When this movie came out in 1999 I though it was different, irreverent and hip. Now at 50...I I have come to realise that this movie is really meant or a certain age group and the point of view that some young adults have.
So if you are under thirty and love this movie, in 20 or so years you might have a different point of view. I still think it story is highly original though.
I agree. The ideas presented resonated with me as a 17 year old. Watching it years later I still enjoy it as a film but I certainly don't buy into any of the thoughts of the lead characters.
shareWe are about the same age and I feel the subject is more relevant than ever.
shareI am almost 50, and I also feel the same way.
I think people who feel like the OP are getting it backwards. The movie is supposed to be more relevant as you age. The reason why is that it exists on two levels: 1) Immaturity 2) Maturity. Tyler Durden is supposed to represent The Narrator's immaturity. What represents The Narrator's maturity is the moment when he finally realizes that he is Tyler, and that he had created him to avoid facing his fear of intimacy and personal growth.
When young people watch Fight Club, they love the movie because they naturally want to identify with Tyler and his zany ideas. Why? Because he's cool, bad ass, sexy and edgy. But when they get older, they're supposed to identify with The Narrator after he realizes that Tyler was never anything more than an escapist fantasy.
Pop culture made such a cool anti-hero out of Tyler Durden that most people watching the movie think it's all about him and him alone. Consequently, when they outgrow Tyler's antics, they think they've outgrown the movie. But they haven't. They've outgrown Tyler and are supposed to then mature into The Narrator when he drops him, too.
Interesting, I don't remember ever identifying with Tyler Durden when this movie came out. Fight clubs were real over a decade prior to the movie (maybe earlier but I can only speak to what I know) and I knew young men who attended regularly although none of them called it "fight club". They were unemployed or blue collar, no prospects, no money, with excessive testosterone that they spent in bare knuckle fighting and enjoyed all the bruises, broken fingers, and lost teeth that came with it. They were very much like Tyler Durden minus the leadership qualities and terrorist activities. I played football, wrecked cars, joined the military, and have been in over a dozen fights but I'm too big a chicken to go head to head with one of these types unless I have to. They are brawlers and they are good at it. They don't fight out of anger, fear, or even for prestige .. they like it.
The movie isn't deep as metaphors go, Tyler Durden explains it dialog, and The Narrator has no name for obvious reasons. What matters is that Tyler Durden was right about a number of things. For example,
"... an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need." -- Still true today. The job of marketing companies is to reprogram how you think and they are very, very good at it. They tell you what to buy, how to vote, and leave you believing that you never had any other choice. It was this movie that set me on the path of avoiding as much advertising as possible in my everyday life. I will not watch tv or movies unless I can skip commercials or it's commercial free. If an ad comes on the radio, I mute the radio. I can't eliminate everything, but I avoid most of it. It makes a difference. I'm tired and I've hit the character limit. Maybe more another time.
The Narrator has no name for obvious reasons.
Interesting, I don't remember ever identifying with Tyler Durden when this movie came out.
What matters is that Tyler Durden was right about a number of things. For example
This all began with a girl named Marla Singer.
Palahniuk doesn’t see Fight Club as particularly gendered anyway. “It was more about the terror that you were going to live or die without understanding anything important about yourself.”
My take is it's still a great movie. There's a lot of subtleties that are timeless, IMHO.
shareBut you do identify with him. Case in point:
You say that Tyler was right about many things. He couldn't have been, because he was a psycho/expression of Jack's mental illness/psychotic break.
Palahniuk doesn’t see Fight Club as particularly gendered anyway. “It was more about the terror that you were going to live or die without understanding anything important about yourself.”Tyler spoke of this and is another example where he offers keen insight.. how can he know himself if he's never been in a fight. Beneath the wool suits and khaki pants we are still animals, social animals, that live in a hierarchical society. Much like dogs, we are uncomfortable not knowing our place in the pack. This is why young boys in a school yard fight and why some men fight. It is nature's way of resolving rivalries and often the guys become close friends after. I suppose women have similar ways of sorting out the pecking order. Out of characters again. share
What exactly IS the name of the main character in Fight Club, is his name Tyler, Jack, or something else?
Chuck Palahniuk: His name was never given in the book. They needed a name for the screenplay to put next to the character's lines so they just put Jack in there for the hell of it. In the book at one point he even takes out his drivers license and shows it to Marla to prove that he's not Tyler Durden, but Marla was introduced to him under a dozen different names in the support groups. So when he finally comes to save her as Tyler, that's who she knows him as. All the people who have met him have met him as Tyler, so that's who they know him as. But his name is really…. I have no idea.
I never liked the name jack as it through you off. They did mention it as a reference and I thought that was his name. When the twist came I was disappointed mostly cause I was mislead and what were theh going to call him? His alter ego? Brad Pitt Street fighter?
I think this movie would’ve been a lot better without that concept into it.
I always assumed Jack was a nomme de guerre, since he goes by many identities, but I decided to search and see what others had to say and found this:
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/in-fight-club-chuck-palahniuk-has-jack-find-old-441504
...the narrator frequently references a genre of article made famous by Reader's Digest meant to educate people in regard to organ health. Articles such as these were written from the point of view of bodily organs and were given the titles such as "I am Jack's liver" or any other body part. The name "Jack" or "Jill" was used simply as a stand in for any given human being.
I told you that I don't and your "point" is a non sequitur.
I suspect that it is/was you that wanted to identify with Tyler Durden but we are supposed to identify with the Narrator, he is us, but specifically young GenX males.
I always assumed you were a bitter old post menopausal woman or a bitter old man pretending to be female.
shareAnd I thought you were one of those cool people who I could get into a fun, interesting debate with, like back in the days when people would hang out at a Greenwich Village or Parisian cafe talking politics and culture. That's why I engaged with you.
But turns out you're just another pseudo-intellectual moron (hence all the latin and foreign terms) who expects to babble inaccuracies or half-baked nonsense without getting challenged on it. So, I was wrong about you. Thanks for letting me know, so I can put you in my ignore list, so I won't have to waste any more time discussing things with a halfwit.
No, you were right about me but you aren't debating, you're being obnoxious and argumentative. Edit, and I should add, insulting.
shareIf I recall, Jack is a name in a series of books he finds in the old house; I am Jack's liver, I am Jack's spleen, and so forth. He later refers to himself, and his current emotional state, in a parody of the books, but his real name is never revealed to be Jack.
shareI had to look it up but Google tells me it was a Readers Digest.
shareIt's called old man syndrome.
shareWhen I watched it in my teens its themes resonated with me, it meant something to me, yet 20 years later it means a lot to me just the same, only because of my new interpretation of those themes, the power of this film is that there's no clear social commentary, everyone can take something different from it. There is no clear message in this film, its symbolical nature allows for different ways of interepretation and therefore resonance. Palanuik's novel works on many levels. If there was a theme that everyone should see, then Palanuik's intentions would be contradictory, being a slave in this film does not only mean feeding off advertising, it means being a slave to the physical reality itself, that can be even your body, people, their beliefs, their actions to the point of being offended, anxious or hurt, and that is important. It speaks to the power of an individual, inner truth, not a sheep mentality that follows what is followed by others. Find the truth within yourself, including yourself, your creativity, imagination, self will, individual thought, that is what I take from this film.
shareThe movies commentary on superficial materialism of the late 90s was pretty accurate.
Today it could be remade replacing materialism with social media fame.
[deleted]
It's a metaphor, not to be taken literally. It's a call to action to disempower corrupt institutions and rebuild anew, make the world your own. Every generation believes they will be better than the last then the world eats you one bite at a time, with a job, with possessions, with children, responsibilities, and pretty soon are you following the path of least resistance. In the end it doesn't mean anything because everywhere in all times people are just people doing the same things.
shareThe "now, go out and destroy everything" message is puerile and undermines the final third. However, for all that , the film still does have some salient points about self-improvement, choosing your own destiny and not becoming a slave to consumer culture.
Yea,
You grow up and have massive responsibilities.
Does paper street really exist where I can have a house to crash to? Can I really blackmail my boss and if it fails can I serve the rest of my life getting beat up in jail? Having broken bones and bruises is fun when in the next scene your like whatever and at the end of the movie your still rich and famous Brad Pitt banging tons of hot famous women and not some washed up from a support group. Soap ingredient really doesnt work. People dont really follow you in masses no matter how tough you are. No woman is going to put with your fked up lifestyle and you have children to support. Good luck staying above minimum wage all carved up, pissing on food, putting porn in movies, coughing in food, listening to radio while serving...
I don't think my opinion has changed very much. At the time I thought Tyler was presented as the epitome of cool on the surface-- he looked, dressed, spoke, and acted like every man wishes he could-- and he made some intelligent observations about the world, but his overarching world view and plan were demented. I feel about the same now.
share