I am not fond of the Giroux essay. I do not agree with just about all of what he has to say. Except agreeing and disagreeing about this essay isn’t that simple. I “agree” with the foundation of his argument… that when contemplating the issues presented in Fight Club, such as capitalism, consumerism, violence, misogyny, the emasculated male, it would be swell if Fincher/Palahniuk could have discussed the entire spectrum effected and not limited the issues to one particular class, race, gender, and so on. But I “disagree” because the story isn’t meant to embrace every single aspect. It’s specifically pointed at white, middle-class men for a rather valid reason and it just seems silly to say that the movie is any less insightful because it chose to narrow its concentration. It doesn’t mean that Fincher is saying anything against those other elements, that they aren’t as important, or that it isn’t worthwhile to explore, it just simply isn’t relevant to this particular story. Statements such as “Given Fincher’s suggestion that men have no enduring qualities outside of their physicality… (14-15),” “…romanticizing violence in the face of… abuse and violence that people involuntarily experience every day because of their sexual orientation, [their race], their gender, or their class status… (17),” just drove me a little bit crazy. My reading of both film and book is that “Jack” realizes the fault in their little experiment and attempts to right “Tyler’s” wrongs… i.e. realizes that violence and terrorism is not the answer, otherwise known as providing the moral to the story. “Jack,” however, fails in both texts and ultimately inflicts even more violence upon himself in order to find his true identity, peace, etc., but I can’t completely accept that it all promotes this chest-beating brute that Giroux sums it all up as.
The biggest critique, or question, I have always had is why the movie lessens Marla’s significance in “Jack’s” journey. Palahniuk says that Fight Club is first a love story, and then a whole bunch of other things afterwards. Julie is disturbed by the anti-feminist/misogynistic manner in which Marla is portrayed, and I completely agree, but mostly only in the case of the film. Marla’s role is much more positive in the book and I’ve always wondered why Fincher would have down-played the relationship so dramatically. Perhaps a victim of post-modern marketing?