I finally saw Control yesterday after much long-awaited anticipation, not to mention barrage of hype from my friends and media alike. It's always hard for me to see films later than anyone else especially in the context of getting such rave reviews. Whether I like it or not it just sets my expectations too high, or I simply can't help but see the film through the lens of everyone else who's already seen it. Then again, every now and then a film exceeds my already high expectations. Let's just say Control didn't really do that. Again, the context which I saw it must have had something to do with it. But regardless, it was still a beautiful film when all is said and done, not to mention crushingly depressing.

One thing the film led me to was an old post by this blogger dude named kpunk on joy division. It was a pretty interesting read. And then there was this passage which totally floored me cause it perfectly articulated what I had thought about for a long time - that is - the mythos surrounding not only Joy Division but the whole UK postpunk scene (and if I can generalize even further, art altogether). Summing up his post, kpunk says:

We should resist the temptation to be Lorelei-lured by either the Aesthete-Romantics (in other words, us, as we were) or the lumpen empiricists. The Aesthetes want the world promised by the sleeves and the sound, a pristine black and white realm unsullied by the grubby compromises and embarrassments of the everyday. The empiricists insist on just the opposite: on rooting the songs back in the quotidian at its least elevated and, most importantly, at its least serious. 'Ian was a laugh, the band were young lads who liked to get pissed, it was all a bit of fun that got out of hand…'

It's important to hold onto both of these Joy Divisions – the Joy Division of Pure Art, and the Joy Division who were 'just a laff' – at once. For if the truth of Joy Division is that they were Lads, then Joy Division must also be the truth of Laddism.

This really captures what has always puzzled me about the uk postpunk scene - that is -  how mythologized and quotidian it was at the same time. Unlike the first wave of punk bands like the ramones, sex pistols, etc. whose stylization seemed to roughly match the scope of their mythos, bands like joy division and the fall were so much more unremarkable, but simultaneously as, if not more, romanticized.

What most struck me about the film Control was how banal the members of Joy Division (including Curtis) came off. It's as if being in the band was  tantamount to having a few pints at the local pub, just another commonplace everday phenomenon. Nothin too remarkable. Of course this may make sense for a band without Joy Division's stature and progressiveness. But how could the members of the band square how innovative their sound was in such a casual, off-handed way? Reading kpunk's post reassured me that I was not alone in my confusion. But going further, he suggests that rather than being contradictory it was in fact an essential driving force; holding these two contradictory polarities at once. After all, what was Manchester in the late 70's if not utterly bland? At least that's what the mythos would like us to believe. But maybe that's what kpunk means - we have to simultaneously hold onto the romanticization of the bland and the blandness of the romanticization.