The Killer Shrews (1959) Directed by Ray Kellogg
Produced by Ken Curtis
Starring:
James Best as Thorne Sherman
Ingrid Goude as Ann Cragis
Baruch Lumet as Dr. Marlowe Cragis
Ken Curtis as Jerry Farrell
Gordon McLendon as Dr. Radford Baines
"Fun" films have their place, as do singing waiters and wall-to-wall carpeting. Call them light comedy, light romance, whatever; they don't manage to win many Oscars, but they sure make oodles of the green stuff. These are the films that stem the hemorrhage of red ink for studios whenever a "quality" film creates a lifeless void in theaters nationwide. These first daters create a safe, competent universe for all concerned; which is why a generically handsome fellow like Matthew McConaughey will work until his teeth fall out or he develops an allergic reaction to body waxing.Identifying these films is easy, which is exactly as it is meant to be. The promotional artwork will have a pretty, thirtysomething couple laughing their asses off about some kooky circumstance - maybe a dog's leash has entwined their legs or, for reasons known only to them, they have pressed their foreheads together. The plot will find our couple thrown unwillingly together by some unavoidable, possibly madcap situation. The female lead will likely have a bohemian girlfriend who dresses like a 12-year old, but realizes love is afoot before either of the principals. Eventually, love will be proclaimed in a rainstorm or through the window of a taxicab. There will be one scene, minimum, near water.
A mutant shrew meets its maker. The Killer Shrews (1959) Naturally, I am far too brooding and deep for this middling crap, you bet; yessiree. Yet, I can remember a post-sex, rainy, Saturday night spent with an ex-girlfriend, watching TV - me in a terrycloth bathrobe. She was wearing one of my largest sweaters, which hung down just above her knees. There was cold pizza from the night before. We watched Bridget Jones's Diary, laughing at the same moments. I was pretty certain I was in Heaven.Be that as it may, when someone calls a sci-fi, creature feature from the atomic age a "fun film," I always feel the cloying tones of condescension. How this translates (often but not always) is that the movie - be it Mesa of Lost Women or Robot Monster - is only good for laughs. Since these films, unlike nearly every film featuring Hugh Grant, were not intended to be lighthearted, calling them "fun" means that the filmmakers, actors, producers, etc. have failed miserably. They have done worse than fail. The have become clowns to point at.Yet, after recently watching a pair of Ray Kellogg films (The Killer Shrews and The Giant Gila Monster), my first thought was "that was fun." How to explain this hypocrisy? Permit me to try.My explanation begins with a purely imagined sequence of human linkages, spanning years, forming a rickety chain of fired synapses across the membrane of Hollywood. The most prominent link in this chain, Director Ray Kellogg, was as an officer in the photographic branch of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS);1 during which time he met another cameraman/photographer - future director and god, John Ford. Like many servicemen trying to reintegrate into civilian life after wartime, Kellogg hoped his specialized military training would earn him a living in the private sector. Thus, he applied himself to Hollywood, where he eventually became head of the Special Effects Unit at 20th Century Fox. His credits with Fox include a long list of A pictures (Gentlemen Prefer Blondes; The Seven Year Itch; Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison; and many more).Our second principal player, Ken Curtis (co-producer of both Shrews and Gila), is best remember for playing Festus Haggen in television's Gunsmoke. Curtis began his career, however, as a singer. He was vocalist for the Tommy Dorsey Band in the 1940s but seemed to truly find his vocal niche as a member of Sons of the Pioneers from 1949 to 1953.2After making a series of singing cowboy pictures for Columbia, his craggy, "western" face and natural twang (Curtis was raised in Las Animas, Colorado) caught the attention of John Ford, who cast him in several major films, including The Searchers, The Horse Soldiers, The Alamo, and How The West Was Won (although he didn't need the help, it certainly couldn't have hurt that Curtis was Ford's son-in-law by his first marriage).Now comes the fun part.The common element - in fact the single common element - between Ray Kellogg (director) and Ken Curtis (producer) is film legend, John Ford. Without a shred of corroborative evidence, let me suggest the following scenario circa 1955-56: Special effects man, Ray Kellogg, who has been stifling an itch to direct movies, has a couple film projects in mind and goes fishing for financial backing. He then contacts his old OSS pal, John Ford, who has, by the mid-1950s, become a top-tier director - an actual "living legend." Ford, for whatever reason, gives Kellogg a pass but suggests an actor of his acquaintance who might be receptive - his young son-in-law, Ken Curtis. Because of his singing background Curtis, in turn, knows a fairly rich, very eccentric radio station owner in Texas named Gordon McLendon3 who just might open his considerable wallet for a couple of sci-fi quickies with a chance to act thrown into the bargain (McLendon and Curtis both have major parts in Shrews). Viola!Wasn't that fun? And not that hard to imagine, either. Normally, this kind of Hollywood synchronicity occurs from talents sharing work on films, but Kellogg and Curtis don't have any films in common. Thus the Ford connection becomes more viable.
Cast: James Best, Ken Curtis, Baruch Lumet, Gordon McLendon, and Ingrid Goude This director/producer team of Kellogg and Curtis, despite both having impressive A-List credentials, combined forces to make two films in one year - both filmed in Texas and both astonishingly shoddy, earnest, low budget affairs. The Killer Shrews was made for $123,0004 which, even by B-movie standards of the era, is exceptionally sparse. The Giant Gila Monster, though more costly - was still parsimonious, coming in at a stingy $138,000.5 While certainly no fun for the actors (star of Shrews, James Best, remembers helping paint the slap-dash sets immediately before shooting scenes during a kamikaze, six-day shooting schedule. "You couldn't touch the set because you'd get paint on your hands."6 ), lovers of B-movies know that a shoe-string budget is the essential building block in constructing the movie moments we treasure. A huge, blockbuster budget effectively eliminates the chances for our kind of pure love.More fun points: First: Both Shrews and Gila have a surreal edge of lunacy, produced by a heady combination of marginal acting, slap-dash production, interesting story concept, wretched casting; and (most importantly) enough off-kilter moments wherein, inexplicably, it all fits together and works. Secondly, each film takes itself completely - even grimly - seriously (no dreaded tongue-in-cheek). All actors concerned, even the ones who can't act; are completely committed, enthusiastic, and appear to be having a ball. Thirdly - each film contains a very unique, Kellogg universe that is completely unreal yet utterly consistent (which makes the world of each film magical).Let's consider The Killer Shrews first. Despite costing roughly $15,000 less, Shrews is a better picture than its double-feature sibling, Gila (whom we well get to next post). Though certainly possessing its own charm, Gila lacks Shrews occasionally fine monster effects and frequently fine action sequences. It also lacks James Best who, more than anything else, makes Shrews memorable.Shrews begins (as does Gila) with narration - a voice full of über doom: "Those that hunt by night will tell you that the wildest and most vicious of all animals is the tiny shrew." Let's pause things right there. I will have to admit, this made me snort. First off all, who hunts by night except frog giggers and alligator poachers? Deer night hunting, for instance, seems a venture fraught with comical danger few could expect to survive. And speaking of "those that hunt by night," I've known a few alligator poachers, living in south Florida as I do. When discussing the dangers inherent in capturing or killing alligators in the dark of night (other than the prehistoric beasts themselves), I've never heard them rate shrews all that high. Water Moccasins and feral hogs, yes. Shrews, no.7The narration continues, describing the horror of the shrew: how they must eat their own body weight every few hours or starve, how they eat everything of their prey, bones, hair, etc. All laughably dramatic. But, hey! After doing a little research, it turns out that shrews are surprisingly hideous.They are, for a start, the only mammals that have venom in their bite. That's right, chuckles, they're poisonous. Hell, the ancient Greeks thought them nasty enough to be considered evil by their nature. No less a personage than Aristotle wrote of them with obvious repulsion ("The bite is more dangerous if the shrew is pregnant when it bites; for then the blisters burst"8). Sure, they're not going to cause my 'gator-poaching pals, wading the fringes of Florida's swamps with their crossbows and knee-high snake boots, much concern - but still, with their needle snouts and bristling, toxic teeth; they sure are creepy, little bastards. And, yes, because of their high metabolism, they eat, eat, eat.Still, as the monster choice for a creature-feature, the concept remains edgy, somehow slightly loony - maybe even ballsy. The principals must have known the very phrase "killer shrews" would produce laughs (I admit the first time I heard the title I thought it was a parody of 1950s sci-fi). Yet Kellogg and company proceed with gritty confidence, sure in their ability to turn this tiny leave-rustler into a symbol of terror. And amazingly, that's just what we find. Despite rudimentary, sometimes awful special effects (which we'll get to in a bit) and a six-day shooting schedule that must have found actors stuffing down sandwiches between scenes, the film manages to deliver some skin-crawling moments.The film in nutshell: Charter boat captain Thorne Sherman (James Best) and his black sidekick and first mate, Rook (J.H. DuPree), arrive on a small island off the Gulf Coast, delivering supplies to a Dr. Marlowe Cragis (Baruch Lumet9). After their arrival, the doctor is unusually insistent that the pair drop off the supplies quickly and leave. The doctor also insists that they take his beautiful, somehow very Swedish daughter (Ingrid Goude), with him (actor Baruch Lumet, Ingrid's Father, speaks with a very heavy Eastern European accent). Sherman cannot leave the island, however, as a hurricane is rolling in.Sherman eventually stays at the Cragis home for the duration of the storm and meets the rest of the scientific team working with Dr. Cragis: Dr. Jerry Ferrell (Ken Curtis) Cragis' scowling, unhappy lab assistant; Dr. Radford Baines (Gordon McLendon), a dedicated scientist complete with and thick horn-rims; and Mario (Alfred DeSoto), the Mexican hired hand.Via Captain Sherman we quickly learn that this small cast are the sole citizens of the little island - all players revolving around the experiments of Dr. Cragis. Like Dr. Moreau before him, Dr. Cragis has found refuge on a small tropical island so that he may conduct his insane experiments in privacy, without the prying eyes and of society. Also like Moreau, Cragis' has become obsessed with the possibilities of genetic engineering. Cragis is determined to solve the problem of overpopulation which, the doctor is convinced, will soon lead to the extermination of the human race through suffering, starvation; and the horrible strife caused by dwindling recourses. Dr. Cragis' solution is to engineer a smaller human race. That's right - make humans dinky-sized (perhaps a foot or two high) so that as a species we will need just a fraction of the food and resources we consume at our traditional jumbo size.
Afternoon cocktails before the storm. (James Best, Ingrid Goude, and Baruch Lumet) Thinking this theory through is one of the delights of this movie: To bring Dr. Cragis' dream of a pint-sized world to fruition, the entire full-sized world would have to be re-tooled. Tiny factories would have to be built to turn out the new, tiny cars required by the new, tiny human race. Everything would have to be made to scale, of course: clothes, light bulbs, toothpicks, condoms. Imagining further, would we then be able to ride dogs like horses? Would we leave our tiny homes, always looking overhead for swooping eagles or hawks? Would deer be the new elephants?The kink in Dr. Cragis' mad scheme (or at least the kink other than marauding owls and gangs of killer, feral cats) is that as the human race becomes smaller, their metabolism would quicken; and thus life expectancies would shrink accordingly. Humans would live only 13 to 16 years. To remedy this, Cragis has been experimenting with the tiny shrew which, because of their frantic metabolism and their speedy gestation period, are the perfect specimen for his ungodly experiments. The doctor and his team are manipulating shrew DNA, making them larger. As the experimental shrews get larger, their metabolism slows down. In studying this, the doctor hopes to find a genetic key that will help him maintain a steady metabolism in his future race of human runts.As one might expect, the doctor's experiments have gone hideously wrong. A small test group of shrews has developed a mutation, allowing them to grow at alarming rates and, also quite naturally, two of the mutations have escaped the laboratory and have been busily mating out in the scrubby forest of the small island. With a gestation period of 14 days or so, the island has quickly become infested with shrews weighing 50 to 100 pounds feeding primarily at night. The small enclave has become an armed camp with all inhabitants fraying badly at the edges. Daughter Ann has become a jittery, hand-wringing bundle of nerves; leaping like a cat every time a door is slammed. Research scientist, Farrell, has gone - well - feral - drinking heavily and carrying both a shotgun and a shitty attitude with him at all times (it hasn't helped at all that his romance with the doctor's daughter has hit the skids thanks to the arrival of the captain). The hulking nerd, Dr. Baines, has gone so deeply into his research any outside stimulus (like the coming of a hurricane, for example) leaves him blinking stupidly; and even chief scientist, Dr. Cragis, seems to have gone squirrely - a bit shrew obsessed. Continually smoking his pipe, the doctor's eyes all but glitter when describing the bone-chomping, hyperactive feeding frenzy of an adult shrew (which he does several times, often leaving his daughter in a state of near-faint). In essence, Captain Sherman has entered a familiar haunted house theme, with all participants warped by their confines; and the giant shrews cast as the evil spirits.And the shrews are both multiplying and starving. They have eaten all the food on the island and have become desperate, bold. No longer strictly nocturnal, as is their nature, they have begun coming out during the daylight to hunt. Doctor Cragis predicts that the shrews, because of their aggressive cannibalistic nature, will eat themselves up within 48 hours. All the small group need do is wait them out. But Captain Sherman realizes that they haven't got that luxury. The coming hurricane will saturate the porous, adobe material of the camp's walls, allowing the frenzied shrews to gnaw and claw their way in. Quickly establishing himself as team leader, Sherman realizes he must somehow get them all back to his boat before the shrew dinner bell rings.While Captain Sherman is busy establishing the plot and various conflicts ( and flirting over drinks with the mad doctor's foxy daughter), Rook - the black second mate, has been killed by the swarming killer shrews. Rook's early death is important to establish the fever pitch of the starved shrews, yet hardly surprising. His death, in fact, was a foregone conclusion. As a doomed character, he has it all. He is, first and foremost, a black sidekick. This places him in some very deep shit from the get go. Further he is jovial, slightly overweight; and has a relaxed, friendly relationship with his boss, Captain Sherman. The moment we see actor, Judge DuPree, in the movie's first scene, grinning broadly and joshing his boss about some point of navigation, we know he's a dead man. Had the black character of Rook been more serious, perhaps even angry, he might have survived until late in the picture, dying in some redemptive act of self sacrifice. As it is, the hapless, likable Rook is the first to go; attacked while securing the ship for the coming hurricane. With shrews in saliva-slinging pursuit, he goes squealing into the woods of the island in hysterics. He eventually gets treed by the huge, slavering shrews but proves too heavy. His girth snaps a limb and he plops out of the tree like a fat possum, howling all the way. Our Mexican servant, Mario, fares better, but not by much. He is able to hang on till mid-picture, earnestly nodding his head subserviently throughout; and he dies without much fuss, strictly so that the shrews' enhanced poisonous bite can be established.Eventually, Sherman is able to concoct a supremely unsophisticated but clumsily effective method of leaving the camp and getting the surviving players to the boat; and thus to safety (The captain's raw-boned solution is part of what makes this movie so much fun and will be covered in a bit). The final scene finds our survivors drenched but safe on deck. As the end credits roll, the captain claims the sexy spoils, which in this case is the mad doctor's blonde daughter, who is soaking wet for good measure.With that, let's get to the good stuff.The Good Stuff, Part 1: The Furry DogsWe might as well begin with the obvious: the shrews. In everything I've read about this movie (and there is a surprising amount written), every review describes the shrews as "fur covered dogs," sometimes "dogs covered in carpeting." I wanted so badly to find a different way to describe them, but it was like trying to describe an elephant riding a unicycle without using the words "elephant" or "unicycle." So, yes, these are dogs wearing some sort of fur coat, a long costume tail, and toothy snout-gear. Any fool can see that, particularly when the shrews move or run. When moving, they are nothing but dog, and the shrew illusion becomes challenging. What is often not appreciated, however, is how chilling the effect can be, particularly when mixing the live dogs with shots of jittering, snaggle-toothed hand puppets shot in a cinéma vérité style (probably by accident and long before the technique fell into a trite cliché). Certainly, if one is of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 ilk, then the dog costumes may be snorted over. But screw MST3K10 and the horse they rode in on. Scenes of the teeth-chattering, beady-eyed shrews - chewing the space between fence slats and peering through knot holes - gave me the whim-wams. And one scene in particular - wherein a shrew bursts into a room and chomps a leg - made me jump twice (once in the first viewing and again when searching for screen shots). That's a pretty good batting average; considering recent, pricey torture porn like the Saw franchise makes me doze off like grandpa in front of the fireplace.
Captain Thorne Sherman (James Best) - The Killer Shrews (1959) The Good Stuff, Part II: James BestModern audiences will recall Best most fondly for his work in Dukes of Hazzard, where he played the buffoon sheriff, Roscoe Coltrane. I can't help but think of this as a shame only because the role crudely exaggerated and simplified the kind of character Best specialized in: a down-home, very likable southern boy - friendly and smiling - yet prickly in his manners, a bit defensive and quick to take offense; particularly around city folks or money.He has given brilliant performances. I thought him dead on as the giggling outlaw, Billy John, in Bud Boetticher's Ride Lonesome; where his gangly, lethal energy was the perfect compliment to Randolph Scott's austere man of leather. Whenever I think of Best, however, I think of him playing the cocky, guitar-slinging hick, Jim Lindsey, who appeared in a couple of gem episodes of The Andy Griffith Show (a show that gave rural or southern "types" insightful expression ).Without Best, Shrews might disintegrate into the nondescript. His Captain Sherman is a very unusual creation in a genre that favors heroes as either poetic scientists or square-jawed men of action - or often working both types together as a team, ala Forbidden Planet.11 In Shrews, Best is neither archtype. He's too intense and haughty to be dreamy and, while handsome, his jaw appears delicate as bone china.Bests' lowly boat mercenary behaves like a scion of a southern aristocracy who has lost everything two generations passed through unspeakable scandal. Imagining a back-story, Thorne was surely abandoned by a weak father and raised by a mother in denial of her families' fall, complaining constantly about the help at the rooming house. Selling the family jewels and striking out at first opportunity, young Thorne managed to buy a used charter boat by way of earning a living.He's edgy, quick to flare at the slightest offense, stiff and formal in a way hardly in keeping with his circumstances: "I would be glad to accept," he says when the doctor offers a drink. All this makes Best's hero highly watchable and unlike any other hero in B-movies. He becomes the camp leader by will and intelligence rather than macho intimidation. If anything, I found myself hoping the two male rivals wouldn't get into a fight as the raw-boned Farrell (Ken Curtis terribly miscast as a scientist) seems easily able to kick the shit out of our fragile, overly-sensitive captain (although the movie has it otherwise).And, not for nothing, Best was/is a fine actor. His acting, in fact, carries the film. When he reports that his friend, Rook, is dead in his tense, angry voice, the moment seems real and touching - even subtle; and his distaste of the crude, cruel Farrell is palpable and believable.The Good Stuff, Part III: Hypnagogic, B-Movie MomentsShrews is full of moments the seem nearly dreamlike - scenes and images which skitter along the surface of some reality nearly our own.Example 1: Former Miss Sweden, Ingrid Goude, in medium shot in scene after scene, emoting dramatically to horrible events happening off camera; her markup and hair perfect, amid sets of plywood and broken adobe. Ms. Goude was, in 1959, a stunning woman, but with her marked Swedish accent and goddess-like face, she appears here like some Nordic sex-angel mistakenly assigned a lowly, tropic outpost.Example 2: There is a scene in the early going - Doctor Cragis, Captain Sherman, and Ann having "cocktails" over a crowded "liquor cabinet". Something seems terribly wrong about this moment, which was surely supposed to show the doctor and daughter as cosmopolitan sophisticates. It takes a minute to realize that none of the details of the set are remotely well done, to say the least. The walls are stained and cracked, the curtains which cover the windows in the corner of the shot are dirty, frayed, and rumbled. The mirror that hangs behind the bar has a cracked frame - even the liquor cabinet is a remarkably cheap affair - a plywood paneled piece on casters, wheeled into the corner for the scene and covered with a cramped array of bottles and an ice bucket.And the longer one looks, the worse it gets. Whenever the camera pans the room, one sees wildly miss-matched furniture. A writing table has both wicker-seated chairs and a picnic table bench positioned around it. An overstuffed chair has ratty upholstery, and linoleum covers parts of the floor where other parts are left bare, etc. All this is made the more surreal by Ingrid Goude's elegant manner and pearls, sipping her mixed drink from a martini glass.What makes this so brain boggling is that director, Ray Kellogg, was the special effects man that gave The Day The Earth Stood Still its high-toned, expensive polish. What the fuck was he thinking here? Lord have mercy, even Edward D. Wood, Jr., certainly no stickler for set detail by a wide margin, often managed more consistent and realistic environs for his actors.Granted, Kellogg was hogtied hand and foot for cash, but still one has to wonder what this big-studio professional thought as he watched the daily rushes (if he even did). Was he sickened by the cheapness? Disheartened? Did he feel as though he was sliding down the side of Hollywood Hills into the slimy pits of forgotten talent?Or perhaps, just perhaps, he enjoyed doing a quickie for money. Doing his best as circumstances would allow, surely, but absolutely loving not sweating those fussy details that mark an A picture. Why not imagine he enjoyed himself? After all, to paraphrase Milton, might Kellogg not have preferred to rule in squalor that serve in class? There is something in the freewheeling, imaginative nature of the film that suggests so. At any rate, it's as good an explanation as any and certainly more fun than the alternatives. Let's not forget, if a quickie for money was the order of the day, Kellogg hit a home run here. Shrews cost twenty-three grand to make and grossed a million bucks at the box office in US ticket sales alone.12 I choose to believe Kellogg enjoyed the holy hell out of making this film. After all, he turned out another equally brisk, shoe-string production in the same year - The Giant Gila Monster! How much fun can one guy have?The Good Stuff, Part IV: Tense Action and Low-Tech FinaleKellogg didn't seem much interested in directed actors, whom he left to their own devices (this is particularly true of the beautiful Ms. Goude, whom he let flounder in choppy waters without once offering a life preserver), and I'm betting second takes were extremely rare; but Kellogg did have a flair for claustrophobic action. In several scenes near the end, as the storm is building and the shrews gnaw and claw their way through the adobe walls, he manages to crank the tension nicely.And the ending has a real low tech charm all its own.As the film speeds to finale, the shrews have managed to claw and bite their way through the walls, and are overrunning the house. Captain Sherman and the three survivors (The doctor, his daughter, and the nefarious Jerry) flee the house into the camp's courtyard and frantically scrounge for debris to block the door, hoping to trap the shrews in the house long enough to permit a scramble to the roof for a last stand. While gathering together old crates and wood for an impromptu barricade, Sherman comes across some old, empty metal chemical containers. It's a eureka moment.
The "Sherman Tank" marches toward the sea - The Killer Shrews (1959) "Doctor," he says, "we can use these old chemical drums as individual tanks!" Sherman demonstrates by scrambling under and inside a tank, crouching tightly. "See?" he says form inside the tank. Seized by inspiration, the captain empties three other drums, straps them together with rope, and cuts sight slits into each drum with a conveniently found acetylene torch. "Look, it's going to be rough," he says to the others, "but we should be able to duck-walk to the beach."Granted, this isn't exactly the heroic rallying cry to action generally given when dynamic hero saves the cinematic day, and all concerned seem barely willing. Jerry, in fact, takes a pass on crouching in the rusty, heavy contraption and decides to take his chances on the roof with his trusty shotgun (Jerry, being an ass hole, dies a bit later - squealing under a pile of shrews, his legs straight up in the air).Forging ahead, the three just manage to get the thing tilted on it's side. "Ok, doctor," says a panting Sherman, indicating that the doc should crawl inside a tank. "uh huh," says the doctor, equally breathless and without enthusiasm, bowing his head and crawling inside.And, just as Sherman as promised, the passage to the beach is rough. We see the three pouring sweat in their cramped drums, gasping for breath as they duck-walk each grueling foot - holding the massive tanks inches off the uneven ground. The shrews swarm the tanks, slashing with tooth and claw at the thin slits, as the intrepid party inch their way along. We see Ann scream several times as the shrews thrust their heads under the bottom of the tank, trying to get inside. The crew even has to take a rest stop, as Ann comes close to fainting from the exertion. Finally at the beach, all nearly drown as they have to wade into the water until the level inside the tanks rises to their chins. They all manage to crawl under the tanks and swim for the boat, which is anchored 50 or so yards offshore.
Captain Sherman and survivors - gazing back. The Killer Shrews (1959) A slam-bang, action-packed finish, this isn't. No atomic device is rigged, turning Shrew Island into a mushroom cloud. No incendiary weapon is created with aerosol cans, shards of flint, and petrol by which our captain can scorch a flaming trail down to the ship; and no grid of electricity is engineered from chicken wire and a generator. Nope, nothing like that. What happens here is a grinding, waddle-march under the heat of a tropic sun, inside metal tubs which must reek of benzene.And the fun part is that not only does this brutal, blunt, effective solution fit the character of the film and lead actor perfectly, it might really work. Sherman's solution completely and utterly lacks dramatic punch, but the details are pretty well thought out and viable. Hell, the captain even rigs a line attached to the camp's exit, so that he can trip the latch and swing open the door once all are safely inside their tanks.No question, this finale lacks the octane to suit the testosterone-choked likes of a Jason Statham, but it suits the touchy James Best just fine. What his methodical crawl in a smelly, heavy tank-o-tubs lacks in dynamism it makes up for in function. On a good day, I might even have thought of it myself and saved the day. Anyone might have.That's another fun part in a movie full of fun parts. Next: more fun with Kellogg's The Giant Gila Monster!

A mutant shrew meets its maker. The Killer Shrews (1959)

Cast: James Best, Ken Curtis, Baruch Lumet, Gordon McLendon, and Ingrid Goude

Afternoon cocktails before the storm. (James Best, Ingrid Goude, and Baruch Lumet)

Captain Thorne Sherman (James Best) - The Killer Shrews (1959)

The "Sherman Tank" marches toward the sea - The Killer Shrews (1959)

Captain Sherman and survivors - gazing back. The Killer Shrews (1959)
1. After the war, Kellogg was assigned to film the War Crime Trials at Nuremberg. Most of the footage commonly used and seen of these famous trails is the work of Kellogg.
2. Curtis was inducted into the Western Performers Hall of Fame in 1981.
3. McLendon easily rates at least a post, or book, all to himself. Among many fascinating life tidbits, McLendon created the Top 40 Radio Format, edited Yale's Skull and Bones; and was the first person Jack Ruby wished to speak with once in custody after gunning down Lee Harvey Oswald - and these speaking points don't even scratch the highlights.
4. Warren, Bill. Keep Watching the Skies! American Science Fiction Films of the Fifties, The 21st Edition (North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers; 2010), 497.
5. Ibid., 337.
6. Latshaw, Steve. Psychotronic Video #17, Winter, 1994.
7. Alligator poaching is both reprehensible and illegal. The fellows I know that poach remain completely OK with both its reprehensibility and illegality. As of this writing, my disapproval has not effected any change in practice or attitude. To appreciate how I, an aging librarian who has trouble killing a rat caught in a sticky trap, could find himself occasionally sitting at the same table with poachers - one would have to live in south Florida for a period longer than the tourist season.
8. (http://members.vienna.at/shrew/cult-poison.html).
9. Father of director, Sidney Lumet.
10. The very phrase "MST3K," always spoken with a hopeful, expectant grin, brings a black mood. Loving the genre of 50s sci-fi like I do, it's often assumed I also love Mystery Science Theater 3000. But why in the name of bloody Jesus would I enjoy, even for a moment; this vile, ugly, soulless enterprise which ridicules the very films and film makers I love?
11. Warren Stevens as "Doc" Ostrow (dreamy, sensitive scientist) and Leslie Nielsen as Commander John Adams (as square-jawed as they come).
12. The Killer Shrews, Internet Movie Database(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052969/)2. Curtis was inducted into the Western Performers Hall of Fame in 1981.
3. McLendon easily rates at least a post, or book, all to himself. Among many fascinating life tidbits, McLendon created the Top 40 Radio Format, edited Yale's Skull and Bones; and was the first person Jack Ruby wished to speak with once in custody after gunning down Lee Harvey Oswald - and these speaking points don't even scratch the highlights.
4. Warren, Bill. Keep Watching the Skies! American Science Fiction Films of the Fifties, The 21st Edition (North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers; 2010), 497.
5. Ibid., 337.
6. Latshaw, Steve. Psychotronic Video #17, Winter, 1994.
7. Alligator poaching is both reprehensible and illegal. The fellows I know that poach remain completely OK with both its reprehensibility and illegality. As of this writing, my disapproval has not effected any change in practice or attitude. To appreciate how I, an aging librarian who has trouble killing a rat caught in a sticky trap, could find himself occasionally sitting at the same table with poachers - one would have to live in south Florida for a period longer than the tourist season.
8. (http://members.vienna.at/shrew/cult-poison.html).
9. Father of director, Sidney Lumet.
10. The very phrase "MST3K," always spoken with a hopeful, expectant grin, brings a black mood. Loving the genre of 50s sci-fi like I do, it's often assumed I also love Mystery Science Theater 3000. But why in the name of bloody Jesus would I enjoy, even for a moment; this vile, ugly, soulless enterprise which ridicules the very films and film makers I love?
11. Warren Stevens as "Doc" Ostrow (dreamy, sensitive scientist) and Leslie Nielsen as Commander John Adams (as square-jawed as they come).
Want it printable? Download the all-text .pdf of this post for portable reading. Now let's watch a scene from The Killer Shrews!
32 comments:
At last I'm back in blogland with a whole heap of catching up to do, so best start here...
I rely on you to navigate me through this stuff: I've recently watched Shrews, and Gila Monster not long before that, and hadn't realised they were made by the same guy; I tend to think of these movies as all one thing, and it's great to be guided through them more minutely.
I can only echo your sentiments about Mystery Science Whatever The Fuck It's Called 3000.
I've only come across it on the internet but yes: utterly hideous, and the work of true morons enslaved to the culture of cynicism that is killing us all. The trouble is that good people like it, and think I will too, and it's difficult explaining why you don't without condemning them too. The closest I can get to explaining my position is that I don't think any film is 'so bad it's good'. I just don't have that Golden Turkey gene. If I like it I don't think it's bad. People who claim to like something 'because it's bad' are, I think, simply too scared to take a contrary stance on something that is only ever mocked. But the trouble with just turning up to sneer is that you miss so much - as this site, above all sources, so invaluably points out.
Anyway, must get back to catching up...
Matthew: " The closest I can get to explaining my position is that I don't think any film is 'so bad it's good'. I just don't have that Golden Turkey gene."
That's it exactly. I have faced the same problem you've mentioned. Folks I like liking that wretched show. The conversation always takes a nasty turn when I am told to "lighten up."
My only response is "I can't, God damn you to everlasting Hell, I just can't. Were not talking about cotton candy, you worthless son of a bitch. These are films I love,"
Hmmm, I think, heck, I KNOW I'm guilty of citing the 'it's so bad it's good' argument for justifying why I love certain films. However, I really don't believe that I turn up 'just to sneer' - I genuinely enjoy watching these films, and rather than condemn them, I always look for the things that maybe aren’t initially evident. It is often what the filmmaker intended to do, or say, or convey with these films that makes me look at them more carefully – and consider them more than just ‘fun’ flicks. Corman is one of my favourite filmmakers and a shining example of a filmmaker who never had much money or time – but still managed to make films on a shoestring that had interesting things to say. I enjoy the chaotic beatnik vibe his work exudes.
Such films are, to me, infinitely more interesting than films considered 'classics.'
Do you think it is just as bad when people claim to enjoy such films for nostalgic/sentimental reasons than when they say they enjoy watching movies because they’re ‘so bad they’re good?
Great post Mykal – I haven’t seen Killer Shrews in quite some time, and (you’ll probably hate me for admitting this), the last time I watched it was after dinner with a few friends (there was wine) and I may have suggested watching it because I believed it was ‘fun.’ After reading your piece I will chose my words more carefully from now on!
And welcome back to the blogosphere, Matthew. Hope you’re well!
James: Thanks for chiming in!
I am much more understanding of the person that loves these films because of nostalgia than I am of the "so bad it's good" school. I suppose because I can understand that position better and, if fact, at least part of my love for these films is tinged with a nostalgia for a more . . . what? Innocent time? Watching an Ed Wood film, for instance, is a thrilling, nearly heartbreaking experience for me. There is an "innocence" to Wood, and also with film makers like him (Richard Cunha, Bert Gordon, Bernard Kowalski, Ray Kellogg, etc,) that I find gripping. They tried so hard, and were so committed to the art of film making, with so little to work with. And, not for nothing, were able to make some wonderful films - and great moments in film - into the bargain.
You really strike a perfect chord with Corman - perfect example of the kind of film maker that I love. And you are correct! To me his films are at least as fascinating (and often more so) than those films made by (insert-name-of-legendary-director).
With the whole "fun" film thing, please don't ever feel you have to watch what you say. I know, on this issue, I'm really bucking the tide what I chide folks for finding "fun" in atomic-age sci-fi. Besides, you were drinking wine.
I always remember something, though, when I find myself chortling at the often clumsy film making or poor dialogue. I member the widow of film maker Bert Gordon (Amazing Colossal Man, Beginning of the End, Earth Vs. the Spider, etc) speaking on a commentary track of one of her husband's movies. The expert talking with her (I think it was Tom Weaver) mentioned that Mystery Science Theater 3000 had "done" several of her husband's films. There was a moment of quiet, then Mrs. Gordon said, very softly, "I don't like that show." When prodded by Weaver, she explained that MST3K "made fun of Bert's films." She went on to explain how much her husband loved making films, how committed he was to making the best films he could, how he was very proud to be a film maker.
I always remember how hurt her voice was, underlined with a kind of helplessness over the show's popularity, fully aware that she was simply whispering into a wind full of barking, stupid laughter.
I had never looked at it that way - from the film maker's (or film maker's loved one's) point of view. The show really is all about ugly, braying ridicule. It really does, by design, completely strip a movie, and all the artists involved, of dignity. Oops - I feel a rant coming on.
I always think of something Valda Hansen remembered Ed Wood saying:
""Do you think I care if I'm a millionaire? No... what hurts me is the cruelty toward me... I'm only trying to do the best at what I feel. All this garbage I see, they praise. And me, they seem to love to deride me."
I find his a greater tragedy even than Lugosi's, because while Lugosi did not live long enough to see his revival as a film icon, Wood lived long enough to catch the first wave of Golden Turkey fame but not quite long enough to see more sensitive voices turn him into a genuine hero, which came later. To die as the worst director in history, with snotty college types chortling over the films you poured yourself into, is worse than dying a nobody.
Matthew: You've touched on the argument used by the Golden Turkey crowd. "Hey, we bring these films back from obscurity." In the case of Ed Wood's Plan Nine, a case might be made for this argument (although I believe with or without the attentions of MST3K and the like, these film makers would have had a renaissance of appreciation).
The argument is bullshit at any rate. Should the schoolyard bully brag that his victim – always someone unable for whatever reason to defend himself - has become "famous" around school because of his brutal attentions? As you say, Matthew, better to die in dignified anonymity than to spend your final years a clown to be laughed at. It still makes me boil, these shit-faced little pricks that gave Wood the Worst Director award. He carried that to his grave.
I just reminded myself of something the afore-mentioned Mrs. Gordon said on that commentary track – how her deceased husband, Bert Gordon, was “unable to defend himself.”
I don't have a lot of patience for "so bad it's good" movies, which seems like an oxymoron to me. I sat through The Room last year with an increasing level of discomfort, made worse because Tommy Wiseau, the director, was present and had apparently acquiesced to the status of his movie. I felt bad for him, because I think he tried to make the best film he could within the bounds of his talent. You're always naked when you put something you make in front of an audience.
And yet, I still watch these kinds of movies occasionally. I think you can get an education from them. I admit that I have a fair amount of admiration for the Killer Shrews, because the monsters are actually interesting. It's fun watching the filmmakers give the audience a money shot without being able to spend any money on it. Sometimes, this is art. Usually, it's not, though.
Chapeau Mr. Mykal! Your blog is a treasure. I like the way you talk about movies often neglected or campy mocked by "trash worshippers". I support your scientific but never academic-pedantic approach to this matter.
For I think that Edgar G. Ulmer or Edward L. Cahn are closer to Luis Bunuel and Orson Welles rather than many others "so called auteurs". That's it!
And then..."just for fun" is not bad!!
Morbius: I always think it's particularly sad when a director like Wiseau is put in this position; that is, having to denounce his own work for the hope of some meager publicity. Surely, he didn't set out to make a "worst film ever made." Despite a brave public face (if that is what was offered), such an experience has to be humiliating.
Doctor SINema. Thanks for the kind words! I love Ulmer and will day do one of his films. My favorite from Edward Cahn is Creature With The Atom Brain. I think you are right – his films are absolutely fascinating. I’ve posted about Creature With The Atom Brain and Zombies of Mura Tau. If interested, please check the movie index in the sidebar!
On the MST3K issue, well, I enjoy the show and I also love the films for what they are -- not "so bad it's good," and I honestly enjoy them, unironically, more than anything that's coming out of Hollywood these days. Some of my favorite films I might not have discovered if I hadn't seen them featured on MST3K.
Also, just a note: Bert Gordon isn't dead. He's still around, hitting up conventions, in fact, promoting his recent memoirs.
Bill: Hell, you're right about Gordon. Now I'm going to have to go through my films and find out who it was. The woman on the commentary track was a widow of a diseased film maker of the same era, as well known as Gordon. My memory of it was that the film maker was Gordon, but clearly not. Crap, now I have to go scrounging until I can find out, It's going to drive me crazy now.
But thanks for the correction.
Bill: OK, mystery solved. The commentary track I was remembering was for the Bert I. Gordon film, The Beginning of the End (1957). The expert commentary was done by Bruce Kimmel, with guest commentary contributed by Gordon's ex-wife Flora Lang (who at the time of filming was Flora Gordon) and Bert Gordon's daughter, Susan Gordon.
The moment I was remembering came after host, Bruce Kimmel, mentions MST3K specifically; saying how much the show irritated him because it "makes fun" of the sci-fi films from the 1950s, including a couple of Gordon's films. Flora Lang responds after a moment, her voice full unmistakable hurt and subdued but raw anger (he voice even cracks a bit), saying, "People that do that (MST3K) don't understand the art at all."
Flora Lang (who was given associate producer credit on many of her then-husband's films) comments many times how much of himself Gordon gave to these films, how he took them completely seriously, and always sought to make the best picture he could. In fact, many of the Gordon films - now thought of as "B" pictures - were in fact headliners, and all made money.
For anyone interest, the DVD for this movie, The Beginning of the End, is absolutely beautiful, and the commentary track is fascinating. I highly recommend it. I think of it as Gordon's masterpiece. I even posted on it. Click HERE if interested!
Mykal, what you said about Bert Gordon's widow confirms what I had previously thought (hoped) - that these filmmakers were passionate about their projects and cared deeply for them - which makes them even more of a joy to watch. That Mr Gordon had been 'proud to be a filmmaker' also speaks volumes. And for me, Ed Wood just epitomises that 'chasing the dream' attitude I don’t think anyone should ever mock. At least he went for it and gave it his all. Though as Matthew so rightly pointed out, it is a shame he didn't live to see how embraced his films have become.
However, I'm still a 'trash worshipper'; though I don't consider myself to be so in a mocking, smug way. I genuinely love these films and can appreciate the work gone into creating them just as much as the odd awkward moment that occurs in them through lack of budget/experience/talent.
James: As it turned out, it was Gordon's ex-wife (see comment above), but the details are all the same.
After reading the posts on your fine blog for a couple of years now, I've never read one that felt condescending or ridiculing. You always treat all films, even ones not well made, as an attempt at art. That's what I like, and I wish there was more of it.
Mykal, this might be your best work!
i've heard that McLendon pitched in the money for these films so he could show them at his drive-in, the Mclendon Triple in Missouri City, a five-minute drive from John Foster Dulles High, where i graduated from in '77. i only saw one film there(that i remember), The Exorcist. i went to check out if it was still standing in the late 80s and it was- in pristine condition! i wandered through the snack bar and the three projection booths and picked up a few junk souvenirs. i went back a couple of years later and someone had trashed the entire place...
Prof: So good to hear from you! Mr. McLendon wsa one interesting fellow. Both this film, and the film I will posting about next, The Giant Gila Monster, were made by Kellogg in Texas, and McLendon was a producer on Gila as well. In Gila, McLendon worked in some wonderfully shameless promotion for his Houston radio station (KILT).
What I wouldn't give to see the McLendon Triple in its heyday!
i always listened to KILT before school and fell asleep to it at night. that's back when you could hear "I Think I Love You" and "Come Together" on the same station!
Great treatment as usual, Mykal... and worth the wait, I might add ;)
I'll confess... This one scared the tar outta me out as a kid! I actually remember my sister Judy, dialing thru the channels [Lord, I am OLD] and saying, "let's watch this, it has Festus in it." Then I remember freaking O U T... lol
I like it a lot when you go deep on unappreciated flicks like this... it's like a whole approach that's lacking when you look them up in standard movie guides. You really need to consider getting this stuff into a book someday, you know that?
BTW, not to beat a dead horse here, but I do now agree with you re: MST3K. I admit I liked it for a while in the '90s, but I soon washed my hands of it when they totally and leeringly dissed good movies like TEENAGE CAVEMAN and THE REBEL SET... and I suddenly realized it takes NO talent to do that. If it had actually been done w/ appreciation it might have been a little different, but that "tragically hip" smirk in the POV finally left me cold... and as you say, there's a whole heritage being belittled here.
[Not to mention the fanbase of that show is the most annoying and snotty buncha geeks ever-- which is saying a LOT... I know 'cuz I am a geek myself... lol]
Anyway, thanks again... and KEEP writing, brother!
Albie: That smirk is the reason I hate them.
Thanks for the kind words, my friend. I'll try to post my Kellogg follow up, The Giant Gila Monter, in a more timely manner!
But screw MST3K and the horse they rode in on.
This is going to sound weird from someone like me who owns every episode of MST3K, but I agree with you.
The first episodes I saw were ones that involved Frank Conniff, a movie geek who knew a lot of film trivia and whose overall attitude to some of these "so bad it's good" films seemed at first to be pretty respectful. But the more episodes I watched, the more interviews with the cast I read, the more convinced I became that the entire enterprise was an early example of hipster sneering. Reading the current Twitters, blogs, interviews with the cast seems to bear this out.
If MST3K started out as an update/homage to the horror hosts of the 1950s, it soon became a foundation for them to trash actors, directors, and films that did not live up to the white straight male Midwestern middle class norm they (consciously or not) endorsed. Over the years, the riffing seemed to increasingly operate on the motto that being jerks meant being funny. If that meant personal attacks on women for being inherently bad directors (Soultaker) or incessant fat jokes or gay jokes or "black guy" jokes (San Francisco International), then they were fine with that.
There's an intro by Mike Nelson to a DVD release of the MST3K Mitchell where he practically glows while bragging that Joe Don Baker wanted to beat him up for making fun of him in a couple of episodes -- and the fact that this incident never really happened (it's explained away as "I was told by someone that Joe Don Baker wanted to beat me up") doesn't seem to matter to the fans.
Which brings up my second problem with MST3K -- the fans. They don't know jack shit about B movies. You should have heard the MST3K communities when Corman won the honorary Academy Award. Many were in an uproar, insisting that Corman was the worst director ever. Most of these people admitted (without a single ounce of irony) that they had never seen a Corman film except the ones on MST3K.
The Satellite News MST3K info site has similar issues, such as their "official" review of the MST3K movie which states definitively that This Island Earth is a bad film and implies that you're an idiot if you like the film. Actually, that's the attitude most fans have about anything that was on MST3K, and the fervor with which they defend the show is very off-putting. Just check any negative reviews on Amazon and see what I mean. Oh, if there are any negative reviews left; some fans complained so much that Amazon removed several reviews a couple years ago.
I get a lot of enjoyment out of MST3K with the neutral jokes, the "suddenly I have a refreshing mint flavor" when Cal's jet glows green in TIE. I think silly things like that to myself when watching a movie, so I laugh because I identify. But every episode there is something that brings me back to the fact that they are not laughing with the films, not even close.
I went on way too long with this, but just last night I was once again wrestling with this whole MST3K thing, so your post was timely (only because I'm weeks behind on my blogs though... sorry 'bout that.)
And now, I'd like to actually talk about the movie!
James Best is rapidly becoming one of my favorite 1950s and 1960s B movie actors. I grew up with him as Roscoe P Coltrane and he irritated the heck out of my 7-year-old self. (I liked his dog Flash, though.) But then back in the early '90s when A&E showed movies, I saw him in Ode to Billy Joe, and while it was not a great movie, I was shocked to discover Best was a good actor. When I caught him in "The Last Rites of Jeff Myrtlebank," I was hooked.
He has the soulful eyes routine (as Chuck Jones would say) down pat, which couples so dramatically with his handsome looks and tall build. He's never dull to watch.
The part where the shrews are biting through the fence freaks me the heck out. I've seen some really bad puppet monsters in my day, but even though you know these are puppets, you're still frightened. It's so effective.
I always though that the set was deliberately made to look ratty, since the walls look to have been painted in two coats, one darker speckled coat over the lighter color to mimic age and wear. But perhaps it was meant to mimic adobe and didn't succeed in that. Ingrid's pearls and gown seemed more like a B-movie affectation to make sure the beautiful woman was glammed up even if the rest of the cast and set were made to look authentic to the overall aesthetics.
I shamefully admit I didn't get "Sherman tank" until your writeup. It's probably even explicitly said in the movie and I still didn't get it.
Stacia: Great to hear from you. I've watched a couple of episodes, and it was like sitting in a room with a clutch of spoiled teenagers desperate to show how smart and funny they are. I actually shouted once at the screen, "Shut the fuck up!" because I wanted to watch the movie. Make that talentless, spoiled, desperate teenagers. It’s too bad Joe Don Baker didn’t kick the shit out of Nelson. I'd buy a ticket to that event, even treat my friends.
I've been a fan of Best since the afore mentioned Andy Griffith Show. I really thought his character, Jim Lindsey, as a hero. His character was a local Mayberry guitar player that, through the clever work of Andy, gets a job with a big city band. Just a killer performance (two episodes). And, if you haven’t seen Ride Lonesome, let me heartily recommend it. Best was great in that one, too.
Great article. When I think of James Best I think of "The Andy Griffith Show" but I've been seeing glimpses of him in quite a lot 50s B Films. The latest was in a couple of scenes in the beginning of "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms, he plays the part of some kind of radar technician. His total on screen time is probably less than a minute ...
Dave: Thanks for the kind words. That's the cool thing about Best. No matter how small the part, he's memorable.
Wow. I've always respected you and the devotion & detail you bring to your reviews here. But how the hell did I ever miss the fact that you and apparently a lot of your pals are vitriolic MST3K haters?
1) To you and everyone else who bashed it in the comments: Way to fucking generalize everyone who likes that show. While I can agree that some of the fans of the show are intolerable dorks, the same holds true for any kind of medium that has a devoted following. That doesn't mean that EVERYONE who enjoys MST3K simply turns up to "mock and sneer while missing so much", to paraphrase Mr. Coniam up there...
2) ...because as a youngster, I might'a never sat through something like THE KILLER SHREWS without the wisecracks of the MST3K crew to make it more attractive. Whether it burns your ass to admit it or not, the MAJORITY of people, even REAL HONEST-TO-GOD sci-fi, horror, & movie fans, consider these films cheezy and just plain bad. Many of them were made as complete rip-offs of the general 50's creature craze and were simply created to turn a quick drive-in buck. I'd venture to guess that most (The tearful widow of Bert I. Gordon aside) of the producers, directors, and actors involved don't even care to remember their involvement with these films in half as much detail as YOU afford them... you ever watch some of the interviews on these things and the director can barely remember or be bothered to give a shit with who starred in the film being presented? I think common sense, as much as anything, backs this up - if these are all such treasured gems, why the hell are most of them languishing on a trillion different shitty public domain "value-pak" transfers? So to come off as if these (or Tommy Wiseau's incredibly hilarious/awful) THE ROOM, for that matter) were all intense labors of love that are being unfairly assailed by "snobs" is just fucking crazy.
3) People enjoy things in different ways. Maybe you and your cronies do in fact consider yourselves the "experts" on Roger Corman, Bert I. Gordon and their low-budget colleagues, but there ARE other valid perspectives. Corman and Wynorski themselves have more than clarified their stance that many of their films are simply creatures of budget, no more or less, and not to be taken that seriously. I have a friend who has logged many hours of interview time with both of those film-makers and while he has nothing but respect for them as professionals and even trailblazers in the genre, he's also the first to laugh at the chintziness and corner cutting that so often lends itself to chuckles in sub-par quickie productions. You CAN have it both ways - and MST3K is not the only group "guilty" of this. Elvira made a whole career out of it, too (well, that and her boobs). And probably the REAL and FOREMOST expert on drive-in cult cinema - Joe Bob Briggs - frequently shows reverence for the same films he skewers and pokes fun at.
4) Mr. Coniam mentioned a culture of cynicism. I think a REAL culture of cynicism would have bulldozed most of the copies of Bert I. Gordon's films into a trash hole by now. I think it's more a culture of ENLIGHTENMENT, if anything, that allows these films to be appreciated in a "different" way. Rather than just ignoring shitty one-off films with laughable FX and wooden, dated performances, people are acting as cultural anthropologists, unearthing old movies and blowing the dust off of them, laughing and having a good time with them in their own way. Whether or not you or Mrs. Gordon like it or not. It's better to be remembered in a humorous way than relegated to the garbage can of cinematic history, I'd say... and many of the directors featured on MST3K have encouraged the razzing of their films, knowing full well they produced turkeys, and just being happy anyone is still bothering to discuss their work in ANY form these days. So if film-makers can't take a joke and stand up to the scrutiny of the ages and of people who will later view their films in a different context, then perhaps they're too goddamn sensitive in the first place and shouldn't be making movies to begin with. Or perhaps they should have just made a BETTER movie. You don't see Corman crying about THE GUNSLINGER getting jabbed at by Nelson and co.
Despite your assertions to the contrary, it is JUST ENTERTAINMENT. If someone (or in this case, a LOT of someones) finds their own form of fun in these movies, it's no less valid for them to enjoy them on their level than it is for you to enjoy them on YOUR ultra-sensitive wavelength. The beautiful thing about crappy movies of today AND yesterday is that no one needs a PhD in 50's atomic monster film to bring their two cents to the table, and maybe a few laughs along with it... and to suggest otherwise makes YOU as guilty of snobbery and hipster bullshit as the people you accuse.
That said - it does kind of irk me when people automatically use PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE as a lazy "go-to" for "worst movie ever made". I do appreciate the earnestness and imagination of some of Ed Wood's work; I certainly don't think he came off THAT much schlockier than many of his contemporaries, and I can easily name a fucking THOUSAND so-called modern and more "professional" films that I would hate on before I would take a swipe at PLAN 9. But that doesn't mean PLAN 9 doesn't have it's own moments of utter silliness.
If you can't laugh at these things, what CAN you laugh at? I don't go to the theater and shout insults and barbs at the screen, thereby ruining others' enjoyment of a film, no matter how shitty it might be. But in my own living room, with friends, the natural fact is that we tend to make jokes. That's the whole idea MST3K is based on; it existed before the show, they just took the concept and made a sci-fi cottage industry out of it. If I - or you, for that matter - reeeeeally wants to have the wonderment of whatever film you are in particular reverence of at any given moment all to yourself, then by all means, stay holed up in your dark basement with only the flicker of the television to keep you company. I do the same thing sometimes. But as per movie watching goes on a social level, people are gonna laugh at dumb shit, and faulting them for that is peevish and, as I mentioned earlier, makes YOU the snob more than anyone else. Get over yourselves.
...and, as an addendum to my previous long-windedness, I just feel the need to clarify: I understand if you don't find Mystery Science Theater 3000 funny or enjoyable, and I'm certainly not saying everyone has to appreciate it. But to generalize that all/most fans of MST3K are somehow snobbish pricks and to condemn those who, in a fairly good-natured manner, mock or tease something you happen to have great personal affection/reverence for is one-sided and casts YOU in the negative light, as opposed to the other way around.
J. Astro: I think Bert Gordon's ex wife said it best: "The people that enjoy that show (MST3K) just don't understand the art."
Thanks for commenting!
I won't loiter long, but suffice to say that:
"Way to fucking generalize everyone who likes that show. While I can agree that some of the fans of the show are intolerable dorks... That doesn't mean that EVERYONE who enjoys MST3K simply turns up to "mock and sneer while missing so much", to paraphrase Mr. Coniam up there..."
... is about as complete a misrepresentation of what I actually said ("the trouble is that good people like it, and think I will too, and it's difficult explaining why you don't without condemning them too") as it is possible to arrive at without actually taking lessons in the art.
I was saying that some of the people I like most think that these films are there to be mocked, because that is what programmes like MSetc tell them.
My point was as simple as I made it appear. These films are being laughed at for the worst possible reasons, because they do not meet certain arbitrary standards of verrisimilitude in budget and special effects. And you just know that these prats who are having such a good time hardy-harring at a heartfelt, cheap, endlessly creative and imaginative monster movie are in the next moment off to the multiplex to watch Thor.
Programmes like this cheat their viewers out of rewarding experiences by encouraging them not to use their imaginations, to close down their ability to respond to creative solutions to creative problems and to demand Hollywood excess in place of personal vision. Knee jerk cynicism, as standard response to everything other than what's right here right now, gives me a fucking pain. If you got into these films that way then good for you, but you are an exception. Thousands more will have had a potentially enriching experience closed down because the alternative might be to seem uncool.
The humour of this particular programme is also, on its own terms, crass in the extreme.
But perhaps none of this would matter overmuch if it were not for the abundant evidence, which we have laboured to bring to your attention, that the people who made these films were personally wounded by all the sneering. That's nasty.
That's all. Incidentally, you'll find you don't need to take three goes at it if you avoid just saying the same thing over and over.
Yeah, I'm not sure why someone who wrote 3 long posts full of insults and slams while whining that HE didn't like being insulted merits any kind of real response.
That said, I must point out that his rant is EXACTLY the kind of bullshit better-than-you attitude from MST3K fans I was complaining about earlier on. It's all about the rants on how these films suck as proven by the majority opinion and common sense, and those who like, appreciate, or study these films are oversensitive asshole basement dwellers "holed up in your dark basement with only the flicker of the television to keep you company" who don't GET how right MST3K fans are.
He also either didn't really read "your friends" or he decided to ignore what I said, but I come from the perspective of being an MST3K fan since the mid 1990s who has seen every episode. I participated on the Usenet group and every forum that has popped up since. It's not knee jerk generalizing in my case, as much as he wishes he could dismiss it as such.
To Matthew and Stacia - aah, forgive me if I went on too long with my knee-jerk, angry reaction to your posts. I'm sorry I offended your delicate sensibilities by being such a prick. It just seemed like the environment against MST3K was plenty toxic here already, so I didn't stop to think that I'd be out of place in any way with my own input. I guess it's only cool to be angry if I was AGREEING with you. My bad.
And Matthew, since you were willing to stray off-topic and critique my "comment style" by belittling me for using three posts, allow me to inquire on your own approach: in your first post, you refer to it as "Mystery Science Whatever The Fuck It's Called 3000". The word is "Theater". You almost had it, except for that one word. Could you really not remember the word "theater", or did you just do that for so-called "effect"? Jeez, talk about cynicism.
And Stacia, I DID in fact note that you opened by saying you'd seen every episode, yet your status as a "fan" is sure hard to discern from there on out, considering how anti-MST3K you go on to position yourself as throughout the rest of the post. If you had so many problems with it (except of course for the "neutral jokes"), I kinda wonder why you continued to watch 'em at all. I suppose if I felt the need to go on later to "apologize" for a show, I wouldn't be bothering to watch to begin with.
And yes, I acted all insulted and in turn spoke insultingly to those who I felt had done the initial insulting. And now you have responded in kind by labeling ME the insulter, as if everyone was all sunshine and puppy dogs and deep thoughts before I showed and ruined everything. How clever. *yawn*.
Good day to ya, Mykal.
J. Astro: You mention that prior to your three-post tirade that the environment was “pretty toxic” against MST3K; but this isn’t true. Several others commented in defense of the show, had expressed themselves as fans, and had disagreed strongly with my views of the program. But all prior comments were thoughtful and done without rancor. It is you alone that brought a hateful, petty, and personally insulting tone to the comments.
This comment thread is closed.
Post a Comment