Review: Spring Breakers (2013)

Review by Ben Bussey

As much as I generally prefer not to make bold predictions of things which may or may not come to pass, I’m about to make one now: Spring Breakers will be for the 2010s what Trainspotting was for the 1990s. This is an era-defining, genre-defying film that will be adored, obsessed over and endlessly, endlessly debated. It will inspire analysis of infinite variety: there will be feminist readings, socialist readings, Christian readings, humanist readings, anarchist readings, psychoanalytical readings, every-which-way readings; it will be related to the global financial crisis, US foreign policy, the gun control debate; Steubenville will almost certainly be brought up, even though the film was shot before that shameful story made the news. Many will hail the film as a cautionary tale for the iPhone generation, the ultimate vilification of today’s morally bankrupt, decadent capitalist culture, and its wilful ignorance and irresponsibility; but not unlike Scarface (which Spring Breakers’ characters declare the greatest movie ever), and indeed Trainspotting, it is every bit as likely to be embraced by those who adhere and/or aspire to the very ideology which it critiques.

Also – loads of girls in bikinis. Loads of them. And quite a lot of bare breasts too. So everyone’s a winner, right?

As is probably evident, Spring Breakers is a film with a great deal in it, and as such it leaves you with a great deal to think about, so it’s tricky to know where to begin when approaching it as a reviewer. I suppose the most pertinent question given the genre-orientation of this site is, just how do we class Spring Breakers? Is it exploitation dressed as art house? Art house dressed as exploitation? Mainstream, teen-friendly multiplex fare with an indie edge? Sleazy titillation justified by the pretence of social commentary? All/some/none of these? Phew… funny how the harder I try to clearly and succinctly express the essence of Spring Breakers, I only find myself asking more questions. I suppose in a sense that tells you all you need to know.

Who am I kidding? Of course it doesn’t. Bloody hell… you know, earlier today I read a very nice, very honest piece by Simon Brew at Den of Geek, detailing why he didn’t feel capable of giving Spring Breakers a proper review, and I’m starting to see where he was coming from. But in the interests of keeping it simple (though it might be a bit late for that now), let’s address the simplest question of all: is Spring Breakers a success, or not? And in the manner of dear departed Roger Ebert, my answer is a very comfortable thumbs up. Yes, Spring Breakers is challenging, thought-provoking and daring, but it also never forgets to be entertaining. Some will love it, some will hate it, but surely no one will sit back completely unmoved either way.

Harmony Korine, I must confess, is not a filmmaker with whom I’m especially well acquainted; though I’ve long been familiar with his name, I’ve never made a point of seeing all his movies. This being the case, I obviously can’t comment on how Spring Breakers sits within his filmography, but from what I gather of his work I would assume this film isn’t too far removed, aside from the sun-kissed setting and Disney Club alumni casting. There’s a very indie rhythm at play here, a fly-on-the-wall feel to the camerawork, and a disorienting, not-quite-linear feel to the editing, with sporadic jumps back and forth in time and snippets of dialogue repeated several times over, lending the film a spaced-out, half-remembered dreamlike quality that’s very in-keeping with the chemically-charged nature of proceedings. A mainstream audience may be drawn in by the presence of James Franco, Vanessa Hudgens and Selena Gomez and the promise of plentiful Girls Gone Wild-esque action, but Korine isn’t going easy on them. Sure, it’s not the hardest film to follow plot-wise, and there’s eye candy aplenty to keep even the laziest viewer watching, but this is filmmaking that demands your involvement and doesn’t tend to spell things out in black and white.

As regards that Girls Gone Wild element: yes, as established Korine has put together a very attractive young ensemble, and yes, they do spend the vast majority of their screen time wearing little more than bikinis. Nor does the camera spare their scantily clad forms from close scrutiny, with an abundance of lingering close-ups on their girly parts, and more than a few noticeable moments in which, when there’s a slight lull in action, the camera dips to show us their bodies again for a moment, for no discernible reason other than to keep our attention. In other hands this might seem crass and sleazy in the extreme, yet somehow that’s not the case here. The film is in large part exploring the voyeuristic nature of Spring Break culture, and it could hardly do this without showing that voyeurism. However, the more we are bombarded with hyper-sexualised imagery, the more profoundly unsexy it all seems; take the jocks with washboard abs holding beer cans at crotch-level which they pour onto the faces of topless girls lying below. We might note that while Rachel Korine has the most on-screen nudity of the core ensemble, the scenes in which she appears nude are amongst the most distressing moments in the film. And then there’s Selena Gomez: she may be 20 years old, but by God, she is so young-looking… maybe this is down to the fact that I have a daughter myself, but when things start to go sour for the girls, I couldn’t escape a gut-pulling feeling of paternal concern. This, I have no doubt, is very much the point; to hook the audience with the ‘good girls gone bad’ angle, and then turn that around by reminding us what a vulnerable position these characters really are in.

However, this is not to say that the overriding message of Spring Breakers is “oh, pity these poor exploited girls being taken advantage of by sleazy, dangerous guys.” Far from it. Yes, Franco’s wannabe gangster Alien is very much used to personify the belligerent underbelly of bling-bling hedonism, and when he barges his way into the lives of the girls by bailing them out of jail it’s readily apparent his motives are less than altruistic. Even so, it is also readily apparent that the girls are well aware of the kind of guy he is, and may even be a few steps ahead of him; so when they find themselves caught up in the indulgent lifestyle funded by his ill-gotten gains, just who is exploiting who – and which among them is really the more dangerous party..?

As to exactly what Spring Breakers is saying about Spring Break culture overall – whether it’s attacking the greed and decadence, or offering a peepshow-like window into that world for the curious – well, if there was an immediately obvious answer to that question, there wouldn’t much to discuss afterwards, would there? Once again, this is a film that’s custom-designed to be talked about far and wide, and I think it more than warrants that. An early contender for the end of year best-of lists, Spring Breakers is a truly captivating piece of filmmaking, and sure to prove a valuable time capsule of a particular facet of 2013 youth culture in years to come. Also, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if we start seeing pink unicorn balaclavas and luminescent bikinis at Halloween.

Spring Breakers is on general release now, via Vertigo Films in the UK.