|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Aug 11, 2016 20:45:12 GMT -5
I'm sure this film is no stranger to the "seasoned" memberbase of this board, so I'll forgo the lengthy introduction to the strange and utterly bizarre world that Robert Crumb inhabits. As always, I'm interested to hear your thoughts and opinions because I find this film to be a very strong character study of physcological tramua/neurosis' and it's effects on artists; namely with Robert's brothers, Charles and Maxton
|
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 13, 2016 17:48:20 GMT -5
I thought it was a very well made film. I think I would have found it riveting even if I hadn't been a comics fan - and actually, I did not know Crumb's work very well when I saw it, so I wasn't really viewing it from a fan's perspective. I watched it with my land-lord at the time, a friend around my own age who is not a comics guy at all but is a pretty big film buff, and he found it just as involving as I did.
|
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Aug 13, 2016 21:01:14 GMT -5
I like Crumb's artstyle, but sometimes the content itself is a bit too outlandish for my own personal tastes. I might get the first volume of the complete crumb comics at some point, but only for the stuff he did with his brothers and sisters for their Animal Town comics club
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Aug 16, 2016 10:05:17 GMT -5
Crumb is demented but dang he makes for interesting reading. I'd known about him and had mentioned him to my not-comics-at-all wife, and was floored when she knew who I was talking about. She's seen the documentary and liked it too. FWIW, I just ordered a book collected his album covers on sale from the wonderful Bud Plant |
|
|
|
Post by Batflunkie on Aug 16, 2016 11:16:39 GMT -5
I see a lot of myself in Robert as I'm socially awkward and kind of at a "mental distance" from the rest of the world. I'm seeking help for my problems and it makes me wonder what would happen if Robert got the same help, would he still have the same brilliance that he once did?
|
|
|
|
Post by hondobrode on Aug 16, 2016 21:16:59 GMT -5
I don't know.
In a way they're different people.
My dad sobering up is a good thing, but he's not quite the same person he was; neither all good or all bad, just different.
|
|
|
|
Post by rom on Sept 1, 2016 18:15:50 GMT -5
I like some of Crumb's art/work, but not all of it. I really enjoyed the collaborations he did with the late Harvey Pekar, and feel this is some of his best work - I'm a big fan of Pekar anyway, and like his "common man" stories.
I also think Crumb's Kafka was brilliant - excellent stuff.
If you want to get a better understanding of the artist & his work, the excellent but extremely controversial & disturbing documentary Crumb (1995) is great - directed by Terry Zwigoff. Good stuff, but not for the squeamish and/or easily offended. One of the many things I didn't know about Crumb (that I learned from watching the doc.) was that he actually knew Janis Joplin back in the day; IIRC, he did the artwork for one (or more) of her album covers and possibly flyers some of her shows.
It's interesting that though Crumb is definitely associated with hippies & specifically the San Francisco/Haight-Ashbury late '60's "scene" (at least partly since he was living & working there at the time), I don't necessarily think he was ever a hippie himself, per se - for one thing, he never seemed to dress the part.
|
|
kellyg
Junior Member
Posts: 23 
|
Post by kellyg on Sept 1, 2016 19:35:49 GMT -5
The candid documentary is definitely something that stays with you. Eccentric as he comes across in other parts of it, even he appears weirded out when he visits his family.
|
|
|
|
Post by rom on Sept 2, 2016 10:33:36 GMT -5
Definitely. This Crumb documentary is fascinating & repellent, both at the same time....Also, I think watching the doc. actually helps you understand more where Crumb is coming from re: his work, i.e. you see his family & upbringing, etc.
His brothers were obviously much more dysfunctional than he was; Crumb actually seemed "normal" in comparison - LOL. His brother Charles (the one who never left home) was an especially sad & pathetic case. When the doc. revealed his fate at the very end, it was quite depressing - but not unexpected.
On another note, I find a direct correlation between Crumb's commercial/financial success as an artist & his success with women. If he had never gotten famous he would have been just another poor schlub & lived his whole life in obscurity; I believe that this would have been his fate if he had never left Cleveland. It's extremely significant that Crumb went to San Francisco in the late '60's, right at the height of the whole Haight-Ashbury hippie movement - that definitely seemed to be what started him on the road to financial/commercial success - to the extent that he almost became a household name. I.e., even if you're not familiar with Crumb's work per se - you've probably heard of him & at least seen some of his artwork.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nowhere Man on Sept 12, 2016 20:43:21 GMT -5
I've seen this twice, around the time it originally came out and just a few years ago. I think it was really well done and I found Crumb's family and background fascinating and disturbing. I agree that as weird as Crumb is, he's clearly the most well adjusted. It was also right before he moved to France, so it was probably the perfect time to do a documentary on Crumb given his mental state at the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Oct 20, 2016 0:10:43 GMT -5
Saw it way back. I'm mixed on his work; I like some of it, abhor some more, am puzzled by much of it. I'm more a fan of illustrative styles and his is a bit rougher. I love some of the blues illustrations he has done, though.
I will say this about the man; he seems to function because he gets his demons out on paper, while his brothers couldn't seem to do the same. They could draw; but couldn't seem to use it as a coping mechanism, the way I think Crumb does.
One note, Crumb has a sister (sisters?) who did not participate and condemned the film. Whether it was because it was too accurate and painful or to much fantasy is a matter of interpretation, I suppose.
Harvey Pekar is someone I found more fascinating and I thought American Splendor captured the man well, both in a real sense, with him on screen, commenting about the drama, and in Paul Giamatti.
|
|
