Eyes in a blender

So I was watching The Raspberry Reich yesterday and I have to say I wanted nothing more than to poke my eyes out, go to the kitchen, drop said eyes into a blender, add some 1% milk, yogurt, berries and flax seed, blend it and drink the concoction. Perhaps I missed the point. Perhaps there was something within the bad acting, needless sex (not saying the nudity didn’t have a point, but don’t you think they over did it just a little to make the point?), and the lack of actual acting that I didn’t get. Can someone explain it to me because I don’t want to return to the movie and full through with my original plan. 

The Raspberry Reich has a point, I’m assuming, but I haven’t discovered it yet. From what I understand there’s a group of revolutionists – because every terrorist is someone elses revolutionists (insert Iraq reference here). And I’m not sure if the “gay terrorists” were all homosexuals or just the one who has an affair with the kidnappee. I stopped watching the movie before I could figure it out because my head was pounding and I think I bled from my ears a little. 

However, the music was good. At least I had that to compliment, right?


2 responses to “Eyes in a blender

  1. I found your blog because I wanted to see who else was blogging about The Raspberry Reich.

    I can totally understand your reaction to the film…although if we think about LaBruce’s work as pornography first and cinema second, it’s a little bit easier to swallow (no pun!). In any case, I think there’s a subtle critique at work of radical revolutionary politics, and namely, that critique is that radical revolutionary action is often co-opted by fetishizing the concept of revolution or over-focusing on what constitutes revolutionary action. At the end of the film, we see that some members of the group end up becoming actual terrorists, but, the leader, Gundrun, ends up becoming a member of the bourgeoisie. And so, in fetishizing revolutionary action, the revolution itself is actually compromised, if not coopted entirely — all we are left with are a bunch of empty signifiers and slogans (“The revolution is my boyfriend,” “Put your Marxism where your mouth is,” and whatever else Gundrun cares to recite).

    I also think the ambiguity between who is or is not “gay” is intentional: I think LaBruce is aiming for a more fluid interpretation of what constitutes a (radical) homosexual identity.

    As for the bad acting, it could be just that…bad acting. Although I interpreted it as somewhat of the movie being a parody of itself, and that the bad acting was a way to make fun of the supposed “radical” efforts of bourgeoisie terrorists and functioned as a means to drive home the central critique of the film.

  2. As much as I tried to let myself understand the movie’s purpose, the acting, or perhaps dialogue, forced me to stop before I carried out my actions. I’ve seen several different reviews on the film, some good and a lot of them bad, but I never base anything on reviews.

    There was that one scene where the guy they were going to kidnap is followed by the other one – I’m bad with names, so yeah, you’ll have to use your memory for this – and the conversation goes something like this. “I know what you’re doing?” “You do?” “I wasn’t born yesterday you know.” “You weren’t” and then they kiss lustfully.

    There. Not the fact that it was a homosexual scene, but because it was so horribly played out that I wondered what back alley LaBruce picked these actors up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s