Yap Off: Going to the Grindhouse

Austin Lugar and Sam Watermeier have argued about film for years now. Instead of just keeping it to themselves, they’re bringing it to the Yap. You’re welcome! Today’s topic is grindhouse films.

Sam: The last few years have seen several odes to shlock cinema, nostalgic trips back to the grindhouse. There was Snakes on a Plane, a film whose title alone oozed grindhouse cheese. Then, of course, there was Grindhouse, a double feature from Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez complete with all the signature touches of 1970s exploitation films — blood, guts, babes, bullets and octane. It even recreated the experience of going to a B-movie double bill by providing fake trailers for films of the genre. More recently, we've been given Piranha 3D and Machete. Here's the big question, Austin. Are these films stirring up their own midnight movie magic? Do they have the power to actually revive this tawdry subgenre or are they merely novelty acts meant to pay homage or make light of it?

Austin: I think we'd have to define what that magic really is. If a movie has a big budget to create good CGI for the piranhas or can afford to have Robert DeNiro in the cast, is it still a midnight movie? It almost reminds me of the two teams in The Sandlot. Both teams want to play baseball. One is a ragtag team that is more focused on having fun while the other (eviler?) team has the nice uniforms and proper coaching. It's just not as fun if the studios are doing it.

I think this subgenre can be revived but the wrong people are doing it. There's a film I haven't seen, but I've heard a lot of people talking about it. It's called Midnight Meat Train and stars a pre-Hangover Bradley Cooper. That's a film that has people buzzing because it came out of nowhere, is very campy but still intelligent, and has that title. Again I haven't seen it, but that excites me more than these other films, which have been generally disappointing to me.

Am I being too general about the financial issue or have some of the studio films impressed you?

Sam: I'm actually on your side. Your Sandlot analogy is spot on. These films do have a glossy Hollywood sheen that makes them inauthentic representations of the genre. To me, the magic of midnight movies is their grungy, uncompromising nature. They showed things that Hollywood didn't have the balls to show. They were the films you'd have to sneak off at midnight to see, when your parents were asleep. These grindhouse homages, particularly Snakes on a Plane and Piranha 3D, are too tame. And their recognizable casts seem to serve as an apology for their low-brow material.

Although I enjoyed Grindhouse, the two films often felt more like typical Rodriguez and Tarantino fare than genuine grindhouse-era films. However, it came very close to capturing the exploitation experience.

I suppose the closest thing we have to true, unapologetic midnight movies are the Saw films. That's a sad comment, so what would you like to see from future grindhouse homages? Or what is missing from the current ones?

Austin: I don't know if I would say the cast is apologizing, but simply playing along. With Piranha 3D I noticed it was more fun to hear the cast talk about the film than to watch the film. Comedians like Adam Scott and Paul Scheer have had a field day talking about the silliest parts of the film. Perhaps, there lies the problem. They are not RAW and RISQUE but just silly. Snakes on a Plane was fully of silly concepts and major plot holes. It was more lovably dumb than a proper midnight movie. Yes, the Saw films are really exploiting the disgusting nature of their contraptions. Their popularity is as disturbing as the films themselves. I can see something like Human Centipede only having a niche audience, but somehow the Saw films are still a huge hit.

Personally, I’d rather not have the direct homages. I'd rather see the new blend of filmmaking. Scorsese was influenced by the early ‘30s gangster movies, but he didn't go out and make a Little Caeser remake. I think more filmmakers should take the Tarantino route and be influenced by the past in order to make something fresh. With today's ability to make a movie anyone can make whatever they want. I'm not a huge fan of midnight movies, but I can enjoy the occasional Faster Pussycat Kill Kill or Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. I think if films want to highlight their violent and sexual madness, they still need to have a story around it.

I know this is a film site, but the best example of this is the show Spartacus: Blood and Sand. Its depravity is insane, but by the end of the first season I was shocked that I actually cared about a number of the main characters. The hour long episodes are still wall to wall with bloody gladiator fights and sexual slaves, but there are still proper storytelling techniques around it. That is what makes me want to rewatch the show. Story and characters hold up better than shock value moments.

Sam: I'm with you. I'd rather see films that actually inhabit the grindhouse genre than those that step out, look back at it and pay homage. I appreciate Grindhouse and Piranha 3D for opening people's eyes to this genre that is often found gathering dust on the back shelves of old mom-and-pop video stores. However, I'm always in favor of originality. I think I'd rather see the birth of a new genre than a return to an old one. Plus, grindhouse films are no longer shocking. Films these days are already inundated with sex and violence. So, the scary question is, "What taboos do we now want to see play out on the silver screen?" I suppose the Saw films are the answer.

There aren't many new genres now, but new depths are being breathed into established ones. This is most evident in recent comic book films and spy thrillers (The Dark Knight, The Bourne Identity, Casino Royale). Maybe that's why the grindhouse genre is popping up again. If it is to be reinvented, though, we need less homages and more original, sincere entries. No more winking.

Austin: I don't know if you mean "genre" exactly but "movement." It's hard to add to the genre pile. Comedy, action, sci-fi, etc really sums a lot of things up. I find myself just bored by attempting to break taboos. Nothing is really that shocking anymore and if it is, it's just empty. (I'm alone on this site about thinking Splice fits into that latter category.) I think with this evolution/devolution of torture porn we're going to eventually retreat back into the Hitchcock direction of subtly. Think about the horror films that have been celebrated recently: Let the Right One In, The Orphanage, REC, Paranormal Activity. Those are films that really play up the suspense and atmosphere, not how much guts can be poured on screen.

That could be why we're not seeing any proper "grindhouse" films now. It's a different time. We don’t have the brash and crazy filmmakers of the 70s. I know these have always been niche films, but people just aren't responding to snakes on planes biting penises anymore. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Just like I can complain about there not being anymore amazing silent films. Film preservation is so good right now I can watch silent films all month and be happy. We are not just reliant on what is in the theatres. So if we want our "pure" grindhouse films, they're still out there.