BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Where's todays version of Film as a Subversive Art?

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
TeN
03:37 / 07.06.07
this thread is birthed from another thread on another message board, which is in turn birthed from my own experience reading Amos Vogel's classic Film as a Subversive Art and the effect it has had on me and my growth as a filmmaker, film lover, artist, and thinker

I've brought the topic here because I thought the good folks at Barbelith would have some good things to say about it, and I wanted to hear all your thoughts

firstly, I'll pose to you the initial question I asked in the other thread, as I'm still very interested in knowing the answer(s):

so I've been crawling through Amos Vogel's Film As A Subversive Art since December and absolutely loving it
it's introduced me to so many amazing films and has just been great food for thought, inspiring me to think about cinema in ways I never have before

the only thing that bugs me about it is that it stops at 1974 - the year the book was originally published

I wish that with all the praise and commotion about the book being reprinted, Vogel would have been inspired to write a new volume, a sort of sequel, covering all the fantastic "subversive" films that have been made since then

but he didn't
and as far as I know, he has no plans to

but is there anything that comes close?
are there any book right now that deal with cinema from the 70s onward the way Vogel dealt with cinema from it's birth until '74?

educate me!



but I didn't get the kind of answers I was expecting
instead, the thread evolved into a far more interesting discussion: one on the current state of "subversive" film and the very nature of "subversion" itself

I think it would be too much to repost what's already been posted on the other forum, but here is the thread:
http://chondriticsound.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36070#36070
I invite you to read the discussion thus far, and track it as it develops


and for those of you who don't want to be bothered with reading the other thread (although it's a quick read), here's a quick list of some of the questions that have been raised thus far:
- where is today's subversive film?
- is it still possible to even make subversive art?
- has it ever been possible?
- is an updated version necessary or even desirable?
 
 
Greencat
08:25 / 07.06.07
well I'm gonna have to do some reserch about this, I have a few friends who might have some good answers but I do wanna share some thoughts about the subject for I've been thinking about this for a while now. I'm an artist and a film fanatic and the problem of making subversive art today is one that continues to grow and recive more and more attention. I think the problem is that hollywood and the mainstream colture have developed a very thourogh method of dealing with subversiveness and thats by copiying it and making the statements their own and by doing that eliminating the critical element. some will say this about american beauty, the matrix and shindlers list.
I'm not sure I agree with the first two examples but like I said I'm gonna have to talk with some friend to know more. I'm starting to think it might be impossible to critiscise anything nowdays since the mainstream audience imidiatly adopts it and praise it and by doing that manages to adopt only the superficial elemnts of the criticism. like with von trier's films that are praised for their cinematic artisty insted of their insight on human cruelty. so maybe our options are to look for subversiveness inside the mainstream colture? like buffy or six feet under or the comeback. or maybe making films that are so gross and snuffy that the mainstream audience just can't watch? I know that confusing subversive film with indie cinema is a mistake for a lot of the indie scene is made out of immitators who take the shape and structure of another indie film and immitate it just to make something that looks cool and trendy but is superficial in nature. the movie elefant got alot of those followers.
sorry about the misspelings my babylon translater just expired!
 
 
TroyJ15
02:33 / 14.06.07
There is no subversion in American Film. Not even Indy American film because they are all owned by dodding conglomerates. No, subversive film is overseas and created by foreign filmmakers, where they are not concerned with formula but the story --- 2 concepts Hollywood can't figure out how to seperate.

In my own INSANELY bias opinion there was no better films last year than "Children of Men" and "Pan's Labyrinth" both by foreign filmmakers.

These are stories that gleefully breakaway from the confinements of standards in it's respective genres.

great topic.
 
 
netbanshee
05:40 / 14.06.07
I'll comment on this further a bit later since it's starting to get past even my bedtime, but the initial two thread replies follow suit with the first two thoughts I had regarding subversive film.

When I think of film of that nature, my mind turns to directors such as Takashi Miike and some others. He is both foreign to my current trappings and happens to make film that's graphic and generally difficult to watch.

Beyond all that though, there is a persistence that you'll find amongst somewhat more dated directors like Paul Verhoven. He has a future sense when it comes to his portrayal of media and politics. His work lends itself to the times we are living in today. For example, topics covered in films like Starship Troopers or Robocop can easily lend themselves to the analysis of the current U.S. administration and the tone and format displayed in the media.

More later...
 
 
Mystery Gypt
06:19 / 14.06.07
ok can we help this topic by defining what is meant, for the sake of this thread, as subversive?

a lot of what's been posted so far seems to be conflating "subversive" with "quality." that foreign films eschew the "hollywood formula" (whatever that is) in order to focus on storytelling might make for more original, or more interesting, or more entertaining (to some) films, but there's nothing automatically subversive about that. unless you simply mean subvertering the hollywood formula, which is reductive, begs the question, and seems a bit trivial.

since i don't get the terms we're operating under, i might be off base to say i don't get why Miike is subversive. sure, he's hella violent, a brilliant stylist, and inexhaustably original, but he is also ADMITTEDLY a misogynist who has said that using female characters is a problem and he just wants to remove them from his films as fast as he can. not much subversion there.

that being said, let's please not use what i just said to turn this thread into a Miike fanwank, but i'd love some clarity on how we are using "subversive."
 
 
Mystery Gypt
02:06 / 19.06.07
jeez... and i actually liked this thread...
 
 
TeN
03:07 / 19.06.07
well that's part of what the thread is about, is defining what exactly "subversive film" means

the reason I use the word itself in the thread title is because my original post (on the other forum, reposted here) was not asking so much to recommend subversive films as to recommend books about contemporary cinema on par with Vogel's Film as a Subversive Art

in that book, Vogel gives a rather broad, and possibly somewhat dated definition of "subversion," and he never really states it outright, preferring instead to define the term through the use of example. and the examples he uses range from Marx Brothers films to outright pornography.

the reason I say that the definition is somewhat outdated, is that Vogel puts perhaps too strong (although maybe not for his time) an emphasis on taboo-breaking. many of the films cited in the book, were they made today, probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow
but because it can't be called subversive today, does that mean that it was ever worthy of being called subversive? or have we reached the realization now, after the practice has been co-opted, that breaking taboos is not in-and-of-it-self a subversive activity?
 
 
TeN
03:33 / 19.06.07
might I also add that the statement that "there is no subversion in US film" comes off to me as incredibly naive and overly simplistic
I agree with you that as the second largest film producing nation in the world (surpassed only by India), the US has developed a stale yet successful system of pumping out commercially successful films while stunting creative potential
however, to say that there are no subversive films in an entire country is ludicrous
have you seen all of the films coming out of the US?
the examples you choose as last year's best films (both Academy Award nominated) only prove your ignorance of the unimaginably vast range of contemporary cinema
your opinion is not so much biased as it is uninformed

as for your comment about the state of US indie film: have you read "Towards a Third Cinema"? I highly recommend it. it's primarily about the cinema of de-colinization (films produced by colonized nations that deal with the issue of their colonization) but it's scope is far broader than that. in it, they described what they see as the three stages of cinema. the "first cinema" is hollywood, with it's escapism and bourgeois value systems. the "second cinema" is the european art film (although the indie film could now be substituted for this, and is perhaps an even better example), which although rejecting the hollywood model, is still based in bourgeois individualism. and the "third cinema" is the political, anti-colonial cinema.
so yes. you're absolutely right. much of indie cinema is nothing but a carbon copy of the new hollywood. this is why it was so quickly absorbed into the hollywood model: it presents no threat.
 
 
Bandini
07:17 / 19.06.07
I agree that American Film is somewhat stale but there is still subversion present (Matthew Barney, Brothers Quay, David Lynch and more) just perhaps not as present within the system of Hollywood as it used to be. That 'system' often discussed is also perhaps a rather outdated view of film in America. This also brings up questions of what is an American film and what makes a film the product of a particular country, something that is losing more and more meaning. One does not have to always look away from America for subversion in cinema as was suggested although this is often the easiest solution.
 
 
De Selby
01:26 / 30.06.07
I haven't read either of the books you mentioned, but I'm interested in what you mean by subversive. Do you mean subversive in terms of our expectations of cinema, or do you mean in terms of our personal and cultural beliefs in general?

Perhaps some examples of what would be considered subversive?
 
 
Crestmere
06:56 / 02.07.07
American cinema isn't at its strongest.
That's going to change in a few years once I'm a big name though.

At the same time, we are seeing cinemas in other countries flourish. At least in terms of the things that get exported.

I realize that what I'm saying isn't the greatest answer to things and it might come across as being too soft on Hollywood (I'm on the periphery of the biz though so I can't be too harsh).

While I think that it is true that its harder to film a truly subversive film in the American cinema, I don't necessarily want to draw a teleological line to say that things are going in any direction (at best we can say things seem to be headed somewhere). While corporate involvement has brought about some new things, I would like to propose that we look at this from another angle.

We are seeing that even the most mainstream films are including social angles in their stories, something that would have been unthinkable a generation or two ago. While I do think that the Fox News pundits of the world are making them out to be far more leftist then they really are, its pretty clear that they are encroaching in to even the escapist stuff.

We've seen movies about blood diamonds in Africa (Blood Diamond), unflinching exposures of bigotry in America (Borat), critiques of globalization (Children of Men), etc.

Gay characters were controversial in film 10 years ago and could only be shown in coded ways before the 1980s or so. And now gay characters appear all over the place.
Interracial couples appear with little controversy as well.

So rather then argue for a complete destruction of a film that questions social norms, I'd like to ask what people think when I say that maybe its possible that the legacy of those subversive films has been that their spirit has moved in to the mainstream.

Do you think I'm on to something?
Or am I just too close to the biz to really be able to give it the harsh critique it deserves?
 
 
TroyJ15
03:45 / 03.07.07
might I also add that the statement that "there is no subversion in US film" comes off to me as incredibly naive and overly simplistic
I agree with you that as the second largest film producing nation in the world (surpassed only by India), the US has developed a stale yet successful system of pumping out commercially successful films while stunting creative potential
however, to say that there are no subversive films in an entire country is ludicrous
have you seen all of the films coming out of the US?
the examples you choose as last year's best films (both Academy Award nominated) only prove your ignorance of the unimaginably vast range of contemporary cinema
your opinion is not so much biased as it is uninformed

Uhhhh, calm down a second. The statement was made as a broad genralization. It was completely reactionary. Not fact. That's why I was quick to point out: "bias." And just because I don't agree with your personal taste doesn't signal "ignorance." I continue to see alot of films, and I felt Children of Men and Pan's were the most impressive to my personal taste. I like adventure, I like fantasy, and I like political/social commentary. Those things are what I look for primarily in a film (not to mention some energetic direction and easy-to-swallow dialouge) I'll make sure to put a disclaimer down when I make a statement in Barbelith, I guess. (sorry, I just didn't appreciate getting pounced on like that and given an "ignorance" evaluation).

So rather then argue for a complete destruction of a film that questions social norms, I'd like to ask what people think when I say that maybe its possible that the legacy of those subversive films has been that their spirit has moved into the mainstream.


It's an interesting theory, but I figure filmmakers rip-off each other all the time. Even mainstream filmmakers see subversive movies and go "Ah-ha. I can do that too" We can't help what we are inspired by. I think that their subversive legacy is being cheated by having FOX (for example) sprinkle half-hearted social beliefs into other filmmaker's mainstream films. The filmmaker isn't an individual with a distinct voice anymore. He becomes a "yes" man.

The otherside you mentioned is that film's like Blood Diamond are envoking the spirit of subversion. Well, as the previous poster felt the need to remind me, their will be a few diamonds in the ruff (pun intended). Some gems will slip through the cracks. They always do. that's probably the most hopeful thing a new filmmaker can realize.

"My film might make it."

As an aside (but not really), I have to take issue with Blood Diamond in paricular. I think that film wouldn't have been made without Leo DiCaprio. I also think that the film is non-subversive for that reason. Leo's presence dwarfs the urgency and heart of the story. Making Djimon Honsou seem less and less like a character because he hands off all his problems to "The Great white Hope." (that was a rant. sorry again.)
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:12 / 03.07.07
unflinching exposures of bigotry in America (Borat)

The critical acclaim and commercial success of Borat certainly does expose bigotry in America.
 
 
De Selby
22:44 / 03.07.07
but does that make Borat entirely subversive?
 
 
Essential Dazzler
22:48 / 03.07.07
No.
 
 
Crestmere
00:36 / 05.07.07
Troy,

I partially agree with you about Blood Diamond.

There is a real issue that the salvation of the African in the film came from a white man. Although keep in mind that it was a white man who was born and raised in Africa and, as such, was even more of an outsider in the land then Djimon Honsou's character who had a clear family and tribal membership.
So while it would be easy to cut a clear black/white dynamic, there is something else at work and I don't think the answer is that clear cut.

But my point is that a few generations ago, a film about an African Civil War would probably have focused on Westerners caught in the middle of it.

This film have two major stars (DiCaprio and Connelly) and one minor star (Honsou) (I love his acting but I can't say he's as big of a star as the other two).

It also showed clear Western culpability for domestic problems in Africa.
 
 
TroyJ15
04:34 / 05.07.07
I see. I figure that's kinda my point though. It looses it's subversiveness because of Connely and DiCaprio's presence. Whether portrayed as westerns or not --- they are still westerners "saving" an African. It's a very sore spot for me, and, admittedly, I am quick to get offended by stuff like that. I'm sure the filmmakers intent was noble, but when I think of subversive I think "ballsy." Having the "great white hope" kind of kills the subversiveness of it.

Borat, however, I'm 100% with you on. A movie so clever that the people in it didn't realize they were in on the joke. It exposes American ignorance with a smile. Sacha deserves every award he received for that. By my definition earlier, it is quite subversive for that reason.

Children of Men? Rocked.
 
 
jamesPD
08:56 / 05.07.07
It's a little difficult to tell the tone from Flyboy's comments, but I don't think he was praising Borat with his last remark. There is a thread dedicated to the film in which some of Barbelith members voiced their concerns over the film. (I confess I've not had a chance to see the film so I can't really comment.)
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
09:31 / 05.07.07
Still contains the rightest thing yawn ever wrote.
 
 
Crestmere
17:49 / 05.07.07
Troy,

I'm just not so sure that we should be calling DiCaprio a "Westerner" in the sense that a lot of us in the West (I'm assuming you are from the large region called "The West" here, apologies if you are not) would understand it.

I'm not even sure I'd call DiCaprio a Third Culture Kid. Everything about his character and how he was treated in the film besides his skin colour suggests that we should see him as an African. Even as racialized as film readings can be, I'm not sure that its critically appropriate to let skin colour trump all of the other factors that came up in the film.
While it could be read that Djimon was saved by a Great White Hope, it could also be read that the situation was so bad that it was more then any one person could do to save it without substantial aid from people who actually have power. The film was pretty unambiguous in showing that people in the West turned a blind eye to things like that as long as it was only Africans dying (kind of like bush and Darfur) but it also showed that they have the power to do something about it.
I hope that you can see where I am coming from in this regard even if you don't agree with me.

I think my point was less about the specifics and more that in 1967 we wouldn't be seeing a film that showed the West as a destabilizing factor in Africa, turning a blind eye to horrible human rights abuses so they could create an artificial scarcity of diamonds. And I really doubt we'd have seen that in 1977, 1987 or 1997 either.

So I think that its fair to say that we can meet halfway on the question. Rather then ballsy Sex Pistols style middle finger in your face with the subversion cinema, we have a cinema that is more subtle with things like that but that it hasn't gone away completely.

And I thought Borat exposed things in America brilliantly. But I think SBC did a better job of it on his show. Though the cowboy saying he wanted to see gays sent to concentration camps was shocking and scary because if gays were sent to concentration camps, there'd be no shortage of rednecks to run them. Frankly, I think applications would be through the roof and people would be turned away.

Children of Men was brilliant.
And I think that its criticisms of things were far more apparent then Blood Diamond (but not Borat, I'm not sure how something can be more in your face).
 
 
at the scarwash
19:35 / 05.07.07
I am confused by what sort of definition of subversion is in play in this thread. All of the films being discussed seem to have laudable social agendas, which I suppose could be a mild form of subversion. But from a formal standpoint they all (those that I have seen) seem to employ fairly standard narrative structure, and they don't really seem to subvert anything.

Two American-made films that I've seen in the past few years that I have found in some way subversive have been David O. Russel's I Heart Huckabees and Johnathon Caouette's Tarnation. I found both of these films to be subversive both formally and in terms of their content. I Heart Huckabees deflates the sort of self-important existential questing that is an occasional vestige of the American New Wave by using the mechanism of a major Hollywood star vehicle. We didn't expect cinematic lions like Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin to participate in something so flippant and silly, nor did we expect Hot New Things Jason Schwartzman and Mark Walberg to play so gamely with their then-fresh indie cred cool-factor.

Tarnation is subversive not so much because of its content (growing up gay in the south as a product of a spectacularly fucked-up family) but because of its form. Caouette has been filming his entire life, and Tarnation was edited together from 20 years of footage. Some of this was done with a film project in mind. Some of it was candid family film. The original version of the film used several scripted sequences to provide "fictional" bookending and structure to the "nonfiction" content, and I am not unsure that some of this was not used in the commercially available cut. Although this film is commonly described as a documentary, one is aware that certain shots certainly seem staged, even perhaps recreated for the camera. Also, the editing has a lot more in common with video art and experimental filmmaking. Caouette seems very aware of the artifice that results from the very presence of a recording device, the artifice that is perhaps inherent in even our most supposedly raw and private moments, and he does not shy away from exploiting it. One of the most haunting scenes of Tarnation is a self-filmed sequence of Caouette, aged 11, in drag as a trailerpark bride, describing her abusive marriage. This scene is not part of the documentary narrative. One can understand it as the director documenting his precocious engagement with filmmaking, but it seems to fuction more as a poetic juxtaposition, a fictional underscoring of his "actual" youthful dark places.

So, in this post I am trying to understand what it is I mean by subversive filmmaking. I would appreciate any comments or clarification.
 
 
TroyJ15
05:04 / 06.07.07
I figure that's what we are trying to dissect. What is "subversive?" and based off that we can search for subversive films. To me, subversive can be films that buck any one aspect of an existing trend. Sometimes it's done just to thumb noses. Other times it's done with class. Children of Men to me is subversive because to me it IS an action movie. It is. But unlike all action films it uses the genre for commentary. Clive Owen's character is, pretty much, John MCClane (estranged wife, underdog against terrorist --- shit, he even loses his shoes like McClane). But he undergoes a meaningful journey not just a versus scenario. Also the film is a sci-fi movie that doesn't go far with it's futuristic elements (that has been done before but not to often). The direction of the fim is quite different. Long Mise-En-Scene shots that actually draw you deeper into the action. An African female is the main plot device of the film,respectably --- that's different. And of course, it obvious attitudes toward immigration and legislation. All this wrapped in a sci-fi/action flick. Quite subversive. I guess to me, subversive means anything that thinks outside of an established box. No matter how large or how small that thought is.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
09:59 / 06.07.07
Harmony Korine seems to be making ... I don't know if 'subversive' is the right word (I dare say he'd hate it) but genuinely unusual films. 'Gummo' is as odd, and as oddly compelling, as 'Stalker' by Tarkovsky, and 'Julien Donkey-Boy', starring Ewan Bremner and Werner Herzog, is almost unwatchably strange. Korine was also rumoured, though I'm not sure if it ever got made, to be planning a film called 'Fight', in which he went around bars in the states getting into fights, basically. And I dare say losing them. He's not a particularly strapping man. I do hope he finished the movie though, as, conceptually, it would have quite have neatly underlined various trends in US cinema. Plus, and to his credit I think, he knows he has a punchable face.

Although I'd never hit him myself. And neither would any of you after seeing 'Gummo', which I'd highly recommend. It seems, initially, to be a film about circus freaks in trailer parks - you find yourself wondering why on earth you're watching it, as it appears to be so self-consciously 'Alternative Cinema', the work of a man who's trying to out-weird David Lynch or John Waters, but that's actually not what it's about at all. I'm not doing it justice here; had I not been sat down and basically made to see it, I don't think I ever would have done, but I think it's so good that anyone who rents it out on DVD and doesn't enjoy it can PM me, and I'll at least think about giving you your money back, via PayPal, or related.
 
 
Spaniel
10:38 / 06.07.07
Sort of offtopic, but on the subject of Fight...

Harmony Korine’s Real-Life Fight Club

Harper's Magazine, December 1999, p. 28-29.


[From an interview with filmmaker Harmony Korine, in the September 29–October 5 edition of New York Press, an alternative weekly.]

Adam Heimlich: That brings us to Fight.

Harmony Korine: I couldn't really finish it. It got to a point where I was getting really hurt and arrested and weird shit started happening. I broke my left ankle and I couldn't tap-dance. I was gonna make this tap-dance movie too, and I literally can't tap-dance anymore. It fucked the whole thing up.

Heimlich: Well, what was the idea?

Korine: With Fight I wanted to make a great comedy. I thought that was the best way to achieve it. I'd get a little drunk, but not so drunk that my motor skills weren't working. I did a few fights—one after the other. But what I didn't really think about was how short hard-core fights last. When you're fucking hitting each other in the head with bricks, it can only go two or three minutes, so out of the six or seven fights that I did, I have maybe fifteen minutes of pure, hard-core bone breaking.

Heimlich: You'd provoke people until they hit you?

Korine: I would go around with a camera crew, and the only rules were that I couldn't throw the first punch and the person I was confronting had to be bigger than me. Because that's where the humor comes in. It wouldn't be funny if I was fighting someone my size. They had to be bigger than me, and no matter how bad I was getting beat up—unless I was gonna die, that was the rule, unless I was like passed out and they were still killing me—they couldn't break it up. Because that's were the comedy comes in as well.

I'd have to say whatever it took to make someone fight me. I'd get in their face and I'd say anything, it didn't matter, to get them to throw the first punch. And then once they threw the first punch it was on. And we just went, y'know, mad. In the last fight you just see this fucking bouncer from Stringfellow's. This guy took forever. He's a big bouncer, and he's wearing a tuxedo and shit. No matter what I said the guy wouldn't do anything. Nothing I could do. Just, 'You fuckin' little shrimp—get the fuck outta here." So then some stripper, some bitch that worked there, walked out with a balloon on her wrist. And she's in high heels, y'know, "What's going on?" So I went up to her and I went like this [a feigned backhand smack], like my dad used to do to me when he'd drive. Because I never used to be comfortable as a kid. I was never comfortable as a kid. We'd drive and he'd go like that right in front of my face. He wouldn't hit me—he'd just go [demonstrates]. So I was always, like, nervous. So I did that exact same thing to her. In the video I turn around, and the camera crew is across the street, sitting on a stoop—four or five people. There's some producer with a clipboard, writing shit down, keeping track of whoever gets in the frame. And as I'm turning around you see the guy take me by the back of the head and the belt and just throw me into the middle of the street. So I jump up and I'm like, "Yeah, right on!" He comes running out, and the guy is so pissed. I took a brick—it was like a piece of broken sidewalk—and smashed him in the head when he got close. Really hard. All this blood just went kshhhhht. Then I started taunting him. So he starts running after me. We're going around this car, running in circles, and that's where the whole Buster Keaton thing comes in. It's really high comedy.

Finally he catches up to me and just goes boom. Busts me in the face. Right on the lip. I just go flying back. And this is the funniest part. This is where, really, the comedy comes in. I'm like, "Yeeesss," because I'd get off on the pain. It'd just make me like, mmmmmm. Because as a kid, growing up in Tennessee, violence was just a way of life. Everybody, no matter how big you were or anything—I'm a teeny guy, and I was even a smaller kid—but it was like no matter what, you had to fight. It was one of those things, a real redneck thing. Violence was part of life. I hated getting hit, but I never minded it so much when it was a fight. I hated getting hit by teachers or by my parents—I didn't like that. But a fight's all right, as long as you have some kind of chance. So anyway, I got back up and tried to throw this trash can. There's a trash can on the sidewalk, and I'm like, "C'mon you cocksucker!" I go to pick up this trash can and throw it at him, but the fucking thing is chained to a lamppost! And the guy just knocks me out. Literally knocked me out. I fell back on the street and hit the back of my head. So my left foot is—you can see on the video that my left foot is up on the sidewalk. And you just see the guy run up and go [mimes a two-footed stomp] and snap my fucking ankle.

Heimlich: Both feet?

Korine: Yeah, both. My ankle just goes like that [gestures as if snapping a twig]. I'm smiling in the video. You see me get up and go to hit him or whatever. I had no idea. Then the cops came. The producer is right across the street, and she tried to explain it. Y'know, "We're making a movie here." And she's like, "Can we have your signature on this release form? It's a film!" And the guy, the bouncer—it's amazing—got so sad when he found out it was all staged. He was like, "Oh my God, if I knew this, I never would have touched the guy!" And so he signed the release form.


I'd say that's subversive in a number of ways.

Comedy??? The fuck?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:00 / 06.07.07
You're right, Boboss, it's very subversive - just the other day I looked at the dictionary and found that the definition of subversive now includes "(4) Done by a issues-ridden douchetool who thinks threatening women is funny and who should be permanently sectioned for the good of himself and anybody who is not a Vice-reading bag of human waste."
 
 
Spaniel
11:31 / 06.07.07
I feel like I've just been shouted at by Dad and that makes it difficult to respond reasonably.

But, no, you're right, it's not really subversive at all, and if it doesn't come across in my above post (which I think it does) I'd like to state for the record that I do not approve of Korine going around starting fights with people, and I especially don't approve of him threatening random strangers, particularly women. Up until I read the above I did find the project interesting in a car wreck kind of way, however right now I wouldn't mind starting a fight with him myself.
 
 
TroyJ15
15:15 / 06.07.07
I think it's still kind of subvrsive by MY definition anyway. But according to my definition, I guess Jackass and Radgirls would be subversive too. Maybe?

I do have a bone to pick. I know we are all expressing opinions that not everyone agrees on --- but can we chill out with the "snark." I like this forum because it's dissecting, I'd hate to see this deteriorate.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
15:19 / 06.07.07
Dissecting is what I do.

What are/is Radgirls, Troy?
 
 
TroyJ15
16:49 / 06.07.07
See for yourself...(Don't open this at work)
http://youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=c43g9nFQuGw
 
 
Alex's Grandma
17:18 / 06.07.07
Having read that interview, I now find 'Fight' a bit more difficult to endorse as a project.

'Gummo' is still very good though.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
19:25 / 06.07.07
What is it about Rad Girls and their work that you find inspiring, Troy? And by what means did you come to learn of their existence in the first place?
 
 
De Selby
09:43 / 07.07.07
ok with all the derailing maybe a dictionary definition would be helpful

Subversive - tending to subvert or advocating subversion, esp. in an attempt to overthrow or cause the destruction of an established or legally constituted government.

With this definition in mind, I dont think Borat could really be considered subversive. Although it exposes bigotry, I don't think it attempts to overthrow anything.
 
 
TroyJ15
14:12 / 07.07.07
What is it about Rad Girls and their work that you find inspiring, Troy? And by what means did you come to learn of their existence in the first place?

Nothing inspiring at all. I just feel based on MY definition in an earlier post that "Rad Girls" and "JackAss" are enough against conventional wisdom that I might consider it a little subversive (Rad Girls especially because it thumbs it's nose at conventional concepts of females). Just a little. Purely based on my hasty definition earlier. Not inspired at all. It is exceptionally retarded but I was just playing Devil's Advocate.

Apparently we have a real definition now so scrap what I said...

I dont think Borat could really be considered subversive. Although it exposes bigotry, I don't think it attempts to overthrow anything.

Maybe it does. The definition says that subversion's overthrowing is not exsclusive to governments. Maybe it overthrows concepts of bigotry by the way it is presented.

My reason for semi-defending things like Borat and Rad Girls is because I think things don't have to be pretentious or presented a certain way or about certain topics in order to be subversive. It just has to go against the grain --- no matter how mundane or poignant.
 
 
Crestmere
18:20 / 07.07.07
If we're using a definition of "subversive" that only deals with advocating overthrowing the government, how many films of the last fifty years would even fall in to that?

I have my doubts as to how appropriate that definition is.

I'd wager maybe 20 American films. Maybe 5 of which are things that anyone besides a film scholar has ever heard of.
Honestly, one of the most frustrating things about Americans is that they never bother blaming a bad system for things and seeing systemic change as a necessary thing. Even the idea of breaking bad laws is pretty radical so an outright overthrow of the government would seem almost unthinkable.

In other cinemas, we'd probably get a few more, depending on government control. And, honestly, if its at the point where people are making movies that advocate overthrowing the government, my guess is that we're talking about nations that don't have the nicest stance towards freedom of speech. So I have my doubts as to how many films we'd see there.

If we take a broader definition in terms of looking at social institutions, we'd have more of a discussion. And that is where I think that the spirit of the 60s and 70s really entered film. And that is why I think its appropriate to include Borat. The film implicates American culture very heavily and then links it with the backward culture of Borat's homeland (which probably resembles the real Kazakhstan as much as an orange resembles a chicken). If Borat isn't a subversive film then I'm not sure what definition of subversive we can even use.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
23:50 / 07.07.07
(Rad Girls especially because it thumbs it's nose at conventional concepts of females)

Do you feel that Girls Gone Wild or really, any pornography made in the last 15 years, does the same, Troy?

Does stone supplicant Mary Jane do the same?
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply