Re: Fite Klub Sucks

[Gary Maclennan <g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wonderful thread on Art & Politics.  I have sent a review of this film
(Fight Club) to the list before  and I will dig it out and repost.
It seems to me though the political impact of a film cannot be reduced to
the authors' intentions. We can read a film against the grain or
oppositionally.  Take the example of Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will'
for instance (film of Hitler's Nurembourg rally). This is regarded as a
doco classic and much is made of it in film theory. However I think it is
above else a testimony to the boredom inherent in mass spectacle.  Clever
an all as it is aesthetically, ultimately it palls because it totally lacks
an ethical dimension.

But movies are an important area of struggle for Marxists.  Apart from that
they are hugely enjoyable, though I think Lou is absolutely correct in his
condemnation of Hollywood. However I found fight club extremely interesting
in philosophical terms.  It does tell us a lot, unintentionally perhaps,
about the truly fucked up nature of Late Capitalist society.


regards

Gary


At 20:25 10/07/00 -0400, you wrote:



> > Perhaps there may be a better way to analyze the film "Fight Club".
>
>If you want to even call it a film :P Admitedly I haven't seen the movie (or
>really any in a very long time, I'm no fan of movies, really..) but from
>reviews, the previews that were on TV when it was out, and what has been
>posted here it seems pretty much like crap on a stick.
>
>
>Marxists
> > generally realize that art does not spring from a vaccuum and that art,
>even
> > film art, is a reflection of the times.  In this case, FC represents the
> > vague perceptions of Hollywood about the tenor of the times. Whether FC is
> > pro-fascist or pro-anarchist really is not the issue. Why? Because to
> > Hollywood there are both manifestations of things that they choose not to
> > understand/explain, only to cash-in on. Black masks and symbolic violence
> > against corporate targets are the images of the times.
>
>
>Yea, they probably wanted to draw the young anarchist-oriented crowd in. If
>the events in Seattle were done by Black Hundred facsists, they'd have
>little SS agents running around with swastikas, hoping to get their cash.
>Hollywood (and lots of todays "culture", in general) is nothing more than
>whatever the executives at such companies feel that it should be ; and for
>the most part people just swallow it to "fit in, be cool" etc. Whats even
>funnier though, is how that has also been somewhat co-opted out. Seems like
>the majority of people (remember, im 18 , so that age group is what I'm
>refering to) are now in the "different" category ; hence the "different" has
>become the norm...kind of a weird social study could be done on that I
>suppose.
>
>
>
> > But Hollywood has no insight into the ideology of Left Anarchism. Thus
>they
> > choose to capture what they see and portray it in simplistic terms that
>they
> > think an unsophisticated audience will swallow.  Somehow, cultism and
> > masochistic male-militarism are the only underlying dynamics that
>Hollywood
> > can relate too. Thus the most amazing accomplishment of FC is that it says
> > absolutely nothing while appearing to be profound, controversial and
> > topical.
>
>As with most things currently. "Controversial" and "Taboo" subejcts really
>end up being boring and completely inert, but just calling them such things
>lends interest, while in the end delivering nothing at all. Other than the
>flashy titles.
>
>
>
>  > Thus, feminism is just one more 'touchy-feely' 12-step program to be
> > targeted and ridiculed (along with mindless consumerism) for all of the
> > 'little males' with sexual identity problems who will devour all of the
> > 'easy-to-repeat' cliches.
>
>That does seem to be the order of the day, giving young men pre-packaged
>little snipets of what being a "man" is supposed to be in it's distilled
>essence...and what is your typical kid who would watch this stuff to do
>other than emulate it? They could not follow it, but then they'd be subject
>to ridcule as a "wuss" or other derogatory names. And of course Hollywood
>must always promote the constant male-boosterism and anti-feminism, it has a
>big part in creating such thoughts!
>
>
> > FC is nothing more than 'ready-to-wear' pseudo-politics and
> > psuedo-philosophy that seems to describe, but not explain, the collapse of
> > the political center and the falling wage rate in the great service
>economy
> > of the US. Good films that say something controversial and
> > 'anti-establishment' don't get made . . . at least not in Hollywood.
>
>Right, I'd say to the following message that talked about somewhat left-wing
>films (there being any, etc.) might want to watch something by Bertold
>Brecht (even though he is wishy-washy in his older age...), they are
>definately not your standard fare.
>
>
>  I
> > advise you to puke on the FC copy that you rented and then throw it
>through
> > the window of your video store. It really does not matter if you use your
> > 'left' or 'right' arm when you hurl this video tape that you 'hurled' on.
> > Remember:'Real Men' never forget to wear their black masks when they do
>this
> > sort of important political work. That's what I learned from Fite Klub!
>
>But, the director or other associated people with this film would tell you,
>they "brought up" the question of deciding which arm to use and which
>direction to toss one's cookies onto the cover of the film, so it was
>successfull. Heh. And further, they could have named the film "Mr. Wojimbo
>runs though the park stark naked"; it would have had exactly the same
>effect...
>