New Punk Cinema

I never really liked punk music before I read about it. I found it overtly bland, unmusical and lacking finesse. My education of what punk really stood for was institutionalised - that is, everything I really know about the meaning of the punk music, what it represented and why it existed, was at school. Is this a bad thing?
I'm not really sure what the answer to this question would be. I'm sure that many people would argue that the fact that punk is now taught in the universities now means that all the power punk once held has dissipated. As a movement punk always opposed the traditional institutions and patriarchies that disseminated the information - they were the enemy. Now that the enemy is teaching the same syllabus, the line between good guys and bad guys is not so clear.
Perhaps this is because "punk" itself never really existed as a defining concpet, only a fluid set of attitudes. This is portrayed well in the film (perhaps the defining tenet of this argument lies in the fact that the film is made by Don Letts, a reggaehead with an impressive set of dreads).
I think for this reason, the idea of the "new punk cinema", under its current definition, makes no sense. The films that are bunched under that label tend to bear a stylistic similarity based on visual innovation and no money. These are stylistic tendencies, not based on attitude but on financial and artistic restrictions, not a "punk" attitude that implies a bucking of the status quo, the negation of ideas of commodification and awareness of the "negative" and its representation through media. In this way, I think the idea of the "new punk cinema" is a fallacy.