I finally watched the Dave Markey-directed 1991: The Year Punk Broke, which was released in 1992 (never actually saw it back then). Coming out of the L.A. hardcore (punk) scene in the early 1980s, Markey was the drummer in the bands Sin 34 and Painted Willie, co-edited the We Got Power fanzine, and has made numerous documentary and other films. As a documentarian, Markey does a stellar job in filming this tour. I like all the little touches Markey throws in and dig his style of filmmaking, the pastiche style, and the aesthetic of the occasionally deliberately low-budget visual effects. This essay originated as a post I made in a social-media group dedicated to SST Records bands and related topics. Out of my original post and my own responses to comments on the thread, I realized I had over a thousand words. But in that regard, I also happily acknowledge that there’s a kind of collaborative dynamic to this as well. First my response to Markey’s film, then the online comments that ensued, and my further thoughts that these sparked, now formed into some kind of semblance of an essay.
It should go without saying that I’m not criticizing Markey here per se; he documents what was going on at the time, 1991, as punk /hardcore had already moved on to become the beginnings of “indie-rock” or “alternative,” as well as some of the major bands on this tour — Sonic Youth, Nirvana, Dinosaur Jr., et al. So, this is a kind of retrospective look at that time, which now seems very much of its time; thus, it is really quite strange to watch it now and see it from such a distance. Primarily, then, I am questioning/analyzing the stances taken and arguments made by the musician themselves in the film. That said, of course nothing is ever truly that random (“just” documented, or just “what really happened”), and the fact that it is put forward as a film inherently means it is making some kind of argument about all of this stuff.
It might also go without saying that I think the music in this is still great, and there are some amazing versions of the bands’ songs. Really almost all the music is spectacular (a surprise to me was how good Babes in Toyland were live). But the strange thing to see the film now is, these people (primarily band members themselves) mostly act like a bunch of idiots (to be blunt). Yes, it’s a rock’n’roll tour and these are primarily young people (except for Sonic Youth, who were already in their thirties at the time), and I guess they are mugging for the camera, and there were probably intoxicating substances involved (e.g. Nirvana do virtually nothing but horse around, jump on each other, and fall down). But as I watched, I couldn’t help seeing this as all pretty shallow and ridiculous. Thurston Moore especially — apparently, we were supposed to buy into his “cool,” but his cool is based on a combination of inane drivel and arrogance (it appears to me, in this film), and he’s actually extremely annoying here. (J. Mascis and Murph are exceptions to the off-putting personalities of most and come across well.)
Secondly, they are supposedly attacking/critiquing pop culture, with the Madonna parodies and so on, yet what is actually documented is really what the title says — it is the moment in time where what was formerly underground/challenging/or just weird is suddenly becoming subsumed into the mainstream (“broke” big, i.e. crossed over), becoming just another signifier of hip taste and faux individuality. Adorno was right; the culture industry wins. While the figures here think they are ironically subverting mainstream pop culture, they are really only a part of it. If anything, this film demonstrates the ways that neoliberal capitalism by the late 80s/early 90s had suddenly found a way to subsume what was formerly an underground, unassimilated scene (hardcore punk), as bands brought in pop hooks and got major-label record contracts. As Steven Shaviro writes in his essay “Accelerationist Aesthetics” (2013), “In today’s capitalism everything is aestheticized, and all values are ultimately aesthetic ones. . . . Aesthetic sensations and feelings are no longer disinterested, because they have been recast as markers of personal identity: revealed preferences, brands, lifestyle markers, objects of adoration by fans.” The “cool” tastes and ironic humor that the participants in the film think shield them from the mainstream no longer do that job.
In the social-media thread, a couple of commenters charged that I was taking the film too seriously or “overthinking it,” suggesting that it was all just a bunch of fun, which only happened to be caught on camera, nothing more. However, if you’re going to put this (or anything) into a film, and put the film forward and ask everyone to watch it, then inherently it is making some kind of argument or statement. Additionally, the participants know they are on camera and act accordingly, for the wider audience it affords. In that sense, (yes I repeat myself) nothing is ever “just” without some kind of intent.
Others in the thread said that Moore’s seeming pretentiousness was all just a joke, that he wasn’t in any way making any kind of serious point through his comments or his mode of communication. Yet, tellingly there is at least one pretentious attempt at a serious message, when Moore says that their doing the tour is a challenge to “your parents,” (okay, he may have been hyperbolic and silly about the “parents” part), the Bush administration, and the KGB. He seems seriously concerned about the arrest of Gorbachev, which had just happened at that time. It’s one brief moment where he seems like he’s trying to make a serious point, which suggests that underneath all the irony, he does take himself somewhat seriously. I.e. he wasn’t pro-Bush etc., so that was not actually ironic, one of the few non-ironic moments. However, it is unclear (at least in this documentary) how rock bands on tour, aside from offering a momentary good time, presents a challenge to the political order.
Undeniably, though, there is then a certain intent in what is going on in this film, and it captures the way that subcultural figures rather consciously attempt to project coolness: again, by attempting to satirize pop culture while also becoming inescapably part of pop culture. The Madonna parodies, for example, are not just random happenings, but an ongoing skit that tries to make a deliberate point. Then there is the attempt to be seen as ironic, disengaged, which is itself a particular social stance that, being in their twenties and thirties, i.e. adults, the people enacting this knew they were taking.
For another example, there is a scene where Moore makes fun of Iggy Pop (who doesn’t actually appear in the film, though he was on the tour). The scene is noteworthy because on the one hand he’s satirizing Iggy for being “outrageous,” but then it’s also just another ironic way for him to show how cool he (Moore) is, that he’s incorporated the influence of the Stooges even as he also seems to suggest that that it’s now become oh-so-cliché. More of an attack on those not as disengaged/cool, then, than an attack on Iggy/ Stooges themselves. There’s a similar moment where Lee Ranaldo acts silly and dismissive in front of the Ramones, and right before that (in a car out of earshot) Moore says something like, “Where’s Dee Dee,” when obviously Dee Dee was out of the band at that point. Again, not really an attack on the Ramones — it’s well-known that SY were Ramones and Stooges fans — more a means of showing how passé respecting your influences is. Or something like that.
It is an odd feeling, in retrospect, to realize/confront to whom and how much we once accorded credibility or cultural capital. I imagine that if I had seen this in 1992, I too probably would’ve thought most of it was pretty “cool.” The early 90s seem like such a different time now. The music was (largely) better, but the narrative of cool kind of uncool.
As of this writing, the thread in the SST group is still there:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/560929080597917/permalink/3450426938314769/
It should go without saying that I’m not criticizing Markey here per se; he documents what was going on at the time, 1991, as punk /hardcore had already moved on to become the beginnings of “indie-rock” or “alternative,” as well as some of the major bands on this tour — Sonic Youth, Nirvana, Dinosaur Jr., et al. So, this is a kind of retrospective look at that time, which now seems very much of its time; thus, it is really quite strange to watch it now and see it from such a distance. Primarily, then, I am questioning/analyzing the stances taken and arguments made by the musician themselves in the film. That said, of course nothing is ever truly that random (“just” documented, or just “what really happened”), and the fact that it is put forward as a film inherently means it is making some kind of argument about all of this stuff.
It might also go without saying that I think the music in this is still great, and there are some amazing versions of the bands’ songs. Really almost all the music is spectacular (a surprise to me was how good Babes in Toyland were live). But the strange thing to see the film now is, these people (primarily band members themselves) mostly act like a bunch of idiots (to be blunt). Yes, it’s a rock’n’roll tour and these are primarily young people (except for Sonic Youth, who were already in their thirties at the time), and I guess they are mugging for the camera, and there were probably intoxicating substances involved (e.g. Nirvana do virtually nothing but horse around, jump on each other, and fall down). But as I watched, I couldn’t help seeing this as all pretty shallow and ridiculous. Thurston Moore especially — apparently, we were supposed to buy into his “cool,” but his cool is based on a combination of inane drivel and arrogance (it appears to me, in this film), and he’s actually extremely annoying here. (J. Mascis and Murph are exceptions to the off-putting personalities of most and come across well.)
Secondly, they are supposedly attacking/critiquing pop culture, with the Madonna parodies and so on, yet what is actually documented is really what the title says — it is the moment in time where what was formerly underground/challenging/or just weird is suddenly becoming subsumed into the mainstream (“broke” big, i.e. crossed over), becoming just another signifier of hip taste and faux individuality. Adorno was right; the culture industry wins. While the figures here think they are ironically subverting mainstream pop culture, they are really only a part of it. If anything, this film demonstrates the ways that neoliberal capitalism by the late 80s/early 90s had suddenly found a way to subsume what was formerly an underground, unassimilated scene (hardcore punk), as bands brought in pop hooks and got major-label record contracts. As Steven Shaviro writes in his essay “Accelerationist Aesthetics” (2013), “In today’s capitalism everything is aestheticized, and all values are ultimately aesthetic ones. . . . Aesthetic sensations and feelings are no longer disinterested, because they have been recast as markers of personal identity: revealed preferences, brands, lifestyle markers, objects of adoration by fans.” The “cool” tastes and ironic humor that the participants in the film think shield them from the mainstream no longer do that job.
In the social-media thread, a couple of commenters charged that I was taking the film too seriously or “overthinking it,” suggesting that it was all just a bunch of fun, which only happened to be caught on camera, nothing more. However, if you’re going to put this (or anything) into a film, and put the film forward and ask everyone to watch it, then inherently it is making some kind of argument or statement. Additionally, the participants know they are on camera and act accordingly, for the wider audience it affords. In that sense, (yes I repeat myself) nothing is ever “just” without some kind of intent.
Others in the thread said that Moore’s seeming pretentiousness was all just a joke, that he wasn’t in any way making any kind of serious point through his comments or his mode of communication. Yet, tellingly there is at least one pretentious attempt at a serious message, when Moore says that their doing the tour is a challenge to “your parents,” (okay, he may have been hyperbolic and silly about the “parents” part), the Bush administration, and the KGB. He seems seriously concerned about the arrest of Gorbachev, which had just happened at that time. It’s one brief moment where he seems like he’s trying to make a serious point, which suggests that underneath all the irony, he does take himself somewhat seriously. I.e. he wasn’t pro-Bush etc., so that was not actually ironic, one of the few non-ironic moments. However, it is unclear (at least in this documentary) how rock bands on tour, aside from offering a momentary good time, presents a challenge to the political order.
Undeniably, though, there is then a certain intent in what is going on in this film, and it captures the way that subcultural figures rather consciously attempt to project coolness: again, by attempting to satirize pop culture while also becoming inescapably part of pop culture. The Madonna parodies, for example, are not just random happenings, but an ongoing skit that tries to make a deliberate point. Then there is the attempt to be seen as ironic, disengaged, which is itself a particular social stance that, being in their twenties and thirties, i.e. adults, the people enacting this knew they were taking.
For another example, there is a scene where Moore makes fun of Iggy Pop (who doesn’t actually appear in the film, though he was on the tour). The scene is noteworthy because on the one hand he’s satirizing Iggy for being “outrageous,” but then it’s also just another ironic way for him to show how cool he (Moore) is, that he’s incorporated the influence of the Stooges even as he also seems to suggest that that it’s now become oh-so-cliché. More of an attack on those not as disengaged/cool, then, than an attack on Iggy/ Stooges themselves. There’s a similar moment where Lee Ranaldo acts silly and dismissive in front of the Ramones, and right before that (in a car out of earshot) Moore says something like, “Where’s Dee Dee,” when obviously Dee Dee was out of the band at that point. Again, not really an attack on the Ramones — it’s well-known that SY were Ramones and Stooges fans — more a means of showing how passé respecting your influences is. Or something like that.
It is an odd feeling, in retrospect, to realize/confront to whom and how much we once accorded credibility or cultural capital. I imagine that if I had seen this in 1992, I too probably would’ve thought most of it was pretty “cool.” The early 90s seem like such a different time now. The music was (largely) better, but the narrative of cool kind of uncool.
As of this writing, the thread in the SST group is still there:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/560929080597917/permalink/3450426938314769/
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment