better than the ramones

heres the latest film dealing (aesthetically very differently) with the same themes of alienation and the families that form from that presumed alienation:

http://vimeo.com/9308511

Should have posted this before the film synopsis

Even though this post should have been listed first, because I wrote it before I finished the film synopsis, I still wanted to post it in defense of the last photos critique of fashiony... their is ans wa a reason..

Here's some thoughts:

“I”dentification: alienation, and assimilation

 

The term of  “otherness” is a principle of alienation- it is the idea of the outsider: something outside of civilization, outside of normative culture and influence.  Why do we love and hate fashion? Because it can (outwardly) visually identify us as alienated from one sect of people, uninfluenced by what they wear, and, in turn, what they care about. (Fashion after all is a form of self-expression, no? Isn’t that why we tell children who want to wear tie-die, velvet, overalls with knee-high socks and a bucket on their head that its ok to go to school like that, and then send them off to be knowingly slaughtered by their minature, khaki-wearing peers?)

If I wear skinny jeans, side-buckle boots and a colorful grandpa sweater I found at a thrift store to school do I believe I am setting myself apart from, and essentially against, every Barbie doll in a Northface coat? They are what’s normal so I will wear what they don’t- fashion is a way to express an alienation from their lifestyle because we are constantly trying to individualize ourselves. Here’s why that’s problematic: I am trying to disassociate myself from a group of people that I have no interest in otherwise. Why should I re-act to them, when they are rarely present in my daily thoughts? Are they the dominant culture? Who said so? Well, any walk through a cold, campus town will tell you that every other girl looks exactly the same with her stick-straight hair, long down coat and tan boots, so somewhere along the line they became a normative dictation of fashion and youth.  What really grinds the gears of the affected “disaffected” is really their blatant disregard for any attempt at individuality spurred on by a greater desire for a peacock display of their affluence (favoring a monetary affluence over intellectual profusion).  But besides, forget the Northface clad clan, because the second you strip them of their 200 dollar jacket the outfit they have on underneath is rarely something you couldn’t find at any clothing store in your immediate vicinity- the point is, their lives are governed by an implied and carefully regulated standard for what is good, bad, acceptable, normal, and appropriate.  In living by these rules they are not only enforcing their pervasiveness, but also inexplicitly extricating what is not normal..what is “other” (“other” in their normative terms being an extreme negative) (“Defining the norm is [an] instrument of control of idiosyncrasy”-Dave Hickey) Why is this relevant to artists and otherwise creative people- because usually our commonality is a disunification from dominant regulated culture.

    

     So my subconscious inclination towards thrift store clothing rises out of an unacknowledged rebellion from traditional westernized ideals, right? Well, that’s why we hate fashion too- the second you call me a hipster, my gut violently reacts- because you have essentially placed me in another group of people- you have defeated my alienation- I am no longer set apart- just set in a different part, rather. 

So why is “primitivism” making its way back into art and into our lifestyles? Because creative people are re-assimilating it as a principle signifier for otherness, for alienation.  It draws on the idea of cultures untouched by civilization-untouched by the carefully regulated rules of society-a way of life that is not governed by hegemonic culture. It also has an association to the lower or working class- infusing low brow culture. You see a six-point deer skull and may think ‘primitive’, but my best friends dad who lives in the middle of no-wheres-ville Saranac, Michigan, sees a successful deer-hunting season and a lack of taxidermy funds. 

     

    What I am not interested in...? People who are naively, narcissistically and superficially self-absorbed. Indulging ideas is ok when they are not stupid ideas.  If everything you talk about is in context to your own stupid self image, you are simply boring to everyone else who is not you.  You are not alienated in any way, you are not marginal, or unique.  If all you think about is how your “Mary Kate wardrobe” sets you apart from everybody, and you think talking about drugs in the public sphere is a way of dictating to others how much of an outcast (I use this word sensationally because here it is meant as a positive association to alienation and in turn a self-developed sense of ‘individuality) you would be completely incorrect in your assumption that you are marginal or special.  You only care about your cool sense of fashion because others will see it and think how different you are and you talk about drugs and cigarettes (first and foremost because you have nothing actually interesting to say and there is a societal stigma that says drugs are radical and the young people that do them are neato! so you must be interesting for talking about it) because you want to bend peoples perception of you- ultimately it all comes back to you as the centralized theme.  Why does this matter to the first part… because what I am talking about is harmless hipster culture.  People who have self-proclaimed an otherness that is not internalized and therefore renders its radicalism no more destructive (in a good way) than a Northface jacket.  These people have assimilated a challenging idea and have dumbed it into something numbing, and static; incapable of revolt.  These stupid vapid narcissist make me more angry than any ugg-wearing Barbie, fake-baked a nice toner orange.  Why? Because they don’t even pretend to give a shit about radicality, difference, separation, alienation, culture clashing, uprising, or otherness.  At least the Barbie's complacently follow the crowd and dare I say, they are grateful someone has established a set of rules to govern their lives so nothing gets too out of hand or messy for them- this way the hardest choice they will have to make is whether it will be cosmos of margaritas Thursday night.  But those that have taken something that once stood as a direct affront to tradionalized life, something that once lopped the heads off of those that presumed to regulate and govern how everyone should live, have assimilated a potent idea into their own vapidity and completely bastardized its significance.  NOW, let’s redirect the violence. 

Brief Synopsis for the Final Film

Borderland

While making a cliché film aesthetisizing decaying rural areas and abandoned buildings, two film students stumble 

across a group of people living in the woods behind an old run down house.

Initially, fear and precaution causes the filmmakers to flee the situation in the woods, but interest overwhelms them, 

as the prospect of a much more interesting film presents itself.

The filmmakers return to the secluded group to observe them- filming from afar and taking photographs of their 

ritualistic, tribal behavior. 

Eventually they decide to make outright contact with the tribe members and initiate this contact with what appears 

to be the youngest member- who is also the least troubled by their presence.

The filmmakers return to the group repeatedly- first by exploiting the curiosity and inhibition of the youngest 

member, but eventually making contact with the group as a whole.

The members of the group are hostile and confrontational at first, but slowly they become complacent with the 

presence of the filmmakers and allow conversation to take place.

In doing so, it becomes readily apparent to the filmmakers that this groups alienation from civilization is a chosen 

and purposeful act of resistance.

The group members cite an inclination towards a radical political agenda, and in doing so, they sought a secluded, 

removed existance in order to live by the rules and politics they feel should govern all of society-rules that now 

govern their little society.

Through the filmmaker’s interaction with the group, it becomes very apparent that they are by no means primitive or 

uncivilized- little things are revealed to the filmmakers that make them (and the audience) completely question their 

conception of the idea of “otherness”.

 (Possibly something like; one of them went to college, they have their own library of books, etc.)

At this point, the filmmakers are implicated as naïve and exploitative- representing the exact things this tribe of 

people wished to alienate themselves from.

In their naïve misunderstanding of everything this group is directly opposing by purposefully diverging from 

traditional civilized life, the filmmakers misguidedly convince the youngest member to come back into regular 

society with them.

But, after one ride in a car and lunch at a bar where he was the object and focus of judgment and speculation, he 

realizes his complete and total alienation from this culture, and wants to go back.

The filmmakers reluctantly oblige to take him back (they were stupidly hoping to get some neato ‘tarzan meets the 

big city’ kind of shots) but as soon as he returns, it is made adamantly clear that he no longer belongs with his tribe 

now either because he is tainted- a double alienation. 

Without warning or explanation, the tribe attacks and kills him.

The film ends suddenly as the filmmakers briefly witness this event while fleeing for their lives.