Gorgoroth Documentary

[Helm]

http://invisibleoranges.com/2007/05/gorgoroth-documentary.html

linking to the oranges as he has it as his top story right now. Reposting my comment from there.



I watched the whole thing. A few of the situations are interesting.

Pussy ass journalist guy: it's a mountain. It's in norway. It's not very far. Walk, you won't die. Fuckin' crybaby.

Gaahl takes them to a very special place for him, and they complain about it not being about 'Heavy Metal' while it's totally Heavy Metal. It's the house that his grandparents built, walking every single piece of wood there. This is metal. He's trying to teach them something and they're being annoying pricks with their cameras and the dude you'd think only learned to breathe yesterday.

He goes on and on about how there's so many sheep in the black metal circle, so many people wanting to be led and not to lead themselves, who don't get the spiritual or philosophical component of the music (which is a different debate) and then they ask him bullshit questions like "how does it feel to be elite?"

They understood nothing. So he tells them, you understood nothing.

And they say

"guide me".

The silence is deafening. I don't know Gaahl, I don't like his music, I am neither afraid of him nor fond of him, but I think that pause is a very sad situation for him and I feel empathy. They don't like him. They don't understand him. They don't care to understand him. They're making a 'documentary' for which he's the subject, and therefore useful. Oh look dude, total amazing cinema right there, that minute-long pause?

Quite dehumanizing. He was totally used. Shame.
https://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=34082886&postID=3047049092345005546

 

[Scourge of God]

I don't care how 'metal' his parents' house is. Gaahl is an enormous poseur whose one and only gift is a weird charisma that plays well in documentaries, but in no way makes up for the fact that he's got no artistic credibility whatsoever.

Basically, think Ozzy in corpsepaint.

 

[Helm]

Gaahl being a poseur or not is not really something I'm interested in. I posted because the documentary people treated the situation in an peculiar way that is hopefully worthy of commentary.

 

[Scourge of God]

Do you really expect mainstream filmmakers to understand black metal or treat it with respect? Hell, most metalheads don't grasp the concepts involved, why should outsiders?

 

[Helm]

No. I expect human beings to treat human beings with respect. Well, I don't even expect that, but it would be nice...

The dude is a black metal personality, and at the beginning of the interview, he's urging the journalists to be human beings so he can also be a human being. He's not wearing any corpse paint. He pours them wine, shows them his paintings and takes them on nice scenic walks. And what he gets is "how do you feel being ELITE?"

It's not about understanding black metal or treating it with respect. It's making an effort to understand what the person you're making a documentary about is trying to tell you. He isn't exactly expounding on difficult concepts. This isn't a failing of 'mainstream filmakers' or anything, this is a failing of these particular dumbasses that made this particular film.

 

[Scourge of God]

No. I expect human beings to treat human beings with respect. Well, I don't even expect that, but it would be nice...

There's nothing particularly disrespectful in the documentary, just a lack of real understanding. But that's to be expected from outsiders. You might as well try to run Vista on UNIVAC as look for understanding of black metal from people who have surrendered to the social conditioning of contemporary Western culture.

The dude is a black metal personality

This is the operative phrase: Gaahl is a personality, not a person. He's created a character around which his entire public significance revolves. Take away the character, and there's nothing but a sad little man with a story that just isn't all that interesting.

What I found pathetic was not the filmmaking, but Gaahl himself. Here's a guy who has created a character that is interesting and, in some ways compelling. At the same time, he labours under the bizarre illusion that he should be interesting to the wider world as a person rather than a personality (egocentrism at its worst). The problem is that while the character Gaahl makes for an intriguing documentary subject, Kristian Espedal is just another boring dork from the sticks. There's a real lack of self-awareness that is just sad. Other guys with the same basic schtick are at least conscious of what actually interests others: Marilyn Manson knows that people don't give a rat's ass about Brian Warner. Even Ozzy is self-aware enough to realize that no one is interested in John Osbourne.

,

 

[Helm]

from people who have surrendered to the social conditioning of contemporary Western culture.

Actually I'd say the people that did this documentary are prime candidates for people who'd 'get' black metal. They're like Gaahl: priviledged, middle-to-upper class with lots of free time for culture. Uncallused hands... They're not coal-miners. Their mother probably bakes them cookies every sunday just like with Vikerness or Fenriz. Or Gaahl.

To 'get' black metal you don't have to go through profound realizations and a harrowing deprogramization and emerge aghast from the bowels of western cultural normalcy in pure transcendal suffering as the nietzscheian uberman... you just have to be priviledged and a bit disaffected. A bit intelligent and a bit reclusive. The type that reads lord byron and is intrigued by simple devices like the phoenixian ideal of creation through destruction.

I can see it now... A pimply teenager in his bedroom reads cliff notes to Nietzsche "I can see it now... this world... this world has to be flushed away. Only the strong may survive! What glory! With Divinity we will start ane-- YES MOM, I'M COMING DOWN FOR DINNER SOON, I HEARD YOU THE FIRST TIME!".

It's okay... I'm no coal-miner either man. I 'get' your black metal alright.

This is the operative phrase: Gaahl is a personality, not a person. He's created a character around which his entire public significance revolves. Take away the character, and there's nothing but a sad little man with a story that just isn't all that interesting.

I understand what you mean. Maybe if the people making this documentary felt the same, and they had any integrity they'd just stop rolling camera and go home. I didn't think the man behind the persona was uninteresting, but then again perhaps I am not expecting what you expect from people. In that level, please tell me what you expect from people, in order to call them interesting. Profundity? Charisma? Eloquence? Knowledge?

What I found pathetic was not the filmmaking, but Gaahl himself. Here's a guy who has created a character that is interesting and, in some ways compelling. At the same time, he labours under the bizarre illusion that he should be interesting to the wider world as a person rather than a personality (egocentrism at its worst).

You speak as if you feel betrayed that Gaahl wasn't all that your fantasies hoped he would be from the band photos and the lyrics. The man looks like a tall zombie, you here enthralled by that? I find it strange. Any person without the make-up on is more interesting than an entertainer-persona ever would hope to be. But perhaps you're not interested in real people at all because they'll all fail you similarly. I bet most of the people in the black metal scene you like would be equally 'disappointing' if someone were to shove a camera in their face.

just another boring dork from the sticks

That's totally fine with me, I'd like to hear what a boring dork from the sticks has to say to a person that makes an effort to understand and carry on the dialogue.

There's a real lack of self-awareness that is just sad

What... you think he should feel embarassed he's not as 'interesting' as his stage persona? You probably haven't thought about his mindset at all. Is he such an easy target for you? I don't know the backstory in the elite fascist metal circles, has he betrayed the 'cause' or something? 99.9% of all black metal is aesthetically, conceptually and philosophically inconsequent with the beliefs and desires of the people that make it... are you making a similar fuss for the bands and artists that swim closer to your own philosophical currents? Just because they haven't been inspected by a camera in their face yet doesn't mean they really know anything you'd like them to know after all.

 

[Occam's Razor]

I got that Trelldom album that is going to be released soon...pretty bad. Gaahl tries pseudo avantgarde here and thereby shows that he is pretentious - he's more of a violent than artistic person and should get out of the musical sphere.

 

[Scourge of God]

Helm, you seem to be struggling with a basic misunderstanding: I've never given a rat's ass about Gaahl. I don't feel let down. I never cared to begin with.

My point is that the only thing which seperates Gaahl's story from that of any other maladjusted twat is that he's created a perhaps bigger than life character (the interview clips from Metal: A Headbanger's Journey are fundamentally riotous) and is in a band. Take those elements away, and there's nothing to his life that would distinguish it from the life of any other person who has graduated from high school. He had a friend that offed himself? Who doesn't?

Bottom line: people don't make documentaries to explore the banality of being a boring person, and no one is watching a documentary about Gaahl to see him sit at his kitchen table and jabber about high school. They're watching a documentary about Gaahl because they want to watch him drink wine and mutter "Satan." The filmmakers aren't there to hold his hand and play shrink, they're there to record the crazy antics of a showman.

 

[Helm]

As I said, if they had any integrity as filmmakers, the moment their 'showman' pretty much underlines he's not interesting in being a showman for their project, and tells them to be people so he can he people too, they should have shut the camera off. He's obviously not going to bite the head off of the bat, so why film the man in silence for a full minute?

 

[Scourge of God]

Why? Filmmaking costs money, so why shouldn't they try to goad him into performing? They're invested in the project, in their place, I'd sure as hell go for taking advantage of the fucker if he started wasting my time and money too.

 

[Helm]

We obviously have different ethical limitations, but I find this to be expected.

 

[Scourge of God]

How is this an ethical issue? The filmmakers are investing THEIR time and THEIR money in THEIR project. They have a responsibility to follow THEIR vision, not to coddle some guy while he rambles about high school. That long, painful silence isn't an ethical failure on the part of the filmmakers, it's a great 'gotcha' moment exposing just how silly the whole Gaahl character is. The problem isn't that the producers weren't sympathetic (why should they be?), but that Gaahl was stupid enough to walk into an ambush and got embarassed.

 

[Cheiron]

I found him to be quite interesting. And the documentary was interesting to me. The end part sure... they were lame but whatever.

 

[Helm]

Take those elements away, and there's nothing to his life that would distinguish it from the life of any other person who has graduated from high school. He had a friend that offed himself? Who doesn't?

Bottom line: people don't make documentaries to explore the banality of being a boring person

I don't know if it's worth anything to mention, but in my opinion the story of someone's life though it may be a series of disparate events that are common to most people's lives (loneliness, friendship, success, failure, love, death), therefore not extraordinary on their own, when they make a trail through a singular existence, and that person has the chance to look back at what has happened to him and in his own words reflect and expound on what he has gathered, then that's worthwhile to listen to. Probably the most worthwhile thing to listen to of all, I'd say. Beyond ideology and beyond agenda, the story of somebody's life is worthwhile, for a documentary or for whatever else.

By your (I have to guess here, I asked you a direct question of it and you didn't reply) probable definition of an interesting person, I think you should turn your attentions to stuntmen and violent sociopaths at large, exclusively. They have by far the most exciting experiences of us all.

 

[Scourge of God]

Understand that when I say 'interesting,' I'm doing so from the perspective of someone who has been involved in several film projects from the fund raising side. I don't think people who haven't been involved fully appreciate just how expensive even a very modest documentary project is. While I tend to agree that in many cases, the very ordinariness of ordinary people can be compelling in and of itself, it's not a great subject for a commericially viable documentary. People that have tens of thousands of dollars of their own money invested in a project are not generally looking for ordinary people. They want a freakshow that will grab viewers (and ratings, and success).

My larger issue with Gaahl is this. He's not an ordinary person, and he can't be. Not after creating the ridiculous, absurd, over the top character which he not only drags from city to city for the benefit of fans, but he often trots out for interviews with mainstream filmmakers and writers. He's a freakshow, and that's what he's chosen to be. That's fine and dandy, but it means that, at this point, he has no right to complain when he's TREATED like a freakshow instead of a Regular Joe.

 

[Helm]

You're shifting back and forth between what it seems to be the Scourge of God position and alternatively what some theoretical amoral filmmakers set out to do and what they endorse, so it'd be best to make up your mind at some point. Furthermore your argument suffers from lack of continuity. It is revised in what seems a very carefree manner according to what I answer you with, which is the sure mark of a reactionist that doesn't believe anything at the core. "If you don't like my beliefs I've got others". Just keep it about what you think, and try to think the same thing throughout the conversation. That is if you're interested in extending me the courtesy of a worthwhile discussion and aren't just carelessly taking advantage of my interest in replying to you.

I know replies come easy given the message board culture. But I'm trying to be selective as of late so I will drop this if it's pointless.

I am not adverse to people alternating opinion and information in their arguments. That is, if you were to offer me information that is worthwhile. Not only do I find the 'from filmmaker's point of view' info you're offering basic and self-evident ("people want to make money"), it is also not to my interest to have it be explained to me by someone who is not the filmmaker for this project. I don't need you to explain 'the real world' to me, where money and corruption rule in the city of Documentaria. I would answer and discuss that point of view if someone here were to actually endorse it responsibly. That you say you speak from experience in documentary-making is a step in the right direction... leeeeaaaading me to believe that what will follow is your own opinion. Then you say "They want a freakshow that will grab viewers (and ratings, and success)." with what I can only read as some sort of disdain. "You" speak from experience that "they" want a freakshow. Then where do you stand? Nowhere?

If you 100% believe that 'you need freakshows to make money on a documentary' and that's how it should be (which is a perscriptive ethical position) then we could discuss why I disagree with that. If you believe it doesn't have to be that way, we agree, and these people [the makers of the documentary at hand] operate under a frame of mind that while understandable, is objectionable and is insulting to both the viewer and to the subject.

 

[Scourge of God]

Here are the facts:

1. A professional documentary costs a lot of fucking money to make.

2. This wasn't made for a public access channel, it was made for a for-profit enterprise, with all the usual realities and expectations that come from dealing with media companies.

3. We live in a world where Paris Hilton is an international icon and Arvo Part is unknown outside of a small subculture.

4. Gaahl is a shock rocker who has spent the better part of the last decade telling all and sundry how elite he is, about the depths of his awesome evil, and that his music means "Satan."

There are certain conclusions that we can draw from all this:

1. People who make documentaries about shock rockers probably didn't do so because they wanted to make a film about an ordinary person.

2. When a person's entire notoriety is based on an over the top character and a series of incredibly outrageous public stunts and statements, it isn't 'disrespectful' to ask them about those statements in an interview.

I don't know what your real issue with the doc is, though I suspect it has far more to do with the institutional paranoia of LotFP than with the film itself.

 

[Helm]

Wow I'm a part of LotFP now I guess!

I aknowledge 1, 2, 3 and 4 facts.

1. People who make documentaries about shock rockers probably didn't do so because they wanted to make a film about an ordinary person.

Conclusion 1: Agree. what do you do when you find yourself in the situation where the shock rocker wants to be a normal person is the question to which the answer has moral implications. From the beginning of this thread, this was my objection. That when the shock rocker doesn't bite the head off of the bat and instead shows you his collection of mediocre paintings, either turn off the camera or make a documentary about a real person. This isn't money-losing by default. The 'face behind the mask' sort of revealing biographical document can be very successful.

Conclusion 2: agree, but misleading. The disrespect was not in asking. They asked, he answered. The disrespect was goading. "GUIDE ME".

 

[Scourge of God]

Wow I'm a part of LotFP now I guess!

Well, you certainly seem to share the "They're out to GET metal" attitude that permeates the staff here...

Conclusion 1: Agree. what do you do when you find yourself in the situation where the shock rocker wants to be a normal person is the question to which the answer has moral implications.

How so? To my way of thinking, there are certain costs that come with making yourself a public personality (especially a personality of the sort Gaahl has been), one of which is that you don't get to dictate the terms of your interaction with the world, and, especially, the media. This seems intuitively obvious to me. And, in fact, it's intuitively obvious to most public personalities, including shock rockers like Manson, Alice Cooper and even Ozzy. To me, Gaahl's response speaks to a profound lack of self-reflection and awareness far more than to any 'disrespect' by the interviewers.

From the beginning of this thread, this was my objection. That when the shock rocker doesn't bite the head off of the bat and instead shows you his collection of mediocre paintings, either turn off the camera or make a documentary about a real person. This isn't money-losing by default. The 'face behind the mask' sort of revealing biographical document can be very successful.

It can be, but then again, do you really think the kind of people who are tuning in for a story about Gaahl are interested in the man behind the mask? Gorgoroth's musical direction has been profoundly juvenile for the better part of a decade (a creative direction for which Gaahl bears much of the responsibility). I think it's likely that you're vastly underestimating the tolerance of the target audience for Gaahl's lonely depressed jerk antics.

Conclusion 2: agree, but misleading. The disrespect was not in asking. They asked, he answered. The disrespect was goading. "GUIDE ME".

Goading, challenging, baiting etc. are all accepted parts of the documentarian's art. That's why Michael Moore has been enormously successful. Most people understand how this works, and the filmmakers can hardly be blamed for the fact that Gaahl was unprepared for a 'hostile' interview because he's spent his career being fawned over by the arse licking 'journalists' of the metal press.