A stunning, but intellectually flawed film

Rating: 8/10 (26 July 2002)

The most telling exposition is Pitt's line that we are ". . .two generations of men raised (sic) by women." This is a notion that one would expect that pudgy, wussie "moma's boy" Roger Ebert to fail to get. And Lord, does he fail to get it! (The review is available on the imdb) The notion that the problem is only two generations old is way off base, however. This started when boys ceased to be taught the arts of hunting and war, about the time farming became the mainstay of our economy. However, it became its most insidious when men left home to work and left their sons in the tender, tearful care of their mothers.
En fin, the film is saying that we are taught that the world revolves around women and the business/government cabal . . . and that nothing else matters.
The film's positions are that: 1. We don't know who we are because we are wired one way (aggressive, testosterone stuff) and taught another way (tender "no fighting", conniving manipulation, pretend to love each other stuff). I agree
2. This was brought about by the business/government infrastructure who support the structure because it makes it less likely that they will be challanged. I disagree, though, by removing men from the rearing of their sons it has made a bad situation worse. At the very least it has certainly heightened the internal conflict in men. I do agree that business/government are happy with the status quo, for this and other reasons they scarcely understand.
3. That the need for this kind of physical outlet for men is so serious that virtual "violence drones" can be created. I agree, anyone check the growing membership of right and left-wing militias recently?
4. That the solution is the destruction of the economic infrastructure. Brad. . . as much as I like you as an actor, you wouldn't last 5 days in the environment this movie would create.
The solution is far more complex and relies on our ability to find a way that will allow boys to be reared as men rather than women in drag (or men who are old well before their time).
For provoking these thoughts, and for getting the (always hilarious) wussie response from Ebert and for being well filmed and acted the film is highly recommended.
Oh, one more thing. Ebert is also wrong about the injuries incurred in fight club. Bare knuckle fights went on for 50 rounds or more, some one had to be knocked out. And until fighters donned gloves to protect the squeemish from the sight of blood, no one died from a brain injury (a little known fact that was a favourite of James Cagney's and which he would drop whenever people started talking about). There were far fewer broken bones than one would expect, noses and fingers being the most common.