C'mon..it's junk hyped as 'art'. No talent was involved
This John Waters got very very lucky. Anybody with guts could has made this.
shareIt is the underground "shock value" of the film, that would have given the film it's appeal at the time. It was also a slap in the face and jab at the film censors and their policies......hence the guts part you mention and I think Water's should be given kudo's for that. I find there are quite a few amusing moments and I find Divine cheaply entertaining to watch, if not downright disgusting in parts. FEMALE TROUBLE-74', is just as crude and gross; but dare I say, maybe a little more polished\professional as a production.
I could readily watch FEMALE TROUBLE, over PINK FLAMINGOES. PF is more mean spirited; whereas FT is more clever as a parody and while it knows it's bad, is not so self-conscious about itself.
There are hundreds/thousands of amateur filmmakers who likely have an entertaining 8mm/16mm fun-film they made with outrageous "actors" and stored in their attic. Somehow this director got it distributed.
If we give praise to this film, we have to do the same to Deep Throat or any shocking film before it's time for the same reasons, but we don't.
Let me ask: if Waters never became the mainstream famous well-reviewed director he is today, would PF still be looked upon so admirably? When somebody becomes successful, there may be a subconscious reaction to a film they made long ago that otherwise would just be labled as junk (instead of a genius in the making)
It makes me ponder: gee, is this I had to do, and become a success? (Ebert gives it no stars) In the same vein, I never saw the genius of Mel Brook's scene of men sitting around farting
Somehow this director got it distributed.
If we give praise to this film, we have to do the same to Deep Throat or any shocking film before it's time for the same reasons, but we don't.
______________
Some distributor took a chance on it and Waters may have been in the know with someone of influence. Much of the film's (free) publicity, would have come from censorship authorities rallying against it and this would have likely elevated the film to a status it probably didn't deserve. This was likely Water's agenda though. Also a slap in the face of commercial Hollywood. Who knows why some get lucky and some don't. I don't have an issue with Water's films, as I have actually enjoyed most of what I have seen.
DEEP THROAT, being hardcore porn, would have likely been restricted to XXX theatres only. It was banned outright for many years in NZ, until the mid 80's. I know there were some US legal issues surrounding DT for moral and decency violations; not sure why, if it was playing on the XXXrated circuit—more free publicity.
Let me ask: if Waters never became the mainstream famous well-reviewed director he is today, would PF still be looked upon so admirably?
_________________
For the Water's fan mentality, it would be revered and I think PF has the added value of Divine, who many do find funny to watch. The slap-sticky aspects of it and the twisted humour, would have won many over. An elderly man I know, who loves Water's SERIAL MOM-94, watched PF and told me it is the worst film he has ever seen and couldn't even get through it all. He wasn't concerned with it being made by the same director, of one of his favourite comedies.
If Wes Craven didn't become a popular director, would LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT-72, be looked on admirably?
'Wes Craven didn't become a popular director, would LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT-72, be looked on admirably? '
------------------------------------------
Good question.
Most critics are divided on this.
I saw this when it it was first released in theatres, but the shock value was more visceral than PF. I don't follow Roger Ebert's every review, but this is why he gives LHOTL such a high rating, while others give it a lower one. The acting in LHOTL is genuine and underrated, especially the Sly Stallone-looking lead actor(I met him at a book signing store)
Seeing PF when I was young, I was sitting in the theatre wondering when the movie would end so they could stop trying to humor and shock me.
One good example is Valley of the Dolls; we find it entertaining and watchable, but it's still a one-star film.
One good example is Valley of the Dolls; we find it entertaining and watchable, but it's still a one-star film.
________________
Sometimes I feel that rating a film is pointless.....what is one man's pleasure is another man's poison. If I rate a film, the reasoning is how much I connect with it, entertainment value and even replay value and how it compares to other films in the same or similar genre. PF might be trash and deserve 1 star, compared to something like ORDINARY PEOPLE; but it could be a 3 of 5, compared to other similar trashy, no\low budget, shock value, irreverent sick comedies.
Haven't seen VOTD; but it certainly sounds fun & entertaining. The 1 star many might give it, could be seen as uptight and snobby, when it's compared to similar films of it's ilk and their own merits. Have seen 'Beyond The VOTD', which Roger Ebert wrote and I find it very enjoyable as a satire of trashy lifestyles and fame. This film could easily rate 1 or 2 stars, compared to many other films; but I would give it a 3 of 5—I double the rating if based out of 10, like here on IMDB.
'and how it compares to other films in the same or similar genre'.
---------------------
That was Roger Ebert's position also, though even that has limits.(for example, a porn film that is better lit/focused is still trash, or a splatter film with a decapitation being better excuted still is what it is)
'Haven't seen VOTD; but it certainly sounds fun & entertaining'
---------------------
Now, every every movie-goer is not to miss VOTD, if only to see Patty Duke trying so very hard, and it almost ruining her reputation (aside from causing her personal issues) It was one of the top=grossing films of that year.
The difference is that whle VOTD may be 'trash', it still has some concrete artistic merit, and the unintentional laughs were just that: unintentional.
With PF, the intentional laughs did not make me laugh, nor gross me out. (it didn't fall under the "so bad, it's good" category)
"beg you pardon..?"
~~lucy ricardo
With PF, the intentional laughs did not make me laugh, nor gross me out.
____________
Some scenes in PF could be seen as irresponsible; for example, the live chicken sex\rape scene and I am sure there are others—can't recall right now, as it's been several years since last viewed. There is one scene that I do find quite funny, that is when the Marbles come home to find that there furniture has rejected them, after Babs and Crackers have defiled their place.
I would say PF, is a "so bad, it's absurd". The premise of out filthying one another, is mindbogglingly infantile and idiotic, that you can feel dirty and cretinous, just for sitting through it. This doesn't mean it is still not amusing in parts and it can still hold some nostalgia and even possibly avant garde value, based on when it was made. I agree though, it is not "art", in the truest form. It assaults us, rather than challenges us.
Sometimes I feel that rating a film is pointless.....what is one man's pleasure is another man's poison. If I rate a film, the reasoning is how much I connect with it, entertainment value and even replay value and how it compares to other films in the same or similar genre. PF might be trash and deserve 1 star, compared to something like ORDINARY PEOPLE; but it could be a 3 of 5, compared to other similar trashy, no\low budget, shock value, irreverent sick comedies.
-------------------------------------------
I could not agree with this statement more Rascal. I suppose it's what I was trying to get at with my "critics are useless" tirade a couple weeks back. Because all I know is that when I first saw PINK FLAMINGOS in 1991, I was shocked, exhilarated and hooked! Forget about "art", the movie is freaking funny! And the laughs that this movie provides should not be overlooked. What could be the point of dismissing a good, solid laugh? And the OP is wrong when he says that John Waters is talentless. John Waters has a great, original, creative mind. I haven't enjoyed his post-Hairspray movies as much, but FEMALE TROUBLE, DESPERATE LIVING and POLYESTER are comedy classics! And they have incredible replay value. The dialogue he wrote for these movies is often stupefyingly good/funny. PINK FLAMINGOS is more erratically brilliant.
The Egg Lady:"Ohhhh, a turd! A turd! The Egg Man didn't do it, Babs! I know the Egg Man didn't do it!"
Babs (exasperated, rolls her eyes):"Oh, I don't think he did, either, Mother! Now shut up and let me think!"