Film Review- Punk Attitude

attitude link http://www.library.uq.edu.au/mget.php?id=UQL_misc_Video7

Ok so it’s not really a proper film review but just my thoughts and what I got out of this film.
This film looks at the history of punk and its meaning from the perspective of different artists, photographer, film directors, and punk followers from the 70’s until almost the present day. In accordance with looking at the DIY in punk, this film helped me understand that punk whole aesthetic is doing it yourself. From its start with bands like the Sex pistols and New York dolls they made punk individual and started out as a genre that was set apart from rock. But it was other moments itself that took the rebelliousness that was considered punk and made it their own. One of the comments made was that the hippie culture was punk, and I’d have to agree with them. It was in many ways rebellion against the rock stereotype and its protests against the Vietnam War in America that incises into the political side of punk music. However as it became mainstream like everything punk was the alternative. What was mentioned in the film was that it was important for iconoclastic artists to upset things. And this is many ways was the message that was first stated in punk bands such as the Sex Pistols and The Clash, who were representing their views through their lyrics and actions as a ‘punk rocker’. Jim Jorduch one of the people interviewed in this film stated that people in that were doing it for themselves because they wanted to express something. And this is very much the message of do it yourself aesthetic of punk. It’s not about the music or the clothing, or the corporatism or getting heard, its people making music to express themselves. I think many punk bands today which are characterised as punk bands should have more to express and show elements of the punk aesthetic of doing it yourself and being seen as a counterculture or something that differentiated from mainstream rock music. Many bands carry the word punk as it is what their music may sound like but it doesn’t carry that aesthetic or attitude of punk as shown in this film.
Many of the aspects of the diy aesthetic of punk were not just through expression but part of the culture. The clothing was a statement for anti-fashion and in many ways against the corporatism of brands and dominant fashion. It was also made punk in many ways a subculture and was a form of bricolage that differentiated those who were punk from the rest of society. The punk fanzines such as Sniffin Glue and Punk, also displays characteristics of doing it yourself as it was a vehicle or voice for the artists and fans to express themselves and communicate through. What was interesting is that bands such as Fugazi who won’t do publications in magazines with liquor or tobacco, as they are part of corporatism can appear in these makeshift fanzines.
Another think that was mentioned in this film was that many artists didn’t clarify themselves as punk at the time. Which is interesting as it seems the culture and scene of punk was established much later. But punk wasn’t one genre or idea. It stemmed from the boredom and aggression of the seventies punk of London and the US, leading to the underground hardcore scene in the eighties and from that turned into bands like Nirvana. So it is really hard to define punk as one subculture or group however this film covered it well overall. Even groups which are now characterised as new wave came out of the punk scene and were defined as punk. I find hard to see bands ‘noise’ new wave bands like Sonic Youth as punk but I guess the diy aesthetic and the fact they stood up and made something new, which in many ways could be considered punk ideals.
This film was thoroughly entertaining and interesting as a documentary as its expressions were not from a historian but from those involved in the scene themselves. If you haven’t seen it views it via the link or rent it out. For the fact that this is a review I’m giving it 4 out of 5 stars.