22nd march 2004

the cremaster cycle and the deconstruction of the myth of matthew barney

start

I want to redress the balance. I read nothing but praise and wonder for the Cremaster Cycle, nothing but people falling over themselves to report how amazing Matthew Barney is, how revolutionary his work is, how visually stunning... the list goes on (see links at the end of this article for some examples). Last week I saw the thing and I am incredibly disappointed – almost to the point of bitterness and anger thanks to the hype I was sold.

The Cycle is quite frankly terrible. There are many reasons for this, although the ones that seem most prescient are the ridiculous length and the dearth of interesting ideas or insights into Barney’s chosen subject. If you have yet to see the films I have made a plain text copy of the descriptions from the official website at www.cremaster.net (fittingly this is a flash-based site that takes a long time to load on a dial-up connection) so you can read a synopsis and grasp something of the ideas behind the films. These are also pretty handy reading if you have seen the films but don’t grasp some of the historical details – such as the pairing of Gary Gillmore and Houdini in Cremaster 2.

So, where to start? Well, I must say that I went along to my local independent cinema to see parts 1 & 2 with high hopes. I had read glowing reviews in the guardian (by Peter Bradshaw in October 2003 and Jonathan Jones in October 2002) and was really looking forward to something different, challenging and aesthetically beautiful. Three nights later, having just slept through most of part 5 due to extreme boredom, I left feeling really angry that Barney has managed to fool the world into praising his 8 hours of tossing-off, while the art students behind me decided that they now really liked opera thanks to the ‘genius’ of Cremaster 5. I cannot emphasise enough how bad the films are, so shit they make you want to scream “why god, why?” when the next jarring sound effect hits. But in order to counter all the praise Barney has received I must go deeper into the heart of the thing, stare into the dreadful abyss and work out exactly why the Cycle is so frightfully shit. Only by revealing its folly piece by piece can I hope to assemble a rigorous argument that can stand strong against the high-art elite and their genuflecting praise for Matthew Barney.

themes

Talking about the films in broad terms is slightly problematic as they are all fairly different in setting and style. The theme that runs through the whole Cycle is reproduction or, more specifically, the process of a foetus developing gender. The problem is that Barney turns this into an almost arbitrary subject, simply a reason to create a lot of images and scenes which function as a lame metaphor to sexual processes. For example, we see (in C1) chorus-line girls dancing in what the Guardian described as “occult choreography”. In other words they form shapes that evoke, for example, the multiplying of cells after fertilisation and the fallopian tubes. How very exciting. Similarly, C4 has – in what I took as a metaphor for ejaculation – one of the characters crawling up a slimy, organic-looking tunnel. Meanwhile opposing motorbike teams race in opposite directions around a roadway, with “gelatinous gonadal forms” featuring in close-up shots of their torsos. Cremaster.net tells us these are “undifferentiated internal sex organs” that “emerge from slots in their uniforms in a migratory quest for directionality” – all I saw was a load of bolloxs.

a load of balls from C4

It really was rather like watching the comedy innuendoes of a school child – I’m thinking along the lines of the clips of rockets launching shown to symbolise erection/ejaculation in the Naked Gun films – stretched out over several hours. Except without the laughs.

The interesting thing is that these themes seem to be accepted as worthy and interesting by both the art world and cinema-goers. And, if Barney had condensed his material down to one short film, I might have agreed. But he offers us no insight. There is no point to his Cycle except a fractured symbolic rendering of this process, and the vague suggestion that a state of androgyny is some kind of ideal state that we all wish to attain/return to. He makes no comment on these processes, he simply takes it all at face value and regurgitates key elements as crass metaphor. As is traditional with ‘high-art’ which is criticized in this manner there are many that argue we just don’t get it, that this symbolism is over our heads. Looking at comments on the internet movie database a reviewer who slates C3 is himself slated for just not getting it (see any comments relating to Sithlord). Well, I contend that there is nothing to get. The films are completely empty and pointless; there is no meaning beyond the shallow metaphor. The only possible theory for a deeper meaning I can come up with is that Barney has deliberately made such a terrible work in order to ridicule the art world – think about it: the challenge of watching so much material, the endless penis and testicle references, even the title (the cremaster is the muscle that controls the lowering and raising of the testicles). He knows it is all terrible, and is daring us to out him for the bolloxs he has created. Instead it is those who call him out who are ridiculed for lack of understanding but – as has been said about WMD in Iraq – it is hard to prove a negative, hard to prove that in so much film there is so little meaning; yet easy to posit any number of deep and meaningful ideas that could be present in the tortured symbolism.

Some of the films contain an additional level above the sexual metaphor, a more realist layer of symbolism that is strongly linked to myth and history and real-life events (The Guardian describes a “megastructure of myth and symbol, from Mormonism to masonic ritual to Celtic legend”) as well as the abstraction of developmental processes it also hints at. This is different in each of the films and gives each piece a narrative element above and beyond the continued sexual metaphor. I will admit that much of this passed me by, but this seems obligatory given the unwillingness of the films to explain themselves. This is not necessarily a bad thing – many a good film is obtuse – it was just that the narrative elements here simply seem to be drawn from a handful of real-world events that interest Barney. For example, C2 features a character called Gary Gillmore who commits murder and is later executed, along with Harry Houdini who is rumoured to have been his great grandfather. It’s easy enough to see the murder/execution thread of the narrative, but – as I mentioned before – these links weren’t obvious until I read about them – simply because I have no knowledge of the real-life history of these characters and the film wasn’t going to explain this. Continuing this theme, much of C3 is based on Masonic ritual. Without knowledge of these rituals it is easy enough to grasp the happenings in a general sense, but the purpose of filling a lift with cement was certainly not clear to me until I read more about the Masonic rituals to which Barney refers. I make these points not as a criticism, but merely as a comment that the events which occur in the films – the things we’re actually seeing told in a story-like fashion rather than the reproductive metaphors they also represent – are no more insightful. They are, again, simply a re-telling of events in a dream-like form (or ‘re-imagining’ in cynical Hollywood lexicon), with no additional comment or insight, beyond the vague linking with reproduction and cycles of life. We witness things happening, but nothing more.

'the order' segment from C3 - Masonic ritual as an interminable performance

This vagueness is also a problem for those searching for meaning – it promotes meaning only through vague inferences. I found myself thinking about how some of the characters’ stories were metaphor for the struggle of life: climbing, facing adversity, failing, climbing again. Events so vague you can read anything into them. Then I just decided perhaps Barney likes climbing things. But you can see how the films can be read in a way to imbue them with pretty much any meaning, hence the claim that we just don’t get it when it is they that don’t. Either way these events are completely banal – whether they mean everything or nothing becomes irrelevant when they’re so boring.

visual art?

Narrative elements aside, much has been written of the visual prowess of the Cycle. Indeed, many commentators have seen the films as primarily visual art. This sounds like a rather obvious comment when referring to films, so I took these comments as more of a reflection of the absence of traditional narrative elements that we normally associate with films we sit in the cinema to watch (as opposed to more conceptual films we might wander in and out of in a gallery – seldom watching for more than a few minutes). However, as there is some narrative structure – as well as music and the occasional bit of dialogue – it seems misguided to simply look at the visual elements of the Cycle alone when reviewing them. Similarly it seems that Barney was not concerned with just visual elements when he was making the Cycle, otherwise they’d surely be silent, and more surreal with even less structure to them.

But even looking at just the visual elements of the film it is hard to see much merit. There is some nice imagery: the petrol station in C2, the lush grapes in C1, the interior of the Crysler building in C3. All of these work well as stills in the book/catalogue of the Cycle. But as part of the film these elements are again not enough to sustain one during the long running-time. If each of the different locations were to feature in an hour-long edit of the Cycle then we might have something worth looking at, but as part of the ‘epic’ even the most beautiful sets become tiresome.

part of the seance scene from C2, complete with bee-themed reproductive imagery

There was also a lot that didn’t work at all in Barney’s visual design. Some of the special effects were awful (particularly the giant’s causeway and Crysler maypole segments in C3, and the title sequences from all of the films), while many of the sets and costumes left me cold, perhaps because they just seemed to be trying too hard and often ended up looking like something from a fashion degree-show (for example the overblown costumes from ‘the order’ segment of C3, the Diva in C5). Again there were elements that were interesting, and did work fairly well, but the overall impression was a lack of imagination and not much originality – or at least not enough for a project of this scale. Often Barney just resorted to slapping a logo on things – the football field in C1, the biker and riders in C4, the pints of Guiness in C3 – perhaps a sly comment on branding, or perhaps pure thoughtless laziness?

cremaster branding in action - the bikes from C4

So once again I am left flummoxed by all the reviewers falling over themselves to heap praise on the “eye-popping images”. I found it much less impressive than the work of the director he is most often compared to – David Lynch – who manages to conjure much less staid imagery and a story worth following to boot. Indeed, I found it less impressive than other video art (rather than cinematic films), and in trying to become a cross-over between a purely conceptual art-film and a more mainstream piece of cinema it borrows too much from standard film vocabulary and structuring to be considered as a purely conceptual piece. It is couched in the language of filmic story telling. Time is present, space is present, we still have establishing shots and pans and cutaways; a linear narrative is certainly implied by all of this. Structurally it is not so conceptual as something like Koyaanisqatsi, or even Russian Ark, which have more subversive and unconventional cinematic structures at heart. And it is not so beautiful as something like The Straight Story, which uses a lot of long takes and is far more sublime and profound. The film I was reminded of several times while watching the Cycle is 2001 A Space Odyssey – primarily because of the long scenes, lack of dialogue and use of jarring sound-scapes. But again this ‘cinema’ film does so much more, on every level, as to present no kind of comparison at all with the artifice and bloat of Barney’s epic.

music

Music plays a large part in all the films. Often it is used as an integral part of the scene, for example the musical-style track the dancing girls in C1 are high-steppin’ to, or the metal featured in segments of C2 and C3 which is sung by those we see on-screen. There is also much incidental/background music and, as with conventional cinema, this music is used to enhance mood and communicate story. Once again there is not as much abstraction as reviews would lead us to believe and film conventions are adhered to.

the metal-singing bee man from C2

My main problem with a lot of the music is that it’s rubbish. And, as there is music pretty much throughout the films, this is a very bad thing. There are times when the soundtrack is quiet, but not enough. There are also times when incidental noise (the humming of the airships in C1, the motorbikes in C4) is used, but there are not enough of these moments either. These sounds can be jarring and harsh, but they add a lot more to the films than the trite music – again the comparison that jumps to mind is the amazing sound design in 2001 A Space Odyssey, where a variety of incidental noises dominate the audio for much of the film.

The worst moments by far are when the bagpipes kick in. I hate bagpipes with a passion, and in typical Barney style they are used to extremes – loud, whining, grating, droning, piercing... the worst sounds you could possibly imagine. This happens mainly in C3 during the ‘slapstick bartender’ segment (so ill-judged, there are some dire pratfalls and then the bartender plays the ballooning beer-siphon like pipes) and the giant’s causeway scenes; also sporadically during C4, particularly right at the end when some pipes play very loudly and you feel as though you’ve been hit around the head with them.

It’s not just traditional or folk music which is used in the films – there are also some bad rock music moments. In C2 and C3 we get a dose of thrash-metal which really sucks. And C5 is sound-tracked like an opera. I’m not particularly into opera, but my main feeling was that Barney should leave it to the professionals because his opera is pretty poor. In sum, although I have not tried to describe the musical elements of the Cycle in as much detail as other aspects of it, the music is directly comparable to most of the visual elements – too much, overblown, in-your-face, and not as good as it thinks it is.

length

I’ve mentioned it before, but it’s definitely worth mentioning again – these films are far too long. This is perhaps their main downfall as Barney may have been able to successfully pull off some of his ideas in a shorter piece. As it is the whole thing feels bloated, unedited, as though he was too lazy to make proper decisions about what should be in the finished cycle so he just left everything in. The best article I found on this was by Christian Viveros-Fauné from the New York Press, where he describes Barneys style as ‘post-boredom’ and says Barney has managed to “fine-tune pointless tedium to new and unendurable heights”. I couldn’t agree more.

it's all just tooooooo much - Barney in C5

conclusion

I realise that in seeking to describe and ridicule the Cycle I have managed to produce something equally bloated, but it seems that the only way to fully describe the absolute futility of the enterprise is by deconstructing it piece by piece – to talk in generalities only encourages Barney’s sycophantic fans to claim that we don’t like it because we just don’t get it. So hopefully I have explained enough of the strands within the Cycle to make it clear that there’s just nothing to get. The only thing left to try and understand is how Barney spent 10 years making this shit, to try and understand what he was thinking and why he never realised how appallingly terrible the whole project was going to be.

The only theory I can come up with is the one I mentioned before – that he is taking the piss, that he is sat at home rolling around in the money he has made and laughing maniacally at the art-world idiots who have been taken in by his scheme. Consider all the clues: the title taken from the muscle controlling the dangle of the testicles; the over-arching symbolism of balls descending during foetal development; the continual references to ejaculation and sexual fluids... he’s teasing us, offering up a load of wank that he’s tossed-off and presented as high-art. This is the only excuse for this series of films, but I’m not sure if I credit Barney with the wit to think in these terms – surely he would have completed the films in a much shorter time if this were his intention. I’m convinced he still thinks they’re good.

As a parting shot I had a bit of a look at Mr Barney’s CV – it’s no surprise to see that he’s a jock (he apparently had hoped to join the NFL when on the Yale varsity team in the late 80s) and a performance artist. His previous works include a performance piece where he shoved things up his arse, par for the course for a jock. As the man from the New York Press says “from these auspicious beginnings was born St. Matthew, an ambitious artist/seer who has brilliantly constructed the one thing every successful conceptualist needs: the myth of his own genius.” I’m left thinking of Bill Hicks ranting about Basic Instinct – it’s a piece of shit no matter what everyone else says. I’m right, say it with me, I’m right...

a still from one of Barney's early works "Mile High Threshold: Flight with the Anal Sadastic Warrior" (1991)

links

Take a look at some of these for more on the Cycle.

Christian Viveros-Fauné from the New York Press (by far the best review I’ve read)
http://www.nypress.com/16/14/art/art.cfm

The official Cremaster Cycle site (beware – long download times for dial-up users)
http://www.cremaster.net

Jonathan Jones in the Guardian (2002)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/critic/feature/0,1169,931814,00.html

Peter Bradshaw in the Guardian (2003)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/fridayreview/story/0,12102,1064121,00.html

Jonathan Romney in the Guardian (2000)
http://film.guardian.co.uk/Feature_Story/feature_story/0,4120,129052,00.html

Barney’s Bios
http://www.gladstonegallery.com/home.html
http://www.cremaster.net/bio.htm

Internet Movie Database
http://www.imdb.com

All images in this piece are reproduced from the Cremaster Cycle book, publised by Guggenheim Museum Publications 2002, ISBN: 0810969351.

< back to words etc. >