If you're at all into film, you've heard of 2001: A Space Odyssey and Fight Club. Hopefully you've seen them as well, as they are widely considered two of the best films ever made, sentiments which I am inclined to agree with. They also have something else in common: people have made the case that they are Nietzschean in nature. That is, they represent the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche; specifically, the concept of the Ubermensch. As someone who is very familiar with Nietzsche and even wrote a post about him on my old blog, I will analyze these films to determine whether or not they truly do represent the idea of the Ubermencsh.
Fun Fact: I hated nationalism and antisemitism, yet my Nazi sister who inherited my writings still
maimed them to make them support Nazism. Oppressors really will co-opt everything, won't they?
maimed them to make them support Nazism. Oppressors really will co-opt everything, won't they?
First, a brief summary of Nietzsche's ideas. Nietzsche was of the existential nihilist tradition. Nihilists believe that values have no objective basis (that is, there is nothing that can give us a moral criteria with certainty, hence why moral ambiguity exists), and everything is therefore meaningless. Existentialists believe that finding your own purpose in life is what is most important. When you put the two together into existential nihilism, the philosophy is basically "well, everything is pointless, but while we're alive we might as well find our own reason for living or whatever."
As for the Ubermensch, there are a lot of misconceptions about what it truly means. The main idea behind it is an extension of existential nihilistic belief: that values are meaningless, but we should build our own. The Ubermensch is someone who has completely cast off previous notions of morality to build a new paradigm of morality based completely around "this-worldliness", or in other words focusing on life in the here and now. No enduring oppression for the hope of a good afterlife. No viewing life as expendable. No living by abstract guidelines if they aren't helping preserve life on Earth.
An Ubermensch, then, isn't a biological/evolutionary trait. It is instead a life outlook and subsequent way of living to aspire toward. It is confronting nihilism, accepting that values are inherently meaningless, deconstructing the values of the society you live in, and building your own new set of values with life as the main criteria. There are a lot more intricacies and nuances to the concept, but this is sufficient for exploring the main question of this post.
Do 2001: A Space Odyssey or Fight Club actually represent Nietzschean ideals?
2001: A Space Odyssey
2001: A Space Odyssey was a landmark in film making, and a very different cinematic experience than most movies. We follow the movie in segments, two of which don't involve any dialogue at all. The overarching narrative is that humanity's evolution was pushed along by an artifact, known as a "monolith", that granted humanity's evolutionary ancestors the ability to wield tools. By the end of the movie, the final surviving human astronaut discovers another monolith orbiting Jupiter, which sends him on a bad acid trip and rebirths him as a giant star fetus. But hey, aliens, am I right?
Because its an unwritten law that cinema geeks cannot call themselves film buffs until they over-analyze at least one Kubrick work, there is no shortage of interpretations about 2001. Seeing it as a film that explores the concept of the Ubermensch is a leading theory popular enough to have its own Wikipedia section. In both the movie and Nietzsche's works, humans are simply the bridge between apes and something greater. I mean, there is even a track called Thus Spake Zarathustra, named after Nietszche's magnum opus! How can it not be the perfect Nietzschean film?
Just like how the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic republic because its in the title!
Unfortunately, like most of my past romances, this section is going to end quickly and disappointingly. As I discussed above, the whole point of the Ubermensch is for humanity to completely reevaluate their life outlooks and systems of morality. I also mentioned it has nothing to do with biological evolution, and that goes double for evolution that was initiated by an outside species. Humanity's ascent to the Ubermensch has to come from within ourselves, not any external force. Even if that force is something as rad as alien LSD trips.
Fight Club
Ah yes, Fight Club. One of my favorite movies, but also one I like to avoid talking about with people I don't know very well. Why? Because as my good friend David Zafra discussed on his own blog, Fight Club is often arguably misunderstood by dudebros everywhere who: saw the movie, thought Brad Pitt's character was awesome, and wanted to start their own fight clubs. The thing is, Pitt's character isn't supposed to be someone to emulate.
Now I don't want to be too harsh on those folks, partially because that was me at one point, but also because there is a lot to like about some of the
things he says. Pitt's character does raise a lot of good points about consumerism and materialism (though he also whines about women existing and making decisions and stuff, which should hopefully be the first hint that things are off with him). Combined with the badassery of the fight clubs and
Pitt's own charisma, its easy to embrace him.
Of course, everyone knows what happens next. The narrator turns out to be Tyler Durden, and Pitt's character was just a manifestation of Edward Norton's mind. Norton stops everything and him and Marla presumably live happily ever after (a change from the book author Chuck Palahniuk actually prefers). So how does it fit as a Nietzschean film about discovering the Ubermensch?
Quite well, metaphorically, even if it doesn't go all the way. If you look at Pitt's character as a manifestation of Norton's own nihilism, then the movie becomes a personal quest for Norton's own character to confront his inner nihilism, give into it, and then overcome it to find his own values.
Looking at the good points that Brad Pitt makes about society, such as him essentially arguing that consumerism and materialism are bullshit, notice that these are critiques. Nihilists can tear down any world outlook, because it is all about stripping down ideas to their bare assumptions and finding fault in the foundations of those assumptions. Nihilism is a fantastic mindset for deconstructing things, and that's why Brad Pitt's character brings up a lot of good points: there's a lot of bullshit and he has no trouble calling it out.
The problem with Pitt's approach is that he then goes the path that unfettered nihilism often goes: giving into meaninglessness and adapting a fuck shit up mentality. This is why everything escalates the way it does. When you don't give a shit about anything, nihilistic angst often gives way to destruction or hedonism.
Or, hedonism bot.
Throughout the movie, Norton's character is originally enamored with Pitt's. He embraces everything Pitt has to say, giving into the nihilist destruction that inevitably snowballs in the movie. However, towards the end as he pieces everything together, he also realize that destroying everything isn't the answer and finds meaning in his relationship with Marla. After a serious of wacky hijinks, he stops Pitt's plan and the movie ends with them holding hands. He's confronted the inherent meaninglessness of things, accepts it, and overcomes it in the connection he shares with Marla.
What's interesting about this, is that director David Fincher doesn't actually understand this Nietzschean concept of the Ubermensch, and tried to paint Pitt as the Nietzschean ideal. In one interview, he says "I was very cautious to say that this
Nietzschean uberman is a great idea for high school seniors and college
sophomores, but it doesn’t really work in the real world beyond that,
you know? And that’s kind of what the movie’s talking about."
This is why, throughout the film, Pitt's character indeed does a few semi-Nietzschean things. An example is when, while driving, Pitt's character puts them into a near-death situation and asks the two Project Mayhem recruits about what they've always wanted to accomplish before they die. You also see it when they hold a gun to the head of a convenience store clerk and demand he start living life the way he want to, or else they will track him down and shoot him.
Now, to reiterate, one of the most important parts about the idea of the Ubermensch, and the thing that Fincher misses here, is that life is the main criteria for the Ubermensch's value set. Risking a car crash or threatening the life of someone, even if its supposed to help a character find meaning in their lives, blatantly disregards the criteria of life. It also is forcing these decisions on people in a life or death situation, rather than letting the characters arrive there themselves on their own instead of by force.
Ironically, Fincher therefore displays a similar misunderstanding of the Ubermensch that many of the aforementioned dudebros do of his movie.
So, in the end, this movie can be seen as a Nietzschean film, despite the director's best efforts to the exact opposite- or, perhaps more accurately, discredit a straw man version of the Ubermensch while accidentally making a film that adequately looks at it the way it is supposed to play out. While the film doesn't follow up in detail what is supposed to happen afterward in the Nietzschean model, where one builds a new set of values after confront nihilism, you can see that foundation being set in the romance between Edward Norton and Helena Bonham Carter. After all, each Ubermensch is supposed to create their own unique set of values for themselves based on their own individual lives and experiences.
Hmm, I wonder if there is something we can take away from that and try to apply in our own everyday live?
Nah, forget it. Time to start a shirtless fight club! It's gonna be badass, bro!
No comments:
Post a Comment