RRRRRRepo-Mannn

I'm not really sure if it is too late time-wise to post this blog, so I apologize, but I'm going to go for it anyway, seeing as next week would be too crazy to try and squeeze something intelligible out amidst finals and such. More to the point; the movie Repo-man starring that guy who coached the mighty ducks. First off as unnecessary as it is to say, I thought the movie was great. The first time I watched it, I just shook my head and went back to my daily life, it was one of those movies that came off to me as a countless "down with the man" regurgitation's that doesn't make any sense and probably wouldn't had I not been required to give it a second viewing for the purposes of this class. As I do not enjoy being wrong, I tip my hat to Repo-man for giving me the humbling smack that was apparently necessary. Point being that this movie, taken at face value, might accidentally fall into that weird/pointless/w.t.f. 80's movies that everyone forgot about a month after they came out. One only needs to pay a little more attention to get that, as it seems everyone who spoke up in Thursday's class did, there’s much to be had in this film. Some of this film’s messages are right it your face, others not so much, and the ones that are right in your face, you think you get, but you don't, it requires that extra "umph" to suss it out.
The basic topics that were touched on in class were as such, the flood of consumerism brought on with Ronald Regan's Presidency, character make up, the missing plot, the punk culture, reused story lines, and the big one, Cold War anxieties. The first one I want to rant about would have to be the apparent explosion of consumerism under Regan; this of course includes the whole 1950's nostalgia aspect of as well. So, what does this mean? What does this film say about these things? When our characters are at the store, to get a drink, the label reads DRINK, when Otto comes home to his parents; he munches on a can of mystery labeled FOOD. This is a visual attack on that surge of consumerism. Neither Otto, nor any of the other characters specify what it is that they are eating or drinking, and they don't seem to be too concerned about it. Otto does show some displeasure in chowing down on the mysterious FOOD, but for what it's worth, it is a short-lived displeasure. In this particular lens, consumer goods, things that nourish the bodies of our characters are mass produced at such a rate, that knowledge of as to what it is that they are exactly consuming is deemed unnecessary, and the one person who does hold some issue with it, Otto, holds the issue as a mere fleeting thought, not something anyone cares about, and according to his "white suburban punk" outlook, something he could care less about. Is this ok?
Moving on, from part of this consumerism apparently came a nostalgic yearning for "the good old days", the 1950's, when men were men, and the American way was the only way etc etc. This idea, or this sense, I feel is best depicted by the "rent-a-cop" Plettschner. In his rantings to Otto he was "THREE TIMES DECORATED IN TWO WORLD WARS", and was "KILLING PEOPLE WHEN YOU (Otto) WERE STILL SLITHERING AROUND IN YOUR FATHERS BALLS" along a few other egotistical nonsense. If Plettschner is indeed the embodiment of that 1950’s nostalgic view, than what do we see? I see an overweight, over-decorated (referring to his gold rings and such) arrogant, grimy sack of Americana. He not only represents that backward aspect of the nostalgic view of the “good old days”, but probably a satirical view of the generational gap as well. He’s one of those guys that carry’s what I like to call a “self-implemented chip” in his shoulder, which is to say, because he is a veteran, because he is a “cop” and because he lived in those “good old days” he is automatically granted a sense of entitlement over the younger generation, people like Otto. The problem being that this mentality, this nostalgic mentality derived from those “good old days” isolates the younger generation, (Otto) as inferior beings, because they weren’t there, and they don’t understand what it meant to be part of the nuclear family etc. What all of this means, what the film is showing us is the high level of pretention that comes along with the nostalgic view. While I’m sure that Regan meant well and good with bringing back such “wholesome” institutions as were associated with the 1950’s, (yes I’m being sarcastic) , it almost seems pointless to do so. Otto’s youth generation vastly differs from the youth generation of the 1950’s, this nostalgic yearning could seen as an attempt by the government to regain the reliance that the public once held for it, the trust, but after Watergate, after Vietnam, such an attempt seems fruitless, almost insulting to the public.
Moving on, though I mentioned a couple main points that we talked about in this film, I’m going to end on character make up, as well as the seemingly missing plot. Though Cold War anxieties were a big one, I thinking that it was well covered in class and does not require space in my blog. What was mentioned about character make up in class was, for example, the detachment that Otto had from other characters, or better yet, his lack of compassion. For example, the convenient store scene, when a bunch of people get shot up, he just leaves, no big deal, right? And what was settled on in class was that this attitude served for a way for the audience to better understand the messages of the film itself. This I think works very well, as Otto does not care about his mysterious FOOD, he does not care about the lives of the other characters. He and the others all have their eyes on the 20 grand promised for the Impala, and that’s pretty much it. Though his “punk” exterior “revolts” against the consumer society, it is that very society in which he is taking part in, sort of hypocritical. But I don’t think that it just stops there. Otto cannot just be a hypocrite and noting else. I feel as though If he lacks the emotion that would cause him to care for other people’s lives, then he must also lack the emotion, if that’s what it takes, to be a hypocrite. I want to say that Otto, and the other characters for that matter, are just like the mass produced cans labeled FOOD or DRINK, the only thing that they are missing is the big tattoo on their foreheads that reads HUMAN or PHYSICAL-BEING. That is to say that as things like food and drinks are mass produced as part of a gigantic system, the explosion of consumerism in turn mass produces people; plain, emotionless, repetitive people that have no real individuality. The plot, like the characters individuality also disappears, it like the individuality, is unnecessary in the capitalist machine. At least that’s what I got out of it.
So? Agree? Disagree? Let’s hear it.