Abstract the Filthiest People Alive: Productions of Urban
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ABSTRACT THE FILTHIEST PEOPLE ALIVE: PRODUCTIONS OF URBAN SPACES AND POPULATIONS IN THE FILMS OF JOHN WATERS by Dennis Wayne Everette Within society, a variety of attitudes concerning urbanized spaces exists. Some people adore cities while others detest them. More specifically, there is often a fear of those that dwell in the city. These perceptions are based on difference of class, race, sexuality, or deviance from the constructed social norm. The portrayal of cities in film, both negatively and positively, is a well-established trend. This thesis offers insight into perceptions of the city, its spaces and culture, by bringing together processes of othering, abjection, socio-spatial exclusion, and territoriality to try to explain fear and apprehension of urban space. Cinematic film is a valuable source of geographic knowledge, and John Waters’ work speaks to urban spaces and inhabitants deemed undesirable by the hegemonic groups in society. This thesis elucidates his production of the city; his films depict his hometown of Baltimore, Maryland as a refuge of delinquents, miscreants, and perverts. THE FILTHIEST PEOPLE ALIVE: PRODUCTIONS OF URBAN SPACES AND POPULATIONS IN THE FILMS OF JOHN WATERS A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Geography By Dennis Wayne Everette Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2011 Advisor_______________________ (Dr. Marcia England) Reader________________________ (Dr. Bruce D’Arcus) Reader________________________ (Dr. Roxanne Ornelas) Contents Abstract Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………….ii Acknowledgements………...…………………….………………………………………iii Chapter 1: Introduction: Cinema, Geography, John Waters, and Imaginings of the City…..………………………………………………………………………….....1 Chapter 2: Filmic Geographies and Productions of Abject Spaces, Socio-Spacial Exclusion, and Territoriality……..………………………………………………..5 Mass Media and its Use in Producing Place……………………………………....5 Abjection in Social Sciences………………...…………………..……………….10 Social exclusion through territoriality – Reacting to Perceived Threats in the City.…………………………………………..…………………………………..14 Chapter 3: Methods for Analyzing the Film Texts………………………………………22 Visual Ethnography – Applying Anthropology and Social Theory to Mass Media …………………………………………………………………………...22 Discourse Analysis – Exchanging Ideas between Interested Parties.……….…...24 Textual Analysis…………………………………………………………………26 The Components of Film Discourse……………………………...……………...28 Chapter 4: Film Explications – Emphasizing Critical Elements in the Films……….......34 Film Synopses……………………………………………………………………35 Abjection in Waters’ Work………………..………………………………..……41 Socio-spatial Exclusion in Waters’ Work……..……………….………….…......50 Territoriality in Waters’ Work……………..……….……………………………57 Chapter 5: Concluding Remarks…………...………………………….…………………64 Films Cited..……...……….……………………………………………………………...67 John Waters’ Filmography……………………………………………………………….68 Literature Cited..…………………………………………………………………………69 ii Acknowledgements I would like to extend my complete gratitude and respect to the following for their support, patience, and understanding throughout this process. Thank you to: Miami University Geography, for letting me in the building at all. Dr. Marcia England, Project Advisor Dr. Bruce D’Arcus and Dr. Roxanne Ornelas, Thesis Committee Many thanks to the following for a lifetime of love, friendship, support, inspiration, or the occasional well-meaning tongue-lashing - Anthony Amstutz, Clyde Brown, Bryan Everette, Robert Everette, Keith Hazzard, Heather Heath, Michelle Holland, Kevin Hurst, Gregory Korbel, Hugh McKinney, Marci Mitchell, Davena NaDell, Christoph Peck, Anne Saunders, Joey Turner, and also to a certain stubborn bison residing somewhere near Interstate 80 in Carbon County, Wyoming. I also want to extend my sincere appreciation to the following locations. Each of them has taught me very real and profound lessons about geography, place, identity, and how it all carries very real and powerful meanings within a human life. I am a much better person for having experienced them. Thanks to: Accomac, Virginia Albert Lea, Minnesota Alexandria, Ontario Athens, Georgia Baltimore, Maryland Bozeman, Montana Brooklyn, New York Buffalo, New York Camden, New Jersey Cannon Beach, Oregon Cary, North Carolina Collinsville, Illinois Cork, Ireland Eugene, Oregon Ferndale, Washington Halifax, Nova Scotia Kearney, Nebraska Kellogg, Idaho Kissimmee, Florida Laramie, Wyoming Lewes, Delaware Limerick, Ireland Lowell, Massachusetts Memphis, Tennessee Miramichi, New Brunswick Montreal, Quebec Muncie, Indiana Newport, Kentucky Nogales, Sonora Ogunquit, Maine Oxford, Ohio Pawtucket, Rhode Island Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Pt. Pleasant, West Virginia Portsmouth, Ohio Rivière-du-Loup, Quebec Savannah, Georgia Shediac, New Brunswick Southgate, Michigan St. Joseph, Missouri Stroud, Oklahoma Toronto, Ontario Tucumcari, New Mexico Tucson, Arizona Victoria, British Columbia Wall, South Dakota Washington, DC Wichita, Kansas Williams, Arizona Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin York, South Carolina Most importantly, to my hometown, Whitakers, North Carolina – Growing up there made me appreciate the value and joy of longing for whatever wonders lie beyond the horizon. In that way I have been a geographer since age 8. …and finally to John Waters, filmmaker – You say the things many people think but don’t have the guts to say aloud for themselves. Also, thanks for teaching me the term “sneezing in the cabbage”. iii “Even the best exploitation movies were never meant to be ‘so bad they were good’. They were not made for the intelligentsia. They were made to be violent for real, or to be sexy for real.” - John Waters iv CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION: CINEMA,CHAPTER GEOGRAPHY, 1 - INTRODUCTION JOHN WATERS & IMAGININGS OF THE CITY Motion pictures inundate American popular culture. The thousands of movie theaters located throughout the country cater to millions of paying consumers. From 2005 to 2008, 1.39 billion movie tickets were sold annually in the United States, resulting in a yearly revenue averaging $9.4 billion dollars (Nash Information Services, 2009). Simply put, film penetrates all segments of society, thereby carrying the power to inform very large numbers of people about the world around them. They both investigate place, time, and perception. Film creates whole worlds that may simultaneously exist in reality; therefore, it lends itself to more profound discussion and consideration within geographic discourse. Cultural geographers have recognized film’s importance in its influence on cultural landscape (Aitken and Zonn, 1994; Burgess and Gold, 1985; Denzin, 1991; Meinig, 1971; Relph, 1976). The films communicate many varied symbolic meanings. They create and reinforce cultural stereotypes, and can play a role in social identity creation (Halberstam, 2005; Mazzarella and Pecora, 1999). Most scholarly papers written on the subject recognize the need to fill gaps in what is known about the world through film, and through mass media in general. Geographers have investigated the cinema as a source of reasonably accurate representation of the conditions of people and spaces ever since its existence as a serious artform. However, the interest in film that developed among some geographers and other social scientists since the 1980s declines to accept any single straightforward manner with which film reflects a reality. Indeed, many geographers doubt the distinction between the real world and the cinematically-constructed “reel” world as they emphasize “the importance of cinematic representation to understanding our place in the world” (Aitken and Zonn, 1994, p. 5). Aitken and Zonn argue that movies provide charts of meaning with which the contemporary world can be navigated. They then argue cinema to be one of the most vital institutions in creating an increasingly imagined and spectacularized world. Nevertheless, these more recent geographies of film vary greatly in their analytical, methodological and empirical approaches. 1 Here, geographers frequently concentrate on constructions of space, place, nature, landscape, and the ways in which specific visions of these serve to sustain or contest particular notions of social difference, particularly of class, race, gender and sexuality (Aitken and Zonn, 1993; Clarke, 1998; Hopkins, 1994; Natter, 1994; Natter and Jones III, 1993; Rose, 1994). This thesis serves as one such study; it examines the work of American filmmaker John Waters. John Waters stands as an icon of both cult film and the popular culture of his hometown, Baltimore, Maryland. His films date back as far as the early 1960s, and are famous for the highly transgressive subject matter on which he focuses (Davies, 2001). Waters’ self proclaimed “trash films” began with him and his group of friends, the “Dreamlanders” (named after his production company) shooting no-budget short films in the homes of family members. They also trespassed on farms and condemned buildings, among other private property. His films, typically comedic in genre, feature no shortage of crude humor. Waters created some of the most infamously absurd scenes set to film; no topic is taboo. He employs plotlines involving incest, rape, zoophilia, murder, arson, misandry and obsession with fame to shock audiences. This does not suggest, however, that his work lacks any sort of serious academic validity. His films speak volumes to the way in which mass media produces and proliferates cities