i hope you didn't think i'd shy away and shut up because of it...
but back to the interesting topic that Gold Trumpet brought up. first off I think the pretense comes from the very fact that it is a style-fest. It tries, just like the matrix, to be philosophical, when actually, it's a grade nine stoners' conversation. The movie is soooo "cool" it can't even handle itself.
and as with the ending, i think it goes one step further then what you suggest. the ending reafirms a fascist ideal in the characters. This is what i think PTA was talking about, it gives a irresponsible representation of these self indulgent characters (and if i'm wrong about PTA then don't just jump on that please people. there is a bigger issue here). they're not anti heroes, they're just pathetic. but they're so fuckin' "cool" that their moral and ethical decisions don't matter. We are swayed to like them based only on their charisma and witt. fuck that. i'd rather watch a todd stolandz movie where the characters are this horrible and we are not intended to like them. they are that way because the filmmaker isn't trying to garner any sex appeal and there actually is a message at the end of the film. not just cheap tricks.
if i want to see a cool film i'll go see kill bill. it doesn't try (and fail) at being anything but a masterpiece of entertainment. which as we should all know is.
-sl-
could u please change ur avatar before i throw up all over you? i'm serious.
geez, it's christmas. can't we do w/o the head exploding avatars? get a little happiness into ur life for a change.
lol, are you not a fan of dawn of the dead? it's a great movie still don't you think? lol
there, better? maybe this is more for you.
Quote from: socketlevelif i want to see a cool film i'll go see kill bill. it doesn't try (and fail) at being anything but a masterpiece of entertainment. which as we should all know is.
You reaffirmed exactly what I didn't like "Kill Bill". I'll take a film that at least tries (and succeeds), like "Fight Club," over one that plays it safe any day.
true, and so do I. I can apreciate if a film attempts to give insights on our culture, and quite frankly i think there is not enough of this kind of cinema. at the same time i can apreciate the escapist experience that comes with great entertainment like kill bill, although it is easier to make this kind of a film because there is no message. the film can still work as a catharsis though.
If you asked me what are my top ten favorite films of all time i'd probably only have a couple that are entertaining and the rest would be more important and have a deeper message. so i think you and i are in agreement on how important cinema is mac, which i am glad.
the problem that i had with fight club (and as I previously mentioned the "matrix") is that this film is creating a phacade of intellectual and progressive cinema. not so, fight club is entertainment (and based on the techniques mentioned above, fails to be even this) plain and simple. It is what the Celestine Prophacy is to philosophy books; easy answers (and sometime no answers at all) to bigger questions. in the end, the reason why we like the characters has to do with their appeal, not the decisions they make. In Se7en morgan freeman's character is exactly the opposit, the decisions he makes at the end of the film determine the rest of his life. but he must do these very things to make the world better. this is a good character. at the end of fight club ed norton's character only cares that Pitt is out of his head. he even says something like, "everything is going to be better now." and then all the fucking buildings blow up! what!, is this all he cares about!?!?! fuck him, sure he's "sexy" and "strong" and all that but he's still a self centered fucker. we shouldn't be on his side at that point of the movie, but fincher wants us to be. to bad.
-sl-
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: socketlevelif i want to see a cool film i'll go see kill bill. it doesn't try (and fail) at being anything but a masterpiece of entertainment. which as we should all know is.
You reaffirmed exactly what I didn't like "Kill Bill". I'll take a film that at least tries (and succeeds), like "Fight Club," over one that plays it safe any day.
I felt more for The Bride than Jack (narrator, etc) in Fight Club.
i think i sum up most brats' feelings torwards Fight Club when i say that i loved it when i saw it for the first time because it activated an interest in film, like Ono said, but after repeated viewings you started noting things.... me and my cousin had this discussion, where we ended up saying that the scene in which Brad Pitt clears up the whole thing in the hotel room gives away the movie. not in a classical sense, but there was no need for that scene, considering that the film had already established a "weird-narrative-thingy" going on at the begining.
I think we are all acting pretentious pushing our film opinions against one another to see which one outshines the other.
Listening to the Fincher, Pitt, Norton commentary -- Norton sounds really pretentious and self-involved. Very intelligent guy, but seems 'bossy.'
Quote from: SHAFTRI felt more for The Bride than Jack (narrator, etc) in Fight Club.
SPOILERS!!!!!Who wouldn't though? The Bride was left for dead, everyone who she cared for either betrayed her or was killed, she lost her baby :wink: , and she wakes up from a coma to find that she's been had by every truck driving redneck in a 50 mile radius. Of course you feel more for the Bride than the Narrator. You're supposed to.
But I
relate to the Narrator more than the Bride. He's just a schmuck like most of us (me certainly) that can't deal with his passive-aggressive lifestyle and fashions a separate personality to do all the things he wishes he had the balls to do. It's something that I know I've certainly felt, like my only two options are to suck it up and deal or go crazy. I completely got Fight Club from the get-go and any small chinks in the armor that I've noticed are no different and no more off-putting than little things I've noticed in universally regarded classics.
And that's why I like Fight Club more than Kill Bill even though they both kick major ass. How did Kill Bill get brought into this again?
Quote from: meatballI think we are all acting pretentious pushing our film opinions against one another to see which one outshines the other.
ok, fine. i guess i disagree. i think exploring the subtext of films through analysis is very engaging. it's complacency to not.
-sl-
The "message" of this film seems to have few fans in this thread, but I'm wondering what exactly you guys think the "message" is. This film seems to be saying a lot of things, although its take on consumerism seems to be the one that most people latch on to. What about its response to feminism and late 20th century masculinity? I've had many discussions about this film with friends and other students, but have rarely heard that brought up. Perhaps it has been brought up in other threads. If so, I apologize - I'm new.
I don't really think Fincher is trying to force us to sympathize with the Narrator beyond recognizing the culture that has driven him bat-shit crazy to begin with. The film is an analysis of a culture of increasing consumerism and decreasing masculinity (not saying those two are related, of course) and what it does to one already unstable man. The film shouldn't have us asking what we think of the narrator, but what we think of the factors that drove the narrator to become who and what he is by the film's conclusion.
WOOOOOOOOOOD?
*doing the hand-jestures* Cut..........it.......... out...
Quote from: socketlevelbut back to the interesting topic that Gold Trumpet brought up. first off I think the pretense comes from the very fact that it is a style-fest. It tries, just like the matrix, to be philosophical, when actually, it's a grade nine stoners' conversation. The movie is soooo "cool" it can't even handle itself.
I should have replied to this before. Sure, it throws out big ideas and all, but I think that is just to give the story meat. Most generic crime films have slices of "societal commentary" to the side but the films aren't trying to be societal commentary at all. They are just crime films. Matrix is an action film and Fight Club is a thriller, all because they all end on the terms of genre. My main problem is with the people who try to elevate these films to something they are not. Thats pretensious. Other than that, all films have some terms of pretension to them. I just don't think these ones are pretensious enough to where they are insulting which seems to be at the heart of subject here.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI should have replied to this before. Sure, it throws out big ideas and all, but I think that is just to give the story meat. Most generic crime films have slices of "societal commentary" to the side but the films aren't trying to be societal commentary at all. They are just crime films. Matrix is an action film and Fight Club is a thriller, all because they all end on the terms of genre. My main problem is with the people who try to elevate these films to something they are not. Thats pretensious. Other than that, all films have some terms of pretension to them. I just don't think these ones are pretensious enough to where they are insulting which seems to be at the heart of subject here.
Are you saying that the philosophy of Fight Club is inconsistent? I have a hard time buying that. I'm not going to use the lame "you just don't get it" argument. I would just like you to be more specific in what you find lacking in the social commentary.
Quote from: UncleJoeyQuote from: The Gold TrumpetI should have replied to this before. Sure, it throws out big ideas and all, but I think that is just to give the story meat. Most generic crime films have slices of "societal commentary" to the side but the films aren't trying to be societal commentary at all. They are just crime films. Matrix is an action film and Fight Club is a thriller, all because they all end on the terms of genre. My main problem is with the people who try to elevate these films to something they are not. Thats pretensious. Other than that, all films have some terms of pretension to them. I just don't think these ones are pretensious enough to where they are insulting which seems to be at the heart of subject here.
Are you saying that the philosophy of Fight Club is inconsistent? I have a hard time buying that. I'm not going to use the lame "you just don't get it" argument. I would just like you to be more specific in what you find lacking in the social commentary.
No, that for all the hoopla it has in commenting on society, it still in ends on the terms of any other thriller so its really not that serious in intent. The story uses the ideas as tools to move its story along, but hey, if I don't get it, tell me. I'd love to talk about it.
Well, I would say that the center of the film is about the rejection of commodity fetishism and the return to a more "will-based" form of life. The Narrator is just a typical consumer going crazy living in an isolated world with no love and no real "human" passions. He, with help from Tyler, turns to violence through fight club to return to a more basic human experience. The people fighting are simply imposing their will on another human being - the most basic human experience. This is also possible through love, but the film makes a point of exposing the absense and failure of that in modern society. Basically, the narrator and the members of Project Mayhem are using violence as a means to an end - that end being life without debt and without commodities. As the buildings blow up, we see the end of debt (which some people would tell you is the most powerful tool of oppression the powers-that-be have - who do you know that isn't in some kind of debt? It's an enslaving process.) and the end of commodity fetishism. So I would argue that the ending isn't just a typical "thriller" ending, but also ties up the major social arch of the film. It isn't violent merely for the sake of entertainment, but for the sake of advancing the main social goal of the film's characters.
Of course, that's a very incomplete analysis. I'm just trying to get some discussion going.
I see what you're saying, but in everything you said to give the film validity (which I don't doubt), where does the sub plot of the revelation that Ed Norton's character being Brad Pitt character play into elevating the film plot? Sure, I think some reason can be given to justify it, but the trickery of plot in making this the "big revelation' it did showed to me that the film in the end was resorting to a gimmick plot that proved to be as generic as one used in any psychological thriller. Plus, the more I think about it, the more I see the unbelievability of him being able to be both men at the same time and everyone else the fool of his disorder. At best, Helena's character mentions he has weird shifts in personality or something. It hardly explains the unbelievability of him doing everything else and no one really questioning it. The only thing I can come up is that movie land logic is at play.
As cheap as the "movie land logic" defense generally is, I think it actually does have more strength with this particular film than many others. This is due to the fact that the movie itself draws attention to the fact that it is a film. Examples: When Tyler points to the cigarrette burns during the scene in the projection room and, of course, the splicing in of the penis right at the film's conclusion.
Also, I think there are several other moments where people hint at the split personality. Helena asking what he's talking about when Norton hears Tyler in the basement, several odd looks characters give him. I admit that I haven't gone through the movie looking only for holes in that plot line, although I've heard several exist. I don't doubt that, actually. However, I don't let that deter me from focusing on the other elements the film brings to the table. Perhaps, I'm just a sucker. Oh well . . .
Quote from: UncleJoeythe splicing in of the penis right at the film's conclusion.
i didnt see that until like the 3rd time i saw it. i've noticed that, for me at least, you see something new everytime you see it.
Quote from: El Duderinoyou see something new everytime you see it.
I feel the same way. A couple nights ago I noticed this for the first time:
In the interrogation room, when they're about to castrate Norton one of the cops asks "Is anyone timing this?" I thought that was so funny and I was surprised I hadn't noticed it before.
Quote from: El DuderinoQuote from: UncleJoeythe splicing in of the penis right at the film's conclusion.
i didnt see that until like the 3rd time i saw it. i've noticed that, for me at least, you see something new everytime you see it.
yeah but if you missed the penis the first two times you must be the longest, most prolific blinker in the world or had penis-vision disabled or something.
Quote from: UncleJoeyAs cheap as the "movie land logic" defense generally is, I think it actually does have more strength with this particular film than many others. This is due to the fact that the movie itself draws attention to the fact that it is a film. Examples: When Tyler points to the cigarrette burns during the scene in the projection room and, of course, the splicing in of the penis right at the film's conclusion.
Also, I think there are several other moments where people hint at the split personality. Helena asking what he's talking about when Norton hears Tyler in the basement, several odd looks characters give him. I admit that I haven't gone through the movie looking only for holes in that plot line, although I've heard several exist. I don't doubt that, actually. However, I don't let that deter me from focusing on the other elements the film brings to the table. Perhaps, I'm just a sucker. Oh well . . .
Thats a good responce to the question of believability for the plot trick in the film, but what do you think about the entire gimmick that Norton was really Pitt and so forth? Did it elevate the movie for you on the grounds of why you thought it was a serious work? Or did the film go to a Hollywood gimmick and bring it down to a genre film more so?
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThats a good responce to the question of believability for the plot trick in the fiim, but what do you think about the entire gimmick that Norton was really Pitt and so forth? Did it elevate the movie for you on the grounds of why you thought it was a serious work? Or did the film go to a Hollywood gimmick and bring it down to a genre film more so?
You forget Fight Club was a book. There's nothing "Hollywood" about the gimmick, and it doesn't bring down the film in any way. It reminds me of something Tarantino said about Pulp Fiction and the writing process. Paraphrased, he said, you know, if I was writing a novel, there would be no mention of the shifts in time I employed. But since Pulp Fiction was a film, suddenly these time shifts became something people obsess about.
Now I haven't had a chance to read the Fight Club novel yet. But I would be incredibly interested in seeing how Palahniuk handled the schizophrenia -- it seems like it would be much harder to pull off in a book, because some things have to be overt or they're left vague. I could be wrong, though, but one thing remains certain: The more I watch the film, the more I realize how seamlessly integrated into dialogue and actions the non-existence of Tyler Durden really was.
Quote from: OnomatopitaQuote from: The Gold TrumpetThats a good responce to the question of believability for the plot trick in the fiim, but what do you think about the entire gimmick that Norton was really Pitt and so forth? Did it elevate the movie for you on the grounds of why you thought it was a serious work? Or did the film go to a Hollywood gimmick and bring it down to a genre film more so?
You forget Fight Club was a book. There's nothing "Hollywood" about the gimmick, and it doesn't bring down the film in any way. It reminds me of something Tarantino said about Pulp Fiction and the writing process. Paraphrased, he said, you know, if I was writing a novel, there would be no mention of the shifts in time I employed. But since Pulp Fiction was a film, suddenly these time shifts became something people obsess about.
Now I haven't had a chance to read the Fight Club novel yet. But I would be incredibly interested in seeing how Palahniuk handled the schizophrenia -- it seems like it would be much harder to pull off in a book, because some things have to be overt or they're left vague. I could be wrong, though, but one thing remains certain: The more I watch the film, the more I realize how seamlessly integrated into dialogue and actions the non-existence of Tyler Durden really was.
There is something
very Hollywood about the gimmick used in Fight Club. Forget what Tarantino says. It has nothing to do with use of time shifting in Fight Club and essentially all he was saying is that with books structure is a lot more free than in movies. (and it is)
If Fight Club was a serious film, you would have known at the beginning the extent of Norton's pysche problems and would have been going along as he acted out one persona and acted out another, analyzing the differences of each one knowingly. Its like what the Danish film The Vanishing did for the thriller cause not only did it reveal at the beginning who the killer was, but the entire film was a portrait of difference between the killer and victim. Hollywood can't stand this cause they want one story running along on a simple enough thread to follow and always building up to another hierarchy of conflict in the three act structure. With Norton's revelation at the end, it acts more as "twist" to the entire story than anything else. It would make you look at new things upon rewatching it, yea, but it doesn't give you the depth of viewing the way The Vanishing did in really looking at the complexity of the situation.
I used to really like fight club when it first came out. When i was in high school. Now I feel disconnected. It almost feels like its being cool just to be cool. The visual style and excitement is there, but it just feels like it's trying to be too clever for it's own good. I feel the same way about K smith movies as i do about fight club, it's fun, but i could care less.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetIt would make you look at new things upon rewatching it, yea, but it doesn't give you the depth of viewing the way The Vanishing did in really looking at the complexity of the situation.
But you can see flashes of Brad Pitt! That must mean he's
there!
[I agree with you, GT.]
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetThere is something very Hollywood about the gimmick used in Fight Club. Forget what Tarantino says. It has nothing to do with use of time shifting in Fight Club and essentially all he was saying is that with books structure is a lot more free than in movies. (and it is)
If Fight Club was a serious film, you would have known at the beginning the extent of Norton's pysche problems and would have been going along as he acted out one persona and acted out another, analyzing the differences of each one knowingly. Its like what the Danish film The Vanishing did for the thriller cause not only did it reveal at the beginning who the killer was, but the entire film was a portrait of difference between the killer and victim. Hollywood can't stand this cause they want one story running along on a simple enough thread to follow and always building up to another hierarchy of conflict in the three act structure. With Norton's revelation at the end, it acts more as "twist" to the entire story than anything else. It would make you look at new things upon rewatching it, yea, but it doesn't give you the depth of viewing the way The Vanishing did in really looking at the complexity of the situation.
I'll agree with you that the twist is pretty "Hollywood." However, I think it would be a shame if anyone let this prevent them from pondering what I feel are very interesting ideas prevalent in the film's story. The twist at the end prevents you from doing this, but not me. That's OK. I suppose I'm just willing to allow the filmmakers to be subversive within the system. My English class discussed this film for over an hour the other day and could have gone on for much longer. We didn't discuss the whole split personality plotline and how it has been used so many times in Hollywood because it isn't important to a discussion of the film's philosophy, or at least not to us. Not saying it isn't important to the discussion of the film as a whole, of course. The delivery system of the ideas may be flawed to some people, but I think the ideas themselves are worth exploring nonetheless.
Quote from: UncleJoeyWell, I would say that the center of the film is about the rejection of commodity fetishism and the return to a more "will-based" form of life. The Narrator is just a typical consumer going crazy living in an isolated world with no love and no real "human" passions. He, with help from Tyler, turns to violence through fight club to return to a more basic human experience. The people fighting are simply imposing their will on another human being - the most basic human experience. This is also possible through love, but the film makes a point of exposing the absense and failure of that in modern society. Basically, the narrator and the members of Project Mayhem are using violence as a means to an end - that end being life without debt and without commodities. As the buildings blow up, we see the end of debt (which some people would tell you is the most powerful tool of oppression the powers-that-be have - who do you know that isn't in some kind of debt? It's an enslaving process.) and the end of commodity fetishism. So I would argue that the ending isn't just a typical "thriller" ending, but also ties up the major social arch of the film. It isn't violent merely for the sake of entertainment, but for the sake of advancing the main social goal of the film's characters.
Of course, that's a very incomplete analysis. I'm just trying to get some discussion going.
i think everything you're mentioning is the intent of the film, don't get me wrong on that. but it sells itself short. the very notion of edward norton and brad pitt being in the film is a consumer ploy. the film works as a material controdiction to the film's message, and we buy it up like we're fucking mad. the fact that the film is "cool" (and tries so fucking hard to be) is what brings people back to the cinema and their television screens time after time, not these philosophical ideas you're mentioning. it doesn't work the other way with this film. for instance, when i see something like JFK i walk away thinking about the subject matter and pondering the state of American polotics. when the average movie goer walks away from fight club their thinking about something like "hey wasn't it cool when he held that gun to the guys head" or "wow did you see those spliced in frames of brad pitt." they don't care or even see the stuff you're talking about. to them: who the fuck cares. the fighting is slowed down to like 120 fps so that we can watch the beautiful choreographed fight sequences. it choses a exploitive way to tell the story when the film is actually attempting to give the counter message. it does need to be violent, but it is also very important how you convey this violence to the audience. do you excite them or disgust them. fincher went with excitment because that's what sells tickets. there is no subversion of this at the end of the film, which would justify the exploitive storytelling at the beginning of the film. alas fincher comes across like a douchebag because it is transparent that he views cinema as "cool" before "intellegent." he should have just stuck with cool, like in the game but he needed to get some indie cred from fans willing to add in any subtext they can to the hollow images.
-sl-
oh yeah and i fear your response is going to be something about how the average movie goer doesn't need to understand it and how this is ultimately is a huge compliment to the film because it is so intellegent that the laymen needs to educate themselves to disect the film language and stuff like that. no. there is a difference of being intellegent with subtlety (ie. dawn of the dead) and controdicting yourself in cinema. fight club is delivering polar messages at the same time. this is a bad thing, not clever. the filmmaker did not realize this big mistake, that is apparent. it's like going to read the "celestine proph" for deep philosophy, it's a white wash of something deeper.
Quote from: socketleveli think everything you're mentioning is the intent of the film, don't get me wrong on that. but it sells itself short. the very notion of edward norton and brad pitt being in the film is a consumer ploy. the film works as a material controdiction to the film's message, and we buy it up like we're fucking mad. the fact that the film is "cool" (and tries so fucking hard to be) is what brings people back to the cinema and their television screens time after time, not these philosophical ideas you're mentioning. it doesn't work the other way with this film. for instance, when i see something like JFK i walk away thinking about the subject matter and pondering the state of American polotics. when the average movie goer walks away from fight club their thinking about something like "hey wasn't it cool when he held that gun to the guys head" or "wow did you see those spliced in frames of brad pitt." they don't care or even see the stuff you're talking about. to them: who the fuck cares. the fighting is slowed down to like 120 fps so that we can watch the beautiful choreographed fight sequences. it choses a exploitive way to tell the story when the film is actually attempting to give the counter message. it does need to be violent, but it is also very important how you convey this violence to the audience. do you excite them or disgust them. fincher went with excitment because that's what sells tickets. there is no subversion of this at the end of the film, which would justify the exploitive storytelling at the beginning of the film. alas fincher comes across like a douchebag because it is transparent that he views cinema as "cool" before "intellegent." he should have just stuck with cool, like in the game but he needed to get some indie cred from fans willing to add in any subtext they can to the hollow images.
-sl-
Well, I'll address how violence was portrayed first. I think one problem is that you're assuming that violence is supposed to be flawed or wrong in this film, but I'm not sure that it is. It's portrayed in an exciting way because that's exactly how it should be shown within the philosophy of the story. Violence is used to return to a more "real" form of being, as I've been trying (perhaps ineffectively) in my posts. I don't think Fincher portrayed the violence in a disgusting way because it isn't supposed to be disgusting in this story. Then again . . . it isn't disgusting when Norton beats up Angelface? I think violence can be portrayed in a manner that is simultaneously exciting
and disgusting.
I don't think you can criticize the casting of Norton and Pitt. Yes, they are certainly big names that bring in audiences, but they are also very good actors. It wasn't the first time Fincher worked with Pitt; perhaps they developed a good working relationship and that was the reason he was cast more than anything else. I see your point, but I think the fact that Fincher used "stars" doesn't necessarily mean the point of the film is undermined.
Oh, and when the "average movie-goer" walks away from just about anything they miss the point.
No.
Vanilla Sky is pretentious.
Donnie Darko is pretentious.
Quote from: MyxomatosisVanilla Sky is pretentious a poor remake, a vanity project at best.
Donnie Darko is pretentious brilliant.
Just fixing up some minor errors in your post. :)
See also: What makes pretention (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=4110&highlight=makes+pretention), a wholly pretentious thread delving into that pervasive mystery plaguing film snobs the world over.
I really don't think Fight Club was pretentious at all. Finch didn't present the film as having any great meaning beyond the fact that most men are unsatisfied with their lives and feel out of place, and don't know how to fix it. The obviously bizarre contrast of the Animal Man getting back to his roots then turning into some neo-Facist stormtrooper, while at the same time becoming non-corporate anarchists, I mean, they're veering off in every direction, because they're all fairly clueless, so they're rebelling in the most predictable (albeit overly dramatic) ways possible. Some people misconstrue this as filmmaker's indecision, but he knew what he was doing. Just because he created characters that were pretentious doesn't mean the movie itself is.
Now if you really must rag on the film, I suppose you could say it was just an excercise in style. Fair enough, if it didn't impress itself upon you. But for a younger generation of filmgoers (myself included), it brought renewed interest in playing with forms of narrative. Yes, it has all been done before. But like Tarantino renewed several aspects of cinema with Reservoir Dogs, and then exploded them with Pulp Fiction, this film carries a huge importance for late 90's American cinema. Whether they like Dogs/Pulp or not, people have to recognize the impact they had in opening people's eyes to great ways of telling stories. He reminded us what we could do. I guess Tarantino avoided getting raged on by everybody by embracing shlock genres, rather than modern philosophy/psychology. To see the great tricks used by Finch, in a big budget Hollywood movie with stars, no less, it does count for something. It was different than any massive commercial movie I had witnessed in my young film-going life. The constant narration and direct address to the audience is something that you might have been able to call gimmicky, if it hadn't worked so well for this movie. Add to that the extensive effects shots intigrated so skillfully in the movie, and you have a blend of narrative techniques used mainly in comedy, and effects used mainly in action, making this film a unique and special mix.
This was an ill considered rant, I didn't have to time to really look anything over, so I apologize if the organization is off, or the ideas seem a little hasty. It's just getting tiresome to see this movie constantly balked at like it was a total piece of shit. At least give some credit where credit is due. Or at the very least stop throwing around this goofy word "pretentious", and putting it in the same twist-reliance category as Sixth Sense.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: OnomatopitaQuote from: The Gold TrumpetThats a good responce to the question of believability for the plot trick in the fiim, but what do you think about the entire gimmick that Norton was really Pitt and so forth? Did it elevate the movie for you on the grounds of why you thought it was a serious work? Or did the film go to a Hollywood gimmick and bring it down to a genre film more so?
You forget Fight Club was a book. There's nothing "Hollywood" about the gimmick, and it doesn't bring down the film in any way. It reminds me of something Tarantino said about Pulp Fiction and the writing process. Paraphrased, he said, you know, if I was writing a novel, there would be no mention of the shifts in time I employed. But since Pulp Fiction was a film, suddenly these time shifts became something people obsess about.
Now I haven't had a chance to read the Fight Club novel yet. But I would be incredibly interested in seeing how Palahniuk handled the schizophrenia -- it seems like it would be much harder to pull off in a book, because some things have to be overt or they're left vague. I could be wrong, though, but one thing remains certain: The more I watch the film, the more I realize how seamlessly integrated into dialogue and actions the non-existence of Tyler Durden really was.
There is something very Hollywood about the gimmick used in Fight Club. Forget what Tarantino says. It has nothing to do with use of time shifting in Fight Club and essentially all he was saying is that with books structure is a lot more free than in movies. (and it is)
If Fight Club was a serious film, you would have known at the beginning the extent of Norton's pysche problems and would have been going along as he acted out one persona and acted out another, analyzing the differences of each one knowingly. Its like what the Danish film The Vanishing did for the thriller cause not only did it reveal at the beginning who the killer was, but the entire film was a portrait of difference between the killer and victim. Hollywood can't stand this cause they want one story running along on a simple enough thread to follow and always building up to another hierarchy of conflict in the three act structure. With Norton's revelation at the end, it acts more as "twist" to the entire story than anything else. It would make you look at new things upon rewatching it, yea, but it doesn't give you the depth of viewing the way The Vanishing did in really looking at the complexity of the situation.
Very good points. I hadn't really thought of it that way, and I really like The Vanishing quite a bit (too bad they bothered with the american version). That being said I also really like Fight Club and what makes it interesting for me is being able to go back to the film and have a deeper viewing the second time, knowing the outcome. In a way The Usual Suspects is similiar because we are essentially "tricked." Both of the films are very engaging IMO, and most people, while immersed in the film, wouldn't take the time to think to themselves - "I'll bet this is all bullshit, and Brad Pitt is really Ed Norton's alter ego, or Verbal is actually Keyser Soze." especially since there aren't really any clues to give such a thing away. I liked being tricked by those films. I liked watching them a second and third time and trying to find clues or inconsistencies. Anyway GT, I liked your points, but I still view Fight Club as a serious film with alot on its mind
'Fight Club' On Broadway? Director, Writer Plan To Mark Film's 10-Year Anniversary With A Musical
Trent Reznor might even do the music, author Chuck Palahniuk says he heard from filmmaker David Fincher.
By Shawn Adler, MTV
I am Jack's ... gorgeous libretto?
A long-rumored Broadway adaptation of "Fight Club" is closer than ever to happening, an excited David Fincher told MTV News, admitting that preparations have been amped up in anticipation of the film's upcoming landmark.
"I want at the 10-year anniversary to do 'Fight Club' as a musical on Broadway," the director enthused. "I love the idea of that."
Apparently, so do many others. Now that Fincher has broken Fight Club's first rule (and, for that matter, its second), the masterminds behind the film are eager to join the chorus — none more so than "Club" author Chuck Palahniuk, who said he thinks the idea for a musical is as beautiful and unique as a tiny snowflake. (Note: You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.)
"So he's now publicly talking about it?" Palahniuk enthused. "If it happens, it would be extraordinary."
"If" being the operative word at the moment, both men admit, since no concrete plans have yet been finalized. If it does make its way to the stage, though, "Fight Club: The Musical" would join a long list of movies adapted for the Great White Way, including recent additions like "The Producers," "Spamalot" and "Young Frankenstein."
Those movies and others, however, already had the benefit of being a little campy, making it easier to retroactively fit big song-and-dance numbers into their respective story lines. This is something "Fight Club" cannot claim — or can it?
"Everybody would look at me like a leper," he said. "[But] I always saw it as a comedy."
Which is good news for those of us who'd like to see songs like "I Am the All-Singing, All-Dancing Crap of This World," "His Name Is Robert Paulson" and "How to Make Napalm From Orange Juice and Gasoline," but not so good for those who might like a more serious take.
Luckily, Fincher and Palahniuk have a pretty solid plan B, they told MTV News.
"The last I heard from David was that Trent Reznor was going to do the music," the author revealed (representatives for Reznor had no comment by press time). "Maybe 'Choke' the musical will be next!" he added, referring to another one of his works that is being made into a film (it's due in theaters August 28).
Maybe, but either way, Palahnuik admitted he'll have little involvement with any future adaptation.
"I might write the book or the script," Palahnuik said, "but [a musical is] a whole different animal for me."
There is no word yet whether any of the film castmembers would reprise their roles. The 1999 film starred Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Meat Loaf and Helena Bonham Carter.
I never thought Norton's character or Pitt's character were supposed to be considered "cool" at the end of this film.
Norton ends up being an asshole. A big mouth. Like many people in our generation, he complains about everything while also being a part of all the things he hates. That in the end he develops a second persona in the shape and form of a hot, cool, smart, "brave-i-dont-give-a-fuck" guy like Brad Bitt, poster boy for hotness in the last 20 years, pretty much defines his own character.
I do think the film gets weak at the end...but the "coolness" of it is part of the argument.
project mayhem? is that you?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq293%2Fnoveltyhat%2Fimage001.jpg&hash=d558fca8e7be110b65479daea3e421e14cc6c9d8)
Very funny
Police Say 'Fight Club' Inspired a Bomber
When a homemade bomb constructed from fireworks explosives, a plastic bottle and electrical tape was set off outside a Starbucks coffee shop on the Upper East Side early on May 25, the police initially thought the explosion might be linked to three others with similar profiles.
But on Wednesday, after the arrest of a Chelsea teenager in the Starbucks attack, the police said there was no connection between that attack and the three others. Instead, the Starbucks bomber had his own agenda, the police said: to emulate the assaults on corporate America planned by a character in the movie "Fight Club."
The teenager, Kyle Shaw, 17, was arrested Tuesday night and charged with first-degree arson and first-degree criminal possession of a weapon, the authorities said.
"His statements indicated he was launching his own 'Project Mayhem,' " Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said at a news conference on Wednesday, referring to a plan hatched by the protagonist of "Fight Club," played by Brad Pitt, to sabotage corporations by destroying property. Mr. Shaw had told a friend to "watch the news on Memorial Day," May 25, Mr. Kelly said.
Mr. Shaw pleaded not guilty on Wednesday night at his arraignment in Manhattan Criminal Court. Judge Abraham Clott ordered him held in $300,000 bond or $100,000 cash bail.
A prosecutor, Christopher Ryan, said people who knew Mr. Shaw had approached the police after he told them that he had planted the Starbucks bomb and was planning a similar attack elsewhere. The police placed Mr. Shaw under surveillance, Mr. Ryan said, before arresting him. He said a search of Mr. Shaw's home on West 27th Street yielded a news clipping detailing the aftermath of the explosion, a box of sparklers and a DVD of the 1999 David Fincher film, based on a novel by Chuck Palahniuk.
Mr. Fincher and Mr. Palahniuk, through their agents, declined to comment.
Mr. Kelly said investigators had ruled out a link between the Starbucks bombing and the three earlier explosions — at an office building on Third Avenue housing the British Consulate in 2005, at the Mexican Consulate on 39th Street in 2007, and at the Times Square military recruiting station in 2008. All of the attacks occurred in the early morning hours, inflicted little damage and caused no injuries.
Investigators said it was too early to say if Mr. Shaw had intended to harm people, but the police commissioner said the bomb was powerful enough to have caused serious injuries if anyone had been close by. It damaged a bench and shattered the coffee shop's windows.
Mr. Shaw had started an underground fight club modeled on the one in the film, Mr. Kelly said, and had bragged to friends that he was behind the bombing.
Neighbors of Mr. Shaw, who recently graduated from high school, said they believed he was planning to take a year off before college to work and save money. One said he was considering trying to become a city firefighter.
"We watched him grow up," said a neighbor, Jon Glick, 44, who is a graphic designer. "He's absolutely a nice kid."
Brandon Lewis, a former schoolmate of Mr. Shaw's, said the arrest came as a surprise. The two were classmates at the School of the Future near Gramercy Park before Mr. Shaw transferred to the City-as-School High School in the West Village last year, Mr. Lewis said.
"I would never paint him in that way, as a domestic terrorist or anything," Mr. Lewis said. "He never gave an inkling that he was into that. He is very funny. Very outgoing. Friendly with mostly everybody."
Mr. Shaw's affinity for "Fight Club" was well known.
"He saw the movie and he read the book," Mr. Lewis said. "He wanted to watch the movie in our English class in the 11th grade. We were discussing existentialism in class, and he suggested we watch the movie as an example. We ended up watching 'I Heart Huckabees.' "
20th Century Fox Home Entertainment will release Fight Club on Blu-ray on 11/17. Extras will include commentary with director David Fincher, commentary with Fincher, Brad Pitt, Edward Norton and Helena Bonham Carter, commentary with Chuck Palahniuk and Jim Uhls, and commentary by Alex McDowell, Jeff Cronenweth, Michael Kaplan and Kevin Haug, 7 deleted and alternate scenes, multiple featurettes (A Hit in the Ear: Ren Klyce and the Sound Design of Fight Club, Welcome to Fight Club, Angel Faces Beating, The Crash, Tyler's Goodbye, Work: Production, Visual Effects, On Location and more), an Insomniac Mode viewing option, Guys Choice Award, an Edward Norton interview, a music video, 12 TV spots, trailers (including the 8 Rules of Fight Club), promotional and art galleries, Internet spots and more.
Unfortunately I read about this elsewhere before I received my copy and missed out on the shock, so if you want to not have any spoilers before you pop in your Blu-Ray copy of Fight Club, I suggest you turn away now:
New 'Fight Club' Blu-rays Come with a Prank by the Director
Don't be shocked when you load up your new Blu-ray version of director David Fincher's 1999 cult classic "Fight Club" this holiday season and the menu screen appears to be from the Drew Barrymore romantic comedy "Never Been Kissed." It turns out it's all a prank by Fincher.
After noticing the gag with a preview copy, The Onion's AV Club contacted Fox Home Entertainment and had its suspicions confirmed: while the original "Fight Club" menu replaces the "Never Been Kissed" one after a few seconds, the "snafu" was no accident.
Turns out that Fincher thought it would be funny to use the menu from a sweet bubble-gum romance -- the farthest possible thing from the very dark "Fight Club" -- that was a much bigger box office success when both films were released in 1999. Barrymore's inexpensive comedy grossed $55 million in the U.S., while the big-budget "Fight Club" only brought in $37 million. Of course, "Fight Club" has developed a loyal and vocal fan following over the past decade, and it is listed in the top 10 of Total Film's and Empire magazine's Greatest Films of All Time lists.
Don't worry about the practical joke hurting Drew Barrymore's feelings, though. "Fight Club" actor Edward Norton is friends with the "Never Been Kissed" star and producer, so she gave the OK for the gag. Sharp-eyed viewers can also spot Barrymore in the movie itself. There is one shot of a discarded Movieline magazine with her on the cover.
Critics that were sent a review copy of the new Blu-ray were specifically asked not to disclose the joke before it went on sale this past Tuesday. Apparently, the first rule of "Fight Club" still stands: you do not talk about "Fight Club."
"I think a movie like Fight Club is an incredibly irresponsible film." - Paul Thomas Anderson
I think he's walked that statement back a bit since then.
I just wish i had the quote a few years ago.
Fight Club is one of those movies where if you label yourself a film buff but don't really care for Fight Club, people give you the, "Bro, how can you be a film buff but not like Fight Club?!" talk. The world is littered with people who fancy themselves movie fans but really aren't. Fight Club is like the best movie ever to them. They pat themselves on the back because "they got it" "
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twentyhood.com%2Fimages%2Fcollege_guy.jpg&hash=d20d114607a7496c808b2a61984b0eaa63c7c03b)"Made sense to me, bro!"
Years ago I was at a house party and people knew I was into movies so they started asking me for recommendations. I'm sure all of us have been in the spot where a family member or acquaintances put you on the spot and asks, "so and so likes movies! What's good now?" and you kind of struggle to recommend something because everything that you've liked recently isn't something they would enjoy, so you just agree with them when they say they heard The Wolfman was REALLY good. I think I recommended Good Night, and Good Luck and as I did, some meathead ass dickhead was like, "Don't listen to him. He hated Fight Club!" then the next 12 minutes was me defending my position on what movies I liked and didn't like. It was pretty much me against everyone and I kept trying to dig myself out, but just kept digging myself deeper, Lots of Ron Howard fans there. It was awful! Worst experience of my life! Even now when I run into people from that era they refer to me as, "Hey, it's didn't like Fight Club guy! Seen anything good lately?! HAHA"
That's when you say, "i'm not supposed to talk about Fight Club."
What did PTA mean with the irresponsible quote?
that it makes violence look 'cool' and young males will see it and want to start fight club's and terrorist organizations of their own. My cousin was in one for awhile, got a couple black eyes. Plus 9/11 happened.
i went on and on about this near the beginning of the thread a few years ago. but it's basically the idea that the depiction of violence and making everything cool counterminds the "message" it proposes.
same argument could be made for wallstreet. he made Michael Douglas' character too sexy, so cut forward two decades and all the Enron douchebag crowd gets is the coolness and they want to be him. it's a flawed film if the point is lost in the depiction. I understand the counter argument that the film is showing the temptation of greed, but if all the film ends up doing is further perpetuating the greed in the audience, then it's done something wrong.
best example i could ever give was when my mother (who is a teacher) once asked me what I thought the best film to show a group of late teens about drug abuse. she said "I heard transpoting is good." and i said "Nope that will just make them want to do it because the characters are cool. show them Requiem for a dream instead, they'll honestly think twice after seeing it." and that's it in a nutshell, trainspotting is a well made film but it does a disservice when educating youth about heroin.
i think he was mostly referring to how it makes light of cancer
(NSFW)
This Will Change The Way You Watch 'Fight Club' (http://www.clickhole.com/video/will-change-way-you-watch-fight-club-1803)
Holy fuck. It really did.