Fight Club: Consuming Non-Consumption The kinetic energy of the last third of Fight Club comes from the Narrator’s rejection of Tyler Durden’s increasingly apocalyptic solution to modernity; the film ends when the Narrator discovers that he is Tyler, and that his headlong flight away from nihilism has been paradoxical. It was the Narrator, rather than Tyler, who wanted to burn down modernity, and the horror of the Narrator’s situation is that he cannot escape—indeed, is made by—his own dark desires. This result is paradoxical, of course, as the first half of Fight Club promoted a project of disowning one’s desires in order to become an authentic man. The movie comes full circle when the Narrator embraces his desire, and becomes a consumer...The end:
.....ter horrified by its platitudes, proceeds from a genuine disengagement from the very logic of consumption. Marla has stopped looking for a way out, as she realizes that the search itself is pernicious (just as the idea of a power animal is a way of locking oneself back into the very powerlessness that prompts one to meditate in the first place). In a way, then, it is the search for solutions that is to blame, because to solve something is always to consume something else, if only an idea. Marla’s rejection of all solutions, and the Narrator’s insistence on them, may offer the film’s final word on the irrevocability of male consumption. References O’Brien, Susie and Szeman, Imre. Popular Culture: A User’s Guide. Ontario: Thomas-Nelson, 2004.