Spring Breakers

‘Spring break, spring break forever’ is the paradox whispered throughout the second half of Spring Breakers. Although Harmony Korine’s delicious new film came out several months ago it's worth, I think, a slight reappraisal. Or at least another look. Actually the whole concept of re-examining stuff a few months after the critical hype is interesting – a feature lost in the internet age in which blogs race to get their opinions out before their rivals. Thus we see knee-jerk opinions and overly dramatic attention baiting reviews. It's a little sad maybe but understandable as we all (myself included) strive for as many clicks and pageviews as possible.

And on the subject of overly dramatic and attention baiting things we return to this film. Although initial critical reaction was largely positive, those that didn't like it really didn't like it. Glitteringly stylised photography and seemingly misogynistic, one could understand some of the misgivings. It seemed to bristle with a haughty arrogance, stubbornly sure of its thematic footing yet sniggering at the higher-than-thou irony of putting some Disney stars (Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens) in scenes of drug-use and rapacious sexuality. That core of self-amusement is stamped the whole way through Spring Breakers – calling the religious girl Faith (Gomez) is just a further example. It’s deliberately bizarre, full of absurd images and scenes like James Franco’s cornrows and being tried in a court clad in nothing but bikinis. Franco is actually superb playing the leeringly creepy Alien, a local small fry gangster with visions of misguided self-aggrandisement. His richly gangster-ised accent and materialistic obsession is utterly convincing, and yet another peculiar role choice in what is becoming an exceptionally versatile career.

What actually happens? Some girls rob a store in their college town then go down to Florida for spring break. They traipse around drinking and snorting cocaine, then accidently become involved with Alien. That’s about it. To be honest describing the premise feels like it misses the point. It’s a film of purposeful excess, highlighting the hideously ostentatious culture surrounding youthful party breaks and isn’t designed to be much more. People who like films (or rather, like to know a lot about films so that they can impress other people) are used to spending time trying to decipher the singular universal meaning behind a Terrence Malick conclusion or David Lynch ending. Korine turns this obsession with 'knowing' what something means on its head by constructing a movie that draws its tendrils from many themes - youth, drugs, sex - but without imposing any kind of commentary on it. Writers always try to apply some profound meaning to the work of someone with a cult-like reputation like Korine, a tendency that he seems to be making fun of; when in actual fact it’s just the shallow bravado it appears to be. It's nothing more than a face value film, made for the fuck of it, to irritate and draw outrage and it does so brilliantly. Spring Breakers pokes fun at the very idea of inferring meaning from art.

(By the way, I do recognise the irony of me inferring a meaning from a film designed to mock the process of inferring a meaning).