"Cult; a system of religious worship especially as expressed in ritual, a devotion or homage to a person or thing, a popular fashion especially followed by a specific section of society, denoting a person or thing popularised in this way.[1]" This is 'cult' as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. Cult, in relation to film, seems to be a term that is thrown around within the annals of cinematic history making many film historians, critics and scholars question the make up of what exactly a cult film is. Barry Keith Grant makes the points out that whilst straddling a multitude of genres that the cult movie holds a certain common denominator which elevates it to its given status. Generically films which have the term cult attached to them tend to be those of either a science fiction or the horror categories however the cult movie can also take established genres and modify and/or blend various generic barriers such as musicals or westerns, "simply transgress(ing) the boundaries we usually associate with the notion of genre[2]." By taking a threefold look at 1963's Blood Feast taking in to account the idea that exhibition, distribution and reception are key in the films cult status we see not only the far reaching influence its director Herschell Gordon Lewis had on an entire variety of movies but the birth of a new sub genre within cinema. And thus the Gore film was born.
Herschell Gordon Lewis' Blood Feast throws up its celluloid fists in front of the face of mainstream taste and proper cinematic construction insofar that it transgress levels of technical, narrative and conceptual competence however it is for these reasons that we consider Blood Feasts' place in the history of the horror (or gorror movie) to go beyond that of a standard horror film. To begin to even consider this film as worthy to write an essay on is symbolic of its cult reaching status asserting that this represents "an opposition to established cultural values.[3]" Jeffery Sconce refers to this type of cinema as "paracinema[4]" films that stem from various genres such as the "sword and sandal epics, Japanese monster movies[5]" and of course the gore movie. Lewis was no stranger to the world of exploitation. After leaving his job as a teacher, Lewis got into the world of film by making various short safety films for the workplace before getting into the world of the "nudie cutie" or "skin flick[6]. Never properly finding his way into the Hollywood mainstream, Lewis films made their returns from specialist cinemas that would show X rated material. He and his associate David Friedman noting the rise in the use of skin in Hollywood decided to make films from a different approach. Throughout their discussions, Lewis and Friedman went through a litany of subjects that they could exploit finally coming up with the Gore film. It was the perfect antidote to an already tiring market that was under too many restrictions. "You better never show a woman's breast but feel free to hack it off with a machete.[7]"
And so began the process of making what was to be the very first gore film. With a minuscule budget and the backbones of a script Lewis and Friedman began shooting in Miami in the summer of 1963. The films hurried approach and somewhat camp acting styling from its cast members give Blood Feast its cult appeal in so much as its direction is absolutely dreadful. Nearly all of the actors in the film were untrained and inexperienced in front of the camera. The actress who played Mrs Freemont, Lyn Boulton was noted as one of the three worst female performances in all of cinema[8], her scene in the exotic catering store, being hypnotised by the villain, is extremely amusing. Amongst the rag tag of wannabe actors were two ex carnival workers or "carnys[9]" playing the chief of police and the professor of Egyptology as well as the films main attractions, the playboy bunnies (which promotional material played up to great effect). Fortunately for the male audience they were presented in compromising positions with some times very little or no clothing on them. Unfortunately for Lewis most of them could barely act which wasn't too much of a problem saying that they mostly were cinema fodder for our archetypical (ahem) fiendish screen villain, Faud Ramses played by none other than Mal Arnold. Arnold's performance is considered one of the great comical highlights of the film, the local actor who was keen to impress, added a limp and a very odd Bela Lugosi accent to make the character of Ramses more menacingly credible. It is note worthy that Arnold character of Ramses is considered the very first machete wielding mad man laying the grounds for future maniacs to come such as Jason, Freddy and Mike Myers[10]. The continuity of the film is also questionable with various props and costume parts randomly changing such as the police chiefs spray painted straw hat and the incongruous chase scene at the end where the police who are like Olympic athletes in comparison to a limping Ramses fail to catch him. Even the films dialogue (most of which was improvised on set or prompted to the actors of camera) is ludicrous; two scenes of note include the young man who's girlfriend has had her brains scooped out before him unrecognisable wailing and crying and the films last line, "He died like the garbage which he came from[11]" is with out a doubt the line that just pushes the film over the edge in to plain farce when Faud dies in the back of a moving trash van. However all these directorial foibles add to the films growth of fans over the years and its beatification into the sainthood that is the cult film. Frank Henenlotter in Jeffery Sconce's essay remarks that these inept aesthetics of the film in some ways adds to its charm, "you're sitting there shaking your head, totally excited, totally unable to guess where this is going next, or what the next loony line out of somebody's mouth is going to be. Just as long as it isn't stuff you regularly see....As long as it's different, as long as it's breaking a taboo (whether deliberately or by misdirection). There's a thousand reasons to like these films.[12]"
Film writers have acknowledged the lack of plot within the structure of Blood Feast to be of significance due to the emphasis on the spectacle rather than the mundane storyline. Previous horror films such as the Universal or Hammer Horror productions relied heavily on the build up of plot within its storyline to build up terror of the film whilst Blood Feast pushes boundaries on what is shown. What many have commented is that it is not the absurd plot of the movie that is meant to grasp our attention however it is the "aesthetic[13]" that is the key element in making theses films what they are. The script was only fourteen pages long however it was a skeletal structure to allow the depiction of what Jonathan Crowe credits Lewis contributing to the horror film: meat. Fake concoctions of blood, guts and animal entrails were used in the film to depict scooped out brains, eyeballs, intestines and most famously a tongue. Lewis wanted to push the envelope in terms of blood exploitation by doing what previous films had not done. "Everyone died peacefully in the movies...we broke and entered the skin...there was a whole bunch of taboos that we set out deliberately to violate in order to position our picture.[14]" This can be used to explain the films longevity in the eyes of many of its cult followers and how it continues to shock to this day. Lewis, theorising on his work, claims the horror within Blood Feast is not behind the blood or the splatter effect but through the organs, "People can replace blood with a transfusion, they cannot replace their intestines, their heart, their liver etc.[15]" Crane reiterates this by stating that "those of us fortunate to see any of Lewis' productions it is specific (splatter) scenes rather than the narrative as a whole which imprints themselves on the viewers memory." Stylistically the films grainy, retro, over saturated colour adds to the appeal within the cult world. Blood Feast's promotional posters sensationally played this up with the tag "more grizzly than ever in BLOOD COLOUR!"[16]
Generically Blood Feast ties in with the more mainstream ancient Egypt themed movies which preceded the film, such as the Mummy (1932), the villain Faud Ramses (Mal Arnold) being the practitioner of an ancient blood sacrifice to the goddess Isthar (although the authenticity of such research into the Egyptian Blood rights was a mere plot addition and was not based on fact whatsoever.) Lewis however embellishes the gory details of post corporal burial rights, which many audience members would have been familiar with, to extend to living playboy bunnies. HG Lewis was out to make the blood the key spectacle of a movie of (the blood was made from anti diarrhoea lotion mixed with cranberry sauce) which became known generically as the gore film or the gorror film thus earning him the honourable title "The Godfather of Gore[17]." "The theme of Blood Feast was one I felt lent itself to the kind of low budget, intensive production that we were geared to make."
The question remained, Who would handle a film like Blood Feast? Not known to be one to take his work too seriously HG Lewis was surprised at the reaction of various friends and co workers "fall down throw up and turn green[18]" at the rough cut of this film. Given the fact this was 1963 and people were not so used to this level of gratuitousness Lewis was hounded by various censor boards in places where the film was going to be released to cut the films excessive violence which unfortunately would have left nothing but very bad acting and a very flimsy plotline in the film. Due to the reactions of people who were making the film Lewis decided on opening the film in a quiet Drive in movie theatre in Illinois where audiences where at first its reception was luke warm until the tongue scene where Lewis describes, "and then comes the tongue scene and suddenly everything goes dead quiet and all you can see are these white eyeballs staring up at the screen. That one brought 'em up short.[19]" Blood Feast was screened across America through the Drive in theatres which were at the height of their popularity especially in rural areas. However the early 1960's would be the golden age of the Drive in which was suffering to the popularity of television and eventuly the rise of the home entertainment centre such as the VCR. Blood feast in this sense represents a lost age in cinema exhibition which adds to its cult fan base.
The films somewhat laughable advertising campaign (which in most cases was word of mouth) also added to the hype and the furore that Blood Feast was having across America. Posters (which themselves have become stuff of pop art) would contain elaborate disclaimers and admonitions such as "this is no publicity stunt warning. If you are the parent or guardian of an impressionable adolescent, DO NOT BRING HIM or PERMIT HIM TO SEE THIS MOTION PICTURE.[20]" This particular disclaimer shows us how aware the film promoters were in their target audience demographic i.e. impressionable adolescent males. There was also a lengthy disclaimer at the beginning of the films trailer with a man in a rather authoritarian tone warning the audience of the most unusual pictures ever filmed. Publicity stunts also ranged in ludicrously from white paper barf bags with a disclaimer written on the side proclaiming "You May need this when you see Blood Feast,[21]" to the producer Friedman granting an injunction against his very own film in a particular town to get more publicity. All these represent a time when exploitation was creeping into the mainstream and wasn't confined to the Grand Guignols and the nudie booths. Although at the time (and to this day) audiences found this film repulsive, there is an innocent quality that lies in this film, one that harks of a lost America in the form of the Drive in movie theatre and the sense of fun and camaraderie felt amongst the cast and crew in the making of the film, qualities that fully adhere Blood Feast to the status of a cult film.
Blood Feast is a great example of a badly made film, a film maker's guide on how best not to assemble a cast, crew, plotline, character, setting and one that proved to be one of the most enduring cult movies of all time, standing along side the likes of Ed Wood and many more exploitation flicks of its kind and era. Blood Feast would lay down the inspiration and influence for films such as Night of the Living Dead, Brain Damage, Bad Taste, Re animator and the Evil Dead series[22], even some of the films of John Waters, all which have respectable cult followings. What makes these films stand out is their disrespect, "because they seem so obviously to fly in the face of respectability....these films sometimes intensifies the horror, making the movies seem morally irresponsible or even gleefully amoral to the degree that they mock the seriousness of violence and death.[23]" These films however ludicrous represent the beautifully innocent within the weird and grizzly. There is a sense of encouragement to the guerrilla independent film maker that these films can transcend good taste, in the words of Lester Bangs "any loon sane enough to realise that the whole concept of 'good taste is concocted to keep people from having a good time, from revelling in a crassness that passeth all understanding....Fuck those people who'd rather be watching The Best years of our lives...We got our own good tastes.[24]" Blood Feast is celebrated in it's not only the genre breaking film but the notion that the film is aesthetically "bad" comply fails to conform to the artistic and political mainstream. Herschell Gordon Lewis was not someone who made these films for any personal accolade, "your ego goes out the window and you make a picture for the audience.[25]" And shock, dismay and terrify he did going on to make thirty two films in a twelve year span each one more gruesome and exploitive than the last. There are even plans for a Blood Feast 2.
Bibliography
Sconce Jeffery Trashing the academy: Taste, excess and an emerging politics of cinematic style. Screen Vol 36.4 Winter 1995
Palmer, Randy Herschell Gordon Lewis; godfather of gore: the films/ by McFarland and Company Publishers North Carolina 2000
Curry Christopher Wayne A Taste of Blood; The Films of Herschell Gordon Lewis Creation Books International 1999
Prince Stephen The Horror Film / edited and with an introduction by Stephen Prince Rutgers University Press New Jersey 2004
Grant Barry Keith Unruly Pleasures; The Cult film and its critics. FAB press Guilford 2000
The Rough Guide to Cult Movies ed Simpson Paul Rough Guides Ltd London 2002
No comments:
Post a Comment