I always adhere to the Armond method of telling if someone is a hipster:
Q: “Do you like Wes Anderson?”
A: “Yes.”
-You are a hipster.
Q: “Wait, how does that make me a hipster?”
A: “HIPSTER.”
-you are still a hipster.
but the general slam of something as hipster is fucking lazy. it’s like citing something as “m*mblecore” because the cast is no-name and you’ve never heard of the director, but it features justin rice.
if that were true, ESPN and poker are now hipster approved.
Strawdog – You’ve hit on the exact point that I wanted to cover. People do have a negative predisposition to hipsters (or whatever you want to call the yuppie, upper middle-class, white American gentrifiers who wear vintage cloths and listen to Deerhunter.)
I did look up the term hipster on wikipedia just to see what I came across, and the definitions were varied and obscure. So, I think there is a possibility that the characters in (500) Days could be hipsters. But it doesn’t matter. The point still stands that I’ve heard and read a number of negative reactions to the film based almost strictly on the fact that it involves a certain type of twee white subculture. Some of the comments I’ve read on the film come out to me as nothing more than vitriol that has nothing to do with the film itself, but rather with that persons prejudice against a certain community or class.
I wanted to extrapolate from (500) Days, a movie that I liked very much, and move in to how we deal in general with filmic depictions of people groups that we don’t like.
Haha – yes, Wes Anderson is definitely another sign you may be a hipster.
I think this thread has become like a trendy coast version of Jeff Foxworthy’s “You Might be a Redneck if…” only instead of redneck, it’s hipster.
Hmmm, maybe hipsters are the blue state equivilant of a redneck? lol
The funny thing is, you can extract actual, concrete criticisms from the general vitriol directed against hipsters. For instance, the criticism of refusing to become financially independent… I think the actual derogatory term that specifies that tendency is “slacker,” which has been appropriated to some degree, but still applies to a lot of young people, whether they’re hip, gangsta, or yuppie children. The other criticism of “hipsters” that seems to have some merit is that they follow trends without devoting themselves to any actual interest. If that’s to be taken at face value, there’s a whole subculture of young people who simply follow Vice magazine for their fashion and music interests. Then again, I have to take that criticism with a grain of salt, too… not everybody can be expected to find something they’re passionate about in their teens and twenties, especially in a culture where everything is so commodified, and [EDIT]sincerity[/EDIT] is so relentlessly repackaged as cliche. Sometimes, when you’re young, the cultural current around you is all you have to help you try to find an orientation.
What am I trying to say? Oh, yeah… that calling people “hipster” doesn’t serve much of a purpose anymore, except to identify them by their clothes and make first-glance generalizations about them. I won’t deny that there’s a lot of sarcasm and detached self-awareness (which AdBusters loves to call “irony”) among young people… although I’m pretty sure that’s pancultural, rather than subgroup-specific, and it’s been pervasive in the art world for a lot longer than the 10-15 years being discussed. I also won’t deny that there is a demographic of young people who make fashion and music choices that are intentionally unorthodox, almost to the point of attention-seeking. Young people have done that stuff for a long time. Still, I try not to call them hipsters, because it’s a concept that’s become pretty reactionary.
“I’m sorry, Liz, I’m just incapable of summoning the empathy necessary to discover, as you suggest, ‘that hipsters are people too’. There’s the problem right there: it’s all fucking attitude. It’s just a pose assumed until their real lives kick in. Whaaa, I’m a hipster. The cry of the entitled. What “idea” is represented here?”
KJ: I’m kind of too burnt out on this subject to keep moving much further. You can complain about how hipsters are ruining everything good in the universe, or you can ignore it. Why would a movie about hipster culture be any less interesting than anything else? You haven’t exactly given a reason for that, beyond that you hate hipsters. I hate hipsters too, that doesn’t mean that someone shouldn’t make a movie about them. After all, it’s a culture that clearly exists, right? It’s something that people talk and like to complain about constantly, right? Why is an accurate depiction of entitled rich kids from NYC or some other place any better or worse for a film than a depiction of starving families in Ethiopia, or something like that? Yes, I know rich kids are over-represented in the media, but not exactly in serious cinema… only in stuff that’s marketed towards them.
The idea that a certain kind of person doesn’t deserve any representation within a serious art form really bothers me. Try to stay above the bile created by this culture. A movie is about humans, and in the end humans act and respond in similar ways no matter where they’re from or how much money or education they have. I’d see and like a movie about anything made at any time and any place if it’s well-made and about human beings.
>>Thank you very much, Harold.<<
Don’t kill the messenger, Tom. I don’t make up the rules. That’s for GQ.
But dressing like John Houseman pretty much guarantees you’re no hipster.
Hipsters are phony-bologna faces. That in and of itself can make for interesting drama, when you have characters posing behind something faux. Their supposed shallowness can elicit compelling drama, in my opinion, which is what storytelling is all about. Hipsters are people too and it’s only their behavior that’s creating this backlash – so what if you had a character who was a hipster but wasn’t shallow or who didn’t fall into these cliches? That might be interesting. I don’t know. But saying hipsters aren’t deserving of stories because they’re have a facade of hollowness is counter intuitive. That’s precisely why they ARE deserving of being put on screen. Shit like that is what makes characters compelling and engaging!
Only a bunch of hipsters would spend this much time and energy debating the real meaning of “hipster.” :)
Fredo, you’ve found your subject. Just try to avoid soul-numbing irony. If you shoot it NYC I’ll be happy to crew for you.
Fredo wins a prize for addressing the subject.
Even if the characters in (500) Days aren’t hipsters, they are at least some type of variant of hipster or white indie kids. This class of people are regarded by some to be vapid individuals with no ability to think for themselves.
Let’s back out from that movie and talk about Raging Bull for a moment. Here is a film with a protagonist that, if met in real life, we would hate. There is no way I’d want to spend one minute with a person like Jake La Motta. And, yet, Raging Bull is regarded as a great film. Part of this must come from the fact that Scorsese presents La Motta as despicable, and he doesn’t try to win the audience over. But the characters in (500) Days are not nearly as awful as Jake. They might be a little annoying in some ways, but they do seem to have some type of moral compass, and they seem normal enough. The film is designed in a way that presents these people as lovable in a quirky way – their ticks and insecurities are endearing in a way that La Motta’s never could be. And, the fact that they are presented in a lovable fashion seems to irk some people.
One of the things that interested me about (500) Days was that it had a similar pell mell narrative structure to that of Annie Hall. That structure was, like Annie Hall, a direct result of the narrator – a relatively insecure, narcissistic twenty-something with a crush on Zoody Dechanel, the ultimate indie flake. Due to this particular narrative POV, (500) Days has a way of romanticizing the people in the story (both the narrator and the object of his affection.) So, white indie kids are idealized in this narrative, and that idealization seems to cut through to the fundamental experience of unrequited love – an experience that is broadly “human”.
KJ – No, no, no! I personally have no interest in bringing this subject to the screen! lol
If I’m coming to NY to shoot, it’s going to be for something I am passionate about!
Such as a documentary on Mr. Softee…
Jake La Motta may be a rotten person but he’s a fascinating character – he’s like the poster child for what conflict in cinema is all about. And it works because eventually the audience does feel compassion for the guy; it’s the same reason we empathize with Alex in A Clockwork Orange. These characters start off as horrible, awful people that have no obvious relation to our own lives but then gradually when we get to know them (hello character development) and they change based on what happens in the story (hello character arc) we see them in a different light.
Exactly! Scorsese was able to find redemptive qualities in an otherwise horrible person. For all you out there that really value “humanity” in your movies, this should be right up your alley. Hipsters (or insert other title if you must) are humans too. They are a product of their genetic make up and environment, tastes, education, etc, etc. They can be just as complex as the rest of us, if not more so.
I don’t have a huge problem with hipsters, but I wonder how I’d react to a movie about frat boys or 18-year old army soldiers who only want to talk about getting drunk and laid. My patience might be tested in a film like that – unless it were a comedy.
“but I wonder how I’d react to a movie about frat boys or 18-year old army soldiers.”
This is sort of how I feel about stoner comedies. I mean, I used to like getting stoned just as much as the next guy. But watching it for two hours in a movie is trying even on my patience.
See, I’ve never been stoned, so stoner comedies are sort of funny to me. Not that I’ve seen a ton of them, but.
Have you seen Nancy Savoca’s Dogfight, Nathan?
Matt – No. Should I?
Nathan & Fredo: I agree completely. To understand humanity I think you need to see both ends of the spectrum and be able to empathize with either.
Nathan,
It’s about a group of young Marines on the eve of shipping out to Vietnam who have an contest to see who can find the ugliest date and the relationship that develops between develops between of of the guys and his “date.” It’s a good film.
Oh yeah I am a pretentious hipster, I hate mainstream things and I hate banalities. Am I a weirdo? maybe but i am ok, I havent seen that film but most hipsters like good things, I dont know why all the piss off. But I hate trends too, all people are very different dont they?
Oh yeah I am a hipster, I hate mainstream things and I hate banalities. Am I a weirdo? maybe but i am ok, I havent seen that film but most hipsters like good things, I dont know why all the piss off. But I hate trends too, all people are very different dont they?
double post, notice the difference.
I like goddard and anderson. Does that make me a hipster? I completely understand what people are trying to say on this thread, but I think that it is a little over the top. Yes, hipsters can be very annoying, but is it necessary to talk so badly of people just because of the music they listen to of the way they dress? We are talking about them like they are a whole other race! Im not trying to defend any “Hipsters” or their lifestyles but when it comes to being rideculed for liking directors such as goddard and anderson, its kind of unfair. Don’t we all like goddard and anderson? Sorry if im going off in many diresctions, but i feel like i had to adress this
if you want real hipsters watch BUCKET OF BLOOD
“Don’t we all like goddard and anderson?” – Dalton R.
No.
I’ve not seen (500) Days of Summer, nor do I plan to, but I will say this about its star, Zooey Deschanel — she’s right, cotton truly is The Fabric of Our Lives ™.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMB5CzzWXMQ
just a heads up, I’m wearing a bow-tie tomorrow and friday. I kind of want to post a picture. Good colors in there.
Hipster=american apparell, american spirits, wes anderson, tired alternative rock, 80s new wave not powerpop, likes coke, a general dismissal of anyone not seen as stylish as a hipster views themselves etc.
A hipster is equivalent to poseur.
Cool= friendly, open, knowledgable, stylish or not stylish(doesn’t matter), likes music (MC5, Flamin’ Groovies, Big Star, Pretty Things, 60s soul, Glam, 70s funk, Bubblegum, punk mod, pub rock, powerpop, garage rock, authentic country,psychedelic, british invasion etc.) likes films, filmakers, actors, writers, cinematographers, artists etc. A willingness to share information and prides themselves on intelligence.
If you think you might be classified as a hipster you should try to be cool.
tom
“Nothing says “Geek” like a bow-tie.”
Thank you very much, Harold.
I’m off to put nails in a keyboad, Sir’s and Ma’am’s.