MovieChat Forums > The Runaways (2010) Discussion > Revisionist History

Revisionist History

posted 12 years ago by chas437
10 replies | jump to latest

The Runaways were actually a very obscure late 70s band. I was in high school in those years, and I don't remember anybody ever listening to them. They were routinley trashed by critics as a no-talent gimmick act. As a punk act, they were laughed at. According to Wiki "The Runaways, though never a major success in the United States, became a sensation in 1977 in Japan thanks to the hit single "Cherry Bomb." Sounds a lot like "Spinal Tap"?

The fact is that some ex-members of the band had some MTV success in the 80s, otherwise, nobody would ever have heard of the Runaways. Hollywood is REALLY hard up for ideas when they make movies about bands that kind of a joke, 35 years ago.

[–] jackcarson 12 years ago

So a lot of lame teenagers were more into Boston, Peter Frampton and Hall and Oates - big deal. You couldn't sell one ticket for their "story."

I'm glad the Runaways were a cult act of sorts - and I'm glad they were trashed by most critics then - fat hipsters still drooling over Neil Young and Joni Mitchell, or jaded New Yorkers anxious to appear young again as they announced Talking Heads as the new messiahs.

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Well you couldn't sell one ticket to the dreary "The Runaways" film if it didn't star Kristen Stewart, Dakota Fanning, etc. The acts that you name were all sort of lame, but they were at least competent musicians, and were respected somewhat by critics. Seriously, people just laughed at The Runaways in those days. They were never taken seriously as a punk act. I think they sold way more records in Japan than anywhere else. I think that says it all. I'm unaware that they ever had much of a cult following judging by their US record sales.

Personally, I was into the Rolling Stones, The Who, Bob Marley, The Grateful Dead, David Bowie, etc, in those years. There was so much amazing music around in those times, we never turned the TV on and never turned our stereos off.

BTW, Talking Heads were the Messiahs of the 1980s.

[–] CarusProductions 12 years ago

I'm guessing the reason why they had a hard time being taken seriously is because they were one of the first "all-girl" band that didn't necessarily sing pop music, besides Heart. The thing is people assume that artists who aren't famous and on every magazine cover don't have fans. Many of today's so-called obscure artists like Arcade Fire, Sia, Paloma Faith and Blood Orange have a good following too. Radio would sound much better if these bands were played instead of the mainstream.

Karina Licursi ~

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Well, I'm old enough to remember them when the were actually a band. The reason they had no commercial success wasn't because they "didn't necessarily sing pop music", it was because their music has unsellable, except in Japan (ala, Spinal Tap). The promoters of the Runaways would have loved to market their music to the masses, their just wasn't much to sell. BTW, this has nothing to do with them being an all-female band. The fact that they were an all female band is the only reason they achieved the fame they did. To me, the two greatest female "rockers" of all time, are virtually unknown to the masses. Both Kim Gordon (Sonic Youth) and Kim Deal (Pixies) were great songs writers and unbelievable performers. Frankly, it bothers me that acts like the Runaways are resurrected and made into something they never were, while truly great artists like Gordon and Deal are largely unknown.

I know of a many great bands and performers who never made pop music, yet still were very successful commercially and well recieved by critics. I could list dozens.

I totally agree with your last sentence.

PS, other great female rockers, Chrissie Hynde (the face of the Pretenders, and the first great female modern rock visionary) and Tina Weymouth (I hesitate to call Talking Heads or Tom Tom Club hard rock bands). Also, Heart's very early music was really good. They did turn into shameless pop sellouts, however.

[–] matt-baen 12 years ago

It's fine if you personally don't care for their music, but to denigrate the importance of The Runaways while praising female alternative rockers who came along later is just absurd.

Rock criticism of contemporary bands is often worthless; history has vindicated The Runaways.

http://www.punk77.co.uk/groups/runaways2.htm

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=1575 80

Kathleen Hanna (ex Bikini Kill) interviews her friend Joan Jett
http://hannahorovitz.tumblr.com/post/10300753328/idol-worship-kathleen -hanna-and-joan-jett

Like The Dictators and The Stranglers, The Runaways had a sound and image that wasn't in the '77 cloned punk mold because they emerged a little earlier than the pack. By the way, Kim Fowley had an insane proto-punk album (Outrageous) in the late sixties.

[–] chas437 12 years ago

I've seen all those clips, so nothing new. Also, the female performers I mentioned all recieved widespread critical acknowledgment. They were also innovators and were in no way "influenced" by the Runaways.

What I see from the pro-Runaways folks is that they deserve props for being the first all-female band. To me, this is sort of a gimmick, especially when you consider how pedestrian their music was. They were ultimately all about image and therefore superficial. As someone posted on a another thread, they would have been playing bowling alleys if they were all male. Can you honestly tell me you disagree?

The women I mention, especially, Kim Deal, Kim Gordon and Tina Weymouth were all important parts of three of the most critically acclaimed and influential bands in rock history. If you listen to early Sonic Youth, or Pixies "Surfer Rosa", or Tom Tom Club, you will hear brilliant and innovative music which shows zero influence from runaways. FYI, Tina Waymouth was forming Talking Heads with Jerry Harrison and David Byrne in 1975.

You are right, it is absurd to compare these three great women to runaways.

Who's High Pitch?

[–] matt-baen 12 years ago

Invoking critics and critical acclaim has no relevance to actual influence and legacy, which has a lot to do with impact on other musicians rather than the critics. Nor are influence and innovativeness the same thing. And repeatedly citing Deal, Gordon, and Weymouth lends nothing to your thesis, the core which is this:

"some ex-members of the band had some MTV success in the 80s, otherwise, nobody would ever have heard of the Runaways."

Pure BS. It's refuted by the many female alternative and underground musicians who have stated that they were influenced by The Runaways. You can be as contrarian about The Runaways as you like, but it's completely unsupported by fact and hence pointless.

[–] chas437 12 years ago

Whatever, the runaways aren't worth my time. Just making the point that the film and reactions to it are revisionist history. Late.

Who's High Pitch?

[–] LightningLad 12 years ago

I didn't see where they made them out to be any bigger than they were. Where is the revisionist history?

Another shocker: Henry Miller only became well known after the era shown in Henry & June.

http://themortalcreeps.weebly.com/

[–] chas437 12 years ago

I suppose the making of a film about this band is revisionist in itself. They were never significant enough to have had a film made about them.

There are a lot of young hipsters today that think this was some great, ground-breaking band. Somehow, these kids became misinformed. Like in the film "Juno", she lists the runaways as one of her three favorite bands. No one could possibly be that stupid, she was just showing herself to be a poser.

You can always tell a poser when they say things like the runaways or patty smith or mott the hoople are their all time favorite bands.

"For dark is the suede that mows like a harvest"