200 Motels

In the simplest terms, the plot of 200 Motels explores the idea that “touring can make you crazy.” As the viewer attempts to follow the seemingly limitless and scattered plot of this film, one cannot help but end up feeling slightly crazy themselves or at least in a state of disarray by the time the credits roll around. This being said, after taking a few moments –or a few hours- to breathe, there are definitely some recognizable points of conceptual continuity that connects Zappa’s previous work with certain ideas and themes that appear within the script of 200 Motels. Zappa being the man that he is finds ample opportunity to resume his role as social critic, commenting on the cultural values of society involving materialism, religion and expressing his personal opinions on the consumption of drugs and alcohol. This film can perhaps better be explained as a music video the length of a feature film whose goal was to create a visual representation of what it is like to be Frank Zappa and the Mother’s of Invention while touring through the many interchangeable small towns of America. Because of the chaotic complexity of 200 Motels, one could choose to explore and discuss many different aspects of this movie but I am going to focus mostly on Frank Zappa’s music and the role it plays throughout the film.

The score, which includes what has been said to be some of Zappa’s most ambitious material written, is a fusion of orchestra, rock, opera and spoken-word excerpts that is reflective of his work on Lumpy Gravy, but to an even greater degree. He used the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, the Top Score Singers, a classical guitar ensemble and an assortment of members from The Mothers to create this double-album. When looking at the plot as a whole and exploring the concept of life on the road, one can see conceptual continuity with Frank’s album Chunga’s Revenge which includes several songs to do with the touring lifestyle. Songs such as “Road Ladies”, “Would You Like to Go All the Way?” and “Rudy Wants to Buy Yez a Drink” all explore this topic. For example, there is a line in “Road Ladies” that goes, “Don’t it ever get lonesome? / Lonesome ain’t the word / Don’t it ever get sad when you go out on a thirty day tour?” which possibly have to do with Zappa’s feelings of seclusion when on the road. It is known that Zappa stayed in rooms separate from the band when touring and that he was very much a homebody. One could also make the connection that Zappa is reflecting upon much of small town America’s inability to understand what his music represents, finding it leaving him not feeling lonesome but sad. These sentiments can be tied to many aspects of the movie, including its title 200 Motels, which, in itself, sounds detached. The number 200 implies how disconnected one might feel when constantly on the move, always in a rush to get to yet another motel room – just as unwelcoming, interchangeable and sterile as the last. Zappa’s sarcasm and cynicism is blatantly apparent in the song Centerville that goes, “Centerville / A real nice place to raise your kids up … Churches / Liquor stores”. Taking a stab at the indistinguishable towns that make up America by encompassing the entire nation in one egotistical name, “Centerville”. Perhaps criticizing the United States by implying its ignorant belief of being at the center of the universe. There are many more examples of Zappa’s conceptual continuity in this film such as his references to materialism and everything “plastic”, an idea that can be traced back to his first album Freak Out!, but there is no way to do this film and all its minute details justice in 700 words.

If it weren’t for my previous knowledge of Frank Zappa and his stance on drugs I would have probably assumed that this movie was a recreation of an acid-trip. But because I know that drugs were foreign territory to the musician, I think this is a perfect example of how experimental and outside-the-box Zappa really was, not only as a musician but as an artist. Zappa clearly was not afraid of letting his mind flow freely and without obstruction in order to produce a work that truly resonated with him. He was very critical of his audience and questioned his fans ability to fully understand what he was doing, which makes me think that Zappa was not only his biggest critic but also his biggest fan. 200 Motels was a cinematic adventure that probably needs to be viewed another 200 times before all it’s subtleties can be recognized, or before it truly makes you go crazy, but regardless, a definite must-see for all Zappa followers.

Flower Punk

Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 

VS 

We're Only In It For The Money

Who Needs the Peace Corps?

Zappa preached infiltration as the most effective method of conflict resolution: an interesting and surprisingly relevant topic to explore in the wake of the recent uprisings in the Middle East and the demonstrations that sparked other Egypt-style peaceful protests. 
While giving a lecture at the London School of Economics Zappa said that “Demonstrations aren’t comfortable and they don’t prove anything.” In his opinion, the solution to social change is to infiltrate: “The best way to achieve lasting results is to infiltrate where you can… I’m afraid that everyone will have a revolution and make a mess of it. They will have their banners on the streets and brandish sticks and go home and brag about their bruises: ‘There I was – the teenage rebel.’” It’s an interesting statement because it seems that a lot of recent social change has been brought about by revolution; Egypt’s latest uprising and the resignation of their president after thirty years of power being a current example. Although, it seems that Zappa’s problem with these “demonstrations” has to do with a few main concerns. One concern being that if the protest turns violent, the whole affair can escalate into a giant boxing match, ultimately giving the military a justifiable excuse to take command of the situation and simply render the cause illegitimate. The other problem being his concern of the true motives behind some of these movements, questioning whether or not it is simply a fad or if people are truly fighting for change. Much of his doubt lies in his confidence in youth and their ability to stand for something that they are capable of effectively pursuing. He considered the flower-power movement to be a waste of time, a fad, and an excuse for people to get a doped up and wander the streets. The social demonstrations of today are certainly different from those of Zappa’s time, mainly due to the incredible media coverage and insider information, and heightened social and global conscience that can be shared at an overwhelming speed via cell phones, the internet and social networking sites. Zappa did say, “you have to use the media, the media is the key and you have to use it” and I think he makes an extremely valid point. The media is one of the most powerful ways to share information on a large scale and provides the means to raise awareness in places that would otherwise remain in ignorance. The musician also stated, “You are not going to solve all the problems in fifteen minutes or ten years. You think ‘If we win, everything will be great,’ but who tells you when you’re there? The only way to make changes that will last is to do it slowly. People are thrilled with the idea of revolution in the streets.” Yet another interesting point because really, who does decide when the appropriate actions have been taken and that there has been a satisfying amount of change? Finally, Zappa does go on to acknowledge that in certain instances there does lie potential in social demonstrations, “I’m not ruling them out completely… When you have 10,000 people of all ages – not just kids – marching on the Pentagon, then that really does something.” So I do believe that Frank Zappa does ultimately recognize a certain form of peaceful protest as a legitimate way to seek immediate social change, but whether of not he believes in their long-term effectiveness is still up for debate.

Drugs Will Turn You Into Your Parents

ONE MAN'S UTOPIA

“A drug is not bad. A drug is a chemical compound. The problem comes in when people who take drugs treat them like a license to behave like an asshole.”

-Frank Zappa 

When researching the chemical effects that smoking cigarettes have on the brain, there were many articles that said smoking alters the flow of opioids, affecting regions of the brain important to emotions and craving. This means that that “feel good”, calming sensation many smokers talk about is a real thing, but to say that smoking brings about a sub-awareness or insensitivity that parallels the use of other harder drugs is rather extreme and, from what I’ve read, untrue. After reading about caffeine and its effects on the brain, all that I concluded was that it caused a heightened sense of awareness but not an increase in intellectual abilities. Therefore, I do not feel that Zappa was applying a double standard in demanding complete sobriety of his musicians. Also, I do not find it unreasonable to ask sobriety of his musicians for they are still in working environment and, as Zappa said, his music – especially in its later years – became very intricate and complex and to have it properly executed required concentration and a clear state of mind, not one hindered by substance abuse. Secondly, research aside, I can say from my own experiences with people on drugs, that there is absolutely no comparison to the mental state of someone who is smoking cigarettes and drinking coffee to that of someone who is doing harder drugs like weed, coke or acid. The latter has the ability to reveal a completely different person than the one that you previously knew sober. I cannot really give an opinion based on personal experimentation seeing as drugs were not something I dabbled in, but I can say that I do not believe that it’s a matter of “understanding” them. I have seen countless strangers and friends on drugs and I think refusing to indulge in that loss of control that can bring you outside of your mind does not make you narrow minded. I don’t need to experiment with jumping off of bridges to know that it is not going to be good for me. Barry Miles’ theory that Zappa’s attitude towards drugs was strongly influenced by his experience with incarceration definitely seems to hold truth. If not motivated by his negative experience with incarceration, Zappa certainly seemed motivated to keep himself and his band members away from drugs for the sake of his music and trying to avoid giving the authorities any excuse to “shut them down”. In an interview Zappa said, “If you’re traveling around with a band that says in their lyrics some of the things that I say, it would be best if you didn’t give a government agency the opportunity to take you away for potential infringement of some peculiar regulation.” I appreciate Zappa’s stance in regards to drugs because I find it refreshing and also a relief to come across someone who managed to be so different, controversial and out there just for who he was, and not artificially altered or defined. I find that many people turn to drugs today either to satisfy a particular image and reputation or as an excuse to let go and use drugs as a mask to hide behind. Whereas, I find that if you are truly seeking to lose yourself in discovering what is the purest expression of who you really are and what you wish to represent, a sober mind is the clearest way to find it… and remember, for that matter.

I Ain't Got No Heart

A couple weeks ago in class we watched a video of Frank Zappa doing an interview for austrian TV. The interviewer asked Zappa about the Cadillac he arrived in and pokes at the irony of the situation. Basically saying what right does Zappa have to be criticizing american culture and values, especially for the emphasis that is put on materialism, when here he is pulling up in a luxurious Cadillac. You can definitely see Zappa getting irritated and defensive, answering with something along the lines of "well if someone gave you a nice car wouldn't you take it?" The two go back and forth for a bit and later we see a video of them making a joke of the situation.


This left me wondering about artists who build a career based on the rebellion against popular culture. What is supposed to come of them if they find not only popularity but financial success? Exactly what are they expected to do with their wealth? If they continue to devote themselves fully to their craft then does it justify having things like Cadillacs - something that potentially represents all that they stand against? When does indulgence become overindulgence?


I think this puts fans in a difficult position because really, what do we expect? Do we expect them to entirely reject any form of payment in an attempt to preserve their image or is there a certain amount of dollars an artist should accept before they simply refuse to take anymore?  Because unless society completely alters its way of functioning, it's inevitable that one needs money to survive which makes it difficult to judge someone based on how they choose spend it.


Ultimately, the reality is that no human is perfect and Frank Zappa wasn't exactly in the business to win the Mr. Popularity contest. So how do I feel about Zappa rolling around in a swanky Cadillac? To be perfectly honest, it doesn't bother me much at all. So far it seems that his financial success never hindered the integrity of his music but, in fact, enhanced it -- in terms of music, if you have more money it usually means better production, better musicians and the means to take projects to a whole new level. Then why is it that Zappa got defensive when this whole issue came up? Maybe because he does see the irony and it frustrates him or maybe because it only further proves how narrow minded people can be, all of a sudden forgetting his work as a musician to focus on an insignificant detail like what kind of car he drives.


I suppose I'm left to wonder, if someone were to offer me a nice car would I take it? I don't know. Probably. But I guess it depends, I'd have to let you know if that ever happens.


Would you?

Hungry Freaks, Daddy

CREATIVE POTENTIALITY

"A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open."


-Frank Zappa

Creativity. What does it really mean to be creative? We all have it… I think. The dictionary defines it as “the use of imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of an artistic work”. As children we all seem to posses a limitless ability to imagine and create, so why is it that as we grow older the idea of being creative is treated as an exclusive ability restricted only to those who were blessed with this so-called gift? Perhaps it is because society allows us to lose touch with our creative potentiality by putting a strong emphasis on things like materialism and social conformity, the seemingly endless struggle to “fit-in”. Buying something popular or trendy to make us feel better about ourselves is, in principal, an absurd idea, yet few can say that they haven’t fallen victim to this trap, including myself. There’s nothing original about being like everyone else, but to step outside of these social norms takes courage, and the further you stray from what is said to be normal, the more of it you’ll need. Maybe this is what represses that fearless child within and sheds an intimidating light on those that choose to be different. I think that most people forget about how accessible creativity is and choose to dismiss the idea that really anyone can be an artist. Like Frank Zappa said, our minds don’t work unless we open them. Open them and allow ourselves to embrace the artist within. The comparison of our minds to a parachute is a very interesting idea to consider because if we open them up then not only do they start to work but they ultimately save us, and when you think about it, an open mind seems to be the solution to a whole whack of problems we face in today’s society. 
 


When we get dressed in the morning, re-arrange our furniture, make a meal, we are making choices that can be subject to creativity if we choose to acknowledge ourselves as the creative directors of our lives. Musicians, painters, dancers, etc. are not the only people who posses creative potential. If one chooses to treat life as a large, blank canvas, then all that we do in a day and all that we see can be creative, expressive and inspiring. Creativity has no limits. There is a sort of pull that exists between the desire to be different and the desire to fit in and I think that this tension is what generates a lot of creativity. To access this creativity the word original seems to come up a lot. That to be creative one must be original, but the way I see it, these words are synonymous. One cannot exist without the other, and seeing how everyone is born with there own unique set of genetic information – excluding by technicality identical twins – I do not see how anyone can claim to be stripped of the possibility of being original. It’s a scientific fact! So I guess what I’m saying is that when we explore the question of what it means to be creative, the answer lies within the individual and is only limited by a person’s fear of what it means to truly discover and express themselves.

The Man

The Musician

The Mustache.