MovieChat Forums > Fight Club (1999) Discussion > Breaking Away From the Maternal and Mate...

Breaking Away From the Maternal and Material

posted 5 years ago by Fandango (535)
9 replies | jump to latest

Jack's plight throughout the film can be seen as the journey of a boy who has grown up without a father. Throughout Fight Club, Jack searches for an authority figure to show him the path toward manhood, what to truly strive for, and the path toward these goals. We hear him often repeat, "what's next?", implying that Jack has not yet found what it means to be a man.

Jack's life is filled with the traditions passed on to him, where the path to drown out who you are and forget about your existential problems lies in the structure of schooling, work, and marriage. This is the goal that Jack has been taught to strive toward, and his journey is a spiritual journey, as he discovers that it is the path to nowhere. Jack, despite being 30, is still seen symbolically as living under the maternal influence. The way he sleeps is symbolic of a boy sucking on his thumb; his surroundings are a symbolic gesture of maternal comfort; his symbolic father is his boss; the firm he works for is the family that feeds him; and his house, which he furnishes with feminine accoutrements, is the womb. Jack is lonely, as he realizes that the material objects which he has been taught hold primacy, are unable to replace the void of relationships and his own masculine inadequacy.

We see that his discontentment with life manifests in the form of suicidal ideation and insomnia. As a product of society whose ultimate goal is to maximize happiness and minimize pain, Jack seeks a prescription to numb himself, hoping to stunt any potential for growth which requires pain. Bob's breasts are further symbolic of Jack's inability to break away from the maternal tether holding him back. The film makes allusions to castration, with the basketballs around Jack during his meeting attendance, the scene where Tyler threatens to castrate the man, as well as Jack's own encounter with the detectives. This indicates to the audience that Jack does not see himself as a man, but as a boy ("I am six years old again," and "I can never get married").

Upon Tyler's arrival, Jack goes through a ritual, transitioning from a state of boyhood entering manhood. This is symbolized as his apartment blows up, removing him from the comfort of the material and maternal. His plight now is to become a man without a father, which he attempts to do through Tyler, his alternate ego. More is revealed, and we see that Jack begins to hate his father, as Tyler tells Jack that he saw his father as a God, but that his God rejected him, and he likely never loved him. He then begins to attribute the pain he feels as being caused by those around him, eventually believing the world is the cause of this pain (terrorist organization).

If Tyler represents the father figure, then Marla, also a product of Jack's imagination, is the mother figure. The relationship between the three presents the audience with a family dynamic, where the child hates one sex and admires the other. Marla (mother) has chosen Tyler (father), and as a result, discards Jack (son). This is why in the second half of the film, Jack turns against Tyler, his metaphorical father, and ends up killing him.

And so, what we see toward the film's end is that Jack, absent Tyler's presence, must assume Tyler's role. He must become the father that Tyler was to Jack. One of the themes here, it seems, is that children, growing up without male influence, eventually must grow up and become men; yet without guidance, what kind of men will they become?

The final moment has Jack metaphorically/physically killing himself, indicating that the de facto father (Tyler, television, mother) is an insufficient and ultimately destructive surrogate.

[–] CaptainCrozier (620) 4 years ago

Brilliantly, beautifully said.

Fight Club is one of my all time favorite films and this theme of maturity which the protagonist undertakes is one of many layers that resonates with me so powerfully.

[–] Fandango (535) 4 years ago

Thank you for the kind words and your comment.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 4 years ago

Very well written, great analysis and symbolism, but you didn't finish your line of thought.
But the movie itself doesn't finish developing this concept, so I guess you just followed it.
Also, you contradict yourself, citing marriage as both drowning man and a manifestation of being a real man. So, which is it?
Where does the path lead Jack to?
What do you think the movie shows as the meaning of being a man?

[–] Fandango (535) 4 years ago

Thank you for your comment. I contend that the overall points could have been expanded on more thoroughly.

Also, you contradict yourself, citing marriage as both drowning man and a manifestation of being a real man. So, which is it?

This was not my intention. I don't believe Fight Club makes any allusions to marriage as an instrument of masculinity.

Tyler is Jack's anti-thesis. Jack represents feminine materialism ("I would flip through catalogs and wonder, "what kind of dining set defines me as a person?"). Tyler, on the other hand, embodies the polar extreme, as he completely eschews material comfort and leads a life of subsistence ("the things you own end up owning you").

Where does the path lead Jack to?

If Tyler were the answer to Jack's problems, his path would not have lead him toward death and destruction. He is not the antidote to Jack's problems, despite serving him pithy maxims.

What do you think the movie shows as the meaning of being a man?

There is a self-critique of the film's message when Tyler and Jack are on the bus, as Tyler comments on one of the ads, stating, "is that what a real man looks like"? Yet Tyler is that man. Here, the film is hinting to the audience that Tyler is not the face of real masculinity. The reason the metaphorical family dynamic between Tyler, Marla, and Jack appears dysfunctional is because Tyler himself is dysfunctional.

Tyler is not someone the audience should look up to, but yet he is, which in a rather clever meta-narrative is a critique on our entire culture, which no longer knows what a real man is supposed to look like, so they admire Tyler because he is everything they are not.

I don't believe Fight Club intended to portray true masculinity. The film has many themes, but one of its overarching messages ultimately warns of the dangers of falling into extremes (Jack and maximalism/material excess; Tyler and minimalism/subsistence).

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 4 years ago

Solid points, I agree with your take.
I think it's too bad the movie never goes for the portrayal of a real man.
Both the extremes presented in the film are infantile interpretations of an immature society: Jack is not alone in his struggle to realize himself as a man. He has a great following of similarly deluded grownups, all eager to act like foolish teenagers (at best) to evolve, never actually maturing past that stage. Project mayhem is where these "men" stop trying.
And with them, the movie: I find that what I never liked about it is how it builds up the conflict, showing us the fascinating and tempting side of letting go of materialism to define yourself, but never resolves it.
They could have shown us one real man character, like an old man with solid balls that is truly illuminated, but Jack and Tyler ignore him or ridicule him.
Instead, the way it is, it's like a half movie they didn't know how to finish, so they pull out the twist at the end (a quite unneded one this way) and just get rid of Tyler as a nemesis.
It's clear that the movie considers that side of the conflict as evil, out of control, going off rails, so Jack needs to stop it. What's not clear, and far more interesting to me, is how it could be kept under control, so that the child Jack can actually become a man.
At least, the movie doesn't present any solution to this, since it's more interested with shocking us or entertaining us with this juvenile rebellion, rasing all these interesting themes without ultimately developing them.
Like Jack, the movie begins embryonic, goes through this topsy turvy adventure, comes out still undeveloped.

[–] Fandango (535) 4 years ago

Excellent points all around.

I do wonder whether or not the theme of masculinity was never portrayed because the writer himself did not know. It is curious to note that Chuck Palahniuk (writer of Fight Club) is openly gay.

The film as an allegory of Jack going through the embryo and then trying to mature into an adult is quite interesting. I believe the ending aligns more with postmodernism and the natural zeitgeist of the times more than anything, where the art medium has this fascination with open-ended interpretations to everything. Nothing ever fits snugly into a box, so it is up to the viewer to have his or her own understanding of something (i.e., Jackson Pollock).

There are no resolutions in such a chaotic world, when its defining characteristic is that entropy. Hollywood never seems to polish any of its ideas, and I don't believe it is interested in doing so.

Over two decades later Fight Club is still often remembered, yet none of its more poignant themes are ever internalized. Instead, the audience is mainly fascinated with Tyler as an identity, one which they themselves want to assume. Just like Jack, who attempts to find an identity through the consumption of goods, the audience finds themselves consuming films like Fight Club, attempting to find their own identity by adopting the persona of the characters.

At the end of the day, everyone is just as lost and wandering aimlessly. No goals. No purpose. No direction. Just "endlessly deranging narcissism."

[–] Heisenberg (6730) 4 years ago

Nice chatting with you Fandango.

Yes the movie takes the "hi road" of modern art, which is ask questions, don't give answers. It's a choice.
I'm more interested in deeper philosophical works, like Kubrick's or Fellini's, where they pose relevant questions and try to give their answer. It doesn't have to be the correct one, but it moves the discourse forward.
Also, often, not giving an answer is just a cop out from tackling the issues, or even worse it's fear of disagreeing with others. Some pc bastard offspring, like "I don't want to offend anybody, so I'll just not tell them what I think".
I think art is less effective like that.

But I don't think this is what's happening here, in Fight Club they just seem more interested in the catchy aspects of Jack's discovery, but the authors never take themselves too seriously. Which is too bad because, like you pointed out, they raise many deep and interesting themes.
With a less style-over-substance director, or a stronger artist behind the scenes, it could have been a masterpiece for the ages like A Clockwork Orange, instead of just an eccentric, fashionably turbulent, Hollywood production from the end of the century.

[–] Fandango (535) 4 years ago

It does seem difficult to strike a balance between commercialization and meaning. If Fight Club were less catchy, then I believe it would not have had as much appeal; however, a more solemn approach may not have worked in the 90s, as at that the time we were already seeing the effects of the digital age on interests.

In the 20th century, the United States stood at the center of serviceable innovation, taking over the 19th century baton from England and Germany. Of note in this time, we saw the U.S. commercialize the car, invent microprocessors for domiciliary computing, and create the online world with the internet. According Jeanette Gimpel, the turning point in technological sentiment changed in 1971, with Congress refusing to fund supersonic flight. With the Vietnam war and counter-culture, America saw its psychological drive wane, no longer seeing itself as exceptional or unique, and susceptible to the same collapse as empires preceding it. Such questions were asked in 1975, when a selection of US historians wondered whether or not America was on the same trajectory as Rome.

Although Gimpel was wrong in certain respects, as the internet was a paradigm shift which he did not include, he was correct in noting mental decline. He stated the psychological drive of a nation should be parallel with its technological innovation, yet what we see is an inversion; technology has stagnated alongside the waning of psychological interest.

Today, the majority of art in every medium appears to be more about style than substance. The average YouTube video is ~7 minutes long, with the average TikTok clip being ~15 seconds long. The demographic that overwhelms YouTube is 25+, with those under 25 preferring TikTok. What we notice is that the way we think has changed. Despite the abundance and overflow of information, there is a noticeable trend of general disinterest.

Perhaps this is a form of analysis paralysis, or perhaps just a function of the times.

[–] CaptainCrozier (620) 3 years ago

I think it's too bad the movie never goes for the portrayal of a real man.
....They could have shown us one real man character, like an old man with solid balls that is truly illuminated, but Jack and Tyler ignore him or ridicule him.

David Fincher himself seems to be just such a man, and was even at the time of this film. If you listen to his film commentaries or watch interviews of or talks by him, he has always come off, to me anyway, as an 'old soul', not just with respect to filmmaking but in his attitude toward life in general.
He could have, and perhaps should have, appeared in Fight Club and essentially played himself, though without saying that he is the film's director stepping into the movie breaking the fourth wall of course!