Donna Ferentes said:
skilled but flashy and wholly meretricious
Isn't that a part of it though, and part of the films general trend of deconstructing itself? Norton is rallying against the instant gratification lifestyle (meretricious if you will) he's been brought up in which is represented in the film by the endless flashy effects - they become much less common as the film progresses and the film develops a much darker, broody, gritty atmosphere as he reaches his own personal "truth" - a visual allegory to Norton aligning with Pitt.
Donna Ferentes said:
nothing actually happens for any logical reason
Seeing as Tyler is mad, I can cut a bit of slack on this one
Donna Ferentes said:
has nothing of any substance to say because it is not trying to say anything substantial.
Again, I saw the lack of an overall "moral" as part of Norton's growing feeling of helplessness that's inversely proportional to Pitt's power, and his ultimate realisation that he really doesn't want to destroy everything in order to recreate it in his own image.
For the record, I love Fight Club. And yes, I'm one of the target demographic
To me it's in a similar vein to the anti-artifice streak I loved so much in Mulholland Drive, and explored aspects of male (and female, although obviously to a much lesser extent, as Marla is something of a Deus Ex Machina) identity and their changing roles, no wfundamentally different to their evolutionary beginnings. As Sunray points out, it doesn't really have a "normal" sort of cohesive storyline, especially in the first half it jumps around to a whole load of seemingly unrelated scenes that first strike you as lame set pieces strung together with a cynical monologue to explain the characters and settings (and the long, rambling voiceovers stop as soon as Pitt arrives on the scene), but later turn into fundamental episodes in Tyler's travels. Fincher is aware that alot of these scenes don't make any sense until you've seen the whole film and makes continual stabs at himself in the process - "Ah, flashback humour!"
4thwrite said:
The contradiction of having a 'free yourself from the spectacle' movement - led by a mythical and authoritarian figue is unclear. It drives the plot, but what is it saying?
That in the modern world, it's easy to go mad and
not even notice. The film is aware of it's own futility and internal contradictions and pokes continual fun at itself for not being real (gah! Films hate being anthropomorphised) to the extent where it's little more than a metaphor for our short sighted conceit of ourselves as someone more than killing, eating and fucking machines (represetned by Norton's view of his ideal self). It doesn't really try and answer any questions about humanity or the societies humanity finds itself inhabiting, just Norton's howling and ultimately impotent rage at the stupidity of it all.
too
