Talk:Nowhere (1997 film)

message: I feel this is a strictly love or hate film. Everyone I have shown it to, with rare exception (and I've shown this film to many of my friends, and many of their friends as well) has exhbited strong emotion for one camp or the other. They either loved it and proclaimed it one of their new favorite films, or, as one friend put it, "I want scrub my eyes with brillo for an hour and a half to make up for the hour and a half wasted on that film". I, myself love this film, but I remember the first time a group of friends tried to introduce me to this film, I didn't even want to watch it, and after I watched it the first time, I didn't get it. I hated it. Yes, I thought it was a waste of time and talent. All of this hollywood muscle squandered in a piece of celluloid that made no sense...or did it? Something brought me back to the film, and I kept watching it, showing it to friends, getting their opinions, and watching it more and more. 
There is nothing to get straight off the bat. Too many people, I think, are goal-oriented, that there has to be a point, and if one is not readilly apparent, then there must not be one. Nowhere is a satire, and psuedo-expose on the "angsty" lives of L.A's youth. The film was made, I feel, at the perfect time. Clinton was in office, nobody was feeling Dubya bushwhacked, and kids were free to concentrate on bullshit. This film, despite, all the bullshit, has a message. I confess that I have not totally deciphered the message, but what is apparent is the use of social decay through scenery, artwork, music, and events throughout the film. It almost makes me think of the film Irreversible, in that Irreversible's chaos starts right off from the beginning, and ascends into something serene and almost beautiful while Nowhere works in correct chronological order and descends from a normal day in L.A. into a maelstrom of violence, angst, drugs, sexuality, and disturbing incoherence as things, already difficult to piece together, just stop making any construable form of sense alltogether.
It is mainly the fact that the movie appears to be a plotless vehicle to showcase actors behaving badly, or to just showcase actors, that many people dismiss this film as trash, worthless, a waste of time, and other such. Some try to explain it away, like the similar The Doom Generation, as a tribute to excess of nothing, a homage to violence, and that is mindless, and crap. However, like some foods, Gregg Araki is an acquired taste, uncultured palates need not apply. If you like your ducks neatly in a row, A-B-C, 1-2-3, unless you posess an open mind, and are willing to attempt to look outside, above, below, and all around the box, please skip this film and stop bashing it. And if you don't like it, give it another chance. I was there, where many of you were, but I gave it a chance, and the senseless started making sense, though I realize I'm not making much sense now. Besides, if Gregg Arakis movies are such crap, how come he keeps being able to make them? There are a lot of good scripts out there that will never get made because it doesn't attract the necessary attention and the necessary FUNDING. Plus, Gregg, it seems, only makes the films he wants to make, and he makes them how he wants.
Interestingly enough, the devil is in the details. For all its violence and depravity, outright cursewords are amazingly absent from this film. Gregg pays attention to details, and its the little things that can make you crazy. I'll have to watch the film again, but as many people can point out, the biggies of the curseworld are lacking or completely absent. Like I said, I'll have to watch it again to be absolutely sure. Of course, that isn't to say that, despite the lack of curses, these actors have pristine vocabulary. They're saying dirty words and foul, mean-spirited things, just in lingo you'd expect of hipster college-age Los Angelites in 1997. Gregg pays attention to the films he helms, and you can't dismiss this movie as trash simply because you don't think it doesn't make sense. Like Dada was supposed to be anti-art and wound up being art in its own form, art is art if effort is put into its creation. Straight-to-video films, and umpteenth incarnation sequels tend to be trash as the writers are prompted to churn something out. Gregg Araki churns nothing. As of this writing (6-5-06) Gregg Araki only has 11 projects listed on IMDB.com, but he turns down offers to do many more.
There is criticism for the dialogue in some of Araki's films. I think it's a blend of real and imagined dialogue. A post on an imdb board, someone said they cringe whenever they hear Joseph Levitt utter "I'm so tired of this little buttcrack of a town!" in Mysterious Skin. Well, look at where the kid is from. A little buttcrack of a town in Kansas. Do you expect him to have the sophisticated verbal grace of a hipster from Greenwich Village in New York City who graduted with a 3.2 GPA from college, or that of an angsty, high-school age, troubled male hustler from an isolated town in a land-locked, unhip midwestern state? (No offense to Kansas, apologies)I think Gregg Araki has his finger on part of America's pulse that some people unfortunately, just don't feel and experience, and most likely never will.
As far as the film being meritorious, I say yes, it is. The film does have a message, and I wish with all my might that I could pick Araki's brain and hear what he has to say on his film, Nowhere.
—I beg of you a negative analysis of this film. And please include your idea of an ideal film. 66.97.203.179 09:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merits As A Film 

message: I don't think that "emo" is an appropriate description of Dark. For one thing, the film predates the word, as it is used in the article. Yes Dark is depressed, but the similarities really end there. "Emo" has - in my very humble opinion - been extremely overused lately in the name of trendiness, where it doesn't really apply. The "emo" scene, as far as I'm aware, has never been a focus of any of Araki's films. In fact, I think he explicitly says he means to explore the "fag-and-dyke teen underground."
I've excised the word from the article, but I guess if the majority thinks it's appropriate it will go back in.
"Emo" was around back then, it's been around for a long time in different genres. It's not just a music movement of whiny teenagers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.64.138 (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Emo" 

message: :Image:Nowhere araki.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nowhere araki.jpg