Pearls Before Swine

I really enjoyed this movie. It should be noted that I have a high tolerance for low-budget fare. I got this as part of a 2-disc set, which I bought primarily to get a hold of Wolstencroft's first feature, "Bloodlust". I finally watched this, and was pleasantly surprised. This is the tale of Daniel, a killer-for-profit(be it assassinations or murder and the subsequent sale of cadavers). Between bouts of drugs, partner-swapping, S&M and crime, Daniel ruminates on the nature of fascism. I don't want to give away too much, but suffice to say that this movie doesn't take the tried and true(not to mention cliché) Hollywood approach of force feeding its audience an affable, cuddly lead character. Daniel's opinions may shock and offend you. The movie's morality is ambiguous and its philosophy unique. If you need a likable, handsome Tom Cruise type "Hit Man" in order to digest a movie, don't watch this. If you are not afraid to have your own notions of film and character challenged, this movie should be an unexpected treat. The film's budget and non-professional cast are evident. However, if this movie had been produced at greater cost, and with a well-known actor or two, it would most likely have been successful AND controversial.

It's one thing to be somebody. It's quite another to be a parody of somebody. I am reminded of Boyd Rice's early years hanging out with Holocaust deniers in his basement in Denver and playing records at the Lion's Lair and how he only appeared to be an actual loser. Because he is the brain behind NON. As in, he is a self devout NOThing. He also has a knack for hanging out with all the real artists while they do good things that he mocks with his bad products. He, I am sure, is the un-Warhol. (ugh.)

Anyways, starring in this piece of garbage as a piece of garbage probably wasn't a stretch. It is something I am sure he'd agree is self-parody. Nevertheless, the filmmakers seem to think their film makes a statement.

Pearls Before Swine ends up being a parody of an attempt to make a film that makes a statement. I don't know what the film is, really, nor what its statement is supposed to mean. So. Is it an Un-film? No it's a film. Just a poor film.

It's "star" is a parody of a satire of a man Boyd Rice fantasizes he is in real life.

The title is a parody of a title, pointing to far too much than a title to a film can signify.

But this film is not even UNpop, as it is advertised. (Unpop is purposefully bad popart, by the way. Kind of like a dumb Warhol; or Stupid Jeff Koons.) Anyway, unpop, like this film, is pure POP refuse and more proof Americans do not really understand IRONY.

Is it funny that a pseudo-NeoFascist like Boyd Rice stars in crap like this? No, it's not funny. It's "Shocking!" Oh wait, that's how the movie is marketed. Well, Pearls Before Swine is certainly Shocking. Shockingly Crappy.

Eventually, it is nothing more than a shocking bore.

In this film Boyd rice plays a killer who does a few things that really hack-off the regular film viewer. He runs about for a bit shouting and acting extremely poorly, and rants on in a monologue format about his own views. in fact in one scene he quotes his own book, while pretending to be reading it from someone else's But that's not the point. - This film, to me, is excellent because of its "extreme" ideas and content. Some of which are: Nazis (don't get me wrong I hate racism), sex/BDSM, women, religion, murder and violence.

The thoughts of Rice's character on these issues are extremely important as they relate to the target audience of this film. As most horror/thriller viewers will have at least one or two opinions as to how Nazis (don't get me wrong I hate racism), sex/BDSM, women, religion, murder and violence relate to media and how they may or may not mirror, and/or be applied to, real life.

On the whole I think if you are interested in Nazis, sex/BDSM, Boyd's theories, feminism, or violence this will be of interest to you. However, I beg of you, think open mindedly about the film and the issues raised within, go beyond the aesthetics. No matter what your tastes dictate. - +DO NOT see this film if you get uneasy around sex scenes especially ones with such a low budget that you really do think you are watching porn. +DO NOT see this film if you are offended by neo-Nazis (Boyd Rice is NOT a neo-Nazi however his character does 'hint' at it in this film (costumes and monologues) +DO NOT see this film if you are horney (it way warp your impressionable little mind) +DO NOT see this film if you are disgusted by fecal matter +DO NOT see this film if you think the random slaughter of 'innocent' homeless people is disgusting...

you wont be able to handle it. seriously i almost vomited at the 'fecal matter' part.

I think it's an extraordinary question of cinematographic life how movies like Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, The (2002) received an 8.7 and stands just below The Godfather, while such jewels like "Pearls before Swine" got an 3.1 (last time i checked). It's good to know some critics can see beyond the cultural imperialist Hollywood genre, but sadly, none of these seem to have watched, or shown appreciation of, this particular movie.

"Pearls before Swine" doesn't stand out on quality of acting, plot or any other conventional measure of rating a movie, but, as the title suggests, places itself above the average viewer in its magnificent value of INTEGRITY. Indeed, those who know its main actors, such as Boyd Rice and Douglas P. (Death in June) are well aware of the closeness this particular movie stands with the opinions of aforementioned men. Boyd's lack of a any expressionist inclination with his own statements ('how marvelous') for example therefore not only parallel the plot and introspectuocentricity of the movie, but match perfectly well with personal opinions that, to themselves, hold great value. Essence, being for oneself and a great belief in self-actualisation thus gain their credibility through a whole life of great accomplishments.

Maybe this movie doesn't .shock., or deliver a moral message, but still it delivers a message that centers oneself to understanding itself.

I have a fairly high tolerance for low-quality and low-budget movies, especially when they strive to be different from the usual Hollywood pap. In fact there are only two such films I have seen this year that I felt had no redeeming qualities: this film and Red Cockroaches. And even Red Cockroaches made me look at ketchup differently.

The script is horrible. It is obvious from reading the liner notes of the DVD that the writer/director changed the script on the fly (including the addition of the silly twist ending), probably after a late night session bulls^H^H^H^H^Hbrainstorming with the actors. It is even more obvious from watching it ("a Dr Who scene? sure!").

The dialogue is horrible. People don't talk that way. Boyd Rice delivers monologues that sound as if he is reading from one of his own articles. I'm sure these were intended to be socratic dialogues (especially since they reference the concept, albeit poorly), but they managed to sound even *more* contrived than that, impossible as it sounds. And the attempts at slang? Ouch. Painful embarrassment for the character.

The acting is horrible. The only one of any note was Daniel's partner Paul; he may not be able to carry a movie on his own, but standing next to Boyd Rice made him look like John-friggin-Malkovich. Once again, reading the liner notes made it apparent that the director knows/idolizes Boyd Rice, to the point where he was unable to give good direction (if he had it) to an actor. Stilted, wooden, monotonic moments are what we get. Keanu would be proud.

The violence is poor. Maybe a viewing of Doom Generation is in order. It *is* possible to do good violence with a low budget. Simply firing guns (most of which were poor, though Paul's revolver was actually a quality piece) and splattering red paint around doesn't do it. Unless of course you're talking TROMA, where violence isn't actually the point.

I cannot continue this review without addressing the terms 'controversy' and 'artistic integrity'. There is nothing controversial about this movie. The views expounded upon (at great tedious length) are not original or unique; they have been gracing the pages of zines and books from the fine folks at loompanics, paladin press, and the anarchist bookstore in SF for DECADES. In the course of my checkered literary past I have encountered these same arguments and views repeated ad nauseum.

I'm sure the director and actor both hold these opinions as their own -- that's patently obvious from the ham-fisted way they were inserted into the plot(?), and the lackluster delivery (i.e., it's not an actor making you believe they believe this, but a believer droning on and on about their religion with no regard for their listener). I do believe they thought they were casting pearls before swine in the making of this film. But that does not make the opinions original, controversial, well-thought-out, appealing to any but the most philosophically naive, or indeed anything but what they are: a reactionary position against the established order which would not succeed on its own merits and thus must actively strive to emphasize its difference and novelty.

To paraphrase Tom Stoppard's play The Real Thing, which actually treats the subject of watching a work such as this quite well, "Making a bad film is no proof of integrity".

What makes a good movie? Interesting characters. A compelling script. Convincing acting. Natural dialogue. Incredible cinematography. A sense of mood or atmosphere. You don't have to have all of these, but you need at least one. And Pearls Before Swine strikes out.