*POSTED LATE WITH PERMISSION FROM PROFESSOR*

When I first excitedly told people I had signed up for this class I was most commonly asked two questions, ‘is it a class about cult films, films about cults or films made by cults?’ and ‘what is a cult film?’ I would answer the first question by saying I was excited if it was any combination of those three options. When asked the second question I would often stare blankly at other person as I struggled with coming up with a clear definition. I found I would usually just mumble something about Rocky Horror Picture Show before running away and hoping I would have a better response at the end of the semester. Its only been the first full week and I already feel I have a better understanding of what a cult film is, especially after the reading in The Cult Film Reader. I found the reading really interesting and easy to understand as it broke down what a cult is into four major elements: anatomy, consumption, political economy and cultural status. I found that through reading this chapter I had a greater understanding of cult films than I realized. For example, I found was able to connect my random knowledge about the accident on the set of Twilight Zone the Movie and what Ernest Mathijs and Xavier Mendik were talking about when they mentioned production accidents and legends. I guess they might label me a movie buff for even having that random knowledge. 

One of the other readings we did this week was Jeffrey Sconce’s essay, Esper, the renunciator: teaching ‘bad’ movies to good students. This was based on the first film we saw, Dwain Esper’s film Maniac (1934.) Sconce’s essay, while it took a while to get to this point, argued that it is better to start a film class with ‘bad’ films like Maniac to allow students to understand what in turn makes a ‘good’ film.  Maniac is an exploitation film, operating on a small budget outside of the studio system focused on sensationalism and controversial content. It was made only to make money and is filled with absurd breaks in its already loose plot that are filled by scrolling text wrongly explaining elements of mental illness, allowing Esper to claim the film has a moral lesson. Overall the film is confusing, illogical but generally entertaining for the pure laughability of it now. I however agree with Sconce’s point that is a good place to start to teach incoming film students about the necessarily components of a ‘good’ film. The way I see it, most students in the is contemporary age have grown up surrounded by movies in particular the block-buster kind. We are familiar with the necessarily plot elements needed in a film but maybe we take them for granted or are blind to them after a while. Watching a film like Esper’s as a starting point allows modern viewer to think about the question ‘what is missing?’ or ‘what would need to be added to make this a good film?’ making it a great teaching tool for introduction to film classes. 

The final thing I would like to talk about is the short youtube video we saw talking about Cinema of Attraction as it relates to the modern media landscape. The thing I found most interesting about this video is how it mentions its own platform of YouTube as a new cinema of attraction. I found this very fitting, maybe even a little coincidental seeing as this Super Bowl Sunday marks the 16th anniversary for the inspiration behind YouTube. With one of the most common images in the cinema of attraction being the erotic I would make as strong case that Youtube is classified as such as cinema as it was created out of this same idea. Missing out, and wishing they hadn’t, on 2004’s Super Bowl halftime ‘nipple-gate’ is what inspired the creation of the video platform that especially in its early days could easily be considered a cinema of attraction.

“Cult films” are something that has always been a huge interest of mine. I have been looking forward to taking this class since I heard about it last year, excited to learn all that I can about the genre. Having previous knowledge of these kinds of films (Rocky Horror Picture Show being one of my all-time favorite movies) I have been intrigued to learn more about the not so mainstream or well-known films that are considered “cult films” and intrigued to know what exactly makes a movie a cult film. This week in our class readings from The Cult Film Reader and from our class discussions, we learned about what these films consist of. The films from the cult genre are transgressive and they often consist of themes of sex and violence, and many include sci-fi themes. Two films that we watched in class this week were great introductions to diving into the movie genre. 

The first film that we watched in class, Maniac (1934), directed by Dwain Esper, is a low budget film which shows (in some people’s opinions) bad acting, poor quality shots which are out of focus, often with the characters being covered by random objects. The angles of the shots are very random, as well as the positioning of the characters within the shots. For example, the first scene of this film is a shot in which the main characters have their backs and the backs of their heads facing entirely away from the camera, while the walls in the far background are in focus and the characters themselves are blurry and out of focus, which carries on throughout the movie. The plot of the film: Don Maxwell is working as a lab assistant to Dr. Meirschultz. This doctor is a “mad scientist”; he is attempting to bring the dead back to life. Maxwell ends up killing the Doctor, and in his attempst to hide the murder, he dresses himself up, facial hair and all, and impersonates the Doctor. He buries him in a brick wall (but does not see the cat that had happened to slip behind the wall before he had sealed it up) This impersonating doctor treats a patient but injects him with adrenaline on accident, causing the man to go crazy and assault a woman. Lots of things that happen very frantically and unorganized and don’t seem to make any sense are played out leading up to the neighbor calling the police, who began to search the premises. They hear the cat behind the brick wall and begin to tear it down, discovering the deceased doctor. This film, while incredibly poorly made with a ridiculous plot, lead the way for many films of its kind to be made, leading to the advancements and the impact of what is the cult film. 

 

The second film that we watched was a documentary from 2010, American Grindhouse,  directed and produced by Elijah Drenner. This documentary showed and explained the different transitions from era to era in exploitative cult films from the very first films made by Thomis Edison to contemporary films of today. Narrated by Robert Forster, this documentary includes interviews and commentary with experts on exploitation films such as John Landis, Eddie Muller, Kim Morgan, Eric Schaefer, James Gordan White, Herschell Gordon Lewis, and many more. This film, while being insanely informative, was also very interesting with how they explained what happened during the history of film and in film politics with trends and regulations alongside which films were made at the time and why. The politics of cinema is very interesting when you consider how producers and filmmakers worked with the politics to put out films that they knew would appeal to the public and to their crowds. These films that we watched were two that I found held my interest and made me want to learn and discover more about the Cult Film genre and exploitation in films. 

Exploitation Has been used by Hollywood’s biggest and smallest theatres to captivate audiences by using taboo subject matters such as childbirth, nudity, violence, and gore. The films that took advantage of the taboo was cult cinema using everything and anything they could to make money and draw in a huge following. even movies that didn’t make much sense like the movie “Manic”. Which had a very loose plot and didn’t introduce hardly any of its characters. It also randomly cut to animals fighting and most likely only gained such a huge following due to the fact that it depicted the horrible and tragic suicide crisis at that time. This is how the movie still attainted a pretty big following due to the writers’ and directors’ exploitation of that time periods audience.

The documentary movie “American Grindhouse” depicts the movies and the time periods they were taking place it. It also does a very great job of showing how the movie industry changed over time and why. For instance, Nudity Starting phasing out of theatres when American teen movies starting coming out depicting rebellious America that no one had seen before. Then once that genre was overplayed the audience started craving more so gore started to arise. It also talks about how the ever-changing economics of America really played into the factors of the ratings and which movies would become cult movies.

I personally thought that both movies were intriguing in their own ways for instance “manic” showed me what a bad movie looked like. “American Grindhouse” showed me the transformations a the movie industry and not only the genres but all the legality and the changes involved in cinema at different time periods. I can’t wait to see more.

By: Victoria Empson

Before this class, I had never given much thought to what constitutes as a cult film. I simply knew that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), for example, was cult and that The Sound of Music (1965), was not.

The “Checklist for Determining the Power of a Film’s “Cult” Status” handout we were given has helped me to put this into context. I now know that, films that meet a majority of the proposed criteria are more likely to be a cult film than films that barely meet any.

The checklist is:

1. Marginality (falls outside of general cultural norms)
2. Suppression (subject to censor, ridicule, lawsuit, etc)
3. Economics (Box-office flop at first)
4. Transgression (Breaks the rules)
5. Cult following (devoted fans)
6. Community (Audience is a self-identified group)
7. Quotation
8. Iconography

Film historian Ernest Mathijs and filmmaker Xavier Mendik give a pretty good definition of what a cult movie really is in “The Cult Film Reader.” They define cult film as,

A cult film is a film with an active and lively communal following. Highly committed and rebellious in its appreciation, its audience regularly finds itself at odds with the prevailing cultural mores, displaying a preference for strange topics and allegorical themes that rub against cultural sensitivities and resist dominant politics.

Quite honestly, I found the first screening of the semester, Maniac (1934), to be confusing, awkward, and undoubtably bad. Nonetheless, I found it funny, entertaining, and aesthetically appealing. The fact that I actually liked this awful film is exactly what makes cult movies cult. The “badness” of the film is what appealed to my humor, and the shaky shots and strange animal scenes were something I enjoyed.

They second screening that we watched was a documentary by the name of American Grindhouse (2010). American Grindhouse does a great job connecting exploitation cinema to the history of film, starting from film noirs exploiting violence by finding clever ways to portray it, to how the birth of the blockbuster was when cult cinema came into the mainstream.

This also taught me the importance of exploitation in American history. Film makers would use their knowledge of the culture of the time and used it to their advantage. Such as in the middle of the civil rights movement, there was a rush of films being produced with more African-American actors and actresses and topics relating to them, the Blaxploitation movement. Just like the popularization of psychedelics and sex, these would be used to attract curious viewers in the ’60s. It’s funny how, in every era of history, there is something to exploit and make money off of.

I am very excited for what is to come in this class, and everything I will learn this semester, especially considering the fact that I have not seen any of the movies that we will be screening. I am especially excited to watch Pink Flamingos because of all the controversy that surrounds that movie. I am also excited to watch everyone’s presentation on their cult movie of choice.

Frankly I have a small understanding and knowledge of cult films, I do know I am attracted alternative niches in films that I am ready to explore. The tough part of the first two weeks -and probably will be throughout the entirety of the class- is understanding what makes a film a cult film. From the readings assigned in class and the discussions followed, I gained a brief introduction into the basic of defining cult film.

Some terms and concepts which I see important to understanding CULT FILMS-

The Philosophy- phenomenological approach to critiquing cult films, this approach relies on the shock elements and how the film was received from the audience. Then there’s an ontological approach, relying on the formal elements of the film.

The Elements- Critical elements in most cult films include some basic anatomy lessons; transgression aka their level of crudeness and defiance, how morally bad they are (or strangeness), the level of nostalgia evoked from the viewers, the level of gore, puzzling loose ends, liveliness or the level of celebration from the viewer post release, cultural sensitivity (yikes!), and lastly the politics imbedded in the film.

The start of this Cult Films class we were first shown a cult film classic Maniac, a jaw-dropping disaster. Based off multiple readings we discussed in class, Maniac was highly reactive to the current depressive era and Dwain Espar released this as an “educational film,” to avoid movie codes. Though entertaining, cinematically it is a b-a-d movie with no plot, random cat scenes, and horrible acting. More so a reason it is now considered a cult film, Espar was defiant and taboo in his subject matter.

This week watched a second film, well a documentary on exploration films, which most allude to being named a cult film. American Grindhouse was loaded with content on every type of exploitation film imaginable, and where it all began. The narrators speak upon the hub of exploitation films, 42nd street where showings went on day and night.

Ultimately the Filmmakers were in it to make money, but the movie-goers were their to escape their depressive realities. These were short Adult-Only films without constraints of top dog production companies. Exploitation films surrounded some of these general genres; Sexploitation (ie. porn-o-copias), blaxploitation, gore, baby birthings, bdsm violence, and nazi exploitation.

I found “The Roughies” type of exploitation (sexploitation) films to be the most outrageous. These seedy thriller soft-core films began with the traveling acts of burlesque. Hence the term, Grindhouse, and the term before that “bump and grind” an act familiar in burlesque showings. These short films shown through night, were mostly the for men to use women as an object of their imagination, since actual sex wasn’t allowed to be shown in the grind houses.

I’m quite excited for what this semester has to offer, these next couple movies were about to watch- I have been told- are fantastic! For example Pink Flamingos, The Warriors, and Detroit Rock City.  I can’t wait to have more involved conversations, and get to know other students points of view and opinions about the movies we are going to view. Also candy, I will bring more candy to class, I think that will help me focus.

 

 

 

What is a ‘cult’ film? Where does one draw the line between unconventional and obscure? What’s the difference between exploitive and outright bad? These are all questions that have come to mind over the past two weeks as we begin to unfold this category of film. Starting with the first question of “what is a cult film?” I, personally, cannot answer that with complete certainty, but with the help of The Cult Film Reader by Ernest Mathijs and Xavier Mendik, we can begin to familiarize ourselves with the qualities of this category. Mathijs and Mendik define four major elements of films that possess cult value: anatomy, consumption, political economy, and cultural status.

The anatomy of a film refers to the quality of the film itself, this category contains the film’s genre, uniqueness, aesthetic value, transgression, narrative, etc.  The cultish quality that suggests a sense of worship and group involvement has to do with the film’s consumption. This is the way the audience receives a film and the practices or rituals formed around it. The ways fans choose to celebrate cult films vary from midnight showings, dressing the part for new renditions or re-releases, group viewings, and anything organized around the film by viewers. One recognizable example of this is a shadow cast during special viewings of Rocky Horror Picture Show; in which a live cast acts out each scene while the movie plays behind them, along with initiation of newcomers and a call and response from the audience during the screening.

The political economy of a film has a lot to do with the potential likability of a film, whereas consumption is the actual likability. Anything that could be used to promote the film and its cult value adds to its political economy: scandals, controversial actors, even events that occur after the film can be monetized. The political economy opens up opportunities for revivals and rereleases, it helps keep the movie on the screen and the fans, old or new, in the seats. The last element stated by Mathjis and Mendik is cultural status. Cultural status can challenge the mainstream by discussing inappropriate or unusual topics, or use allegory to comment on the social and political scene at the time.

This is a lengthy list to refer to while weighing a films cult value; but there isn’t a clear distinction between the four categories, they share a lot of the same qualities. We saw this in this week’s screening of American Grindhouse, a documentary about the history of exploitation films. What was most eye-opening to me was the large list of films that are considered exploitive. Maniac gave me a sense of what I thought were the exploitive properties within cult cinema, but little did I know that ‘exploitive’ has as many subcategories as ‘cult film’. Who would have thought teen beach movies would be thrown into the mix? Not me, apparently.

Besides providing an interesting and attention-grabbing history, it also helped me understand the purpose for these films and why they’ve survived for so long. American Grindhouse clarified and opened my eyes to the possibilities of exploitation. (and gave me a list of movies to really put my attention span to the test)

To fully grasp the concept of what a cult film is, it is important to understand the anatomy of a cult film: the film itself, the ways in which the film is received and what exactly puts the “cult” in the film.

Many elements make a film cult–from innovation and strangeness to loose ends and promotion–which is not to say that all these elements need to appear in a film in order for it to be considered cult.

In cult cinema, audience reception is just as crucial as these elements. Directors do not set out to make a cult film, it’s the audience response, fan celebrations, and critical receptions to a film that make it cult. Take The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975), for example. This film has a dedicated audience that watches the film repeatedly, quotes the dialogue, and actively participates. In fact, The Rocky Horror Picture Show has been called “the very definition of the term cult picture” by American film critic Danny Peary.

According to film historians Ernest Mathijs and Zavier Mendik, the anatomy of a cult film can be divided into four main categories:

As we learned in both our screenings–Maniac (1934) and American Grindhouse (2010)–exploitation lies at the very core of cult cinema. Maniac, directed by Dwain Esper, was possibly the most appropriate example of how the “badness” of a film can make it cult. With stolen footage, nudity, completely out-of-place shots and drug use, Maniac highlights what is at the core of exploitation cinema–exploiting taboo topics.

Maniac is laced with random titles in order to legitimize the use of these taboo topics, and give them educational value. A way to get away with drug abuse and, essentially, the exploitation of taboo topics.

The screening of American Grindhouse was a glimpse into what the exploitation era was all about–sex, drugs, violence and nudity. Exploitation cinema is simply cinema exploiting just about anything. It makes all the sense in the world that exploitation and the dawn of the motion picture went hand-in-hand. People want to see what they shouldn’t want to see. The notion seemed quite normal to me; everyone is captivated by gore, sex, drugs and even childbirth.

The one thing that did leave me speechless, however, was the exploitation of gender-based violence. The part of the documentary about “roughies” was, for me, extremely difficult to watch. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to watch those kinds of films for entertainment, but there’s something for everyone, I guess.

All-in-all, it’s been a great two weeks learning about cult cinema, and I am beyond excited for what’s in store.

The Art of Exploitation

This week’s screening of Dwain Esper’s 1934 film, Maniac, introduces us to cult movies through a glimpse into the world of exploitation. An exploitation film is simply a film which has an element that you can exploit for profit, most often a taboo subject matter. As we learned with the documentary American Grindhouse, exploitation films have essentially been around since the beginning of cinematic history, with Edison essentially paving the way by accounting for his audiences’ taste and giving the people exactly what they wanted. Esper followed suit with his films, but the Hays Code -adopted in 1930, and more strictly enforced as time went on- offered regulations that prevented seedier exploitation films from being shown in most major theaters. Although it was meant to end exploitation in film, the Hays Code, and the accompanying denial it presented the public with, fueled the need for exploitation in film.

Esper’s Maniac loosely follows the story of Maxwell, assistant to a scientist obsessed with reanimating the dead. When Maxwell is forced to kill the doctor, he assumes the man’s identity and goes on to treat his patients. Clearly nothing good can come from this, and soon the audience is subjected to a disturbing rape scene, an awkwardly placed glimpse into a room full of showgirls, and Maxwell’s victorious pursuit of the cat’s eyeball. (Or was it an Oyster? Grape? I hear they’re quite alike.) Although presented in the guise of an educational film, Maniac clearly centers around the things that Esper knew would sell: nudity, violence, rape, etc. In fact, despite being a novice director, seemingly with no ambition to be anything more more, Robert G. Weiner crowns Esper “the prince of exploitation” in an article by the same name. According to Weiner, the one thing Esper did know how to do, and do well, was turn a profit:

“Esper was the king of turning a profit. Even though he directed very few films (and was involved in making only a handful more), his films exemplify the sensationalist end of cinema at its most profitable; with their sideshow techniques, the Espers could milk profits from a very cheaply made film for years.”

The real draw of Esper’s movies was the carnival-like sideshow attractions that accompanied him on the exploitation circuit. The goal of these attractions was to generate as much money as possible; and it worked. There’s nothing proving that Esper ever had any interest in film as “art,” but through these screenings and our readings I’ve come to believe that he saw a different value in film-making, not only for monetary purposes but because he was able to provide the public (and himself) with entertainment and, to some extent, education during a time where people were painfully uninformed and desperate to understand the truths being withheld from them. 

Our screening of American Grindhouse helped to put the concept of exploitation into context by providing background and additional information on its history. The documentary covered a wider variety of films and sub-genres, showing the emergence of taboo themes into more mainstream cinema. One of the best aspects of American Grindhouse is its ability to blend education and humor, showing us some of the absurdities of exploitation film while also demonstrating its importance to the development of cinema. The world of exploitation and mainstream cinema have become one, and as a result our sense of ‘normal’ now echoes traces of a pivotal time in cinematic and cult movie history that, without this class, we wouldn’t be able to fully appreciate or understand. 

This semester I am excited to learn the history of cult films and what they have offered to film history. We have already watched two very interesting pieces to say the least. We also have discussed some of the history behind it. In the readings we talked about this week we discussed what could be considered a cult film. A cult film may consist of a very bad script or a very good one. People however, still latch onto these films making them cult classics. Cult films become a cult film because so many people can relate or love what the movie may have to offer. From the reading, The Cult Film Reader, it discussed how a cult film is defined as having Anatomy, Consumption, Political Economy and Cultural Status. All of these things play some type of role in a cult film. They may not all be equal however though. Many cult films flourish because of what they project, how they are perceived, when it relates to the time period and just being the film itself and how it is defined. There are many elements behind anatomy, consumption, political economy and cultural status that make up the film. Things such as how good or bad it is, the money in the economy and how they are promoted and how they progressed over time. They are often just movies that aren’t promoted widely but then end up getting this massive following.

Last week, we watched a movie called Maniac. In my words I would describe it as interesting in a weird way I guess? But also not the greatest. While watching this film it made me question many things such as why were all the cats always different and what happened to the crazy guy and the dead girl who came back to life? The film was directed by Dwain Esper and released in 1934. This movie was just the start of exploitation films. I would say the film was good in a funny way if that makes sense. It wasn’t actually good but was funny because of all the random shit that happened throughout it.

We then watched American Grindhouse. I thought this documentary was very interesting it. I loved how it covered the history of exploitation films. Many films like this were very taboo and they started early. The films also relate to film noir. These movies both consist of adult themes that are similar. These exploitation films also changed drastically over time until now. Many teens were watching them and were aimed to the viewing of teens, which lead to drive in theaters. At one point these films also got very violent which projected a different kind of viewing that wasn’t necessarily something everyone wanted to see. We then began to see more gore movies too, like Psycho and Blood Feast. But all in all, exploitation films really just lead up to pornography. People were seeing these films because of what they showed and eventually they weren’t enough so pornography came about. It is interesting how much they changed over time but how I think now we as a society wouldn’t accept what they did back then. The topics of those movies were something out of the ordinary and now people would think they are odd or not right.

The first cult film that we were exposed to this semester was the film “Maniac” directed by Dwain Esper. This work was written by Esper’s wife, Hildegard. I found this film to be quite entertaining, but one of the most interesting aspects of this film for me was the many “educational” interjections of white titles rolling on a black background that gave laughable information following mind boggling scenes.

As I scrambled to make sense of what I had just seen, I was then confronted with words such as “combat fear by replacing it with faith”, as I had just seen one bad actor shoot his louder counterpart. When you couple these aspects with the scenes where the cat was obviously thrown into the frame, the absence of a narrative within this film just seems right. Of course, I will always long for the tying of the loose ends, I have come to terms with this cult movie, and have gained a better understanding as to why it was created.

Dwain Esper, and many directors of this time, were only in this business to make money. Now I see nothing wrong with that because if it weren’t for shoe-string budgets, and money hungry directors, we would not have seen films like this. As Robert G. Weiner wrote, Esper did not care about the artfulness of his cinema, he was simply trying to milk profits from cheaply made films. Weiner also points out that Esper and many of his peers did not submit their movies to the motion picture board for approval. It was his disdain for the movie codes, and his drive to make money that left his mark on the cult Cinema world that we are studying this day.

I agree with Emma’s answer the question that was raised on Monday during the discussions of the readings. The question was along the lines of “do you think exploitation films would still have been made if it weren’t for directors like Esper?” We know that the major catalyst for the exploitation era was the Paramount decision, but even if that hadn’t have happened, men like Esper would still be directing, and showing their movies wherever they could. The Salesman of the world would stumble upon the film industry and use their talents to push through cost-effective media that was accepted by the public for lack of better things to do.

The documentary we watched on Wednesday titled “American Grindhouse”, reinforced a lot of things that I learned from the intro to film class that I took last year. Once I learned about what exploitations films were, I realized that I really like them. Its not necessarily always about what is on the screen though, but about what occurred to get the films to the year 2020. The amount of peddling and persistence that went on just to get a film into a “Grindhouse” has always impressed me.

Hearing John Landis talk about films is always funny, because he takes a no BS stance, and obviously knows his stuff as he directed “Animal House,” which is a movie that will no doubt live on forever. The only part of the exploitation era that always brings me down are the darker sides to these films. The genre “Roughies” was created because as George Muller said, “They couldn’t show sex, so they showed violence.” This just goes to show that no matter what, if there is money to be had, the films will be made, and later generations will study the masterpieces that result.