Dance Party, USA

Movies
1

This might be a little late, but I’ve only just caught a TV showing of this. It’s supposed to be part of a double bill by Aaron Katz. It only arrived in cinemas in the UK at the end of last year. Boring stuff out of the way first: it’s set in Portland, it was supposedly made for less than $3,000, and I found out that it feels indebted to Gus Van Sant. Main character called Gus, and I knew I recognised the title credits from somewhere. Turns out to be My Own Private Idaho.

My Own Private Idaho is one of my very favourite films. I loved it. This is not My Own Private Idaho. The script isn’t that good and no matter how talented the actors, they aren’t River Phoenix or that rare, rare Keanu Reeves performance. But enough of that.

The film barely has a plot, but this is very much in keeping with the tone of the film. It’s what some apparently call ‘mumblecore’, which sounds like a type of indie music based solely on late Kurt Cobain vocals, but I digress. The awkward, tense and delicate nature of the dialogue is handled perfectly by the director, with a matching, shifting palette from mood to mood. Much may not happen in and between scenes, but the director manages just to keep your attention. The start threatened to bore, but you must stick on until the guy who has been ‘away’ at the party explains the park in Nebraska. Here, the film hits what it means. It shows exactly what low-budget, independent films can do that larger, more expensive films find more difficult, and so often lack. The soul might be slightly scuffed and stained, and the canvas far from perfect, but the portrait painted is completely and akwardly unqiue.

The quality of the acting mostly gives a documentary feel to the film but some scenes waver between ‘that’s obvious stage direction, and that’s a line’ and ‘I wonder if that was ad-libbed?’. The director does manage to get some good, convincing performances and I expect all of these people to make a good career. They’re all talented.

I don’t want to spoil anything because I do give this a hesitant recommendation. If you like films, if you are prepared to put a little effort into watching a film and are interested in films, then go and see it. If they’re entertainment, you might not like it. Addendum: this is poorly phrased, but I hope anyone who reads this understands the sentiment.

Back to the point. There are some parts worth thinking about, but as a fault they aren’t well covered. The basic structure of the film is a sort of three-act arc, but one that feels like the first arc of a film set before the actual film. The one they won’t make, and Dance Party, USA, is all the better for being that film. I don’t know how much more I can add- they don’t stand up to my current ‘modern indie’ yardstick (because I have so much experience in watching these sort of indie films), In Search of a Midnight Kiss (then maybe Once). But it stands alone, slightly slouched and awkard to approach, but all the better for doing so. Please see it if you think it might interest you.

“Are you cold?” “No. Are you?”

2

Uhm… My friends and I after a weekend festival packing up speaker gear had a “Dance Party USA” event in Oregon. It mostly involved packing up speaker gear and generators into the back of Tony’s pickup truck and playing bad dance music while driving around a field. *core was also the description of music they were involved with.

Wow. Must investigate.

3

“Mumblecore” (which is the worst label for anything ever) was interesting at first just for the “you call this a movie” perversity, but when you’ve made three or four features and there’s nothing of any significance distinguishing #4 from #1, it’s fairly clear that you’ve just gone from genuine artlessness to affected artlessness, and that’s no fun :( Mutual Appreciation is the only one that really holds up.

4

Bago: I’m sorry to report that your experience isn’t even close to the film, but I still think you should see it.

Bob: I’m no expert on this type of film, as this is my sole experience of it, but the writing I’ve read indicates that it’s an unfair attempt to pigeon-hole directors with a certain subject. It did mention that Katz and a couple of other directors are good, and this film in particular was made by film-school friends, so maybe you should try it. I do understand your response, but that’s more a fault of the directors than the labelling. It’s a fault shared across any genre or movement.

Secondly, why should anyone respond to a film with “you call this a move”? Is there really a rigorous description of films that isn’t “any long-form item committed to a visual recording medium”? That said, I get what you mean. I just don’t like that gripe when people mean it literally.

I can’t be the only person who has seen this film, can I?

5

I’ve seen Dance Party USA – and Quiet City, which makes some very tentative steps towards more conventional aestheticism but doesn’t integrate it well. In truth I can’t really say I liked one more or less than the other. I was diverted for an hour or so and that’s the extent of it. That goes for a lot of this stuff, to be honest.

As for pigeon-holing, the movies have a lot more in common than their subject matter (which is itself pretty narrow), and while it was outside observers who first asserted the existence of a “movement,” it’s the filmmakers themselves who gave it “that name” (ironically or not) and subsequently went out of their way to present a sort of united front. I don’t see that this has paid off any great dividends – Hannah Takes the Stairs was a Who’s Who of This Type of Movie and probably the lamest example at the same time – and I get the hopeful impression the filmmakers have arrived at the same conclusion (Baghead is a meta-film, which tends to suggest the directors are eager to move on). The easiest way to avoid being pigeon-holed as a “movement” is to stop making films like one.

6

I’ve seen Dance Party USA – and Quiet City, which makes some very tentative steps towards more conventional aestheticism but doesn’t integrate it well. In truth I can’t really say I liked one more or less than the other. I was diverted for an hour or so and that’s the extent of it. That goes for a lot of this stuff, to be honest.

As for pigeon-holing, the movies have a lot more in common than their subject matter (which is itself pretty narrow), and while it was outside observers who first asserted the existence of a “movement,” it’s the filmmakers themselves who gave it “that name” (ironically or not) and subsequently went out of their way to present a sort of united front. I don’t see that this has paid off any great dividends – Hannah Takes the Stairs was a Who’s Who of This Type of Movie and probably the lamest example at the same time – and I get the hopeful impression the filmmakers have arrived at the same conclusion (Baghead is a meta-film, which tends to suggest the directors are eager to move on). The easiest way to avoid being pigeon-holed as a “movement” is to stop making films like one.

7

Fair enough. As I say, all I’ve done is read about it, and it’s not the sort of movement that would be popular over here. They seemed to think that a few directors rose above the pigeon-holing, but you obviously know better than me.

I still think that the fault you mention is true of any movement, but in this case it’s to the detriment of the films- from what you’re saying, they’re almost a clique that revels in breaking convention. Which is silly, I agree, because you break convention when you need to and shouldn’t be afraid of it, but don’t do it deliberately.

I did like Dance Party, USA, I haven’t seen Quiet City. I didn’t like it enough to recommend it to everyone, but I thought it was worth bringing to people’s attention. You could chalk up my like to it being the first ‘mumblecore’ film I have seen, that happened to be fairly good. If I gave it a star rating, it would get three, maybe three and a half. I would be happy to lower it for different people, but no higher than that. It had big problems (which I hope came across), mostly in not doing what it should have done.