Fight Club (1999) is based on the homonym book of Chuck Palahniuk (released in 1996) and directed by David Fincher, known for films like Seven (1995), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) and Gone Girl (2014). In case you have been living in another planet or simply still didn’t have the opportunity to watch this major classic, here is the plot. The film is narrated by a nameless character (Edward Norton) who leads a trivial life, until the day he meets Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), whose anti-capitalist world-view changes the Narrator’s life. Together they start a clandestine fight club.
Fight Club and Nietzsche
Since the beginning of the film we observe in the Narrator’s behavior characteristics of our consumerist society: the boredom generated by the repeatability of his days, the fulfillment of a personal void with shopping, the work for necessity and not satisfaction, etc. In the face of the meaninglessness of life, he lives according to an absolute capitalist truth that can be summed up in the idea that consumerism is happiness. There is a relentless search for the happy life of TV commercials, the one we see in car's ads, but this happiness is always associated with possession: you have to fill not only the emptiness of an apartment, but of an entire life, with the furniture of a catalog. The exhaustion created by this quest is literally visible in the Narrator's apathetic expressions (result of Edward Norton’s incredible performance) and represented even in his insomnia. At no moment his behavior seem to be the result of his inner wills, but merely the consequence of an “addiction” created by a morality that imposes a form of living that fails to supply its individuals with genuine happiness. To create this atmosphere of pessimism and indifference – which characterizes not only the narrator’s initial personality but also the general apathy of a capitalist society – all images in the film are pale. The critique of capitalism is also evidenced by the always hostile and “cold” settings, whether in the impersonality of the Narrator’s apartment or in the filth of Durden’s house.
This initial attitude of the Narrator and the entire atmosphere that surrounds him show traces of what we commonly call nihilism. But what this “nihilism” means? Take the popcorn and here we go. The term "nihilism" (from the Latin nihil, “nothing”) designates an attitude that expresses a general disbelief in everything. Do you know those days in which we feel a little depressed and nothing seems to make sense or matter?! In those moments it is our nihilistic side that manifests itself. But what is the origin of this way of seeing the world? Why do we feel this way? The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900), known above all for his protuberant mustache (see picture below), wrote extensively on the matter. In a general manner, according to him we feel powerless each time we are faced with a general moral that dictates how to act, how to think, how to be. In Nietzsche’s brutal words: “Morality, insofar as it condemns on its own grounds, and not from the point of view of life’s perspectives and objectives, is a specific error for which one should have no sympathy, an idiosyncrasy of degenerates which has done an unspeakable amount of harm” (Twilight of the Idols, “Morality as anti-nature”, 6). We end up resorting to such values for cowardice and a kind of inertia in the face of something socially accepted by everyone around us and, after all, nobody likes to feel excluded. We do not act according to something that truly corresponds to who we are individually, but according to a general truth that most of the time we do not even waste the time trying to understand. As our parents say “that’s the way of the world”. That means that no matter how much we live pretending everything is fine, when we search deep down in our souls, the world seems to be meaningless. And there it is, as the Narrator, we become nihilists without even realizing it.
Tyler Durden and active nihilism
According to Nietzsche there are, though, several ways of manifestation of nihilism. Our passive acceptance of a superior morality that does not correspond to who we are is one of its forms, for example, because we become apathetic in the face of a truth we do not believe. But there is another kind of nihilism that can be highly positive in our lives and this is what Nietzsche calls “active nihilism”. We question the legitimacy of abstract values, reflecting on the foundation of our beliefs: why do we believe in what we believe? The possibility offered by this type of nihilism to rethink certain beliefs is summarized by the philosopher in the controversial phrase: “God is dead”. Do not be alarmed by Nietzsche’s audacity, this phrase should not be interpreted in a religious context, but as a way of expressing the idea that we are not bound to attach ourselves to external values imposed on us, such as the very idea of God. If God is dead, any morals are allowed and valid, for there is no longer a divine foundation for our actions. What is dead is the authority that tells us how to act, what to be. It is now up to each one of us to question our own values.
In the case of Fight Club, if initially the Narrator demonstrates through his apathy a typically nihilistic behavior, his growing frustration with a life that should bring happiness, but does not fulfill the promise, leads him to turn to his subconscious to get rid of such values. Durden appears precisely as the one who is finally able to express certain doubts as to how our society works. Certainly, in Durden we can also see traces of what we defined as a “nihilistic attitude”, since he denies the values held sacred by the society around us. But this negation has, at least initially, a questioning tone rather than indifferent. It is a matter, precisely, of another type of nihilism, the one that Nietzsche defends. Visually this difference is marked by the vivid colors of the extravagant clothing worn by Durden, which contrasts with the palette of pale colors that permeate the whole film. Durden’s active nihilism is, in this manner, opposed to the apathetic nihilism of a jaded consumerist society. When he loses his apartment, the Narrator’s capitalist side tends to regard material loss as a loss of “everything” that matters, since his system of values is based on possessions. He tells Durden in the bar “I had it all!”. It is Durden who is able to say out loud: “We are byproducts of a life-style obsession. Murder, crime, poverty. These things don’t concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy’s name on my underwear. Rogaine, Viagra, Olestra. Fuck Martha Stewart! I say never be complete. I say stop being perfect. I say let’s evolve”. Thanks to Durden’s active nihilism, the Narrator is able to question the legitimacy of his consumerist beliefs: to what extend his life is reduced to the things he owns?
Durden’s Nietzschean nihilism reaches its absolute expression when he states in another moment of the film: “It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything”. Such phrase can be understood under the same light as the Nietzschean “God is dead”. If the death of God represents the freedom from divine laws that determinate our actions, in a capitalist society the loss of everything represents the freedom from a consumerist way of thinking that affirms that we will only be happy if we have certain things. The result is nevertheless the same: there is no longer a superior instance that dictates the rules about who we should be. Despite the aggressive ton of the film generated by Durden’s character, the narrative is filled with hints of humor which facilitates our insertion in the narrative and makes us accept the motivations of Durden. Who has not smiled, even if internally, by noticing the penis flashes that Fincher places throughout the film?! Thus, even presenting a complex theme, Fincher’s cool style allows us to absorb Durden’s nihilistic questionings almost unconsciously.
Going beyond Durden’s nihilism
However, instead of using the active nihilism represented by his “Durdean” alter ego as a way of questioning certain values and thereby building his own path (truly taking responsibility by his choices instead of "going with the flow"), the Narrator is not able to overcome the simple denial of a consumer morality toward something positive. On the contrary, he enters a simplistic path of pure depredation. It is necessary that Durden’s destructive attitudes reach a certain limit so that the Narrator decides to regain control of his life. Curiously, this limit seems to be his affection for Marla (Helena Bonham Carter). At the moment her life is threatened, he begins to deny control to Durden and to rethink what he truly believes to be “right”. There is, then, a reconversion of his nihilism: he realizes that he no longer wants to be guided by the values of this “outer” (subconscious) instance represented by Durden and he discovers, inversely, which values truly correspond to what he believes. Until then almost everything seemed acceptable, except for the death of someone dear.
This capacity to use nihilism as a mean of discovering ourselves and establishing our own values is precisely what Nietzsche advocates in his philosophy. For him it is not enough to stick to a nihilistic attitude, we need to go beyond a denial of morals and to restore values to our own measure (what he calls “transvaluation” or “transmutation of all values”). In other words, it is not a matter of establishing a land with no law where each individual does what they want. On the contrary, we need to review our position and find to what extend we actually believe in something or are we simply coerced. Through this attitude we can define our own rules, that correspond to who we are. If I find out, for example, that I do not believe in the idea of private property and I think everything must belong to everyone, then I should act accordingly, which does not mean imposing my truth on the others and simply stealing what belongs to them. Instead, I must live myself according to “my values” and lead a life that is consistent with it, for example dividing what I have with others. Nihilism is, therefore, only a first step that allows us to define our own morality.
Durden’s nihilism as a path to self-discovery
According to Nietzsche, once we overcome nihilism, we discover that life is made up of changes and uncertainties. There is no morality that can define what the world is because the world is transformation. The man who reaches this level of consciousness is what Nietzsche calls “Superman” (Übermensch, more precisely it means a “Beyond-Human”). Unfortunately Nietzsche is not speaking of Clark Kent’s alter-ego with his tight jumpsuit, but simply of a man different of other for his capacity to understand the mutant character of the world. Aware of this, he's able to recreate his own values in a constant process of surpassing himself: “And this secret spoke Life herself unto me. “Behold,” said she, “I am that which must ever surpass itself”” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, II, XXXIV “Self-Surpassing”).
From this point of view, Fight Club's narrative could be seen as describing the process of change experienced by the Narrator as he enters the Nietzschean path of nihilism. Thanks to a beautiful script, this process is divided into five stages: the description of who he was, the negation of values hold as important, the questioning regarding his action, the revelation about himself and his final transformation, as he seeks to regain control of his life. Consequently, the first-person narrative makes the script become a kind of self-analysis made by Narrator himself, observing the steps that led to his self-discovery. This makes the revelation that Durden is his alter-ego even more surprising, since he himself was not aware of this fact. It seems that the very author of Fight Club, Palahniuk, only realized that Durden and the Narrator were the same person when he reached the middle of the writing of the story,. This makes the narrative really a discovery for all us, narrator and author included. This “self-analysis” format allows us to truly believe that in the final moment the Narrator seems to finally have a better view of himself, embodying by the way a Nietzschean statement: “What does your conscience say? – 'You shall become the person you are'” (Gay Science, §270). Once, through this nihilistic process, he discovers who he is, he finally manages to define his own morals. But the path of self-discovery is so arduous that it is necessary to kill the part of us that still binds us to a higher authority, something symbolized by the “suicide” executed in the final act. As he holds Marla’s hand lovingly, taking responsibility for his actions and accepting his feelings for her, the Narrator watches the transformation of the world, exploding out there, becoming himself a “Beyond-Human”. This “superman” does not need a cape to become a hero.
As much as it is seen as a highly “anti-capitalist” film, it seems to me that through a Nietzschean approach Fight Club can be interpreted in a deeper way. It is not a matter of naively saying that capitalism alienates its individuals and is therefore bad. In a much more complex way, Fincher seems to tell us that we should not follow beliefs that do not correspond to who we are, whether they are capitalists, anarchists or even religious. As long as we are controlled by an abstract morality “external” to us, which imposes a form of being in the world, we’ll lead an impersonal life (which is expressed precisely by the pale aesthetics of the film). In the case of the film, this moral dictatorship is represented by the typically capitalist formulation of “we must own things to be happy”. But from this nihilism, resulting from our capitalist life-style, something positive can be born. The solution is not, however, a plain and absolute negation of values. Such extreme action seems to lead us, paradoxically, back to the same problem: the old superior authority is simply replaced by a new one. On the contrary, as Fincher shows us, the better option is to use this negation as a way to reflect on our own values: what is dear to me, what do I believe? In the case of Fight Club what seems to matter in the end is love, which leads the Narrator to realize an inalienable value in a world in constant transformation. There is no private property enough to bring happiness because the joy of possessing something is too ephemeral in the face of how quickly the world and its individuals are transforming. In a world of uncertainties, what remains at the end of the day is our personal beliefs and a constant effort of self-surpassing, making us always better humans. The true hero is not the Tyler Durden who resides in each of us, but the Beyond-Human that we can always potentially become as we watch the end of our civilization. PS: I would like to thank my dear friend Patrick and his colleague Homero for inspiring me to write about Fight Club and a big "thank you" to my sister Grécia and my husband Yves for their critics.
Comments