Trash Humpers

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.

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.

I saw TRASH HUMPERS at a screening in L.A. where Harmony Korine was there to introduce it and also do a Q&A afterwards.

I was wildly disappointed with the lame array of questions that were thrown at him. Probably 90% were brainless, pointless, and uninteresting.

The question I wanted to ask him was "is Trash Humpers in any way a statement or mockery on TRASH ART in general?".

To me, this is how the movie came across. With a name like Trash Humpers, what else can you expect? It is one of the most pointless and trashiest movies I have ever seen - but that is exactly what I came for, and it effectively delivered that.

It's full of humping, cussing, assorted offensive jokes, violence, vandalism, religion bashing, and anything else you'd expect in a trash art film. The difference is that with most trash art, the point is to try to shock you, scar you, or offend you. Trash Humpers, to me, seems more like it's doing these things in such a way that it's all a big joke - to take all of the other movies that have already done it, and re-enact them while giggling.

After all, I feel that movies really are coming to a point where it is nearly impossible to shock people through exploitative sex, violence, etc. So why not find a nice comfortable place where we can live in that kind of world for an hour and a half and not try to shock anyone? We can just float through it and accept this demoralized joke of a world - that's the world that Trash Humpers creates to me.

Unfortunately, when you start mocking your own genre or personal style of art, along with that comes the instinctive drive to take it to a far enough level where you are pushing people away. I felt that with several obnoxious things repeating throughout the film (such as Harmony's character constantly YELLING in your ear through entire scenes from right behind the camera) - he was showing signs of this kind of behavior. This is something I have observed from my own experiences as part of artistic projects, as well as observing friends mocking their own work. I have watched this kind of behavior occur with a lot of people towards the end of their artistic cycle.

Of course, my interpretation of the movie could be completely off from how Harmony sees it. But, it's nice to have different perspectives isn't it? I enjoyed it - especially the fact that I got to see it in a theater with Harmony in attendance. But, I don't know if I'd ever want to watch it again. We'll always have Gummo for those endless viewings...

Old people or homeless or psychotic people doing weird crap is funny, and Korrine is one of the only people that can get away with the "no plot/day in the life" kind of movie. But I kept wondering if using actual old people would've made it better or worse.

It's worth watching if you like Harmony Korrine or unsettling people just running around for 90 minutes. People looking for symbolism or depth in this movie are ridiculous.

Young provocateur filmmaker Harmony Korine, who lives in and grew up in Nashville, has made a film in trashy cheap VHS that evokes the nightmare world of degenerate southern redneck swine.

He doesn't exactly say that. He explains when talking of the film that growing up, there were some scary old people who used to peek in windows at night, particularly next door where there was a young girl. Now the underpasses and open lots that he roamed as a youth are full of trash, and looking at trash receptacles one day the idea came to him of people humping them. He couldn't get real old people to play his roles so he gathered together a group of friends earlier this year who wear old person masks in the film. A couple of weeks of warming up and a couple of weeks of wandering around and shooting as the cast improvised and the film, like a sketch made on a whim, was done. It's perhaps an antidote to the more elaborate process involved in Korine's last film, 'Mr. Lonely,' a more straightforward film starring Diego Luna, Samantha Morton, and others.

There is no plot, just a series of random scenes. A boy tries and fails to sink a basketball in a hoop. The garbage cans get humped. A screeching old lady rides a small dirt bike around with a baby doll tied dragging behind. The boy takes a hatchet to a doll in a parking lot and tries to chop up its head. A man recites an improvised poem about a nation of trash while one of the masked oldsters sits in a wheelchair and throws out firecrackers at a bunch of balloons. There is some nakedness. There is some nasty talk. There is almost the fear Korine said his wife felt when he played a VHS tape somebody'd given him, that it was going to turn into a snuff film. Korine wanted this to look and feel like found footage, like stuff on a strange videotape found in the trash somewhere. Made by old and demented perverts living a free and aimless life.

Some of the images may evoke various sources such as Diane Arbus or Ralph Eugene Meatyard's still photos (strangeness, retardation, aimlessness, Gothic vacuity), but he denies any such connections. Somebody has suggested Korine is treading on the ground of early John Waters. But Waters has a knack for plot; even Korine's structured 'Kids' scenario rambles. And Waters has a great sense of humor. 'Trash Humpers' is ridiculous -- it's a horror movie that's also a comedy -- but there is no wit in it. It's a kind of improvised voyeurism. It does succeed in wandering well outside the mainstream. Its use of a very primitive kind of VHS reminds us as in a far more complex way did David Lynch's beautiful 'Inland Empire' that seeming "found" footage can be deeply evocative and scary. Even 'Blair Witch Project' comes to mind. Not many filmmakers would have staged a series of casually revolting stunts like those encapsulated randomly and (he says) in order of staging that Korine dumps on us here. It's a statement about limits and about freedom. And it's been acknowledged as valid. Even 'Variety' concludes its review of the film with the line: "Across the board, tech credits are appalling -- in a good way." Korine is an odd one (and an articulate interviewee in the NYFF press Q&A) and for festival and film buff audiences he is a force to reckon with. The question is, what's next? Will he go backwards or forwards?

Dennis Lim has written an appreciative piece on the film for Cinema Scope. "Can the most regressive work yet by an artist known for arrested development also be a sign of his newfound maturity?" Now there's a bit of interpretive convolution for you. And the statement implied by the question may be true. But still the remaining question is, what's next?

Shown as part of the main slate of the New York Film Festival at Lincoln Center 2009. Premiered at Toronto.