web
counter
 

The Unreasonable One Persists: Fight Club, Office Space, and The Matrix

By Steven Lloyd Wilson | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (24)



MatrixCode.gif

I got my first DVD player at the beginning of 2001 when I got a new computer to replace a lemon that had crashed three times per day for three years despite having every single component of it replaced one by one. The case itself was malign, worming into perfectly good hardware through the mounting screws. The DVD drive at that point was a decent bit more cash than a mere CD drive, but still less than an actual DVD player, and since my beast of a CRT monitor was 4 inches bigger than my television, it only made sense.

The first three DVDs I purchased, and the only ones I had for some time thanks to Hollywood Video and being a broke college student, were Fight Club, Office Space, and The Matrix. We’re all products of our time, and 1999 was a fine vintage. I watched those three films damned near as much as I watched the Star Wars trilogy as a kid, dialogue and sound effects sinking into the subconscious so that I could just about transcribe out their scripts from memory, complete with stage direction.

They are three films that have little in common on the surface, yet all tap from different angles into the same roiling mass of half-formed anger and disillusionment seething beneath the surface. We’re presented with three protagonists floating miserably through a world of boredom, coasting along in khakis to the endless meetings, eyes glazing over at the interchangeable drones with their interchangeable lives. The horror is not the drones, but that you are one of them too. Work, buy, sleep, rinse and repeat. The Matrix is the most literal minded of the three, but all are grounded in an almost existential question: this can’t really be the real world, can it?

I watched these films for the first time in college, enjoyed them but did not grok them for several years. Wearing the uniform of khakis, sitting in on conference calls and brainstorming sessions, learning how to corporate speak. Work hard, here’s more work, same as the last. Spending every paycheck and having less you care about than when you had no paycheck at all. Always being angry at nothing and going home to a cat, a television, and vodka.

I remember reading a review of Fight Club by Roger Ebert, how he had problems with the film teetering on endorsement of fascism, that for him the biggest problem in the movie was Jack not repenting at the end, not learning the error of his ways and just growing up already. I thought for the longest time that Ebert missed the point, but having given it a decade of marination I think that some perspectives just can’t see certain points of view. Even the Mona Lisa is just white canvas when you look at it from behind. Ebert’s not wrong that the proper ending of these films in the context of a traditional story is to grow up and accept the world as it is, to be responsible and give up what amounts to childish fantasy and revolt. Part of growing up is realizing that you’re not going to be an NFL linebacker or a fighter pilot.

But that definition of growing up is contingent on the world actually being sane in the first place. If it isn’t, then the difficult decision, the responsible decision is not to learn to live with the world, it’s to break with the world itself. All three films make the same artistic decision to challenge that conventional thinking that growing up means giving in.

All three protagonists commit suicide, at least in so far as the logic of their worlds goes. Neo turns to face the agents, Peter slides a confession under the door, Jack pulls the trigger. And they all watch the buildings tumble in one way or the other. They come out the other side of the fire, scorched but not burned to ash. Death is just a metaphor for being born.

Steven Lloyd Wilson is a hopeless romantic and the last scion of Norse warriors and the forbidden elder gods. His novel, ramblings, and assorted fictions coalesce at www.burningviolin.com. You can email him here.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The 10 Best Network Comedy Episodes of the 2010-2011 Season | Torchwood and Breaking Dawn Clips









Comments

As soon as I saw these three titles listed, I knew the angle you'd come at them from, SLW, and I was only disappointed that this wasn't longer.

1999 was a great year for great movies, including those three, we also had American Beauty and Three Kings, which I would put in the same category as these, even if the office drone scenario is limited to just one character in either of those. They're both still about alienation from the real world and not bending to its idiotic/psychotic will. In the end, the only one who's punished in Ebert's traditional sense is Lester Burnham. And, really, he didn't seem too broken up about it in the end.

It's really kind of amazing those movies weren't made today, because the world is far nuttier now than it was then. From my perspective, anyway.

Posted by: RobP at June 1, 2011 3:18 PM

Good piece.

So much of that year's work was influenced by the growing up of Gen X and the incoming year 2000 (with all the neuroses that Y2K was giving people). Although looking back, it feels a far simpler and more innocent time (don't they always?)

Posted by: Fredo at June 1, 2011 3:24 PM

I never pieced it together like that until now, but these three films form a sort of trilogy of male angst, frustration, and aggression. The only one I didn't really care for was Fight Club. While I got and empathized with the film's point of view and was on board for the first half, the second half lost me. It went too far over the top and the whole thing felt surreal and self-indulgent to me. I watched it getting why people liked it without liking it myself.

Posted by: elgarcon at June 1, 2011 3:31 PM

Excellent piece, and I couldn't agree more. Ebert must be one of those people who needed the Brit ending to A Clockwork Orange, wherein Alex realizes that the exuberances of youth must give way to the responsibilities (and sedation) of adulthood.
I am no nihilist or one who wishes for some revolution, but there needs to be some sort of quiet revolution to get us past this trap that is capitalism, where we fight for decades to save the apex predators only to have it overturned in favor of stemming monetary loss. The short term over the long view, the instant gratification over the bigger picture.
I am also not anti-capitalism, but it needs to be tempered with altruism and something more than simple "market rules". The market has proven over and over again that that sort of cold efficiency is not in anyone's best interests, not even those who gain the most from it. That gain only buffers them from the true consequences, confirming in their minds that they were correct, even in the face of staggering poverty, infrastructure collapse and the pain for those it effects negatively. Society only too easily dismisses those victims as somehow incapable of seeing their 'truth', which, in the end, is really another capitalist meme based on lack of empathy and the cold calculating pursuit of excess.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 1, 2011 3:32 PM

They are three films that have little in common on the surface, yet all tap from different angles into the same roiling mass of half-formed anger and disillusionment seething beneath the surface.

This is a great piece; I really love the above line. 1999 was the year after my college graduation. The year I realized I had to buckle down and take a soul-crushing office job to live and pay off credit card debt. So all three of these movies hold a special place in my heart too. I had not thought about their similarities. And now I realize that I don't have Fight Club on DVD and I must rectify that.

Posted by: janetfaust at June 1, 2011 3:36 PM

This is well-deserving of a slow-clap. Bravo. Bra-fucking-vo.

Posted by: kate the great at June 1, 2011 3:48 PM

Don't fucking talk about these movies right now, man! I'm coming up on my 11-month unemployment anniversary (self-imposed, I quit). I got about one month until I start pawning shit, sell my car, or move back in with my parents. I love all of these movies and have found myself watching Fight Club about once every three weeks lately. So why (why?!) did I feel a sense of relief ten minutes ago when I talked to someone about a job involving working with databases? Not only that, but she wants to send my resume to a team in a different city which would necessitate me moving back in with my parents (at least temporarily). Either that or commute about an hour each way (hey, it's Arkansas, that's a long fucking way).

I better watch Fight Club tonight to build my defenses back up.

Posted by: pissant at June 1, 2011 3:48 PM

Scratch that, I don't need to watch Fight Club now. Thanks, Protoguy. Will you talk to my parents for me, please?

Posted by: pissant at June 1, 2011 3:51 PM

I wish I had something siginificant to say myself, but all I can think of is great job. I was nodding along to everything you said.

I'm with RobP. My only regret is you didn't have time to write a longer piece.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at June 1, 2011 3:52 PM

I always connected Fight Club and Office Space in this way but for some reason I never connected The Matrix into it, even though, as you said, The Matrix was far more literal about the whole fighting the machine thing. Maybe that's why.

Posted by: Paultera at June 1, 2011 4:20 PM

Great column, SLW. My only wish too was that you had explored even further on this topic with these films, so you left me wanting more.

I would say to Ebert that Ed Norton's protagonist in Fight Club does evolve. Just because those buildings blow up and destroy the credit record ushering in some sort of new reality for that universe does not imply that he hadn't spent the entire last act of the film trying to undo the work of Tyler Durden, ultimately executing his split personality once and for all. "You met me at a very strange time in my life," he tells Marla. Those aren't the words of someone seeking to continue Tyler's plans. Those are the words of someone who has been transformed to realize a happy medium between corporate-drone-materialism and Tyler's more visceral brand of living for living's sake.

Regardless, I've never found mere presentation of a particular behavior in film to be an endorsement of it. Fight Club is cool and fun with many of its ideas. I would say our society could even be bettered by a few of the philosophies behind those ideas put into effect. Yes, the movie might make you feel like tweaking conventions a bit (or at least reconsidering those conventions), but if it actually inspires you to think that domestic terrorism is good, then I would argue that you have issues that lie outside the film itself.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at June 1, 2011 4:29 PM

Death is just a metaphor for being born.

Death is not an end. Death's a fulfillment.

Posted by: The Wanderer at June 1, 2011 4:32 PM

Great piece! I think I had similar interactions with each of these films in high school. I think the central themes and attitudes just haven't survived the times we've all been through. I sort of get where Ebert is coming from. It seems like kind of a "Greatest Generation" attitude. When I look at everything that happened in the Aughts (9/11, two endless wars, economic downturn), I can't imagine feeling at all anarchic standing where I am now, and I don't. How could I, when I finally have a stable job after three years of upheaval, unemployment, and graduate school?

I work a temp job and hope to find something more permanent, but I feel pretty good about it because it's a steady paycheck and it might lead to a permanent position. It also pays my rent while I look for a "career" job in the museum field. In high school, if I could have seen the life I live now, I would have been immensely disappointed. But I feel pretty damn good, because I'm able to provide for myself and move forward. I'm not a drone, I"m just keeping calm and carrying on.

Posted by: StoatCat at June 1, 2011 4:34 PM

Fight Club endorses fascism? Really? That claim never sounded right when Ebert made it, and it doesn't sound right here. It's more of an anarcho-primitivist philosophy than an ultra-nationalistic one that the word "fascism" implies. And, as you point out, the film hardly endorses it in the end.

Good article as usual, by the way.

Posted by: SJ at June 1, 2011 4:38 PM

I'm not sure what supposed generation I belong to (as a freshman in high school in 1999) but I loved all these movies even then when I technically wasn't allowed to see them. And man did movies like Fight Club appeal to the adolescent stuck in school all day. Of course, we all completely missed the point and genuinely wanted to start fight clubs. Now I look back and like them even more (all 3 prominently in my DVD collection, though I wish that I hadn't bought the sacrilegious Matrix trilogy combo DVD) because the point came through after multiple viewings: I can do whatever the hell I want. This is great!

Posted by: LEROOOY at June 1, 2011 4:43 PM

I watched these films for the first time in college, enjoyed them but did not grok them for several years. Wearing the uniform of khakis, sitting in on conference calls and brainstorming sessions, learning how to corporate speak. Work hard, here’s more work, same as the last. Spending every paycheck and having less you care about than when you had no paycheck at all. Always being angry at nothing and going home to a cat, a television, and vodka.

This. I hate you and love you for this, because, particularly in regard to Office Space is something that is just impossible to get for some people.

Posted by: Ian at June 1, 2011 5:07 PM

I can't believe nobody has pointed this out yet:

Mona Lisa wasn't painted on canvas. She was painted on a piece of wood.

Okay. Now to go back and actually read the article because those are three of my favourite movies and three of my earliest DVDs and I was a product of that time too.

Posted by: Little Boy Blue at June 1, 2011 5:38 PM

@Little Boy: Wood or canvas, [even] the Mona Lisa's falling apart.

Posted by: LEROOOY at June 1, 2011 6:30 PM

@pissant - If I thought it would help, I would. I can't even get my parents to see how bat-shit crazy Glen Beck is. They think he's the savior we all need. I love my parents and the thought that they buy into that assholes maniacal rants and Rube Goldbergian conclusions makes me sadder than anything else. I tried to get them to watch a single episode of The Daily Show and all they got out of it was that he hates FOX News. And it was one of those episodes that brilliantly illustrates their hypocrisy with video evidence of their lies and double-speak. You know, the "it's our civil right to criticize Obama" followed by foaming-at-the-mouth condemnation of democrats criticizing Bush type of hypocrisy. The blind faith in someone simply because they're spinning the narrative you agree with makes me die inside a little. I know I'm guilty of it to an extent, but I'm aware of it, while they are their peers are convinced that FOX is the only outlet telling the truth. Having worked for FOX, I know the extent of the cynical spin that goes into their brand of "news". I'd weep for the future if I thought we had one.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 1, 2011 7:51 PM

nice piece

Posted by: splinter at June 1, 2011 8:37 PM

Some arenas are so corrupt that the only clean acts are nihilistic.

Posted by: Uncommoner at June 1, 2011 9:21 PM

Exactly!

Posted by: John G. at June 2, 2011 12:03 AM

Protoguy, are you my long-lost sibling? Because that sounds EXACTLY like my parents. And let's not forget their love of Bill O'Reilly and Sarah Palin. It's truly painful.

Posted by: Even Stevens at June 2, 2011 12:29 AM

It definitely is. I'm just glad they accept that I have my own views and we don't fight about it. Mostly.

I really believe that the unavoidable complexity of all we've built and continue to build every minute of every day MUST eventually collapse, unless... unless there's something, hopefully non-catastrophic, pushes the course in another direction.

The example I use is the law. Every day a law is added to the books. Virtually none of those laws ever get deleted. They are there for a reason and usually a good one. But the list keeps growing and will not stop until it must cripple itself with the very cumbersome-ness and complexity having that many laws creates. Computers are the answer, but they further separate us from the system that controls us.

Posted by: Protoguy at June 2, 2011 4:54 AM