I was also puzzled as to why Giroux ignored the novel to focus on the movie. I can at least see that he wished to look at Hollywood’s influence and how the images it sends to society upholds many problems that exist. But considering the influence the novel already has, the time it took for it to be made into a movie and the fanatical following that has been created in the wake of both, one such as I must wonder how anyone attempting to analyze one can ignore the other.
In this light I wish to look at how Fincher may have only furthered the ideas that Giroux so quickly grasped onto; that of the masculinity of violence and the movie influencing the minds of the viewers. I agree that Palahniuk deals with a lot of issues and of course Fincher had to trim them down in an effort to not make a twelve hour movie, but the way in which Fincher modifies the pieces he keeps drastically changes the impact, at least in my mind. Not only does he overly emphasize the violence, he makes it fantastic and a whirl of special effects. One instance of this is the death of Robert Paulson. Instead of him simply drilling into a parking meter, the “homework assignment” becomes a gigantic golden ball that destroys a (possibly) Starbucks.
Not only is the violence overly emphasized, it is trivialized and playful. When the members of Fight Club must start and lose a fight, the background music is playful, light even. The violence throughout this scene is violent, but the viewer is bombarded with much happier and playful images than the simple idea that these men are committing acts of violence. There are countless instances of this in both the novel and the movie, I believe there are some key differences between the two that Giroux wanted to avoid.
Most important is Jack/Tyler’s reluctance for violence in the end. I do not mean strictly Jack’s; we know he doesn’t wish for anymore violence. Instead there is the final moment atop the tallest building where the bomb fails because Tyler/Jack uses paraffin in the mixture. Jack seems to imply that he always knew this; it was spoken of many times throughout the book. So why would Tyler do such a thing? And how does this change what Giroux sees in the film. If the ending of the film were to incorporate this idea instead of the hand holding/buildings exploding Fincher ending, would Giroux have been able to envision so much of societies mirroring of the violence?
At the very least, I think Fincher kind of botched it with this ending. Palahniuk makes it all one big cyclic joke. Jack tries to avoid consumerism and slavery to it, Jack tries to destroy consumerism, Jack becomes part of consumerism (Fight Club© and The Paper St. Soap Co. © – all marketable images), Jack tries to destroy his own consumerism. In the movie there is not so much this as a glorification of the violence and the finality of the violence paying off in that there is at least the semblance of a happy ending between Jack and Marla. I could go on about this for a long time, but I just wish to end with this question. Which do you think is more condoning of violence, the book or the movie?