JOHN WATERS

John Water's Evolutionary Acceptance: Has Trash Become Innocent?

Heather L. Marcelynas
Western Connecticut State University

It is a matter of taste-or perhaps distaste-to survey the transformation of John Waters' films in an objective manner. The notorious auteur that once only allured the midnight movie-house crowd has achieved notoriety in International Film Festivals. One must question how this shift in audience might have occurred and to what extent. Possible factors include a change of tolerance within the film industry as the "indie flicks" shifted into "blockbuster" slots; a decrease of shocking content within the films, as budgets dramatically increased as if the need for exhibition was no longer necessary; or perhaps the viewers have grown more tolerant due to a transformation in society as a whole. These suggested factors are reflected alongside the reviews of film critics between 1972 to the present. In examining the degree of scrutiny of John Water's films, the results speak vividly of the film industry's stance on the present state of the genre of comedy.

John Water's Evolutionary Acceptance: Has Trash Become Innocent?

"If scandal, sleaze and celebrity worship are our national religion, then John Waters is an American prophet." (Hoberman, 1998) The Prince of Puke, Sultan of Sleaze, King of Kink, Pope of Trash, PT Barnum of Scatology, Baron of Bad Taste: these, among other respects are some of the titles used to characterize John Waters. Born on April 22, 1946 in Baltimore, Maryland it was there, where he would meet the men and women willing to work in front of and behind the camera on his self-written, self-produced movies. "As a student in a Catholic high school in the 1960's, John Waters sneaked of to see all the movies condemned by the Church's Legion of Decency." (Geier, 1997) According to Waters, (1981) It was his grandmother who for his 17th birthday gave him his first camera, an 8mm Brownie which summoned his potential to turn his obsessions with violence, gore, and deviance into eccentric 8mm exploitation shorts. With his counter culture friends acting, he began making silent 8mm and 16mm films in the mid 60's; that were screened in Baltimore church halls to a small underground audience. Waters traveled to New York City to attend the New York University School of Film where he instead ditched classes to go to art-house and cult-film theatres. Shortly after he was expelled for smoking marijuana. A determined artist, by the early 70's Waters was producing features, which he managed to get shown in midnight screenings in art cinemas. Success finally came when Pink Flamingos (1972) his noted "trash epic" took off in 1973; infamous for its final scene which involved the lead actor/actress; Divine, devouring fresh dog excrement. Waters continued to produce similar shocking films with slowly growing budgets until 1988. The film, Hairspray provided a Hollywood crossover, and a seemingly cleaned-up image similar to that of his present films.

The cultural and political events occurring throughout the world have always had a significant impact upon the art world. Whether it be a painting depicting the liberty and jubilation of a new nation, or a film that embraces the horror and agony of war; the artist, or auteur employs the event to capture a collective emotion and anchors it to be revisited over again. On the other hand, what if the art has no socially redeeming value whatsoever? What if the piece exploits every sacred element society holds in reverence for purposes of shock value? The rising genre of the black comedy insinuates a total lack of respect, and the American population seems to adore it.

"By the late 1960's, theories of authorship and genre reached a kind of symbiosis. The more work that was done with auteur directors, the more evident it became that virtually all of the American Cinema's auteur directors were in fact 'genre auteurs'. That is, they refined their technical skills and distinctive styles working with only one or two familiar narrative-cinematic formulas." (Gehring, 1988) In terms of structure, J. Hoberman of the Village Voice suggests that Pink Flamingos' narrative structure resembles that of Star Wars. "You might say that Lucas cleans up Waters' act by putting a 'family' of runaway teen mutant dogs and cutie-pie robots against a sinister, all-male den of black-clad S&M freaks."(1997)

While satire is the key element in John Waters' comedy, there is a point at which its effect becomes more relentless; hence, a darker, more disturbing class of humor. "At its most fundamental, black humor is a genre of comic irreverence which flippantly attacks what are normally society's most sacredly serious subjects. It is geared for shock effect, juxtaposing comedy and terrifying chaos. For the viewer, it prepares a jumble of conflicting emotions meant to reflect the on-edge absurdity of modern life." (Gehring, 1988) The genre embraces a wide variety of films; for example, both Dr. Strangelove and Pink Flamingos are considered forms of black humor, but in terms of language and surface content, Pink Flamingos' visual extremities advocate camp-film connotations. "Dr. Strangelove remains as both film's black humor archetype and a convenient starting point for the genre's emergence in American cinema." (Gehring, 1988)

Black humor offers an absurd environment set against the most unlikely of heroes. The setting, characters, language, soundtrack, cinematography and editing all exude a certain eccentric tone. All of which combine to produce a collective aesthetic, which identifies John Waters as an auteur. "If one were to include the cult underground, pre-Polyester (1981) films of John Waters in the genre, examples such as Divine's downing of real dog excrement at the tacked-on close of Pink Flamingos (1972) would be further prime evidence of shock-effect. Black comedy screams, THINK ABOUT IT! As it scrambles one's complacency with juxtapositionings of humor and horror." (Gehring, 1988)

Waters prides himself on that arresting division of emotion: "To me, bad taste is what entertainment is all about. If someone vomits watching one of my films, it's like getting a standing ovation. But one must remember that there is such a thing as good bad taste and bad bad taste." (Waters, 1981)

The population examined in this study consisted of four films written and directed by John Waters, as well as the accompanying reviews. The films viewed consisted of Pink Flamingos (1972), Polyester (1981), Pecker (1998), and Cecil B. Demented (2000). Pink Flamingos and Polyester were chosen to represent the earlier period of Water's work. Pink Flamingos initiated his career while Polyester closed a chapter making way for bigger budgets and a change in aesthetic. The two most recent films: Pecker and Cecil B. Demented were chosen to mark the difference in script, cast of characters, and soundtrack that of which were released only 2 years between each other. Various commentaries were examined for each of the films. Some films were reviewed by the same source, which allowed for a retrospective view while others were assorted for a broader range of opinion. These magazine/journal sources were selected based on their specific focus on film-related content and any previous coverage done on John Waters or his work. The articles were examined initially for the depth of information about the film and then for both positive and negative commentary. The statistics were compared to measure the difference of the critics outlook of Waters' work between 1972-1981 and 1998-2000.

Extensive research of the films themselves (content; dialogue, images), film/director analysis', critic reviews/commentaries, genre studies, and biographical information were examined and compared for these main areas:

2. Critique the films in their aesthetic structure (technical aspects; camera shots, editing) in terms of:

After the collection of data was studied, a substantial catalog of familiar content within all the films was established. The reviews of the critics were then examined for the same element; familiarity of content within their commentary.

Factors that may have caused the change in the aesthetic structure and text supported by:

"It was up to a film school drop-out from Baltimore to pick up the Warhol torch of campy outrageousness and proudly carry it to new lows." (Merritt, 2000) Originating and working in Baltimore, Maryland, John Waters was inspired by NY underground filmmakers like the Kuchar Brothers and Andy Warhol. His first feature Mondo Trasho (1969) was described by Celluloid Mavericks author; Greg Merritt (2000), to be a collection of sometimes shocking, rarely humorous and mostly boring scenes, shot without sound. His following film was a $5000 project entitled Multiple Maniacs (1971). It was noted as an "all out assault on middle-class values."

In 1972-the 25 year old filmmaker produced the trash epic that would not only make himself, but also a 300-pound transvestite named Divine, infamous in the world of underground cinema. "After a few false starts, Pink Flamingos initiated its midnight career in February 1973 at the old Elgin. By the spring it was the talk of New York, the most infamous American underground feature since Andy Warhol's Chelsea Girls." (Merritt, 2000) The two following movies, Female Trouble (1974) and Desperate Living (1977); although less popular compared to Pink Flamingos, seemed to mark the end of his powerful reign in the outlaw cinema.

Polyester (1981) was stated to be a "frank attempt to break out of the midnight movie ghetto offering 35mm format, wide screen and color, replete with helicopter and steadicam shots, split-screen sequences, a full orchestral score, tricky Sirk-Fassbinder lighting and a promotional gimmick known as Odorama-all budgeted at $300,000." (Chute, 1981) Waters had made a step in the direction of independent film-and a step further from the underground cinema.

Seven years later he released a film that he states was "never meant to be a family film." According to Curry, Hairspray is a "musical-comedy film about desegregation in Baltimore during the early 1960's. Waters revives the turbulent times as a backdrop to a television dance show phenomenon (his film rendition of the actual Buddy Deane Show). (Curry, 1996) Hairspray seemed to open the doors of Hollywood to Waters promoting larger budgets and bigger name-actors. Hairspray starred such names as Sonny Bono, Ricki Lake, Jerry Stiller, and Ric Ocasek.

What is affectionately deemed his "Elvis movie" Cry-baby is teeming with recognizable characters including Johnny Depp, Iggy Pop, Ricki Lake, Traci Lords, Troy Donahue and Willem Defoe. In opinion of Films in Review critic Edmond Grant, Cry-baby is a thoroughly enjoyable broad comedy that is by no means indicative of its director's work. Furthermore; it can be hoped that Waters will return to his two favorite subjects, crime and suburbia, in the future, but for now its intriguing to see how he has drastically cleaned up his act in order to cultivate the broad-base audience he attracted with Hairspray.

In 1993 Waters released his first mainstream movie clocking in with a hefty 13 million dollar budget. In Serial Mom, he created a "virtuous housewife who kills in the name of political correctness." (Travers, 1994) Waters seems to step aside from the shock and disgust elements of camp film and focuses on a domestic version of perverse satire that evenly segues into his next feature: Pecker (1999). Pecker is an 18-year-old sandwich shop worker who suddenly comes to the attention of the art world when his pictures of his eccentric family and the blue-collar quirkiness of downtown Baltimore become a hit. "Pecker's photography is suffused with the director's childlike wonder at things exotic (the pubic hair of lesbian strippers) and grotesque (his kid sister's sugar binges)." (Stuart, 1998) The soundtrack of Pecker continues in Water's tradition of quirky corn-poke rockabilly tunes. Aesthetically, Waters still relishes in the characteristic close-up shots of anything slightly obscene and the fades-to-black between scenes.

Finally, Cecil B. Demented (2000) is the most recent release, "The central band of 'cinema terrorists', led by a titular director is focused on the glories of the past and on such mavericks as Erich Yon Stroheim, Orson Welles and Russ Meyer. This brilliantly satiric film elegantly attacks every aspect of the Hollywood movie industry while in 'honorable indie spirit, their creators make a virtue of poverty." (Calhoun, 2000) In terms of production, the movie exceeds the caliber of his past works. The soundtrack alone is different than anything he's had before integrating all genres of music from electronica, to punk/hardcore, to hip-hop and R&B.

Pink Flamingos was released once in 1972 and then again 25 years later as an anniversary celebration honoring its ability to still shock and disgust. "When Waters screened the movie for a course he taught at a Maryland Prison, several convicted murderers and rapists walked out in disgust" (Geier, 1997) Earlier reviews of the film according to the Los Angeles Times wrote,

It makes as total an assault on conventional sensibilities as is imaginable without becoming downright morbid. That's because it is as funny as it is outrageous. And as we're being liberated by our laughter we're made aware how much more easily we can be offended by actually quite harmless scatological excesses... On the other hand, Variety's Headline summarized, in bold type, 'Dregs of Human Perversity. Draws weirdo element. Monstrous,' before going on to call Pink Flamingos 'one of the most vile, stupid and repulsive films ever made. Since such distinction is its relentless goal, it's a real perverse achievement. (Merritt, 2000)

Gus Van Sant (1997) called the re-release a gloriously sick alternative to the Thrill of Star Wars: Special Edition. Additionally he states that Pink Flamingos is farcical, preposterous, in impossibly bad taste, satirical, wicked, grotesque, unbelievable, hilarious, and witty-all the good words. It is a hallmark John Waters film, an absolute classic piece of American cinema, right up there with The Birth of a Nation, Dr. Strangelove, and Boom! Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, uses such colorful phrases to represent the birthday: "splashy re-release, King Kong of gross-out comedies, demented delight, and now-classic scene of cinematic scuzz."(1997) It is evident; overall, to suggest that mostly positive promotion surrounded the re-release of Water's trash classic.

Polyester (1981) was the last of the low-budget cult-classics John Waters would produce. It was described in Time magazine as being "Tacky, tacky, tacky. That is the aim and the achievement of Writer-Director Waters...Polyester is like all independent films. Whether the director has reformist ideas or dreams of big bucks, whether his mogul is an arts council functionary or a local businessman looking for a tax-write off, the game of scrounging and scrambling must be played." (1981) David Chute anticipates that Polyester is a frank attempt to break out of the midnight movie ghetto. Waters fans who have caught wind of Polyester have been grumbling about "compromise," but that's the foolishness: the shock-value strategy was compromised from the start. (1981) John Waters, while previously categorized within the "outlaw cinema" has gotten an increase in budget; thus insinuating a step forward in the film industry. Making the shift from Underground film into Independent has obviously given the viewers a reason to worry.

Pecker (1998) initiated such caustic reviews like: "Perhaps that Chelsea Gallery which transforms the innocent Pecker into a hot commodity is not really the voracious and snobby New York art world, but an even more voracious American Media Culture. Could it be that Waters is the snob, reacting to the saturation of his own once-rarified vision?" (Hoberman, 1998) Jan Stuart of the Advocate goes on to say that, After Polyester, alas, Waters acquired a debilitating sense of decency. Perhaps John Waters needs to quit his hometown roots and go back to his filmmaking roots. As visions of Baltimore Gothic, Desperate Living and Female Trouble are at least surreal as that presented by the 6 o'clock news. They deliver the goods. Pecker, like its title, merely teases. (1998) Tom Gliatto of People, complains that the movie "slows down and dies. Woody Allen's muse is John Waters' poison." (1998) Peter Travers of Rolling Stone sums it up for all: "True fans know that recent films have become more innocent as Hollywood grows more crude." (1998)

In the review of the most recent film, Davis Sterritt states: "Although no masterpiece, Cecil B. Demented tackles Hollywood on its own ground and scores points through its outlandish satire." He continues with, "At least this cheap, unassuming comedy gives us something to think about. That's more than many studio movies can claim at the moment." (2000) The reviews allow a similar indifference of emotion or opinion about the film.

Of the quoted reviews, it is apparent that the enthusiasm and fanatical metaphors that the critics once bestowed upon John Waters' films have become diluted. It seemed that each critic somehow referred to the earlier works as being the true masterpieces while the new projects seem to wash over the potentially kitschy content with a layer of innocence and distinction. In suggesting an incentive for this change, perhaps it is a simple combination. While larger budgets sanction an increase of style and quality; John Waters films were initially structured in complete opposition of those monetary advantages. The environment of the sets changed; thus, the film's overall organization changed. The auteur is no longer an amateur. The content of present-day American movies are constructed with high degree of extreme violence, extreme sex, and extreme situations overall. This demand for shocking text and imagery has the ability to desensitize a whole population of American culture in a quarter of the time films once took to offend the masses.

In terms of content, what used to be a bluntly scripted shock treatment has graduated to an exquisitely intellectual form of tongue-in-cheek humor. The basic elements of filth and debauchery still exist in Waters' screenplays, just in a more digestible fashion. Nevertheless; there are similarities to his earlier works that still remain-whether by the actors or a simple characteristic close-up, John Waters has chiseled that distinction into the history of American film. It is the combination of these ingredients that add up to the incomparable style of one of America's premiere comedic directors.

"Now they're all in the Battle of Filth and they're duking it out. I've retired. I'm a Filth Elder." -John Waters

Curry, R. (1996). Hairspray: The revolutionary way to restructure and hold your history. Literature Film Quarterly. 165.

Gehring, W. (1988). Handbook of American film genres. New York : Greenwood Press.

Geier, T. (1997, April 28). Mr. Bad Taste goes respectable. U.S. News & World Report. 16.

Merritt, J. (2000). Celluloid mavericks: A history of American independent film. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.

Sterritt, D. (2000, August 11). 'Replacements' fumbles; 'cecil b.' scores with satire. Christian Science Monitor. 16.

Travers, P. (1998, October 15). There's something about John Waters' "Pecker". Rolling Stone. 134.

Waters, J. (1981). Shock value: A tasteful book about bad taste. New York: Thunder's Mouth Press.

Waters, J. (Director). (2000). Cecil B. Demented [Film]. Artisan Entertainment.