I know there are four, technically five film periods since the medium’s inception, but to me there will always be three main thrusts of the industry:
1) Back when no one knew what they were doing (i.e., silent films and early stabs at auteurism up until about 1934)
2) Boring bits that established film as legitimate (i.e., the golden era of Hollywood and all the existential art new waves)
3) The mucking about with old bits trying to make new bits (i.e., postmodern horror films, pastiche galore, and the industry from 1970 to as it is today)
This last category is the most important to me, simply because it’s the environ in which I am trying to make my living. There’s a lot going on in this period that doesn’t quite know what to do with itself, and I’m trying to figure out not just where I fit in, but also where the industry as a whole is going. There have been numerous criticisms with the way films are being handled now, and indeed with the type of films that are being made. On the one hand, the rise of the boutique production and the inundation of the independent film has completely changed the way we make and think of movies. The blockbuster is still alive and well, and many of the fresh eyes in the whole system are shaking their fists and claiming it’s all recycled and trite and not close to what we want. Films like Garden State, Juno and Brick are supposed to be telling of our time, yet are constantly in flux as our generation repeatedly regales and then rejects them. Their merit has not yet reached a consensus.
In this world of turmoil then it is perhaps not unlikely that there has been a resurgence of the exploitation flick and a surfacing of the “Cult Classic,” a term generally used as an epithet for “this film sucked when it was made, but because we’ve even heard of it, now it’s cool.” This may sound like the bitter and jaded response of a film student lectured about the evils of Quentin Tarantino one too many times, and in some respects it is. But unlike most such characters, I don’t abhor the drive-in double feature about werewolves, and I certainly don’t despise Tarantino. I think the B movie is entirely misunderstood.

The year is 1974. You take a hammy, over the top, low-brow movie with gaudy ______ (fill in the blank with any of the following: sexuality, nudity, violence, cursing, blood and gore, fetishism, stereotypes, and the list goes on), slap a cheesy title on it and you throw it in theatres. Maybe it’ll make some money, maybe it won’t, but the most you could ever hope for is a niche audience, a bit of box office recognition, and a crossover director. That was then.
This is now. Kids still know all the dialogue to Monty Python’s The Holy Grail by heart, vintage and previously-unheard of sci-fi posters are selling like hot cakes, and you do your grocery shopping on Sunday night because on Saturday the parking lot is blocked of by a queue of cross-dressig nerds waiting in line for the monthly midnight screening of Rocky Horror Picture Show at the cinemaplex next to the supermarket. What happened?

I believe the modern-day phenomenon of embracing the exploitation flick as it was never accepted before is not a random coincidence. Neither is the seemingly puzzling pattern of Hollywood blockbuster smashes that hit close to the home of cult themes everywhere: vampires one year, zombies the next. The industry has been taken by a stream of horror films - first with aliens and then with samurai and now with superheroes. And by industry I should say industries, because even in Eastern markets such as Hong Kong films are experiencing an increased popularity in wuxai-style martial arts films and the obscure brand of humour offered only by Stephen Chow. Pirates vs. ninjas doesn’t even touch the tip of the iceberg. So what is it? What combination of factors has led society to find obscure pop culture references cool rather than corny?
We’ll begin with the economic ones, because I wholeheartedly believe that the economic shifts of the industry from the 1970s to today have a lot more to do with the whole shebang than the culture does. In 1972 the only commercially available format for viewing movies was, well, television (Betamax and VHS weren’t introduced until 1975 and 1976 respectively, laserdisc not until 1978). To give you a sense of setting, Star Wars Episode IV didn’t come out until five years later in 1977, and countertop microwave ovens had only been available for the last five since 1967. Movies were consumed more or less singularly in theatres, thus a film’s box office success was vital to its distribution. In 1972 the media did not overhype box office sales as much as they do today, certainly, but unlike today, theatres were not 24-screen monstrosities and art house cinemas were few and far between. If a film did well in larger cities, it was then pushed to smaller cities. Essentially, teenagers in the midwest depended on senior citizens in Los Angeles and middle-aged moms in New York for variety in their hometown theatres. This is a very different landscape from moviegoing today.

I could talk for days on end about the difference in audience habits over a thirty year span, but that’s not what clinches it for fans of exploitation films. Today, consumers of movies get their fix not from television, and not from the theatres, but from DVD sales. Theatre box office sales are only a slice of the pie, a the majority of film profit overall actually comes directly from DVD sales (and VHS back in the day, and perhaps BlueRay tomorrow) over any other means, including digital download. We’ve moved from the big screen, to the small screen, and now to the laptop screen. The point is, in 1972 the industry could only sustain a small niche market for so long before it was just hemorrhaging money. Enter the low-budget B film. Cheap, easy, and consumable by those with disposable income, namely the ’70s youth. Why did exploitation films survive in the first? Because 1972 was rife with angsty nerds (isn’t every era?) supporting the horror and sci-fi genres, and the African American population that supported Blacksploitation films hardly classify as small potatoes. However, unlike the cinema landscape in 1972, today’s market is nothing but niche. Current audience viewing habits allow for DVD sales to easily double what the film brought in when it premiered, and the advent of a computer on every desktop and internet access at everyone’s fingertips transformed a world of hard-to-find side projects into a realm of nearly mainstream success. Even as late as 1980 if you wanted to find a film like Tampopo or Akira you had to look hard, usually in seedy video shops or college yard sales. Now over 70 different sellers on amazon marketplace offer up these historical gems.
The result? Up go the DVD sales. For starters, the average individual who is likely to own a DVD or two is just as likely to own a modest collection of a dozen or so discs as he or she is to own a collection that ranges in the hundreds. DVDs are cheaper to make and coming out faster, and in multiple editions under the guise of “Extended” or “Director’s Cut” to give re-releases and edge in the market. Moreover, the proliferation of DVDs and popularisation of google (and indeed online authorities on subjects such as films) makes movies that were previously unheard of discoverable, and films that were previously unmarketable in the ’70s and ’80s suddenly marketable. Profit exists now where it did not thirty years ago. Take for example the Grindhouse debacle. If exploitation films had a posterboy, it would be Quentin Tarantino. He just loves them: cheesy horror where cars/plants/anything eat small suburban towns, vampire flicks, low-brow heists, slashers, thrashers, splatter movies and anything that will make you want to vomit in your hand, triad kung fu films, stereotypical westerns, crazy rock-operas, Japanese-derived graphic novels, he loves them all and for this he has earned himself a fanatical following and a name synonymous with graphic violence. So when Tarantino and film buddy Robert Rodriquez decided to actually recreate one of those 1973 horror double-features, you’d think all this niche audience would convene. Grindhouse flopped so terribly in America it was separated into single features abroad in hopes of garnering more fiscal success elsewhere. This is an important finding to note: the exploitation and cult classic film is just as unpopular in the mainstream today as it ever was. Was it a vanity production? Certainly not. Both of Grindhouse’s features — Planet Terror and Deathproof — were successful in their own way. They attained cult status without having to wait for a quarter century to pass to do it. The important difference between a film like The Cars that Ate Paris and the Grindhouse films is that Grindhouse will be seen via DVD and download more than The Cars that Ate Paris or Invasion of the Body Snatchers ever were because the audience still exists, just not in the theatres.

And more of these movies keep getting made. Admittedly some of the success can be attributed to those like Tarantino and Rodriguez and Michel Gondry who hype it up, and have thus popularised the medium into a celebration of the B-movie on the screen today, and also an investment in the B-movies of yesteryear. They wouldn’t be so successful if the genre didn’t make money. It’d be daft to pin it all on economics though. There are certainly cultural parallels that make the resurgence of this material feel destined. The ’70s were a decade dealing with the post-counterculture sentiments of the generation before them, and solidifying its trends towards as many revolutions as it could muster: a sexual revolution, a civil rights liberation, a political upheaval, a sudden and vested interest in pop culture, and a desire to reveal and lay everything bare. We are not so far off from those sentiments ourselves. Riding on the tail end of the hacker revolution and economic boom of the ’90s, today we are making our decade bask in some slippery notion of “the information age” in which today’s generation craves the liberation of information, the freedom of expression, a revolution against politics again, and the rise of rampant individualism. So the roots that pushed exploitation films into existence are repeating themselves. We are just as happy to push the limits of our cultural censorship with South Park in 1999 as If… was in 1969.
For some reason, we are terribly attracted to this initial phase of exploitation. We love pastiche. It’s an unhindered nostalgia for eras the current generation has never known. In a way, exploitation films have a newly birthed cultural status imbibed in them. Films like Juno and High Fidelity propetuate the image that the obscure and the old fashioned are desirable. Sly wit and esoteric music obsessions are hip. Authors like Chuck Klosterman and Douglas Coupland teach us that pop culture trivia is like money in wall street - highly desirable. So in a sense, today’s culture has made room for the exploitation film. Even more surprising, the exploitation film shows up in a number of guises elsewhere, masquerading as a “quality” film. For what is the superhero blockbuster if not a high-budget exploitation film? It’s a flight of fancy, a two-hour CGI version of Tarantino’s beloved corn syrup and red food dye. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen typifies this obsession with the cult icons: dorian grey, vampires, science fiction, and the steampunk era to boot, dabbling in literature, fantasy, comic books, and action film. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen isn’t the only one either; there have been a series of other large-scale re-envisionings of the 1970 exploitation film that have found much more than a small niche, though they elicit a cult following. Films like Pirates of the Caribbean and Batman and Hostel are all of the same seed leftover from 1968. Our comedies take a page from the book of exploitation films too; how many Ben Stiller or Will Ferrel films are just low-class jabs and toilet humour and over the top costumes not out of place in a film like Car Wash or Blazing Saddles? Shaun of the Dead is just an even lower-rung City of the Living Dead, Good Luck Chuck a twenty-first century stab at Alvin Purple, and Snakes on a Plane a dumbed down version of Shaft.

There are almost as many types of exploitation films as there are screens at The Grove: shock films, biker films, cannibal films, chambara films, slasher flicks, zombie flicks, mondo movies, splatter movies, spaghetti westerns, euroflicks, prison films, martial arts films, propaganda films, stoner films, blaxploitation, sexploitation, ozploitation, and a million other subgenres to include. It is certainly not a unique phenomenon to say the least. The Blair Witch Project, Tokyo Gore Police, Sukiyaki Western Django, they are nothing more than reiterations of what has already been: Dawn of the Dead, Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, Turkey Shoot.
What inspired this long-winded glimpse into the world of exploitation flicks? Well, two things. One, the documentary Not Quite Hollywood left me fearing the world would only hear one side of the skinny of exploitation films: from the men who had lived through the 1970s. I thought someone from the younger generation had to step in and say their bit. The Brisbane International Film Festival is rolling in this weekend, with a special on Horror and special section devoted to the ozsploitation films of the ’70s and ’80s, and while I may not be able to describe the social climate of the era as accurately as someone like Tom O’Regan, I will certainly be able to describe the atmosphere of today with a good deal of accuracy and insight. In summation the shifts in viewing attitudes from public to private exhibition, the industry’s refocusing on niche markets, and the cultural similarities have allowed exploitation films that were overshadowed in the 1970s and 1980s to flourish today both economically and culturally. Of course it’s more than that, isn’t it? There’s something deeper than the face-value of audience tendencies now that really says something about why we’re still watching the same pieces of celluloid so many critics hailed as nothing but rubbish. Perhaps audiences are longing for an elder era of cinema? Perhaps we’re so desensitised by our own society we require the absurdist antics of exploitation filmmaking to reach us? Perhaps we just don’t want to think about it anymore, we just want to watch? This is a discussion for another, equally long-winded diatribe. But it is food for thought.

Although interest in this genre may seem a random and passing trend, I urge you to think about how long exploitation films have been around, and how their popularity has been affected by the passage of time. Perhaps we should be giving less thought to “solving the problem” of B movies and more thought to why it is they are so prevalent. It is a phenomenon that appears founded in more than just a few teenagers in a drive through with some change in their pocket. I believe this is where we draw the line from “films” into “genres.” When a man can make his living and his fame by these criticisably low-brow films, it might be time to reframe our subject.