Fight Club (1999)… indoctrination, emasculation and watching it all go up in flames


Fight Club   My rating: 9 IMDB rating: 8.9 IMDB Link: Dearest reader, Wow, it is really difficult for me to write about this amazing movie. I am ashamed to say that this is the first time that I have watched this film and I cannot believe that I have gone the last 23 years without knowing this brilliance! The most important thing for me about this film, is its comment on masculinity. Masculinity and especially white masculinity is something that interests me a lot. White men have for the longest time been on the top of the food chain. In terms of society, they have held the most important standing not only in their own houses, but in the business and political world. But that, of course changed. White men have been ‘demoted’ from their place on the throne to dwell among the equals. Many of their previous ‘rights and privileges’, especially in their homes, have been ‘taken’ from them and has been replaced with a decrease in power. This movie, to me, is an excellent example of the white men’s attempts to regain their power. By starting a ‘fight club’ they take some form of power over their own bodies, over their anger and over their emotional frustration. Exactly that, is what makes this movie so brilliant, because it explores this aspect in such a way that even a female viewer finds something to relate to. This movie is a must-see for every cinephile! Roger Ebert: Fight Club Rolling Stone: Fight Club Totalfilm: Fight Club


4 thoughts on “Fight Club (1999)… indoctrination, emasculation and watching it all go up in flames

  1. Mavellian

    This article my dear is not accurate. That movie has nothing to do with white men. If you look closely, it is the desire for comfort, security, materialism, vanity that feminized the man. I tell ya, though media, scientist, and all this other bullshit has made a division between blacks, asian, whites whatever, instinctively, primitively, it seldom is. Atleast today. This movie was created at least around my generation and (guy ritchie) was trying to speak about the ‘pyschological’ emasculalation of males. They found their masculinity and identity through violence, aggression, and rebellion. But in the end still proved to be wrong and (of course) it was more stable through love and support of his woman. So blah! Ha.

    • Dear Mavellian,

      Thank you so much for your comment. As I’ve said over and over again literature is subjective. As long as you can staff your point of view- it goes. That is in fact why I love literature so much. And films are a big part of literature.

      I do not think that my argument is that far off. Men feel constantly emasculated by not only members of the opposite sex, but (especially for white men) emasculation is also a product of a certain loss of power.

      I do agree with you actually, it most definitely is about the psychological emasculation of males, but I am just arguing that I read it as a product of white males’ loss of power. (Maybe this is because I am South African and in my milieu, white men are very much faced with this reality, but this is my opinion).

      So I would not say blah! ha!, I would say, thank you for your perspective.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s