Before I get into the analysis proper I guess I should say
which you should watch/read first. Honestly I’d say watch the film first. It
gets the message across pretty rapidly and is all around a more satisfying if
less in depth experience. Then read the book. This is the order I experienced
them in and I was immensely pleased with how both turned out. Having seen the
film I could appreciate the subtleties of the book a lot more.
(Warning, contains spoilers for Fight Club)
Those of you familiar with my blog (not a lot) you’ll know
that last year I read the book Fight Club
by Chuck Palahniuk. I’m also a pretty big fan of the film as well. I
consider myself someone who is pretty forgiving when it comes to adaptations,
some of my favourite films are adaptations, Hellraiser
for instance is an adaptation. The trouble with adaptations is that much of the
audience is going to have a differing vision than the one the director has.
Television and Film speak in a different language to that of novels and short stories.
I usually enjoy an adaptation that can do a few things a little differently to
the book because it means I can get a different experience out of both; however
it’s difficult to strike a balance between a verbatim script and the Starship Troopers movie. Luckily the
director of Fight Club manages to
bring new aspects to Chuck Palahniuk’s story.
First thing I want to comment on is the look of the film. It
is glorious. Before Edward Norton’s character gets to hang out with Tyler
Durden (Brad Pitt) everything looks whitewashed and polished the epitome of
falsehood. However once Tyler Durden tells Edward Norton his views on
consumerism the look of the film starts to switch to something dingier and
grittier. On the one hand you could argue that things are getting worse for Edward
Norton I mean he’s living in a crappy squat for goodness sake, but on the other
that damp shit hole is certainly more interesting to look at than his boring
condo.
The film and the book both have to be subtle about the
nature of Tyler Durden, the man who teaches our narrator about philosophy and
dynamite. They both have to hint at their intertwining lives. In the film he is
alluded to as he appears for a couple of frames next to people or walks past
Edward. In the book the narrative will break away from what the narrator is doing
to focus on a piece of Tyler’s life, such as how Tyler was fired from catering.
This is still narrated to us by the narrator character (and good luck trying
not to imagine Edward Norton’s voice as you read it). Also the way Tyler and
the Narrator meet in the book is more interesting. Tyler in the book is introduced
to us as a man on a beach putting logs into the sand so that when the sun is in
just the right position they will cast the shadow of a giant hand.
In the book Tyler is rather more malevolent going as far as
murder and delighting more when people he dislikes suffer. We don’t nearly see
as much of the consequences of Tyler’s anarchy in the film and this makes him
an easier character to like, helped along by Brad Pitt’s charismatic portrayal.
Tyler’s affable nature in the film makes his turn against the narrator all the
more hurtful. Whereas in the book it’s the kind of thing we could expect him to
do. It wouldn’t be surprising to a reader of the book that he would turn on his
alter ego to try to become the dominant personality because throughout the book
he is almost an antagonist, it’s not just in the third act that he starts
putting things in the way of the narrator he’s pretty much been doing it for
the majority of the story. Also the question of whether or not Tyler or the
narrator is the dominant personality is more explored in the book. Who should
have control? The snarky narrator who struggles to get what he wants, or Tyler
Durden the quick witted anarchist with a very fixed view of life. By the end of
the book we are told how the narrator has changed for the better, he sees
through the falsities of consumerism but doesn’t have Tyler’s aggressive
attitude towards it. That said many of his followers are still eager for Tyler’s
return. I do love an ambiguous ending!
The book is obviously more layered than the film, that’s
commonplace in almost all adaptations. There are more obvious themes of
homoeroticism in the book than in the film. Not that you couldn’t derive that
from the film, certainly many people have. But in the book the sexual
references are much more noticeable, references to Tyler’s penis, a kiss he
places on the narrator’s hand, the fact that he is on a nude beach when he meets
Tyler etc.
The film tries to juggle the book’s unusual style of prose
by injecting narration from Edward Norton. The thing is on film the book’s style
might not have worked, Palahniuk often uses stream of consciousness and haikus
in the novel to emphasize the narrator’s emotional state (haikus for when he’s
trying to disconnect and stream of consciousness for when he’s on some kind of
emotional over load). This would be quite difficult to achieve on film, for
instance, how does one film stream of consciousness? Answer is you don’t, at
least not quite. Instead we have Edward Norton’s dry monotone delivering quick
snappy remarks and witticisms. The whole reason you’ll be hearing Edward Norton’s
voice in your head after watching the film is because his narration is just so
damn good, made all the better by Palahniuk’s razor sharp wit.
The book doesn’t focus as much on the titular club as the
film does. This I felt was to the detriment of the book. I think we could have
learned a lot about the healing nature of violence on the neutered American male
but for some reason it’s not as focused on as the characters. In the film
however we get a lot more of this and it really works. It’s quite satisfying to
hear how Edward Norton wants to fight Ghandi or watch him pull out broken
teeth. You really get the feeling these men feel better for having beaten seven
shades of crap out of each other.
All in all I’d say this is a great adaptation of a classic
book. There is a reason it tops some best of film lists. It’s because it is a
great film, all the actors are great in their parts. Edward Norton is
sympathetic and intelligent, Brad Pitt walks a brilliant line between charisma
and narcissism, and Meatloaf (oh yeah, Meatloaf is in this film!) is so much
fun to watch as the sappy character of Bob.
Chuck Palahniuk, Fight
Club, Vintage: London, 2006.
Jim Uhls, Fight Club,
20th Century Fox, 15th October 1999.
No comments:
Post a Comment