————————–
The movie we discussed in this week’s episode guide was Roger Corman’s “The Undead.”
As Bill says in his write up: “Next time you have the notion to defend Roger Corman as a good director, watch this movie and repent.”
But there is one group that has not repented: The Motion Picture Academy’s Board of Directors, which recently voted to give ol’ Rog an honorary Oscar.
What do YOU think?
To help you discuss this topic, I could have gone to “Daddy-O’s Drive-In Dirt” and put together a list of the Corman movies done by MST3K but alert reader Dave (aka Finnias Jones) kindly did it for me. (Thanks Dave!)
Producer/Director:
• 311 – IT CONQUERED THE WORLD
• 315 – TEENAGE CAVEMAN
• 317 – VIKING WOMEN AND THE SEA SERPENT
• H01 – THE DAY THE WORLD ENDED (which I consider “canon” though purists might not. I wasn’t there at the time, but both extant versions are good, even if the riffing is inaudible and not the product of Best Brains, just the fans)
• 503-Swamp Diamonds
• 511-Gunslinger
• 806 The Undead
Exec. Producer:
• 406-Attack of the Giant Leeches
• 618-High School Big Shot
• 701 – Night of the Blood Beast
Of course Roger is responsible for many more movies, some better, some worse (CT’s “Wasp Woman” is his, and as producer: “Rock ‘n’ Roll High School,” the original “Death Race 2000,” etc.)
So what do you think of Roger? Does he deserve the Oscar or should he be, as one poster wrote in the episode guide thread, “indicted for crimes against cinema”?
(Me: Although I know he has been a mentor to several guys who went on to be good, and while I am grateful for him for providing some great MSTing fodder, I agree with Bill.)
) to help our users cope with "trolls" and other commenters whom they find annoying. Go to our
As much as it pains me to admit it (and it DOES), I do have to give the guy some props. Sure, movies like Attack of the Giant Leeches and Gunslinger are cheese – but just look what other directors (that means YOU Ed Wood Jr and Coleman Francis)have done under similar circumstances. Swamp Diamonds is ‘Gone with the Wind’ compared to Red Zone Cuba. Rather than think of him as an awful mainstream director, I prefer to look at him as the very best of the bad directors. As cheesy as his films are, they always have this bizarre entertaining quality for me. One Schloscar, coming up!…..
On one hand, I have to give Corman a lot of credit. He was ambitious, and he was pretty good at getting the most out of what he had. Also, he seemed genuinely passionate about his films, which is an attitude I appreciate.
On the other hand, Ed Wood was also passionate about his films, which by no means makes them good. I recently watched his “The Pit and the Pendulum”, which I would call his best film. Despite that, all of his actors (including Vincent Price, whom I love) are constantly chewing the scenery, especially the other male lead who just looks completely out of place in 16th century dress.
My personal opinion is that Corman should be celebrated as a more competent Ed Wood and nothing more.
His films often leave me wishing they’d been done… with a bigger budget, but i almost always enjoy watching those films even without the riffs. He practically created a genre!
I’m only a little bit embarrassed to admit that I’m a fan.
Many, many years ago, AMC had a Halloween Marathon hosted by Roger Corman and showed a ton of his movies. I actually saw several MST3K movies (Teenage Caveman, It Conquered the Woorld, and the Undead) for the first time in this marathon. Even in their unMSTied form, I enjoyed them. I just have a weakness for cheesy sci-fi/fantasy films I guess.
Another thing I admire about RC is that he didn’t take his movies very seriously. Well, let me re-phrase that: he took pride in his work, but never considered his films above mockery. He knew his audience was going to be a bunch of teenagers, I think he set out to try and entertain them. He wasn’t trying to make them take the movie seriously.
The Cor-Man is both Bane and Boon! Absolutely deserved the life time oscar. Actually met him several years ago at a Universal Horror tour with several stars and was a very nice gent. Sure he was not DeMille but certainly filled a niche in the business. He did serve as a mentor of a sort to many, many people in the industry and in all phases from props, special effects (ahem), actors, directors and so on. He was a gold mine to the studios because of his ability to work on the cheap and turn over a profit. Petite touched on his taking chances such as strong female roles as well. Frankly his aliens and monsters were so lame! He also recycled them (Bloodbeast TA Caveman)!! Last but not least, he was certainly part of the foundation that MST3K is based on so that alone makes him Oscar worthy in my book.
He’s kind of like a C student who kept doing extra credit reports until he got an A.
I don’t totally agree with comparisons to Ed Wood or Coleman Francis. They were auteurs who were equally inept at writing, directing and producing. (Wood’s writing, in particular, was a delightfully vital element of his work) Corman only wrote a handful of scripts and, surprisingly, directed about 50-60 films. (I thought it was much more) However, he produced over 350.
Bottom line, I think he was an entertaining and resourceful “bad” director. He deserves the Oscar for the sheer volume of work which left a large and influential footprint on the film business. Fans of horror, b-movies and cult classics owe him a debt.
What will the Academy do next – give a lifetime achievement award to Keanu Reeves?
Seiously, Corman wasn’t as bad as Ed Wood or Coleman Francis. Do something about the cheesy props, and It Conquered the World is actually a decent, and kind of creepy, movie. (Also, replace Peter Graves’ droning monologue at the end!) But then, he did make The Undead, which more than negates his good work.
Roger Corman is a not the traditional director. Yes when he started out he made all those B-Movies in the 50’s and 60’s but he redeemed himself with his Edger Allen Poe films.
Also the man gave us the careers of many directors and trained many popular directors how to made a cheap ass $100 and make it look like a million.
When it comes to MST3K’s cast about movies sometimes I don’t take them too seriously. I also have the feeling that some of them are a bit snobbish in their taste but hell thier still funny.
I’ve always thought of Corman as more of a facilitator than as a good director. He has done a handful of films I would call quite watchable, most are pretty bad, but to me his place in the pantheon should be secure because without him many actors and directors never would have gotten their shot at the drug-addled and studio hands-off golden era of the 70’s.
Sure, give him an Oscar, what the heck.
Call me a cynic, but I’d probably have a stronger opinion if I didn’t have the impression that the academy awards are little more than a thinly-veiled attempt at self-aggrandization by an industry that burns through money almost as quickly as it burns through people and still manages to produce almost exclusively remakes of stories that were banal to begin with.
…what, too dark for a Saturday morning…? :???:
It is impossible for me to say, although I do have things to say. I have a soft spot for his Poe productions. And his films (if I recall accurately) often showed up on Creature Features (of Bob Wilkins fame), so it is inescabably true that Roger Corman was part of my childhood. But MST3K gives Corman what he deserves, and some of his films are so bad they represent a kind of achievement (which I realize is only to state the obvious). On a subjective level, then (thinking about my childood, revelling in how MST3K treated his films), I rather like Corman, but HANNAH AND HER SISTERS gets my vote as a truly GREAT movie.
I think Mr. Corman deserves kudos for being a huge, if unintended contributor to the best TV show ever and for that we should be grateful. As for the honorary Oscar, placing him next to Charlie Chaplin, Elia Kazan, et al does seem a bit odd, but as Tom Bosley used to say, “That’s Hollywood!”
I have to go along with the opinion that Corman has given us both good films (the Poe movies, “The Intruder”) and bad (“Teenage Caveman”, “The Undead”), just like any other filmmaker. It’s basically just a question of if you can enjoy watching them, and, for the most part, you can.
I’ve got no problem with his getting an honorary Oscar. Campared to some of the movies that actually win Oscars, I’ll take Corman’s work any day.
“To live like the Cor-Man! To be Cor-Man!”
Roger Corman also produced those Poe inspired pictures with such fine actors as Peter Lorre and Vincent Price. Many of those are atmospheric, well-written and entertaining. Sure he cranked out a lot of tripe, but he also produced and directed some fine work too. He’s no Kurosawa or Kubrick, but he’s contributed a lot to the film industry and even some of the “bad” pictures have things to recommend them in their own way.
I always thought that Roger Corman tried to make interesting and intelligent movies but never quite lived up to his ambitions. Whether this is because of lack of ability, tight schedules (which led to taking shortcuts) or tight budgets, I don’t know.
I don’t quite see why anyone would get excited over Corman, either for or against him. On the other hand, Little Shop of Horrors was really, really bad….
I can’t entirely hate him. First of all, he made those awesome Edgar Allen Poe movies with Vincent Price in the 60s, and no one’s gonna tell me I can’t love “The House of Usher” and especially “The Red Masque of Death”.
Plus, he occasionally went to bat to support the release of good films that needed it (in particular, I’m thinking of how he helped The Wicker Man get distributed in America). Both of these point don’t necessarily cancel out aaaaaaaall the other crap he made/produced, but we all certainly know there were far worse.
Corman is not a good director. But he is a good–maybe even great–producer. He knows how to work with a tiny budget and a short filming schedule, something more Hollywood studios should learn from. If Transformers 2 had been made on a Corman budget, it would have been the same crappy movie, but it would have done a lot less damage.
Lloyd Kaufman seems to worship the ground Corman walks on. Take that for what it’s worth. :P
Corman…..A boon to those who actually enjoy bad movies [riffed or not, but riffed is much more enjoyable] but as an earlier post mentioned, for him to part of the elite of film is just a sure sign that the end of the world is emminate. He absolutely does not belong with the great directors. Anyone that was involved with DEATH RACE 2000 does not deserve an oscar. Honestly he really belongs in the discount dvd bin for us to find hidden bad movie gold.
A Boon,his Poe series of films are classics,in the they really are classics way.House of Usher was considered so good that it was placed on a double bill with Hitchcocks Psycho in 1960 when both were first released.Masque of the Red Death and Pit and the Pendulum are first rate,as are the Raven and Tomb of Ligeia. Check’em out
The films Corman directed himself were always his best productions. He was a more than competent director who chose to earn a living rather than chase a dream of acclaim. “The Intruder” was a well-made, thoughtful movie that *almost* lost money. He never made that mistake again.
I love the work of Ed Wood, but Corman had the one thing Ed did not: the ability to create honest-to-goodness quality works from small budgets.
Cheesy? Yes. Awful? Some. (When you make that many films, they can’t all be gems.)
But overall, his success record (particularly as a director) stands up against just about any filmmaker from Hollywood.
I guess he was a boon, but he doesn’t really deserve an Oscar. It doesn’t help his case that he was content with making crappy, low budget movies. I agree that he is better as a producer than as a director, which must be the reason why he’s even getting lifetime achievement Oscar. Roger Corman is certainly far superior to Ed Wood and has been able to make a nice living off of his movies.
Apparently, the Academy is giving this one because of quantity of films, not quality of films.
When I saw CT last December, I asked Joel if they were going to do any more Corman films. He said that Corman tried to stop them from doing Wasp Woman, claiming he owned it. He did not. (I asked Joel to do another one to stick it to the old pompous windbag, but he said they’re not going for black and white films — they’re doing ones in color.)
All I have to say is…HUMANOIDS FROM THE DEEP!Classic!
Hey, Leonard Maltin liked the Undead! That proves…nothing.
X – THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES is one of my all-time favorite movies. Like some of the Poe adaptations that Corman did, it’s eerie, unsettling and has some striking visual moments that haunt me long after the film is over. It also has an incredibly effective performance from Don Rickles, which I wasn’t even sure was possible…Corman surely didn’t knock it out of the park every time, but I’d put X, along with the Poe films as some of the better films of the 60s.
i don’t mind if he gets an Oscar.
Like a lot of you guys, I can see that Corman made a LOT of crap, but his Price/Poe series is wonderful(as noted earlier). I love the color palette, and I’m a sucker for anything with Vincent.
Roger Corman’s films usually had a low potential due to budget, casting and production time, and yet he had a way of maximizing that potential time and again. He’s the only director I know of who made a /watchable/ feature in 2 days(!) with the original LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS. Give that man an Oscar. :smile:
Personally, I put Corman in the same category as Sandy Frank, extremely ambivalent. On the one hand, they both did some interesting and vital work (Corman, fostering a number of important actors and directors like Jack Nicholson and Ron Howard; Sandy Frank as being one of the forces that established anime as a genre in the US). On the other hand, if you look at their work as a whole, there’s a lot of crap, mainly because of how they worked; quickly and cheaply. As mentioned above, Corman is redeemed a little by having at least a few good films on his own, but overall, I think his reputation is a bit over inflated.
If they can give one to Ray Harryhausen. Why not Roger Corman.
He inspired and gave jobs to different big names.
Plus, think of some of the non-American he help to get the rights to.
I say give him the Oscar for the sheer volume of movies he’s either directed or produced and for the actors that went on to bigger and better things.Can Ed Wood or Coleman Francis say that? I know they’re dead,but you get the idea.For me,Corman movies are a lot easier to digest as opposed to Coleman Francis’s,which are painful.I remember seeing the Poe movies in the theater and they still hold up.A better producer than director,of course..Who’s next??Will the directors who did all of those blaxploitation movies get their due??? Will Pam Grier get an honorary Oscar??And so on…
I know nothing about his films outside MST3K, so this analysis is limited.
My take on Corman: his films are low budget and generally have poor cinematography and big leaps in logic. However, some (not all) stand out at least a little compared to other B-grade movies because they are more successful in one or more of three areas: decent dialogue, interesting characters or clever premise/twist. How much of this is actually due to Corman or the screenwriters is up for debate. Regardless, here are some examples:
“It Conquered the World”: Not at all a good film, but there are some decent actors delivering some credible dialogue. Peter Graves, Lee van Cleef and Beverly Garland debate points of ethics and the human condition several times in the film before taking on the giant pickle-monster. Definitely more cerebral and better-written than the likes of “Attack of the the Eye Creatures” and “Teenagers from Outer Space” where all the kids do is make out before blasting the aliens. I’d go so far as to argue that “It Conquered the World” is more intelligent than a lot of successful Hollywood films.
“Teenage Caveman”: I don’t mind this film nearly as much as some people. Admittedly it is very boring, but does attempt to have an interesting premise, although it’s a stretch.
“Swamp Diamonds”: A total exploitation film, but the slammer-girls do have character and the acting is decent.
“The Undead”: Several people have voiced appreciation over the last few days for its interesting premise and memorable (if nutty) characters.
“High School Bigshot”: While depressing, this film was competently put together.
The others: Viking Women, Gunslinger, Giant Leeches and Night of the Bloodbeast. I can find little redeemable about these films. My leeway has limits.
Am I giving Roger too much credit? Probably. This is most likely why they’re giving Roger an “honorary” Oscar. It’s just like an honorary degree; you didn’t do anything academically or professionally to earn it, but folks think you’re a real nice guy who’s done nice things in the community.
I’m in agreement with those who believe Corman was both bane and boon. Yes, many of his movies were cheesy. Yes, his reputation is inflated. BUT! There is no denying he was ambitious, did make a few decent films (something Ed Wood or Bill Rebane or Coleman Francis never did!) and he helped launch the careers of several notable Hollywood actors, directors and producers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Corman#Proteges
The best of his worst makes wonderful fodder for the Brains, but Corman deserves his Oscar in my opinion.
I just find his movies boring. It’s MST3K that makes them watchable.
I think we need to consider just WHO is giving the Cor-Man this Oscar anyway….
Just look how overwhelmingly bad mainstream, studio produced movies are these days. I mean, MST3K could have been on the air for another 50 YEARS if they could have had access to the depths of sleaze Hollywood’s been secreting over the last decade alone.
Of COURSE, the AMPAS board thinks Corman is honor-worthy. He produced whatever he wanted, never bothered with what people thought about his work, always – and I mean ALWAYS – used his friends to fill key roles in both his casts and crews – and worked so under budget, you’d think he didn’t even HAVE a budget.
These are all guiding principles in the movie industry today. The only big difference is that Corman never had the marketing bankroll to convince millions that a turd-sandwich like “Gunslinger” was actually “the best movie evar!”
.
.
.
…..like “Dark Knight”. (ducks!)
StevieK @ 10- Touches on a very important note relative to the Oscars. They were created by the film industry for the industry to make more money. Sure it’s veiled with ‘artistic achievements’ crap but if so, there would be more than a few Indepenent films winning awards year in and year out. Roger earned his Oscar by filling the theaters and drive-ins with teens very cheaply. Well done Cor-man!
Roger Corman, pompous windbag, or not, deserves his Oscar. Case in point, they gave the best picture to “Chariots of Fire” (1981), which was one of the the greatest sleep inducers I have ever seen, and nominated “Nashville” for best picture for 1975, which is a piece of bovine excrement. Without Corman, a large portion of my library of bad movies would not exist. I disagree with the premise that the Poe movies were his best. They were the ones that generally had the highest budgets, with named actors and great sets, but for me the best of his films was the first “Not of this Earth” movies. (The fact that he remade this twice with less effect is probably a strike against him). This was a movie made on a little budget with an interesting story line. It is also an movie that leaves the viewer with the job of filling in the blanks. It is always refreshing to see a movie that lets the viewer use his/her imagination.
My library of Corman flicks (both good and bad) include 21 which he directed and 25 that he produced (some of these are producer/director).
Roger Corman, as well as American Internatiolal, chased the popular market in a successful attempt to make money. When horror/sci-fi was popular, Roger was there. When popularity went to exploitation movies, Roger was there. Since he financed a lot of his movies, it is understandable that they had low budgets.
Two other things – MPSh (#15) Leonard Maltin gave Little Shop of Horrors four stars, which I agree with. To Roger Corman, lighten up. Most of your movies are ripe for MST3K/Rifftrax/Cimematic-Titanic treatment, even the good ones. To be on MST3K is an honor, since they did find the best of the worst movies.
Phil #20- one of my college kids turned me on to “The Intruder”- early Shatner and Corman was a match made in heaven and I found the film socially acceptable and an under appreciated period piece. I own the DVD and lend it out and many of my friends have enjoyed it.
Does he deserve an Oscar for this? No- but as an old coach, Jud Heathcote, once said (or didn’t) “if you hang around long enough you’ll win something”
Finally, perhaps the years of joy his films have brought MSTIES should be enough to get such an award.
Who’d u thunk when they were making the Undead 41 years a guy and two puppets would be making fun of it-and entertaining millions.
Gotta admit…as cheesy as I’d always thought that “It Conquered The World” seemed, after recently viewing the wretchedly gawd-awful remake, “Zontar The Thing From Venus”, Corman’s ICTW suddenly looks like Citizen Kane by comparison!
At the very least, I’ve always admired the wide range of genres that Corman was brave enough to tackle…sci-fi, fantasy, horror, and even westerns.
Compared with some of the hack directors and schlock films that have been handed gold statues in the past, I say hell yes!…Give that man an Oscar!
Roger Corman absolutely deserves an honorary Oscar. He’s one of the most successful independent film producers of all time, and has given countless filmmakers their first break.
He’s an incredibly important person in the history of independent cinema, and the fact that the Hollywood system has decided to award him is really amazing. I can’t wait for Lloyd Kaufman’s honorary Oscar in forty years.
An academy award is a stretch (though, then again, they give those things out for total garbage). I do respect Corman pumping movies out like he did with limited resources, such as a large crew; making a film is hard work. Arranging opportunities to the likes of James Cameron and Francis Ford Coppola is also a plus. He is better in my book than a lot of movie creators given huge budgets, making garbage, and getting an oscar… maybe he does deserve it ?.?.?
I’ll agree with all the mixed feelings floating around. On the one hand, I think he’s unfairly maligned simply because Corman is the best known name one associates with B-movies, making him the butt of countless easy jokes throughout other media trying to distract from their own lameness by taking a cheap shot at him (a ‘Sliders’ episode from right after they lost John Rhys Davies and the show had slid halfway to hell, for example). On the other hand, I will never, ever, EVER forgive him for ‘Carnosaur’.
But he’s closely associated with B flicks because of his unrivaled quantity, and that does count for something. He’s the gold standard against which all other low-budget movies, better or worse, should be measured against, and that honestly says “Lifetime Achievement Award” to me (that is what he’s getting, right?)
Besides, compare his work with all the direct to video and/or SyFy garbage today. No matter what trend he was cashing in on, he usually tried to do something as unique as possible with what resources he had. The only unique trick I’ve seen in cheap cash-ins in the last 5 years are bait-and-switch covers/titles that actually trick you into thinking you’re renting a recent blockbuster if you’re not paying attention. You can’t say they just don’t care anymore, because it’s more like they’ve actively tried to stop caring.
And among his cash-ins I’ve seen, there seems to be a pattern that they’re exactly 1/3 to 1/2 as good as whatever he was imitating. ‘Battle Beyond the Stars’ actually stands among early ’80s Star Wars rip offs as surprisingly watchable and entertaining. That sort of consistency from a producer or director is rare indeed. We all have a few ideas for great movies in our heads, but largely lack the ability to actually get them made given the state of the system, which is currently so broken that Bollywood is actually becoming serious competition. Therefore, Roger Corman’s ability to crank out so many is indeed an Oscar-worthy talent.
Does this mean that now Sherwood Schwartz will get a lifetime Emmy?
Should he be given an Oscar or indicted? Niether, if you were a kid in the late 50’s and early 60’s like I was, we saw these movies as double features at real full sized movie theaters and we had a great time. We didn’t care how cheesy the monsters were or how low the budget was.
I have a soft spot for these movies because of that and now enjoy them again as MST3K episodes. They bring back a lot of good memories from a long time ago.
I’m going for “bane.” Certainly, his productions were more professional than many B-movies. But his directing really has no “pop,” no pace, no edge. The nominal competence just helps make his movies dull dull dull.
The only one of his MST episodes that I watch very often is “Gunslinger.” Why’s that? Top-flight riffing from J&TB in their second-to-last appearance together, plus Beverly Garland and Alison Hayes, BOTH as redheads. (Or maybe Bev was a blonde, as usual, and it’s just the print that makes her look that way. Either way, (appreciative Sandy growl)!
I love Corman. There I said it. And why not? I love B-movies and no one made B-movies like Corman. His incredible talent of coming in way under budget and still making a decent enough film is sorely missing in these days of over-blown budgets. Plus he produced Death Race 2000 and Piranha, two films I love very much. :wink:
The world would be a sadder place without Roger Corman. That is all.
On one hand: House of Usher, Little Shop of Horrors, The Pit and the Pendulum, Premature Burial, Tales of Terror, The Raven, The Masque of the Red Death, The Tomb of Ligea.
On the other: Everything mentioned in the list at the top of the page.
I’d say my opinion of him is “At his best, he creates some of the most effective horror stories on the silver screen. At his worst, he produces the most laughable, loveable trash cinema. Either way, he makes extremely memorable movies and knows how to use a budget.”
hey rock n roll highschool is a classic, I mean come on…The Ramones.
o yeah and the principal was hot too