Spoilers herein.
Yes, Waters was influential in encouraging independent talents like Jarmusch and Hartley just because of his presence. Yes, there was a time when revolting irony actually had a place. Yes, self-aware stoned parody seems a necessary sophomoric step for every kid.
But that makes `Flamingos' of historical interest, not necessary worth watching today. It is more `Coven' than `Eraserhead.' And it is why this documentary is better than all Waters' films until `Pecker,' where he learned (and could afford) ironically detached than ironic irony rather than self-abusive voyeuristic pseudo-irony.
The appearance of the now-retired film censor who encountered `Flamingos' is a cheap shot, sort of an afterglow from cheap wine: it works but at what cost?
Irony is a much expanded concept in film because it forgives all. But the very existence of this documentary is very weird: it expands the notion and breaks it.
The idea behind Waters' sort of shock-trash is that it is off-hand, disposable. To `document' it reverses that. To go further and celebrate its influence and permanence in film history sort of defeats the purpose. Its as if you celebrated a jazz solo by talking to the musician about fingering. Its all the more shocking when you discover that someone was filming the filmer in 1972.
Ask: now why do that? And all the value deflates. Why do that? Because the shock value is what matters, not the destructive irony.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
Yes, Waters was influential in encouraging independent talents like Jarmusch and Hartley just because of his presence. Yes, there was a time when revolting irony actually had a place. Yes, self-aware stoned parody seems a necessary sophomoric step for every kid.
But that makes `Flamingos' of historical interest, not necessary worth watching today. It is more `Coven' than `Eraserhead.' And it is why this documentary is better than all Waters' films until `Pecker,' where he learned (and could afford) ironically detached than ironic irony rather than self-abusive voyeuristic pseudo-irony.
The appearance of the now-retired film censor who encountered `Flamingos' is a cheap shot, sort of an afterglow from cheap wine: it works but at what cost?
Irony is a much expanded concept in film because it forgives all. But the very existence of this documentary is very weird: it expands the notion and breaks it.
The idea behind Waters' sort of shock-trash is that it is off-hand, disposable. To `document' it reverses that. To go further and celebrate its influence and permanence in film history sort of defeats the purpose. Its as if you celebrated a jazz solo by talking to the musician about fingering. Its all the more shocking when you discover that someone was filming the filmer in 1972.
Ask: now why do that? And all the value deflates. Why do that? Because the shock value is what matters, not the destructive irony.
Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.