Troy, just to clear things up, I never called you ignorant
what I said was that from the little information I gathered from your post, you seemed to be ignorant of (ie unaware of) the vast range of films being made today
in retrospect, that was kind of a dumb thing to say
so I apologize for that
now, to weigh in on some of the points/films that have been discussed...
firstly, about defining "subversion," one thing that hasn't been brought up, which in my view of the form is absolutely necessary, is the aspect of the definition that goes back to its Latin roots, meaning "to turn from under." for me, being subversive doesn't just mean giving the middle finger to the man, and it DEFINITELY doesn't mean subscribing to any fixed set of beliefs or even methods. it has to wholly readjust your expectations. it has to derive from within what it's attempting to destroy. it has to signal radical new ways of looking at its subject. this is why Michael Moore is a political filmmaker, but not a subversive one. when we see a Michael Moore movie, we know what to expect. and when we come out of a Michael Moore movie, our views have rarely been questioned as much as they've been reinforced. a truly subversive film should totally upturn your beliefs, no matter what they are. Vogel would agree that whether a film qualifies as subversive isn't dependent on its political stance. an entire chapter of his book is devoted to Nazi cinema, for instance. so, just for random example, you can't say a film isn't subversive because it's homophobic. if it presents homosexuality in a way that has the power to make people question their previously held views on the subject, then it just might be both subversive AND homophobic. I don't know any film that does this, nor can I think how any would, but it's a hypothetical.
I Heart Huckabees as subversive... hmmmm... well... hmmm... I'm not sure I agree with your statement that the film "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." actually, almost the opposite. Huckabees uses its humor, star power, and lack of self-importance to make a philosophical film that non-'self important existential film watching' people will actually want to watch. in a way, it parodies all those types of films while still managing to ask the same questions, if not more important questions as well. so is that subversive? I guess it kind of is, right?
as for Tarnation, I was incredibly disapointed by that film. partly because it's narcissistic to the point of being boring, and partly because it's poorly made. you can tell Caouette really doesn't have a good sense of what he's doing, but is so personally attached to his material that he wrongly assumes the audience will be affected by it, regardless of how shitty the presentation is. (of course, seeing as how it's been so praised, perhaps I, the one not affected, am in the minority). back on topic, though, I don't really understand what would make it subversive. documentary has incorporated fiction from the start (Nanook of the North, for example)
a few thoughts about Harmony Korine: I think he's brilliant. sometimes childish, sometimes pretentious, sometimes exploitative, and sometimes weird just for the sake of being weird (I reeeaaally hate that), but he's an amazing and innovative filmmaker. I don't know if I really truly liked Gummo though. Julien Donkey Boy is one of my favorite films of all time, but Gummo just feels like a bit of a wank to me (again, weird for weirdness's sake). also, I'm surprised no one's mentioned how Harmony exploits retards and "freaks" - whether they be inbred hicks or black albino rappers or amputees who drum with their feet. or that he's got that whole "documentary/fictional crossbreed" thing that Borat and Tarnation have in spades, but is using it in far more interesting ways than either of those films. and yeah, his films aren't "political" or "progressive" in the least, by any definition. but why should any of this disqualify him from getting the "subversive" badge? like I said before, whether or not a film is subversive or not has fuck all to do with political stance.
"...one of the most frustrating things about Americans is that they never..."
could we just stop it with this already? generalizing to a ridiculous degree like this is almost as insulting as it is boring and pointless.
but yeah, Crestmere, I'd agree that using De Selby's definition isn't really going to get us anywhere.
"Do you feel that Girls Gone Wild or really, any pornography made in the last 15 years, does the same, Troy?"
well I don't want to answer a question directed specifically at someone else, but the answer is no. it's not as exploitative or anti-women as Girls Gone Wild, and I'm not sure I'd call it pornography. it's basically in the same vein as Jackass, but with dumb women instead of dumb men. that clip wasn't very representative of the show as a whole, and I'd recommend you read some more about it on its wikipedia page. some of the things in the synopses that caught my eye: "Munchie and Ramona go boxing in wedding dresses" and "Munchie asks guys to show her their package." now high art this is not. it's not even very entertaining trash. but to dismiss it like you are is pretty narrow minded. basically, part of what the show is doing is saying fuck you to the idea of males being rowdy and violent and overly sexual and females being prissy and reserved and tasteful (as Troy said, "thumbs it's nose at conventional concepts of females"). of course, it's not presenting a very positive image of females either. and it could be argued that its no less exploitative than something like Girls Gone Wild (well okay, it's definitely less so, but maybe not by much? maybe?). but i think you should at least take a closer look at it before easily dismissing it as "pornography."
"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."
bingo. |
