Bohemian Cinema By Jonathan Pacheco

On Trial: The Splat Pack: Part I

Tags: On Trial, Horror, Splat Pack, Rob Zombie, Eli Roth

Is Rob Zombie a hack? Does Eli Roth have any sort of moral compass? Or does the “Splat Pack” specialize in making gory garbage? Today I put Mr. Roth and Mr. Zombie on trial for Crimes Against Cinema. Don’t worry, the rest of the “Splat Pack” will have their day as well.

Suspect: Rob Zombie

On April of 2007, Mr. Piper of LAZY EYE THEATRE had this to say about Rob Zombie:

So here’s what I ask. Label him something else. Anything but a director or a filmmaker.

He goes on to explain that he doesn’t deserve the title of “director” or “filmmaker” due to the terrible quality of the films that he’s put out. He goes on to call The Devil’s Rejects “a moronic attempt at something not even close to a movie.”

If you’ll remember, I liked The Devil’s Rejects. I felt that it balanced the villains with the protagonists quite well, and it actually spent time trying to develop its characters. It also featured a great-as-expected performance by Sid Haig, but also a surprising turn by Bill Moseley.

Now, his first film, House of 1000 Corpses, doesn’t do much except tarnish his record. It was mostly lifeless and unoriginal with only a couple of redeeming qualities. Another strike against his record is his Grindhouse trailer, Werewolf Women of the S.S. I have yet to find one person who actually enjoyed the trailer. Sure, the concept was there, and Nicolas Cage’s appearance was random and gleeful, but everything else was all…wrong. It just didn’t work, and it just wasn’t funny (and trust me, it was supposed to be funny). I sat there watching the Grindhouse trailers, laughing hysterically with everyone else, and then all of a sudden, Zombie’s trailer came on, and everyone had that sort of leftover chuckle. We were in the laughing mood, so we tried really hard to laugh at this one. Just a dud.

But Werewolf Women was just a two minute trailer. Compared to two feature films, it doesn’t leave much of a mark. But now comes the soon-to-be-released remake of the most revered horror film of all time, Halloween. I saw Halloween a long time ago and only “sort of” liked it. Yet I think that how good of a film that it is is beside the point. I may think Halloween is a little overrated, but in the film world, it’s almost universally recognized as an absolute classic. What is Zombie thinking, tackling a remake of a beloved classic for his third feature film? You gotta have street-cred first, bro! And even then, there’s no guarantee (hey there, Gus).

But if we’re judging Zombie on a purely cinematic level, it’s possible that he could knock Halloween out of the park. Will he? Well, I don’t like to judge before I’ve seen, but looking at the trailer and the poster, I must say that I’m less than enamored. The trailer shows a little style, but I fear Zombie’s focus for the film may be in the wrong place (making the protagonist practically a nobody doesn’t look like the wisest choice). And I my the only one who thinks this poster is less than inspiring?

Yet I have not seen Rob Zombie’s Halloween, so how can I admit it as evidence? Right now, all I have is a really bad film, a really good film, and a couple of bad trailers. I’m sorry, but that is not enough evidence to convict Zombie. It’s just too early to call him a hack. For now, I’m okay with calling him a director, and maybe even a filmmaker (hey, you can always add “terrible” before it, if it makes you feel better).

Verdict: Not Guilty…Yet

---

Suspect: Eli Roth

Also in April of this year, Damian of Windmills of My Mind had this to say about Eli Roth:

Eli Roth seems to be lacking something that I think is important for a great horror filmmaker (or any great filmmaker really) to have: some kind of inner moral compass that allows his films to have purpose or meaning outside of the mere desire to shock, titillate or disgust. I don’t think he has this. I do not get the sense from him or his movies that he is a responsible filmmaker, that he ever asks himself whether or not he has ‘gone too far’ in what he puts up on the screen. I find his ideas (and consequently his work) to be cynical, apathetic and nihilistic…and I think his disregard for whatever consequences his films might have is at best discouraging and at worst frightening and dangerous.

This is predominantly the reason that Damian has sworn off all Eli Roth films.

After reviewing the evidence (Roth’s films: Cabin Fever, Hostel, and Hostel: Part II), I have to disagree with these statements. I do not believe that Roth lacks this “moral compass,” I just believe that he chooses not to use it in his films—that’s not what his films are about. He makes films that shock and revolt because that’s what he intended for them to do; that doesn’t mean he has no feelings about it. He knows what will disgust people and he puts it on the screen because that is his goal with these films. Whether or not that qualifies as bad filmmaking is not the point (yet).

Now, are there consequences to this kind of behavior? Sure. Is it all Roth’s fault? No. If viewers were able to separate film from reality, then all would be fine. But they can’t, so Roth does need to think about this, weigh this, and then choose whether or not to put out these “nihilistic” films.

I think Roth’s problem is that he has too much faith in his viewers. He separates his films from his reality, which is why he can make statements saying that films should be more violent; it’s because his movies are not mixed with his reality. So he puts extreme material in his films in order to get the desired reaction (which is: as much shock as possible). But not everyone can handle that much violence without letting it affect their noggins, and Roth doesn’t seem to understand that.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen as many horror films in my life as I’ve seen in the months of April and May, and I’ve only seen 7 or 8. And yet, I didn’t find Hostel to be the cringe-inducing sadistic gorefest that everyone else seems to think it is. Call me a sicko, but I was kind of disappointed, and speaking to a few friends, I wasn’t the only one. Have I become desensitized? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not mocking the notion or danger of desensitization, because it scares me just as much as it scares everyone else. But my point is that, in my case, I’ve barely seen these types of movies, but I don’t find them to be particularly “extreme.”

I like to think that I have a good moral compass. I’m no saint, but my friends and family know that I’m very conscious of my morality, integrity, and spirituality. So why do I find a film with “no moral compass” inoffensive? Has real life violence desensitized me? I don’t think so. Let’s see if I can explain this without sounding like a total schmuck.

I think that in the past year or two, I’ve gotten better at separating reality and entertainment. A few years ago, I couldn’t look at a film like Hostel without my hand over my face. Now? Every once in a while something will gross me out to the point of turning my head, but in my mind, I block out the fear reflex by consciously reminding myself that this is a movie full of fake blood, makeup, prosthetics, and CG. It’s okay for me to look at it straight on because that’s not really his leg (and seeing these things straight on, they actually look kind of silly and obviously fake).

Yet if you put on a videotaped surgery from TLC, I’ll walk out of the room; it’s too much for me. Seeing someone get stitches makes my toes curl. Watching someone stick a needle in someone else is almost unbearable. I can watch Hostel and Cabin Fever because someone bought the makeup and created the prosthetics. I’m not saying I’m “better” than others because of it. I’m only saying that, in my mind, I’m okay watching these things because I know that before any of the events on the screen happened, a director sitting in a chair yelled, “Action!” But I can’t watch executions and decapitations from the war and I don’t want to see Saddam being hanged. I refuse to watch any Ultimate Fighting Championship matches—I can’t watch people do that to each other.

Because that’s real.

Verdict: Not Guilty

Now, there are the accusations against Eli Roth’s films themselves. Are they good? Do they stink? Do only horror nerds get them? Here’s what I think.

Eli, I get what you’re trying to do. You love geeky, gory, gruesome flicks and those are the films that inspire you. You make films that remind you of those old ones, you toss in a few homages, and that’s your film.

The problem is that you’re not doing anything with it. Emulation may be flattery, but it’s nothing special. It’s like you’re painting a house. You’ve got that first coat of blue, but what about the second coat? Or the trimming? Some stylistic choices? With your films, you have the foundation of horror down, but without a second coat and some originality, your films feel flat and very thin.

That’s the thing about (most) Tarantino films; they copy, allude to, steal from, and rip off films that Quentin adores, but it’s okay because in the end, he makes them his own. He adds depth. He’ll make a blaxploitation film like the ones he used to watch, but he’ll make it really good by adding his own tricks and dialogue—not by merely slapping a series of clichés on the screen and calling it “an homage.”

I want to like Eli Roth, and I’ll continue to watch his films and give him a chance. But unfortunately, I think I enjoy the process of giving him a chance more than I enjoy his films—well, maybe that’s an exaggeration. I can say that I enjoy his films a little more than I admire them, but I’m still disappointed on all counts.

Verdict: Guilty