Trash Humpers

If I was still 15 years old I would probably have thought of it as daring and provocative and enjoyed it for the very same reason. But since I'm not fifteen anymore thats not good enough.

The first 30 minutes of the film I kind of enjoyed. Weird people doing weird things, well I can go for that, but the movie should have ended after about 30 minutes. There is no plot at all and you don't get to know any of the characters so there is simply nothing to be curious about in the movie. You don't give a s**t about what happens to any of the characters or how the movie will end.

The only thing that left me after having seen the move was a bade taste in my mouth and I couldn't say anything about it besides that the song/saying "Make it make it, make it, don't fake it, make it, make it..." was quite funny.

Personally I think highly of Harmony Korines earlier work and I guess he is just taking the p**s with this movie. If it will be well written of and seen as a work of a genius, I think he will be as surprised as I will be. But if he decides to cut it down to a short movie, than I say go for it.

Harmony Korine's Trash Humpers is an ode to cinematic lawlessness and unadulterated mischief. This is the strangest film Korine has ever made, which says a lot seeing as he was the driving force behind Gummo and Julien Donkey-Boy, two of the most unique films of the nineties decade. What makes it so significant in its perplexing obscurity is that it seems to be devoid of any meaning, where with Korine's two previous films you could totally sense there was something there - regardless of how it was presented or how subtle it appeared to be. Trash Humpers seems to have no meaning at all, and feels like Korine's handwritten insult to the unwritten laws of cinema that have threaded the cloth of conventionality.

The film is shot on a low-quality VHS camera and follows three grotesque subhumans around town, who commit several unthinkable atrocities such as vandalism and public indecency, almost obtaining a strange form of pleasure from it. The three characters also wear petrified masks, resembling elderly people, to hide their identity and further make themselves irredeemably ugly. That's what this picture is in a nutshell - "irredeemably ugly" - as well as repulsive, unappealing, beyond offbeat, and a tough sit, even for its seventy-eight minute runtime.

Korine's goal, if he even has any here, seems to be incorporating so much senseless imagery, unique style, lewd acts, shameless and ugly characters, and no cohesion in an attempt to make the most unwatchable film. And don't forget the touch of old school film editing and taping, which we'll get in to. It's one of the first times I'll call a film "unwatchable" not because of poor content but downright bad content committed by the film's characters. The stuff they are doing, humping mailboxes, running aimlessly screaming, breaking public property, and engaging in murder is unwatchable; the film itself is a mildly-amusing, but trivial novelty.

However, I especially enjoyed the film's shot-on-VHS style, making strong note of the choppiness, the messiness, and the long-forgotten imperfections of VHS-quality tapes in a flawless, digitally-driven world. This gives the film a very lowly look to it, almost appearing like a sick home movie that was released to the public due to a criminal mistake. Some have compared it to Jackass, due to the excessive amount of silliness and pride the characters take in reeking havoc. I simply can't, because Jackass made me smile and laugh, while viewing Trash Humpers left me deeply disturbed and somewhat scarred.

And yet, I emerge more positive than I thought I'd e. The tone of the picture is so eerie and unpleasant, and the effect it has on a viewer is somewhat lasting. I can't give it a completely positive review, for the film doesn't feature many attractive qualities other than its cinematography and is burdened by a longer-than-necessary length (forty-five minutes would've been more ideal). However, it earns a recommendation to the most adventurous and curious cinephiles - a group that might still emerge disgusted and somewhat horrified. It's a hard film to watch, and even harder to like, yet that could be Korine's ultimate goal overall.

Directed by: Harmony Korine.

Here's a film where a bunch of old people literally hump trash and lampposts, masturbate plants, throw firecrackers as they recite verse, tapdance in a parking lot and smash TVs. There is no story. There is no cinematic beauty to speak of, it's shot on ugly VHS and the artifact shows. It is, at first and possibly second and third glance, a pointless film designed to grate.

But what do we learn about ourselves if we shy away from the confrontation? Watching this, a self that criticizes comes to the fore for whom all of this has no point, he might not be altogether wrong, but let's surprise ourselves, pipe that self down and, not giving him final say in our view, see what else may pop up. Let's engage our own limits of sense.

What grates here seems to be this: old people do unnatural things, babies are dragged behind bicycles, elsewhere a kid hammers a baby's head or a man dressed as a french maid lies murdered in a pool of blood in a kitchen floor with a hammer next to him. Korine himself partly labors under the concept of a media satire, giving us bare sketches without the framework of story or visually dressed of the same violent inanity we consume elsewhere, not much interesting in itself.

The beauty comes once you start to see through that uptight self that can only settle for these things as part of a story. The men only wear masks of old people, the baby is a doll, we plainly know that the man in the french maid costume is playing dead and that is maple syrup on the floor. Unlike other films where the illusion sweeps us into belief, here we know it is all make believe, know this as we watch.

So why be struck by a sense of desolation?

It seems only because we are anxiously prepared to engage a world where the objects (a man lying murdered) are enlivened by their significance, supplying that horizon is what we're made to do. But here plainly they don't, there is no murder, no baby being savaged and only the form, the context of their significance. A man lies naked in the mud, the image carries a sense of something wrong. The assumption is why would he do that if something wasn't wrong? But how uptight is that? He's just a dude told to lie there.

Having peeled through this, what's left?

'Make it, don't fake it'. A dude lying there, faking it and yet not. The vivid reality of this being a play. The playing itself. Not just an ode to destruction, there's no value to that, but the joy of tapdancing in a parking lot. No mistake, it's one of the great films on the illusion of story and the real life beyond that, but you'll have to be still until that nagging old self exhausts his critique and you become the wandering eye finding unexpected happenings among unremarkable America.

It pays off with more evident value in Spring Breakers. There the partying figures pushing against the limits of sense become desirable young girls, the landscape is similarly inversed from drab middle America to alluring Florida, the humping becomes twerking, but the journey is the same marvelous one: finding in the standard perception of something being empty of value, a deeper one which is the capacity for immersion.

There are plenty of films about a staid beauty, like Baraka. This is for those who want to get dirty living it through.

...but certainly not very good, either.

Believe it or not, there were a few things about this movie that I genuinely liked. I found some of the weird comedy to be hilarious and laughed out loud several times throughout the film. I also thought that Korine did a pretty good job at creating a really dirty and disturbing atmosphere. These elements of both comedy and horror both work to make the movie at least watchable at times, but unfortunately do not save it from being just an overall bad movie.

Perhaps I found it to not be absolutely TERRIBLE only because of how low my expectations were before watching this oddity. I thought it looked like, well, trash-but then I found some highly well done aspects and thought that this movie could possibly be okay, but then it just dragged on and on and on. At just 70 minutes, this is a needlessly long movie that easily could have been half as long and much better.

I would also like to comment on the film's annoying and ugly visual style. It's obvious that it was an experimental, stylistic choice to have the movie shot on crappy looking video, and it does work slightly to the films advantage to make it seem more creepy and trashy, but it just doesn't appeal to me in any way. There's other, more tolerable ways to make your movie look sort of real and dirty.

I would not recommend this movie to most people, but if you're curious enough and a big fan of Harmony Korine's work, I would give it a mild and cautious recommendation.

Harmony Korine returns to his classically-rough style of film making, in this peculiar film centered around four elderly people who roam the streets. Their acts consist of vandalism, destruction of objects, and, well, quite literally humping trash - or trees, for that matter.

Trash Humpers has no real plot to it. We simply watch these people do the most obscure things, in a mock-doc found footage kinda style. I'm not going to delve into any of the 'story' details because there is really nothing to say. It's just as I described above, really - extremely odd.

In terms of style, Korine has gone back to his roots of Gummo and Julien Donkey-Boy, by using very low quality cameras, grainy visuals, some out of focus moments, and freehand camera movements. Things just happen, and the camera just looks on. What is interesting in this film is that Korine decides to go all out with the hand-held VHS camera work, and almost makes it a character in itself. We are aware that one of the characters is in control of the camera, which is why I would refer to it as 'found footage'. What we gain from this is a knowledge that the characters are in control, and thus, they are the ones that determine what we see, and what we do not see. It not only gives us more of an insight into their characters, but it promotes a very natural and realistic feeling in the film. It also gives the audience a feeling of being right there with the characters. We are, for lack of s better word, trapped with these characters for the entire 74 minute run-time. We see what they see, or watch they want us to see. We are basically forced to watch what they do, how they do it, but we are left to figure out 'why?'

Which leads into my next point, or question. Why? Why are these characters doing this? I'd like to think I have some sort of idea of what the film is trying to do. However, it is the age old question of 'how far does the film need to go in order to make its point?' Does this film really need to show us the amount of weird acts it does, just to clarify it's ideas? You can ask this for many films: did A Serbian Film really need to show 'newborn porn' in order to get the point across? Did Salo really need to show people eating poop to get its point across? I guess that's left for us to decide, but for me, I can only get so much out of watching people do random weird acts before wondering where we are actually going with it.

To me, this film is a look at forgotten people. The ignored underbelly of America, which Korine loves studying. What I took from this film was a sense of freedom. People letting go. Returning to their childlike ways, with a lot more debaucheries, of course. A group of old people with pretty much nothing to live for, they could be sad and depressed. However, they choose not to do so. They choose to be happy, to be free, to let go. Rather that whither away, they get up and out into the world. They simply enjoy themselves. I'm not one to judge, so if enjoyment to them is humping a plastic bin, then so be it. The point is that they are enjoying what they have, and living freely, without a care in the world. Albeit slightly demented. The humping of the trash could quite literally show their love and affection for what they have, and where they live. They are bottom of the pile. The opposite of the American dream, but they choose to accept it and embrace it. I feel like this is amplified by Korine's characters speech towards the end. Maybe I'm just babbling, maybe the emperor has no clothes, but I guess Korine has left that for us to decide.

Despite looking into this film, and picking out some meaning here and there, I definitely think this is Korine's weakest work. For me, despite being technically intriguing, and having interesting characters, the film still lacks that total conviction for me. I feel like if you want a meaning, you really have to explore it and go digging. I don't mind that, but my point is that this film doesn't initially have a massive amount to it. For some there will be meaning to pick out, and aspects to respect, but at the end of the day this film is just old people humping trash and carrying out debaucheries. There doesn't appear to be anything obvious to it, and do they really need to show us acts THIS obscure. Does the film really need to be this strange, random and vulgar just to get its point across? And how far can we decipher this film before there is nothing left to look into, yet we are still watching the same acts. We can only get so much from seeing the same acts over and over. Still, I'd like to think I got something. And artistically, this film is vastly unique and different to anything you'll ever see. Love it or hate it, I can confirm that these characters and their acts will linger in your mind.