Labyrinth
My tolerance for muppets has not improved over the past twenty years. And I forgot that this is (ugh) a musical. Between the muppets and the songs, I could barely sit still through the thing. It’s more an infomercial to show off 1985’s muppet technology than it is a coherent film. And David Bowie’s songs are insipid pandering mainstream crap. This is the guy who wrote Ziggy Stardust? Really?
Okay, I’m being harsh. It’s a children’s movie. (But I hated it even when I was five!) And I do understand why it’s a classic; it’s got a resonant coming of age story and a couple of great scenes. Well, okay, one great scene specifically, which I’ll admit is awesome and looks like it comes from a far superior movie:
But that aside, it’s got endless cutesy muppets, and muppets singing songs, and Jennifer Connelly overacting (I don’t blame her–she was fifteen–but I don’t want to have to sit through it, either), and lots of wandering around through a boring maze, and jokes that aren’t funny, and cliched one-dimensional characters, and, yeah, it’s just not a good film. (I also have to admit that George Lucas’ involvement creeps me out. After reading this, I think my opinion of him is permanently tainted.)
Bowie’s kind of hot. I guess. But he’s barely in the movie and his character isn’t interesting. And he’s not hot in a way that appeals to me. His character is a manipulative “bad boyfriend,” all domineering traditional masculinity, “Fear me, love me, do as I say” (“and I will be your slave,” right). He spends the whole movie fucking with the girl’s head and trying to control her. Yuck.
The Bowie I find hot is creatively vital and sexually subversive. This is hot:
Also the Life on Mars music video, which I could watch all day without getting bored. [Stupid EMI won't let me embed it.]
And I don’t think I’d like Bowie if he didn’t have the harder-edged, darker songs. Today’s obsession is the Ziggy Stardust movie version of “Rock N Roll Suicide.” I wouldn’t have expected this song to work live, because it’s not your typical verse-chorus-verse rock song–it’s more a piece of theater. But here they add in all these backing vocalists and musicians to give it layers, and what makes it truly spectacular is the theatricality and the merging of life and art. The audience actually does play their part–they run up on stage, they try to drag Bowie into the crowd. And Bowie both plays his part and lives his part–the song is Ziggy’s death and the show itself is Ziggy’s last, Bowie literally killing off the Ziggy character. The whole Ziggy idea is fascinating, Bowie becoming a rock star by playing out the Ziggy story in real life.
(Why, yes, I am trying to remind myself why I like still like David Bowie after sitting through Labyrinth.)
Tags: david bowie, movie reviews
17 Responses to “Labyrinth”
rm on April 3, 2009 1:27 pm | Link
Okay, super random, but until watching that old Starman clip, I never realized how narrow Bowie’s shoulders are. It makes me much, much happier about my own shape.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on April 3, 2009 1:32 pm | Link
Oh, yes. I love how confident he is despite being this ridiculously skinny pretty boy. He makes androgyny so hot.
[reply to this comment]
trepkos on April 3, 2009 2:03 pm | Link
Bowie is very variable, and what annoys me is when he (and people like him) disses his earlier work, presumably so you buy the new stuff. Also, some of his stuff is rather disturbing – there was one album that seemed to be glorifying serial killers, which I got rid of; though perhaps I was too dumb to understand it. Same time as I seem to remember he was involved with some guy who did exhibitions with animals being killed a few years ago I think. You probably wouldn’t want to give him any of your money if you can avoid it.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on April 3, 2009 2:39 pm | Link
I seem to remember he was involved with some guy who did exhibitions with animals being killed a few years ago I think
Ew, really? Any idea who it was?
there was one album that seemed to be glorifying serial killers
Which album was this? I kind of doubt it was anything but ironic. Although I don’t know.
I read this fascinating article yesterday about fascist themes in Bowie’s work. (Fascinating mostly because of how Bowie’s 70s work reflected the post-hippie zeitgeist of the time.) I buy its conclusion, which is that Bowie is anti-fascist, but I think this article goes too far in excusing his early interest in borderline-fascist philosophy (which even he has apologized for). It sounds like he meant well and took artistic risks that came back and bit him in the ass a bit.
I don’t really know enough to make up my mind yet (although I love that there are essays and books written about his work–one of the things I’m always bemoaning is the lack of intellectualism in my musical fandoms). But I do understand that artists who create challenging work are often subject to misinterpretation. People used to find all these “offensive” ideas in Marilyn Manson’s work when it was obvious (to me) that he was mocking people who believed those things. (Like Pat Robertson quoting “Cake and Sodomy” as if it’s an exhortation to Manson’s own fans rather than a mockery of Robertson’s bible-belt America audience.) Or people thinking Alice in Chains’ “Junkhead” was about how awesome it is to be a junkie, when it’s actually dripping with irony, or thinking that Raymond Watts/Pig is actually promoting the violent misogyny that he embodies in his stage persona.
I will admit that I am more inclined to give an artist the benefit of the doubt when I like their work, though…
[reply to this comment]
trepkos on April 3, 2009 7:58 pm | Link
Me too … but he seems to be a fan of Damien Hirst.
http://www.artnet.com/magazine_pre2000/reviews/helmore/helmore5-21-96.asp
I think the album was “Outside”.
I am suspicious of an apology from someone who – while obviously very talented – is so clearly willing to produce crap at times in pursuit presumably of money.
And I really would like to love him unreservedly, but he’s just made me too suspicious, and I feel any apologies and retractions he’s made aren’t genuine, or else that the thing he’s apologising for was just done to get attention.
But I don’t like anyone who likes Damien Hirst.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on April 3, 2009 9:22 pm | Link
That Damien Hirst thing is so sad.
I haven’t gotten to Outside yet, although Wikipedia has an interesting explanation of it. I’m still on Diamond Dogs from 1974 (I love it). I hear that his late 70s work is also very good, but thus far I’m unable to get past Young Americans.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on April 4, 2009 2:50 am | Link
(Sorry, still thinking this over.)
While “art” like Hirst’s is cruel and revolting, it’s nothing compared to modern factory farming in terms of what causes the most unnecessary suffering to animals. One could argue that factory farming is more “necessary,” but in fact it causes both immense environmental damage and massive human health problems. And, of course, it’s horrifically cruel on a scale that is almost incomprehensible.
So… honestly, I can’t see someone who admires Hirst’s “art” as any worse than someone who eats meat. I find both revolting, but… I wouldn’t be able to function in the world if I didn’t shut that part of my brain off most of the time. I’d have to cut off half of my friendships and stop listening to all of my favorite bands if I judged them on their positions regarding animal suffering.
I’m not saying I think it’s okay, just that I am choosing to direct my energy toward cooking good vegan food and running SuperVegan, because if I dwelt on everything that’s wrong in the world I’d be a huddling mess incapable of leaving the house.
In terms of Bowie producing crap… I don’t know enough yet to say. I would assume that some of it is the result of greed but that more is the result of just plain age. So much of his early artistic success came from tapping into a youthful generational zeitgeist. You can’t stay tapped into that kind of thing forever (I mean, I’m twenty six and already the young generation makes no sense to me!), and it seems like he floundered after he lost that. That he was still doing the same thing he’d done before in terms of trying to be innovative, but it wasn’t as resonant because he was behind the curve instead of ahead of it.
And the financial motive is a lot easier to forgive when the work is brilliant. It’s there lurking around in the mix of what led to Ziggy Stardust too, but that album is pretty much musical perfection. (And the older I get, the harder it becomes to criticize artists for wanting to make a living creating art!) Which is no excuse for “selling out” and producing insipid crap, but I’m still undecided regarding how much of that was intentional.
[reply to this comment]
trepkos on April 4, 2009 3:47 am | Link
I think the reason I find Damien Hirst so worrying is similar to my objection to fur wearers, more than people who wear leather.
Not only does the act of having an animal killed for ‘art’ or ‘fashion’ result in the death of the animal. It’s also like they’re throwing it in my fact that “yeah, we can do this to your friends and we’re proud of it, there’s not a damn thing you can do about it!”
If someone’s wearing leather, at least it’s not usually obvious weather it’s real leather, or if they’re eating animals it can be just out of laziness or not caring much. Wearing fur or showing off dead animals is like a huge “fuck you!” to anyone who cares about animals.
I don’t mind people making money from brilliance. But I put before you for your consideration, “The Laughing Gnome”! :-)
[reply to this comment]
trepkos on April 4, 2009 3:47 am | Link
oops – I mean “whether” …
[reply to this comment]
trepkos on April 4, 2009 9:09 am | Link
I guess how I feel about him is very conflicted – I love a lot of his work, but I wouldn’t have him in the house!
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on April 6, 2009 4:58 pm | Link
I share your revulsion with people who flaunt the fact that they approve of cruelty to animals. But again, in terms of what actually causes the most suffering, “indifference” is responsible for so much more harm. It’s the lazy people, the ones who “just can’t bring themselves to care,” who are responsible for the perpetuation of the factory farming industry. If they weren’t out there buying animal products in droves, the system would cease to exist in its current immense form.
There are very few people in modern industrialized nations who have any excuse for not knowing what’s going on. Most of them are exposed to information about what’s happening, but they actively choose to turn their eyes away. In my opinion, that’s equally revolting as those (relatively few) who take a stand in favor of animal cruelty. They’re both doing the exact same thing; the “indifferent” ones are just too cowardly to acknowledge it.
I understand your point about admiring a lot of Bowie’s work but not wanting him in the house. I pretty much feel this about all of my idols; I don’t want to meet them because I know I’ll find out that they’re actually flawed human beings underneath all the hype. (Jerry Cantrell from Alice in Chains hunts. I try not to think about it.)
Okay, yes, good point about “The Laughing Gnome”! Although I was also thinking part of the reason Bowie has churned out so much crap is just that he’s been so prolific and willing to experiment. He’s just got a huge body of work, period, so there’s lots of variation, but the number of good albums is still really high. I kind of think that’s better than artists who are a lot more cautious and maybe preserve their reputations by only releasing highly-regarded albums, but also release far fewer albums overall. (Like, already Bowie has four albums I really like. That’s more than Alice in Chains or Nirvana, which are two of my all-time favorite bands, simply because their body of work is so much smaller. Who knows if Nirvana would be so highly regarded if Kurt Cobain had lived into his forties….)
[reply to this comment]
grit kitty on April 3, 2009 2:05 pm | Link
You said: “Bowie with his hands all over Ronson on Top of the Pops in 1972; I think I ship them.”
You have seen Velvet Goldmine, right?
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on April 3, 2009 2:16 pm | Link
I have. It didn’t work for me at all. I must be the only slash fan who got nothing out of that movie. :(
[reply to this comment]
Paratti on April 3, 2009 4:27 pm | Link
He’s incredibly hot in The Hunger, and also in Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence – though both have their dark sides too.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on April 3, 2009 4:38 pm | Link
Netflix doesn’t have Merry Christmas, Mr Lawrence. Is it worth buying?
[reply to this comment]
Paratti on April 3, 2009 4:44 pm | Link
Its a good film and Bowie acts really well in great company as well as looking beautiful. The subject matter is gut wrenching, however.
[reply to this comment]
rusty-halo on April 3, 2009 4:58 pm | Link
I think I might just watch the Ziggy Stardust movie over and over. I don’t deal well with depressing films.
[reply to this comment]