532-533 Louie Bluie and Crumb

[Person]

By the way, there's some hidden commentary by Zwigoff in the 2nd page of unused footage.
You have to go up with the remote to highlight the 2 "o" from footage.
He discusses it for about half an hour.

Well spotted! Get this man/woman a drink!

[knives]

Just finished Louie Bluie. Was just going to have it as background noise while I fixed up some computers, but it distracted me until my entire attention was to it. I don't think there can be a higher compliment. This probably can be used as a test for whether or not your ever going to like documentaries, because I tend to hate them but this was a real golden moment.
Also I have to join in with the praise on this disc. If it weren't for their Dillinger is Dead release I'd say this is their most luscious DVD release in some time. The colours (and there are a lot of them) pop out and spark and the skin on everyone looks like you could touch it. Definitely up there for most pleasant surprise of the year.

[Person]

You know, I watched Louie Bluie for the first time today.

I'm sorry to say it, but, I only have one thought after viewing this work:

SpoilerShow

It is very, very, very good to be alive. Very good, my friends, very good! Very.

[Steven H]

The unused footage on Crumb is absolutely priceless. He talks a lot about comic books (a favorite topic of mine) and gives more (would be) embarrassing personal anecdotes. The Zwigoff / Ebert commentary has some funny moments as well. Overall, I think Crumb just gets better with age.

[Person]

I never really found Robert or his family's statements embarrassing. Crumb is what he is. His life experiences and the culture which partially formed his image to the rest of us are what is shameful, ridiculous, ie. worthy of ridicule. I've had Crumbian thoughts and images float through my mind. I feel that Zwigoff is a genius at finding and understanding these uniquely American purveyors of honesty. Louie Bluie was a truly great man, a fearless, ebullient, fully-formed Man. Loved rhythms/music, loved sex/porno, loved truth/life. Rare habits, worthy of profound respect.

[Tribe]

I never really found Robert or his family's statements embarrassing. Crumb is what he is.

I'm a big fan of Crumb's work...but take a look at this and this and then tell me you still don't find Crumb's statements not embarrassing.

[Steven H]

Also, thankfully, the film didn't go into his "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" denial (maybe he only started spewing that crap after he left the US?)

[Gregory]

I never really found Robert or his family's statements embarrassing. Crumb is what he is.

I'm a big fan of Crumb's work...but take a look at this and this and then tell me you still don't find Crumb's statements not embarrassing.

Those works are send-ups of racism, as reading the pieces in their entirety makes clearer. Crumb was outraged and embarrassed when some racist groups missed the social commentary and praised the strips. I don't see how anyone who knows about Crumb could read those and think he sincerely believes such virulently anti-Jewish stuff, for example, given that his wife and many of his closest friends and mentors are/were Jews, not to mention that it ends up calling for a biblical apocalypse. (edited to fix typo)

[mfunk9786]

Also, thankfully, the film didn't go into his "HIV doesn't cause AIDS" denial (maybe he only started spewing that crap after he left the US?)

That's relatively new, but there's no reason to take it so seriously. He's not a trained medical doctor, merely someone who reads a lot and bought into a bunk conspiracy theory. You should bring up 9/11 to my uncle, ooh boy.

[Lemmy Caution]

Just amazing that test screening audiences largely wanted Charles Crumb removed from the film (as per Zwigoff's commentary). Apparently they felt he was too much of a downer, but he's terribly interesting and provides such a deep context for Robert Crumb's work and personality, not even to mention that he was the one who started Robert on drawing and comics.

Otherwise the film did depress me a fair amount.
The abnormal psychology aspects hit me harder on this second viewing.
Max's paintings were impressive and it's good to hear on the commentary/extras that he got recognition and an art career of sorts going in the wake of the film.

Somewhat unfortunate that the sisters aren't there.
The one wanted nothing to do with the project, but the other seemed moderately willing but was left out because she had little to do with the comics/drawings/art and Zwigoff was short of coin. But it would have been interesting to complete the family portrait, which held my attention as much or more than the drawings. Though the three brothers are definitely enough of a story, and already an extension of the documentary on Crumb and his artwork.

Crumb often credits LSD with helping him form his style; I certainly wouldn't have thought he'd be a good candidate for tripping.

[Sloper]

Just amazing that test screening audiences largely wanted Charles Crumb removed from the film (as per Zwigoff's commentary). Apparently they felt he was too much of a downer, but he's interesting and provides such a deep context for Robert Crumb's work and personality, not even to mention that he started Robert on drawing and comics.

Cutting him out would have been ridiculous and short-sighted, but I can understand the test audiences' reaction. The picture of Charles Crumb that builds up throughout the documentary is horrifying: a real vision of the abyss, especially

SpoilerShow

when you find out at the end that he committed suicide.

The impression I got was that he and Robert were screwed up in all the same ways, but Robert was able to drown it all under a bubbly, goofy sense of humour; Charles just drowns in it. A totally, utterly destroyed human being; no one wants to see that in a movie. I remember a few moments when Charles says something that just makes you want to bang your head against a hard floor in despair, and Robert giggles as if his brother has made a hilarious joke.

I agree that Charles is a crucial part of the documentary, and is perhaps the ingredient that made it truly special and memorable for me, but I've rarely been more depressed at the end of a film, or felt less like ever re-watching it.

And I've seen Fool's Gold.

[Tribe]

I never really found Robert or his family's statements embarrassing. Crumb is what he is.

I'm a big fan of Crumb's work...but take a look at this and this and then tell me you still don't find Crumb's statements not embarrassing.

Those are works send-ups of racism, as reading the pieces in their entirety makes clearer. Crumb was outraged and embarrassed when some racist groups missed the social commentary and praised the strips. I don't see how anyone who knows about Crumb could read those and think he sincerely believe such virulently anti-Jewish stuff, for example, given that his wife and many of his closest friends and mentors are/were Jews, not to mention that it ends up calling for a biblical apocalypse.

I never said he held those views, Gregory. But regardless, those strips are indeed embarrassing when viewed in even the most objective light.

EDIT: I should add that the pieces I've referenced hardly make it clear what the intent is. It's only with tons of context and an awareness of Crumb's work and methods that we know he isn't a racist.

[mfunk9786]

They're not embarrassing at all.

[Tribe]

They're not embarrassing at all.

I doubt very much you'd show those strips to a Jewish friend or friend of African heritage who was unaware of Crumb's work.

I've been a fan since I discovered underground comix in the very early 70s. I wouldn't show those to anyone who I wasn't certain could appreciate them with context. I would most certainly be embarrassed if I showed them to just anyone.

[mfunk9786]

But you said in even the most objective light. Anyone remotely familiar with Crumb would know that those strips shouldn't be taken literally.

[knives]

I think you're mixing semantics here. There's nothing for Crumb or a fan of Crumb's work to be embarrassed by here so therefore it is not embarrassing. It is potentially offensive so some knowledge of people's humour should be known for showing it off, but I don't think that's any different than having to be aware of a person's horror threshold. I don't think anyone would call Bong embarrassing, but you need to know if the audience is able to find that style enjoyable.

[Tribe]

But you said in even the most objective light. Anyone remotely familiar with Crumb would know that those strips shouldn't be taken literally.

Yes, I personally don't find anything in the pieces that would tend to show they are satire. We know that because we have more than just a passing familiarity with him and his work (or as you say, a remote familiarity). Crumb has made a career out of being offensive and that is part of his greatness as an artist and satirist. But to say there is nothing embarrassing about his work is to give him a pass just because we are fans.

[Gregory]

Many great works of satire could be deemed embarrassing in terms of reactions of people who misunderstand them and/or do not approach them as works of a well known satirist. So I don't understand the notion of something being embarrassing when viewed in an "objective" light, nor do I think it's a relevant concern in deciding whether I, myself consider Crumb or his work embarrassing.

Nonetheless, Tribe, I agree with you that I'd certainly want to be careful to whom I showed Crumb's work, unless it was that "Sweeter Side of R. Crumb" book or something equally carefully screened. In fact, Zwigoff's film was the source of real feelings of potential embarrassment to me because eventually my parents told me that they'd taped the film and were planning to watch it. I was around 30 years old when they said this, and still I was greatly concerned about what they'd think of me. Since the age of about 13 or 14, I'd been around them in reading Crumb's work because I knew they didn't know much about him aside from "Keep on Truckin'" and possibly the "Cheap Thrills" album cover, and I knew they'd never ask to inspect what I was reading. I hadn't counted on this mainstream documentary coming along. All of a sudden, years later, they were going to be staring right at a lot of his most shocking comics and sketches: "Joe Blow," the Devil Girl "Bitchin' Bod" story, the sketch of the prone woman, violated so that her face had become just a gaping orifice, etc. They'd see what I'd been reading all those years, and I knew they wouldn't understand why I'd want to read such stuff, nor that I was in fact not reading it for sexual fantasy purposes, even though that's what inspired a lot of it for Crumb. For most people unschooled in his work, it would be hard to draw a line in a lot of his "risqué" stuff between satire and sexual fantasy: sometimes it's both at the same time. Other times, it's satire in the guise (to some) of pornographic filth, as in "Joe Blow." Still other times, it's just incredibly explicit and politically incorrect sexual fantasy drawn in his inimitable style. I wouldn't trust most people I know, especially the more socially conservative folks, to understand all of this, or which particular aspects of his work I personally value. By the way, they never told me whether they ended up watching the film. If they did watch it, I'm sure they'd never bring it up again. Oh the shame!

[colinr0380]

I'd agree, those comics are rubbing a bigot's nose in their own bigotry by pushing it to satirical "is this what you really believe?" extremes, embarrassing them by aping their own attitudes, as well as being a kind of exploration in the psyche of how someone could think that way (a lot of Crumb's work could be seen as an uncensored dive into his own psyche, throwing it up onto the page). A bit like the Brass Eye television series or, on a less provocative scale, the first couple of paragraphs of this article by Charlie Brooker on the recent 'Ground Zero Mosque' fiasco.

I wouldn't show those to anyone who I wasn't certain could appreciate them with context. I would most certainly be embarrassed if I showed them to just anyone.

I do sympathise with Tribe on this point. But that is perhaps also more the fault of an audience used to (or being trained by the media into) unquestioningly accepting all content at face value without properly critiquing the context.

[matrixschmatrix]

I think, generally, when one says someone's work is 'embarrassing' it means that it reveals something embarrassing about the artist/artwork which you would rather wasn't in there- the depiction of the Jewish moneylender in Safety First, for example. Those pieces, though they would embarrass one if taken out of context, are totally defensible from Crumb's point of view, and in no way make me embarrassed to be a fan of his.

[Tribe]

In the unused footage section, the scene where Crumb is drawing the bikini-clad (stripper?) woman on the wall with another artist. I didn't catch the name of the artist...but he certainly looks like Spain and his finished drawing looks a lot like his style. Anyone else able to provide a positive identification?

[Steven H]

Definitely Spain Rodriguez, Tribe.

[Michael Kerpan]

Got Louie Bluie and watched it immediately. Wonderful in its own right -- and also very nostalgia inducing. A must for lovers of American music.

[LQ]

I just have to voice my deep enjoyment and appreciation of Louie Bluie, too...almost immediately after starting it I realized it had already become indispensible to me, it's such a life-enriching experience. I only wish that the film was longer, I could've watched hours and hours of this extraordinarily talented, relentlessly jovial man livin' life to the fullest.

[zedz]

If you liked Louie Bluie, you should really be lobbying Criterion for a Les Blank Eclipse set. He's got dozens of music films in the same vein, many of which are even better than Louie Bluie.