Fight Club (Marx, Darwin, Freud and Nietzsche Analysis)

Fight Club is a complex movie in that the two main characters are just two sides of the same person. Edward Norton’s character is the prototypical conformist consumer working a morally questionable office job to feed his obsession with material possessions. He works as a recall coordinator for a “major car company” and applies a formula based on profitability, rather than safety, to determine the necessity of a recall. Though never explicitly stated, he seems to be in his late twenties or early thirties and throughout the movie has a constantly haggard appearance because of his insomnia and fighting. Brad Pitt’s character is a carefree nonconformist and the manifestation of Edward Norton’s

The expressions of the characters, caused by their surrounding, is also a factor that can alter the psychological traits in a character. The Man states “He does not trust his dreams, believing that they are "the call of languor and of death” (McCarthy 15).The man has a vivid

In the opening paragraphs, the author's description of the characters creates an easy, inevitable story for the ready to understand. For example, Jackson describes how at first the young boy is entering the house like any other child would do before his imagination goes grim, saying: “He came running home the same way, the front door slamming open, his cap on the floor, and the voice suddenly become raucous shouting…” By describing how Laurie comes home, Jackson gives the readers a clear understanding of how Laurie is actually going to act. Furthermore, Laurie acts as if Charles is indeed another kid instead of admitting to all his wrongdoings saying, “Charles yelled so in school they sent a boy in from first grade to tell the teacher she had to make Charles keep quiet, and so Charles had to stay after school. And so all the children stayed to watch him.” Jackson uses Charles to hid the fact it is Laurie doing all these things and that is why Laurie was late for lunch that day. When the innocent boy becomes an alternate character, Jackson simultaneously shows the innocent and the evil in the grim reality of human nature, marrying the normal with the abnormal and joining the usual with the unusual to describe how Laurie was trying to get out of trouble. Indeed, Jackson manipulates characters to more forcefully promote the underlying message of inherent evil through lying which exists in all

The playwright was trying to get quite a few messages when he created this play. First of all, I believe he was trying to show social change and the power and potential that an individual has inside of them, despite their circumstances. I think that this play/movie reveals the true messiness of life and how with the right mindset, you can make it through anything you

It didn’t help me to analyze anything from the book or make any good connection with the themes. The movie and the novel share one thing in common, which is the main characters struggle with society. The main character in the movie, Charlie, battles with his love for religion (Catholicism) and his Mafia ambitions. The movie has an abrupt ending with a scene of an ambulance and paramedics arriving to help Charlie and Johnny that have been shot by the man they owe money to. The movies main purpose was to illustrate the cultural and ethnic situation of the time and how it impacted the youth’s

The Shining revolves around the duality of Jack’s personality. The motif of Jack’s split self is symbolic of the duality of human nature, and this duality is also exhibited in other male characters in the film like Jack. Charles/Delbert Grady (even his first name is ambiguous) epitomizes a loving father who ultimately slaughters his

Marx and Freud are two thinkers of roughly the same time period, mostly the 19th century, into the 20th for Freud. Comparing and contrasting their theories provides for a deeper understanding of both of their philosophies. Marx’s theory of human nature stresses the idea that people are inherently social. He saw that most of an individual’s behavior is dependent on the actions of others, and noted that even the most mundane aspects of human existence are socially learned. Additionally, he believed that a person’s society determines their behavior, noting differences among cultures and the fact that there is no one, unified way of thinking that all cultures subscribe to. This ties in well with his materialist theory of history, which places tremendous

I am planning to write about the 1999 film Fight Club, directed by David Fincher. This movie is about a nameless insomniac office worker (the narrator) who has become, as he views, a slave to consumer culture. He begins attending support groups for diseases he doesn’t have to subdue his emotional state, and he begins to sleep again. He meets Marla Singer, another fake attendee of support groups, she is an incredibly mysterious woman who is obviously a bit crazy, yet the narrator seems drawn to her. On a flight for his job, the narrator meets the character Tyler Durden, a hip, stylish man who sells soap for a living. When the narrator's apartment blows up, he calls Tyler and begins to live

“The first rule about fight club is that you don’t talk about fight club” (Palahniuk 87). The story of Fight Club was very nail biting; you never knew what was going to happen next. There were so many things that led up to a complete plot twist. It was amazing how closely directed and written Chuck Palahniuk and David Fincher’s versions were. However, the role in both that stood out to me the most was the role of Marla. Marla was the biggest influence in discovering the narrator (or Jack’s) identity.

Marx, a trenchant physical monist saw an excessive dissonance between an individual’s labour and the capitalist system in which the labourer works. He theorised that ‘capitalism is a self-destructive economic system because the poor proletariat will inevitably rise up and displace those currently in positions of power and oppression’ (2008: 44). Tyler’s statement, ‘we are all part of the same compost heap…’ is the slang version of the basis of sociology that they are all in it together. In accordance with Marx’s view, the inequality and social-conflict these men felt on an individual basis helped them to gather as an adhocracy. Critics Read Mercer Schuchardt and Chuck Palahniuk support this notion as they state ‘Anarchy and revolt are some of the more radical ways those who feel trapped in a financial system have sought to redress this social discord’ (2008: 43).

Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible. He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes

Fight Club is a movie based a man deemed “Jack”. He could be any man in the working class, that lives and ordinary life. The movie starts out giving an overview of his life, which consisted of a repeat of flights and cubicles. He is basically to the point of break when he takes another business flight and meets a man that calls himself Tyler Durdan. They instantly become friends and after an unfortunate explosion in “jack’s” apartment, he moves in with Tyler. One night after last call at a local bar, Jack and Tyler start fighting in the parking lot for no reason other than essentially to feel free and do something other than the norm. Later in the film this bar-back fight turns into a club run by the both of the men, or so it seems. At the

Fight Club can be viewed with many interpretations, all of them true. It is a great love story. It is an anti-consumerism rant. It is a spiritual piece against materialism. It is anarchist literature. It is a commentary on our ‘lost’ generation. At first viewing of the movie, very little of this can be seen and it appears violent and chaotic. However much thought was put into providing the movie with depth and development that only become apparent after multiple screenings.

The first and probably the most prominent psychological concept that is portrayed in the film is

Among the most controversial figures of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. The rhetoric of the first of these men, Karl Marx, both inspired revolutions in China, Russia, and Cuba, as well as led to his expulsion from Germany, France and Belgium. As for Freud, Yale history professor Peter Gay notes in his biography of the psychologist: “[He] has been called a genius, founder, master, a giant among the makers of the modern mind, and, no less emphatically, autocrat, plagiarist, fabulist, the most consummate of charlatans.” (xvi). Though Marx is perhaps best described as a political theorist and Freud a psychologist, there is a great deal of overlap in the work of the two intellectuals. Most importantly, Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx shared a fervent dissatisfaction with society and its oppressive mechanisms. Yet the source of this oppression was not a point of agreement among the two thinkers. Where Marx advocated class struggle and bourgeois domination as the main obstacles to a harmonious, peaceful society, Freud contended that the fundamental barrier to such a society is human nature itself, which, in his opinion, consists of a constant struggle between a desire for pleasure and the constraints of reality; while Marx believed that Communism could bring about societal contentment, Freud held that the pleasure which man derives from aggressiveness precludes the possibility of collective peace and, concurrently, the restraint with