Connect with us

Editorials

Faux-Grindhouse at its Finest: Celebrating 10 Years of ‘Hobo with a Shotgun’!

Published

on

Nostalgia is a curious thing, especially when it comes to film. Multi-media empires have been built on filmmakers revamping the entertainment of their youth for new audiences, but it’s extremely difficult for modern productions to capture the spirit of older movies without turning into exaggerated parodies. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, and every now and then we’re treated to a film that truly understands the material it’s based on and provides us with genuine old-fashioned thrills. Ten years ago, Jason Eisener gave us one of these rare movies with Hobo with a Shotgun, and I’d like to talk about how it’s the best Faux-Grindhouse flick out there.

While this retro gem came out in 2011, the story behind the film begins a few years earlier, back when Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino teamed up to make Grindhouse. Intending for their double-feature to act as a love-letter to sleazy exploitation flicks, the directors also encouraged other filmmakers to contribute to the project with fake movie trailers. Prominent creators like Edgar Wright, Eli Roth and even Rob Zombie ended up chipping in with absurdly entertaining teasers, but it was only Rodriguez’s Machete and Eisener’s Hobo with a Shotgun that made the leap from fake trailer to real movie.

Eisner’s trailer was actually the winner of a contest hosted by Rodriguez and South by Southwest as a part of Grindhouse‘s marketing campaign, but it soon became clear that this low-budget homage to the gritty thrillers of the 70s could easily stand on its own as a real exploitation film. The trailer’s proposed story of a homeless vigilante cleaning up the streets of a town overrun by crime and corruption would have been right at home in the era of Pam Grier and Russell Albion Meyer, so the filmmakers decided to adapt the idea into a feature-length production.

“At least he’s only killing the dirty cops.” – “We’re all dirty cops!”

Concerned about the pressures of leading a feature film, the star of the original trailer (David Brunt) resigned himself to a simple cameo, leading the filmmakers to bring in the legendary Rutger Hauer to take over the titular role. Other than that, the film is a pretty faithful adaptation of the source material, retaining most of the absurdly violent scenarios and one-liners as it tells the story of a down-on-his-luck drifter who just wants to do the right thing.

From homeless fight clubs to a child-molesting Santa-Claus, the film borrows a page from Toxic Avenger‘s Tromaville in its depiction of Hope Town as a comically exaggerated dystopia where half the population appears to have been replaced by sociopaths. In fact, Hauer’s Hobo is actively punished by the police for attempting to save a prostitute from death at the hands of a local gangster, and the antagonists have no qualms about burning schoolchildren alive in order to prove a point. However, unlike most Troma movies, Hobo with a Shotgun is so well-directed and well-performed that a lot of the over-the-top cruelty comes across as genuinely horrific rather than funny, which is both a blessing and a curse.

Of course, Rutger Hauer is what really makes the film tick, providing genuine heart in what was meant to be a simple satire of the exploitation movement. Not only does he fully commit to the gruesome action sequences, but he also delivers one of the most memorable performances of his career as a surly vagrant with a heart of gold, slowly driven mad by the evil that surrounds him. The Hobo’s final monologue before the flick’s climactic showdown remains one of the late actor’s finest moments, masterfully blending the script’s dark humor with completely serious line delivery that would have been nominated for awards had it taken place in another kind of movie.

Nick Bateman, Gregory Smith and Brian Downey also make for entertaining Troma-like villains as the sadistic criminal family that runs the town, though horror hounds will most likely fall in love with the demonic hitmen Rip and Grinder, collectively known as The Plague. This duo of armor-clad killers is implied to have killed both Jesus Christ and Abraham Lincoln on previous missions, and I’m still bummed that they never spawned official action figures.

“I’m gonna sleep in your bloody carcasses tonight!”

The film also boasts plenty of gore, with gnarly action sequences that only exploitation-styled cinema can provide. While everything is intentionally low-fi, the blood and guts hit extremely hard, with a lot of effort put into making the picture look like something that could have really been made in the 70s. In fact, the entire movie is a lot better than it needs to be, making a point of relying on retro practical effects and grimy photography while also sneaking in a few poignant takes about real-world homelessness issues. It would have been really easy for Hobo with a Shotgun to end up as another cynical farce, making fun of the ideas that inspired it instead of actually doing something with them, but the filmmakers chose to take every aspect of the production seriously regardless of their budget, much like the real Grindhouse classics of the past.

While I adore Rodriguez and Tarantino’s homage to the golden days of exploitation, I feel like both Planet Terror and Death Proof are more concerned with emulating the schlocky aesthetics of classic exploitation flicks rather than the rebellious spirit that informed their productions. That’s what makes Hobo with a Shotgun such a special little movie, as the filmmakers behind it understood that exploitation is more than just a visual style. Hell, if it had been shot on real film stock and if Hauer looked a few decades younger, it would be hard to tell that this isn’t a legitimate 70s movie.

It’s dark and mean and could have used a bigger budget, but that’s precisely why I think Hobo with a Shotgun is Faux-Grindhouse at its finest. The macabre sense of humor and over-the-top violence might not be for everyone, but there’s so much effort going on behind the blood and guts that the film remains unmatched even a decade later. So if you’re up for some ultra-violent justice delivered one shotgun shell at a time, I’d definitely recommend this masterful throwback.

Born Brazilian, raised Canadian, Luiz is a writer and Film student that spends most of his time watching movies and subsequently complaining about them.

Editorials

What’s Wrong with My Baby!? Larry Cohen’s ‘It’s Alive’ at 50

Published

on

Netflix It's Alive

Soon after the New Hollywood generation took over the entertainment industry, they started having children. And more than any filmmakers that came before—they were terrified. Rosemary’s Baby (1968), The Exorcist (1973), The Omen (1976), Eraserhead (1977), The Brood (1979), The Shining (1980), Possession (1981), and many others all deal, at least in part, with the fears of becoming or being a parent. What if my child turns out to be a monster? is corrupted by some evil force? or turns out to be the fucking Antichrist? What if I screw them up somehow, or can’t help them, or even go insane and try to kill them? Horror has always been at its best when exploring relatable fears through extreme circumstances. A prime example of this is Larry Cohen’s 1974 monster-baby movie It’s Alive, which explores the not only the rollercoaster of emotions that any parent experiences when confronted with the difficulties of raising a child, but long-standing questions of who or what is at fault when something goes horribly wrong.

Cohen begins making his underlying points early in the film as Frank Davis (John P. Ryan) discusses the state of the world with a group of expectant fathers in a hospital waiting room. They discuss the “overabundance of lead” in foods and the environment, smog, and pesticides that only serve to produce roaches that are “bigger, stronger, and harder to kill.” Frank comments that this is “quite a world to bring a kid into.” This has long been a discussion point among people when trying to decide whether to have kids or not. I’ve had many conversations with friends who have said they feel it’s irresponsible to bring children into such a violent, broken, and dangerous world, and I certainly don’t begrudge them this. My wife and I did decide to have children but that doesn’t mean that it’s been easy.

Immediately following this scene comes It’s Alive’s most famous sequence in which Frank’s wife Lenore (Sharon Farrell) is the only person left alive in her delivery room, the doctors clawed and bitten to death by her mutant baby, which has escaped. “What does my baby look like!? What’s wrong with my baby!?” she screams as nurses wheel her frantically into a recovery room. The evening that had begun with such joy and excitement at the birth of their second child turned into a nightmare. This is tough for me to write, but on some level, I can relate to this whiplash of emotion. When my second child was born, they came about five weeks early. I’ll use the pronouns “they/them” for privacy reasons when referring to my kids. Our oldest was still very young and went to stay with my parents and we sped off to the hospital where my wife was taken into an operating room for an emergency c-section. I was able to carry our newborn into the NICU (natal intensive care unit) where I was assured that this was routine for all premature births. The nurses assured me there was nothing to worry about and the baby looked big and healthy. I headed to where my wife was taken to recover to grab a few winks assuming that everything was fine. Well, when I awoke, I headed back over to the NICU to find that my child was not where I left them. The nurse found me and told me that the baby’s lungs were underdeveloped, and they had to put them in a special room connected to oxygen tubes and wires to monitor their vitals.

It’s difficult to express the fear that overwhelmed me in those moments. Everything turned out okay, but it took a while and I’m convinced to this day that their anxiety struggles spring from these first weeks of life. As our children grew, we learned that two of the three were on the spectrum and that anxiety, depression, ADHD, and OCD were also playing a part in their lives. Parents, at least speaking for myself, can’t help but blame themselves for the struggles their children face. The “if only” questions creep in and easily overcome the voices that assure us that it really has nothing to do with us. In the film, Lenore says, “maybe it’s all the pills I’ve been taking that brought this on.” Frank muses aloud about how he used to think that Frankenstein was the monster, but when he got older realized he was the one that made the monster. The aptly named Frank is wondering if his baby’s mutation is his fault, if he created the monster that is terrorizing Los Angeles. I have made plenty of “if only” statements about myself over the years. “If only I hadn’t had to work so much, if only I had been around more when they were little.” Mothers may ask themselves, “did I have a drink, too much coffee, or a cigarette before I knew I was pregnant? Was I too stressed out during the pregnancy?” In other words, most parents can’t help but wonder if it’s all their fault.

At one point in the film, Frank goes to the elementary school where his baby has been sighted and is escorted through the halls by police. He overhears someone comment about “screwed up genes,” which brings about age-old questions of nature vs. nurture. Despite the voices around him from doctors and detectives that say, “we know this isn’t your fault,” Frank can’t help but think it is, and that the people who try to tell him it isn’t really think it’s his fault too. There is no doubt that there is a hereditary element to the kinds of mental illness struggles that my children and I deal with. But, and it’s a bit but, good parenting goes a long way in helping children deal with these struggles. Kids need to know they’re not alone, a good parent can provide that, perhaps especially parents that can relate to the same kinds of struggles. The question of nature vs. nurture will likely never be entirely answered but I think there’s more than a good chance that “both/and” is the case. Around the midpoint of the film, Frank agrees to disown the child and sign it over for medical experimentation if caught or killed. Lenore and the older son Chris (Daniel Holzman) seek to nurture and teach the baby, feeling that it is not a monster, but a member of the family.

It’s Alive takes these ideas to an even greater degree in the fact that the Davis Baby really is a monster, a mutant with claws and fangs that murders and eats people. The late ’60s and early ’70s also saw the rise in mass murderers and serial killers which heightened the nature vs. nurture debate. Obviously, these people were not literal monsters but human beings that came from human parents, but something had gone horribly wrong. Often the upbringing of these killers clearly led in part to their antisocial behavior, but this isn’t always the case. It’s Alive asks “what if a ‘monster’ comes from a good home?” In this case is it society, environmental factors, or is it the lead, smog, and pesticides? It is almost impossible to know, but the ending of the film underscores an uncomfortable truth—even monsters have parents.

As the film enters its third act, Frank joins the hunt for his child through the Los Angeles sewers and into the L.A. River. He is armed with a rifle and ready to kill on sight, having divorced himself from any relationship to the child. Then Frank finds his baby crying in the sewers and his fatherly instincts take over. With tears in his eyes, he speaks words of comfort and wraps his son in his coat. He holds him close, pats and rocks him, and whispers that everything is going to be okay. People often wonder how the parents of those who perform heinous acts can sit in court, shed tears, and defend them. I think it’s a complex issue. I’m sure that these parents know that their child has done something evil, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are still their baby. Your child is a piece of yourself formed into a whole new human being. Disowning them would be like cutting off a limb, no matter what they may have done. It doesn’t erase an evil act, far from it, but I can understand the pain of a parent in that situation. I think It’s Alive does an exceptional job placing its audience in that situation.

Despite the serious issues and ideas being examined in the film, It’s Alive is far from a dour affair. At heart, it is still a monster movie and filled with a sense of fun and a great deal of pitch-black humor. In one of its more memorable moments, a milkman is sucked into the rear compartment of his truck as red blood mingles with the white milk from smashed bottles leaking out the back of the truck and streaming down the street. Just after Frank agrees to join the hunt for his baby, the film cuts to the back of an ice cream truck with the words “STOP CHILDREN” emblazoned on it. It’s a movie filled with great kills, a mutant baby—created by make-up effects master Rick Baker early in his career, and plenty of action—and all in a PG rated movie! I’m telling you, the ’70s were wild. It just also happens to have some thoughtful ideas behind it as well.

Which was Larry Cohen’s specialty. Cohen made all kinds of movies, but his most enduring have been his horror films and all of them tackle the social issues and fears of the time they were made. God Told Me To (1976), Q: The Winged Serpent (1982), and The Stuff (1985) are all great examples of his socially aware, low-budget, exploitation filmmaking with a brain and It’s Alive certainly fits right in with that group. Cohen would go on to write and direct two sequels, It Lives Again (aka It’s Alive 2) in 1978 and It’s Alive III: Island of the Alive in 1987 and is credited as a co-writer on the 2008 remake. All these films explore the ideas of parental responsibility in light of the various concerns of the times they were made including abortion rights and AIDS.

Fifty years after It’s Alive was initially released, it has only become more relevant in the ensuing years. Fears surrounding parenthood have been with us since the beginning of time but as the years pass the reasons for these fears only seem to become more and more profound. In today’s world the conversation of the fathers in the waiting room could be expanded to hormones and genetic modifications in food, terrorism, climate change, school and other mass shootings, and other threats that were unknown or at least less of a concern fifty years ago. Perhaps the fearmongering conspiracy theories about chemtrails and vaccines would be mentioned as well, though in a more satirical fashion, as fears some expectant parents encounter while endlessly doomscrolling Facebook or Twitter. Speaking for myself, despite the struggles, the fears, and the sadness that sometimes comes with having children, it’s been worth it. The joys ultimately outweigh all of that, but I understand the terror too. Becoming a parent is no easy choice, nor should it be. But as I look back, I can say that I’m glad we made the choice we did.

I wonder if Frank and Lenore can say the same thing.

Continue Reading