"... but they are also, and more importantly, meditations on the nature of the freak. If there can be said to be some kind of philosophical import to ['Female Trouble'], it is this: [John] Waters executes a dialectical examination of the freak through an immanent analysis of the outsider, following its internal movements toward a negative critique of society (that is, an exposition of the intrinsic contradictions upon which society operates), but ultimately demonstrating that the liminality of the freak is an integral part of the social whole. By marking the perimeters of the acceptable, by opening a threshold onto the chaos of madness and the entropy of unchecked deviance, the freak in Waters’ works performs a social service, thus qualifying its vaunted difference and reflecting society itself in the funhouse-mirror of its own self-obsessions.... [T]he aberration is the engine behind the Darwinian understanding of evolution... Evolution... requires an anomaly that slips the traces of conformity.... The sudden veer that marks the evolutionary leap is the byproduct of the one impacting the many. The 'freak,' when successful, charts the path of the future of the normative."
I'm reading that because I'm watching "Female Trouble" because I've just recently subscribed to the Criterion Channel, and I'm catching up on various old films.
"...it is this: [John] Waters executes a dialectical examination of the freak." I had forgotten that people wrote this way. Now I have to go shower. Thanks a bunch.
Of the three, one of them caught my interest. But then, movies are like restaurants, everyone has their own taste. We did a Criterion Movie night last night. I tried to talk my wife into watching 'Amarcord', which I have seen, but I was still a teenager when I saw it so I wanted to see what I thought about it now, after living the better part of a life. But she was not interested (we'll do it sometime soon). We instead went for the light and fun, "Cousin Cousine". I'd seen the American remake, "Cousins" years ago and her mood was light. Maybe after a week of Afghanistan and mask fights locally she'd had enough. So this was...light and fun, but not something that I woke up remembering. In fact, if not for your post I would have completely forgotten about it.
And that is my rating system on whether or not a movie was good: Do I wake up thinking about it? If I do- it's at minimum, a good one. Perhaps a great one.
Did you wake up thinking about "Female Trouble"? I hope not.
Rule of thumb: avoid anything with a colon in the title. Especially if the title fits the formula of "Lame pun or feeble word play: belaboring the obvious about something so absurdly trivial the whole piece can't help but read like a vicious parody of itself."
Chadwick Jenkins might be right. Dunno. I chose not to survive unpacking his academic-speak word salad. No badge of honor is worth that exploitation.
I like John Waters. I have seen and enjoyed a number of his films. In interviews, he is quick, perceptive, deliciously wicked, and engaging. Maybe Waters's use of freak to foil conventional society is worthy of analysis. Maybe less verbosity, more precision, would entice me to be exploited all the way to the end of such an analysis.
As for the Chadwick Jenkins writing style... I found it hilarious under the circumstances (of a movie in the worst possible taste). It's funny to get so profoundly egg-headed about it? And why is the movie on the Criterion Channel, where you get the feeling these have all gone through a worthiness filter? Some bad taste is way better than other bad taste!
Hilarious under the circumstances? Perhaps, but this screed is very far the spot-on takedown of something like Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity." Best case for Jenkins, his 'style' of writing is a failed parody of bad academic writing, which I doubt was his intention. Like these gems:
"a dialectical examination of the freak through an immanent analysis of the outsider" -- not seeing any movement to a synthesis making sense of opposites, mostly just a parade of visual cliches, and nothing that could be described as 'analysis,' immanent or otherwise.
"the liminality of the freak is an integral part of the social whole" -- really? liminal only in the sense of theatrically over-the-rainbow, being exploited for cheep thrills without doing anything to illuminate whatever boundaries may be in play.
"marking the perimeters of the acceptable, by opening a threshold onto the chaos of madness and the entropy of unchecked deviance" -- Oh boy, perimeters and thresholds leading to entropy? why not throw black holes or spooky motion at a distance while you're at it?
"The sudden veer that marks the evolutionary leap is the byproduct of the one impacting the many. The 'freak,' when successful, charts the path of the future of the normative." well, the 'freak' is mostly the random change that doesn't lead to evolutionary success (a random change giving rise to an advantage in surviving across generations) but perhaps that's what Darwin looks like when dumbed down for viewing in a fun-house mirror.
I just finished watching "Pandora's Box" on Criterion. Louise Brooks was amazing. I was leery of a more than 2 hour silent movie but it totally held my attention.
I have got the impression that Water's performers wanted very much to be seen. I don't see how displaying them is exploitation. None of them decided to come back later and shoot him like Andy Warhol.
Is Chadwick Jenkins some kind of put on. The name sounds kind of pompous and made up. You can't possibly write that bad without consciously trying to write that bad. It's the kind of writing that a Soviet apparatchik would use to describe the glories and wonders of Stalin's latest five year plan. How does someone who writes like that come to be attracted to the movies of John Waters? This might be an extremely clever parody although of what I'm not sure.
"Best case for Jenkins, his 'style' of writing is a failed parody of bad academic writing, which I doubt was his intention."
I worked with academics (they were all woke before woke was a thing) that wrote this way. It was painful to read. Occasionally I would have to edit their nonsense and bring it back down to earth.
"Don't use a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent word will do."
It's always interesting what Althouse selects for viewing on the Criterion Channel, in part because it is often not what I would expect.
"It's Such a Beautiful Day" probably won't win any animation awards, but its definitely worth watching. The simple animation works in its favor, allowing viewers to concentrate on the rapid narration, its ideas and humor.
My go-to guy for film classics and oddities recommends Canadian filmmaker Guy Madden. They are gorgeous and bizarre films.
Also anything by Powell and Pressburger. She Knows Where She’s Going lingers in your mind.
I can’t recommend enough in these days Burnt By The Sun, about one of Stalin’s lieutenants trying and failing to return to his old life and dacha. Ominous hint of things to come. Beautifully shot among the horror. What daily life will look like for us soon.
I once got lost trying to find Johns Hopkins late at night on a road trip, and at the end of the exit ramp there was a business with a huge flashing sigh that read “Used Porn.” Whenever I think of John Waters or Baltimore, that’s what comes to mind. Plus a bunch of nerd astrophysicists.
-Bold, Daring, Shocking, True- by David Schafer is a great history of grind-house and b-movies. I’ve got a collection of such films made in the South, some listed as lost. I’ll get around to donating it. Research librarians are the loneliest and happiest employees in the world.
Support the Althouse blog by doing your Amazon shopping going in through the Althouse Amazon link.
Amazon
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Support this blog with PayPal
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
Posts
28 comments:
Probably more uplifting and sane than the news.
Ah, the Egg Lady
"...it is this: [John] Waters executes a dialectical examination of the freak."
I had forgotten that people wrote this way. Now I have to go shower. Thanks a bunch.
Of the three, one of them caught my interest. But then, movies are like restaurants, everyone has their own taste. We did a Criterion Movie night last night. I tried to talk my wife into watching 'Amarcord', which I have seen, but I was still a teenager when I saw it so I wanted to see what I thought about it now, after living the better part of a life. But she was not interested (we'll do it sometime soon). We instead went for the light and fun, "Cousin Cousine". I'd seen the American remake, "Cousins" years ago and her mood was light. Maybe after a week of Afghanistan and mask fights locally she'd had enough. So this was...light and fun, but not something that I woke up remembering. In fact, if not for your post I would have completely forgotten about it.
And that is my rating system on whether or not a movie was good: Do I wake up thinking about it? If I do- it's at minimum, a good one. Perhaps a great one.
Did you wake up thinking about "Female Trouble"? I hope not.
As I read the review, I grew to believe that the writer often uses a thesaurus as masturbation inspiration.
Translation: Portrayals of deviance examine norms, and reinforce them.
Rule of thumb: avoid anything with a colon in the title. Especially if the title fits the formula of "Lame pun or feeble word play: belaboring the obvious about something so absurdly trivial the whole piece can't help but read like a vicious parody of itself."
Darwinism in the biological sense has nothing to do with conformity.
I won't get into the philosophical argument because I'd get lost : )
But Waters was gay when gays were fun. Now 'the movement' are all a bunch of scolds.
Woke this, woke that. Our community this, pronouns that. You never want to meet a modern gay person at a party for fear of being lectured.
I've seen him interviewed, and he is an extremely interesting man. He doesn't take himself seriously...
Conformity is truly a social construct.
Scratch n’ Sniff!
Chadwick Jenkins might be right. Dunno. I chose not to survive unpacking his academic-speak word salad. No badge of honor is worth that exploitation.
I like John Waters. I have seen and enjoyed a number of his films. In interviews, he is quick, perceptive, deliciously wicked, and engaging. Maybe Waters's use of freak to foil conventional society is worthy of analysis. Maybe less verbosity, more precision, would entice me to be exploited all the way to the end of such an analysis.
John Waters deserves better than such turgid, clumsy writing.
It must have caused the world's worst case of hemorrhoids to shit out that solid block of prose in that essay.
"But then, movies are like restaurants, everyone has their own taste."
"Female Trouble" is an effort at the worst possible taste.
BTW, the budget for that film was $25,000.
As for the Chadwick Jenkins writing style... I found it hilarious under the circumstances (of a movie in the worst possible taste). It's funny to get so profoundly egg-headed about it? And why is the movie on the Criterion Channel, where you get the feeling these have all gone through a worthiness filter? Some bad taste is way better than other bad taste!
Hilarious under the circumstances? Perhaps, but this screed is very far the spot-on takedown of something like Sokal's "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity." Best case for Jenkins, his 'style' of writing is a failed parody of bad academic writing, which I doubt was his intention. Like these gems:
"a dialectical examination of the freak through an immanent analysis of the outsider" -- not seeing any movement to a synthesis making sense of opposites, mostly just a parade of visual cliches, and nothing that could be described as 'analysis,' immanent or otherwise.
"the liminality of the freak is an integral part of the social whole" -- really? liminal only in the sense of theatrically over-the-rainbow, being exploited for cheep thrills without doing anything to illuminate whatever boundaries may be in play.
"marking the perimeters of the acceptable, by opening a threshold onto the chaos of madness and the entropy of unchecked deviance" -- Oh boy, perimeters and thresholds leading to entropy? why not throw black holes or spooky motion at a distance while you're at it?
"The sudden veer that marks the evolutionary leap is the byproduct of the one impacting the many. The 'freak,' when successful, charts the path of the future of the normative." well, the 'freak' is mostly the random change that doesn't lead to evolutionary success (a random change giving rise to an advantage in surviving across generations) but perhaps that's what Darwin looks like when dumbed down for viewing in a fun-house mirror.
I just finished watching "Pandora's Box" on Criterion. Louise Brooks was amazing. I was leery of a more than 2 hour silent movie but it totally held my attention.
I have got the impression that Water's performers wanted very much to be seen. I don't see how displaying them is exploitation. None of them decided to come back later and shoot him like Andy Warhol.
Is Chadwick Jenkins some kind of put on. The name sounds kind of pompous and made up. You can't possibly write that bad without consciously trying to write that bad. It's the kind of writing that a Soviet apparatchik would use to describe the glories and wonders of Stalin's latest five year plan. How does someone who writes like that come to be attracted to the movies of John Waters? This might be an extremely clever parody although of what I'm not sure.
Fight Exploitation Exploitation. The new anti-norm-norm anti-norm norm.
"Best case for Jenkins, his 'style' of writing is a failed parody of bad academic writing, which I doubt was his intention."
I worked with academics (they were all woke before woke was a thing) that wrote this way. It was painful to read. Occasionally I would have to edit their nonsense and bring it back down to earth.
"Don't use a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent word will do."
-- Twain
William, I toyed with the idea that the essay was a parody, but I couldn't really buy into that theory after thinking about it.
"Don't use a five-dollar word when a fifty-cent word will do."
Will do what?
It's always interesting what Althouse selects for viewing on the Criterion Channel, in part because it is often not what I would expect.
"It's Such a Beautiful Day" probably won't win any animation awards, but its definitely worth watching. The simple animation works in its favor, allowing viewers to concentrate on the rapid narration, its ideas and humor.
'Will do what?'
Humor from you, I hope.
...'will do.' As in 'that will suffice.'
'That'll do pig, that'll do.'
Ann: is the movie "Putney Swope" on Criterion? If it is and you have not seen it - worth your time!
"BTW, the budget for that film was $25,000."
Spent mostly on mind altering illicit pharmaceuticals I'm guessing.
My go-to guy for film classics and oddities recommends Canadian filmmaker Guy Madden. They are gorgeous and bizarre films.
Also anything by Powell and Pressburger. She Knows Where She’s Going lingers in your mind.
I can’t recommend enough in these days Burnt By The Sun, about one of Stalin’s lieutenants trying and failing to return to his old life and dacha. Ominous hint of things to come. Beautifully shot among the horror. What daily life will look like for us soon.
I once got lost trying to find Johns Hopkins late at night on a road trip, and at the end of the exit ramp there was a business with a huge flashing sigh that read “Used Porn.” Whenever I think of John Waters or Baltimore, that’s what comes to mind. Plus a bunch of nerd astrophysicists.
-Bold, Daring, Shocking, True- by David Schafer is a great history of grind-house and b-movies. I’ve got a collection of such films made in the South, some listed as lost. I’ll get around to donating it. Research librarians are the loneliest and happiest employees in the world.
Post a Comment