MAOIST.WS
Maoist Information Web Site
Maoist movie reviews
"Fight Club" (1999)
Fight Club
Directed by David Fincher
Starring Helena Bonham Carter, Edward Norton and Brad Pitt
Art Linson Productions, Fox 2000 Pictures, Regency Enterprises and
Taurus Film
Rated R
139 minutes
1999
2009 November
[spoilers]
This writer has not been oblivious of "Fight Club," but it took a
while for me to pick up this movie again. There are many movies like
it, most less pretentious and less costly. Readers who read what MIWS
has said on Liberalism and film, and what Lenin said on
petty-bourgeois attitudes toward finance capital nearly a century
ago, will be bored by some of this review. "Fight Club" brings to
mind movement and party issues, gender issues, and contemplative
materialism and postmodernism issues.
"Fight Club" was suggested while I was searching for non-documentary
movies about class -- which is partly why I thought watching this
two-hour Brad Pitt movie a decade later was justified -- so let me go
with that and call "Fight Club" a pseudo-Marxist movie. "Fight Club"
deals with individuals in the First World bourgeoisie. The movie
depicts a bourgeois employed in an office and traveling as a regular
part of his job, but millionaire executives may be found doing the
same things. Because the main character has a boss, some may think
"class." Similarly, the Tom Anderson (Neo) character in "The Matrix"
(1999) has a boss and works in a corporate office. The "Fight Club"
main character himself mentions both those "waiting tables" and
"slaves with white collars." According to him, everyone who is not a
millionaire or celebrity as television promised they would be, is
oppressed, either by others or themselves. Some commentators have
claimed the main character himself represents all service sector
workers or a moonlighter, working multiple jobs. In this time of
economic downturn and health care noise, I thought of "Fight Club"
because of its themes of irritation with financial companies, health,
and revolution. Having received no prescription from his doctor for
his insomnia, Edward Norton's character attends support groups for
people with various chronic medical conditions and then with an alter
ego (Brad Pitt), after having an epiphany about his life, starts a
recreational bare-knuckle fighting movement ostensibly as therapy for
himself and others, who have various occupations. Norton's nameless
character's job involves calculating whether it is worth it
financially for an auto company to recall a vehicle with problems,
instead of dealing with lawsuits, the implication being
heartlessness. The main character is self-centered, but connects with
other individuals.
There was some commotion after "Fight Club" was released, but it is
clear from today's 2009 vantage point that the Amerikan reaction to
the movie has been mostly positive, even if 9/11 may have spoiled
some enjoyment of "Fight Club," which depicts the destruction of
financial buildings and symbolic attacks. A point is made of nobody's
being killed intentionally in the violence in the movie. An urban
middle-class Amerikan terrorism fantasy, one would think a producer
or distributor would be queasy about a non-science-fiction,
non-comic-book movie reminiscent of the Weather Underground
Organization, but the movie manages to be pro-U.$. Then again, even
the Weathermen told chauvinist lies about white workers and
unproductive sector workers as MIWS has discussed, so much for
Euro-Amerikan radicalism.
White-collar workers in big U.$. cities bitch and moan all the time
about their jobs, and no doubt some become energetic activists. That
does not mean the workers or the activists are revolutionary.
Fascists are also energetic and dedicated. Edward Norton's white
exploiter without a name simultaneously opposes "consumerism" and
wants to erase Amerikans' debt by targeting credit card companies,
but it is not just Amerikans involved in loans, but also the Third
World. The proletariat opposes exploitation connected to unequal
exchange and dollar supremacy, but if China wants to sell things to
the United $tates or receive loan payments, Amerikans should not get
in the way. It's about opposing fascism and about how the United
$tates would try to go on being a parasite country without trade and
honoring contracts. Regarding "consumerism," focusing on consumerism
as in the environmental movement does not necessarily exclude being
in denial about parasitism. The critique of consumerism, as opposed
to parasitism, is petty-bourgeois.
"Fight Club" raises the idea of the unconscious. Without getting into
Freudianism and narcissism, it sounds perfectly reasonable to say
that imperialist country exploiters take it out on Jews, migrants,
Asians, and gays, when they can't resolve things with their white
bosses and white intimate partners. However, the orientation of
whites in relation to other whites in the First World is more one of
"if you can't beat them, join them," with white exploiters sharing
super-profit with each other. Obviously, no group of Amerikans
brought down the financial system since 1999. The exploiters who are
individually small, but a majority of whites, benefit from the
existence of finance capital. There are outbursts, but instead of
attacking domestic bankers the most, they attack Chinese and Japanese
bankers more, even though Chinese and Japanese bankers are involved
in the flow of super-profit to Amerikans. That's in addition to
focusing on Jewish bankers.
Paradoxically, but as might be expected with lack of indigenous
domestic investment in Third World countries (due to international
exploitation and monopolies) and the lack of foreigner ownership of
small businesses in the United $tates, the involvement of foreigners
in finance capital is perceived as being high. (Even businesses
appearing to be family businesses owned by foreigners may connected
to a multinational corporate franchise, as is the case with 7-Elevens
seen as pushing out mom-and-pop stores despite having characteristics
of mom-and-pop operations.) So, focus on finance capital separately
from parasitism in general and the labor aristocracy is suspect as a
source of reaction. The whole idea of victimization of white
exploiters by other whites, foreigners, or minorities of migrant
background such as Jews and Asians, is fascistic. Less understood is
the fascist implication of "seize the means of production" in a
context where the "means of production" are concentrations of
buildings, equipment, and office supplies, inherently oriented toward
unproductive sector activity and parasitism.
"Fight Club" reminded this reviewer of "Wanted" (2008), but I would
compare "Fight Club" to "The Matrix," and I don't say that
enthusiastically. Both are petty-bourgeois. "Fight Club" is supposed
by some to be a critique of fascism, the main character/narrator and
especially Tyler Durden being associated with fascism, but I would
challenge any "leftist" fan of "The Matrix" to tell the difference
between "Fight Club" and "The Matrix," which is arguably more violent
than "Fight Club," thus making Edward Norton's character an easier
object of sympathy. (What is most objectionable about the narrator is
placed in the alter ego. Because the audience eventually identifies
the alter ego/Brad Pitt with Norton's character, the effect of the
distancing is to make even the alter ego easier to sympathize with.)
Any subtlety or irony of "Fight Club" would be lost on most
Amerikans. Perhaps the difference between "Fight Club" and "The
Matrix" is their depictions of how an office employee revolution
comes about. "The Matrix" suggests a white exploiter minority driving
other U.$. exploiters, who remain ignorant, to liberation. In "Fight
Club," by the end of the movie there seem to be thousands of secret
revolutionaries walking around leading double lives, but who do not
really understand what they are doing or know what they are being led
to do while perceiving themselves as more enlightened than people
outside the fight clubs.
If there were a million secret pseudo-Marxists in corporations and
the government, would that add up to a revolution?, "Fight Club"
raises. Neither "Fight Club" nor "The Matrix" depicts Leninism, so
there could be two sides of the same coin. Not all fans of the Manson
Family have been members of the Manson Family, and fascist groups
have non-member supporters who identify as Marxists or socialists --
as well as members who are zombies and pawns. Some fascist groups are
cults. Many so-called Leninists in the United $tates do not
understand or appreciate the difference between Leninism and fascism,
and between a Leninist party, and a cult, mafia organization, a
secret society career network, or a therapy group of individuals with
various individual needs and imagined non-class commonalities. The
Tyler Durden character has been criticized as being undemocratic, but
a Leninist party in a exploiter-majority country would have to be
undemocratic externally. There is a more important difference between
Leninism and non-Leninism. Contrary to individual imperialist country
exploiter perceptions of powerlessness, meaninglessness, and
futility, it is possible for a small minority to make change, but not
in the ways movies might suggest.
If the makers of "Fight Club" meant to compare pseudo-Marxist groups
to a religion, this writer agrees. When it comes to non-scientists in
a capitalist country, things like polytheism, Catholicism, New Age,
etc., have to be a consideration. On the other hand, where there is
less contemplation the dynamic may be more like that involved with a
recreational activity or sadism. The idea that radicalism is fun and
exciting is common. In truth, communist work often seems masochistic,
where there are sacrifices and no immediate results, and the fighting
and infliction of hand marks in "Fight Club" suggests both sadism and
masochism, but a conception of communist work as having to be fun and
exciting in the First World leads to sadism. Without an exploited
majority in the First World, communism is always an uphill battle
there. Without viewing communist work as such, there could be
enjoyment of repression as one fails to oppose the state. There is no
military struggle or large revolutionary mass movement in the First
World, but instead of doing the non-violent and patient, if not
frustrating, isolated work that needs to be done in the First World,
some have an idea of exciting communist struggle that involves making
provocations and spying, while posturing aboveground as the most
radical people around. It is easier to drift into joining the state
and oppressor movements than to be independent of them.
Parasitism has grown since the 1960s. Nonetheless, even some in the
United $tates pretending to sympathize with MIWS's position on the
labor aristocracy, but who were never Marxist and dishonestly and
piggishly withhold their true lines, fantasize that they can top the
First World movements of the sixties, movements that did not produce
a revolution, but which became diminished as anti-war movements as
white-utopians tried to make them communist. There is even one
position, reflected in discussion of "Fight Club," that the majority
of Euro-Amerikans may be exploiters, but are oppressed or alienated
in other ways -- a delusion suitable for an easygoing kind of
activism, and in a "Maoist" organization a counterrevolutionary,
Trojan Horse line designed by cops with a background in New Left
ideas and Liberalism. Supposedly, the tide is rising and MIWS does
not know it. Supposedly, the tide has risen so much that there are
now revolutionaries in the U.$. state and in U.$. revisionist
organizations with whom to collaborate. The tide is rising -- the
fascist tide.
The main character and his alter ego, Tyler Durden, in "Fight Club"
have a problem with romance or commitment regarding a female-biology
individual (Helena Bonham Carter) who attends the same support groups
as the main character. The female plays the role of saving the main
character's conscience, though most of the alter ego's plan is
carried out regardless. The female needs to be around just enough to
be able to play that role, because otherwise she might share
responsibility for the plan or be scared away. However, the fight
club is all-male, so one might ponder whether the club needs an
ambiguous relationship with the female anyway. MIWS has raised that
the U.$. sex ratio during the Vietnam War was a basis of feminism in
the United $tates. To expect females to strive for marriage in that
context without celibacy as an alternative is to put females in
something of an impossible position. (This is apart from the
lifestyles of individuals opposing the marriage expectation. For one,
the individuals may represent a group of females.) The U.$. military
is still disproportionately male today, but the sex ratio in the
civilian population is not what it was in the 1970s, and because of
female inclusion in the U.$. military there may be less of a
perception that wars take away male potential partners. Also, today,
U.$. females are more educated, but for various reasons may not end
up interacting with males in non-dating contexts as much as with
females. In imperialist countries, in the context of male majorities
(fraternities, lumpen organizations currently, etc.) one can expect
ideas to emerge favoring non-monogamy or non-forever-monogamy.
Subjectivist non-scientists with an inappropriate idea about
hypocrisy adjust gender lines to "match" their lifestyles; others
with various lifestyles conciliate with the subjectivism of potential
recruits. If males want sex with females, but there are fewer females
than males around, forever monogamy presents a problem. Conversely,
if there are more females than males as is the case at many U.$.
universities, there may be more pressure for monogamy.
Anti-lesbianism is another possibility from the heterosexual male
standpoint. In all cases, there may be a desire to conserve or put
forward a patriarchal culture. Both monogamy and non-monogamy are
compatible with Liberal patriarchal culture, though monogamy in sex
is a necessary step in moving toward a world without gender
oppression.
The Manson Family has an image involving females gathered around a
male guru for non-monogamous sex, seemingly contradicting the
previous, but in the 1960s females were less educated and less
career-oriented than today. Simultaneously, a free-love guru could
have appeared to offer youth something who were looking for an
alternative to marriage and other humdrum things. Regardless, there
is a difference between a modern-day Manson Family-like organization
of subjectivists or opportunists, and a Leninist party with
scientific class, gender and nation lines. It is not that whom or how
individuals date is as important as their gender line, but widespread
incorrect ideas about gender that currently exist have a social
basis, and understanding this social basis in an increasingly
comprehensive way is important for overcoming "false consciousness"
ideas regarding gender and the First World and ending gender
oppression, including gender oppression done by the female-biology
gender aristocracy that is a majority of "American women." The
incorrect ideas will not be changed by some intellectuals or
moviemakers influencing the Zeitgeist, and nor will people change
gender relations or come to know about gender within their individual
relationships and conflicts. By contrast, movies such as "Fight Club"
encourage people to think about gender in terms of individuals,
pornographically, even when there are implicit or intended
generalizations (which may be why some feel the need to use
narration, voice-over, or monologues). Looking at U.$. organizations
in history that have mixed politics and socializing, not just
communes, there is a pattern. Their open position is that intimacy
and politics will each benefit from being combined with the other.
Thinking about gender does not rise above the level of political
correctness and flattery. Edward Norton's character in "Fight Club"
does not say much about gender specifically, but some allusions and
vague pronouncements, and U.$. pseudo-Marxist organizations similarly
don't say much beyond flattering females, when what is needed is a
theory and a strategy for ending gender oppression. Political
correctness and flattery would be adequate to recruit females for
dating, as would a Liberal line regarding intimacy. That is not to
say the female gender aristocracy doesn't actively pursue Liberalism,
etc.; the interests of gender-privileged females and
gender-privileged males intersect in some places. A correct gender
line could be alienating to both females and males, even if it does
not come with policies regarding dating and sex.
"Fight Club" is viewed both negatively and positively by so-called
feminists and female-flatterers. The representation of a
group/identity could be either bad or good. Also, other
groups/identities may be seen as "excluded" or marginalized. Both
interpretation and critique of "Fight Club" are involved in flattery,
including flattery of U.$. workers of one group or another. There is
discussion of the main character as being a "white man"/"white
heterosexual man" and discussion of masculinity, without discussion
of the global gender privilege of U.$. males, and of the U.$. female
gender aristocracy (which does not have the genitalia to infiltrate a
testicular cancer support group for long, but is still gender
oppressors of children and Third World people). Similarly, the main
character has been described both as "working-class" and as
"upper-middle-class" without addressing parasitism and the labor
aristocracy. One criticism of "Fight Club" is that it does not do
enough to show how capitalism oppresses all individuals, and
analogously there is the notion that patriarchy and masculinity
oppress all individuals. I would hope in that context that "Fight
Club" is a sardonic critique of Liberal-humanist critiques of
society, but again it is mostly a question of how the audience
actually digests a movie. Not all Amerikans are academic film critics
with extensive training in political correctness and identity
flattery. On the other hand, as with "The Matrix," many are talking
about "Fight Club" because most of them connected with the main
character's desires or problem on some level.
This writer does not deny that U.$. males are having to deal with the
new reality of females with comparable economic and social privilege,
but the males who would be oppressed by masculinity are mostly in the
Third World. Most Third World people of either sex are oppressed by
patriarchy -- this is how class and gender really coincide.
Individual males in the United $tates may have problems with male
gender roles and expectations, but most U.$. males are gender
oppressors, as are most U.$. females. Not understanding this could
result in cynicism -- petty criticism or a sense that change is not
going to happen anyway -- in the case of those criticizing "Fight
Club," and more political correctness and flattery among others,
criticizing emasculation fears.
To some, "Fight Club" touches on a real issue, but approaches it the
wrong way. To others, "Fight Club" is symptomatic. Yet, the similar
and divergent ideas raised in connection to "Fight Club" regarding
masculinity, males, expressivity, and experiences of impotence amid
societal pressures and changes, were essentially raised by alleged
feminists long ago, in the 1970s. Whether such ideas were ever
feminist, are male-centered (or as male-centered as males' fretting
about loss of manhood), or are pro-U.$.-female and pseudo-feminist,
after three decades there should be an advance. Instead of advances
in gender theory and analysis, academic and "critical" discussion of
"Fight Club" more often reflects application and refinement of the
ideas of Herbert Marcuse and others concerned with ideology
separately from imperialist parasitism and exploitation, and thinking
about relatively recent topics such as "neoliberalism" and the
"service economy" -- again, distanced from parasitism and concrete
exploitation. Old familiar gender ideas may be joined with
"globalization," for example, to appear contemporary while justifying
the parasitism of U.$. so-called workers.
The reader will notice that various labels have attached to Edward
Norton's character, ranging from "service worker" to "technocrat" and
other descriptions suggestive of being the most the most powerful
group on the planet. The fact that Amerikan academic writers can't
tell the difference between a service worker and a technocrat, or see
an affinity between a movie theater projectionist and a corporate
bureaucrat, goes to show that the majority of U.$. people actually
are just different shades of bourgeois, not proletarian. The
contradictory labels are good for professors whose jobs are based on
flattering Democrats, their friends, Amerikans of different
identities, and foreign students. Real social scientists deal with
concrete reality and change as it actually happens. "Fight Club" may
be misogynist, homophobic, racist, etc., but really, so what? What is
the way forward? For that matter, there are different ideas about
"fascism" and how to oppose it; for example, many delusionally
believe Barack Obama is opposing "fascism" after replacing Bush.
Marxists do not engage in flattery of identities or critiques without
solutions, and solutions should be based on social forces, and on the
actual contradictions in society and their relative importance and
locations. Like the narrator of "Fight Club," many critics and fans
of "Fight Club" have no realistic solution on gender, except perhaps
undertaking wars against Muslim countries.
"Fight Club" does not convey much about any particular group and thus
seems empty to some. To the extent that the narrator of "Fight Club"
is viewed as representing an allegedly oppressed group in the United
$tates, the group is seen as oppressed through their being
individuals oppressed by structures. In general, when there is not a
sense of the actual class, gender and national structures of the
United $tates and of the world, there is a tendency to focus on
individuals, either abstractly or particularly, in trying to explain
inactivity/reaction of U.$. people and the differences and changes
that exist.
The main character says there is no "Great Depression" to give people
purpose. Amid this purposeless arose the fight club. In the real
world, today there is the economic downturn and talk of another
"Great Depression," but the only "revolution" on the horizon in the
United $tates is fascist. The United $tates is an imperialist
country. It had no domestic non-lumpen proletariat before the
economic downturn, and it has no domestic non-lumpen proletariat with
the economic downturn. Amerikan inertness regarding real socialism
has nothing to do with individuals. Neither does fascism nor
oppressed nation resistance, though this writer does want to deny
that U.$. wars come from the same place as serial-killing impulses
partly.