spring-breakers1

Why did so many people like this again? Oh yeah, vaguely non-linear editing and boobs.

I wasn’t going to watch this but I’d heard it was “surprisingly good” and things like that. So what’s the prevalent critical narrative about Spring Breakers? That it’s a film that disguises itself as being a party flic and is instead a social commentary. If you didn’t get it most of the way through, having been hypnotized by the bikinis and thongs and widespread jiggling of all kinds, Harmony Korine hits you with a sledge hammer that says “Here is some satire!” But let’s be perfectly honest, Korine wants to have it all. He wants to be able to make a film that calls into question the hedonistic party life and its moral vacuousness, but he also wants his slow-motion shots of naked breasts flopping under streams of beer.

So Wikipedia posts a “controversy” section in its article on the film, with the subheading “Sexist or Feminist” for the wild debate that has gone on around it. It’s not that complicated. The film plays with excess in a way that’s semi-intelligent, but it’s really just male fantasy with a bit of a conscience. It’s the Wild Things (1998) of the day, and Vanessa Hudgens may have proved she can play the minx, but other than that I wasn’t particularly entertained. Because this ought to be entertaining, at least in a truly base way, since its attempt at real thematic content is, at best, lame.

Oh though James Franco should deserve credit for being so gross in such a convincing way.

Now cry, Selena Gomez, cry. And cry again. And cry some more. (Because this film relies on lots of annoying repetitions.)