Category Archives: Essays

R.I.P. Roger Corman (1926-2024): Weirdness in Workaholism

We at last have an explanation for the Aurora Borealis illuminating the skies to the north this weekend. That’s the gates of movie heaven opening extra wide to admit one .

Roger CormanTo some movie-goers, he’s a “who?” To anybody who’s dipped a toe in movie culture, he is a giant, almost a mythical legend, some great mountain cyclops of Lovecraftian proportions. Where do you even start with Roger Corman’s legacy? The Little Shop of Horrors? The vintage Poe adaptations with Vincent Price? Easy Rider? The Fantastic Four? The women-in-prison flicks starring Pam Grier and her two D-cup co-stars? The steady churn of grindhouse and drive-in exploitation flicks, premiered and gone nearly as fast as they could be made? Death Race 2000? Or the long, long line of savant-level talented stars who passed through Corman’s production boot-camp to go on to be legends in their own careers?

It’s complicated, because Corman is also remembered as a ruthlessly pragmatic businessman, stingy with paychecks, who benefited from exploiting hungry new talent. He willingly stamped out some horrendous schlock with his name on it. Lest we forget that, we could also start with Dinocroc vs. Supergator or Sharktopus or Attack of the 60 Foot Centerfolds. To be fair, Corman was solely concerned with finding out what the audience wanted to see—and then getting it to them as fast as possible. It might take a cardboard and duct tape set and an afternoon shoot financed from change he found in a pay phone, but Corman got it done.

I try to imagine an alternate universe where Corman never existed, and the first thing I see is half of this website disappearing. It’s not just the movies he produced, directed, or acted in; it’s the big players who owed their start to Corman’s mentoring. Without Corman, you have no Scorsese, no Coppola (and hence, no George Lucas), no Ron Howard, no James Cameron, no Peter Bogdanovich, no Joe Dante— and that’s just the directors!

Reportedly, Roger Corman would not tolerate the expression “” within his presence, insisting he made A-movies on a B-budget (often while standing next to a poster of something like Night of the Cobra Women). But I don’t see him that way. He had a chance to go the big studio route working under 20th Century Fox. He had the chance to go art-house with his own New World Pictures. Roger Corman only felt at home driving his own desk, doing things his way, with a magical, forgotten talent known as a “work ethic.”

A hack. Being a hack has a proud tradition. Many of the literary greats we honor now got their start writing dime-novel pulps. You might use “hack” to describe those who write for money on a hand-to-mouth basis, such as we bloggers, bless us every one. Sure, Corman concerned himself with the art, and in the case of 1962’s The Intruder, he could even treat film as an important medium with something substantial to say. He just happened to care about the bottom line most of all.

The world needs people with such a work ethic. Doubtless, when that person is a producer who will fire you without apology for daring to go one day over schedule, that’s going to rub some people the wrong way. Rest assured, we will still be making fun of his sexploitation quickies and rubber-suit bug-eyed monsters for years yet. But we’re going to miss Roger Corman, more and more with each passing year, as the film industry’s pace-setter is no longer here to keep everyone else on their toes. You’re going to be asking in twenty years: Why does film as a medium feel so lethargic and bloodless now? It will be because Corman was not bringing up the rear, and the rest of the producers got comfortable and lazy.

Here on 366 Weird Movies, of course, we have lopsided standards, and so Corman looms larger to us than many a mainstream box office draw. We want the weird stuff, and he delivered his share of weirdness, mostly by virtue of the fact that when you’re hurling out nine films per year, a few weirdies will make it through the gauntlet the way one mutant green potato chip shows up in every bag. I don’t think Corman ever intentionally discouraged a viewer. But his low margins let him take some insane risks that paid off, and then he could content himself with making movies just for those narrow slices of the audience, like the ones whose greatest wish was to see Pam Grier’s num-nums.

Sure, Corman put out some sloppy work, but he wisely observed that most viewers would barely pay attention at the drive-in anyway. Likewise, his attempts to hop on every trend and produce a knock-off of every Star Wars were mostly pathetic. Again, this was just Corman trying to give the audience what they want, following his money-dowsing wand. Whatever weirdness that came through was a byproduct.

Nevertheless, Roger Corman is the man most remembered for proving the indie film production industry can hold its own. Like a punk rocker encountering a string quartet, he swept away all the pretense of the elite auteurs and set up his gear on stage to give us the fast jams we danced to. In a world of delicate artists wrestling with impenetrable muses and big studios flogging comic franchises for their last dollar, Corman cut clean to the bleached bone of film-making. You get it done under budget and on time, or you walk. Under his discipline, so many other talents discovered that not only could they wing it, but soar to the heavens.

MIKE MCCARTHY/JMM – A (SOMEWHAT LENGTHY) PRIMER

Mike McCarthy – or JMM?

Twins?

Actually, both are one and the same. When John Michael McCarthy started in comics, he branded himself with the JMM logo. And if you’ve seen JMM’s work either in comics or movies, your impression is probably:

GIRLS! (Nudity!!)

GARAGE! (Rock and aesthetic)

GARISH! (look, plotting, dialog, attitude)

ELVISNESS!

Basically, what was/is considered to be the rudiments of American pop culture of the 20th Century. If you really want to get into subtopics, specifically Southern American Pop Culture, including the films of David Friedman, early , and lots of others I can’t begin to list…

JMM started in the late 80’s/early 90s, just ahead of the Nu Garage/Greaser/Glam Explosion* of the late 90s, which he and his work helped spread.

[* – NOT an official genre term]

McCarthy’s pinnacle (?) was possibly Superstarlet A.D., which was picked up for distribution by in 2000, making it the easiest of his films to find. After that… that Garage/Greaseball/Glam Boom slowed down and got overshadowed by Whatever New Thing was current. And although McCarthy got notice and acclaim overseas, back home he was just what was called a “cult figure”; an interesting but obscure branch of underground film. Meanwhile, others in the Memphis film scene broke through to studio interest, and money.

As McCarthy has stated himself, as a mantra: “My work is UNPOPULAR“.

I’ve long wondered why. Full disclosure: I was a crew-member on Superstarlet A.D. for the last half of shooting. But I was a fan of McCarthy’s before that, having seen The Sore Losers in Kansas City during the “Vice Parties” tour. My San Francisco roommate was a fan of Russ Meyer, which is how I started discovering that particular corner of film. So when an opportunity came to check out that type of filmmaking, I jumped right in—but that’s another story for another time…

Afterwards, I delved more into McCarthy’s work, and tried to keep an eye on what he was up to. If there’s a genre label for McCarthy/JMM, it’s “Redneck Art-house.” He remarks in the Blu-ray commentary for Damselvis, Daughter of Helvis that a reviewer once referred to him (and the film) as a “Pawnshop .” Both terms sound derisive, initially; but they’re both on-the-nose and correct, and not in a bad way.

McCarthy’s work follows two distinct paths:

JMM comix adaptations. McCarthy’s lo-fi versions of his own personal Cinematic Universe: Damselvis (1994), The Sore Losers (1997), and Superstarlet A.D. (2000) fit in here, along with his comix “Cadavera”, “SuperSexxx”, and “Bang Gang.”

Mike McCarthy graphic novel adaptations. These include features Continue reading MIKE MCCARTHY/JMM – A (SOMEWHAT LENGTHY) PRIMER

R.I.P. ALFRED EAKER

Late Saturday, I received sad word that our own Alfred Eaker had passed away. No further details were provided. I don’t even know his exact age; I believe he was in his early 60s.

Alfred’s contribution to this site, from almost the very beginning, was immeasurable. He was the first contributor here besides myself. Although he had scaled back his writing here to pursue other projects, he was still engaged with 366 Weird Movies; in fact, he had ambitions for a written series running through the entire video nasties list. He recorded this podcast episode with me (others were planned) a mere three weeks ago:

Alfred was the kind of guy who became famous (here) more for what he hated than for what he loved. But when he loved something—Ed Wood, or classic Westerns, or opera, or Chaplin, or Ken Russel, or Andrei Tarkovsky, or Mahler, or Picasso—his passions matched or exceeded his excoriations. Alfred’s loves were no more secrets than his hatreds. It’s just that his hatreds tended to draw more offended commenters.

Alfred Eaker as Brother Cobweb
Alfred Eaker in character as “Brother Cobweb”

For every reference to “Mango Mussolini” or such you read in Alfred’s essays, be sure I edited out at least one other. But although I didn’t always agree with whatever outrageously elaborate insult Alfred drifted into whenever he sensed the presence of Trumpists, evangelicals, or assorted “constipated critics,” I let him say it, because it came from the heart. Alfred annoyed a lot of readers, and admittedly he earned the site a hearty handful of hate-clicks, but whatever broadsides he launched were aimed at what he honestly viewed as cultural threats.

Over the weekend, I culled through hundreds of pages of Alfred’s writing to select a few of my favorite gems below. (If printed, Alfred’s contributions to the site would take up several volumes on a 366 bookshelf). This is, I think, the best tribute I could give him: to let him speak in his own words. Please enjoy.

“I rarely set out to push people’s buttons. I just don’t give a hoot or a holler if I do, and I believe it’s an artist’s ethical responsibility to have the balls to write without inhibition and to always take an attitude of saying to hell with the status quo (and everything has the potential to develop its own status quo, even weird movie aficionados).”–Alfred Eaker on a decade of writing for 366 Weird Movies

“… essentially a 21st century update of Animal House… a bodiless set of redneck testicles.”–Alfred on Avengers: Infinity War

“When I saw that 366 Weird Movies’ readers had topped themselves in sadism with this year’s summer blockbuster picks (a video game, a Disney, AND a comic book movie) you can understand why I, Continue reading R.I.P. ALFRED EAKER

WHY AREN’T HOLLYWOOD FILMS STRANGE ANYMORE?

At the Fantasia Film Festival in 2016, before a screening of the punk video art black comedy She’s Allergic to Cats, I recall programmer Mitch Davis declaring that “weird is hot” in the then-current climate. Having run 366 Weird Movies for 8 years at the time, I was skeptical. Sure, scrappy filmmakers managed to squeeze out a handful of weird movies every year, but I consistently had trouble identifying ten truly weird ones for our year-end lists. Were things about to change for the strange?

Later that night, I asked underground director for his opinion on whether weird movies were “hot.” He said that when he described his work, most people happily responded “‘I’m OK with weird movies,’ but then you show them the weird movie and they’re like ‘ahhh… I didn’t get anything,’ and they’re completely confused and they hate the thing, and I’m like, ‘Ah, I knew it.’”

Still from She's Allergic to Cats (2016)
She’s Allergic to Cats (2016)

The next day I asked Allergic to Cats auteurs and if they thought weird movies were “hot.” They said the concepts they pitched for music videos for local L.A. bands were always rejected for being “too weird.” Reich said things started to change around the time Tim and Eric became popular, but they still had issues. Pitching a webseries, potential producers told them to make it more mainstream; then, they complained it wasn’t weird enough. “We were so outraged, we’d never been accused of not being weird before,” Pinkney laughed.

The point being, I—and the people working on the ground producing weird videos—are always skeptical when outsiders and marketers proclaim that out-of-the-ordinary is currently in demand. Have things changed in the movie industry in the six years since I last asked these questions in 2016? Variety‘s chief film critic Peter Debruge thinks the answer is “yes,” and he wrote a column titled “Why Are Indie Films So Strange Now?” to that effect. But, while Debruge’s observations are optimistic, I think his conclusions don’t match specialists’ expectations for what a true revival of the weird would look like.

To give credit where credit is due, Debruge applauds this “trend,” praising “unapologetically odd and original creations, led by a gifted group of rebel auteurs who don’t kowtow to popular expectations” and suggesting that there is a viewing “appetite [that] in turn supports an indie-film environment where directors are motivated to be more original, more surprising and all around more creative.” So far, so good. But is this really much different than the situation in previous decades? We here at 366 are not noticing a greater concentration of strange films than in prior years. Our own survey of Canonically Weird films by year found that weird movie production peaked between about 1968-1971. 2006, which was just outside the decade-long  weird movie renaissance Debruge postulates, was also a good year for strange films, and there were some notable Continue reading WHY AREN’T HOLLYWOOD FILMS STRANGE ANYMORE?

EVERYBODY’S GOT THE RIGHT TO BE DIFFERENT: STEPHEN SONDHEIM (1930-2021)

The film was a very British Guignol called Hangover Square, the story of a composer with a tendency to commit murder when stressed. The climax of the film is a performance of the composer’s concerto (actually the work of the legendary Bernard Herrmann), which culminates in his death in a cataclysmic inferno, still banging away at the piano. It’s not subtle.

Stephen SondheimFor the adolescent watching this tale unfold, it was a formative experience. He was so captivated by the dark story and Herrmann’s score that he rushed back to the moviehouse to watch the whole thing again in hopes of memorizing the sheet music to the villain’s composition. He wrote Herrmann a fan letter, which the recipient acknowledged was an unusual treat for a film composer. And years later, that young man had the opportunity to pay homage to his inspiration by using a familiar Herrmann chord throughout the score of a musical he had written, which just so happened to be about a murderous barber whose victims become the main ingredient in meat pies.

Stephen Sondheim was a noted cinephile, so it makes sense that movies would have a prominent role in his career. He was, of course, primarily a figure of the stage; long before his passing at the age of 91, he had cemented his reputation as perhaps the most significant creator in the history of American-style musical theater. But he got to indulge his love of film directly more than once; he won an Oscar for the song he contributed to the mélange of color and makeup that was Dick Tracy, he co-wrote the all-star puzzle box The Last of Sheila, and six of his shows made the jump to the silver screen, albeit none entirely successfully. He also made an impression on other filmmakers; audiences were treated to surprise appearances recently in films as diverse as Lady Bird, Knives Out, and Marriage Story. So although not a creature of film, he certainly made his mark.

But what am I doing here, talking about a Broadway composer on a weird movie website? Well, I think Stephen Sondheim has something to teach us about the role that personal vision and committed interest play in making a thing weird. Because while his reputation as the giant of American musical theater may rest on a foundation of rich, adventurous melodies and breathtakingly gymnastic and insightful lyrics, the thing that always kept him apart from the establishment – that marked him as an iconoclast of the highest order and denied him a true blockbuster – was his taste in material. No light comedies or mindless spectacles for him. His most dance-heavy show features tragic murders to end both acts. In search of pure comedy, he adapts plays that are 2,000 years old. Ask him to bring a movie to the stage and he’ll turn to an Italian film about a soldier is ensnared by the obsessive love of an ugly, sickly woman. Welcome to Broadway!

Even by Sondheim standards, my first experience with one of his shows was a doozy: a college production of Merrily We Roll Along, a story of lost idealism and the cost of one’s soul that has the temerity to unspool its tale in reverse chronological order. This stylistic Continue reading EVERYBODY’S GOT THE RIGHT TO BE DIFFERENT: STEPHEN SONDHEIM (1930-2021)