Splicetoday

Moving Pictures
Aug 07, 2008, 06:12AM

Hustlin', Not Mumbling

There's a lot to like about mumblecore, except that its depiction of today's 20-somethings couldn't be more wrong.

Mutualappreciationpic.jpg?ixlib=rails 2.1

Youth, wasted on the fictitious young. A still from Andrew Bujalski's Mutual Appreciation.

If you've never thrown a small object at a movie screen, perhaps you should watch Funny Ha Ha. No offense to Andrew Bujalski, the film's director, who managed to do something fresh with film and whose talent I don’t doubt, but as a movie written, directed and starring twentysomethings living in the digital age, Funny Ha Ha paints a pretty bleak picture of my generation. Restless, meandering, inarticulate, emotionally stunted and utterly unprepared for the real world. We are a well-meaning bunch, but we can't quite articulate what we mean, Bujalski suggests.

Why do I care about a tiny indie film few people have ever seen? Because the critical establishment—old people—seems to think this is an accurate portrait of my generation. A small bunch of films have followed in Funny Ha Ha's footsteps, in a genre often called "mumblecore"—after each character's general inability to communicate—or "Slackavetes" (after John Cassavetes) or "bedhead cinema." The genre's directors—Ry Russo-Young, the Duplass Brothers, Joe Swanberg, Aaron Katz, among a few others—paint similar portraits of an ineffective, urban, over-educated youth who don't know who the hell they are and have little idea where they are headed. They are the arty cousins to the stoner films of Judd Apatow.

I like Apatow. And I admire a lot about mumblecore. Stylistically direct and clean, emotionally sincere, the films are a powerful antidote to the Hollywood machine, as most realist films are.

There's one problem: we are not a generation of slackers!

We're hustlers: eager and willing to do anything to get ahead, desperate for self-publicity, optimistic about the prospect for change, worldly, forthright, and well-equipped with enough episodes of Tyra and other pop culture psychology to know how to run our lives. Maybe Bujalski is a slacker—but probably not, since at 30 he has directed two major feature films and acted in several others.

The older generation is taking notice. "Today's whippersnappers—they all take their cue from Monica Lewinsky, who had regular sit-downs with Vernon Jordan to discuss her career trajectory—are the most careerist, focused and entitled generation in the history of the planet," Barney's fashion guru and pop culture opinionista Simon Doonan wrote in the New York Observer in 2007. "Why can't young adults just be the big, fat, freewheeling losers that people in their 20's are meant to be?"

We are not the baby boomers. We are their children—Chelsea Clinton spring to mind. Have you ever seen someone in their 20s more mature and together than Chelsea Clinton? I can imagine her rolling her eyes at her less-than-perfect parents: "Ugh, you guys are so immature." Our parents told us we could be anything we want to be. It was a lie, but it motivated us nonetheless.

Among my friends I can count a successful investment banker with more in savings than my parents, an aspiring comedienne who produces her own stand-up shows, a playwright who co-runs a theatre production company, an architect working in downtown Manhattan, a director working at marketing firm and applying to graduate school, a graduate student who makes art and freelances op-ed pieces, and on and on. All under 30, everyone has job. Everyone's hustling.

Think of the new digital working-class, young people working tirelessly for no money whatsoever in the hopes of achieving fame. YouTube's most productive vloggers produce hundreds of videos a year and often without pay. Several young people have—also without pay—created web TV series and become quite successful. Bloggers like Perez Hilton work 10-hour days just to provide information to the greedy masses. The founders of Google and Facebook were all under 30 while developing their companies, now collectively worth about $200 billion. Who's slacking? When our parents were our age they were smoking weed, having copious amounts of sex and living in bad apartments. We're only doing one of those things.

But we aren't only about money and fame. Consider Barack Obama’s campaign, fueled as it is by the efforts of young people. When I went canvassing for Obama before the Pennsylvania primary, almost all of the volunteers were students. Obama even has volunteers under 18 and unable to vote helping his campaign. His progressive message of "working" for change struck a chord with an optimistic generation tired of baby boomer cynicism: "We gave peace a chance, it doesn't work. Now lower my taxes, please." Even Hillary Clinton had her avid youth support, and I have several activist friends participating in groups in Philadelphia, New York and Washington, D.C. who refuse to accept the world as set in stone and who are willing to put in the hours to change it.

So tell Judd Apatow—however brilliant he is—and his cadre of stoners that they are a minority. My generation is working to make the world a better place—or make ourselves rich. Either way, we're hustlin'.

Discussion
  • Thanks Aymar for hitting the nail on the head of this phony, engineered subgenre. The main reason I can't stand these films is that they are calculated to make baby-boomers (who run the festival circuit) think they are important by playing into their out-of-touch expectations of "today's youth." How do I know this? They've all told me. I've spent time with Swanberg, Russo-Young, Katz, Jay Duplass, Ronnie Bronstein and their posterchild of "freewheeling American youth", Greta Gerwig. If anything, they are marketing masters, creating safe, non-confrontational films for the bluehairs to think they are "with-it." You'll never see a mumblecore "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" - hostility and venomous prose don't play up to the mythos. Makes me sick. All that aside, Swanberg's Young American Bodies is pretty good.

    Responses to this comment
  • i'm not sure if Tyra Banks really gave us any tools to fend for ourselves (she made a quiz called "Are you doomed for divorce?" that had questions on it like, "Are you under 26?"), but I agree that having the internet and a massive influx of media makes our generation kind of precocious. Even if we aren't terribly wise, we think we are. I'm tempted to say that you just happen to hang out with an energetic circle, and that Apatow-stonerites are not that narrow of a minority. It's hard to say outside of certain demographics as well. The biggest thing that bugs me that baby boomers do is overestimate how much we like technology, like by having kids in movies text each other to initiate changes in the plot. Even if we are that lame, it shouldn't be an artistic device.

    Responses to this comment
  • Of course, Rebecca, Joe Swanberg made a WHOLE DAMN MOVIE about young people text messaging called "LOL." Like I said, they are brilliant at playing up to what baby-boomers think are the important trends and totems of youth culture.

    Responses to this comment
  • I saw a film that could be considered mumblecore ("Frownland") about a year ago, and found a lot of it pretty boring but some of it pretty great. although I think that one could be considered more altmumblecore, if there is such a hideous thing.

    Responses to this comment
  • Frownland was directed by Ronnie Bronstein, and isn't very accessible to the casual viewer. It's main character is a mumbling (what a surprise) door-to-door coupon salesman sad-sack waste of humanity. It's unrelentingly lonely and divides any audience immediately; half of them will hate it, half of them will like it but couldn't tell you why. Was it part of the whole "Mumblecore" thing. Not really, until Ronnie's wife Mary made a follow-up film called "Yeast", edited by Ronnie, about an emotionally stunted young woman who tries to mediate a "problem" between her friends. It was shot by Michael Tully, who made SilverJew and the abysmal Cocain Angel, and who stars in Quite City, directed by mumble-schmuck Aaron Katz. And of course it stars Greta Gerwig. So now, it's mumblecore, don't ya' see, because it's got all those mumblecore people. Can you tell I'm bitter yet?

    Responses to this comment
  • "When our parents were our age they were smoking weed, having copious amounts of sex and living in bad apartments. We're only doing one of those things." A lot of the hustlers I know are still living in bad apartments. Does that mean they're not getting laid enough?

    Responses to this comment
  • By the way, SpongeLuke, lets stop the word Altmumblecore before it starts.

    Responses to this comment
  • it's true. everybody wants to get ahead. especially young people who do whatever it takes to get to the next step.

    Responses to this comment
  • I don't know about this article. It seems like a gratuitous valedictory to our generation. Yes, the Boomers are generally clueless in attempting to market product to the coveted 18-34 demographic, but that's just business, ham-handed or not. Two, soon the Boomers will be retiring and reluctantly relinquish cultural influence (and to a great extent, they already have) to the next generation. Third, there are slackers and hustlers and busy beavers in every generation, and it's natural that the young resent their elders. Fourth, the fabulous embrace of Obama by today's youth isn't unprecedented; the Boomers did the same for McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy and McGovern.

    Responses to this comment
  • It's true about McGovern; My main point isn't so much that the boomers were slackers so much that we aren't necessarily. Our elders seem to want to believe the worst. I think there is some pretty strong data that our generation is fundamentally different. Census (I believe) data has it that in the 1960s the #1 reason to go to college was "to learn" and grow. Today, it's completely switched: to "professional development." Surveys show that we are the most narcissistic/self-involved generation ever, which doesn't mean we're more productive, but does suggest a desire to get ahead. "Generation Me" and "Fame Junkies" are two of the main books documenting this. So yes, it's natural for the young to resent the old, but there's always a reason why. We are different. Whether we're better remains to be seen.

    Responses to this comment
  • Oh and Doing Deities: maybe they aren't getting laid! Young people always have bad apartments, but let's also not forget that most of those fancy condos in Williamsburg (NYC) are inhabited by youngin's...I'm in graduate school and I don't know one person living in an apartment I would call "shitty." And we don't make much.....Part of this is demographics: Milennials living off the Boomers. However ambivalent I am about the Boomers, they *are* the richest generation America has seen. This means they have money to keep their kids in nice apartments.

    Responses to this comment
  • Cthulhu: I share your skepticism...but I still do think there's some sociological/film historical value to them. I just think that thematically, they're misguided.

    Responses to this comment
  • Frownland is fucking amazing. An ugly, rigorous, confrontational antidote the other movies you're lumping it in with.

    Responses to this comment
  • atomculture: Oh, they most certainly have their place in film history. I'd even go so far as to say they are auteurs. I just feel they could be so much better if they would ditch the happy-feel-good indie whimsical slacker scaffolding they so meticulously build to support an otherwise vapid chick flick. greasers palace: I'm with you. I love Frownland and recommend it. Here's a fun fact: Frownland director Bronstein was a computer student of Arnold Friedman, purported child molester of "Capturing the Friedmans."

    Responses to this comment
  • "ronnie bronstein...they are marketing masters making creating safe nonconfrontation films..." What a load of horseshit. Are you sure we saw the same movie? Also, Roger Ebert reviewed the movie today in the sun times. Take a look.

    Responses to this comment
  • Again, I'd have to agree, Frownland had traces of mumblecore but it was far from the dreck of, say, The Puffy Chair. I'm eager to see whatever comes next from Ronald Bronstein, and that's something I certainly can't say about the Duplass Brothers. Baghead looks pretty grating.

    Responses to this comment
  • Greasers: Yes, you are right. Frownland doesn't fit into that quote. It's certainly not safe. But just watch "Mutual Appreciation" or "Hannah Takes the Stairs" for a dose of made-to-order "indie-ness" snoozefestery. Let's make a mumblecore film right now... 1 dozen 20 something characters with fitted tees and white belts 1 DV cam 1 plot about indie rockers who walk around and stuff 1 plot about relationships that don't work but nobody argues about it cause, y'know, it's cool 1 plot about a free-spirited 20 something girl who just can't decide which scenester she should be with, but there is no conflict over this because, y'know, it's cool. 1 Andrew Bujalwski cameo 6 oddball, wacky props 4 shots of Joe Swanberg's wrinkly testicles. Combine all ingredients in bowl, let marinate for the half hour it takes to write your next mumblecore script spoon into eyeballs serves 30 baby-boomer run film festivals who can't get whatever played at Sundance, Slamdance and SXSW that year.

    Responses to this comment
  • To expose my own hypocrisy, I highly recommend Joe Swanberg's "Butterknife," starring Ronnie Bronstein as a private detective.

    Responses to this comment
  • I too loved Frownland but hated all the other films mentioned (or at least the ones I saw; Puffy Chair and Hannah Takes the Stairs were especially shitty). I don't see this genre taking on any major traction (read: success) in the near future, so it isn't exactly something to get extremely upset about. Peeved might be a better word for it.

    Responses to this comment
  • Follow this link to see a chart of the Mumblecore Family Tree http://tinyurl.com/6dh5wt

    Responses to this comment
  • On the train today I read a column by Leon Wieseltier that gives credence to Christian's article. He says, with an imagined whine, "Every generation holds every variety of individual. But I will not be given lessons in self-abnegation from Facebookers. The history of vanity has never seen anything quite like them." Quite a defensive posture from a Boomer, wouldn't you say?

    Responses to this comment
  • Ha. This Cthulhu guy is all over the place. There's a real palpable bitterness governing his critique that's absent from the rest of the people who (like me) havent responded to most of the work being discussed. This might have something to do with his admitted 'insider' knowledge (btw, what a cheap, transparent way to simulteneously preen and puff up the validity of your arguments). My impression is that he must be on the very outside rung of the circle in question, and frustrated about it. He certainly wants us to KNOW that he's spent time with these filmmakers. Sadly, the only 'stage' available to him is a stupid message board. Whereas people like Bronstein, and his weaker cohorts, use MOVIE THEATERS as theirs. The energy he put into devising his retardo-cynical how-to post is embarrassing. Down with the haters.

    Responses to this comment
  • I fully admit massive bouts of jealousy for these filmmakers, and in no way endorse my inside knowledge as adding validity to my arguments. That said, these movies still suck.

    Responses to this comment
  • Ha ha. "...no way endorsing my inside knowledge as adding validity to my arguments". This coming from the guy who in his first post says, "how do i knows this? They've all told me." Nifty! These filmmakers have really opened up to you, eh? All of em! Personally, i suspect they wouldnt even know you by name. And for the record, admitting to having your judgements clouded by "bouts of jealousy" with faux self-possession makes you more of a douche, not less of one. Boo hoo. Cue violins.

    Responses to this comment
  • They know me.

    Responses to this comment
  • Thanks for the movie rec's and links! Can you believe I hadn't heard of Butterknife?! It's not on IMDB.

    Responses to this comment
  • greasers palace sure has an enormous bitterness quotient going, especially over Cthulhu. He calls this a "stupid message board," yet has posted 4 times on this article alone. Nifty!

    Responses to this comment
  • "They know me". Indeed!

    Responses to this comment
  • Yeah, "They know me" is defensive posturing, but why are you on a stupid message board except for attention? Cue violins!

    Responses to this comment
  • If you think it's stupid posturing, then there is nothing that will change your mind on that, but yeah, I know them. Bickering aside, I still think that this article is dead on and I know that these filmmakers play into it on purpose, and I think that it holds them back when they could be moving into more interesting areas with their movies.

    Responses to this comment
  • Look man, I got no beef with you. "Stupid" was a bad choice of wording. But goddaaamn, it's the same old story... frustrated people hiding behind the safe anonymity of message board posts to spew the most weasely overgeneralized bile. I mean this guy shamelessly attributes first hand account quotes to a whole throng of filmmakers in order to forward his admittedly bitter agenda. THAT'S what's stupid...and annoying. "They know me". Keep telling yourself that, m8. Meanwhile these guys are out there making movies while you fume about it online. Ok, enough. Lights out!

    Responses to this comment
  • Ohh cross-post! So, ok, how do you know them? Are you a filmmaker traveling on the same circuit?

    Responses to this comment
  • And do you tell them your opinions to their faces?

    Responses to this comment
  • Yes and yes.

    Responses to this comment
  • What's your film called?

    Responses to this comment
  • I figured that was your next question. Why should I reveal my identity to you; I don't want my email jammed up with insipid french troll-attacks.

    Responses to this comment
  • Pussy!

    Responses to this comment
  • Geez. Ok. If I tell you what my movie is, it'll lead to who I am, and then will lead to my email and phone number. How do I know you're not some deranged stalker? You already appear to be one.

    Responses to this comment
  • Well, i suppose if your movie ever got any kind of recognition you'd be flooded with stalkers anyway....and people posting anonymously on the web claiming to "know" you and attributing quotes to you! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Responses to this comment
  • Nice try. Why don't you make the "chicken" sound next?

    Responses to this comment
  • Oh well. You should be proud of your movie man! But seriously, it's untenable to bring in your personal shoulder-rubbing-experience with these people as evidence of the point you're trying to make and then switch back to anonymity once you have to back it up. Surely, there's a logic to what i'm saying. Peace. Frownland still fucking rocks and deserves all the attention it's getting.

    Responses to this comment
  • There is a logic to what you're saying.

    Responses to this comment
  • There's no logic to what Greasers Palace is saying and I doubt he's from Paris. Exposed!

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm just trying to take the high road.

    Responses to this comment
  • Greasers Palace is a cretin, but you lost the high road when you bragged about knowing these film people.

    Responses to this comment
  • So i know you then?

    Responses to this comment
  • Yep. Now that you're here, what is your take on all of this foolishness and mayhem?

    Responses to this comment
  • Well, i've certainly never said anything remotely like what you've attributed to me in that first post. But fugget. Send me an email through my website ol' chum. Let's 'catch-up'!

    Responses to this comment
  • We had a conversation about Mumblecore marketing and this very topic, but if you'll read closely, you'll see that the French guy dot dot dotted a quote together to make it seem like I'm talking about you specifically. They did the same thing to allow Hitler into their country. I'll contact you later. After all, you could be one of the many Bronstein impersonators who run around slandering your good name (shades of The Dark Knight).

    Responses to this comment
  • I'm not sure what i'd have to contribute to any discussion about m-m-m-marketing. You seems way more preoccupied with it than most of the filmmakers being discussed. My sense is that the 'mumblecore' tag was shaped and forwarded largely by journalists looking to package their daily festival scribe assignments through the lens of some kind of decisive angle, and not some cheap self-promotion strategy born from the filmmakers themselves (as you seem to assert, as fact no less). And btw, have you actually seen Yeast? Your pejoratively laced family-tree-breakdown of who worked on it is neither here nor there. The movie was conceived by my wife as a staunch reaction against the rather safe 'n sound work she was seeing ad nauseum on the festival circuit. The movie, like it or not, is one big histrionic primal puke.

    Responses to this comment
  • Yes, I agree that the "Mumblecore tag" was invented by journalists, and it's unfair that they've lopped a lot of filmmakers into that category (a category with few defining traits). Do your films share a lot in common with, say Ry's films. Hell no. But I want to be clear: the filmmakers didn't invent it, but they damn sure play into it. It's a media buzz, and there is heat to be had, however small. And some filmmakers (including nameless up-and-comers) are more than happy to make a stock "mumblecore" movie (cheap and easy considering the 'aesthetic') to gain some notoriety. You bet festivals are already being flooded with submissions from kids trying to be the next Joe Swanberg. Will Yeast be unfairly shoehorned into this invented movement by some sorry-ass Indiewire contributor even though it's so far removed from any other movie out there? I'd bet dollars for donuts on it. Hey, it doesn't matter anyway. Once people are in the theater, a movie will do what it does based on it's own merit, despite what some journalists or alias-hiding website comment writers have to say. Anyway, I don't know why you're here, as the guy I want to yell at is Bujalski. OUTLANDER!!!!

    Responses to this comment
  • You're grossing me out. Bye.

    Responses to this comment
  • I have brought even more shame on my family.

    Responses to this comment
  • Well, I just have to say, as the author of this piece, that it doesn't matter where a label comes from. Once it's invented, it sticks. I know all the filmmakers HATE it -- we're the generation that hates labels -- but it exists now, so oh well. A lot of the movies do have a lot in common, but they are all different. I just wanted to skewer what journalists saw as a sociological observation, as nothing more than art.

    Responses to this comment

Register or Login to leave a comment