PTA vs Fincher

[meatball]

And finally.. this topic is a wrap!

[The Silver Bullet]

But the look on PTA's face was one of outrage.

It'd be nice if we could get a shot of that.

[MacGuffin]

But the look on PTA's face was one of outrage.

It'd be nice if we could get a shot of that.

[subversiveproductions]

Someone, I think maybe Mutinyco (I'm probably wrong.) said something about Fight Club being in exercise in style over substance.  I think to really understand the film you have to have read at least two of Palahniuk's other books.  The way he uses and warps literary style to fit his stories can be compared to the way Fincher uses cinematic style.  Palahniuk jumps around a lot, between and within locations and times, and I think Fincher did a great job of showing that.  The way Palahniuk writes, you become so sure that you've figured out what he's making a statement on (in this case, the whole group therapy thing) until the very end, where BAM, you realize that you've fucked it all up and he's addressing something broader and farther reaching than you had originally imagined.  Specifically, check out Lullaby and Choke, fuck, check out anything by him, he's one of the best writers of our generation.

[Chest Rockwell]

I hafta say I've never been a big fan of Fincher or Fight Club. But I still don't see why PTA said that about the movie, though I can see how the movie would offend him, what parts he had seen of it, anyway. It really does make those help-groups seem pathetic, though if PTA were to see the entire film I'm sure he'd see that it's about something more. But really, who gives a shit what a director says of another director's work? As far as I see it, it seems we should focus more on the directors' bodies of work to make any kind of positive/negative statements. We can't say PTA's a pussy because he was offended by Fincher's movie. Just as we can't say Kevin Smith blows because he insulted Magnolia, or that PTA blows because Kevin Smith insulted Magnolia. Just my opinion, though.

[TheTourist]

*Fight Club spoilers*     (do we bother to do this on this forum?)

Fight Club, I think, is an amazing movie until the third act. The first two acts are witty, fun, and stylish (not "deep", but who says a movie needs to be "deep"?) It might help that I'm not easily offended, especially about sensitive topics like cancer.

The third act, however, is when I kind of lose interest. It feels like it turns into a lame action movie.

I did read the book, after I saw the movie once, and have seen the movie several times since.

[Myxo]

I just briefly read about how PTA thought Fight Club was "irresponsible." Does anybody have any links or information on this?

I'm sure PTA doesn't have a clue how to be sarcastic either.

I have a friend who insists that Bowling for Columbine is a mockumentary. Who can argue with him?

[Pubrick]

I have a friend who insists that Bowling for Columbine is a mockumentary. Who can argue with him?

tell ur friend to stop registering new accounts.

[Finn]

PTA came back out with what he said about Fight Club. To quote him:

"My comments about Fincher and Fight Club were stupid. Wishing anyone testicular cancer isn't funny and I did end up seeing the film. I had a problem with the violence and the cruelty -- I just couldn't get past it -- blah blah blah....I wrote a letter to Fincher apologizing for my comments.....he was cool about it."

[modage]

the violence in fight club?  what about the deleted scene in boogie nights where becky is getting the shit beat out of her?! thats some intense violence.

[Pedro]

the violence in fight club?  what about the deleted scene in boogie nights where becky is getting the shit beat out of her?! thats some intense violence.

well i think one of the reasons he took it out was that he felt that there was already a lot of violence in the film, and he didn't need anymore.

[socketlevel]

the violence in fight club?  what about the deleted scene in boogie nights where becky is getting the shit beat out of her?! thats some intense violence.

well i think one of the reasons he took it out was that he felt that there was already a lot of violence in the film, and he didn't need anymore.

it's also how you depict violence.  the violence in fight club is exploitive and made to look cool.  whereas the deleted scene in Boogie Nights the violence is horrific.  I really felt for her in that scene, she was victim to the beating.  In Fight Club the violence happens because the characters are drawn to it, the rhetoric of the film is somehow trying to justify fighting as a catharsis.

-sl-

[modage]

yeah, but that takes the shockingness away frome the violence.  the violence isnt particularly disturbing in fight club.  i think thats what bugged him.  i think he was more saying that you shouldnt treat subjects like violence and cancer so lightly.

[socketlevel]

yeah, but that takes the shockingness away frome the violence.  the violence isnt particularly disturbing in fight club.  i think thats what bugged him.  i think he was more saying that you shouldnt treat subjects like violence and cancer so lightly.

you've got the answer in what you just wrote, he takes the shockingness out of the violence.  he makes it ok.  I agree, the violence isn't as disturbing in fight club... that's why it's bad.  when violence is disturbing we are inclined to feel it is wrong.  when it is entertainment we are exploiting it.  what i'm saying and pta is saying are essentialy the same thing.  when you treat violence and cancer as entertainment you can influence the audience to not take these issues seriously, which they should.

in boogie nights we take it seriously and in fight club we do not.  the second part of your post is saying what i'm saying.

-sl-

[molly]

the thing in FIght Club is that the main character isn't a hero, and hi alter ego is just worse - i think that Fincher or rather Palaniuk used people with cancer(but not only with cancer) to show and underline how the society is ruthless. The main character's personality split in two, and that happens to the victim when the molesting is severe. He was the victim of his lifestyle, he was slave to the lifestyle and needed those support groups to at least SEE people feeling emotions - he didn't find it elsewhere, the physician talked to him on the hallway, and sent him home without any pills, or at least advice what to do (he shouldn't do that). The girl (Helena B-C) is like him, which makes us think that this sort of "disease" isn't so rare. Norton's alter ego is the sociopat, the manipulator, the one who is violent to other people. There's lots of violence, but the end brings the redemption for Norton - he stands up for himself - killing his alter ego, he stopped being victim and there wasn't any reason for MPD.
Those men with testicular cancer are overweight and have enlarged breasts because of their therapy, but so do people who are just overweight but the "society" has no problem laughing at them. Overweight people have their problems, but "the society" needs someone to laugh at, so : cancer people are OK, they are sick, but fat people are awfull, ....(any insult is fine),... - people need somebody to be the target of their agressiveness. The scapegoat. In lack of just fat people, people with testicular cancer will do. To somebody Fight Club looks like entertainment, to somebody don't. PTA i think reacted very emotionally. When people are involved emotionally in something they tend to overreact, at least for some period of time. We all have been in those situations, but there were no cameras to document that.