Although privy to both intimate and mythic tales of Jackie Curtis, Highberger’s subject matter remains an enigma.  There is almost a complete absence of any hint of Curtis’s romantic life.  This could be explained by Arcade’s comment that Curtis “was hardly sexual.” On the other hand, it may have been a conscious decision on the filmmaker’s part to focus on Curtis’s work and many personas.  There is certainly a sense that drug-fueled creative endeavors may have replaced those of a more intimate sexual/sensual nature.  Early in the film, Arcade describes Curtis as living in a realm of “make-believe,” whichArcade suggests played a role in Curtis’s untimely end.  “Something people never quite understood about Jackie,” Arcade adds, “was that Jackie created this charmed world that he couldn’t really come out of.” 

 

In the end, the audience is allowed only the glitter-dusted memories of Curtis’s collaborators and friends. We are left with a sparkling imprint of a counter-cultural figure that embodied an ambiguous postmodern existence.  The documentary’s structure of montage and fragmentation mirrors Curtis’s way of weaving fragments of popular culture into plays and poetry.  Actor Michael Arian describes Curtis’s personal style as “always safety-pinned together.” Whether turning found objects into designer dresses, altering borrowed couture gowns by ripping them up, or turning a tossed out racing form into stage drama, Curtis always worked with what was around to create something new.

 

Fashion and gender deconstructionist, maniacal comedian, cynical social critic, loyal friend, and aesthetic magician, Curtis’s significance as a “satirist” and a central character of theNew York experimental art-scene is lovingly remembered and preserved. Against our current cultural echo-chamber, Curtis’s genius seems toamplify a sad state: the industry of rebellion has rendered rebellious acts impotent.  The ideas associated with irreverent acts seem to have been decapitated from their bodies of context, intent, and meaning.  Sexuality has been co-opted, the images and experiences of decadence have been co-opted, glitter has been co-opted. Our current manufactured idols and so-called subcultures seem to have packaging and labels complete before they have a body of work or a period of time to go with them. Curtis’s legacy and legend reminds us that sometimes our idols and inspirations do not always come in a perfect glossy packaging.  Creation for the sake of the journey, however unbalanced or dangerous, is often more intriguing than what takes place between the neat bookends of right and wrong.  It is comforting to know that at certain times and places, those who impacted our cultural movements and aesthetics were allowed, even expected, to fly right off the moral compass in the name of process versus product.