This contradiction arises most acutely during the scene in which Tyler points a gun at the convenience store clerk and tells him that “if he is not on his way to becoming a vetinarian in six weeks he is going to come back and kill him”. This then puts an emphasis on individual choice and destiny. It moves the emphasis away from critiquing the consumer culture of post modernity and now suggests –from Tyler’s point of view- that we need to be free to make our own decisions.
Where then is the express need to form a gender related alliance in order to fight an impenetrable system? “Choice seems to be an exclusively individual act, a simple matter of personnel will that functions outside of existing relations of power, resources, and social formations” (Giroux, 2000:8/9). This point leads us on to further expansions of this contradiction. For example, is it not the case that it is an emphasis on personal freedom, coupled with a need to compete -one of the reasons why the fight club exists- the key philosophy of late capitalism? Tyler’s individualistic stance at this moment of the film seems to contradict what many who would subscribe to the anti consumer understanding of his character would suggest he represents. “This privatised version of agency and politics is central to understanding Tyler’s character as emblematic of the very market forces he denounces” (Giroux, 2000:9) Fight Club attempts to portray itself as an attack on capitalist consumerism via a celebration of masculine competition and patriarchal values. This simply ignores the fact that it is these two bio-cultural concepts which are at the root of the very system which the film might be seen to attack.
In a sense Fight Club is missing the point. How can it be an entirely effective or ‘Devastating’ a critique of consumer culture, when it ignores the essence off that culture and seems content to attack its more superficial representations? An attack on Starbucks simply puts roughly ten employees on minimum wage out of work Yet a vetinarian who will go on to secure a far more higher income and contribute to the growing disparity between rich and poor. All Sarbucks will do is build another outlet. Is Fight Club trying to suggest that each member of staff in the Sarbucks they attacked now has the chance to go and achieve what they individually want to achieve? If that is the case isn’t the end result a society based on competition and economical survival of the fittest? Is that the essence of capitalism? Don’t we have that now? Or is the actual point that it is alright to compete and achieve our goals; as long as it is only the men doing it? “Fight Club functions less as a critique of capitalism than as a defence of authoritarian masculinity” (Giroux, 2000:10) When Tyler Put the Gun to Raymond the clerks head he may as well have come right out and said “you are a man you shouldn’t be doing such degrading work-that is for women to do”.
The roles on which men and women are often portray within film narratives is an area which Laura Mulvey has explored in her essay (first published in 1975) ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’. Within this piece of work Mulvey outlines that both men and women occupy different areas of the text. Women are defined by Mulvey as being the “object of the look and men as being in control of the gaze” (Nelmes, 2003:254). This in essence places the men and women as being in binary opposition to one another. This is not to suggest that men are not looked at during the film of course this would be futile. But what Mulvey suggests is that the men are looked at by other men, not in terms of object but as a projection of who we would like to be. She identifies Lacan’s childhood development theories regarding reflection as key to this understanding:
“As the spectator identifies with the main male protagonist, he projects his look onto that of his like, his screen surrogate, so that the power of the male protagonist as he controls events coincides with the active power of the erotic look, both giving a satisfying sense of omnipotence. The male movie Star’s glamorous characteristics are thus not those of the erotic object, but those of the more perfect, more completely, more powerful ideal ego conceived in the front of the mirror” (Mulvey,1989:20)
What make this idea extremely interesting in terms of understanding Fight Club’s gender related narrative, is that not only is the character of Tyler played by Hollywood ‘A list’ Brad Pitt; therefore inviting audience/spectator masculine projections. We actually discover that the character of Tyler is in fact the fantasy projection of the leading protagonist, Jack. In a post modern twist of Mulvey’s theory we now have a male lead character inventing his fantasy projection within the film. The lead character becomes as a spectator, emphasising the masculine fantasy of power and control even further while simultaneously attempting to sideline the role of women within society. This denigration of women is an area which Fight Club puts great emphasis upon throughout the film. It concentrates much of its distaste for femininity through its active use of stereotypes and portrayals of man’s de-masculinization. The paranoia displayed in Fight Club could perhaps be explained in terms of Psychoanalysis. The fragility of man displayed within the film Mulvey would suggest, concentrates from a deep rooted maelstrom of desire toward but mistrust of, women. The male fear of feminisation is one which cannot simply be explained in terms of modern or post modern consumer culture, its roots are implanted within the male psyche from childhood.
“She (women) connotes something that the look continually circles around but disavows: her lack of a penis, implying a threat of castration and hence unpleasure. Ultimately, the meaning of women is sexual difference, the absence of a penis as visually ascertainable, the materiel evidence on which is based the castration complex essential for the organisation of entrance to the symbolic order” (Mulvey, 1989:21)
Giroux expands on the fear of feminization themes within Fight Club further in outlining specific areas in which the film seeks to show how masculinity should not be corrupted by femininity. Possibly the most blatant reference to Mulvey’s use of psychoanalysis is the point when Tyler states that “things could be worse: “a woman could cut of your penis while you are asleep and toss it out the window of a moving car” Tyler then launches into a five minute cliché ridden tirade against the pitfalls of bourgeois life, mixing critique with arguments of his own philosophical ramblings about the fall of masculinity” (Giroux, 2000:7). Other examples of the film revulsion to femininity played out via the use of clichés include: Bob (Meatloaf) and his ‘Bitch Tits’ the fact that these men go to self help counselling meetings to cry, which Fight Club itself juxtaposes; the answer to this stereotype of female identity which has supposedly diluted there sense of identity. As Giroux points out that close to the beginning of the film Nortons character Jack even states that “Marla (Helena Bonham-Carter) is the root of all this” (2000:6).
The role of Marla again fits into Mulvey’s analysis of male and female binaries. On the one hand she causes Jack problems, inhibiting his well being. She is also portrayed as strange, attention seeking, a mystery to the male consciousness which is wary and mistrustful of women. Thirdly she the only other role she seems to occupy is the satisfaction of Tyler’s sexual desires. “Tyler also affirms his disgust for women by making high-priced soaps from liposuctioned human fat and proudly telling Jack that he is “selling rich ladies their own fat asses back to them at £20.00 a bar” (Giroux, 2000:6)
In his essay ‘Masculinity as Spectacle’ Steve Neale argues that there may be some drawbacks to the work of Mulvey and others who have examined the role of men and women in feature films. The main issue for Neale is that the discussions involved are centred on the repression of women, largely due to discourses at work being those from a feminist standpoint. As Neale points out, Up until the 1980’s “Only within the gay movement have there appeared to be specific discussions of representations of men. Most of these as far as I am aware, have centred on the representations and stereotypes of gay men” (Quoted in Cohen and Hark, 1993:9). It is Neale’s view that details or theories regarding representations of heterosexual males outside of the idea that they are ‘controllers of the gaze’ (Quoted in Nelmes, 2003:254) should not be overlooked.
The more one dimensional structure of Mulvey’s work has also been highlighted by Rodowick, who points out that although “Mulvey discusses the male star as an object of the look, she denies him the function of an erotic object” (Quoted in Cohan & Hark, 1993:13). Using Rodowick's ideas that the male object, or indeed masculinity can of course be rendered a sexual object, the portrayal of strength and especially power as being the characteristics of the sexual ‘object’ will therefore -in accordance with Rodowick's work- bring fourth areas of sexual gratification such as masochism. Taking this into consideration, it is no surprise for Neale that these tendencies or behavioural patterns are represented within films largely concerned with masculine narratives. “Given Rodowick's argument, it is not surprising either that ‘male’ genres and films constantly involve sado-masochistic themes, scenes and phantasies” (Quoted in Cohan & Hark, 1993:13). The topless but extremely violent scenes contained within Fight Club could well fit into this theory? They certainly show the unleashing of power. The fighter who is the strongest, demonstrating his physical dominance over another male through ritualistic sado-masochism.
However, within his essay Neale makes reference to a theory which seems to add validity to Mulvey’s work in regards to Fight Club. He sites the work of P. Willemen and his regarding male representations within film –in Particular Anthony Mann. From Willemen’s work Neale takes the understanding that to a certain extent the male as object is simply not allowed to be displayed as an overtly homosexual object or the object of a homosexual gaze “in a heterosexual and patriarchal society, the male body cannot be marked explicitly as the erotic object of another male look: that look must be motivated in some other way, it’s erotic component repressed” (Neale, Quoted in Cohan and Hark, 1993:14). This idea gives Mulvey’s argument more authority in terms of Fight Club, gender and male fragility in two ways:
Firstly is recognises that that patriarchy is still the dominant influence upon society and it is therefore women who will be and are considered subordinate within a great deal of representations of said society i.e. filmic representations.
Secondly and more relevantly to Fight Club itself, is the idea that the violence contained within the film is a deliberate attempt to suppress any notion that this film might be considered to contain any homosexual discourses.
Rather than simple being a device to portray the film as being more socially acceptable i.e. the violence tries to undo any notion of homosexuality. It is entirely conceivable that the use of violence or indeed the use of the fight club itself adds weight to the sexist themes within the narrative/story/film/book. This film places women through the character of Marla, not only as sexual objects, but objects of mistrust, as symptomatic of the de-masculinization of middle class men within western society. The men who join the fight club want what they perceive as they’re pride back. This is only achievable –according to the film- through physical strength, competition and competitive patriarchy. However, if this film was simply centred on men and masculinity without the violence, the homosexual connotations would be too great, not only for society but for the film itself. Put simply, this is a film which in large part focuses on and highlights the fragility of men. These men have been deprived of patriarchal power in there everyday lives, and they want it. They want to assert dominance over women and if the film didn’t use the thrill of extreme violence to counter any feminised feelings of compassion or tenderness; if it didn’t show these men deliberately sabotaging one another’s appearance – aesthetically pleasing appearance being another symptom of de-masculinization- the films central theme of male patriarchal achievement and domination, would be diluted with homosexual stereotypes. This film is not simply a metaphor of perceived male fragility. It is a representation of actual male fragility, which seeks comfort from dominance primarily through violence. As Giroux puts it:
“In Short, Fight Club provides no understanding of how gendered hierarchies mediated by misogynist psychic economy encourages male violence against women. In short, male violence in this film appears directly linked to fostering those ideological conditions that justify abuse towards women by linking masculinity exclusively to expressions of violence and defining male identity against everything that is feminine. (2000:12)
Bibliography
Cohen, S & Hark, I R. (ed’s). 1993 Screening The Male: Exploring Masculinities In Hollywood Cinema. Routledge: London.
Giroux, H A. 2000. Private Satisfactions and Public Disorders: Fight Club, Patriarchy and the Patriarchy and the Politics of Masculine Violence. Dr. Henry A. Giroux Online Articles. henrygiroux.com.
Mulvey, M. 1989. Visual And Other Pleasures. Macmillan: Basingstoke.
Nelmes, J (ed) 2003. An Introduction To Film Studies (Third Edition) Routledge: London
