An Arguement for Rousseau

Essentially, both Being John Malkovich and Fight Club work cooperatively, in rather opposite fashions, to produce a sort of pro-Rousseau, anti-materialism, pro-liberation, anti-ethical-egoism thesis regarding the solution for the spiritual ills of the modern man, so to speak.

When I say in opposite methods, I mean that both films show a different light to Rousseau's philosophy. FC presents what happens when a person follows his philosophy; BJM presents what happens when one does not. Both cast Rousseau in a favorable light.

Start with FC. Rousseau was against plenty of things: ownership, government. society. So are the rebellious charaters of FC. Consider ownership. Ownership is the basis of materialism - what you own is what you have, and the more things you have, ideally the better. Tyler Durden is completely against this sort of rational thought. The narrator gets bogged down in this ownership stuff, so much that he rants about how each furniture was an extension of himself and that his condo was his life. This is absolute garbage to Tyler, so "he" burns down the narrator's condo. The government - the members of FC are very anti-government, quite evident in how much they break the law. However, they are careful not to break "moral" laws - even as they are blowing up credit card buildings, the narrator is reassured that no one is going to die from the explosion. Directly. Anyways, they see the government as laws that create this sense of "need" for things, that this need creates a passion to desire material stuff, and this need results in inequality. This is why they choose to blow up credit card buildings - to set everyone back at zero, owning nothing and truly being equal. This is straight in line with Rousseau's ideology. Also, there is this deep hatred against the present hiearchal society, with the levels of inequality defined by material possessions. Tyler addresses this fact, stating that no one is speial, that everyone is deaying, that we are the all-daning scum of the earth, etc. This is our Nature, and society has shifted this nature into things of ownership, subsequently destroying the present person. In response to this discovery, Tyler asks his followers to give up many things - possessions, name, identity, pain - in pursuit of an honest life that engages our natural, equally collective state of being. Sure, it may be violent, but would Rousseau disagree? Everything the characters do is in pursuit of the collective good - Project Mayhem is a project of colletive good, with the destruction of the credit card companies and the general appeal to the forgotten man that makes the fast food joints run, that sweeps the floors of the corporate building, that makes up for the majority of society. This is Utlitarianism, this is Allegory of the Cave, this is anti-Augustine (engaging pleasure and pain as long as it's natural and not owned), this is Rousseau.
And at the end of the movie, there is a sense of victory - the narrator finally "kills off" Tyler, but in doing so, inherits the qualities of Tyler, accepts Project Mayhem (and his rejection of present society) and the plan succeeds. He finally accepts Marla. He is happy. Again, there is triumph, and there doesn't exist any insinuation that the ideology the narrator comes to terms with will lead to his demise. The film ends on a happy note, evident by comic addition of the frame of the penis. Tyler truly has the last laugh here.

However, BJM doesn't end on a happy note. Really, all the characters are miserable because they don't want to accept their natural state of being, they all want stuff. Craig wants fame with his art - he isn't happy not being appreciated. Ladi wants Maxine - pathetic due to that she's married (this goes for Craig too) and she's willing to be someone else for this love (going inside Malkovich). Maxine wants someone only when they are inside Malovich - that's not very natural at all. Lester and company want to live forever, and are willing to do so at the expense of someone else. And Malkovich just wants his body back - the only admirable character here, as it's natural to want to have a body. These "needs" of the other characters make it so that they are willing to compromise Malkovich in order to get what they want. Are we to believe that Craig is naturally malicious, or that his passion for reognition of his art leads him to pursuing Malkovich, to owning him, and thus resulting in a sort of inequality? Same with Ladi - do you really think she would be obsessed with being JM if it wasn't for the fat she ould be with the beautiful Maxine, with the beautiful body that Ladi sure does LUST for? Duh. Anyways, at the end of the movie, we see that these characters, who for sure operate in a way that wouldn't jive with Rousseau, end up in shame. We don't feel contempt for Ladi and Maxine because they leave Malkovich, a symbol of inequality, alone - they find love with themselves, regardless of finacial or lustful stuff. They reject ownership and selfish pleasure and whatnot and just love each other. When we see how precious their daughter is, we feel a sort of disgust with LEster and company - they plan to live forever by taking over this child. Their pathetic, anti-natural desire for immortality is thus viewed as unacceptable - and we begin to feel a deep pathos for Malkovich. This discovery does open our eyes to the fact that Malkovich is the loser here - that he has been owned and has lost something because of someone else's pursuit of the unnatural, someone's NEED to desire stuff that is not part of our true nature. This is seen as a tragedy, something that is not good. And of course Craig, who, after he leaves Malkovich for Maxine, who promptly dumps him, attempts to go back into Malkovich in order to regain that fame, prospoerity, material stuff - poignantly, he is trapped in a nothingness that is not unlike his true nature plagued with nonsensical materialism. The characters work in a world where collective good doesn't exist, where the individual reigns most important (the audience almost forgets that Ladi and Craig are even married because they are so self-centered, with the gun to Ladi's head and the cage and whatnot) and as a result, there is this horrible, omplex, tragic emotion that is evoked at the film's end. It isn't out of the question that this is what is intended, that this film is a surreal look at modern society and its perversion of natural tendencies in favor of this need for ownership and stuff and things we don't need, etc. The film is a tragedy, thus this lifestyle is tragic as well.

BJM is tragic, FC is not. BJM shows what it's like to live anti-Rousseau, FC shows the opposite. Thus, both films favor Rousseau, and they work cooperatively to evidence a comprehensive arguement for his ideology. I'm out.

-Johnny