Hassan (1991, pp. 281-282) proposes a heuristic scheme that summarizes the sets of assumptions of modernism on one hand and postmodernism on the other. I have selected some dyads from Hassan’s scheme to highlight structural and ideological differences between Independence Day and Fight Club. The following table 1 synthesizes the categories used in my comparison.

Table 1. Contrastive analysis between Independences Day (Hemmerich 1996) and Fight Club (Fincher 1999), following Hassan’s (1991) heuristic scheme.

1) Form (closed) versus Antiform (open). A structural analysis shows a significant narrative difference between the two films. Independence Day has a clear structure with beginning, middle, and end. Emmerich’s movie clearly reproduces one of classic science-fiction plots: The War of the Worlds (1953, directed by Byron Haskin; Rogin 1998; Dowell 1996). One of the characteristics of popular artifacts like classic science-fiction plots is the repetition of archetypal schemes. The introduction of minimal variations, defined as “collateral inventions,” introduces a minimal element of originality in otherwise highly predictable structures (Eco 1966). In the case of Independence Day, a collateral invention introduces politically correct themes and a multicultural cast of characters; this establishes a contrast of degree with the all-white Cold War science-fiction movies (Rogin 1998). As Eco states (1966), collateral inventions do not substantially affect the overall predictability of the plot, because “the true and original plot remains immutable and suspense is stabilized curiosity on the basis of a sequence of events that are entirely predetermined” (p. 57).

Fight Club breaks with this classic three-step model. The movie actually begins with the end and the entire story is narrated backwards, enclosed in a huge flashback and proceeding in a circular way. Moreover, Fight Club cannot easily be categorized according to any previous predefined genres. The mixed reception of the movie amongst public and critics may have been determined by this formal ambiguity. For instance, Crowdus (2000) defines it as “pitch-black comedy, an over-the-top, consciously outrageous social satire, characterized by excess and absurdity, and therefore guaranteed to delight or disturb sizable portions of any viewing audience” (par. 3). In reference to Fight Club, Giroux (2001) applies the label “scuzz cinema” to describe the movie’s mixture of “violence, cynicism, glitz, and shootouts” with “updated gestures toward social relevance—that is, a critique of suburban life, consumerism and so forth” (p. 26). Such hybridism reflects a general tendency of postmodernism towards the intermixing of non-homogeneous elements, defined as “pastiche” or “patchwork” (Featherstone 1991; Jameson 1984), which is a formal feature of postmodernist cinema (Boggs, 2001). For example, David Lynch, one of the most acclaimed postmodern directors (Denzin 1991), once stated: “I love 47 genres in one film. I hate one-thing films. And I love B movies. But why not have three or four Bs running together? Like a little hive!” (Drazin 1998, p. 56)

2) Determinacy versus Indeterminacy. As we have seen, the plot of Independence Day is, overall, highly predictable. In a review of the movie, Dowell (1996) states:

Despite such convoluted subtexts [the author refers to pretended elements of originality equivalent to Eco’s minimal inventions], Independence Day makes a great show of constructing a simple, linear plot and old-fashioned character typology that recall not only Fifties B-movies but also the made-for-television features that replaced them. (par. 12)

The audience knows from the beginning that, despite all initial difficulties, the heroes will defeat the aliens and restore order and peace. On the big screen, aliens invade Earth to offer us a thrill of entertainment. As with a roller coaster, where we finish our trip in the same place where we started, in Independence Day we know from the very first second that the destiny of the aliens is to be defeated. As Dowell points out (1996),

the only contribution [of the giant alien ships] . . . is an apocalyptically satisfying shot of cars tumbling end over end down city streets filled with panicked citizens, propelled by a gigantic fireball that will soon engulf all those nameless extras and sacrificial supporting players stuck in traffic. (par. 12)

The real enjoyment is not in the overall plot but in the minimal inventions, which in the case of Independence Day consists mainly of the spectacular elements, like the destruction scenes (Geoff 1999). At the end of the movie, the audience can leave the theater with a sense of satisfaction because the conclusion solves the dramatic tension and no ambiguities remain.

On the other side, postmodern artifacts refuse to fulfill superficial expectations in the audience and to create pre-determined fictions with a clear beginning, middle, and end. Spanos (1972; quoted in Bertens 1991, p. 38) recognizes in the anti-detective story the paradigmatic archetype of postmodernism: the reader's expectations are frustrated, the crime is not solved and no totalized world of order prevails over chaos. The plot of Fight Club is enclosed in a flashback. The protagonists seem to act without following a precise, rational path (see below). Only at the end of the movie, at the hands of an extraordinary plot twist, the public discovers that the white-collar nerdish Jack and the charismatic rebel leader Tyler are the same person. Fight Club is in fact a story narrated in first person by a person (Jack) who suffers from split personality: anti-heroes with personality disorders are common in postmodern narratives (Denzin 1991). Smith (1999), in his critics of Fight Club, observes that the whole movie is

a tale told by an insomniac who doesn't know when he's asleep, Fight Club takes things one step beyond into new realms of dissociation and movie mindfuck. Suffice to say viewers might wonder just what they can trust: Is Tyler Durden projecting this movie? And just how reliable is this flipped-out narrator anyway? (par. 7)

A scene is particularly significant in visualizing the in-determined double nature of the plot. When Jack tries to defuse one of the bombs in the garage of the credit card headquarters, the audience observes the fight between him and Tyler through both the colorful lens of the movie camera and on the black-and-white monitors of the security. In the former, two people are represented in the scene, while in the latter only one person is in the scene. Furthermore, the apocalyptic ending of the movie is not designed to generate fulfillment in the audience, but instead to disturb, to move the audience. According to Crowdus (2000), Fight Club departs “from the cookie-cutter mode of most studio releases, Jim Uhl's screenplay . . . refuses to untangle narrative ambiguities or to provide convenient signposts to guide viewer interpretation” (par. 10). Eventually, Jack “kills” his double personality Tyler, but he is unable to stop the destruction of the headquarters of the major credit card companies. The ending of the movie is open to multiple interpretations:

Fight Club engages and challenges moviegoers on an intellectual as well as an emotional and visceral level, refusing to spoon-feed them an easily digestible moral or lesson, instead insisting that viewers think through for themselves the many provocative themes and issues it broaches. (Crowdus 2000, par. 11)