st. edward norton, brad pitt, helena bonham carter
moving off the shelves with great passion and grace...
A short, slight damnation in non-specific terms:
I think the last shot almost ruined the entire picture for me. I like things which are dangerous, ambiguous, flawed, and the ending was a little too cute n lovable for my tastes, even if it's edging towards utter nihilism, even if it will spark a million fervid chat room discussions. Just take in that tasteful framing, the suggestion of romance, the throwaway line that barely understands what it's saying, a catchy song with a certain indie appeal to get you to buy the soundtrack even though for the last 140 minutes consumerism has been goddamned in many forms and hell if you even buy a fucking record this year you better watch your sweet behind for I'm gonna blow it all up and take my pretty lady with me. Excess or tasteful restraint? Oh sure, it's not all that serious, not a bit, still, not a negation of the whole shebang, no, not that either, oh I see, well how about, no, well OK then...
So many metaphors:
On their live album Stripped, The Rolling Stones cover "Like A Rolling Stone". It's been a live favourite for a few years now, so they obviously seem to enjoy the way their version of the song plays with the loose strings of pop culture. "Like A Rolling Stone" and we're The Rolling Stones, geddit? They can't do it however, and the greatness of the song overwhelms them. The problem isn't with the instrumentation, the lyrics, the arrangement; that's all in place. The Stones are nothing if not proficient. What they can't obtain is the danger of the song, the threat that any world we inhabit, the singer's or the listener's, might collapse instantly. Dylan has lost everything and regained it again a few times now. When he sings it now (if he still sings it now) there's an immense power to his aged recital. The words mean more to him now. It's not just a song about spoiled little Edie Sedgwick anymore. It's a story that Dylan has now also acted out. In 1965 that song was a threat; Now it s a rumination. The difference between the two? The Stones can't get to the soul of the matter, the negation implicit in the song, so instead they choose to polish the surface of song, paying predictable homage to an established "classic". The sing a catchy song and ostensibly sing out a warning shot. On the flipside, Dylan places you in physical danger, acting out true loss, true fear. It's not just a song about losing something by a rock star who owns everything. It's the very dangerous actualisation of an idea.
I think this comparison is useful in describing why Fight Club leaves me a little unmoved, why I don't buy it, why I'm not so impressed by it's supposed cleverness. David Fincher seems like a very intelligent guy, and he certainly knows how to use a camera and pick a cinematographer, but his films increasingly resemble distanced maneuvers rather than involved actions by someone who actually cares about life outside the ironic frame. It's all a game, a description rather than an enactment of loss and terror. That's the subject, the big labelled point that is endlessly shoved down your knowing throat. Every conversation or act of violence is just another piece of theoretical Lego. It's a cover version of true late-millennial terror, an imitation of loss. For the real shake of fear try Existenz. That won't come with instructions about how to digest it.
Next course of action: Target anyone who has made an Aerosmith videoclip and never let them near a filmset again.
adam rivett
comments? email the authorAlso in toto:
Adrian Gunadi thinks Fight Club is a deranged and inspired satire, representative of our generation.
Eugene Chew thought Fight Club was conservative; "anarchy sponsored by Pepsi."