{"id":1844,"date":"2019-05-10T23:17:08","date_gmt":"2019-05-11T03:17:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/?p=1844"},"modified":"2020-12-06T21:13:30","modified_gmt":"2020-12-07T02:13:30","slug":"the-romance-of-bad-cinema","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/?p=1844","title":{"rendered":"The Romance of \u201cBad\u201d Cinema"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>One of the things I get asked frequently is if I\u2019ve seen the worst film ever made.  The given answer, since The Golden Turkey Awards came out, is that the worst film ever made is <i>Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)<\/i>.  That\u2019s not a great picture, but the worst?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Being a film historian, I\u2019m also supposed to know the greatest film ever made, and I don\u2019t know what that is either.  There\u2019s no such thing as a perfect film.  They all have problems.  For example, the worst cutting continuity I\u2019ve ever seen is in <i>The Ten Commandments<\/i> (1956), which is considered a classic.  There are more mismatched cuts in that film than I\u2019ve ever seen.  It leaves <i>Plan 9<\/i> in the dust, and <i>Plan 9<\/i> isn\u2019t very good.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I\u2019ve often said that <i>Plan 9<\/i> isn\u2019t even the worst Ed Wood film.  It\u2019s not the worst Bela Lugosi film.  There are films with special effects that are not as good.  It\u2019s not particularly ambitious and it manages to miss most of its goals, but it hangs together as a film.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The most charming thing about <i>Plan 9<\/i> is the tin-eared dialogue that Ed Wood manages to infuse in the proceedings.  It\u2019s the kind of dialogue that an actor can\u2019t read at all, even though it may look OK on the page.  It forces the performances to be wooden and strange, and it makes them funnier than they should be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>(Aside: Filmmaker Larry Blamire is an ace at imitating and spoofing Ed Wood-style dialogue, and people have criticized him for it.  I\u2019ve read numerous clueless reviews that accuse his films of trying to be bad.  They are not trying to be bad.  They are spoofing the style of movies from the 1950s.  They\u2019re taking it a notch higher and making it funny.  I can\u2019t understand why people get this with <i>Airplane!<\/i> (1980) which spoofed the deadpan over-the-top style of airport disaster movies, but they often miss it with Blamire\u2019s films.  End long aside.) <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><i>Plan 9<\/i> is basically trying to be a mixture of <i>The Day the Earth Stood Still<\/i> and a zombie\/walking dead film.  It contains the dire warnings from the aliens and the ghoul trappings from other pictures.  The special effects are bad, the dialogue is bad.  The editing is world-class terrible, but not the worst I\u2019ve seen. (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/?p=58\">See the article I wrote on this years ago<\/a>).  But the script itself isn\u2019t too bad.  The concept is OK.  The actors do a decent job, although not spectacular (Mona McKinnon is a special exception\u2026 she\u2019s awful.)  The sets are passable, although they look cheap, because, well, they are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But if you want to see a worse Ed Wood film, watch <i>Glen or Glenda<\/i>.  There are large swaths of it that don\u2019t even make sense.  You could cut Bela Lugosi\u2019s scenes out of it and never know they were gone.  If you want to see a film with worse acting in it, geez, there are a lot of them.  If you want to see a film with worse special effects, how about <i>Robot Monster<\/i> (1953), which has a few shots of the \u201cspace platform\u201d that are truly laughable?  Or maybe <i>The Lost City<\/i> (1935) with a few shots of a model ship that wouldn\u2019t fool a five-year-old.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The thing I admire about Ed Wood, and I truly do admire it, is that he got these films made.  He got them released.  It\u2019s a difficult thing to do that.  For every one film that is made, there are a hundred that were started and not finished.  For every one not finished, there are probably 10,000 that were never started.  There\u2019s a big part of me that scoffs at people who say they could have made a better film than Ed Wood.  My answer is the same as what I often say when people criticize my own work:  \u201cYes, but you didn\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I\u2019m not trying to defend Ed Wood here.  His films are pretty bad, but he made it through meetings with stupid producers, financing people, editors, actors, cinematographers, lighting guys, studio renters, effects guys, and all the other people you have to deal with, and he did it.  And not only did he do it, but he did it with almost no money.  It\u2019s an admirable thing that he could do it at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I\u2019ve been going through the work of director Bud Pollard lately.  (Full disclosure: I\u2019m considering doing a Blu-ray of his <i>Alice in Wonderland <\/i>[1931] and the surviving footage of The Horror [1933].)  Bud\u2019s films are every bit as bad as Ed Wood\u2019s.  The acting is, in general, worse. The sound recording is worse than Wood\u2019s.  The makeup is inexcusable.  The cinematography ranges from decent to terrible.  But Pollard did this 25 years before Wood did, and he got all of this done when it was a lot harder technically to make a sound film at all.  On one level, you\u2019ve got to respect the achievement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><i>Alice<\/i> is, however, still laughably bad.  The lead actress has a wig that would embarrass even William Shatner\u2026 one person ran out of the room screaming when I ran it and another told me it gave him a headache.  But still, Pollard got this made.  For what it\u2019s worth, <i>The Horror<\/i> or at least what survives of it, is much worse and has even more problems\u2026 and it\u2019s not entirely clear whether that was released or not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The bottom line is that all of these films are entertaining.  They may not be classics, but they\u2019re fun to watch.  It\u2019s enjoyable to see what these guys did with no money and how they worked with it.  I respect this immensely.  I love to sit through a \u201cbad\u201d film now and then just to see how they\u2019re put together.  It\u2019s one of the reasons I restore things like <i>King of the Kongo<\/i>.  I know no one else will touch them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Then there are the films that are made with a cynical intent to cash in on something.  The 1967 <i>Casino Royale<\/i> is a fun mess, but a misfire intended to exploit on the James Bond craze.  1950&#8217;s <i>Rocketship XM<\/i> loses points with me for being an attempt to seize the publicity around <i>Destination: Moon<\/i>.  It\u2019s a decent enough picture, though.  Then there are things like <i>Weird Science<\/i> and <i>My Science Project<\/i>, both intended to ride the wave of PR that was to be generated by <i>Real Genius<\/i> (1985).  <i>Real Genius<\/i> tanked because those two films preceded it into release and made everyone think it, too, was junk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Another case in point: <i>Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla<\/i> (1951).  This movie is terrible.  I mean, it\u2019s really, really terrible.  Apparently, the motivation was to use these two guys (Duke Mitchell and Sammy Petrillo) who had an act imitating Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis and to put them in a faux Martin\/Lewis film.  The hope was that Paramount and Hal Wallis would see the film and pay to have the negative destroyed, which it wasn\u2019t.   I\u2019ll admit that I\u2019m not a big fan of Martin and Lewis.  Their comedy seems a little desperate and forced to me, and I know it\u2019s a minority opinion.  I like the way their movies are made, and I respect the performers a lot, but I just don\u2019t find them especially funny.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Mitchell and Petrillo, on the other hand, are painful.  Petrillo looks almost like a clone of Lewis, but he\u2019s nowhere near as talented on any level.  Mitchell is a decent singer.  I can give him that, but he has no comic timing at all.  Poor Bela Lugosi looks sick and doesn\u2019t understand what he\u2019s doing in the film.  Frankly, I don\u2019t either.  The bottom line is that this is a train wreck.  It\u2019s not really even entertaining.  You just watch it with your mouth open.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But, for me, the bottom of the barrel are these films that should really be tons better than they are.  A lot of people will tell you that <i>Ishtar<\/i> (1987) is terrible, which it isn\u2019t.  It was handled by a director (Elaine May) who was used to shooting lots of footage of ensemble players, and when she had to do that with a picture that required action and had two expensive stars in it, the movie went over budget.  But still, there are a lot of laughs in <i>Ishtar<\/i>.  It\u2019s full of good moments and clever repartee.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>How about <i>The Island of Dr. Moreau<\/i> (1996)?  This is an awful film.  With uneven special effects, and terrible performances, topped off by in incomprehensible script.  The 1932 <i>Island of Lost Souls<\/i> is pretty good.  The 1977 remake <i>Island of Dr. Moreau<\/i> isn\u2019t very good, but it\u2019s light years ahead of the 1996 version.  The newer film stars a bloated Marlon Brando having an attitude attack about being in a film at all, with Val Kilmer having an attitude attack about being upstaged by Brando.  The film had a troubled production history, with bickering stars and directors, finally being helmed by none less than John Frankenheimer, who should have known better.  You\u2019ve got a boatload of top talent in this film, and it adds up to a complete mess.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Another total loss: <i>Battlefield Earth<\/i> (2000).  OK, this movie is awful.  I suppose the special effects are decent-ish, but John Travolta and Forest Whitaker are over the top in the worst possible way.  The script is a total disaster, full of improbable coincidences and plot holes you could pilot the Titanic through.  Director Roger Christian has had an undistinguished career as a director (although he\u2019s a top art director), but I get the feeling that this film was going down the tubes before they ever called him. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And ultimately, I find these less excusable than Ed Wood\u2019s pictures.  These guys had everything.  Money, actors, cinematographers, screenwriters, top studios, and they still couldn\u2019t make a decent film.  You wonder what Wood could have achieved with similar funds.  It certainly couldn\u2019t have been worse, and maybe it would have been entertaining.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>I\u2019m going to be discussing a bit more about this in some upcoming blogs.  It\u2019s easy to make fun of a bad movie, but it\u2019s really hard to make one.  It\u2019s like those painful assignments you used to get in social studies class. You\u2019re thrown together with people who have to work in a group (in this case, it\u2019s all the actors and behind-the-camera people you need to do the work.)  If you happen to get a group of all of the smart kids, you can do well.  But if you get one kid who screws up and doesn\u2019t do his job, the whole group can look bad.  Even then, sometimes the smart kids make a bad project, and the kids who sit in the back and sleep come up with a winner once in a while.  You just never know.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>One of the things I get asked frequently is if I\u2019ve seen the worst film ever made. The given answer, since The Golden Turkey Awards came out, is that the worst film ever made is Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959). That\u2019s not a great picture, but the worst? Being a film historian, I\u2019m also &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/?p=1844\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;The Romance of \u201cBad\u201d Cinema&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"powered_cache_disable_cache":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,207],"tags":[195,197,29,196,28],"class_list":["post-1844","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dr-films-pocket-rants","category-film","tag-bad-cinema","tag-bad-movies","tag-bela-lugosi","tag-bud-pollard","tag-ed-wood"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1844","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1844"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1844\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1848,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1844\/revisions\/1848"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1844"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1844"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.drfilm.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1844"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}