Hard Core Logo is one of those films that I only saw recently and that make me wonder how I managed to miss them all this time. The film is from 1996, so I actually managed to miss it for 13 years! Go me.

Indeed

To sum it up since it’s, sadly, not very well known and chances are you haven’t seen it: The film is about an aging Canadian Punk band (Hard Core Logo) that used to be quite successful in the underground scene but broke up years ago when the two band leaders where faced with the fact that they wanted to pursue two totally different lives. On the one hand is Joe Dick (Hugh Dillon), the singer/songwriter and consummate Punk who does everything to ensure the band never sells out – going so far as pissing in a big-label producer’s drink so he wouldn’t pick them up, keeping their music “authentic”. Just to make a statement, of course.
On the other hand is Billy Tallent (Callum Keith Rennie), the guitarist who wants to go to the next level and find success (and money) with his music, leaving the band to play with Jenifur, a band from, of course, LA.
Hard Core Logo is completed by Pipefitter (Bernie Coulson), the drummer, and John Oxenberger (John Pyper-Ferguson), the bass player/songwriter/backup vocalist.

They get together after five years apart for a benefit concert for Bucky Haight (Julian Richings), a Canadian Punk legend who was shot and, subsequently, has lost his legs. Following the concert, the band goes on a limited five-city tour, apparently coming together once again. Only the tour doesn’t go as planned and the differences between the band members are as big and vast as the shots of Canada’s landscape that we see as they go from one venue to the next. Performing on stage is the only place where the band does come together. Other than that, the band members are just as far removed from each other and as far away from being able to communicate as the wide landscapes imply, which leads to an inevitable and disastrous end. All of which is filmed by Bruce McDonald in a mockumentary style which gives the film an immediate and ironically realistic quality like few others.

Introducing: Billy Tallent, Pipefitter, Joe Dick, and John Oxenburger.

Despite loving mockumentaries (there are too few!) and films about bands or anything music related (except for musicals), something really struck me about the film and made me watch it at least six times in about three weeks. The acting is incredible, as is the way it’s filmed and, though not a fan of hardcore Punk, the band is old-school Punk enough despite their name so I like the music as well. But I guess what makes the film grab me are two issues I’ll single out that it deals with (amongst a ton of others, but I’ll focus on these two): One, the fake documentary format and two, the exploration of the great fiction that is the so-called rock‘n’roll or Punk lifestyle. Or any “genuine artist’s” lifestyle, really.

I’ll start with the second as, let’s face it, there’s something undeniably attractive to the much purported rock’n’roll lifestyle – sex, drugs, and rock’n’roll. And money. And fame. And… anything you want. Only the film shows that there is something sadly pathetic to that ideal after a certain point. As Billy Tallent says in the film – “I’m 35 years old next week. If I play this club one more time, I’m gonna fucking shoot myself.” It’s all a bit like Jay Gatsby. Attractive and enviable when looked at from the outside, but truly sad and lonely when you actually do take a closer look. It’s a never-ending party, only the guest of honour never shows, so after a while, it’s beyond infantile and sad.

Rock’n’roll seems to be for the young, since trying to maintain that rock star image becomes silly when you’re 40. You either die young and leave a good-looking corpse (alluded to in the film when Joe talks about Lennon and “… rock’n'roll assassination” and which is the crux of the film’s Bucky Haight subplot), or you transcend the make-believe stage persona and truly do become a rock star, a feat only a few bands and artists have managed (just consider the 27 Club). Which makes the basic difference between the two main characters so compelling and which is the ultimate tragedy of Joe Dick. His story is the inability to let go of that Punk ideal (though aware of it all) and the film portrays his efforts to try to hold on to some nostalgic version of what once was, while Billy has moved on.

Though in an ironic twist, one could argue that Billy is “more Punk” than Joe in that he just goes his way and does what he wants despite what anyone may think. Unlike Joe, who is hopelessly stuck in the rock’n’roll/Punk lifestyle where the moment you find actual success in what you’re doing automatically means it’s all doomed and you’re selling out unless you fight tooth and nails against any sort of mainstream recognition, perpetually dooming yourself to a life of what ifs. Which isn’t limited to Punk music but is the constant problem any artistic endeavour has to face eventually. It’s all about the age-old issue of authenticity.

Which is doubly ironic at that within the filmic text, since both Billy and Joe are incredibly conscious of their public personas and are as far removed from authentic as you can get. Both are hyper aware of their personas and constantly perform their respective roles when they know Bruce is filming them. You can see the carefully crafted characters at work throughout most of the film – performing on stage, performing during interviews to the camera, performing for the other band members or, when about to lose control of their act, aggressively asking for the camera to stop rolling (Billy does it at least twice in the film, Joe at least once).
All leading to the inevitable end: the final, grandest performative act of them all by Joe Dick.

Joe Dick vs. Billy Tallent: "Billy wants the models and limousines, while I'm happy with hookers and taxicabs. "

Only during the few unguarded moments when they aren’t aware that the camera is rolling (a transgression on Bruce’s part which ties into point #1 talked about below) do we get a glimpse of the real persons behind the charade they act out. These are the moments when we actually get a sense of their real concerns and problems, when we get hints of the true story of the band and the reasons why these two bandleaders, who clearly love each other, are unable to be with each other. John Oxenberger is an interesting exception to that. Having suffered a nervous breakdown on a previous tour, he loses his prescription meds and descends into a schizophrenic character as the film progresses, blabbing out details about the band’s history that may or may not be true, but always hint at the true story Joe Dick and Billy Tallent do their best to keep secret.

And the fact that we actually get to see these unguarded moments is what leads me to point one, the way the film treats documentary filmmaking.

The persistent ideal of documentaries being objective is faulty at best and Hard Core Logo completely unmasks and utterly destroys it. The set-up is sketchy from the beginning. The fact that the film’s director Bruce McDonald casts himself as the fictional documentary filmmaker who is also called Bruce is our first hint.
The film does start off as a prototypical rockumentary – footage of the band’s performances are intercut with interviews and impressions of life “on the road”. Only about halfway through, the tone shifts and we become increasingly aware that fictional Bruce has an agenda (just like any other character in the film). This is when the lines between a passive observer and active participant begin to blur. The moment Bruce realizes he’s been played, he’s part of an elaborate plan by Joe Dick and not as in control of his film as he thinks, is the moment he begins to take active influence on how events unfold – to disastrous  consequences. He becomes, in other words, a film director. Shaping events and set-ups and characters like it is a fictional film, completely abandoning the ways we think a “real” documentary filmmaker should act. The actual director casts himself as the force that destroys everything while trying to create something, the perpetual dilemma we face when trying to produce something original. In the end, he’s more Alfred Hitchcock filming “Vertigo” than Frederick Wiseman creating a cinema verité documentary as he set out to do. Only to be bested once again by Joe Dick in the final moment, who, single-handedly, does turn the film back into a documentary in the truest sense of the word.

And this is where Hard Core Logo is so powerful to me. The film totally unmasks the constructed nature of any band or documentary film and dispels any notion of authentic originality or the truly objective observer. What it all comes down to, in the end, is to producing a narrative. Which is what rock’n’roll is about even though it doesn’t want to be and also what documentaries are about despite trying to maintain it isn’t a consciously constructed tale told by the documentary filmmaker.

To add to the irony, the film has it’s own MySpace site which is set up like it belongs to the actual band: http://www.myspace.com/hardcorelogoband

Duncan Jones’s minimalistic Moon has to be one of the most overlooked and best films of the year.
And aside from being one of the best sci-fi films in recent years – a genre in need of more good films along the lines of Boyle’s Sunshine – it also proves once again that Sam Rockwell is one of America’s most unrecognized actors out there if you ask me.

My review here, on EuropeFront.

1000 dominoes designed by students and artists  where placed along where the Wall used to be in Berlin. They will be tipped over on the 20th anniversary of the Wall coming down on Monday, Nov 9th.

More images here.

New series, if you want. Last flowers before winter.

More to be updated here.

Looks like Hollywood needs new film poster designers. Rip-off or homage?

Anatomy of a Murder (1979, Preminger) vs. Clockers (1995, Spike Lee)

Stylized dismembered body? Check!

Colour red? Check!

Okay, let’s add some bullet holes and call it an homage to the brilliant Saul Bass? Check!

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Casablanca (1942, Curtiz) vs. The Good German (2006, Soderbergh)

B/w? Check!

Current movie hunk? Check!

Fedora? Hoo-yah!

Similar font? Check!

Okay, let’s add some red colour and make it totally unique!

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Scarface (1983, De Palma) vs. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002, Soderbergh, again)

B/w? Check!

Divided by half? Check!

Add dashes of red? Check!

Add gun? But, of course!

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Basic Instinct (1992, Paul Verhoeven) vs. Betrayed (2005, Landsburg)

B/w oldschool so add a lil blue? Check!

Red is eye catching? Check!

Lascivious hand on shoulder? Check!

Sultry look? Oh yeah!

Surely, no one will notice!

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Breakfast Club (1985, Hughes) vs. American Teen (2008, Burstein)

Just… fuck it! Use different font, no one will notice.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

True Blood (TV, 2008, Alan Ball) vs. Jennifer’s Body (2009, Kusama)

Lips? Check!

Blood? Check!

Red? Hell yes.

Surely, the nose is diff, so no one will see it.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

The Bourne Identity (2002, Liman)  vs. 88 Minutes (2007, Avnet)

Lead in heroic pose? Check!

Gun in right hand? Oh yeah!

Gun sights? Never done before!

Shit, looks too close to another one? Make Pacino look to the right not left? Check!

New reviews up.

Michael Mann’s Public Enemies and Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds.

Enjoyed this one a lot – great follow-up to Michael Clayton.

Review here!

Just had a chance to view Charlie Kaufman’s directorial debut Synecdoche, New York.

Review can be found on Europefront.

New review up here!

Must say, I enjoyed this one way more than expected. It might not be pulling in the BO numbers that were expected, but I think the Comedian will have the last laugh in the end…

Slavoj Žižek attended a screening of his docu The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema on March 6th, including a one-hour Q&A.

My article on it can be found here.