free yourself to do what you want-- good philosophy and
according to carlo's review, this is the message of the
film fight club. in the review, he says that the film
says
not to blindly follow society's diktats. society
doesnot
always tell you what is good for you. that'a alright, i
agree with it, but i cannot agree that you can just go
and
follow your dreams. to do that you might and should
forget
society, but can you forget your family and your loved
ones. in the scene where brad pitt points the gun at a
total
stranger ordering him to do what he wants in six
weeks is totally unconvincing. firstly, there is no
history
given to the stranger. we donot know the reasons why he
didnot follow his dreams. is it because of society or
some
other compulsion? there can be numerous reasons for it.
he
needs the money desperately that he takes up the first
job
offered to him or he is saving up enough money to go
back
to college or even because some other maniac like brad
pitt
is forcing him to do what he is doing? brad pitt is
supposedly freeing this man of his daily drugdery, but
is
he? the stranger is not offered any choice. he has to
do
what he wants to do or lose his life. is this not the
same
thing that society does to people, forcing them to kill
their dreams? here, pitt is forcing to live his dreams.
one
extreme being replaced by another. in the review he
remarks
that pitt is correct when he says that everyone is the
part
of the same compost heap. if so, then how come everyone
is
not a part of the fight club. how come the first rule
forbids people to talk about the fight club. everyone
should find it appealing, but that is not true because
everyone is not leading a highly ftrustrated life as
jack.
jack's
frustration came out in the form of poisonously
violent tyler who went completely out of control. pitt
is
not correct in his assessment that "each one is unique"
is
bullshit. as jack himself reveals, everyone is really
unique. jack's uniqueness is his alter-ego. he has
great
organisational skills, unexceptionally talented. he is
also
perhaps the greatest controlling freak in moviedom.
jack's
uniqueness is also his desire to wrest back the control
of
his life from the corporate drudgery. i call pitt a
control
freak in the film because of the way he takes control
of the lives of the members of fight club, ordering
them to
do what he wants to do. as jack says in the film, "he
(tyler) was making everyone like him" (might not be
exact
words). also, the abovementioned scene with the
stranger
shows his love to order around people, ostensibly
to 'free'
him. norton is absolutely right when he says that every
culture needs to examine its own breed of violence, but
that examination cannot be violent itself.the film does
explore the roots of frustration. jack's frustration is
because he is a corporate drone and cannot vent out his
baser emotions. but, if he doesnot like his job, his
life,
then get up and get going. he cannot blame this society
and
its consumer culture to be responsible for his
frustration as the same society gives ample opportunity
for
others to follow and live their dreams. what is
stopping
him? its not the like the stranger whose history is not
given. jack has a background which i donot think should
stop him from doing what he wants. jack's character has
one
fatal flaw. he lives in extremes. first as a corporate
drone and when he finds an outlet, then as a nhilistic
drone, which ultimately destroys him. however, i agree
with
carlo that the film is not glorifying violence even
though
the last sequence shows
buildings being blown up. the desperate attempts of
jack to
stop tyler and his imminent suicide prevent it from
being a glorification of violence. iw deep-
seated
frustration can go completely out of control just like
the
real-life american students going on a rampage with
guns.