So, this morning, while having my regular morning visit to Fark, I came across an article about 10 Movies that Hipsters Need to Get Over, computer-penned by an intellectual dynamo by the name of Judy Berman.
Before I comment on this, I know some of you won’t read the link, or would prefer a summary, so let me just give you the Cole’s Notes:
- Say Anything
- Wet, Hot American Summer
- the Big Lebowski
- Reality Bites
- Coffee and Cigarettes
- Ferris Bueller’s Day Off
- Rushmore
- Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
- A Clockwork Orange
- Waking Life
- Me, You, and Everyone We Know
Now, before you start getting as outraged as I did about her posting eleven movies instead of ten… well, actually, no, go ahead. That’s okay to get upset about. Unless this is some kind of baker’s ten, she fucked up.
Also, how the fuck did Kevin “Lunchbox” Smith not make this list? Clerks and Mallrats both fit the bill for her sloppy and far too brief introduction to her criteria in making these choices.
But what I really want to address here is exactly what the hell is a hipster? According to Judy, a hipster would appear to have 80s nostalgia, enjoy critically acclaimed directors, and… whatever Reality Bites and Me, You, and Everyone We Know contribute to Hipster potential. Really, if loathsome quoting of these movies is what makes people a hipster, then a lot of people from before hipsters “existed” are also hipsters.
Is it possible, Judy, that it’s not so much that hipsters keep quoting these movies, as much as it is that these movies are extremely popular and important to our culture? One in particular deserves mention, I feel, because you’re painting it with the same broad brush that you paint many of the others with. Anderson, the Coens and Jarmusch I will tolerate your scathing critiques of – they are not for everybody, especially people that have the phrase ‘get over’ in the title of their article – but Kubrick is going too far. Clockwork Orange – not a film from the 80s or 90s with nostalgic value for hipsters – is not just a good movie, it is a work of art.
Nobody makes movies like Stanley Kubrick. No one ever has, and no one probably ever will. The dude took the rising tide of film culture that was developing in the 60s and established in the 70s, and he ran with it. His films are like watching a moving painting – freeze frame (aka pause) a Kubrick film, post Dr. Strangelove (which, while being my favorite of Stanley’s, is too early to be used for this example), and you will be left with an image that would make an excellent piece of art. Kubrick’s work with scene-structure, editing and sense of timing were excellent, and, more importantly, unique.
I’m getting kind of sick of seeing internet bloggers and other people bandying the term ‘auteur’ around without even fully understanding what it means. An auteur is not a director that is trying to be cool, or ‘artsy’ or anything like that. An auteur is a filmmaker that cultivates a certain style that pervades all of his films. Like the painting styles of Picasso, or Warhol. Hitchcock would have been one of the first true auteurs, though he had far less to play with, due to the time he made the majority of his films in.
This is starting to get me into film student mode, and I’d like to refrain from going too far down that road. Suffice to say, Kubrick is awesome, and I’m sure it has far more to do with how awesome Kubrick’s films are that the greater public at large appreciates and quotes his work. Whether they’re hipsters or not.
In summary: Up yours, Judy. Stop harshing our hipster buzz with your metrosexual-style writings. Also, eleven will never be ten.
No comments:
Post a Comment