An Analysis of the Critique of Moder Corporate Life in Fight Club by David Fincher

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to

teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.

-Henry David Thoreau, Walden

David Fincher’s Fight Club is a critique of modern corporate life. Thoreau famously wrote, “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” (Thoreau 9), no where is that more evident than in Fight Club. Tyler Durden even says to Jack, “you have a kind of sick desperation in your laugh” (Uhls). Jack, who represents everything wrong with corporate America attends support groups to cope with his desperation. His coping mechanism is a modern Walden Experiment, but somewhere along the way, the Thoreauvian ideals became corrupted.

In one of the first support group scenes, as if to solidify the metaphor of Jack symbolizing America, an upward shot points at Jack, in the midst of all the crying and protesting of “we’re still men!”, near the ceiling there is a shadow that clearly resembles an American flag. This symbolism is clearly intentional. America is characterized by consumerism. Jack describes himself as, like everyone else “a slave to the Ikea nesting instinct” (Uhls) Of course, he is laboring “under a mistake” (Thoreau 7). He is “laying up treasures which moth and rust will corrupt,” and when he dies, he’ll realize he’s been a fool, “if not before” (Thoreau 7).

He does realise before, as his entire Ikea catalogue is blown up in an explosion. Rather than rebuilding his life, he instead finds himself with Tyler Durden, making due with “the necessaries of life for man” (Thoreau 15). He gives up all his luxuries “all [his] flaming worldly possessions, [to] go live in a dilapidated house in the toxic waste part of town” (Uhls). This is a modern extremity of Thoreau’s initial experiment at Walden pond.

His conclusions, however, will differ from Thoreau’s. Thoreau said, “if I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well?” (Thoreau 12). In Fight Club, the possession was the opposite. Tyler Durden possessed Jack, to the point that, “sometimes Tyler spoke for [him]” (Uhls). Jack found himself misbehaving in ways he never intended to, the result of his modern day Walden experiment left him at the center of a movement he started, but could no longer control.

Tyler Durden said that the things Jack owned would “end up owning [him]” (Uhls). Thoreau would no doubt agree, but the result of taking that philosophy to the extreme had a far more disastrous consequence. He started a movement, that wound up moving him. Jack literally found himself out of control of his own body. When Thoreau spoke of the “slave-driver of yourself,” he was speaking of a propensity for man to keep himself in check, to remain productive in toiling in the fields. Jack found himself literally slaving for himself–Tyler Durden.

In this way the experiment failed. If his goal was, as with Thoreau, to live deliberately, he instead found himself even more lost and confused than before. He had lost all semblance of control in his life. In shedding his external controllers, he lost his internal control; he lost himself.

Of course, his experiment was different from Thoreau’s in a very important way. Thoreau lived alone. He had a support group of one. The Fight Club, is of course, a support group. Jack says so himself when he’s on the phone with Marla. This support group, unlike Thoreau’s shack, consisted of many people. Whereas Thoreau wanted to avoid “perscrib[ing] rules to strong and valiant natures,” (Thoreau 16) Tyler Durden began giving “homework assignments” (Uhls).

It’s difficult to say that the Jack/Tyler duo really differs from Thoreau. After all, it’s not as though they sought people out to join their movement. “The first rule of fight club is you don’t talk about fight club” (Uhls). Of course, at the same time, they don’t turn away converts, and the members of Project Mayhem are given very strict instructions, which they are expected to follow.

The instructions, it seems, with the exception of the first rule, are always followed. When Jack tries to undo the damage Tyler has caused, he finds his very loyal followers won’t abort the plan because they were told (by Tyler) that such an order would be given, and that they were to not follow it. How does one reconcile the apparent disconnect in the rigidity of the rules of a club dedicated to breaking rules. Is this to say that a Thoreauvian vision is flawed, or that Project Mayhem simply isn’t a Thoreauvian concept?

While Jack lived somewhere where there were “no neighbors,” Thoreau did the same, living “a mile from any neighbor” (Uhls). Of course, his living arrangements weren’t the only part of Jack’s mode of living, which is where he differs sharply from Thoreau. Thoreau dedicated his time gathering his necessities, living. Jack had “corporate sponsorship” (Uhls). He spent his time on his hobby: Fight Club.

When looked at from this view, Fight Club becomes a luxury, exactly the kind of thing Thoreau would decry. It suddenly becomes apparent: Fight Club and Project Mayhem are perversions of Thoreauvian ideas. Perhaps this is why it fails so spectacularly. As the vision spiralled away from him, Jack became less and less comfortable with the whole notion, until he’s forced to confront Tyler in the climax.

Perhaps, then, the moral isn’t that one needs a support group to live. Perhaps the moral is that one needs to be of strong will to survive. Standing strong on your own, without a group, is what makes a man great. People can control a life just as easily as possessions. That is the warning behind David Fincher’s Fight Club.

Fight Club: a Thoreauvian Perspective

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to

teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.

-Henry David Thoreau, Walden

David Fincher’s Fight Club is a critique of modern corporate life. Thoreau famously wrote, “the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation” (Thoreau pg), no where is that more evident than in Fight Club. Tyler Durden even says to Jack, “you have a kind of sick desperation in your laugh.” Jack, who represents everything wrong with corporate America attends support groups to cope with his desperation. The moral, of course, is that the average man needs a support group just to live.

In one of the first support group scenes, as if to make this clear, an upward shot points at Edward Norton, in the midst of all the crying and protesting of “we’re still men!”, near the ceiling there is a shadow that clearly resembles an American flag. This symbolism is clearly intentional. America is of course characterized by consumerism. Jack describes himself as “a slave to the Ikea nesting instinct.” Of course, he is laboring “under a mistake” (Thoreau pg). He is “laying up treasures which moth and rust will corrupt,” and when he dies, he’ll realize he’s been a fool, “if not before” (Thoreau pg).

He does realise before, as his entire Ikea catalogue is blown up in an explosion. Rather than rebuilding his life, he instead finds himself with Tyler Durden, making due with “the necessaries of life for man.” He gives up all his luxuries “all [his] flaming worldly possessions, [to] go live in a dilapidated house in the toxic waste part of town.” This is a modern extremity of Thoreau’s initial experiment at Walden pond.

His conclusions, however, will differ from Thoreau’s. Thoreau said, “if I repent of anything, it is very likely to be my good behavior. What demon possessed me that I behaved so well” (Thoreau)? In Fight Club, the possession was the opposite. Tyler Durden possessed Jack, to the point that, “sometimes Tyler spoke for [him].” Jack found himself misbehaving in ways he never intended to, the result of his modern day Walden experiment left him at the center of a movement he started, but could no longer control.

Tyler Durden said that the things Jack owned would “end up owning [him].” Thoreau would no doubt agree, but the result of taking that philosophy to the extreme had a far more disastrous consequence. He started a movement, that wound up moving him. Jack literally found himself out of control of his own body. When Thoreau spoke of the “slave-driver of yourself,” he was speaking of a propensity for man to keep himself in check, to remain productive in toiling in the fields. Jack found himself literally slaving for himself–Tyler Durden.

In this way the experiment failed. If his goal was, as with Thoreau, to live deliberately, he instead found himself even more lost and confused than before. He had lost all semblance of control in his life. In shedding his external controllers, he lost his internal control; he lost himself.

Of course, his experiment was different from Thoreau’s in a very important way. Thoreau lived alone. He had a support group of one. The Fight Club, is of course, a support group. Jack says so himself when he’s on the phone with Marla. This support group, unlike Thoreau’s shack, consisted of many people. Whereas Thoreau wanted to avoid “perscrib[ing] rules to strong and valiant natures,” Tyler Durden began giving “homework assignments.”

It’s difficult to say that the Jack/Tyler duo really differs from Thoreau. After all, it’s not as though they sought people out to join their movement. “The first rule of fight club is you don’t talk about fight club.” Of course, at the same time, they don’t turn away converts, and the members of Project Mayhem are given very strict instructions, which they are expected to follow.

The instructions, it seems, with the exception of the first rule, are always followed. When Jack tries to undo the damage Tyler has caused, he finds his very loyal followers won’t abort the plan because they were told (by Tyler) that such an order would be given, and that they were to not follow it. How does one reconcile the apparent disconnect in the rigidity of the rules of a club dedicated to breaking rules. Is this to say that a Thoreauvian vision is flawed, or that Project Mayhem simply isn’t a Thoreauvian concept?

While Jack lived somewhere where there were “no neighbors,” Thoreau did the same, living “a mile from any neighbor” (Thoreau pg). Of course, his living arrangements weren’t the only part of Jack’s mode of living, which is where he differs sharply from Thoreau. Thoreau dedicated his time gathering his necessities, living. Jack had “corporate sponsorship.” He spent his time on his hobby: Fight Club.

When looked at from this view, Fight Club becomes a luxury, exactly the kind of thing Thoreau would decry. It suddenly becomes apparent: Fight Club and Project Mayhem are perversions of Thoreauvian ideas. Perhaps this is why it fails so spectacularly. As the vision spiralled away from him, Jack became less and less comfortable with the whole notion, until he’s forced to confront Tyler in the climax.

Perhaps, then, the moral isn’t that one needs a support group to live. Perhaps the moral is that one needs to be of strong will to survive. Standing strong on your own, without a group, is what makes a man great. People can control a life just as easily as possessions. That is the warning behind David Fincher’s Fight Club.:

Cite this page