SHOCK MOVIES: A GUIDE TO CONTROVERSIAL AND DISTURBING FILMS
Phil Russell
A Bad News Press book
First published by Bad News Press in 2013
Shock Movies: A Guide To Controversial And Disturbing Films
Text copyright Phil Russell
This volume copyright Phil Russell 2013
Design & layout: Phil Russell
Cover image courtesy of Grindhouse Releasing
The moral rights of the author have been asserted.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored on a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, whether you're smoking crack or raping yo mamma in the arse with a spatula, without prior permission in writing from the author/publisher.
The following reviews were first published at Horrornews.net: The Baby of Macon; The Bride of Frank; Crazy Love; Dead Girl On Film; Feto Morto; Hardgore; Hated: GG Allin & The Murder Junkies; The Honeymoon Killers; I Never Left The White Room; Nekromantik 2; Sweet Movie; Thesis; Urban Flesh; Wedding Trough (Pig Fucking Movie).
Authors acknowledgements: Thanks to Giulio De Santi at Necrostorm and Johanna Muoz for her time and patience, and her sterling work in translating Italian transcripts into English for me. Stephen Biro at Unearthed Films, Mike Bohatch at Horrornews.net. And special thanks to my good friends, Alan Trent and Chad West, for their help in sourcing some of the films discussed in this book.
A CIP catalogue record of this book is available from the British Library.
ISBN-13: 978-1481891387
ISBN-10: 1481891383
SHOCK MOVIES: A GUIDE TO CONTROVERSIAL AND DISTURBING FILMS
Phil Russell
CONTENTS
Introduction
Reviews 13
Scapegoat Cinema 249
Interview with Stephen Biro 331
Its Blasphemy! 343
INTRODUCTION
Hello and welcome. This book is a global survey looking at some of the most shocking and disturbing films ever made. Many of the big-hitters are covered here, such as Cannibal Holocaust , Cannibal Ferox , Irreversible , the Nekromantik movies, CAT III shockers and so on. Additionally, there is also coverage of lesser-known films that are no less deserving of their place in these pages, such as Kiss Or Kill , Wedding Trough and Der Fan . For mainstream critics, many of the films covered here represent the movie worlds equivalent of vermin; the pointy-eared, diseased life-forms that scurry in the bins and sewers of moviedom, freaking out the unsuspecting passers-by. And though I try to give these movies a fair judgment overall, some are so bloody awful that I couldnt resist some harsh criticism here and there (I have zero patience since I quit smoking). And, in case you need reminding, these films are obviously not for everyone.
There has always been an intense, fanboy attitude to the horror genre as far as fandom goes. The popularity of the genre has a strange characteristic that sets it apart from other types of films; it's a genre which is restricted to connoisseurs and aficionados, and also complemented by a total rejection - People tend to watch horror movies obsessively or not at all. Fanzines in the 80s and 90s were always preoccupied with finding the uncut versions of video tapes and listing in great detail the footage that had been snipped out by the censors and distributers. In the UK, this concern and disdain for censorship was mixed with the hatred for the state-imposed censorship embodied in the Video Recordings Act, and the desire to see the films which were prosecuted and banned as 'video nasties' under the legislation.
An early 90s publicity poster from Vipco Video announced the re-release of a number of titles that had vanished in the wake of the 1984 Video Recordings Act, or had been prosecuted under it, and the poster made it pretty clear what was at stake here: "In 1984 Big Brother wouldn't let you watch them!" the poster announced. "Now it's your decision." And while the poster listed some of the tapes as "Previously Prosecuted," it never once mentioned 'video nasties' or the Video Recordings Act (which just so happened to come about in a year firmly associated with the triumphs of totalitarianism); no, the poster just assumed that the potential customers reading it would know all about it, and ultimately, be in opposition to it. This is a good example of the 'us vs. them' opposition that is at the heart of cult culture, where 'us' represents those wanting to see forbidden movies, and 'them' representing those who disapprove and forbid this type of thing. Here the state, 'Big Brother', and the socially conformist values it supports.
Shock Movies serves as a kind of self-help book. Will it enable you to win friends and influence people? Probably not. Will it help your dick to grow an extra couple of inches? I doubt it. Will it allow you to eat anything and everything you want, and still lose weight? Dream on, imbecile. But what it will do is present many concise film reviews, detailing plot, analysis and background of the movies discussed. Also, where possible I have included details of censorship, even though many of these films can be easily found uncut on the internet nowadays. In addition to the 130 or so reviews, there is also a chapter on Scapegoat Cinema, which looks at the medias obsession with blaming horror movies for real-life violent crime, such as the James Bulger case and the tabloid furore that surrounded Natural Born Killers and Severance . At the back of the book, there is an interview with the President of Unearthed Films, Stephen Biro, who Im sure youll agree, remains just as wacky, ambitious and passionate about fucked-up movies as he was thirteen years ago when he first set up his label. And to cap things off, there is also an essay called Its Blasphemy! which looks at the history of Christian controversy in the cinema, from The Last Temptation of Christ , The Passover Plot , and Mary Whitehouse, to Dogma , The Life of Brian , and Jerry Springer: The Opera , all of which caused much scandal in the press at the time.
And let me take this opportunity to make it clear: Any filmmaker whose work I have criticized - no I couldn't make a movie, not a chance, not even if my life depended on it. Filmmakers do something that most of us can only dream of doing. Yes, I have lambasted movies in this book and elsewhere with a nerd rage which borders on psychotic, but I remain genuinely amazed that anyone can get a film made at all. I've been on film sets and witnessed the struggle and the chaos of filmmaking first-hand, and the sheer headache and logistics of making sure that everything doesn't go tits up on the first day are frankly astonishing. Having to rely on so many people to show up for rehearsals and filming each day would be a recipe for disaster if I was in charge; the whole thing would drive me insane. A movie in production is like a ship on the verge of mutiny, and once the project has set sail, the director's job is not to create an artistic masterpiece, but simply to bring the whole thing to port without the loss of lives or money (unless you're Ruggero Deodato or Umberto Lenzi).
British novelistturnedfilmmakerturnednovelist-again, Clive Barker, arrived on the set of Hellraiser to find the assembled cast and crew standing around awaiting his instructions. "Ok. So... what do we do now?" he asked. This was the first day of shooting, and at which point he realised he was the only person in the room who was not supposed to ask that question.
As far as my own personal tastes go, if I was asked to pick a favourite film director, I would have to mentally construct one from various parts of other filmmakers. Id take the left brain of David Cronenberg, and the right brain of Luis Bunuel. Id infuse it with the phobias of Lars Von Trier and the tenacity of Uwe Boll. Id take the hands of Peter Jackson for practicality purposes, and take an eyeball each from visionaries like Dario Argento and Brian De Palma. And after many bloody incisions and re-ordering and stitching, my frankendirector would be just about ready to be unveiled on the operating table. Except, Wes Craven would be the cock and Michael Bay the arsehole.
Next page