————————–
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
Avast, ma hearties, despite what one might think of ol’ Jolly Roger Corman e was a true artist o’ the film world and likely ta be under-appreciated in ‘is own lifetime. However I put it to ye that without him the bountiful booty o’ some low-budget wonders would not be. District 9, fer instance, or even Star Wars. I be thinkin’ ol’ Jolly Roge be evolution itself rolled up inta one filmmaker. His be a legacy o’ dismal failures and soarin’ successes. E shall be known, in the end, as a force for inspiration and good(despite bein’ mostly bad.)
(Sorry to deliver this in pirate-speak, but it IS Talk Like A Pirate Day)
He deserves some kind of lifetime achievement award. Maybe you don’t like The Undead, but Masque of the Red Death, X: The Man with the X-Ray Eyes, Pit and the Pendulum, those are all quite good films, not to mention the many good films that he produced.
Man, Corman deserves the Oscar for sheer organizational skills alone. No one, I repeat, No one could whip up a movie with such speed, frugality than he did. Granted he often started filming without a script but when you run out of things to say you just send the lead characters on a hike. While his movies aren’t Oscar-worthy, he certainly has contributed to the movie industry and movie history. I mean, how do you know what a good movie is if you haven’t seen a bad one?
I think Roger Corman proves the old adage: ‘Even a blind squirrel will find a nut once in a while.’ IMHO most of his movies are crap, but there are a few gems. My personal favorites are the films loosely based on the works of Edgar Allen Poe. Admittedly my fondness for them has more to do with the wonderfully wicked Vincent Price than any contributions made by Corman.
Well, I think that Corman would’ve preferred being a producer first off and a director second. After all he was the cheapest director he could afford as producer, so why not use himself? As a producer he knew his markets and was able to sell a movie like no one else. Keep the budgets low, have a cool poster or marketing campaign, throw in a washed-up (in the eyes of the majors) star or two (Boris Karloff, Peter Lorre, Ray Milland etc.), have inexpensive young faces (Jack Nicholson, Dick Miller, Jonathan Haze), get new directors, writers, ADs, 2nd unit directors by not paying them a thing but they would get experience which was more valuable in the long run for them (Scorsese, Dante, Demme, Bogdanovich), go with the trends. After reading his book, which I heartily recommend, I gained a new respect for Roger. He knew the business end like few did at the time. Once the major studios learned his methods and the methods of similar studios like AIP and such and adopted them, the majors began hiring former Corman employees and making bigger and bigger profits and getting acclaim. If anything Corman showed a path to profit and heck if the movie turned out to be somewhat entertaining or semi-respected years later, then it was a bonus! From a producing point of view, he most definitely deserves an honorary Oscar. As a director, I think he should be evaluated by what I always go by for every filmmaker: are the films that a director comes out with insufferably boring and/or uninteresting to watch? For instance, Ed Wood made movies that are always interesting to watch. “Plan 9 From Outer Space” might always get bashed, but the film is always interesting. Coleman Francis made flicks that are like realized fever dreams, but not insufferably uninteresting if for the car wreck aspect of his productions alone. Roger Corman directed and produced films that are usually watchable and are usually interesting. There’s always a turkey or three in every catalog, but on the whole I’ll always take the time to watch “It Conquered The World” or “The Fall Of The House Of Usher” or “A Bucket Of Blood” instead of some dreck that I’m told by a critic that I should love, but I don’t.
Don’t forget the tremendous industry talent that got their start working for Corman. I’d run off a list but it would be almost as long as a list of stars and directors who didn’t get discovered through him.
Even if he did some good stuff, he did way too much crap. It completely overpowers the good stuff.
And “The Undead” was this week’s episode. We’re big on irony here. Seriously, who says that only people who do $100 million, big-name blockbusters deserve to be recognized for their achievements? Corman’s films were more enjoyable than a lot of Oscar winners. Roger pretty much crashed Hollywood’s establishment years ago and did his movies his way. For that alone, I like the guy.
I enjoyed The Pit and the Pendulem very much. I can’t say that about his other movies though. :???:
Bane: he made some truly bad movies.
Boon: they were great fodder for MST3K and the results were hilarious.
I did enjoy his Poe inspired movies (House Of Usher, Pit And The Pendulum, The Raven). Having Vincent Price in them was what really sold me on them. He’s just so gothic and creepy.
As for giving him an Oscar, meh. So what. I haven’t cared about the Oscars in a long time. Just a bunch of rich people talking about how great they are and slapping each other on the back.
Now I see. It all makes sense. Roger Corman’s plan was to “shake hands with Mr. President of the Motion Picture Academy’s Board”
{Because, you see, in Deathrace 2000. . .}
He knows how to frame a shot, I’ll give him that. When 90% of your movies are complete garbage, and done for no other reason than deprive 10 to 15 year olds of the 50s and 60s of their precious candy money; you shouldn’t get an Oscar.
he had a “monster” that was a carpet remnant.
I have a lot of respect for him. Not necessarily as a director, but certainly I think he did something that a whole lot of producers never managed to do; he was a consistent money-maker. Corman was always smart about money, encouraged people to make the most of limited budgets, and was never afraid to let people follow their personal film-making dream…so long as it was profitable.
Sure, he produced a lot of dreck, but set the output of any Hollywood producer up in a big pile, and you’ll see some stinkers…and at least Corman’s stinkers weren’t $140 million stinkers. :)
Like Pia Zadora’s Golden Globe back in the 1980’s, giving an Oscar to Roger Corman has really hurt the integrity of the award. I would never say RC was the worst director of all time – Ed Wood, Coleman Francis, and Ray Dennis Steckler (“Cash Flagg”) can all fight over that banner – but let’s face it: the man has created more cheese than Wisconsin could ever hope to produce! And just because you produce and/or direct a huge bevvy of movies under a budget, it by no means should be justification for something that’s so esteemed in the film industry as an Oscar. (Although I will agree that the award has lost alot of luster in the last fifteen years or so, starting with Ben Affleck and Matt Damon winning for “Good Will Hunting”. Talk about your “wtf?!” moments.)
Keeping in mind that “cheese” doesn’t necessarily mean “non-entertaining”, his films using Poe’s most famous works are well done IMO. I’m not ashamed to admit that I have DVDs of “House of Usher”, “Pit and the Pendulum”, and “The Tell Tale Heart” in my collection and have enjoyed them all. I’m also intrigued by the discussion here about “The Intruder”; it’s something I’ll keep my eyes open for. I would even consider buying a box set of his sci-fi/horror films, if nothing else for the sheer guilty pleasure of watching his under-budgeted efforts and having a good laugh.
Screw being an artistic director, you have to put food on the table. Corman = great capitalist who knew how to make a movie cheap as dirt but still make a ton of money off of it, and had an eye for talent. I’m definitely glad he existed. He gave people like Francis Ford Coppola and Peter Bogdonovich their first work and they learned a lot from him about how to get things done.
All of his MST3K movies are pretty crappy, especially Swamp Diamonds. I used to kind of hate him for reusing the same monsters and props over and over, but I love his version of The Raven with Peter Lorre, Boris Karloff, Jack Nicholson, and Vincent Price and The Man with the X Ray Eyes with Ray Milland so I have to admit he did make some pretty above average movies. The quality of his movies depend a lot on the people he could get to work on them. If you have Richard Matheson writing and Vincent Price acting it’s probably a lot easier to make a good movie.
A few things.SIn Ganse Macabe, tephen King lists “X, the man with X-ray Eyes) as being one of the most important horror movies made. 2nd. a common remark seems to be that Roger’s work is better than alot of movies tht win Oscars. Only one has been listed. If your gonna argue that I want to know which Oscar winning films (best, animated or otherwise) are worse than which peoces of dreck he made? In all honestly he does not deserve awards for excellence, because that’s not what he produces.
Oscars are for douchebags, anyway.
Well, you can’t say the man isn’t important to the way movies look today. Granted he only rarely made movies that were actually good most of the way through (though didn’t nearly all at least have some redeeming features? Interesting premise, character you like, scene that actually works, something?). But, boy, you go back in time and take the seven-year-old Corman and divert him into canal-building instead of movies and don’t we lose something tangible in the popular culture?
I’d say his contributions come less from his actual hands on film making endeavors, and more in the form of him having helped some very notable film makers (Scorcese, Coppola, Jonathan Demme, James Cameron to name a few) get a start in the business, and changing some of the attitudes about the ways that movies were made, which effected the industry over time, and probably in some part helped the eventual development of the “independent” film scene, which these days is often the only place that any truly meaningful films come from, at least in the US. I might not like many of his films all that much, but I have a lot of respect for the man.
I think one of the best things he did was cast Beverly Garland in some of his movies. She’s awesome!
Speaking of the Oscars, wouldn’t it be hilarious if Michael Bay’s Transformers 2 didn’t win an award for best visual effect the second time in a row? The first movie didn’t win. Imagine, not being able to win in a category that should be a lock. I think that would actually make him a worse director than Roger Corman.
He produced “Eat My Dust.”
I’d say that an honorary Oscar isn’t enough.
You don’t give out Oscars for inspiring future talent. You win Oscars for a particular movie! If Roger Corman deserves an Oscar, than so do thousands of Acting Teachers, Director College teachers and the like. And even then, since these directors that came from Corman are good directors and Corman is not, all they can claim they learned from him is what NOT to do. At best he may deserve an Honorary Lifetime Achievement Award.
I may not have seen any of the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations everyone says are so great, but since he made them in the 60s and his movies after that are still crap, he apparently didn’t really learn anything from making them.
Man with the X-Ray Eyes and Death Race 2000 make up for all the padding, and he certainly gave MST3K plenty to work with.
He defitely deserves SOME kind of award, if only for all of the hours of joy and laughter he’s provided for MSTies all these years (albeit unintentional).
An honorary Oscar is given to an individual for their contribution to the film industry over the course of their career, not just one film.
I totally think Roger deserves this. He made a LOT of stinkers, but he made some very classic films, let us not forget he made Little Shop of Horrors (featuring a very young Jack Nicholson) I had the opportunity to meet Roger Corman and get his autograph at the 2009 Toronto FanExpo, he’s a nice old man.
He doesn’t just deserve the Oscar for the all the movies he made, but also for giving a lot of big name actors their starts. Jack Nicholson being one, same with Sylvester Stallone and David Caradine, and who can forget the delightful Beverly Garland?
Corman got a number of prominent careers started, but that’s about the only good he’s done. He’s the anti-Ed Wood in a way (assuming the myth about Wood is correct): Wood’s earnestness and belief in his vision shines through his incompetence and enlivens his movies. Corman didn’t care about anything but getting film in the can; watching his movies, even though they are far more technically competent than Wood’s, is like walking two miles through grey drizzle to get the movie theater only to find that it’s closed. Corman’s indifference deadens every frame.
I remember there being a discussion (I think at the LiveJournal community) about how a lot of MST movies could be made into good movies if they were given a bigger budget (and perhaps a competent staff). And really, it all boils down to an idea. If your idea is good, then, if given the means, you can probably execute it into something good. (Generally speaking.)
The Undead is a fairly intriguing idea. So is Teenage Caveman. It Conquered the World would be pretty cool; Swamp Diamonds could be an awesome vigilante movie…all of these could be better if nurtured properly. But as many have pointed out, Corman was more of a “get it in the can” kind of guy as far as we know.
And as for the Poe movies…I’ve never seen them, but they are apparently good. But it’s Poe. Poe is badass. So I’ll leave those untouched. :D
They’ve given official Oscars to bad directors before, so why not?
THE TRIP with Peter Fonda is a classic and is the best film Corman directed IMO. The script was by Jack Nicholson! Corman has made quite a few diamonds in the rough.
i actually like his movies, or at least the few that i’ve seen
Here’s a quick list of just SOME of the recipients of Honorary Oscars over the last 80 years or so: Ennio Morricone, Robert Altman, Sidney Lumet, Peter O’Toole, Sidney Poitier, Elia Kazan, Kirk Douglas, Chuck Jones, Michaelangelo Antonioni, Deborah Kerr, Federico Fellini, Sophia Loren, Akira Kurosawa, Paul Newman, James Stewart, Alec Guinness, Ben Burtt, Mary Pickford, Howard Hawks, Groucho Marx, Charlie Chaplin, Orson Welles, Cary Grant, Buster Keaton, Harold Llyod, Cecil B. DeMille, Ernst Lubitsch, Walt Disney (3 times), and Bob Hope (4 times). Corman will be inducted along with Lauren Bacall and Gordon Willis.
Is it odd for Corman to be inducted/included with theses individuals? Yes, maybe a little. In my opinion, he was a better producer than a director; his gift was finding the talent in other people, and giving them arenas to prove themselves. His contributions to the field of independent filmmaking are apparent, but he also deserves credit (blame?) for the emergence of summer blockbuster, tentpole flicks that are sold to teenagers across the nation ever year. The earliest blockbusters (Jaws, Star Wars) are obvious “low-budget” Corman-type material, but with A-list stars and huge budgets. These two flicks made loads of cash. Hollywood took notice. They made more blockbusters. They made more money. These trends continued and the influence of Corman’s legacy can be felt today in everything from Transformers to 300 to Taken.
Roger Corman is definitely an odd choice, but considering where Hollywood has gone in the last 40 years, it seems right, doesn’t it?
I read a post about no one in Deathrace 2000 deserves an oscar. I say that statement is made a little late. Wasn’t there a certain actor in that movie that was responsible for one of the great sports movies of all time. Even if it did spawn several cheesy sequels. Roger Corman getting an honorary oscar should be permitted considering he gave a lot of up and comers a chance. Roger Corman gave us movies that were made on a shoestring budget. Some of which are still better than today big summer budget movies. The Edgar Allen Poe’s are by far his best, but I still enjoy Deathrace 2000 and Rock and Roll High school just as much. At least he never made multi-million dollar stinkers.
I’m inclined to agree with the Academy on this one. Hey, John Sayles cut his teeth under Corman.
@Watch-out-for-Snakes #84
I don’t understand your point about Corman influencing the modern blockbuster at all. Jaws and Star Wars were the kinds of subject matter that previously would have been made at a low budget, by B-film makers like Corman and many others, but how does that mean he has anything to do with them being given a higher budget and made into more respectable films that were as successful as they were? Corman had nothing to do with that kind of big budget treatment of formerly B-grade subject matter. Corman was all about quick and cheap, and while he was a poor director himself he taught some of those techniques and ideals to some people who had the talent to make GOOD films in that way. Cameron made The Terminator on a shoestring budget. Coppola made The Godfather on a relatively tiny budget as well. Scorcese’s early work was always about the immediacy of shooting a film in a quick and dirty manner. That can all be traced directly back to Corman’s influence on their early careers. Jaws was based on a well received novel, so it wasn’t a big stretch for a studio to get behind it even in the 70’s. Spielburg was the one who made it something more than it could have been, which is why it was such a big financial success. And if anything Lucas had to fight against the industry perceptions of science fiction films caused by B-film makers like Corman just to get the studios to take his idea for Star Wars seriously. Corman directly influenced many young film makers who went on to become very good and or successful, and he directly influenced the reexamining of ideas about how films were made, and how expensive they actually had to be, but I don’t see how he had anything to do with the development of the big summer blockbuster event films as they are now. That idea seems to be the exact opposite of the case if you look at what his real influences were.
Art and entertainment are important in this world. Everyone likes to lose themselves in a movie, a song, a painting, etc. to forget the crappy world for a while. Art really makes ya think, don’t it? :cool: It has a way of defining us as a species. Some of it’s better than others, most of it’s dreck, and only some artists really reach greatness (and that’s all subjective, anyway). But…it’s not like these people are curing cancer or something. Most of them are bloated egos, really. If people in the biz want to hand each other little statues, I don’t care one way or the other. I don’t take ANY of it seriously.
Seeing as how 75% of the people who receive an Oscar don’t deserve it, giving one to Roger shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone (btw, I hate Sean Penn. There, I said it, and I’m happy about it).
Roger is a storyteller, not a director, and I’ve always thought that Corman’s films were the perfect “bad” movies. Take “Gunslinger”, un-Mstied. It isn’t “Unforgiven”, but there’s a certain comfort in that; a certain charm. I think it comes from, first of all, knowing that you didn’t pay $10 to see it. Second, it’s not mainstream and there’s a definite “the right people will get it” feel. Third, “bad” movies are totally fun to watch, especially with friends, and especially with friends who aren’t afraid to talk during the movie.
You can’t do that with a “good” movie. Can you, Sean?
Hitchcock never received an Oscar for any of his films (he got the same “after the fact” shout-out as Corman) so I’ve never thought the award meant a thing. (Plus never forget that Marisa Tomei has one for MY COUSIN VINNY.)
I think this award is probably more a measure of the fact that Corman has “friends in high places” after a lifetime of working with actors on the rise, and I guess that’s fine. Oscars are about peer shout-outs, not art or quality. And for all we know maybe he’s nice or something. Maybe he should also get a Grammy.
Hey Bolem, here’s my response about cats that go from friendly to psycho in an instant in case you missed it. The thread was taken down about an hour after I posted:
When a cat is scared it doesn’t want anything near it and will attack anything that is. A traumatized cat who is friendly will sometimes get overstimulated ar startled or just set off by some purely internal trigger and get scared in an instant for no obvious reason. If the cat is on your lap being petted the motion of your arm will scare it further often causing the cat to lash out or run off terrrified. Don’t take it personally.
Some cats just get overstimulated easily. Any pleasurable sentation can become painfull if it becomes too intense. Think of being tickled excessively. Some cats who get overstimulated easily will lash out suddenly when being petted goes from being fun to unpleasant. This is something you can watch out for more easily.
Roger Corman has achieved alot in his lifetime, and that’s what this Oscar symbolizes. Even with his bad movies, he’s given every one of us “Creature Feature” fans some of the greatest memories. His Poe films with Vincent Price were a bit of a mixed bag, but they had occasion to touch upon brilliance (just finished watching “Tomb of Ligeia” and the hypnosis scene is as chilling now as it was when I was a kid) and showed what he could do when given enough money and time. Remember how beautiful and colorful “Masque of the Red Death” was? Sure some of his films were forgettable and really just made to fill the drive-ins, but not all of his work is just that. He’s being honored for what he’s given us over his lifetime, including the start he’s given so many even more brilliant creative talents.
I don’t think much of the quality of his body of work. He probably wasn’t completely incompetent, and I bet some his awfulness comes from having less of a budget than he required, but he certainly isn’t deserving of an oscar.
Maybe an oscar meyer weiner, though.
I think the whiners who bawl about his being riffed so badly are the same type people who complain that This Island Earth was riffed on. These types are humorless individuals who will never ‘get’ MST3K or any of the spinoffs. They also don’t ‘get’ Monty Python or SCTV, and they aren’t people that misties would enjoy hanging out with.
I would never debate things with these people because it there would be no point in it.
Considering what Hammer studios was putting out at the same time for extremely small budgets, he doesn’t deserve any accolades. He made 8 million films and 7,999,995 of them were absolute abysmal garbage. You don’t need a budget to create atmosphere or suspense, all you need is talent.
Corman’s on screen efforts may not be the best in the world, but the effect he’s had on Hollywood is undeniable. One example is what has come to be known as the “Roger Corman School” which produced many of the greatest directors of the past 40 years. Ron Howard, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorcese, James Cameron, Peter Bogdanovich…the list goes on and on. Corman for the win.
Apparently I’m the only one here who’s seen The Trip.
I have to weigh in on this Oscar business and whether it is a legitimate award. Like most awards it is by the big studios for the big studios in order to make more money. There are excellent indie movies out there for decades that should have won awards but did not. Marisa Tomei was mentioned and is an indie actress who won the award when she worked for a big studio. Check out the MTV awards, same thing just ask Kanye! (sorry to disgrace this thread by citing him)
In spite of my comment about “crimes against cinema,” I agree with the general mixed sentiment about Corman’s award. On one hand, I love the Poe movies, which illustrate what type of work he was capable of. On the other hand, the biggest constraint on Corman’s talent was not money, but Corman himself. It’s not that he didn’t have the money to produce good work, it was that he was too cheap to let himself maximize his talent. And Corman had amazing talent, particularly for organization, recognizing an interesting script (many Corman films are based on interesting premises), and uncovering great talent. Compare one of the Corman-directed films listed above to the Corman-produced Coppola-directed Dementia 13. Coppola had the same limitations as Corman (because Corman was cutting the checks), but Coppola was able to use his talents to make a classic film in spite of them. It seems to me that Corman used his talents to save money, not necessarily to make the film better.
In Susan Gray’s book, one of Corman’s collaborators (I don’t remember who) is quoted as saying that he “used half his genius to degrade his own work, and the other half to degrade the work of others.” While that is somewhat unfair, I think it speaks to the central truth of Corman’s films. If Corman was not so good at making films on the cheap, he might have been a great director.
I also tend to agree that the Academy Awards are garbage, but, if we are to take them at their word that they are celebrating the art of film, I don’t see how Corman should receive an award based upon his artistic achievement. Now if the Academy Awards celebrate the art of the movie business, then Corman is a slam dunk.
Corman = Kurosawa? Corman = Hitchcock? I’m not so sure.
#96 – oh no Evan, I saw “The Trip”. Paid to see it first run. I agree with some of the comments that the awards shows are just that – shows. The awards themselves – as a wise robot once said “the night the stars salute themselves!” It’s entertainment only. Few of the awards have acutal merit. “Titanic” was really the best pictue that year??
Corman’s ability to find talanted people and give them a place to start should be admired. Of course you could argue that such talanted people would have found a start in other movies if Corman wasn’t around. But then you get into the whole “if” thing and that’s just silly.
Fact is that Corman’s ability to spot talent has contributed to bringing many of the films we know and love to the screen. He should be acknowledged for that.
As a film maker his skills at storytelling and creating an entertaining film are marginal at best. Judging the films he’s done that were shown on MST3K you get a good taste of the lowest points in his work: turgid story telling, bad dialogue, horrible editing, no sense of pacing, and a mixed range of acting. This is not the work of a “master” or even someone who should be admired.
Added to this is the simple fact that the soul that is injected in films from other directors (like Ed Wood or Coleman Francis) seems to be missing here. I always get this empty feeling when watching a Corman film. Mostly because he was making most of these films to turn a profit – and not to tell a story. That’s a huge difference and I think you can tell that from the end result.
As crazy, stupid or just plain odd Francis or Wood got, you at least had the feeling that they were telling a story they wanted to tell. That always make the movie better (and seems to help the spirit of the riffing). Corman’s work doen’t usually have that feel, and as I mentioned in “The Undead” thread, I have to be in the mood for Corman’s brand of idiocy. And some of them (“Swamp Diamonds” in particular)I find to be really hard to watch.
Corman has made some good films in his time (“Deathrace 2000” is a hoot), but more often than not his actual movies are below average.