Apologies (necessary?) in advance, but...*deep breath*...the films of Harmony Korine- Genius, rubbish, somewhere inbetween?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I was quite surprised to find that nobody has posed this already, but this really is a question that has been bouncing around my head for the last week or so. I hate the way it is difficult to approach these films (and I'm talking about Gummo and julien donkey-boy more than Kids), without fighting through all the residual crap that surrounds Korine, either self-generated or piled on by the style press and their ilk.

I have finished reading Richard Kelly's "The name of this book is Dogme95", a book which I did not expect would concern itself too much with Korine. In fact, he comes out of it with more integrity than even Lars von Trier or Vinterberg. Ewen Bremner even goes so far as to say he is (and I'm paraphrasing here) "one of the great artists of our time, though I do not expect him to be recognised as such". As it is, I have yet to find one other filmgoer, my age or otherwise, that truly rates Korine's work so highly.

So, I'll try to put down how I see it. I am fairly easy to please. I often find myself placing a higher value on a film that pushes the enevelope and fails than one that doesn't even try. This was how I really felt about Gummo. It was trying something different, and I enjoyed it for that. I did not feel I was in the presence of anything transcendent, but it surprised and amused me. A for effort. Some of the acting was painfully bad, though there were also a number of "true" moments unlike anything else I had ever seen. Well, that's what I was paying the admission price for.

I would say much the same for julien donkey boy. I cringed through the phone conversations between Bremner and Chloe Sevigne in which she pretends to be his mother. However, I really enjoyed some of Werner Herzog's performance, and give credit to "donkey-boy" for being the type of film that would allow such a display. I also enjoyed the variety of textures in the image (some 8mm and Polaroid) itself, and really feel that this is one of the film's genuine strengths.

Korine seems to do himself a disservice by being such a negative personality in his own press (ever seen a happy hipster?), and the idea of a new generation overthrowing the old guard is in essence a boring and redundant one. That said, I WILL be going to see the next Korine film, and I am not of the opinion that his entire output is some colossal joke. What say you, ILF?

― Nordicskillz (Nordicskillz), Thursday, 3 July 2003 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm routinely in the position of having to defend Harmony Korine's movies to the haters. Most of the criticism leveled at Korine is pretty useless as a contribution to film discourse since the issues people seem to generally have stem from the plotlessness of his work. People seem to forget that the screenplay form and formulaic plots are why most features are truly not worth sitting through.
Also, people that say "Gummo" is exploitive fail to see that Korine's film is not actually laughing at the characters; he's really showing us their world at face value, free of the political correctness of "Rain Man" shit schmaltz. People who think it's exploitive, more often than not, are simply applying their own predjudices to the film because they don't like spending time with "retards" and "hicks."
I too agree that their are moments in Korine's films that are more truthful that are unlike anything you'll see. There's also a strong sense of texture that rewards multiple viewings.
I never thought he came off as an unlikable guy in the press. He consistently brings the house down in his Letterman appearances.
In general I think the tendency for many to dis Korine's work is directly related to the artistic decline of feature films. People don't seem to want forumalstically unique works. I truly despise Kevin Smith and his fans.

― theodore fogelsanger, Thursday, 3 July 2003 20:29 (twenty-two years ago)

What's wrong in making enjoyable, entertaining films? At least Kevin Smith does it well.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Friday, 4 July 2003 10:47 (twenty-two years ago)

yes i want to know what theodore has against smith.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 4 July 2003 11:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Kevin Smith doesn't know how or care to use cinematic devices in any way that is expressive; he just points and shoots his scripts. I guess he attempted to show visual imagination in Dogma, with a great deal of awkwardness. That movie could have only been relavant to anyone who actually gave a shit about catholicism. It didn't really make any pointed observations about the role of religion and spirituality in modern American life. The image of the Buddy Christ statue was the only moment I laughed.
I feel inclined to cruelly suggest that he's not a real filmmaker. It's not that I don't dig low comedy. My favorite recent films include PootyTang and Old School, but Smith doesn't seem to have a sense of timing. He's one of the worst things to happen to American film since Hal Needham. He's a major reason why most of the sundance, american indie films (save for a few exceptions) are nothing more than tv with cursing.
It kind of sucks that a genuinely witty screenwriter/director like Noah Baumbach (Kicking and Screaming, Mr. Jealousy) has only made two films while Smith is given multiple opportunities to commit his dumbshit ideas to celluloid.

― theodore fogelsanger, Friday, 4 July 2003 22:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Your criticisms sound like what you brought to the film and wantedthan, more what Smith did wrong. Your critique of Dogma especially - why did it need to have "pointed observations" on the "role of religion and spirituality"?

That wasn't the intent of the film. Just like Chasing Amy didn't explore societal bigotry toward gays and lesbians. And Mallrats didn't delve into the crippling of small towns by mega-shopping malls.

I don't 'get' criticism that amounts to "the movie should have been about [x]." Well, great, why don't you make that movie?

― miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Saturday, 5 July 2003 00:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Mallrats is just camp without intending to be. I used to love it like the lost child of Askew, but having just watched it again last week, I must say that it comes off now as totally trite and unintentionally camp more so than any of his other films (JaSBSB possibly excluded, as I haven't seen it and don't intend to). I do totally agree that most of his stuff either isn't good or hasn't withstood the minor amounts of time since they came out. Even Clerks seems crappier. I'll give Chasing Amy some props, but probably only because he seems to escape the campiness at choice moments to actually make a compelling film on its own merits.

As for Korine, all I can say is this - I fell asleep during Julien in the theater. It's quite obvious, casting aside, that Korine essentially wants to be the American Herzog. Which is fine. But as of yet, I think he's still imitating. I look forward to seeing what he chooses to do over the next few years, though.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Saturday, 5 July 2003 14:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Looking over my initial post about Korine/Smith. I totally regret claiming to "despise Smith and his fans." I do think the Askew universe is a pretty closed minded world and wish American filmgoers were not so immediately rejecting of non traditional forms...but please disregard the aforementioned, admittedly pissy post of mine. If you enjoy Smith's work, go ahead and have your fun. I don't have any actual antagonism for people who like different movies than I do.
With respect to Mr. Auckerman's points, true I was applying my own expectations to Dogma that were seperate from the filmmaker's intent. This is hypocritical on my part since I was critical of people who criticized Korine's work based on narrative expectations he has zero intention of fullfilling. I would point out that while Dogma may not been exactly about "the role of religion and spirituality...," I don't think it is off base to suggest that Smith, with the Buddy Christ joke and the abortion segment, is attempting some sort of satire on religion in modern life. My impression was the he became so mired in the dogmatic details of catholicism which most people would already look at as being on the level of superstition that I can't see any kind of relevance the movie would have to anyone. Whatever dude, I just didn't think it was funny.

― theodore fogelsanger, Sunday, 6 July 2003 21:27 (twenty-two years ago)

So, uhhh, what does ILF think of Harmony Korine? ;)

― Nordicskillz (Nordicskillz), Monday, 7 July 2003 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

seriously!

― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 01:47 (twenty-two years ago)

(says the guy who hasn't seen any of his films)

― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 01:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Kicking and Screaming is my favorite movie ever.

― Chris V. (Chris V), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 13:32 (twenty-two years ago)

uhh

― s1utsky (slutsky), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 15:25 (twenty-two years ago)

*drums his fingers on the desk impatiently...*

― Nordicskillz (Nordicskillz), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

well i don't have anything too interesting to say. i love kids and have positive memories of gummo, though i only saw it once. i have negative memories of julien. i don't think i would have seen it just because of korine - at the time i was interested in dogme. i remember being frustrated that it seems to break some of the rules (music & ??) but at this point dogme doesn't appeal anyway. i really didn't think too much of king is alive or italian for beginners, although the latter was pleasant enough.

anyways, harmony korine. i dunno. i'm looking forward to seeing ken park. i think it should show up this fall (x fingers).

― ron (ron), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 02:15 (twenty-two years ago)

i've never had much interest in harmony korine, after seeing the first fifteen minutes of julian donkey boy, flipping through his novel, and hearing his band (ssab songs). of course i haven't really given much thought to him either, obviously, so maybe i will rent gummo and sit through it because Nordicskillz's post has made me genuinely curious about him.

the thing he tried to with starting fights and filming it is utterly brilliant, pre-jackass genius. there was a written excerpt in harper's a few years back describing the project that was completely hilarious.

― j fail (cenotaph), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 17:43 (twenty-two years ago)

he just points and shoots his scripts.

cf. 'I don't like editing' -- Woody Allen

― jm (jtm), Thursday, 10 July 2003 02:45 (twenty-two years ago)

What? From what I've about Allen, he's always there in the cutting room with the editor, and also edits a lot.

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Thursday, 10 July 2003 08:10 (twenty-two years ago)

IMDb on Annie Hall:

"Allen originally envisioned this movie as a murder mystery, and that's how it was shot, with a subplot about a romance. During editing, Allen realized that all the best footage was of the romance, so he reedited the film as a romantic comedy."

― Girolamo Savonarola, Saturday, 12 July 2003 21:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I didn't realize he went as far as to shoot it as a murder mystery. You sure about that?

― s1utsky (slutsky), Sunday, 13 July 2003 02:26 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0306802724/002-9368281-1578427?v=glance&s=books
http://www.deep-focus.com/flicker/whenthes.html

― Girolamo Savonarola, Sunday, 13 July 2003 14:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Don't mean to be pedantic, but 'Kids' isn't a Harmony Korine film per se, he just wrote the script, Larry Clark directed. 'Ken Park' is Larry Clark as well.

― David Steans, Friday, 18 July 2003 10:57 (twenty-two years ago)

that doesn't mean they're not harmony korine films

― s1utsky (slutsky), Saturday, 19 July 2003 00:41 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...

Did Korine write the script for 'Ken Park' or something?

When people refer to someones' films, doesn't that usually imply the ones they directed? Especially when you consider directors taking scripts/source novels etc. into wildly different areas, surely if 'ownership' was to be imprinted it would be the director's?

― David Steans, Saturday, 2 August 2003 11:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Usually it's the director. Sometimes you can argue for certain rather headstrong producers (Selznick, for example). But while film is a collaborative medium, someone has to be the head creative decision-maker - and that usually is the director.

― Girolamo Savonarola, Saturday, 2 August 2003 14:43 (twenty-two years ago)

By the way, as anyone here seen 'Ken Park' yet? I don't know about release dates or anything, apparently it's been banned in Australia though.

I'm looking forward to it, despite being somewhat disapointed by 'Bully'.

― David Steans, Saturday, 2 August 2003 14:52 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.