Last Saturday, I finally saw John Waters' "Multiple Maniacs" on the big screen - having only seen it before on VHS (although - "multiple" times 
). It was a new digitally restored copy - still gloriously atrocious quality though, especially the sound.
I went there with my wife, curious to see the age-breakdown of the audience. The theater was packed (Silent Movie Theater - Cinefamily), and there were people of all ages, but predominantly folks in their 20's and early 30's.
What can I say, the screening was a massive success, and I can't remember last time I laughed so hard in a movie theater. The film has a certain kind of brilliance, and is undoubtedly a success in any number of measures.
But that got me thinking - this film is a testament of how you can break virtually every so-called "rule" about filmmaking and yet emerge with a fantastically successful movie. It is a movie that has stood the test of time, appreciated and watched (with people shelling out money for theater tickets) almost half a century later. And watching it, it doesn't seem to have aged or grown outdated or irrelevant. How many movies made in 1970 one can still say that about - pick any random movie made that year. It started careers, it got noticed and it is still a ton of fun today... beat that! Which film from 1970 has retained more relevance today - Love Story (Academy Award Nominee for Best Picture) or Multiple Maniacs? Who is going to see a screening of Love Story today (not that anyone would bother to screen it)? Now, was it a financial success - hardly! That was not the point - it started careers and became a cultural touchstone that retains its relevance to this day, which is all the success anyone could have wished for in that situation - John Waters and his collaborators on MM didn't have fame or fortune on their minds when they made this.
Now think about how many of those 1970 movies were made with a conventional budget in the millions of dollars, with stars and professionals up and down the process. MM was made for $5K, with virtually no crew, all locations stolen guerilla style, with amateur performers, and John Waters doing everything camera-related while still learning the ropes of filmmaking.
The endless debate here on dvxuser "technical competence" vs "content" - ha, ha, ha. MM is filmmaking tech malpractice - if it were a punishable offence, it would get the death penalty. You often could not even understand the dialogue (Cardinal Sin Of Filmmaking) - despite the "newly restored" print. But the content is so amazing, a the theater audience is hanging on in bliss. "You need name actors" - ha, ha, ha! "You need pro actors" - ha, ha, ha! How about 100% amateur and some snatched from the street randos, reused in different scenes to depict different characters with zero concern for character continuity? Heros, anti-heros, sympathetic characters - 100% irrelevant. And yet, people like Divine are mesmerizing, spouting off ludicrous lines. Dialogue? Ha, ha, ha - if there's a rule, Waters breaks it with abandon. Character arcs? You've got to be kidding.
What MM proves, is that there are no rules of filmmaking save one: make it engaging. Period. Literally nothing else. You don't have to be a pro. You don't have to know how to light, or do almost anything else technically. Don't worry about rules of screenwriting either, or character development, or budgets, or crews or all the other junk people spout as if it matters.
Oh, and don't believe that the only way such chaos and disregard for conventional wisdom can succeed is through luck and a total accident. Because John Waters repeated the same success with equally chaotic productions many times - you could say "multiple" times, in Pink Flamingos, Female Trouble, and the rest of his early filthy filmography.
Btw. don't let anyone dismiss it as simply a "cult" movie (fine a category as that is!) - this is not an "accidental" success like the long running The Rocky Horror Picture Show - the audience is not laughing at the film, or despite the film's creators intentions, MM is a fully deliberate movie, its effects calculated and the audience laughing with the intent as plotted by Waters.
If you have any desire to make a movie - stop your excuses and get going. MM shows you that you need nobody's permission and nothing from "hollywood" to make your masterpiece. Perhaps the greatest value of MM is in exploding the myths perpetrated by snobs and people of limited imagination when it comes to filmmaking.
And it's a damn fine film in its own right - if you have a chance, go see it, or rent it!
A few articles and interviews on the occasion of the restored print of MM:
John Waters Revolutionary - Why Multiple Maniacs is Much More than Camp
Variety
Vice
Rolling Stone
). It was a new digitally restored copy - still gloriously atrocious quality though, especially the sound. I went there with my wife, curious to see the age-breakdown of the audience. The theater was packed (Silent Movie Theater - Cinefamily), and there were people of all ages, but predominantly folks in their 20's and early 30's.
What can I say, the screening was a massive success, and I can't remember last time I laughed so hard in a movie theater. The film has a certain kind of brilliance, and is undoubtedly a success in any number of measures.
But that got me thinking - this film is a testament of how you can break virtually every so-called "rule" about filmmaking and yet emerge with a fantastically successful movie. It is a movie that has stood the test of time, appreciated and watched (with people shelling out money for theater tickets) almost half a century later. And watching it, it doesn't seem to have aged or grown outdated or irrelevant. How many movies made in 1970 one can still say that about - pick any random movie made that year. It started careers, it got noticed and it is still a ton of fun today... beat that! Which film from 1970 has retained more relevance today - Love Story (Academy Award Nominee for Best Picture) or Multiple Maniacs? Who is going to see a screening of Love Story today (not that anyone would bother to screen it)? Now, was it a financial success - hardly! That was not the point - it started careers and became a cultural touchstone that retains its relevance to this day, which is all the success anyone could have wished for in that situation - John Waters and his collaborators on MM didn't have fame or fortune on their minds when they made this.
Now think about how many of those 1970 movies were made with a conventional budget in the millions of dollars, with stars and professionals up and down the process. MM was made for $5K, with virtually no crew, all locations stolen guerilla style, with amateur performers, and John Waters doing everything camera-related while still learning the ropes of filmmaking.
The endless debate here on dvxuser "technical competence" vs "content" - ha, ha, ha. MM is filmmaking tech malpractice - if it were a punishable offence, it would get the death penalty. You often could not even understand the dialogue (Cardinal Sin Of Filmmaking) - despite the "newly restored" print. But the content is so amazing, a the theater audience is hanging on in bliss. "You need name actors" - ha, ha, ha! "You need pro actors" - ha, ha, ha! How about 100% amateur and some snatched from the street randos, reused in different scenes to depict different characters with zero concern for character continuity? Heros, anti-heros, sympathetic characters - 100% irrelevant. And yet, people like Divine are mesmerizing, spouting off ludicrous lines. Dialogue? Ha, ha, ha - if there's a rule, Waters breaks it with abandon. Character arcs? You've got to be kidding.
What MM proves, is that there are no rules of filmmaking save one: make it engaging. Period. Literally nothing else. You don't have to be a pro. You don't have to know how to light, or do almost anything else technically. Don't worry about rules of screenwriting either, or character development, or budgets, or crews or all the other junk people spout as if it matters.
Oh, and don't believe that the only way such chaos and disregard for conventional wisdom can succeed is through luck and a total accident. Because John Waters repeated the same success with equally chaotic productions many times - you could say "multiple" times, in Pink Flamingos, Female Trouble, and the rest of his early filthy filmography.
Btw. don't let anyone dismiss it as simply a "cult" movie (fine a category as that is!) - this is not an "accidental" success like the long running The Rocky Horror Picture Show - the audience is not laughing at the film, or despite the film's creators intentions, MM is a fully deliberate movie, its effects calculated and the audience laughing with the intent as plotted by Waters.
If you have any desire to make a movie - stop your excuses and get going. MM shows you that you need nobody's permission and nothing from "hollywood" to make your masterpiece. Perhaps the greatest value of MM is in exploding the myths perpetrated by snobs and people of limited imagination when it comes to filmmaking.
And it's a damn fine film in its own right - if you have a chance, go see it, or rent it
!A few articles and interviews on the occasion of the restored print of MM:
John Waters Revolutionary - Why Multiple Maniacs is Much More than Camp
Variety
Vice
Rolling Stone
