A classic, as it were, and perhaps the oldest film I have reviewed. The brainchild of quasi-notable celebrity John Waters, who I first became aware of through The Simpsons episode "Homer's Phobia" which features him as the same named character John, who looks very similar to Waters and appears to be indistinct from his voice actor with the exception of his occupation. It is, in fact, the charisma of John Waters that was a strong motivator towards me watching this film, even more so than its, in my opinion undeserved, cult status.
I ended up watching the 1997 cut with the extended John Waters ending that featured commentary and some deleted scenes. I'm not entirely sure if this added anything special to my experience, but it is the version of the film I watched.
The acting is half decent, with the protagonist and her family the best performances in the film. The majority of the cast appears to have never acted before, and it shines clear throughout. Some of the scenes even feature people who are supposed to be upset, actually on the verge of laughter because of the underlying silliness of the whole film.
The plot boils down to a competition between the title character Devine and her family versus the husband and wife team of Raymond and Connie Marble. They both vie to be the filthiest people in the world. Though by today's standards, they are not very unusual at all. This, as well as the quality of the literal film used, severely date the picture. Perhaps in a world where we can all be immediately connected via webcam or cellphone, the idea of outlying outrageous people seems more far fetched. Nothing that happens in this film is as bad as, say, 2 girls 1 cup, or any of the other extreme and extremely unusual and obscene internet pornography most of us could find given more than 5 minutes and a few Google searches. The cult status seems to be based on how bad it is, but people genuinely love this film, the way most Rocky Horror fans genuinely love that film, myself included. I can look past glaring issues for the gold that shines through, but not this time.
So then...why didn't I like it? I've seen films with worse acting, worse writing, more outrageous disgusting acts, more violent acts....and I just thought the film was below average. Perhaps it is dated? Perhaps it is too crudely done for my taste? I personally don't think so. I believe that today's modern movie-goer has been exposed to so much outrageous content in their life that 1972's shocking film, is today's mere footnote in cinema history. There was not a single point in the film where I even gagged a little, or was even slightly put off by the blood, or the deaths. The most emotional rise I experienced was a few chuckles now and again. Truth be told, I was dreadfully bored. This is today's cinematic world. I just watched a grown man in drag eat freshly produced canine excrement and did not even bat an eye. When I got to the part everyone talks about, I was actually disappointed by its utter lack of shocking-ness. I suppose that's where we stand though. The soundtrack is memorable, the acting is so-so, the writing is confusing and manufactured, the film lived and thrived in the 70's, as a cult classic, and, for me at least, there it will remain. Two and one half stars, out of 5.
**.5 out of *****
De-sensitively yours, -B
No comments:
Post a Comment