>The fighting was the thing I disliked most about the movie. I
>still dont see what point was trying 2 be made or what they
>were trying 2 accomplish by beating the shit outta each
>other.

The point was that man had been stripped of his man-ness by his obsession with material goods and in essence, emasculated by materialism. Fight Club was a way of reclaiming that manhood, getting back to the primal essence of man.

>Not that the movie is as deep as some make it out 2 be but I
>actually enjoyed the message of not concerning yourself w/
>materialistic shit. Of course there's a fundamental problem w/
>the assumption that beating the shit outta cohorts is a proper
>substitute.

The idea was that Fight Club, by allowing men to get back to their primal being, made life worth living again, as opposed to the lifelessness they had with their mindless, droning jobs and IKEA catalogs.

>>And yes, Fight Club could be about the ugliness, blah blah
>>blah. I find all of Fight Club's MAYHEM very lame and timid.
>I
>>could give two shits about the mayhem he's causing, because
>I
>>don't believe it. By the time you find out he's two
>different
>>people, you REALLY don't believe it.
>
>U mean the same person right? But as far as believability...it
>totally worked 4 me upon multiple viewings.

It worked for me as well. In fact, I've always argued that Fight Club works better if you look at it as the ultimate absurdist satire. It's a Charlie Kaufman movie before we even knew what a Charlie Kaufman movie was. The mayhem is *supposed* to be absurd. You're working with an idea which is the definition of absurd at its core (hey, all of us dudes have no balls left, so let's get 'em back by beating the shit outta each other!) It's a conceit that you either buy or you don't. Then, if that wasn't enough, you add onto it the idea that this is all in this unhinged guy's head, and you realize that's the only way something like this could work. Of course the mayhem is lame and timid, it's all sprung from this nutball's mind.

I've always though that the film is not one that's meant for straightfoward, "logical" viewing, where you follow the plot and want to find out what happens in the end. It's a Charlie Kaufman head piece but much, much darker. And from what I understand, it's very close in tone to the book.

>And upon multiple
>>viewings, you sit and think, "You mean not ONE person on
>that
>>airplane would come up and say, 'Who the fuck are you
>talking
>>to?'" There's loads of that throughout the movie, but that's
>>upon multiple viewings, and for me, the first was bad
>enough.
>
>If you look @ it that way then of course it doesnt make sense.
>I looked @ it from the viewpoint that all of this was going
>inside his head.

Yep. There's a reason why the movie starts with this ultra-aggressive tracking shot through a brain, and there's a reason why the song over the end credits is called "Where Is My Mind."

>There's a point near the end of the movie where Pitt is
>explaning 2 Norton how it all works. The fact that everyone
>has some sort of split personality as we have all talked 2
>ourselves before. Norton just had the "courage" (I think
>that's the word he used) 2 run away w/ it & carry it a little
>farther than the average mind. He also explains that since
>he's just starting 2 get used 2 it, he still gets confused at
>times & sees Pitt as himself instead of really just being him.
>I know it doesnt make perfect sense but keep in mind we are
>talking about schizophrenia as well as narcolepsy. There's a
>ton of variables 2 keep in mind when trying 2 make sense out
>of it.

Yep.

>>It's an ugly, trying-to-depress-cuz-it's-hip-to-be-a-cynic
>>film that forcefeeds meaning and shoves violence in your
>face
>>until you can't bear to watch. The violence is so large that
>>it undermines any satire Fincher wants, but that's all right
>>because Fincher's in-your-face delivery of his satire has
>>already undermined itself.Its story feels forced,

The movie is *supposed* to be aggressive, violent and in-your-face. It's turning and twisting all of those ideals of masculinity to the point of absurdity. We can debate the merits of the "plot" and the "bullshit third act twist" all day, but the essence of the movie is that it's all inside this deranged man's head, so therefore any analysis of the film's "logic" is ultimately pointless.

>Is this Fincher or the book itself? Honestly I dont know.

I understand that the book is far worse. In fact, if one looks at Chuck Palaniuk's body of work (I read somewhere that his latest book tells the story of a group of writers who are in the woods on a retreat and ultimately resort to cannibalism not to survive, but just for the hell of it), I'd say this movie is comparatively tame.

>Brad Pitt is NOT a good actor
>
>I thought he was good in this. He's been good in other films
>as well but I'm not liking him 2 much anymore after Mr. & Mrs.
>Smith. I'm starting 2 notice this little freak out quirk thing
>that he did Fight Club when Norton shoots @ him in front of
>the van, & does repeatedly in Smith that comes off really
>corny.

Brad Pitt is a good actor when given something good to do. Fincher has twice given him good roles (this and Seven), and I thought he was fine in Oceans Eleven and Twelve but it's obvious he can't do serious drama. He should stop doing drama altogether and think about doing broad comedy.
__________________________________________________________________________
<------Where have all the raspberry women gone?