Creative Investigation U - Final Essay Draft
F634 Creative Investigation In Film
Debated heavily from the time it was first introduced in the French publication Cahiers du Cinéma in 1954 by François Truffaut, authorship is still a controversial topic today. Theorists such as Kael and Sarris have argued over whether a director can be considered the true auteur of a film or not, and what a director has to do in order to be worthy of that status.
Having produced over 400 films and directed over 50, Roger Corman has been bestowed with the nickname ‘The King of the B’s’ following a filmography full of low-budget shockers and lurid exploitation films, often full of gore and nudity. These are not typically the type of films critics would consider to be ‘art’. The typical auteur creates films full of thematics and meaning, with distinct stylistic personality carrying over their films, and bolstering the film with their own ideologies and feelings- Truffaut stated that an auteur’s film is “an expression of his own personality”.
Rather than merely dismissing Corman, though, I wish to investigate some of his earlier contributions to the film industry and analyse whether these really meet the criteria of a typical auteur. Through the less refined aesthetics of his films, I wish to investigate as to whether Corman carries a particular personal style that indicates that he could in fact be considered an auteur as much as more respected directors. I believe that this could reveal an interesting angle of the authorship debate- do films need to be ‘artistic’ for their directors to be considered an auteur?
According to the model developed by prominent theorist Andrew Sarris in 1962, there are three key areas that a director needs to cover to be considered an auteur. The director needs to show technical competence, a distinguishable personality shown through their work, and an interior meaning within the films. These terms are not necessarily restricted by budget or the time it took the film to be made. By examining these aspects I intend to reveal whether Corman can be considered an auteur in terms of these criteria.
I will be studying Corman as a director, although he has numerous other credits as well, as this is the role that initial authorship theories aimed to benefit. I will be looking at three of his earlier films, which he directed from the period of 1956 to 1960, an era typically considered as dedicated to horror and exploitation films aimed at a teenage audience. As such, my research revolves around the earlier ideologies expressed by Corman in his films. I intend to work against the early years of the authorship debate, and demonstrate why he should be considered alongside more ‘prestigious’ directors of the time, such as Hitchcock. With a current 56 directing credits listed on IMDb, Corman has so far displayed a longevity and dedication that often goes unrecognised.
I selected three films I considered to be key for Corman’s development as a creator- It Conquered The World (1956), as a traditional ‘alien invasion’ sci-fi film, Attack of the Crab Monsters, which covers the base of the ‘oversized monster’ trope, and finally, The Little Shop of Horrors (1960), possibly the most well-known of a triad of ‘black comedy’ films that was a turning point for Corman in terms of genre, and later went on to become a cult classic with a musical remake.
Through this investigation I intend to answer the overall question ‘can Roger Corman be considered a true auteur?’ To address and support this idea, I also investigated three further sub topics that link back to the concept of authorship and thus will help me reach a conclusion. These are:
Did Corman develop the horror and sci fi genres further through his films or did he rely on convention?
Do It Conquered The World, Attack of the Crab Monsters and The Little Shop of Horrors show that Corman used personal stylistic techniques in the period of the 1950s to 1960s?
Were Corman’s ideologies and representations of women more developed than those of other directors of the time?
1: It Conquered The World. (Roger Corman. 1956. Sunset Productions.)
A traditional science fiction and horror film, in which a disillusioned scientist whose discoveries have been shunned offers assistance to a Venusian alien, who then descends to control the earth. Entirely filmed in black and white, and in only five days. The titular ‘it’, also referred to as Beluah, was designed by Paul Blaisdell, but is not exactly intimidating in appearance. Overall, this makes the film a typical Corman picture- basic plot, strangely designed monster, and a short shooting period, which is one of the primary reasons I chose this film- that, and the fact that it is on the surface a generic sci fi. I also elected to analyse this film for the ‘famous’ speech given by leading lady Clare Anderson to Beluah, which contrasts sexist stereotyping prominent at the time.
2. Attack of the Crab Monsters. (Roger Corman. 1957. Los Altos Productions.)
Another sci-fi horror combination, this time including a group of scientists studying nuclear effects on a remote island who come under attack from native giant crab monsters. Filmed on an estimated budget of $70,000, also in black and white. Blaisdell did not design the crab monsters on this particular picture despite being a regular designer in Corman’s company. Similar to It Conquered The World, this is a film that appears to rely strongly on genre, albeit that of the giant monster movie rather than an alien invasion. It also stars a total of one female character, which I wanted to analyse and compare to the other films. It is a typical B movie, even more so than ITCW, with a weak plot, hammy villains, and a poster featuring its sole female character as a damsel in distress.
3. The Little Shop of Horrors. (Roger Corman. 1960. Roger Corman Productions.)
One of a ‘trilogy’ with A Bucket of Blood and Creature from the Haunted Sea, later remade into the 1980s cult classic musical of the same name. Unlike the other two films I am studying, it is a black comedy horror rather than a sci-fi film, but still stars a gigantic monster as the main antagonist. It was actually filmed on the leftover set from A Bucket of Blood, and scraped together in only two days, and its plot is very similar when broken down. While filmed in black and white, a colour-restored version exists. It was filmed on a budget of merely $27,000. This film is thought to have marked the beginning of Corman’s style, as stated by the man himself in his autobiography, which is why I decided to analyse it, as it could offer insight into how Corman’s films are aesthetically arranged.
4. Armstrong, L. (1980). Roger Corman’s Flicks May Be ‘B’ Shlock, but No One in Hollywood Has Nurtured More 'A’ Talent. People. [online]
Essentially a 1980s biography of Corman’s life and career, with inclusion regarding some of the young actors whose careers he helped. While the source has some useful insight as to how Corman worked, it is from a lifestyle magazine and so not entirely reliable with its information. It is more of a generic biography linking to a new feature from Corman that is out of the time frame of the three films I am studying.
5. Corman, R. (2013). The Poe Perplex. Sight and Sound, p.29.
Roger Corman, in his own words, discusses the cycle of films he made between 1960 and 1964 based on the tales of Edgar Allan Poe. This ties quite strongly with authorship, with Corman himself listing some possible influences that could contest his identity as an auteur, but also some of the theories he had that could confirm it. The article may be biased towards his side. Also, it only discusses Poe cycle films rather than the era I’m studying.
6. Grimes, W. (1995). COVER STORY: Yikes! Roger Corman is Back, Still. New York Times. [online]
An article revolving around Corman just prior to the airing of ‘Roger Corman Presents’, which included some remakes of older Corman films.
7. Queenan, J. (2017). B-movie king Roger Corman: ‘Death Race isn’t an essay on violence – it’s an action comedy’. The Guardian. [online]
Corman discusses the release of Death Race 2050 (2017), especially in regards to politics, and also reflects on his history. Due to this article being more recent than some of the others I looked at, I found it wasn’t as helpful, as it focused more on modern politics and Corman’s recent work, but it did offer some initial context o Corman’s older films.
8. Holte, M. (2010). Value Engineering: Roger Corman Within His Own Context. East of Borneo. [online]
Regards Corman in the making of horror comedies such as A Bucket of Blood and The Little Shop of Horrors, going more in-depth on the collaborations of others to the films. Also discusses his later works. I had found this to be the most useful of the online articles I read, as it touched on issues of authorship within Corman films.
9. Corman, R. and Jerome, J. (1990). How I made a hundred movies in Hollywood and never lost a dime. Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo, pp.Chapter 4, Chapter 6, Page 237.
The autobiography of Roger Corman- he offers a personal insight into the films that he directed, wrote and produced, and the ideology behind them. This went into some detail about all three of my focal films, from Corman’s perspective, which was helpful for all three areas.
10. Frank, A. (1998). The Films of Roger Corman: ‘Shooting My Way Out of Trouble'. Bath: The Bath Press, pp.12, 35-39, 72-76, 79.
A book offering a rundown of Corman’s entire filmography, including production details and facts. It also includes reviews for each film from critics of the time they were released. As one of the first sources I found, this was more useful as an introduction to the context of Corman’s work, and also included important details on the others who worked on the films, implying some issues of authorship.
11. Masters of Fantasy: Roger Corman, (1997). [TV programme] Sci-Fi Channel.
A brief documentary summarizing Corman’s career. As well as his assistants and proteges offering some insight into his work, Corman makes a few comments himself about his career. This involved a lot about style, but also regarded the development of Little Shop, especially on issues of authorship.
12. Post Mortem with Mick Garris: Roger Corman, (2010). [TV programme] Comcast.
A more recent interview between Mick Garris and Roger Corman just following the event where Corman received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the Academy. Coming from Corman himself, this was most useful in describing some of his ideology and what he puts into the films in terms of messages & values, which was helpful for the genre section.
13. Nashawaty, C. and Landis, J. (2016). Crab monsters, teenage cavemen, and candy stripe nurses. New York: Stewart, Tabori & Chang, p.Introduction, Preface, Chapter 1.
Another written account of Corman’s career, including interviews directly from the graduates of the ‘Corman film school’- actors and screenwriters and producers who worked with him. This was less useful than some of the other sources as it rehashed a lot of things I had already found out, but it did include interviews with graduates of the ‘Corman film school’, aka the screenwriters, producers and actors who worked with him. This mentioned some interesting ideas about Corman’s opinion on style in his early days as a director.
14. Aleksandrowicz, P. (2016). The cinematography of Roger Corman: exploitation filmmaker or auteur?. 1st ed. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp.63, 71-74, 164, 181, 186.
A study of Corman in relation to auteur theory, focusing on his work ethic, themes and style. While this book was extremely useful in terms of looking at style and genre, it did not touch as much on gender representation, although it was mentioned.
15. Corman's World: Exploits of a Hollywood Rebel. (2011). [DVD] Directed by A. Stapleton. USA: A&E IndieFilms.
A full-length documentary closely following the history of Corman’s career, including behind the scenes details and interviews with people he worked with. This was useful in showcasing how Roger Corman’s students viewed his work, and the processes he used to create films. Specifically the visual aspect made this especially useful in terms of looking at style.
16. D’Amore, L. Smart Chicks: Representing Women’s Intellect in Film and Television. (2016). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 67.
A book discussing the representation of women in the media, especially in terms of intelligence. It included a section regarding Attack of the Crab Monsters that offered a different perspective to what I had seen in the movie and was therefore useful to my investigation, specifically in the area of representation.
Did Corman develop the horror and sci fi genres further through his films or did he rely on convention?
Roger Corman is often referred to as ‘King of the B’s’ and one of the defining genres of that type of film were horror and science fiction films. From a modern perspective, his early filmography may appear inherently clichéd. Some would argue that he just turned out as many generic films he could as quickly as possible to draw in an audience and a profit. Corman himself stated the importance of genre in his films. As he described it ‘on a big picture with a star, you’re free to do many things you wouldn’t do on a low budget picture because the star sells the picture.’ [12] This statement implies that he had to stick to genre to appeal to audiences. Considering the budgets of his films, he certainly wasn’t working with big stars, and therefore didn’t have a lot of leeway. By using genre conventions he could shape a film that meets the expectations of the audience, and ensure a financial success. If he took too many risks with his films and made something totally different, they could flop, and mean he lost money.
And so there are several genre conventions that emerge in 1950s sci-fi horror films, including those out of Corman’s directorial jurisdiction. Stock plots and characters, such as a discredited person trying to prove themselves, useless policemen who do not believe something is occurring, or intrepid but unrealistically represented scientists doing something or other related to the film’s plot, frequently arise. We see fears of ‘the other’, or the idea of invasion, most prominently in It Conquered The World, where an alien lifestyle is seen to overtake an American town. The stock characters of scientists are also seen in ITCW, but moreso in Attack of the Crab Monsters, where they serve as the protagonists. Little Shop of Horrors brings in generic detectives to investigate the disappearances of those eaten by Audrey Jr (although they are played for laughs). And of course, the main antagonist in all three films is an oversized monster with a comical design, produced on a low budget. I could go on describing the stock plots used across the three focal films, but I believe it would be more helpful to look at how Corman developed the genre, and whether he inserted a deeper meaning.
Influential genre theorist Richard Dyer compared the concepts of ‘art’ and ‘entertainment’ films in detail in the 1992 release Only entertainment. Here he detailed the differences between ‘art films’- they provide moral or intellectual learning, more elitist and refined, and ultimately more difficult to consume- ideally they’d make you think. ‘Genre films’, which were predominantly what Corman worked with, were meant to be ‘hedonistic, democratic, vulgar, and easy’. As in, they were intentionally created so you can watch it for the fun of it, and forget about it more or less as you left the cinema. Corman’s films are undoubtedly this. They are cheap and designed to shock. Regardless, they defy Dyer’s comparison and contain a certain level of ideology that furthers the simple narrative of the films and perhaps builds on the basic foundations of the film’s genre. He has stated himself that his pictures are ‘entertainment… underneath subtextually, is a little bit of thought on my part’ [12].
The 1950s was a period of tense unrest within the US. All three of my focal films were filmed during this period, which is part of what is referred to as the Cold War, in which tensions rose between the United States and the Soviet Union. During this time, there was a perpetual fear of invasion from the Communists of the USSR, and this was inevitably reflected in sci-fi films of the time, most prominently in Don Siegel’s Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956), a film which preceded It Conquered The World by a mere five months.
Corman himself seemingly made films that subtly reflected political views and fears of the 1950s. Pawel Aleksandrowicz claims It Conquered The World can be classed as ‘an anti-Communist film’. [14]
There are obvious parallels to Invasion of the Body Snatchers in It Conquered The World, from mind control to emotionlessness to useless policemen. All three of these aspects are reflected in the above scene, in which a brainwashed policeman kills the newspaper editor without a note of remorse. The concept and fear of the ‘other’ in society is ever-present, as the cast of both films react with disgust or disbelief at the brutal invader in their midst. This horror is presented as merely justified, however- the Venusian in It Conquered The World wants to remove all emotion from humanity, after all!- and reflects the opinion everyday American citizens had of Communist invaders. To them, it seemed that this was what the USSR planned to do with them, or least one possible outcome. This is reaffirmed in the dialogue, as in confronting the monster, Claire declares it is ‘ugly, horrible’- which would have been the consensus regarding the Soviet Union in the USA at the time.
Attack of the Crab Monsters ponders on an alternate outcome of the Cold War. Aleksandrowicz additionally considered that the message of it ‘matches the anti-militaristic trend in the 1950s science fiction’, despite being silly on the surface. [14] With its titular monsters spawned from radioactive waste, the film is an allegory against the nuclear-related tension between the USA and the USSR. The film’s opening is a montage depicting various underwater scenes, including mangled metal similar to battleships, and a host of bug-eyed, monstrous creatures that look like the stereotypical idea of what mutation would do to fish. The film also carries similar ideology to It Conquered The World with the idea that someone you know could be ‘replaced’ by an enemy spy at any time. The voices of the crabs’ victims are still heard at various points in the film, but it is no longer them speaking- the crabs have imitated them to draw in more victims. It is later revealed that crabs absorb the memories of their victims. This relates intrinsically to the contextual fear that someone you care about could be influenced by an opposing ideology- in the film, it is the monster crabs, in real life, it was the Communists. Both are binary opposites at first glance, but the lines soon blur until you can’t tell the difference between either side.
Later on in the film, scientist Weigland concludes that the gigantic crabs are the consequence of radiation poisoning. While the science of the film is inherently inaccurate, it interestingly reflects fears people had about the Cold War- both sides, the USA and the USSR, had access to nuclear weapons. At any moment, one could drop one on the other, ending life on Earth as we know it.
Following the mold of A Bucket of Blood, the film that it essentially replicated, The Little Shop of Horrors’s social commentary lies less in civilian fears of war and invasion and more in the way they acted themselves. While A Bucket of Blood was a sharp commentary on the beatnik scene, with a clumsy protagonist resorting to murder to meet their pretentious standards, Little Shop follows the same vein with a similar protagonist’s plan at first aiming to impress a girl he likes, but eventually also turning to killing because of the attention that he receives from it.
Little Shop of Horrors is a black comedy with horror elements. The main antagonist, Audrey Jr, seems to emulate monster movies such as Attack of the Crab Monsters, with a normally small being becoming comically oversized. Protagonist Seymour is helplessly hopeless, going from being pushed around by his short-tempered boss Gravis Mushnick, to becoming the servant of the plant he raised himself- the framing of this shot exemplifies that. Of all the films, it is the one that aims to be the most entertaining despite its dark subject matter, and is the lightest in terms of underlying ideology. However, it ultimately helped to develop the genre of black comedy and bring it to a more mainstream audience. The hammy voice of Audrey Jr, voiced by the film’s screenwriter Charles Griffith, is an iconic feature that was carried over to the 1984 musical remake. According to East of Borneo’s Michael Ned Holte, however, ‘the slapstick of Little Shop and A Bucket of Blood hews much closer to Griffith’s goofball sensibility than to Corman’s serious, engineering approach’. This calls the issue of authorship into question somewhat, as the comedy of Little Shop makes the film what it is. On the other hand, it could be interpreted that Corman focused more on the horrific aspects of the film, thus sticking to the themes he had previously followed.
Regardless of each film’s lurid aesthetics, there are interior meanings present in each one (some more strongly than others). It could be argued that in the case of ITCW, Corman was simply imitating Invasion of the Body Snatchers- there were five months between each film, and considering It Conquered The World was shot in a mere five days, it is possible Corman turned it out with the intention of hopping on Invasion’s success. However, this is still an alternative perspective on the anti-Communist themes. As for Attack of the Crab Monsters, the ‘radioactive monster’ trope was already alive and well at the time, but the anti-military themes brought some deeper historical context to the film. Corman himself never stated that these film were anti-Communist himself- he claimed they focused more on the ‘ambivalence of science’. [14] This in itself broadens the film’s horizon, even if the science presented was not realistic, bring these these to a young audience and perhaps inciting personal interests. Finally, Little Shop lacked these militaristic themes, but instead helped to spark the popularity of the black comedy genre. It was not recognised for what it was at the time, but the popularity of the musical remake certainly solidified its importance in film history.
Do It Conquered The World, Attack of the Crab Monsters and The Little Shop of Horrors show that Corman used personal stylistic techniques in the period of the 1950s to 1960s?
Films in the 1950s to 1960s were generally not as flashy and complex as films of the modern era, but directors still had room to develop their own aesthetics. Style is considered a significant aspect of what defines authorship, as it shows that the director is able to carry a consistent visual theme through their films, which in itself is comprised of aspects of their psyche. According to authorship theorist Andrew Sarris, a director must ‘exhibit certain recurring characteristics, which serve as his signature’ over a group of films to be considered an auteur. By looking at three of Corman’s films, which come from a specific time frame, I will investigate whether Corman’s films can be considered to have a stylised edge, or whether there is a lack of consistency between films, and what exactly that style is.
By the 1950s, Corman had settled into a groove of turning out cheap, no-frills films that could be compared to other similarly inexpensive films of the time. Pawel Aleksandrowicz called them ‘faulty and stylistically simple.’ [14] Meanwhile, Chris Nashawaty notes that he ‘wasn’t much of a stylist at first. He was working too quickly...’ [13] However, this period may actually have seen the development of Corman’s initial style.
In Corman’s own words, the trilogy of black comedies including Little Shop of Horrors helped him to ‘put together some of the most definitive elements of my style’. [9] These, he continued, included ‘fast cutting and fluid camera moves; composition in depth; unconventional, well-sketched characters; and solid performances from the ensemble of Corman players’. [9] These are most prominently displayed in these films, but there is evidence of these stylistic techniques budding in the earlier films It Conquered the World and Attack of the Crab Monsters.
This particular shot, and indeed this scene, from It Conquered The World is a good example. The above shot shows a fluid shift. First, we see Paul Nelson exit his car and follow Tom Anderson into the house. Then in one swift movement, the garage door opens to reveal Claire Anderson, boasting a rifle, who slides into the driver’s seat and drives away. The next few minutes cut between the tense conversation held by Nelson and Anderson, and Claire’s gradual approach to where the Venusian hides, kicking up the suspense of the scene in a way that is impressive for both the low budget and older technology available at the time. Without a lot in the way of special effects, the editing of this scene means it is still paced in an interesting way. While the script is a little lacklustre, also, the strong performances of the actors adds to the tension in this scene. Although this clearly wasn’t down to Corman himself, he was known for tutoring young people in the film industry- in The Films of Roger Corman, Martin Scorsese is quoted as saying ‘Roger Corman is not only a great mentor. He’s an artist, the best kind of artist, able to nurture and inspire talent in a generous way.’ [10] Hence while it was the actors’ talent that brought life to the scene, Corman’s influence would have certainly helped along the way.
Attack of the Crab Monsters includes similar techniques during its own dramatic sequences- as the scientists take on one of the giant monster crabs, the cuts between them and the monster increase in pace, even more so than in ITCW. This overall creates an almost panicky, life-or-death atmosphere- the feeling is that the scientists are at a massive risk of being killed here. The mise en scene also enunciates this, as the fight takes place in a claustrophobic cave, create a creeping feel of anxiety even before the crab makes itself known. The quirky plot is definitely present across Attack of the Crab Monsters too- even the title reflects the almost goofy style of the film.
Little Shop of Horrors was stated to be the proper start of Corman’s stylistic development, even through improvisation. Director Joe Dante stated that Corman ‘liked to move the camera a lot... sometimes the camera would merely tip over and he wouldn’t do another take…’ [11]
In one scene of Little Shop, it is not the camera tipping over that makes a shot, but some set equipment. The scene in the dentist’s ends abruptly on a comical note as Seymour topples into the dental set. This was genuine equipment belonging to the dentist that the crew was borrowing, however, and there was a rush to end the scene quickly so it could be rescued. Despite the equipment malfunction, the shot was simply cut at this point and used anyway.
The concept of Corman’s fast and loose directorial habits as a ‘style’ could be considered debatable, however. On the one hand, it certainly fits Sarris’s idea of a director having a ‘signature style’- Corman carries this method of filmmaking through much of his filmography, not just the three focal films I have studied, and he is notorious for it. Bob Burns described shoots as ‘ fast and furious’, stating that Corman ‘would only retake a shot if something really went wrong’. [8] Corman showed a level of intensity in filmmaking that led him to shoot films in ridiculously short periods of time- two days for Little Shop- utilising whatever props and actors came to hand. Not to mention that unlike some more established directors, Corman’s audience was young people, and his films were therefore tailored to meet their interests. The ‘fast cutting and fluid camera moves’ [9] evident in these films creates an exciting sense of urgency and drama, which would help keep the teenage audience engaged with the plot, and constantly on their toes. His equally young crew would also prefer these kind of conditions to perhaps longer, slower-paced art films. Corman worked fast, to create equally quick-paced films, and this speed became the style that he is known for.
However, some may dissent because this method becomes mostly incidental, relying on chance. Scenes might turn out well in one take, they might not. By working so quickly, there is no actual distinct intention behind this style, and it can be viewed as simply random. In the light of Alexandre Astruc’s theory of the camera-stylo, in which the director’s use of cameras reflects the author’s usage of a pen, Corman’s directorial style could be considered a hasty scribble.
Some may consider that it doesn't even matter whether Corman’s style was intentional or not, as it became an iconic part of his films anyway. However, in terms of assigning credit for the authorship of his films, it starts to present issues. According to theorist Janet Staiger, authorship assists in giving credit or blame, depending on the success of the film. Yet Corman stated in an interview that for A Bucket of Blood, ‘everyone was coming up with ideas as we went and we just tossed them in.’ [6] If similar could be said of his other films, it is difficult to determine where Corman’s influence begins and ends within a film. True, his films were not exactly up for critical acclaim, but several are hailed as ‘cult favourites’. [7] This does align with what is Corman is known best for- nurturing young talents and offering them a headstart in the industry. This vision of Corman’s films suggests they served as a playground for these young screenwriters, stars and producers, offering them a chance to contribute something proper to a film.
Ultimately, I believe Corman does have a consistent style, at least through the films I looked at, that mark him out from other directors in the same genres. The fast-paced style of the editing connects better with a young audience that may otherwise lose interest. In addition, the hodgepodge mix of ideas thrown together to make a film is stylistic in itself- it means that each film is a bricolage of the whole crew’s thoughts, which reflects Corman’s importance as a teacher in the industry. However, this does raise up some issues of authorship- some aspects accredited to Corman may have been the brainchild of someone else in the film’s crew.
Was Corman’s ideologies and representations of women more developed in his films than other directors of the time?
The 1950s to the 1960s, which is the period from which the films I am focusing on originate, is a time reflected on as still majorly unpleasant for marginalised groups, and often seen as offering mostly sexist films in an industry with little to offer to women of the time. However, unlike some directors of the time, Corman did include representations that differed to the general societal view of the time. Corman even stated in his autobiography that he does ‘believe in the feminist movement’ [9]. I would like to see how far Corman went into positively representing women, but also how he used them in exploitation films, in order to see whether he is truly reflective of early feminist ideals not, and whether that was intentional.
As a basic examination of my focal films, I put all three of them under the Bechdel test. Named for Alison Bechdel, the creator of the comic strip Dykes to Look Out For, this test first appeared in 1985 and has been used as a prevailing method of judging female representation within film. There are three simple criteria present- does the film include at least two named women? Do said women have a conversation? And is that conversation about something other than a man?
In terms of my focal films, It Conquered The World scrapes a pass due to a conversation in the opening between Claire Anderson and Joan Nelson, who discuss the dishes they are washing. Meanwhile, Attack of the Crab Monsters does not pass on the principle that Martha is the sole female character in the film. The cliché of having one sole female in a group of men is one that has persisted into more modern times. Finally, The Little Shop of Horrors doesn’t pass in particular- Audrey is vaguely involved in conversations involving at least one other woman, but it is the presence of other men and she says little to any other woman herself. Some of these women are also named- Mrs Shiva, and Shirley- but others are referred to in the cast list simply by epithets (‘Shirley’s friend’ and ‘Waitress’). Audrey rarely directly addresses any of them, and so a pass is ambiguous at best.
As a measure of feminist ideology within a film, the Bechdel test is definitely flawed. It does not take into account what the conversation actually is in the case that a film passes. The dishes conversation It Conquered The World is hardly the pinnacle of feminist progression, after all. It seems flawed that the film should be considered passable for this incident rather than Claire’s genuine show of independence later on in the film. It cannot really be used as a moral measure of how women are represented in films, as the only criterion is that the conversation with another woman isn’t about a man- this does not mean that they are free from poor, outdated representation. They could only be talking about clothes, or shopping, or housework as in the aforementioned film- all stereotypical ‘feminine’ topics.
It does correlate with the representation of women in Attack of the Crab Monsters, as mentioned above, which does not pass and does not have a strong representation of women. In this regard, it is quite useful, as it marks out an area where female representation is noticeably sparse.
It Conquered The World is notable for the speech given by Beverly Garland’s character Claire, cementing her as an unusually assertive female character in a period where women weren’t often seen doing much significant in films. However, as William Grimes stated in a New York Times article, ‘The Corman message tends to be practical rather than moral’ [6], and this may have been an exploitative measure to cause a stir amongst audiences. According to Pawel Aleksandrowicz, Corman’s use of exploitative topics ‘served as a framework or context for stories about exclusion or female empowerment’. [14]
In the penultimate scene of It Conquered The World, as well as the diegetic dialogue from Claire Anderson which denounces the monster and ultimately confronts it, there is the use of this medium shot, which is framed in a way that presents Anderson as larger than the Venusian monster. The camera angle shows her facing it directly, prepared to take it on.
A sharp contrast from the submissive housewife trope of the time, Claire starts off as a seemingly average archetype. She loves her husband, and her only conversation with another woman is about doing the dishes. She is seen to disagree with her husband, but does not have the power to dissuade him from contacting the Venusian. However, this frustration evolves into a wish to take matters into her own hands, and she progresses into a more active character. However, her efforts are ultimately not enough and she is killed in her confrontation with the alien. This could potentially be a metaphor for the difficulties faced by women as they attempt to overcome the strict social standards set by the patriarchy- in rising up from her traditional role as a wife, she nevertheless dies, and her efforts are left unknown, as many real women’s are.
On the other end of the spectrum, the sole female character in Attack of the Crab Monsters, Martha Hunter, is shown throughout the final scene framed by her two male colleagues. In this way, they appear to be almost like sentinels around her, protecting her from the titular beasts. She does not break away to fight them herself. In addition they are often seen leading her by the hand away from danger. This cements her as a markedly more submissive character in times of danger.
Martha is not as strong a character as Claire, and rarely does anything of importance on her own. She is introduced as Dale Drewer’s fiancée and most of what she does either involves him or some other member of the crew. However, she is a female scientist, which was not a common position for females at all during that period. Media theorist Mary Ann Doane notes that women ‘with power and authority… perform hyperfemininity as a means of concealing their power’. [16] There is no doubting Marty’s character is indeed very stereotypically feminine- she acts as a motherly figure to the rest of the crew, cooking them dinner when they go out to face one of the crab monsters, and taking care of the injured. She is objectified by the framing- Smart Chicks on Screen notes that ‘the male gaze… falls naturally on her’. However, this does not undermine her ability as a scientist. She participates in acts of science on screen rather than it just being implied, and even her relationship with fellow scientist Dale is not ‘possessive or sexual’ in nature- it is comprised of physical affection and gentleness, as they are on equal grounds with the other.
We learn little about Little Shop of Horrors’s Audrey Fulquard, despite her being Seymour’s main love interest. While she is very sweet and gentle, she is a flat character- her arc revolves around her relationship with Seymour, and not much else. She is nice, and she works at the flower shop too- that’s all we learn. Of the three female leads, she is perhaps the most domestic- while dining with Seymour’s mother, this is reflected in the diegetic dialogue, as Winifred tells her ‘if you’re going to be married, you gotta be a good cook.’ Audrey enthusiastically agrees that ‘maybe you could teach me’. The camera cuts between the two in a shot reverse shot, comparing these two female characters at different stages of their life, and implying the same sort of destiny awaits Audrey. These stereotypical, hyperfeminine ideals of what makes a ‘good wife’ are present in all three films, but while the lead women of ITCW and AOTCM have more significant roles in the plot and intelligence to make them more strong, interesting characters, Audrey lacks this.
However, Little Shop is a black comedy. Audrey could be read as a parody of similarly flat female characters from other films of the time. The best way to describe this trope came about in the early 2010s- the ‘sexy lamp’ trope. Created by Kelly Sue DeConnick following her frustration at bland female characters who exist only to further the male lead’s story, it has one single criterion- if you can replace your lead female character with a sexy lamp without affecting the plot, she’s not well-written. The test is somewhat vague, was created as a joke, and refers more to the objectification of female characters, but still relates to Audrey’s characterisation- she has no bearing on the plot other than her existence fuelling Seymour’s decisions, and has no storyline of her own. However, it could be argued that this is played to exaggerated extents- she is shown to be head over heels for Seymour, as much as he is for her. She is ditzy to extreme extents, constantly mixing up homonyms, and her goals involve only Seymour and getting married. It could be that Audrey is a parody of the girl next door trope- domestic to exaggerated extents.
On the other side of Little Shop is Leonora Clyde, a prostitute who appears briefly at the end of the film, flirts with Seymour a bit, and is then fed to Audrey Jr. She is therefore the polar opposite of Audrey on the scale of female stereotypes. Like Audrey, her goal is apparently Seymour. This is visible in the mise en scene- in terms of costume she is Audrey’s opposite, with a low-cut silk dress and short skirt in comparison to Audrey’s considerably more conservative cotton outfit. Similarly to AOTCM’s Martha, the way she is framed seems to be to draw the male gaze. As the whole scene is played for laughs, though, with a hypnotised Seymour walking through traffic and into bins, this again seems to a parody of the erotic, mysterious female. Wherever Seymour goes, she appears from nowhere, just to flirt with him, despite probably never seeing him before. And her lines similarly carry an almost parodic feel- she introduces herself to Seymour with ‘My name is Leonora Clyde. I love you.’
As Corman said in his own biography, he did believe in feminism, and acknowledged the assertive nature of many of his female leads. However, he went on to state ‘I can only take partial credit for the themes here.’ [9]. The feminism in Corman’s films may have ultimately been unintentional, and credit must be given to the actresses themselves. Beverley Garland is accredited as making her performance as Claire Anderson as fiery as it was, bringing new life to the character. While I don’t doubt Corman’s belief in feminism, especially as he offered work to women in a male-dominated industry they may have been otherwise denied, I feel that this isn’t as strong proof of ideology in his films as it could be. However, the characters of Audrey and Leonora in Little Shop, despite apparently being caricatures of female stereotypes, actually changed my mind in regards to this- by parodying the ways film treats women, Corman may have opened up his audiences’ minds more to how the industry operates and the harmful effects it can have.
After looking in depth at some of Corman’s earlier films, however, I believe that as a director, he can be considered a traditional auteur. While his style and grip of genre may have only begun to properly develop by the time of Little Shop, there is evidence in the style and ideology of both It Conquered The World and Attack of the Crab Monsters that shows he was building up his own profile from the start.
In a 1962 article written by Andrew Sarris, he listed three main criteria, as aforementioned. To review, here’s how Corman fits. ‘If a director has no technical competence… he is automatically cast out from the pantheon of directors,’ stated Sarris. Roger Corman showed his ability with the camera- even when it tipped over, or was otherwise disrupted, he was able to direct the shot in a way that worked. Moving the camera in such a way helped him develop more fluid shots. Sarris claimed that ‘over a group of films, a director must exhibit certain recurrent characteristics of style,’ Corman’s low-budget, high-octane development and the consequent speed of his film’s plots count as such. The gaudy and often cheaply made movie monsters, including It Conquered The World’s Beluah and Little Shop’s Audrey Jr, are a hallmark of Corman films.
Finally, Sarris proclaims the importance of ‘interior meaning, the ultimate glory of the cinema as an art’. Looking beyond the surface of Corman’s films, we can find this. It Conquered The World can be interpreted as a commentary on the 1950s treatment of women, or a jab at Communism. Attack of the Crab Monsters carries a moral about nuclear warfare. Little Shop produces a social commentary on what people will do in order to make themselves more likeable in society. Not all of these interpretations may have been intentional, but as Corman described in an interview on Post Mortem: ‘What I should do is make a picture that is entertainment, and underneath subtextually, is a little bit of thought on my part.’ [12] Underneath the silly antics onscreen, Corman attempts to convey a deeper meaning, often very subtly.
Considering Corman’s directorial profile of over fifty films, and his work as a producer of over four hundred more, it is impossible to say whether the three films I have studied properly exemplify all of his work. It would be incredibly difficult to study each and every one of Corman’s films, and therefore I feel that my study has been somewhat limited despite working within a particular Corman era, and also cannot properly judge Corman’s development over the decades.
However, the theory of the auteur favours directors like Corman, who have a long and experimental career where they are constantly turning out films that exemplify their styles and personalities. Corman has a filmography to rival paragon auteur Alfred Hitchcock in terms of films directed. Younger directors are often not considered eligible for the title of auteur because they haven’t had the time needed to properly develop and maintain their style. Corman has definitely had time- he has been directing since the 1950s, and has continued developing similar kinds of low-budget films for over sixty years (although he does more as a producer nowadays).
On the other hand, there were times during this study that I struggled with finding sufficient evidence to prove my hypothesis. This allowed me to consider some other aspects of the auteur theory. If we have to search through a director’s filmography to find pictures that meet the three criteria, regardless of how critically acclaimed the director is, it suggests they are not ‘auteurs’. Yet in the grand scheme of film, authorship might not even matter. Most of the concepts and theorists are outdated, working from an earlier time where the director was romanticised as the ‘god’ of a film. That initial article in Cahiers du Cinéma was released in the 1950s, after all. While this is the period at which I am specifically looking at in Corman’s career, he has continued to direct beyond this point, long after the word ‘authorship’ first entered theorists’ minds. Regardless of whether Corman fits Sarris’s three criteria of authorship or not, he has still achieved plenty of other things.
As Sarris once questioned, “is it possible to honour the work of art without honouring the artist involved?” It could be said that Corman has only recently begun receiving honours for his work, as he has only begun picking up awards for his achievements in the 1990s. However, in 2010 he received a significant Honorary Award at the Academy Awards for his ‘rich engendering of films and filmmakers’, based on his years of directorial experience. This kind of acknowledgement from such a prestigious institution shows that Corman has been recognised for his hard work regardless of whether he fits the criteria of ‘auteur’ or not. Corman spent decades not only directing and producing films, but introducing some of the best-known names to the film industry- Jack Nicholson, Martin Scorsese, and Francis Ford Coppola, for example. And as detailed in the book Crab Monsters, Teenage Cavemen and Candy Stripe Nurses, Corman ‘distributed art house imports by foreign auteurs like Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa, and Ingmar Bergman when no one else dared to’, [13] thus bringing a global gallery to the people of America and a more varied taste in films. And Pawel Aleksandrowicz’s The Cinematography of Roger Corman mentions some other achievements- the book claims that ‘Corman can boast of extraordinary merits both as a director or a producer’. [14] He was the youngest American director as of 1964 to be granted a film retrospective at the Cinématèque Française, and in 2008, one of his Poe cycle films (House of Usher) was preserved in the National Film Registry by the Library of Congress. Can Corman be considered an ‘auteur’ by classic standards? I believe so. However, ultimately, Corman is an iconic director regardless.
[1] It Conquered The World. (1956) Directed by R. Corman. USA: Sunset Productions (III). Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHarPB15kQ8 [Accessed 15 Sept. 2017].
[2] Attack of the Crab Monsters. (1957) Directed by R. Corman. USA: Los Altos Productions. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RA12RHnYIA [Accessed 15 Sept. 2017].
[3] The Little Shop of Horrors. (1960) Directed by R. Corman. USA: Roger Corman Productions. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m0tivu8u-A [Accessed 15 Sept. 2017]
[4] Armstrong, L. (1980). Roger Corman’s Flicks May Be ‘B’ Shlock, but No One in Hollywood Has Nurtured More 'A’ Talent. People. [online] Available at: http://people.com/archive/roger-cormans-flicks-may-be-b- shlock-but-no-one-in-hollywood-has-nurtured-more-a-talent-vol-14-no-20/ [Accessed 20 Sep. 2017].
[5] Corman, R. (2013). The Poe Perplex. Sight and Sound, p.29.
[6] Grimes, W. (1995). COVER STORY: Yikes! Roger Corman is Back, Still. New York Times. [online] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/1995/07/09/tv/cover-story-yikes-roger-corman-is-back-still.html [Accessed 25 Sep. 2017].
[7] Queenan, J. (2017). B-movie king Roger Corman: ‘Death Race isn’t an essay on violence – it’s an action comedy’. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/mar/16/b-movie- king-roger-corman-death-race-isnt-an-essay-on-violence-its-an-action-comedy [Accessed 25 Sep. 2017].
[8] Holte, M. (2010). Value Engineering: Roger Corman Within His Own Context. East of Borneo. [online] Available at: https://eastofborneo.org/articles/value-engineering-roger-corman-within-his-own-context/ [Accessed 1 Oct. 2017].
[9] Corman, R. and Jerome, J. (1990). How I made a hundred movies in Hollywood and never lost a dime. Cambridge, Mass.: Da Capo, pp.Chapter 4, Chapter 6, Page 237.
[10] Frank, A. (1998). The Films of Roger Corman: ‘Shooting My Way Out of Trouble'. Bath: The Bath Press, pp.12, 35-39, 72-76, 79.
[11] Masters of Fantasy: Roger Corman, (1997). [TV programme] Sci-Fi Channel.
[12] Post Mortem with Mick Garris: Roger Corman, (2010). [TV programme] Comcast.
[13] Nashawaty, C. and Landis, J. (2016). Crab monsters, teenage cavemen, and candy stripe nurses. New York: Stewart, Tabori & Chang, p.Introduction, Preface, Chapter 1.
[14] Aleksandrowicz, P. (2016). The cinematography of Roger Corman: exploitation filmmaker or auteur?. 1st ed. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, pp.63, 71-74, 164, 181, 186.
[15] Corman's World: Exploits of a Hollywood Rebel. (2011). [DVD] Directed by A. Stapleton. USA: A&E IndieFilms.
[16] D’Amore, L. (2016). Smart Chicks on Screen: Representing Women’s Intellect in Film and Television. Rowman & Littlefield. p67-68.
[17] Dyer, R. (1992). Only entertainment. Routledge.
