The documentary that I have chosen to examine for this entry is the DOA Punk Documentary of 1980, directed by Lech Kowalski. DOA ontrasts with PunkAttitude in a few ways but is relevant to my blog for different reasons. Firstly, this doco was filmed during the Sex Pistols' tour, back in the late seventies, within the era of the Sex Pistols' reign over punk.It thus does not present a chronological progression of the way punk evolved as Punk: Attitude does, but instead focuses on the Sex Pistols as the ultimate punk band, and presents the cultural effects of punk, through examining the controversy that surrounded punk at the time with perspectives of non-punk members of society, including those of the Government. Although it does feature other bands' performances, such as those of The Clash, Iggy Pop, Sham 69, and more, the Sex Pistols are referenced the most, and Johnny Rotten's narration and punk comments are consistent throughout the film. This narration is the perfect tool to present the punk perspective, and create a punk image, for the viewer. His comments include his neglect of conventional ideas of employment, 'the idea of having a job or career has never occured to me', childhood 'you just can't be right to a parent in London being a punk', and negation of any aspirations 'most punks don't believe in heroes,' as well as other punks' comments who claim they don't have any friends. The punk in those days is hence constructed as an isolated person; one without friends, family, or career security; everything that in society's dominant view are contributing factors to personal happiness. So those who share society's conventional ideologies, may understand from this documentary, and feel empathy for, the punks who suffered in the 1970s, and hence possibly understand better punks today.
Of course, punk today is still alive and dominant, but in a different way. Back in the origins of punk Government and society was more conservatively-minded, and punk was alive in the underground clubs and in a certain class position in society. It and specifically the Sex Pistols were huge radicals in their political lyrics and behaviour. But as Ruth Adams argues in her article "Englishness of English Punk", a point can be made that the Sex Pistols 'pushed the pop envelope so far that they effectively denied following generations the opportunity to shock in any really society-rocking fashion'. (Adams 479). She quotes Robert Garnett who explains that punk passed ecause 'the space within which it operated was closed down...After the space within which it existed was closed down, things like 'Anarchy' simply couldn't be made anymore, and nothing like it, nothing with the same gravity, nothing so abject has been made since. (Adams 479). As argued in previous blogs, this reinforces the fact that punk is still relevant today, just simply in a different form. It is no longer a revolution taking over a country, but as a result of things such as the Internet, radio and media attention, it has expanded to today around the globe in different geographic and demographic places. To support Garnett's argument, things like Punk Voter and Bands Against Bush that were previously discussed were prevailing under Bush's power, when the Government of the USA was arguably in a worse state than it is now. Since these organiztations and punk followers achieved their goal, that was to prevent Bush from another successful election, perhaps things have died down, since the space, that is Bush's reign, within which punks were operating ceased. Punks are still being active; Punk Voter still today has criticisms of Obama and the government on their facebook page. However, no global concerts or attempts are apparent as they were under Bush's power anymore. But I would like to investigate the past punk days through the DOA Punk Documentary to compare to how punks are now.
After a very interesting introduction, including comparing punk to people in a church, babies crying and walls of knives, the documentary kicks off with interviews of punks in the 1970s, when the Sex Pistols were in the spotlight, and their high opinions of punk as the new revolution. As the filmmakers follow the Sex Pistols around on their tour, many entire performances of theirs are shown, with the lyrics typed on the screen for the viewer to read. Thus their political influence is not ignored, as political lyrics are plain to see, including those of their infamous single 'God Save the Queen', a satirical anti-national anthem and one of punks' classic political statements. This song was so politically incorrect at the time that it was like declaring war on their country. As Rotten claimed however, they wrote the song not because they hated England, but because they loved them, and were sick of seeing the English public mistreated. (Adams 474)'The lyrics, "God save the queen/She ain't no human being/And there's no future/In England's dreaming", were outrageous, but from the Sex Pistols, outrageously honest. This honesty had a result of political controversy, and as discussed in previous blogs, this legacy in punk has carried on.
There is also negative presentation of the police and the Government in the film, through the view of a victimized punk, in which a woman who is crying and lying on the ground, claiming the police 'threw her out' of the punk rave where she was enjoying herself. She cries that having a punk identity means 'you gotta constantly fight back', and reinforces the idea from Rotten's narration that punks have a hard, defensive life. This anti-government presentation parallels the Freedom Fighter of the Month, on the Rage Against the Machine website, mentioned in the last blog, where police attacked journalist who stood up for his political views. Thus this anti-government pattern has certainly continued into the present, and the perspectives that punks have on the subject may be similar to what they were when this film was made. From a marketing point of view, this is what the producers apparently wanted, as Augustus Pablo talking about the Sex Pistols, claims that 'there hasn't been a rock and roll group to hate for a long time...it's an anti-social group, it's something to be afraid of at the same time. It sells papers and programs'.
How the public and members of the government reacted to these political songs and punks in general is given as a perspective in this film. As punk performances are shown, they are often juxtaposed with views of educated interviewees, who because of their Queen's English are of an assumed high class, and they all seem to have the same view of punks: a very negative one. Some statements made by council member Bernard Brooke Partridge and 'anti-smut crusader' Mary Whitehouse follow: 'I am not afraid of punk, I am ashamed of it', 'It is difficult nowadays to become regarded as man instead of boy...I think an awful lot of people who enjoy punk would really like to be back in those days when they could see physical people hacking each other to death', and 'until they learn the Queen's English', their views and protests cannot be validated.
These interviewees are largely contrasted to the punks shown in the film in terms of class, through their difference in English language and especially through the mise-en-scene of the interview. Whenever the maker of the documentary is interviewing punks, it is a messy and dirty place, amongst a crowd of drugged young people with ragged clothes or in a room full of graffiti and smoke. The cinematography consists of fast paced cutting, between different shots of punks. This gives the messy, confused impression of what it may be like inside the punks' minds. But in interviewing the Government members and the like, the interview takes place in their office, in a calm, silent environment, whilst in their work clothes, often suits. This evident class contrast coincides with the classic subcultural theory of the Birmingham School, who placed punk, among other subcultures, as a result of working class resistance.
How punk was received in the religious domain at the time is not neglected in the film either. There is a scene in which Johnny Rotten's facial expression is on a close up, in slow motion looking around amongst the background noise of the crowd calling his name. Then it turns out that they are trying to convert him to a religion, trying to exorcise the 'devil' which is possessing him, claiming 'your last name doesn't have to be Rotten it can be beautiful!' After one man talks to the camera and says that 'sin is a disease', the film cuts directly to an image of Johnny's face, which has his crazy expression whilst performing. Another anti-religious statement is made by another punk band, in which the male vocalist is on stage screaming 'It's Friday the Thirteenth!' and is wearing a nun's dress. This is part of the punk movement ignoring conventional gender, and religous, rules. This, as well as the twelve-year-old punk who planned, for a performance, to create an exorcism scene in which she 'spits pea soup all over the place' and 'shoots whipped cream' into thte audience and band, amplifies the punk attitude once again by defying mainstream society's religious realm.
Because of the temporal context of this film, it is arguably able to give direct insight into the 'reality' of punk, what the scenes and people were really like. The punk image presenetd by Rotten's narration and punks' perspectives of a lonely, messed up person is especially apparent through the interview in the film featuring Nancy Spungen and Sid Vicious, the bassist of the Sex Pistols and his girlfriend. In the entire interview of the film, Sid is not able to stay awake, even when the interviewer asks him a question, because of the effect that the band and the drugs had on him. The usage and affect of drugs in punks continue to surface when Nancy takes off her top for no reason, conducts the rest of the interview in her bra, and Sid proposes the camera man for a pornographic movie with Nancy and Sid in exchange for one hundred pounds. It is shown at the end of the film when Nancy and Sid died, only a year before the documentary was released. If the viewer is aware of the story of their deaths, it is quite a powerful scene, denoting punk as one that affects one's behaviour and overall life, and evokes the viewer's empathy for them.
Considering when it was filmed, DOA did not of course relate punk to technology, or how a subculture that was so evolutionary in its own right may be affected by it nor did the film give any academic analysis of the punk movement. But what it does present is valuable on its own, as seeing what punk was then can be compared to how it exists in society today. In his article Playing Punk: Anti Heroes in the Media, Myke Bartlett, a teacher at an Australian school, draws paralells between the Sex Pistols and their rebellioin against authority to a famous student rebel who had a story on A Current Affair. The title 'Playing Punk' suggests that the role model, or anti-hero for rebels today is those descendent punks of the 1970s. The fact that he chose this example, of role models from another time and another country, represents how their message is still relevant in youth and rebellion today. The fact is that something such as punk, that creates such controversy in its time, has featured in society, it becomes integral to society and known in its history, and will inevitably be referenced, parodied and continued in other areas of culture, including the acadmic and popular culture realm. Thanks to technology punk has been given an outlet to continue its glory and spread the word into future generations. The way punk is now, that is, a global political phenonmenon, is testament to the power of the media and especially the Internet, enabling a subculture to move from its hometown and other participating countries, to a global scale, where every country will have a minority at least that exists in the subculture and follows it, and i think in some way or another, punk will continue its attitude and influence into the future.
Of course, punk today is still alive and dominant, but in a different way. Back in the origins of punk Government and society was more conservatively-minded, and punk was alive in the underground clubs and in a certain class position in society. It and specifically the Sex Pistols were huge radicals in their political lyrics and behaviour. But as Ruth Adams argues in her article "Englishness of English Punk", a point can be made that the Sex Pistols 'pushed the pop envelope so far that they effectively denied following generations the opportunity to shock in any really society-rocking fashion'. (Adams 479). She quotes Robert Garnett who explains that punk passed ecause 'the space within which it operated was closed down...After the space within which it existed was closed down, things like 'Anarchy' simply couldn't be made anymore, and nothing like it, nothing with the same gravity, nothing so abject has been made since. (Adams 479). As argued in previous blogs, this reinforces the fact that punk is still relevant today, just simply in a different form. It is no longer a revolution taking over a country, but as a result of things such as the Internet, radio and media attention, it has expanded to today around the globe in different geographic and demographic places. To support Garnett's argument, things like Punk Voter and Bands Against Bush that were previously discussed were prevailing under Bush's power, when the Government of the USA was arguably in a worse state than it is now. Since these organiztations and punk followers achieved their goal, that was to prevent Bush from another successful election, perhaps things have died down, since the space, that is Bush's reign, within which punks were operating ceased. Punks are still being active; Punk Voter still today has criticisms of Obama and the government on their facebook page. However, no global concerts or attempts are apparent as they were under Bush's power anymore. But I would like to investigate the past punk days through the DOA Punk Documentary to compare to how punks are now.
After a very interesting introduction, including comparing punk to people in a church, babies crying and walls of knives, the documentary kicks off with interviews of punks in the 1970s, when the Sex Pistols were in the spotlight, and their high opinions of punk as the new revolution. As the filmmakers follow the Sex Pistols around on their tour, many entire performances of theirs are shown, with the lyrics typed on the screen for the viewer to read. Thus their political influence is not ignored, as political lyrics are plain to see, including those of their infamous single 'God Save the Queen', a satirical anti-national anthem and one of punks' classic political statements. This song was so politically incorrect at the time that it was like declaring war on their country. As Rotten claimed however, they wrote the song not because they hated England, but because they loved them, and were sick of seeing the English public mistreated. (Adams 474)'The lyrics, "God save the queen/She ain't no human being/And there's no future/In England's dreaming", were outrageous, but from the Sex Pistols, outrageously honest. This honesty had a result of political controversy, and as discussed in previous blogs, this legacy in punk has carried on.
There is also negative presentation of the police and the Government in the film, through the view of a victimized punk, in which a woman who is crying and lying on the ground, claiming the police 'threw her out' of the punk rave where she was enjoying herself. She cries that having a punk identity means 'you gotta constantly fight back', and reinforces the idea from Rotten's narration that punks have a hard, defensive life. This anti-government presentation parallels the Freedom Fighter of the Month, on the Rage Against the Machine website, mentioned in the last blog, where police attacked journalist who stood up for his political views. Thus this anti-government pattern has certainly continued into the present, and the perspectives that punks have on the subject may be similar to what they were when this film was made. From a marketing point of view, this is what the producers apparently wanted, as Augustus Pablo talking about the Sex Pistols, claims that 'there hasn't been a rock and roll group to hate for a long time...it's an anti-social group, it's something to be afraid of at the same time. It sells papers and programs'.
How the public and members of the government reacted to these political songs and punks in general is given as a perspective in this film. As punk performances are shown, they are often juxtaposed with views of educated interviewees, who because of their Queen's English are of an assumed high class, and they all seem to have the same view of punks: a very negative one. Some statements made by council member Bernard Brooke Partridge and 'anti-smut crusader' Mary Whitehouse follow: 'I am not afraid of punk, I am ashamed of it', 'It is difficult nowadays to become regarded as man instead of boy...I think an awful lot of people who enjoy punk would really like to be back in those days when they could see physical people hacking each other to death', and 'until they learn the Queen's English', their views and protests cannot be validated.
These interviewees are largely contrasted to the punks shown in the film in terms of class, through their difference in English language and especially through the mise-en-scene of the interview. Whenever the maker of the documentary is interviewing punks, it is a messy and dirty place, amongst a crowd of drugged young people with ragged clothes or in a room full of graffiti and smoke. The cinematography consists of fast paced cutting, between different shots of punks. This gives the messy, confused impression of what it may be like inside the punks' minds. But in interviewing the Government members and the like, the interview takes place in their office, in a calm, silent environment, whilst in their work clothes, often suits. This evident class contrast coincides with the classic subcultural theory of the Birmingham School, who placed punk, among other subcultures, as a result of working class resistance.
How punk was received in the religious domain at the time is not neglected in the film either. There is a scene in which Johnny Rotten's facial expression is on a close up, in slow motion looking around amongst the background noise of the crowd calling his name. Then it turns out that they are trying to convert him to a religion, trying to exorcise the 'devil' which is possessing him, claiming 'your last name doesn't have to be Rotten it can be beautiful!' After one man talks to the camera and says that 'sin is a disease', the film cuts directly to an image of Johnny's face, which has his crazy expression whilst performing. Another anti-religious statement is made by another punk band, in which the male vocalist is on stage screaming 'It's Friday the Thirteenth!' and is wearing a nun's dress. This is part of the punk movement ignoring conventional gender, and religous, rules. This, as well as the twelve-year-old punk who planned, for a performance, to create an exorcism scene in which she 'spits pea soup all over the place' and 'shoots whipped cream' into thte audience and band, amplifies the punk attitude once again by defying mainstream society's religious realm.
Because of the temporal context of this film, it is arguably able to give direct insight into the 'reality' of punk, what the scenes and people were really like. The punk image presenetd by Rotten's narration and punks' perspectives of a lonely, messed up person is especially apparent through the interview in the film featuring Nancy Spungen and Sid Vicious, the bassist of the Sex Pistols and his girlfriend. In the entire interview of the film, Sid is not able to stay awake, even when the interviewer asks him a question, because of the effect that the band and the drugs had on him. The usage and affect of drugs in punks continue to surface when Nancy takes off her top for no reason, conducts the rest of the interview in her bra, and Sid proposes the camera man for a pornographic movie with Nancy and Sid in exchange for one hundred pounds. It is shown at the end of the film when Nancy and Sid died, only a year before the documentary was released. If the viewer is aware of the story of their deaths, it is quite a powerful scene, denoting punk as one that affects one's behaviour and overall life, and evokes the viewer's empathy for them.
Considering when it was filmed, DOA did not of course relate punk to technology, or how a subculture that was so evolutionary in its own right may be affected by it nor did the film give any academic analysis of the punk movement. But what it does present is valuable on its own, as seeing what punk was then can be compared to how it exists in society today. In his article Playing Punk: Anti Heroes in the Media, Myke Bartlett, a teacher at an Australian school, draws paralells between the Sex Pistols and their rebellioin against authority to a famous student rebel who had a story on A Current Affair. The title 'Playing Punk' suggests that the role model, or anti-hero for rebels today is those descendent punks of the 1970s. The fact that he chose this example, of role models from another time and another country, represents how their message is still relevant in youth and rebellion today. The fact is that something such as punk, that creates such controversy in its time, has featured in society, it becomes integral to society and known in its history, and will inevitably be referenced, parodied and continued in other areas of culture, including the acadmic and popular culture realm. Thanks to technology punk has been given an outlet to continue its glory and spread the word into future generations. The way punk is now, that is, a global political phenonmenon, is testament to the power of the media and especially the Internet, enabling a subculture to move from its hometown and other participating countries, to a global scale, where every country will have a minority at least that exists in the subculture and follows it, and i think in some way or another, punk will continue its attitude and influence into the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment