The title is deceiving

Rating: 10/10 (18 January 2002)

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Slick, witty and thought-provoking; Fight Club breathes a breath of fresh air into films. It's anti-consumerism message and controversial ideas are never force-fed to the viewer and are stylishly decorated in lavish camera-work and cleverly interwoven plot twists.
Based on the Chuck Palahniuk novel, the title 'Fight Club' doesn't really do the film justice. There is fighting in Fight Club and a lot of it. Some, extremely gut-wrenching. But this isn't what the film is really about. It's about one 30 year old man's journey of self-discovery. The secret, basement-based group, known as 'fight club' just happens to be an enlightening experience for him. It also has more of an impact on his life than he might have originally anticipated. The title "Fight Club" makes this film sound like it will only appeal to 14 year old boys who love to watch blood flying everywhere as grown adults pummel each other into the ground. And it WILL appeal to this client group for the aforementioned reason. However, the premise of the film is a lot deeper than it sounds.
Basic premise: a group of young men nearing thirty-something rebel against Marcuse's borgeousie consumer society, no longer allowing themselves to be slaves to possessions, nor to the romantic lies perpetrated by the media-rich collective consciousness. The solution to modern ennui is violence, aggression, vandalism, and self-abnegation, abject nihilism. To say fight club is more brawn than brains, is a clear sign of misinterpretation of the very demanding, thought-provoking ideas expressed within the film.
The film begins as the camera sweeps through a computer generated intricate maze of what we later discover is the Narrator's (Edward Norton) brain. The opening sequence alone - the music, the feel and the atmosphere - immediately altered my preconception of the film. This was certainly no shabby slug-fest of a film, which was created in the hope that Brad Pitt and the big-budget alone, would carry it. Neither, for that matter, was it to be a naturalistic and grim portrayal of modern life.
The fact is, while the acting in Fight Club is fairly natural and realistic, the film borrows more from the stylistic method of movie-making and even has a surreal feel about it. The main character, who is throughout unnamed also narrates the film. Fight Club is essentially about this man and follows his characters movements almost constantly and, by narration, we are shown a glimpse of the motivations for his actions and reasoning. However, narration is by no means a rarity in a film. In fact, some of the most highly acclaimed films of all time have relied on this style of conveying the thoughts of the character to the viewer; one of the most successful films of 1999, "American Beauty" also uses narration, as does "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Blade Runner". It seems that narration in a movie works well. And Fight Club is no exception.
As the film centres around this one character, we obviously learn a lot about him as a person and this is the soul of the plot. Edward Norton puts in a disturbingly convincing performance and suits the part to a tee as a very normal 30 year old who has spent his life trying to climb the corporate ladder. After only six films, Norton has already been nominated for two academy awards for 'best actor', after his fantastic performances in Primal Fear and American History X. David Fincher, the director of Fight Club, strongly believes that nobody else could have played the part as well as Edward Norton, who's method acting ways and perfect timing complement the almost poetic script written by the award winning, Jim Uhls.
His character is stuck in a dead-end job and he isn't going anywhere. Fast. He spends his life trying to improve his condominium, buying furniture and clothes he 'doesn't even need'. He seeks perfection, he was almost there, almost 'complete' in a Martha Stuart-type way. He's become a slave to the Ikea nesting instinct and is trying to fulfil his life with materialistic possessions. He'd often flick through pages in a catalogue and wonder `what sort of a dining set defines me as a person?' But as he later discovers, 'self-improvement is masturbation - self-destruction'.
To make things worse, he has insomnia. Norton is brilliant at emulating the pain and anguish he's going through, desperate to sleep. He had sunk so low, that he sometimes prayed for a mid-air collision on one of his many flights across America, which his job demands of him. `This is my life, and it's ending one minute at a time,' he eloquently puts it. After being denied attention from his doctor who rather insensitively tells him to 'lighten up', he finds refuge in support groups. He becomes 'addicted'; testicular cancer, brain parasites, blood parasites, he attends as many as he can. Where else is he offered comfort, love and warmth that only dying people receive?
His insomnia ceases, for the meantime at least, but when another 'faker', Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter), starts attending all of the same groups as well, his insomnia recommences. Her lie reflects his lie and therefore he can't sleep again.. It isn't until he meets Tyler Durden (played by Brad Pitt) on a business trip that his life makes a positive turn-around. Tyler's laid back and easy going attitude fascinates him and a strong friendship develops, bonded by their contrary ideas and philosophy of life. Together they form 'fight club' as a way of releasing their pent-up aggression and defying the consensus of society. But what originally begins as a (playful) get together at weekends, gradually gets out of hand as Tyler's charismatic personality and influential ideas lead to the construction of a powerful organisation which believes in letting that which does not matter, truly slide.
The director, David Fincher (made famous for his darkly sinister direction of Se7en), uses an almost surreal approach. Every gimmick is utilised by this slightly self-consciously clever flick, which may begin to grate on some people's nerves. The spontaneity of the film's direction is a device used to sustain the interest of the viewer and in my case it worked well. At one point, the camera swoops around the room, as if it were a page in a catalogue, with items of furniture appearing and the price and details materialising on the landscape as he walks through the room. This is an example of the imagination and creativity of the film's direction which really is unique.
In terms of plot, the plausibility of underground pugilistic endeavours working therapeutic wonders is almost nil, but the film only thrives to engage the viewer on a serious level in it's ideas, not in it's presentation of them.
The brutally violent nature of certain parts of the film can only add to the desired impact, but obviously some viewers will definitely be offended by the constant barrage of punches to the completely bruised and cracked face of Jared Leto, who makes a small appearance in the film. The violence is not wholly justified by the subject matter, but herein lies the result of the characters' aggression and frustrations.
With some fantastic acting from all the leads in the film (Edward Norton, Brad Pitt and Helen Bonham Carter, especially), bold direction from David Fincher and a controversial issue that certainly demands attention, Fight Club oozes both bravery and originality and is absolutely worth seeing.
Fight Club's flaws are few and minor and furthermore neither are they even unconditional: it ends slightly unresolved and there is ambiguity over how serious it is meant to be taken practically. Aspects which in themselves can be discussed, considered and analysed.
In short, well worth seeing, but not for those who are easily offended
"If you wake up in different places at different times, is it possible that you could wake up as a different person?"
Oh yes, and there's a twist too.