LucasHilderbrand Bootleg
LucasHilderbrand Bootleg
LucasHilderbrand Bootleg
The year is 1970, and suddenly the nation finds itself asking
the question, What if, instead of the riots and assassinations,
the protests and the drugs, instead of the angry words and
hard-rock sounds, we were to hear something soft and smooth,
and see something of wholesomeness and easy-handed faith?
This was the year that put the song onto the charts that made
the Carpenters a household word.
Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story
The Carpenters have only just begun when a male narrator dryly
delivers this speculative historical analysis. His somber voice is
juxtaposed with flickering, pixelated period images shot off the
surface of a television monitor: bombs falling, California governor Ronald Reagan, an American flag, a flurry of angry protestors, Richard Nixon with his daughter Tricia, a stock photo of a
happy heterosexual couple, and the final triumphant moments
of a beauty pageant. Immediately following this commentary and
montage, the opening piano notes of (They Long to Be) Close
to You knell on the soundtrack as the film cuts to the inside of a
Copyright 2004 by Camera Obscura
Camera Obscura 57, Volume 19, Number 3
Published by Duke University Press
57
58
Camera Obscura
59
image as performers promoted conservative family values, as something of an anomaly during a period of social revolt. They were,
however, extraordinarily popular and scored twenty top-forty hits
between their debut single Close to You in 1970 and Karen Carpenters death by heart attack following an overdose of Ipecac
syrup in 1983. Hayness Superstar is at once a portrait of a historical period and a critique of popular cultures failure to respond
adequately to it. Yet the Carpenters popularity may in fact suggest that their conservative image was not anomalous and that
instead, perhaps, our skewed historical perspective erroneously
assumes the majority of the population to have participated in
the counterculture movement rather than longing for a stable
status quo. Or, perhaps most commonly, viewers find themselves
in the ambivalent position of singing along to songs they might
otherwise be ashamed to enjoy.2 As personal tastes in opposition
to historically and socially specific trends, guilty pleasures are
generational, so that younger viewers are perhaps less likely to
feel shame about liking the Carpenters music or feel its emotional resonance.
Haynes simulates the Carpenters domestic and professional dramas with a cast of Barbie-type dolls (and occasionally
human body doubles and talking heads) and presents cultural context for the groups fame and Karens body issues. In the process,
the filmmaker structures the narrative through the generic modes
of star biopics, disease-of-the-week television movies, health educational films, and feminist documentaries. Haynes imitates and
combines familiar film and television genres not to critique these
modes but to use them strategically to present allegorical narratives functioning as shorthand for expressing the characters
emotional states and for producing audience affect. Hayness focus
on body genres and intertextuality in Superstar presents themes
and modes that have remained central to his subsequent films.
Haynes not only combines disparate narrative methodologies but
also textures the film by interweaving a variety of media and formal
styles. His work in Superstar was influenced by the late-seventies
and early-eighties shift from purely formalist experimental cinema
to an avant-garde cinema of narrative experimentation used to
60
Camera Obscura
explore social issues.3 At the time of the films release, it would have
proven difficult to miss the connections between Karens anorexic
wasting and the emaciating effects of AIDS. I suspect that the more
historically removed we get from the 1980s public panic over AIDS,
the less the text will be read allegorically, so that Superstar will
increasingly be seen as just about eating disorders and media
culture.
The film opens with a black-and-white point-of-view shot
A Dramatization, as it is marked that presents Karens mother
searching through a house and finding a dead body lying in the
closet. The abrasive bass synthesizer score and the mothers cries
of Carrie! suggest a horror film. The film then quickly changes
tone, as a male narrators authoritative voice offers rhetorical
questions that promise to be answered to make sense of the horror. Mundane images of homes in Downey, California, drift across
the screen as the fancy, cursive credits appear and Karen Carpenters disembodied voice sings the familiar, sad opening verses of
Superstar. Following the discovery of Karens corpse, the song
has a surprisingly chilling effect until it shifts to up-tempo beats
for the chorus, when the sad love song inexplicably turns celebratory, drowning out the heartache scripted in the lyrics of youthful
love and desperate hopes: Dont you remember you told me you
loved me, baby? This songs shift in tone presents a dual affect of
melancholy and feigned joviality; these are the emotional tensions and transitions that appear throughout the films shifts in
genre and address, alternately conveyed with irony and sincere
mourning.4 The Carpenters songs set the films rhythm, and
Karen Carpenters authentic singing voice imbues the dolls with
their much-acclaimed subjectivity. The film allows the audience
to giggle early on at the dolls stunt casting and joke moments
such as Karens cough or punctuating shots of a human hand
hitting a tambourine during Weve Only Just Begun before
becoming progressively more tragic. Frequently the film operates
in dual registers, as in the parodic educational film-within-thefilm about anorexia, which is laughably didactic, yet conveys substantial information. Throughout Superstar, musical montages
not only function as dress rehearsals for the complicated musical
61
Superstars reception has been significantly influenced by the conditions of its exhibition and circulation, even more so since its
withdrawal from legitimate distribution. Therefore it seems
essential to revisit the films history and perhaps correct some of
62
Camera Obscura
63
The films public life came of age, however, with highprofile reviews by J. Hoberman in theVillage Voice and Barbara
Kruger in Artforum. In one week in November, Hoberman featured Superstar as the second review in his lead film article, accompanied by a still of Karens White House performance (snapped
off a television set) and the headline Valley of the Dolls.10
Hobermans review was paired with a profile of Haynes, who was
already being positioned as a formidable talent and a rising art
star: Haynes is receiving attention for his short films at a time
when the experimental underground is experiencing only mild
tremors.11 TheVoice, then more than today, was the arbiter of subcultural credibility and a must-read forum for arts criticism. The
film received even more enthusiastic coverage as the sole topic of
Krugers December column, accompanied by a large if obscure
production still of Hayness hand holding a doll on the film set.
Kruger summarily raved, It is perhaps this small films triumph
that it can so economically sketch, with both laughter and chilling actuality, the conflation of patriotism, familial control, and
bodily self-revulsion that drove Karen Carpenter and so many like
her to strive for perfection and end up simply doing away with
themselves.12 These articles exposed a broader audience to
Haynes, and an experimental film superstar was born.
That November, Superstar screened at the Naked Eye Cinema and had an extended run as a looped single-channel video
installation in the exhibition Social Studies at the New Museum
of Contemporary Art.13 Superstar also played repeatedly at the 55
Mercer Street Gallery in December 1987 and January 1988, as
well as at Artists Space in the spring 1988 exhibition Unacceptable Appetites, presented again as a looped single-channel video
installation, here in the context of predominantly feminist videos
about consumption, addiction, and body issues.14 During the first
nine months of Superstars public exhibition, it was thus repeatedly presented within a gallery context on a monitor and probably seen by more viewers that way (although perhaps not in its
entirety) than on film.
Judging from two retrospective accounts, Superstar was the
rage of downtown New York in 1987 almost to the point of sat-
64
Camera Obscura
65
66
Camera Obscura
couple of years Haynes did not hear back from Richard Carpenters representatives or anyone else in the music industry. Significantly, Hayness press release for Superstars first three screenings
acknowledged its outlaw status in the first sentence: Superstar is
an unauthorized film . . . using Barbie-sized dolls.19 The phrase
Barbie-sized dolls is especially interesting because it seems to
anticipate and circumscribe Hayness first near lawsuit following
the films release.
Mattel, the manufacturer and patent owner of Barbie, her
pals, products, and trademarked identity, first took notice of the
film in 1988. The corporation was already involved in lawsuits
against knockoff products and was clearly intent on protecting its
market share by whatever legal means necessary. The company
expressed concern about associations between their products
and death, fearing that portraying a Barbie doll as anorexic
would mar her happy, healthy image. Mattel sent Haynes a series
of letters, including one with copies of their patents for Barbie
and her various individual body parts Barbie was not merely a
brand but also the precise width of her arm or curvature of her
torso. The dolls used in the film were an assortment of Mattel and
Mattel-like products (for instance, Dionne Warwick was reportedly embodied by the head of a Michael Jackson figure attached
to a female doll body),20 mostly found at thrift stores and rendered unrecognizable by appearing in the drag of period garb
and remolded faces. As a gesture of good faith, Haynes offered to
add either a disclaimer stating that the dolls in the film were not
Mattel products and not to be confused with them, or a note of
gratitude to the company for their after-the-fact permission. Mattel never responded or pursued full-fledged legal action against
the film. Since the films release and suppression, however, a
flurry of doll media and criticism has been produced, and Mattel
has threatened such projects as Mark Napiers Internet images
The Distorted Barbie (1997) and the Brazilian short Barbie Can
Also Be Sad (Barbie tambin puede estar triste, dir. Albertina Carri,
2001). Late in 2003, a federal appeals court ruled that Mattel
cannot use trademark laws to censor all parodies or satires which
use [Barbies] name.21
67
68
Camera Obscura
mission, that poses the insurmountable obstacle to the films aboveground circulation.24
Reproduced without significant alteration, the songs as used
in Superstar do not fit within the confines of a parody defense,
wherein only the minimum necessary resemblance to the parodied
text is excused from copyright restrictions. Perhaps a stronger case
could be made under the so-called fair use defense, which protects the portioned use of copyrighted materials for critical examination. As written, fair use guidelines are intentionally vague and
open to interpretation, and lawsuits against artists who have
appropriated copyrighted material have tended to settle out of
court, so relatively few legal precedents exist. Perhaps not surprisingly, court rulings on these issues have historically given the
greatest weight to the issue of financial damages or market loss
due to infringements. Significantly, Haynes was not asked to pay
any damages for copyright infringement; instead, the legal correspondence demanded that the film be completely removed from
circulation.
The press has characterized the motivation behind the
injunctions as the result of Richard Carpenters personal offense,
but in fact, these assumptions remain unsubstantiated. However,
it is clear that the case against the film was never phrased in terms
of the artists or record companys revenue loss or desire to recoup
damages. Indeed, if anything, Superstars popularity increased
sales of the Carpenters albums and functioned as an incredibly
effective promotional film for the by-then unfashionable duo.
Attempting to negotiate, Haynes requested that the film be
allowed to continue screening nontheatrically and noncommercially as an educational tool for schools and clinics, offering to
donate all proceeds from rentals to the Karen Carpenter Foundation for Anorexia Research. Hayness proposal was declined, and
the final agreement stipulated that the film could not screen publicly and that Haynes had to do everything he could to stop circulation of videotapes (such as recalling them from video stores).
Richard Carpenter did allow for one major concession, seeming
to understand his fellow artists need to build and promote a
career: Haynes can show the film to critics in relation to his other
69
work. Since 1989, Haynes and his lawyers have made some efforts
to clear the ban on the film so that it can be released again.
Although it seems that Haynes could make a clear case that Superstar uses the Carpenters songs in a critical, even scholarly, way,
and although he has proposed a nonprofit intention for distribution, the glitch in the films potential fair use defense comes from
the song clips extended durations. One of the four criteria that
determines fair use is the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole.25
For a film that has been removed from distribution and historically difficult to access, Superstar has had an astonishing, seemingly irrepressible afterlife. Although its primary mode of circulation since late 1989 has been through an informal underground
network of shared bootleg videotapes, Superstar continues to be
seen in group-audience (if not always exactly public) settings.
Friends of mine recalled seeing the film in the early 1990s in a
variety of settings, from a Dallas nightclub to a party in a rented
Los Angeles storefront to a Washington, DC, cult film clubs
monthly bar night to a meeting of the So Paolo Carpenters Fan
Club. University classrooms continue to rank among the most
prevalent venues for illegal if educational screenings. But
semicautious institutions and festivals have also repeatedly made
this surprise, secret, and early Haynes short available for public consumption, typically within the context of the filmmakers
other work or within doll-themed programs; the film either shows
unannounced or is promoted through keywords (such as those
indicated above) for in-the-know audiences. Museums, microcinemas, theaters, and festivals in San Francisco in 1999, Columbus,
Ohio, in 2000, Queens in 2002, Providence, Rhode Island, in
2003, Brooklyn in 2003, and Austin, Texas, in 2003 have recently
screened a certain unmentionable (and therefore undocumented)
Haynes film in some cases on 16mm and making a point to publicize that fact. According to Haynes, who self-distributed the film,
five 16mm prints were struck and in release in the late eighties;
three of the prints that circulated remain unaccounted for, presumably lost in the flurry of screenings as venues frequently
shipped prints directly to the next play dates, rather than return-
70
Camera Obscura
ing them directly to Haynes. Sources for post-1989 16mm screenings remain dubious.
Other public events have explicitly lauded the works illicit
status for the counterculture kids, advertising the film by title and
assuredly showing bootlegged videos. For instance, in 2002 3,
Superstar toured as part of the exhibition Illegal Art: Freedom of
Expression in the Corporate Age to such prominent venues as
Anthology Film Archives in New York, the Roxie Cinema in San
Francisco, and the Prince Music Theater in Philadelphia. Ironically, the publicity for the Illegal Art show ran the disclaimer
Used without permission at the end of its Superstar blurb, a note
that did not appear in other descriptions for individual works.26
The drive to show and share the film must be worth the gamble
for venues a testament to programmers and audiences love
for it. To my mind, the most telling promotional text for a Superstar screening appeared in the calendar listing for a 1998 event at
the Blinding Light Cinema in Vancouver, Canada: Though we
swore wed never show it again . . . due to overwhelming public
demand we are pleased to present this long-banned underground classic. . . . the mediocre quality dub which you [will] see
here, [is] viewed with a certain charm and respect rarely given to
degraded video.27
71
just as quickly obsolete).28 Since the film went underground, isolated hush-hush and self-consciously transgressive 16mm screenings offer film purists opportunities to see the work in a more
pristine condition than bootleg tapes offer. When I saw Superstar
projected on 16mm, the auditorium was packed with people who
had seen (and likely owned) pirated copies but had never seen
the film in the flesh. As a low-budget film shot over the course of
a couple of weekends, Superstar, even in its original format, still
has nearly illegible titles, generally grainy images, and shrill
sound. Seeing the film on film made me nostalgic for my warped
dub at home. For me, part of the experience was missing.
Analog reproduction of the text, rather than destroying
the originals aura, actually reconstructs it. Materially, the fallout
of the image and sound mark each successive copy as an illicit
object, a forbidden pleasure watched and shared and loved to
exhaustion. Furthermore, the deresolution of the tapes formally
reflects the narrative of Karens wasting away. The films theme
becomes expressed on the tapes surfaces, even as deterioration
obscures the visual and audio information, thus frustrating standard spectatorial engagement with the narrative.
Not entirely coincidentally, the period portrayed in Superstar overlaps with the rise of video as a medium, artists and intellectuals engagement with Marshall McLuhans the medium is
the message musings,29 and the American academic adoption of
French poststructuralist critiques of sign systems. Notably, Haynes
pirated not only music for his film but television footage as well.
Taped from television broadcasts with a VCR and then played
back and reshot in 16mm from the surface of a monitor, these
images appear with the film cameras flicker out of sync with the
televisual pixel scanning, so that the images are distressed by
black lines rolling vertically across the screen and by loss from the
transfer between formats. Although Haynes worked to minimize
the deterioration effect during production, a trace of the format
mismatch remains and contributes to the films expressive effect.
Of course, film has been shot off of television monitors since the
television mediums first transmissions; prior to the invention of
videotape recorders, live television broadcasts were documented
72
Camera Obscura
73
media than as a historicizing method to present the cultural context for the Carpenters anachronistically wholesome stardom
and music that led a raucous nation smoothly into the seventies.
But their purported smoothness jars with the rough-textured
television-to-film(-to bootleg video) footage, emphasizing a disjuncture between Karen Carpenters soothing voice and the violence that is documented and remembered.32
In other words, the duplication degeneration that appears
within Hayness film complemented by a Carpenters soundtrack presents a historical distance that can be read nostalgically. At the same time, this resolution loss exerts pressure against
the images and frames them as representations. As I read the film,
Superstars critical analysis of media influence is persistently in
tension with the emotional allure of an entertainment utopia,
and fondness and respect for Karen Carpenter are essential for a
sympathetic engagement with it.
As a film about simulation, hypocritical images, media
reproduction, and self-destruction, the narrative and its aesthetic
to a certain extent challenge each other, even as they are conceptually complementary. Although the film was conceived as a test
case of sorts to see whether inanimate dolls could generate spectator identification, the experiment is not a seamless one. The
film is composed of abrupt generic shifts and jump-cut ruptures
that foreground the work as image and sound, not as constitutive
of a diegetic world. K. Burdette has written the most extensive
and rigorous published study of Superstar, decoding the signs and
queer meanings in the film: The cumulative effect of pastiching
together contrived dramatic scenarios enacted by plastic dolls,
the Carpenters now dated and hopelessly sentimental music, and
found footage from seventies sitcoms serves to expose the patent
artifice (and outrageousness) of these images/texts/structures
and the inadequacy of the ideologies they embody. . . . Its this
concern with the oppressive and alienating effects of these cultural norms which makes Superstar queer.33 Burdette presents an
insightful reading of the films construction, but this analysis does
not consider the films perceptual or emotional resonance. I
disagree with Burdettes appraisal of the Carpenters music, and
74
Camera Obscura
75
76
Camera Obscura
and a woman vomiting. Simultaneously, slowed-down, overlapping samples of Carpenters songs and snippets of dialogue replay
on the audio track. The effect both literally deconstructs media
images and formally expresses Karens self-perception as mediated by television. The medias direct effects on Karen are made
even more explicit through close-ups framing Karen in front of
imposing televisual transmissions.36 The distressing of appropriated footage functions expressionistically as a device to convey
Karens psychological state, reflecting the films themes in its
form. Subsequent, repeated video reproduction of bootleg videotapes has compounded this effect, so that the image loss with
each successive VHS-to-VHS duplicate aesthetically reflects Karens
subjective and bodily wasting: her disappearing body becomes
manifest in the material information loss.
Little has been written describing the effects of decay and
reconfiguration that occur when video is reshot on film or
when it is then repeatedly recorded from video to video. In examining the pervasive piracy in Nigeria, anthropologist Brian Larkin
acknowledges the aesthetics of distortion evident in third-world,
black-market reproductions; in the process he has written the
only qualitative discussion of video duplication I have seen.37
Within cinema studies, Laura Marks has emerged as the pioneer
on this materialist frontier, most notably with her essay Loving
the Disappearing Image, in which she acknowledges an erotics
of image deterioration, whether due to age, wear, or artistic intervention. Marks, following Vivian Sobchacks work, proposes that
cinematic identification is founded in a bodily relationship to the
screen and that films and videos that present hard-to-see, deteriorating, or pixelated images offer a haptic, melancholic empathy.
But rather than presenting death as horrible, these mortified
images offer the viewer a new, tangible, intimate, and frequently
beautiful relationship to material loss. Reading through Freud
(Mourning and Melancholia) and against Roland Barthes (Camera
Lucida), the texts that Marks analyzes can be interpreted as materialist eulogies for loved ones who have died (particularly from
AIDS-related illnesses) or simply for terminated relationships.
Marks writes, The works I discuss here turn their attention to the
77
images that were not precious but merely efficacious: the porno,
the medical film. Loving a disappearing image can be a way of rescuing something that was not loved in its own time.38 Made just
four years after Karen Carpenters death, Superstar used the Carpenters music before a retro cycle had reclaimed it, and it represents the singer to audiences too alternative or too cool to
have taken her seriously the first time around. Haynes demonstrates enormous affection for Karen Carpenter and admiration
for her vocal talent, even as he uses distressed TV footage and
scrapes away the characters plastic face.
Certain contemporary video art pieces have intentionally
exhibited video decay. Slater Bradleys Factory Archives (US, 2001)
conceptually employs resolution loss from format shifting and
duplication. Bradley shot footage of an actor portraying Joy Division front man Ian Curtis and transferred it from video to his
computer and back again until it became so distressed and blurred
that it could pass for an old, weathered tape, and the actor (with
ultimately indistinguishable features) could pass for the deceased
musician. Bradleys tape offers a fascinating instance of video
dropout and distortion used to create the texts nostalgic tone
and to simulate authenticity. A formalist exploitation of distressed video also functions in Nguyen Tan Hoangs K.I.P. (US,
2001) to present a history of desire. Nguyen edited footage from
old video store gay porno tapes starring Kip Knoll that had been
stretched, distorted, and damaged by viewer abuse presumably
from pausing, slow-motioning, rewinding, and replaying the
most intensely sexy moments. Nguyen taped the footage from a
television monitor, with his own reflection visible in the on-screen
glare. This piece presents an archive of erotic consumption recorded (or, perhaps more appropriately, stripped) on the magnetic surface of the tapes themselves. These two texts use video
decay one through reproduction, the other through wear
that materially reflects the real-life death (Curtis) or disappearance (Knoll) of the figure on screen. The effect is one of melancholic videophilia an aesthetic that finds the beauty in formal
mourning visible and audible on Superstar bootlegs as well.39
Hayness nonsynchronous television-to-film recording can
78
Camera Obscura
easily be distinguished from cult audiences video-to-video reproduction: sharp pixelation, scrambled signals, and visible, rolling
black lines are clearly present in Hayness piracy, whereas the
video dubbing makes the image less focused and washes out the
color intensity. Viewers of the bootlegs, extending Markss argument, engage with the text on a medium-specific basis, knowing
from the films first moments (if not from word of mouth even
earlier) that they are watching a self-reflexive collage of images
that have been further decayed through wear and reproduction.
To trot out an oft-cited Barthes argument yet again, video dubbing materially records the audiences (readers) use and abuse,
rendering the death of the author. Haynes is quite likely the
most theoretically influenced and self-conscious contemporary
American auteur, but Barthess paradigm-shattering argument
that readers produce textual meanings, not authors or critics, is
helpful in articulating the role audiences play in recreating and
redistributing Superstar. Hayness unauthorized star study effectively becomes un-author-ized through video reproduction. To
phrase the issue in Barthess terms, Hayness use of found footage
expresses both Karen Carpenters psychological state and a culture and media critique whereas the video-to-video bootlegging inscribes both a duplicated mourning of Karen Carpenters
death and a history of the videos circulation.40 As Marks points
out, every tape decays in a unique way, and I would add that every
duplication has a unique effect on the transfer, so that each
pirated cassette becomes a singular text that contains and compounds its circulatory history. Furthermore, the video signals distress and disappearance, which cause tracking problems in farfrom-heavenly VHS cassettes, call attention to the tapes as copies,
illicit copies. These blurry bootlegs foreground piracy and
remind us that we are indulging in pleasurably transgressive viewing acts.
The filmmakers expressions are not erased by bootleg
inscriptions, but rather, the effect is one of mediation as the compound filtering of multiple-generation bootlegs alters the viewing
experience. Although typically used and conceived as a transparent access format rather than as a formal medium, analog video-
79
80
Camera Obscura
Superstars unplanned bootleg circulation presents a democratization of distribution at the same time that it makes access elitist.
Seeing or obtaining tapes, at least until they became available
through eBay, depended on insider connections or simply the
contingency of being in the right place at the right time. In addition to the conceptual connections that I have suggested between
the narrative and the formal degeneration, the wear and fallout
of pirated tapes present material evidence of fan use, duplication, and dissemination marking an unwritten (and otherwise
impossible-to-retrace) history of circulation. Catherine Grant and
Tahani Nadim have pointed out the social relations evident in
bootlegging: The network of bootlegging is a way of relating to
collaborators, audiences and guests that is as constitutive of the
participants as it is a means to distribute artwork.46 Whereas
the footage Haynes reshoots and inserts works (in part) to locate
81
82
Camera Obscura
tracked down replacement copies. One friend recounted showing a black-and-white dub of Superstar while teaching an urban
youth media production class in Chicago; in spite of the tapes
poor quality, the kids had such strong emotional responses to the
film that it became the model for their own projects. A couple of
people even reported having watched the tape on first dates; the
lure of seeing a rare film apparently functions as a viable seduction tactic. Friends replying that they had not seen the film
expressed a desire to do so rather something close to insistence
that I show it to them or, in one case, embarrassment about not
being able to claim the cool cachet of having seen it.
What all these anecdotes suggest is the multiplicity of values these tapes represent to their collectors. Although in most
cases the root motivation for obtaining copies may simply have
been one of wanting to possess a favorite text, Superstars outof-distribution status complicates the tapes values. The films relative scarcity, of course, drives viewers to reproduce tapes when
they finally have access. These actions suggest viewers fears that
they may not obtain tapes again, as well as dedication to preserving their continued personal access. Higher-resolution dupes
those fewer generations removed from a master and displaying
less distortion are hot commodities, and eBay entrepreneurs
make a point of advertising the quality of their copies available
for bidding. The bootlegging phenomenon, in effect, has created
a do-it-yourself strategy to preserve the work and keep it in semipublic circulation through a wily network of tape sharing.48
While acknowledging that collectors are motivated by a
texts rarity or, conversely, sudden availability, Charles Tashiro has
suggested that video collecting is predominantly based on irrational emotional reasons, whether one has a completionist
strategy that never allows time to watch the videos, or buys things
on impulse without any apparent logic. He creates a hierarchy
between acquisitions that are liked and those that are loved; liked
ones are frequently viewed on tape a format that inevitably
wears out while loved ones (or those that one should love and
own) are often promoted to digital disc formats that sit on the
83
84
Camera Obscura
an emotional narrative dependent on the viewers nostalgic associations with the Carpenters music and the naive early-seventies
pop culture but also evoke memories of the tapes sources.
After a decade-plus of underground life, Superstar cannot
be discussed outside the context of its distribution. Nor, I argue,
can it be analyzed without looking at the meanings encoded onto
the dubbed tapes. As a film in which the surface expresses the
emotional and physical states of its main character, as well as its
political critique, it is perhaps fortuitous that Superstar has become primarily accessible in low-fidelity reproductions. Bootleg
aesthetics visually and acoustically replicate the psychological
and physical trauma experienced by Karen in the narrative; these
warbled tapes also record the cult audiences participation in
remaking the text with each new duplicate produced and circulated. One of the great ironies of bootlegging is that it preserves
Superstar in the publics possession as it progressively destroys the
original work. Piracy repeatedly renders the collective demise of
the narrative subject, the author, and the format. Karen and
Todd, we love you to death.
Notes
Thanks to Jose Freire, Joseph Wlodarz, Carla Marcantonio, and Elena
Gorfinkel for feedback on drafts of this essay; to Patricia White and
Howard Besser, among many others, for encouragement; to fans and
friends who shared their memories and connections; and to Todd
Haynes for graciously filling in gaps in the films history. This essay is
dedicated to my friend Dean, who made my first Superstar bootleg.
1.
2.
3.
85
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Peter Biskind, Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance, and the
Rise of Independent Film (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004),
108. Biskind inaccurately called the film a flop downtown. It
may have faced initial rejection from programmers, but it quickly
found audiences. The film eventually screened at the Collective
for Living Cinema on April Fools Day, 1988. Film listings, New
York Times, 1 April 1988.
9.
86
Camera Obscura
87
users.rcn.com/napier.interport/barbie/barbie.html (accessed
8 August 2003), including a link to reproductions of the 10
October 1997 letter that Mattel sent to Napiers Web site host.
Barbie Can Also Be Sad presents dolls of various genders
(including an intersex Barbie with male genitalia) involved in an
orgy. Mattel intervened in a screening of the tape in Mexico,
although it had already screened in the United States as part of
MIX NYC in 2001 and at the San Francisco International
Lesbian and Gay Film Festival in 2002. Other post-Superstar
Barbie-centric video productions include the Barbie Liberation
Organizations BLO Nightly News (1994), Paper Tiger TVs Twist
Barbie: Lynn Spigel Dreams of Plastic Feminism (1994), and Joe
Gibbonss Barbies Audition (1995) and Multiple Barbie (1998).
22. On genericide, see Rosemary J. Coombe, The Cultural Life of
Intellectual Properties: Authorship, Appropriation, and the Law
(Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998), 79 82.
23. Manohla Dargis, Toward Directors Chair, Interview, May 1990,
30.
24. The published screenplay includes reprint permission notices
for lyrics to all the Carpenters songs in the film except Top of
the World. Todd Haynes, Three Screenplays (New York: Grove,
2003).
25. Copyright Law of the United States, circular 92 (Washington, DC:
Library of Congress, 2003), 18. For an excellent, humanitiesfriendly introduction to copyright law, see Martha Buskirk,
Commodification as Censor: Copyright and Fair Use, October,
no. 60 (1992): 83 109. Fair use formed part of the major
revisions of copyright law enacted in 1976; like the concept of
public domain, it is premised on the belief that educational,
critical, and creative uses of existing works are for the public
good. In the late 1970s, Betamax video recorders were targeted
in a major lawsuit, Sony v. Universal, in which Hollywood studios
alleged that the machine was a copyright-infringing device. In
the early eighties, the suit was appealed to the Supreme Court,
which found for Sony because of the machines potential for
noninfringing uses, effectively allowing for the mass personal use
of VCRs. See Ronald V. Bettig, Copyrighting Culture: The Political
Economy of Intellectual Property (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1996),
151 87.
88
Camera Obscura
89
material objects that stick, erode, and warp. Yet in this dual role
of image retention and loss, video has increasingly become a
medium in which issues of collective and individual memory are
being examined. Marita Sturken, The Politics of Video
Memory: Electronic Erasures and Inscriptions, in Resolutions:
Contemporary Video Practices, ed. Michael Renov and Erika
Suderberg (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1996),
3 4.
33. K. Burdette, Queer Readings/Queer Cinema: An Examination
of the Early Work of Todd Haynes, Velvet Light Trap 41 (1998):
75.
34. Roger Hallas, AIDS and Gay Cinephilia, Camera Obscura, no. 52
(2003): 87 89.
35. Quoted in Chuck Stephens, Gentlemen Prefer Haynes: Of
Dolls, Dioramas, and Disease: Todd Haynes Safe Passage, Film
Comment, JulyAugust 1995, 77.
36. Television plays a significant role in forming character identities
throughout Hayness work. In Poison (US, 1991), a television
news report outs the diseased scientist to his girlfriend. In Dottie
Gets Spanked (US, 1993), the sitcom The Dottie Show provides the
site of fandom and fantasy for protogay Steven. In Safe (US/UK,
1995), a jolting cut to color bars on a television monitor gets
Carol Whites (and our) attention at a chemical allergy awareness
meeting, and she later discovers Wrenwood through an
infomercial. In Velvet Goldmine, the programTop of the Pops
launches Brian Slades career and presents uncomfortable
shared family time for young Arthur. In Far from Heaven, the
television manufacturer Magnatech markets an iconography of
modern and happy domesticity; in contrast, father Frank
Whitacker discovers gay cruising at a dim movie palace.
37. Brian Larkin, Degraded Images, Distorted Sounds: Nigerian
Video and the Infrastructure of Piracy, Public Culture 16 (2004):
289 314.
38. Laura Marks, Loving a Disappearing Image, in Touch: Sensuous
Theory and Multisensory Media (Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 2002), 109.
39. In the earlier, less affective work Maxell (US, 1990), Jonathan
Horowitz conceptually and visually degraded the media
90
Camera Obscura
91
University and a programmer for MIX: The New York Lesbian and
Gay Experimental Film/Video Festival.