Fight Club - Giroux
Do you think Fight Club can be classed as a radical or anti-capitalist film ?
If not, why not ?
I do not believe that Fight Club can be classed as a radical, nor an anti-capitalist film. While it paints itself as one through it's dialogue, Mise-en-scene and performance, the narrative and plot itself nearly completely separates itself as a form of media that can be considered as anything more than something made for entertainment value. Perhaps those involved did believe in the themes portrayed by the movie, such as anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist, but the film in itself was made to entertain and earn money. If it's primary intention was to send a message, the film would have probably been a documentary, wouldn't have had a huge budget, and wouldn't have had A-list actor's. And with such an extreme ending, if it was to be taken seriously as a social commentary, then it's even more worrying, and would be considered a pro-terrorist advertisement rather than a cinematic experiment.
Does Fight Club provide coherent and inclusive longterm solutions to the problems caused by capitalism ? ( inequality, lack of workers rights, individualism, social breakdown, alienation)
Fight Club offers little to no solution to problems caused by capitalism. When you boil the plot down to it's very basic elements, it's essentially about 'Jack's journey of self discovery from a mindless robot to a masculine, self-driven individual. In reaching Jack's eventual epiphany, we're taken through various steps that are based around individual solutions rather than societal solutions. It can be argued that it seeks to solve a lot of these problems, and it certainly does address them, but no actual solutions are offered. Perhaps in creating Project Mayhem and uniting men under one single task, to bring the downfall of society, it solves alienation, but it then seeks to absolutely destroy individualism, and creates the opposite problem of creating a mindless cult.
Do you think Fight Club is simply an entertaining mainstream film which just pretends to deal with major themes such as masculinity in crisis , consumer culture and global capitalism or a subversive message which managed to be released to a wide audience ?
I believe it can be construed as both. In my opinion it is a subversive message which managed to be released to a wide audience, but had the responsibility of earning money and being a successful movie. It's certainly false to say that Fight Club is simply an act, as if it wanted to simply be an entertaining and mainstream movie, it didn't have to go to such lengths to include so many prevalent and self-aware themes. Yet, it's not quite completely dedicated to it's message either. Maybe the film is simply posing the problems to us and expects us as individuals to solve them ourself by making us aware of the trap society has placed us in. If the film was made with no intention of making money in mind, then it's entirely possible it would have been a whole different movie, but since everyone involved with the film has bills to pay, the creators were forced to tame themselves at least somewhat so they could get it on screen. Even the scene where Tyler and Jack are discussing Marla and Tyler flashes back to when he's laying in bed with Marla, the original line was "I want you to have my abortion." but a female staff member refused to allow it. While it's not really a social statement that had to be taken out for money purposes, it does show that the film didn't have complete freedom to say whatever it wanted, whether it be for dark comedic purposes or social commentary purposes.
Does Fight Club's use of cinematography , editing and sound support serious discussion of its themes and any messages the film has, or prevent it from being taken seriously ?
If anything, I'd say the cinematography, editing and sound are among the few things that make us take Fight Club seriously. It is highly stylised, but considering how much is hidden among this movie, so much so that it could even get by most critics without being noticed, it's entirely possible that the creators stuffed the movie full of as many messages as it could under a disguise of style to portray it's messages to the audience. For example, before we're even introduced to Tyler, we see him cut into specific frames in the movie for barely a tenth of a second, and this portrays the characters unnatural presence; as well as the film as a whole's sense of sticking out of the mundane and sickly environment of a white collar workplace. Another technique used is the sound of the fight scenes. I doubt anybody could dispute that the violence forces us to take it seriously through the sheer sound of the impacts in every fight scene the film shows. Perhaps it was just done for entertainment value and shouldn't be taken seriously, but since many of the scenes in Fight Club are purposefully made to look disgusting and unattractive, so surely it couldn't have been done for sheer entertainment value alone, and should be taken seriously to a certain degree.
Do you agree with all or any of Giroux's main points ?
I agree with many of Giroux's main points. For example, I do believe his assessment of the character of Tyler Durden is completely justified. In his core, he is a fascist, and attempts to create a mindless cult to follow his every command...and he succeeds. To the point where he supposedly destroys capitalist society and creates his own version of the perfect society which thrives on individual masculinity. But he doesn't serve to solve any of the issues the film addresses. For example, at any point in the film, does Tyler mention how to solve the issues he constantly brings up? He simply acts, rather than discussing it, and his actions don't do much to solve the problems either, so it's safe to assume he simply is a 'cult-personality'.
If not, why not ?
I do not believe that Fight Club can be classed as a radical, nor an anti-capitalist film. While it paints itself as one through it's dialogue, Mise-en-scene and performance, the narrative and plot itself nearly completely separates itself as a form of media that can be considered as anything more than something made for entertainment value. Perhaps those involved did believe in the themes portrayed by the movie, such as anti-consumerist and anti-capitalist, but the film in itself was made to entertain and earn money. If it's primary intention was to send a message, the film would have probably been a documentary, wouldn't have had a huge budget, and wouldn't have had A-list actor's. And with such an extreme ending, if it was to be taken seriously as a social commentary, then it's even more worrying, and would be considered a pro-terrorist advertisement rather than a cinematic experiment.
Does Fight Club provide coherent and inclusive longterm solutions to the problems caused by capitalism ? ( inequality, lack of workers rights, individualism, social breakdown, alienation)
Fight Club offers little to no solution to problems caused by capitalism. When you boil the plot down to it's very basic elements, it's essentially about 'Jack's journey of self discovery from a mindless robot to a masculine, self-driven individual. In reaching Jack's eventual epiphany, we're taken through various steps that are based around individual solutions rather than societal solutions. It can be argued that it seeks to solve a lot of these problems, and it certainly does address them, but no actual solutions are offered. Perhaps in creating Project Mayhem and uniting men under one single task, to bring the downfall of society, it solves alienation, but it then seeks to absolutely destroy individualism, and creates the opposite problem of creating a mindless cult.
Do you think Fight Club is simply an entertaining mainstream film which just pretends to deal with major themes such as masculinity in crisis , consumer culture and global capitalism or a subversive message which managed to be released to a wide audience ?
I believe it can be construed as both. In my opinion it is a subversive message which managed to be released to a wide audience, but had the responsibility of earning money and being a successful movie. It's certainly false to say that Fight Club is simply an act, as if it wanted to simply be an entertaining and mainstream movie, it didn't have to go to such lengths to include so many prevalent and self-aware themes. Yet, it's not quite completely dedicated to it's message either. Maybe the film is simply posing the problems to us and expects us as individuals to solve them ourself by making us aware of the trap society has placed us in. If the film was made with no intention of making money in mind, then it's entirely possible it would have been a whole different movie, but since everyone involved with the film has bills to pay, the creators were forced to tame themselves at least somewhat so they could get it on screen. Even the scene where Tyler and Jack are discussing Marla and Tyler flashes back to when he's laying in bed with Marla, the original line was "I want you to have my abortion." but a female staff member refused to allow it. While it's not really a social statement that had to be taken out for money purposes, it does show that the film didn't have complete freedom to say whatever it wanted, whether it be for dark comedic purposes or social commentary purposes.
Does Fight Club's use of cinematography , editing and sound support serious discussion of its themes and any messages the film has, or prevent it from being taken seriously ?
If anything, I'd say the cinematography, editing and sound are among the few things that make us take Fight Club seriously. It is highly stylised, but considering how much is hidden among this movie, so much so that it could even get by most critics without being noticed, it's entirely possible that the creators stuffed the movie full of as many messages as it could under a disguise of style to portray it's messages to the audience. For example, before we're even introduced to Tyler, we see him cut into specific frames in the movie for barely a tenth of a second, and this portrays the characters unnatural presence; as well as the film as a whole's sense of sticking out of the mundane and sickly environment of a white collar workplace. Another technique used is the sound of the fight scenes. I doubt anybody could dispute that the violence forces us to take it seriously through the sheer sound of the impacts in every fight scene the film shows. Perhaps it was just done for entertainment value and shouldn't be taken seriously, but since many of the scenes in Fight Club are purposefully made to look disgusting and unattractive, so surely it couldn't have been done for sheer entertainment value alone, and should be taken seriously to a certain degree.
Do you agree with all or any of Giroux's main points ?
I agree with many of Giroux's main points. For example, I do believe his assessment of the character of Tyler Durden is completely justified. In his core, he is a fascist, and attempts to create a mindless cult to follow his every command...and he succeeds. To the point where he supposedly destroys capitalist society and creates his own version of the perfect society which thrives on individual masculinity. But he doesn't serve to solve any of the issues the film addresses. For example, at any point in the film, does Tyler mention how to solve the issues he constantly brings up? He simply acts, rather than discussing it, and his actions don't do much to solve the problems either, so it's safe to assume he simply is a 'cult-personality'.
Comments
Post a Comment