fainelichfield

Sun, 24 Aug 2008 16:58:37 -0800

Hi, The following post is actually one I emailed to Elise, having seen the film this past Friday at the NuArt theatre in West LA. Here is what I wrote: Darby Crash died in 1980 (or thereabouts), which means I was under ten when the whole Germs phenomenon happened. Because of this, I went to the film more out of curiosity than anything else. The film was good, but I didn't really feel like I could sympathize with Darby. As portrayed in the film he was clearly intelligent, disaffected, and ambitious. These are usually good ways to get the audience involved, but he also came off as egotistic, and borderline sociopathic. I kept thinking he was a cult leader in training. Shane West clearly was deeply absorbed into his role, and I had fun watching him, but the character of Darby seemed to be in his own little world, trying to figure out why no one was coming with him, all the while deliberately controlling them and pushing them away. When he kills himself, it seemed less of a dramatic culmination of the film, and more of "just another moment". The film wasn't completely forthcoming, either. I later read the Wikipedia entry on Darby, and he apparently talked about suicide all the time. In the film, he keeps his cards close to his chest, which is disingenuous, I think. I suspect the filmmaker may have decided at some point to hold back to maintain either believability or sympathy. A similar thing happened in the movie "Party Monster". The filmmakers had to tone down drug use in the film because the real people the film characters were based off of had done so much that no one thought the audience would believe it. I also thought the acting choices of Noah Segen were odd. I happened to see Don Bolles just before the midnight showing of the film started. I didn't recognize him at the time, but from the way he was speaking it was clear he was connected to the film somehow. After the film I looked him up and got completely mystified at how the filmmakers thought Segen was behaving anything like Bolles. I had a lot of fun watching Segen do his thing, though, so I guess there's no harm done. I liked the film, it provided a look at a period of time I barely remember, but I think it could have been stronger. I can see it becoming a cult film shown at places like the NuArt, though. Elise's response was: I agree the Don Bolles was hilariously off-the-mark. I mean, Don Bolles was right there for comparison's sake. I think bob's take on the phenomenon this week was interesting - comparing it to the Doors, and how each generation needs someone to fulfill that role of iconoclastic rebel-without-a-cause who dies young, achieving cult-like status. The one thing I can say about the movie is that the people writing it, directing it, picking music and costumes were there. Those were Darby's friends. So we all have a hard time seeing what is -up-close and that may or may not have been beneficial, but it was definitely authentic. I have mixed feelings on the film. It is definitely for a select audience. I agree with that last sentence. I think that's why films like these end up being cult films. There's a core group of people that is interested in reliving, researching, or discovering counter-cultures of the past, but I can't imagine an average person finding this film valuable or insightful. I don't think that the average person is ever the target for these types of films, though. It's more of an opportunity to remember and analyze the what happened.

Marshall

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 09:46:34 -0800

I'm still not sure that I'm going to see this one. Everything about it, from the production to the existence of the film itself just seems too surreal.

LAist: What We Do is Secret

fainelichfield

Marshall