Images of Blood in American Cinema

The Tingler to The Wild Bunch

Kjetil Rødje

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317118770
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Popular Culture
• Index: Social Sciences

Through studying images of blood in film from the mid-1950s to the end of the 1960s, this path-breaking book explores how blood as an (audio)visual cinematic element went from predominately operating as a signifier, providing audiences with information about a film's plot and characters, to increasingly operating in terms of affect, potentially evoking visceral and embodied responses in viewers. Using films such as The Return of Dracula, The Tingler, Blood Feast, Two Thousand Maniacs, Color Me Blood Red, Bonnie and Clyde, and The Wild Bunch, Rødje takes a novel approach to film history by following one (audio)visual element through an exploration that traverses established standards for film production and reception. This study does not heed distinctions regarding to genres (horror, western, gangster) or models of film production (exploitation, independent, studio productions) but rather maps the operations of cinematic images across marginal as well as more traditionally esteemed cinematic territories. The result is a book that rethinks and reassembles cinematic practices as well as aesthetics, and as such invites new ways to investigate how cinematic images enter relations with other images as well as with audiences.

Chapter 1
Blood Enters the Frame: Exploitations and Attractions in the 1950s

Blood took on new roles in American cinema from the late 1950s onwards. Standing out as an element of attraction, blood would seek the attention of audiences on the lookout for new cinematic thrills. This emergence of sensational blood images went together with changes in the American film industry and the introduction of new modes of low-budget motion pictures that would integrate elements from the previously distinct systems of exploitation and narrative cinema.

The 1950s are often described as the end of the era of classical Hollywood cinema (Bordwell, Staiger and Thompson 1985; Schatz 1988).¹ The standardized modes of production and cinematic style, characteristic of the major film studios, were challenged by a wide number of factors contributing to far-reaching changes across the American movie industry. Besides the implications for the production of films by the Hollywood studios, these changes also affected the production of independent low-budget films from the mid/late-1950s onwards. Independently produced exploitation cinema previously had operated separately from the mainstream film industry. However, in the 1950s the earlier clear-cut borders between independent exploitation features and the A and B productions of Hollywood studios dissolved. This opened up opportunities for the production of new forms of low-budget exploitation films that would eventually venture into more daring modes of fiction cinema. These films differed from classical Hollywood cinema in that there was a stronger emphasis on sensational attractions relative to narrative and character development.

Exploitation defined

In an analysis of exploitation as a concept as it is used by the motion picture industry as well as in film literature, Thomas Doherty claims that it has “three distinct and sometimes overlapping meanings” (Doherty 2002, 2). In the first definition, “exploitation” is a promotional strategy for drawing audiences into a movie theater that in principle can be applied to any kind of film and which does not fundamentally differ from promotion strategies and advertising campaigns used today. This definition also makes the movie itself an object that is something to be exploited. The second definition sees the movie as a subject that addresses its audience in an exploitative manner. In this definition Doherty argues that exploitation is a strategy of communication rather than of marketing, where the term “refers to the dialogue a movie establishes with its viewers” (Doherty 2002, 5). While the first definition sees the film being exploited by or through its advertising campaign, the second definition sees the audience being exploited by the film. Doherty argues that these first two meanings of the concept, understood as a strategy of either promotion or communication, have been part of the American motion picture industry from its very beginning. However, the third definition “as a pejorative description for a special kind of motion picture (‘the exploitation film’) is more recent” (Doherty 2002, 6, emphasis in original). Doherty points to a 1946 article in Variety where “exploitation pictures” are referred to as “films with some timely or currently controversial subject which can be exploited, capitalized on, in publicity and advertising” (quoted in Doherty 2002, 6; also see Gray 2004, 48). In a somewhat tautological mode, exploitation here refers to controversial characteristics that enable a film to be promoted in an exploitative manner. Doherty argues that at this point in time “‘exploitation picture’ seems to have had no negative connotations but was used simply to refer to a timely picture with a clear promotional tie-in” (Doherty, 2002, 6). However, by the mid-1950s this had changed and the term had pejorative associations and an “exploitation film was characterized as favoring “the bizarre, the licentious, and the sensational” (Doherty 2002, 7). The subject matter of an exploitation picture now had to be both timely and sensational (Doherty 2002, 6–7), grabbing hot topics of the day and giving them a sensational spin. It is this meaning of the term, in line with the third definition presented above, that describes a particular type of film, which is the foundation for the current understanding of exploitation both within the film industry as well as within the academic field of film studies. This understanding of exploitation also became established among filmmakers themselves from the 1950s onwards. For instance, Roger Corman, the perhaps most famous ‘exploitation’ filmmaker, underlines the timely and sensational aspect of exploitation and claims these “films were so made because you made a film about something wild with a great deal of action, a little sex, and possibly some sort of strange gimmick; they often came out of the day’s headlines” (Corman and Jerome 1990, 34). Exploitation veteran David F. Friedman more straightforwardly defines exploitation as “a movie about subject matters forbidden to mainstream filmmakers. Any subject is acceptable as long as it’s in bad taste” (Friedman and De Nevi 1990, 10).

Classical exploitation cinema

Exploitation as a specific kind of cinema predated the 1950s. In his historical study of exploitation cinema, Eric Schaefer describes the classical exploitation film as a motion picture category that found its form during the 1920s and eventually faded away during the 1950s. This era of “classical exploitation film” co-existed with the dominant classical Hollywood cinema of this period and the transformation it underwent during the 1950s and early 1960s worked closely in tandem with changes in mainstream film production (Schaefer 1999, 8).

Schaefer points out five common features generally adhered to by classical exploitation cinema. First, an exploitation picture has as its primary subject some “forbidden” topic (Schaefer 1999, 5). Next, the “classical exploitation films were made cheaply, with extremely low production values, by small independent firms” (Schaefer 1999, 5). Thirdly, these films had independent distribution, and fourth, “were generally exhibited in theaters not affiliated with the majors” (Schaefer 1999, 6). Finally, exploitation films were released in a considerably smaller number of prints than the mainstream pictures (Schaefer 1999, 6). Due to the small number of prints the films could cover only a very limited geographical area at any given time. Often, in the practice known as ‘roadshowing,’ the distributors quite literally went on the road along with their films, following the prints on their journey from theater to theater and often also advertising the film locally and/or providing entertainment and promotional gimmicks in order to create a spectacle surrounding the films’ screenings. In many cases, like with Mom and Dad (1945), a film produced and distributed by the notorious exploitation promoter Kroger Babb, the screening was accompanied by activities such as lectures, book sales, and so on, generating extra income as well as promoting the picture (Schaefer 1999, 132–4). Another effect of this mode of distribution was the prolonged shelf life of these films, as the films literally went on tour year after year, which meant that several of these ‘classic’ exploitation films stayed in distribution for several decades.

Over-the-top campaigns, offering sensational sights and unique experiences, distinguished exploitation films from mainstream movies and especially targeted “a steady clientele of thrill seekers and single men” (Schaefer 1999, 104). The classical exploitation film itself was often only one of many items in larger carnivalesque exhibition events.² Thus the audience experience of witnessing an exploitation roadshow differed dramatically from attending a regular mainstream double bill. As Schaefer explains, “[t]he act of seeing a film during the heyday of the exploitation roadshow was like attending the theater, the carnival, and the lecture hall. The screening of exploitation films was far from orderly. Films stopped and started for lectures and book pitches. Depending on the type of exploitation movie being shown, a range of ‘unacceptable’ responses could emanate from the audience, including hooting, groans, fainting, vomiting, and more” (Schaefer 1999, 122). Indeed, the exhibition and marketing of exploitation films were in many ways more reminiscent of the sideshow or traveling carnival than of classical Hollywood (Sanjek 2003, 253). Furthermore, exploitation films were in most cases shown exclusively to an adult audience. An adults-only policy served to uphold the appearance of responsibility that the exploitation distributors and exhibitors strove to maintain, while at the same time the policy underlined the distinction between mainstream movies available to all ages and the more forbidden (and thus alluring) fare offered by exploitation films (Schaefer 1999, 124).

Following Bordwell, Staiger and Thompson’s (1985) model for the classical Hollywood mode of production, Schaefer (1999, 43) examines classical exploitation production in terms of their labor force, means of production, and financing. Not surprisingly, exploitation pictures come across as inferior in all of these categories. Low-skilled and often unknown labor both behind and in front of the camera, cheap and primitive equipment, sets and production design, short production schedules, and very low budgets; these were all characteristics of the exploitation movie. The distinctive and low-end quality of production for the classical exploitation film remained stable in this period. Both in terms of spectacular exhibition events and as a distinct mode of production and aesthetic style, the exploitation films differed from Hollywood cinema, a distinction that was obvious to these films’ original audiences.

Exploitation cinema versus B movies

Exploitation pictures differed not only from the Hollywood A movies but also from the B films from the classic Hollywood era (Schaefer 1999, 49–50). As filmmaker Roger Corman emphasizes, the classical B movie was already a phenomenon of the past by the time he entered the film scene in the mid-1950s (Corman and Jerome 1990, 36–7). Unlike the independently produced exploitation movies with which Corman associates himself, the Bs were a product of the Hollywood system; these movies were made quickly and inexpensively to provide filler materials for double-bill bookings (Schaefer 1999, 50; Corman and Jerome 1990, 36; Flynn and McCarthy 1975; Davis 2012). The double bill was the standard for movie exhibition from the early 1930s until around 1950, as audiences came to expect a full evening’s worth of entertainment for their money, with a program of two features as well as additional shorts or newsreels, filling a time-slot of three hours or more. While an A movie, being superior in terms of production value and big name stars, was the main attraction of a double bill, a B movie was designed to fill the ‘bottom-half’ of the bill (Flynn and McCarthy 1975, 14–15; Davis 2012).

Within the Hollywood studios there was a clear separation between A and B productions in terms of budgets and shooting schedules as well as the running time of the movies (Schaefer 1999, 50). The incentives for major studios to produce their own B features to fill slots in their exhibition programs were diminishing, especially from the 1940s onwards, “when rising production costs led the majors to abandon program pictures altogether” (Flynn and McCarthy 1975, 17). Besides rising costs of production, profits gained from B features were already modest at best, as these films, unlike the A features, did not earn a share of the box office income but rather played for a flat rental fee (Flynn and McCarthy 1975, 17; Davis 2012, 7–8).

Outside of the studio system, a number of small-scale production companies, like Monogram and Republic, specialized in B pictures and undercut the majors in terms of budget and production schedules (Schaefer 1999, 50; Flynn 1975; Flynn and McCarthy 1975; Davis 2012). These production companies would provide a steady supply of bottom-half double bill fodder and through miniscule budgets combined with guaranteed exhibition slots and rental income these movies were able to earn a small profit with relatively little risk (Flynn and McCarthy 1975, 16–17).³ These minor operators thus “stepped in to garner the minuscule profits the majors shunned” (Flynn and McCarthy 1975, 17).

The line between B pictures and major productions at times could still become blurred as the minor production companies would occasionally offer more prestigious fare in between their run-of-the mill genre films. This became especially evident towards the end of the classical Hollywood era with more extravagant Republic pictures such as Rio Grande (1950) and The Quiet Man (1952) both directed by John Ford, Secret Beyond the Door (1948) by Fritz Lang, Macbeth (1948) by Orson Welles, or Sands of Iwo Jima (1949) by Allan Dwan (Flynn and McCarthy, 1975, 30). While Republic was the ‘high-end’ B production company, shoestring companies like Production Releasing Corporation (PRC) occupied the other end of the scale, only a notch above the exploitation filmmakers in terms of production quality (Schaefer 1999, 50–51; Dixon 2010, 55).

The production practices of these B studios could resemble the exploitation operators in terms of how they “displayed endless imagination in their budget-cutting techniques. Inexpensive—and often inexpressive—acting, minimal sets, hack scripts, truncated shooting schedules, all were standard practices” (Flynn and McCarthy 1975, 22). In addition, practices such as the recycling of (stock) footage and a minimal use of retakes were common (Davis 2012, 8–9; Flynn and McCarthy 1975, 23). Nonetheless, even these productions were extravagant when compared with exploitation pictures, whose total budget could typically come in around $10,000 (Schaefer 1999, 51).⁴

In sum, this three-tier division between A studio films, studio and independent B films, and independent exploitation films, was evident throughout the era of classical Hollywood (and classical exploitation). These three categories were separated in terms of budget, production schedule, use of sets and personnel behind and in front of the camera, and so on. Each category had a look and style distinct from the others. Besides differences in production value, the films also differed in content. While the A movies and the B movies relied on fictional narratives, the exploitation films heavily relied on factual content and the sensational exposure of shocking ‘truths.’⁵ Also, the films differed in terms of marketing, distribution, and exhibition. While the main function of the A feature was to attract audiences, the B feature was destined to fill a slot on the bill and was not given its own marketing. Exploitation films, on the other hand, were channeled through separate chains of distribution and exhibition. Unlike the B movies, exploitation films had to be marketed in their own right; they had to create enough of a buzz to attract audiences into the theaters. This three-tier division disintegrated in the 1950s, when the era of classical Hollywood cinema came to an end.

The 1950s: crisis and shifts

In his analysis of the shifts in the American movie industry during the 1950s, Thomas Doherty points to how economic, political and cultural factors all contributed to the financial downturn of classical Hollywood (Doherty 2002, 16), and how the “new” exploitation films that emerged during the 1950s can be attributed mainly “to the economic disorders then afflicting Hollywood” (Doherty 2002, 14).

As Doherty explains, within the classical Hollywood system movie production was largely “a rationalized, assembly-line business supplying a more or less standardized product to an enthusiastic and reliable audience. Studios and individual movies competed, but moviegoing itself was guaranteed” (Doherty 2002, 15; also see Bordwell, Staiger and Thompson 1985; Schatz 1988). A stable audience was waiting, ready to spend their money; the question was mainly which theater and which movie would harvest the profits. This situation changed drastically during the 1950s, with fatal consequences for the old studio system.

The 1948 US Supreme Court decision known as the Paramount Decree brought to an end the system of vertical integration where the studios had been in charge of production and distribution, as well as exhibition of their movies (Doherty 2002, 16–17; Monaco 2001, 9; Schatz 1988; Sklar 1975, 272–4). The earlier practice in which studios would operate their own theatres, booking their own productions, was deemed to be a violation of anti-trust legislation, and as a result the studios were required to divest of their exhibition venues. In principle, distributors now had to compete with each other to secure exhibition slots for their films. Severing exhibition from production and distribution meant that the studios were no longer guaranteed a venue to book their films. This raised the stakes in terms of financial risk for movie productions.

The Hollywood production model was also under challenge from the lower costs associated with movie production outside the studio lots. When foreign governments implemented policies such as restrictions on film imports and subsidies to national film industries, Hollywood moviemakers increasingly located productions abroad in order to circumvent these measures (Doherty 2002, 17; Monaco 2001, 11–15; Sklar 1975, 275–6; Staiger 1985, 333). In addition, foreign locations could often provide cheap labor and exotic scenery (Doherty 2002, p. 17), increasing the appeal of moving productions out of Hollywood. Also domestically, films were increasingly shot on location, resulting in studio lots becoming vacant and thus often sold off (Monac...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Prologue: The Feast is On
• Introduction
• 1 Blood Enters the Frame: Exploitations and Attractions in the 1950s
• 2 Blood and Guts in the Early Gore Films of Herschell Gordon Lewis
• 3 Blood Assemblages
• 4 Blood in the 1960s: Bonnie and Clyde
• 5 Blood and Chaos in The Wild Bunch
• An End
• Bibliography
• Index