The interview subjects were the main people in the subculture. That was important because, since the subculture was so exclusive, an outsider's view would be very different than the reality of the subculture. The interviews tell the story. The narrative just fills in a few places with the facts of what was happening during the time period. The narrator would inform the viewer that there was a drought in California, and then the interview subjects would talk about skating in dried up pools.
The subculture was very exclusive and very territorial. They grew up in poor neighborhoods and felt like the outsiders couldn't relate. The saw themselves as surfers, first and foremost. Because of the wind, they could only surf in the mornings. That gave them the rest of the day to skateboard. They acted as a group and never allowed someone else into the group without consulting the rest of the group. The obvious artifacts that played a major role in the subculture were surfboards and skateboards.
The documentary was organized chronologically. The interviews were edited to tell the majority of the story and the narrator filled in the blanks. I think this really helped the viewer understand the subculture. The filming and the editing all seemed very raw, which played into the overall feel of the subculture.
I previously thought that skateboarders were very anti-mainstream. This still holds true after seeing the video. The subculture did everything in its power to stay exclusive and not mainstream.
I trust what the creator is telling us because there are so many interviews. You don't ever get an outsider's view of the subculture, but I think the insider's perspective is more interesting. Sure, it is bias because there are no outside interviews, but I don't think it makes it any less credible. I don't think the video would be as entertaining if it had the outsider's opinions intermixed.
No comments:
Post a Comment