it was found out by the feds, and they sent me to juvie for a week. i was nine.
like jarrod, i appreciated the cultural work giroux did with regards to the film, which, as stated before, can be a thankless task, not in the least because Hollywood films by their very nature don’t lend themselves to be read critically. moreover, the "critical" commentary of film critics and, as we saw in giroux’s article, of the actors themselves, for one reason or another, trump the work scholars do. scholarly film criticism may even be perceived by the entertainment industry as moving into a feminized space, work that hollywood culture deems irrevelant, inchoate, and socialist. Don’t get me wrong – I do feel that Hollywood films have the potential for critical engagement with the viewer. For example, Adorno talked about this: viewers would sit through a recycled hollywood film and realize that their lives were not like those on the screen, thus giving them the impetus to change society.
One point I thought giroux was especially right on was his reading of the scene where tyler points a gun at the back of the head of Raymond, the convenience store clerk or aspiring veternarian. Giroux’s thesis is that Fight Club effaces real social problems caused by corporate capitalism in favor of a simpler consumer – capitalism – emasculates theme, thus making it "a morally bankrupt and politically reactionary film." Tyler orders him to go to school to become a veterenarian without considering how much it would cost him – if he had any money at all – or any other responsibilities at home, etc. In all probability, the next day, which Tyler said would be Raymond’s most important day of his life, was probably spent calling his boss at the convenience store explaining his absence, why the door was open and all the product stolen, negotiating the terms of his dismissal, etc. Giroux is also right when he says Tyler, by way of his ‘just do it’ attitude, is nothing more than a spokesman for Nike.
At the same time, I wonder if this scene could be read differently if Giroux wasn’t focusing on the sociological side but rather the psychological one; after all, giroux never really admits that it is actually jack holding the gun to the clerk’s head. at another point in the article, giroux says the film’s message is that "violence is the ultimate language, referent, and state of affairs through which to understand all human events and there is no way of stopping it." That is to say, that the same latent violence bred by the contradictions in capitalism is the cause of Raymond’s dropping out of community college AND Jack’s schizophrenic condition. In this psychological reading, Jack and Raymond are caught tragically in the same encompassing cycle of violence. It makes sense that the gun wasn’t loaded, for jack was never in any real power position to begin with, rather, the powerful referent of violence is pervasive and capitalism hands out markers of violence to all people and things.