"Now why would you sell it to me and not to him?"
"Because you're not a geek, Louis." "You guys are snobs."
"No we're not."
"No seriously, you're totally elitist, you feel like the unappreciated scholars
"so you shit on the people who know less than you." "No."
"Which is everybody." "Yeah!"
"It's just sad. That's all."
Pop culture obsession is odd.
A lot of strong emotions colliding over the discussion of what is
in essence merely entertainment.
Often fans condemn those who don't get their particular piece of pop culture.
It's their way of reinforcing the ownership of it.
Their opinion is that these others don't understand the subtlety or its various layers
and that anything other than their way of enjoying this is wrong.
And this whole argument is based on the idea that there is only one true
interpretation of a film, TV show or whatever which is bullshit.
A point against this would be the Wizard of Oz.
For those in the know is an allegory for the political economic and social events of America in the 1890s
But unless you're well versed in that part of American history
it is way more enjoyable as a piece of musical fantasy.
But it can be both. The other isn't wrong.
Another example where there are multiple diverse readings is David Fincher's Fight Club.
So much so that every video essayist has their own take.
It's pretty much a cliche at this point.
Fincher for all intents and purposes is the best American director working today.
His work is consistent, progressive and obsessed with detail.
Fight Club in particular is a template example of seeing film
through Marxist, Post-Modernist and Feminist lenses.
It's film studies 101.
And I think the fact that you can read almost anything into this film
is the reason why there's so much online analysis.
It has copious layers and subtleties,
and this is no doubt aided by his unwillingness to give definitive answers.
I remember being personally obsessed with the narrator's spirit animal being a penguin.
Why a penguin?
I even read Chuck Palahniuk's book in search for thematic closure
but no only the following sentences:
This told me nothing explicitly.
I would have to look deeper from my personal interpretation of the penguin.
And this too goes for the majority of the elements and themes in Fight Club.
But especially the Enigma that is Tyler Durden.
What does Tyler represent? Is he a terrorist? A freedom fighter?
A paragon of manhood? The very ideal of toxic masculinity?
A cult leader? A hero? A figment of your fucking imagination?
Yes.
"All the ways you wish you could be, that's me."
"I look like you want to look, I fuck like you wanna fuck."
"I am smart, capable and most importantly I'm free in all the ways that you are not."
He is a mirror for the audience to see whatever they want.
Tyler the height of masculinity.
Tyler as an attainable goal.
The standard girls-want-to-be-with-him, guys-want-to-be-him type.
Conversely Tyler is also the worst parts of outdated caveman manhood.
The war bringing, life destroying elements of being a man.
And both work within the framework of the film.
Any argument for or against Tyler and his thematic worth can be countered
with the in-film reality in that he does not exist.
He's a fabrication created out of either psychosis, lack of self-esteem or sheer friendlessness.
But if Tyler was on one end the "man spectrum" the filmic opposite would be someone like Lloyd Dobler,
protagonist from late 80s rom-com Say Anything...
An extreme version of the sensitive caring guy trope.
The do-anything-for-her, wait outside her window with a boom box in the pouring rain type.
He spends most of the film just friends with love interest, Diane Court,
hanging out, and going on pseudo-dates but lacking any kind of overt romantic frisson.
In the end spoilers he gets the girl.
In the same way that Tyler is held up as an aspirational goal
so too is Lloyd.
But they are two polar extremes of personality.
Masculinity is not either/or.
It's a scale. Both extremes are unhealthy to replicate and sustain.
"You're intolerable. You have very serious emotional problems.
"Deep-seated problems for which you should seek professional help."
"I know."
I enjoyed the theory that Tyler is acting as the Manic Pixie dream girl for the narrator.
By definition this character is:
The fact that Tyler only exists in the narrator's imagination
so he can explore life and its existence makes him a dead ringer for Zooey Deschannel types.
"That's an interesting theory."
One thing I always find funny is the cutting hypocrisy of Tyler.
"We've all been raised on television to believe
"that one day we'd all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars. But we won't."
Tyler's words coming out Brad Pitt's mouth saying these words to Meat Loaf and Jared Leto.
"Is that what a man looks like?" "Self-improvement is masturbation."
But Tyler appears throughout with perfectly quaffed hair and sculpted abs.
He is the antithesis of practice what you preach.
Being that Tyler is a great orator and leader it makes sense that
those in the film would follow him.
The issue comes when people watching wholeheartedly follow Tyler's mantras as their way to live life.
No matter the interpretation, he's still a fictional character
unfettered by the rules of reality and consequences.
You can believe that the things that you own will end up owning you
but you might want to do a bit more research into that idea
before blindly taking Tyler's word for it and living a possession-less lifestyle.
Extreme minimalism is not for everyone.
You'll miss YouTube.
Fight Club even satirizes the lesser interpretation idea
the separation between those in the know, Tyler and the narrator,
and those that don't quite get it.
The protagonist is characterized as intellectual.
"How's that working out for you?"
"What?" "Being clever."
And the only one that can see what is really going on.
The others merely followers, sheep.
"Like nobody knows what he looks like."
"He has facial reconstructive surgery every three years."
"That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
They are disenfranchised and disappointed
and looking for something to give them meaning,
no matter how radical that meaning may be or how little they truly understand it.
They are there for the catchphrases and the community.
"You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake."
And perhaps for a chance for mindless violence.
This is summed up by the scene where Bob's just been shot:
"I understand."
"His name is Robert Paulson. His name is Robert Paulson."
"His name is Robert Paulson."
The members of Project Mayhem are blindly joined by the communal chant
unable to comprehend the situation while the narrator tries to reason with them.
If you wanted you could extrapolate this, into the external narrative
of those that have taken Fight Club as their movement's doctrine.
But again this is Fight Club, you can take from it what you want.
Is Fight Club an anti-capitalist creed
or a satire on the uselessness of counterculture movements?
Is a case of some animals are more equal than others?
In a way the film is an equal opportunity fuck you to everyone.
You a feminised manchild? Fuck you.
You a toxic macho bro? Fuck you.
Third wave feminist? Fuck you.
You want to overthink everything? Fuck you.
You want to take things at face value? Fuck you too.
It is a seething nihilistic slab of contempt for every aspect of late 90s society.
But before I go, one last thing:
The song that concludes Fight Club is "Where is My Mind?" by the Pixies.
A base reading on the songs content based on its chorus, title and its placement in Fight Club
would lead you to believe that it is about schizophrenia or mental illness in some form.
But look into the lyrics and it was written about singer Frank Black's experience scuba diving.
The "Where is my mind?" line is used due to him losing his bearings underwater
and being confused that his legs are now above his head.
If our collective interpretation of that song is different from the intent
Does that mean that we too can be completely wrong about Fight Club?