I challenge each and every one of you to hold a conversation that doesn't tread the same ground as this thread.
By taking the joke “literally” Suey Park was attacking us by questioning our “Of course I’m not racist” cred, by daring to ask whether we might be the “wrong” audience for such a joke.
It is telling in Max's response that he points out that they never even had sex as a reason why this couldn't have happened. Recall that two years ago, when the Steubenville story was making national headlines, one of the boys involved in the case is quoted as saying, "I didn't know it was rape." Those boys in Ohio never actually had genital intercourse with the girl, but still, they were guilty.
I stand squarely on the side of everybody-needs-to-lighten-the-fuck-up.
The issue is the rising tide of hypersensitivity in general.
Part of rape culture that hurts everyone is that it makes it difficult to talk about what is and is not consent, and makes it incredibly scary for people to speak up when their boundaries are crossed. It is entirely possible she read something completely different than I did into an awkward college hookup.
We spent a few nights in each others’ rooms, but we never had sex
Oh, how you wish your friend were an ardent feminist, so you could interpret his comment as a dry observation of the brutal truth, framed humorously to prevent suicide all around. But no, you know he is making a funnay, the punchline being you and every woman you know.
Several options flash through your head.
Fincher thought people would understand fight club was a satire. We know this because he said "i thought that people would understand it was meant to be satirical." audiences certainly understood the film was funny, but they lost the satirical intention in droves. What is rather telling is how after fincher made that comment in the interview, he then just sort of shrugged it off (possibly surmising that people are kind of stupid) and then claimed it was marketing that actually threw people off. To a certain point he is right, not that people are stupid or that was the marketing (those are both truly lame arguments, especially because the people not understanding it was a satire often saw it later on and loved the movie), but he is right that there is a humane way to look at every single extreme moment in this film and say "yes, of course that's ridiculous, this has to be satire and how could anyone think otherwise?" that is absolutely the proper way to react when you look at the specifics of the detail and plotting in fight club. But that is just sans presentation. The tone of the film and it says something rather different. It presents these ideas as alluring. It makes you genuinely want to live in a shitty apartment, fight dudes, and make soap out of body fat. And to succumb to that doesn't mean that people are stupid, it just means they watch movies viscerally. And guess what? A part of everyone watches movies viscerally so it's not exclusive at all. And by watching movies viscerally, one thing becomes clear:
fincher has no idea how to make a satire.
For illustration purposes (hulk know they different mediums), let's compare fight club to the most famous satire of all time: jonathan swift's essay "a modest proposal" in which he argues the poor children of ireland should be turned into a food source to be of some value to the poor english. Everyone either reacts to the essay by going a) "how funny! He's sending up the detached values of how government approaches human beings" or b) "i can't believe someone would write that! How horrid!" that's ideally how a traditional satire should work. There's shades of grey to how much the satire needs to fit that exact kind of dual reaction, but what totally shouldn't happen is people going "he's right! Let's totally eat those children!"
« Older "Capturing scenes of others 'not making it' as... | R.I.P. Harun Farocki Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments