Fight club- a rib smashing review.

Firstly I should thank the brains behind DC++, our BITS LAN, the brilliant idea of stealing and India’s lax cyber laws. Without them I could never have started this review thing.
It’s not as though there haven’t been enough reviews or reviewers, but as was said somewhere, by someone- it’s not as if God doesn’t know everything already, he just doesn’t know my version of it.

‘I wanted to destroy something beautiful’- this is the line that perhaps sums up the tone of the film. Fight club is an academy award (sound-editing) winning, hauntingly brilliant, frighteningly fresh cinema which has the roughly the same effect that The Lion King doesn’t. Based on the novel by the same name written by Chuck Palahniuk, it re-introduces what I can only describe as the nihilistic Neanderthal, who carries the expression ‘rebel without a cause’ to a higher altitude of gore and blood-fest.

But the highly controversial theme of the film- that of attaining some sort of cathartic release in violence is perhaps not the real point behind it. I see it as more of a psychological pacer which uses the gem of an idea which it is as an instrument to make it a genius of cinematic depiction. Why I say this? Its obvious from the movie that the story is about the un-named protagonist, i.e. one person and how he grapples with his errant brain. It portrays what limits he, and in the process any individual, can go to fight back the system and his own failure to set himself apart from its failings.

This type of escape through re-tuning the mind and its apparent consciousness to something totally different and alter-egoish finds a place in a lot of popular culture- most superheroes- Batman, Spiderman, the Mask, A Beautiful Mind, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, to an extent- Calvin and Hobbes. In fact at this point I’ll introduce a slight digression to put in this interesting analogy offered by Garry Trudeau-

“Fantasy is so accessible, and it is joined with such force and frequency, that resentful parents like Calvin’s assume that they are being manipulated when the truth is far more frightening: they don’t even exist. The child is both king and keeper of his realm, and he can be very choosy about the company he keeps.”

Even in the movie this is slightly touched upon (Edward Norton) says something on the lines of-‘I’m a 30 year old kid.’). The childish fantasy is exaggerated and darkened.

Norton’s relation with Tyler Durden(Brad Pitt), his alter-ego, is as spectacular as it is peculiar. The fact that one keeps forgetting is that they’re the same person and entirely the products of the same bundle of nerves. Pitt’s and Norton’s acting has given the characters a credibility few others could have- the gawky, unconfident, thin corporate with the hanging tie and deadpan expression, and the firebrand, sharp, scheming, flamboyant villain who always has a repertoire of smart one-liners and even the inch thick fur coat he’s wearing can’t hide his WWE muscles. My proposition would be that the idea is to show the complete man in a perverted, evil connotation of the term. This split self version of perfection is also not that uncommon. Our own Pandavas are testament to the ancientness of the idea. The point is, the presence of not individually good or bad, but both and in fact all he qualities have perhaps been shown to exist within a man. The struggle of the ‘hero’ to realize this and then confront the ‘anti-hero’ in his own mind to confine him to some dark inaccessible corner of himself makes for an excellent psychological roller-coaster ride.

One which comprises of shockingly realistic fist fights (like the one that preceded the first line of this review-you can imagine), dialogues qualified for cult-worship (‘I am Jack’s medulla oblongata’), a completely unexpected revelation and a finally and sadly a most disappointing anti-climax. Because why don’t people realize that although we want the smart-alec Brad Pitt flashing his arrogant smile in not only this but every movie to die with a bullet through his head we want it also to make sense.

One of the commendable qualities of Fight Club is it’s continuity and credibility. Most importantly the fact that you can believe the events since they don’t have the mistakes that a movies such as this could end up having. The link of insomnia with the periods when Tyler unleashed his plans was a superb one. So was Marla Singer’s role. She snipped off all the loose ends and played a great role in making the story move forward. For example, I would say that she was the one who triggered Norton’s mind to challenge the Anti-God that Tyler had become and then consequently unhinge the power which Tyler had accumulated (talk about misogynist evil geniuses and their femme fatale nemeses).

And so the ending where Tyler dies when Norton shoots himself in the cheek was a let-down. Just the fact that Norton ‘killed’ him off and then believed it belies that he still existed in his mind. And to just wish away such a dominant hallucination by seeing a gun in is hand is a bit unbelievable.

Besides this everything in the movie justifies the place in your favourite movies list it probably occupies. It is two hours of an on-the-edge gore show cum directional marvel cum acting treat cum thought- provoking thriller. An action packed must see. But not with your family. Save Simba for that.