Opiniones de usuarios

As someone who was part of the "punk scene" starting in the late 70s I can state that I was vaguely aware of the "rock poster scene" that existed then and still exists today. The film is fascinating in its illumination of what has been (and maybe should remain) hidden in the dark underbelly of the graphic art subculture. As a documentary it does its job admirably. But I found it quite humorous, particularly in the artists' sense of gravitas as well as the simplicity with which the art has been created. I almost felt as though anyone could do it, while at the same time time feeling that nobody could do it. And much like the subjects portrayed in the film, I can imagine seeing more and more each time it's viewed.

I attended the London premiere of Died Young Stayed Pretty at the Institute of Contemporary Arts. Yaghoobian has a remarkable talent for seeing the potential for a story in the humble rock poster, and for chasing it down to the artists' subterranean workshops. The story winds through the lives of these unknown artists, giving a fascinating glimpse into their techniques, their community, and their rebellion against the main stream. Yaghoobian's lens shows the dual purpose of the shocking imagery of the posters: to subvert and to attract. Definitely worth a watch...it may just open your eyes to the stirrings beneath your feet when you walk through the streets at night.

Since there's no screening of the film near my place, I bought the DVD because I've seen it being mentioned all over the place. Bad decision. This is my most regretful DVD purchase of all time.

In an interview with Dazed & Confused, the director said an insider of the indie poster world told her that it's smart of her not to create an narrative, so the artists got to speak for themselves.

"Not creating a narrative" is such an understated way of describing what the problem of this "documentary" is. It's not that the director doesn't force her view onto the interviewees; it's that the director has no idea how to convey "anything." Throughout the film, unless you already have some pre-existing knowledge of the "who what where" before you started watching it, you would not get any decent idea of who is talking, what he has done, what his style is like, or even what exactly is being talked about on screen RIGHT NOW. (I use only "he," because I don't recall seeing any female artist in it.) The whole film is just itsy-bitsy slices of interviews clumsily strung together. The sound engineering is bad and ruins whatever cool soundtracks there are, and the cinematography always horrible. The only thing interesting about the film is its subject, and the most amazing feat it has accomplished is managing to render something as fascinating as this into something so deeply dull and confusing to a viewer.

Besides, what wrong with having a good narrative? Not conveying things properly, i.e., not having a good narrative, is different from not "having" a narrative at all. If something is conveyed, a narrative angle has inevitably been chosen. This film has narratives; it's just that the director either is unaware of what storytelling/ a narrative is or is so bad at making films that she has to console herself by saying that it's not that she has made a bad film but that she's done the very groundbreaking thing of making a documentary film that has no narrative, which is as self-contradictory as it can get, since a documentary is nothing but a narrative constructed of chosen pieces of curated facts.

Watch all the trailers of it on YouTube and imagine playing them over and over for one and a half hours and you'd have seen the film. Really.

I rate it 2 out of respect for the artists featured and the research the director supposedly has done and all the other effort gone into making it, but 0 for the film itself.

All the media and blogs that have featured this film out of the kindness of their hearts have done their readers a disservice by failng to also mention what problem it has, namely its unwatchability.

Instead of making a film that has all the signatures of a hipster cred-mongering piece of "art" but none of the signatures of "art," such as a certain point of view and at least some signs of the "artist"'s being aware of the related issues that could be explored with the piece and questions that could be raised, the director would have done better by just compiling a book of interviews, which at least has the advantage of easy referencing.

SOOOO excited when I saw the preview a few years back. Remembered the title out of nowhere and downloaded it on iTunes. Really disappointed. This whole thing is more about middle of nowhere nerds waxing phil than the art. I've seen better, FREEer documentaries on the same subject on youtube that give you a shot of the personalities involved but concentrate on the ART. 3/10 BOOOORRRRRING! As an artist - and a middle of nowhere nerd myself - I have mixed feelings about seeing the personalities behind the work. I'm not of the opinion strictly speaking that biography necessarily reveals something awesome about the work. Boy was I right with this one.