Unraveling the Twists of Fight Club

Chapt~r 5

George M. Wilson andSam ShpallUNRAVELING THE TWISTS OFFIGHT CL VB'

DAVID FI NeHER'S flCHT CLUJ (1999) is su~ly on~ of themosl smklng "twist" mm'its of th~ ~em period In Amman films

- a period that sttms 10 have revel«l in "twisted" audlavisuaJ narration"The mo\'ie: is famous far ~vf:illing that it has implidtly f~arured a mod~of \isuaJ n.llndon tNt is surprisingly "subjttth'r:" an w unusuAl Wol)'.

By suppressing Ihe ~-d.i.don of narmionaJ subj«th1t)· unliJ thr: r:nd.!hr: movie bKomes an instMla of unreIiabl~ audiovLsll.ll n.llntion in

mo\ies, ilithough thr: predse chan;ctr:r of lh~ unrdiabllit)· in this asedtst:rves 10 be explored. In the first pan of this paper. we auempt 10 gh"e& reuonably precise specification of the chief kinds of "subjectivepresentation" that are at work In much of this film. Mor~ narrowly. wereview some of the main wa)'s that a shot or sequence in a movie m.i)'be: thoughl of il...$ "snbjwh·e." ilnd we ugueth.lt F'tlIu:Oub exploits a furlycommon mode of "subj«tive inflection" in the: leUing bUI does 50 in asuikingly sophistialed way. In the second p.lI1 of tbe pa~. we lum 10th~matic issues. &nd we argue: !lUt. aJthough the rno\ie foregrounds attnain crilique of Ihe ills of comc:mporary culture:. thls fore:groundingis signll1antiy misleading. Indeed. we bdleve Ihat many cornme-mators""I"t bctn misl«l, and we ofTer an ilitemath'e ilCCOUlll of the perspective onTyler Durden (Bn;d Pin) and his \;ew of things that !he mo\"ie morepLtusibl)' d~piets.

II

UNRAVELING THE TWISTS OF FIGHT CLUB 79

PUt I

IDuoductioa

One: of th~ characteristic marks of classical narn.th·t. films Is that theiriludiolvisual narmion is. in.l certain sense. lranspar~nl. Very roughly.Ihis means th.ll; (I) most of the shOtS in !hc:sc: movies a~ understood aspro\iding!he audience with "objc:ctn-e" or mtersubjc:eth'd)' <1cnssib1c:vi~ws of th~ fictionili chU<1Clc:n, <1ctions, ilIId situations deplelc:d in themm: and that (2) where !he shOlS or sequences are not to be: CODStrUedas obic:eti\·~. the~ is il reasonably cl~u muling of the (<1el that th~y ilte.

in on~ of se:\"~raldifTuem wars, "subjective. W Ofcourse. "sllblc:cth'c: shotSand sequences" com~ in \'ulous modes. For Instance. some shou andsequences depict Ihe percept:uili Add of a pardculu chan;cter, Othersdepict a wraaer's vLsw.llmaginings. memories. dreams. or h.illucin<1dons. Still othc:n render In \i.sual lurns th~ conlent of something iliat$Orne character is \-ulwJly rqx>ning or dc:scnbing. This shon liSl ofpossibilities Is ob\iousl)' not c:xhausti\·e. and the individml"subjc:cth'e~

modes desery~ lenglhier discussion. Ncvenhdc:ss. let us S<1y !lUI (1) and(2) give us. as a crud~ Arst approximation. a specification of the nonnof th~ ttllllSpOrtlKy of IlIlrrolion In dassiul nMrative nIm. Allhough theconceplion Ihat !hese: conditions joinlly express has a recogniZilbl~

Intuith'e import. il is not e.lS)·lo elabor;lle the concq>tion more shMply.The conapt of an obteah'c shot or sequ~nce in fiction nIms isprobkm.nlc and. corrclaU\'eJy. 50 U~ the \'arious concepts of subjecti\-edepiction. Mo~\-er. thc natur~ and functioning of the f<1etors th<11contexluall)' mark th~ ~plstemicstatus of<1 mo\ie s~gmem (!hat is. a shotor «lite<!. sequence) can be surprisingly ~Iu.si\'e.

The "twlsl" films we are thinking of come In ~er<11 distinguishable

kinds. Here we: wUl be: chiefly concerned ....1th movies in which !hecinem<1uc nuration. il...$ Ihe <1udiena eve.muaJl)' comes to realize.represents Ihe nunti\·~ action III tenDS of the subiecti\"~ pc:npee:ti~-eof<1 panieular chMaau. although. in generaJ. that action has not~

repr~m«lfrom the pe.rceptu~ point of \iew ofme dunetet in quc:stion.nat Is, lhe nilITation sunds outside !he "foalizing" cluractet. rqululypresenting him or her within the frame. SIW. at th~ yme time. th~

naIT.ltion re.nCCts Ihe problematiC or ldiosyncntlc way In which theclu.ra.<:ter sees Of imagines the rdeV<1nt factiorul history to h<1\~ tnnspired.In <1 sense: to be: explain«lI<1lu. these films im'olve Im.ige t«lCU that h<1\"e

80 GEORGE M. WILSON ANO SAM SHPALL

noubly ~n "subjectiv~lyinflected from m imperson~1 \'.tnt~g~ point,"Moreover, this nur~tion.tl str~l~gy is not clem}' muked until vef)' t~t~

in th~ movi~.l Our du~f enmpl~ of tWs phenom~non is Fillhl dllb. i.nwhich.l pinicul.uly glob.a.l ~ppliation of this kind ofsublecti\'~ inflectionb ~chi~\'ed.

W~ \\111 proceed in tbe folloWing f~shion, First, w~ will distinguish~tween ~·tnj differt'llt kinds of sub;cairt shots .lnd sequ~ncc. II bimporunllO do this bec.luse th~ diffuwt modes Mt e.sUy run tognher.Somt of tbe modes tlut w~ will be identifying Mt qWI~ f~miliu, butothers, for eumpl~, the imperson.tl, subjecth'~ inflection of Flgfll eM,Mt not. Second. we will discuss th~ f<la Wt ~ film or ~ ~mentof filmnu.y be s)'SlenutialJ)' subjecti\"t in one or .lI)()(he-r 11lO<k, <llthougb thisf<lct ~bout the lWT.ltJon is not m<ld~ cleM in the mo\;t until .lft~r or lUstbefore th~ ~rrn=nt or fellUr~ is winding up. This devitt of seiling upm eplsu~mic .lmbiguity in the film nuntion Wt f<llls to be sigJUJed In

lIl~ rel~v<lnt CODlUI sets up Ihe possibility of <I kind of s)'SI~m.ltic

unreli.lbility lD the presenUtion of lIle story. This is.l chief ucpect of lIlerumtion ofFlp Ollb, bul il is cruc:i.JJ to be filily spKifk .lboUl how theunreli<lbihty comes 10 be uublished. w~ will, .JJong the ';Iy. describesome cues ofepiSlmtH: unrdJ<lbilit} in movies Wt COlllmt illl lht sp«i.I1dt\'iousness of the Finch~r ftlm. FirWIy, we discuss .It some length .lnlRlttprel.lOOn of Fighc Club Wt helps m.lke sense of Ihe I....;SU rod IUmsllut figun: in ilS nun-m'e.

PoiaHt(·ritw shots: suij«tiftly W1mtd. wbj«rivdy uninflmtd u4subjtctivdy .wtllfllltd

We will begin by introdUcing some reflections on the conc~pt of .l"subje<:tiv~" shot .lnd .lbout some of th~ imporu.m subdivisions withinthe ategory, These consider.ltiollS will be prtuy rough md rudy, sincee.lcl\ c.ltegor)' to be discussed Im'olves consideuble vni.luon ~nd

complexily. bUI we will stir ~nough to ugue for two paims, Firsl.subjectiv~ segmenlS oCthe sons Ih,iI w~ will ex.mine Invoh'e ,iI I~~st IWOdirr~renl notions of "dIe subjecth'e," Second, we will show why it iscrucial for us to h.lve ~t lent .l schem.tic overview of.l number of them.lln kinds ofsubjective shots, J Liter. we will distinguish, from the moref~mill.lr kinds, one spKi..t1 type: of subjective shot - wh.lt we will all"impersoruJ but subjectively inflected shols." Tb1s C.ltegory does not seem


to be ~dtqu.ltely d~line~ted in lIl~ liter.tture:, .lnd we will highlight ilSInte~t l.u~r in lIle discussion. W~ will su.n out by considering segmentswhose "subjective" chmd~r is more or less cl~uly Indlcolled In th~ir

immedi~t~ comext. In the I..tst seclion of Ihe first pu1 of th~ p.lptr, w~will tum to some issues Wt .lre r.a.ised by segments whose "subjective"millS h.as not ~n marked immedi.tlel)' in this fubion - ~menlS of

nontnnspitent nMudon. in other words,Among th~shots commonly deemed to be "subteeti\'~.~ one IUlUr.a.lly

thinks first of veridic.JJ polnt-of-vi~w (POV) shotS, Thest Mt shots tlu.tre:presenl (at leU!. .lpproxinutely) the visu.ll perspecthe. mcboted in mimplidt visu.tl '';IJU.lgt point. of ~ des.ign.lted clunder .11 • ginn time,Although this is tbe simplest ase. it IS not re:.lll}' deu why \~ridial POVshots Mt reguLuly counted u usubjective," It is oflw s.a.id tlu.t vit"o'~rs

Mt mem.t to iJm.gine wt they ue seeing the rdt\'.lnl fictioiW items mdt\'~nts "through the eyesu of 1M t'dt\'mt ch.luaer, In some sense. tinsIs no doubt true, but the sense In question Is nOl .so euy lO pin down,In our opinion. wlut film \;~wers im."Iglne seeing 1D.l ,'eridinJ POV U\OlMt lIle fictioral circumst<l.nces Wt Ihe clu.na~r perceives, md viewenim.lgin~ tb.lt lIley U~ seeing the depicted fiaion.ll nulerW from. 'iswlperspective thiat coincides mor~ or less with the visu.U perspecth'e of Ibeobsen;ng ch.tnaer in the ftlm. Ne\~nheless, ceruln tempting mis

conceptions nted 10 be .l\'oided. As Kwd.tU W.JJton.lOO one of the pre:sr:nt.tuthors (Wilson) h.l\'e e.lch ugued e1stwher~, film Vlewers. in soim.lglning, do nOl inugine eitht.r tlut Ihey ue. .lt tml monlwt, Identinlwith the mo\'ir. duncter or ~\'en th~t the)' occupy the Implied v.lnt.lgepoint of the clu.nCl~r \\;thin Ihe movi~'5 fiaion.JJ sp.ac~,~ Ri.ther, it b tobe Im.lglntd th.lt the \'i$u.ll pe.npectlve offered on th~ screen .lrisn fromthe ume vml.lg~ point as th~ \'<I.nt.lge point tholt Oction.l1ly the chu<laer

Is occupying at the time of his or her vi~wing.

So in wh~t seIU<t: 15 .l v~ridiC.l1 POV shot subjeaive~ After .lll, if wh.ltviewers Im.glne seeing in tht. shot is, in the first insl.lnce, the objectivedrcumsl.lnces in th~ fiction.ll world th.lt fall within the ch.luctu·s gue.then the d~pictt.d content of Ih~ shot is not subj~lv~. Both the filmvl~wers .lnd the viewing chu.lcter ilre belllg suppllt.d with imersubjK1.iveinformilt10n .lbout these observ.lble cireumStilnces, In this respecl ~t leasE,tht. Inform.ltion lhat is fictiOll.llly pres~nted in Ih~ shot is JUSt .lS"objective" .as the inform.ltion In shOls whose vlSll.l1 penpectlv~ is 1101

Idencified with llut of ~ny cbu.lcter, Of course, th~ verldic.ll PQV shot

82 GEORGE M. WilSON ANO SAM SHPAll

iimult.ln~usJy m.lk~ it flction.l1 th.ll me dl.lncter i§ Iffing the

ciJ"currm.lnce:s bef<n: his or her e)"e:s ~d secing lhem from Ihe Volnt.lgepaim impllol in Ihe dloc. And )'CI• .l non-POV shot Wt sboWM Ihe s..lmechu.lcter guing .It the Solme flctiomJ circun15l~c~ (for eumple, in .lJlover-the-shoulder Shol of those ctrcuJ1lst.ln~) would gener.lte more orless the Solmt: flcliorul truths .lbou( the chu".lcter·s seeing .lnd wh.ll II ishe or sht: sees. Howe,· r. such .l shOt would nOl norm.llly be deemedsubjective, Ifwe were to suppose Ul.lt the visw.l contents ofIhe PQV dlol

Me 10 be inugined u representing the printe field of vision of thep«ttlVlDg clancter. lbeo th.1I pul.llive f.lci ....,ould yield.ln obvious sensein which PQV shots .lIe "subjective." Nevenhdess, it Is doubtful dUlt th15is.l put of",holt 'iewas nomuJly Inugl11e or Me munt 10 ill1.logine whenIh~ "'·.llch "eridial PQV dloo. Hence, il is cornspondingly doubtfulmoll Ihis expl.l[Ution of PQV subJectl\'IlY should be endorsed. Thesubjt'Clivlty of veridlC.ll POV shots nuy well consisl in nothing more th.lllIhe coincidence of nntage point between the onscreen imagery .lnd thechu.lcter's vlsuill persp«tlve. Or, .lltern.ltlvely, il may be th,lt PQV shotS.let: thought ofu subjective bt'ause the occupation oftheir nnuge pointsby a fiction.l1 percd\'er .l1ways nises the question, .101 least potenti.llly. ofwber.ber the shOts in question~ fictionally ,·ttidical, Sy comr.ut, giventhe Slrang but defuslble expecution oftnns~cy,oon·PQV shou a.reU1auy and a.!most autom.ltically construed U offmng film ,iewersimenubjecti\'e1y accessible information about the objecth'e scene in\'lew, We Will leave this question about Ihe genera! nature of thesubjecth'tt)' of POV shots unr~h'e.d, but we ........n! to Stress the fact th"'tthe sense in which \'erldic",1 poy ihotsut subjtttive is really preu)' we.t.

On the other h~d. Ihere .lIe PQV shoLS .lJld sequences in which aviewer is expecred to Imollgine sometlung ",bout the pbenomena.! qw.llue:sor contents of a cbMacter's field of vision. We Me olI.U f.lmiliM "''llh PQVshots that nt';, U we \vill Sol)'. subjecu\'e.ly mflected. Tlul is. a range ofthe VISual propen.le:s of the shot Me suppoiC'd to represent subjccu\'eenlun~nlSand dmOttions ofthe characltt'S field ofvision at tbe time.For inswlce. when the clw-",cler is drunJc, dizzy, or otheN;se percq>twJlydisoriented, tben specl.ll effectS of focus, lighting, filtering, or cameumovement may be employed to depict Ihe way these psycho!ogic.l1conditions have affected the chu.lcter's \'iSUoll.! experience. ShnUuly,consider a POY shol in which '" chaucler is Sttlng items in his or herimmedi.ue environment, but the chM<tcter's field of Viilon .l1so includes


some hallucinatory ohtec15 or events. For enmple, in il POV shOl, somechaneter nuy be repre:swted as looking 11110 his or her gange andh.alludnanng olI. pink .u.rdvuk on the car. Ofcourse, panioll.lIy halluciruted

perceptuoll.l structW'C shOts of this type occur In many films. RobertAllm.lJl'S Images (1972), which is itself a kind of epislenlologiC<1! twistfilm, features many partiillly h".lllucinillory PQV shots from the h~(ne's(Susannoll.h York) perspeclive. and tht psychologlca.l dramlo of me movieis cemn.1ly built up around them. In.lJly case, we are stipulating th".lt thesepartially h".lllucinloted POV shOtS .lIe to count as subjttllveiy inflected aswdl. Since certain internlol propenies ofa chanCier's perceptual Sl<1te Me

rep~tedm such shots, they U'C understood 10 be Miubjectinw

in '"

stnIghtfoN"'Ud sense. Nunnally, the ob,«tive and subjeeth'e aspects ofthe image ilnd the way the tWO are rel.l.ted are spedAed deuly enoughin the Immediate fUm context. Let U$ say that these aspectS and therellotlorn belween them conSlitute "Ihe epiSlemic struclure" of thepertinent shot or sequence. Tlut is, In standud segments of this type, Itis pllolnly india.ted b)' the context that the chnacter Is ".lctuillly seeing ilcmaln flcdon.ll situation before his or her e~ olI.nd tholt he or she 15 illsoseeing the iitUiltion from a certain visw.1 perspective that is subjectivelyinflected in '" aniliI .....ay - the .ly that is depicted on the scrttII.

Correspondingly, film \;e e:rs im.aglne. seeing the sunf: fictionalobjects and events u the character, .lJld th~ imollgine S«lOg them &omIhe very same: inflected visua.! perspe<:th'e. On one extreme of thesubjectivel)' inflected mode, the subjt'Clh'e infleclion of Ihe vlsU.llperspective may be total. That Is, movie spe.ctiltOrs are to Imlogine: thiltthe chancter's visual perspe.ah·e is completely detennined by his or herpresent State ofdreoll.J11ing, halludn.ltion, or Inner visualization ofone sortor "I\Other.lJld to lnugine themselves seeing those privalt visual oontents.We will nil iuch shots "subjecti\'e1y SoltUIilted." In this son of a.se,ipecl<1tOrs ue mandaled 10 refnin from inugioing that they are beingprovided Wlth inforrnatiOll about whate\'u fictional t'D';ronment liesoutside Ihe chan.cter's mmd. So, is it C'OCTM1 to say wt Spea.llorsimagine seeing anything in such cases oftotal sub;ective Qtundon? Well,should we say that people who ue iubjecl to total hallucinations iiiIt'

seeing something? In one sen~ ye.s, and In anOlhu sense, perhaps, no.No because they are blinded to the.ir emironment by their IOtillhallucirution. Yes because Ihey Msee" the. things IWI the)' halludnatt. Inthe: case. of film spcetatorship, if the vie:<wM segment is conte:xtu",Uy

84 GEORGE M. WILSON AND SAM SHPALL

multed to indlcoll~ tholt it d~piClS, for enmplt~, wholt 01 chuacler isdr~ilming, then sp~Ctuorsdo imol,gin~seeing something, bUill is "seeing"in th~ more indus.i\'~ sense, Wholl th~y imolgin~ "seeing" is Whill theyr«ogniz~ 10 be th~ visuol..l COnt~nLS ofth~ cholrolQ~r'S ~am.

How~ver, none of this implies thai the film viewers imollgin~

themselves drummg thai vU}' ~.am, Mocl' gl'nenll}', it seems to us tlutviswlly subjective shots (wbetbl'T thl' shots are subjectively infl«ted orsuumed) n~\'er calIon spectators to inugin~ th.ll th~y are identical withIh~ \iswlizing chuilaer nor lIat they are actu.ill}' Iu\ing the ficlioml"isuolllittr's viSUoll experiences. FUm spec!ol,tOl'S merely imollgine thai th~

visual perspecth'~ presented ol1SClttn coincides Ul Its impom,nt, Sol.1i~nt

respecu wllh th~ pbtnomelUl qualities and cont~nts of the char.lQl't's\'\sua! experientt, but not WI those: subj«ti\·l' \iswl upmences are theirown. (This gtneu.lizcs a poinl we mentioned euUer.)

And yel, is the inugined seeing by one person of the privue nsw.lexperiences of olInot.hl't rl'.ally cOOertnt? It depends, we believe, on howdffp we expect the coherence: of what \'i~wus Imilgine in such olI ast: to

be. The following is one way W~ might inugine se~.ing the visua.lcontents of somftHle else's drr:.am. We an imagine thai neuroscicmtisuIu\'e discovered in exbilus!l\'l' ckuil the ph}"sica.l basis of dreilming.Implementing th~ir diSCO\'eries m video technolog}', they come 10 Iu\'l'Ibe capacity 10 introdua 2I\Silin probes into a drumer's bnin rodrecord the drum-rele\~1 dectroehemical ol,etivhy dUI is taking place.SUitoibly transfOrming thai recorded infomulion, they are able 10 project• phenomenologinlly olIccuru~ visw.l represenu;lion of the dreolmer'sdream imolgery on a wgl' monitor above the dreamer's hl'ad. Thus,an)'one sulu;bly plolced before the monitoc is .lbll' to see the contents andphenomerul qualities of the projected dre..lm, S If .....e em imollglne thissun.lrio, then we can inugin~ secing (<15 observen) the contents ofsom~n~ else's dreilm, .lnd we Ciln lnugin~ this \\ithout imagining Iholltwe ue bol.ving the dre.lm experiences ourselvC$. In.l similar Wol)', whenviewe~watch .l dream ~u~nc~ in film, they inugine th~mseh'esseeingth~ comenlS ofth~ flellonoll dre.lm, but th~y do nOl: imolgine themselvesto be ~xperi~ncing Ihal v~T}' dre.lm, w~ ar~ claiming that we an im.lginedreollms to naVe.l kind of public vlsuoll.lccesslbility, but we don't c1.umtn.t wlm we i1m,glne Is philosophically or sci~ntificallycoherent in an)'subst.lnti.ll del.lJl. Almost surel}' It Is not. (The superficiill coherc:nce mil)'

well depend 011 our lend~ncy to im.lgine our dreolms .is If Ihl')' were


movies in our h~ilds.) Aft~r all, il f.lir olmount of wholt we Imolgine toourseh'es Is onl)' 5upc.rfici..tly coh~rent in jusllhis Wily. A15o, we.lrt: nOl:supposing llut when we imagine seeing som~ne'sdrta.m in the movieswe Imagine this by imagining tlut some .,gency of ~ilm engineeringh.as projected the dreamer's experience: on the mo\ie screen in front ofus, On the contru)', W~ simply do nOl. imolgine much of roything inparticulu .Ibout how the dreolmer's viswl perspective hn been presentedto our view. II is im.lginilt1Vely indetermin.ale bow Ihis Ius coml' to be,but this indc:lermin.lC}' 15 nothing special. In the SolIme way. we im.1gin~

.llmost nothing ilboul the mems or meclu.nisnu by which IlK movie'simperson.al vie ....'5 of objttth-e drcumsuna:s in Ihe story Iu,'l' come 10

be flctiolUlIy \isible 10 us.

Le1: W DOW consider .ln unpomnt wa)' in .....hlch the epistcullc structureof a segment ma.y be even more complicaled. All the types of subjettivl'shot tlut we bol.\'C described olIre 10 be conrr.tSled ",..th .lnother kmd ofsubjecti\'e shot. It is .It}'pe th.lt is DOC.lS frequently deplo}'ed <15, sa}'. POV

shols, but it is common enough in convention.ll n.ur.ttivl' films, Theseare non-POV shots (more broadly. impersonal sbou) th.ltolTC subjecth'dyinflected bUI do nOi sIart: their v.lnu;ge poinl Wlth thl' visw.l perspecth'l'of olny dunner in the film.. Here is one simple and f.luly well·knowneumpl~ In Mllrda My SwM (Ed.......rd Dm)'tT}'k, 19«), Phillip Marlowe(Did Powell) bol.s been knocked OUt .lnd drugged. When be e\'entwllycomes to, we '5tt' him stollgge.r .lround th~ room. However. these SholSof him are, in.a cernin respect, c1earl)' subjective. In voice-over, MUK>wedescribes his clouded perceptual experience, .and th~ shOIS with whichwe are presented look as though the)' Iud been nJtered through smokeilnd spider webs. The look of Ihe shots in this respec:t is obviously meantto correspond 10 key aspects of the W.l)' tb.ll things ue looking to M.lI'lowein his drugged condition, but the screen Im.lge here does not pllrpon to

give us his .lclu.ll \'isua! perspectiv~, As in .ln objective shot. we im.lgin~

seeing Mulowc u he wilnders around th~ room, but, .It the $.lm~ time,we do nO' im.lgine tholt the room Is filled with smoke ol,nd spider webs.The look of smoke .nd spider webs is im.lglned to represem cerl.llnphenomenal properties present in Mulowe's field of vision, In thisenmple, we U~ prompted to the conclmion lh.t these fe.,tures of lhe

86 GEORGE M. WILSON ANO SAM SHPAll

inug~ UC subjcah-~ bfo.~ MMlow~. in '·oia-o'·~r. tells us Wt this iswh.,t his drugg~ ,isw.1 upcn~nc~ is like. So. W~ im.llgin~ seeingMulow~md his .,edons from.J. 'isu.t.l perspC'Cth-c. h~ docs not .lnd couldnot occupy. Mor~ver. It is.l visu.t.l perspective Uu.t is not expe:.ri~nced

by .lfl}'one~ in th~ film. SriU, we Ut keyed to suppose th.tt th~ pertinentphenomt'.n.J.l properties included In th~ onscret:n visu.t.l perspective reAectspecific qu.t.lililtl\'t inflections wilh which we Im.lgine the det«tive's,isu.l1 pcrspecti\'e to be suffused. This constltutes.l third kind ofsubjecth'eshot, and w~ will aUn "m impcrsorW. subjcah'd}' inflcaed shot." Inthis enmpl~. W~ un.agin~ ouncJ\"ts seeing MMiowe md his .lCtions fromm unoccupied visu.t.l persP~Cl:h-e mil is subjeah'~ly infleaed in specificw"}'S, Th~ ronc~pt of "impcrson.t.l but subjmn-dy inflected shots"should be understood strictI}' 10 ~nu..il tlut the phenomen.ll qu.t.litiett orcomenu of.l cluncter's pcrceptu.ll upcnence.lre milTOred in the shoe

These c.J.Sts should be distinguished from still .lnother t}-pt: ofpsychologlc.J..Uy chuged imperson.,l shot. Mitry points out th.,1 there ueimperson.,1 shots th.,t pick out objects .J..nd events th.,t h.,ve ~n shownto be pcortth"td by., cluuCter .J..nd present them In.J.. WilY Wt ilIumhutesth~ ps)'chologiaJ signifiana they hive for the chu.J..cter.' For Instmce,th~ dwched fist ofon~ cluncter, jones. nu.y be shot in .J.. dose-up th.ltezpruscs the looming threu tlut Smith fte.Ls when h~ notices thec1wching of Joncs's land. The hypoth~ial shot is il dose-up, but JonesIs st.mding at .I consider.J.ble dist.J.nc~ from Smith. The shot is Ihereforenot 1it~r.llly .J.. shot from Jones's visu.,1 perspective, .l!though, In itsnuuti\'e context, It m.J..y tell us .J.. f.J..ir .J..mount .J.bout Jones's re.leth·ethoughts .,Ild emotions. Thi.~ would be .J.. good u.lmple of wh.J.t Mitf}'r~f~rs to u .l '·seml'liubicai\·~ shot." Nev~rtheless, slna the shot docsnOl. show us .ln}'thlng .lbout l.h~ phenomerW du.rJct~r of Jonn's visu.J..1f'i~ld, It is POl ., subjecth-dy inflected impcorson.t.l shot. u w~ bJ,'ocmtroduad tlut concept. We luv~ th~ imp..ession WI Mitry's Cltcgor}'1mY indud~ irnpcorsonal, subjectivdy Inflected shots. .l!t.hougb h~ nC"\-c.rdescribes an inst.J..nce of this nm'ower kind. The dmger Is th.ll h~

efTectlveJy conf4tes them with oth~r t)'Pei of impe.rson.J.1 shots whosechil~f function 15 to Imply something .lhoUi .l cluracter's cognithoc orifT«tive Sliltes.

Still, on~ might worr)' m..1 our cha.n.Ct~ri:t.J.tionofliubjectlvely inO«tedimperson.t.l shots "erges olllnconslsl~ncy, Th~ chu.J.Clertution SC'CII\S 10.lSk us to suppost" th.J.t fHm ,'iew~rs im.,gin~ thai they ue '-isu.t.ll)'


presented wlth.J. sub;ec:t1\'dy inflected fidd ofvision, but i field of visionWt unposs.lbly bdongs 10 no OD~. Of coW"St:, if w~ usumed tlut th~

vuious non-POV shots in.l tl".lnspu~m film d~iCt, in th~ first inst.J.na,the pe.rceptw.l upcorience of m Invisible amer.l-\\;tncss, th~n ther~

would be no problem htre. We:. could fC.ldily .,1I0..... th.,t subjcetlvdyinflect~ images prese.nt the phenomenal contents .lnd qU.J.liries of thefield of vision of this Implicit ,Vimess, Howenr, th~ gener.J.l idenllfiallonof the am~ra with such oln Invisible Sp«Utor is, for .....ell-anvolssedrusans, quit~ impl.J..usibl~. It is cqu.t.lly Impl.luslble to posit t1u.t such .,y,'i.tncss pops intO fictional exlstcnn: only 10 .lccommod.J..te the subt~cthity

of these impersonal shots. As on~ of the present .J..ulhors (Wilson) lwMgued befor~, ther~ ~.t.Ily 15 DO incoh~~nce In the concept. Th~ ,"isu.J..1pcorspectivc of.J. shot IS not to be id~ntlf'ied .....ith the fidd of vision of .J..chu.J.cter, expliCit or impliCIt in th~ fiction, unkss the film nuntiotlspct:ifk.J.lly cst.lblishes such.J..n Identity. We im.lgin~ th~ shots in MurdtrMy SIHf! .lS shOWing us Mulowe's actiOIl from th~ visu.J..1 perspectiv~ apcorson .....ould holve if he or she were vi~wlng the .J.etion from .I ~tJiln

vanr.lg~ point .J.nd if he or sh~ wer~ .,mlCted with the Iype of cloudedvision th.J.t Mulow~ is uperiencing. This visu.J.l perspecth'~ is nOtfiaion.t.lly Identical with all)'one's .J.ctu.,1 field of vision.

The distinction between '-eridial POV shots ud .mperson.llsubjecth'dy inl1ected shots und~rscornth~ trC,UDcrQ\lS ambigUity of thephuse "poml ohiew," even wh~n tlut phnse is constr.J.ined 10 .J.pplyto m.J.tt~rsofStriCt visu.li upcrience. Shots of th~ l.ltter kind show us th~

chu.lcter's pcorceptw.l point of view in one sense (Ih~y deline.tt~ theqw.lit.J.tlve Il.,ture of his or her perc~prlon) but not in th~ Dlher (th~y donot present the V.J..nt"g~ point from which he or 5h~ looks), impcrson.J.lsubjectively inflected shots md seque.nces ung~ from the tnvi.t.ltO therich .lnd Inmate. A scgm~nt in whIch ., chu.J.C1er 15 shown ponderingsome decision whil~ the du.r.J.Cttt's visw.hzed thoughts olppeU.lS if Iheywere projected behind him or her is subtecth'ely Inflcaed in., mvW w.ly.HowcYtt, sub,C'Cth'eJy mflected shots C.lIl exhibit .I numad epistemicstrUClur~, They olTer the powbilit)' of direc:t1y showing the audlcnc~

intersubjec:tively .J.ccess.ble Infonn.J.uon .,bout .I du.r.lCl~r.lnd his or he.rbe.h.J.v1or while., at th~ S.J..me time, presenting import.,nf f.J.eets of thech.J.r.J.Ct~r's priV.J..te pe:rceplU.J.1 impressiolls. w~ un sec tbe ch.J.r.lcter .J..nd,to.l signiAcmt degree, see wnh him or her olt the S.J..me time. Such shotsh.J."e rh~ funher pottntl.ll of insinu.J.t1ng some outsid~ comment from


th~ fUmm.lker ilbou( the rtliltions between th~ duncters' depict~ Sl.tt~

of sentience illld the .lctions they produce.

We e.tn invoke .llilrger swse of the more Inter~tlng possibilities her~

ifwe rtmind ourseh'esof~ funous shot from Hitchcock's Vnti90 (19S8)in which Scottie Oilmes Stewart) kisses ilnd embrilCU Judy (Kim Nonk)JUS! ilftu she hu r~lNde herself .u ~deline.' The couple Is In Judy'shotel room ilnd, u they kiss, the nmUil (or $0 It seems) begins to trilckuound them. In the course of the shoe, the bole! setting gndwlly fildesinto blilckness ilnd is repLtced by il slightly dimmed view of the su.ble InSiln Jw.n B.autisu. - the pba: where Sconie lud kissed ~deline IWI bcforeher ilp(»rtnt dCilth. Still ernbncing Judy. he Ioob ilround him, ilppeMingtroubled ilnd disoriented. The Ndground 'iew of the stilble fildes ~ck10 bb.d., ilnd lhe hoed room gndu.illy re.lppeu5. ~thed now In il ghostlygreen. This shoe conains ilddldorW complie.tDons Wt wc will ignorc.but the effects of the feuures we lu"e ilieildy mentioned ~ tricky toclunoerize Kruriltely.

We t.lke II Wt this is il subjecth~y inflKted shot, but the inflectionis mort ebbonte Uun 10 the shot from Mur«r My 51\'«1. Pre:suJnilbiy. thecircling "amenM YilJlt.lge point is mum to depio the n'll~ of theo'-uwhelrning emotion Sconief~ ilt thlll momem, olDd It is il11 emouonWI is hert being hnked 10 the film's re.curnm motif of vertigo. The~ground shot of the st.lble represents il lullucinilled memory lIll.lge- Ullmage tJu,( las flooded intO Scottie's consciousness, superimposingitself on his view of the ho<el room. Presunu.b1y. the experience Is $0

unexpected ilnd $0 vivid tlul it e.tuses the be\\ilderment thilt is registeredin ScollY's filce. So, whilt 1S it tlut film viewers Imilgine seeing in thisextend~ shot? They IlThl.gine seeing Scotty's ilnd Judy's imense embrilceIn the Empire Hotel. illld thcoy ilThl.gine seeing Ihco ~brilce from ilnImpersonill mO\'!ng Vilnt.lge point thai circles ilround thco couplco.Spectalors illsa im"'ginco thill thco circling ..isual perspective expresses Ihe\·ertlginous ~nSiltJons thilt Scouy is expericonctng at the time. When thco\iew of (he nilble "'ppeilrs, they imilgine seeing Scouy hillludnating ilShe holds Judy/Madeline (0 him utd the coment of ""h"'l he Is thenhalluclnilting. What is more, the dynilmics of this Ilon-POV shotsuggeslil nurationill (ommem on the nurative siluiltioll. For example, they himat the elllnpment of both chuilCters In their privilte obsessions and Iheuncanny naturt of the orcUmStilntts that these obsessions hilve led the.mto Crtilte. We Sil)' thilt this sub]t:eth'e!y inflected shot is Impersonill, but

I


this ilpplication of the teon should not mislcoild, The Vi1.nlilgco point isimpe:rsonill - it Is not occupied by il1l)'one In the fiction - bUI whilt theshot expresses ilbout the dtu...cters Is nOI emotloJ1illly ImpersolUl. It iseng...ged il1ld sympilthelic. expresSing Ihe lIImmilker's ilttitudes towud

Ihco 5CCnC'.

UJUnGri:N wijtaift i.llfkaioas

In the eumplco from Vtrti90' the structure of objecti\'t: il1ld subjKth'eelements of the shot is eLtbontco. bUl Its structure ilnd impon ucore.lsollilbly de.tt. Viewen m.ly differ ilOOut interpreuti"e details. bul IIis ilpparent that we~ s«ing Judy wd Scottico embrila in the hotel roomu Scottie £lubes ~ck in memory 10 the UrllCl incident IR the suble. Thcoepiste:mic structures of the segmentS In our urlier exilmples~ simpleril1ld, corre:spondingly, the SlnJctul'eS ilrt t::\""t'D mort pl.unly de:line.lled inthelr immediille l\ilJTiltive: contexts. So, these: ilrt shots md sequences inwhich thco IlOml of nundoml tnnspuency h.u bttn Ioc:.tlly presen'ed.HO'A-ever, there ilrt numerous exceptions to the priloice of immcdiilletnnsparency, E\""t'D in classlaJ nilroth'e ntms, there art many cues inwhich the copistemic stnKtU~ ofa Rgmenl ts not spedfled stnight ilWilYwhen thco segment OCCUIS. In fKe, thue are nuny msWlces in which th~is somco delibente deLty in Identifymg il slgmflQnt ilSpect ofthco segment'se.pistemlc Slructurco. Ind«d, In a number of these enmples. the$pKifIe.ttion of Structure is long postponed. somrtim~ for almosl t:M:whole length of the film. In these Instilnces. thco IlilIUrt. of thco copislemicstructurt of puticular e.trlier segments is eventually ~tlled ilt IWT.ltiVCO

dos~.

Epislemok>gie.tl twist films ilrt defined by the filCt thilt glo~ ilSpectsof the: coplstemic structUrt of their nilrration ilfCO cWi£lC'd. in a surprisingWilY, only towud the end of the: movie. Hitchcock's StGge Fright (1950)opens with il notorious "lying" fluhbilck. Onco chuilcter (Riclurd Todd)

\'erbally lells another Oane Wymiln) .about whilt luppened whcon ilmurder took pliltt ilnd. as he nillntes his story, there Is ... long visuillsequencco dut SewlS to be a £lilshb.tc.k to thco COVents (hilt he is recounting.It Is only ilt the mOl'S conclusion (hal we le.lm thilt this chillilcter hasbeen lying illld lhilt the relevilOl sequence hilS (0 be rt:eonstnled u merelyil VisUoll ilIustution of the rontcont ohhe liar's fillse .lSsenions. Of course.this scogment is "subjecti\'e" in stili il different sense - it Is the rendering

90 GEORGE M, WILSON ANO SAM SHPALL

of wh~t ~ duncu~:r ius \'ubally repon~. In IhlS insuna:. Ih~ report isfw ~nd, for pr~m pu~. whit is impon~nt is dut Ihe 1t\O'I1~

suppresses th~ f"ct thit it Is f,,1se until the story's end apprmche$,In Fritz Lang's TM Womon in 1M Window (19H), we dil;cO\'er nen Ihe

conclusion tb"t the wbole Story of Professor W.nley's (Edwud G.Robimon) invoh"e:ment with ~ trNcherous kmmt folo.k O~n Ikrmell) ~n invoh-cJDeI\I tlut le~ him to murder her k»vu -ius bet:n ~ nightnu.rethl.l the professor tus b«n drt.uning, Almost nOlhing In the style of thefilm's visual nUT.tion promptS us to suppose.: th"t wh"t we m setlng Is"dre."m. That disclosure Is simply ~nnounced by sho....ing Wmley u hefiw.lly wues up in "cluJr In his club. In both th~ cues ~nd othen lik~

them, the movies wind up m'eVing an episle.mologial t"1st. but thetw1st. u it IshmdJ~ Mre.. can 5ttIT1 ubiltU)' and utifidal. Vie.....en oftenfeel che~ttd by the. tricks.. & this <IS II OliY, suppose. thit long-deb)'~

and supp~ issues of e.pistemlc struaute U~ ~vtnrually se.lll~ in "given nJOl. Should wesay th., the movie s.1tisfies th~ norm of n.rrallon.ltrmspuency? Must epistemic structure be c1eu more or less conrinuowlythroughout tbe fl1m? We do nOi think it Ol.lters much wlut stipw..tionwe I.dopt. but the. "twist" movlt'S ttrumly \wute u leoUt the c4ssicol1imple.menutions of tr~nspl.rency,

Returning 10 ThtWomOllIII Iiw'Wi_ for" moment. there Is" qU~lonibout wh"t viewers. who ilrndy know ibout the drum Iwist, im"glneseting In the scenes that rel"te the content! of the dre~m. A.s one firstwuches the relev~m segments. one inugine.s se.cing. for cnmple, theprofeuor murder his rom;antic rival, HowC\~r, ~fter it ius been re\'eal~

dut W~n1e)' h~s been drtunlng all "long, do viewen still inuginethemselves;l5 lu'ing seen the murder? Or, altem"th·ely, when \iewenseethe mO\ie" second time and mow th"t W;anley dJums his "d'"enture.s.then, "s they re.w"lch the murder scene. do they stilllm"gine seeing theprofessor commit the oime? Or, it this juncture. do they merely inugineseelDg the contents of his drt"m~ Our own mong inclin~tion is to Sol)'

the following. 80lh the first time "nd the second nme Wt \"iewm w;r,tchthe scene. they do ilThlglne seeing Professor W"nl~y klll his rin!. Themurder is. as it were. v\su~lly pcestnt on the screen. Howevu. on th~

first vieWing. while implicitly accepting the usumption of Ir"nsJ»rency.\'iewen suppose. tlut the murder "au"Uy t;r,kes pl"ce (in the ovtt.1.11 worldof the Story)" Seeing the Qme scene oIg~in. they lu,'~ leuned th~t this

supposition "bout the SI~tuS of wlut they lu'"e ilTl.lgin~ seeing is f"Ise..

UNRAVEliNG THE TWISTS OF FIGHT CLUB 91

Thus. on 01 second Vle....ing. Ihey continue to iIlUgine SC'cing Wanleyperfonn the murder, but this orne they imagine. tlut is. they suppose..that th~ murdu is merely something llul the professor fictlow.lly hasdre.amtd" Hence. we nttd to duw a distinction between wh"t view~rs

Imagine seeing in a Stretch of film "nd the im;agimlh~suppositions Uutthey adopt aboul the epistemic and omo&ogicoll sl<andlng of the thingsand ev~lS th"t th~ inugine seeing. The "core~ contents ofwb"t \;eweninugine seeing rem~ins roughly the Qme from viewing to viewing. It is

wh"t the film viewers hmgine (suppose) "bout the episte.mologiul.sulUsof what lhey lm"gine seeing lhit "hers so shuply. Comp.1re this with"c~ in which there is ~ nOI.-able clunge: ofdnmatic upect for the viewerbetwC'Cn t.....o ,i~....,ngs oftbe. ume scene... W~tching ~ c1ose.up ofOcta\'e

In Tbr RuIcs of tht Gmt Oun Renoir. 1939). the viewer might, the firstlime through. lnugine seeing Oct~ve's Oe"n Renoir) f~ct: ilS expresingone set ofemotions. but tnugine seeing, the next time "round, "differentmix of fttling ;and motiv"tion In Ocuve's counten<ance. H~r~, we a.reinclin~ touy thit there bu brtn a change: in the "core" coment ofwh.i11the vi~er ius imagined seeing from one showing to ~nor.her. The \'et)'

look of Ocn\'e's f"tt. U Ihe \1ewu im"gint'S it e.4Ich time. bu changedIn our opinion. this contrUt! with the Silu.tlion of the viewer before;md"fter the diSclosure of" sysu:mitlc epistemological twm.

FiniUy. let us explain this cl"im by focusing spe.cifiCilll)' on FighlClub. First. her~ is the ~re.st skel~ton of its plot, An unn"med ch"ncterpl.i)'~ by Edwltd. Nonon - .....e will ca.ll him "J~d'" - mCt'ts an intense..dwisrru.ric )"()Ung SO<Ip salt:snun. Tyler Durden (Bnd Pitt). Jack md Tylufonn " close. friendship, live logahe.r in II house. on PlIper Suftt. ;and

become founders of" series of underground fight clubs - clubs in wbichl1Iargin"liz~ young men meet togethu ~nd pound eich OIher into pulpin unnged fights. lick has " tenlilive. sour friendship with" wOlTL\n.Mub (Heleru Bonlum c.ner). but il Is Tyler and Mula who come tohllve .., e.xplosin se.xtul aff"ir. The fight clubs evoh"e into Proje<:tM"yhem. " qlW.i-fuciSlic organlLltion of urban guerrilLas who dOl 10destroy the cre.dlt·l»se.d foundmons of the. oontemporuy economicsystem" Tyler is the moving force. behind Project M"yhem. while Jack isolppuemly " more ~ssi...e fellow tr"veler in th"t enlerprise., Whit wedISCO'o"er, <IS lhe nH1"uive concludes. is th"t Tyler is the halludnit~ idea.lprojection of J"ck's \·obtile and distorted f)§yche. Jad:: inuginel seeingT)·le.r in his company .lnd he Im~gine:s th"t they regululy l"lk rod

92 GEORGE M. WILSON AND SAM SHPAll

,,,,IT S I Mn!.I cSllenng .. .sdf.bdp group

interOict. Nev~nh~Ie:ss, Tyler is 01 CfeOilion of JOIck's imOiginnion. w~ OII§Ofind Out, 100te in the mO"ie. thOit JOick hOis sometimes OIdopted the. Tyle.rperson••nd .ctoo under th.t fOlnu.sized ide.mily, For instance, he tr.\'elsuound the country promoting the. fight dubs .nd exp,mding ProjectM.yhe.m, Apparemly, J;lick Jw no nwnor)'of wh;lit h~ does u Tyler, andIt is only in the sane of ~\-d.J.tion tlut we ,ne dinctly shown 01 momentin which J..ck usumes the role of Tyler.

However, we He' repe..tedly shown scenes in which JOick Uld Tyler..ppeu togemer - conversing, fighting, eng..ging In borsepl..y, ..nd soon. nle5e <In the scenes ttut most stn.ightforwudly ruse the questionofthe. ovenU coht~nc~of the mm 's nuntion. After .ul, Tyler re.uly doesnot exiSl, so how do we construe his rept.. ted OIppeuilnces in the flLm'sIlilrr.. tlon? T..ke, for ex,lIuple, 0111 the scenes in which we imilgine see.ingJ.ck .nd Tyler together in their house on P<lpet Street. It Simply does notnuke se~ to suppose thOit nothing of wh.ll we inu.gine seeing in thissetting .tctw.Uy took pbce Many of the ~'ents porm.yed in mc:se. mfleaedSttI1es lu"e caus.u consequences tlut tum out to be ~.u in the uhinulefiction of the film The: chemlal bum thn T)'kr" inflicts on the bick ofJ""ck's hand is just one rather emblem.uic illusu,r.tion of the point. Wlutwe h.I\·e to inugine. when we consider the film In retrospect. is thOiI J""d.does uner mOSt of the things we heu him Soly 'lOd perfonns most of theactions thilt we observe. We ue also meilnt to im.gine th.t, on theseoccasions, Jilck is simultOl.Jleously lulludnOiting Tyler's presence, hisdeeds. Uld 5~hes, and th.t J.ck Is responding to these fUlIOlSizedoccurrences. Chuacterislicilly, the two duncters U~ presented together


in ~ frame and shot from .to impersonal VJ.I1tilge pom!. Howe\'er. inlight of the eulminaung disclosure., we ue forad to look hild: andreconsou~ Ihoe se.que:nces u perspecuvally imperson.u but subjeeth'dyinflected. They Olre. inflected to represent in 01 lingle shOl both JOick '5 ..awlbehavior and the camem of his concurrent delirious experience.

ThOl.l these segments Ul: to be understood u inflected versions of.nOlherwise objective situ.tion Is implied b)' the following consider.tlons:there ue scenes in which Jaclt md T)'lu.re. togethu In the kitchen. scenesIh.t <lte either preceded or followed b)' Mul.t's entunce 1010 thai room.When she is mere.. Tyler iJ .uw..ys .bse.nt. Th~ scenes betw«n Jack mdMub ","'OWd~m to be piltently obJeCUve. and the continuity ofthe spKebetw~ these scenes Uld the OldjOl<::ent sequentt$ with Tyler mdtOites matJ.ck remains objecth"dy present in the kitchen throughoul. But whenTyler .uso ~ms 10 be present. J.ck is ..ctwlly b)' hlmself Uld talking to.. hilllucin.led figure, Neu the end of Ihe movie, u the l.I'Uth begins todolwn on lack. we are given 5e.\'eral short shots that show Jilck ilCling byhimself In situuions where. ~ulier we hOld seen lOick illld Tyler .ctingtogether, These I.ter shots model for us whit we ;r.r~ now to i1mgineilbout the ~.1.i circumstances after we tun discounted for the subjectininflection_ In cen.a.in scenes. me fanwiud re.l.ationshtps <In ~vm mol'('complicated. When Tyler fuuJJ.y expWns the psychok>gkal5we ofafT..trsto Jack, he. urs: "Somelimes )'ou're still )'ou--sometimes you un""glneyourself wnching me." At this juncture. there is • shot of Jack leaunngth~ members of the fight dub. echoing Oln eulier shot in which Ty\t;rdelh'ered the lectul~, Th~ I.te shot establishes tb.t it was J.ck who hadspoken Ih~ words. im.aglnlng himself.tS Tyler. However, in the e.a.rllercounterp.ul scene. we weI'(' also gi\'ell brief glimpses of Jack sWlding Inthe crowd and gazing ..t Tyler. So, pruumably. J.ck both hallucinatesbeing T)'ler ..nd being himsdf(qw.J..d:) watching Tykr perfonn_ln anycase. gh-m the ultimate penp«tiye ofthe film.....-e ue uked to I'('-imagineeulier critiCll scenes either In these kinds of terms or in minor VVlilnlS

thereof.The sequences with Jolck OlIld Tyler constitute the most tJ(tens.!ve

llId daring uses of impersonal subjecth·t Inflection with which we ue.f"l1liliOlr, They are pilrtlcubrly .ud.dolls because Ihe massive subjecth'~

inflecllon Is left unspecifled until so lale in the movi~, The global natTa·lion.l structure of the film is cleverly designed. Jilck Is the intennluent\'Oice-o\-u nuntor of tbe film, and the mm's rwntion is probably best

94 GEORGE M, WILSON AND SAM SHPAlL

understood n olD i1udio/\isuill rendering of the nil.lTilth'e that he iJ

vvbill)' recounting. The mm n.trriitiOD mdudes mmy segmeDis (most

oflheones in which Tyludoes DOl: i1ppen) t.hiIl ue, e\'en with hindsight,

genuinely objectin. Howe\'er, IS we win see In iI moment, it ~

inlerpoUtts some shoner sequences tlul i1re rTW"ked in Ihe immedi,ttecontext IS subjt'Ctlve depictions of Jlod:'S fmfuies. So the nil.lTuion, in

lon loppuemly convt'lltion.to.l nunner, moves betWeen depiction of the

obj«tlve world of the fiction md the privilte perceptions lond f.rnt;lsies

ofthe milin chulocter. The Iwist, of course, is the f;let thou the full extent

of the inflection of the nilrrillion of J;lck's consciousness hilS beens)'stem;ltiCillly obscured.

The objtclh~ pltiC:l\tiItion ofthe $lory, then, is trOubled from the outset

by odd, seemingly unmoth"ilted incursions from the contents of llod:'smind. Allhe beginning ofthe tnO\ic. wc ue given li POV shot from Jlod.:·S

perspeeth'c u he looks OUllhe "indow of.rn office building, but his view

out thc "indow morphs samle:ssJy into lo dizzying lfilveling shoe t.hiIt

careens do.....o through the buikhng and intO the underground puking

gM;lge below. This highly dynlimlc subtec:tivc shot cnCilpsuliltC:S in iI fLtshJlick's mC::mory of the bomb thilt Project Milyhem hils plilnted In lo v.rn th.lt

is sitting In the gilrage. Also, on two occuiOllS, WC see Jlid;'s surrelil

dilydre;lm ofwilndering through iln icy CiI\'tm. The first time he ISilcoom

piIllied by iI plilyful penguin, thc s«ond time he di~o\'crs Marlil there.Or, tilking a business flight, Jilck wishes in voice-over for iI plilne cruh

md hillluctl1iltes the di5il5ter in grim deuil. This hillluctn,llion Immedllilely

precedes his meeting Tyler. who Is Sitting nCXIto him In the airplane.

UNRAVELING THE TWiSTS OF FIGHT CLUB 95

All these segments i1re subjectively Sillunted, but there are.to.lso maninstances of subjCCU\'c mflection, pWnly identif'iilble iI5 such. Thus Jilek

Sits on Ihe loilel, fNdmg li house decoration Ciltillogue, and the ffiO\ie

cuts 10 a tracking shot that upJor~ his fanusy of his i1prnment fully

furnished with lKEA-likc products, each item shown 00 SOftfl ilS if It

were llibeled by its capuon In the ata.loguc. Subsequendy, we set: Jilck,

hilvlng risen from the toilet still in his underwtilf, limble through his

apilnment (with its subjecth'ely optioned contents), and go 10 Ihe

refrigeriltor, Or prior to the point ill which Tyler IUilkes his entrlince ilS

a definite character in the film, vilrious "obj«tive" shots of sundry

drcUlnsunc~ incorporale brief, usuil1ly subliminill. ilo<1g~ of him. It is

iI5 If the nuntion were alrCild)' hilunted by Tyler-4ced c.ruptions from

jila's \·oliltile subronsdousoess. We do not believc thilt we Ciln under

~und the oven.ll mm nUriIlion iIS iI represet\tlouon from the inside, iI5

It were, of Jila's loCluill hiI1ludnilled memories of his history wllhTyler, but, iI5 these Lnt uamples i!Iuslr.lIC, the IWnlioo Is repeiltedly

ruptu~ by oUlcroppings from Jilek'S IrnilglRiIlK>R and memory. In thIS

fHhion. Ihe movic's nil.lTiltlon sublly hints ilt the wger stntegy of nonrrilnSpncncy ltu.t it so cunningly COnslniCts.

Pari n. The ethics of Fighi Club

Thus fn we hil\'e focu~ on Ihe nillure of O<1mtive trilIlsparency i1nd its

specific uses In Fiflbl dub - on the filCi dut much of whilt we imagine

set:lng. <1t le.m on first vieWing the film, comes 10 be chilllenged by our

eventuill lippred.ation of JKk's PS)'ChologlCilI predic.unelli. There Is nodoubting the cenr.ra..lily ofthis project ofcpislemlc deflC'CUon 10 the film's

ovmll conception. But wc "ill now suggest 1tu.1 there Is iI deeper polnl

to Ihls Iild: of IliIITiIth'e transparenC)'. For ill the center of Ihe film is iI

thenutic tv.'!St, and this Iwlst puilliels the lliIfTilth'e one. The remillnder

of the CSSiIy will be an <1ltempt to di<1gnose Ihe precise n<1rure and Impon

of Ihls Iwlst.As we hope to show, understilnding the film's sub\'ersion of our

inltiall)' pliluslble ilssumptlons ilbout Its worldvlew Is crudal if we hope10 interpret II in iI f<lir and ilccur~le wily. Unfortunately, one of the mOSI

fa.scinating things libout Fight dub is the frequency with which it Is


rilldially mWtlltrprdcd. Thu fact h~ b«n o\'ush.tdowed in critiaJdiscussions olnd p~b1y popuw- discussions as well by interest in thefilm's C'pistt:mic structure; but it is Impomnt, In .1.n.1.lyring it, to reall[holt wholl milluy \'iewers uke olwoly from Figbt dub hu lillIe or nothing 10

do with the lolck of tunspuency tholt constitutes the moljor p;an of Itsru.rruh·e innovilition. Wholt these viewers tae from the movie Is ol ceruinrnessiIIge, a mCS$illgt' thu's expressed in the Mlgry diatribes of TylerDurden. the cuh.tnk pummeling of the cl.llldestine fights, ;md, at Its

culmination, in t~ prOl.()'.lIW"chbm of Proj«t Mayhem.drouly thro film seu up some expectations in this conn«tion. It

confronlS us with ol prougonist whose spiritual predlament Is a kind ofpostmodem milllolise that induces a depressed Insomnia, and Ibal Isappuemly linked to the prolifention ofconsumerism. corpor,lIe apiLllism, .llld the resulum enuscuLulon of the Americ.lll mtle. Moreo\'er, thefilm initially appears to deliver to ilS protillgonut ill 5illvior, .lll iII~t ofmueulint: resurrection, whose centnl qU.1.lities illre his sado-muocmsticimpulses olnd Jus unimpc:iIIchilible virility. So for ill while. Fight Club mightindeed look like.1. reutlvdy contri\'C'd exen:i.se in illdolescent ideology. .1.glorifiGtion ofviolence .1.nd chaos as the only WillY of rescuing men fromthe onslillught of modernity ilnd its femInine, domesticating power.'

TIle problem with Interpreting the film in this mmner Is th.1.t it quiteconsciously Collis .1.J1 these ideas intO question. One of our .urns here willbe to show du.t its subversion of our InhbJ Inte:rpreth'e .u.sumptions is

qUite obvious - obvious enough to nise iln Interesting question abouthIM' the film could re~ 50 susceptible to misinterpretltion,

In bl'Oilld outline, the \iew that we will be defending Is u follows, Amajor Iheme of the film Is thitt Jilck's spirllUaJ pred-Iament Ciln only beameliorated by way of the establishment of some sorl of reaJ humanconnection. Illiti.illy, iI.seems U ifTylu is the person who an give himthis kind of connection. More gene:raJly. the world\'iew thilt TrierespoUSotS.llld embodies iIIppur5 to be~ted as one Wt is subsuntWIycorrect in us diagnosis of, Mld rebellion against. the enuscuLuedcondition of modern m.lll. And the e:thos ofTyler is.1.1 first ponn.)·ed asa viillble solution to some distincth'dy modem problems ofmeaninglessness. aJien;ltion, .1.nd homogeneity, problems for which jade.Is the: film's reprt'Se:llIative suffuer.

Nonetheless, this conception of the Ihemes of the film is complelelymisLlke.n. In our- \'iew, fJBhl aub should lea\'e vi~ers with the impression


that T)'lu's workh'1ew is Mply tWlSled. diSturbed. and unproduain.More Imporuntly. viewers should appndue thilt this .....orldvi~· isceru.inly nOt prese:med, at the end of the day. as .1.legitinute solution 10the existt.nliaJ predianle:nt thu is the movie's ffi;lln focus. The connectionthujillck seems to ha\te with Tyler, .1.nd tlut seems to beil way of steeringhim b.1.ck 10 psychologial nonnaJity. is completely illusory - boI:h afigme:nt of his itNgination Uld .1. red herring in his seuch for a cure.Ultimiltdy we come to underslMld th.u Tyle:r is rully iln unheaJthy

projection ofjild's mgt'r and isol.ltion rather ttwl ill prophetiC trumpeter

of a return to unresu'illned masculinity. Funhermore, .....e·1I show th.ttMarlil Singer. who ocropies il platt In jack's troubled consclomness thatis stukly contfillSled with the platt occupiC'd by T)'ler, IUClUililly tile film'ssuggested solulion to the problems it IreillS. 10 More gener.1.11y. the lessonof Fight dub is one that dlltttly opposes the worldvlC'w ofTylu: only reaJhuman connection, in the fann of nan of the mill reutionships, engagedfeelings, and the: Cillpadty for Ioo.·e, Q.O constitute il hulthy response to

isoution, boredom. .1.nd disengagement.

A skctcb o( the cullumtlll

As we\'e nOl.ed. il f.1.lrly common conception oflhe thematic unbitionsof Fighl Cklb represents the film as primarily concerned with olTering illcritique of modem society Mld. in p;articu1ar. ill aitique of modernity'ssteriliution ofceruJn chuacteristially nu.scuiule Impulses. The centraJIdC'ill st'Cll\S to be. WI jillck's condition is iIIt lust subst.llltially lhe resultof soda-economic faaon - such.lS corpoute spc:daliullon .1.nd nrnp;ant,blind consumerism -over which he exerciscslittle: control and for whichhe: hu no responsibility. It Is the return to ill more primitive state, one inwhich men habltwlly indulge their n.1.lUral drb'es. thillt the mmsupposedly recommends,

We'll now prescnt our reasons for thinking th.tt this common viewof the film is de:uly misguided. For slDlpUCity's 5iIIke it will be. u.sefullOh.t\'t a tUme for this imerpreth'e perspective. We will all it the cmtSITtUolioDmodel, but we Inlst thilt reillders will not iIIccord this tide too much

significililce.These reuons ,,1)] be providC'd b)' WillY of an argument tlut lill,es us

from an arn.I)·sis of lhe centraJ nuruh'e dt\'elopments of Fight Club 10 aconclUSion .1.boUI Ihe nlmmakers' inte:ntions and the fundunentilll

98 GEO~GE M. WILSON ANO SAM SHPALL

worklview lholt lh~ intentions exhibit. The ugument WIU ~r'\'e tohighlight just how Simply the enuscul~tion model em be cilled Intoquestion, ~d consequently bring 10 the fore some imporunt issues~bout wh~t grounds hs ~ppe;u, issues ~bout which we will re(r~in from

offtting wh~t would inevlt.tbl}' be ulUCientiOc speculoltions. Our nuln

crltldsm of the emucul~tion model is th~t it ClnnOt squue with the.w~y Fight Club's narr~tive Is oonceh'ed, It is only if we O\'erlook somerudiment~1"}' f~cts dlOut the film's nructure thlot this interpreloltioncould ~ppear correct.

Lei us flJ'St put the Mgllmf:Dt in ~ rW.tI\'ely generil fonn, The Olm setS

up a emullJ proIdtm for its prougonist. It gi\'f;S us clues ~bout the ruture ofthis problem, and, in puticuw, provides us with a flMIIIIfatmcID of theprobJem, which presumably funaions to WumifUte Its fUture. Then theprougonist finds~ lIlitial poWbkmluliul. a solution thl.t is quickly frustrated~nd proven Inadequate, Eventually, he dlscovus a S«ond possibk sollltion, Thesecond solution Is import~dy rc.Iated, as one might expect, to tltecentral problem ~nd to the first. failed response. Our task as interpretersis to e\'a!uolte the vb,bilit}, of the s«ond soIudon - how the filmmakerspresent it to us. ~d wlut their Judgments about iI Sttm to be. The vie.....we t~ke to be obvious iJ Wt the s«ooo solution is portr.I}·ed .IS just .IS

ifUdeqw.te .IS the: 6nt, And if uds 1$ nght, then the enusculuion moddis compltld)' mlsconO=I\·ed.

An inttrprttllUOII of Fight Club

We now ~nicul.1.te the ugument In more detail. The central problem ofthe n~nilli\"e is Jack's spirllU.t.l m.t.laise. After the fUm's opening, as weflub bid: to th~ beginning of the e\·tlIlS it depicts, we encounter him u

a depressed corpoute drone who getS his muunul kicks envisioningpossible redecorations of lus lo~nment. contemplning questions hke"wlut kind of dining set defmes m~ as lo person?" The source of hiscondnion IS nOl enti~ly clt.M. II In our vi~w, it is by ev.t.lw.ting theproposed solutions to hiS problem th~t we c~ he:st understand wh.it theproblem is. Bmthe crud.t.l piece ofinfonn~tion Ih~1 we get is th~t Jack'scondition has Qlle chief m~nift'St~tion: insomnia.

Jack's illsomni~ Is presented as a genuine metaphyslc~1 predicamellt,md not as lo Simple bout ofsleeplessness: "Forsix momhs Icouldn'uleep.Wllh insomnial\O{hing's re~. Encythlng Is fu awloY. EH'rything Is aoopy


oh copy ofa copy.- Euly on, then, we Mf: gi\"en to understand rn...t theC'Off: of his Insomnia is noc exlu.ustion but estrmgement from rulity.

Jack's prc.lim.inJ.ry ",action to his sinution is an interesting one:. ~d\'iewers often undet·apprecl~le its imporun<:e. I Z Following ~ prob.iblyfacetious recommendation from his doctor, who is dismissive of Jack'srequest for sleeping pHis and of his claims lh~t he is r.xperiencing cuI~in, our prougonist begins 10 ~tte.nd group lherapy meetings forinwvidulls with serious medlc.t.l conditions like tt':Sl:icuur ancer. feigningillness himself. He spends hours eloch night listening to the tragic SIOrlesof \ietims. huring about their dis.appolntmenLS ~d ~gwsb, ~d e\-enbuggmg them ~d eng~ging in ugw.bly ritw.listic acts of illtttion, HISvet)' first mttting includes a tnnsfornutlorW one on one mcountet:"Str.wgers "ith tbis kind of honesty nuke me go a big rubbery one ...[Bob: Go ~he~d Cornelius, rou Gn cry.) And then somtlhing happened.I let go, lost in oblivion, duk ~nd sUtlU and complete. I (ound freedom.losing all hope WloS freedom. [Cut to Jack sleeping.) B.tbles don't sleepthis wdl." The emotional engagement thlot Jlock rinds In the therapy~ions Is loddieting. He feels "resurrected" Ncb night: he feels loved andrmde~ essenti.t.l ~n of~ community. Thus the inltW solution highlights~ lIIllbilllr to fed. and an llIIOaIll)' 1Omgagt""'ub /ICbm -or, at lust, the: perWtenllad: of f«ling and emouowJ engagement t.h.Jt he experiences In thecoone of bis duly life - as essenti~1 components of J~d.'s dinurbedpsychology. For the progress dut J~ck m~kes In th~ scenes is cleulylinked to his renewed emotion~l eng~gemeOl \vith OIher hum~ beings,e\'en though iI t~kes pl~ce in so strange and fabrlClted ~ seumg.

Quickl)',IJ however, the SUCCesli of the group Iherapy sessions isdisrupted by the ~ppear~nceor Mula. a dark. mysterious. and disturbedwoman who sudde:nly comes to frequent the circuit of "groups." Herpresence is a ulliU'Ophe for Jad:, aboul which be:'s uplicit: ~If I didlun ~ lumor I would name it Mub. ~u.rla, the Imk SCTiltch on the. roofof )'our mouth Wt would hu! if only )"00 would Stop tonguing it, bUI}'OU an't,"

Why is Mul~'s ~ppear~nce so problenutic for J~k? B«~u.se she forceshim to f~ce the anif'idality of his conduet- the floCt lh~t his lollend~nce

lot Ihese meetings Is not such a big ste:p forward from the "copy" esse.nce.of his insomniac m~l~ise. If the rOOI orhls ennui is ,10 emotionlo! disconnection, lon estn.ngement from the .....orld md the rest of iLS inh~bitants,

the:n the: first attempt we see: blm mut': of forging some kind of

100 GEORGE M. WILSON AND SAM SHPAll

conntction is fl'iught ....ith duplicity, C)'Tllcism, ~d bzjne5S. If it~

.....ork to som~ degrtt, for. whilc, then this Is simpl)' pmiminuy

cvidena ofJoIck's eztn:me psycbologlal dcbilillollon.

~hr1.J.·s pruencc: is like thc presma: of~ undistorted rn1noc. Nothing

claUs thc oIbsurdily ofhn oIuencbncc: on the contraf')', MoI1"loi fbunts the

folet Uul shc doesn't belong itt the groups, sho....ing up to testicu1u ancer

meetings oInd smoking the whole WoI)' through. She is lbe nece5Sol1")'coltol1)'SI for Jack's, md the <tudience·s. first moljor ruliUlion: dut the

therapy circuit is insufficicnt treatmcnt for his condition. It

Shortly i1fterH Marla begins attending the meetings. J<tck unwiltingly

~mbukson a s«ond <tucmpt at responding to his condition. This ;mcmpt

occupies thc ccntu of the film's nunth'C dt.\·elopmem and the locus of

ilS contro\·eT'SY. To pul il SUccinctly we could uy Ibolt the second solutionIs T)'ler Durden - who. as we t.\·cmulolly come to understand, Is 01 projec

tion of JoId's own troubled consciousness.. More oIttuntdy. the second

solution is a whol~ conSlclUtion of phmomc:n<t inspired by J<tck's mental

dCtcriontion: Tyltt himself, Fight Club, ~d c\'enrually Projtct ~byhem.

Before providing .I more deuiled moll)"Sis of these: cenlrol1 upccts ofthe film's themnic oIlChitKture, it w1ll be useful to obsu\'c bow nicely

thc first h<t!fhour of fight Club brings Jack's possibilities InlO focus. Al the

conclusion of this first .ICt. in which we hao;e bttn introduced to the

protagonisl, his problcms, an inlti<t! attempted resolution of them, .Ind<tn .Ipparent fall in the guise of.l deranged fmunr 'otoll, we meet .I new

cluucter, <t nWl who exudes from his ve:ry pores a vit<tllty thlt m<tkes

him <t perfe:ct contrast to JoIck, Mul... utd th~ thenpt' p.lnldpants.lf> This

section of the film comes to a close with th~ re\'elation Wt J.ld's<tpa.nment holS explod~ in <t fl.Teba.lI, destroying.l1l orhis possessions md

leaving him homdess: only loiter do wc rt.l1ize thiU this LS the fust 17

eruption ofthe: Tt'ler~na. Now Jack is f.lCed ....ith 01 n~..... pmiiC.ll1lent:

he needs somewhere to go. His doornl.lO uks him ifhe holS someone: hccan all. H~ has tWO peoplc. ~d, .....e: <tre led to be1it:\·e. only two: ~hrl<t

.md T)'leT. He cills Mula but hangs up. too <tfnid to speak \vith her. And

then he calls Tyl~r. OulSid~ ofthe bu where they meet, Tyl~T gOilds Jack,who c<tnnot bring himself to enn .I modest level of intimacy after three

pitchers of beer, into explicitly oIsklng whelher he coin Stoll' ,11 his pl.lce:.

Then Tyle:r loSb Jold 10 hi' him oIS hard .IS he can.

H~r~.lTe the beginnings ofJ.lck's fhn.ltion wilh violence oIS a rome to

intimacy .Ind emotion..! engagement. As thc Fight Club de\·elops. J<tck


discovcn molt he is 'not ..Jane' In feding the kind of kmelines.s utd

depression Wt can be .It least temponrily remedied by a good oIdfolShioned thnshing:

Thi..s kid from work, Ricky. couldn't mnembc:r whether you ordered

pens with blue ink or blold:. But Ridy was .I god for tcn minuteswhen he trounced the. mailn d' ,II <t locoll food coun ... You we.ren't

oIlive utywhere likc you .....ere there.

The Club Is thus represented as bc:xh .. forum ofindm..cy and as.l cillhanic

indulg~nce of muculine power. As the fights conlinu~, Jack gainsconfldence.l11d self-esteem:

JACK (WITH CONDESCENStON, LOOlI:.1NC AT A CALVtN '-LEIN AD): Is

Uu.t wh.1I 01 IlWIlooks lik~?

lYLE": Sdf-impronmcnt is lIWSIurbJ.tion. Now self-destrUCtion

from the penpeeth-e ofth~ emolSCUbtion model, Tyler Is the film's h~ro

~d the rtp~loItive - indeed, the: proj~tionisl - of Its distinctive

sodologial critique. It is undoubtedly easy, at flrst. to uke him to be ahero. Besides bring eltremel)' holndsomc, virile, and dryly funny. T)'la

spouts his Ideu with ch<trismnlc vitriol...nd, being an outgrowth of

JoIck's own consciousness, hnmediudy keys (nto the condition of our

prougonist'" MortO\'cr, there is a ceru.ln Whltm~esque tutur..lne:sstholt gi\'es some of his rdltttions on the condition of modem m.l11 .I

\-e.ry <tttraeth'e, UId In a Wily vet)' ADlerian. nostalgu. for .. difTcrtnt

kind of lue::

~God dunn it. .ul entire gmention pumping g~, waiting tol\)les:

sbves with while collus. Advertising has us clasmg c.us ~d dotheJ,

working jobs we h..t~ SO w~ can buy shit we don't n~.We're the:

mIddle childrtn of history, man. No pUrpc>se or pl<tce. We h..vc no

Gteolt War. No Great Depression. Our Greolt WM'S .. splrltooll war,

Our Gte.lt Depression is our Ih·es. We've all been l'ilsed on telt\1sion

to belicve thilt one day we'd .III be million.llres, .Ind movie gods,~d rode StlrS. But we won·l. And wc'rc slowly le.tmlng th.lt f<tct.

And wt'rt \'ery, \"e.ry pissed off.


In the world I see you're sulking elk lhrough th~ cUmp anyon forestsuound the ruins of Rockefeller Centtt. You'll .....ur le~thtt clothesth~1 \\ill WI )·ou the rest of )'our life. You'll climb the: wrist-thid

kudzu vines lluot .....up the SNn Tower. And when )'OU look down,

)'ou'li~ tiny figures pounding com, I~ymg Strips of \'enison on

the emplY c~r pool tilne of some ilbmdoned supe:rhighwil)'."

Many \;ewers will symp.athize .....ith elements of Tyler's objections to

modem corporilte: hegemony, spe:<illiuuon, md conswnerism. And this

is prKisely where fight eilib ~Iuins il ternporilt)' lild of themuie

tnnspue::ncy th.Il puU1ds its nuum'e IWlSl. Ifwe find oursel.\'eS ~tltKled

to Tylu, and to his ethic of mischief ilnd nuyhem. then il is p.lttully

because we Iu\'e yet to~ where II leilds. Tyler's rebellion is rdilti\-dy

innocmt u long u it ilppe<lIS to ~ just il miltter of liposuction 5Oo1p ~ndpornographic splicing imo film Itt!s - though of course it is less thiln

full)' tl1OSCulinr, in lIle stereotype: of lack's projeclion, precisdy because ithilS nO/. yet become unre:strilined,19

The progression of this rebellion, which is ultim~ldy Jild's revolt

ilgdost himself. fonns the major put of1M fJ.Im_ It an be seen a.s <l ste.ldily

mousing e:dubllion of the SlfieotypicUJy nuscul.ine clutilaeristics thi.tJrl feds himself to bck. First, Tyler~ sleeping \vith Mub

upenly, u one would upea, .rnd publicly enough to mod: '<ld's own

sexu<l.1 <lbUities. The origin of this ill.lir is illustnllve:, Mulil ruches out

to hck, c<l1ling him in ~ depressed, dmgged, ilnd possibly suicid11 due,but J<lck ignores her, IitenJly le~v1ng Ihe phone ofT lhe hook .nd w<l1klng

.W<lY as she 1~lks. Tyler - Ihill p.trt ofJack who is not 100 SColred 10 engage

with <l woma.n - pich up where the more timid and <lpolthetic man left

ofT: hck is <lJlgry when he finds om <lbout Tyler <lJld Mul~. but he doesn'tcomprehend his own je<l1ousy, IJld he directs It at Mula. nther lha.n ~t

his own e:motion.a.l incompetence IJld mmal impilirnent. ("She IDnd«imy suppan groups; now she'd IDva.ded my home.~) These issues art SO

monumenal thilt J~ck an~pwith Mub Df)( m~lywithout re<lllzingIh.u he is slee:.ping \\;th ber. but <lIso wbile simull<lJltOusl)' envisioning

himsdfthe victim oflhe noise pollution Ih~l Tyler's conquest produces.

This intense:. fragmemulon and isol.ued compartlllentilli:ution of Jack's

pS)'che must be laken as an indlcuion of the extreme difficulties he isIuvlng with even Ihe sexuill side of emotional connection - in other

wonts u ~ce:.rboluon, .tud DOt rehef, of his ce:.llIr~1 problem.


Curiously. J~ck's oippling inabilit), to dlolgnose wlut is goiog on to

his own mind IS broken on one early occasion. In <l substa.nually

Q\"erlook«i confession he commmts: "If only I'd wuted ~ couple of

minules ~nd gOlie to w~lch Mub Singer die. none of this would have

tu.ppened." Wh<ll he means is thu. had he engaged with Mub when she

w.tnted and needed il. r~lher than shying away ~nd Jeuing T)'lfi deal with

her in his place. the downwud spiral of Tylcr's dominilnce, his control

over J~ck's psyche, might luve been prevented. Notice how this one sm<llJsmement, made in volceover n.uration and impossible to iOle:.rpret on a.

fim viewing ofthe film, <law1ly demoosUiltes some of the mo51 general

md contentious fe,Hurts of the intfiPret~tion we art buildmg up. J<lck

recognizes, <It lusc in some inchoa.te W<ly. the imporunet ofMua to his

own well bemg: more: ge:ne:nLI)', he unde:rsunds the d1ngel'S of his

emotlolUl pu.tlym, ~nd the faa th<l' Tyler <lJld his schemes ilre somehowconnecled to it: ~nd he bints u the eventu<l1ly corrosive development of

Tyler's innuence, <lJld his re:grets aboul facilituing II.If slee:.ping with Marla is the first conquest of Tyler's masculine

ene.rg)', lIle escmlion of the impu~ behind Fight Club COnstilules Its

SINd)' culmifUtion. The Club's upolDSion,.rnd T)'ler's burgeoning f.me

<lOd power, le~d him to conduct ~ series ofincreilSingly iDSllle, .lDilrchic,

and immor<l.1 ilcthities. To begin with, T)'ler orders the:. members ofFighl

Oub to SIan nndom public fights with stra.ngers.11 He then h.a.nds OUI"assignments- in sc<l1ed en\'dopes, unleuhing a se<nt c.mtpaign of

destructive ~hmilnig<l.Os. Though these designs ue fu from innocent. it

is stiil not 100 hard 10 I.ugh them ofT, since they .1.11 hilve <l whifT of

playfulness. BUI when Tyler cruelly Ihre<lte.ns ~ convenience store clerkat gunpoint we begin to <lpprehend the sickness of his worldvlew.1l

Fin<l1ly, the unle.as.hed aggression a.nd .$ttilnge ftiltem~1 a.m~tiIderie of

Fight Club, ilnd the power high Wt T)'ler feds u ~ result of his role u

~<llor of chis underground phenomenon. give binh to Pro)ect M.1)'hem,<l more olmbitious exercise in cha.os a.nd destruction. Our fint

undersundmg ofthe JUture: ofthis project is prO\;ded by the Iuoz:ing rilUl1

lluot its "applica.nts" undergo; stlnding outside the P,lper Street bouse for

three d<lYs ...dthout food or watfi, chey <lre lold that lIley are tOO young,ugly, or rill to "lnin," <lnd subjecled 10 furious verboll abuse. And this is

noc lIle only WilY In which the clAn represents <lJl Ironic homogeniUltion

of the great wild masculinity T)'Ie.r Iuod once:. hoped to unlea.sb with Flghl

Oub. As Project M~yhem gro'ws, we~ Ih<ll its memben ue forced 10


slu\'e their he.ads, \'l."Ur uniforms, ~d perform menW wb while lhe.rrcomfon.ble "~.der shouts his .ml-indlvidu.lisl .phonsnu Into •meg.phone: "You ue nOl speci.J..I. You .are not • bt:.autiful or uniquesnowfl.ke. You are the ume dearing org.nk mOine( .IS evetylhingelse." MoreO\·er. the J»nlciJ»nls in Project M.yhem.•nd hck most ofilU, h.ve little ide. wlul they ue working towuds. "Why wu Tyler

bwlding ~ ilrmy? To Wlul purpose~ For wlul g~ter goocH In Tyler welr\lSled ... ~

And observe duot u!:he: orgmiution's ilmbioons esaUle, Jd rupoodsWith .lU1ewed ~ge:r ilnd frusmtion. U This mge:r. which should bt: seenu il heightened rerum to his origiml splritu.J..I rn.t.l.Ise, is surely the prodUCIof his incre.slng estrangemenl from Tyler's plans; It Is thus a response. tothe slowly cU.wning ruJiUlion that Tyler is nOl who Jack hoped he wouldbe. The f.o Ihilt Tyler shuts J.d out of me de\-eJopment of Project

Milyhem signili 1'-'''0 Ihings. Finol, it sho....'S Uut T)'ler tw bC'coTm, overtime, an "en r1'IQreindepenckntly functioning pm ofJd's C&1.ilStrophK:

ps)'chologial rulity. Second. md COI'Ttutively. it shows Uut Ihis pm ofJ.eIc is more and more a piln \lith which he does not identify. Weshouldn't bt: surprised th.lmis situation, .nd Ihe climactic car .cddentthat serves u ,m inlti.l coda to Tyler and J.ck's confrontation, Spilwns •mental breaklhrough of SOrts. p~pituing Tyler's disappurilllce .lndJila's gndwl .\\'illcening 10 his own condition. As he ceases to identifywith Tyler's pl.lIl$, ilnd e\'en comes to • \-.gue bod of phUosophiaJopposition 10 Tyler himself, Jad: begins 10 ilchiel'e the kind ofIt-pilRtionthat is the first. Stage: of his convOilescence - the mOM ob\ious signs ofthisch.inge bt:ing his fn.nk (ifone-sided) conversation with M.rI••boUl T}'leroutside the ~so.p f.ctory" th.t Paper Streel hu become, .nd his horror,11 the de.lh of Bob and hl.s assoclat~' plans 10 bury him in the gnden. lJ

This opposition ~ches Its apex in Ihe film's final minutes. In thete\'eulian sane, when Tyler .ppeus ilIld coaxes J.ck Into .n underSWlding of their essenriill connection, be.J..lso 1..DdJa,lts that Mula mowstOO much.boullhem and IS a dulgerous liilbilily.14 But fu from I.greeingwith Tyler's suggestion ltul they get rid of her, J.a tracks her down:ofTers iln ilpology; confesses, in. dlrecl wa}', that he Ius fttlings (or her:.nd all but forces her OUI of lown to Silfety. Then Jilek attempts to foilTyler's signature plot, the arch-projecl of his worldview: an .lI-out.ttackon the credit system. Whert this becom~ impossible. Jlock commits anilet ofputi.J..I suidde, shooting himse.1f through the cheek md succeeding


In "IciDlng~ Tyler. nus locc:omphshed, he IS Oil*: 10 Idl Mula. who onTyler's orders tw beencapcw-ed md brougbt 10 him, th..lleyerytlung w,1lbe fine. The film concludes with J.ck's mosl engloged lints of dl.logue:"You met me .It a very strJiJlge time in my life,"

Here Is. good pl.1ce. to summuize the reblively compllcued evolutiono(J.clc's psyche md its plilee in the film's thematic conception. As we'venude cku, J.d's condition .1 the outset is one ofemotiorW estnngeJtltnlfrom re.dit)' md espco.J..Ily from Other bumm beings. His first iluempc.1 connection Is foiled - ostensibly by Mmlo. bul rulIy by Its owncynicism .nd \·locWl)'. Though Marla herself represents his besl possible.\'enue ofconnection and his best cb.nce..l some sembl.nce. of a norm.lhum.n rel.lionship, J.ck is too immJiture, depressed. loud disturbed 10.ppre<:!ate lhis. Tyler comes 10 represe.ntlhe unJenhed fountain ofJilclc'suge .It his own predicunent md .t the world thai hilS consigned him 10it. But our loppreciuion ofT)'ler, who embodies lo proposed rclpOD5t 10 Ihecemnl problem. ch.inges drilmaticaUy: lol 11m. be is apparently afq)rr.senl.th·e of \il.J..lity .llld il return 10 a more IUtunl, be.lthy stl.te ofbt:ing: uler. he comes 10 embody. mlsmthropic. mti·lndlvldu.J..Iistie,.nd mor.J..Ily reprdlensible pessimism,

J.d's plunge Into the Tyler person. is a slep away from emotion.lre.J..Iity md nomulilY in IWO respects. First, il iJ\\'olv~ me creJition of;rninl.ilginM)' being who 15 the chilnnel ofjild's own desires, md who.J..llowsl.ck to indulge those desires w,thoul nec:eswily confronung them.Second. the. kmd ofeng.gemenl with othus that Tyler uhimlolely counselsis il deepl}' troubling one with which J.eIc does not ultinutely Identify.This bre.kdown belween Jlod ilIld Tyler C.lU$d the terminildon ofJ.clc'sprojection - which at firsl is like ~.nother estrangement. lIld. painful one- that forcts him into loll awuentss of Ihe depth of his own sickness. SoifTyler is .al"dpon~ 10 the problem ofJu:k's m.l.lise, II is natunlto \'IewIhe film u;;ln extended explOf"iltion of tbe ilUdequacy of this response.1S

We lu\'e ugued duol l.ck's problem is his isobtion. his irt.1bllity 10connect with other people In ilIly subslilllti.J..I .....;iy; ilIld that Tyler is lheu1l1tniltdy unhe.J..Ithy crysulliution ofhis lIlger.l this problem. The FightClub should be seen U il beefed up version of group theupy: • rim.lcelebr.tion of pilin, of feeling, whicl\ ultimuely gets perverled into thecultish worship of some opaque soci.l ide.J..I. Both .HemptS slure anobsession with pilin ilnd suffering u the rOUle 10 rec.pturing theemotiorW engilge.menl thai Is Ihe only CUte; for J.clc·s mill.ise. Whlol the


Fight Club .Idds Is.l phUosophy of r~ge - nge .n ~ world Uut strips m~

of tbe;ir nalUral viriluy. Anger ;md plin ~, when il comes down to It,

the foundltion.l1 vinues of Tyler's worldview.16 BUllhr. masl pl~uslble

inlerpreu.tion of Flfhl Club St.d the film ilS critiquing Tylu's solution. his

felish for ~nger ind p.tin. E"ePIUOilly the full opttOltion ofthe Tylr:r pc:rsonOl

produces ~ polhiclutlon of th~ r.motions thOit Is of little merie. More

impon~mly, it Is dear tlut thr. culmln,uion of Tyler's worldview - th,u

Is. destruction OIlld v~guely sod.lliSl .llW'Chism -CGMO( be 011 viOlble solUlion

to J~ck's probtr:m. md llul jollcl: recognizes this foliO. So wlute\'er wr.minkof me politics of Projecl M~ybem. tben should be no qur:stion INI II,

OIlld tht. whole Tykr aperimenl ofwhich it forms just one j»n. is 011 f.llled

curt: for our troublt.d prougorust.

It Is r:ssr.nti.ll 10 nOte Ibolll lhr. role of women In lilt: life of men is

cenolinly one of Ibe implicit thenles oftbis wholr. progres.sion. Thr. FightClub ,lIld Projt:CI MoIIyhem Art: pu~y mollSculine enterpriSCl, OIlld they

constllule. In.ldequ'i(e rr:sponses to the problt:m of Ihe film. At one. polnl

Tyler rr.nurks. In speuillg of muri<1ge. "We'rt: <1 gener<1tion ofmen raIsedby women, I wonder if anolber W()Ilan Is really what we n~."

For some time. it nul' be rusonable. 10 think of1M movie as genuinelyconcerned "ith !he excess(\'t. femininity of modem ITUP. But this IS not

me impn:s.sion tlut we: shou)d luvr. by Ihr. end of the. film. Coatnl thr.

emucuu,lton modd. the lesson of Fifhl Club is DOl. tholll modernit)· twstripped men of thr.ir nalUr.ll 'iriUI)·. and thOit rechlming it is the only

TOoIId 10 <1 renewed psrchologlcal equilibrium. ReOilly the film's worldvle'o\'is far more conventionOiI. Thcre is no doubt that some of its crillclsms of

corpoute life OInd glob.JJ upiu.lism ue in earnest. JOId's spiril\loa]

condition. howe\'cr, Is nOl lracr.OIble solely (0 these. eJ:lern.ll forces. AsTyler $.lrs. be needs to tue some responsibility. His CODdition Is most

fundamentally 01 nuuu ofhisdistmbtng estnngemr.nt from~ peoplr..

OInd. in j»rticulM. his inapacity 10 eng<1ge with 011 wom.tn who OI.!mostInaplla.bly finds him Interr.sung. Thr. r.nding of the film is hopeful

prt:eisdy because: JoIIcl: hOis ftnOlU)' comt: to OIpprt:dOlle this simple lruth.OInd lilt: stnngc wonun who~ l<1ught it 10 him.

Notes

George Wilson Kknowlcdgcs lhe folk>w\ng: urlier vt'l'$ions of the fl~ !wlfof Ihis csw.y "'-e~ rud it the 2004 Il1fttings of the Ameria.n Sode'll' fOl"


Aesthetks in Houuon md oIIt~u1 coUoquioli il both thc Uni\WSilyolSouthcm COIbfam'" 01100 the Universit) olCOlJ.iJornu Oil Rh-cBldc. The flIl.l1\'"UWn Iw bmdlttd &om cKb of Ibese ocasaoos.. Among the peopIc whosecommenu wUt. espKiiUy bclpfullo him Ut: WillUm BrOlCb:n. D.1rid D.1\ics.Be!')"l G.&ut. John Mlonin Fisher. J.tnet Lt.v1n. Jury l..eviD50n. IUoWin Molltbl.Michael RenO\·. Omoi PoLm. MurriySmllh. Gideon YOlff~. TOfIl Wancnberg,oind Gi~th WlIson, 80Ih of us ne especially indebted to Ka~n Wibon, whomide crucW poinls 10 uch o( us Solm ShpoliU .....ould ilso IIkc to lholnk lUlunBldwdn OInd BMbr eeroitd.

2 A funht:r Imerestlng eumple is given In Floty (2011).3 H()YI·~er.!here hOIve been Imporunt S)'Stem.uK discussions of me tOpic In

urI.ier hteranue f'OI' r:ump&r.. we Mill)' (1977); Koiwin (1978). md Bc.wg.tn(1984).

4 W.Jton (1997) UJucs for this thc:sls in -On I'Ktures and Photogrollpbs:Objtaiom Answered" ind Wilson (1997) argues fOl" il in "It C.... '-tl(l'Steps Oul: On the Primitive B.i5is of film Nitration."

S It 11 rlOI ~mplytlwlthis Ktnario Is somethlng .....~ un inlolglne, It Is .I 5«fluiothai is OIclu.uly deplclM In OlIn episode of Ihe old Brilish Itle\'lslon series, TiltPrhOM The eplsodr. balled M A, B, & C." OInd II WiS directed by P~I Jutsonmd ....ritten b)' Anlbony Skf:ne. ITVI (UK). October 1S. 1967. We owe thitreferencr. to Sl:e\'f: Rf:bt:r OInd Gt':ofT GeorgI.

6 Stt Mluy (t997). pp. 21+-19. Miuy giYd in unnplt: from)rzdld (Wl1lI.amWyler. 19:J8) thil is .dmihr to the IOIJ'ItWtu.1 mort oornpbatcd 0Dt WO!'

""'""'-7 'Theollp<Ot':l$olthis shot for our purpost5 waswgg$ed by Debon.b Thonw'sdl.sctwion In P.mdiat~. Sf'-:" M_df1 ill~ Fib. See Thomis(2001). pp,I02-S, Despllf: OIppeinJ1CU, dUl it noc .I IOOinl shoI:. il WiSnude by i sWlonuy anlCr.l on i rtVO!Ying pUI(orm, is dltclI!Sed by Aulller(1998).

8 Although Iht': chiriClcr Is naillciess In fig., Club, II h~s becomc $lindud Inthc Iltewureon thc fllm 10 refer 10 him u "lid:" (Of rasonl thit Ut: ob'lious

r:nough in the moYie.9 For IWO ofthe more hyperbolic. !hough reprcscnuti~, crielclsms oflhc: fUm

on (his 1OX't':. sec Kulncth TurOID (k\iO!'w of Fipl: av. in the La AIIfc:b T_:Octobt:r 14. 1999): Ihough the; film r:mplo)'i dubtous plot 1"'-i5ts 10 qu.ui·di~UlCt.Il5dffrom lhe wO!'ltder lmpbcOiOOns of 01 philosopb.y 1M. Columbine

gunmm would litt'll' U\-c fOlJDd COllIf:nloil, ia's lO Ilnlt. effect": md HenryA. GII'OWI ("Privue Suill'OIolons md Publk Disorders: FIfhI a',,, Poim.vchy.OInd the PoII1Ia of Muculinr. Violence." jourDRi of AMn<td Composilion 21,1(Spring 200 I): 1-31): "Fighl Club deflnf:S Ihe \iolt'::nce of CloplWism ol1mOSl:exduSh'e!)' in temlS of ~n illOICk on trOldltlon.u (If nOl 10 SOl)' regrwl\'e)nOilons of muc:uHnll)', md In domg 50 rcinscribcs white ht:tel'OSU"ualltr...ilhln 01 domlnmt logic ofSllhzed brut.ull)· md m.lle bonding IbOiI OIpptUSprtdialed 011 the netd todemgnlf: and ...-.;age wu igi1nsl;all Wt is ferni.nine:."

lOS GEORGE M, WILSON AND SAM SHPAll

Guy Crowdus (C.-sIC' 15 i (September 2000) 47) summed up IheIl1unedu.te crltial rccqxlon: MWhik Fight Club luod nurmcrous cnlicill

dampions, the film's crltlc.J ilItt~kers were: fu more wxal, "Ill~gilth'echoruswhich becmlC' hysleric.&! ..bout whit thC'y felt to be- the U«sslvC'I)' grilphics«:no of fisticuffs , ,. They fdt iUCh scenes stt\'ed only itS I mindlessgWnoriudon of bruulily. ill mor.&!ly Im'$ponstbk portII)'I.!, ",-hieb they

feued milhl cncoungco tmpres:siow.b'c )"OWlg mile: VlC'Yo~ to st! up theirown real-life fight dublln Ofdcr 10 beill eoKb otbu sensC':~.MJmcr Mulln.in the t*w rod r_ (OClober 1S, 1999) wu onC' ollbt auks to suggest

the sttttimc:Ol tlul we will be- defending In ~'1uo1 follows~ "II wiltehedsuffic1endy mlndlC':5Sly, It might be mlm.l:l'n for I d.wgerow endorsementof tawltuliln t~t:s ilnd super-violent nihilbm In iln ilU-oUt USiluit onsociety"

10 e-..Ihe: c:Wms 01'twIlCcritlcs. who rtjill'd Mutt ill il "dpbtr for mille leXuaifmwies, f"'ilR, md 1~1Udes" (Hooper, Owkxt"'. -Figbonl Offers NoReI.! RtdemptlOl1 " 1af~ fallllll5l~ of Pobtia i.1 (April 2002):I J 1-32}: olS "m sum lhe objca In Ihe most: b.Wc md Sl:ft'eOt)-Plcai type ofmille fillltilSY" (Cuver, Tend, "FI'1t Club: Dr~nmil GiOC05il," In\t11llfionllFlflllnbtjoul'lll1 of Polliia i.1 (April 2002): 129-31): md u Iuvlng "no Idc:nlilyoutside: of the needs of the wUrior mcnulily" (GirouJr: IS).

II Al the otIlRt. tbe Rlm suggesu il strong link Mt;WCVI Ibe corpoutc:

honqme:u)'ofJKk's CD$lc:ncc: ilnd his illic:IYoDort.and bcndom. Tyler gl\'UUJ ill more~ pkIure of thb ImerpreuDort, .and we Ihink WI the:filnunUff5 ilre dc:flmu:ly con«med 10 prestOI this kind ofJOd.J crilk!ue 10

some degree. The: question is whether they wiltlt to indJeille Ihilt thew: illethe milin ClU.sc:s of Jilek'ii iUness. In our \iew, the TOOl of his problem Is ilps)'Chologialilod moul defidCllC)' thlt CilnDOl be ,mrlbuled to the existenc",of fumilure $lores i1nd InSU1ilnCf: COI'pOfilUoM.

12 II Is tdling md lrome mil the segments 01' the film mosI o\'erkd:ed bypropooc:nlS of the mwcubtion \~W ue tlIow",-ho5t: impo~ CilJ1 onlybe und~ood by ilppc~mi 10 lhe tole ofthc &on", fcnuk: kild.ln il momenlwe win see thilt Mul.s ilppeuilnce is Ihe de.1th·kneU for Juk's fiml'Mf:mption flntuy,

13 Imen'Sliogly, JKl tells us thilt hf: lu.s been iltlending Ihe meetings, Indilppumuy sl«plng wd!. for ill full Ye.1r, md we also discO\""" WI Tyler hISbeen lIVing In !he bouse on Pilpu Smt"t for .. leM. So it miahl be Wt lheilppuent progrev from the mtftings lw been il lOll! iUllliOn - lht" Tyler

ptl"SOlLllw been $lCildily rc:rrnuuona the whl* time - ilDd Millb lw merd)broulhllhls 1010 pilnill \icw.

14 Two PUUles in the sail)! ille t"5pcdilUr lIIustrilu\'e;

IACl Mulil. The big lournt, Her Ill'. refkat"d my lie:. Suddenl)' I fdlnothing" I coukln'l Cf)', So once ..gilln, I couldn't s1t'Cp"

And lhetr confronuUOfU1 uch..ngc:

UNRAVEliNG THE TWISTS OF FIGHT CLUB 109

lo\Cl:: You're ill louriS! .• I $.lW you ill rrwhnonu, tubertuloSls. mdI~culuQneer,

tolAItLA: I u .... )'OlJ prilClldng this" •.

lAC": PrilClicing whilt!M.o\ItLA: TeUing me off. Is h going itS wd! U)OII hoped? Rupm?IACt: I'U expose )'OU.wo\ltu: 111 expose teL

15 Al kUl In le:tmS of the fUm's wpcrficUI ehronok>&) Set: DOle 13.

16 This sense ofopposition Is deuty cullivilled. In his flm nu.JOr sttne, on thepLme, T)ler weus sungluses, il red chccked bluer, Ind pl.. ld slileD, ilnd

OOIlChi1l~lIly slips his Wil)' Inlo the restriCted Cilpt~n '5 ill"'il without iltIyone(lOduding most: flm·limc viewers) noocl1l8 wlu.t he's doing, MomenlS !.lter

he is Sl:eallng il red coo\'emble from !he: curb ill the.lirpon tennm.d.17 We should Il()U: ilgm but: WI !be chronoIog:)' of the fdm's t"\·crtlS Is "erl

difficult 10 uan.lin ",th ttn.linIY. "roWd be uguc:d tlu.t the: expklUoo ofJilek'S ilpi1tUOf:Dt ukt"S pli1« towuds the end of his yeu·lOIlg f:Dlilgc:mw1

wllb Tyler. Uld perhilps Ihilt II Is tbe aenesis of Projt"CI Milrhem. On thisplctu"" Ihe T)'ll:I' personil hu bttn opcndng independemly for quile sometime before Jack ilCllU1ly ~mtt"tS- him 0tI the ilifphlI",.

18 II Is notcworthy Ilut 50nlC of his opening words 10 Jilek ilrc. fim, ttboes of

I\w!.l (Jack ub h.im '" hit be dol:s wd T)'kr $ilI)'S "Why, so )'011 an prete:ndW:", )'OU're lnll:rCSted,-1\151 illS Mul.lo !u.s,In!be (QDfrorauoon scmc,lUJliOed

00 COInIng 10 the: meetings b) InvokIng lbe Wil,. normal people mud)' u.lkto heu lhe:msel\·t"5): ilnd, second, t"\iden~of iln 11UIilm comprehension ofhis splrilui1l ilngulsh ("You mO'e: il kind of sick. despcmloll ill )'our Laullh-).Mmil, who beausc she: lS.ln ilClui1l pe:non does not bilve this kInd ofinsunl

comprebensioa. rc:prac:nu JoICk.· 5 ruI clunoe 10 ~Iti$ his issuo In il conSUUCOYe: ,.,.il,.. 1be ideil w..1 bumm rebuondlipsoould be cs.sentWI)' .. nu.ltc:Tof Idc:puh)' islU51 olli lndiam'e of JKk's sktnc:ss ill his utisf.KOOn ....ilb thein..1luthentic engilgc:mmt of tht' "aroups ~

19 Tht'.5C l:uly SKtions of lhe flIm ilTc: ill p.t.lns 10 pilint T) kr's ilKiulgel1("n UI ilcomic light: "T)ler sold his SOilp to<k::p.lnmcnt litornill $20 .. bu, God knows

whilt Ih",)' cbi1rgcd . , , " WillS beilutiful. We were seIling rich women Ihdrown filt U$CS bid. 10 them."

10 ,..d: eJ:taI10 this Ofder b)' feigning ill fighl "'ith his baH IS m eLabonte, ilIndulul1liltd)' successful. ilntmpt "I bribef)·. Pununel1D8 hllnsc:lf in his olfttt,be 0010 Wt -fOf .\OfJlC 1"UiOI1, I lhought of m)' fll'\t flghl With T)·Ic:r. - InrwosptCl, w'" know tlul he lu.s il \.f:t). Kood fUson; 011 both ocusions he:Is fighting himself 1\ Is 'ilek'S severilJlCe thill fulKis Flghl Club 100 Proj«lMil)'hem.

II Jilek does 100: ht "fCt'1s Ill" ilnd cio«n'l see the polm of Ibis crud dlspu) ,But ....·hen Tyler telkJxl: WI theckrk.'s brUl:fUllhe n6t day will Wle belle!"ltun my me.&! either oIlMm Iu.\~ ~~r tud, Jxk t'OITIl'5 10 Set the poutl, md


~dmlres tht.: r~et th~t Trkr .Jw~y$ hiS ~ upl~n" th,u "m~k~ SWSl'.: in ~ Tyler

sort ofw~y." Ag~ln, J~dr: is Inloxluted to the. point ofimp.linnent by Tyle.r·s

power ~nd fordgnness.11 Cf. his fight ~g~lMt the blonde inltl..tl'.: (pl~red by Ju,ro uto), in which he

bruulizes tht.: young ITl<ln to .. degree un"cct.:puble in Fight Club, In responSl'.:to Tyler'$ dis.lppolnUnent J~cl: wys th~t he: "felt like: deSlroying something

be~u(\ful."

2J Thedepth oCthe bnlnw..shlng ttw we $e't U work In Project M~rhemshouJd

not be: underestim~ted, Whe:n J~ck wys to the. men th~t the de.ld IIl.m is ~

frit.nd of his, who hIS .. n~me. his underlings undem~nd this u ~ symbol:in duth, ~ member ..cqUires the n~me th~t ht.: I..ckt.:d In Ii{e. But It is cleuth~t ~ cult of duth Is not wh~t J~ck longed for In lhe midsl o{ his InS()mni~

tnd dep~on And It Is <:ert~lnl)' DOt wlw.t he found ~ttTi1etjve ~bolll Tyler,

who ini{l~lJy bej..n u ~ ~t of unrtstnlned vltollityH As Ktren Wilson hu pointed OUt to us, Tyler seems to be we:wng MJ.rl~'s

fur (Oii(' or ..t leut .. vel)' similu one. in this Import.mt scene ~rlu.ps thisis munt to be ~ further indlculon t1UI J~ck's ps)'chologl<:tl (()mp.mmenl~Jlutlon is bruking down, tnd thu M~r1a is, .lS he susp«ts. the key to hbundent~nding..nd rCC(l\'l'.:ry.

1S Perhtps Tyler wys it best: "You wt:re looking for .. w~y to <:h.mge your life.You could nOt do this on your own. All the w~ys you wish )·ou could be·dIU'S me." Ofcoune, Tyler II ~n CJ(~mple ofJ~d ~t1empting to son thingsour on his own. Th~t's why he un't be ~ ret\i.stic solution 10 the problem

of eng~gingWith Others.26 cf. the $O.lp-m~king scene. In which Tyler putS the unsuspecllng J~ck

Ihrough ~ trial ofburn1ng chemlul ~gony. When , ..ek Tries 10 shut outlhepiin Tyler berttes him: "This Is }'our piln. this is your burning lund, it's

right here .. tbis Is th~ gtt~tesl moment of your life. nun...nd yoo'rt. offsomewher~missing It." N()(e dut when Jad ~lIemptSto eKtpe InlO t f.musy

of his OWll lnsdnclive d~lgn. one o{his <:onmucloo Im~gts indudes Mul~,supine ..nd receiving his kil$l'.:S.

Worksdted

Auiller, D.m. 1998. Vmi,,: Tilt MakillS cI a Hlrchroci Classic. New York: St. M~nin's

""'.Bunig..n, Edwud. 198-+. Point of V~, ia Film. Berlin: MOuton Publisbers.Flory, D~n. 20 I i. "Cinenl..lic Presuppositions. Race, ~nd EplStenlOloglul TWist

FUms." In Tilt ,Journal of Ae!thetiQ <IIId Art Criticism 68: 379-88.K.iwin, Broce. 1978. MlIllbcrtm. PrInceton. NJ: PrlnC'tlon University Pre».

Mitry, Jun. 1977. Tilt NslMirs aad PJYc!laWsy cI tilt CinmJcI (C. King. Tr~Ils.).

Bloommgtoll; Indttllol Unlvmlty ~,Thomu, ~houh. 200 I. RtlIdUlll HoilyWOOli' SportJ an4 M(IlIIjllfl in AmrncQ/l Film.

London: w~lf1o\\-er.


W~lton. Kend~ll. 1997. "On PiCtures ~nd Photognphs: Objections Answered."In R. Allen tnd M. Smith (eds,). film Tbrosy and Philosophy. Oxford: CIMWdon

Presli.Wilson, George, 1997. "u Grand IroogiCf Sleps OUl: On the PrImitive B.uis of Film

NUUlion." In PllilosoplllClll TopiCS 2.5: 295-318.

Some suggesled further reading

C)'nthi~ Kuhn ..nd unce Rubin, Rrodlnjj Chue. Polllbnluk; Nnfflrml Monstm and UlrmryMayhem (l<llldon: Routledge. 2009) St~nl of th~ ~Sl)'S In this rollwiondiscuss the mm Vl'rslon of FiShl Club.

Je~n Mitl)·, Tilt kltMtiu IIJld Psrrhoios'y of thr CillmWL Trans. by Christopher King(Bloomington: Indl.lnt Uni~rsity Press. 1997). One o{ the gtttt c1nslCliof film theory. lhis book con~ins one oflhe etrliest studies of"subjl'Clivll)'''

In film ~pr~nLl.tion.

Chuck P..Lahniuk, FiSht Ouh: A NllI"d (New York: W.W. Nonon, 1996). Thedlfltrences be'lween rhe. book md the fllm ue instro(.'th·e In ~Lation to the

topic.s discussed In the prtsent ~)'.Mumy Smith, Entasing Charoctrrs: Fiction, Emotion. VId IN Cinema (Oxford: Cl1.rendon

Press. 1995). Ac.m:ful, illwnillulng Itl\'tSl:igtl\on oftile volrious w~ys in whichuIdellllfic..tioo" Is ~ key component of .. film viewt:r'$ eng~ge.mem with ~

movie 1IOT)' ~nd Its chtu(ters.Ke.nd~1l Wtlton. Mimr:l:h In Make Bd~r (C~mbridge: Hw,'ilJd Univt.:rSity Pms.

1990), One of the grul <:bssics ofcomempoury ~esthetics. It ImrOOu<:es tht.:idu t1Ut "llTl<lgmed ~iltg" is critiallo our l'.:Xperience of the \1su~ tortS

gener~l)' ~nd to our experience of fkrlon film In piniculilJ.

Unraveling the Twists of Fight Club

Documents

Transcript of Unraveling the Twists of Fight Club