The Decline of Western Civilization Part III

The first film "Decline..." showed the birth of punk. This film shows almost 20 years later, what's happened to it. Basically the film is about homeless teenagers who are into punk, living off the streets of LA. It's harrowing to watch and hear what these kids go through each day. Also scary is when they're asked where they'll be 5 years from now, they all answer "dead". Despite what the former poster here said, the director is totally on the sides of the kids. She does not exploit them or ridicule them. She just basically interviews them--where they came from, how they survive, what about the future, etc. She's showing a small portion of society you never really see portrayed in films. Worth watching, but very sad.

This isn't as easy or as fun of a watch as the other decline movies, but it is just as important, if not more so. While the other films showed us a glimpses of the dark side of the punk world, this film throws us right in the fires with those who have little hope of escaping. It's a harrowing look at a lifestyle many of us might drive by on our way to work everyday and never even think about. I would recommend this film much like I'd recommend the others in this trilogy, though I'd recommend preparing yourself for this one.

I'm a big fan of the Decline series and Spheeris has always had a great grip on the lifestyle and passion behind rock and roll as the focal point of the trilogy. While Decline III is undoubtedly the most depressing of the series, it is probably also the best.

While the other two movies were mostly about musicians and aspiring musicians, Decline III is more about the followers of musicians and their devotion to the lifestyle of the punk movement. This film is much more about homelessness than music and attempts to show why some young people are drawn to the nomadic life of a punk. The people Spheeris interviews all seem lost but they share a deep bond with each other as well as a pessimistic life view brought on by traumas of their childhoods that include abuse and degradation.

What Spheeris does successfully is showing how beautiful the souls of these people are. In many ways, you can see the punks in this film as anti-heroes who stand for positive values like inclusion, equality, free thought and non-violence, despite society's desire to paint them as violent troublemakers. She gets down into the muck with them, spending a lot of time asking real questions and showing their daily way of life, all the time showing how the punk lifestyle is less about music than philosophy.

There are also some great, high-energy musical performances that rival the ones shown in the other Decline films in terms of power. Spheeris found a lost generation of kids who were deemed disposable by their parents and society and showed us how smart and gentle they are under a tough exterior.

I like P. Shpeeris, so I might be a little biased toward this movie. I think she did a good job with it, but as an interviewer, she comes across as a frustrated mother. Then again, how can anyone not be frustrated with the kids depicted in this film. From the opening interview, it's apparent that the movie's subjects are lazy and pretty stupid. Yes, I know some of them came from broken homes, etc., but they all come across as degenerates. It's hard to be sympathetic toward these teen-age train wrecks, but it's even harder to turn away from this film. And one has to question why these kids are the way they are? Has our country bred a subculture of mohawked hobos? Or, are things really that screwed up for troubled youth? The answers will vary depending on whom you ask, but go into this movie knowing you will be either very sad or very angry.

I remember seeing the theatrical trailer for this film in the theaters around seven years ago. It probably only lasted in the theaters out here for about a week and then the film disappeared entirely. I even recall finding an interview with Penelopy Spheres in a magazine somewhere around that time too. I guess I was pretty eager to see the film, but missed it. Anyhow after seeing the film for the first time today, I must say I was a bit disappointed. It seemed as if everything that was weak about the first film (namely the lame outsider questions) was all that remained in the third. How could the same film maker who made Suburbia and the first Decline be so far out of touch? I mean, she made it look like the only group doing shows in '97 was Naked Aggression. At one point in the movie she asks a kid what speed is, and then she turns around asks the same dude if his mom used to smoke it or shoot it. Whaaat? I thought you didn't even know what a tweaker was. Bascialy the the movie goes on like this, "Where are your parents? Do they like your hair? What's that in your ear? Let's interview a cop. Where do you see your self in 5 years? What's tweak? Doesn't that make you sad? Why don't you get a job?" It looked a lot like the only thing the director was really attracted to was the appearance of her subject, and in the end, even though the people in this film are are real, you kind of have to wonder how accurate this movie really is.