|
Post by Martin Stett on Feb 21, 2017 22:56:46 GMT
Do you mean actors? Because I'd love to see Christopher Plummer as the narrator and Jack Nicholson as Tyler. Helen Mirren as Marla.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Feb 22, 2017 0:10:06 GMT
Eh, as someone who thought that Pitt was the worst part of the film (aside from the ridiculous twist that turned a great black comedy into a cheap "gotcha!" twist movie), I think a lot of actors would be a lot better. Ryan Gosling would be much creepier, for example.
Now, Edward Norton was perfect. I'm trying to put someone in that role, and it just doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by thomasjerome on Feb 22, 2017 0:31:03 GMT
Tyler Durden - Ryan Gosling Narrator - James McAvoy Marla - Eva Green
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 22, 2017 2:25:15 GMT
Eh, as someone who thought that Pitt was the worst part of the film (aside from the ridiculous twist that turned a great black comedy into a cheap "gotcha!" twist movie), I think a lot of actors would be a lot better. Ryan Gosling would be much creepier, for example. Now, Edward Norton was perfect. I'm trying to put someone in that role, and it just doesn't work. ? The twist is integral to the main character, the themes, and the story. But yeah, Gosling is an obvious pick for Durden. I can see Ben Foster as the Narrator. Then Lizzy Caplan and Krysten Ritter are basically Marla Singer impersonators.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Feb 22, 2017 3:49:47 GMT
I liked the movie, but the twist existed simply to SHOCK the audience. I see no way in which the twist serves any purpose in developing the characters or the themes. It is simply there to make the audience gasp at the cleverness of the writing.
I know I'm not saying much, but the burden of proof is on you. At the beginning, this movie had me gasping for air with its comedy, but the club itself veered too far away from satire and too far into vicarious enjoyment.
I still like the film, like I said. In fact, it's always enjoyable. But the themes are sloppily presented and the twist is one of the stupidest in cinematic history.
|
|
no
Badass
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_skyblue.png)
Posts: 1,071
Likes: 423
|
Post by no on Feb 22, 2017 5:16:43 GMT
I liked the movie, but the twist existed simply to SHOCK the audience. I see no way in which the twist serves any purpose in developing the characters or the themes. It is simply there to make the audience gasp at the cleverness of the writing. I know I'm not saying much, but the burden of proof is on you. At the beginning, this movie had me gasping for air with its comedy, but the club itself veered too far away from satire and too far into vicarious enjoyment. I still like the film, like I said. In fact, it's always enjoyable. But the themes are sloppily presented and the twist is one of the stupidest in cinematic history. Definitely disagree. This and Pulp Fiction are like the top films universally praised and deservingly so yet beloved for moronic reasons. Without the twist, the film would not work nearly as well. For the fairly shallow reasons people claim to like this film, I would say in that sense, it is overrated. I would argue that this film is quite misinterpreted by common audience members and even by well-known film critics. Edward Norton's narrator character is not named, to serve as a vehicle for the audience to adopt themselves upon. He is a regular American white collar Caucasian male in his thirties. He is a regular person. He is a loser to many as his life is empty. In essence, he is the audience. Tyler Durden represents the other extreme, while being a different side of the same coin. Audiences generally love Tyler Durden, and it makes sense that they do in a way, as he embodies everything they wish to be or wish to have. Tyler Durden is the ideal masculine role, but the Narrator is given the task to redefine that role. Tyler Durden influences the Narrator to give up his dependent and materialistic lifestyle and embrace life for what it is; in essence all that matters is up to the individual. I think the film is also about finding a balance and not going too far in a way. The film is about how people should strive to improve, accept their worth, or lack of, but not give in so far that they lose sense of their individuality. There's an over growing sense that one should not give in too much. The fight clubs and Project Mayhem begin to form a cult with set rules and priorities, embracing a mindless sheep like organized role, which is what they are set out to go against. They ultimately and ironically are fighting against what they are, which gives more insight and meaning to the film's twist. The twist is what audiences tend to focus on, while thinking the film is actually endorsing what the fight clubs and Project Mayhem stand for. The answer is neither 'no' nor 'yes' but rather 'sort of'. As mentioned before, the film argues for balance. The narrator, while ultimately agreeing with Tyler in some ways, feels things are getting out of hand, especially after a man is killed. Once he kills off Tyler, he is then ridding himself of the extremist side of him in a way, though not fully as he is still adopting some of that side. Tyler taught him not to need consumerist products and lifestyle, but he went too far and the narrator realizes he does not need Tyler. The film is about gaining a little bit of both sides. Tyler is not the hero. He is going too far and the audience needs to catch onto the fact that he is not the ideal one should strive for, but rather strive for that of the protagonist at the end. One should be their own individual but strive to improve and not give in and embrace extremes. The film is first about ridding one's self of the materialistic means and ideals society sets forth, including hyper-masculine extremist role models that Tyler embodies. The film is being more like the narrator than Tyler. Despite this, audience members lose sight of this and still view the film of being film as being for Tyler's philosophy and character ideal. Without the twist, this could not work well at all. It definitely expands the themes. It is all about identity and inner desires. The twist is what holds the film together. Note: copied a chunk of this from previous writing.
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Feb 22, 2017 5:28:38 GMT
I absolutely get what you're saying. However, the movie is so very, very sloppy in presenting its themes. The whole final act is off-the-rails and over-the-top, and I totally get understand the themes and what the movie was going for, I just think that it went too far in that direction to at all succeed in critiquing it. The ending could have been a meaningful examination of the narrator learning to accept "part" of Tyler Durden, but it has lost the thread of social critique long before that point.
|
|