Do you believe that Fight Club believes in Tyler Durden, or is it satirizing him?
David Fincher. The man is on a roll.
I have an admission to make from my cineast heart -- up until the recent triptych of Zodiac, The Social Network, and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, I wasn't a big David Fincher fan. Alien3 was a mess (although that was the studio's fault). Hated Panic Room. Se7en was good. The Game was fine, but nothing to go agog over. The real point where I seemed to cartwheel away from the consensus was with Fight Club.
I thought Fight Club was a beautiful movie that was interesting visually, but thematically, I just couldn't get into it. And the reason why? Because the movie seemed to buy Tyler Durden's bullshit. It's supposed to be bullshit, right? Isn't Tyler Durden supposed to represent that particular brand of nihilistic hypermasculinity that people suppress when they decide to participate in a society? Isn't the point of the book to satirize our yearning for that kind of thing? To satirize our desire to want to kick and punch each other and blow things up and stick our fist in the eye of society and call that living?
In the movie, Tyler Durden came across to me as mostly straight-up, conventional hero. And yes, I know there's the twist at the end, but it's too little too late at that point.
In talking about this with other folks, it appears that the problem may actually be with me. It appears that the movie actually was satire and I just didn't get it. My radio just wasn't set to the right frequency, and the satire was deadpan enough to sneak right under the signal. I'm entirely willing to believe this is true, because I want to like Fight Club.
So tell me, fellow Reckonauts! Do you think Fight Club was actually a satire? Or do you believe that IT believes what Tyler Durden was selling?