Flaming Creatures

This is a short film recommended by the 1001 Movies to See Before You Die book, and this one was directed by the star of Blonde Cobra, Jack Smith. Smith was something of a character in the NYC underground art and film scene of the 50's and 60's. He was also an out and proud gay man, in both his life and art. Shot in black and white on over-exposed stock and using a lot of roving, soft focus close-ups, there's no plot at all here. It's just a lot of Smith's friends, mostly men with at least one or two women, in cheap, dime-store drag, posing and gyrating and laying in piles of each other on the floor. Oh, and there's a ton of graphic male and female nudity, and a lengthy sexual assault scene. This is rough, X-rated stuff, and I was rather stunned that it was on YouTube. This caused a lot of furor in the 60's, with multiple arrests as a result of its exhibition.

That notoriety may be a reason it's in the book, although some critics state that it has a "transcendent beauty". To me it was just self-indulgent garbage. It has also been posited that it's a precursor to the John Waters school of outrageous shock/camp. That may be, but Waters does that material much better. This runs 42 minutes, and only its brevity saved it from a 1/10 rating from me.

Though every film on this list is supposed to have some kind of importance in the history of movie making, I have struggled to find merit in a number of the pictures I have watched. Some films, like Dog Star Man, were made from interesting ideas. While others, like Jack Smith's Flaming Creatures, do not seem to have any redeeming qualities at all. Flaming Creatures is a film like none that I have ever seen. It is perverted, trashy and important only because it helped define cinematic vulgarity.

Flaming Creatures was directed and written by the provocative filmmaker, Jack Smith. Here is a man that had no interest in entertaining the masses. I am not sure that his films could even entertain himself. He was a major proponent in simple aesthetics. He was the godfather of the underground film world, and he is credited with creating the drag-queen culture as we now know it. Smith was also a major influence on the films of Andy Warhol and the movies of John Waters. All of his films, with Flaming Creatures being the most incendiary, were shot under incredibly small budgets. But Smith was never worried about how much money it cost to make a movie.

According to underground legend, Smith filmed Flaming Creatures on stock film that he had actually shoplifted. It has also been said that he paid his actors in either gay sex or drugs. True or not, this still remains one of the most bizarre films I have ever seen. It is a parade of camp-queens, transvestites, hermaphrodites and prostitutes mixed in with the occasional flaccid penis or saggy breast. There is no noticeable story being told, but Smith had said that his work was showing you "a comedy set in a haunted music studio." I must have missed this, because all I saw was the showing of some very questionable acts amongst one of the cheapest looking sets I have ever seen.

If I have to give this film any credit, I will say that the images were exhaustively challenging for my poor Midwestern eyes. I was made uncomfortable almost immediately, and I would go as far as to say I was disgusted at times. Flaming Creatures is one of the most emotionally disturbing works in film that I have seen. But it does not frighten you. It uses music and absurd imagery to make you uncomfortable. You would have to be a pretty weird person to not be challenged by Jack Smith.

In one of the only secular moments of Flaming Creatures, we see an actress getting raped by way of cunnilingus. We are treated to the intense visual of a woman being held down and violated by more than one male figure. Of course, these men are naked and performing all sorts of "hand acts" on each others limp penises. This type of perverted sexuality becomes normality throughout the 45 minute running time. It is not an easy film to sit through.

Obviously, any film that features this type of rough imagery comes with loads of controversy. In fact, Flaming Creatures was seized by New York police directly following its debut screening. Along with Jack Smith, the film became a target of the infamous idiot, Strom Thurmond, during his crusade to end all pornography. Do not get confused – this is not a pornographic film. It is a classic work in performance art. And though we would all love to pretend that this genre does not exist…we still know that it does. And in terms of successful endeavors in the genre – Flaming Creatures isn't really all THAT bad. I will never watch it again, but some esteemed opinions, like Frederico Fellini, hail this picture as a masterpiece in trash cinema.

Yes, Jack Smith may be an under credited influence on the Waters' and Warhol's of the world, but this does not make his films entertaining in any conventional sort of the word. This is the type of film that a pedophile would enjoy. And though I defend Smith's right to make trash, I also understand why the backlash forced him to withdraw from making films. Smith would go on to become a major pioneer in surrealist theatre. He worked in this field until his death of AIDS related complications in 1989. He was 56 years old.

Somewhere in between the poetic and manic lies "Flaming Creatures", Jack Smith's infamously odd avant garde classic. I find this to be a movie that is very difficult to rate because it really isn't a typical movie. Even for experimental underground cinema, it comes across as really weird and unsettling.

The first half is easily the highlight. The notorious "rape" sequence is one of the most f*cking crazy and disturbing scenes I have ever witnessed. The chaotic atmosphere is only boosted by Smith's drunkenly soaring camera, capturing the ear piercing shrieking of the film's "creatures".

The second half is less compelling, but still interesting. It is the much more positive and comical half, as the "creatures" joyously dance with one another behind old pop music. It is entertaining and amusing to an extent, despite dragging on a bit.

Most people probably will not enjoy this little oddity nearly as much as I have, which is totally okay. This movie is so damn bizarre, graphic, unsettling, confusing, and chaotic that it is almost surprising that ANYONE could appreciate it that is not mentally ill. However, I did manage to find much within Jack Smith's mad masterpiece to adore.

Film is serious business, but useful in so, so many ways.

One way is as a path to discover who people are, which is why, I think, movies are such popular date activities. I mean, on the face of it, you are two isolated souls in the theater. The bonding comes in how you share the experience.

You can tell a great deal about your future lover by discovering what sort of comedy he/she penetrates.

The next step will be the arts and perversion. Not what he or she considers perverted — that's uninteresting, where the line is. But once you cross over, you move into territory that has artists here and there forming things that may have merit.

So if you are serious about your partner, and serious about a life in film, you'll drudge through many of these "experimental" films. Some will stick and some not.

Some, like this, rely on the casual and accidental while referencing "old" art. Perversion in several dimensions, adding to enchantment, or so it is intended.

Whether this is one you will use is a matter too personal for me to fathom. But for my taste, it tries too hard in the wrong directions. Perhaps in the 60s it was useful to just fart loudly and musically for the effect. But those days are past. If you want one to look at after this, try one of Derek Jarman's little films from the 70s.

Oh shucks. I was going to recommend one but I see that some unappreciative reader has arranged to have all my comments of those removed. You can see them as extras on the DVD of "The Tempest," which is suggested viewing in any case.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

I consider myself a fairly open-minded person. In principle I have nothing against a movie featuring a pack of transvestites frolicking around and--this is what it looks like--acting out parodies of bad silent movies. It's just not all that interesting to me. I can only take camp in small doses, and there's just way too much here. By the way, did the Everly Brothers even know one of their songs was used in this thing? (P.S. If you ever see Warhol's "Screen Test #2," you'll hear Mario Montez talk briefly about his (her?) role in this movie.)