Skip to main content

On a long enough timeline, the survival of everyone drops to zero.

Fight Club
(1999)

(SPOILERS) Still David Fincher’s peak picture, mostly by dint of Fight Club being the only one you can point to and convincingly argue that that the source material is up there with his visual and technical versatility. If Seven is a satisfying little serial-killer-with-a-twist story vastly improved by his involvement (just imagine it directed by Joel Schumacher… or watch 8mm), Fight Club invites him to utilise every trick in the book to tell the story of not-Tyler Durden, whom we encounter at a very peculiar time in his life.

Indeed, much of what Fincher has ended up making since has seemed like a regression into standard Hollywood fare, albeit simultaneously dragged down into his pit of darkness and elevated by his technical prowess (Panic Room, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Gone Girl), with only Zodiac – and perhaps, in some respects The Social Network – really showing what he’s capable of when he has a really strong script. He exerts a phenomenally assured hold on Fight Club, with propulsive, mesmerising results on every level – narration, performance, cutting, soundtrack – that fuel the dense, layered plotting, combined with the rare twist that not only rewards multiple revisits but demands them. Both because there’s so much visual information and because the entire proceedings ask to be reconsidered from the point of view to the oblivious and initially unsympathetic Marla (Helena Bonham Carter). It’s a contrast to typical twist fare where the reveal leaves one with little to pick over subsequently (The Sixth Sense, of the same year, is a prime example).

Much of the Fight Club’s afterlife has been mired in discussions relating to those who have taken its content over literally, as a paean to narcissistic masculinity and accompanying fascistic tendencies, and the appeal of the very attitude it rebukes, hence the appearance actual fight clubs. Edward Norton observed on the commentary that nihilism can seem like a sexy idea when one is young, and the film is a jet-black telling of that maturing process.

In tandem with this retrospective reproach, there’s an attitude that came right from the start among over-sensitive reviewers, obviously immune to the weaknesses of the symptomatic masses, something we’ve also seen recently with Joker: that the picture is culpable for allowing those ideas to appear attractive, that Fincher and co have a responsibility to present their point of view in as transparent a manner as possible. Hence the idea that the director presented Fight Club far too seductively for it to be considered satire.

The consequence is that voices traditionally disposed towards claiming art isn’t responsible for society’s ills could be found taking a different tack when the art didn’t fit with their narrow definitions of social responsibility. Fincher actively encouraged putting the cat among the pigeons, and expressly avoided leading his audience by the nose: “I remember going to work to make something we knew people were going to take issue with. It was a fun act of sedition”.

Fincher took the position that you should be enamoured of Durden. That’s the point; that doesn’t mean he thinks you as a viewer will be on board with underground fight clubs or (necessarily) a credit reset, or even take issue with rampant materialism, but you’ll recognise the attractiveness of the presentation and messaging. Tyler’s extreme philosophy requires an alluring kernel – bringing down a system dictating our soulless, hamster-on-a-wheel lives is an appealing idea in the abstract, and the film notably parts with the book in not having Tyler kill people intentionally, a significant difference if your intent is to ensnare your audience. But Tyler’s also consciously portrayed as ridiculous, an over-inflated alpha id figure. He needs to be, because this is a (intentionally) ridiculous film. Fight Club’s a comedy played with the straightest face (the only way dour Fincher could play it). That may seem to be stating the obvious – because how could you not notice – but it seems it does need stating, to both sides of the fence that don’t get how pervasive that is. In due course, the giddy lunacy reaches the only point it can reach, of Jack blowing his own head off and then watching calmly, his alter abated, as Project Mayhem “succeeds”.

It’s also in keeping with Fight Club’s twistedness that Tyler does, ultimately, have a positive effect; he succeeds in making Jack a “wholer”, more empathic person. The Jack who cared only about his Ikea now cares for another (Marla), and began caring about the time Meatloaf was shot in the head; previously, he voiced cynical, jaundiced detachment about the “big moosey” he met in one of his survivor support groups (the only place where Jack’s empty soul could find sustenance).

It has been suggested that Fight Club’s third act slacks off somewhat, finally pinned down by the more linear activities of Project Mayhem after the dense whirl/assault of satire and nihilistic venom – basically after the big reveal – but if that’s the case, it is only relatively so. We’re asked to invest in the film emotionally about the same time Jack starts caring, which is as it should be. And as for taking the buildings’ detonation as an endorsement of the basic cause, well, I see it as rather a wink (if it is even taking place at all).

Brad Pitt gets all the attention, which is entirely the point, but Fight Club may represent the finest hours of both Norton and Bonham Carter. The latter fully seized an entirely atypical part and ran with it, but didn’t so much capitalise on the kudos subsequently as marry Tim Burton and become his goth muse. For a while there, Norton got mistaken for a leading man (Red Dragon, The Incredible Hulk) when he was too idiosyncratic (and reportedly temperamental) a fit. For me, it’s his narration, and the tone he imbues the film, that really makes it what it is; in its way, Jack’s voice as mellifluous as the Dust Brothers score.

Fincher seems unlikely to make anything as impactive on the zeitgeist again – see also Danny Boyle – having firmly settled into his familiar, well-trodden serial killer pastures, even getting the opportunity to go for broke with them on Netflix. You kind of wish he had something else besides on his mind, but at least he’s doing what he knows he does well. There’s a virtuosity to his visuals in Fight Club that still entirely impresses – for me at least, the liberal use of CGI hasn’t dated it all, because it’s so well and often ironically – which you can’t often say of CGI – used.

The picture’s twist and thematic element (a movement to eliminate debt) were of course more recently remixed by Mr Robot, which ultimately failed to make a good on either idea (it didn’t help that it wasn’t nearly as sick, twisted or funny). Well, I say that. I gave up after Season Two, so maybe it did come right in the end. But it goes to show Fight Club’s shelf-life. Norton compared its impact to The Graduate, but its controversial qualities ally it more closely with something like A Clockwork Orange, which continues to resurface as a subject for debate. As Fincher commented recently in an interview with Empire, “If Chuck [Palahniuk] had been angry and not questioning, if he had a thesis that he was ready to expound upon about how unfair shit is, had he truly been the proto-fascist that people misinterpret – the guy who coined the term “snowflake” – I don’t know that we would still be talking about it”. Fight Club’s not a movie you need to feel guilty about loving, or even one where you should feel the need to explain why you love it. You are not your fucking favourite movies.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

You are, by your own admission, a vagabond.

Doctor Who Season 10 - Worst to Best
Season 10 has the cachet of an anniversary year, one in which two of its stories actively trade on the past and another utilises significant elements. As such, it’s the first indication of the series’ capacity for slavishly indulging the two-edged sword that is nostalgia, rather than simply bringing back ratings winners (the Daleks). It also finds the show at its cosiest, a vibe that had set in during the previous season, which often seemed to be taking things a little too comfortably. Season 10 is rather more cohesive, even as it signals the end of an era (with Jo’s departure). As a collection of stories, you perhaps wouldn’t call it a classic year, but as a whole, an example of the Pertwee UNIT era operating at its most confident, it more than qualifies.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983)
(SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. That doesn’t mea…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ (or Zootopia as our American cousins refer to it; the European title change being nothing to do with U2, but down to a Danish zoo, it seems, which still doesn’t explain the German title, though) creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). It’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

So credit’s due to co-directors Byron Howard (Bolt, Tangled) and Rich Moore (of The Simpsons, Futurama, and latterly, the great until it kind of rests on its laurels Wreck-It-Ralph) and Jared Bush (presumably one of the th…

You can’t keep the whole world in the dark about what’s going on. Once they know that a five-mile hunk of rock is going to hit the world at 30,000 miles per hour, the people will want to know what the hell we intend to do about it.

Meteor (1979)
(SPOILERS) In which we find Sean Connery – or his agent, whom he got rid of subsequent to this and Cuba – showing how completely out of touch he was by the late 1970s. Hence hitching his cart to the moribund disaster movie genre just as movie entertainment was being rewritten and stolen from under him. He wasn’t alone, of course – pal Michael Caine would appear in both The Swarm and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure during this period – but Meteor’s lack of commercial appeal was only accentuated by how functional and charmless its star is in it. Some have cited Meteor as the worst movie of his career (Christopher Bray in his book on the actor), but its sin is not one of being outright terrible, rather of being terminally dull.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989)
(SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch, or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins. Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon. 

It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy (Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Big Lebowski, “got it” on fi…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Well, if we destroy Kansas the world may not hear about it for years.

Diamonds are Forever (1971)
In conception, Diamonds are Forever was a retreat to safer ground for the series following the “failure” of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. In the end, it proved to be a significant break in tone and humour from what had gone before. More playfulness was evident in the heightened characterisations and settings, but simultaneously more boundaries were pushed in terms of sex and violence. Las Vegas lends the film a tarnished, glitterball quality that would quite accurately predict the excess and decadence of the coming decade. And presiding over the proceedings was a greying Bond, somewhat gone to seed and looking noticeably older than the near-decade it was since his first appearance. Somehow, the result is as sparkling and vital as the diamonds of the title, but it is understandably a curate’s egg. In many respects it bears more resemblance to the camp affectations, eccentricities and quirks of the television series The Avengers than the more straightforward…