Whether intentional or not, art reflects the morals, beliefs, and values of those that create it. By analyzing films through various perspectives (or theoretical lenses), we can discover what beliefs about humanity a work of art espouses. In class, you looked at Fight Club through a specific theoretical lens and attempted, with the help of your classmates, to analyze the film with a specific goal in mind. Some of you looked at the film through a gender studies lens in order to discover what messages the film sends about masculinity and feminity, or what it means to be a man versus a woman. Some examined the film for its emotional impact, uncovering how various elements of the film worked together to create specific emotional effects. Yet others analyzed the film from the theoretical perspective of a humanist for some moral, philosophical, or social statement. Now, we turn our attention to the film’s politics.
Dennis Petrie and Joseph Boggs aregue in The Art of Watching Films that "all movies are ultimately statements about the struggle for power between economic classes" (356). Both the novel and the film Fight Club showcase a world in which extreme tensions exist between capitalism and socialism and between materialism and naturalism. From a Marxist perspective, this tension becomes even more prevalent. Consider the novel and the film adaptation in light of Karl Marx’s theories about society, economics and politics. To what extent does the novel advocate capitalism? To what extent does it advocate socialism? Which characters represent which extremes? And can we draw definite conclusions about the message the author sends on this issue? To help you better answer these questions, refer to "The Film as political Statement" discussion on pp. 355-356 of your textbook.
Finally, what is your position on this issue? Do you agree with the overarching message the film sends? Why or why not?
The novel and film Fight club shows the tension between the economic classes. This is a film and novel about the struggle for power between economic classes. Karl Marx’s views of this would see the blue collar working class slaving away to the advantage of the upper class. The protagonist is in the lower economic class. The protagonist works for a car manufacturing company and gets statistics on failure rates and average cost of settlements. His capitalistic boss sees that if the cost of repair is more than settlements than no recall is done. This is a practice that shows the wealthy only looking out for the wealthy. They do not care if people die. It is all about the money. The protagonist at the beginning seems like a materialistic person having to purchase just the right furniture and all his furniture comes from an Ikea catalog. Things changed when his apartment blew up. Tyler is an extreme socialist and I believe he would aim for there to be a class less society. It is evident in both the book and the novel that Tyler hates rich people. Tyler tells the protagonist to work evenings at the Pressman Hotel because the job will feed his class hatred. Tyler hates the upper class because they treat the lower class waiters like dirt and wear diamonds that look bigger than he feels. Tyler says the rich order the poor waiters around for no reason other than to watch them run for their money. Tyler decides to be a service industry terrorist. In the film Tyler wants to take out all the credit card companies because he thinks this will even out the score between the upper and lower classes. The men who show up for the fights at the bars were all working class men. Tyler influences the protagonist into blackmailing his boss so he still gets paid without going to work. They begin Project Mayhem and recruit lower class men from all over to start attacking the upper class. All the lower class citizens feel they are all in the same club together and aim to get even with the upper class. The lower class decided to challenge the traditional system by attacking what has been the same way of life. I believe the author and the director purposely aim to show how the lower class feels as though they are dirt under the shoes of the wealthy class. I believe they accomplished their goal of showing how the lower class feels and that all lower class would feel the same way.
ReplyDeleteThe conflict of Fight Club is strongly centered around socialism versus capitalism. Tyler Durden's goal in the novel was to overthrow the current economical world and instill a classless primitive society. However, his intentions to have every person to work their own worth deters away from naturalistic socialism and becomes anarchistic. The protagonist realizes the radicalism in Tyler's work and seeks to thwart it, which leads up to the conclusion of the story.
ReplyDeleteThe protagonist does not seem to have the same contrast to socialism as Tyler's ideals has to capitalism, though. Sure, the protagonist was very materialistic and valued his job and wages, but he admired socialism to an extent before Tyler took it too far. When Durden's plans were only to show the upper classes that the working classes had the true power, the protagonist seemed convinced he was doing the right thing. This was a better example of socialism than when Tyler sought to destroy the government as whole.
With all these examples of socialism being praised in-story, there wasn't much of an argument in favor of capitalism. All characters who opposed Project Mayhem were stock characters, given no endearing traits. That said, it is also shown that extremism isn't model either, what with the group presumably being disbanded. A middle ground that I've seen is not to completely revolt but for those in charge to respect their underlings, as it might backfire on them.
Fight Club is very much a portrayal of a Marxist style struggle. The most prominent conflict in the plot comes from Tyler’s war against society and the upper class. Capitalism is viewed in the movie as an evil which plagues mankind. Edward Norton’s character starts the movie trapped by capitalisms grasp. He works a job he doesn’t like in order to buy things he doesn’t need. It isn’t until Tyler, the Marxist champion, comes along advocating for the destruction of modern society that Norton’s character begins to find some form of happiness. That idea that capitalism can’t bring happiness clearly points to the authors views on society, and gives clarity to his message. The movie more than the book advocates for socialism, but even then the socialist idea ends after the redistribution, or in this case elimination, of wealth. In the book Tyler wants a hunter-gatherer, anarchy, while in the movie his goal is merely to restart the finances so the lower class and upper class have to vie for power from an even starting point.
ReplyDeleteI would say that I agree with the author’s message, if not his means. I don’t believe I am willing to go to the lengths that the story does in order to see that goal achieved, but I do agree that the gap between classes has grown far too large. I could come closer to agreeing with the movie goal than the book goal in that I personally don’t want a complete destruction of government and society. I feel a reformation such as the movie implies would be a more appropriate solutions, and I also agree that that reformation will have to come at the hands of the lower class through force.
In the novel and film Fight Club, the two main characters deliver strong, opposing political messages through both their words and actions. As the story begins to unfold, we meet a man who is in his thirties and lives a very mediocre life. He is not married, has no kids, and the only thing in life that brings him the littlest bit of pleasure is knowing that his apartment it adorned with items that are ordered straight from the IKEA magazine. He takes pride in having nice things decorate his apartment, and he enjoys wearing nice shirts, pants, and shoes to his traveling job. He and his materialistic ways are the epitome of capitalism in the story. The idea that he values his possessions because he worked hard to earn the money to purchase them is associated with a society that has classes—capitalism. He has worked himself up the social ladder to attain a very solid level of financial stability and he lives more than comfortably; however, a quick explosion that scatters his expensive belongings on the city street below takes it all away from him. Now, his finances and belongings equal the nearest bum found on the street. He has been knocked down from his position of wealth and must see life from the other less fortunate point of view. Socialism is an economic system where it is a classless society. Businesses are not privately owned and operated for their own profit, rather the government owns them and everyone gets the same wages. Thus, the result would be financial equality for all. In the story, Tyler is the advocate for this ideology. He wishes to take the world back in history—to primitive times. He even says, “Imagine stalking elk past department store windows and stinking racks of beautiful rotting dresses and tuxedos on hangers; you’ll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life…” This mental picture that Tyler creates for the protagonist and reader signifies that he promotes a world without materialism and one that is equality for all. The fact that mentions “leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life,” stresses the socialist ideology of the bare minimum—no frills, no extras. We can draw a major conclusion that the author was communicating that the world has become too caught up in material possessions and wealth, and it would be beneficial for humanity to return to the natural times where such luxuries did not exist.
ReplyDeleteI believe that to an extent, the society we live in is too materialistic. Basing everything off of wealth and class poses to be an issue because the lower classes oftentimes are not powerful enough. Take government for example. Most politicians come from very wealthy backgrounds and the upper classes. Because they are wealthier, they in turn gain more power against those of us who are not in the same social class. I agree that some measures should be taken to prevent extreme divisions among classes, yet not the drastic measures taken in the novel or fil
In the novel an the movie "Fight Club" the conflict is between the upper and lower class. This has always been a problem in human society. People that have money like to flawnt it. Its the people with the money that have the power, they pay off the politions and the then they pass the laws that the rich want. Then the poor does things to get back at the polition. This is what Tyler Durden does in "Fight Club." Tyler blows up all the credit card companies and puts every one back at 0 so there is no more debt.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this to a point its not just politions but its also the people in the entertainment bussness too. they get paid multi millions and then complain that thats not enough. so they get paid more and its the people that pay for the extra, by paying more for movie tickets, concert tickets,
and sports tickets. We pay more for these tickets then what we make in an 8 hour work day. Just another way for the rich to steel from the poor.