Roger Corman: Why such a "weird" stigma with his name?

K

Kholi

Section Moderator
I've heard this name more in the last few months than any other time in my life.

I can't figure out if it's a negative thing or a positive thing people feel about him?

What's the deal?

(Spurned by a post from Barry in another thread about Sharktopus, which seems positive. Haha)
 
He makes low-budget exploitation films (producers, occasionally directs). In the past, he's done some really great work, or at least great work for it's budget or very influential (the original Little Shop of Horrors, Death Race 2000, and some more serious work, such as the Intruder, Shatner's first real role). He's started a LOT of careers for a lot of directors, special effects artists, and others (James Cameron's first production role, Martin Scorsese's directorial debut, Joe Dante's first films, Coppola's first, as well as actors like Nicholson, Carradine's first film, etc). Recently, he's done absolute crap. Back in the day, when you needed an explosion in a low-budget film, you blew something up. When you needed a giant killer shark, you made a prop. Now, you use CGI, and that CGI isn't convincing or appealing at all. It's a real shame, but he's following his own formula of making junk films on a tiny budget using sex, violence, and shock tactics. Sadly, the methods of making films on a budget have just changed.
 
Last edited:
Gimme a break....

Corman's a genius, the King Of The B's

attack crab monsters.jpg
 
Corman wrote a book, titled something like "How I made a thousand films in Hollywood, and never lost a dime."

The story of the making of "Little Shop of Horrors" is just legendary. I'll paraphrase because I don't know if I remember it right, but basically, they finished shooting but they still had the sets for another two days. He called up one of his writers and said "hey, I've got Jack Nicholson, I've got a plant, gimme a script, I've got two days." Seriously. "Little Shop of Horrors" was shot in two days, starring Jack Nicholson, and it's become a cult classic.

Corman is known as the King of the Bees, he's turned out more films than just about anyone, he never pays anybody much but he does put them to work and a lot of people started their careers in Corman films.

Now, when someone says "man, you sound like you're making a Roger Corman film", is that meant as a compliment? Probably not. Corman doesn't make "Life is Beautiful" or "On Golden Pond." Corman makes Sharktopus. He's not aiming for Oscars, he's aiming for dollars, and he usually tries to get them by fishing at or near the bottom of the barrel.

But he's a legend, an absolute legend.
 
Roger Corman is one of my heroes. He went into filmmaking during the Studio System days (Albeit, when cracks in the system were beginning and an alternative system was exploitable) and built an amazing career on his own terms. He is America's most successful independent film producer, PERIOD!. While he did build his career with mostly quickly made exploitation films, and is not now known for "Quality" filmmaking, I personally think that this is an unfair assessment of his work as a filmmaker. In his body of work are some films that I would rank up there with some of the best mainstream films ever made. His streak of films starting with the AIP "Poe" films of the early '60's, to his pop culture hits of the mid to late '60's. like "The Trip", "The Wild Angles", "Gassss" and "Bloody Mama" are really outstanding examples of filmmaking, and, IMHO, stand up on their own as good films. As a student of the "Golden Age of The New Hollywood" of the 1970's, one really can not over emphasis Roger Corman's influence on the great films of "The New Hollywood". I am of the opinion (and I am not alone in thinking this), that with out the experience of making "The Trip", staring Peter Fonda, with Dennis Hopper from a script by Jack Nicholson, and "The Wild Angles", staring Peter Fonda, Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson would have never been able to make "Easy Rider"; a watershed film in the history of movies. That, along with the long list of "Corman School" graduates, including, Francis Ford Coppola, Peter Bogdanovich, Dennis Hooper, Peter Fonda, Martin Scorsese, Robert Towne, George Armitage, Curtis Hanson, John Sayles, James Cameron, Gale Anne Hurd, Joe Dante, Jonathan Demme, Robert De Niro, Bruce Dern and David Carradine seals Roger Corman in the annal of great filmmakers.

My favorite Corman films are "The Masque of Red Death", "The Trip", "The Wild Angles", "Bloody Mama" and "Machine Gun Kelly", staring Charles Bronson. I think that these films stand on their own as good films, for their time. They are also excellent films for low budget filmmakers to study for the economy of filmmaking. While they are, relatively low budget films, Corman, as a very mature filmmaker is able to embellish them with style that goes way beyond their budgets. His use of the moving camera is well worth a study, for sure.

His book, which I highly recommend is "How I Made A Hundred Movies In Hollywood And Never Lost A Dime".

http://www.amazon.com/Made-Hundred-Movies-Hollywood-Never/dp/0306808749/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1311151939&sr=1-1

The thing is, there is not a filmmaker alive, that knows anything about Corman, who would not want to be able to make movies THE WAY he does; on his own terms. They just may not want to make the KIND of movies that he has made.
 
Having a pair of Corman pictures on my resume feels great. I'd never omit them. And as it happens, the Production Designer with whom I am doing the present show was a dresser there while I was a set designer, and several long-time friends and colleagues worked there too. People can attach stigma to anything; doesn't make it valid.
 
I have seen very little of Corman's massive output, but I in no way think he is a joke. Quit the contrary actually. He's made a good living for himself cranking out film after film. More power to him.
 
Barry_Green said:
"Little Shop of Horrors" was shot in two days, starring Jack Nicholson, and it's become a cult classic.
Click to expand...

Nicholson's role was kind of small, it was basically the role that Bill Murray ended up playing in the 1986 version. But it was his first real role, and when he became a big name, they re-released the film and gave him top billing.
 
Sad Max said:
Having a pair of Corman pictures on my resume feels great. I'd never omit them. And as it happens, the Production Designer with whom I am doing the present show was a dresser there while I was a set designer, and several long-time friends and colleagues worked there too. People can attach stigma to anything; doesn't make it valid.
Click to expand...

What films, if I might ask?
 
Kinda forgot I even started this.

Thanks for the feedback on the topic. I am NOT familiar with a lot of his work, and after researching I don't see what the issue is. Someone here posted that most filmmakers would love to have his career and I think so as well.

I need to grab that book!
 
Kholi said:
Kinda forgot I even started this.

Thanks for the feedback on the topic. I am NOT familiar with a lot of his work, and after researching I don't see what the issue is. Someone here posted that most filmmakers would love to have his career and I think so as well.

I need to grab that book!
Click to expand...

I really like the book. It is a very easy, fast read. The documentary "A Decade Under the influence" gives a good bit of time to Corman's influence on the "New Hollywood". If you can find it, there is a 1978 documentary called "Roger Corman: Hollywood's Wild Angel" that is outstanding. It was made wile Corman's New World Pictures was at it's height. I used to have the flick on VHS and dang near wore it out. It ended being "Borrowed" and never returned. I really miss it and if you find it let me know so I can get a copy.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0163354/

A couple more of Corman's films that I recommend. "X: The Man with X-Ray Eyes". It is worth it for the freak out scene at the end and for Don Rickles' performance. "Bucket of Blood" is just too much fun not to give a watch and was actually one of the few films to address beat culture at the time (of course with tongue firmly in check). It is also on Hulu.
 
I remember when I was first getting into reading about film making, I came across an article about the various people who paid their dues working at Corman's low budget production shop, in Fangoria or Starlog or some such genre magazine.

Reading about how directors like Coppola, Scorsese, and Cameron started out doing low budget flicks and honing their skills was really inspiring. I actually feel that it is kind of sad that we don't really see this same type of "hard knocks" film training ground around these days, at least not in a singular institution like New World Pictures was for many film makers. This is probably due to the crapping out of the indie scene to some extent, and of course to the wonderful digital tools we have now. These days most people would rather grab a Red One, DSLR, or something along those lines and try to make their own film. Now, don't get me wrong, I am thankful for the stuff we have nowadays, but part of me also feels that working under someone like Roger Corman would be a better trade-off.

Personally though, I'd have loved to have had the opportunity to work for Corman in the same capacity as say, someone like James Cameron did back in the early 1980's. It seems that this type of institution just doesn't exist anymore (and don't say film school, because it isn't the same as what Corman offered fledgling film makers).
 
Yeah, the 70's New World model, or, shoot, even the latter Concord/New Horizons model, set up after his sale of New World and exploiting the home video boom to the nth degree, probably won't be duplicated anytime soon. Where Corman really hit it out of the park with New World is that he set up the distribution end FIRST, then went into production. Becoming even a modest sized distribution player now would take massive capitalization, and the odds of an organization like that being run with someone with Roger Corman's real world production savy are probably very slim. It is sad, but at least we can honor, and enjoy Roger Corman's contribution to film history.
 
Also, even if someone sees Corman's body of work as the works of a man who exploited popular trends and topics and made schlocky low-budget films with violence and sex to draw in an audience, he's very intelligent, and seems to be incredibly friendly and genuine. I've seen his interviews in a dozen documentaries, and he's always smiling, always telling a pleasant story, and incredibly insightful. I honestly think that that kind of approach can change almost anyone's view on whether he made exploitation for money or made exploitation for money and art. He had a lot of heart.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top