Discussion in 'The Pub' started by tnvol, Jun 2, 2019.
Alright alright alright.
Not for her! She was supposed to have a much bigger part, but they say she and the guy who played her dude in the movie were an item in real life and were primadonnas and totally pissed about Wooderson stealing all the scenes!!
Alright, alright, alright!
Indeed. Apparently Shawn Andrews didn't play well with others, so his part kept getting smaller and smaller.
Its actually informed a lot of things I choose to do and tell people in defense of my ways...ways very much shaped by repeated viewings of this movie. I brainwashed myself, then sorted out what I like to some degree.
So the past is indeed gone. But the best stuff, doesn't need to be thrown out, the bad stuff can be edited out, like a picture. I have very retro tastes in music, art, movies and even my mid-century modern/ 70s lounge house. I like to say I have only kept whats worth keeping, rather than be stuck in a time zone. Its like Linklater only kept the stuff that was awesome and classic and that at that point had stood his test of time. And then put in things that kinda made it better through the lenses of the early to mid 90s. I always though that was awesome. We all know the reality is that punk, disco, country rock, etc made it all a lot messier than what was represented. So this became a 90s Head version of what 70s heads looked like. I can't tell you how many times we pulled in a parking lot, very slowly, blaring Sweet Emotion after that opening scene.
And here's the money quote:
Everybody did sell out, of course, but everybody also wanted to preserve the aura of outrage, the feeling of alternativeness. It is the single most annoying feature of Generation X — tenured professors who believe they are countercultural radicals, lawyers who think they're rebels because they know about hip-hop, accountants who "keep it real."
Which might have been fine, but his character, honestly, was both weaker, and/or not played with enough charisma. Same with Milla. The only time she really comes off is her little acoustic jam at the tower. She sure looked the part, which gave her a part of the cover.
Just started reading it and he is a little off base with the longing for different times! I remember the 70s!! It sucked big ones! But there was awesome stuff, so our memory of it, just kinda looks at it through a veil that erases all the crap and keeps the good stuff.
Well, if you read my posts on the long Pub thread about the 70's I've been talking about how that decade got entered collective memory as a space of nostalgia and innocence in the 90s and my own mixed reactions to that.
No one can be objective about these matters. We all have natural tendency to see the decades of our childhood and young adulthood as somehow cooler, more intense, more real, more natural, more fun, more exciting, whatever. Of course it's an illusion that this had much to do with the historical time period rather than our own personal psychology. We were different as younger people, the future was different, time was different, so much more was at stake --- making it all seem much more frightening and exciting and sexy and romantic in retrospect. When you are older, much less seems new. It is all either a faint echo of what was once new, exciting, and dangerous or some incomprehensible novelty that "kids too dumb to know how to really enjoy themselves" have taken up. In other words, we become our parents.
What has changed is the way in the 20th century, with the decline in class divisions as acceptable social markers (in the US especially), we began to use generational identification as our most important social identification. This actually started amongst artists and intellectuals with Romanticism in the early 19th century, but it became a business in the 20th and cycle of marketing the pop ephemera of one's youth to nostalgic middle aged people really took off in the 70s, which fetishized the 50s and pre Kennedy assasination 60s. There was some of this before of course (the 20's had a cult of the "gay 90s" and the 60's looked back to the "roaring 20s". But it became majorly commodified in the 70s.
And now its utterly banal and predictable that new lifestyle products like the Hollywood pop music biopic and the Broadway musical based on hit album from 30 years ago as well as the deluxe box sets, nostalgia cruises, etc. will repackage for us, as middle aged people with lost dreams and too much disposable income, the precious junk we got high to and lost our virginity to as teens.
I can already see my seven year old 25 years from now sitting around with his buddies waxing nostalgic about the innocent days when they spent their time watching celebrity YouTubers play video games. . . . Oh it will be sold to him the same way the 80s music in the grocery store is specifically calculated to reach my demographic and put me in a mood to buy more spiced rum.
What I find interesting about Linklater's choice in Dazed is that he chooses to memorialize the exact point in the 70s when the 60's and all their sturm und drang are over. The Viet Nam war, in particular is in the rearview, as is Watergate, college campus unrest, etc. The great animating ideas that put youth in the forefront of history just a few years before have subsided and now the biggest issue is how to score Aerosmith tickets. I experience that movie as matching my New Jersey high school experience ('79-'83) with almost frightening accuracy -- especially when it comes to larger issue of there being no more "large issues" for young people to measure themselves against. Just drifting along towards an uncertain, undramatic, unheroic future. Thus I agree that it nails the passive and detached tone of Gen X culture especially as reflected upon in the 90s.
That the film has become its own nostalgia trip -- repeating its model (American Graffiti) in starting up the generational recycling machine (AG gave us Happy Days, Grease, etc., D&C gave us That 70s Show), is testament to how strong the impulse is
My first reaction to the film when I saw it in a theater was "they got a lot right" (I was class of '78). My small school didn't have any of the hazing stuff at all (at least not in an organized way) but everything else was spot on. I knew examples of nearly every archetype in the film. (As Mathew Mcconaughey said in on of the interviews regarding his character, "'I'm not this guy... but I know this guy"). I was particularly happy that it was more gritty and less stylized than American Graffiti/Happy Days. It's intriguing as I get older (and now have a brother "in the industry") to look at it from so many different angles. It's been fun to read some back story.
For what it's worth, I recognized the characters, ideas, feelings, etc., too, and I'm from the class of '89. The clothes, cars, and soundtrack were different.
I just read that Richard Linklater has another movie that's kind of along the same lines and Dazed. Watching that **** tonight!! It's supposed to be good!!
Good, but nowhere in the league of Dazed and Confused. Seems like the Dazed and Confused inspired elements are crow-barred in to the scenes.
My hometown...I remember when they were filming it
A lot of the scenes are in my friends neighborhoods, schools, etc
I was going to write something very similar. Except for the hazing it was pretty spot on. I was class of '79 so I was a Freshman in the 1975/76 school year. We even had the big kegger at the end of the year although the place where we had them was called The Cliffs not The Moontower. I really related to the Mitch character because I hung out with the older guys/gals as well as friends my own age. I didn't touch my nose that much though.
My wife was an extra in this movie during the party sequences in the woods. She's in the background, out of focus, right after they show the Kiss statues.
But I spotted her anyway . . . thank God!
You never fail to impress me with that thar vocabulary of yours dude...
Yeah, well that's just like...your opinion, man.
An opinion I dont agree with 100%.
It depends on the flick, I mean, SOME. present the very thing you speak of and others tend to be markedly more representative of the era in which the film is set.....I'd tend to think any good movie junkie would agree
Im at a loss to include specific examples, mostly because ive been stuck at the hospital for 2 weeks and my brain is oatmeal... but that does NOT mean they dont exist.
I'm not sure I'm a movie junkie, but I don't think so. I'd say in some films it is easier to see -- and, equally, that this is often easier to note the more distance one has to those films in terms of time. For example, the "Gen X-ness" of Dazed and Confused is arguably clearer now than it was in 1993. In this, it is possible to suggest that some films are more invested in recreating the period, but, and this is the crucial point, that past is irretrievable. What films (or literature, etc.) expresses is always inflected with its present moment of creation. This isn't all they are, or all they are doing, or the only way to experience them, but period recreation is like realism -- it's a construct that isn't ultimately what it's ostensibly presenting itself to be.
As in the movie M*AS*H was more about Vietnam than Korea, for example?