In a message dated 99-10-21 02:05:42 EDT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << although seeing criticism of materialism in a movie was refreshing because its so rarely done, i found the criticism trite and almost boring in its predictability. other than that i found the movie disturbing and cant imagine why anyone would want to propagate such ideas about the natural inclinations of human nature. also, as far as depiction of women goes, it was horrible - the only woman in the movie was a not very smart whore type. and the comment about "we're a generation of men raised by women" : 1. so what? women aren't bad. 2. so what? aren't all generations of men raised by women? anyway, i found some redemption in norton's realization that things had gone too far, but not much. it was too late by that point though. the cinematography etc had already pulled in much of the audience and everyone just thought it was so "cool" at that point, so counterculture; when it seemed to just re-ingrain much of those cultural values that already cut at society - sexism, violence, etc. >> while i will admit that some of the films comments on consumerism are a tad trite and certainly nothing new or revolutionary, i don't think that that means the point isn't effectively conveyed, and i think that to a certain extent, this is done on purpose. i think it is very telling that the men in the film that were so quick to glom onto the notions propagated by norton's character appear as mindless as we were supposed to believe norton was to consumerism and his own slave-job. the fact that they are so hung up on mottos and mantras rather than understanding what norton tries to convey (the "in death, he has a name" scene, for example) shows that they are not any more intelligent than they were before they became "enlightened;" similarly, i think that the "fight club" and "project mayhem" are also, to an extent, a satirization of typical male club-atmospheres (fraternities, for example) as being unhealthy, and, well, dumb, a breeding ground for storm-trooper furher-obedience submittal mindsets. while the film throws out these ideas of "men raised by women" as being frustrated in an evil-consumerist society, i don't think it necessarily valorized all of these ideas. i think that some of the points were supposed to be trite, and i think the extent to which it reaches is intentionally exaggerated. in the end, i think it is clear that the idea of fight clubs and this notion of revolution are supposed to be an appropriate answer. secondly, i don't think the woman in the film was supposed to be representative of women in general. i (no offense) find an inherent flaw in this sort of thinking. i read a couple of articles that dismissed boogie nights because it didn't include anything about the homosexual porn that was being produced in the same time period; however, in both these cases, the missing elements (women in fight club, gay porn in boogie nights) don't serve any purpose to the narrative. these films aren't meant to be all-inclusive, and their portraits of people, gender, race, etc, aren't meant to be sweeping indictments. saying that according to fight club all women are drug-addled, suicidal, garishly-made-up whorish creatures because you could say the one lead female is, is akin to saying that according to Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, all men are either raping murderists or victims of such, since these are the only men we see. it's a fraction, a slice of life, real or not. similarly, not all men are as inherently misogynistic as Chad is in In the Company of Men. do such men exist? sure. are they representative as a whole? no. it's not the film's job to make this distinction for the audience. and, though what is excluded can oft-times be as important as what is included, i think it is too simplistic to view everything on the screen as a message or philosophy for us to readily consume. unfortunately people will get the wrong ideas, but i don't think someone who isn't already aggressive or sexist in nature will suddenly have a reverse epiphany and think that violence is an answer. i think more can be said of the reversal of the cause-effect relationship that so many like to point out as being the problem with films and media; aggressive, violent films don't necessarily make healthy, adjustsed people violent as much as violent, aggressive people tend to be drawn towards violent, aggressive material. <<and as an end note; rumor has it that fight clubs have sprung up in NYC and LA. how horrible.>> the author, chuch pahlaniuk, has had people approaching him asking him where they can go to a fight club, apparently, since the book was released. whether or not fight clubs have sprung up, any who would be quick to ally themselves with such a notion missed the point, and are as much (or even more) a point of ridicule and disdain as those so caught up with the "consumerist" society that fight club paints as being so evil. star, who still thinks ikea is the greateset furniture store in the world and is not afraid to admit that most of his furniture was bought there.
