cptgaio

Ciano Sanjuro! I care about you, but I've already brought my reasoning, and if you don't mind, I would abandon the contest. ;-)

Aside from the fact that it's from '99 and the book even earlier, so the reference to September 11 seems a bit far-fetched, I repeat that if you look at it as a political film, it will certainly appear dishonest to you. All political films can seem that way, depending on the angles, but from my perspective, it appears anything but dishonest.

Well, I preferred you as Dave.

So, I’ve already said that, like in other Palahniuk novels, the social setting of "Fight Club" is just a pretext to tell a story of deep inner turmoil, that profound anxiety that arises from the dichotomy we all have within us of being suspended in a world that, on one hand, wants us to be framed and controllable, but on the other, through the mass media, pushes you to seek diversity at all costs—diversity to be fashionable, diversity to succeed with women, diversity because it’s very cool, etc., etc.
It is from this deep inner contrast (I repeat, it’s the individual that interests Palahniuk, not the masses) that the basic idea of Palahniuk arises. Also, it’s not true, as I’ve read in some comments above, that in the end he justifies everything by claiming it's just a dream… no, no, the discomfort is real, but it’s private, intimate, absolutely free from ideologies. Only by starting from the assumption that the outside in Palahniuk's universe is merely a pretext to set our private obsessions in motion, can we evaluate the work. Then, whether you consider it artistically ugly is another story, but no one who has criticized it so far has raised artistic issues, only political, social, ethical, etc., etc.

"Lock & Stock" and "The Snatch" weren't bad, indeed, this one doesn’t inspire me...

So I imitate dear Manliuzzo who a few posts ago called me out: (never claimed to be very polite, my behavior in this case is not courtesy but infinite understanding) Dave: I often like to give ratings out of spite, but it's a venial sin and all in all I have a deep approach to music. Ajeje: I hold resentment against Dave who often has dumped crap a bit superficially on bands that I really like. Lux: I was struck by true art that you idiots are not capable of understanding. Sorciopeloso: I have fun like crazy getting Dave all riled up. Manliuzzo: I use the weapon of irony to calm the spirits but it seems that it serves little here. MauroProg: I started a discussion to stir the pot and now I don't know how to get out of it. Maybe I've forgotten someone, anyway Dave, Ajeje, Manliuzzo know that despite everything that will happen in the future, I have cared about you. @Lux: I don't know you but it seems like you have a nice head, it's a shame you're a bit "racist" when it comes to musical tastes, I hope you break out of this nasty vicious circle because it leads to little good. Sorcio and Mauro: I don't know you so I won't judge but come on, don't provoke Dave anymore, he's a good guy, after all, we all sooner or later give ratings randomly... As for me, I don’t know, I leave it to you to say something… good night…

Alright, if you see ideology, there's nothing I can do to change your mind. Bye!

Thank you all again for the comments!

I wrote terribly, if you don't understand something let me know.

It's not a matter of dialectics my friend, it's a matter that after spending some time on this site, we more or less know each other's ideas and in this case they are quite irreconcilable. I could also tell you that, in my opinion, within Palahniuk's dreamlike universe there is much more than a socio-political attack on the system, and that at its core there is a profound self-critique of mankind (as a unique being and not as part of a larger whole). Hence my continuous exhortations to look beyond the social content, and more than beyond, in this case, to really look inside ourselves, because it lies in the meaning of man and not of humanity that the entire Palahniukian universe (?), including the film, resides. But unfortunately (and I assure you there’s no controversy in these words of mine), lately on this site people want to turn everything into a socio-political brawl and seek oppositions by force, when the reality of certain works is much more artistic and poetic than political. I believe that the true intent of the site is being somewhat overlooked. The risk is that certain ugly things are classified as masterpieces simply because they are clearly positioned, while others are fiercely debated just because they use the clever weapon of artistic ambiguity—not in a negative sense, but that ambiguity that arises from discussing everything, even when aligned with one’s own side. This is where true art is born, and not from the desire to break things apart at all costs. Bye!