Well, anarchy strives to be as horizontal as possible, so the elimination of social constructs is to be desired if you support it. Still, it has nothing to do with anarchism in the film, it has to do with fascism. Watch the video.
Maybe watch the movie and not a video about random people that watched the movie and give their opinion on that, the destruction clearly symbolizes fall of social structures which is clearly anarchy not fascism.
Giroux and Szeman identify Tyler Durden as a failed icon of the revolution whose public appeal is more due to his cult personality than any “strengths of an articulated, democratic notion of political reform.” Durden acts instead of thinking and thereby fails to envision democratic movements; he is described as “a holdover of early-twentieth-century fascism”. While the narrator represents the crisis of capitalism as a crisis of masculinity, Tyler Durden represents “redemption of masculinity repackaged as the promise of violence in the interests of social and political anarchy”.
There is also an opinion or interpretation of fascism but no one I know interprets it that way. Most people see destruction - anarchy, which also was my first impression when I saw the movie.
Maybe watch the video which gives proper facts about why the film is about that. Yes, most people see it that way because they are white cis men who see whatever is on top because it pleases them more and don’t read the sub text. The section in that Wikipedia article is exactly what I’m referrencing to and the video makes it even clearer. But okay, let’s agree on disagreeing.
I already did and most of it are opinions from others. Why value their opinions over mine or your own… As already linked via wikipedia the movie can be interpreted differently and there are more opinions on that. Your link does not change the fact here.
But okay, let’s agree on disagreeing.
Yop. 🙏
My key argument simply is that the whole argumentation for fags and other now mentioned stuff was mentioned AFTER years. The things is most people just did not see it that way even if the author intended something different because afterwards I also can claim xyz but the audience, and most people I talked about saw it clearly as anarchy. It is similar with my Matrix example, at that time NO ONE saw any connection to transgender but now after Hollywood got a shit-blast they make it as an argument and suddenly all was about that, which is also not the case and not what most people saw.
An important thing to consider here is the fact that in both cases, Palahniuk came out as homosexual 6 years after the film, and the Wachowski sisters as transexuals also years after the release, in my opinion this affects their works because it can imply new possible interpretations where it would have been harder to find if a European white upper class man would have directed the film. Things that before would have seemed impossible are now reasonable trains of thought.
Well, anarchy strives to be as horizontal as possible, so the elimination of social constructs is to be desired if you support it. Still, it has nothing to do with anarchism in the film, it has to do with fascism. Watch the video.
Maybe watch the movie and not a video about random people that watched the movie and give their opinion on that, the destruction clearly symbolizes fall of social structures which is clearly anarchy not fascism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_Fight_Club
There is also an opinion or interpretation of fascism but no one I know interprets it that way. Most people see destruction - anarchy, which also was my first impression when I saw the movie.
Maybe watch the video which gives proper facts about why the film is about that. Yes, most people see it that way because they are white cis men who see whatever is on top because it pleases them more and don’t read the sub text. The section in that Wikipedia article is exactly what I’m referrencing to and the video makes it even clearer. But okay, let’s agree on disagreeing.
I already did and most of it are opinions from others. Why value their opinions over mine or your own… As already linked via wikipedia the movie can be interpreted differently and there are more opinions on that. Your link does not change the fact here.
Yop. 🙏
My key argument simply is that the whole argumentation for fags and other now mentioned stuff was mentioned AFTER years. The things is most people just did not see it that way even if the author intended something different because afterwards I also can claim xyz but the audience, and most people I talked about saw it clearly as anarchy. It is similar with my Matrix example, at that time NO ONE saw any connection to transgender but now after Hollywood got a shit-blast they make it as an argument and suddenly all was about that, which is also not the case and not what most people saw.
An important thing to consider here is the fact that in both cases, Palahniuk came out as homosexual 6 years after the film, and the Wachowski sisters as transexuals also years after the release, in my opinion this affects their works because it can imply new possible interpretations where it would have been harder to find if a European white upper class man would have directed the film. Things that before would have seemed impossible are now reasonable trains of thought.