• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, Toronto's largest and longest running online community. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register on the forum. You can register with your facebook ID or with an email address. Join us!

Movies

I didnt realize Fight Club had a resonance in that crowd! Makes sense.

Like Jordan Peterson himself, the movie appears "deep" but is actually shallow as fuck intellectually and a bit dumb.
I thought it was relevant at the time, but it hasn't aged very well. It summed up the 90's quite well in a lot of ways.

It doesn't help that the Peterson acolytes are pretty ignorant of Palahniuk as a person.
 

rave jedi

TRIBE Member
I suspect it will be a mixed bag of the same cinephiles who have been seeing movies at the Cinesphere since it reopened almost 2 years ago. I've been going a lot and I see quite a few "regulars". These are the same people that don't mind paying $15 to see films that they own on DVD/blu-rays and other home media formats. A lot of these patrons of "Fight Club" will also be the same people who paid $60 to see Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy in April. They are also the same nerds like myself that attended the whole extended versions of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy there. LOL
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I thought it was relevant at the time, but it hasn't aged very well. It summed up the 90's quite well in a lot of ways.

It doesn't help that the Peterson acolytes are pretty ignorant of Palahniuk as a person.
Don't get me wrong I did too!

But I was also a teenager in thrall with a surface level understanding of the counter culture and got giddy on the rebellious references.

It wasn't til I got older that I realized the counter cultural narrative was bankrupt/facile:

One of the most talked-about cinematic set-pieces in recent memory is the scene in Fight Club where the nameless narrator (Ed Norton) pans his empty apartment, furnishing it piece by piece with Ikea furniture. The scene shimmers and pulses with prices, model numbers and product names, as if Norton’s gaze was drag-and-dropping straight out of a virtual catalogue. It is a great scene, driving the point home: the furniture of his world is mass-produced, branded, sterile. If we are what we buy, then the narrator is an Allen-key-wielding corporate-conformist drone.

In many ways, this scene is just a cgi-driven update of the opening pages of John Updike’s Rabbit, Run. After yet another numbing day selling the MagiPeel Kitchen Peeler, Harry Angstrom comes home to his pregnant and half-drunk wife whom he no longer loves. Harry takes off in his car, driving aimlessly south. As he tries to sort out his life, the music on the radio, the sports reports, the ads, the billboards, all merge in his consciousness into one monotonous, monolithic brandscape.

It may give us pause to consider that while Fight Club was hailed as “edgy” and “subversive” when it appeared in 1999, Rabbit, Run enjoyed enormous commercial success when it was first published—in 1960. If social criticism came with a “sell by” date, this one would have been removed from the shelf a long time ago. The fact that it is still around, and still provokes awe and acclaim, makes one wonder if it is really a criticism or, rather, a piece of modern mythology.

What Fight Club and Rabbit, Run present, in a user-friendly fashion, is the critique of mass society, which was developed in the late 1950s in classic works like William Whyte’s The Organization Man (1956), Vance Packard’s The Status Seekers (1959) and Paul Goodman’s Growing up Absurd (1960). The central idea is quite simple. Capitalism requires conformity to function correctly. As a result, the system is based upon a generalized system of repression. Individuals who resist the pressure to conform therefore subvert the system, and aid in its overthrow.

This theory acquired such a powerful grip on the imagination of the left during the 1960s that many people still have difficulty seeing it for what it is—a theory. Here are a few of its central postulates:

1. Capitalism requires conformity in the workers. Capitalism is one big machine; the workers are just parts. These parts need to be as simple, predictable, and interchangeable as possible. One need only look at an assembly line to see why. Like bees or ants, capitalist workers need to be organized into a limited number of homogeneous castes.

2. Capitalism requires conformity of education. Training these corporate drones begins in the schools, where their independence and creativity is beaten out of them—literally and figuratively. Call this the Pink Floyd theory of education.

3. Capitalism requires sexual repression. In its drive to stamp out individuality, capitalism denies the full range of human expression, which includes sexual freedom. Because sexuality is erratic and unpredictable, it is a threat to the established order. This is why some people thought the sexual revolution would undermine capitalism.

4. Capitalism requires conformity of consumption. The overriding goal of capitalism is to achieve ever-increasing profits through economies of scale. These are best achieved by having everyone consume the same limited range of standardized goods. Enter advertising, which tries to inculcate false or inauthentic desires. Consumerism is what emerges when we are duped into having desires that we would not normally have.

Both Fight Club and American Beauty are thoroughly soaked in the critique of mass society. Let’s look at Fight Club.

Here’s the narrator’s alter ego, Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), explaining the third thesis: “We’re designed to be hunters and we’re in a society of shopping. There’s nothing to kill anymore, there’s nothing to fight, nothing to overcome, nothing to explore. In that social emasculation this everyman is created.” And the fourth: “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate, so we can buy shit we don’t need.” And here he is giving the narrator a scatological summary of the whole critique: “You’re not your job. You’re not how much money you have in the bank. You’re not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet. You’re not your fucking khakis. You’re the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.”

Fight Club is entirely orthodox in its Rousseauian rejection of the modern order. Less orthodox is its proffered solution, which in the middle and final acts moves swiftly from Iron John to the Trenchcoat Mafia.
Anyway the full link of this excerpt goes on to explain why the postulates of this theory are wrong, but this is the nutshell critique of Fight Club that I find quite devastating to it's purported philosophical heft
 
Don't get me wrong I did too!

But I was also a teenager in thrall with a surface level understanding of the counter culture and got giddy on the rebellious references.

It wasn't til I got older that I realized the counter cultural narrative was bankrupt/facile:

One of the most talked-about cinematic set-pieces in recent memory is the scene in Fight Club where the nameless narrator (Ed Norton) pans his empty apartment, furnishing it piece by piece with Ikea furniture. The scene shimmers and pulses with prices, model numbers and product names, as if Norton’s gaze was drag-and-dropping straight out of a virtual catalogue. It is a great scene, driving the point home: the furniture of his world is mass-produced, branded, sterile. If we are what we buy, then the narrator is an Allen-key-wielding corporate-conformist drone.

In many ways, this scene is just a cgi-driven update of the opening pages of John Updike’s Rabbit, Run. After yet another numbing day selling the MagiPeel Kitchen Peeler, Harry Angstrom comes home to his pregnant and half-drunk wife whom he no longer loves. Harry takes off in his car, driving aimlessly south. As he tries to sort out his life, the music on the radio, the sports reports, the ads, the billboards, all merge in his consciousness into one monotonous, monolithic brandscape.

It may give us pause to consider that while Fight Club was hailed as “edgy” and “subversive” when it appeared in 1999, Rabbit, Run enjoyed enormous commercial success when it was first published—in 1960. If social criticism came with a “sell by” date, this one would have been removed from the shelf a long time ago. The fact that it is still around, and still provokes awe and acclaim, makes one wonder if it is really a criticism or, rather, a piece of modern mythology.

What Fight Club and Rabbit, Run present, in a user-friendly fashion, is the critique of mass society, which was developed in the late 1950s in classic works like William Whyte’s The Organization Man (1956), Vance Packard’s The Status Seekers (1959) and Paul Goodman’s Growing up Absurd (1960). The central idea is quite simple. Capitalism requires conformity to function correctly. As a result, the system is based upon a generalized system of repression. Individuals who resist the pressure to conform therefore subvert the system, and aid in its overthrow.

This theory acquired such a powerful grip on the imagination of the left during the 1960s that many people still have difficulty seeing it for what it is—a theory. Here are a few of its central postulates:

1. Capitalism requires conformity in the workers. Capitalism is one big machine; the workers are just parts. These parts need to be as simple, predictable, and interchangeable as possible. One need only look at an assembly line to see why. Like bees or ants, capitalist workers need to be organized into a limited number of homogeneous castes.

2. Capitalism requires conformity of education. Training these corporate drones begins in the schools, where their independence and creativity is beaten out of them—literally and figuratively. Call this the Pink Floyd theory of education.

3. Capitalism requires sexual repression. In its drive to stamp out individuality, capitalism denies the full range of human expression, which includes sexual freedom. Because sexuality is erratic and unpredictable, it is a threat to the established order. This is why some people thought the sexual revolution would undermine capitalism.

4. Capitalism requires conformity of consumption. The overriding goal of capitalism is to achieve ever-increasing profits through economies of scale. These are best achieved by having everyone consume the same limited range of standardized goods. Enter advertising, which tries to inculcate false or inauthentic desires. Consumerism is what emerges when we are duped into having desires that we would not normally have.

Both Fight Club and American Beauty are thoroughly soaked in the critique of mass society. Let’s look at Fight Club.

Here’s the narrator’s alter ego, Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), explaining the third thesis: “We’re designed to be hunters and we’re in a society of shopping. There’s nothing to kill anymore, there’s nothing to fight, nothing to overcome, nothing to explore. In that social emasculation this everyman is created.” And the fourth: “Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate, so we can buy shit we don’t need.” And here he is giving the narrator a scatological summary of the whole critique: “You’re not your job. You’re not how much money you have in the bank. You’re not the car you drive. You’re not the contents of your wallet. You’re not your fucking khakis. You’re the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world.”

Fight Club is entirely orthodox in its Rousseauian rejection of the modern order. Less orthodox is its proffered solution, which in the middle and final acts moves swiftly from Iron John to the Trenchcoat Mafia.
Anyway the full link of this excerpt goes on to explain why the postulates of this theory are wrong, but this is the nutshell critique of Fight Club that I find quite devastating to it's purported philosophical heft
One of the things that still kills me is that most of Fight Club's biggest fans are completely unaware of the irony of Brad Pitt railing and commenting about empty consumer consumption and not realizing that he's wearing an outfit in almost every scene that is worth most people's mortgage payments in a quarter. It looks like Salvation Army chic, but the red jacket alone he was wearing was worth over $3K and a designer brand.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
I didn't really know who he was.

But since I seen him now in three flicks: Cosmopolis, Good Time, High Life

He's totally got the chops!

I think certainly a better choice than say, Hoult, who was also in the running. Think he will surprise you.
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Wasn't there supposed to be a Deadwood movie? Is it direct to tv or in theatres?
Aired on the weekend, torrents were out Sat AM on it.

I need to watch season 4 again or at least want to remember better how it ended before I jump in. U should find it easily online now.
 

rave jedi

TRIBE Member
This past weekend I saw the yin/yang of movies, but they were my two favorite films seen on the big screen for 2019 so far. :cool:

"Annihilation" 2018 vs. "Aladdin" 2019

Both were brand new movies to me and I haven't seen either. I'd probaby hate both of these flicks if I'd seen them on home media format on a small screen. They were just amazing to experience in a cinema. Will repeat if I get a chance to see these movies in a theatre in the future.
 

ScottBentley

TRIBE Member


Alarm dispatcher and former police officer Asger Holm answers an emergency call from a kidnapped woman. When the call is suddenly disconnected, the search for the woman and her kidnapper begins.

Really good. Take a few deep breaths before it begins because it gets super tense!
Now available on Netflix
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
Destroyer - great flick! Seems inspired by the best of recent noir/crime detective TV, enough so I checked if any of the people behind the movie had done True Detective or anything like it but seems like for most this was the first kind of gritty, realistic crime movie they've done!

Anyway, coulda been 15 mins tighter maybe but I thought it was effective and engaging, and they found great places to shoot across LA - almost every shot was pretty cool!
 

rave jedi

TRIBE Member
In 1994, I saw the Robert Rodriguez movie "From Dusk Till Dawn" in the movie theatre and I always remembered Salma Hayek's strip club scene because of how sexy she was in this vampire movie. However, I remembered the scene vividly because the big screen was able to show Salma's "imperfections" and she was not "flawless" as I thought because she had stretch marks and even some cellulite in that famous scene.

25 years later, I go for my second viewing (never watched it again at home) at the Cinesphere which was a digital 4K print and her cellulite is now all gone??? Salma is a perfect beautiful specimen once again. I'm certain the movie went through some restoration and they fixed Salma to look like the perfect flawless sex goddess we knew her for. This is very Twilight Zone like for me because "From Dusk Till Dawn" was the movie that pointed out even Salma wasn't perfect because she had cellulite. Now her cellulite is gone and Salma is perfect all over again! LOL :D
 

praktik

TRIBE Member
So who seen the Deadwood movie?

Anyone ready to drop high level impressions while putting spoiler shit in tags for us?

Waiting to rewatch a bit of the last season first, ain't seen/heard anything about it - didn't make a splash??
 

alexd

Administrator
Staff member
So who seen the Deadwood movie?

Anyone ready to drop high level impressions while putting spoiler shit in tags for us?

Waiting to rewatch a bit of the last season first, ain't seen/heard anything about it - didn't make a splash??
I am a huge Deadwood fan and liked the movie. I think they did everything they could with it (as opposed to the last game of thrones season). Fascinating to see the town again. All the important characters are there, the plot is solid, but the way it ends you know this will be the last one.
 
Top