Yet castration is everywhere in the film and there
seems to be very little in the way of supermen, at
least when one rejects the most vulgar of readings.
In response to someone else on the list who suggested
that the film was not about the split subject, etc.,
but instead about tendencies coming to express
themselves in the form the "superman", I'd suggest
that more attention be paid to the group dynamics of
the film. Look at the homophobia and homoeroticism
that pervades the film with respect to Tyler beating
up the other man that seems to have captured the eye
of his alter ego. Insofar as Tyler Durden turns out
to be his alter ego, we can assume that Tyler's
aggression represented a return of the real in the
form of a repressed homosexual desire that had
undergone a foreclosure. What could be more a sign of
castration than this, where a despotic super-ego
descends upon Tyler to punish him for his homosexual
fantasy, by indicting him to "destroy something
beautiful." <Sarcastically> one must, after all, live
up to their place in the symbolic as Man, and renounce
their homosexual desires. Similar marks of castration
manifest themselves throughout the film in his
ambiguous relationship to the female character, who
he's simultaneously forbidden to have, but must have.
Moreover, there is the ambiguous relationship between
Tyler and his alter throughout the film in their
living arrangements... Talking about their lost
fathers and how they were brought up by women.
Bathing and showering when each other are around,
etc.. "If you ask me, we don't need another woman to
solve our problems." In a manner similar to Schreber,
might not this homosexual impulse be the "cause" of
his psychotic break? Then there are all the molar
phenomena characterizing the group as a whole. The
don't ask, don't tell policies surrounding the
missions. The unflinching and unquestioning adherence
to a leader. The uniformity of dress. The adoring
glorification of Tyler Durden as founder of Fight
Club. How are these not molar, fascist phenomena?
Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, there are the
final scenes where Tyler finally resolves to affirm
his desire for the female character, assuming his
place in the symbolic as Man, and stepping up to the
oh so predictable Hollywood solution to all life's
problems: Heterosexual love... Buildings exploding,
"I was going through a strange time when you met me."
What was this strange time if not the foreclosure of
castration leading to a return of the real, or a
pyschotic break.
The entire film reads almost scene for scene like a
retelling of Freud's _Totem and Taboo_. Or, at the
very least, it's a tale about Group desire and
collective fascist fantasies. It's intriguing that
this film is almost certainly a satire, yet again and
again it gets taken as some sort of story about
Nietzschean supermen by adolescent boys filled with
anarchistic fantasies. Is the joke in the film, or is
it on the audience?
Paul
--- Chris McMahon <pharmakeus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Of course castration exists. It exists literally.
>
> Has anybody seen "Fight Club"? 2 machines:
> 1. castration machine
> 2. superman machine
>
> And #2 even uses #1. That's all. Is #2 using #1? Or
> is #1 using #2?
>
> :) Chris
>
________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail ? Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
seems to be very little in the way of supermen, at
least when one rejects the most vulgar of readings.
In response to someone else on the list who suggested
that the film was not about the split subject, etc.,
but instead about tendencies coming to express
themselves in the form the "superman", I'd suggest
that more attention be paid to the group dynamics of
the film. Look at the homophobia and homoeroticism
that pervades the film with respect to Tyler beating
up the other man that seems to have captured the eye
of his alter ego. Insofar as Tyler Durden turns out
to be his alter ego, we can assume that Tyler's
aggression represented a return of the real in the
form of a repressed homosexual desire that had
undergone a foreclosure. What could be more a sign of
castration than this, where a despotic super-ego
descends upon Tyler to punish him for his homosexual
fantasy, by indicting him to "destroy something
beautiful." <Sarcastically> one must, after all, live
up to their place in the symbolic as Man, and renounce
their homosexual desires. Similar marks of castration
manifest themselves throughout the film in his
ambiguous relationship to the female character, who
he's simultaneously forbidden to have, but must have.
Moreover, there is the ambiguous relationship between
Tyler and his alter throughout the film in their
living arrangements... Talking about their lost
fathers and how they were brought up by women.
Bathing and showering when each other are around,
etc.. "If you ask me, we don't need another woman to
solve our problems." In a manner similar to Schreber,
might not this homosexual impulse be the "cause" of
his psychotic break? Then there are all the molar
phenomena characterizing the group as a whole. The
don't ask, don't tell policies surrounding the
missions. The unflinching and unquestioning adherence
to a leader. The uniformity of dress. The adoring
glorification of Tyler Durden as founder of Fight
Club. How are these not molar, fascist phenomena?
Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, there are the
final scenes where Tyler finally resolves to affirm
his desire for the female character, assuming his
place in the symbolic as Man, and stepping up to the
oh so predictable Hollywood solution to all life's
problems: Heterosexual love... Buildings exploding,
"I was going through a strange time when you met me."
What was this strange time if not the foreclosure of
castration leading to a return of the real, or a
pyschotic break.
The entire film reads almost scene for scene like a
retelling of Freud's _Totem and Taboo_. Or, at the
very least, it's a tale about Group desire and
collective fascist fantasies. It's intriguing that
this film is almost certainly a satire, yet again and
again it gets taken as some sort of story about
Nietzschean supermen by adolescent boys filled with
anarchistic fantasies. Is the joke in the film, or is
it on the audience?
Paul
--- Chris McMahon <pharmakeus@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Of course castration exists. It exists literally.
>
> Has anybody seen "Fight Club"? 2 machines:
> 1. castration machine
> 2. superman machine
>
> And #2 even uses #1. That's all. Is #2 using #1? Or
> is #1 using #2?
>
> :) Chris
>
________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get Yahoo! Mail ? Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/