Fight Club Question - Section C

“In its political and social messages Fight Club is a very confused film” How far do you agree with this statement?

Fight Club explores a range of social and political themes, including interpretation of the philosophical economics theory of Marxism. Karl Marx indicates that society operates under capitalist structure, people are owned by the owners of businesses and the Government. This is emphasised through a clear idealisation of consumerism within American culture.

Main character “Jack” (stated lightly as we are never fully informed of this name) is a “slave to the Ikea resting unit” portrayed visually by a pan across his apartment with its mise-en-scene being reminiscent of a show rooms. The furniture is shown alongside catalogue descriptions of each piece, while Jack himself is on the toilet reading another Ikea magazine. Jack is reliant upon his appartment, and the products of a consumerist society within; his frustration when it faces an arson attack reinforces this. Before the arson attack, Jack is purely a consumer living within the fundamentals of the respected society, he is merely “a copy of a copy of a copy.” It isn’t until the fire removes his ties with his conformity that he no longer operates under Marxist capitalist theories.

Jack is then taken by Tyler Durden (a “better” and desirable version of himself) to live with him, they are stripped back to basics, represented through the run down location shown within the mise-en-scene. There are no luxuries within this house only the minimal products needed to survive. Now Jack and Tyler are operating outside of societies expected behaviour they set up the Fight Club. As the club becomes more established Jack becomes more and more lethargic at work, turning up batter and bruised which does not go unnoticed by his colleagues and boss. When his boss tries to fire him Jack retaliates, he beats himself up and threatens to blame his boss unless he can work from home with a pay rise and other benefits. This scene represents Jack confidently obliterating his link to the capitalist economic nature, displayed visually by the regular use of low angle shots. Jack is able to fight his way out of capitalism, suggesting this film is a forceful argument against Marx’s theory of capitalism.

When Fight Club is underway the men become more liberal, restoring masculinity which was lost through the overpowering consumerism within society. Violence is typical of males, allowing these males to fight each other regains their male status. Jack has now lost his ties with consumerism via the fire at his house and links with corporate and capitalist world from not having to work at the office. As this liberalisation also occurs the men lose their alignment with Marxist capitalist theory. However the fight club hen begins to act as a new ideology for the men to conform to. The men conform to a new social theory, one that is set up by the idolised Tyler Durden. This is represented within the way the men repeat the words “His name is Robert Paulsen” which accumulates between the men and even neighbouring Fight Clubs like a cult.  There may not be the influence of capitalism and consumerism within the club however the men rely on a strong ideal of capitalism to survive. This may begin to argue against the previous point that Fight Club disagrees with Marxism, as when the men were conformed within society they weren’t a danger, however the further the men get into the Fight Club which then turns into “Project Mayhem” the more violent and dangerous they become to society. Suggesting that to keep the men of this culture in line, clear society ideals need to be in place.

The final scene of Fight Club shows a downfall in all of Americas financial institutions, a long shot of the silhouettes of Jack and Marla Singer watching these high rise buildings collapse is cinematically emphasise the power these buildings have over American culture. Despite the destruction of these buildings the atmosphere of these scene is quite pleasant, there is a close up of the pair holding hand, the first time within he film this has been shown even though in a relationship. This suggests that the pair have a new found freedom to act as they please now these powerful structures have been removed. The destruction of their power as the final shot of the film reinforces the idea of a negative Marxism capitalist opinion that it has.

The constantly changing Marxist representations involving American Society can be seen to confuse the audience, the film seems to be indecisive as to whether or not culture should develop from consumerism and capitalism and so can leave the audience with a disorientated feel.

How far can it be argued that the films you have studies represent a "realistic" representation of the people and places they focus on

2002 film City Of God explores the lives of individuals in the community of Rio De Janeiro's poverty filled favellas.  A realistic representation of the films narrative is conveyed through the montage ending sequence of real life news footage, the footage shows still images of the real people that the megalomaniac character Lil Ze is based on. His representation as a power hungry villain throughout the rest of the film seems overly dramatic, he is continuously shot with a low angle even as a child during his violent outburst killing those at the motel; and is visually represented as the controller of the favellas through the "power positioning" of him at a physically higher level when sitting on the bricks which will become the basis for the favellas he runs in the future. He is sitting on the foundations of the City Of God and so dramatizes the future of the city which Lil Ze is in total control. The fact Lil Ze is still a child and cinematically shot in this way seems overly dramatized and less likely to be believable for a audience who are not used to this behavior which is a regular occuring in the favellas in Brazil. Backing up this seemingly exaggerated character representation with a real life image creates a much more realistic

Section A resit - How do independent films sometimes achieve success?

Behind cinema is an industry, an industry facing technological development, changes in social trends and consumer attitudes, just like any other in the economy. In the same way the average market works there are market leaders, the big budget Hollywood blockbuster. Multimillion dollar budgeted films dominate the industry, achieving worldwide awareness from the high expense of marketing and accessibility of the films distribution. In the film industry many independent films suffer, without backing from well known producers and companies the films can suffer from a lacking mainstream audience.

Certain independent films can achieve success however these are the few. Many independent films appeal a much more cineliterate type of audience to Hollywood films, this change in audience style is a niche market, limiting the potential box office gross right from the off. In order to avoid this many independent film makers use a combination of methods to appeal more to the mass. These methods mainly link to broadening the accessibility of viewing the film, regularly shown in limited art house cinemas, independent films have a restricted audience because of this in comparison to showing in mainstream multiplex cinemas.

 Although wining accolades makes a film much more popular with the average audience style for independent film, it also creates appeal with the mainstream audience. During awards season many multiplex cinemas are much more open to showing independent films if they have been nominated as the box office appeal is much greater. Take for instance Dallas Buyers Club; released just shy of awards season nominations in November this film received 6 Acadamy Award nominations and 3 wins. This widened the appeal of the film, allowing multiplex cinemas to justify showing these films. Although at limited time frames, the widened accessibility from showing at multiplex cinemas rather than art house/independent cinema where it would usually be showed widened the audience appeal and could have been a reason behind the $55 million box office success.

 Success can be classed under a broad term, although is mostly depicted through the amount the film stakes at the box office. Although Dallas Buyers Club received brilliant critical response and wide academic acclaim, potentially leading towards it’s success. The amount the film took at the box office seems the most important figure, because like I said, cinema is first and foremost an industry. Profit it key. Dallas Buyers Club totalled $55 million at box office, in comparison to 2013s biggest earner, Hunger Games Catching Fire, coming in at $424 million, this is a very small margin. However with a $5 million budget and 25 day production period, this figure is incredibly successful for an originally small independent film.

 Other areas which can broaden the appeal of Independent films is the use of stars. Shown through Dallas Buyers Club with the use of Matthew McCohaughey who has recently left his type cast role of male rom-com lead to persue acting in a variety of Independent films including, Bernie, Killer Joe and Mud. McConaughey has achieved box office appeal through his recent diversification of film genre his has entered. With his win for Best Actor at the Oscars, this appeal was definatly broadened. This film also starred Jared Leto, after taking a 10 year break from acting Leto has been focused on his music career as the frontman for band 30 Seconds To Mars. This is a band which appeals to a large number of a young generation who previously would not have considered such a film but would possibly be drawn to it from this casting.

Another successful independent film is Wes Andersons recent Grand Budapest Hotel. Although this film does not contain one specific big winged box office star, when distribution rights were snapped up by Fox Spotlight, who had previously distributed Andersons previous successful adaptation of Fantastic Mr Fox, they hoped the sheer weight of the entire cast would lead to success. Which has seemed to be the case, after 17 days of wide release the film had grossed a total of £6.3 million in the UK alone, his second highest earner to date. The film marketed with a poster containing 17 acclaimed stars, including Ralph Fiennes, Tilda Swinton and Anderson’s favourite. Bill Murray. It is believed that a weighted cast will appeal to a board audience, and this defiantly fits the bill. This film was released just after awards season ended, its light-hearted nature eased the pressure off over drama filled audiences after the release of incredibly moving films such as 12 Years a Slave. This film did not receive any accolades from the mainstream awards season and so did not use this as a marketing tool, yet stuck to the idea that audiences will see the film due to its impeccable cast and favourite auteur.

Wes Andersons use of stars to attract audiences could be argued when looking at the release of his 2012 film Moonrise Kingdom, this film starred the famous Bill Murray, Bruce Willis as well as Edward Norton however only achieved a little over £2 million at UK box offices. This is where the argument for accessibility comes in, the top two of Andersons grossing movies have been distributed by Fox Spotlight, and incredibly famous and knowledgeable company about the best ways to distribute the film. Whereas Moonrise Kingdom lacked this, limiting its appeal to a mass audience reduced its capability of achieving a high box office figure. Audiences rely on simplicity, the easy accessibility of films from nearby cinemas as well as through the internet is something which is really dependent on the success of any film, not only independent films.