Essay: In Acid Veritas
Nov. 17th, 2007 08:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rubberbuttonTitle: In Acid Veritas: Foreshadowing and Thematic Development in Hard Core Logo’s Acid Trip
Spoilers: For the ending of Hard Core Logo, which you should definitely see first
Many thanks topurridot, who puts up with a lot and ignazwisdom whose fault this indirectly is
Spoilers: For the ending of Hard Core Logo, which you should definitely see first
Many thanks to
purridot, who puts up with a lot and ignazwisdom whose fault this indirectly isMost of Hard Core Logo has an extreme cinéma-vérité style in keeping with its documentary sensibility. Though it occasionally indulges in surrealism or more polished effects and devices, for the majority of the film the viewer is continually reminded that there is a guy behind the camera. The audience is deeply aware of the narrator’s limitations, where the scenes are either interviews or have the artificial feeling of characters hyperaware of the cameras they can’t quite help but play to. The notable exception to this documentary format is the scene at Bucky’s farm where the boys drop acid.
What is the audience supposed to make of the change in style? One possibility it that it’s Bruce McDonald-the-character’s own acid trip. For most the movie, the perspective is a pretty neutral third-person. The audience sits on the sidelines, watching as spectators. But for this radically different style, the viewer could be seeing as though they are the character, seeing and hallucinating from that characters POV. Bruce would be the most natural choice in this case—he isn’t seen in any of the shots, though he should be present. However, if that’s true, then the scene tells more about Bruce than it does about Billy or Joe, and for that reason I reject it. At its heart, the movie is an exploration of Joe and Billy and their relationship—it would be clumsy film-making to have so important a scene center around a tertiary character.
The scene is not the representation of a specific character’s experience, but it is also not supposed to be literal footage from the impartial perspective of a camera lens. Instead, through wild camera pans, oversaturated color and bird’s-eye shots, it makes the viewer a participant within the scene. The extreme shots would require equipment that the film crew within the movie doesn’t have—and even if they did they would hardly be in any condition to use it. The scene functions not as a literal presentation of what happened but as device in which the themes of the movie can be furthered at a metaphorical level.
With such a chaotic, non-linear scene, it is difficult to find an effective approach for unpacking it. As Joe is the protagonist inasmuch as HCL has one, the shots of him may be the best place to start. The most striking of the clips of Joe is also the hardest to catch. It’s a four frame clip from the end of the movie (seen again at 1:26:27) as Joe lifts the gun and sets it to his temple. Despite being subliminally quick, it’s clearly there at 59:40, sandwiched between a shot of Billy and another of Joe sitting by himself. Like most of the movie, it’s as intriguing as it is baffling. It’s the ultimate in foreshadowing, but also banks on its audience missing it entirely. It’s the only shot within the scene that comes from outside the trip sequence itself. Why is it there? Is it an insertion of McDonald-the-character or McDonald-the-director? Does the distinction matter?
The clip begs another pressing question: at just what point did Joe start considering suicide? A popular opinion in fandom is that Joe’s suicide was largely impulsive with little or no premeditation.lyra_sena states it persuasively here in her discussion of Joe’s motivations for killing himself. However, the inclusion of that fatal final clip would belie this interpretation, as do other shots later discussed. It stands as an inexorable prophesy, a glimpse of the future that cannot be avoided or changed. Joe’s suicide which first seemed abrupt, now seems inevitable.
Other shots of Joe throughout the scene, though more obvious and less explicit, are just as dark. The first is at 59:38 (the acid trip scene starts at 59:25 and lasts a whole 2:05 minutes), Joe is in shadow, alone, secluded from the activity around the bonfire. What could he be thinking about? Oh yes, Billy—whom the camera immediately cut to. Coming back to Joe, he holds his face in one hand, looking pensive, morose, but that may just be the heavy eye-liner. There’s a brief shot of someone shaking out fabric (John’s coat?). This time when the camera comes back to Joe, it’s with a bird’s eye view above him as he reaches toward the camera in entreaty. It shifts back to a continuation of the previous shot of Joe in shadow, but now the camera pulls back far enough to see that he holds a handgun, idly playing with it. His expression is dark and turned inward.
But it’s the next exchange with Joe that is particularly noteworthy. First we see Bucky, either hung up or hanging on the scarecrow frame (a cross, for all intents and purposes). He’s wearing the same jacket the scarecrow had previously been sporting (seen clearly in the establishing shot of Bucky’s farm, 55:01). Straw is tucked in his lapels and sleeves; he looks up and asks, “Joe?” The camera cuts to Joe, who’s holding a gun—not the gun, though. This one’s larger, possibly a shotgun or some such (I know absolutely nothing about guns). He raises it and fires. The camera cuts back to the cross, only instead of Bucky, now it’s Joe strung up as a scarecrow with the jacket and straw. He takes the shot to the chest; with huge spray of blood, he collapses.
This scene isn’t real, that is, Joe isn’t actually shot. This clip has to either be a manipulation by film!Bruce to further the narrative of his documentary or an attempt on actual!Bruce’s part to convey the unreality an acid-addled mind and further the narrative of his film. I find the latter more likely; for further discussion see the comments below.
Though tempting, it’s perhaps too facile to assume it’s a clear-cut representation of Joe’s self-destructive tendencies toward himself and his willingness to sacrifice Bucky. Still the violence of Joe facing off against himself is hard to ignore, as is the fact that in most of the shots of Joe during the scene he is holding, firing or being shot by a gun.
Having considered Joe’s place within the trip, Billy next deserves examination. He ties with Bucky for most screen-time during the scene with roughly 32% of the shots focusing on him. Joe, in comparison, is the focus of only about 19%.** It’s appropriate that Bucky and Billy are the focus of the scene as they are also the two most important people to Joe. Though Bucky gets as much time before the camera, the majority of it is as he stands by the fire, dancing (or convulsing, it’s hard to tell sometimes), partially veiled from the viewer by flames. He presides over the revelry as a Master of Ceremonies or high priest. He’s a part of the action, but also above it, orchestrating instead of participating. It seems reflective of Bucky’s relationship to Joe, as an inspiration and distant figure of worship. He stands in sharp contrast to Billy, on whom the camera lingers obsessively with intimate close-ups. There are extended shots of Billy’s face as he toys with his cigarette, licking the upright (erect?) knife provocatively (at 1:00:12 for inquiring minds). Without the onus of furthering film!Bruce’s documentary agenda, the camera follows Billy with the same intensity that Joe does. That the footage includes such overtly sexual imagery would indicate another dimension to Joe’s affection and need for Billy.
Though more upsetting to the squeamish and animal rights activists, the goat sacrifice is less interesting. Here more than the other images, Bruce-the-director is drawing from traditional bacchanal frenzy motifs. The goat’s death becomes a sparagmos (ritual tearing apart of an animal or person) as its blood is drunk and used to anoint Bucky and Joe (though not the others from what is seen). The fate of the goat is both visually dramatic and underscores themes of chaos and violence, but reveals less about the characters themselves. Joe is again set apart from the others as the only one who doesn’t participate in the slaughter but is the first to be anointed with blood.
Ambiguous and open to a variety of different interpretations, the acid trip scene stands out from the rest of Hard Core Logo by breaking with the film’s mundane aesthetic style. Freed from the restrictive documentary format, the acid trip is able to underscore the film’s dark themes of entropy, desperation, and destruction in a visceral, highly visual way, giving insight into the character of Joe Dick that the movie would have otherwise lacked.
**These are extremely rough figures—I rounded up to the nearest second.
The Acid-Trip Scene Breakdown for the Anally-Retentive:
What is the audience supposed to make of the change in style? One possibility it that it’s Bruce McDonald-the-character’s own acid trip. For most the movie, the perspective is a pretty neutral third-person. The audience sits on the sidelines, watching as spectators. But for this radically different style, the viewer could be seeing as though they are the character, seeing and hallucinating from that characters POV. Bruce would be the most natural choice in this case—he isn’t seen in any of the shots, though he should be present. However, if that’s true, then the scene tells more about Bruce than it does about Billy or Joe, and for that reason I reject it. At its heart, the movie is an exploration of Joe and Billy and their relationship—it would be clumsy film-making to have so important a scene center around a tertiary character.
The scene is not the representation of a specific character’s experience, but it is also not supposed to be literal footage from the impartial perspective of a camera lens. Instead, through wild camera pans, oversaturated color and bird’s-eye shots, it makes the viewer a participant within the scene. The extreme shots would require equipment that the film crew within the movie doesn’t have—and even if they did they would hardly be in any condition to use it. The scene functions not as a literal presentation of what happened but as device in which the themes of the movie can be furthered at a metaphorical level.
With such a chaotic, non-linear scene, it is difficult to find an effective approach for unpacking it. As Joe is the protagonist inasmuch as HCL has one, the shots of him may be the best place to start. The most striking of the clips of Joe is also the hardest to catch. It’s a four frame clip from the end of the movie (seen again at 1:26:27) as Joe lifts the gun and sets it to his temple. Despite being subliminally quick, it’s clearly there at 59:40, sandwiched between a shot of Billy and another of Joe sitting by himself. Like most of the movie, it’s as intriguing as it is baffling. It’s the ultimate in foreshadowing, but also banks on its audience missing it entirely. It’s the only shot within the scene that comes from outside the trip sequence itself. Why is it there? Is it an insertion of McDonald-the-character or McDonald-the-director? Does the distinction matter?
The clip begs another pressing question: at just what point did Joe start considering suicide? A popular opinion in fandom is that Joe’s suicide was largely impulsive with little or no premeditation.
lyra_sena states it persuasively here in her discussion of Joe’s motivations for killing himself. However, the inclusion of that fatal final clip would belie this interpretation, as do other shots later discussed. It stands as an inexorable prophesy, a glimpse of the future that cannot be avoided or changed. Joe’s suicide which first seemed abrupt, now seems inevitable. Other shots of Joe throughout the scene, though more obvious and less explicit, are just as dark. The first is at 59:38 (the acid trip scene starts at 59:25 and lasts a whole 2:05 minutes), Joe is in shadow, alone, secluded from the activity around the bonfire. What could he be thinking about? Oh yes, Billy—whom the camera immediately cut to. Coming back to Joe, he holds his face in one hand, looking pensive, morose, but that may just be the heavy eye-liner. There’s a brief shot of someone shaking out fabric (John’s coat?). This time when the camera comes back to Joe, it’s with a bird’s eye view above him as he reaches toward the camera in entreaty. It shifts back to a continuation of the previous shot of Joe in shadow, but now the camera pulls back far enough to see that he holds a handgun, idly playing with it. His expression is dark and turned inward.
But it’s the next exchange with Joe that is particularly noteworthy. First we see Bucky, either hung up or hanging on the scarecrow frame (a cross, for all intents and purposes). He’s wearing the same jacket the scarecrow had previously been sporting (seen clearly in the establishing shot of Bucky’s farm, 55:01). Straw is tucked in his lapels and sleeves; he looks up and asks, “Joe?” The camera cuts to Joe, who’s holding a gun—not the gun, though. This one’s larger, possibly a shotgun or some such (I know absolutely nothing about guns). He raises it and fires. The camera cuts back to the cross, only instead of Bucky, now it’s Joe strung up as a scarecrow with the jacket and straw. He takes the shot to the chest; with huge spray of blood, he collapses.
This scene isn’t real, that is, Joe isn’t actually shot. This clip has to either be a manipulation by film!Bruce to further the narrative of his documentary or an attempt on actual!Bruce’s part to convey the unreality an acid-addled mind and further the narrative of his film. I find the latter more likely; for further discussion see the comments below.
Though tempting, it’s perhaps too facile to assume it’s a clear-cut representation of Joe’s self-destructive tendencies toward himself and his willingness to sacrifice Bucky. Still the violence of Joe facing off against himself is hard to ignore, as is the fact that in most of the shots of Joe during the scene he is holding, firing or being shot by a gun.
Having considered Joe’s place within the trip, Billy next deserves examination. He ties with Bucky for most screen-time during the scene with roughly 32% of the shots focusing on him. Joe, in comparison, is the focus of only about 19%.** It’s appropriate that Bucky and Billy are the focus of the scene as they are also the two most important people to Joe. Though Bucky gets as much time before the camera, the majority of it is as he stands by the fire, dancing (or convulsing, it’s hard to tell sometimes), partially veiled from the viewer by flames. He presides over the revelry as a Master of Ceremonies or high priest. He’s a part of the action, but also above it, orchestrating instead of participating. It seems reflective of Bucky’s relationship to Joe, as an inspiration and distant figure of worship. He stands in sharp contrast to Billy, on whom the camera lingers obsessively with intimate close-ups. There are extended shots of Billy’s face as he toys with his cigarette, licking the upright (erect?) knife provocatively (at 1:00:12 for inquiring minds). Without the onus of furthering film!Bruce’s documentary agenda, the camera follows Billy with the same intensity that Joe does. That the footage includes such overtly sexual imagery would indicate another dimension to Joe’s affection and need for Billy.
Though more upsetting to the squeamish and animal rights activists, the goat sacrifice is less interesting. Here more than the other images, Bruce-the-director is drawing from traditional bacchanal frenzy motifs. The goat’s death becomes a sparagmos (ritual tearing apart of an animal or person) as its blood is drunk and used to anoint Bucky and Joe (though not the others from what is seen). The fate of the goat is both visually dramatic and underscores themes of chaos and violence, but reveals less about the characters themselves. Joe is again set apart from the others as the only one who doesn’t participate in the slaughter but is the first to be anointed with blood.
Ambiguous and open to a variety of different interpretations, the acid trip scene stands out from the rest of Hard Core Logo by breaking with the film’s mundane aesthetic style. Freed from the restrictive documentary format, the acid trip is able to underscore the film’s dark themes of entropy, desperation, and destruction in a visceral, highly visual way, giving insight into the character of Joe Dick that the movie would have otherwise lacked.
**These are extremely rough figures—I rounded up to the nearest second.
The Acid-Trip Scene Breakdown for the Anally-Retentive:
59:25 Bucky dancing in front of the bonfire
59:33 Billy slouching on the fence, smoking by the knife.
59:38 High angle shot of Billy in jacket
59:38 Joe in shadow
59:40 Low angle shot of Billy’s face
59:40 A split second (seriously, only four frames) of Joe at the end of the movie (1:26:27), putting the gun to his head
59:41 A close-up of heavily eye-lined Joe
59:42 The shadow of someone swinging a cloth (a blanket? an article of clothing?)
59:46 Bird’s eye shot of Joe with up-stretched arms
59:49 Joe with the gun pointed first off camera, then turning it as he studies in meditatively (strung-outedly?)
59:56 Extreme close up of Billy’s face with cigarette and knife
1:00:02 Brief shot of Joe.
1:00:05 Billy playing guitar
1:00:07 Bucky strung up/hanging on the scarecrow stand/cross seen in the establishing shot of his farm (55:01). He is wearing the powder blue jacket with dark trim the scarecrow was wearing, straw is stuffed in sleeves and under lapels. He looks up. “Joe?”
1:00:09 Billy with guitar
1:00:10 Joe fires a gun--not The Gun, this one looks too big. I don’t know anything about guns, but maybe a shot gun.
1:00:10 Instead of Bucky, it’s Joe on the scarecrow stand, wearing that jacket with the straw. He’s shot in the chest, huge spray of blood. He collapses.
1:00:12 Wild, out-of-focus pan of what I think is Billy’s pants, plus the ground.
1:00:12 Close-up of Billy with knife, he licks it slowly, then sinks out of frame.
1:00:29 High angle shot of Billy, with Joe cut out of frame
1:00:31 More wild panning around back to Joe
1:00:31 Bucky with more fire dancing.
1:00:43 The hapless goat is led out by John and Billy.
1:00:48 Billy pins the goat down.
1:00:53 Medium shot of Billy, now hatless.
1:00:55 John kissing the goat’s face.
1:00:58 Pipe stalks over with the chainsaw.
1:00:03 Close-up of Pipe’s face with Bucky looking over his shoulder.
1:01:13 Naomi anointing Joe’s face with blood.
1:01:17 Shot of film in Danny’s lap.
1:01:20 Shot of Danny in tinsel wig.
1:01:22 Joe, Billy, Pipe and John in a tight circle, arms over each other’s shoulders.
1:01:30 Naomi anointing Bucky’s face with blood while he holds the poor goat’s severed head.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-18 08:01 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-18 02:09 pm (UTC)Yeah... I could use some hobbies. *g*
I need to read this when it's not 3 a.m., though, so -- remind me tomorrow?
Aye, aye, Captain!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-20 06:19 am (UTC)Like
It makes sense to me that Joe's suicide was to some extent spontaneous, not to mention alcohol-inspired, but only as spontaneous as that kind of death can be for someone who's toting a gun around for a goodly portion of the preceding days/weeks.
It also makes sense to me from Bruce's/the film's perspective that the acid trip scene would be so loaded with retrospective foreshadowing of Joe's death, because the scene follows the revelation (to Billy et al) that the entire reunion was a scam. At this point, Joe's maybe thinking he's about to lose Billy, and that's eventually a major motivator of the suicide.
As for the technicalities of who's responsible for things like the Joe-the-scarecrow-gets-shot clip ... uh ... maybe film editors are magic?
One possibility it that it’s Bruce McDonald-the-character’s own acid trip. After all, he isn’t seen in any of the shots
I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence above. Also, it's been a while, but when IS Bruce seen on camera? I can't remember right now.
There are extended shots of Billy’s face as he toys with his cigarette, licking the upright (erect?) knife provocatively (at 1:00:12 for inquiring minds).
ROFL, I can't even read that without going, "GUH." You have GOT to watch this with other fangirls. The collective orgasmic moans are amazing.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-20 10:03 pm (UTC)Yeah. I think most interpretations are probably valid--which doesn't mean I'm not going to twist the evidence to suit my own dark purpose. XD
It makes sense to me that Joe's suicide was to some extent spontaneous, not to mention alcohol-inspired, but only as spontaneous as that kind of death can be for someone who's toting a gun around for a goodly portion of the preceding days/weeks.
This is actually where this essay started--I wanted to try and figure out at just what point Joe started seriously thinking about offing himself. My opinion (which may change in five minutes) is that thought the form of Joe's suicide (shooting himself on camera after the Edmonton show) was impulsive the decision (to die if this bid for Billy failed) behind it wasn't. I don't know that he would explicitly plan on dying if he didn't get Billy back, but I do think he was extremely aware on some level that this was it, his last chance. It's not as impulsive as everyone says it is, I think is being my point. Yes, maybe.
I think it's how eerily calm he is there at the end that gets me. He know this was coming since he learned Billy was leaving--now's as good a time as any. He's almost...at peace. He's given it his best shot, they had a good run, and now there's nothing left to do but check out.
I'm not sure what you mean by the first sentence above. Also, it's been a while, but when IS Bruce seen on camera? I can't remember right now.
I think I meant that for most the movie, the perspective is pretty neutral third-person. We watch as spectators. Here I was suggesting (and rejecting) that for the acid trip we are taking film!Bruce's perspective (seeing as though we are Bruce). Off the top of my head the only place we formally see Bruce is at the beginning when he's explaining why he's doing the movie ("Joe made me an offer I couldn't refuse..."). We also catch sight of him (or parts of him) accepting the acid hit from Bucky, right before the "music, no coke" exchange, and after Joe shoots himself. Occasionally we hear but don't see him: asking questions, suggesting "Parenthood" for the movie game, gloating to himself after Billy's given away that he's joining Jenifur.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-19 07:17 am (UTC)I hadn't realized before you brought it up how the acid trip does not fit the cinematographic style of the rest of the documentary. I wonder (this is not a scholarly wondering, I confess it up front) if film!Bruce and his crew are again manipulating the images of the band for their film's benefit. More than once they lie to the band about what they have seen and heard. Are they now lying to the audience about what really happened? The splicing in of the scene of Joe killing himself is clearly an attempt at something besides narrating the linear truth of the band's tour.
I think the bacchanal is a neat motif. Is Bucky Dionysus? Dionysus punishes resistance to his cult in various ways, causing people to kill family members in a frenzy and other acts which ultimately lead to a kind of sterility (the opposite of the fertility he represents). He brings both life and death; and in a way, Bucky brought life to Joe through his inspiration, but he also brings about his death, since the revelation that he is alive and well shows Joe's manipulative scheme for what it is, and that is the beginning of the end for Billy getting back with the band, I think.
None of this is making any sense, as it is 1 am, though I don't think it would have made any sense earlier either. It is a fascinating topic for discussion though!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-19 05:02 pm (UTC)I hate watching it too. My normal habit is to watch through the knife-licking bit and then skip ahead. Yeah. I am that shallow.
I wonder (this is not a scholarly wondering, I confess it up front) if film!Bruce and his crew are again manipulating the images of the band for their film's benefit.
If that's not scholarly wondering, I don't know what is...although it's quite possible that I don't. *g* I think it's probably a safe bet that film!Bruce is manipulating the film. What I want to know is: does film!Bruce's manipulation undermine any interpretation about actual!Bruce's intentions for the scene...? Does that make sense? Maybe the scene just reflects film!Bruce's purpose and not the purpose of the actual film. At which point, I sure feel silly. But then, a scene can serve two purposes--both those of film!Bruce and actual!Bruce. The problem is then to figure out where one ends and the other begins, assuming that's possible.
This would be the point where my head explodes.
Is Bucky Dionysus? Dionysus punishes resistance to his cult in various ways, causing people to kill family members in a frenzy and other acts which ultimately lead to a kind of sterility (the opposite of the fertility he represents). He brings both life and death; and in a way, Bucky brought life to Joe through his inspiration, but he also brings about his death, since the revelation that he is alive and well shows Joe's manipulative scheme for what it is, and that is the beginning of the end for Billy getting back with the band, I think.
Yep. I really like the Bucky as Dionysus idea--I might have to expand on that (or, another essay...?). Both lead people to society-threatening revelry, but with sinister aspects that when sobriety is regained it's often accompanied by remorse. I'd very much agree that Bucky's arrival and more specifically his repudiation of Joe, marks the beginning of the end.
Alrighty, I'm not sure I'm making much in the way of sense, and I have zero excuse--it's 11 am. :P
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-19 08:08 pm (UTC)1. actual!Bruce vs. film!Bruce in the acid scene
It is the scarecrow part that I find problematic, b/c that is undoubtedly meant to represent the bizarre and fantastical world of someone under the influence. But did film!Bruce put those images together somehow, or is that actual!Bruce? I am disappointed if it is actual!Bruce, since that works outside the whole mockumentary project. :-(
I would like to believe (although I don't know that I do believe it) that somehow it is still film!Bruce's manipulation, because the film crew throughout has been filming the band with a kind of Schadenfreude-filled exultation; Joe killing himself is the icing on the cake for film!Bruce. If film!Bruce did manipulate those images, then possibly, as you suggest, he is making the whole acid scene about himself as a participant.
Hmm, would this mean that the whole film is about film!Bruce getting the story of a lifetime? I would have to rewatch it more carefully if I wanted to support that view. How much does film!Bruce manipulate other events? He is the one who told Joe that Billy was leaving, for instance, setting into motion that chain of events. Would Billy have told Joe himself, more kindly? Of course, one could take the opposite view, that the band is exploiting the film crew (e.g., Billy was counting on the film crew telling Joe the bad news about his leaving.)
Oww, now brain hurts.
2. Dionysian!Bucky
I'm probably reading too much into it from a classical POV, but it is hard not to see The Bacchae here from that angle. Which means that someone is being punished for taking the god in vain. Bucky is a powerful figure in the story; he is almost godlike in reputation, and in person, he also exudes a strong influence. Next to Bucky, Joe appears much weaker.
...and I think I should stop now and just rewatch the damn movie!
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-19 09:51 pm (UTC)Actually, I'm kind of relying on your fresh perspective and clear thinking. I've watched the damn thing so many times and run through the same circles that my head spins and I don't know whether I'm coming or going. :P
But did film!Bruce put those images together somehow, or is that actual!Bruce?
I immediately get snagged on the the practical side of film!Bruce manufacturing the image. Did he cast look-alikes and try to re-create the tableau later? Digital special effects? Or, we don't actually see him take the acid (I don't think), maybe he was sober and for some reason decided to set up the images? But then, how would he know what he was foreshadowing?
I just find all these explanations awkward and excessively fan-wanky. On a strictly opinion basis, I think I"m going to accept that it (the scarecrow shot specifically, but, extending a bit, the whole acid trip scene as well) a clip from outside the documentary. If I do that, then I can reject Bruce as the central focus of the story. Of course, this is me just wanting the movie to be about firstly about Joe and Billy. I realize that wanting has never been considered a particularly sound argument, but there you are.
As to the question of who is manipulating whom, I think it's a two-way street. Joe used Bruce to lure Billy back. Billy used Bruce to tell Joe about Jenifur. Bruce manipulated Joe and Billy in his efforts to introduce more conflict into the narrative. Everybody really is an asshole in this flick.
I'm probably reading too much into it from a classical POV, but it is hard not to see The Bacchae here from that angle.
Hey, that makes two of us, because I thought the exact same. The power inequity between Joe and Bucky is striking. Joe himself puts Bucky on a pedestal and makes no buts about it. Billy, I would say, Joe treats as an equal, but everyone else Joe considers an inferior.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-19 10:22 pm (UTC)So, either this is unfair/sloppy on the part of actual!Bruce to insert footage that is *not* part of the mockumentary into the mockumentary, or he is doing it deliberately. I suppose the "why" of the "deliberately" could be any number of things, from just wanting to recreate the weirdness and confusion of the acid trip to, um, mocking the mockumentary, or various other reasons.
It is terrible interesting how everyone in the movie "uses" everyone else. That's why I think that Bucky is interesting. He withdrew b/c he was tired of being "used", and Joe continued to "use" him in absentia, which Bucky knows. I don't think that Bucky is deliberately seeking vengeance; I just think that his powerful presence shows up Joe's weaknesses (and lies), and it seems that the downward descent of the band is hastened after the visit to the farm.
Okay, I am shutting up now until I watch it again.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-19 11:50 pm (UTC)TRUER WORDS HAVE NEVER BEEN SPOKEN. Oh Lord. I remember reading an article on Horace, the specifics of which of course now elude me, but the gist was that in one ode or another if word X was actually a mistranscription of word Y, how that would make sense. To which I replied (in my head as I'm pretty sure the author of said article is dead), "Well now you're just making shit up. Srsly. That is a huge what-if to randomly write a paper about, dude."
Erm, sorry. Topic?
Oh yes, I don't think Bucky is actively vengeful either. I think he's more of the canary in a coal mine. Only now it's actually too late to get out and everybody's going to die of methane poisoning. Or, abandoning the metaphor, Bucky just stands as an example of how Joe's screwed it up so badly.
and it seems that the downward descent of the band is hastened after the visit to the farm.
Yes, definitely, I get that exact same moment-at-the-top-of-the-roller-coaster-type feeling. See? This is why I keep you around--you always say what I'm thinking and manage to do so without elaborate, slightly silly comparisons.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-21 07:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-21 10:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-22 12:28 pm (UTC)It had never occurred to me in all my viewings to think about the acid trip as Bruce's point of view, and now that you have put the idea out there, I can't image why it never did. In fact, it never occurred to me at ALL even to think about it as an artifact, as part of Movie!Bruce's documentary. I have no idea why it never sank in that way.
I really disliked this scene at first when I started to watch and rewatch this film. It seemed extraneous, silly, very film school, and I think that negative feeling kept it from becoming part of my own interior canon for many, many viewings. I didn't start examining the scene more carefully until after I read Hard Core Road Show. I can't find the section right now, but there is a long passage discussing how once the script with an acid trip and goat sacrifice went past the money people, there was a big threat that their entire funding would be canceled because it was too gross/disturbing, and not the movie that was funded. That's the way I remember the telling in HRS, anyway. Bruce had to really argue for and defend the scene, which I believe was the idea of, and written by Noel Baker, and not Bruce himself. He felt it was important enough to try to save at risk to reputation and funding, though, so I felt it might be worth a closer look.
(OTOH, Bruce also felt like it was worth arguing and saving the eventually cut (THANK GOD) rock star cannibal orgy. I can't imagine HCL with that scene intact....it would destroy the film, IMO. Also it would ruin the song Rock and Roll is Fat and Ugly, which I've always found to be a kind of poignant song, believe it or not, despite-because of the attitude of it. But I just digress in a slightly ranting way.)
I had no careful, rationally thought out way to consider the acid trip sequence, even after I started paying attention to it. I just started watching it on a very open, emotional level. Now that I think about it more in an attempt to analyze it, I still think a lot of the shots are still just silly film school fodder, and I've never been able to decide why they were shot that way. Was it made to be intentionally pretentious and faux arty like that? Maybe. And if I have to insert Movie!Filmmaker Bruce, that is a kind of decision he might make.
(continued next comment...I exceeded comment length, grrr)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-22 04:46 pm (UTC)I still dislike this scene. I tend to dislike trippy scenes in general, and the brutality of this particular one makes me uncomfortable. Part of it might be how it feels like the obligatory drug/rock and roll movie trip. Very film school, as you say. That's very interesting about the HCR passage; I hadn't heard that. I guess it comes down how much faith we have in Bruce as a director. I think this scene could very easily be dismissed extraneous, but on a personal level, I'm so desperate for any kind of answers or insight that I'll take whatever I can get.
I had no careful, rationally thought out way to consider the acid trip sequence, even after I started paying attention to it. I just started watching it on a very open, emotional level.
In the end, I think that's how we're suppose to view it. I can help I'm missing the forest because of the trees, when I break something like this down and force meaning onto it. Oh well, at least it keeps me busy.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-22 12:28 pm (UTC)If it IS intended as Joe's trip, perhaps the fakey film school style is Movie! Bruce's conception of how Joe sees things?
I have no choice but to believe that Joe has been considering suicide for months or years, partly as a means to what he thinks of as glory, and partly as an end to real pain. I do think the actual act at the end of the film was somewhat spontaneous, though. I think he really had plans all along to try to get Billy back and make a go of it. When that went away, I think the pain was too much, and he'd just lost too much to want to continue, and he figured it was just time to grab what he thought was his path to being real rock and roll god. Which is not to downplay his pain one bit. I think his pain was real, and completely overwhelming, so what he might have been chosing to believe about why he was doing it wasn't real at all. He didn't go out with the bravado he might have been aspiring to all along.
I am dreading HCL2, and haven't decided yet whether or not to ever see it. Despite how crazy the whole writing and filming of HCL was, and how pasted together it seems to be, it came together almost perfectly, IMO. I think adding anything on could just ruin it for me.
Thanks again for the interesting essay.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-22 05:03 pm (UTC)I think I'd agree with this (I can hold many, often conflicting, opinions at the same time *g*). Maybe not as an extremely literal representation of his experience, but I think this scene (and the movie as a whole) revolve around Joe...and guess who Joe revolves around?
And then he says that Bucky was "robbed" This is around 2:00. OK, the first few times I saw the movie, I guess I imposed my own feelings on that remark. Bucky being robbed was Bucky having both his fucking legs amputated. It never dawned on me till I read Hard Core Roadshow that the intention in the script, by everyone who worked on it, and the actors was...Joe is saying Bucky was robbed of his being made into a legend by LIVING.
Oh holy crap. O.o That had never occurred to me--I'd gone with the whole robbed of his legs interpretation--but now that you point it out, it's obvious. Wow. Now I'm going to have to watch it again with this in mind.
If it IS intended as Joe's trip, perhaps the fakey film school style is Movie! Bruce's conception of how Joe sees things?
Interesting thought. And how patronizing is that of movie!Bruce? To reduce Joe's whole world-view down to some substandard rock montage? ...Grr, stupid movie!Bruce.
I have no choice but to believe that Joe has been considering suicide for months or years, partly as a means to what he thinks of as glory, and partly as an end to real pain.
Again, I totally agree with you. I wonder how explicitly Joe thought "If I can't get Billy back, I'm going to kill myself." God, those years after the band broke up must have such hell for Joe.
I am dreading HCL2, and haven't decided yet whether or not to ever see it.
I can't not see it. *g* The movie is perfect, and I'd hate to tarnish it with a crappy sequel...but I love these characters so much...I'll just have to see it. I think Joe Dick is one of my favorite characters of all time, and I don't make proclamations like that lightly.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-22 01:25 pm (UTC)I knew I'd seen this more recently than a year ago...I think I've watched this is viewing party chats a couple of times now, too. I still aspire someday to see it on a big screen, with an audience. I couldn't make it to Toronto a few weeks ago when Bruce had a viewing. I wanted to go so much.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-11-22 05:09 pm (UTC)Good observation. I wonder just how culpable we're supposed to hold Billy for Joe's death. One the one hand, as a rational person, I realize that Billy can't be held responsible--Joe's decisions were his own, and someone else can't be responsible for your wellbeing/happiness. But on an emotional level, I want to rail at Billy for letting this happen, even while I sympathize with him, because he had to handle Joe for so many years.
I still aspire someday to see it on a big screen, with an audience.
That would be unbelievably awesome. Joe deserves to be on the big screen anyway. :P
Thanks so much for all your excellent input, I really, really appreciate it.