If I knew absolutely nothing about HC, then this would be a good film to get me interested. As a documentary on the history of HC, it certainly does leave out some seminal bands, and while certainly not everyone's favorite band could have been included, some certainly should have. In many ways, the work is incomplete. The lack of documentation and definition which plagued the whole HC scene becomes a legacy that carries the film. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on whether you were part of the scene or not, I guess (I wasn't).
As a companion piece to 'The Decline of Western Civilization', HC shows an interesting Historiography. The indifference to society shown in TDoWC is re-defined as a passionate desire to reject society. And certainly, both elements were always at work in any punk scene, just as they are today, and have been in any musical scene, or artistic movement, for that matter.
What is truly problematic about American Hardcore, and why I only gave it a 6 rather than a 7 or an 8, is that it dismisses the musical legacy of HC. Because HC influenced genres far outside of punk, and this isn't really covered. And the dismissal of modern punk bands by older punks is disheartening and antithetic to a punk ethic. If these bands had been dismissed simply because they dressed weird or they didn't have the best equipment to play on, then nobody would have bothered to see past that and hear their message, which was meaningful. It's equally shallow to dismiss what message a modern punk band might have simply because they dress different and have nicer equipment. The DIY ethic is thriving, and this isn't reflected in AHC. Yes, it was harder to be DIY a long time ago, maybe, but does that mean the end product is any less meaningful? Current punk bands only have what their predecessors left them to build upon. By refusing to let that legacy trade hands, some of the older punk bands have done a disservice to all that which they fought so hard to establish. There are plenty exceptions, fortunately, although the impression AHC leaves you with is that AHC was all about the expression of particular individuals, rather than a particular element in society which is always historically present. I'd say art gains importance socially when it's important to an audience, not the artist. Punk is still important to people, and didn't 'stop' in the mid 80's. It mutated. It expanded. It did what punk music urges everyone to do--- Survive no matter what tries to bring you down.
HC survived without those who left it. By denying this, AHC denies that HC was more than a passing fad.
Still, with that narrow focus and cruddy ending aside, it's a good documentary, and worth watching.
As a companion piece to 'The Decline of Western Civilization', HC shows an interesting Historiography. The indifference to society shown in TDoWC is re-defined as a passionate desire to reject society. And certainly, both elements were always at work in any punk scene, just as they are today, and have been in any musical scene, or artistic movement, for that matter.
What is truly problematic about American Hardcore, and why I only gave it a 6 rather than a 7 or an 8, is that it dismisses the musical legacy of HC. Because HC influenced genres far outside of punk, and this isn't really covered. And the dismissal of modern punk bands by older punks is disheartening and antithetic to a punk ethic. If these bands had been dismissed simply because they dressed weird or they didn't have the best equipment to play on, then nobody would have bothered to see past that and hear their message, which was meaningful. It's equally shallow to dismiss what message a modern punk band might have simply because they dress different and have nicer equipment. The DIY ethic is thriving, and this isn't reflected in AHC. Yes, it was harder to be DIY a long time ago, maybe, but does that mean the end product is any less meaningful? Current punk bands only have what their predecessors left them to build upon. By refusing to let that legacy trade hands, some of the older punk bands have done a disservice to all that which they fought so hard to establish. There are plenty exceptions, fortunately, although the impression AHC leaves you with is that AHC was all about the expression of particular individuals, rather than a particular element in society which is always historically present. I'd say art gains importance socially when it's important to an audience, not the artist. Punk is still important to people, and didn't 'stop' in the mid 80's. It mutated. It expanded. It did what punk music urges everyone to do--- Survive no matter what tries to bring you down.
HC survived without those who left it. By denying this, AHC denies that HC was more than a passing fad.
Still, with that narrow focus and cruddy ending aside, it's a good documentary, and worth watching.