Most Helpful Customer Reviews
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
A poor attempt at a fascinating topic., December 13, 2007
This review is from: Offensive Films (Paperback)
I must whole-heartedly agree with Helltopay27's review: this book is not what one would hope. Beyond the frequent factual mistakes (dates, chronology, plot, etc.), there is a deeper issue. She claims to be helping us understand the importance of these films by showing us hidden qualities that redeem them from their exploitation roots. However, her prejudices are obvious - she is unable to engage these films as worthy of study without demonstrating that she is academically and intellectually superior.
Granted, Herschel Gordon Lewis was not a cinematic genius (although he does have a PhD in English or literature), but he wasn't the simple-minded idiot Brottman describes him as. She ignores one of the most interesting aspects of his career: he was able to put the stamp of his personal vision on each of his films, independent of the financial forces that typically control directors and drive them to make derivative junk.
In describing the films she claims to redeem, she ends up contributing to the negative hype surrounding them by describing them as "so sick, depraved, and unwatchable that the view becomes physically ill." Seriously - Blood Feast is nothing compared to some more contemporary films. It may have been shocking at one time, but now I seriously doubt its ability to make someone physically ill. It's just so cheesy and unintentionally hilarious that I don't think anyone is watching it in the way that Brottman seems to think they are. I don't know anyone who put the DVD in, watched, and became horrified. On the other hand, I DO know many people who watched the film for its comic value. From this perspective, I believe many of her arguments are weak.
She makes a few statements that really makes one question just how many times she watched some of these films. There are plenty of mistakes in the chapter on "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but the most disturbing is that she falls victim to the same trap that many critics succumbed to: namely, the amount of gore in the film. She describes the film as using (amongst other things), advanced special effects. This is absolutely untrue. They intentionally *avoided* gore both because it would be difficult to pass the censorship board and because they weren't interested in exploitation. Many people learned from "Psycho" that you don't need blood to terrify. Carpenter's "Halloween" has almost no blood, nor does Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Tobe Hooper focused on suspense and a horrifying environment of terror rather than the cheap, visceral effect of blood and guts. From Brottman's comments, we can see that she will never be guilty of a thorough understanding of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", as she sees fit to completely misunderstand the filmmakers intentions (probably a result of her elitist need to marginalize the director).
My final criticism is that her idea of art is much different from mine. She sees directors like Jorg Buttergeit (the Nekromantic series and Schramm) as art-house directors while seeing Gaspar Noe (Irreversible) as exploitation masters in the style of David Freidman and Herschel Gordon Lewis. Just compare "Irreversible" with "Nekromantic": Irreversible has a real visual style, a message, and creatively explores the medium of the teleological narrative. Nekromantic is an exercise in invoking the taboo taken to pointlessly nauseating levels. And for what point? To show that necrophiliacs are people too? I'd rather deal with a serious and skillfully portrayed meditation on the base instincts of the human condition rather than watching a necrophiliac make love to a cheesy fake body.
Brottman is entitled to her opinion and if she doesn't want to see Noe as an artistic director, that's her right. However, it shows me that I don't agree with her on fundamental issues and therefore, I cannot accept many of her points. There ARE some nice sections and the writing style is readable. It's not elegant by any stretch, but it's not as dry as some scholarly texts. If you're a big fan of exploitation film or the so-called "low culture", you'll probably find some interesting ideas in this book, as I did. However, they are buried and you'll have to make a number of allowances for Brottman's mistakes and odd opinions. What a shame - it could have been so much better.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Great Topic, Good Execution, November 17, 2006
This review is from: Offensive Films (Paperback)
This book is a welcome addition to a genre with far too few titles available. The serious critical analysis of "other" cinema is almost entirely unavailable in book form. That said the main shortcomings of this book are the first two essays. The otherwise excellent essay on Tod Browning's "Freaks" is over long and a bit repetitive. And the essay on Castle's "The Tingler" over reaches on a few scatological connections/conclusions. These are minor problems with an otherwise informative and scholarly text on a subject most would not consider worthy of such attention. As a fan of non-mainstream cinema, I wish there were more books like this and I hope the author continues delving deeply into similar subject matter.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
An interesting subject chocked full of erroneous information, June 24, 2007
This review is from: Offensive Films (Paperback)
The topic of taboo and "offensive films" is truly a fascinating subject. It help even more if you're a die hard fan of these films. Naturally, if one likes viewing these films, reading research on the films should be fun and interesting as you explore further and further into the dark realms of the bizarre and obscurity. This read, however, is nothing but frustrating for any person with exploitation background, as it's convoluted with incorrect information and bad research.
As I mentioned, the biggest problem with this book is just wrong information across the board. Not only does Miss Brottman get film dates wrong, she gets chronological order wrong, character names wrong, actors' roles wrong, hell, she even mixes up films (for instance, Deep River Savages by Umberto Lenzi was NOT released in 1981; it was released in 1972. IT started the "cannibal genre", NOT Deodato's Last Cannibal World, which was released in 1977, NOT 1975).
Another short coming that I was frustrated with is the miniscule depth Brottman takes on the subject of Mondo films. She briefly (and when I say briefly, I mean BRIEFLY) touches on the works of Jacopetti, Prosperi, Climati, Morra, and the Castiglionis, the true godfathers of the genre, and then spends the rest of the chapter focusing on direct-to-video compilation death films, such as Faces of Death, Traces of Death, and Death Scenes. These films are a disgrace to the Mondo name and is lame exploitation that makes fun of victims and are meant for sickos' to get their rocks off on. Nothing on the Mondo Cane series, the Savage Trilogy, or the Africa series by the Castiglionis is discussed in ANY detail. More, she mentions the names as part of the genre's history and dives face first into bad topics (also chocked full of erroneous information).
The topics on the more mainstream films (such as Freaks and The Texas Chain Saw Massacre) are more correct and professional (though years are often incorrect), but information on these films is much more readily accessible, which would probably be why their sections are more accurate. Also, books dedicated entirely to that one film are available, with more substance, history, and information all together. Those looking for good research on obscure films then should beware.
Overall, it's a mess. A simple check into all of these films' backgrounds will be able to point to the errors of Miss Brottman's information. Plus, most of the information really is nothing new. I was disappointed in the fact that I ordered this book for research, but was unable to cite anything that I didn't already know (or, again, covered by different books in much more depth). An interesting read for Miss Brottman's opinions, but a very unwise choice for good, solid factual information.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
