Edward Norton Fights For Top Billing In Fight Club

The Good: Well written, good plot, good characters, fine acting, excellent pace
The Bad: Execution of theme
The Basics: A surprisingly good film that is tightly written, well-executed and ultimately re-watchable, the xext time you think life stinks, watch Fight Club!


Fight Club came to me highly recommended by two people who I respect very much. I'm pleased to say they lived up to their reputations in my life with their recommendation. Unfortunately, one of the two continues to insist that Fight Club is the absolute best film of 1999, while I think American Beauty (reviewed here!) actually deserved that honor (American Beauty was one of the few films that won "Best Picture" and deserved it in recent years.).

Have you ever seen the episode of The Simpsons where Springfield has a film festival? When the critics of the films are voting for their favorite film, Jay Sheman says, "I vote for Barney Gumble's . . . film, unfortunately titled 'Puka-a-hontis.'" Well, Fight Club has the same problem, if not quite so extreme. Fight Club is a horrible title to sell this film with. Likewise, billing Brad Pitt as the star of the movie is equally problematic. We've seen a film like Fight Club before: it's called 12 Monkeys. And Brazil (reviewed here!). In fact, American Beauty, too.

Outside the problematic nature of the title and making it seem like Brad Pitt is the star, the only other two problems are Brad Pitt's acting and thematic issues. Brad Pitt gives a good performance. But it was a mistake to cast him in the role; it's too close to the magnificent performance he gave in 12 Monkeys. Throughout the film, I kept thinking Tyler Durgen was too close to Jeffery.

The real issue I had with the film was the execution of the theme. Fight Club is essentially about man's disillusionment with today's society. It's a rejection of capitalism. That's a wonderful theme. It's about emasculated men attempting to take back their lives and their place in society. Eh. The former theme is expertly dealt with in "Brazil" and the latter was more positively dealt with in American Beauty. It's an old theme. There's an episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine - "Paradise" - that fumbles with both themes. "Paradise" has problems executing the theme in that everything appears too black and white. I now applaud the episode (probably one of the bottom ten episodes of the series) for at least being constructive. In "Paradise," Sisko challenges a community that rejects technology. It provides a pretty balanced argument. Fight Club is very one-sided. We, the viewers, must provide the counter-argument. And while "Paradise" has an unsatisfying ending, at least Fight Club was consistent. That is, when the themes were being dealt with, my stomach turned. My stomach remained turned through the climax.

So, what's my real beef? Fight Club rejects capitalism and attempts to re-masculate the men in it by creating clubs where men pound the piss out of each other. It's actually clever in one respect and that is it never makes explicit that the purpose of the fight club is to feel pain to realize you're still alive. That is, sometimes even feeling pain is wonderful because that lets you know you are alive. The film subtly moves from that into a cult story where Tyler Durgen is organizing an apocalypse to bring down the capitalist infrastructure of the U.S. Sigh.

The reason Fight Club works at the beginning is why it fails at the end. The Fight Club reminds its members they are alive and have something to look forward to outside their normal lives. It's quite a leap of suspension of disbelief then to think that they would all then become members of a cult (which, by the by, is not dissimilar to the Army of the 12 Monkeys . . . hmmm). That is, when we free ourselves from one set of shackles, what incentive do we have - thus aware - to shackle ourselves to another place. Perhaps that's the writer's point. Regardless, I'm left with the same problems with the themes or, more accurately, the execution of them in this film.

The final problem is that the end resolves nothing. The plot comes to a head, but the character issues still remain.

Outside that, it's a wonderful film. Usually I'd spend an equal or greater amount of time counterbalancing my argument. Basically, I'm recommending the film, yet I'm spending a good amount of space exploring my problems and issues with the movie. If I like it so much, I ought to spend a greater amount of time saying what's wonderful about it. Eh, too bad I'm not going to here. If you trust my reasons for not liking the film, trust my voice when I say the positive elements of the film outweigh my issues with it.

The truth is, everything else about the film is wonderful. And even though I have issues with the execution of the themes, given the tack they took, I think the film does it well. Edward Norton is amazing as the protagonist. He deserved top billing. The writing is tight. There's a reversal, a Kaiser Soze-type surprise that's not completely surprising (which is good because when I reached it, I said, "That makes sense" as opposed to "Oooh, I'm SO surprised!") and it comes at a good time in the film.

In all, the movie makes sense. The characters are vivid, if misguided. It's a wonderful film. Too bad about the title, though.

For other films that muse on the nature of humanity and reality, check out my reviews of:
Inception
Bicentennial Man
Sucker Punch

8.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |

The Unenduring Opera Of Bat Out Of Hell II: Back Into Hell By Meat Loaf

The Good: Good - if cheesy - lyrics, operatic quality
The Bad: Repetitive sound, voice
The Basics: Operatic style is impressive, but ultimately the lyrical strength cannot save this erratically-sung, musically middle-of-the-road album.


Let it be known right off the bat, I've never heard Bat Out Of Hell One. Back in 1993, I fell in love with the operatic "I Would Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)" (I can admit it!) and went on to enjoy the album Bat Out Of Hell II: Back Into Hell by Meat Loaf thoroughly. Somewhere along the line, the album got lost and now I only pull it out when I'm in the mood for opera (about once a year) or when I'm feeling campy.

So, what's the story on this album? It's easy to look at it cynically and call it campy, but . . . Back Into Hell expresses an impressive array of emotions, from all of those warm, loving feelings that sound cheesy when you're not in love ("I Would Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)"), to the feelings of utter despair ("Objects In the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are") to loss (appropriately enough entitled "Lost Boys and Golden Girls"). Interestingly enough, the album's thematic diversity is coupled with a remarkable cohesiveness over the whole album.

The talent behind this album is not the singer. In fact, Meat Loaf is barely competent in some of the songs. Meat Loaf has a frequently gravely voice, but he has surprising range. Meat Loaf goes from low and growling on songs to singing almost falsetto on others. He is also able to jump within songs from one register to another. While he generally is able to hold notes for a long time and he does sing clearly, more often than not, he sticks in the tenor range and does not challenge himself on all tracks.  Moreover, on some of his attempts to soar, he strains too hard and it sounds like he is more in pain than actually singing.

The credit for the success of the album ought to go to Jim Steinman, who wrote and produced each song. Indeed, how many other producer's names appear on the front of the album? Jim Steinman has quite a talent for lyrics, even if they do seem canned now, but regardless of that, he is tapping into a series of layered emotions deeper than your average singer songwriter. In fact, his song "Objects In the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are" is far more compelling than the Crash Test Dummies' "Mmm Mmm Mmm Mmm."

So, where does the album go wrong? Despite using some less-traditional (for a pop-rock album) instruments like violins, the album falls in that the sound of it is similarly limited. That is, the wide diversity of themes, while cohesively presented in an operatic form, seems somehow to stagnate in the music that accompanies it.

While the album gets points for easily being the best rock opera yet (or, at least the best one that has no correlation to a stage performance), it somehow does not endure and I've never updated it from tape to c.d. It's a close call, but my final analysis is that it is not quite worth recommending.

Best song is "Objects In the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are" and the weak link is easily "Rock and Roll Dreams Come Through."

For other, atypical albums, please check out my reviews of:
Linkin Park - Minutes To Midnight
Crash Test Dummies - God Shuffled His Feet
They Might Be Giants - Then: The Early Years

5/10

For other music reviews, please check out my index page.

© 2010, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |