Continuing on with our exploration of those tawdry film terrors we dub Creepy Cheapies, we again take a look at the works of a filmmaker who always excelled in "cheap," if not always in "creepy." We refer to Herschell Gordon Lewis, of course, and the film in question is one of his infamous "gore" films, but one with a twist--a plot that tilts to the surreal even amidst the squirting stage blood and flying animal entrails. That's what makes, for some, the trip worthwhile when they go to visit...
By RAYMOND L. BLAKEY Greetings, HORROR-WOOD readers, It’s great to be back with all of you once again. As always, "real-life" is much scarier than any film we discuss here. Fortunately, I was able to escape its cold embrace and join you all here again. Today I’m back with a look at another Creepy Cheapie of classic cinema. For those of you coming in late, go and read those excellent Horror-Wood archives, I will define the Creepy Cheapie for you. A Creepy Cheapie is a film made on a low budget, often extremely low, that has all the punch and thrills of a much more expensive film such as a Hollywood blockbuster. Not every low budget film can be a Creepy Cheapie. There has to be something particular, something of a special quality to make that distinction.
In the case of today’s film we are discussing a theme that has been with horror fiction since its inception. The idea of reality blending with fantasy is certainly not new. However, it is an extremely long-lived concept. Poe used it in some of his most famous short stories and it continues to this day in film series such as The Ring. But, in the realm of the Creepy Cheapie one man used this particular story telling devices in one of the single, most, visceral horror films ever made. That man was the ever-infamous Herschell Gordon Lewis. The film in question is The Wizard of Gore (1970). This film is also unique in Lewis’s on film history as it represents a return to the kind of film making that made him famous in the early Sixties. Lewis, along with his partner, David Friedman, created his "Blood Trilogy" of films in an era where the underground Nudie films were no longer finding audiences and had lost their exploitation and shock appeal. Lewis and Friedman realized that a new kind of film should be made that could offer the audience shocks in a new kind of way.
But, like any artist, Lewis's interest shifted a bit after his third film and he would go on to produce a few films that were much more standard horror fare. Public demand would also see him produce a few juvenile delinquent films and biker movies. But, eventually his fans were calling for more blood and that is what he would deliver. This particular film came from the simplest of ideas, as do many of Lewis’s works. The idea was to have a magician whose act is not at all illusion. When he saws a woman in half he literally saws a woman in half. The problem is how to make a concept like that work beyond the first ten minutes of the movie. This is where Lewis’s unique type of brilliance comes into play. He gave his character, Montag the Magician, the power to blur the lines between reality and fantasy. In fact the films penultimate scene involves the magician’s performance being broadcast on television, thus muddying the line between reality and fantasy even further.
It is in making that decision that this film goes from simply being a slasher film to being a more profound horror fantasy. In fact, the film ends where it begins in one of the most complex ending sequences that any film like this has ever achieved. It serves to make the viewer question if what they had just watched was the beginning of the story or its conclusion or if the story is simple one giant, endless, loop. Now, before I go on, I should make one thing perfectly clear. This is not a good movie. Indeed, in my personal opinion this movie kind of sucks. It has grade Z level porno film acting in it, pathetic sets, and special effects that betray the films 35-year age. Watching Wayne Ratay (Jack) and Ray Sager (Montag) confront each other as hero and villain respectively is like watching some one kill a puppy. By that I mean it is the most awful thing in the world and yet it’s hard not to watch it.
This film should be celebrated solely for its concept and execution of said concept. Besides, despite the antiquity of the special effects, they must have been something to witness back when the film was released. In fact stylistically it is Lewis’s unique direction that does make this film re-watchable. At the end of the day people can complain about Lewis’s films on a lot of levels. But, one thing that can never be denied is that the man was a good director. He had an ability to make poor acting and shoddy, cheap, production values work in a much grander way than other directors would ever be capable of.
In fact, one of the things that fascinates me about The Wizard of Gore, from the perspective of a student of film, is the way it accomplishes by accident what later directors would spend millions of dollars to do deliberately. The films makes you feel like you are watching a live action version of an old EC Horror comic book. Maybe it’s because the characters are so boldly two-dimensional or the colors in the film so garish, or maybe the actors seeming to literally be reading their lines as the cameras role. Maybe it’s because the plot seems to pulled right from the pages of an EC comic book. Removing some of the other-worldly concepts would certainly give this story the weight of something that would be in an eight-page comic book story. I am not sure, but somehow these factors combine to create exactly that feeling whenever I watch this movie.
I sometimes wonder, given the films odd introduction sequence, if HGL hadn’t been thinking in those lines when he made the film. Montage is certainly as interesting a horror host as the Crypt Keeper from either the Hammer film or the HBO series. In any event, Gorge Romero and Robert Zemeckis would spend millions of dollars years later to deliberately create stories with that EC feel to them. Not to beat a dead horse, but I must reiterate this is not a good movie. However, I do thing it is a film that any emerging film fan or student of film should see. It’s the yin and yang of film making in one complete package. It both perfectly illustrates how to and how not to make a horror/suspense film.
But, it also offers something that other films of its kind cannot offer. It offers a stylistic showing of concepts and ideas that had never, to my knowledge, been tried with this kind of exploitation film making before. Most of the time, such films were very cut-n-paste affairs offering little in the way of pure creativity. A killer was nothing more than a butcher who would kill and hack their victims apart and nothing of supernatural value ever came into play. This was not only true of Lewis, but also of those who copy his film style and make a number of inferior films based on his previous work. But, HGL truly takes the high road in a making a very "low road" film work. Years before some of our most famous horror filmmakers would explore this kind of story telling with films like A Nightmare On Elm Street, Dreamscape, The Ring, and even Creepshow, Herschell Gordon Lewis was doing it all with a unique blend of style and attitude. Thanks, Ray. There's little doubt that The Wizard Of Gore is more than a collection of cheap shock scenes. There is a kind of surreal feel to the film, no doubt thanks to Lewis, who is, after all, a professor who knows classic literature and storytelling very well. But this is also a man who'd rather save five bucks rather than make a particular scene look better on screen. As a result, there might be some "treasure" buried in the exploitative "trash" of this cheap drive-in flick, but digging for it takes a pretty strong stomach. Article copyright © Raymond L. Blakey |
