writers gone
wild! |
Taking the Word of The Garbage Pail Kids Movie Reconsidered Only a few years ago, Marcel Duchamp's Fountain was accepted as the most influential work in 20th-century art, by a group of elite English experts. And yet it seems a hundred plus years of film have yet to produce a cinematic equivalent of Fountain, as critics continually crown Citizen Kane as the best the medium has yet to offer. Perhaps they are too fond of their conventions, too quick to pass on the "bad" film for the sake of the "good," not realizing that the clothespin on their nose perpetually stuck in the air as it is has irreparably damaged their own olfactory senses their ability to distinguish the "bad" and the "good" in the first place. They would not know a Fountain if they saw it. If cinema and its criticism are to remain new and exciting, the contemporary film critics' task is to scorn their own sterile standards, and to go digging in the garbage the garbage pail, that is. Seemingly scraped away by the iron broom of the critics' criteria (and their Criterion Collections) into the dustbin of history, The Garbage Pail Kids Movie nevertheless lingers on in the memory of the few who saw it upon its release in 1987. Marketed as a children's film, the only thing infantile about the picture is the response given it by most viewers and critics, who, imagining themselves a clever lot, shoot off puerile redoubts like "I've spent happier afternoons trying to pick pubic hairs out of diner salads"1 But the joke is on them. To trash The Garbage Pail Kids Movie is not too easy; it is to miss the point entirely. Not only is it a tired exercise; to pan The Pail is to be fooled by the film's greatest irony: a movie self-consciously made of garbage. The pain the repulsed viewer feels is in being on the receiving end of Garbage Pail's punch line. It is in this way that The Garbage Pail Kids Movie is as close a filmic adaptation of Duchamp's Fountain as there has yet to be.
Indeed, almost from the start the film seems to understand itself better than any critic who has yet to write on it. The Garbage Pail Kids Movie was the first ever to be inspired by a trading card/sticker series and the film understands its debt. It opens with three-dimensional facsimiles of the trading cards flying through space, introducing us to the players. The Garbage Pail Kids were a product of the Topps company, known mainly for their sports cards, and The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, to my knowledge, is the only Topps Chewing Gum film production ever made. The movie takes many liberties, however, paring down the rotten kin of the Cabbage Patch into a bizarre band of seven absurdist moppets, in the process isolating their confrontational humor, their controversy, and their strange relationship to childhood. Following the outer space introduction, our first image is that of a child on the run: our protagonist Dodger (a youthful Mackenzie Astin), in flight from the tyranny of local tough Juice, shortcuts through a neighborhood playground. Despite this maneuver, he fails to escape, his pocket money is picked, and he is thrown into and kicked in the mud. The setting has all the connotations of innocence, a reminder that The Garbage Pail Kids Movie is ostensibly a children's movie. But the beating suggests themes much more mature; and maturity beyond innocence is what indeed unfolds.
What emerges from the pail is indeed danger of a sort, but even more so, redemption. Early in the picture, Dodger spends an inordinate amount of time in the mud and in raw sewage, until saved from this filthy fate by our title characters, the Garbage Pail Kids or in Manzini's terms, "The Children." Certainly Manzini is right, they are a Pandora's Box of contradictions. It seems a paradox that the Children, at home in garbage, would seek to rescue Dodger from a sewer. It is here, in The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, that we see that liberation lies within the contradiction. Perhaps the finest embodiment of Bakhtin's carnivalesque yet committed to film, the Children no doubt "uncover, undermine even destroy, the hegemony of any ideology that seeks to have the final word about the world, and also to renew, to shed light upon life, the meanings it harbors, to elucidate potentials; projecting, as it does an alternate conceptualization of reality."2 Building on the images of the trading cards, the movie invests each Kid with a unique personality and power. In the flatulence of Windy Winston, or the halitosis of Foul Phil; in the juxtaposition of Ali Gator and Greaser Greg's very destructive, yet very different lusts for flesh; in the seeming urinary incontinence of Nat Nerd; in the magic mucus of Messy Tessy; and in the green stream that gives Valerie Vomit her namesake in each of these, there is a sort of ontological anarchy, chaos as being, which does not draw the viewer in so much as send the viewer out, not by repulsion, but rather by an ardent desire to tear, high and low, the fabric of the curtain standing between us and reality as such. "Experience takes place before a curtain which conceals," Herbert Marcuse has written, "and, if the world is the appearance of something behind the curtain of immediate experience, then, in Hegel's terms, it is we ourselves who are behind the curtain."3
That is, except when the Children prove their own infinitely creative worth. In a gesture of solidarity with Dodger's efforts to woo Tangerine, the Children stitch a creation of their own, a dashing black blazer with golden sequins. So taken is Tangerine by the piece that she demands more and more, in the process demonstrating, in terms of contemporary fashion, the ever-present pull between State and War Machine documented by Deleuze and Guattari in Nomadology. To Deuleuze and Guattari, the State is something of a plagiarist for many of its functions, such as war, it must appropriate a War Machine, as in the following analogy to waterworks: "The state needs to subordinate hydraulic force to conduits, pipes, embankments which prevent turbulence, which constrain movement to go from one point to another, and space itself to be striated and measured, which makes the fluid depend on the solid, and flows proceed by parallel, laminar layers."4 To make her creations, Tangerine must, like the State, not only exploit the labor of the Children who sew their fashions themselves but channel their hydraulic force, turbulence, wild and fluid movements, and in the process, appropriate their very aesthetic. As is announced at her fashion show, late in the film, her fashions are "a little flashy, a little trashy, but fun." As are the Children.
Here! Here! For if the State can't channel the War Machine well enough, Deleuze and Guattari tell us, it puts itself at risk of falling into incoherence. And so it is with Tangerine. Dodger, "bewitched bebothered and bedenemied" by Tangerine's charms, inadvertently allows her to pass off the Children to Juice, who sells them for a hearty bounty to "The State home for the Ugly." But she cannot in the final analysis contain them. At what she assumes to be her triumph, a fashion show at "McBundy's Department Store," the Children arrive fresh from a biker-gang-assisted jailbreak poised for chaos. When it all ensues, we can't help but think back over cinema's short history; the too obvious irony of Altman's Prêt-à-Porter finale is, in contrast to this sequence in The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, as naked as its single-file line of models. In a playful fashion that summons up memories of no less than Jean Vigo's Zéro de Conduite, it is the anarchic antics of the Children who offer the most spirited, biting commentary on the old crap of the catwalk. I know of none better in the history of cinema. Amidst it all, Dodger gains an upper hand on Juice, sitting astride the flaccid body of his nemesis, punching left and right. Yet, it is in this very moment of triumph, the moment that holds the potential to make a man of Dodger, that Dodger breaks down in tears, choosing to walk away under the worldly wing of Cap'n Manzini's magic rather than assume the mantle of power itself. We should not be surprised; the very naming of "Dodger" is a throwback to Dickens and "The Artful Dodger" of Oliver Twist, a pejorative still often employed to describe one who avoids responsibility and the consequences of their actions. Compare this with other, more popular ruminations on masculinity from the 1980s: unlike the tripe of Vision Quest, Dodger's coming-of-age is not to get laid; nor is it, ala Roadhouse, to tear the throat out of his enemy. Rather, it is to understand his solidarity with the Children; to take responsibility and to know that his fate is their fate, and vice versa. As he tells a heartbroken Tangerine, "I don't think you're pretty anymore." The power principle is never pretty.
Indeed, the film asks that we interrogate ourselves it asks so forcefully that audiences fear it. Paradoxically, it would seem, the Children hate the prospect of ever returning to what we assume to be their home, the Pail. But our assumptions are fascistic ones, for the Pail is where society even Manzini, staunchly conservative in his old age compared to Dodger's youthful radicalism seeks to banish them. This is, at last, the final lesson of The Garbage Pail Kids Movie, which is a challenge, not unlike Duchamp's Fountain, that asks us to refuse the standards of the cinematic artform. "Cap, you're an educated man, huh?" Ali Gator mocks Manzini. "And you take the word of a talking alligator?" If we really are an educated society, should we take the word of talking heads, film critics included? Notes1. "X-Entertainment: Garbage Pail Kids: The Movie Review." Accessed July 15, 2006 2. See Bakhtin's Wikipedia entry. Accessed July 15, 2006. 3. Eberhard Wenzel's Website. Accessed July 15, 2006. 4. Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, Nomadology: The War Machine. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Semiotext(e), 1986, 21. August 2006 | Issue
53 Though born in the 1980s, Andrew Hedden is certain he has never worn anything with sequins, golden or otherwise. However, like Dodger and the Children, he holds solidarity to be a critical principle of struggle. His writing has appeared previously in The A Word and Perspectives on Anarchist Theory. He contributes regularly to the film criticism blog Lucid Screening You'll find him in Bellingham, Washington, where'd he'd love to hear from you. Note: This essay appeared in slightly different form on the fine Lucid Screening blog. Reprinted by kind permission of the author. ALSO: More reviews |