PulpFiction FightClub

Revisiting Cult Classics: The Enduring Relevance of Fight Club and Pulp Fiction

Rewatching David Fincher’s Fight Club (1999) and Quentin Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction (1994) after two decades is like peeling away the layers of cinematic history to reveal how deeply these films have etched themselves into the cultural psyche. Despite the time gap, both these seminal works remain startlingly fresh, subversively relevant, and cinematically compelling. Their influence on global and Indian filmmaking is not only visible in stylistic mimicry but in the very grammar of postmodern cinema that these films helped to define.

At the heart of their cult status lies their trenchant critique of late capitalism, consumer culture, and modern identity. In Fight Club, Edward Norton’s unnamed narrator—fractured, alienated, and numbed by the vacuity of corporate life—embodies the postmodern subject lost in the simulacrum of advertising and brand fetishism. The film’s anarchist alter ego, Tyler Durden, functions not merely as a character but as an ideological specter—part Nietzschean Übermensch, part Situationist rebel—who exposes the hollow promise of individualism under neoliberalism. His iconic lines like “The things you own end up owning you” continue to resonate in a world even more commodified than the one Fincher depicted.

Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, on the other hand, revolutionized narrative form itself. The film deconstructs linear storytelling, embracing the in medias res structure, temporal disjunction, and multiple character arcs that challenge traditional narrative coherence. This kind of narrative fragmentation—akin to Bakhtin’s concept of heteroglossia and Barthes' idea of the writerly text—demands active spectatorship and reflects the fragmented reality of postmodern life. Characters like Jules Winnfield, Vincent Vega, Mia Wallace, and Butch Coolidge are not merely characters but stylized constructs that embody genre hybridity, moral ambiguity, and existential flair.

What makes both films timeless is their blend of aesthetic experimentation and philosophical depth. Whether it is Fincher’s use of hyper-stylized, gritty urban mise-en-scène and nihilistic voiceover narration, or Tarantino’s pop-cultural pastiche, intertextual references, and ironic juxtaposition of violence and humour—these are not just stylistic gimmicks but formal articulations of a postmodern worldview.

Influence and Legacy

The legacy of Fight Club and Pulp Fiction is expansive. Their stylistic and thematic DNA can be traced in numerous films across the globe. In Hollywood, films such as American Psycho (2000), Memento (2000), Requiem for a Dream (2000), and The Machinist (2004) clearly bear the imprint of Fight Club’s unreliable narration, hallucinatory aesthetics, and psychological depth. Christopher Nolan’s Memento, in particular, exemplifies the postmodern condition of fractured memory and subjective truth—concepts central to Fight Club’s split-identity narrative.

Tarantino’s influence on global cinema is even more ubiquitous. His love for nonlinear storytelling, genre-bending, and pop-culture-infused dialogue can be seen in films like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998), Snatch (2000), and even Trainspotting (1996), which—though directed by Danny Boyle—shares Pulp Fiction’s punkish energy and moral irreverence.

Indian Cinematic Echoes

In India, several films have attempted to emulate or reinterpret the narrative and thematic paradigms set by these cult classics. Anurag Kashyap’s No Smoking (2007), Shaitan (2011), and Raman Raghav 2.0 (2016) reflect a deep engagement with Fight Club’s psychological disintegration and stylized violence. Kashyap himself has acknowledged the impact of both Fincher and Tarantino on his cinematic sensibility.

Sriram Raghavan’s Johnny Gaddaar (2007) and Andhadhun (2018) are further examples of how Indian cinema has adopted nonlinear narrative and genre subversion in ways reminiscent of Pulp Fiction. Even Delhi Belly (2011), with its profanity-laced dialogue, underworld absurdity, and ensemble cast, functions as an Indian homage to Tarantino’s storytelling techniques.

The Aura of the Characters

Characters such as Tyler Durden, Jules Winnfield, Vincent Vega, and Mia Wallace transcend the boundaries of narrative to become cultural archetypes. They exist in what Umberto Eco might call the "intertextual encyclopedia" of cinema—a space where their iconicism is constantly recycled, reinterpreted, and re-embodied. Tyler Durden, with his anti-establishment charisma and destructive liberation, continues to represent the chaos lurking beneath modern masculinity. Jules Winnfield, with his blend of Biblical fury and gangster cool, remains a figure of moral paradox and theatrical bravado.

Their aura, to borrow Walter Benjamin’s term, has not diminished but rather intensified with time. In the age of meme culture, remixes, and nostalgia-driven fandom, these characters have taken on a spectral afterlife. They are continually resurrected in digital discourse, cosplay, advertising, and even political commentary.

Final Thoughts

In the final analysis, Fight Club and Pulp Fiction endure not merely because of their themes or characters but because they mark a shift in cinematic ontology. They challenge viewers to rethink not just what a film says but how it says it. They anticipate a world where identity is performative, reality is fractured, and narrative is no longer a straight line but a Möbius strip.

To revisit them is not to relive the past, but to realize how much of our present was already anticipated by them. Their continued relevance is a testament to the power of cinema to both mirror and shape the cultural imagination.

Works Cited

Films:

American Psycho. Directed by Mary Harron, performances by Christian Bale and Willem Dafoe, Lions Gate Films, 2000.

Andhadhun. Directed by Sriram Raghavan, performances by Ayushmann Khurrana and Tabu, Viacom18 Motion Pictures, 2018.

Delhi Belly. Directed by Abhinay Deo, performances by Imran Khan and Vir Das, Aamir Khan Productions, 2011.

Fight Club. Directed by David Fincher, performances by Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, and Helena Bonham Carter, 20th Century Fox, 1999.

Johnny Gaddaar. Directed by Sriram Raghavan, performances by Neil Nitin Mukesh and Dharmendra, Adlabs Films, 2007.

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Directed by Guy Ritchie, performances by Jason Flemyng and Dexter Fletcher, Summit Entertainment, 1998.

Memento. Directed by Christopher Nolan, performances by Guy Pearce and Carrie-Anne Moss, Newmarket Films, 2000.

No Smoking. Directed by Anurag Kashyap, performances by John Abraham and Ayesha Takia, Eros International, 2007.

Pulp Fiction. Directed by Quentin Tarantino, performances by John Travolta, Uma Thurman, and Samuel L. Jackson, Miramax Films, 1994.

Raman Raghav 2.0. Directed by Anurag Kashyap, performances by Nawazuddin Siddiqui and Vicky Kaushal, Phantom Films, 2016.

Requiem for a Dream. Directed by Darren Aronofsky, performances by Ellen Burstyn and Jared Leto, Artisan Entertainment, 2000.

Shaitan. Directed by Bejoy Nambiar, performances by Rajeev Khandelwal and Kalki Koechlin, Viacom18 Motion Pictures, 2011.

Snatch. Directed by Guy Ritchie, performances by Jason Statham and Brad Pitt, Columbia Pictures, 2000.

Trainspotting. Directed by Danny Boyle, performances by Ewan McGregor and Robert Carlyle, PolyGram Filmed Entertainment, 1996.

---

Theoretical and Critical Texts:

Barthes, Roland. S/Z. Translated by Richard Miller, Hill and Wang, 1974.

Benjamin, Walter. The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Translated by Harry Zohn, Schocken Books, 1968.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by Michael Holquist, translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, University of Texas Press, 1981.

Baudrillard, Jean. Simulacra and Simulation. Translated by Sheila Faria Glaser, University of Michigan Press, 1994.

Debord, Guy. The Society of the Spectacle. Translated by Donald Nicholson-Smith, Zone Books, 1994.

Eco, Umberto. The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts. Indiana University Press, 1979.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Translated by R. J. Hollingdale, Penguin Classics, 1969.

Science Beyond Symbols

Science Beyond Symbols: Why BrahMos Is Not a Badge of Brahminism

Introduction: The Viral Video and a Misleading Claim

A video recently went viral on social media (here, here and here also) showing a man dressed in dhoti, sporting a shikha, and engaging in religious discourse at a temple. The caption accompanying the video identified him as Dr. Jaytirth Joshi, the CEO and MD of BrahMos Aerospace, thereby suggesting a direct link between traditional Hindu practices and scientific leadership. This was forwarded many times on WhatsApp also. Check this sample screenshot. 

This seemingly innocuous claim—on the surface, perhaps intended to celebrate India’s cultural diversity—raises serious concerns. It subtly promotes the idea that religious symbols, particularly those associated with Brahminism, are inherently linked to scientific excellence. While the authenticity of the man's identity remains unverified, the claim reveals an increasingly prevalent tendency to appropriate science in the service of religious or caste pride.

Science Is Not a Cultural Costume

The scientific enterprise is built on principles that are fundamentally different from those that govern religious rituals. Scientific knowledge is produced through observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and peer review. It is empirical, provisional, and secular by nature. Religious identity—be it expressed through shikha, tilak, dhoti, or temple debates—is a matter of personal faith and community tradition. These symbols may be deeply meaningful for individuals, but they are not prerequisites for engaging in or excelling at scientific research.

To connect science with Brahminical symbols or practices is to ignore the contributions of thousands of scientists from varied backgrounds—non-Brahmins, Dalits, Muslims, Christians, atheists, agnostics, and others—who have shaped India's scientific institutions.

The Truth About BrahMos

The very name BrahMos, often used as a point of pride and sometimes even misrepresented as a marker of Hindu heritage, has nothing to do with Brahminism or religious philosophy. It is a portmanteau of two rivers—Brahmaputra in India and Moskva in Russia. The missile is the result of a joint Indo-Russian venture, symbolizing strategic collaboration and technological prowess.

To suggest otherwise is not only factually incorrect but intellectually dishonest. It reduces a cutting-edge, high-precision scientific achievement to a cultural or religious symbol, erasing the labor of engineers, scientists, defense experts, and policymakers who made it possible—many of whom may never have set foot in a temple or worn a dhoti.

Merit, Not Mythology

Science has always thrived on merit, curiosity, and rational thinking—not on mythology, ritual, or caste-based identity. India's progress in space technology, nuclear research, information technology, and defense innovation owes itself to the democratization of science—where ability and inquiry matter more than ancestry or attire.

Historical figures like Dr. Homi Bhabha, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Dr. Meghnad Saha, and Dr. Gagandeep Kang stand as testament to the fact that India’s scientific landscape has been shaped by individuals from vastly different cultural and religious backgrounds.

The Real Danger of Such Narratives

While it is important to respect religious freedom and cultural expression, conflating these with scientific achievement can be dangerous. It risks fostering a narrow, exclusionary vision of science—one that elevates certain identities while invisibilizing others. Worse, it may discourage young minds from diverse backgrounds from aspiring to enter scientific fields, thinking they do not "fit the image" of a scientist.

Science should remain an open field where questions matter more than customs, and where evidence trumps faith—not the other way around.

Conclusion: Celebrating Science Inclusively

Let us not fall into the trap of cultural gatekeeping in the name of science. We should celebrate the diversity of India not by turning scientists into religious icons, but by upholding the values that make science universal—rationality, openness, collaboration, and integrity.

The man in the viral video, whether or not he is Dr. Jaytirth Joshi, has every right to express his faith. But let us not mistake personal religiosity for professional identity. And let us certainly not rewrite the story of BrahMos—or of Indian science—through the lens of caste or religious pride.

Science belongs to all. Let’s keep it that way.

Economic Darwinism

Economic Darwinism: Why Human Progress Still Runs on Primal Instincts

Listen podcast on this: 

https://notebooklm.google.com/notebook/9b2f2f19-78c0-4241-b147-17852299cfee/audio

1. मानव व्यवहार में असमानता: प्राकृतिक प्रवृत्ति या पशुवृत्ति?

वैश्विक व्यवस्था में मानव व्यवहार की मूलभूत विषमता स्पष्ट रूप से देखी जा सकती है। यह एक ऐसा "प्राकृतिक चयन" या "आर्थिक डार्विनवाद" है जहाँ बड़े राष्ट्रों और प्रभुत्वशाली अर्थव्यवस्थाओं के लिए अंतर्राष्ट्रीय नियम और आर्थिक नीतियाँ अलग ढंग से कार्य करती हैं, जबकि छोटे देश या विकासशील अर्थव्यवस्थाएँ असमान व्यापार समझौतों, सत्ता की गतिशीलता और शोषण का शिकार होती हैं। यह व्यवहार "बाज़ार की अदृश्य शक्ति" के सिद्धांत से मिलता-जुलता है—जैसे यह छोटे खिलाड़ियों को बड़े पूँजीवादी संस्थानों के समक्ष असहाय बना देती है। यह स्थिति एक प्रकार के "जंगल-राज" की तरह है, जहाँ मजबूत अर्थव्यवस्थाएँ कमज़ोर अर्थव्यवस्थाओं का शोषण करती हैं और उन्हें निगल जाती हैं—ठीक वैसे ही जैसे बड़ी मछलियाँ छोटी मछलियों को निगल जाती हैं। यह व्यवहार कदाचित् पशुवृत्ति से उपजा है और अब केवल प्राकृतिक ही नहीं, बल्कि वैश्विक अर्थनीति का भी अभिन्न हिस्सा बन चुका है।

2. फ्रायड का सिद्धांत: क्या सभ्यता ने हमें बदला?

सिग्मंड फ्रायड ने माना था कि सभ्यता मनुष्य को उसकी क्रूर प्रवृत्तियों और मूल instincts से दूर ले जाएगी, उसे अधिक संयमशील बनाएगी। उन्होंने सोचा था कि जैसे-जैसे मानव सुसंकृत (civilized) होता जाएगा, वह इस "जंगलिपन" या "प्राकृतिक व्यवहार" पर काबू पाता जाएगा। परन्तु, आधुनिक इतिहास इसके विपरीत चित्र प्रस्तुत करता है और फ्रायड की यह बात अभी तो साची पडती हुई नहीं लगती। द्वितीय विश्वयुद्ध में हुई रणनीतिक तबाही और आज के आर्थिक युद्ध (Economic Warfare) जैसे आर्थिक नाकाबंदी/प्रतिबंधों (sanctions), व्यापारिक शुल्क नीतियों (tariffs), मुद्रा हेरफेर (currency manipulation) और उपभोक्ता बहिष्कार (boycott) की प्रवृत्तियाँ दर्शाती हैं कि सभ्यता के आवरण के नीचे भी आक्रामकता और वर्चस्व की भूख यथावत है। यह व्यवहार "नव-उपनिवेशवाद" का रूपांतरण है और द्वितीय विश्वयुद्ध के यथार्थवादी राजनीति (Realpolitik) और आज के भू-आर्थिक संघर्ष (Geoeconomic Rivalries) में केवल हथियारों का स्वरूप बदला है।

3. क्या आर्थिक युद्ध सभ्यता की प्रगति है?

युद्ध की प्रवृत्ति अब सीधे हथियारों से नहीं, बल्कि आर्थिक उपायों से प्रकट होती है। टैरिफ युद्ध, निर्यात-आधारित नियंत्रण, उपभोक्ता बहिष्कार—ये उपाय बेशक, नरसंहार से मुक्त हैं। और इस अर्थ में, यह पुराने युद्धों की तुलना में "काफी बेहतर" कहे जा सकते हैं तथा मानव की "सभ्यता की ओर गति" माने जा सकते हैं। अमेरिका द्वारा छेड़ा गया टैरिफ युद्ध यदि आर्थिक गुफामानवता का उदाहरण है, तो भारत जैसे देशों द्वारा अपनाई गई रणनीतिक बहिष्कार नीति एक आत्मरक्षात्मक "नव-आर्थिक युद्ध" की ओर संकेत करती है। यहाँ तक कि बहुसंख्यकवादी नीतियाँ (Majoritarian Policies) का उपयोग आर्थिक प्रभुत्व स्थापित करने के लिए या बचाव के लिए एक हथियार के रूप में हो रहा है। यह सही है कि इनके विनाशकारी प्रभाव कम नहीं हैं। हालाँकि, यह पूरी तरह "शून्य-योग खेल" (Zero-Sum Game) नहीं है, क्योंकि वैश्विक आपूर्ति श्रृंखलाएँ (Global Supply Chains) और अंतर्निर्भरता (Interdependence) इस युग की वास्तविकताएँ हैं।

4. क्या हम इससे आगे निकल पाएँगे?

मानवता क्या इससे आगे निकल सकती है? बिलकुल निकल सकती है, परन्तु यथास्थिति में बदलाव की कीमत चुकानी पड़ती है। इतिहास गवाह है कि बड़े बदलाव बड़े बलिदान मांगते हैं। जिस प्रकार 20वीं सदी की महामंदी और विश्वयुद्धों तथा असंख्य छोटे युद्धों में बलिदान देने के पश्चात ब्रैटन वुड्स संस्थानों, संयुक्त राष्ट्र, और टिकाऊ विकास लक्ष्यों (SDGs) की अवधारणाएँ उभरीं, जिन्होंने वैश्विक शांति और विकास को बढ़ावा दिया और हमने इनमें अच्छी सफलता भी पाई। उसी तरह, आज, COVID-19 के बाद के आर्थिक झटके, यूक्रेन संकट, और वर्तमान आर्थिक उथल-पुथल एक नई वैश्विक वित्तीय वास्तुकला और संतुलित वैश्विक आर्थिक व्यवस्था की माँग कर रहे हैं। ऐसा लग रहा है कि 21वीं सदी में भी एक भीषण आर्थिक उथल-पुथल या "बड़ी आर्थिक खूनामर्की" के बाद ही नये युग का निर्माण संभव होगा।

5. निष्कर्ष: मानवता की यात्रा अधूरी है

21वीं सदी की चुनौती "डिजिटल उपनिवेशवाद" और "डेटा साम्राज्यवाद" से लड़ना है। क्रिप्टोकरेंसी (Crypto Currencies), कृत्रिम बुद्धिमत्ता (AI), और ब्लॉकचेन प्रौद्योगिकी (Blockchain) जैसे साधन नए हथियार हैं। आज की दुनिया मूल प्रवृत्तियों और वैश्विक नैतिकता के दो छोरों पर झूल रही है। परन्तु, इतिहास यह दर्शाता है कि हर आर्थिक मंदी, हर वित्तीय संकट, और हर नीतिगत टकराव ने मानवता को एक नये सोच, नये ढांचे और साझा समृद्धि के सिद्धांत की ओर अग्रसर किया है। न्यायसंगत वैश्वीकरण (Equitable Globalization) और बहुपक्षवाद (Multilateralism) ही टिकाऊ समाधान हैं। मानवता आर्थिक नैतिकता की ओर बढ़ रही है। हम इन वर्तमान आर्थिक संघर्षों से भी बाहर निकलेंगे। हो सकता है, आने वाला युग भूख और युद्ध के हथियारों की जगह नीतिगत सहयोग, वित्तीय न्याय और समावेशी विकास को हथियार बनाए।