Zarko

With the suggestion by Bungalow that Psycho was just a cheesy, exploitation film (Which I agree with to an extent) it just got me thinking about the films as a whole, and decided to see if there was any previous discussion on this particularly huge niche of the film world.

So I thought we could have a thread devoted to everyones favourite exploitation films, as well as discuss the term itself. What is an exploitation film exactly - Is there a certain point where a film becomes genuinely good enough to escape an exploitation label if its used in a negative way?

Either way, some well known exploitation films include movies like Cannibal Holocaust (Which I thought sucked) and movies like Blacula. The wiki article had a fair sized list of what some people consider to be exploitation genres, but I never quite looked at the description to that large of a degree.

Either way, some of my most memorable exploitation experiences have come from...


Hanzo The Razor has been 'known' to me for a while, but it was not too long ago that I decided to take the plunge into this trilogy. At the time, I had no idea how fitting taking a plunge would be in regards to the movies.

Hanzo is a police officer in Edo period Japan. He is a 'pure' character, in that he hates all forms of corruption (Not taking a vow for the police department which he believes to be hypocritical) but this doesn't stop him much when it comes to his work. Hanzo is eternally searching for the ultimate torture for arrested individuals. Early on we are introduced to a montage of sorts showing Hanzo 'strengthening' his male parts (Not full frontal of course) by hitting it with a stick and having sex with a bag of rice. Needless to say, his sexual prowess becomes a key factor to the movies - Given he rapes women to interrogate them. They of course love it and eventually become infatuated with his prowess, and tell him all they know. Either way, thet think up some imaginitive ways to torture the women. The movies are pure cheese, right down to using 70's porno-esque disco for the soundtrack.

Not my favourite samurai exploitation movies (That belongs to Lone Wolf and Cub) but there is little doubt that its a tough one to forget.


As I mentioned, Lone Wolf and Cub is my favourite Japanese exploitation series, which roughly falls into the guidelines. The films are pretty much an excuse for violence - A former now disgraced high ranking shogun official (The former executioner) now sells his skills as a swordsman travelling the country with his son (The first episode in Japanese roughly translates to 'Child and Expertise for Rent'). As I said though, it's just an excuse for violence. By the end of the 3rd film onwards, all the movies end with our hero destroying an entire army of soldiers. ****ing awesome.

Discussed this in the latest films thread


A giant razorback is terrorising the Aussie Outback and it needs to be stopped. Whats not to love about this mid 80's Aussie exploitation horror film?

Either way, thats enough for now. What are a few of your favourites?

jackhammer

I can't believe that this thread has no replies but then again I guess it is expected.

If I can use a musical analogy- most people expect their music tied up in tiny bundles just like their music but some films are made in a short space of time akin to an album and have their own fair share of dud notes, missed cues and rushed productions but because we are usually fed with efficient productions, anything that doesn't meet these criterias are open to ridicule which makes me angry.

Now and again we dig a Punk album that was recorded in a garage with no budget and no expertise behind it but we still dig it. In cinematic terms it seems not to be liked as much, yet there is just as much talent to be viewed that is dismissed because of an idealistic view of what a film is supposed to look like that talent and endeavour are dismissed.

Many films are indeed awful and just because they ascribe to B movie asthetics doesn't mean that they are automatically awful but when you have no money and have made a film that has taken many years to produce it shouldn't mean that it is not valid despite it's flaws.

This is not an encapsulation of Exploitation movies at all but certainly a view I have that I look for in movie making as much as music making.

I certainly do think that there is a snobbery in film viewing that is hypocritical when apposed against listening habits.

If a piece of media is crap then it is crap, that's a given (regarding an opinion) but I do think that most on here are very narrow minded when it comes to films or the process behind them. They(B Movies) seem much more of an easy target for criticism unfortunately.

__________________

Zarko

The point of a film being made is to be enjoyed (Unless it's an arthouse film), so in that vein, sometimes I find it funny when people pick things apart on a technical level when that 'should' have a lesser effect on your lasting impressions on the film. Sure, the technical details can be so bad that it ruins a film, sometimes they can be so bad that it makes a film great (I will cite a few of my favourite examples later, but perhaps the most obvious ones would be films by Ed Wood).

Obviously as you said, a lower level of technical detail is sometimes connectable with exploitation cinema, but again, as you said, a =/ b. Yeah, a lot of decent exploitation cinema is scoffed at because it seems dodgier than the higher end films, which is a shame really.

Either way, thanks for the contribution JH Any particular faves when it comes to the world of exploitation cinema?

jackhammer

I have a list ready for sure don't you worry! but I want to be a little more sober with my reviews!

__________________

bungalow

Can you explain yourself here? You just sound ridiculous. What planet do you live on where the "point" of art/an artist is to entertain you?

duga

i think the whole movie is on youtube in parts....a pretty messed up exploitation film

i typically don't like the genre, but hey we all have weird primal urges to see people hacked to bits.

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Zarko

I just think on a large scale, a point of making a film is to make something entertaining to the audience. People get into the process for different reasons, but for a fair percentile of movie makers, its about making something enjoyable for whatever reason. Not everyone aims for this of course. It's not the lone reason for making films, but it goes a long way to the creative process.

bungalow

Money. I believe that's the reason you were looking for. And it isn't "movie makers" who are creating these films, it is studio suits. They know what a mass audience does/does not want to see and they engineer films around this. The "director" is practically nonessential (and that also explains the english "director" as opposed to say the french "realisateur" or "metteur en scene", filmmakers in countries outside the influence of Hollywood studios are actually responsible for 'realizing' a film, whereas in Hollywood they simply give direction tailored around what a studio-head wants). There is no creative process there, it is a business model. If that's the sort of cinema you want to infatuate yourself with, fine. But please refrain from labeling filmmakers who genuinely want to express themselves "crappy arthouse."

Zarko

And to maximise profits, they hope to make it as enjoyable to as many people as possible. FWIW, a 'hollywood' movie in that sense doesn't have to be looked down upon/bad simply because they aim at a wider market.

It's probably not the reason they initially wanted to make movies, but I'm guessing a lot of directors want to make something that will appeal to others, not their own desire to create a film.

I don't consider 'breaking the mould' to mean arthouse FWIW. I use the term in a very specific context that doesn't apply to most films.

bungalow

But the general public has awful taste in film just like they have awful taste in music. It's incredibly difficult for a film with this demographic in mind to not be awful.
Sure, they want it to appeal to others because they want to make money. And the majority of directors working in Hollywood are, like I said, only tangentially involved in the creation of the film. They are usually hired by a studio-head (who usually retains strict final-cut authority over a film) to direct a script selected by a studio-head with actors selected by a studio-head to be edited by an editor selected by a studio-head and the primary concern throughout all of this is $$$. This is not conducive to good filmmaking.

Maybe you could define the context then?