"The Cultural Impact of The Exorcist"

"The Exorcist" is an important film to me personally for a number of reasons - for its nostalgia, for the impact it had on me both in terms of hype and in living up to that hype, for the film's quality, for my varied interpretations of its theme, as a lesson in filmmaking, and on and on. And I wasn't the only one obsessing on William Friedkin's film version of William Peter Blatty's best seller; it was a worldwide phenomenon.

This entertaining Youtube clip entitled "The Cultural Impact of The Exorcist", made at the time of the film's release, illustrates the effect it had in North America back in 1973/74. Interviews start around the 1:50 mark.

Click here for "The Cultural Impact of The Exorcist".
Click here for a previous post about my experience with "The Exorcist"
Click here for my interpretation of "The Exorcist".

My Other Blog

I started a second blog after a recent Facebook conversation with filmmaker Harmony Wagnor. In this conversation, Harmony asked her FB friends to tell her what they didn't like about Canadian films. This made me think of a TV idea I'd pitched a few years ago that didn't go anywhere. The idea was that the public would vote on the best Canadian films, and we'd end up with list that would be a catalyst of sorts - a decent starting point from which Canadians and movie lovers around the world could further explore Canadian movies.

As access to and lack of knowledge about the existence of many Canadian movies were two of the main issues that came out of the conversation Harmony started, I decided go ahead and see what I could stir up as far as highlighting Canadian films online. That's why I started Maple Leaf Movies.

What I'm asking you and others to do is to: 1) go online HERE and submit as many Canadian films as you feel belong on a list of Great Canadian Films. In the fall, we'll have a vote and determine a list of 25 (give or take) films. The plan from there is to have writers write about each of the film on the list. 2) Pass it on. I'd like as many films and as many people as possible involved with this.

NEWSPAPER MOVIE ADS 1979-1981

In 2011 I posted some scans of ads for screenings I'd attended dating back to 1974 when I was 10 years old. Working within the scope of a 10-year period, I'm posting another batch here, this one covering approximately 1979-1981. Click on an image to enlarge.

The Most Dangerous Film Book Ever Written

In 1978, Randy Dreyfuss with Harry Medved and Michael Medved published The Fifty Worst Films of All Time (And How They Got That Way). In it, the authors selected 50 films they’d designated as the worst, mocking movies by Alfred Hitchcock, Sam Peckinpah, Alain Resnais, and others.

At the time of the book’s publication I was 13, and I enjoyed its tone and content. It was fun to laugh at movies that either failed or that I didn’t understand. Now, as an adult, I can see the smugness and lack of understanding that this book was selling. Unfortunately, I bought into it wholesale at the time, and I wasn’t alone.

It seems to me that the publication of The Fifty Worst Films of All Time coincided with a Zeitgeist that was ready to erode the way we appreciate movies. After all, home video and the whole “B-Movie” phenomena were just around the corner. Throughout the 1980’s, making fun of movies became a popular pastime – We rediscovered the films of Ed D. Wood Jr., Elvira was a pop culture icon, and the term “B-Movie” became synonymous with “bad movie”, typically referring to the product of an earlier era. Thankfully, my relationship with movies moved on and I developed a deeper and different kind of appreciation for cult films, in part encouraged by the publication of Michael J. Weldon's essential 1983 book The Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film - the prefect antidote to The Fifty Worst Films of All Time.

One thing that this opening of my horizons showed me was that the kind of thinking responsible for books like The Fifty Worst Films of All Time simply misses the point. What it does, in the end, is limit understanding and appreciation, and encourages small mindedness. Where’s the joy in making yourself feel superior to a movie that is the product of its time? In my experience, a bad movie is one that doesn’t engage me; it’s a film that has been tested and committeed out of its skin; it’s a movie that’s designed for Oscar Season; and sometimes, more often than not, it exhibits the qualities that Dreyfuss and the Medveds would seem to endorse.

Having typed the preceeding words, I’d also encourage you to read The Fifty Worst Films of All Time, place it within the context of its time while doing so, and to draw your own conclusions. As I see it, it’s a bad book, mean-spirited and dumb, and I see it reflected in the people who talk too much in a theatre, text during the movie, and who laugh smugly at onscreen events that just aren’t funny.

Randy Dreyfuss, Harry Medved and Michael Medved. They were true trailblazers, not in writing about bad movies, but in bad writing about movies.

Oh... Have You Read My Piece in Rue Morgue Magazine?

The December 2013 issue of Rue Morgue (#140) contains an interview piece I wrote based on a fax conversation(!) I had with one of my idols - Brian Clemens, OBE. Clemens is the writer/creator of several projects of which I'm a fan, including Dr. Jekyll & Sister Hyde, The Golden Voyage of Sinbad, And Soon the Darkness, See No Evil, the TV series Thriller and The Avengers, and he is the writer/director of Caption Kronos: Vampire Hunter.

Clemens, now in his 80's, was approachable, engaging and considerate. We made contact via his wife's email address, and when asked what his preferred method of communication over the Atlantic Ocean would be, he chose fax as he kindly did not wish to trouble his spouse.

I ended up with much more information than would fit in the three-page Rue Morgue piece, but the content has been distilled to a nice and informative article that will hopefully turn a few new folks on to Clemens' work. To top it all off, The Exoricst, one of my favourite flicks, is the cover story of this issue.

This is my second piece for Rue Morgue (info about the first piece is here), and the whole experience has been a thrill for me. This past October, I was in Toronto and stopped by the Rue Morgue office where I met Editor-in-Chief Dave Alexander and some of the Rue Crew. Dave, Monica, Justin and Ron were great, and I look forward to dropping back into their lair where I'd love to spend weeks in both the DVD and book libraries.

For more info about Rue Morgue, check out their always interesting and always morbidly atmospheric website.

Talking Giallo on CBC Radio

Click here to hear me talk about Giallo with Karen Mair on CBC Radio's Mainstreet.

This Image is Disgusting and Shouldn’t Be Posted - UPDATE

A couple of weeks back I posted this. I also posted a request on Facebook for comments from specific people, mostly women, involved one way or another in horror and cult films. This was the feedback I received:

BJ Colangelo
Horror Blogger; Website: Day of the Woman
It's a disgusting and horrible image made specifically to illicit that sort of response. You're supposed to find it disgusting. It's supposed to make you upset. That's the purpose of horror imagery. However, censoring it or refusing to post it will take away that power. Not everything in this world is supposed to be sunshines and lollipops. I would be more worried if someone DIDN'T find the image disgusting.

Amanda Reyes
Horror Blogger; Website: Made for TV Mayhem
I'm glad you tagged Jovanka, because I remember reading an editorial piece in Rue Morgue some time ago about a letter that I believe she received from a victim of rape who found I Spit on Your Grave cathartic (I'm sure she can expand on that better than me), but that goes into the actual content of the film and not so much the lurid poster imagery of a woman's rear that is now so infamous. But it's what I thought of. I hate I Spit on Your Grave, but I don't think it's necessarily my place to tell someone they shouldn't watch or like it. And certainly the writer of that letter got something extremely positive out of the film.

That said, I'm more sensitive now to this kind of art work than I used to be. Blame all of the gender and representation classes I take at school. However, when I see stuff like this, it's more like a personal discussion with myself as to what I dislike about what the image says. Some images are more offensive than others. And I don't think artwork for movies should be edited/censored/etc (of course, there will always be exceptions). Real images, well, those are different and we know the difference. Adults here, right?

I think I'm talking in circles though. It's an interesting question because horror has really opened itself up to females and has been attempting to do that for a while (read Nowell's Blood Money if you haven't), so it's a legitimate issue. Also, I agree that your friend should have maybe sent you a private message, or maybe opened it up to a discussion instead of a "This is disgusting, so feel bad about posting it" kind of response.

OK, and one more thing (sorry), as for the actual Corruption artwork, it's creepy and total exploitation. It's also kind of fantastic, and captures some of the old grindhouse day art. I'm more into it than not, I think.

BJ Colangelo (responding to Amanda)
I actually wrote a very, very similar article about ISOYG in that regard. Horror imagery will always have a different impact on others based on their personal experiences and beliefs.

Jovanka Vuckovic
Writer, Filmmaker; Website: Jovanka Vuckovic
Images like this are not the language of horror per se. Rather, it is the currency of exploitation cinema. The two are not mutually exclusive, yes, they have often frolicked in the same stained bed. But I'm tired of "horror" as genre taking the heat for all of the misogynistic imagery that exists in the movies. Horror is not inherently sexist. Exploitation films are. And as far as exploitation films go, this is pretty standard stuff. It's no worse than the poster for Maniac, which depicts a man with a hard-on holding a knife in one hand and a woman's scalp in the other. Or the poster for Jose Larraz's The Violation of the Bitch, and its incendiary tagline: "She asked for it." Lurid poster art and inflammatory taglines put asses in seats. While no one is particularly proud of the rampant misogyny that characterizes many exploitation films, it is a part of film history. And there will always be people that make sweeping personal judgements about you for watching these films. And that's okay, because that's their issue, not yours. As you were.

Stacie Ponder
Horror Blogger, Cartoonist; Websites: Final Girl, Stacie Ponder
Had your friend framed her issues as opening the door to discussion, I'd have no problem with her bringing it up. But making it into a personal attack is inappropriate and not particularly helpful. Then again, I'm sure everyone who's proclaimed him- or herself to be a horror fan has gotten the disapproving "How can you watch that stuff?" from someone, as if all films in the genre are exactly the same. You've got to choose your battles, I suppose.

Though I know it can often be misleading, cover art simply helps me decide if I want to go further and check out a movie or not. While this doesn't look like something I'd care to see (my relationship with exploitation cinema is a tenuous one), I find it far less offensive than the cover of I Spit on Your Grave and its sequel.

And again, while I think talking about these topics is good and healthy, context is important. Had you posted it with commentary like "aw yeah look at this bitch get it LOL" or something, that'd be one thing. But it's the cover art, and to post it within a review or discussion post is nothing to worry about. People are going to be "triggered" by all sorts of imagery, whether from horror movies or something else. Like I said, those become choose your battles scenarios. Whether or not you censor your site is up to you...here, I think you pulled the trigger too quickly.

Maitland McDonagh
Film Critic, Writer; Website: Flick Chick
Why not? Because some people might be offended? That seems ridiculous to me. I'm offended by real life violence against women... and men and children. But one of the purposes of art is to be confrontational and to generate discussion. Cinema is an art form, regardless of what particular people think about particular movies, and promotional imagery connected to movies is as much an art form as is vintage advertising poster imagery. My feeling is, if you don't like it, don't look at it, but don't assume that your opinions should extend to limiting other people's options. I hate Jeff Koons' work, but that doesn't give me the right to prevent other people from seeing in your timeline or the middle of Rockefeller Center.

Amanda -- I should have said earlier that I think we all become more sensitive to this kind of imagery as we grow older, just because we know more about so many things, whether because of books we've read or classes we've taken or things we've experienced. But I don't believe that kind of knowledge makes us inherently more or less intolerant... at best it makes us more capable of conducting dialogues with ourselves and others about certain images disturb us and what we can and can't learn from our reactions and those of others.

Donna Davies
Filmaker; Website: Ruby Tree Films
Hey Dave. I'm loving this discussion. Refreshing to see people I truly respect sharing their thoughts here. I tend to agree with Maitland. If you don't like it don't look. Personally I find the actual artwork for this cover unappealing in every regard.

Robin Bougie
Illustrator, Writer; Websites Bougie Man, Cinema Sewer
I also would classify myself as a feminist as one of the issues I am most passionate about is equality, and like you, I am also a horror fan. On top of that, I'm an artist who creates work that could easily be classified as being the same genre that makes up that CORRUPTION cover art. There is violent imagery, both sexualized and non-sexualized in my creative output, and I stand by the work very proudly. I believe that art is a reflection of our world -- of its problems, its beauty, its horror -- not an instigator. There is an old adage that I quite like, that only censors and psychopaths can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality. But more to the point... she's right. That image IS disgusting. It depicts disgusting behaviour. But I for one put a lot of value on a society where we are allowed to deal with these problems openly in this way. There is a lot to be said for exploitive imagery that may not be obvious to someone reacting to it on only an emotional level.

Leslie Taylor
Filmmaker
I have no problem with the image in the context of Grindhouse exploitation movie art. It also makes a difference (to me) that it is painted instead of a photograph. But your friend has a right to be disgusted; I can understand someone finding it upsetting, particularly someone who parses images of female representation through feminism rather than the history of horror cinema. But reactions to visual or thematic taboos are personal. I do not agree that there can be a unilateral judgment that the image is disgusting. There is no objective, agreed-upon boundary that you chose to cross. You write about horror and you post about your nightly viewing, which is often horror. You are a buff! A pundit! It should not be surprising to friends to find images like this on your FB page. And it is YOUR Facebook page.