Drawing Restraint 9

[Ghostboy]

any idea when the rest of the matthew barney cremaster films will be released on dvd?

Never. But there's a thread specifically about that somewhere.

[picolas]

any idea when the rest of the matthew barney cremaster films will be released on dvd?

Never. But there's a thread specifically about that somewhere.

releasing them on dvd would devalue the thousand-dollar versions a bunch of art collectors bought so the art collectors told the dvd releasers not to.

[Ghostboy]

I don't think it's fair to count this as part of the curse.  It's soundtrack music... it's just supposed to fit over the images.

Definitely. I finally bought this the other day. Even if I hadn't known it was the score for a Matthew Barney film, I'd have immediately thought "hey, this sounds like a score to a Matthew Barney film!" Especially that first Will Oldham track, which sounds just like some of the songs from Cremaster 3. Bork and Barney are a match made in heaven.

I really like it most of the music too, actually. Especially that long brass track, Hunter Vessel. It treats my subwoofer right. This has made me even more excited about seeing the film.

[bonanzataz]

"The core idea of Drawing Restraint 9 is the relationship between self-imposed resistance and creativity, a theme it symbolically tracks through the construction and transformation of a vast sculpture of liquid Vaseline, called "The Field", which is molded, poured, bisected and reformed on the deck of the ship over the course of the film."
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/drawingrestraint9/ (for the trailer, which is awesome in itself)
it's in release in new york right now and it will be travelling throughout the country all summer. i had a pamphlet that gave all the release dates in all the cities it would play in, but i left it in new york and i'm back in boston for two weeks. moving on...

yeah, it took me a while to decide whether i liked it or not, but i've decided that i kinda fucking loved it. it goes a little deeper than the cremaster movies in that the themes are a little more relevant in this one. some really cool imagery (obviously) and cool looking hd photography (although it was transferred to film, which confused me, as the ifc center has digital projection capabilities).
it was also really cool b/c right after it was over, john cameron mitchell was outside getting ready to introduce a midnight screening of hedwig. we were talking about this movie and we were both of the opinion that it started off really slow and we were about to doze off, but once it got going it was really good.
i asked how shortbus was coming along and he said he was going to screen some footage and do a q and a, so i walked in and got to see a five minute trailer (which he said he'd already cut from the film and had only made it for the investors). anyway, it's premiering at cannes this year and should have a fall release date.
anyway, back to THIS movie, who's seen it? what did you think? i really love the song that's in the trailer and how it's used in the movie. i also don't think anybody appreciated barney's humor in the theater i was in. i do think he's very tongue in cheek with a lot of what he does and not EVERYTHING is supposed to be taken seriously. but whatever. i love the whole theme of man's relationship with nature and how the two are such opposing forces. i guess it's kind of a cliched thing in the modern art world, but still a subject that can be explored through masturbatory symbolism.
i really just like matthew barney b/c the man's got a lot of nerve. he knows people are gonna see a movie he makes with bjork no matter what, but he still just puts in weird shit to fuck with everybody. i think he's da bomb. i'm bad at articulating shit today and i'm awful at writing reviews. somebody else say something. i'd like to have decent discussion and i don't think i'm capable of starting it.

[meatwad]

i saw this at the ifc center too, two weeks ago, and will try to gather my thoughts a little later.

the question i wanted to ask was, did they show the guy maddin short film Odilon Redon before drawing restraint? they did when i saw it, and i thought it was pretty great

[Jeremy Blackman]

I get to see this May 5 ...  ...

[Pubrick]

was bored. so over barney now that i've seen the cremaster series and this.

agreed. was going to write a big review but i'm not feeling eloquent, and frankly i don't think the cremashit series and this one deserve the effort.

all of them were pretentious, impenetrable and perfectly BORING. those are 8hrs and 53mins i could hav spent sleeping.

i do think he's very tongue in cheek with a lot of what he does and not EVERYTHING is supposed to be taken seriously.

i really just like matthew barney b/c the man's got a lot of nerve. he knows people are gonna see a movie he makes with bjork no matter what, but he still just puts in weird shit to fuck with everybody.

i disagree on both of these points. i think barney does want everything to be taken seriously. if he didn't then not only is his pretentious symbolism boring, his humor is subpar and he fails at that too. also the weird shit he puts in is ineffective, i don't think it's fucking with anybody cos no one in the damn room can even approach it from a position other than "oh, great, another fucking random series of art bullshit events".

i don't hate the guy, despite the harshness of what i've said. there's definitely some meaning to be found, but i would be kidding myself and spitting on the face of the world if i pretended to have any idea what it was. i like heavy stuff, light stuff, and filthy stuff equally. as a measure of my taste, the two best movies i saw this month (which contained a cremaster film every weekend) were Pink Flamingos and the New World. they were movies that were unique in their presentation of their respective themes and perspective of cinema. and yet with an open mind one could follow and appreciate and even LOVE them, as we are supplied with all the tools we need to access their meaning, be it visceral or otherwise.

ppl were silent and confused when bjork and barney started hacking each other's legs, as they had been for the rest of the movie. ppl were grossed out, disturbed, and laughing their ass off when crackers was fucking that chick with a chicken in PF. similarly, i loved the New World for communicating its essence purely and effectively.. any pretention it displayed was a welcome illusion, a tantalizing reflection of the substance that lay behind it --- it was there to be found, and it wanted to be found. with barney the only illusion is that there's any substance to be found at all.

perhaps the problem is that cinema is not conducive to whatever barney intends his films to be. they seem to be meant for hanging on a wall and coming back to once in a while, every few hours or so, and worst of all, they expect you to be versed in the craft of bullshit. his are the kind of movies modage would be right to hate for the reasons he lists against mallick. maybe it's my fault, i'm sure some geniuses here hav no problem understanding what all the symbols mean, beyond "they fuck you up!".. good for them, may their bubble never run out of oxygen.

[Sal]

i disagree on both of these points. i think barney does want everything to be taken seriously. if he didn't then not only is his pretentious symbolism boring, his humor is subpar and he fails at that too.

There are moments when he tries to be "funny."  In DR9, the man who shaves off his eyebrows while he's sleeping is very much a college prank.  I agree that it's subpar though.  Doesn't make anyone laugh of course--maybe just giggle uncomfortably.  For the most part Barney is very serious about his work though, evidenced in how he actually hires out people who work on a boat to build him a pool in the shape of the cremaster symbol.  Its almost sick.  No -- it is sick.

perhaps the problem is that cinema is not conducive to whatever barney intends his films to be. they seem to be meant for hanging on a wall and coming back to once in a while, every few hours or so, and worst of all, they expect you to be versed in the craft of bullshit. his are the kind of movies modage would be right to hate for the reasons he lists against mallick. maybe it's my fault, i'm sure some geniuses here hav no problem understanding what all the symbols mean, beyond "they fuck you up!".. good for them, may their bubble never run out of oxygen.

Barney is all about pacing.  he appeals to me because of his design.  I think his constructions are fucking bomb.  His wax sculptures, all the shit he comes up with, all of that is very imaginative and wacky, and I enjoy seeing them implemented in his movies.  I prefer seeing them "in action" rather than something you could look at in a contemporary art museum.  So I appreciate Barney trying to bridge those two worlds.  Sometimes its ineffective, and sometimes its interesting.  I think Barney is a force to be reckoned with however.  I dont think most contemporary artists are as resourceful or imaginative as he is and I think thats why criticising him for being pretentious is actually not saying anything.  Youve gotta step up your critical game a little bit to dismiss someone like Barney.

[Pubrick]

Youve gotta step up your critical game a little bit to dismiss someone like Barney.

with this and your bizarre attack on my wolf creek post i'm beginning to think you have some one-sided personal vendetta against my reviews.

i didn't realise i was competing in some "critical game". as far as i can tell you've only proven my point by saying barney is great cos his designs are "wacky". how is that defense more sophisticated than my criticism? quite frankly i'd rather not argue with you about it, just like i ignored your random comments in the wolf creek thread about my "australian elitism" (wtf?). this seems to be more about the quality of my review and some invisible perceived threat, than barney's movies. my review (and by implication my intellect) isn't good enough to criticise barney, but yours is to defend him? that sounds like actual elitism.

i called his films perfectly boring, they are admirable on the surface which evidently is the quality you admire the most.. to say nothing of any meaning or substance, which is apparently irrelevant. i tried to be honest about not understanding his movies, and to explain my reasons why a visual spectacle is not enough to keep me interested if there is nothing going on behind it. any time i tried to delve behind the crazy images i too arrived at nothing but obvious observations like "he's got an imagination alrite," and descriptive reactions like "wacky!". as i've already said, this is not enough to make me praise a movie, and yet this is all i've heard in his defense.

i guess if i were smart enough to dismiss him properly, i would be smart enough to understand his movies. such is the world of art bullshit.

[pete]

haha, you don't need to be critical at all to dismiss someone like barney.  he was a media darling and now he's being eaten by the same folks that propped him up until in the end sal will the only one to think that this guy is somehow different from the 9000 other hacks out there with their video installation pieces.  he was as competent as a good music video director, but was somehow granted the budget and the production value to produce these soulless epics.  now that the novelty's worn off people everywhere will start yawning. 
sofia coppola will be there soon too.

[Sal]

Youve gotta step up your critical game a little bit to dismiss someone like Barney.

with this and your bizarre attack on my wolf creek post i'm beginning to think you have some one-sided personal vendetta against my reviews.

i didn't realise i was competing in some "critical game". as far as i can tell you've only proven my point by saying barney is great cos his designs are "wacky". how is that defense more sophisticated than my criticism? quite frankly i'd rather not argue with you about it, just like i ignored your random comments in the wolf creek thread about my "australian elitism" (wtf?). this seems to be more about the quality of my review and some invisible perceived threat, than barney's movies. my review (and by implication my intellect) isn't good enough to criticise barney, but yours is to defend him? that sounds like actual elitism.

Well to address your concern about personal attacks, don't worry.  I think its just coincidence that I tried (and evidently failed) to engage you in the wolf creek thread.  Now, about "elitism."  My claim was simple: Barney deserves a bit more dignification than being labeled pretentious.  Invariably he's pretentious!  But is that even worth mentioning when we acknowledge going in that he is working as a contemporary artist?  It's like calling Bob Ross a naturalist because he paints mountains and trees (yes, I'm slighting contemporary art).

i called his films perfectly boring, they are admirable on the surface which evidently is the quality you admire the most.. to say nothing of any meaning or substance, which is apparently irrelevant. i tried to be honest about not understanding his movies, and to explain my reasons why a visual spectacle is not enough to keep me interested if there is nothing going on behind it. any time i tried to delve behind the crazy images i too arrived at nothing but obvious observations like "he's got an imagination alrite," and descriptive reactions like "wacky!". as i've already said, this is not enough to make me praise a movie, and yet this is all i've heard in his defense.

I'm not sure what you'd be looking for though.  I think aesthetics are the primary concern for Barney.  Symbolism and meaning and these other things are about as important as they are in dreams: they should uphold their own internal logic, but can be forgotten later.  I think deriving meaning is just more important to you, but because that is a subjective taste it loses merit in the discussion.

[Sal]

i'm more drawn to barney's inserts and promotional work. the cover for cremaster 3 is beautiful, and interesting and leaves you wanting more. barneys films, with the exception of 3 (it made me want to see the rest), have left me with a sour taste in my mouth. i kind of wish i'd only ever got to see 3 the curiousity might have lasted forever. i'm not saying he i don't want to see him make movies or start being a photographic artist or anything like that. but i found drawing restraint 9 to be painfully long. you talk about aesthetics, that's fine. some of his images are very beautiful. it's not interesting after a while. i hate the way he edits. he'll cut from one set of people doing something to another set of people doing something. it doesn't sustain, it doesn't feel like he's growing, the cremaster cycle was the same style and the same thing. it just seems like now he's got a bigger budget. even then, some of the shots are still shot on digital. his editing style seems to be like a process progression thing, not of narrative because there doesn't seem to be one, but of whatever the fuckers seem to be doing with all that vasaline or bjork getting from playing by the water to the big ocean liner, it's kind of a cheat and pretty cheap. it doesn't really engage me for its entirety in any way. not emotionally, intellectually or sensually. maybe barney is way ahead of the curve, though i doubt it, i've seen his penis.

Haha.  I would agree with you totally about his inability to sustain drama or suspense through parallel cutting.  His cutting is very often only functional.  He'll use a cutaway so he can cut back to something and show that more time has elapsed.  Very cheap way of doing things, especially when his cutaways are visually meaningless. 

[Ghostboy]

  I think aesthetics are the primary concern for Barney.  Symbolism and meaning and these other things are about as important as they are in dreams: they should uphold their own internal logic, but can be forgotten later.  I think deriving meaning is just more important to you, but because that is a subjective taste it loses merit in the discussion.

I don't think this is true, in this case. Subjetivity is, of course, a big part of any art form, but Barney's symbolism is a far cry from, say, Jodorowsky. He's all about specifics, and everything in his films has a very particular meaning (I think), and is there to serve a purpose (even if audiences will never be able to know what that is without doing serious research). If you look at his art books, the amount of source material he uses is staggering. And when you are aware of certain details (Masonic mythology, for example, in the case of Cremaster 3), the films are much easier to understand and much more engaging.

I think Pubrick's right when he says that the audiences who appreciate Barney's films are in a sort of bubble. But I'm happy to be in it. I just saw Drawing Restraint 9 and like it quit a bit.

[Sal]

And when you are aware of certain details (Masonic mythology, for example, in the case of Cremaster 3), the films are much easier to understand and much more engaging.

Were you aware of what he was doing with Japanese symbols in Drawing Restraint 9?  I know he uses them, but I dont know if he is subverting the material or elevating it.

[matt35mm]

I went to the SF MOMA today to see Drawing Restraint 9 and view the entire DR series, which is on display through September 17.  Screenings are free to the public, and play everyday at 2:00, except on Wednesdays (closed) and Thursdays (6:15).

Why thanks for the info... I might possibly think about considering to go see that, despite your review of the film itself.  Do you live in San Francisco?

And is there any reason why I should not view the film?  For example, maybe it's not a good introduction to Barney's work?