The Possibilities in Fight Club

The Possibilities in Fight Club

David Fincher, director of the movie Fight Club, does an excellent job of capturing the essence of Chuck Palahnuik's novel in his film version. More elements of Palahniuk's novel went into the film than most film adaptations of other novels have in the past. But there are many differences between what the film and novel do to capture the same ideas. The film captures irony in the Tyler Durden character in ways the novel cannot. And the novel is able to give more insight to the philosophy behind all the fighting and mayhem. The endings are also different, but I think the differences create many possibilities to think about.

The fact that Brad Pitt, the mega-movie star, plays Tyler Durden is a huge irony that goes unseen in the novel. This becomes even more evident in lines like: "Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate, so we can buy shit we don't need", followed shortly after by: "We've all been raised on TV to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires and movie gods and rock stars, but we won't. And we're slowly that fact, and we're very, very pissed off". These words coming from the mouth of the mother of all millionaire "movie gods" amplifies Palahniuk's writing to a level where no viewer can ignore it.

Another difference is visible in the novel where Project Mayhem is plotting to blow up the Parker Morris Building, a museum of natural history, as a symbol of erasing history. This has a very different connotation than the plan to destroy credit card companies in the film. Attempting to erase the debit record comes off as more of an attack against capitalism and consumer culture, which the novel also addresses, but the novel suggests the problems with our society are more deep-seeded.

The philosophy behind erasing history suggests a restoration of balance to the earth; one which our society has failed to maintain. This is evident in our exploitation of the earth's resources to the point that wherever there is ecological destruction and wherever people benefit from it (in the capitalist sense of the word), there is social injustice and alienation. Alienation is a consistent issue throughout the film and the novel, appearing in many of Tyler Durden's speeches. "The things you own end up owning you" is one of the more popular ones. He also expresses his contempt for this alienation and where it leads: "Fuck Martha Stewart. She's polishing the brass on the titanic. It's all goin' down man". Tyler's solution: "Let's evolve and let the chips fall where they may".

But this story states early on that it is all about Marla Singer. The worst part about how disconnected and alienated the narrator has become is not that he created an alter ego to cope, but that he cannot have an intimate relationship with Marla. The end is the only possibility we see.

I think the end was probably the hardest decision David Fincher had to make, regarding how to end the film after the open-ended ending of

...