Talk:Fight Club/Archive 1

message: Could someone point out some proof for the Gothic 2 information? I've looked around the web and I've seen nothing so far. -- LGagnon 01:33, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
Because nobody has resonded, I'm removing the part about Gothic 2. -- LGagnon 00:54, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'm taking a GOTHIC NOVELS semester course, so from what I've studied, Fight Club is very gothic in a post-modern context. 
My argument is that Fight Club manifests "the gothic" from a Freudian, psychological perspective in respect to the consumerist time setting.
(If you are unfamiliar with "the gothic" in terms of what constitutes a "gothic hero" from a psychological perspective, I suggest you read Freud's "Mourning versus Melancholia." My definition of "the gothic" is very psychologically based. Continue if interested!)
I've been contemplating Freud's concepts of mourning and melancholia in the context of a post-modern consumerist world. I have a theory that a melancholic (in this context) may direct his cathexis not exclusively in himself but rather in material objects. In the setting of a capitalist society, one could argue that a modern-day melancholic's love object may be material, but the psychological implications of the love object suggest that the love object actually represents his perception of a love object desired by someone else. That is, the melancholic directs his cathexis according to his materialistic desires and in an object that is essentially an object desired by society.
 
Thus, in the context of a post-modern consumerist world, when the melancholic loses his love object, his cathexis has no object to fulfil his desire for plaisir. In other words, by losing the love object, the melancholic has essentially lost the basis for his cultural identity.
 
Thus, a melancholic directs his cathexis away from plaisir (such would be the case for a person in mourning) but rather towards jouissance. To compensant for his lost, the melancholic invests his emotional and psychological energy (cathexis) in a particular excess that goes beyond his desire for conformity. By chosing jouissance rather than plaisir, the melancholic destroys his cultural identity by moving away from his normative subjectivity towards nihilism. 
 
When I researched the term "jouissance," I learned that it was considered to be "self-shattering, disruptive of a 'coherent self," and suicidal. These tendencies apply to melancholics, which is the definition I learned in class.
Oftentimes, a "gothic hero" is melancholic. There is an actual "loss" (person, ideal,..) but also an ambiguous loss that can't be described (or acknowledged). This discrepancy causes the gothic hero to deal with his loss in an unhealthy manner; rather than redirect his cathexis towards something else (move on) he directs it towards himself. He subconsciously must feed his ego. Depression is often a result, in which the melancholic's behavior of self-deprecation lowers his self-esteem. Melancholics oftentimes become increasingly narcissitic as they continue to feed their ego until the "love/lost object" becomes the ego.
The protagonist's (Edward Norton) love object is his material possessions. His alter ego (Brad Pitt) destroys his love object, thus destroying his cultural connection to society (castration). Norton externalizes his repressed emotions (a very gothic tendency) in Brad Pitt. Note, however, that what is repressed is not always negative. 
Norton and Pitt inhabit an abandoned, dark, cramped, decaying house on the margins of society (a very gothic setting).
If you have any questions, or wish for me to continue my analysis, don't hesitate to contact me at tommygirlnyc@aol.com. 
 
OTHER GOTHIC REFERENCES:
Melancholia (Freud)
Frankenstein (Mary Shelly)
The Yellow Wallpaper (Charlotte Perkins Gilman)
the uncanny
doubles/twins
repressed emotions externalized
dark, abandoned spaces
death of a beautiful woman
sublime
eroticism/fetishes
female sexuality (threatening)
phallic simbolism / castration
revenge
.....
Edgar Allen Poe -- 24.193.95.48
:First of all, do not delete my comments when you write your own; it is not proper wiki ettiquette. Second of all, your comment is totally unrelated to the subject of this section. We were talking about the game Gothic 2, not gothicness in general. As for your interpretations, it will not help this article for you to impose your POV onto it. Unless you can cite a source that backs your opinion (and one that is specifically about Fight Club), you have no reason to add your opinion as fact. -- LGagnon 05:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't have to note that you are giving POV on the talk page; that's understood on talk pages. My point was that you were not providing anything that helps to further the article. Talk pages are here for commentary on how to improve the article, not commentary on the subject matter alone. It's no big deal though; as long as you understand how the talk pages work now I'm not bothered by it. -- LGagnon 04:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gothic 2

message: In the film, Tyler is careful to plan the demolition of the credit card company buildings to occur when they are unoccupied, to avoid direct loss of life.  His "in the future I see" speech and other statements suggest that he is aiming for no less than the total destruction of civilization as we know it, which would of course indirectly lead to tens of millions of casualties.
In the novel, Tyler seems unconcerned about killing people directly.
I'm guessing that the change was made in the screenplay in order to make slightly less politically incorrect.  This seems like a pretty significant difference to me; should something about this be added to the list of differences?
-- Brouhaha 06:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major philosophical difference in Project Mayhem between book and movie

message: For those who haven't read the book, Palahniuk never once capitalizes the club's name. The only time it is ever capitalized is in the book's title. To keep this article consistent with the book's presentation, I believe we should keep all instances of "fight club" in lower case unless referring to the title of the book and/or film. -- LGagnon 19:53, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
:I wouldn't do it just to be consistant with the book, but I agree to it grammar-wise anyway. -Bordello 18:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do not capitalize fight club

message: Let's try not to fill this section up too much. Tons of films are compared to one another over and over again, and eventually this section could become nothing more than a nit-picking trivia section. The article should try not to stray its focus into other films unless they are really notable for the purpose of this article. In my opinion, Collateral isn't really notable enough to have added a large paragraph about it. -- LGagnon 17:49, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
*Actually I think the Collateral connection is bigger than the 12 Monkeys ones, but I guess you're right that that's beyond the scope of the article. Maybe the entire section could be reduced to a paragraph in the trivia section. It could state that the motives of Fight Club are repeated in a few other films, sometimes incidentally, sometimes as direct homage. Then a couple of names can be mentioned, namely Collateral and 12 Monkeys. What do you think? Spikeballs 20:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
**Sounds like an improvement. Go ahead and try your idea and we'll see how it works out. -- LGagnon 02:09, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
**If you watch 12 Monkies, believe me, the connection is there. Its actually almost like Tyler Durden is in two movies. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 02:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarities to other films

message: Do we really need to include every minor role in the Cast section? I'm going to remove some of the minor characters for now, as many aren't improtant and won't likely have articles for their actors. -- LGagnon 21:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cast section size

message: a 24 years old medicine student in brazil after shooting the bathroom's mirror invaded the movie theater of a shopping center with a SMG and shot the public until the last bullet killing and injuring people. the film got blamed and bacame infamous in brazil. wouldn't be intersting to put something about it in the article? - 201.14.240.226, 2005-11-12t09:28:32z
Here is a source, if anyone cares to add it:  --God Ω  War 05:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't say the film was blamed; it just says he was watching it at the time. It also notes that the city where it happened is a very violent place already. -- LGagnon 16:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: brazilian shooting

message: While I can understand the anti-consumerism comparison, No Logo couldn't have been echoed by the film, as the book was published the year after the film's theatrical release. I suggest either removing that or editing it to be more accurate. -- LGagnon 01:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Logo

message: The Columbine High School massacre was still in the minds of Americans (and film critics) when Fight Club premiered.  At the time I was taking a course with film critic Leonard Maltin and the subject came up.  Fight Club had the unfortunate timing of being the first, seemingly overly violent (albeit, to those who were not looking very hard), film that got the brunt of critical reaction to violence in film --critics were looking for a film to lash out at and a big name commercial film with strong elements of anarchy was the perfect target.  Interestingly, as time passed, and the emotions of Columbine cooled, the critical praise of the film grew to what it is today.  Bobak 23:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. It's probably best to include more info on that than just a sentence, though; a whole paragraph would be nice. -- LGagnon 23:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbine's effect on the movie's Box Office 

message: Havent seen the film but can someone explain to me if this guy has :image:Robert_Pulson_with_Jack.jpg.jpg female breasts and why? Tutmosis 02:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Go read the novel's article. -- LGagnon 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breasts 

message: Wouldn't it be appropriate to include the homoerotic themes of the film in the Reactions and Themes section?  It's mentioned briefly in the novel's article, but a paragraph here could take note of the various images; the phallic gun in Edward Norton's mouth, the hyper-masculinization, the near-sexual fervor of the violence, and various dialogue referring to the main characters' relationship ("ozzie and harriet", "breaking up", etc.). -- Mrcool1122 04:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Find some outside sources for criticism first. It's best to prove that someone is criticizing the film that way first before adding in details that may back that claim. -- LGagnon 04:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This Web page discusses homoeroticism in the movie: "There's a blatant homoerotic charge to this identification which the film doesn't shy away from..." Amy Taubin, the author, sometimes writes film reviews for the Village Voice. I think this theme deserves inclusion in the article. Griot 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want a scholarly source that talks about it, look up Robert Alan Brookey and Robert Westerfelhaus's article "Hiding Homoeroticism in Plain View: The Fight Club DVD as Digital Closet." It's in Critical Studies in Media Communication Volume 19, Issue 1 (March 2002), pages 21-43. Used it recently in a paper on the DVD extras as a means of squelching interpretation.ProfJeFF 03:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homoeroticism 

message: Can someone explain what the chanting of "His name is Robert Paulson" was all about? JoachimK 13:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When the Narrator says it, he s denying the destruction of his friend's identity to the other members of Mayhem; they take it as a sign that only in death will they regain their identity, and so honor their first fallen brother whenever one of them dies. Daemon8666 00:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His name is Robert Paulson 

message: From "Differences between novel and film":
"The narrator shoots himself to kill Tyler, rather than to make a decision on his own as in the novel."
Isn't the narrator's motivation in the film actually ambiguous? How can we be sure it was to kill Tyler? FAL 02:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The scene is quite different from in the novel. In the novel, Tyler is already gone for good by the time he shoots himself. The narrator already got rid of him simply by arguing with him. In the film, Tyler is still there, and the narrator is still trying to get rid of him. Since the narration says nothing about why he's shooting himself, the only thing we can tell for certain is that he's still trying to get rid of Tyler. -- LGagnon 03:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: He shoots himself to so that Tyler will not hurt anyone else. Killing himself is the only way to ensure this.--God Ω  War 00:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's your interpretation, not anything definite. Palahniuk's characters are very morally ambiguous, and thus you may be wrong. -- LGagnon 03:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you cite a page number for that? I don't remember that scene. -- LGagnon 20:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The narrator's motivation 

message: Shouldn't something be included about the fact that it was supposed to be a very low budget movie but Pitt refused to take a pay cut after saying he would and therefore the movie cost alot more than it recouped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.176.26 (talk • contribs) 
:Not without an external source. Slac speak up! 02:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pay increases 

message: The narrator didn't make a mistake when he said that it began with Marla; the screenwriter did. In the novel, the narrator also says it began with Marla, but he goes on to explain why he says this, rather than jump to Bob. In the novel, Marla was the catalyst for the awakening of Tyler's personality (which the screenwriter also left out of the film). The scene isn't proof that he's an unreliable narrator (even though he is); it's proof that they couldn't fit the entire prologue into the film. -- LGagnon 18:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dialogue mistake

message: I seem to remember that the film caused "real" fight clubs to spring up in the US and possibly in other countries. I have done basic web searches but have turned up nothing. Has anyone got specific info on this? It would be very interesting as a social phenomenon, given that the film's portrayal of violence was rather realistic - I mean, if it was glamorised violence then a "real" fight club would last about as long as it took for the club members to experience the real thing. But since the violence was not glamorised (relatively speaking), I wonder how the "real" fight clubs fared? Sociologically this would be fascinating... I seem to remember reading about it in a newspaper around 6 months after the film was released. If anyone can include a source or info I'd be grateful. Thanks. Ryancolm 11:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do a search on YouTube for "Fight Club," you'll come across a number of amateur videos ostensibly of fight clubs. More often than not, however the fighters are not engaging in full-contact, until-we-bleed fight club activities. They'll avoid hitting each other's faces, for instance, or only slap with open hands. I've seen (obviously cannot cite, as this is just personal experience) loose fight clubs wherein a bunch of guys/women (yes, both genders) get together and beat each other up. These sorts of things generally aren't filmed, however, and I suspect that those who "get" the concept of fight club and take it to heart, as opposed to "getting" it and rejecting it as infantile, realize that recording and bragging about it later is antithetical to the purpose of a fight club.ProfJeFF 04:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

text: In the back of my copy of Fight Club, Palanuik mentions several actual fight clubs inspired from his book. Notabley, a 4H fight club and a Mormon fight club (if memory serves right). -Bordello 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a link to an article in USA Today about actual fight clubs inspired by the movie. Count Ringworm 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "real" fight clubs inspired by the film?

message: I suggest the following courses of action:
*Fork "Clues about Durden's identity" section's content onto own article a la Fight Club in popular culture
*Rewrite as prose instead of a list (possibly too difficult, especially for all points)
*Delete entirely on trivial basis; information is not encyclopedia-worthy
I'd like to get this film article cleaned up in terms of its lists.  Suggestions about the "Differences between novel and film" would be appreciated as well; the information is less trivial than "Clues about Durden's identity" and could warrant a content fork. --Erik (talk/contrib) @ 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clues about Durden's identity