Subject:
|
Re: LEGO Theatrical "trailer" Fight Club Spoilers!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.fun
|
Date:
|
Tue, 12 Dec 2000 18:20:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
127 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Eric Joslin writes:
> I actually think that the point of the movie had little to do with the
> "surprise"
I disagree, because when it was released there was a lot of buzz about the
"secret," as though its revelation would undermine the film.
> To me, it said a lot about the way humans are living in the modern world.
Maybe, but again that's hardly an original idea, even down to the
splitting of the narrator into two. True Romance used a similar ploy with
the Val Kilmer/Elvis character serving as an alter ego/mentor to Christian
Slater, but never are we forced to accept that those around him find it
believable.
Speaking of Slater, even the climax of Fight Club is generally similar to
Heathers (though on a different scale, of course).
> > If I'd known about the "surprise" beforehand, the movie would have been no
> > better or worse, so the gimmick is just a gimmick.
>
> This sentiment I'm afraid I have to STRONGLY disagree with. Watching the
> movie for the third, fourth, or even seventh time, I'm constantly picking up
> on new things in the interplay between Ed Norton and Brad Pitt's performances
> that show how the two personalities are relating.
> There are a thousand little things in almost every scene that show Tyler and
> {Narrator} interacting, and the film gains a LOT from this device.
I still disagree. Even considering it with that in mind, it's simply a
ploy to show two disparate sides of the narrator. One can even argue that
the use of the two "characters" is kind of a cheat, requiring less from
either actor and from the audience, since we have the gimmick there the
whole time.
> What other characters suspend their disbelief? No offense meant, but I think
> you suffer from watching the film too literally.
Not necessarily too literally, but I am requiring more realistic reactions
from the minor characters. When Tyler cruelly berated Bob on the front
porch, for instance, and then the Narrator (what's his name? I can't
remember) consoles him immediately thereafter, I frankly don't believe that
Bob would have just sucked it up without saying something along the lines of
"why are you so crazy?" What you're identifying as a "too literal" viewing
of the film I identify as realistic expectations of the characters.
> I'm certainly not here to say that if you don't like Fight Club you're
> insane/stupid/lame or anything, but I think some of the things you say above
> are disputable.
It depends on how much you or I am willing to "give" the movie. I get
what the movie is saying, but I don't find it interesting, original, or
insightful. In novels, this sort of thing has a tradition going back more
than a century, for example to Poe's William Wilson or more obviously,
Stevenson's Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and more recently with much of P.K.
Dick's writing. Film and television have likewise explored this "duality"
notion to some extent, as in that episode of the original Star Trek in which
Kirk was split in two--a "good" and an "evil, and, separated, neither is
able to exist. Even The Matrix addressed the "real me vs. the real world"
question to some extent. Obviously none of these approaches it in quite the
same way as Fight Club, but my point is that the whole motiff is
well-established and hardly innovative.
That's not to say that every film needs to be utterly groundbreaking, but
when exploring "plowed ground," it is to a film's benefit to be interesting
or innovative, and that's where Fight Club fails for me.
While I'm at it, I found the two hour verbose monologue to be utterly
tiresome, in the manner of many X-Files episodes, where a similar
self-revelatory monologue is inflicted upon the viewer.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
18 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
