Connect with us

Editorials

[Butcher Block] Hershell Gordon Lewis’ Seminal Splatter ‘Blood Feast’

Published

on

Butcher Block is a weekly series celebrating horror’s most extreme films and the minds behind them. Dedicated to graphic gore and splatter, each week will explore the dark, the disturbed, and the depraved in horror, and the blood and guts involved. For the films that use special effects of gore as an art form, and the fans that revel in the carnage, this series is for you.

It feels only appropriate to kick off a brand-new series dedicated to gore and splatter with the film widely considered to be the first splatter film ever; Herschell Gordon LewisBlood Feast. The first film of its kind to use its gore as a selling point to attract audiences, Lewis’ first film also happens to be one of the oldest films to have made the Video Nasties list. While not technically a great film, even by Lewis’ own admission, it’s so historically important to horror that it should be required viewing for fans of blood and gore.

Dubbed the “Godfather of Gore,” Herschell Gordan Lewis had a more academic based career after graduating with a master’s degree in journalism from Northwestern University. It wasn’t until he began working for an advertising company in Chicago that he began to dabble with film on the side, eventually buying out the advertising company and retooling it into a film company. It would lead him to a fruitful partnership with producer David F. Friedman, and the pair then created a number of erotic exploitation flicks until the market for that type of film would diminish, causing them to explore new avenues in film. Inspired, or rather infuriated, by Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho and how it cheated its audience by keeping its kills off screen, Lewis wanted to do the exact opposite. He wanted to create a similar film with the gruesome kills at the forefront and in your face, and he wanted the film in color to show off the red blood.

Shot in mere days for a low, low budget of under $25,000, Friedman and Lewis realized they could take advantage of the drive-in audience for their seminal splatter film. Friedman came up with a bunch of publicity stunts, including giving out vomit bags with hired “nurses” to hand them out and even going so far as to file an injunction against Blood Feast in Sarasota, Florida to block the film from being screen there. Once it was granted and effectively banned, Friedman then filed a counter-suit to have it lifted. Somehow, that worked too. The “legal battle” Friedman warred for and against his own film drummed up the intended publicity.

Friedman’s marketing tactic, and the gory nature of the plot was very much in line with the Grand Guignol theatrical experience, from which Lewis and Friedman drew inspiration. Egyptian caterer Fuad Ramses (played up to eccentric effect by Mal Arnold) kills women in the suburbs of Miami to harvest their organs as part of a sacrificial ritual to his beloved Egyptian goddess Ishtar, with the police trailing far behind in tracking him down. It’s the simplest of plots in a film with a short run time of 67 minutes, which gives the gore the spotlight. You can forgive the cheesy dialogue, the shaky camera movement, and Arnold’s comical white-painted eyebrows and exaggerated limp because it was never about the story. It was about the unadulterated gore.

Lewis sets the tone right out of the gate with Ramses’ slaughter of an unexpected victim during her bath time, complete with typical bath time reading of book Ancient Weird Religious Rites (doesn’t every gal have a copy?). When Hitchcock would have turned away once Norman Bates went in for the kill, Lewis zooms in as Ramses hacks away at his victim in her bathtub, and closes in one the clumpy bits of her eyeball on his machete. The camera continues to look on in voyeuristic pleasure as Ramses continues to hack away at victim after victim.

The shoestring budget meant a lot of obvious mannequin usage for hacked limbs and corpses, but Lewis splurged on real animal offal in attempt to lend authenticity to his kills. Though he imported most of the animal organs locally, he had a sheep’s tongue shipped in from Tampa Bay for the scene in which Ramses rips the tongue from his victim’s mouth in her hotel room (the victim played by Playboy employee Astrid Olsen). It’s surprisingly effective for its time.

Released just 3 years after Psycho shook audiences to their core, it’s easy to see why Lewis’ first foray into splatter and horror would ruffle feathers. Though the gore doesn’t compare to what’s available today, and the blood is an oversaturated, thick red, it was downright shocking in 1963. Friedman and Lewis knew they didn’t have a masterpiece on their hands, but that wasn’t their intent in the first place. They wanted a no holds barred gore fest, and they nailed it. Lewis’ work only improved from there, with more impressive efforts soon for follow.

Responsible for not only launching the splatter sub-genre in horror, Blood Feast served as a major influence for George A. Romero, John Waters, and Tom Savini. It received a remake in the form of underrated horror comedy Blood Diner in 1987, and numerous references in various films like Juno and Serial Mom. Blood Feast may be schlocky and of its time (the over the top beach boyfriend wailing to the cops is an all-timer), but there’s no denying it’s importance in the canon of gore films.

Most brutal kill:

Beach babe Marcy loses her brains – While teen Tony is wooing his girlfriend Marcy on the beach for some canoodling, Ramses sneaks up on the lovers, knocking out Tony and hacking up Marcy’s skull with his machete to harvest her brain. A bloody mess in the sand, Lewis hovers lovingly on the mess of gray matter in Ramses’ hands. Of all of the blood and guts in the film, Marcy’s on screen death is the messiest.

Horror journalist, RT Top Critic, and Critics Choice Association member. Co-Host of the Bloody Disgusting Podcast. Has appeared on PBS series' Monstrum, served on the SXSW Midnighter shorts jury, and moderated horror panels for WonderCon and SeriesFest.

Editorials

‘A Haunted House’ and the Death of the Horror Spoof Movie

Published

on

Due to a complex series of anthropological mishaps, the Wayans Brothers are a huge deal in Brazil. Around these parts, White Chicks is considered a national treasure by a lot of people, so it stands to reason that Brazilian audiences would continue to accompany the Wayans’ comedic output long after North America had stopped taking them seriously as comedic titans.

This is the only reason why I originally watched Michael Tiddes and Marlon Wayans’ 2013 horror spoof A Haunted House – appropriately known as “Paranormal Inactivity” in South America – despite having abandoned this kind of movie shortly after the excellent Scary Movie 3. However, to my complete and utter amazement, I found myself mostly enjoying this unhinged parody of Found Footage films almost as much as the iconic spoofs that spear-headed the genre during the 2000s. And with Paramount having recently announced a reboot of the Scary Movie franchise, I think this is the perfect time to revisit the divisive humor of A Haunted House and maybe figure out why this kind of film hasn’t been popular in a long time.

Before we had memes and internet personalities to make fun of movie tropes for free on the internet, parody movies had been entertaining audiences with meta-humor since the very dawn of cinema. And since the genre attracted large audiences without the need for a serious budget, it made sense for studios to encourage parodies of their own productions – which is precisely what happened with Miramax when they commissioned a parody of the Scream franchise, the original Scary Movie.

The unprecedented success of the spoof (especially overseas) led to a series of sequels, spin-offs and rip-offs that came along throughout the 2000s. While some of these were still quite funny (I have a soft spot for 2008’s Superhero Movie), they ended up flooding the market much like the Guitar Hero games that plagued video game stores during that same timeframe.

You could really confuse someone by editing this scene into Paranormal Activity.

Of course, that didn’t stop Tiddes and Marlon Wayans from wanting to make another spoof meant to lampoon a sub-genre that had been mostly overlooked by the Scary Movie series – namely the second wave of Found Footage films inspired by Paranormal Activity. Wayans actually had an easier time than usual funding the picture due to the project’s Found Footage presentation, with the format allowing for a lower budget without compromising box office appeal.

In the finished film, we’re presented with supposedly real footage recovered from the home of Malcom Johnson (Wayans). The recordings themselves depict a series of unexplainable events that begin to plague his home when Kisha Davis (Essence Atkins) decides to move in, with the couple slowly realizing that the difficulties of a shared life are no match for demonic shenanigans.

In practice, this means that viewers are subjected to a series of familiar scares subverted by wacky hijinks, with the flick featuring everything from a humorous recreation of the iconic fan-camera from Paranormal Activity 3 to bizarre dance numbers replacing Katy’s late-night trances from Oren Peli’s original movie.

Your enjoyment of these antics will obviously depend on how accepting you are of Wayans’ patented brand of crass comedy. From advanced potty humor to some exaggerated racial commentary – including a clever moment where Malcom actually attempts to move out of the titular haunted house because he’s not white enough to deal with the haunting – it’s not all that surprising that the flick wound up with a 10% rating on Rotten Tomatoes despite making a killing at the box office.

However, while this isn’t my preferred kind of humor, I think the inherent limitations of Found Footage ended up curtailing the usual excesses present in this kind of parody, with the filmmakers being forced to focus on character-based comedy and a smaller scale story. This is why I mostly appreciate the love-hate rapport between Kisha and Malcom even if it wouldn’t translate to a healthy relationship in real life.

Of course, the jokes themselves can also be pretty entertaining on their own, with cartoony gags like the ghost getting high with the protagonists (complete with smoke-filled invisible lungs) and a series of silly The Exorcist homages towards the end of the movie. The major issue here is that these legitimately funny and genre-specific jokes are often accompanied by repetitive attempts at low-brow humor that you could find in any other cheap comedy.

Not a good idea.

Not only are some of these painfully drawn out “jokes” incredibly unfunny, but they can also be remarkably offensive in some cases. There are some pretty insensitive allusions to sexual assault here, as well as a collection of secondary characters defined by negative racial stereotypes (even though I chuckled heartily when the Latina maid was revealed to have been faking her poor English the entire time).

Cinephiles often claim that increasingly sloppy writing led to audiences giving up on spoof movies, but the fact is that many of the more beloved examples of the genre contain some of the same issues as later films like A Haunted House – it’s just that we as an audience have (mostly) grown up and are now demanding more from our comedy. However, this isn’t the case everywhere, as – much like the Elves from Lord of the Rings – spoof movies never really died, they simply diminished.

A Haunted House made so much money that they immediately started working on a second one that released the following year (to even worse reviews), and the same team would later collaborate once again on yet another spoof, 50 Shades of Black. This kind of film clearly still exists and still makes a lot of money (especially here in Brazil), they just don’t have the same cultural impact that they used to in a pre-social-media-humor world.

At the end of the day, A Haunted House is no comedic masterpiece, failing to live up to the laugh-out-loud thrills of films like Scary Movie 3, but it’s also not the trainwreck that most critics made it out to be back in 2013. Comedy is extremely subjective, and while the raunchy humor behind this flick definitely isn’t for everyone, I still think that this satirical romp is mostly harmless fun that might entertain Found Footage fans that don’t take themselves too seriously.

Continue Reading