I'm coming in late from a link, after the discussion has died down, but I do recall having a very similar reaction to yours after watching the movie several years ago. I agree that in the end, the movie does condemn the course of action it's just spent the last two hours portraying as successful and desirable. My problem was, and remains, what Roger Ebert said (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19991015/REVIEWS/910150302/1023):
Although sophisticates will be able to rationalize the movie as an argument against the behavior it shows, my guess is that audience will like the behavior but not the argument. Certainly they'll buy tickets because they can see Pitt and Norton pounding on each other; a lot more people will leave this movie and get in fights than will leave it discussing Tyler Durden's moral philosophy. The images in movies like this argue for themselves, and it takes a lot of narration (or Narration) to argue against them.
It's the kind of movie that I find dangerous and unsettling, not least because I was introduced to it in college via a male friend who was clearly enraptured by Tyler's philosophy. I don't think I need any better argument against it than that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 07:21 pm (UTC)Although sophisticates will be able to rationalize the movie as an argument against the behavior it shows, my guess is that audience will like the behavior but not the argument. Certainly they'll buy tickets because they can see Pitt and Norton pounding on each other; a lot more people will leave this movie and get in fights than will leave it discussing Tyler Durden's moral philosophy. The images in movies like this argue for themselves, and it takes a lot of narration (or Narration) to argue against them.
It's the kind of movie that I find dangerous and unsettling, not least because I was introduced to it in college via a male friend who was clearly enraptured by Tyler's philosophy. I don't think I need any better argument against it than that.