Sunday, August 10, 2008


I can't say I was either thrilled or informed in any magnificent way by reading Rebels on the Backlot by Sharon Waxman.

Basically all it did was interest me in finally revisiting Fight Club.

I have bitter feelings about that movie.

I went to it the first weekend it came out.

I saw it in a crowded theater and laughed and laughed and laughed.

Everyone else stared at me, some in the way like I was a sick fuck and others like I was rudely interrupting their dramatic cinema experience.

But only I laughed.

But then afterward I was the only person I knew for a long time who was dissatisfied with it as a whole experience. It didn't and doesn't make much sense to me.

Perhaps I should finally jump back on the horse and see how I feel almost a decade later.

I do have a question that relates to the events described in Waxman's book.

Now, there was a big marketing brouhaha over Fight Club, which only makes sense. It wouldn't be easy to market. The studio wrote off a female audience, but wrote off Brad Pitt as a turn-off to guys... all makes sense in one way or another.

But what about Ed Norton?

It's gotten worse since Fight Club, but I know of no actor in the last 20 years who has engendered so much outwardly expressed affection from straight men.

Hell, the guy has bad taste in scripts that rivals Kevin Spacey... May even beat it, but I know hardly a straight guy who I can't see their eyes mentally turn over masturbation planning mode every time he has a new movie. If Ed Norton were a gay male predator interested in busting straight male butt cherry, he'd be the most successful of all time. There are straight guys just itching to get sweaty with Ed Norton all over the country.

I guess that doesn't show up on standard studio polling, though, huh?


TomKessler said...

I feel it's time to call you to task for your opinion of FIGHT CLUB.

Out with it!

Personally, I love what Fincher did with it. I saw it at The (late, great) Coronet in San Francisco during a rather dark time in my life and I was totally goosed by the STYLE of the film which felt giddily original.

And I do still feel that it holds up rather well. It's supposed to be silly, you see.

I tried to read Chuck Palahniuk's source novel a few times and I have had, to date, no luck with it. While Fincher's visual style gives the audience the sardonic distance we need from the material, reading the book is like hanging out with Tyler Durden and never getting a break from his icky fragmented narcissism.

It's like the difference between the Anthony Burgess novel of "A Clockwork Orange" and the Kubrick film (although I find that novel to be a lot more palatable than Palahniuk's).

Neil Sarver said...

I think Fight Club was the movie I decided that I was sure Fincher would definitely make a great movie someday... which I think is Zodiac... so it's not that I don't see some of what people see.

And, oh, I know it's silly. I saw it the first night in a theater that was about half-full. And I laughed hysterically for the first half-to-two-thirds of the movie. And everyone kept glaring at me, like I was laughing through a Bergman movie or something.

I actually did see it again after I wrote this. And I feel about the same, there's a lot of great stuff and a lot of very funny stuff. But ultimately it just doesn't quite add up to anything for me.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Google Analytics