Difference between revisions of "Talk:922: Fight Club"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Really? Is something like that really common? I was a teen when I saw that movie and I did understand what it was about. And I'm not trying to show off; honestly, I don't think there is any merit on that. Wasn't the movie pretty obvious about it's anti-consumerism ideas? :/ [[Special:Contributions/189.179.25.191|189.179.25.191]] 23:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | Really? Is something like that really common? I was a teen when I saw that movie and I did understand what it was about. And I'm not trying to show off; honestly, I don't think there is any merit on that. Wasn't the movie pretty obvious about it's anti-consumerism ideas? :/ [[Special:Contributions/189.179.25.191|189.179.25.191]] 23:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | No; it's about a dialectical opposition between the Narrator's two attempted paths to happiness: Conforming to what society says he should do to be happy, and smashing them all. (Norton and Pitt, respectively) It's the Slave and Master mentality from Nietzsche. A naive viewing of the movie (i.e. what almost every teenager sees, hence the mouseover text) is that, because the Conformist model is so clearly unhappy, the movie is glorifying Pitt's smashy-smashy ethos. Except that's completely self-destructive and unsatisfying, as well: an all-consuming hatred of consumerism is its own cosumerism-pathology. It's at the end of the movie that the dialectic resolves. Norton destroys both the confirmist and smashy-smashy selves, and starts on a path to true happiness. You see this as he leaves with Marla--he is leaving with her because he wants to be in a relationship with her because he and she will enjoy it. He is NOT doing it to ape how he's supposed to act, and he's not doing it as some sort of BDSM humiliation thing. He has become the Ubermensch--he is able to chart his own path to happiness, enjoying the fruits of material society if he would enjoy them, without being enslaved to them or enslaved by hatred of them. [[Special:Contributions/173.245.63.192|173.245.63.192]] 15:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:32, 31 December 2013
I never really liked the movie either so... Davidy²²[talk] 09:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Really? Is something like that really common? I was a teen when I saw that movie and I did understand what it was about. And I'm not trying to show off; honestly, I don't think there is any merit on that. Wasn't the movie pretty obvious about it's anti-consumerism ideas? :/ 189.179.25.191 23:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
No; it's about a dialectical opposition between the Narrator's two attempted paths to happiness: Conforming to what society says he should do to be happy, and smashing them all. (Norton and Pitt, respectively) It's the Slave and Master mentality from Nietzsche. A naive viewing of the movie (i.e. what almost every teenager sees, hence the mouseover text) is that, because the Conformist model is so clearly unhappy, the movie is glorifying Pitt's smashy-smashy ethos. Except that's completely self-destructive and unsatisfying, as well: an all-consuming hatred of consumerism is its own cosumerism-pathology. It's at the end of the movie that the dialectic resolves. Norton destroys both the confirmist and smashy-smashy selves, and starts on a path to true happiness. You see this as he leaves with Marla--he is leaving with her because he wants to be in a relationship with her because he and she will enjoy it. He is NOT doing it to ape how he's supposed to act, and he's not doing it as some sort of BDSM humiliation thing. He has become the Ubermensch--he is able to chart his own path to happiness, enjoying the fruits of material society if he would enjoy them, without being enslaved to them or enslaved by hatred of them. 173.245.63.192 15:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
