…Edward Norton’s character tried to kill himself, which implies that what he was doing was wrong. Imagine if he had killed himself, then the chaos that came to pass would have been meaningless. Not only that, it was Durden’s doing, not his own. If Durden never came to be, then he would have stayed an unthinking drone. The good v bad line is then a precarious one.
Not necessarily, it implies that the personality that was operating his body at the time thought it was wrong.
Why would it be meaningless? Because he is not alive to witness it? It would carry meaning with plenty of other people.
As far as it being Durden’s doing, I would like to remind you that the two are really one in the same, just multiple personalities. But, Durden alludes to the fact that everything that happened is what Edward Norton’s character actually wanted:
“I look like you want to look; I talk like you want to talk; I fuck like you want to fuck.”
So, if anything happened, it is because Edward Norton’s character himself wanted it to.
I don’t know that Durden really, “Came to be,” I think Durden always was a latent part of the mind of Edward Norton’s character.
I know that I mention Durden being a potential example of evil winning and I kind of imply a separation of the two there which was a mistake on my part. I venture to say as one character, that character represented Chaos and Disorder (Evil) and won.
Here’s another question for you:
Do you think Edward Norton’s character did not actually suffer from multiple personalities, but created Tyler Durden and convinced himself that he had multiple personalities in order to justify what he was doing?
Not important. If I commit good works and exhibit good will towards men for all of my life except for three minutes, but in that three minutes I take an AK-47 and blow fifteen people to hell for no good reason, am I not still a murderer despite being an upstanding citizen most of my life?
He wanted to blow up all of the bank records to solve his own credit card debt? He did care about other people, why evacuate all of the buildings and make sure no lives were lost? (Or, as few as possible)
The fact is he cared about inequality and injustice in the world, by setting everything to zero we are as close to equal as we can be again.
At the time it is possible. If the Norton/Durden character is anything, it is unpredictable.
Yes, I do think that. The psychological presentation was just for show.
[/quote]
If the psychological presentation was just for show, then somewhere the Norton side is cognizant of all of his own (and Durden’s) actions. Accepting that is the case and that he finally got what he wanted, he won. In that sense, Durden still lives.
I understand, but if you are identifying the causes & effects of your actions, then you need to know the start and end.
No, he was creating chaos to placate his desires.
I admit that this is a pretty contradictory thing and I liken it to a propaganda message within the movie.
Honestly, I don’t think real anarchists would actually-care whether they kill people or not.
Was that his intent, or was it merely self-fulfillment? Keep in mind that the movie doesn’t discuss how much Durden’s “care” for others. Rather, it suggests extreme narcissism: “Tyler was God’s gift to the world”.
I don’t think so; you just need to realize which personality is the dominant one. As in, who-was-who in the end?
I’m not so sure that Norton is cognizant, because he can compartmentalize Durden’s persona, and then completely-ignore it as if it never happened.
If you think of Norton-and-Durden as two-in-one, then neither “side” wins in the end. The bad “won” because he blew up the buildings. The good “won” because Norton killed Durden (or so it seems).
For that purpose, I would have to say it is hard to tell. I mean, Norton’s condo blew up and then the shit really started hitting the fan, but it was Durden (who is also Norton) that blew it up.
Anarchy is a political (well, anti-political) philosophy, it is not necessarily reflective of an individual’s moral or ethical system.
Norton’s words, Norton’s opinion, Tyler Durden was Norton’s definition of perfection, as it were. In fact, I strongly disagree that Durden is a narcissist, I would say he is a Nihilist, I could pull ten-twenty quotes from the movie supporting same. But, like you said, the movie tends to contradict itself at times from a philosophical standpoint.
Fair statement, I agree.
[/quote]
Selectively cognizant, to a varying degree indexed to the level of denial with which he must enshroud himself.
You say neither side wins in the end, but by what you said above, I would be inclined to argue that both sides win in the end.
Did niether of you get the symbolism of the characters? Edward Norton, Honeymooners, the origianl series??? Think about those two guys and now put them into the two characters of the fight club… come on, pretty cool huh???
That is true, but it just seemed odd to me that Durden was opposed to killing, very odd in fact.
I agree that Durden is a Nihilist, but what makes you think he is not Narcissistic? I never gathered that he was Altruistic. The only person he was really helping was Norton’s character … and that turns out to be himself in the end.
What say you?
I do not see that either side won, because the movie left me with questions. That is what I meant.
Durden was not afraid of death, disfigurement, bodily harm, in fact he encouraged it. Basically, he did not really seem to care if anything happened to himself.
No, he can’t die unless Norton dies. He can be made latent, but that may or may not be temporary.
I don’t think altruism is exactly the word I am looking for here so much as a desire for equality. And again, he was not a pure Nihilist, not only was there a lot of contradiction throughout the movie regarding his philosophies, but I think that he also believed that Nihilism is not the true answer provided certain criteria are met such as financial equality and anarchy.
Oh Gods!!! My age is showing… OK the two main characters Ed Norton and Ralph Cramden, they were the censored clean comedic versions of the fight club characters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Honeymooners
In other words, the two guys from the movie are not new issues. Other than it being one guy with a split personality, compared to two men. The two men in the series actually deftly portray one man with the same issues as the guy in fight Club. The series aproached it as a comedy, the fight club aproached it as a drama. One is in the closet the other is wildly out of the closet.
I think it is unclear whether Durden is killed or integrated. Durden gets his way. He destroys the credit industry and gets the girl - via the main personality played by Norton. Threatening suicide is not likely to be a solid reintegration; this part of Norton’s character will have to be worked with more.
What we have in the film is a guy who denies himself and has lived for false values. He is not allowing his real desires to be expressed. He is passive and fits in his role - kind of like K. Reeves character might have in Matrix. But this angry assertive part of his personality - Norton is basically suffering from Dissociative Identity Disorder - takes over sometimes and even seems like another person. We have probably all had moments when another portion of ourselves seems to take over. If we are honest we can face the fact that this rage or desire is really us. Or we can take meds or pretend in some other way that it is not us. Norton could not face it but needed it and the dissociated personality took over.
Durden is not simply bad. But since the main personality judges assertion and anger and desire as bad and had denied it, this twists Durden into something dangerous. Take note: if you learn to accept and work with urges adn emotions they tend to integrate quite nicely - often after tremendous work. If you deny them and judge them, that’s when they get dangerous - if only by making you a cold fish who can never be intimate with others.
So I do not view Pitt as bad and Norton as good. They need to be one person. Assertion with caution. Desire with care for others. Anger at the system without the violence.
I see the ending as ‘in the middle’ for the Norton character. He still has a lot of work to do. But who doesn’t.
I agree with everything you just said except for one thing:
“…without the violence.”
While I understand that nobody was supposed to be killed in the process, you do not destroy the entire credit industry without committing some kind of violence.