Blood Feast

In the context of film school, film theory, film conventions and anything about film-making that makes it a poignant and artful form of expression, this is a big "DON'T". Anything that can be done poorly, has already been done. Yet what we are left with is a prototypical piece of celluloid. The director, Herschell Gordon Lewis, can easily be seen as love child of Russ Meyer and Ed Wood. Those two names both evoke dread and hilarity. One can only imagine what a movie that has both would be like. Well thankfully for Herschell Gordon Lewis, the world soon found out.

As with most of his movies, forget the story. It is usually a patchwork of closeups, zoom outs, shaky cam, fake gore, nonsensical dialog driven vignettes (with sadomasochistic and other sexual undertones), coming together in the framework of 60 minutes.

There's a serial killer around killing young women and removing certain organs or appendages. At the same time there is a deli owner who caters a special ancient Egyptian feast. The rest is just nonsensical, droll dialog delivered with monotony and the ending. The ending is just painful. I recommend running around blindfolded at full speed in a city, as a way to simulate the end of the movie. If I am making this seem bad, I can digress by listing more evidence of this :

Exhibit 1 : Multiple minute scene of a character making a phone call and then conversing with that person. We never hear or see the person on the other end.

Exhibit 2 : Profile close ups of two people talking. Multiple instances too numerous to count.

Exhibit 3 : Echo, echo, echo .....

Exhibit 4 : Try to hire someone who's last job wasn't as a silent movie pianist, in 1919. It sounded like old heroin-hooked Bela Lugosi having fun with a church organ.

Exhibit 5 : Police that store their firearms in their back pockets (along with their wallets, most likely) and continue to mispronounce homicide (pronounced home_e-side).

Exhibit 6 : Horrible acting in vivid, bright Cinemascope.

Exhibit 7 : An intermission half way through the movie, where a Richard Nixon look alike is giving a lecture on ancient Egypt.

Exhibit 8 : The longest and slowest getaway and chase scene by a man from the Ministry of Funny Walks.

Exhibit 9 : Dialog such as :

"Well the killer must have thought she was dead. It was a miracle she wasn't."

"Well she is now."

".... yeah."

Based on all my evidence so far, you either :

a) think I hate this movie. b) know I hate this movie. c) stopped reading 15 minutes ago. d) are confused. e) none of the above.

To answer all but e, I do like this movie. This movie is closer to Russ Meyer's than Ed Wood. Ed lounged in his mediocre low-budget fetish. Russ mostly portrayed sex as a good, fun thing (his movies do have an unusual depth to them). Herschell took Ed's knack for making SOMETHING with limited funds and added the sexually explicit and completely gratuitous scenes. Just in case we weren't gorged enough on our own endorphins, he adds the gore/horror element. The funny thing is that none of it works. The ridiculousness of the movie is in itself. An advantage is the short running time. By the time you realize you are still watching, is the same point you realize it will just end.

I can easily see a starving early 30 year old William Shatner finding an artistic mentor after watching this on a lazy Saturday afternoon double feature. So join in. Drop into the couch and pour yourself a fresh one. We're gonna be here for a little while. Kanpai !!

Herschell is maybe my favorite gore director. The person who invented genres off handedly, does it again - for the first time! Wonderful colors, very disturbing plot. John Waters used to watch these films as a young man. One could see Herschell's effect on Waters later films like 'Pink Flamingos' when you look at Herschells colors (color me blood red) and the trashy- campy acting, costumes and settings. When I think of flesh Water's star Divine - i have to admit - Waters saved some of that gore effect that Herschell has in his films. The effect of real fleshy gore!

Blood Feast has been one of the most talked about films. Banned in numerous countries for its violent content. It is from one of the masters of cult films who does a great job in setting up the shots, but it does fall short. The story line is somewhat descent, but the acting is just terrible, which did take some of the fun out of watching the film. This film could have been so much better if the talent was. The Ramses character could have been a bit more developed. We know nothing about him except that he is a caterer. If we learned more about him and his victims the story would have flowed a bit more. No character is truly developed throughout the film so when they are threatened in any way you just get a feeling of whatever where's the next victim.

If you like gore this is a film for you. The body parts look awesome and there is lots of blood.

It is a fun film that should be watched.

Well whether you like it or not Blood Feast will always be a landmark movie. This is truly the year zero when it comes to depictions of graphic cinematic violence. Sure it wasn't the first movie to show scenes of gore but it took the concept to an unheard of level, basing the entire movie around the idea. Director H. G. Lewis is nothing if not fearless in his presentation of blood and guts. While the gore scenes are hardly realistic, they are often somewhat nasty. Lewis's subsequent gore movies follow this specific template, where they are simultaneously funny and mean-spirited. A crazy combination that simply should be a disaster but in the case of Blood Feast, the sheer audacity of it is jaw-dropping. It's a film that sure has its flaws. Production values are extremely low and the acting is often mind-boggling. Lewis's camera work is at best, uneven. But, frankly, the scenes of carnage are so in your face, and do not disappoint. The film remains far more violent than most horror films today and it's difficult to imagine what audiences of the early 60's would have made of the atrocities that spooled before their eyes. I expect it must've been a mixture of appalled outrage and morbid glee.

Mal Arnold is pretty unforgettable as the murderous caretaker. His delivery of lines is just nuts; it often looks like he is reading off a board just off-screen. He's a lot of fun. Connie Mason provides the eye-candy and she is hardly an actress, but her stiff line-delivery fits into this trash-opus perfectly. Lewis himself is of course hugely unpretentious and straightforward as a film director, so he basically points the camera at the action and films, there is no artistry in Blood Feast. But this is very much a part of the fun, as this is pure exploitation with no apologies. In my opinion this remains Lewis's best feature. I realise it has many, many faults but I just find the whole thing a very entertaining trash-fest. And one of the most important exploitation films in history too.

From a technical standpoint, this movie is awful. But, you still have to give credit to Lewis and Friedman for creating a new genre of film; the splatter flick. For this reason, and probably this reason alone, I rate it at 6. Well, you have to give Lewis credit for the musical score that he did himself. The electric organ and opening shot of the Sphinx is hilarious. The writing and acting, though, are deplorable.

This is an exploitation movie in the mold of the circus sideshow. The ad campaign for the movie made it appear to be more than it really was. In fact, a "nurse" was on hand at showings to assist those who might become overwhelmed by the horror presented on the screen. Many of the scenes, like the one with the woman's tongue being ripped out of her mouth (from what I understand, it was a sheep's tongue purchased from a local butcher)are quite revolting and unsettling. Actually, this is a part of what is known as the Blood Trilogy along with Lewis' better made, Two Thousand Maniacs. The third film is Color Me Blood Red.