This weekend Robert Rogriguez’ Machete Kills (the sequel Machete) was released in the States. Normally I sequels don’t interest me, but ‘Machete’ was planned as a trilogy. At the end of the first film it is hinted that “Machete [the character] will return in Machete Kills and Machete Kills Again“. At first I thought it was a joke, but then, much like the faux trailer part of the Grindhouse double bill (which comprised Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof and Robert Rodriguez’ Planet Terror) the film became a reality. At least the first sequel, seeing the poor box office performance now it’s fair to speculate if the Mexican iteration of James Bond will return in Machete Kills Again. Long story short: This week we’re talking all things exploitation.
What is exploitation? What does that mean? I’ve tried hard to explain the concept to my brother, but of course I make more sense on paper (or screen) than in real life. I’ll try my best to keep things simple. Exploitation cinema or exploitation film are usually low-budget films that are also poorly produced (artistically) and usually appeal to an “adult” public. Due to the lack of big bankable stars, professional special effects and other general budget restrictions exploitation films by definition try to “exploit” a current trend or genre niche. These films are known to the general public as b movies and sometimes manage to attract cult followings, rarely are they appreciated by critics, although some older ones are considered classics today, they were mostly viewed negatively by the critics of the time, because of their “excesses”.
What are some examples of exploitation sub-genres? Well, there’s all kinds, but here are the most notable. There’s the biker films (films that revolve around the biker subculture), blaxploitation (cast with all or mostly black actors, dealing with social issues), cannibal films (usually about white men going to the jungle and rarely coming back in one piece), carsploitation (like the biker films, only with cars), chambara films (Asian folks wielding big swords and stuff), giallo films (usually Italian mystery/slasher/detective stories), mondo films (quasi-documentaries set out to shock you, also see shocksploitation), nazisploitation (films about the depravities of World War II), nudist films (naturalist lifestyle pieces), rape & revenge films (women castrating men for their evil doings), sexploitation (soft core pornography), slasher films (probably the most famous exploitation sub-genre usually involving serial killers slashing up naughty teenagers), spaghetti westerns (Italian westerns, not actually about food), splatter films (movies with a lot of gore and blood) and women in prison films.
What do all these films have in common? Mostly: A lot of violence, sex, nudity, language. They are more about getting a visceral reaction in the viewer rather than subtlety and genuine drama. Most of the time there is a point or message, but it gets lost in all the depravity and degeneration depicted on-screen. The beauty of these films is that they don’t take themselves too seriously, don’t judge their characters and posses a firm sense of morals. Many times these films get wrongfully discarded as immoral, cruel and disgusting. However underneath a surface of apparent vulgarity hides a strong moral center and a clear sense of right and wrong.
Many exploitation films were depicting and anticipating social issues that only years later entered the popular consciousness. Thanks to their low-budget they were allowed to freely address civil rights, female empowerment and other social issues, long before those were even brought up in mainstream cinema. Casting African-Americans, Hispanics and women in the lead roles these films were innovative and way ahead of any “politically correct” bullshit. Paradoxically by being more offensive, they were more respectful of human diversity and portrayed different ethnicities more sensibly, genuinely and free of hypocrisy. It is the very nature of exploitative cinema that allows it to be more auto-critical of our Western culture and values, but without coming off as pedantic and still managing to entertain.
Exploitation cinema was at its height in the 70s, but the first exploitation films date back to as early as cinema was invented. Lately, with Tarantino and the so-called “Splat Pack” (a group of directors comprising Robert Rodriguez, Eli Roth and Rob Zombie among others) this kind of cinema has experience a resurgence to some kind of degree. Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill Vol. 1 & 2 (chambara films), Death Proof (carsploitation) and Inglourious Basterds (nazisploitation) are probably favorites, but since I mention those fairly regularly I wanted to mention seminal works, films that were very influential for contemporary filmmakers. I also tried to pick five different sub-genres. So in honor of Machete Kills: Here are five of my favorite exploitation films!
5. Freaks (1932, Tod Browning)
Freaks is often referred to as the first exploitation film. The film is about a group of “circus freaks”, the type of people “normals” look at with disgust, fear or just morbid curiosity. Tod Browning however treats his characters with respect portraying them as humans. Yes, they’re flawed, petty, selfish and sometimes even evil, but aren’t we all? By not giving them a special treatment, but portraying their humanity, suffering and passions just as our own he manages to show that the only difference between us and them is a physical one. Social “classes” and hierarchies exist just as much in their world as they do in our and people go through the same life experiences, feelings and emotions. The film is not easy to watch, the characters are very empathic, relatable and real which makes the viewing experience all the more compelling. This film inspired Werner Herzog’s Even Dwarfs Started Small and it’s one of the most memorable films I’ve ever seen, though I don’t necessarily feel ready to re-watch it because of its strong and powerful resonance, which is definitely overwhelming.
4. Django (1966, Sergio Corbucci)
When I heard that Tarantino was making a film in the world of Django I immediately had to watch Sergio Corbucci’s film. The Western genre is one of those genres that never really interested or attracted me, so I don’t feel qualified enough to talk about it, but I’ll still give it a try and my proverbial two cents. What I liked about Django is that compared to most exploitation films it “holds back” a little and actually restrains a bit of violence and doesn’t show a lot of the racy stuff that would have probably been shown in similar genre fare. Django is the story of a lone bounty hunter that goes from town to town in search of bad men to kill. He always drags his coffin around with him and of course that’s because he keeps the heavy artillery inside there and nobody would dream of open it. The film was also very influential for Robert Rodriguez who unabashedly loves unusual weaponry and gadgets (just look at the those Spy Kids films).
3. Cannibal Holocaust (1980, Ruggero Deodato)
Cannibal Holocaust is one of the most famous cannibal films and considered one of the most shocking films of all time. It’s about a group of filmmakers that go to the jungle to make a film about the local tribes and their rituals and way of living. Unfortunately most of these guys are more disrespectful and savage than the local cannibals (as weird as that may sound). So instead of just doing their work they decide that raping the women and killing the indigenous population is totally okay. Naturally because of the sins of a bunch of douchebags the whole crew will have to pay. The film is extremely well-made, but very violent and crude. There is real animal torture, which is terrible, but adds to making this film incredibly depressing and sad. However if you can get past that it’s also one of the best explorations of human nature I’ve ever seen. As much as I don’t support animal cruelty it does help making a point and for what it’s worth they actually ate the animals that were killed (namely the big turtle, poor turtle).
2. Tenebrae (1982, Dario Argento)
Tenebre (original title) is one of my favorite giallos. It’s one of the few brightly lit horror films, which is ironic, because “tenebre” means “darkness” in Italian. The film looks great and has a kind of supernatural, almost surreal atmosphere going on and for me it’s more about the score and how this film feels, rather than the plot. Like most giallos, the story is a bit convoluted and full of twists and turns, but at the end of the day Tenebrae still makes a little bit of sense and that’s why I can embrace it and recommend it. I remember liking the acting, the cinematography and Dario Argento’s trademarks most of all. It also helps that the film is set in Rome, I’m always a fan of that. Critics consider it to be one of Argento’s best, but I’d say that I prefer Suspiria and Deep Red (aka Profondo Rosso) is definitely up there: He has just made so many great films and I think that people need to be reminded of that, especially nowadays.
1. Showgirls (1995, Paul Verhoeven)
Now then: A sexploitation cult classic. Paul Verhoeven’s Showgirls is an over-the-top, almost caricatural portrayal of a young woman trying her luck in Las Vegas as an exotic dancer. After a series of ups and downs she finally manages to arrive at the top of Vegas nightlife entertainment, but at what cost? The film is not meant to be taken very seriously, it’s full of auto-ironic and self-aware humor and yet many people accuse it of not being realistic. The joke is on them however, because clearly they don’t understand the film and the director’s intention. Just like you would expect from a sexploitation film there is a lot of sex and nudity, but while some might say that its depiction is gratuitous and vulgar. In the context of Las Vegas entertainment it would be ridiculous not to show any tits and asses, just like it would make no sense for a low-life New York gangster character to talk like a Harvard English professor (unless of course that’s he used to be a professor, but what are the odds?). Anyway, I like this film because of how it deals with complex and fascinating themes such as friendship, work ethic and gender roles.
Like I’ve said in my previous post about the film I am looking forward to whatever Diablo Cody does, but I can’t help but feel a little skeptical about her directing. This trailer looks “okay”, but I hope it’s not just “bashing of Christians just for the sake of bashing Christians”. What I mean is: I hope it’s not more shallow making fun of religious people, and admittedly religious nuts exist and deserve to be called out, but I hope this isn’t a preachy/judgy type of film.
With that being said, the whole idea of a main character wanting to sin reminds me a whole lot of my favorite Sono Sion film Love Exposure (2008). In that movie a teenage boy was trying hard to sin, because his father (a priest) forced him to confess his sins even if he hadn’t any to confess. So the kid decides to do some serious sinning, might as well right? Maybe Cody has seen that movie and was inspired by it, maybe not. Either way I’m only being cautious here because I’ve been burned before in my over-excitement for a film, numerous times actually.
I do love Octavia Spencer‘s line “Let me guess you came here to be a showgirl” which is obviously a reference to Paul Verhoeven’s 1995 film Showgirls. It’s that kind of witty dialogue that I love and look forward most, but Julianne Hough has yet to convince me as a charismatic lead. Russell Brand‘s character looks funny, he’s doing the usual british shtick which seems to be working out for him. All in all Paradise could be good, but I guess we’ll find out when it comes out later this year, that is October 18th to be precise.
The good movies took up most of my viewing time this week: As it should be. I’m thankful for new discoveries, but I have a hard time picking a favorite, having to choose between consistently good quality filmmaking, but nothing sticking out in particular. I’ll do my best, for you.
Showgirls (1995) – 8 (IMDb 4.3) – Drama, Comedy (USA)
Why does this film get the ‘disappointing re-watch’ label? Quite simply: I revisited Showgirls on monday and it wasn’t as good as I remembered it to be or built up in my mind. It’s still a misunderstood and underrated film I very much recommend, but it’s not the masterpiece I made it out to be. It’s flawed and has some problems. It still deserves to be called good, because it’s a campy/cheese triumph. A great success story and commentary on showbiz. What disappointed me a little bit was the character of Nomi (Elizabeth Berkley) who was a bit annoying and whiny, I remembered her to be totally badass and likable. Guess I was wrong. Still, crazy sex scenes and hilarious dialogue. Some of the cabaret scenes are a bit long, but other than that it’s good fun. Oh, and this is for my American readers: You think you’re pronouncing Versace right, but your not! No offense.
Drinking Buddies (2013) – 7 (IMDb 6.6) – Comedy, Drama, Romance (USA)
The mumblecore aesthetic might have been overly criticized and made fun of (part of it is envy), but Joe Swanberg really came around as a filmmaker and proved that he has got some real talent as a filmmaker. Drinking Buddies is a fun comedy with heart, embarrassing moments (as you’d expect from the sub-genre and the director) and even some genuinely original ideas. Olivia Wilde is the best part of the film in terms of performance, she really made me chance my mind about her: She’s more than a pretty face. Anna Kendrick is good and finally does something different in terms of acting. The boys (Jake Johnson, Ron Livingston) are good too. Horror director Ti West makes an appearance in this, believe it or not. The story follows two couples and their relationship problems. What I especially liked about this film was the ending, because after all the characters go through you’d expect a certain type of ending, but it’s completely different and funny and charming, leaving no questions open. I know, it’s hard to talk about a film without spoilers, but trust me: You’ll love and remember that ending. Good script.
‘PICK OF THE WEEK’
A Hole in My Heart (2004) – 7 (IMDb 4.5) – Drama (Sweden)
A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy (1982) – 7 (IMDb 6.6) – Comedy, Romance, Fantasy
This week Woody Allen’s new film Blue Jasmine was released in the US, of course they’re still working on it here in Switzerland. Feeling in the mood for
love some Woody, I decided to watch one of the films of his I hadn’t seen yet. “What? You make a top five of Woody Allen’s films and you haven’t even seen all of them?” Well, I’ve seen all of his masterpieces, except for Bananas.. Okay, come on, the guy has made almost fifty movies! So anyway, A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy is a charming, typically Woody Allen type of comedy. Great acting and actors, references to Shakespeare and Bergman, great pieces of music by Mendelssohn and some great nature shots. What more can I say? If you like Woody Allen, I’m pretty sure you’ll know what you’re going to get: Interesting reflections on life, smart and silly laughs and just a very honest, romantic, sweet film.
Side note: Italian audiences will be familiar with the basic structure of this film, from the annual dose of cine-panettoni (Italian Christmas themed sex comedy) they drop on us every December. If you want to see where they shamelessly copied everything from, turning it into something vulgar and painfully unfunny, check out this film (and Woody Allen’s grandiose catalogue in general) instead. You won’t be sorry, I promise!
As you can see, I ended up giving the ‘Pick of the Week’ title to Lukas Moodysson’s A Hole in My Heart. I was tempted to give it to Woody Allen’s A Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy, but I had just given him that title last with Zelig. Furthermore, A Hole in My Heart is unfairly underrated (especially on IMDb) and so I wanted to give it some love. Drinking Buddies is a great new release, you should check it out, but it’s nothing really revolutionary and I have a feeling we haven’t seen the best of Joe Swanberg yet. While Showgirls has the highest rating on here, it was kind of a disappointment, but also I prefer to single out first time viewings, instead of re-watches. Enough self-indulgence. See you next week! Enjoy. Bye.
Cultures don’t differ only for their cuisine, spiritual beliefs or social norms, but in their marketing as well.
Just the other day, I casually stumbled upon a Japanese promo video for a then new video game. It was pretty outlandish. Today, coincidentally, a Facebook Friend of mine posted the Japanese poster art for one of his favorite films (The Lords of Salem). The layout was insane, the picture was overloaded with content, cramming as much text and images as possible into the rectangle. Aside from the layout, the neon color palette (which is present in the film) was sensibly played up, compared to say the American poster.
This got me thinking. If we respond and perceive advertising differently it must be a cultural thing. What works in Europe or America, maybe is too minimalist for a Japanese audience. We respond to films, and art in general, differently because of where and how we were brought up. All this to say that it doesn’t make sense to try and define beauty objectively. However, scientists have proven that our brains do respond similarly (all over the world) to certain types of images: Whether we are ready to socially admit this or not is the real question.
To return to the posters: After seeing the crazy poster on Facebook, I instinctively googled some more posters to see if my suspicions were correct. My hypothesis was that marketing execs try to sell a film to Japanese audiences by throwing everything they can on the poster and see what sticks. This type of sensory overload is not only annoying, but doesn’t look good in my opinion. My “theories” were initially confirmed when I searched for Japanese film posters in general, but that seemed too easy and generic, so I searched for the posters of my favorite films instead. What I found was that most Japanese poster art is similar to the original, but with more text or an added still from the movie.
Examples of Japanese Posters
Much to my surprise I found that some posters were more creative and visually stimulating. My favorite is the one-sheet for Young Adult, even if it’s too cheerfully colorful and doesn’t capture the film’s depression: Why not? If it gets audiences to see the movie, I’m all for it. An argument could be made for the fact that it’s trying to comment on the worlds Mavis is creating as a writer of young adult fiction. It’s excellent. I also like the creative poster for eXistenZ: The American one pales in comparison. The simple drawing of Showgirls‘ Nomi Malone, the film’s protagonist, may have nothing to do with the movie’s over-the-top cheesiness and campiness, it is indicative of the character’s fragile nature and how she is “on the inside”.
The poster for 2001: A Space Odyssey, is more or less identical to the American poster, to show you that sometimes art can be universal, and the film truly is a masterpiece. Another classic poster is Citizen Kane, it’s not the same as the original, but rather two images taken directly from the film itself. What both posters have in common is the reference to its quality: Here (the Japanese example) by putting an Oscar statue next to the title, in the original poster by displaying a quote praising Orson Welles’ genius.
I also picked two Quentin Tarantino films Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and Death Proof. The ‘Kill Bill’ poster is an example of what I would say is a bad poster, but seems to be the norm for Japanese marketing. It’s just a pastiche of everything they could find and features stuff that I’m pretty sure I don’t remember from the movie (even if it’s been a while since I’ve seen it). The Death Proof poster (much like the Inglourious Basterds one), is interesting, because it’s yellow to echo the film that put Tarantino on a map and to this day remains one of his most famous (Kill Bill).
Looking at the posters for art house releases, the most striking one is the one for L’Avventura: It’s in color (the film is in black & white) and is framed by text, literally. Big fan of the Red Desert (Il Deserto Rosso) poster: It looks more like a painting than a pictures and it portrays Monica Vitti staring right back at us. I like that they picked a poisonous looking green for the title, but I am a bit confused by the black & white still, especially considering that it was Michelangelo Antonioni’s first color film. Another poster using the “still-thing” (only better) is the Leon: The Professional poster. Very intimate, visually stunning picture capturing the film’s romantic angle, which would have been probably too risqué for Western audiences and a film already bordering pedophilia. To top it off, the poster for Melancholia, which displays how the Japanese exploit star power. Kiefer Sutherland surely has an important role in von Trier’s film, but surely Kirsten Dunst and Charlotte Gainsbourg are the two leads, so he has no business being there.
As bad as some Japanese posters might seem, keep in mind that not all American posters are good as well and while most of the times I’d say that less is more, sometimes less is also less. Also, jumbling all those elements on a limited space of paper is a more difficult, objectively. Japanese posters might seem more creative, and sometimes they are, and we could learn from them. Marketing researchers has also proven that ads that are aesthetically appealing don’t necessarily translate in sales. The Japanese posters might seem manipulative, but in time we may discover that, once more, they were ahead of us all along.