Hm, I don't know if I see humanism and misanthropy as incompatible. I consider myself a humanist, and that's a big part of why I find humans in general to be pretty appalling.
I can't speak for Corwood, obviously, but what I recall of Fight Club is that it had petulant 16 year old's attitude. "I just noticed: life is meaningless! Isn't that incredibly profound? So now I'm an anarchist -- ptbtbtb!" Most of Kubrick's movies are about people struggling with moral issues. I agree he presents those struggles in a dispassionate way, but I don't think that's the same as saying, "And boy, were they idiots for bothering, because it's all pointless."
I should go record as saying I liked Fight Club as a very pulpy take on J.G. Ballard's pet themes. Plus the performances were excellent, as was the production. The plot twist was stupid but didn't detract much from my enjoyment. I'm not a plot first guy.
It was pretty. And I'm sure it didn't help that I was tired of the cult/hype by the time I saw it.
I dunno, I think it's a lot like Forrest Gump -- they're both shallow movies pretending to be profound. (See also: The Shawshank Redemption.) I prefer my shallow movies to revel in their shallowness!
The plot twist was stupid but didn't detract much from my enjoyment.
The thing about the "twist" is that the movie's not at all dependent on the HSQ moment in order to work - I actually think it's better on rewatch because once you know what's really going on, it's just a hilarious black romantic comedy about one incredibly fucked up guy.
I prefer my shallow movies to revel in their shallowness!
You don't think a film with a visual gag about the Pottery Barn catalog standing in for Playboy was reveling in its shallowness?
"I just noticed: life is meaningless! Isn't that incredibly profound? So now I'm an anarchist -- ptbtbtb!"
Well, except he does kinda come around to "Whoa, that was a REALLY stupid idea!", albeit slightly too late in some respects.
The thing about the "twist" is that the movie's not at all dependent on the HSQ moment in order to work - I actually think it's better on rewatch because once you know what's really going on, it's just a hilarious black romantic comedy about one incredibly fucked up guy.
And there's this too, which I wholly agree with.
re: Men who Stare at Goats
I was mulling over the use of Jedi warriors in the movie and wondering if they had to get permission from Lucasfilm to use the idea. George Lucas strikes me as the kind of man who would be hyper-vigilant about keeping his trademarks from getting the Xerox treatment, ie, becoming common verbs instead of brand names, but I didn't see any mention of Lucasfilm in the acknowledgements. How would such be handled?
I actually think it's better on rewatch because once you know what's really going on, it's just a hilarious black romantic comedy about one incredibly fucked up guy.
Totally concur. The stuff I loved was the messed up romcom.
How would such be handled?
George Clooney makes a phone call.
George Clooney makes a phone call.
Ah, a George-to-George connection.
Ah, a George-to-George connection.
Side note: Lucas' daughters were both huge BtVS fans and he pulled strings for them to meet SMG.
The thing about the "twist" is that the movie's not at all dependent on the HSQ moment in order to work - I actually think it's better on rewatch because once you know what's really going on, it's just a hilarious black romantic comedy about one incredibly fucked up guy.
Have I mentioned my personal reading of the text as an especially violent PSA about the dangers of self-abuse? (I fully admit, it's totally fanwanking. Fanwanking of which I'm sure I'm a solo practitioner, as appropriate for the reading, naturally.)
