Seems to me that Fight Club is a good example of Discordian principles, I mean, without the religious accouterments.
I'd be willing to bet this has been already discussed heavily, but the movie came out in 99, so might it be good to revisit?
I'm not seeing it. What about it seemed Discordian to you?
Quote from: Nigel on November 19, 2010, 01:16:01 AM
I'm not seeing it. What about it seemed Discordian to you?
Severe mental illnesses and a fat guy?
Well Project Mayhem is based on the Cacophony Society (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cacophony_Society). The Cacophony Society is "a randomly gathered network of free spirits united in the pursuit of experiences beyond the pale of mainstream society."
Sound familiar?
The whole push of Fight Club was to get inside the heads of the audience and show them that you can live in a manner that's not to societal norms.
As well as warn about the extreme thinking on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Tyler Durden: "Fuck off with your sofa units and string green stripe patterns, I say never be complete, I say stop being perfect, I say let... lets evolve, let the chips fall where they may."
Tyler Durden: Only after disaster can we be resurrected.
To me, especially the first part, Fight Club and Project Mayhem felt like they might as well be a cult of Eris. Destroying corporate art, getting pigions to shit all over new expensive cars, getting into a fight and losing, blowing out all the airbags on pretentious cars, de-magnitizning rental videos, and breaking TV antennas. All these things seem like they be suggestions from one of Rev. Roger's rants/sermons. Especially Sermon #17 entitled "What have you done lately?" (Pg 38 of "OR KILL ME").
I am more than a little familiar with the Cacophany Society, including the neutered remains of it today.
The ONLY part of Fight Club that seemed particularly Discordian was making expensive soap out of liposuction fat from rich lazy assholes. The rest of it missed the whole entire Taoist "balance" angle. Breaking TV and fucking with expensive cars? Please. Juvenile anarchist bullshit.
Only similarity I see is thinking differently from the norm, and being anti-norm.
I wouldn't even say the Fight Club was necessarily for changing the norm, just for destroying it for psycho shits and giggles. Whereas Discordians would like to see positive change.
Methods and morality and organization are very different. For one, we wouldn't be caught dead in a "His name is Robert Paulson" type scenario. Because of the way they organized and made rules, Fight Club became their very enemy - a zombie-like herd. "We," on the other hand, "must stick apart."
Quote from: Epimetheus on November 19, 2010, 06:56:44 AM
Only similarity I see is thinking differently from the norm, and being anti-norm.
I wouldn't even say the Fight Club was necessarily for changing the norm, just for destroying it for psycho shits and giggles. Whereas Discordians would like to see positive change.
Methods and morality and organization are very different. For one, we wouldn't be caught dead in a "His name is Robert Paulson" type scenario. Because of the way they organized and made rules, Fight Club became their very enemy - a zombie-like herd. "We," on the other hand, "must stick apart."
YESSSSS
Also, I read the book a couple years ago finally, and it was so much better than the movie.
there's certainly discordian elements.
And I guess since we're all essentially modding our own belief sets, its good to seek ideas from multiple sources.
FC was GREAT for me because, as I remembered it, it was the first time I'd seen anything that was such an explicit rejection of modern lifestyles.
I'm going to address you in reverse order.
Quote from: Epimetheus on November 19, 2010, 06:56:44 AM
Methods and morality and organization are very different. For one, we wouldn't be caught dead in a "His name is Robert Paulson" type scenario. Because of the way they organized and made rules, Fight Club became their very enemy - a zombie-like herd. "We," on the other hand, "must stick apart."
Your feeling of never wanting to be apart of that is the point of the second half of the movie. That part of the movie is more of a rebuttal to thinking that the Space Monkey (order) mindset is a healthy one. I never took away that once project mayhem got going Tyler was doing good, it depicted mindless following of an authority is bad and can even get you killed for bullshit.
Quote from: Epimetheus on November 19, 2010, 06:56:44 AM
I wouldn't even say the Fight Club was necessarily for changing the norm, just for destroying it for psycho shits and giggles. Whereas Discordians would like to see positive change.
It wasn't for shits and giggles though (the first part where fight club members are given "homework"). Every piece of homework has a point. They did specific things to achieve results.
Homework is made to help other break people out of their self created prisons (destroying TVs, computers, expensive cars, pointless art, getting people to feel something more then boredom/greyness by picking a fight). Even the most evil portion of the movie arguably wasn't
that bad as they ensured the destruction of the buildings was not going to hurt anybody. All overnight maintenance was a part of Project mayhem, "We guard you while you sleep".
The illustrative point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v95ItylU2YY
There is a point to that scene, which is not shown in that video.
QuoteNarrator: Come on, this isn't funny! That wasn't funny! What the fuck was the point of that?
Tyler Durden:Tomorrow will be the most beautiful day of Raymond K. Hessel's life. His breakfast will taste better than any meal you and I have ever tasted.
To me this is the essence, not the action, of what Discordianism is.
Note that that's the scene stands out as it's not a critique of a only consumerist/greyfaced society or authoritarian/passionate society. It's target is the self. It's also ties the two other critiques being in the middle of the film.
The middle is the happy medium. Using a vehicle that is normally considered one of the most orderly destructive things that can happen to an individual (being victimized and killed at gunpoint) and turning it on it's side to make it a disorderly creative in getting Raymond back on track with his dream. The gun was not loaded, Raymond was never in danger, it was in his head.
Assuming Ray does go back to school and become a Vet, 20 years later, do you think he would be angry at Tyler? I don't think he would, afraid and scared possibly of what cobwebs Tyler would try to knock loose next; but not angry.
This I guess is why Fight Club seems like it's Discordian to me.
Quote from: Epimetheus on November 19, 2010, 06:56:44 AM
.... Whereas Discordians would like to see positive change....
Really?
huh.... i didn't know that was a requirement. :oops:
does this preclude me from describing myself as discordian then?
You could say Fight Club had some Discoridan themes, but Nigel hit on a good point, they got lsot behind the sensationaly violent vandalism in which most of them were played out.
There was a lot of playing the system, highlights on the banality of bureaucracy, dissatisfaction withconsumer culture, etc.
If we took a page from Cram, the titular Fight Club was the movie's expression of people for once finding authentic experiences in their lives. It was something they had to work and suffer for, and offered enjoyment and camraderie beyond what they could buy or be spoon fed.
Maybe you could take soemthign from Jack's climactic realization of identity vs. Tyler, but it was a muddled and hurried message on moments of personal zen.
These weren't really presented AS Discordian themes though, and ultimately seemed like a big "enough is enough, fuck the system man!" jsutification for personally heralding in aftermath by whatever means necessary. Kind of what I'd expect people to do with discoridan ideas if they wanted them to fit in a pattern for marketability and box office sucess. Painting spots on a lion, calling it a cheetah, and people will appreciate seeing a big cat. those who haven't yet been exposed to the real thing yet won't know how it really runs though.
I found Inception in the same vein, in regard to Discordian themes.
I can see your points, except
Quote from: geekdad on November 19, 2010, 08:38:51 AM
Quote from: Epimetheus on November 19, 2010, 06:56:44 AM
I wouldn't even say the Fight Club was necessarily for changing the norm, just for destroying it for psycho shits and giggles. Whereas Discordians would like to see positive change.
It wasn't for shits and giggles though (the first part where fight club members are given "homework"). Every piece of homework has a point. They did specific things to achieve results.
Homework is made to help other break people out of their self created prisons (destroying TVs, computers, expensive cars, pointless art, getting people to feel something more then boredom/greyness by picking a fight). Even the most evil portion of the movie arguably wasn't that bad as they ensured the destruction of the buildings was not going to hurt anybody. All overnight maintenance was a part of Project mayhem, "We guard you while you sleep".
Maybe the homework helped the Clubbers themselves to have more fun.
But when they were told to get in fights (read:be an asshole), or when they destroyed the property of others by making a happy face of burning offices, unleashing the stone ball on the cafe (or whatever it was), popping rich folks' tires, blowing up a computer store, what result were they achieving?
All I see is misguided destructive rebellion that confuses and scares the populace (but does
not enlighten them), and while in some sense it frees the Project Mayhem members, at the same time it makes them more violent and obedient. Great job.
I would think that Discordians would have changed all the labels on the videos so what you thought was a work out video was really a WWII documentary and that children's movie is really the latest slasher flick. The gian stone ball would ahve been moved someplace else and replaced a statue of David dressed in drag. Stuff like that.
I'm going to also say that the book has a completely different and, in my opinion, much better ending with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POINT.
Yeah, FYI geekdad, I've only seen the movie.
Agree about the book.
Also, I think it has a different tone, generally.
Quote from: Nigel on November 19, 2010, 05:08:21 PM
I'm going to also say that the book has a completely different and, in my opinion, much better ending with a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT POINT.
missing the point is a tradition in film making
Author Chuck Palahniuk has stated that he found the film to be an improvement on his novel. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/trivia?tr0755959)
For whatever that's worth.
Quote from: geekdad on November 20, 2010, 07:11:02 AM
Author Chuck Palahniuk has stated that he found the film to be an improvement on his novel. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/trivia?tr0755959)
For whatever that's worth.
It's pretty irrelevant, actually.
most of it seemed like some newly "liberated" escapism, a pinch of discordian themes sprinkled in, and a few quotes that get paraded around here ad nausium (unique snowflake speech I'm looking at you).
Also whoever said Inception has me puzzled, It seemed to have a minimum in plot and was just a big summer eyecandy.
Quote from: Faust on November 20, 2010, 07:26:47 PM
most of it seemed like some newly "liberated" escapism, a pinch of discordian themes sprinkled in, and a few quotes that get paraded around here ad nausium (unique snowflake speech I'm looking at you).
Also whoever said Inception has me puzzled, It seemed to have a minimum in plot and was just a big summer eyecandy.
Depending on how much your personal brand of discordia is into memes, spreading ideas etc. I watched it whiled I was still very into Art of Memetics, and it seemed to play off a lot of those concepts. Simplifying an idea so it can spread, being aware of the potential consquences of your message, etc.
But yeah, I'm certainly not saying it was the most intellectual film ever made.
Quote from: Epimetheus on November 19, 2010, 06:56:44 AM
Only similarity I see is thinking differently from the norm, and being anti-norm.
It's only "anti-norm" in the most asinine way possible - by playing exactly into the norm's idea of what the anti-norm should be. Society styles itself as the only thing standing between us and barbarism, that acting against its norms brings us one step closer to Somalia-style anarchism. Fight Club (the movie, anyway, haven't read the book) accepts this paradigm - they reject society through explosives, which is exactly what The Machine wants you to think is the only way to reject society.
Tyler Durden plays the same game as the (imagined?) corporatist power brokers, just on the opposite side.
Discordians (REALLY REAL ONES) play whatever game they please. No need to try to beat dehumanizing FUD organizations at their own game.
The movie and the book have similar endings, though they arrive at it from very different angles.
SPOLER ALERT SPOLER ALERT SPOLER ALERT SPOLER ALERT SPOLER ALERT SPOLER ALERT SPOLER ALERT
The Narrator moves through two extremes throughout the plot. In the beginning, he lives a very anesthetic, inauthentic life. He creates a fictional, idealized version of himself which is 100% authentic, living in the physical, take no prisoners bad ass, Tyler. Tyler draws the narrator away from his life and pushes him towards this lifestyle which is centered entirely on experience.
Throughout this conflict, the narrator builds up this jealousy of Tyler, which we can read as a disconnection between his real self and idealized self, a chasm he cannot cross. In the movie, he resolves this tension by killing the ideal and falling in love with Marla. In the book, he resolves this tension by going crazy and gets institutionalized. (right? It's been a few years since I've read the book)
I thought the movie was a really great adaptation of the book, it captured the tone really well. But I think one of the major themes in the book that didn't make it to the screen is a theme of Sacrifice. In the book, Tyler puts more emphasis on the connection between Soap and Urine and Sacrifice. And to me, that means that we should read Tyler's drive to destroy everything as a drive to SACRIFICE the world of appearances and inauthenticity, and trade it for the idealized life of authentic experience, no matter what the cost.
To me, the narrative never comes out in favor of Tyler, it glamorizes him, but it never shows him as a hero. When the narrator is jealous of Tyler, he's not realyl interested in destroying financial institutions - he's jealous of Tyler's coolness, the power he wields, the uninhibited way that he acts. It's a far cry from the ikea apartment with a fridge full of condiments but no food.
The way I read it, it shows that there needs to be some compromise between the everyday self who lives in the world of horrible jobs, and the ideal self who drives, fucks, and smokes like a character from an action movie. In the end, the narrator cannot build his new life by sacrificing everything, he has to invest himself in the world, he has to fall in love with Marla, not blow her up.
At least, that's what I got from it.
The Parable of the Gong (http://cramul.us/2010/09/the-parable-of-the-gong/) is sort of about this idea too.
Quote from: Nigel on November 19, 2010, 01:16:01 AM
I'm not seeing it. What about it seemed Discordian to you?
Revolution sponsored by Pepsi?