#UNDER THE HAYES CODE

[mylordshesacactus]

“Representation” this, “Disney’s First Gay Character” that, “Queercoded Disney Villain” my eye, Disney had its first gay character in 1942 and y’all better be putting some RESPECT on my boy’s name--

#this man does a limp-wristed little hair twirl every time the young prince is within 50 feet of him #he did not do all that #UNDER THE HAYES CODE #to pretend a lesbian cop in the background for .5 seconds is disney's first queer ANYTHING #hashtag justice for flower

[villainanders]

there's a video essay that lives inside of me whose thesis is that game of thrones made jaime and cersei's relationship about sexuality when in asoiaf its about gender

#honestly i think d&d just like. didnt really get how to write incest and wrote a narrative about incest that basically made incest the same #thing as being gay. in the way people talk about it and the way it fits into society and the way they had jaime try to be 'normal' and then #go back to his lover and die like some hayes code era gay man #and in the books the incest is about identity under an oppressive gender binary that manifests in the most toxic way bc they have no tools #of understanding it. which could so easily be sooooosooo bad but then ISNT bc redemption comes along with brienne and another way of living #outside of the gender binary

[narutomaki]

insurance sucks. just tell me in plain text if I can get coverage for this fucking wall and mold. yes or no. not is this than that.

Also to my eyes it reads; we don't cover accidents, acts of God, intentional damages, or unintentional damages, also we will refuse coverage if your landlord is insured

and it's like

WHY HAVE I BEEN PAYING YOU?

#well first off its bcus legally i needed to have it to rent my first unit. #but also. if it will not pay out at all. why the fuck did i keep it. #ridiculous #would REALLY appreciate a windfall rn bcus even if i dont cover it upfront and my landlords do pay for it #i still have to backpay them. bcus its quote at fault end quote #LIKE. SEAL THE WINDOW SILLS PROPERLY NEXT TIME. ASS. #also im fairly sure theyve done multiple illegal things to us. such as not preforming the fire alarm testing this year in our unit #also this is a 2 bedroom and legally it needs 2 alarms to be up to code. #and also we didnt have a fire alarm AT ALL whne we moved in #not to mention the multiple cases of them refusing to give 24 hrs written notice #anf then getting mad at US about it #like ommgggg. leave me alone. #also they jacked up our rent illegally im fairly sure bcus i think the person we were subletting from did #bcus its illegal in my province to charge more that you pay when you sublet. and im faorly sure she was paying under 900$ #we pay 1050. #not that we have any proof of this. bcus i didnt take and scan the notice of rent increase addressed to her #that was dropped in our mail box. NOT EVEN IN AN ENVELOPE. MIGHT I ADD. #any way. im so so so sick of this. im stressing out so much. my brain is mush. #man. idk. i cant even accept charity for real bcus id need to report it and depending on how i receive it i may lose $ oj my benefits #man. just. i haye being disabled and im one of the overwhelmingly lucky ones #thisnis all a long and stressed out way of saying i need to call my insurance broker tomorrow #but phone calls are physically nauseating fornme to make a good 85% od the time

[oatmealaddiction]

Rant time, but like, people who complain about the diamonds in Steven Universe getting "redeemed" and "facing no consequences" like, why did you ever think the diamonds getting destroyed was on the table as an option? Why did everyone think the show was going to end with Steven fighting and killing the diamonds, or the universe dolling out some Hayes Code Karma Violence like a giant rock falling on them at the last second? Like I guess I understand the criticism in theory that Steven Universe's metaphor for the diamonds as toxic family members falls apart when you consider they're crimes as space monarchs doing a colonialism, but Steven isn't The Avatar. At no point in the show does he even have the power to doll out the punishment you guys want.

Steven *does* try to fight the diamonds, and he gets his ass kicked. He gets smashed under his own shield and knocked out. His mom forms an entire army to fight them and LOSES and has almost all of her friends corrupted by them. The Diamonds are bigger, badder and stronger than The Crystal Gems (kind of like how adults are bigger and stronger than children.) So instead, he reveals his identity as Pink and the Diamonds immediately stop trying to kill him and the show instead pivots to be about political diplomacy. He doesn't like the diamonds, by the time Future rolls around we find out that he hates them and has private thoughts about killing them even now that that they don't pose any threat. But during the show he's powerless and so instead, talking to them and trying to change their mind is just a practical option because fighting hasn't worked. Because in the real world, there are times you will be outmatched and violence won't be the answer—even if the people hurting you probably do deserve violence.

And the diamonds aren't "redeemed," they just change their mind. They just decide that they want to keep Pink in their lives, so they begin to take accountability and undo the damage that they caused with their war, and presumably will spend the next thousands of years of their lives dismantling their own empire. And again, Steven Universe Future discusses the discomfort and the downside of this approach, that even if it's better and harm is actively being undone, the diamonds can't resolve all the harm they've done and Steven largely doesn't feel like he's gotten justice for what they did to him and his mother—much less the universe. So I don't get where anyone gets off saying this story is irresponsible or saying you should just forgive bad people. I don't see that anywhere in the story. The theme of Universe has always been the necessity of change, and so it makes sense that the villains aren't forgiven or revealed to be good people—but that they just change.

#Steven Universe #Su #spoilers #Steven universe future #su spoilers

[hotvintagepoll]

Propaganda

Gloria Holden (Dracula’s Daughter, The Life of Emile Zola)— She deserves to be alongside Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee as the hottest classic movie vampires. She was the first major examples of the reluctant vampire and the lesbian vampire and should have gone on to become an iconic scream queen. Her voice, her amazing gowns, and her EYES! I would let her eat me any day

Alma Rosa Aguirre (Nosotras las Taquigrafas)—no propaganda submitted

This is round 1 of the tournament. All other polls in this bracket can be found here. Please reblog with further support of your beloved hot sexy vintage woman.

[additional propaganda submitted under the cut]

Gloria Holden:

She made an indelible impression on me in the title role in "Dracula's Daughter" as an elegantly tormented sapphic vampire failing to repress her urges to feed on women. What can I say, I'm gay.

ooooh my god. oooooh my god. She's got the cold high society woman with secret anguish thing nailed down. Also her role as Dracula's Daughter actually inspired Anne Rice. ok.

We owe Gloria Holden for the Interview With the Vampire book and the gay awakenings of baby goths everywhere.

Her performance in Dracula's Daughter inspired Anne Rice and she's name dropped in Queen of the Damned. A queer icon, for sure. And surely this poll needs some horror movie queens?

i'm nominating her particularly for her work as a lesbian vampire in dracula's daughter (1936), which was about as overt about the concept that she was trying to suck this unsuspecting lady's blood in a gay way as it possibly could be under the hayes code

Gifset: https://www.tumblr.com/down-in-dixie/700742136441831424

Gifset 2: https://www.tumblr.com/junkfoodcinemas/687098898667405312/draculas-daughter-1936-dir-lambert-hillyer

#gloria holden #alma rosa aguirre #hotvintagepoll #fuck that old woman #ladies 1

[feybeasts]

A funny wrinkle of a lotta triple A games getting way way hornier is that I pretty much know I can’t play them as a result. I’m incredibly sex-averse, I don’t wanna see Those Bits or people talking about fuckin’, it’s not something that makes me comfortable.

And you know what?

Good.

We have spent HOW long living under what is essentially the fucking Hayes Code? If the death of puritanical bullshit means I have to occasionally, as a sex-averse asexual, bounce off of some popular production, then I’ll happily live with the horndogs rather than stagnate with the prudes. My comfort is not a judgement of morality, and while I do hope it is catered to as well, I’m okay with swings and misses if it means we’re not goddamn keeping people from swinging at all anymore.

[drinksglue]

I have an account on Aethy. Should I stay on there, or leave it and move to another instance? Is this discourse justified or is it just a few people complaining about the rules?

You should absolutely stay! The main people who were causing issues have left and/or have been banned. Explanation of the situation under the cut.

Essentially, it started because one or two people were reposting other people's artwork from other websites without permission. Aethy explicitly has rules against this that I guess they didn't read, and they got upset that this rule was enforced.

One of the users involved then went on a tirade that basically equated artists who don't allow reposts to the likes of Disney in terms of abusing copyright, so even though that user claimed they reposted without permission because they couldn't get permission, it's clear that permission isn't actually a factor to them in the first place and they assume that asking would (or should) result in a "yes".

Then someone said the rule wasn't clear enough and should be elaborated on, when "don't repost art that isn't yours without permission" is pretty clear. They got aggressive and claimed that Aethy is making "secret rules" when they wouldn't get an answer (that they wanted). Meanwhile, Aethy IS elaborating on this rule to users who aren't acting like entitled assholes. They just aren't humoring people who are cursing them out (and they shouldn't).

If I saw someone acting like this, I wouldn't want them on MY website either.

People involved basically started harassing Aethy staff, sending them aggressive emails cursing them out (by their own admission), calling them cunts, and daring to call that "how adults talk to adults".

The only reason there's active discourse over this is because it seems to have just happened + the individuals involved are super loud about this and are equating being told to stop being aggressive over a clear "don't steal art" rule to "censorship" and the Hayes Code.

Aethy most certainly does not censor art (that you have the rights/permission to post), and they have been very good at communicating with the userbase and are open to questions about their rules.

They just aren't going to entertain people who are acting the way these people are acting, and that's what has these folks upset. Staff doesn't have to tolerate being called "cunts" or "stupid" or "idiots" just because someone couldn't handle being told "no" on one of the most anything-goes websites on the Internet.

Aethy is a fantastic instance with the most permissive rules on creative expression of any website, with an active mod team that does not put up with bullshit. The only people who are going to take issue with this are people who want to start bullshit.

#glue speaks #discourse #mailbox

[favvn]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The cut scene from The City of Tomorrow script, yeah, we've all seen it and screamed and cried about it being cut, but consider: it got cut because Spock has been calling Kirk "Jim" since at least the fourth aired episode. (If not earlier, given the different production dates from the air dates. Honestly, I am now wishing I kept note of any time Spock calls him Jim because it does seem out of character for who Spock is supposed to be--logic, order, no emotions, etc. Why would someone like that use a nickname in place of a ranking title? Or even a last name? Unless there was a reason for it--sick and delirious, inebriated, life-or-death situation, declaring their love for the other character, one of these things is not like the other)

(Yes, this moment lives in my brain. Rent free. Coming out parallel, love declaration if used in any other circumstance with any other characters, etc.)

Granted, Spock is under the influence of an inhibition-lowering virus (which. Huh. Without inhibitions, he'll call his Captain not by his full, proper first name--James--but by the nickname? Something designated for close friends and informal settings? VERY INTERESTING, MR. SPOCK. What's the logical explanation for that, Mr. Spock??) but he has continued to call Kirk "Jim" in other episodes after The Naked Time, without the excuse of a virus or extreme life-or-death situations as a reason. Maybe it's nitpicking (or extreme coping on my part lol), but if the lead-in to this scene was Spock calling Kirk "Jim" for the first time, then how do you put that emphasis there (and everything such an exchange would imply because wow that means Something, not just due to rank but who Spock is) when it has been done again and again--casually! With no specific circumstances to justify it!--throughout the whole season, you know? Especially when the Hayes Code was still in effect and any blatant suggestion of same-sex attraction, much less romance, was prohibited? (Because obviously, Spirk still got past the censors or fandom as we know it wouldn't exist.)

#trekposting #spirk #star trek tos #the city on the edge of forever #the naked time #don't get me wrong it also probably got cut bc it errs on out of character for spock #by this point in the show as it was drafted before the character bible but filmed later and airing by the end of the season #(and there were extensive editing & rewrites to it / harlan ellison wanted to not put his name on it at the end ) #that's a lot of established mannerisms to account for #like that vulcan is showing emotion! not due to a virus or mind meld but out of sheer love! powerful! too powerful to film #idk just thinking and piecing it all together rather than screaming and crying about homophobia ruining anything good #trek meta

[lesbianmarrow]

Oh yeah the hayes code (n earlier censorship demands) were weird like tht. They actually let a lot of gay (adjacent sometimes) stuff go on under the cover under the guise of pansy comedy. When a character did sth morally wrong it wasnt usually sexually related ... I think pendulum swing of suddenly being allowed to show everything lead to a bigger lean on stuff like westerns n stuff. Meanwhile Europe didnt rlly have restrictions n their stuff was very sexual n like sometimes violent but like ... The sexual stuff to me seemed more explicit than the violence? Sexuality was persecuted in specific instances in film in the us for sure but when you look at the rules n biggest hububs its not wht ud think

yeah its so weird reading about how there were lots of comedies where the joke was Man Dresses Like Woman or Woman Acts Like Man and thats obviously not progressive or ideal and yet nowadays conservatives are trying to ban even that....i do think its fascinating to read about specifically in this time when censorship is such a major issue bc the arguments for censoring violence/sexuality/etc in film are REALLY REALLY STUPID and yet you see echoes of that logic today when ppl are justifying keeping lgbtq books out of schools and stuff. its fucked!

[zukkacore]

The thing about Friends is that the three girls are like the only white women I would give it all up for. But for the guys. You see, they're all dykes to me but for different reasons. With Ross i genuinely have to pretend he came from the Bottoms 2023 school for unloveable insane ugly and untalented dykes to find him enjoyable, then pretend all his sexist moments fall under "he would not fucking say that". Otherwise i will start chomping leg the moment he comes on screen. If Ross was a dyke he would be so PJ Bottoms 2023 coded. All the characters have moments where they are terrible but there is something about his villainy that is particularly insufferable. He is a uhaul lesbian. He is an evil dyke, but a dyke nonetheless. With Joey, he's less of a lesbian himself and more of a lesbians pet freak. A sopping wet little guy. He is my equivalent to gay men’s relationship to lady Gaga. Early Joey is so beautiful its just fun for me to pretend he is butch coded, but tragically cast as a straight male due to the hayes code. I yearn for him in his floppy hair era the way old dykes from yore yearn for Calamity Jane. Chandler on the other hand i just genuinely can't unsee as a fagdyke. I know the homophobic jokes at his expense and at his dad are awful but but they’re like. So awful that they loop back around to feeling like home to me. The episode where they make fun of him for kissing a guy makes me so mad. As if he isn’t a dyke I’d watch out for. As if a lesbian and a twink who wanna hook up with him aren’t fighting over what his gender is as we speak. Its not a headcanon thats just who he is to me now. I watch every scene genuinely no longer able to see him as a cisgender man. He is so much more to me. Ignore that this is the straightest show of all time and play along w me for one sec on my egg Chandler journey

#shut up janelle

[thatiranianphantom]

I don't usually slide into the ask box of people that I strongly disagree with. It's usually utterly pointless and I usually adhere to a strict "live and let live" policy...but your RD takes are just so deeply unsettling that I am making an exception.

Claiming that RD is softcore porn now is just...not true.

This is not even remotely softcore porn. This is barely erotic. And I think your assertion that the show feels like a masturbatory fantasy from the writers has a lot more to do with the fact that you're personally unhappy with the show's direction than the show itself. It's a bad faith reading on the show, steeped in pearl clutching, Hayes Code romancing, nonsense.

Takes like yours, whether they mean to or not, are begging for the Hayes Code to come back. Begging. "Oh, TV shows should only show good morals and whenever they show something morally ambiguous, it should be clear where the moral failings are".

That's a big part of the Hayes Code. And I, for one, reject that ideology with every fiber of my being. TV shows do not need to be parables. They are under no obligation to preach good morals to their audiences. Their purpose is to express ideas!

And Riverdale is doing a bang up job, if I do say so myself (even if I personally feel it could have gone further with a lot of its plots). It's meta-commentary on Americana, film, and television is unmatched. Its refusal to be any one thing is both brave and fascinating. The show has remained true to its vision despite pissing off much of its audience, which is rare in a landscape of shameless pandering for views. God bless Riverdale for that.

(Speaking only of the show itself here, not its marketing.)

But back to the main point. You claim no one will want to hire the Riverdale writers after this and that you think they should go to prison. That's...honestly a deeply conservative mindset and you're not alone in thinking that, but you are highly visible. So, I bring my thoughts to your ask box.

I implore you to look beyond the surface of the media you consume and to recognize that our reactions to stories have a lot more to do with our own feelings than the stories themselves unless we specifically step away from ourselves for analysis. And hey, there's nothing wrong with having opinions on your own blog, so feel free to dismiss me as a little hater. <3

I apologize that this has gotten so long and if I sounded nasty. I am just so deeply disturbed by the prevalence of purity culture in fandom these days. It starts with "think of the children!" and "No kink at pride!" and ends with the eradication of anyone who doesn't fit into the conservative ideal for culture. I'm not saying that you want that, per se, but be careful because those that do want that think similarly.

Thanks.

Okay.....first of all, and I mean this genuinely, kudos to putting your name behind this. This doesn't happen often, so a true fist bump to you.

How generous of you to come here and offer unsolicited and incredibly condescending pseudo-intellectual commentary on what I am allowed to post on my blog. Very generous. But hey, I'm high profile! Lil' ol' me! Look Ma, I made it!

Now we gotta get in the weeds here. Yeah, I am not going to take back or apologize for how softcore-y this show has been this season. I stand behind the statements I made about how creepy it is to watch a grown man's masturbatory fantasy play out on screen. In the last episode alone, they have sexualized pedophilia and grooming (with a teacher student fantasy) and children playing a board game.

See the thing is, it would be purity culture to suggest a woman CAN'T have sex or be sexually attracted to someone. We spent 6 years with Betty as someone who liked sex, and that was fine! We even spent s5 with Betty who used sex as a bandaid. That wasn't healthy, but she was an adult woman having sex. It was fine. Fifties Betty has sex as her ENTIRE character. There is nothing else to 50s Betty. She's horny. She wants to have sex. She wants to have sex so much that she's actively predatory. That's it. And having one and only one character motivation kinda flies in the face of the whole "feminism" thing the show is trying to project, don't it?

Hey, I'll give you that the show THINKS it is making a feminist statement. I'll give you that the show's writers probably THINK they are fixing racism, sexism and homophobia in one fell swoop. But they aren't. Quite the contrary, they are actively furthering those issues while thinking they're doing an amazing job. They degrade women while touting themselves as feminists. They made their only Latina family mob members while touting themselves champions of POC stories. They view themselves as LGBT representation while one character decides another's sexuality and their agency in coming out is stripped from them.

Adding to that, it's fine if you disagree with me. I speak only for myself, and the block button is easy to find. It's all good. I'm not offended that you disagree with me, but to suggest Riverdale is scathing, witty meta-commentary? RIVERDALE????? I don't think I'm the one who doesn't know what this show is, anon. This show is a vehicle to leer on the hot cast members, and more recently, to act out some personal ~aesthetic* writer fantasies. It has never and will never be what you proclaimed it to be:

"meta-commentary on Americana, film, and television is unmatched. Its refusal to be any one thing is both brave and fascinating. The show has remained true to its vision despite pissing off much of its audience, which is rare in a landscape of shameless pandering for views. God bless Riverdale for that."

I'm...a little stunned that you think it is. But nonetheless, I stand behind the statement that writers whose misogyny comes out LOUDLY in their writing, who have stripped this show of anything interesting, recognizable or interesting, and whose relationship with the fans on social media is disturbing at best, will not be prime targets for new shows.

Again, I do genuinely commend you for putting your name behind your thoughts. I have no issue with you disagreeing with me, or the majority of the fandom in general. I have no ill will to you. But yes, I believe this season of the show is disturbing, misogynistic and creepily sexual. It's a statement I stand by, and while you're under no obligation to agree, I hope you're able to find the block button next time.

#answered #watergatescandelous #Riverdale #RD negativity #There's more I didn't put in here I'm just #???

[bellamysgriffin]

why do you think lexa wasn't? genuinely curious/asking

happy to answer this one actually! so this is in reference to my bold claim that lexa's death on the 100 was not part of the bury your gays trope and i stand by that.

so the 100 was a show in which main characters died every season. when adc decided to leave the 100 there was truly no other way to write lexa's character off than to kill her. again, this is a show where lincoln would die episodes later, finn had died the season previous, wells died, monty and harper would die, jasper would die, kane and abby would die, and im sure there are plenty more i'm forgetting. main characters died all the time.

lexa is actually as far as i can remember the only canon queer character who died -- clarke, niylah, and miller all survive to the finale. there was no way to have lexa walk off into the sunset for a season and pop in and out. she was too consequential as a character. when adc left, lexa had to die, and i don't think the way she was killed was particularly disrespectful. in fact, i would argue that her death was the most resonant in the plotline long after she was gone. it advanced the plot, advanced clarke's character, and was a rather beautiful send off scene. lexa was mentioned post-death more than any other character on the show. i know there are some people who have issues with the fact that she and clarke had just gotten together when it happened, but that's just a common writing trope -- the character gets what they want only to die immediately after. super common.

now, that said, i understand that she was one of several lesbian deaths on television that year, and i don't begrudge any queer woman who mourned that death in a deeper way. there is so little representation that when a sapphic character we love dies so brutally it can feel like more than just a television death. that said, i don't think jroth (a man of many crimes) did anything wrong by killing off lexa nor killing her off in the way he did. it wasn't offensive.

the 100 is a survival show. as a queer woman i personally find it just as dehumanizing to demand that the only queer stories we get are happy as to say that every queer story must be tragic. and queer people deserve well-written, resonant tragedies. lexa's arc/clexa's arc on the 100 was beautiful and well-executed, and it wasn't offensive to kill her off. "bury your gays" is not just when a queer person dies. it's when the queer character is seen as expendable, is usually the only queer person in the cast, and usually not on a show/film where characters die regularly. it has ties to the hayes production code in which homosexuality was seen as immorality and was required under the code's rules to be punished, often resulting in queer characters dying or committing suicide.

i don't think that trope describes lexa. i think her death made sense for a show in which there was a lot of death and carnage, i think her character was well-written, well-developed and honored long after her death, and i think we would be remiss to say that she cannot die merely because she is queer when there are truly no other compelling reasons for why it would be wrong to kill that character off on a survival show. and i would hardly call it shock value, which is usually what the bury your gays trope is.

#dana answers stuff #the 100 meta #again it's a nuanced conversation but i just don't understand #how anyone could argue that her character should not have been allowed to die #considering the genre of the show she was on #it just seems pretty simple to me and if we say lexa can't die #then that means no queer character ever should be able to die #so......... that wouldn't make sense now would it

[popculturebuffet]

Little Retrospective of Horrors: The Original Corman Film (Comission for Emma Fici)

Happy halloween all you happy people! For those new here i'm jake and I review various media and for this halloween we have a special event as I take a look at all three major versions of Little Shop of Horrors.

This retrospective came about as a result of my love of the 1986 Frank Oz Film adapting the musical. It's one of my favorite films and was a favorite of mine long before I properly got into horror a few years ago. And while originally it was JUST going to be the mean green mother from outer space itself, the project slowly grew much like Audrey II/Junior itself into what it always should have been: A full look at the three pillars of this franchise and how it evolved , grew and eventually took Manhattan. And Peoria. And Demoines, and clevland, and where you live.

So first up is the original film by King of The Low Budget Film, Emperor of On Time, and mentor to countless film legends Roger Corman. Corman is someone who i've slowly become fasicnated by and plan to watch more of his work.

Originally I just saw Mr. Corman as a low budget schlockmeister who made whatever would make him money with a neat title and misleading poster. And he's simply not just that.. he's the KING of the low budget schlockmeisters, the master of his craft. Corman was famous for making his films on time, often under budget, and fast as possible in an industry where that's INCREDIBLY hard to do and still make an enjoyable product.

Granted part of the under budget part was his cheapness: The man would reuse props, sets, whatever he could to save a buck. His films were made not just on a budget of a paper clip and a piece of string but often reusing bits of the same paper clip and string. The man would stretch every dollar like they were reed richards. It's a mix of admirable and sketchy as hell: On the one hand the fact the man could still make decent effects or lovingly clunky ones with such a low budget is admirable.. on the other he underpaid his actors if he could which is not a good look in the slightest, especially with the SAG AFTRA strike going on at the time of this review.

That being said while Corman was a cheap bastard sure, he wasn't a total bastard, working hard with his actors and crew and helping mentor the younger set on his sets so they'd learn the craft well. It's telling that legends like Ron Howard, Martin Scorcese, Francis Ford Copolla, Joe Dante, Jonathan Demme and James Cameron were not only all mentored by the guy but have nothing but great things to say about him. Dante in particular really loved the man and made a point to use his staple actor Dick Miller in his own films. His impact on the industry cannot be overstated and he's STILL working as a producer to this day. The guy has his faults, again he REALLY should've paid his actors fair wages... but I can't deny he fostered a whole generation of talent or had a genuine love for his cast, as well as a love of women: While he'd gladly make fanservicy films, as the decades went on he made a point of putting women in the lead and was more prone than most producers to giving women a turn at the camera in the 70's and 80's.

It's also hard, even with his cheapness, to not admire how he bucked the hollywood system: at the time the studio system nightmare was falling apart, with courts forcing studios to sell their theaters. As a result Corman could offer his films decently cheap to distributors, and make a quick buck.

Little Shop was one of these films

See Corman had just finished making Bucket of Blood, another low budget horror comedy, and thus shopped around ideas to reuse the sets. After having to nix one starring a cannibal chef due to the hayes code, aka the 1950's and 60's equilvent of

So writer Charles P Griffith came up with a workaround that was goofy enough but still bloodtastic: a man eating plant. Thus the sets were converted and Little Shop of Horrors was born.

Famously the film was mostly shot in two days. They also did some night shots outside of the famous two days, but it's still bonkers and impressive they shot most of a film in only two days, with three days rehearsal.

The film did.. fine. Corman managed to staple it onto another feature after struggling with distribution and used neat tactics like doing short runs on college campuses, the perfect home for low budget wonderfully cheesy horror frankly. So he got his money back as always. But the film REALLY took off once it started running on tv, an easy film to run on creature features and eventually part of the public domain. It's why you can find the film on youtube and most streaming services and find plenty of grumpy amazon reviews mad they got "lied to" about what film they were buying because they didn't bother to check what film they were buying. As a result the film became a cult classic... and eventually a musical. But that's a story for next time, for now let's look at the original and see how it stands on it's own vines after all this time.

Watching this film was something long overdue for me: I had heard about it as a tween, researching it on wikipedia but I never really sought it out despite my deep love of the 86 film. It's weird too as it's not like it was hard to find: walmart and various other stores tended to have cheap copies of it pop up since the film somehow fell into the public domain. I simply just either didn't care or had other things to spend my money on. It just never occured to me. It may of simply been that for most of my life I wasn't a horror fan so I just never thought to seek it out. Samesies for the musical, though at least with a stage show I simply didn't think to look on youtube or the corners of the net for a good recording.

It wasn't till watching the Dead Meat Podcast episode on it that I finally decided to just buckle down and actually watch the film. And i'm glad I did as it's neat to see the same premise, an average dork working at a flower shop in 1960 (Or 61 for the musicals), works with a cranky father figure and his crush at a struggling flower shop. The shop turns around when his latest strange and intresting plant he's worked on brings in customers.. but also has a catch: the plant wants blood and he dosen't have more than enough.

The big difference is tone. The musical is purposfully cheestastic, from the wardrobe to both villians, Orin and Audrey II, being large hams beyond any earthly measure, and the comedy is a nice mix of goofy comedy like the "Dentist!" number with black comedy based on the situation, my faviorite bit of which being Tooey's glee when Seymour angrily suggests "What do you want me to do slit both my wrists?" A nice bit that's funny, disturbing, and tells our hero just what kind of monster her's created. What grounds it is the characters: Seymour is a down on his luck nerd working a dead end job who either tragically turns from decent person to self serving monster and only backpedals too late, or a decent person slowly doing worse and worse things due to circumstance who either only NEARLY learns his lesson too late, or once again is far too late to avoid the tragedy to come depending on the cut. Audrey has a unique and goofy high pitched voice.. but her abuse and self loathing is taken dead seriously. And the deaths themselves likewise are all tragic. Even the abusive shitstain that is Orin dies pathetically choking on his own gas begging for help as he slowly realizes the only person who CAN help him won't.

In sharp contrast the original Corman film.. is goofy as all hell and intentinally too. What's a tragedy on broadway and in the 80's movie.. is a farce here. The characters are slightly broader, the premise stupid and the murders played for pure black comedy.

As a result Semyour is less one of horror's biggest woobies or a tragic cautionary tale, and more a dumb goofus whose on the cusp of being fired from his failing job. Mushnik's treatment of Seymour in the 80's film is sad, his only parent left constantly abusing him for simply being a bit clumsy at worst despite working damn hard and genuinely respecting the man.

Here the genuine respect remains.. but you can undrestand why Gravis hates semyour here: instead of taking his failures out on someone who didn't deserve it, he's enraged by someone constantly fucking up at their job and making his attempts to save his shop from closing down HARDER simply by existing. The best example of this is the very incident that gets seymour fired: he has to cut some flowers for the local dentist, Dr. Phobeus Farb, whose just as much of a sadistic asshole as his musical counterpart, minus any connection to Audrey. Seymour cuts them.. but rather than just hold the two flowers together and cut the diffrence to make them match, he keeps noticing their mismatched and then cutting it lower till he eventually has just the buds and a pink slip.

Seymour hits just the right amount of comedic stupidity: he's utterly incompitent to the point his clumisiness later KILLS people , a lot, and his brain power

Isn't the most impressive. You get WHY Gravis hates him, but you can also see why Audrey has a thing for him: he's got a charming innocence to him. I also love his outfit

He ONLY keeps his job thanks to the best character in the film: Burson Fouch. Burson is absent from the other adaptations, loosely adapted into christopher guest's weird as hell customer guy. And it's a bit of a shame as Burson is a lot of fun. He's played by Dick Miller, Corman and Joe Dante Regular and loveable character actor I honestly didn't even realize was the guy in gremlins till watching the Kill Count on Bucket of Blood, done in honor of Miller's passing.

Fouch is what you'd EXPECT to be a one off joke character with a simple gimmick that I find utterly hilarous: he casually eats flowers. And not edible ones, which I found out while researching this are a thing it turns out, no just casual gardenias. The way he just casually brings it up, Mushnik looking utterly baffled before deciding "eh why not" (His exact words" and the coup de grace, the guy just pulling out a salt shaker and eating them in the background is great.

Fouch however ends up being a major engine of the plot, and shows up in most shop scenes, the part clearly made for him after Miller turned down Seymour. WHen Seymour tries to bring up his "Strange and intresting plant" to keep his job, it's Fouch who convinces Mushnik the stupid plan will actually work. And it's done organically too: Fouch is a Flower Foodie, and thus has traveled the world and seen this work. We even get another fantastic gag out of it

Fouch: I Knew one guy had a whole wall covered in ivy Mushnik: And it made him rich? Fouch (Casually): No he itched himself to death in an insane asylum.

Fouch is the reason Seymour brings Audrey Junior here. And yes that's as weird to type as it is to read. It's here we get the biggest thing the musical changed basic setup wise: Seymours Mom, a hypochondriac whose there... whose there for.. she's there because.. she's...

The bits with her just aren't funny. I think the intention at the tim ewas "Get it she's kinda nuts, that's funny right" but nowadays she comes off as having Munchahusen's syndrome and of either needing help or for Seymour to get away from her, as she constantly feeds both of them food that's allegedly healthy, to the point Seymour is UTTERLY BAFFLED when he has a pb and j with audrey late in the film and it's just.. to eat. It comes off way more messed up than they intended. Her roll in the film is to not want audrey to marry seymour so he leaves, and to faint at the climax. That's about it. Her actress does do her best, she's just not a well written character and is one of the down spots in this comedy.

At any rate Seymour brings in Audrey Junior.. which is still weird to type but is a nice gag. I can see why they changed it in the play as it works for the tone here.. but not so much for the name of their main villian there. Here Junior isn't an alien bent on conquest, but a crossbreed of a venus flytrap and a bullwort Seymour got and raised.. and as you'd expect finds out late at night needs blood. The blood helps Junior grow.. but as always Seymour's a tad tapped out.

It's here where things mostly pivot: Aside from some narration from a cop whose barely in the film for a half assed dragnet spoof, so far the film and the musicals line up decently enough: the shop is dying, seymour brings in twooey/junior to fix it, he feeds it with his fingers before realizing that just wont' do forever.

The diffrence is in HOW they get fed. In the film and musical Seymour seeks out his first target, is either talked into the second or gladly does it to save his own ass, and the third is a tragedy. Here.. the death's are just straight up wacky shenanigans. Every one of them barring the last is just some goofy accident that happened because Seymour was just out living his life. I'm still not entirely sure he wasn't clumsily accidental murdering people his whole life and this just happened to be the first time he noticed. This first death isn't even remotely his fault: he's simply throwing stones at a bottle some guy left on a rail, not aware the guy is around and simply asleep or something, and accidently pegs him and gets him run over with a train when the weirdo stands up. Granted he takes the flying leap to feed the body to his plant, but unlike the musical versions, he's not at all culpable. it was just a wacky accident. In fact unlike the musical version while Audrey is Sapient.. they aren't manipulating seymour. He tries not to feed it and only keeps doing so because he keeps wandering into crime scenes that look very bad for him. Their really just an animal for most of the runtime. Towards the end of the film they gain hypnotisim powers

And make Seymour go get them food, and they won't shut up during a date.. but in the former case it's clear Corman just needed another ten minutes on the runtime and in the latter Seymour himself ruined it by not you know.. not letting audrey could know the plant could talk. And given it only gives a few one liners before it's hypno antics at most, he has NO risk in telling her.

It's really just an animal that wants to be fed. Even the Hypnosis Bullshit is just a way for it to eat. The worst it does is snark to Mushnik "he looks fat enough" when asking to be fed. It's a take I like too, that the threat our heroes face, is their own incompetence (Seymour) and greed (Mushink). It also adds to the comedy, that this whole thing really woudln't keep happening if these two weren't stupidly keeping the murder plant around for their own selfish benefits.

That also brings us to another big diffrence: Mushnik himself. He's not only one of the funniest parts of the film, with his frantic outbursts and comical overeactions being comedy gold, paticuarlly when he declares Seymour son.. then disowns him when it looks like Audrey Junior's going to die.. he's also the deutragonist. In the musical he's largely blind to what Seymour's up to and learning it gets him killed either due to Seymour's greed or his own depending on the version. Here he finds out quickly, being witness to Seymour feeding audrey the railcar guy.. which also gives us the most chilling shot of the film and the one really creepy moment: Seymour giving the man's bloody foot to audrey.

What's neat is that Mushnik DOSEN'T kill audrey.. but also dosen't want people to die. Granted he dosen't know Seymour isn't doing the murder parts intentionally, but he veiledly asks semyour if audrey junior is all grown up, and asks again if Junior is full after another murder, before deciding to watch the plant himself. While he makes the very dumb mistake of keeping Junior around, I do like how active Gravis is: he TRIES to stop these murders best he can, and instead of just stupid logic, it's his own greed that keeps Junior alive, which is a character flaw rather than a flaw. I WILL say that having a very jewish character's main flaw be greed is

But it's a 1960's kind of yeesh, though many critics at the time did not care for that. However Mushnik is still a guy who tries his damndest to stop all the killing and tries to save Seymour by going along with the cops at the end to try and get them to you know, not kill him or something. He's an intresting character who lights up the screen every time shows up.

Getting back to the murders the next is The Deeennnnttttiiiiiisttttttt. Unlike the musicals where Seymour is going SPECIFICALLY to unalive the guy for being the worst, here he actually has a tooth ache. And in this case the murder's self defense, as Dr. Farb , much like his sucessor Orin, gets off on the pain he inflicts and plans to pull as many of Seymour's teeth as he can and saves the last one for laughs. He's a diffrent SORT of sadist from Orin in how he does it. Orin gets high as balls, thrills and revels in it. He knows he's an asshole and he'll gladly sing about it at length.

Farb on the other hand dosen't seem to get he's a bit off and shoudln't be practicing dentstiry, asking Seymour "Whose the dentist here you or me. Naughty boy Seymour practicing dentistry without a licensee." He's a loveable ham, and his exit suits that, with Seymour defending himself with a dental thing leading to a DENTAL SWORDFIGHT. I.. I love this job so much sometimes. Seymour accidently stabs him but like.. the guy might of killed him with pure neglegence.

This also leads to the appearance of the films most notable actor, Mr Jack Nicholson in his first roll. And despite being his first roll my god does the man nail it. Not enough to justify this 80's era box art

Where he's both drawn to look like his later self more and is holding a plant not at all like audrey and somehow billed over Dick Miller. But he's still one of the film's highlights easily. He plays a smiling masochist with this lon chaney style voice, Wilbur Force. WIlbur is delightfully off, badly wanting his apointment and happily reading pain magazine. Seymour is forced to pull it, and his teeth and it's VERY obvious that much like his later successor played by comedy legend and unprofessional asshole bill murray, he's INTO this. Nichelson REALLY nails the roll and while I get why this part isn't in the stage show, as Orin's death is even grislier there, i'm REALLY happy Oz put a version of this character into his movie.

The next victim is a burglar. While Seymour and Audrey have dinner at his place, Mushinik plans not to feed the plant.. but given the guy plans to rob him, the place was barely alive before Junior, and the guy you know, casually robs the place, it's not hard to blame him. It's an easy slip up to make.

The final victim.. is easily the weakest part of the film. As I said it's VERY clear the film ran short as they mention early Junior only needs to have three meals, like a flytrap. He ends up needing a fourth because the running time got padded out. So we get the goofy hynotism stuff which is just not goofy enough to really work and dosen't fit. The bhit after is also just.. eh. A sex worker, Lenora Clyde keeps following Seymour because he dosne't notice her. I don't think Roger Corman knows how sex work, hypnotisim, or dentistry works, but Seymour ends up killing her and feeding her to the plant.

The climax is decent: a fancy lady is having a sunset celebration to give seymour an award, with all the main cast minus dick miller present. That includes two giggling teenagers who convinced their school comittee to use Mushik's to buy the flowers for their float.

The reveal of Audrey's buds' opening up.. is mildly chiling, the faces of all of the victims on them in this weird uncanny valley type translation. It's a nice reveal. It's undrecut however as we get a nearly 5 minute chase with the police that acomplishes nothing> Seymour escapes and we get the real climax of him climbing into Junior to kill it.. and as his successor would learn, that not quite worknig, becoming a bud himself that wails out a "I didn't mean it" before dying. Granted his chopping could've killed it or Audrey Junior just died, but it's still a nice, weird, tragic ending.

Overall The Little Shop of Horrors is a pretty solid horror comedy. The third act isn't very good... but the first two are fun, most of the jokes land and those that don't are fun on just how goofy they are. The cast gets what their in and has fun with it accordingly and while it's super cheap the audrey junior puppet mostly works. Granted it's really jus ta shell filled with whatever craft suplies Corman could get, but the actual pupetry bits, while rare, are really impressive for his budget, and the cotton all inside gives Audrey 2 this unerving feeling when it' smouth is open, like this otherworldly jungle has opened up in this store. It's a fun film and I highly recommend watching it this spooky season. Thanks for reading and i'll have the next part in the next two weeks as Little Shop of Horrors goes off broadway!

#little shop of horrors #halloween #the little shop of horrors #roger corman #dick miller #seymour krelborn #audrey II #audrey junior #jack nicholson #horror

[hotvintagepoll]

Propaganda

Betty Hutton (Annie Get Your Gun)— She's adorable, she's a firecracker, she's hilarious, she's a dynamo personality, she's got the chops, she has the ~~RANGE~~ she's got the voice of a saucy angel!! She's not afraid to pull a funny face or go full in on a physically comedic bit! I love her vivacious energy, and that makes her 100 times hotter in my eyes. She's incandescent ✨

Priscilla Lane (Arsenic and Old Lace, Saboteur, The Roaring Twenties)— I see Priscilla Lane in Arsenic and Old Lace every year during my Halloween rewatch, and I always love watching her. She had a rubber-face for comedy, while still looking adorable no matter what funny face she’s making. She seems to have had a slightly fuller mouth than was the thin-lipped vogue at the time, and every time she pouts at her forgetful new husband, she looks so gosh-darn kissable that you understand completely why Cary Grant is so wild to get her on the train to Niagra for crazy honeymoon sex. No wonder this movie nearly got Hayes coded for the newlyweds being too hot for each other.

This is round 1 of the tournament. All other polls in this bracket can be found here. Please reblog with further support of your beloved hot sexy vintage woman.

[additional propaganda submitted under the cut]

Betty Hutton:

This was the performance that first stole my heart:

Blond bombshell who's funny and can sing??? *Swoons*

Literally the charisma is off the charts. Her Annie Oakley? Iconic.

Anything you can do she can do hotter!

Priscilla Lane:

#priscilla lane #betty hutton #hotvintagepoll #fuck that old woman #ladies 1

[docholligay]

Now, for all my talk about JEM positioning itself as a New Way for women, and I do think that's true, it's important to understand that JEM cannot position itself as being in direct opposition to men. They cannot blame men for the old-fashioned, entrenched ways here, which is why we both have to show the Misfits as the ones embodying that old culture, and, we must show that there is a man here who is willing to coach them and help them the moment he hears there is trouble.

We have to continue the fiction of the Upstanding American Male. Does this work know it is engaging in fiction, or is it, in a very Hayes Code sort of way, including this requirement to dodge the censors, that its more, nearly culturally insurrectionary ideas, might be able to be funneled through? One longs for it to be the second, and so much of what JEM is saying is so powerful, and such an embrace and rejection of American identity, that I really do believe it.

This is especially true bound up with the idea that a central point of JEM is Jerrica (JEM's 'true nature,' though of course Jerrica is the mask and JEM is the reality, unencumbered by the constraints of society, giving hints of Edna from Chopin's The Awakening, though her reality is under the bright lights instead of in hidden, darkened rooms, showing the changes in society) and her boyfriend, and how he never realizes that they are one and the same, so compartmentalized are his views of women and their roles in his life.

On Noted English Scholar Doc

#Jet Wolf Labor Day Weekend #Doc watches JEM #Noted English Scholar Doc

[uispeccoll]

Shaft and the Era of Blaxploitation

Last year, Special Collections and Archives at the University of Iowa Libraries acquired items to form a new collection: the Black Film and Television Collection. In honor of Black History Month, we’re shining a spotlight on a different item from this collection each week.

In last week’s post, we discussed the lobby card for Oscar Micheaux’s 1938 film Swing, starring Cora Green. Our next spotlight is on original materials from the 1971 film Shaft, which includes the script used in the production in the movie, which was a defining entry in the Blaxploitation genre.

What is “Blaxploitation?”

We’ll start with the obvious: the word itself blends “Black” and “exploitation” and was coined by Beverly Hills-Hollywood NAACP president Junius Griffin in 1972 and wasn’t in the context of praise.

Blaxploitation movies are made by black filmmakers with black actors for black audiences. They portray strong black characters who were the heroes and leads. During the mid- to early 1970s, more than 200 movies of the genre were made, in subgenres such as horror, westerns, comedy, drama, and action.

Rather than trying to dispel stereotypes, movies like Shaft reinforce them. And while the movies were popular with audiences, that approach did create some critics, like Junius Griffin and other NAACP members.

Exploiting a lurid loophole

The Hays Code ruled Hollywood from 1934 to 1968, enforcing a strict set of moral standards for films. But filmmakers tend to be creative people, and “exploitation films” were the loophole they chose. If they depicted these offensive (and entertaining) subjects under the guise of a cautionary tale, they could get away with including them.

Over the years, court cases and boundary-breakers chipped away at the Hays Code. In 1968—the same year most history textbooks mark as the end of the Civil Rights Movement because it coincides with the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) scrapped the Code in favor of the film rating system. It was into these unique circumstances that a new genre—Blaxploitation—was born.

John Shaft’s world

Shaft is an adaptation of Ernest Tidyman’s 1970 detective novel, directed by Gordon Parks. Opening on an urban panorama overlaid with a funk soundtrack, the movie stars Richard Roundtree as John Shaft, a stylish and suave private detective in New York who is approached by the boss of a Harlem organized crime family (Moses Gunn) in search of his kidnapped daughter (Sherri Brewer). In the course of his mission, Shaft dispatches mafiosos, teams up with activists in the Black Power Movement, and delivers enough one-liners to cement his legacy as one of the iconic characters of 20th century film.

Even a brief glimpse at the original movie script’s pages (like the one shown above) showcase the swagger and bombast of the protagonist, who would go on to anchor multiple sequels. The movie’s iconic theme song, written and recorded by Isaac Hayes, has been sampled and reused dozens of times since the movie’s release, and the film itself has been preserved by the Library of Congress. It provides one of the early blueprints for the Blaxploitation genre, which continued to flourish throughout the 1970s.

It’s well worth noting that while Shaft’s director, stars, and core audience were Black, its writers were both white men. This information certainly complicates how many viewers receive the film’s representation of Black characters—and those complications became the focus of blaxploitation’s most vocal detractors.

Blaxploitation may have had its heyday in the 1970s, but it’s never truly ended. The genre was carried into the 21st century by the generation of filmmakers it inspired, including John Singleton, Spike Lee, and the Hughes Brothers.

Our next entry will be a look at Cheryl Dunye’s 1997 film The Watermelon Woman, and the growing influence of Black women in the film industry.

---Natalee Dawson, Communication Coordinator at UIowa Libraries with assistance from Anne Bassett, Liz Riordan, and Jerome Kirby

#black history month #Shaft #blaxploitation #black history matters #libraries #film