MovieChat Forums > Pink Flamingos (1976) Discussion > Films like this, with perverted bad tast...

Films like this, with perverted bad taste acts displayed, besides the law, are they morally allowed to exist?

Also, isn't it rather in poor taste if not somewhat off-putting to allow an actor to actually eat dog-feces for real in order to make such a movie? Or do you think there are no moral, legal, ethical issues to debate with a movie like this and its also perfectly understandable why a lot of people, critics and audiences, tend to highly appreciate this movie but often complain, and not JUST for quality reasons, morality-wise over the likes of the "Faces of Death" series?

Not saying I agree or disagree here, but what do you think? Does this movie REALLY NOT actually cross the line?

And is it also entirely normal that people find it all amusing? Even if in real life sometimes, or always, if any of that kind of stuff was tried, you'd be in a lot of trouble? But then again, eating dog feces on film, for real, isn't that particularly unethical?

Also, health-wise, wouldn't it also be DANGEROUS, and the actor Divine could have got cholera and whatnot, even if he may have "consented" to it, then again, OF COURSE we would all feel SHOCKED and INCREDIBLY ANGRY if someone was forced into eating dog poop for real on film somehow but then doing it voluntarily isn't exactly virtuous either, or am I mistaken? Maybe we should neither judge NOR feel too SHOCKED about it, and apparently, some OTHER movie stuff we may have seen, even if it was totally fake, but let's say some other material inappropriately played for laughs and presented badly, may have been FAR MORE offensive to most people than anything in this cult gross out 1970s black comedy sickie flick? But then who is even RIGHT here. Oh and we are alright with fictional depiction of killings used in entertainment in say action movies but in any case, does this movie really go over the line in your opinion?


the first time i saw pink flamingos, i laughed so hard i threw up on my sister's living room carpet.

that's justification enough for me.


Yeah, I've noticed many defenders of this movie's refer to its high level amusement factor.


And speaking of "legal" aspects, from what I heard, the closest this film came to having something "illegal" in it was some actor, maybe Divine I'm not sure, maybe someone else, apparently engaging in method acting by "stealing" from one of the local shops something.

Otherwise, the dog feces thingy, some (albeit fake) but controversial material related to bad taste humor, sexual violence, fetishes etc etc etc, was mostly fine and passable.

Heck, certain Hollywood flicks including 00s comedies as such, apparently, had some more DE-FACTO offensive material in it, even if in at least one case (won't spell it out, use your imagination, and that movie probably isn't the only ONE) there was a sense of IRONY to it in a way that it stereotypically showed something but without portraying its even in that form realistic horrors and was also used inappropriately for laughs etc.

Apparently, in that sense, a movie like this can be defended on grounds that it was at least HONEST and SINCERE with its barrage of bad taste humor and never intended to send any bad messages, however unintentionally, across. Or maybe... Decide for YOURSELVES.


I also have to in a way, haha, give one IMDb reviewer some credit who back in 2002 actually reviewed that movie, gave it a negative rating, compared the movie to Pink Flamingos in a sense that it did not offend him whereas that movie did, and strangely, did not even MENTION its notorious and controversial "scene" in question, but also, maybe not too bizarrely, found OTHER "stuff" in it to criticize albeit intelligently.

Maybe they did not notice it. But maybe, they would watch it again with today's eyes and notice its reviews and trivia who had especially complained about it, and, in addition to stuff he mentioned in it (I think the reviewer was male, again, not criticizing for that or etc etc) and maybe shed some light on it but I suppose, yeah, he COULD claim that he ALSO found it, in its own way or otherwise, offensive, distasteful, inappropriate etc etc etc and if asked, I guess yeah, he WOULD also think the perpetrator should've been legally punished etc etc etc.

But OK enough shop talk for now, let's go back to the drawing board, ooops, return to, discussing Pink Flamingos and how legitimately, today or otherwise, it has a right to exist AND be appreciated in all its perverse bad taste glory.