It's been about six years since I've seen Velvet Goldmine, which I watched again on Thursday night. The "glam" movie. I've loved this movie on the sense that it fulfills an older definition of glamour rather than "ham" with the first letter switched out with a "g" and an "l."

"glamour

1720, "magic, enchantment" (especially in phrase to cast the glamour), a variant of Scot. gramarye "magic, enchantment, spell," alt. of Eng. grammar (q.v.) with a medieval sense of "any sort of scholarship, especially occult learning." Popularized by the writings of Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832). Sense of "magical beauty, alluring charm" first recorded 1840. Glamorous is 1882 (slang shortening glam first attested 1936); glamorize is 1936."

A popular, simpler definition of glamour is as an illusion (and this is usually the context that I've seen glamour used in faerie tales), and the film is a curious type of illusion that is constructed from actual events mixed in with Todd Haynes' own extrapolations and inventions (Iggy/Lou & Bowie were not butt-buddies, for example...that's something that Todd brought in because.....well, he's gay) to create a movie that reflects the perception that this music was lavish, decadent, and sensual (tell that to any third-rate, B-League glam band which were just "bricklayers in make up"), ambiguous, and strange.

It got me thinking about the constructs that people build around themselves to reflect who they are: I am normal because I have a wife, house, job, 2.5 kids; I am conservative because I masturbate to Ann Coulter, live through bumper stickers; I am liberal because I listen to NPR, live through bumper stickers; I am goth because I love the appropriate records as approved by Central Control, I have the right clothes; I am Industrial because I own band t-shirts and BDU pants, I love the appropriate records as approved by Central Control and so forth and so on.

So a central idea is that people construct often complex identities that is "who...

It's been about six years since I've seen Velvet Goldmine, which I watched again on Thursday night. The "glam" movie. I've loved this movie on the sense that it fulfills an older definition of glamour rather than "ham" with the first letter switched out with a "g" and an "l."

"glamour

1720, "magic, enchantment" (especially in phrase to cast the glamour), a variant of Scot. gramarye "magic, enchantment, spell," alt. of Eng. grammar (q.v.) with a medieval sense of "any sort of scholarship, especially occult learning." Popularized by the writings of Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832). Sense of "magical beauty, alluring charm" first recorded 1840. Glamorous is 1882 (slang shortening glam first attested 1936); glamorize is 1936."

A popular, simpler definition of glamour is as an illusion (and this is usually the context that I've seen glamour used in faerie tales), and the film is a curious type of illusion that is constructed from actual events mixed in with Todd Haynes' own extrapolations and inventions (Iggy/Lou & Bowie were not butt-buddies, for example...that's something that Todd brought in because.....well, he's gay) to create a movie that reflects the perception that this music was lavish, decadent, and sensual (tell that to any third-rate, B-League glam band which were just "bricklayers in make up"), ambiguous, and strange.

It got me thinking about the constructs that people build around themselves to reflect who they are: I am normal because I have a wife, house, job, 2.5 kids; I am conservative because I masturbate to Ann Coulter, live through bumper stickers; I am liberal because I listen to NPR, live through bumper stickers; I am goth because I love the appropriate records as approved by Central Control, I have the right clothes; I am Industrial because I own band t-shirts and BDU pants, I love the appropriate records as approved by Central Control and so forth and so on.

So a central idea is that people construct often complex identities that is "who they really are" without it necessarily getting to the core of their being. One idea that was always appealing with glam was the sense of constructing an obviously false/invented identity to allow the real self to come out, that it is a vehicle to discovering the true self outside of ready-made constructs available through one's own cultural milieu*. Glam as a look and as a music genre was a magpie collection of pop culture trash, high culture artifacts, genuine emotion and pretentious posing all mixed up, all at once.

I don't dress up much nowadays, I barely listen to the music anymore, but in my own outlook and tastes I find that out of interest in that genre of music, that outlook is part of a "core fibre" of my being. So for all my efforts, all the make up, all the CDs and records being put away, I still have that.

Is that glam? I don't know. My view and tastes of that genre don't really make room for bands like Kiss, Slade, Gary Glitter, Alvin Stardust, and later bands like Hanoi Rocks, or Poison or revival acts like some Cobra Verde albums, the Makers, and The Turn-Ons. It's always been more of the "high-brow" artsy end of the style and find my interest in artists and musicians who started off with it as their background and then moved forward with their own extrapolations (as long as it doesn't suck) so that would explain why I would take a more philosophical view rather than a "DUDE! MAKE UP! BUY EVERY BOWIE ALBUM NO MATTER HOW SHITTY IT IS!" view.



*Oh god...someone shoot me.