They are on the opposite ends of the Politcal spectrum. One, Anarchy, is the belief that there should be no government at all while the other, fascism, is the belief that the government should control Everything.
Tyler want to control it himself, not give it up. So anarchist is correct.
No, Tyler is the representation of repressed homosexuality and the desire for an idealized idea of masculinity, which is being erradicated by LGBTQ and what not, to come back, shit’s more obvious in the book.
Well, anarchy strives to be as horizontal as possible, so the elimination of social constructs is to be desired if you support it. Still, it has nothing to do with anarchism in the film, it has to do with fascism. Watch the video.
Maybe watch the movie and not a video about random people that watched the movie and give their opinion on that, the destruction clearly symbolizes fall of social structures which is clearly anarchy not fascism.
Giroux and Szeman identify Tyler Durden as a failed icon of the revolution whose public appeal is more due to his cult personality than any “strengths of an articulated, democratic notion of political reform.” Durden acts instead of thinking and thereby fails to envision democratic movements; he is described as “a holdover of early-twentieth-century fascism”. While the narrator represents the crisis of capitalism as a crisis of masculinity, Tyler Durden represents “redemption of masculinity repackaged as the promise of violence in the interests of social and political anarchy”.
There is also an opinion or interpretation of fascism but no one I know interprets it that way. Most people see destruction - anarchy, which also was my first impression when I saw the movie.
Durden acts instead of thinking and thereby fails to envision democratic movements; he is described as “a holdover of early-twentieth-century fascism”. While the narrator represents the crisis of capitalism as a crisis of masculinity, Tyler Durden represents “redemption of masculinity repackaged as the promise of violence in the interests of social and political anarchy”.
you’ve quoted and highlighted the only occurrence of the word anarchy in that entire article, but even the sentence the word is in actually supports the point that @gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml is making. If you think Project Mayhem’s organizational structure is anarchist you’ve got another think coming.
Not really, it supports my argument and everyone else first impression about the movie.
What people claim years afterwards can be an marketing trick to sell the movie, Matrix did the same afterwards claiming the movie is about transgender, which is nothing but crap. Remember that Hollywood got criticized a lot for being rude, disrespectful, against black etc.
Project Mayhem sets its sights on destruction. Sure, it’s literal anarchy for a while, but after that, it has a purpose: Durden wants to blow up the credit card companies, undo the American Dream, and set everyone free from their debt.
Destruction and ranting about society and your own life is anarchy and not fascism, always was. I also do not claim you cannot combine several things and interpret things how you want into it but the underlying point is clearly anarchy. That is clear the moment he blows up the buildings, destroy others people property and so on.
I do not see how China are wrong with their statement here. Was crap that they edited it but their argument is reasonable.
Maybe watch the video which gives proper facts about why the film is about that. Yes, most people see it that way because they are white cis men who see whatever is on top because it pleases them more and don’t read the sub text. The section in that Wikipedia article is exactly what I’m referrencing to and the video makes it even clearer. But okay, let’s agree on disagreeing.
I already did and most of it are opinions from others. Why value their opinions over mine or your own… As already linked via wikipedia the movie can be interpreted differently and there are more opinions on that. Your link does not change the fact here.
But okay, let’s agree on disagreeing.
Yop. 🙏
My key argument simply is that the whole argumentation for fags and other now mentioned stuff was mentioned AFTER years. The things is most people just did not see it that way even if the author intended something different because afterwards I also can claim xyz but the audience, and most people I talked about saw it clearly as anarchy. It is similar with my Matrix example, at that time NO ONE saw any connection to transgender but now after Hollywood got a shit-blast they make it as an argument and suddenly all was about that, which is also not the case and not what most people saw.
An important thing to consider here is the fact that in both cases, Palahniuk came out as homosexual 6 years after the film, and the Wachowski sisters as transexuals also years after the release, in my opinion this affects their works because it can imply new possible interpretations where it would have been harder to find if a European white upper class man would have directed the film. Things that before would have seemed impossible are now reasonable trains of thought.
Not according to this discussion.
Tyler want to control it himself, not give it up. So anarchist is correct.
Answer lies between the lines of the author;
‘I know all of this: the gun, the anarchy, the explosion is really about Marla Singer.’
So you all wrong, it’s about love, probably because his first novel was rejected by all publishers he submitted it to. (I’m Jack’s daring joke)
Well you can combine love + anarchy.
No, Tyler is the representation of repressed homosexuality and the desire for an idealized idea of masculinity, which is being erradicated by LGBTQ and what not, to come back, shit’s more obvious in the book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owsm9_qN_8w
Not sure what LGBTO, homosexuality has something to do with anarchy. Absolute nothing.
Well, anarchy strives to be as horizontal as possible, so the elimination of social constructs is to be desired if you support it. Still, it has nothing to do with anarchism in the film, it has to do with fascism. Watch the video.
Maybe watch the movie and not a video about random people that watched the movie and give their opinion on that, the destruction clearly symbolizes fall of social structures which is clearly anarchy not fascism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_Fight_Club
There is also an opinion or interpretation of fascism but no one I know interprets it that way. Most people see destruction - anarchy, which also was my first impression when I saw the movie.
you’ve quoted and highlighted the only occurrence of the word anarchy in that entire article, but even the sentence the word is in actually supports the point that @gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml is making. If you think Project Mayhem’s organizational structure is anarchist you’ve got another think coming.
Not really, it supports my argument and everyone else first impression about the movie.
What people claim years afterwards can be an marketing trick to sell the movie, Matrix did the same afterwards claiming the movie is about transgender, which is nothing but crap. Remember that Hollywood got criticized a lot for being rude, disrespectful, against black etc.
https://lithub.com/everyone-misunderstands-the-point-of-fight-club/ - written afterwards in 2019 based on what most people understood. Claiming they got it wrong.
Destruction and ranting about society and your own life is anarchy and not fascism, always was. I also do not claim you cannot combine several things and interpret things how you want into it but the underlying point is clearly anarchy. That is clear the moment he blows up the buildings, destroy others people property and so on.
I do not see how China are wrong with their statement here. Was crap that they edited it but their argument is reasonable.
Maybe watch the video which gives proper facts about why the film is about that. Yes, most people see it that way because they are white cis men who see whatever is on top because it pleases them more and don’t read the sub text. The section in that Wikipedia article is exactly what I’m referrencing to and the video makes it even clearer. But okay, let’s agree on disagreeing.
I already did and most of it are opinions from others. Why value their opinions over mine or your own… As already linked via wikipedia the movie can be interpreted differently and there are more opinions on that. Your link does not change the fact here.
Yop. 🙏
My key argument simply is that the whole argumentation for fags and other now mentioned stuff was mentioned AFTER years. The things is most people just did not see it that way even if the author intended something different because afterwards I also can claim xyz but the audience, and most people I talked about saw it clearly as anarchy. It is similar with my Matrix example, at that time NO ONE saw any connection to transgender but now after Hollywood got a shit-blast they make it as an argument and suddenly all was about that, which is also not the case and not what most people saw.
An important thing to consider here is the fact that in both cases, Palahniuk came out as homosexual 6 years after the film, and the Wachowski sisters as transexuals also years after the release, in my opinion this affects their works because it can imply new possible interpretations where it would have been harder to find if a European white upper class man would have directed the film. Things that before would have seemed impossible are now reasonable trains of thought.