I'm right, you're wrong: A second look at Harmony Korine's masterpiece "Spring Breakers"

When I wrote my review of Harmony Korine's Spring Breakers back in March, a film I had been dying to see for a year at that time, I had no idea that me actually really liking the film (with the thought to perhaps include it on my annual "favorite films of the year" list) would put me very much in the minority. When I say Spring Breakers is one of the most hated films of the year (perhaps beaten only by Movie 43) I mean it. The film has a mixed rating based on review aggregators such as IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, but a lowly two star average on Amazon customer reviews based on  reviews proves hatred for this film runs rampant.

The film is about four beautiful young girls (Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson, and Rachel Korine) who embark on the best spring break ever beginning by them robbing a restaurant with squirt-guns. When they are arrested for the robbery, the girls are bailed out by a rapper named Alien (James Franco, aided by grills and dreadlocks), a third-rate rapper who sees these girls as his proteges of the opposite sex. Alien feels that by getting them out of prison he can now take these girls down the fast-track of mischief and lunacy.

Boasting lengthy party sequences, a bombastic soundtrack by the likes of Skrillex, and woozy cinematography bathed in brightly-colored hues of neon, Spring Breakers was an all-encompassing sensory annihilation for myself. The kind I had never experienced, especially in a theater. The sound seemed to tear through the speakers, the film's visuals seemed to melt off the screen, and the hypnotic effect of the dizzying party sequences made me feel...sick (?), if that's the right word. The effect this film had on me could easily be the inspiration for a one-star review, but I gave the film a three and a half star review, praising all aforementioned features along with, most importantly, its thematic relevance.

For an exercise, just spend five minutes sifting through reviews on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, or Amazon and see what you're met with. People saying the movie has "no plot," people saying it's "weird and pointless," and others saying it was simply "stupid." Is this what internet criticism has become? In a world where film criticism is becoming grossly indifferent, where titles denoting professionalism and expertise in the field mean next to nothing, has the common man diluded their opinions to cheap buzzwords that hold no ground in formal debates and conversations?

The title of this post is, of course, a playful attempt at narcissism on my behalf. These four words have never, ever been used in a debate by myself in a serious manner and I plan to keep it that way. I put them as the title of this spontaneous post because of the fact that these four words have popped in my head each time I've had a debate with someone about the quality of this film (I've had six as of December 2013). Most I've had with close friends and a couple I've had over the internet, a cheap but always intriguing place to debate.

Perhaps the most spirited (and probably most intelligent) debate I had with was with a good friend of mine, whom saw the film on a whim solely for the likes of Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens. She loathed it and claimed that the film glorifies bad behavior, and worst of all, makes this kind of rebellious behavior seem like normalcy for present-day teenagers in America. "It's really only a small demographic," she insisted, and went on to comment how most teenage girls wouldn't act like that.

It was the most valid argument I had heard for not liking the film thus far. I do agree, however, that this behavior isn't normalcy for modern teenagers. The film showed a special group of teenagers who enjoyed what seemed to be some sort of disturbing, psychotic pleasure from committing social attrocities and illegal actions. These girls seemed to be fulfilling a psychological need in their brains; one that would provide them with a stimulation of adrenaline and dopamine. One that would give them the self-gratification they seemed to need and eventually thrive on, destroying any moral compass they had come to possess.

What does it say about a film whose second "most helpful" review on Amazon states "I turned this movie off halfway?" If anything, a majority of people who watched the film either adhered to the same method the reviewer in this case did, or once people saw it wasn't the film they expected it to be, they shut it off, never bothering to watch or think about it again. If I could come up with a general consensus for the hate this film has gotten, I'd say it goes a little like, "I didn't understand the film, it wasn't what I expected it to be, therefore it sucks."

It's so much easier to say a film is "pointless" (which seems to be one of the words I find link many Spring Breakers reviews together) than to try and find any point at all. Consider Project X, a film about one raucous house-party, thrown by teenagers, that went a little bit too far and turned destructive. The film was critically-annihilated for its depiction of teen nihilism and completely mean-spirited humor, but found success in its audience reception, particularly the teenager demographic, who hailed it as a triumph depiction of what they wanted their house-party to be.

Now here is a question I've asked since I saw Spring Breakers and still haven't gotten an answer to: how come Spring Breakers, a film with commentary and themes revolving around our society, is being lambasted as "pointless" because it demands you think a little while watch it, while "Project X," a film that sets up no themes or attempt at commentary, is being hailed by a large community? Many friends I know saw and adored Project X, and thought nothing of Spring Breakers outside it being "weird" and "stupid."

This is the problem when you cross an ambitious film by an ambitious director with an audience uninterested in analyzing or digesting the film. Few took the film at a level that wasn't a surface one, and dismissed it on sight, never bothering to look into the meaning of its themes, its characters, or its symbolism. Many just disregarded it as a cheap, choppy film that was repetitive and boring.

This is not Korine's first film to be met with controversy and stark opposition, but it is the first that (a) reached its widest audience and (b) achieved the most hatred. Not even his directorial debut Gummo, which focused on some heartless scenes and scenes that were predicated off of the mean-spirited tendencies of young kids, was met with hatred on the same, comparable level as Spring Breakers. I'm going out on a limb here, questioning how many who went into see Spring Breakers knew of Korine's background in cinema? How many knew he was responsible for some of the most unconventional, non-linear dramas of the past decade? Had more known this (or maybe had signs been placed on theater doors, forewarning patrons what they were about to see was different from any preconceived expectations, similar to what happened with Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life) would they have walked out with different thoughts? Or would people still be as angry and as ridiculously bitter as they are now?

The other group of people I see is the people that kind of liked the film but for a completely different reason than expected. They enjoyed it for the party sequences and the instances that were accompanied by loud, bombastic music and nonstop gyration. I can at least respect that because they got something out of the film. But how would Korine react to this praise? Would he laugh at that group saying "they don't get it, or would he be happy they at least saw something in his work? Korine has been respectably silent on what exactly he wants audiences to take away from Spring Breakers and that move has been equal parts frustrating and completely commendable.

What is this blog getting at? What point am I trying to convey, since those apparently, all of a sudden, that's what the mainstream public wants? My point is as blatant as the post's title - this film deserves a second look. A different look. A look different from the kind you give a traditional comedy or drama (on that note, I don't think I could assign a drama to Spring Breakers). A look you give a film on a scarce basis. Spring Breakers deserves viewers that are willing to read between the images and the dialog, or at least make an attempt to, in hopes of extracting darker themes and more frightening meanings. What the internet has shown has been nothing but disgusting, unbridled hatred and ignorance for a film that is so much more relevant and realized than many have given it credit for.

Spring Breakers seems to have a solid, devoted legion of fans who, like me, want to justify its existence and its purpose. That demographic needs to grow much quicker, for we have an undiscovered masterpiece on our hands.