John Waters on Trump
I was previously unfamiliar with the name John Waters, but he’s the guy who directed the films “Pink Flamingoes” and “Polyester,” (neither of which I’ve seen). His Wiki page describes him as “an American film director, screenwriter, author, actor, stand-up comedian, journalist, visual artist, and art collector, who rose to fame in the early 1970s for his transgressive cult films.”
Probably not someone you’d expect to be a Trump fan, and you’d certainly be 100% correct on that. But this recent interview with Waters reveals him as one of those people who says some things that run counter to the usual narrative of the left, and I think the following political observations of Waters in the interview are quite interesting.
The first one is a rather pithy summation of the Trump phenomenon (the “we” here being the left and the liberals and all the NeverTrumpers as well):
So I get why Trump supporters like [Trump], because he is doing what he said he was going to do and we hate him so much he makes us crazy.
Another set of observations [in the rest of the quotes the interviewer’s remarks are in bold]:
Is there a Democratic primary candidate you support?
Here’s what I think: [Trump] is gonna win again, because I say it myself and they all go “Ahhh!” when I say that. And I say, “Who are you gonna vote for?” Silence. There are 40 characters that are going to divide it all up. You know, the gay one I like. I’d vote for any of them, even though it would be really hard for me to vote for Elizabeth Warren who has never once said a funny thing in her entire life.She is the best one, I would argue.
I think she will lose. Any of the ones that have already been out there will lose, big time. And any of the ones that try to be super left wing will really lose, too. And all the other ones just haven’t been around.
I hope he’s right on that, because I find every single one of them way too leftist for my tastes, and/or too incompetent.
More:
To me [the Democratic candidate] better be somebody young and somebody new. Who knows! It’s a civil war, and I believe that it could be decided by one vote. It’s split right down the middle. It’s just exhausting to me.
But I get why they like [Trump], because he infuriates us. And it’s everything he said he was gonna do. So he’s not lying to them. We were just too stupid and sat home and didn’t vote. Because the Democrats — so that’s what you get.
That’s the only time Waters takes the easy way out—ascribing Hillary’s loss to Democrats staying home because they were too sure she’d win.
But then Waters follows it up with this, which I find to be a refreshing and unusual admission for someone on the left:
Although to be fair, Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote.
Yeah, but that’s not the way it works. If we won and he won the popular vote, we wouldn’t have said that. They’re always gonna say that. Well, then change it! But until they do, that’s the way it works.
No surprise that John Waters likes Mayor Pete. It is all about identity politics. South Bend has just over 100,000 people and it is the home of the University of Notre Dame. One would think that a small college town would be safe, but that is wrong. On a per 100k basis, South Bend is right behind Chicago in murders. I doubt there are any murders on campus. South Bend is in the top 5% in crime. Mayor Pete is a failed mayor.
When John Waters is the sober voice of reason…
Mike
This is one of my favorite John Waters clips (45 seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VzSiilYSKs
I first saw it in a Berkley CA theater !
I’m very surprised neo that you were not familiar with Waters who directed the original movie of “Hairspray” back in the 80s which though still a cult movie at the time of was a heck of a lot more mainstream than Polyester or Pink Flamingos. And of course later became a Broadway hit then recycled back into a film not nearly as entertaining as the original.
Politically he sounds like Camille Paglia, not really shedding his leftism but willing to poke at some of the narratives.
Hairspray was just okay. His other films (the ones I took the trouble to see) were uniformly awful.
I enjoyed Hairspray, especially the music.
It says a lot to grasp that his flicks tend to look at the world in the ugliest way possible without violence.
Pink Flamingos’ by far two most famous scenes involve actions by glaringly Trans-Male Devine which are exceptionally disgusting.
John Waters defines the gay camp sensibility.
Think of that when you look at him looking at Trump. Waters adores the stereotype of the super-obese Walmart shopper riding her mobility scooter. Too fat to even walk for her junk food. And she’s a him. And that’s just for starters. I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
I never saw a Water’s film, but I do have a cursory knowledge of his reputation. He gets a hand clap for not joining the current crop of moonbats. I like how he admits “that’s the way it worrks.” That’s a step in the right direction.
I’ve never seen Pink Flamingos but I’m aware of those scenes, Hairspray is like The Sound of Music in comparison LOL. Though still injecting some of that sensibility as Cornflour puts it. Divine even plays a male role in one scene.
None of the Dem candidates seem to be enjoying themselves. No smiles, no funny jokes. Nothing but dour.
FOAF:
Oh, I remember “Hairspray,” although I never saw it. I just never paid a particle of attention to who directed it.
John Waters’ oeuvre is one pertinent example of what happens when the beautiful or sublime as such has become impossible for human beings and is overthrown for aesthetics as an academic discipline: mere sensation is the thing. Whether beautiful or ugly is of no consequence — it’s the romance of the lowest as if of the highest.
Hey, hey, ho, ho, western civ . . . hath got up and gone. Thanks for the chant Jesse.
He produced a genuine chuckle with his quite genuine description of Elizabeth Warren. What a cheerless termagant she is.
Hopefully after all this no one is really taking Waters seriously as a political pundit. If there is any significance to his musings it is that you have to go as far afield as Waters to find an opponent willing to engage the Trump phenomenon even somewhat honestly. TDS is widespread and they haven’t found a cure yet.
I don’t care for his films at all but I’ve heard him interviewed several times and it’s always been entertaining.
Marianne W is the closest to what would happen if Ymar ran for President.
It’s gonna be a blast.
Gerard vanderleun
Were you the one commenting on Disqus about auto fellating dog tutors or was that someone else that called me out in the Scott Adams Bookworm Room post?
Once upon a time there was something truly, usefully outrageous about gays in an honest and, to be sure, entertaining way. One can learn something from a viewpoint outside of the conventional box.
John Waters is among the few, remaining voices of that time.
I’ve never liked his films, but I’ve never read a Waters interview which didn’t stick with me.
Susan Sontag was the Big Thinker who made “Camp” respectable — a semi-oxymoronic proposition.
https://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Sontag-NotesOnCamp-1964.html
Sontag also wrote the intellectual check for movies like Peckinpah’s “The Wild Bunch.”
However, years later Sontag had second thoughts. She had assumed the canon of worthy art was foundational to Western civilization, impossible to displace. She only wished to extend respect to a few forms outside the canon:
“In writing about what I was discovering,” she now realizes, “I assumed the preeminence of the canonical treasures of the past. The transgressions I was applauding seemed altogether salutary, given what I took to be the unimpaired strength of the old taboos.”
But in fact, those taboos were like a house eaten up by termites, ready to collapse at the first push. “What I didn’t understand (I was surely not the right person to understand) was that seriousness itself was in the early stages of losing credibility in the culture at large,” Sontag writes in 1996. “Barbarism is one name for what was taking over. Let’s use Nietzsche’s term: we had entered, really entered, the age of nihilism.”
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/95896/susan-sontag
I once had some interaction with Waters, a long time ago. He was gracious and amusing. Modest.
When Sontag was right, she was most definitely right. (Though more than once came as a result of walking back, upon more mature(?) reflection, viewpoints that were spectacularly wrong.)
That is—extraordinarily—when she was able to conclude that was indeed wrong, she had the tremendous strength of character to admit it.
https://www.lawliberty.org/2017/11/08/when-susan-sontag-told-the-truth-about-communism/
Meanwhile, Ilan Omar is reminding the entire country (that is, whomever is willing to listen) a major reason—or one of them—for America’s greatness!
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6057198316001/#sp=show-clips
(Gotta give credit where credit is due.)
Barry Meislin: Good link! I do respect people who can admit mistakes.
Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, is another sixties person who has done so. He now supports nuclear energy and tweaks the environmental movement with other heresies. He backed off on LSD too, a long time ago.
Brand tells a funny story about catching a ride back from one of the LA Acid Tests with Neal Cassady, who treated Brand to a display of Cassady’s legendary daredevil driving. After that ride Brand decided it was time to get married and settle down.
huxley:
You said, “Once upon a time there was something truly, usefully outrageous about gays in an honest and, to be sure, entertaining way. One can learn something from a viewpoint outside of the conventional box. John Waters is among the few, remaining voices of that time.”
Judging by the interview, though, it seems that Waters has been gradually tamed by the left’s groupthink and epistemic closure, doesn’t it? He’s still a sufficiently clear thinker to understand the Trump-effect, but he’s not independent-minded enough to achieve escape velocity and ask whether Trump himself might be a good thing.
My guess is that Milo Yiannopoulos is just about the only remaining voice able to outrageously entertain in the fashion you describe. But even he lacks a bit of the unique edge he had three years ago. Everybody who doesn’t die, gets older.
Well, the Gay Patriot blog is no more, alas:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/10/farewell-gay-patriot.php
…but there is this new incarnation:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/
Aside from GP, I suspect there’s others out there, but if not, then then a significant amount of “silent” agreement…..
R.C.: Well, I didn’t say Waters is perfect.
My guess is that Milo Yiannopoulos is just about the only remaining voice able to outrageously entertain in the fashion you describe. But even he lacks a bit of the unique edge he had three years ago. Everybody who doesn’t die, gets older.
Milo is an interesting case. He largely lost his career when he made some carelessly frank remarks (to put it mildly) about sex with minors. Simon & Schuster cancelled his upcoming book and Breitbart pressured him to resign, which he did. Milo’s latest book is titled, “How to Be Poor.”
He largely lost his career when he made some carelessly frank remarks (to put it mildly) about sex with minors.
It’s mostly because Milo talked about a taboo subject that conservatives started dropping him. Namely that homosexuality was “groomed” on children by certain adults. Milo is the perfect example of conservative dogma that homosexuals were “created” via child hood or promiscuous trauma. Instead of treating Milo with compassion and grace, however, conservatives and Evangelicals went Full Stop for whatever reasons. The Leftist media told them what to think and when to think it, and so they did what they were told to do.
Milo’s own antics and Catholic faith, as well as promiscuous behavior with black men, didn’t exactly help. When Milo sets the world as his target and creates enemies, even if only for entertainment, it is natural that the conservative world may find him to be too outrageous of an ally.
This is a very dangerous topic, because it isn’t just about Demoncrats like Epsteon or Clinton.
Grooming of children is not merely a Demoncrat or Hollywood phenomenon. It’s a Republican Church and US Congress thing as well.
Of course the Vatican might have been grooming a lot of kiddies too, but normally Protestants aren’t too hesitant in attacking the Vatican or Catholics as anti Christ.
Republican Church? More comedy, of a low sort.
“Any of the ones that have already been out there will lose, big time. And any of the ones that try to be super left wing will really lose, too. And all the other ones just haven’t been around.”
I don’t think any of them are serious candidates. I suspect that they are there to move the Overton Window & make Michelle Obama’s views seem moderate in comparison –– when she launches her campaign just before the primaries.
Dems will be energized by her, but she will still lose to Prez Trump.
However it works, my understanding is most gay teens are initiated by older gay males. At first Milo tried to make the argument that he was ready for sex when he was 13.
It’s a fraught business. Humans have been having sex at less then 18 since forever. In Europe, FWIW, the age of consent is mostly 14-16.