One thing I think you should keep in mind when thinking about Fight Club is that Palahniuk is not a writer who writes fair. By that, I mean that he doesn't at all intend to write well balanced books that carefully and precisely examine all the critical sides of something.
Palahniuk writes very precarious, unspooled, down-and-dirty novels. And given that the movie, more than most movies, is really a fair adaptation of the book - the movie is not supposed to be fair either.
I usually have a pretty sensitive trigger for detecting misogyny. So much so that I can't really enjoy Raging Bull. But it didn't really get to me in this movie.
I think it's because this isn't so much about misogyny. It's about the fact that you can't be a human and be truly anti-social without being a complete sociopath first.
This is not a movie about grown, intelligent men. This is an adolescent fantasy at best. Notice that nobody really has families in this movie. We get only a brief mention of Tyler's Durden's father, but other than that no other character is shown to have blood relations. We're never shown the consequences of these men running away from their lives to join Project Mayhem.
We're never shown any consequences. What happens to the people they vandalize, what happens to the car they crash into.
Because like all adolescent escapism, the point is never to look back.
As the narrator says, "Nothing was solved, but nothing mattered."
The point of this movie is to show exactly why nothing it shows you is viable. Why Fight Clubs don't work. Why eventually everyone has to grow up.
All the misogyny is really a bunch of boys going "girls are icky and school is icky and I want to live in neverneverland."
It's not about male/female. It's about adult/child.
Think of it as a really violent version of Peter Pan in which Peter figures out that staying a child is actually a far worse prospect than growing up.
Because the difference between the Narrator and Tyler Durden is that Tyler Durden is, in fact, a complete sociopath. The Narrator is not
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2006-11-17 02:50 am (UTC)Palahniuk writes very precarious, unspooled, down-and-dirty novels. And given that the movie, more than most movies, is really a fair adaptation of the book - the movie is not supposed to be fair either.
I usually have a pretty sensitive trigger for detecting misogyny. So much so that I can't really enjoy Raging Bull. But it didn't really get to me in this movie.
I think it's because this isn't so much about misogyny. It's about the fact that you can't be a human and be truly anti-social without being a complete sociopath first.
This is not a movie about grown, intelligent men. This is an adolescent fantasy at best. Notice that nobody really has families in this movie. We get only a brief mention of Tyler's Durden's father, but other than that no other character is shown to have blood relations. We're never shown the consequences of these men running away from their lives to join Project Mayhem.
We're never shown any consequences. What happens to the people they vandalize, what happens to the car they crash into.
Because like all adolescent escapism, the point is never to look back.
As the narrator says, "Nothing was solved, but nothing mattered."
The point of this movie is to show exactly why nothing it shows you is viable. Why Fight Clubs don't work. Why eventually everyone has to grow up.
All the misogyny is really a bunch of boys going "girls are icky and school is icky and I want to live in neverneverland."
It's not about male/female. It's about adult/child.
Think of it as a really violent version of Peter Pan in which Peter figures out that staying a child is actually a far worse prospect than growing up.
Because the difference between the Narrator and Tyler Durden is that Tyler Durden is, in fact, a complete sociopath. The Narrator is not