-
Hmmmm....
I dunno; it sounds almost like they're turning "Fight Club" into "American Beauty." That would make me sad. (I HATED "American Beauty.")
It also sounds like they're building from the novel. (Which has a chapter after the place the movie ends that seqgues into what they're talking about here.) I'm kinda lukewarm on that. The movie was actually BETTER than the book, but the book explains a lot of stuff the movie doesn't. (I tell folks to watch the movie, then read the book.)
Don C. -
I agree - I thought "Fight Club" was one of those rare movies that happened to work out better than the book. I thought the plot was tighter and more complete feeling. Also, I tried reading a couple other Palahniuk books and got a bit bored of him.
I didn't see the "American Beauty" angle - but I hated that movie --- A LOT.Comment
-
>I thought the plot was tighter and more complete feeling.
Yeah, definitely. Plus; the idea of the credit ratings was better than the one in the book.... even though it was just as implausible. (I don't think people's credit data is entirely centrally located.) But hey; that's why its considered a bad idea to do what your imaginary friend tells you to:
I did find the book really awesome AFTER the film, 'cos it fills in a lot of the blanks from the movie. (LIke why they show so much of "the mechanic" even though he only gets one line in the film.... and where the idea for the soap came from. THAT made me laugh.)
>I tried reading a couple other Palahniuk books and got a bit bored
Yeah. "Survivour" wasn't bad, but I don't think I finished any of the others.
>I didn't see the "American Beauty" angle - but I hated that movie --- A LOT.
Yay! I remember when it came out EVERYBODY loved it, and it became one of them things I couldn't avoid. "American Beauty" and "Fight Club" are basically the same movie, taken from different directions. Both had characters who were living unfulfilling, empty lives despite having "followed the rules" and done as was expected. Both feature characters who remove themselves from the rat race, but the ultimate solutions are different. In FC the solution is to do things. To risk, to stuggle, to do away with the distractions and not define oneself by what they amass. In AB the solution is to consume as much as possible without producing or contributing. (No wonder most people preferred the latter film.)
The "Fight Club" sequel sonds like AB: you've got the guy who settled down, got the job, has the wife (no kids though) and is still unsatisfied. It's Marla this time that wants to return to the past, and interestingly enough it's still drugs that are the solution.
Say.... is it just me; or do a LOT of posts end up just being us three?
Don C.Comment
-
I read "Survivor" too - I didn't hate it - but I was a little disappointed he always seemed to structure his books the same way. It felt a lot like "Choke" and "Fight Club", but with different ingredients. Maybe I just have to space them out more - reading them one after the other was probably a bad idea.
--
I feel the same way about "American Beauty" - everyone was heaping praise on it and I thought it was junk - so I'm always relieved to find others who didn't dig it. It was so obviously trying to be politically re-affirming that it felt like straight up propaganda. I did like Thora Birch, but then her nude scene is the movie's biggest hypocrisy: pretending to morally be against adults taking advantage of childrens' sexuality, while also exploiting a child's sexuality. I'm the furthest thing from a prude, I love nudity in movies, but she was 16 years-old kid. I just don't buy into the B.S. about that scene being thematically necessary - I think they thought it was necessary for the box-office. And it seems to me the people who loved this movie are the same people who whine about sex in the "exploitative" movies I love - such nonsense.
--
I like your comparison of the two movies. I never thought of that - though it's obvious now that you point it out! Even the way the two leads blackmail their bosses is kinda similar.
--
I think "Fight Club" is a much more thoughtful movie because it addresses so many themes with such vicious satire - so it also leaves itself open to many more interpretations - where "American Beauty" is so flat to me. For example, a lot of people called "Fight Club" irresponsible and took it as a sincere call-to-arms, but right when I saw it I recognized that the movie itself addressed how impossible this kind of rebellion would be. For one thing, they're a violent gang trying to fight oppression without violence - it's a schizophrenic plan from day-one (spoiler alert!).
I think it also completely predicted the angry, disenfranchised, macho, educated, angry, unfocused Zeitgeist-Occupy-Anonymous type movements by over a decade.
I wonder if "American Beauty" would be seen as the irresponsible one if it came out now? Something tells me the public wouldn't take the message of a middle aged man finding solace in loosing his career by smoking pot and getting a job flipping burgers as well post 2008. I think a lot more people would recognize that as pandering today.
--
Yeah, I guess the three of us do end up here a lot. Maybe it's a Canadian thing?Comment
-
>he always seemed to structure his books the same way
I think that's the key.... although "structure" might not be the right word. From a technical perspective, he's a TERRIBLE writer. What sells the story (or doesn't) is the content of the ideas. Once he got past "Fight Club" it seems like that technique worked against him, 'cos he was unable to direct the reader where they needed to go. "Fight Club" was a chaotic pile of stuff happening; which fit the themes pretty well.
>I think "Fight Club" is a much more thoughtful movie because it addresses so many themes with such vicious satire
Hee heee.... emphasis on "vicious." I found the biggest difference in the two movies comes more from the viewer. If you're generally content, and seldom feel the need to question then "Fight Club" is pretty much meaningless for you. Plus, the concept of "doing" over "having" isn't one that registers with a lot of people. Case in point: EVERYone laments "I wish I didn't have to work any more." When asked what they'd do if they didn't have to, the answer is invariably "nothing."
"I'd be sleeping." Nothing. "I'd be drunk!" Nothing. "I'd be lying on the beach!" Nothing. Nobody ever says "I'd be getting my degree in oceanography." Or "I'd finish my novel," or "I'd complete my wood sculptures of the Beach Boys." Hence the appeal of "American Beauty;" where the underlying moral seemed to be one of minimal effort to sustain minimal activity. And the key is to maximalize consumption....
>pretending to morally be against adults taking advantage of childrens' sexuality, while also exploiting a child's sexuality
....which is kind-of where I think this came from. I didn't get a strong sense of what you did; to me they seemed to admonish the daughter's friend for being a sexual lightweight who punks out in the end and thusly doesn't live up to the consumption standard for sex. She was what set of dad's empty nostalgia for a time when he could consume and not produce, and was presented (literally) as a paragon of that ideal. And that's what started his story.... manifest as the realization that his wife no longer felt the need to engage in the requisite amount of intercourse, and was instead caught up with maintining career, and furniture, and all that bogus stuff....
>And it seems to me the people who loved this movie are the same people who whine about sex in the "exploitative" movies I love
People can convince themselves of ANYTHING if you give them enough slack. Most folks forget how much of their liking something has to do with circumstances completely removed from the thing itself.
>Something tells me the public wouldn't take the message of a middle aged man finding solace in loosing his career by smoking pot and getting a job flipping burgers as well post 2008. I think a lot more people would recognize that as pandering today.
Or not, considering how many folks have been REDUCED to that lifestyle today. It might be seen as a deconstruction of the modern situation.
Don C.Last edited by ctc; Dec 4, '13, 8:28 AM.Comment
-
In going through my memory banks and trying to remember my reaction to "American Beauty", specifically where I was angry at the sex stuff, and I'm recalling a conversation that shaped my views a lot...
In 2001 I was talking movies with one of my parent's friends over dinner, and we ended up having a (civil) argument about "American Beauty". She absolutely loved it to bits (and to be perfectly frank she seemed like the EXACT socially pious, middle-aged, superficial, bourgeois, snob the movie was tailor made for) this was just after "Fat Girl" was banned in Ontario (the ONLY place in THE WORLD it was banned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Girl).
Later in the conversation she revealed that she reviewed movies for the Ontario Film Review Board. I tried to discuss her views on censorship (because I'm against the idea, personally) and she specifically mentioned how proud she was of her work because the Film Board banned "Fat Girl" due to the fact that it featured sex with a minor. She was acting very smug talking about how her work was preventing pedophilia when I mentioned "American Beauty" and the fact that it also featured sex scenes with a minor. Of course it did made no difference - as you pointed out she just convinced herself she was right despite what she had just said. Her defense there was that the movie was so "tasteful" and I think the word "art" was probably used.
To clarify, she hadn't seen the movie "Fat Girl" - she mostly knew about it the way I did - through articles discussing the controversy - but that conversation must have highlighted that particular hypocrisy I see in "American Beauty" for me.Comment
-
Comment
-
>she just convinced herself she was right despite what she had just said
I find this sort of thing crops up a lot when discussing entertainment. People have a tendency to confuse "good" with "appealing." So; if they like it, it must be good; if they don't like it, it must be bad.... and then they sort of reverse engineer an argument from that. It's problematic 'cos all sorts of non-quality related stuff affects how we feel about things. All sorts of circumstance completely apart from a thing affects how we feel about it too. Like never actually seeing a movie, but hearing about it; or dismissing it 'cos it has elements that make it easy to group into a distasteful category. Or cutting it some slack 'cos it ties into something we already have warm fuzzies over. (I'm looking at YOU; Batman....)
>Her defense there was that the movie was so "tasteful" and I think the word "art" was probably used.
....which you can usually translate as "pretty, polished and completely non-threatening."
Don C.Comment
-
Now I'll be the snob and say that as much as I can appreciate crafts (which is a lot) - a woman who toils away for years in a ceramics painting class and only achieves the skills of one of my 8 year-old nieces on a bad day, should a) never give those pieces to people as house warming gifts, and b) think twice about deciding what is and isn't "art".Comment
-
I won't talk about Fight ClubComment
Tweet
Comment