Fight Club and anarchism
May 30 2004
I am just finishing off my dissertation in which I am discussing alternative political theory in contemporary novels. Just wondering if anyone has read Fight Club recently and what they thought of its treatment of anarchy as a political concept. The film is somewhat different from the book in case anyone had just seen that but not read the book. [/i]
May 30 2004
#2
i think the film is actually better than the book. in the book the building is not a bank, but the tallest building in the world which is going to "slam down on the national museum which is Tyler's real target" because he wants to wipe out history. In the end the bomb doesn't go off, and he ends up in a mental hospital for attempted suicide. This makes the whole thing much less anarchistic, as it is less a social solution and more a statement.
May 30 2004
#3
They would NEVER get away with making that film now, not after S11.
May 31 2004
#4
RadikalProfit wrote:
i think the film is actually better than the book. in the book the building is not a bank, but the tallest building in the world which is going to "slam down on the national museum which is Tyler's real target" because he wants to wipe out history. In the end the bomb doesn't go off, and he ends up in a mental hospital for attempted suicide.
Er, how does he end up in a mental hospital?
I don't think he does... Also I thought that the bomb did go off 
That whole thing about the museum and other stuff was pretty revolutionary, with marxist (not necessarily authoritarian) leanings - the idea that the past we inherit, the future we build. Y'know - people create history, but not under circumstances of their own choosing.
There were strong anarchic elements to the film/book, drawing on situationist anti-work ideas, to the anarcho-syndicalist general strike ("where we re-distribute the wealth of the world"). There were also bits of anarcho anti-civilisation stuff, with some talk of reverting to hunting/gathering etc.
The absence of women from the book is a huge omission from anarchist practice/theory, which is a real shame.
But it's definitely 8)
May 31 2004
#5
if you have the book, here are the page references for the theory of the end i presented (dont know if your book will have the same numbers):
bomb did not go off-chapter 29, page 205:
"And nothing.
Nothing explodes.
The barrel of the gun tucked in my surviving cheek, I say, Tyler, you mixed the nitro with paraffin, didn't you.
Paraffin never works."
ends up in a mental hospital-chapter 30. he talks about 'heaven'
page 207:
"I've met God across his long walnut desk with his diplomas hanging on the wall behind him, and God asks me, 'Why?'...I look at God behind his desk,, taking notes on a pad"
he also notes that Marla writes to him and that someday they will bring him back.
page 208:
"somebody brings me my lunch on a tray and my meds"
i mentioned the lack of women in the text, and also the release from history as well. the organisation of fight club into seperate but connected groups also worked in an anarchic way. overall i ended up finding the book considerably less anarchistic than it first came across. still great though.
May 31 2004
#6
Wheres GT when you need him. 
Jun 1 2004
#7
alexa wrote:
The absence of women from the book is a huge omission from anarchist practice/theory, which is a real shame.
Well I've only seen the film, but from that I got the feeling that part of the whole revolution thing was a strike against political correctness, in the way we see it now in business and politics. That is to say a strike against the creating of an appearance of being equal but rather saying what you mean and acting on it - removing the illusion of a fair world. But I agree that even the film the action is very male-dominated and in that respect not really an example to follow as such.
Jun 2 2004
#8
Having only seen the film and not read the book (shame on me), I would say that the gender issue in the film at least goes a little beyond an absence of women. it's not just that they don't happen to have recruited many women (bit like the anarchist movemnt in britain 
) but women are actually excluded (telling Marla over the phone that this one's for men only etc), and women also seem to be portrayed in a very bad light constrasted with the men in this film.
Whilst all the blokes are tough and strong and focussed and disciplined, Marla, by contrast, is irrational, suicidal, fly-by-the-seat-of-her-pants, can't handle herself in an arguement (she can alsways be shut up in the end), and pretty much only good for being fucked hard by a nice big macho man who shows her no respect whatsoever (cos of course she doesn't deserve any being such aheadcase and all). Let her in on the action and she'll screw things up - women only distract and get in the way when yr trying to get serious work done.
Also, when the two guys are in the bathroom and talking abt what their parents want them to do with their lives, Tyler says "We're a generation of men raised by women, and I'm wondering if another woman is really what we need" which seems to urge to get back in touch with their masculine side after being feminised by their mothers and absent fathers. Which is interesting.
I still really enjoyed the film, have seen it over and over and think it shows some pretty interesting ideas.
I think the politics of it (disregarding the gender thing even tho I think it's very important) are interseting, but not really particularly "anarchist" in my view, seeing as it's one man in charge whho decides everything, is definately the one at the top of the food chain with all the authority and has his little army that follow his every word. Which doesn't seem very anti-authoritarian or non-hierarchal or egalitarian.
Still, the discipline, boots and testosterone definatley have their appeal...
Probebly gonna get flamed to hell and told that i just don't understand or something now but what the hell... 
Jun 2 2004
#9
Yeah some of that stuff's fair enough, some I'd take issue with though, in relation to the book:
zobag wrote:
Whilst all the blokes are tough and strong and focussed and disciplined, Marla, by contrast, is irrational, suicidal, fly-by-the-seat-of-her-pants, can't handle herself in an arguement...
Not sure about this, I mean the main character bloke is totally nuts!
Also she's not nearly as cooky in the book...
Quote:
Also, when the two guys are in the bathroom and talking abt what their parents want them to do with their lives, Tyler says "We're a generation of men raised by women, and I'm wondering if another woman is really what we need"
I'm pretty sure this bit isn't in the book.
Quote:
I think the politics of it (disregarding the gender thing even tho I think it's very important) are interseting, but not really particularly "anarchist" in my view, seeing as it's one man in charge whho decides everything, is definately the one at the top of the food chain with all the authority and has his little army that follow his every word. Which doesn't seem very anti-authoritarian or non-hierarchal or egalitarian.
Again, the book treats things differently, with more democratic decion-making, particularly when it came to the "homework assignments", which were actually written by everyone not just tyler. Also by the end of it "the only centre of fight club is the two people fighting". But yeah it's still not exactly anarchist!
RadikalProfit cheers for that... not sure how I managed to forget that!
I think I thought that that was just him in hospital after getting pretty fucked up physically by everything. Hmmm think I'll re-read the end...
Jun 2 2004
#10
what a great film, it must be, oh, all of two weeks since i last watched it. the bit about a generation of men raised by women is in the book, i'm pretty sure. i'm not sure i agree with the thing about marla entirely, as at one point tyler says "at least marla's trying to hit bottom" which is the main aim of tyler and co. but otherwise the whole anti-woman thing is a bit dodgy. as is the authoritarian thing, although even in the film tyler keeps saying "this is not about you or me", so at least he's not an egotistical fuhrer...
still, i think tyler's philosophy of hitting bottom before you can do anything is awesome. and i prefer the end of the film to the book as well, in the book he turns out to just be a nutter, and trying to destroy a museum isn't really that revolutionary in the real sense, just intellectual, whereas elimenating everyone's debt is a fucking brilliant idea. i also think that them holding hands while all the buildings collapse around them is one of the most romantic endings to a film ever, but i'm twisted like that...
Jun 2 2004
#11
I'm sure that in the film Tyler durden come s out with a comment along the lines of "everybody decides their own level of involvement" when talking about Project Mayhem.
Jun 2 2004
#12
LeighGionaire wrote:
I'm sure that in the film Tyler durden come s out with a comment along the lines of "everybody decides their own level of involvement" when talking about Project Mayhem.
"you deceide your own level of involvement" when they are in the car before they crash
Jun 3 2004
#13
We'd discussed the issue of Fight Club in the thread on rebuilding the anarchist movement in Britain, and like then Im not happy that people argue its a fascist film, but no one seems to be saying that this time 
I think from a political angle the film is made really obscure because the main character is fighting with himself which makes him commit to a very machoistic stance in order to win out.
Jun 3 2004
#14
october_lost wrote:
We'd discussed the issue of Fight Club in the thread on rebuilding the anarchist movement in Britain, and like then Im not happy that people argue its a fascist film, but no one seems to be saying that this timeI think from a political angle the film is made really obscure because the main character is fighting with himself which makes him commit to a very machoistic stance in order to win out.
Please explain to me what you mean by "rebuilding the anarchist movement in britain"
Jun 4 2004
#15
It was a thread in the Organise forum - it's still there to be commented on 
Jun 4 2004
#16
personally i found both the book and the film to be more nihilistic than anarchist. it isnt based around the key concept of cooperation that anarchism [to me at least] is all about, it seems to be based on a philosophy of selfdestruction as a means to enlightenment.
Jun 9 2004
#17
I found the film a little homophobic to be honnest. I thought it was all about men being moronic and banging each other over the head and saying Ug, it is macho crap.
Jun 9 2004
#18
How was it homophobic
Jun 9 2004
#19
Yeah, the crying with Meatloaf was hardly homophobic.
Haven't read the book, but didn't see much of a positive portrayal of anarchism in the film - secret societies for a start, primitivism imposed via terrorism etc. etc.
Jun 10 2004
#20
i thought it was more homoerotic then anything else. sweaty muscly men writhing together...
Jun 10 2004
#21
1) I cannot see how Fight Club could be homophobic when the author, chuck palahniuk is gay himself.
2) I dont think you could claim its anarchist either though it certainly has some traits as people pointed out here already. What we can say about it for sure is its alot about personal revolution. Tyler and his band of merry men are liberating themselves from everyday bullshit. In that sense its a little individualistic. The common goal is to cause mayhem, it doesnt offer any alternatives. The actions of the group though would in places probably mirror some of the activities some people here have been involved in.
3) To sum up my opinions of fight club i would say
- individualistic ( centred around personal revolution and liberation ).
- male dominated, females are made to look a little weak, though i would question chucks reasons. Perhaps this has more to do with his sexuality.
- pro direct action
- anti-work
- anti-corporate & anti-capitalist
- flawed
- the book was better than the film, though the films ending suited it better
Jun 10 2004
#22
A friend said to me not so recently that when people watch films they tend to make something out of them which there not, and I feel this is true of fight club...
Quote:
- individualistic ( centred around personal revolution and liberation ).
- male dominated, females are made to look a little weak, though i would question chucks reasons. Perhaps this has more to do with his sexuality.
- anti-work
- anti-corporate & anti-capitalist
The film is individualistic and male dominated/orientated because hes fighting himself, it also shows how the character (fuck I forget the name) identifies early on away from consumerism and more with his gender role, as oppossed to any sort of politics, so you cant particularly take that and spin it into a direct political framework.
I will endeavour to read the book
Jun 10 2004
#23
I been trying to get the book out of the library for ages but god bless essex only one library has it, harlow, and that copy has been nicked.
I have only seen the film I'm afraid. That said, it is one of my favourate films of all time. Notice how they target the bank/credit companies as a means of ultimate rebellion against the system?