M ■■ 3RNÉ siudií ■' ■■ ■ '■ : mi CO B t; ŕitical Studies ill edia Communication A PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION 'OLUME 19 NUMBER 1 MARCH 2002 ^-ARTICLES The Spectacular Consumption of "True" African American Culture: "Whassup" with the Budweiser Guys? Hiding Homoeroticism in Plain View: The Fight Club DVD as Digital Closet Boys Don't Cry and Female Masculinity:'Reclaiming a Life & Dismantling the Politics of Normative Heterosexuality "Mother Isn't Quite Herself Today:" Myth and Spectacle in The Matrix Gay Characters in Conventional Spaces: Will and Grace and the Situation Comedy Genre Eric King Watts and Mark P. Orbe Robert Alan Brookey and Robert Westerfelhaus Brenda Cooper Thomas S. Frentz and Janice Hocker Rushing Kathleen Batties and Wendy Hilton-Morrow Examining the Effects of Hegemonic Depictions of Female Bodies on Television: A Call for Theory and Programmatic Research Alexandra Hendriks 20 SPECTACULAR CONStftiPTiON MARCH 2002 Grüner, C. R. (1997), lie game ofhumor: A compreňensice theory of why we laugh- New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Hall, S. (1995}. The whiles of their eyes: Racist ideologies in the media. In Dines, G. & Humez, J.M. (Eds.) Gender, race, and doss In mediatyp. 18-22). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications. Heller, K. (2000, March 19). "Whassup?" A new career; Budweiser ads tum four black friends into major pop icons. Houston ChronitU, 11. Hooks, b. (1992). Blad boh: Race and representation. Boston: South End Press. Jhully, S. {1995). Image-based culture: Advertising and popular culture. In Dines, G, & Humez, J.M. (Eds.) Gender, rau, and class in media (pp. 77-87). Thousand Oaks, Ca.: Sage Publications. Kennedy, D. (2000). Marketing Goods, marketing images: The impact of advertising on race. Arizona Slate Lawjournat, 32,615. Lusane, C. (1994). African Americans at the crossroads: The restructuring of black leadership and the 1992 elections. Boston: South End Press. Madhubuti, RR. (1990). Black men: Obsolete, single, dangerous?Chicago: Third World Press. Majors, R. (1992). Coolpose: The dilemmas of black -nanhood in Ameriea. New York: Lexington Books. McGuireJ.M. (2000,June 28). Whassuppř! You ask? St. Louis Post-Dispatch, El. Owen, W. (1984). Interpretive themes in relational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 274-287. Procter, D.E. (1990). The dynamic spectacle: Transforming experience into social forms of community. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76,117-133. Watta, E.K. (1997). An exploration of spectacular consumption: gangsta rap as cultural commodity. Communication Studies, 48, 42-58. West, C. (1994). Race matters. New York: Vintage Books. Cntttai Studies in Media Commvni. Vol. 19. No. 1, March 2002, pp. 21-43 Hiding Homoeroticism in Plain View: The Fight Club DVD as Digital Closet Robert Alan Brookey and Robert Westerfelhaus O-The DVD format has emerged as the dominant digital means of repackaging films for home consumption. In this essay, we theorize this new viewing experience and identify some of the challenges it poses for the media critic. We argue that the additional material DVDs typically offer, coupled with the format's interactivity, constitute a rhetorically powerful . means of directing thei consumer's viewingjxperience and protecting rammerťui! Inability of the product. To illustrate, we offer a critical analysu of'he J) 17) release of the juiemalfilm Fight Club. Our analysis suggests that Fight Club's DVD-"extra text "• lewerjrom acknowledging the film's homoerotic elements as representing homosexual experience. DURING an interview at Yale Uni- their own moral conclusions, to antago- versity, Edward Norton had this nize them. The film's goal, according to say about his recent film, Fight Club: to Norton, is summed up in words he attributes to its director, David Fincher: I hope it rattles people. I hope it dunks it -if|t doesn't piss off a healthy numbej vety square y in your lap because I think of p ,e úan weVe done someming one ol the things we strove very speciti- * *„ cally to do with this was on some levels ,t °* , ,, . , retain a kind of a moral ambivalence or a Norton f comments were available moral ambiguity-not to deliver a neady to a much larSer audience than the one wrapped package of meaning into your he addressed at Yale when his inter- lap. Or in any way that let you walk away view was included on the Fight Club from the film like this, comfortable in hav- DVD. The DVD format has gained tng been told what you should make of it. popularity in part because it can offer (Norton, 2000) this type of supplemental material to the consumer, f n the first half of 2000, As explained by Norton, F.ght Club approxiinatelv 2.7 million DVD plav was deliberately designed to activate. ™wen sM < . .I)VI) vi({ jpOfy jETaudience, to force them to draw For ^ vear^0(),; it g projected ^ 28 million players will be shipped o , . ., ľ—:—;——--------zr~i-------r worldwide, makinc the DVD "the fast- iwoert Alan orooKey us Assistant ľrotessor m __. _„. j„„,„„.„. ",L.,j,„.i„..,:„„.1^,j fi- u ĺ n P{ , f,, f. ■ est-erowmg consumer electronics prod- me Hum UQwns school of Human at Arizona ,t ,. ° vikl i_ ann% «m StaUUnivmity, Robert IVesterfelhaus is Assis- «« m history (Abraham 2001 p. 12). lam Professor and Assistant Chair in the Depart- A casual 8,ance around the local v,deo ment of Arts and Humanities at the University store reveals that more and more shelf of Houston-Downtown. They thank Joshua space has been given over to DVD Gunn, Bonnie J. Dow, and the anonymous products. In short, the DVD has reviewers for their valuable suggestions. emerged as an increasingly popular CoDvnuhl 2002, National Communication Association 22 :'.i HIDING HOMOEROTICISM MARCH 2(XW (SMC BROOKKV AND WESTERťfcLHAUS method for delivering cinematic products, one that may soon repl ace VHS videotape as the preferred medium for viewing at-home movies. The rising popularity of DVDs is understandable, given the advantages the format has over standard VHS videotape. The overall quality of the digital image and sound is superior to that of analog videotape. The DVD format holds substantially more information than the VHS format, and is thus able to offer consumers features previously unavailable. Many DVDs include interviews, like the interview with Norton on the Fight Club DVD. These interviews are often with those involved in making the 61m: actors, directors, screenwriters, and so on. Some DVDs include running commentaries, in which such people discuss the film while it is playing. Additionally, DVDs often include "behind the scenes" clips, production notes, and storyboards. DVD technology makes all this material available interactively, allowing viewers to decide what they want to view, when, and in what order. Thus, the DVD offers more material for the viewer to consume than either the theatrical release of a film or the standard Vrio version, and it does so in a way that affords the viewer greater control over the viewing expenence. To illustrate our point, we offer a critical analysis of the DVD for the film Fight Club. We argue that the supplemental material included on the DVD is used to make the product more mar-'!' to mainstream audiences by iming the homoerotic elements ol ihv film as uomosociai behavior. In the following section, we explain" our theory of the DVD. We then go on to identify and discuss issues relevant to our analysis of the Fight Club DVD, and then we offer the analysis itself. ,r Although Norton suggests that Fight I \ Club is a film open to interpretation, we // \ conclude that the DVD version may ■ actually UmiFinterpretaiicm. Extra Text and Auteuristíc Residue As we have noted, the DVD version of a film typically offers consumers additional material not included in the film's theatrical release or video version. The Fight Club DVD is no exception. These-xnaterials are similar to the "secoňdnn texts" that John ftskeílí>87 describes in his booU Tilevtsm Cutfitre. In addition to "primary texts" [actual television programs), Fiske argues that/ there exist "secondary texts" (criticism, , interviews, promotional articles, and other materials) that function intertex-lually to favor selected readings of pri máry texts. Fiske notes thai while his use of these concepts is specific to tele vision, they are informed by theories of intertextuality that have been ap plied to film. For example, such inter-textual relationships have helped the producers of the James Bond films , change preferred readings to accommodate cultural and political shifts and thus maintain the economic viability of the franchise (Bennett & Woollacott, 11987). Like traditional secondary texts, the. additional material included on DVDs; also can be used to increase a film's profitability. Wesufigcsj, however, thai they do so in a way thai blurs th distinction betweerLpnmary and sec Kiry vc b< ondary lexis as iht'y have ueen con ceived and made use of in the past. For example, many DVDs öfter running commentaries that provide the viewer with the option of listening to the film's director, actors, and even screenwriters voice opinions about the film as it is playing. Given this blurred distinction, we have decided to call the additional /material available on the DVD-"extra ^ text." We use the word "extra" because trie "material resides outside of, and in addition i.o, the cinematic text as traditionally defined by film criticism—i.e., the parameters of the theatrical release. Although extra-text materials function in a way similar to secondary (texts, we do not believe the term "sec-j ondary" fully conveys the signifying ; relationship they have with the prima-I ry-cinematic text. Primary and secondary texts are usually physically distinct from one another and are often read at different times, creating an intertextual relationship that is marked by both temporal and spatial distance. However, by including such distinct but interrelated texts in a self-contained package, the DVD turns this interlex-tual relationship into an intratextual relationship. Thus, the DVD is per-liaJÍSTmTliltimate example of media-, industry synergy, in which the promo- -Xj\J tioji_of a. media product is collapsed into the product itseli. Judicious use of' DVD-extra text can exploit this intratextual advantage as a means of promoting the film. Although citing negative reviews is not a traditional method of promoting jyfi film, the packaráigof the Fight Club fe)VD prominently display* exi erpt? from negative reviews mu] does so in a way that simultaneously celebrates the 1 reviews and mocks the reviewers. Included with the DVD is a pamphlet entitled "How to Start a Fight," which contains several negative (motes from reviews o| the film interspersed with positive quotes from people involved in tl\e lihu 's production lhat sene as )- rebutials. This juxtaposition works to 1 N^dermine the credibility ol the nega-/■tittctaviews. For example, Alexander Walker of the London Evening Standard is quoted as attacking Fight Club us: "an inadmissible assault on personal decency. And on society itselP' (How to Start a Fight, 2000, p. 14). This quote is juxtaposed with one from Kevin Mc-Cormick, identified as "Former Executive Vice President of Production, Fox 2000 Pictures," the studio that produced the film: I was really surprised by the intensity of ihe reaction, but for me it only made it more clear what an extraordinary movie it was, and made me certain that it wilTbe. well remembered. Remember that the witch in Snow While was rnntroversiaj in its j day. Anything new is goin^ tobe controver-sial. (How to Start a Fight. 2000, p. 14) In contrasting the two quotes thus, Mc-Cormick's observation provides a rebuttal that suggests Walker's negative comments are, at best, shortsighted. This is but one example that illustrates how DVD-extra text can function rhetorically in attempting to shape viewer interpretation. Individuals in-. vdTvécílti"th'e"íllm's production are pre-/! sented in the extra text as having privileged insights regarding a film's meaning and purpose and, as such/ j they are used to articulate a "proper| (i.e., sanctioned) interpretation, lnu» . < pri vil e- ! ; Mioning ma) liebest im derstood as a reimn laJfauteurism." As „ ■ Lapsley and Wesdake [lUtítS) explain^ " auteurism was an approach to film criti- „' J*^m* cism that "grounded itself in the com- lAirif» monplaces of the romantic notion of the artist, thereby gaining film entry to the hallowed canon of Art" (p. 105). According to "auteurism" theory, a film is an expression of a unique artistic vision, usually that of its director. In the past, this notion was rendered problematic by the structure of the traditional studio industry that valued profit before art. This problem has been fur- 24 HIDING HOMOEROTICISM MARCH 20W ther exacerbated in recent years by Ihe (Voilapsingpromotion into the product, emergence of media conglomerates^TJX^ěxtraTSšT^ [hal produce films which reflect a variety of commercial as well as aesthetic decisions reached by corporate com-« )mittees jgart, 2000)^ Therefore, it is difficult tovTew sucrf films as expressions of some auteur's unique artistic vision. Lapsley and WesÜake (1988} nolo that the auteur was pretty much abandoned as a theoretical construct for scholarly film criticism back in the late sixties. They go on to point out, however, lhat auleurism remains in the mainstream discussion of film like an ideological residue. In contemporary popular discourse on film, the concept of the auteur has expanded to include actors and screenwriters in addition lo directors who, because of their involvement in the making of a film, are also thought to possess privileged knowledge about it. Media conglomerates have a vested interest in maintaining thé ideology ôf the auteur because it facilitates the promotion of their products. For example, when Warner Brothers releases a film, it has those involved in the making of the film appear in magazines and on television programs owned by AOL/ Time Warner; the director might be interviewed in Time and the actors in Entertainment Weekly (a publication owned by AOL/Time Warner). In this way, media conglomerates exercise partial control over the publicity for their products. However, they can never be sure that those who view the film are the same people who read the magazine articles or see the television shows. \ *- Jír1 In contrast, DVD-extra text offers * , A*"; Enose marketing a film an intratextual advantage that significantly increases the chances that promotional tactics will reach their target audience. By exploit the ideology of the auteur than is possible through the use of traditional secondary texts. The extra text offers consumers access to commentary by those involved with making the film, and impositions miscommentan' as auÚjOj^auygZ_Sui^l'^ýrrit-'ť!^ te^~ nirěs cjncfirečňne viewer toward pre feiTeainterpretations bľiŕie primary text while undermining u n favor ab I e in- : lem relations, especially those i hat ~ mjgnt hurt [h< ŕ commercial success. The DVD format increases the likelihood that viewers will be exposed to these promotional tactics, thereby lending such tactics greater rhetorical force. In the past, the comments of a screenwriter—for example, in the context of a magazine or newspaper interview-enjoyed very little rhetorical force because they were far removed from the cinematic experience of viewing the film in a theater. The DVD format, however, collapses exposure to promotional material into the experience of viewing the film by bringing the film and its makers' commentary about it into close proximity, temporally and spatially; hence, DVD-extra text's intratextual advantage over traditional forms of secondary texts.. Another rhetorical advantage oft DVD intertcxtuality is the fact that it is experienced interactively, investing the viewer with a greater (perceived^sense,. of agency. The extra text of the Fight Club DVD, and the preferred interpre-) tation (hat it seeks to promote, are not? forced upon the viewer.1 Instead, the/ viewer must actively explore the DVD in order to discern how the film's makers believe it should be interpreted. In ' Öxfs way, the viewers are positioned as active agents who do not passively subject themselves to the privileged opin- 25 CSMC BROOKEY AND WESTERFEL11AUS ions of the film's auteurs, but instead uncover them' through acts of digital discovery- or so it would seem. In theorizing about the "interactivity" of digital media, Greg Smith (1999) argues that a "fantasy" is perpetuated in which such interactivity is perceived as providing the viewer choice about and control over media consumption. Smith notes that this fantasy of interactivity presupposes that other older forms of media (TV and film) are consumed passively, though it has been established lhat people actively engage these. Smith argues critics should expose the "hype" of digital interactivity, and the contradiction of the DVD reveals the and purchase cost of DVDs can also be higher than that of the VHS format. DVD consumers have an economic incentive to access and view DYl) extra text [it justifies the additional ex pendilure) and to regard it as a valuable addition to their viewing experience. Indeed, if they felt that the extra text added nothing to their view ing experience, they might well conclude that they are not realizing the In value of their investment. We sugge I then, lhat DVD viewers arc "invested vers/ wt".'__hayp an incenfive to aflow foefr viewing CYpflrwngft t«> be- dire£ifid—at least in part— by the DVD-extra text, and to believe that the inter hype surrounding its own interactivity, pretation that text oilers is worth their lime and money. In summarv, we contend that DVD-extra text ')perá^iää^^pim}le2í_rRerZ_ torica] object. It collapses the functions of the secondary texts into the product of the primary text, and gives the signifying force of intertextual relationships an intratextual advantage. It can evoke the ideological residue of the "auteur," and do so in a way lhat directs the viewers' experiences of the film. Finally, because it is a new, interactive, technology, die DVD may actually invest the viewers in the interpretation thai it offers. Simply put, the DVD is_ not just a new way of repackaging a film for distribution; it. DVD technology seems to empower ihe consumer by making available a wider range of viewing choices than were previously available on other formats. These choices, however, have been carefully selected by those involved in making and marketing the product, and may include material that points to a preferred interpretation of the film. These limited "choices," and the way they are strategically arranged for access, can serve to circumvent alternative interpretations. The participation of the DVD «ewer, however, does not begin and end with the interactivity that we have described. The terrain of media tech- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ nology is littered with embarrassing package comprised of product.andj>ro failures: the eight-track tape player, motion. Perhaps the best evičlenceo quadraphonic sound, Beta-Max, artď'—tKis rhetorical use of extra text can be / even earlier versions of videodisk tech nology. Therefore, the consumers of a new and emerging media technology have a financial and personal investment in the technology they purchase: no one wants to believe they have just —x- found in reviews of the Fight Club DVD. j When it was first released in the aters, Fight Club received mixed reviews and earned box office receipts that dropped precipitously after ihe first weekend. This drop might have bought the next eight-track. Not only been due to scathing reviews given the does purchasing a DVD player involve film by several high profile critics. For a financial investment, but the rental example, Kenneth Turan (1999) of the H HIDING HOMOEROTICISM Los Angles Times wrote, "What's most troubling about this witless mishmash of whiny, infantile philosophizing and bone-crunching violence is the increasing realization that it actually thinks it's saying something of significance. That is a scary notion indeed" (p. I). David Thomson (1999), writing for The New York Times, had such a low opinion of Fight Club that he spent most of his review discussing Fincher's other films. The extent of Thomson's contempt is brought home when, in the conclusion of his review, he gives away the film's ending. Finally, Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times {1999) joined his fellow critics in denouncing the film's violence: "Fight Clubh the most frankly and cheerfully fascist big-star movie since Death Wish, a celebration of violence in which the heroes write themselves a license to drink, smoke, screw and beat one another up" (p. 1). / When Fight Club was released on DVD, however, some critics suggested \ e-^iV ?» \[Kmat me extra text u included offered **•* afresh and valuable insights about the |^y . J..* film. Some of these critics used Ebert s review us a point of contrast. For ex ample, in a review for DailyRadar.com, Tom Chick (2000) mentions how Norton, in the running commentary, explains the Buddhist principle "[tjhai is the arc of the movie" (p. 5). Accordingly, Chick suggests the film is not a celebration, but a rejection of fascism. As he notes, "The fact that this last slep is lost on Ebert is a fine example of not only how lazy a critic he is but also how widely the movie was misinterpreted" (Chick, 2000, p. 5). In a review for the WCBE Public Arts web page, Mikel Ellis (2001) also cites Eberťs negative review, but argues that the Fight Club DVD provides an understanding of the film's violence: MARCH 2002 Perhaps Fight Club's paradox is that it consciously provokes response and is still able to sidestep the pedantic overkill that usually accompanies mainstream filmmaking. Your appreciation of Fight Club becomes a Rorschach for your willingness to tolerate the existential stick in the eye. The DVD doesn't ameliorate the stick, but it does a brilliant job of showing you who is holding the other end, (p. 2) The reviews by Ellis and Chick illustrate the point we have made about the rhetorical force of the DVD. The popular press treated the DVD as a new and different product, and many publications devoted separate sections to DVD criticism. Critical reviews of the Fight Club DVD provide an interesting comparison and contrast to the reviews of the film. As a point of comparison, both the film and DVD critics operate under the ideology of the auteur, and make frequent references to Fincher and other people involved in the film. As a point of con-^ trast, reviewers of the DVD suggest , that the extra material it includes pro-' vided them with deeper and better insights than they otherwise would have had. For example, in ^me.rimn. tographer, Chris Pizzello (2000) offers this observation about the running commentaries on the Fight Club DVD: "[ajll of the commentaries are worthy and interesting, but the writers deliver the most illuminating observations. Fight Club is a movie of provocative ideas, and who better to explain them than [Chuck] Palahniuk" (p. 23). Gary Crowdus (2000), in his review for Cin-garfcgjä.even more direct in his assessment of the value of the Fight Club DVD. After noting that many of the film's "critics became morally exercised over the film's mano-a-mano violence," and were "apoplectic about what they perceived to be its 'fascist' politics" (p. 47), he goes on to argue 27 CSVK-' BROOKRY AND WESTERFF.LHAUS (hat those critics "seemed almost willfully oblivious to the fact that the filmmakers provided a comic or dramatic context for every fight" (p. 47). Crowdus argues that the DVD version goes "a long way toward clarifying the filmmaker's intentions," and he expresses the hope that "at least one of the major critics who trashed the film on its theatrical release will screen the DVD, reconsider their critical stance, and ... publicly and remorsefully confess the obtuseness of their initial pronuncia-mento in a Variety cover story" (pp. 46 &48). . That the critics claim to have di-.vincd the prup'-i mterpreta&on of ffigftľ [from the DVD illustrates thai text's rhetorical ffinc'tioh. This téxT chal-lenges tbc him critic because it can be . used to delegitimate unfavorable critiques-both by addressing those that have already been voiced and by attempting to preempt those that might be expressed. In order to meet this' challenge, the critics of the DVD must not only critique the text of the film, but also analyze how their interpretation is addressed by the extra text. Our analysis of the Fight Club DVD illustrates how this type of critical approach might proceed. We do not offer this analysig as the definitive critical approach to this emerging technology* but as a starting point for future theoriz* ing and criticism. Before proceeding with our analysis, we point out why we believe our interpretation is one that the producers and promoters of Fight Club might want to dismiss. The Queer Take Fight Club's violence was not the only aspect of the film to attract attention. I fmmr rritin found ihn film implicitly 1 homoerotic. Andrew O'Hehir (1999) of Salon.com writes: "You certainly can't say that Fincher or screenwriter Jim Uhls.. .hold back on the film's psychological swbtexi—Fight Club opens with our nameless narrator [Norton) tied to a chair with Tyler's, uh, gun in his mouth" (1999,p. I).2 In an mterviewin jhe Village Voice, director Fincher dis- 1 í3cr counts the homoerotic subtext. Alter tne interviewer,' "Ämý~TäUblli (19&9)-mentions what she describes as the "strong homoerotic undercurrent," Fincher remarks, "I think it's beyond sexuality. The way the narrator looks_ up to Tyler and wants to please him and get all of his attention doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with sex" (p. 2). Although we do not offer Finch- "~ er's denial of homoerotic subtext in the film as evidence of collusion with the producers of Fight Club, his comments! were economically juaicious considering that Fight Club was marketed to a young male audience, the type of audi ence to which overt male homosexual representation seldom appeals (Nilles, 2001). Although the representation of queer experience has increased dramatically over the last few years, this increase has not necessarily coincided with mainstream commercial success. As R., Ruby Rich (2000) notes, in spite of the crossover success of such films as Hoys Don't Cry and Gods and Monsters, Queer cinema has remained, for the moll pari, ä niche market targeted to a spťcifič]~7~ and limited audience. In addition, mainstream media depicting queer ex-p-iience have been very careful Eo avoid sexual representation (Brookey, 1996; Brookey & Westerfelhaus, 2001; Dow, 2001). In spite of the qualified successes of Queer cinema, homo-«.erotic representation in general, and male homosexual representation in par- T/ 28 HIDING HOMOEROTICISM [ licular, do not deliver big box office I receipts. In a more general sense, the mass media are driven by a meta-ideology that Sender (1999) calls the ethic of consumption. Success is measured in profits, and the greatest profits are earned by appealing to the largest possible demographic market, the so-called mainstream, which as a group has proven to be heterosexist and ho: mophobic in its consuming habits. The exclusion of gay characters-and conse-, quently gay culture, relationships, and sexuality-has been one simple and effective method used to appeal to this profitable market (Kielwasser & Wolf, 1992; Russo, 1987).'' There are, however, compelling commercial reasons for including depictions of gays in the mass media.^A segment of _tu£_gay_ community-affluent, urban, well educated, and predominantly while males MARCH 2O02 2001; Fejes, 2000; Russo, 1987). A sec-, ond strategy portrays gays in negative terms- as depressed and disturbed, as pathetic victims, or as dangerous preda-vtors—and thus reaffirms homophobic biases held by many mainstream audience members (Fejesand Petrich, 1993; Russo, 1987). A third strategy hides the presence of gays-and any gay sexuality-through the inclusion of subtextual cues that are easily read by gay audiences but are virtually invisible to unsympathetic and unknowledgeable mainstream audiences (Bronski, 1984;; Russo, 1987; Sender, 1999).4 Such hiding rarely is complete, however, nor is] it intended to be. According to Bronski (1984), though "blatant homosexuality does not have mass appeal.. .the exotic implications of hidden homosexuality have huge sales potential" (p. 186; see also Clover, 1992). Sedgwick's (1985) concept of the "ho- CSMC i confirminj^eifxojejm^Ljr^^ —(-{NSSayama, 1994, p. 171). In this way, homoeroticism in a homosocial con 29 BROOKEY AND WESTEKFELHAU3 is used to deny the presence of hmn,. eroticism. In dismiss hoinoerotic, ele -Ind ,.„_____ . . ______ . ments, ana to divert attention away text can be_evoked and then beaten these elements.Jn our analysis of Fight rase ní Fighl "xfefi and the DVD-extra text that ac- homosexual- companies it, we point out how these tactics of denialf dismissal, and diver-stoTTanruscd bvthe pmmjTTjTinäkers^ ánä^TnafTteteTritľTiiainlain at leas! a"3 veneer ?ifneuirosexuá1iTyľ*?íid thus up- * ' holo" th^TOclo-scxual status quo. This 1 — now comprise a very appealing ancP mosocial desire" continuum provides _ profitable nil lie market (Fejes & Pet-"" useful way to theorize the practice of rieh, 1993). In addition, inclusion of revealing and bidingJiornosexuality. certain sanctioned types of gay charac- She defines jhC.hgmosoxiafjia. "social ters-though not overt gay sexuality- bonds betweenpeopleot the same sex has proven capable of attracting main- (p. 1) and suggests that homosocial stream audiences and thus generating practices such as male bonding can be large profits. mapped onto the same continuum of 1 Advertisers, filmmakers, television desire as homosexuality, even when {programmers, and others employ sev- those practices are homophobic or ag- ! eral rhetorical strategies to market me- gressively heterosexual. She argues that dia offerings that include gay themes cultural representation, however, often and gay characters to mainstream audi tries to rupture this continuum in order_ euros. One strategy.thatjonifnrť; main- to establish the homosociai as distinct stream audiences depicts gays in ways from, and dichotomous to, homosexu that support rather than threaten the ality. In this way, hprnpsocial prac Í text can be evoked and back, quite literally in the "Club, before il slides into The homoeroticism that permeates $ght Club is complex and 11 ± ered. At one level, the film includes numerous subtextual signifiers that ap- _______________________________ peal io. and are thus suggestive of, gajT is yet another example of what Gross erotic sensibility. An example of such (1991) notes is themedia's tendency to is the fuss that Jack and Tyler make preserve the mainstream's talse lacad< "•about a Gucci ad, which depict a male" _ oTheteronormity." model, whose build and pose echo .' The FigfUjMb DVD consists of two_ those found in gay pornography. The disks. ThemrsJ) contains the theaTncal inclusion of such subtgx^ualsignifiers release, foreign language versions, and iconically ties Fighl Club to ouícTľmeČlIa running commentaries by the director 'expressions of contemporary Ameri- (DavidFincher), the actors, (Brad Pitt^ ' can homoeiotif.ism. At another level, ľdward Norton, anil [leleiu l'i n m homoeroticism ia evident b tlie Sgfat- Partei j, the auihor of the original book mgSrorn wliíclr'tne" fnňi~a*eřívěš"itŠ and the screenwriter (Chuck Palali- & im ľhls!. ami others in name. Fight Clu&s ritualistic rights fos- niuk and ter male bonding and fender accept- volved in the production. The second able intimate and prolonged physical ""disk contains scenes'deleted from heterosexist order. This uuiiing is do n e "Trices," especially those that can signify by having gay characters serve as come homoeroticism, are prevented from die foils to heterosexual leads, by por- sliding onto the homosexual side of the Iraying them as asexual and apolitical, continuum. A common form ol cur- and by depicting them as self-policing rural representation that achieves ihis and impossibly perfect protectors of purpose is the use of violence^ a the htíterosexist socio-sexual order .socially sančHôn^ďmeans of (Brookey & Westerfelhaus, 2001; Dow. _______l_ _ relieving omueroiie tension that results in "re- contact between the contestants. In this. way, when Fight Club signifies homo-eroticism-as for example when the camera lingers over bare-chested, sweaty men with their muscles flexed and bodies pressed together-it does so in a way thai passes it off as homosocial, The DVD, however, piovTHěs another line of defense against an interpretation that attempts to render this homoeroticism as homosexual experience ! Earlier we argued that DVD-exira text could be used to direct the viewer's interpretation of a film. In the next ) section, we argue that Fight CluHs extra N text is employed to discourage_Jhe ^(^iewer_fxuni jftterprjtiíí^fŤH^TioťímŠ ^^o^aljOjacjicj^represented ässigňify íneTíomosexuaí expeněricéTTvlores theatrical release, promotional materi als, storyboards, location scouting, and frinciple photography. All Lriclusjve, i'e Fighl ClubĎVD contains oyer eight* horns of viewable material, not counting material repeated in different versions (Spanish subtitles, Dolby surround sound). As noted earlier, even the physical packaging of the DVD contains a pamphlet that could be counted as-Ľxti ("Examples of homoeroticism^öan be _ fourid in many oT etenVi its of tffg%yr>r "includingjhe pamphlei enijiled "How to Stan a Fight," which features a picture of Brad Pitt on the cover, Hexing his muscles in a way reminiscent of gay" erotica/porn. The press kit featured on ''disk two takes the ľôrnToFä mail-order ing Homosexual experience, iviorespe- catalogue, offering a uHard «Jore Tank" cincally! iVtf čioUWnďTflai EntTextra téxf"~ shirt depicting porn stars, and avail- V • r \ 30 HIDING HOMOEROTICISM MARCH '2002 uted to the film, they also clearly indi- fj cate that Fincher orttie actors héiôHiie y opinions that matured most. If theirs v ařéTHe opinions that matter, tnentheiř-i running commentaries are the most ŕ -"^ii_ important elements of The extra text in« d the Sexual.^Tlrr.u they provide an ongoing forum tor ' theseopiinonsr^e should note thaO. reviewers discussed previ- S ________ óusly alsopoini oui the importance of % is a seepage that is easily the director's, actors', and writers' run- \" able in a "Boys at the Backdoor" style. In one of the location shots included in disk two, a crewmember refers to a substance made to resemble liposuc-, tioned fat as his "jizz." Clearly these are signifiers of the male sexual_bodv lmale-oh-male sex, an Zrpŕoducť of the maIe.llxQuld,be_aJi^ ed thai these extra-text elements re-éal segflage of homosexual expend. enceTböni ning commentaries in influencing their response to, and interpretation oCj? ňnk *ťhereforeľ"wť focus our critical ^ contained. If..the authority of the au-teurs is established by the extra i^xi. 9 and this authority in turn asserts an , .» - mterpretarive grammar that views fli? attention on these specme running com ^homoerotk dements of the film as ho , ;1^11taries in our a"alyS1S UÍ 'he * mosqcial and not homosexual, then t ~Tfiesc exira^ext-eUanents could also 51-viewed i^homos IndeeíJ^ďíííerentrnaterials included the Fight Club DVD-extra text work ^U^auüjori^^ d assert meu^mmom-foreximpTeT-^a^^rffie-gfäsure örhbrHösexui 4> m text" _ We will begin our analysis with a description of the film in order to illus- «E___ en iso-U trate <£> where we believe I ffieextiTtext mcru-aeTTeämres about^T-^^^^^^^^v location scouting, pnnciple photogra- ^e^^-epiance is most necessary v phy, and special effects elements that ■ We'interpret the höinoeröHc elemen reinforce, and are anchored in, the au- fa these segmentS7 ^d then show how teur ideology. In the location scouting ^ mnning commentaries offered by shoots, Fincher is the center of atten- ^ ^irector- actors, and writers use tion as other crewmembers listen to ^pnia| dismissal,anddistracuontoun-him articulate his vision of the scenes. -3^-1^10* validity of a ho™™»*"»1 In the principal photography, the fo- interpretation. In thjg way the ideology' cus is on the actors as they interact with the crew, rehearse their blocking, and give their input as to how a scene should play. The special effects scenes include commentary by the crewmembers that often refer to Fincher as the final judge of how a scene should look, or discuss how an actor influenced decisions about an effect. For a specific special effect included in a sex scene, the final determination for a computer-generated image was that it had to make Helene Bonham Carter look pretty. Although these aspects of the DVD show how the film crew contrib- of the homosexual erasure dovetails with the ideology of the auteur Narrative Fight Club opens with the image of a man's brain and closes with the image of a penis. In between, the film explores the psychic and sexual crisis of contemporary white, middle-class American masculinity- orione version of it -through the experiences and ob-. servations of 'Jack," Fight Cluffs protagonist, who is played by Norton. 31 CSMC BROOKEY AND WESTERPELHAÜS When we first meet Jack, he is a slave "to materialism who attempts to find emotional connections in the support groups he compulsively cruises. It is at one of these, a group for men with testicular cancer, that Jack meets Maria Singer, the film's main female character. Whenjack challenges Maria's right to be there, she stales that she has a greater right to attend the group than does Jack (the implied argument: like many of the men attending, she has no testicles, while Jack's are intact and cancer free). This conflict illustrates that Jack's relationship with Maria, initially, is hardly romantic. In fact, he goes so far as to blame her for his problems. Jack is much more interested, however, in a man that he meets on one of the countless business flights he takes, Tyler Durden, a charismatic soap salesmen whose passion for life is a sharp contrast to Jack's general ennui. The two strike up a conversation, during which Tyler makes seductive reference to pursuing the kind of active, exciting, "n subversive life of which Jack has only ' dreamed. After the flight, Jack arrives at his condo to find it has been blown-up in a mysterious explosion. Jack then contacts Tyler and the two men agree to meet at a bar. After a night of drinking, Jack mentions the need to find himself a hotel. Jack agrees to go home with Tyler, but before they leave Tyler requests an unusual favor: "Hit me as hard as you can." They , begin a sparring match during which they bond. So much so, in fact, that the two men set up house in a manner Jack describes as "Ozzie-and-Harriet." During one scene that highlights their domestic familiarity, Tyler bathes while he and Jack discuss whom they would most like to fight. Tyler mentions he would fight his dad, who he says was indifferent Jack claims he does not know his dad because "he left when I about six years old." Tyler observes, ''We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need." This sense of abandonment by and anger toward male father figures, and their suspicion directed toward maternal substitutes, are important shaping uifluencesjn the* relationship of Tylei aid Jack and the unfolding of the film's plot. Tile routine of their domestic arrangement is punctuated by periodic fights in the bar's parking lot, which attract a growing crowd of men who function first as voyeurs and then as enthusiastic participants in the ritualistic pugilism. Tyler and Jack find them selves at the center of a growing phenomenon. The_fights are more than mere physical recreation: they are a means for men to explore themselves and their masculinity while connecting with other men. As the fights absorb more of Jack's time and energy, he no longer regularly attends support groups. Instead, he and Tyler fashion a support group of their own in the bar's basement, where the fighting has now moved. The club's members form a clandestine bond that extends beyond the confines of the club- They exchange secret, knowing glances at work-while dining, and in other public places. Through what they come to call Fight Club, they are able to distinguish themselves in ways denied them by the demeaning and emasculating jobs of the contemporary service economy. Not surprisingly .Jack's absence from the support groups is noticed by Maria, who calls and asks where he has been. In a desperate bid for attention, she claims she has swallowed a whole bottle 33 .í: HIDING HOMOEROTICISM of tranquilizers. Jack sets down the receiver and walks away as the film fades to a sex scene that morphs several images of Maria. The next morning, as Jack eats breakfast he hears someone enter the room, and imagining that he is speaking to Tyler, he says, "You won't believe this dream I had last night." To his surprise, Maria enters. Maria then begins an ongoing sexual relationship with Tyler, who it seems had picked up the receiver Jack had ^dropped and had come to her rescue, [ack is annoyed and threatened by Mar's presence because she seems to compete with Jack for Tyler's attention. In other words.Jack sees Maria as a threat to his relationship with Tyler. Maria, however, is not Jack's only threat. Tyler begins a new form of Fight Club called Project Mayhem, in which members engage in petty acts of vandalism. Over time, the number and severity of these acts increase as does the number of club members. Jack and Tyler's home becomes filled with young men who make claims upon Tyler's attention and strain his relationship with Jack. In one scene,Jack takes out his growing frustration upon a club member, whom Tyler had affectionately embraced, by brutally pummel-ing him during a fight. Jack finally confronts Tyler, and Tyler slates that Jack does not understand the full implications of their relationship. At this point in the Elm, Tyler disappears. Jack searches for him ira the Fight Club underground that has emerged in major cities throughout the United States. He always arrives in. Tyler's wake, and to his puzzlement is. recognized and referred to as "Mr. Durden." Seeking to address newly aroused suspicions. Jack calls Maria to ask if they have had sex. Maria replies, "You fuck me, then snub me. You love MARCH 2002 nn t\ and then hate me. You show me your sensitive side, and then you turn iiteto a total asshole. Is that a pretty accurate description of our relationship, Tyler?" Jack asks, "What did you i.; «11 me? Say my name." Maria replies, ■"MVlerDurden." Jack now realizes that he and Tyler air-e the same person and that he is the ai_jthor of Project Mayhem's increasing gly violent agenda. To protect Maria, w- ho has been largeted as a threat to the pKroject, Jack sends her away on a bus. Ir3> an attempt to stop the project's next ac^t of terrorism, Jack tries to discon-nesct one of the bombs Project Mayhem has set to explode in an office-bi.iilding parking garage. Tyler stops h i. m and the two men engage in a fight tb&at is filmed by security cameras, w liich capture images of Jack throwing hi.mself around the garage. This fight is ccz>ntinued from the garage to an office at the top of the building, and the film re=turns to the opening scene; Tyler heading a gun in Jack's mouth. From h»s vantage point. Jack looks down lo se=-e Fight Club members carry Maria OCT a bus. Jack reasons that he can res solve the situation: if Tyler is not real b*jt the gun is, then the gun is not in T^yler's hand but in his own. Jack puts tbme gun to his head and pulls the trig-gesr. It is Tyler, however, who dies. vW^hen the Fight Club arrives with fVÄarla, Jack takes Maria's hand and s^».ys, "You met me at a very strange tiwrne in my life." Tili* ivilialivt- depicts ;.i hmnoMH ial regtätionšhip in a homonnuč^manner ■ r^at easily muljpGLy--..— _^ressenUng homosexual experience. We ,hss4.ve a man undergoing a masčulíňTP er "isis attributed to an unresolved tela t«3nship with his father. He responds tcz» this crisis by forming a relationship w i th another man that proves f"* *"* CSMC BROOKEY AND WESTEWELHAUS both narcissistic and self-destructive. __ responds, "Just ask." Jack: "What are T^iTtrthcitMarfôTigrnpTs dissolved (liter- you talking about?" Tyler: "After three ally destroyed) the man can then pur- pitchers of beer, you still can't ask— sue a relationship with a woman. In Cut the foreplay and just ask." Jack I fact, the narrative seems to have taken then asks if he can come home with a page from Freud (1949) in its depic- Tyler, and Tyler agrees. The scene lion of the conflict and resolution of a plays outasa coy,^homoerotic flirta- f>C proper sexual object choice. The nana- tíô^Mexaiigotofo^kmg,onernan ŕ ^ Mjve includes violence -as a^neans-oí»" wants to ask if he can go home with 'simyltaneou&ly reliPvinK tht> hprnn- nnnthcr, but he cannot bring himself to \ erotic tension in a way deemed accept- r^«. fr» ľ.»c,rir^ H^r-My pprhapjark able to mainstream, sejisibihüei^ káyama, 1994). We_believe thaMhe__significance of two men going home fi|m's _homoerQtictsrriJg^maaéľfiXeii. together after last call. Tyler too seems jnore acceptable by ife-grasurejnjhe_ tó understand the sexual significance extra text. N ow that the larger .nans-, of Jack's unstated request when he tells live of the him has been considered, i^ IO »C(U tn(. (gr^p^v • *»-*"— *k«\, • •« snecific seg-. lftavefv' ' ' ' '" " P ie film has been considered, ,ack lo tue g* .««, we turn our attention to sDecific_seS;__leave Tyler asksjack to n^sinÄ^^ as you can. iSSSe^of the film are tenÖÄP 1Mlimfed.Wewill provide a close analysis of these segments and their treat ment in the running commenUws. . Before they 'hit me as hard you can. At this point, tlie film makes one of its many scenic shifts that disrupt the chronological progression of the narrative. The camera focuses upon a slide of a penis, while in a voice-over Jack says, "Let me tell you something about Tyler Durden " Jack informs the audience that, in addition to selling soap, i—l-ju.ndvino. set- S1mm'0ne ence that, m auumou......-„ . Afterdiscoveringhtacondohasbeen Tyler has several other low-payuig. ser- destroyed.Jack contacts Tyler and die vJ!roriented jobs. We are tod tha to apee io meet a. a bar Over bee works M . proiecnon»t»ho Tyler tells Jack that he is lucky, that \ ,e fraines of pornographic things could be worse: "A woman could £ ( ,A njce, blg cock) into cutoff your penis while you're sleepuig » films Jack úm lell8 us thatTyle and toss it out the window of a speed- ^ a banquet walte. who funchons ing car." That is, Tyler suggests, Jack food.induslry guerilla terroristIn colld have lost his manhood-hteraUy £ ^^ Ml of penile subver- as well as symbolically. Though seem- ™ . ,er ^ his own where ingly out-of-place, Tyleť» ««J "°" ™ ce is neither expected nor sequitur makes sense within the larger £ he is *„„, peeing into a context of the film's narrative, which Ws ^ aversion compares the enervating •*«&» howPever, is also sexual aggression. His rial possessions with emficu^on. n .^.^ p him ^ Tylers comment, however, is more P dominant-and dommat.ng- than a metaphoric indictment of con- him ^ ^ ^ ^ ob of temporary consumerism, as becomes «"al desirc. After this digres- clea? as die scene unfolds. Outside *e j«k.:, xu^ ^^ ^ ^ bar, the now homeless Jack mennons ion ieniaüvely a, bsU and the need to find himself a hotel. 1 yler uig J4 HIDING HOMOF.ROTICISM y. S then with great enthusiasm, Jack and Tyler slug it out Afterwards, they share ; a beer as Tyler smokes in a way sugges- j tive of post-coital relaxation. Jack casu- ! ally proposes, "We should do this again sometime.'1 In this segment the film begins to conflate homoeroticism with sadomasochism, a point addressed by Fincher in his commentary. Although Firichci begins his comments immediately Fol lowing Tyler's severed penis comparison, his remarks are not about this sexual reference. Instead, he talks about "the difficulty in conceptualizing this "thesis" scene, and his final decision to shoot it with two cameras. It is certainly proper for a director to discuss camera work, but given that the movie is about the crisis of contemporary masculinity, the dryly technical focus of his comments seem a bit odd direcdy following a reference to castration. These comments, however, can be understood as a means of distracting the viewer from the sexual implications of . the rejeignce^^- This distraction is quickly followed by a denial when Fincher describes the fight between Jack and Tyler. He avers that the scene may have "undercurrents of sadomasochism," but claims that Jack and Tyler's interactions come from an "innocent place," implying that the scene is not about sex per se. The use of the word "innocent" is also important because sex serves as a signi-fier for the loss of innocence; therefore," innocence signifies the absence of sex. Immediately after Fincher refers to the scene as innocent, the slide of die "nice big dick" appears on the screen. Fincher explains that Tyler's phallic insertions were inspired by a man he once knew who clipped scenes from films Fincher claims were not really "pornographic," and although the clips MARCH 2002 that Fincher describes are sexually suggestive (female breasts, a woman's panties), he describes the man's actions as "innocent." Through this comparison, Fincher's comments invite the viewer to see that Tyler's insertions are equally "innocent" and void of any serious "sexual import. In another running commentary track with Fincher and the actors, the "innocence" of these scenes is supplemented by joking banter between Fincher and Pitt. During the bar scene, Fincher compliments Pitt on the reference to "Viagra," and Pitt compliments Fincher on the reference to "Olestra," which Fincher then describes as a reference to "anal leakage." The obvious and unseemly connection between a sexual stimulate and the act of sodomy is humorously dismissed, as is the sexual subtext of the scene after Jack and Tyler's fight. In the running commentary with Palahniuk and Uhls, Palahniuk-author of the book on which the film is based—comments that he thought the scene was "weird" because it was "shorthand" for a love relationship. Screenwriter Uhls, however, seems to chuckle knowingly at Palahni-uk's confusion. Fincher jokingly remarks that he loves the "post-coital smoking scene," and Pitt says that he finds it "touching." The two seem to .suggest. Jhat.the _scené"~qp"ěrátěs "áš""a~] .joke, and the homoerotic subtext C-SMĽ the role of an to hľiCheť ag r-' tum m came to Fight < ass was a < - We BROOK.*!** 5*/ transfor ■f**'1-*. stands that what might appear to be__his overtly homosexual is really only an__ after a few wee* expression of "innocence." As for the wood." Jack's d slide of the "nice big dick," Norton jokingly observes that Fincher appears iii all of his movies. This joking serves r-*vto parody cj^tJcaLpractices ofnoino- Y/erotic interpretation^ therebv dismiss should no; be taken seriously. Perhaps "that is why Uhls cKuclčTěš" arPäTähnr--* uk's confusion; because he actually worked with Fincher, Uhls understands the joke. F-arlier comments by Norton suggest that the viewer will get the joke, too. He claims that those who watch the film and the DVD are probably fans, or as he puts it, "anyon listening in here is cool."In othe words, Norton positions the vjewe) ij y 1/erotic lnterpreumon^thereüv ^5 íngsucfľpracticesascomical" Segment Two As more men flock to the fights, they move from the bar's parking lot to its basement. It is into this basement that Tyler descends and lays out the rules of what comes to be called "Fight Club." As Tyler promulgates the rules, men remove their belts, shoes, and shirts. Soon, two shirtless men fight as others cheer. Jack comments in voice over: "This kid from work, Ricky, he couldn't remember if he orders pens with blue ink or black. But Ricky was a • god for ten minutes when he trounced the maitre ď at a local food court." In close-up.Jack observes the fighl with a hint of lust on his face. The fight concludes with the loser lying on the floor in a passive sexual position, a look of ecstasy on his face. It would seem that these fights carry a sexual tension that makes them more than mere brawls; they signify a relationship that dares not speak its name: "The first rule of Fight Club is: you do not talk about Fight Club." Jack later encounters "Ricky" while at work and the maitre ď—whose face - is bruised and bandaged-at the food court. They exchange knowing glances that resemble the type of homoerotic cruising gay activist Harry Hay once described as "the eye lock" (Timmons, 1990).Jack describes the men's connec- pation in Fight powerment: W gins Fight Clu malleable, and through the act becomes "woo phor for an eit thus a sign of se The sexual n ters is given n change betweei two walk dowi bus stop with a young man's r< ter they board 1 another Gucci defined, muscu "Is that what a responds, "Self-bation, now s quick cut to thf men fighting as When finished1 though sexuall tion of Tyler's' age connects tí-self-im pro verní absorbed isola; implying that ť of fighting is ' bring Tyler's « conclusion, if s* turbation, then sex (with reaf course, reaffirr ception of gay' destructive, build to its an hr sion. In the DVDs not address the* ment upon ho\S íl i 37 HIDING HOMOEROTICISM sunglasses in the food court scene. Bon-ham Carter is a bit more engaged. Her comments, however, ignore the film's sexual elements and focus instead upon the violence and how its depiction offered her insight into why men light: it \ gives them the sensation of being alive. Norton suggests the film is the contemporary equivalent of The Graduate, because it deals with "youthful dislocation" and how it feels to be out-of-sync with society's accepted values. Palah-nhik come,? cjosegt fo addressing the sexual aspects of these scenes, He does so indirectly, however, in suggesting ~thartheüse~of'äTc"ö1röl"m some scenes -was important because, just as some" ople have to consume alcohol to. ve sex, it "seemed natural that people would have to have alcohol hi ]:;;lu loi ihe first time." Willi this possible excep lion, these i turning commentaries illustrate how the extra text distracb EG viewer from die presence of homo erotic elements. Within this segment a man's ""ass" is mentioned and two men's naked bodies are visually repre sehteel with a reference to masturba lion. However, Norton's statement thaL Fight Club is an ambiguous film along the lines of The Graduate directs viewer attention away from the film's homo-erotic elements by comparing it to a film known for its heterosexual elements. Segment Three As the personal violence of Fight Club evolves into the public violence of Project Mayhem, Tyler inducts new recruits and turns the house into a crowded barracks. The presence of so many men packed into the house heightens the club's homoerotic ten-, sion. This tension is visually expressed in a scene in which Jack gazes upon a MARCH 2002 shirdess young recruit while he shaves; the recruit's body is framed in the doorway of the bathroom, and Tyler stands by the doorway as though he were presenting the young man for Jack's erotic enjoyment An implication of this heightened homoeroticism is depicted later when Tyler affectionately embraces a young, blond recruit after a successful Project Mayhem adventure. Jack gazes enviously upon the recruit _ and expresses his sense of rejection as - Tyler's attention turns to another. Later __jn the Fight Club basement, Jack takes on the recruit, knocks him to the floor, 1 and pummels his face into a bloody _ pulp. When Tyler asks, "Why did you — go psycho, boy?" Jack replies, "I - wanted to destroy something beauti- — ful." More to the point. Jack wanted to ...destrov a masculine object of beauty _ that was occupying Tyler's attention. — This heightened homoerotic tension has caused a rift in Jack and Tyler's -- relationship. While driving, Tyler raises - -this issue: "Is something on your mind, dear?" Jack wonders why he was not -told about Project Mayhem, especially given that he and Tyler started Fight Club together. Tyler replies that Project Mayhem goes beyond the two of them, and that Jack should forget what he thinks he knows "about life, about friendship, and especially about you and me." Project Mayhem thus signals the beginning of the end of Jack and Tyler's relationship. In commenting on ihis segmentT] Fincher notes he is often asked in interviews about (he homoerotic elements of Fight Club. He suggests that if the story line of the film is followed, it is C5MC BROOKEY AND WEST ERF ELBA U S dear ihat Fight Club is more of a "self love story" than a homosexual love slot). Apart trom its direct denial of ..homosexual love, Fincher's distinction ignores how homosexuality has lie quendv been associated-\ . t'_ A..._____:________ with narcis* sisiii. In the running commentary with the actors, Fhicher also dispai ages critic \:ii\ Täubin, who raised the issue of iiomoerotii ism in an interview she con ducted. Fincher mentions that Täubin may have accused him of violating the "cardinal rule" against having a charac-teř played by two different actors. The actors laugh at die absurdity of the rule, and offer examples of films that defy its application. The fact that Fincher's comments deny the issue of homo sexuality in one running commentary, and then dismiss a critic that has raised .the issue in another, may be coinriden-i ffál Nevertheless, the two runninu corn VI jmentaries suggest to the viewer that r> fight Club is not to be interpreted as representing homosexual experience. It is also interesting to note how Jack's jealousy is treated. Norton ignores the en lotion entirely and focuses instead upon the technical aspects of "the scene: how the shot of his jealous gaze was "undercranked" (filmed at 40 frames, according to Fincher). Pitt, on the other hand, suggests that the scene depicts a "brotherly" jealousy, motivated by fraternal rather than sexual interests. Screenwriter Uhls suggests that Jack's je.aTöÜsy.can.^g_uňdérsgiod-fŕom a "hetero poinl of view," as a deny it, and Palahniuk's comments d miss it. *& Segment Four After Jack discovers that Tyler is a projection of his own psyche, he no - longer sees Maria as a th reat but rather as threatened. Before he can pursue a relationship with Maria, however.Jack must first finish off Tyler. Jack confronts Tyler in the parking garage of . one of the buildings targeted to be blown-up as part of Project Mayhem. The two struggle, Tyler subdues Jack, and the film returns to the same scene .with which it began: Tyler holding a gun in Jack's mouth. When Jack wonders why he cannot rid himself of Tyler, Tyler claims he was created from Jack by Jack to satisfy Jack's unmet needs. Jack then realizes what he must do: he puts the gun to his head and pulls the trigger. With smoke coming out of his mouth, Tyler turns and falls to the ground with the back of his head blown out. In this way, Jack both consummates and ends his relationship with Tyler, and thus rids himself of his homoerotic projection. As noted earlier, .other critics have also recognized the Jiomoeroiic significance of this scorn- person resenting their best friend pay iug attention to another. He then goes on to observe that the si ene ''obviously äs homosexual connotations." Paiah ik. however, laughs at this sueges-\£iun. The extra text comments make it V . clear that, from the perspective of those" V involved in making the film, a heteron /\oi mative reading of the scene has ll greater legitimacy than does a homoerotic one. In turns, Norton's comments distract the viewer from the homoeroticism, Pitt's and Uhls' comments We should add, however, that the dis -covery that Tyler is Jack's narcissistic -projection also serves to code theii relationship as homosexual. Now thai Jack h^ killed off Tyler, he turns to Maria. Fight Club members Jhen arrive with Maria in custody (Tyler had instructed them to "take care of her" because she "knows too much"). Jack directs them to leave him and Maria alone. Maria, asksjack what "sick game" he is playing, but stops mid-sentence when she sees his face. He informs her he shot himself, but that he is now okay. He adds that she can trust IB •u HIDING HOMOĽROTICiSM him that "everything is going to be fine." Al that very moment, in a strange mockery of clichéd sexual fireworks, the buildings targeted by Project Mayhem implode in the distance as Jack takes Maria's hand and says, "You met me at a very strange time in my life." Indeed, but now that he is with Maria, it seems thai Jack's masculinity crisis may finally have a heterosexual resolu-, tion. Or, maybe not: the film concludes with the image of a penis (the same one inserted in a previous scene), (lashing briefly on the screen. The visual reappearance of an object of homo-erotic desire seems to raise the ques tion: "The End?" Norton and Fincher's comments provide perhaps ihe best example of dismissal, lie claims Jack resists the escalation of Fight Club's violence only when Maria's safety is overtly threatened, and argues that this threat is the film's pivotal point because it precipitates Jack's break from his alter ego (Tyler). Norton also observes that, though Jack was looking to Tyler for "some kind of intimacy," in the end Jack transfers his "desire for connection to Maria, where it should have been in the first place, maybe." Allowing for the equivocal "maybe," Norton provides the definitive heteronormative reading to Ihis segment, and to the film's conclusion. This reading, however, infers that Jack's desire lni "inu ' maey" with Tyler was homosexual and V thus inappropriate; otherwise it makes i little sense to suggest that Jack's "desire , for connection" should have been directed to Maria "in the-first-places" This inference, however, is easily dismissed when Fincher jokes as the film flickers to a close: "Did you know there-is a six-frame splice of a penis at the end?" Norton: "You're kidding." At a point when homosexuality is almost MARCH 2002 CSMC UR< JOKEY AND WRffTEWELHAUS acknowledged, albeit inferentially, it is 1 ultimately laughed off and dismissed. Conclusion We have argued that Fight Club narrative, coupled with the interpreta lion of it offered in the running com mentaries7pŤotects the film's commer ci V I" rms ... appeal tnrough dual ^homosexual erasure^ The__narrative while depicting a relationship that can easily be interpreted as homosexual, incorporates violence and a heteronor-ii-.ati\.' .-iicliny I- render iliiníomuriiín c ism merely lininusoual:_T!ie miminu " id line of \ commentaries provide a second ^IcfenM-, with tin- film's auteiirs provid- ing an taierpreiaqon that eifhe that EBe homoeroticism represen but if the DVD is any indication, Fight Club does not achieve this by forcibly, .challenging the male heterosexual viewers sexual identity. We have also argued that My ny_p with ils interactive mix of media product and promotion, not only offers consumers a new way to vi**w filmcr-hnt_ also presents critics wftfa new c \: ~n mosexuaTity, __ iiy of homosexuality or dismisses the possib distract.-, Ol we have included in our analysis do not exhaust the critical potential of DVD analysis, bul we hope that we have established some groundwork from which additional theorizing might proceed. DVD-extra text is very fertile terrain. Although we believe it is used to evoke the auteur in the case of Fight Ciuk we can see other ways thai exlra In / analysis uťŮ&Ftgfa Vtütr~Man of Mystery, the extra text can be em- eludes several humorous devices that d isco u rage an5~čfiscob nt V d raw on the persona of Austin Powers, while enoojtrag^-l^but do not actually introduce Mike ig others. In the rase of the Fight Club Myers as an auteur. In the case of a fjvU, the running commentaries Jn^ classical film, the cast and crew may no eluded in 11 tě extra text serve to delegiti- \i longer be around to offer interviews a homoerotic interpretation of.^aml ronning commentaries to accom- For example. QW nlnved to E2 some interpretations mate the film. \V. ■ i-,'..--i thai the effective panv the DVD release. viewer from jhe issue.. Jn this way Fight Club DVD constructs a digital cjosei that provides pleasures associ a ted with such eroticism while same time assu'amng any guilt that ly arromr might potentially accompany sue. pleasure on the part of homophobic and/or heterosexist consumers. Al though Fight Club was not a block-buster by any definition, it has attracted a large and loyal—and redominantly young male—cult Jül-_X / owing inspiring websites, conferences. \ and even actual fight clubs where Ypung men meet and beat one another Ĺ iNilles, 2001). While this cult following among young, presumably hetero sexual males may merely be iin effect of the erasure included in the film's narrative, the DVD-extra text adds an additional layer of plausible deniabil-ity for those who need it. Norton may be correct when he quotes Fincher; perhaps Fight Club was designed to "piss off a healthy number of people"; [■ ■■■- i T i i us privileging of the director's^ the DVD for All \hmi! Eoé is very thin actors', and writers' comrnentarv-what on extra text, including only promo-~we"ľftave referred to as a return to the lional photos of the cast in character, C*-' ideology of the auteur-is made pos ie bluxring of the traditional between ncliou betwei ITV texts. Ä~š a ana . • . ana liotsometlling apart from it, these'Opinions are now included in the and a promotional trailer. It may well be that older films may carry enough j,j of a reputation that people will pur- "" chase the DVD without the addition of exlra text as an enticement. Simply put, different films, and different genres of many consum- __ of film, require different promotional prima an interna seethe - ewing expenence its as well us critics. This provides the strategies; extra text can be employed DVD with an inlratextual advantage in ways that accommodate these differ ■not; enjoyed by other means of pačkaj^ ences. Additional critical work is ing and distributing films. Further^ needed to chronicle these various ac-more, we suggest that this new techno]- commodations. ogy may have created an invested We believe that the concept of intra- consumer who, by buying the DVD, is lexlualily, on the other ríärrrfrnťay"fincT so predisposed to buy memterjjreta-^applicatiiuis outside the DVD. Al though the Internet has usually been ion that the UVUor^rs"" _ íe OVI!) is an important media product that is gaining in popularity, and likely is to claim a prominent place in the digital-media marketplace. Given the DVD's potential as a media product, it deserves theoretical consideration, and this is what we have attempted to provide. The concepts lhal regarded as the embodiment of inter-texruality, as media become more web-based, media conglomerates have a vested interested in reining in the web surfer. Robert McChesney (199!)) has argued that the media have become more centralized and more concerned about cross-promotion and product re- 40 41 1 MARCH -iOCfl we noted earlier are any indication, DVD-extra text is considered a highly desirable attribute of this new technology. Perhaps the trend is already set and future consumers of DVDs will be as interested in the extra text as contemporary consumers, and will come to expect it. Furthermore, although the viewer's investment in the DVD_mav dissipate, the concept of the^myested^ -) HIDING HOMOEROTICISM \packaging, and that these practices are /^designed to keep the consumer fo- I cused on product option|joiTered by a single corporate interest. If the intratex-tuality of the DVD signifies intertex-lual relations with predetermined restraints and boundaries, then these same restraints can be put in place as more media access is introduced on the Internet. In other words, web pages for j media conglomerate may offer/ vjewerlnay rjfiTusgfln in exftfabting links that only connect to other prod-vHööiwrer emerging medio féchňolo-ucls and companies related to the conglomerate. The Fox Network web page may some day allow viewers to watch reruns of Ally McBeal, and also to buv a CD of music from the show, but it will not link them to another network. The (/ intratcxtual advantages of convenience, ' and proximity enjoyed on theDVD can also be enjoyed on (he web; and similar to the DVD, Stertexhiality on the web may become 'intratexlualiiv that is carefully crafted to serve corporate interests. Thejnyested viewer, however, may táíóTitepl with" a Slíbit shelf life "for" DVD. After all, as we have argued, the viewer is invested because DVD technology is so new; it will not be as hew next year. As the DVD player becomes more common, those pur- ■ived. In oiher words, thos pioneers who first purchase a techno] ogy may be motivated to believe the technology has value, even when that value primarily serves corporate interests. Finally, we wonder about the politics of representation in light of our analysis of the Fight Club DVD. Queer experience is not the only type of experience that has been erased in mainstream media. In fact, an important critical project in the field of media studies has advocated readings that challenge the representation, or lack thereof, of numerous marginalized groups. The Fight Club DVD illustrates how digital technology can be used t delcgilimaie resistant and politic \ \\ . Jlvated^rea^ngš^ W <• do noi belie vi chasing the technology will no longer that digital technology can be used to be ahead of the curve. These consum- eradicate politically activated read ers will be purchasing a tested technol- ings, but it does present new chal ogy, and may be less likely to worry lenges to media critics who believe that about the value of their purchase^ Will the practices of media representation these consumers believe the .extraText are often classist, racist, sexist, and ho-to'be ani important part of their invest- mophobic. Perhaps the important ques-řhéňt? Thatmay depend on how the tions are not about the existence of a early consumers set the frend. ior the digital closet, but how many and what t«-« -hnology's use. If the DVD reviews -lands of people can it hold? Notes 'Our use of the term "viewer is informed by John Fiske's (1987) definition. He claims the cerm is specifically applicable to television, and that it suggests an active agent who contributes meaning to the media text. Although we aie dealing with a film text, DVDs arc mainly consumed at home via television sets. We also feel that it is Important io imagine the viewer of the DVD as b -gyfj BROOKEY ANT) WF.STERFE1-HAUS though the extra lext appears to be designed to constrain the active viewer, /\ f^ The theatrical release only referred to this character as "the narrator." In the DVD. however, ihe character is referred to as "Jack." •'Borrowing from Gerbner and Gross (1976), Kielwasser and Wolf (1992) argue that the invisibility engendered by such absence with respect to gays (and gay youth in particular) results in a form of symbolic annihilation. 4From a queer perspective, this strategy poses two problems: first, it helps render gays invisible to much of the mainstream, contributing to their symbolic annihilation; and second, it privileges the gay experience of affluent, urban, white gays and lesbians to the exclusion of other gays and their experiences {Gluckman & Reed, 1993). *fhir use of the term "rujmocroticism" refers to erotic experience between two people uf.lh.fc saméTnoJpgical sex- We do not suggest that the characters in Fight Club actually participate in jeXu2 acts, a distinction clarified by Bataille. who views eroticism as a uniquely human attribute. Bataille (1989) argues: "Eroticism, unlike simple sexual activity, is a psychological quest independent of the natural goal: reproduction* (p. 11). Moreover, he states that pain, whether seen or experienced, is a primary means of undertaking this quest because it mediates between life and death. The fact thai the homoeroticism in Fight Club is often framed by physical pain illustrates Bataille's point. °A fourth running commentary includes the opinions of the director of photography, costume designer, and special effects artists. As expected, these technicians talk mostly about aspects of their craft as represented in scenes, but seldom comment on the narrative or visual elements as these relate to homoeroticism. We could have argued thai their comments distract from the homoeroticism, because they do. However, we felt that such an argument would be too easy and a little disingenuous. Furthermore, the residue of the auteur does not seem to encompass these individuals, as evidenced in the reviews of the DVD, and the materials included on the DVD. In fact, these individuals in their commentaries often refer and defer to Fincher and the actors. Therefore, we have decided not to include this running commentary in our analysis. References Abraham, M. (2001, January 29). DVD will continue as fastest-growing consumer product. ENEWS. sec. Ln-Stat, p. 12. Bart, P. (2000). Thegross. New York: St. Martin's Griffin. Bataille, G. (1989). Tears of Ens. San Francisco: City Lights. Bennett, T., & Woollacott, J. (1987). Bond and beyond: The political career ofd popular hero. London: Macmillan Education, ronski. M. (1984). Culture dash: The making of gay sensibility. Boston: South End Press. Brookey, R.- A. (1996). A community like Philadelphia. Western Journal of Communication, 60 (1), 40-56. Brookey. R. A..& Weslerlclhaus, R. (2001). Pistols and petticoats, piety and purity: To WongFoo, the queering of the American monom/th, and the marginalizing discourse of deification. Critical Studies inMedia Communication, 18(2). 141-156. Chick, T. (2000). There: Tom Chick breaks the first (and second) rule of Fight Club. |Online|. DailyRadar.com, 1-3. Retrieved February 11, 2001. Available hUp://www.dailyradar.com/ columns/showbiz_coluinn_283.html. Clover. C.J. (1992). Men, women, and chain saws: Gender in the modern horror film. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Crowdus, G. (2000). Fight Club. Cintastt, 25(4), 46-47. Dow, B. J. (2001). Ellen, television and the politics of gay and lesbian visibility. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18(2), 123-140. >■-------^ DVD video to beat industry sales projections. (2000, September)^ Emediů,ti3 (9), 12. I.: HIDING HOMOEROTICISM MARCH 2002 Ebert, R. (1999. October 15). Fight stresses frightful ideas; Fascism wins by knockout. Chicago Sun-Times, sec. Weekend Plus; Movies, p. 31. [On-line). Retrieved February 11, 2001. Available ha^://w»vw.sunhmes.com/eberI/eberl_reviews/1999/10/!01502.htTnl. Ellis, M. (2001). Fight Club, and then some. |On-line|. WCBEPublic Arts, 1-2. Retrieved February 11,2001. Available hap://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wcbe/arts/movies/article/157.hlml. Fejes, F. (2000). Making a ray masculinity. Critical Studies in Media Communication, '7(1), 113—116. Fejes, F.,& Pelrich, K. {1993}. Invisibility, homophobia, andheterosexism: Lesbians,gays,and ihc media. Critical Studia in Mass Communication, I0{3), 396-422. Fiske,J. (1987). Television culture. New York; Roulledge. Freud, S. (1949). Three essays or. the theory of'sexuality. London: Imago. Gerbner, G, & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journalof Communication, 26(2), 172-199. Gluckman, A., & Reed, B. (1993, November 1). The gay marketing movement: Leaving diversity in (he dust. Dollars and Sense, 190, 16-19 and 34 -35. Gross, L. (1991). The contested closet: The ethic and politics of outing. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8 (3), 352-388. How to Start a Fight. (2000). Fight Club DVD |Brochure). Beverly Hills, CA: Twentieth Century J \ Fox Home Entertainment, Inc. [On-line|. Available http://www.foxhoine.com/cgi-bin/adtrack/ „ N fightchb_dvdl/getfoim.pl?PAGE-booklethtml&MANlIF=FOXHONfE_SW&í\D=DOMí\IN& CAMPGN-FCDVDl. Kielwasser, A. P., & Wolf, M. A. (1992). Mainstream television, adolescent homosexuality, and significant silence. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 9 (4), 350 -373. Lapsley, R.. & Westlake. M. (1988). Film theory: An introduction. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. McChesney, R. {1999). Rich media, poor democracy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Nalcayama, T. K. (1994). Show/down time; "Race," gender, sexuality, and popular culture. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, / ř (2), 162-179. Xilles, K. (2001,January 22). Fight Club packs a wallop with young fans. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, p. IE. (On line]. Available http://www.jsonline.com/Enter/movies/jan01/fclub22011901.asp. Norton, E. (2000). Fight Club DVD (Disk Two|. Interview. Beverly Hills, CA: Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, lue O'Hehir, A. (1999, October 15). Fight Club. [On-line). Salon.com,l-3. Retrieved December 30, 2000. Available http://www.salon.corn/ent/movics/review/l999/I0/15/fighLclub/print.html. \ V FmeBo, C. (2000, September). DVD playback. American Cmemalogvapher, 81 (9), 22-24. Rich, B. R. (2000, March). Queer and present danger. Sight and Sound, 10 (3), 22-25. Russo, V. (1987). The celluloid closet: Homosexuality in the moniairtv. ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Sedgwick, E. (1985). Between men: English literature and male homosocial desire. New York: Columbia University Press. Sender, K. (1999). Selling sexual subjectivities: Audiences respond to gay window advertising. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 16(2), 172-196. V j Smida, G. M. (1999). Introduction: A few words about interactivity. In G. M. Smith (Ed.), On asilw Js^_ platter: CD-ROMs and the promises of a new technology (pp. 1-34). New York: New York University Press. Taubin, A. (1999, October 13-19). 2lst century boys. [On-line). The Village Voice, 1-3. Retrieved September 20,2000. Available http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/9941/taubin.php. Thomson, D. (1999, October 17). Brilliance and promise will only go so far. The New York Times, Sec. 2, p. 15. 43 MC BROOKEY AND WESTERFF.LHAUS Timmons, S. (1990). The trouble with Harry Hay: Founder of the modern gay movement Boston: Alyson. Turan K (1999, Odober 15). Movie review: Fight Club. Los Angeles Times, Fl. |On-line|. Retrieved February 11, 2001. Available http://www.calendarlive.eom/top/l,H^.I^LATimes-beaich-X!AriicleDclail-5276,00.html?search_area^Articles&channel=Search&search_text=Movie + review*S>3 A + Fight+Club.