User talk:Erik/Interpretations of the film Fight Club

This is a good starting point. However, referencing DVD commentary as indicative of an attempt to hide or shy viewers away from a point of contention or controversy is overstated and a bit of a leap.

I've never watched a DVD and listened to commentary that did not at some time fail to mention a significant element in the story theme line or outright leap over a significant point being made either by the filmmakers or the characters themselves. I think many people who watch a lot of movies in an intellectual way tend to 'see' more than is there. This goes for everything in the arts, including commentary.

"If you want to send a message, use Western Union" to quote a famous director. Theschizoidman (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for weighing in! :) I don't disagree with you, but it was published in an academic journal, so there is some significance to it.  The reason why I have this before the other content is, well, this particular journal article was much easier to digest.  Also, my challenge is to capture the whole goal of the article and present it in a much more summarized form.  Homonormativity and homosexuality are pretty relevant with this film, as you can see from the other available journals. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 02:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and no. It's highly subjective, regardless of whether or not you can find others who agree with a theory. Cited sources do less in validating actual facts then they do demonstrating consensus and a patterned conclusion.

I'm sure you'll agree that there was much published work declaring the earth flat before that 'fact' was challenged.

Also, in today's academia, at least in the West (this is en.wiki, that's why I descriminate), it's publish or perish. This has caused an inordinate amount of ISBNs to hit the streets, so to speak. Add to that the mega revolution of the publishing world from typeset to software and you have a database of billions of articles and volumes waiting to be read and analyzed by more than the usual suspects, i.e., those in that respective field. Dick Feynman criticized the Nobel Prize, which he won, by stating that recognition in your field has no bearing on the accuracy of your data, only the popularity of your idea.

The thrust I'm trying to make is, though one may find published works supporting an idea, it doesn't make the idea any more right than if one found no support for it. It's more likely to be valid, of course, but by no means is that guaranteed (flat earth argument again). The inverse is also true. With that in mind, something controversial, such as homo-eroticism in a film, such as "Fight Club", is controversial and debatible. Whereas with a film such as "Brokeback Mountain" it's not controversial because it's a theme integral to the story.

I think mentioning the existence of the controversy (homo-eroticism in Fight Club) is quite appropriate here at Wiki. But,propogating a theory, finding sources to back it up, then pronouncing it as a likely truth is inappropriate and a possible disservice to the creators of the original work, the filmmakers in this case.

Here's another way to look at it:

A writer states in an article that the underlying theme of the song American Pie is about a homosexual relationship between JFK and J. Edgar Hoover.

Someone else, picking up in that idea, could mention it here in Wiki citing the first article as a source to back up the notion that JFK was gay (and furthermore, had an affair with Hoover).

Then, one can easily show a lack of any mention of a homosexual relationship involving JFK in any source one wishes to look either in literature on JFK's or that involving Hoover. One could mention the the Kennedy family Library, the Warren report, or even in Oliver Stone's movie, JFK.

Nowhere in that could any mention be found to substantiate a gay relationship between JFK and Hoover.

This lack would show (by the same logic in the Fight Club article) a concerted effort by those sources to avoid controversy and not mention the 'fact' that JFK was gay and had a homosexual relationship with Hoover.

One could then write about the influence of official biographers and how they can mislead the public by omitting such important and controversial aspects of a public figure's life.

This concerted effort could then be used to fortify the original allegation, thereby proving it, that JFK and Hoover were gay lovers.

The only problem is, it's false. This is what's wrong with starting with hypothesis. One will always look for evidence to support it.Theschizoidman (talk) 08:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fight Club is a work of fiction, so I do not agree with your examples of the flat earth and gay relationships between JFK and Hoover. Analyzing films is a matter of literary theory.  Can I suggest reading the articles intentional fallacy and Death of the Author? For instance, the author's intention with Fahrenheit 451 had nothing to do with censorship, the main theme that we are taught nowadays.  His intention had been to target televised media (if I recollect correctly).  Ultimately, the key is that what the author intends does not matter.  He or she is representing his or her perspective.  I used to think like you that only the author's intentions maattered, but I was enlightened by Awadewit, as you can read here.  I considered that an eye-opener that got me a little more involved with film studies in general.  Let me know what you think of that. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Erik is right to point out the distinction between the flat earth theory (a verifiable fact) and interpretations of literary works (non-verifiable, subjective interpretations). Since there is no "truth" regarding the interpretation of a literary work, literary critics attempt to convince each other using argumentation - one hopes that the strongest arguments (the one with the most convincing evidence) become the "standard" reading of a literary work in academia. While this may not always happen, for reasons pointed out by Theschizoidman (publish or perish), it is not the job of Wikipedia to weigh in on which interpretation should reign supreme. It is the job of Wikipedia to report what the experts have said (WP:NPOV). When it comes to films, those who study films and write about them are a very important part of that expert opinion. (They also write fascinating stuff!) Awadewit (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)