October 31, 2014
This past summer, Bennett Glace ’16 worked with Professor Scott MacDonald to explore the history of a cinematic movement known as trash film. The result of his research can be seen in the ongoing film series “Another Man’s Treasure: An Exploration of ‘Trash’ Cinema.” The response to the series has been positive so far: according to Glace, “No one has run out screaming.” The Spectator sat down with Glace as he prepared to screen the final films of his series.
How would you define trash cinema?
Trash is hard to define because, as a movement, it doesn’t have a broad set of fundamental qualities. Basically, the sort of films that could affectionately be labeled trash are the products of directors who reject the conventions of Hollywood narratives as well as the pretentions of the avant-garde. They generally flaunt their low budgets and draw from the sort of cinematic traditions that Hollywood would rather we forget. For Jack Smith, this meant the campy South Seas and Arabian epics starring Maria Montez and for the Kuchar’s it meant B Science Fiction films and Technicolor melodrama. Trash should be able to make the easily dismissed subversive.
How has technology changed the genre of trash film?
Recycling is a big part of trash film. By that I mean reusing materials from other films or — in the case of Peggy Ahwesh’s She Puppet — video games to create film. Ahwesh’s film, and others crafted from recycled materials manage to be “trashy” without necessarily aiming to shock or disgust. Video games and digital film present an endless supply of material for film.
John Waters is a major figure associated with “trash”. What would you say his contribution has been?
Most importantly, he made it both commercially viable and culturally significant. Pink Flamingos was a box-office smash as a midnight movie and it helped make him a pop culture icon. He’s been on The Simpsons, he’s written best-selling books, he’s essentially been a remarkably effective ambassador for bad taste.
How would you respond to critics who say that trash cinema is merely shock for shock’s sake?
I would say that they say “shock for shock’s sake” like it’s a bad thing.
Why did you decide to do your Emerson on trash film?
As you probably could have guessed, my interest in trash began with John Waters. In interviews, Waters is quick to name the Kuchar brothers as a major influence. When I saw a few of their films, I knew that I had to see more like them.
What was the greatest discovery you made in your research?
George Kuchar’s Weather Diaries video series stands out. They’re a really interesting mix of personal documentary and landscape film.
How did you schedule the film series?
I wanted to make sure that the major trash figures were represented. Also, I wanted to screen a horror film the day before Halloween.
There are some films in the series most audiences would not consider “trash film.” What makes a film like Night of the Living Dead a trash film?
It’s got a visibly tiny budget and it draws from a tradition of schlocky horror films. Like the best trash films, it’s deceptively poignant.
Do you want to continue with film in the future?
I’d like to show some more trash films. I didn’t do Paul Morrissey or George Kuchar justice.
No comments yet.
Comment Guidelines
Please log in to post a comment