[Miscellany]

If that old adage "you are what you eat" holds any truth at all, then it must also be true that you are what you watch and listen to as well.   If I could go back to 2006 and redo that old blog post in the link there I'd add the movie Pump Up the Volume to the "Recipe of Me" list.  I'm not quite sure why I didn't include it in there in the first place.  I remember much of my teenage years was spent watching this movie while sighing every time Christian Slater spoke (as you do when you're about 15) and I did so, over and over, week after week until the tape literally broke.

I haven't got the movie on DVD (and clearly not on VHS either) but the other night I happened to find it randomly online and re-watched it for the first time in about 15 or so years and was delighted from opening scene to end credits.  I could still recite about 80% of it verbatim and it still rang true.  I'm many years out of my teens now and I'm amazed that I could still relate so willingly to these feelings of hurt, betrayal and injustice that are so fundamentally teenage.  It's a credit to the writing and direction but also perhaps speaks a lot of me and where I'm at during this time in my life.

I'm not sure whether this is true and FFS I can't be fucked researching it but PUTV feels like the first movie of its time to truly be a voice of the emergent Generation X especially in the face of teen cinema that had, (until that time) been thoughtful but also too "pretty" to really explore issues of how difficult it is to be young.  Pump Up the Volume isn't a pretty teen movie. Sure, Samantha Mathis is gorgeous and Christian Slater isn't exactly hard on the eye but when you compare it to the John Hughes movies that typified teen angst in the 80s it's like looking at two opposites.  PUTV is basically a big "fuck you" to the 80s and the Baby Boomers for that matter. It's Generation Xs first real voice, that is when they were still deciding whether they had a voice angry enough to be heard in the first place.

Were Generation X ever really heard I wonder?

Sure they were written about, notably by the brilliant Douglas Coupland and in numerous essays of the time.  Many songs and books and theories were pontificated (probably on the end of a joint) about Gen-X.  Certainly the Baby Boomers and (consequently) Yuppies complained about their lack of willpower, their disaffected attitude, their slacker tendencies, their over-educated cynicism and their moodiness but were they ever really heard?

A lot of what writer/director Allan Moyle examines in his movie Pump Up the Volume I think explains the fears and worries that affected Generation X before we moved the spotlight onto Gen Y and forgot there ever really was a problem.  Namely, control by large corporations over the way we live our lives, how money influences greed and corruption, that adults in positions of power are mostly untrustworthy, an inexplicable need to fuck shit up, a fear that society does not support humanity in humans, fear that our mental and physical well-being is being subverted by a machine running on corruption and greed, a feeling that perhaps anarchy is better than capitalism and of course a deep mistrust in government and all authority associated with it etc.

Let's fact it folk, aren't these the things we are still worried about?  Weren't the hippies worried about that before they turned into yuppies?  And if we aren't, why the hell not?  This is why the movie is still so relevant and why it still works.  These issues never went away in fact if anything they are more hopeless than ever, and Generation X, no matter now ineffective in changing the world they were had a bloody good point.  They may not have invented the plight or were the first to voice their concerns but they did take on these issues personally.  If we didn't listen then, why aren't we listening now?

What I love about Pump Up the Volume is the idea that idea that the voice is so powerful that it creates its own persona.  As a lowly teenager, main protagonist Mark is vulnerable; he is young and as we all know being young is hard and being young also means being powerless.  Young people who speak up or who are different are often beaten down by authority figures and of course since we are so afraid of 'otherness' by their peers too, but a voice can go anywhere and transcends cliques, class and race.  It can penetrate deep and reach out to a humanity that exists in commonality within us all.

I like the idea that a voice can just go somewhere uninvited and just kind of hang out like a dirty thought in a nice, clean mind. To me a thought is like a virus you know, it can just kill all the healthy thoughts and just take over. ~ DJ. Happy Harry Hard-On

So in the movie the voice does go uninvited into the psyche of this small town and creates a virus that causes an epidemic of thought and eventually anarchy and change in this small community and this makes me wonder, what it will take for us humans to do the same on a grander scale? While most of us humans step in time almost mindlessly to the job and the mortgage and hot sex (or endless supply of chocolate) there is a group of us who has been infected by the virus and is currently sitting very uneasily with it pulsating deep knowing that change must happen but not knowing how.

If Generation X were unheard or... ignored when they took it on then what will happen this time around?

I would be remiss to mention the fact that the soundtrack for Pump Up the Volume is just brilliant.  The released soundtrack is good but the actual soundtrack from the movie is some of the best music of its time.  Leonard Cohen, Sonic Youth, Concrete Blonde, Pixies, MC5, Beastie Boys, etc.

Here's one little gem by Richard Hell and the Voidoids.  Love Comes in Spurts.

Labels: cinema, film theory, generation x, movies, musical monday, political musings, pop culture, punk, voice, yes I am taking politics, youth

posted by M at 11:59 pm 7 comments

A couple of months ago when I wrote a post about the (lack of) visibility of the penis in contemporary mainstream cinema I never thought that it would be so soon between drinks (so to speak) and I could again be subjected to the same enjoyable spectacle. Yes folks, penis spotting is alive an well in the Sex and the City movie currently doing the rounds at the cinemas.

Funnily enough it wasn't really the penis itself that interested me this time, more that the so called traditional male gaze of the camera had been flipped and twisted for a second into an almost unheard of female gaze. It was a bit of a shock to me that I became so aware of the switch in the first place. I had just assumed that a movie about women and basically made for women would be filmed primarily with a female gaze - god knows the subject matter would probably bore any heterosexual man to a slow and painful death -but I assumed wrong. It seems that the female gaze remains as highly elusive in popular mainstream cinema as it ever was and I don't think this phenomenon is due to any kind of big conspiracy either - it just is that way, god knows why but it just is. The fact is that a female perspective in cinema may exist in so far as subject matter and characterisation is concerned but not in terms of cinematography. Does it even matter? I don't know - does it? Women look at women's bodies all the time - the difference is that while we will, can and do appreciate the female form this is not necessarily a sexually laden gaze - does the male gaze of the camera lens take this concept fully into consideration or is it just all knowing and omnipresent like God? It is all gazes, it is the only gaze, it is supreme and all accommodating? And if this is the case why did I get the shock of my life when I finally recognised the female camera gaze? Hm, why indeed?

The scene in question was the a shower scene where man-crazy Samantha pervs on her neighbour as he takes a naked outdoor shower (as you do in California apparently). The camera moves slowly and lovingly over the man's body, focusing on his heavily defined and muscular back and perfect bum and right down to his strong, tanned and not too hairy legs before it travels back up again to it's final destination - the money shot. If I ever needed a moment to tell me what women see when they are having a good perv that was it. I had become so accustomed to viewing cinema through the filter of the male gaze (camera) that I had to think twice in order to recognise my own. It felt foreign to see something filmed so entirely from the point of view of a woman that I completely disengaged from watching the movie. I remember thinking "oh, now that's interesting" - but it wasn't his body, it was the camera that I found interesting. Also the sudden representation of a female filter by which to watch a movie, one I had naively assumed I had always viewed movies with, was just so strange. The fact that I had just realised then just how strange it was unnerved me - the movie while being female-centric was filmed primarily in classic male gaze form. The point being of course not that this was done in order to exclude women, just the opposite the point is that we, women, are most comfortable in viewing cinema (all art?) in this way. The question of course then is why?

When I have theorised the male gaze of the camera in the past it is always with reference to old movies of the Hitchcockian era (and of course Laura Mulvey) where scopophilia really was a male dominated art form. I'd assumed due to various changes in movie subject matter, the rise of female directors and indeed the societal changes due to the women's movement that cinema had changed too. Ahem - perhaps not.

It's funny that it took *this* particular movie based on a series so obsessed with highlighting the *look we've come so far because now we can have sex like men* cliche, to drum the point home. We women are comfortable seeing ourselves through the point of view of how men see us - and perhaps this is highlighted in many of the female-centric things we partake in
(beauty myth etc) and I don't know that we'd even want to change that if we had the chance anyway. The question for me still is, why? I still can't answer it - it's ingrained there somewhere between why we will willingly pay for the pleasure of ripping the hair out of our most sensitive places and why GW Bush was ever re-elected. Questions I guess that answering will open a can of worms so big it can never be contained. Maybe we need that, I don't know but I do think it's highly fucked up that the so called female camera gaze existed for a grand total of 10 seconds in a movie based on women and made for women. Food for thought.

On another note, almost every (straight) guy I know loathes these women, the series, the whole premise of the show etc. Is it hated because it's subversive or because it's bullshit? I've said it before but when something is hated then it's always because a few buttons are in the process of being well and truly pushed.

What say you? Are there any movies you can recommend that show the female gaze in action? Remember female subject matter/characterisation do not necessarily mean a female gaze..

Sex and the City - do you hate it/them? Why?


And now my musical choice today comes of my female gaze quite happily looking through the filter of the male gaze. Go figure! Here we have the Duck Man performing probably my favourite of all songs I've ever discovered through watching a movie - Otis Redding's Try a Little Tenderness. A scene I love so much I shared it with my university film class as "a favourite" and a song I love so much I rang Gold FM to request it and was sternly told that "we don't play *that*". Hmph! Here are my two favourite things, movies and music combined. Okay, three favourites: Duckie.
...Apparently he has strong lips. Bless!

Try A Little Tenderness - Otis Redding.

Labels: bodies, cinema, dirty femmo, film theory, gaze, men, movies, musical monday, objectification, scopophilia, sex, women

posted by M at 9:36 pm 25 comments