2. Fight Club- Case Study
"The first rule of Fight Club is: 'You don't talk about Fight Club'. The second rule of Fight Club is: "You don't talk about
Fight Club". Thus runs the tagline for this David Fincher film submitted the BBFC in 1999.
Based on the novel by Chuck Palahniuk, the film had caused something of a sensation at the Venice International Film
Festival when some critics reacted strongly to both the film's thesis and its level of personal violence, while others
praised its imaginative approach and strong performances from Edward Norton and Brad Pitt. In particular, Alexander
Walker, then veteran critic of the London Evening Standard, who had seen it in Venice, inveighed against the film as "a
toxic experience...an inadmissible assault on personal decency...and on society itself. It resurrects the Führer principle.
It promotes pain and suffering as the virtues of the strongest. It tramples every democratic decency underfoot."
There was much debate about the film's subject matter – it was seen as a blackly comic satire of capitalism and
consumerism; as an exploration of the loss of male identity in a feminised society, and as about violence as a way in
which the powerless male can reassert himself against the corporate world he inhabits. Whatever the meaning, the film
presented sequences in which men challenged other men to beat them up, and then allowed their opponents to do so
without any resistance from their ‘victims’, the result being scenes of strong, and sometimes bloody, violence.
The film, which came with an 18 request from its distributor, 20th Century Fox, was seen by most of the BBFC's
examiners, and also by the BBFC Director, Robin Duval, his Deputy, and the President and Vice-Presidents, provoking
a wide range of opinion. While BBFC examiners found the film stylish and challenging, and some felt an uncut 18 was
acceptable for this adult viewing experience, there were concerns under the BBFC Guidelines of the time about the
glamorisation of violence and the potential for encouraging an interest in organised bare-fist fighting. Neither the novel
nor the film condoned brutal fighting, as the conclusion of the narrative makes clear.
After extensive consideration, the final decision was taken to require cuts under the Guidelines of between six and
seven seconds to two scenes - both of which, it was felt, focused on the pleasures of beating the faces of helpless
victims to a bloody mess. The first cut was in the scene where Lou fights Tyler Durden in the basement of his club,
and consisted of an instruction to reduce the heavy and explicit punches to the head that end the fight. Reductions in
violence were also required in the scene where the narrator fights a blond man of whom he is jealous – sight of blows
to the face at the end of the fight were removed. In practice it is difficult to detect where the cuts were made, but it was
felt that the effect was successful in reducing the sense of sadistic pleasure in inflicting violence. With these cuts
made, an 18 certificate was given. The Consumer Advice read ‘Passed 18 for occasional strong violence’. The film had
been classified uncut at R in the United States.
The cuts were repeated in April 2000 for the video version. Meanwhile, the BBFC had been working on researching
and drawing up a revised set of Guidelines, but these were not published until September 2000. In 2005, with a new
set of Guidelines and a new BBFC Director, all cuts were waived to pass a new widescreen DVD submission at 18.
The new Guidelines established the principle that adults should be free to chose their own entertainment, within the
law, and it was considered that there was nothing in Fight Club that was in breach of UK law.
And did the film encourage young men to set up their own fight clubs? There were some press reports from the US
which suggested that fight clubs had been set up as a result of the film, but concerns about similar activity in the UK
seem to have been unfounded
3. Do you think Fight Club should
have been regulate? Why?
I don’t think this film should have been regulated. Although
this film had high levels of violence in it, it still managed
to give the audience some understanding of ‘Jack’s
illness (insomnia). However, 20th Century Fox did, reject
this to become a film adaptation of the novel, so there
must have been some underlined problems with it.
Overall I think at the time it came out, maybe it should
have been regulated, but if people are watching I now, it
wouldn’t be something they would complain about. They
would have seen Brad Pitt in other movies and liked
him, so the character would probably have won them
over before they even knew what the film was about.
4. How is violence portrayed in Fight
club?
I don’t think that the actual acts of violence that
were portrayed were that bad, I think that all the
music and the way it was shot, made it worse.
A newspaper reported, “Many loved and hated it in
equal measures.”
“Some critics expressed concern that the film
would incite copycat behaviour, such as that
seen after A Clockwork Orange debuted in
Britain nearly three decades previously”
Although the film's makers called Fight Club “an
accurate portrayal of men in the 1990s", some
critics called it "irresponsible and appalling”.
5. What does it tell you about society
then and society now?
Fight Club tells me that society then was about the behaviour of men,
how they behaved around of men or how they behaved around
women etc. critics said that it was an “accurate portrayal of men in
the 1990s”. It told us that society in the 90’s was all about drinking
and fighting and joining clubs. However, the small of amount of
romance in it, showed us a new light on this dangerous film, it
showed us something other than fights and drunkenness.
I think that society now, hasn’t changed much, we would still watch this
film with the same attitude, it would be most beneficial to the men of
our society, to show them what they should be like, perhaps. And
women would certainly be more attracted, due to the infamous Brad
Pitt. Compared to A Clockwork Orange, this film wouldn’t have
changed the way we see violence now. Although the news can tell
and show us the same amount of violence, this wasn’t something
we needed to see, un like the importance of murder on the news.
