It's basically the panultimate movie describing the angst felt by that generation of young American males trying to escape the cocoon of suburbia. These young men were raised in a tamponian society in which they were constantly emasculated not by their mothers or sisters but by the protection that the apathetic suburban society of the eighties and nineties unneccesarily garnished upon them. This message of bursting out of the self imposed mold of whoosiedem was seen as the epiphany of the generation with a hugely wide demographic which explains the popularity.
Simply put, it is a movie for suburban males who have mommy issues.
Brilliant description, as Aaron often provides.
But I had a slightly different take on why I enjoyed
Fight Club so much and why it stuck with me so long afterwards. Part of it also had to do with the time I saw it. Instead of when it came out in '99, I rented it right before the Sept 11 attacks. So when anthrax was in envelopes and people were at their maximum paranoia, the chaos in the last half of the movie was pretty thematic with the times. Almost prescient.
But moreso, I saw it as a movie about people who felt emotionally bankrupt by what society told them they needed and what they needed to do to be happy. Instead, they just wanted to feel something - anything - even if it was the thrill of being punched in the face after being coddled by consumerist trinkets and the niceties of our high-gloss, consumer culture world.
And despite the major themes of violence in the film, there was even a bit of a Gandhi-like pursuit of
Brahmacharya in it: the idea that the only way to find out who you really are and get to your real state of being was to strip yourselves of all the modern trappings of money, status, consumerism, etc. The only way to build yourself up was to completely break yourself down to zero. Gandhi gone barefoot and dressed in rags. Seriously high-concept philosophy for a commercial Hollywood movie.
Speaking of commercial, in this age of movie merchandising tie-ins, product placements, etc., the movie is quite remarkable as an anti-commercial, big middle finger to the whole industry's financing. This is a movie where no corporate sponsor or tie in could be made without making the advertiser look bad - while it was in the theaters, when it was pressed on DVD, or when it was aired on cable TV.
The script also stayed largely true to Chuck Palahniuk's book, which is a great read. A big difference is the ending (homage to
Usual Suspects aside), which, in some ways, was even better -- as there was just one big building to destroy: a greater foreshadowing of the WTC collapse, though influenced more by the 1993 bombing than anything.
The killer Dust Brothers soundtrack didn't hurt either.
