He ditches his rockabilly band the instant he realizes that punk is the new cool thing. He completely cuts off his old hippie squatter friends. He sleeps with his drummer's girlfriend. He wants to be famous. He changes his name multiple times. He creates pretenses and artificial personalities.
None of this sounds very punk to me.
[deleted]
What? I think you missed my point. Maybe I wasn't clear, so let me help you with it:
Joe Strummer (or at least his persona) espoused egalitarianism and authenticity - those values are at the core of any definition of punk rock. In this movie, we see him do a lot of things that run counter to those values.
I still love the Clash but he comes off as a hypocrite, at least in this movie.
I'm not criticizing him as a person, much less saying that I am better than he is. Comprende?
[deleted]
I'm not criticizing him as a person, much less saying that I am better than he is. Comprende?
No comprende Pcal. How *beep* ignorant and blind are you? I'm sure you've never done anything contradictory in your life have you? If you understood anything at all about Joe Strummer you would realize that YOU are in fact the hypocrite. Thanks for your pathetic attempt at spam though. I guess in a way it worked. :-)
I don't think the OP was engaging in spam. I think he had some valid points.
I've been an avid fan for years, but I also think the film exposed some questionable attributes in Joe's character.
Calling someone ignorant and blind is kind of harsh, don't you think? Aren't these boards suppose to stir some type of informed debate? Or are they just jingoistic rallying spots for the films or artists in question?
The Future is Unwritten exposed a lot of back story on Strummer. Some of his actions glorified him, some did not. He was human.
But to dismiss someone as a hypocrite because they want to discuss some of the more lamentable aspects of Strummer's character seems to me to be a little reactionary.
I guess that now it's my turn to duck and cover and wait for the venomous attacks on me.
Well said.
I had the same reaction (Joe Strummer is a god to me: my groom's cake was a red velvet with a picture of him surrounded by Clash album covers). As much as I love his music, I was totally unaware of his early history and I had a bit of a crisis after watching this movie. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised that "Joe Strummer" was so carefully constructed out of thin air and that his rise was built of the sort of back-stabbing opportunism that would make Eva Longoria blush. But, then again, I am a romantic and kind of an idiot when it comes to Rock Gods.
I'm currently reading Redemption Song, and it goes into even greater detail about the early days without so much condemnation. But it's hard to escape the simple fact of the matter: in those early days, Joe Strummer would have become a gospel singer if that's what was hot in London. Joe Strummer WAS a poseur. The fact that he found redemption later in life doesn't temper the fact that being Joe Strummer's "brother" back in the day didn't mean much in the way of friendship of job security. Which doesn't make him evil and doesn't negate his impact on punk. It just makes him a much bigger d*ck than I'd hoped he was.
Part of me wonders if we haven't all done that to some degree in our lives.
I was a pain in the ass from 15 to 25...and I certainly am not now friends with at least half the people that I was friends with then. I had friends who constructed whole personas that no longer exist AT ALL now...who wanted to get noticed...we all were moving in a pack, but without a lot of consideration for hurt feelings, because it was all about how you felt inside, how angry/depressed/afraid/sad you were..you know? That whole period of your life, you really aren't behaving with any kind of larger perspective, or morality, or maturity. I'm sure there are exceptions, but for the most part we all had our heads up our asses at some point in our early lives. That's not excusing Joe by any means...or Bob Dylan...or anyone who's been a dick in their earlier life to achieve fame.
I'm not saying that Joe's behaviour didn't leave me a little cold, and there is no denying how much it hurt to see my hero brought down to stand on the cold ground like that...but then again, it makes him human...and maybe that's what it is that hurts the most.
Yeah but I think you need to recognize a distinction between Dylan and Strummer.
Bob Dylan never propped him self up as anything. As he was being crowned the voice of a generation, Dylan did his best to dispel the myths by purposely releasing odd off target albums to debunk his legacy.
Strummer, on the other hand, reveled in his self proclaimed status as "the only band that matters!"
It rings hollow to prop your image up as a singular voice of the people in one hand, while you are masterfully manipulating your image to the detriment of the people with the other hand.
There's no denying that The Clash, and Strummer were important musical forces that have shaped the landscape for the past 30 years.
But the message gets lost a bit when you are presented with the facts of Strummer's life decisions.
John Lennon is guilty of the same type of hypocrisy. "Imagine no possessions.." Yeah, right, John. Put down the syringe and step away from the white Grand Piano for a bit, and then sing me a song.
Bob dylan never propped himself up as anything !!!!
His real name was robert zimmerman . He was every bit as contrary as strummer.
Anyway its the work not the person that matters - people looking for flawless heroes will have some job on their hands.
Some great commentary here. It doesn't matter who it is, Strummer, Dylan, Lennon, they've all had to cut loose someone that couldn't drum or couldn't play or couldn't hack the scene. Otherwise, they would have only been one of the many second rank performers, at best. And, they are all poseurs, all made the Faustian compact, and sold their souls to hit the pulse of what was needed then and there. This was a good film. Similarly .. Scorsese's biopic on Dylan. I personally could care less about John Lennon, so no film to recommend there ... A Hard Day's Night, I suppose.
share"He was human."
---
I see that argument "he was human" , "he was fallible, just like us" quite often in this thread. I'm not buying that. If he's "human just like us" why the *beep* should I care about him and/or put on pedestal anything he does/did?
If I am supposed to idolize and/or otherwise respect an artist I sure don't want him/her to be just another dickhead like me. I want my artists to be different, special, otherworldly. Else, I don't see the point; as I then may idolize myself 'coz I'm fallible human too.
But you ARE criticizing him as a person, you cant have it both ways. I was actually thinking about this during my viewing. How does one become a punk?
I mean punk didnt exist shortly before that, very shortly before that. You can take any "punk", performer or otherwise, and try to explain their transition to it and it would look somewhat fake. Youre not born a punk and becoming one isnt so gradual that it is invisibly seemless. You have to make the decision to become it. He didnt abandon rockabilly to be a star and he didnt give up squatting to become rich.
Just to correct one small point for the sake of history. Punk music existed back in the 1960s already with groups like the Standells, the Seeds, and the Music Machine. Re-arrangers of history now call this 'garage rock' but there was no such term at the time. Back then the music of these mostly American bands from 1965 and 1966 was called 'punk rock'. This strain of music flourished for a brief time after the early Beatles and before Woodstock and the psychedelic stuff.
I'm not sure egalitarianism and authenticity were ever at the core of punk, although that was certainly part of the pose. I think at the true core of the punk ethos was inauthenticity and a fierce snobbery towards anything deemed non-punk. Any sort of performing art or youth subculture is not the place to find personal authenticity, and punk rock is no exception.
I already knew before seeing this doco that Strummer was a particularly extreme poseur. I knew about his privileged background despite his talking about living in a council flat overlooking the Westway. The famous "Like trousers, like brain" quote is still as fashion-victim cringeworthy as it is hilariously absurd and pretentious. Seeing Strummer in any interview or stage performance seemed to verge on self-parody most of the time. And not the ironic, deliberate, humorous self-parody of a Johnny Rotten or Dave Vanian, but the humourless self-deluded variety.
However the doco helped me realise that the posing and bandwagon-jumping was a lifelong defining feature of his personality, and not merely a symptom of the affected stage persona obligatory for success in his chosen profession.
Pcal. Your post teaches us that you are a loser. End of story.
shareHey Nigelxman,
It sounds like your blind worship of Joe is preventing you from hearing anything other than praise for the man. Pcal has a great point.
I too walked away from the film unsettled by a lot of Strummer's actions --- particularly his cutting-off of his friends and also the sudden shifts into the new looks and sounds. I do find it interesting, however, that often people who aspire to great idealism in their art often end up falling short of those ideals in their personal lives, and that we shouldn't necessarily dismiss their work because of that. If we look at ourselves, we all probably do the same thing to a degree. The film indirectly sheds light on the human nature of being able to rail against bigger problems but make a mess in your own life, on the more person-to-person scale of everyday living. I think that's something we can all relate to. It's also fascinating that the Clash went on to incorporate other styles of music and NOT just stick to the punk program. Perhaps at that point Joe was more comfortable integrating his various influences and interests. We also don't know if he just felt his old hippie friends were dead weight and that he had to cut them off to be able to go on. We just don't know, though certainly staring someone blank in the face and acting like you don't know them reflects poorly on him.
But Nigelxman, by calling Pcal a loser and ignorant it's clear you can't stand to even entertain any criticisms of your idol. Which begs the question: WHO's the loser here???
Not quite the end of the story. The end is "and losers sometimes make the greatest punks"
Witness: Johny Lydon (Winner: Most High-School beat-downs than anyone), Lou Reed: (Survivor: Electro-shock therapy for being "different"). And witness the Greatest Punk Loser Of All, a total alien and a complete outcast. Completely misunderstood and nobody ever wants to talk to him (or her) -- the high school kid carrying a violin case.
Losers rock!
This movie taught me that Joe was a person.
shareBut you know, nobody, is born a punk. Its an ideology. And lot of times, name changes are symbolic: Saul to Paul, Zimmerman to Dylan. And if your gonna play guitar you may as well name yourself Strummer.
shareIf I remember correctly, The breakup of the Clash was riddled with a few of the same themes that caused Joe to break off with the 101er's.
Upon kicking Mick out of the Clash, I seem to recall an interview with Jones where he said that Joe basically said that everything that the Clash did after the first record was complete cr*p. So he kicked out Jones, hired a few young pure guitar wielding punk rockers and carried on with Cut The Crap. This is the same kind of about face that Joe pulled 8 years before.
A couple of years later, Joe reconsidered. Jones spoke of an incident where he and his family were on vacation in the Bahamas and Joe rode up on a bicycle, apologizing and hoping to rekindle a musical relationship. Jones was a bit taken aback by the whole episode, and a little incredulous as one might expect.
But the album BAD II had a number of great moments of interplay between Strummer and Jones. As I recall, Strummer co-wrote, played, and sung on quite a few songs on the album. I consider Beyond The Pale one of the best Clash songs ever written.
all this talk of poseur.....silly really..... all I know is that Joe Strummer changed my life. And for the better I'd like to think. Regardless of what happens, the Clash were and are the ONLY BAND THAT MATTERS.
[deleted]
I think you stopped listening after a bit and missed the rest of the story. He came around in the end and realized that punks, hippies, whatever were still people, and you could still enjoy a lot of similar things in life--including music. Nothing is an absolute.
shareWho isent a poser? We all have some degree of pretension. In fact it sounds a bit silly with you writing all tose things that he did and did freely and without caring what the *beep* anyone elese said and then saying its not punk to do what you want.
shareI think that many of you need to take a breath, put down your copy of Sandinista, and take a realistic look at Joe in the light of this film.
No one is denying his talent, or his energy, or his influence.
But the film clearly exposes some negative aspects of his character as he progressed through his life.
Sure, everyone is a hypocrite. But when you stake your claim as an egalitarian spokesman for the people on one hand, and dismiss, deny, and detach yourself from your friends and heritage on the other hand, it rings a bit flat.
I'm not discounting Joe's ultimate message, or his late epiphany. But when you step on and forget your friends along the way, you are destined to open yourself up to the criticism that Joe did in this film.
But he realized what an idiot he was being in doing that. He brought those people back into his life by the end. People who keep calling him a poser are ignoring that.
shareIf anyone has ever listened to anarcho-punk(crass, rudimentary peni, flux of pink indians, conflict, etc.), you'd know that Strummer wasn't that great all along. They talk so much crap about him. example lyric:
"Why is it that Rock Stars
Always seem to lie so much?
Joe Strummer once said he cared,
but he never really gave a *beep*
Said he'd use the money he made
To set up a radio station to make the
Airwaves full of something more than Sh*t
Have you noticed we're still Waiting?
You must realise that Rock Stars
Always seem to lie so much
Some will always tell you that they care,
But they don't really give a *beep*
Still you suckers don't ever learn
That rock stars deal in money not truth
It's good Buisiness to exploit you
Just look at Lydon or Strummer for Proof."
Oh and "anarcho-punks" are those "hippie punks" Strummer never really gave a sh*t about.
plus, he sold out so much.
I'm not saying hes talentless though, he's a genius at music.
if you look at the bigger picture he didnt really sell out at all, cut the crap wasnt selling out if you look at the circumstance.. i think that joe was as human as the next person and said many times that he made a huge amount of mistakes and bad decisions in his life, i mean aint we all... you cant hold someones mistakes against them forever, poser or no i miss him every day x
shareSo your point is that because another band criticized him, he must be full of *beep*
Then he sold out so much. At least substantiate that, and do it with proper grammar and spelling please.
The more I read those lyrics, the more pissed I get. There's a difference between lying and failing to accomplish something exorbitant you want to, like setting up a radio station. Joe even succeeded to a significant extent when he had his radio show where he'd play all kinds of eclectic music he felt was worth playing over the usual crap. The idiots writing that song don't even have it right on even a strictly factual level. They also appear to not take into account the Clash basically conned their record company to make London Calling cheaper for fans, and forwent royalties from Sandinista! to keep the cost down on it too. They also routinely let fans in through the back entrance to sold-out shows they couldn't get into. These are just a few of many examples where money came second to their fans. Want more?
People keep taking this issue too far in either direction. People who say Joe and company are flawless are stupid, and people who say they were completely full of crap are just as stupid. Forming an opinion based on a song written by obvious subliterates is even more stupid than either combined.
'People keep taking this issue too far in either direction. People who say Joe and company are flawless are stupid, and people who say they were completely full of crap are just as stupid. Forming an opinion based on a song written by obvious subliterates is even more stupid than either combined. '
gongshowhost is spot on
Like I said, Joe may have had an epiphany, he may have realized the err of some of his ways, and he may have doubled back to open his arms to some of those that he alienated along the way. These are all admirable actions.
But you can't un-ring the bell.
It's pretty clear to me (you might disagree) that one of Joe's thriving desires throughout his early life was to make a name for himself, to become famous. It was at this point that he made the decision to cut off many/most of his friends who didn't fit the persona he was attempting to create.
He became famous, he fulfilled his youthful desires.
Years later, muddled in the muck of a prolonged obscurity, he rethinks his life and shifts gears to placate his guilty conscience. All wonderful actions.
People do this all the time. I'm not faulting him for it.
But people are judged by the decisions they make at the time they make them.
If Al Capone had come clean, confessed to, and repented for the St Valentine's Day Massacre days, months, or years after the event, it is doubtful that many would find glory in his admissions.
I'm not comparing Joe Strummer to Al Capone; that is ludicrous.
But the point is, there is an immediate accountability for your actions. Reaping the benefits of your "sins" for years, only to renounce them at a later date, is hollow and self serving.
Don't want to get involved in any name-calling like a few fellow posters, but was struck myself at the image that the movie left. The first line that really struck me was when he said, after admitting he had a gang at boarding school, that he was a bully. That could describe a lot of the negative behavior people have mentioned in this thread. I personally enjoyed the look at a real person that the movie gives. Strummer wasn't perfect, but the dominant behavior we see almost immediately was no doubt resonsible for a lot of what he produced over the course of his career. Do we want to trade all that for a man we can admire unconditionally? I vote no, and the film features dozens of people who knew him and loved him and seem to agree.
share[deleted]
I don't buy the fact that Lennon changed somehow.
By many accounts he remained a closeted womanizer in the years approaching his death. And it is also widely reported that he had an issue with heroin up to the time of his death.
Lennon's "change" during the last five years of his life is self-fabricated spin. And this spin has been magnified to support his legacy.
I'm not dismissing Lennon, he is a songwriting idol of mine.
But this picture of him as a bread making, rehabilitated family man is far from accurate.