Comments on FC/BJM

I really like Camilla's point about how the personality change in Malkovich doesn't change people's view of who Malkovich is. I had not noticed that, but I will muse on the point. I like John's point about Lester not accepting societies rules of death and time. The situation could be read through Rousseau eyes by saying that he is achieving freedom by rejecting society. That same idea can be linked to Johnny's point about Tyler giving up all physical attachments in order achieve freedom. Maybe there's a comparison there between Lester and Tyler. I shall muse on this point as well.

Comment on previous posts about Becomming JMC & FC

I agree with the obvious comparisons between the two movies regarding the connection of body & mind. I agree with Mark along the lines of removing everything from a person’s life being akin to Buddhism or baptism, but in conventional religion a persons cannot do anything. Tyler is creating his own religion. I liked Johnny’s comments tying both movie around Rousseau. Also points for longest post ever. points out how no one noticed JM’s personality change because they only saw the name. I had not though of that.

BJM and FC

freedom, and body vs. mind

Freedom:

BJM:

· Lotte experiences an sence of freedom while BJM. However, this sence of freedom is much different then the conventional freedom we think of. She feels totally and completely free. Free of specific gender and free from the reality that awaits her when she leaves the body.

· Craig also experiences a certain freedom in the body of J.M. However, his freedom is different then Lotte’s. Craig experiences freedom in a way of being able to be with Maxine as well as be able to express himself with his puppeteering having no financial issues.

FC

· Begins to find freedom when fight club is started. However, once fightclub grows to a major group in which he bieleves he is no longer a part of he losses his freedom again as he did when marla came into the self help groups.

· Freedom is again regained at the end of the move via the “murder” of tyler…?? Maybe

Body VS. Mind

BJM:

· Lotte clearly has a confliting combination of body and mand. She finds herself in a womans body with more of a mans mind. Atleast, a mans sex drive. Crossing over into John she is able to satisfy her mind however she becomes more intangled in a endless webb of emothin and confusion when she returns to he regular body.

· Craig is able to perform his puppet show just as well in the body of john as he is in his. This is rather impressive concidering the dexterity needed to do such motions. This clearly shows that mind has ultimate control over body. Maybe ones physical condition bears no ristrion on ones abilitys. Maybe a person can think their way through what ever he or she would like to do.

FC:

· The seperation of body and mind is clearly seen in fight club. After beginning to fight and having lasting physical damage to their bodys the participants feel better then ever. The narrarator goes to work in a bloddy shirt with a black eye and deep flesh wounds as well as laserations and for him work is much less of a hastle. He is able to ignore the stress his boss would normally impose on him.

Compare BJM & FC

In the movies Becoming John Malkovich and Fight Club, the ideas of Plato, Augustine, and Rousseau are shown vividly throughout.

In Becoming John Malkovich, people’s spirits or minds can take over another person or “vessel.” Dr. Lester uses this process to become a puppeteer of someone younger than him so that he can live forever. In the movie this person is John Malkovich, who becomes the puppet, actually be a puppeteer while being a puppet at one point. This movie connects to Plato by suggesting that people are themselves the chains that hold them back, otherwise their souls, or minds, would be free. Also the concept behind allegorical existence can be applied. The thing or person that someone is looking at may not actually be that person.

Augustine believed that humans brought sin into the world by committing what he called the “original sin”. Aside from Lester, people begin taking over Malkovich for sexual pleasure. This leads both Craig and Lotte to cheat on each other and basically submit Malkovich to a sick version of torture by forcing him to live his life without his intervention.

Rousseau said that man needed freedom and escape from the needs of society. Dr. Lester simply refuses to follow the idea of death or societies concept of time. People would be very uncomfortable with the idea of someone defying death since the history of time. Ironically, by freeing himself from the perceived necessity of death, he takes Malkovich’s freedom in order to secure his own. Rousseau would find no problem with this as he believed that the human concept of ownership had no place in nature.

Second up for dissection is Fight Club. Fight Club follows Plato’s idea of the realm of forms by offering two different versions of the main character, or Jack. Plato believed that the idea of something was more powerful than the picture or image of the same object. So Jack exists, but Tyler is only an idea. This is what gives Tyler his great power over Jack’s body. He exists only on a mental level and can filter out any unwanted feelings or needs, such as sleep. While Jack must sleep, Tyler can do as he pleases.

As mentioned before, Augustine believed that humans were born sinful because of Adam & Eve’s past actions; that something bad was in present in humans at all time. Tyler is a personality manifestation of this very idea. Everything Jack liked about his life, everything he loved, Tyler rejected and destroyed.

Addressing Rousseau, he believed that people are inherently good, but that society ruins us. He states that we are defined by the things we seek in life. Jack looked for nothing but material things. Constantly ordering nick-knacks and furniture, he ekes out a sorry existence. Tyler is, obliviously, his polar opposite. He rejects material things and leads people instead of following. The concept of ownership ruined mankind in the eyes of Rousseau. It probably ruined Jack.

The one thing I have failed to mention before is also the most important. All three philosophers believed in thinking logically or subscribed to a philosophical form of thinking. Both movie producers seemed to be critically thinking about how someone would logically respond, or what would logically happen if the movie were real. Camila mentioned how in John Malkovich everything seemed to make sense and the dialog in Fight Club gives subtle hints as to what is really going on. For example, when Jack is beating himself up in his boss’s office, he says that it “reminds him of when he and Tyler fight”. These two movies are closely tied to the philosophical workings of Plato, Augustine, and Rousseau

----------------
Listening to: mc chris - Fett's Vett
via FoxyTunes

Fight Club/BJM by Mark!

Freedom

Fight Club
In Fight Club, the issue of freedom is bluntly addressed in Tyler Durden’s saying “only when you’ve lost everything are you free to do anything.” According to Tyler by disconnecting ourselves from the materialistic society that we are brought up to follow, we can transcend the barrier between ourselves and truth (or God). Though Tyler holds a very nihilistic view of religion and God, a parallel can be drawn between his “freedom to do anything” and the enlightenment of Buddhism or baptism of Christianity. By ridding yourself of worldly possessions, we cleanse ourselves of our original sin. We are left to become one with God.

BJM
In Being John Malkovich, all but two characters never become free. For example, Lester continues to pass his soul from vessel to vessel only further encasing himself in the physical world. He is to afraid to leave this world and be freed from his cycle (Samsara if you want). By further limiting himself he is only forcing himself farther away from the freedom of death. Craig never becomes free either. In the last scene of the film he is shown hiding in the skin of a child to stare at Maxine. His ties to Maxine only further connect him to the physical world. The only two characters that are free in the climax of the story are Maxine and Lotti because they have accepted their mortality and have made peace with that.

Identity

Fight Club
The narrator in Fight Club only finds true identity by accepting his own imperfection. Jack's visions of Tyler Durden are a projection of his own hopes and idea of perfection. In the final scene of the film Jack "kills" Tyler by essentially almost killing himself. By casting away Tyler Durden, Jack is realizing his own humanity, and learns to accept his imperfection.

BJM
Being John Malkovich discusses the question of whether we are defined by our physical or intangible qualities. At the beginning of the film, maxine defines identity mainly by physical properties. She tells Lotti "only John," when she tries to establish a relationship as herself. Lotti on the other hand always understands the importance of one's soul in identity.

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

Synthesis: Being John Malkovich, Fight Club, and Jean Jacques Rousseau

I. The Question of Freedom vs. Exploitation

a. Rousseau expostulated that our human desires, which are a corrupt product of society, lead to exploitation, domination, and the abuse of freedom.

i. In BJM, Craig Schwartz’s puny ego is desperate in its need to be recognized by society for being a puppet genius. He thus exploits John Malkovich for the advantage of being a well-established public figure, as opposed to having to start from scratch. Furthermore, one could argue that Craig exploits society as a whole by tricking them into thinking that the person of John Malkovich is the puppet genius.

1. The fact that no critic should question Malkovich's random decision to abandon acting is an indictment of the entertainment industry. No one notices the change in personality because they don’t actually see the person, but rather the fame and name. There is no freedom of will, no individual initiative to question or contradict what everyone takes for granted. Thinking back to Rousseau, one sees the concept at play of corrupt domination of society, by society.

b. In FC, the matter of exploitation is more subtle. The narrator, henceforth referred to as “Jack,” has a deep, subversive anxiety that results from his emotionally confused childhood. Early in the film, we learn that Jack had no true father figure while growing up. Even more significant to the state of his psyche is the memory of being the neglected child—not only was he generally ignored by his parents, he was alternately the vessel of two conflicting sets of expectations and disappointments. Already, Jack is set up to be the perfect host for a psychological parasite that will tear him into two identities. When Tyler Durden comes into Jack’s life, he presents the explosive combination of dependable father figure, best friend, and raw energy that Jack has subconsciously yearned for since childhood. Jack’s blind need to embrace the theoretical reality of Tyler leads him to be exploited by Tyler.

II. The Importance of Sex and Pain to Identity

a. Sex

i. In both BJM and FC, the protagonists experience flashes of truth when they are having sex (whether they realize it at the time or not).

1. The confusion of the Maxine-Lotte-Craig (BJM) relationship seems to resolve itself temporarily when Maxine and Lotte have sex through Malkovich. Their encounters in person are always restrained and retain their insecurities and doubts. However, in a more intimate interaction, the dynamic between the two takes on a degree of utmost sincerity. They enter into their true selves in the act of sex.

2. Jack (FC) does not realize until almost the end of the film that the rollercoaster nature of his life in the past few months is due to the fact that he has been possessed by the psychological energy that is Tyler Durden. However, he does unconsciously break through to reality when he has sex with Marla—despite the fact that he thinks it was a dream when he “wakes up.” Through the haze that Tyler keeps him in, the act of sex allows him to penetrate through to his “power animal”, a.k.a. his true self, via Marla.

b. Pain

a. More so in FC than in BJM, pain is the key to access the core of one’s being. There is, of course, the broad analogy of getting back to your animalistic side by fighting others for fun. However, the pain necessary to plumb the deepest part of the soul is not just the superficial pain you get from a brawl. The best way to elucidate this concept is to reference the practice of self-mortification, which has been used by many religions through the ages and around the world. In particular, the theology of the Opus Dei pertains quite closely to the dynamic between Jack and Tyler during the scene with the lye. The undertones of Christianity here are incredibly strong. To begin with, Tyler’s kiss evokes the betraying kiss that Judas gave to Jesus on the eve of his crucifixion. However, it is the minutes that pass while Jack’s hand is burning with lye that are crucial, in part because they mirror Christ’s agonies on the cross. In Opus Dei theology, pain is what brings one closer to God: in the innermost circles of excruciating pain, there is only room for the soul and God. Nothing else from the conscious world can invade that tight psychological space, and thus you may, unhindered, become one with the spirit of God. This is the control that Tyler takes over Jack, securing his mastery over Jack’s mind. Jack and Tyler symbolically become one.

III. Synthesis

a. Being John Malkovich and Fight Club both corroborate Rousseau’s theories on the nature of man and society’s corrupting influence. The authenticity of the self is jeopardized by the overwhelming impulses of the civilized masses. The individual is seen not as a person with a soul, but rather as a collective function of his/her job, image, reputation, etc. Both films cry out against this existential injustice via scenes where an individual’s name is repeated over and over again. There is an element of religious chanting; the name serves a similar purpose to modern man as the “ohm” does to a bliss-seeking mystic. It empowers the chanter to grasp some higher reality and simultaneously reinforces his place in the grand scheme of the universe.

i. BJM: when Malkovich goes down his own portal, he is surrounded by talking heads repeating “Malkovich, Malkovich, Malkovich.” Despite his reaction of fearful bewilderment, this scene—when, in the film, he has just discovered that people are paying to enter his mind—serves as the unconscious reinforcement of his individual against the onslaught of mental intruders.

ii. FC: at the death of Robert Paulsen, the members of Project Mayhem begin to chant, “His name was Robert Paulsen” unceasingly. Like in BJM, this scene of repeating a name is representative of modern man’s attempt to secure his individuality in an indifferent world. It belies angst and a desperation to cling to something that will preserve the soul in the face of its death.

b. In conclusion: BJM, FC, and Jean Jacques Rousseau come together in their struggle to save the self from oblivion.