Trash Humpers provoked the thought of What are you responsible for in society that you dislike or hate?
That’s for me. I liked the scenes and vignettes. And the re hashing of Korine’s “Life has no plot” bit. It’s a cool experience in theaters.
If anybody wants to answer…
Why do you think Korine showed only the two extremes of human age? Old and young.
everything after youth is nothing….
I’m surprised to see that Warped Records are distributing this in the UK, it might be the best movie they’ve put their name to.
When is Trash Humpers coming out on DVD, I tried to go see it the theateres but the day I go to 13th Street I think it was the Cinema Village theater the guy in the ticket booth is like its not playing anymore? WTF it was there for a week, I was pissed.
@ Rudy… It appears the DVD is set for release on Sept. 20.
Damn, That kid just gives off an aura of religious extremes. When I first saw it I though maybe he was a member of one of those more hardcore Jewish sects basically right away.
Watching Trash Humpers tomorrow via netflix
You would have to be reaching to find meaning in T.Humpers imo. it’s like Gummo on a budget but with much less to say.
it’s worth a look for the curious though.
it’s like Gummo on a budget but with much less to say
Sounds like a winner!
Meant very little :) The point was explicitly stated near the film’s end, and the point is fine… but it’s still just Harmony Korine’s Kooks, and you have to like those esoteric weirdos to like Korine’s work – rather, you have to be able to look watch them and find that intrinsically entertaining. I will say I wasn’t able to get certain lines out of my head for days… “Make it! Make it! Don’t fake it!” And those were mildly funny.
I listened to some interview online between Korine and Gaspar Noe, and while I have my opinions about Noe, Korine sounded like a silly little boy compared to him (and nevermind that he was kissing Noe’s ass the entire time)… Noe, who is at least highly technologically innovative.
Since the OP poses the question “did Trash Humpers mean anything to me?,” I’d answer that individually, it did. I can’t make a case for it as a great or important film, but I can discuss my reaction to it.
I grew up and still live in a mostly lower middle class town in Central NJ. When Kids came out in my middle school years, it really didn’t do much as a cautionary tale; that looked fun, though sex, drugs, and bored recklessness already had places in the lives of my town’s teens. I knew richer and poorer kids than I who thought the film’s lifestyle looked cool or already related to it from their own lives.
On another (assuredly unintended) level, I watched the dvd of Trash Humpers a few weeks ago as the Celebration, FL, murder & police standoff/suicide cases unfolded, and having seen those behaviors from adults, it seemed kind of appropriate.
I can imagine there’s always been some boredom or debauchery in traditional senior centers, but there’s an odd (and to me, kind of grotesque) movement with planned over-55 communities for people to retire into a certain socailly sterile debauchery, retiring into isolated worlds and taking up odd group behaviors and ill-considered sex & drug use. Having seen such behaviors among “adults” in the real world, considering them among isolated adults doesn’t sound shocking at all.
This Korine is a real winner
“A winner doesn’t shiver.”
I saw this more as a science fiction film and i think it captured very well some late modernity nihilist fantasy. Why is this (and Gummo) with or without flaws not hailed as a postmodern masterpiece like White Noise or Gravitys Rainbow? It was pretty much like reading T.S. Eliots The Waste Land, but more straight-foward.
“make it, make it, make it, dont take it.”
This is where auteur theory is helpful. Korine eschews the normal narrative form for stringing images together. There is no real story here. The message seems to be: life does continue on, despite trash humping or as the result of trash humping.
It meant something to me, it brings me to a crystalising of something simple which helps me go on. I watch all the great documentaries on the ages of britain and the universe and ancient civilisations and Lennon and Lenin and trench warfare and microcosims and majesty and poverty etc etc etc I feel an existential unravelling within myself, an “overwhelment”… then I watch Trash Humpers and I feel comforted in pondering that my life might be as incidental and meaningless and random as what’s reflected in roaming about humping trash but it still is so get up out of bed and just fucking do it.
I can’t tell if this was genius or one of the worst movies ever made. It disgusted me, but I can’t stop thinking about it. More often than not, I was on the floor laughing.
They humped everything.
What is wrong with Harmony Korine? He’s insane.
but I can’t stop thinking about it:genius
Just saw this. Before I comment on the film, I wanted to say that part of the reason I saw this was because Robert mentioned this film as an example of doing something new. I’m not sure how I feel about this film—although I’m leaning towards rating it favorably—but I think Robert’s recommendation is a decent one.
Here are some other thoughts and comments off the top of my head:
>The early scenes of “trash humping” really caught my attention. I have a hard time articulating the reasons for this, especially since I’m not generally interested in bizarre, sordid, tabloidy material. But this was strangely intriguing and compelling—evoking a mixture of feelings that are hard to articulate—feelings of revulsion, being disturbed and creeped out—something sinister and scary, feelings I associate with horror movies; at the same time, there is also a mildly comic or even light tone to the scenes as well. (The idea of trash humping seems silly and comical and I’d imagine I’d chuckle or just dismiss it if I saw this, but I did neither. The fact that I didn’t dismiss this or laugh—but actually felt a little disturbed At the same time, the feelings were subtle and elusive. The film doesn’t have graphic violence or sex—as in a Noe film—that evoke these feelings. Instead, the scenes aren’t blatantly is quietly troubling, but no less poignant (which is an odd word in this context).
Do you know how many of the great artists aspire to and express rarefied feelings that lift people—making them feel divine? I almost feel like this film does the opposite and seeks to express baser feelings—expressing the “badder demons,” rather than the “better angels,” of our nature. Indeed, the four masked creatures seem like demons or avatars of depravity. My guess is that Korine doesn’t view trash and filth as something beautiful, but he takes an artistic approach and sensibility to these things—for example, trash humping is poetic in a performance art sort of way; and the grotesque masks (really important, I feel) add a subtle, creepy tone to the entire film. The film’s purpose isn’t to celebrate these vibe of depravity—rather, I think it wants us to be disturbed. My sense is that this film, like Gummo, Korine takes the hidden parts our society and our souls and bring them to light.
>Like Gummo, TH seems to be tour through a community. On the other hand, I really don’t have a clear idea behind all of the various scenes in the film. There’s just an overarching mood to the whole thing. However, I do have some thoughts about the final scene, where they get the baby.
>The netflix synopsis states that the characters find “redemption”—and I’m guessing they’re referring to this last scene. I didn’t read the last scene this way. The feeling I got was that these base feelings—represented by these “creatures”—are part of who we are from the beginning. Perhaps, the film is saying that the culture is based on these baser feelings and that we wallow in it from a very young age. (That might be a stretch.) I’d be interested in how other people interpret this last scene.
>When I first started watching this, I thought of Cronenberg’s Crash—as this felt like Korine’s Crash. The idea of fucking trash/making love to trash/embracing and becoming one with trash just seemed like a near perfect concept for what Korine is about—just as the concept behind Crash (people who get sexually aroused by car crashes) seemed to be the brilliant artistic expression of Cronenberg’s concerns and aesthetic.
>I didn’t enjoy watching this movie. I don’t mean just mean that the mood and vibe were unpleasant, but I also found some of the moments confusing and I started to lose interest in them. A part of me feels like the scenes (and film) had a circus freakshow vibe, and I couldn’t find meaningful differences between some of the scenes. They became tiresome after a while. (Oh, I thought the scene with the blood of the man in the maid’s outfit broke the spell of the film. It just seemed too hokey. Compare that with the dead body they find in the field—that one worked.) I don’t know if this is a deficiency on the film’s part or just my lack of understanding the film.
>Like the raw footage aspect of the film (although I didn’t think of this as a raw footage film). It really added a lot of this film, just as the low-production values added to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre. By the way, I think the films have a similar and effective creepy vibe. TH is less graphic and in-your-face, and it has subtle, poetic quality that TCM does not.
the impression i get of Korine is that he has too much fun putting on ‘freak shows’ to have anything really insightful to say about them.
you need to do more than just showing people acting retarded for 80 mins.
then again, i don’t find shitting on canvas substancial and don’t see much in 4’33 either
I’m guessing you’re referring primarily to Gummo and Trash Humpers, as Mister Lonely and Julien Donkey Boy utilize a loose narrative. I don’t think the Gummo and Trash Humpers attempt to offer insights so much as present—in an artistic way—the unseemly parts of humanity and society that we (including mainstream media) tend to block out. The structure of Gummo and TH is a group of people moving through a town, surveying and revealing what’s there—by stringing together scenes that have the feeling of performance art. In a way, there is something about both films that operate in the same terrain as David Lynch’s Blue Velvet—except Korine digs deeper, exposing depraved feelings and desires in a more raw form. I find this interesting and legitimate approach.
At the same time, I can’t explain the meaning and purpose of every scene—except the general purpose of creating a certain mood and feeling. I do have some interpretations of the scenes though (like the final one). Still, I don’t really have meaningful interpretations of many of the scenes and some of them seem repetitive or tiresome. So I sympathize with you and some level and part of me is uncertain about Korine’s skill. On the other hand, if you think of both films as a series of an omnibus of vignettes, the vignettes in these films tend to be hit-and-miss—they’re not going to be all good. So I don’t know if it’s fair to conclude that Korine lacks skil because all the “performance vignettes” don’t work.
Additionally, I don’t feel like the film is trying to offer insights so much as show what is hidden as well as critique society.
^^But ‘showing’ isn’t neutral. There is a perspective there, and perspective is tied in with insight. I’m not looking for some overt psychological explanation for everything i see, but i don’t get the sense that there is all that much behind the tomfoolery, although there are great moments in both films.
Trash Humpers is like a sequel to Gummo in many ways.
I enjoy Trash Humpers as whatever it is but it’s one of the few films where overthinking it would undoubtedly ruin it for me. My wife still shudders at the fact that I made her watch it with me.
…you need to do more than just showing people acting retarded for 80 mins
How do you feel about Jackson Pollock’s work?
Trash Humpers is an abstraction of cinema – the insights are found there.
Tell us what the work of genius looks like.
It’s the audience that finds redemption.
^^haha, that’s why i love you Robert ;-) in a strictly ‘straight’ way of course ;-)
I love Pollock. but the comparison doesn’t work for me. His work is far more abstract. It works on a different level, and has far less connection to any kind of tangible reality.
But Trash Humpers is about its medium the same way Pollock’s work was about a different medium.
It means, to me, “yet another movie that could not possibly live up to a literal reading of its title.”
^^But ‘showing’ isn’t neutral. There is a perspective there, and perspective is tied in with insight. I’m not looking for some overt psychological explanation for everything i see, but i don’t get the sense that there is all that much behind the tomfoolery,…
I think the film is a lot more than just “tomfoolery.” I think Korine is exploring and giving expression to the more sordid, depraved aspects of ourselves—the kinds of things that exist in the dark corners of our soul. At the same time the expression is artistic, maybe even poetic—but not in way that says these things are beautiful or something that should be seen in a positive light. No, the film wants us to be disturbed by these things. The perspective or intention is to expose these things that we try to ignore—“we” being our individual selves as well as society and the media; and to make us see and feel that these things are closely connected to us, part of ourselves and our communities. That’s the sort of vibe I get from the film. That’s not an insight per se, but I think that makes the film more than mere tomfoolery.
I enjoy Trash Humpers as whatever it is but it’s one of the few films where overthinking it would undoubtedly ruin it for me.
The film does seem more like a visceral film than a cerebral one, but I think I think there are some ideas and concepts in it—for example, the idea of trash humping. The idea and scenes feel like performance art.
It’s the audience that finds redemption.
Oh, I’d really like to hear you expand on that. I didn’t get that at all.
The point was explicitly stated near the film’s end, and the point is fine… but it’s still just Harmony Korine’s
If you’re out there reading this, I’d like to hear what you thought the point was. (It seems like we have a lot of different opinions about this.)
…but it’s still just Harmony Korine’s Kooks, and you have to like those esoteric weirdos to like Korine’s work – rather, you have to be able to look watch them and find that intrinsically entertaining.
Joks mentions something similiar, and I can understand this reaction. I think there might be some truth to this, and yet, I think the film actually works in a more meaningful way.