DIRECTORY OF WORLD CINEMA AMERICAN INDEPENDENT pdf

EDITED BY JOHN BERRA
AMERICAN
INDEPENDENT
DIRECTORY OF
WORLD

CINEMA
2 Japan
Directory of World Cinema
CONTENTS
First Published in the UK in 2010 by Intellect Books, The Mill, Parnall Road, Fishponds,
Bristol, BS16 3JG, UK
First published in the USA in 2010 by Intellect Books, The University of Chicago Press,
1427 E. 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Copyright © 2010 Intellect Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Publisher: May Yao
Publishing Assistant: Melanie Marshall
Cover photo: Half Nelson, Journeyman Pictures.
Cover Design: Holly Rose
Copy Editor: Heather Owen
Typesetting: Mac Style, Beverley, E. Yorkshire
Directory of World Cinema ISSN 2040-7971
Directory of World Cinema eISSN 2040-798X
Directory of World Cinema: American Independent ISBN 978-1-84150-368-4
Directory of World Cinema: American Independent eISBN 978-1-84150-385-1
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements 5

Introduction by the Editor 6
Film of the Year 8
The Hurt Locker
Industry Spotlight 12
Interviews with Adam Green
and Wayne Kramer
Cultural Crossover 24
John Waters and Baltimore
Scoring Cinema 28
Mulholland Dr.
Directors 32
Stuart Gordon
Charlie Kaufman
David Lynch
African-American Cinema 42
Essay
Reviews
The American Nightmare 62
Essay
Reviews
Chemical World 84
Essay
Reviews
Crime 104
Essay
Reviews
Documentary 126
Essay
Reviews
Exploitation USA 144

Essay
Reviews
Familial Dysfunction 162
Essay
Reviews
Narrative Disorder 180
Essay
Reviews
On the Road 198
Essay
Reviews
Queer Cinema 218
Essay
Reviews
Rural Americana 240
Essay
Reviews
Slackers 258
Essay
Reviews
The Suburbs 276
Essay
Reviews
Underground USA 296
Essay
Reviews
Recommended Reading 316
American Cinema Online 319
Test Your Knowledge 322
Notes on Contributors 325

DIRECTORY OF
WORLD CINEMA
AMERICAN INDEPENDENT
ACKNOWLEDGENTS
Acknowledgements 5
Directory of World Cinema
This first edition of the Directory of World Cinema: American Independent is the result
of the commitment of a range of committed contributors from the fields of academia
and film journalism, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has
contributed to this volume. Although the backgrounds and approaches of the writers are
quite diverse, their collective passion for the project has yielded an analysis of American
Independent Cinema that is both informed and invigorating. The depth and scope of
the entire Directory of World Cinema project is a credit to the dedication of Intellect with
regards to the field of Film Studies, and I would like to thank Masoud Yazdani, May Yao,
Sam King, Melanie Marshall and Jennifer Schivas for their continued support throughout
what has been an immensely rewarding process.
I would also like to extend special thanks to Dr. Yannis Tzioumakis of Liverpool John
Moores University, who organized the American Independent Cinema: Past, Present,
Future conference in May, 2009. This was an especially interesting event which encour-
aged a wide range of approaches towards the subject of American Independent Cinema
and enabled me to make contact with a number of the contributors who feature in this
volume; the essays concerning the films of Jon Jost, Charlie Kaufman and John Waters,
and also the entire section devoted to the suburb Film, arose from papers delivered at,
and debate generated by, the conference. I also greatly appreciated the opportunity
to discuss the rich history and ongoing cultural and industrial evolution of American
Independent Cinema at such a crucial juncture in the development of this volume. In
addition, I would like to express my gratitude to my fellow contributors to Electric Sheep
magazine for taking on reviews and essays alongside other commitments, and Adam
Green and Wayne Kramer, two film-makers who took time out of their busy schedules to
candidly discuss their work and their navigation of the industrial networks of the Ameri-

can independent sector.
John Berra
ACKNOWLEDGENTS
6 American Independent
Directory of World Cinema
The pressing – and perplexing – question of what exactly constitutes an
‘American independent film’ is integral to any account of this unique form of
national cinema; even if such studies somehow manage to avoid addressing
the question directly, they ultimately offer their answer through the films and
directors which they choose to include or exclude, while arguments centred
around ‘authorship’ or ‘independence of spirit’ lead to the grey area of corpo-
rate sponsorship and the suggestion that this sector is simply an offshoot of the
Hollywood studios. As with other volumes in the Directory of World Cinema
series, this entry does not aim to be a definitive guide to a particular form of
cinema; rather, it covers the key genres and thematic concerns of a still-vital
sector of cultural production, focusing on specific films and directors which
exemplify American Independent Cinema at its most socially significant or
aesthetically adventurous. While this may not yield a finite definition of the term
‘American independent cinema’, it certainly sketches a map of its unique indus-
trial and cultural networks, revealing a cinema that balances art with exploitation
and celebrates the conventions of genre whilst frequently defying them.
At the time of writing, media commentary suggests that American inde-
pendent cinema is in a state of emergency, struggling to sustain itself due to
economic crisis; however, reports of such industrial issues have referred not
to genuine independents, but to the Hollywood sub-divisions which were
established to appeal to the niche audiences which turned Steven Soder-
bergh’s provocative talk-piece sex, lies and videotape (1989) into a surprise hit
and would later exhibit such enthusiasm for Pulp Fiction (1994) that Quentin
Tarantino’s crime epic grossed over $100 million and became the first ‘inde-
pendent blockbuster’ – arguably a contradiction in terms, but one which the

studio system could not afford to ignore. While these boutique operations
have arguably nurtured a number of unique film-makers since the mid-Nineties
(David O’Russell, Paul Thomas Anderson, Alexander Payne), whilst also invest-
ing in their forerunners (Robert Altman, the Coen Brothers, Jim Jarmusch), their
aggressive attempt to industrialize independence has ultimately ensured market
saturation, critical cynicism and audience apathy. This retreat from the speciality
market by the Hollywood majors has been efficiently executed: Warner Indepen-
dent and Picturehouse have been closed down, while Miramax and Paramount
Vantage have been severely downsized, despite delivering such cost-efficient
critical and commercial successes as No Country for Old Men (2007) and There
Will Be Blood (2007). However, the dependence on prestige to attract audiences
to ‘quality’ product has entailed expensive awards campaigns, promotional exer-
cises that have brought the overall investment in such titles to such a level that
the industrial accolades have been undermined by eroding profit margins.
However, on the margins of the mainstream, American independent cinema
remains a vital force, with enterprising directors overcoming budgetary restric-
tions to deliver films that are timely and socially relevant, emphasizing characters
INTRODUCTION
BY THE EDITOR
Introduction 7
Directory of World Cinema
over caricatures and psychology over spectacle: both Courtney Hunt’s Frozen
River (2008) and Cary Fukunaga’s Sin Nombre (2009) tackle the topic of immigra-
tion within the confines of the road movie and succeed in making their eco-
nomically-disadvantaged protagonists fully-formed moral constructs rather than
political mouthpieces, thereby engaging their audiences on a humanist level
that transcends genre trappings. Steven Soderbergh continues to surprise, if
only to prove that he still can, alternating between the studio project The Infor-
mant! (2009) and the The Girlfriend Experience (2009); the latter film followed
Soderbergh’s Bubble (2005) in aiming to establish new distribution avenues

for independent cinema with The Girlfriend Experience being available as an
Amazon Video on Demand rental title before its theatrical release. The subject
of the American occupation of Iraq, which has been explored by a long line of
well-meaning but under-performing studio productions, was finally dealt with
in a sufficiently invigorating and incisive manner by Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt
Locker (2009), a taut warzone thriller that largely jettisoned political stance in
favour of day-to-day minutiae with occasional bursts of life-threatening danger.
The publication of the Directory of World Cinema: American Independent finds
the American independent sector coming full circle. 1999 was the year that the
independent sensibility successfully penetrated the Hollywood mainstream; films
such as Being John Malkovich, Magnolia and Three Kings utilized studio resources
to fully realize the personal visions of their directors, while The Matrix became an
international phenomenon by placing its ground-breaking ‘bullet-time’ effects within
the philosophical realms of Immanuel Kant and Jean Baudrillard, and the micro-
budget The Blair Witch Project demonstrated the power of viral marketing, with
an ingenious online advertising campaign, to reach blockbuster status. 2009 found
Hollywood distancing itself from the independent sector, concentrating on youth-
orientated franchise films, while directors willing to work outside the studio system
were able to make politically-engaging and emotionally-challenging projects, which
resonated with audiences on the festival circuit and beyond. Of course, the ‘next
Blair Witch’ finally emerged in the form of Paranormal Activity (2009), but Oren Peli’s
debut feature is already being cited as a triumph of marketing strategy rather than
individual quality, indicating that the American independent sector may be allowed
some creative breathing room before the major studios seek to maximize its com-
mercial potential through in-house development and Oscar acceptance.
Regardless of its current industrial importance, the cultural diversity of Ameri-
can independent cinema is undeniable; from existential road movies, to uncom-
promising exploitation, to politicized documentary, to deconstructive genre
cinema, to explorations of race and sexuality, to depictions of dysfunctional
family units, this is a form of film-making which thrives on the intuitive instincts,

and of film-makers who are unafraid to examine the social-political fabric of their
nation. Many of those films and film-makers are featured in this first edition of
the Directory of World Cinema: American Independent, and the essays, reviews
and interviews that follow are indicative of both the diversity of American inde-
pendent cinema and the serious critical consideration which its output receives
from cultural commentators; after all, this is a cinematic sector that is home to
both Abel Ferrara and Jon Jost, and has been discussed in depth by both David
Bordwell and Peter Biskind. If American independent cinema is synonymous with
the open highways of Easy Rider (1969), Five Easy Pieces (1970) and Two Lane
Blacktop (1971), then it is hoped that this volume provides the appropriate route
map to an unspecified destination.
John Berra
8 American Independent
Directory of World Cinema
FILM OF THE YEAR
THE HURT LOCKER
The Hurt Locker, First Light Productions/Kingsgatefilms.
Film of the Year 9
Directory of World Cinema
Synopsis
Staff Sergeant William James, a soldier known for his ability to disarm
bombs whilst under fire, joins his latest detail in Iraq and finds he is
an unwelcome presence: his new teammates, Sergeant JT Sandborn
and Specialist Owen Eldridge, are mourning the loss of their previ-
ous commanding officer, Sergeant Matt Thompson, whose zen-like
approach to bomb disposal is immediately contrasted by James who,
comparatively, behaves like a bull in the proverbial china shop. The
three soldiers gradually bond during the remaining month of their
tour, with Sandborn and Eldridge initially infuriated by James’ impul-
sive actions in dangerous situations, but eventually respecting his

bravery and the efficiency with which he makes life-and-death deci-
sions. They dismantle a bomb in a crowded public area, evade sniper
fire in the open desert, and become involved with a local boy who
makes a living selling pirate DVDs. James attends sessions with the
base therapist, but prefers to relieve stress by playing violent video
games and knocking back alcohol. Back home in the States, James
is unable to fully adjust to family life, and returns for another tour of
duty in Iraq.
Critique
The post-9/11 era has led to the political engagement of filmmakers
working both within the studio system and on its industrial margins,
resulting in a series of films that examine the effect of American
military presence on foreign soil, both in the field and back in the
United States. Studio investment has led to such films as Paul Haggis’
In the Valley of Elah (2007), Kimberley Peirce’s Stop-Loss (2008) and
Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies (2008), while the independent sector has
delivered David Ayer’s Harsh Times (2005), Brian De Palma’s Redacted
(2007) and James. C. Strouse’s Grace is Gone (2007). Most of these
projects have received critical respect for their worthy intentions but
they have all failed commercially, with audiences unwilling to visit the
multiplex to see a Hollywood version of the combat footage, or the
grief of bereaved families that has become a fixture of the evening
news. An Academy-Award-nominated performance by Tommy Lee
Jones could not generate interest In the Valley of Elah, while a posi-
tive Sundance reception for the John Cusack vehicle Grace is Gone
did not lead to wide distribution. Even the cross-generational star
power of Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe could not carry the
$70 million Body of Lies beyond a disappointing $39 million at the
domestic box office.
By comparison with those films, Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker

arrived ‘under the radar’, much like the insurgent IEDs (improvised
explosive devices) that her mismatched team of soldiers must disman-
tle if they are to make it through their tour of duty largely unscathed.
Unlike the aforementioned films, The Hurt Locker does not weigh
in on the political arguments surrounding the Iraq conflict, rather
it details the activities, both on duty and off duty, of three soldiers,
paying particular attention to the character of Staff Sergeant William
The Hurt Locker
Studio/Distributor:
First Light Production
Grosvenor Park Media
Summit Entertainment
Director:
Kathryn Bigelow
Producers:
Kathryn Bigelow
Mark Boal
Nicolas Chartier
Greg Shapiro
Screenwriter:
Mark Boal
Cinematographer:
Barry Ackroyd
Art Director:
David Bryan
Editors:
Chris Innis
Bob Murawski
Composers:
Marco Beltrami

Buck Sanders
Duration:
131 minutes
Cast:
Jeremy Renner
Anthony Mackie
Brian Geraghty
Guy Pearce
Ralph Fiennes
David Morse
Evangeline Lilly
Year:
2009
10 American Independent
Directory of World Cinema
James, and examines the male psyche in situations of extreme physi-
cal and emotion duress. Rather than relying on a traditional three-act
structure, and the mentor-student conflict that is characteristic of the
American military movie, or the fatalistic relationships that provide
the dramatic friction in Bigelow’s own work – such as the fetishistic
cop thriller Blue Steel (1989) or her cyberpunk excursion Strange Days
(1995) – The Hurt Locker opts for an episodic narrative, one that prob-
ably stems from screenwriter Mark Boal’s prior experience as a war
correspondent. Bigelow’s film follows James, Sandborn and Eldridge
from mission to mission, taking in their downtime and interaction with
the local community. Almost as if she is working with the virtual-reality
technology that was integral to Strange Days (video units which
allow users to experience the extreme activities of others, in the first
person), Bigelow takes to the mean streets of Iraq (the film was shot in
Jordan) and captures much of the action from the perspective of her

protagonists. Establishing overhead shots and sweeping pans are not
part of the aesthetic; much of the suspense of The Hurt Locker stems
from the unknown, the threat of enemy – or friendly – fire, which could
be waiting on the next patrol, around the next corner, or beyond the
next road block.
The title refers to the place deep inside where these men put away
their pain, frustration and fear, and Bigelow expertly conveys James’
ability to substitute emotion with adrenaline; an unlikely ‘hero’ and
team leader, James (portrayed brilliantly by Jeremy Renner) is not a
typical ‘action man’ and Renner’s somewhat pudgy features and short
stature would usually find him lost amidst an ensemble in a Hollywood
war epic rather than taking centre stage. Bigelow has, of course,
made two earlier films about groups with charismatic leaders: the
vampire thriller Near Dark (1987) with Lance Henriksen as the head
of a makeshift family of bloodsuckers is an enduring cult item; and
Point Break (1991), with Patrick Swayze as the sky-diving mastermind
of a gang of bank robbers who mix crime with extreme sports, has
become something of a pop-culture classic. However, while those
films were undeniably exciting and technically proficient, they were
firmly rooted within Hollywood genre and the folklore of the Ameri-
can outlaw, their moments of psychological insight occasionally at
odds with the mythic sensibility applied to main protagonists. The
Hurt Locker strips away such iconography to capture ordinary people
undertaking day-to-day duties in a morally-questionable international
conflict. The action sequences are excellent, but it is the small, telling,
explorations of character that linger: a heavy after-hours drinking ses-
sion which lurches uncomfortably from joking to a dark night of the
soul; James opening a juice box for his fellow soldier whilst pinned
down by sniper fire in the desert; Sandborn breaking down in the final
days of the tour and demanding that James explain how he keeps his

sanity amidst the chaos.
The character of James is something of an enigma throughout, as
perpetually in motion as Bigelow’s hand-held camera, but the final ten
minutes find him back with his family in the United States and bring
his seemingly-contradictory nature (careless yet caring, impetuous
yet informed) into focus: in a suburban supermarket, James stares at
an entire isle of cereal, defeated by having to make a decision about
Film of the Year 11
Directory of World Cinema
whether to go with the Cheerios or the Captain Crunch. Eventu-
ally selecting one of the varieties on offer, he meets up with his wife
(Evangeline Lilly), who has already loaded up her trolley. James can
only function amidst chaos, and can only make a decision when it is
a life-or-death choice that has a definitive outcome. His love for his
son is evident in the tender manner in which he cradles the child, but
as he talks to his family about his experiences in the field in a manner
of almost winsome longing: it is obvious that he would rather be
somewhere else. In the closing moments, back in Iraq for another tour
of duty, James strides towards yet another unexploded IED, calmly
composed and clad in his metal suit. A loud blast of rock music plays
on the soundtrack, and it is clear that this is how James sees him-
self when he is putting his life on the line on foreign soil: a rock star
amongst soldiers, always aiming to top the previous ‘performance’.
The opening quote states, ‘War is a drug’, and the final image of
James back in the thick of the action brings that statement full circle.
Incisive and invigorating, The Hurt Locker eschews politics for sheer
experience, and the often inexplicable allure of mortal danger, and
delivers an uncompromising depiction of the modern battlefield.
John Berra
12 American Independent

Directory of World Cinema
INDUSTRY SPOTLIGHT:
INTERVIEWS WITH ADAM GREEN
AND WAYNE KRAMER
Courtesy of AireScope Pictures.
Industry Spotlight 13
Directory of World Cinema
Interview with Adam Green
A cursory perusal of two chapters in this volume (The American Nightmare and
Exploitation USA) will reaffirm the assertion that horror is the genre of choice for
first-time film-makers seeking to make a movie which will both the attract attention
of a core audience, and deliver the required return on investment to endear them
to financiers in the future. Unfortunately, since the low-budget horror heyday of
the 1970s, which gave birth to such cult classics as Tobe Hooper’s The Texas Chain
Saw Massacre (1974) and John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978), many independent
horror films have felt more like cynical positioning exercises than exciting excur-
sions into genre territory. Such comments, however, do not apply to Adam Green,
whose swamp-bound slasher Hatchet delivers shocks and laughs in equal measure
without ever descending into the sheer nastiness of the current ‘torture porn’
craze, or the postmodern parody of Scream (1996) and its imitators. Harry Knowles
of Ain’t it Cool News.com insisted that, ‘Adam Green is the real deal – and Victor
Crowley is a friggin’ fantastic horror icon waiting to be unleashed on y’all’, later
including Hatchet in his Top Ten Films of 2007. A limited cinema release courtesy
of independent distributor Anchor Bay yielded impressive returns on a per-screen
basis, and Hatchet found more fans on DVD. Adam took time out of post-produc-
tion work for his latest thriller Frozen (2010) to discuss his career to date, his influ-
ences, and the inherent challenges in making low-budget genre movies.
You are most widely known as the director of the horror film Hatchet (2006.
How did you develop an interest in the horror genre, and which film-makers
have had a particular influence on you with regards to either their films or

their working methods?
Horror has always been my first love in terms of the films I choose to go out of my
way to see. When I was just 7 years old, my older brother showed me Friday the
13th Part 2 (1981) The Thing (1981) and Halloween (1978). It was love at first sight.
I was not so much scared by them as I was challenged to figure out how they
pulled off their effects, and also inspired by how ‘cool’ the villains were. I was only
8 years old when I first invented Victor Crowley, so in many ways Hatchet was over
20 years in the making. In terms of film-makers who have inspired me, I’d have to
say it still comes down to Steven Spielberg. E.T. – The Extra Terrestrial (1982) will
always be my favourite film of all time and I know that may not get me much credit
with the horror fans, but it’s the truth. Spielberg will always be that unreachable
shining star that I will strive to reach as both an artist and a human being. Other
favourites include John Carpenter, Guillermo del Toro, and I rip off John Landis in
almost everything I do. I always find it funny when critics compare Hatchet directly
to Friday the 13
th,
(1980) when An American Werewolf in London (1981) was my
inspiration in terms of comedic tone, shooting style, and composition.
How did you raise the $1.5 million budget for Hatchet, and how did you
secure cameo appearances from such genre icons as Robert Englund, Kane
Hodder and Tony Todd?
My team and I were able to raise the money for Hatchet by having a proposal
package that spelled everything out. Another important device was a mock
trailer that told the story of Victor Crowley and got people excited about seeing
the film. In fact, that mock trailer was the template for the theatrical trailer when
Hatchet was released in 2007. One of the producers, Sarah Elbert, had recently
produced the special features for the Friday the 13TH DVD box set and was able
to get the script for Hatchet in front of FX wizard John Carl Buechler. He helped
14 American Independent
Directory of World Cinema

me create the make-up job of ‘Young Victor Crowley’ for the mock trailer. He
also slipped the script to Kane Hodder, who signed on almost instantly. Fate
found me at the same party as Robert Englund one night, and though I didn’t
have the audacity to approach him about my project, he instead approached me
and asked where I got the Marilyn Manson Suicide King Shit T-shirt that I was
wearing. Tony Todd was already working with Buechler on another project and I
met him on his set. Again, I didn’t bring up Hatchet at first, but once I knew him
a little more, he asked me about it. These guys are all legends in the genre and I
think what they responded to was the spirit of Hatchet and how it was a celebra-
tion of what horror movies used to be.
There is a fine line between comedy and horror, one that
Hatchet
treads skil-
fully and knowingly. How did you achieve the balance between the laughs and
the shocks, and to what extent did you ‘find’ the film in the editing room?
I was making my living as a comedy writer at the time, so it was a style that I was
very comfortable with. With my biggest inspiration being An American Werewolf
in London, I could see that the key was to keep the comedy out of the horror.
In Hatchet, the villain was never presented in a light manner, unlike the cast
of characters that were trying to survive the situation. I also find that comedy
is the quickest and easiest way to make characters likeable, endearing and
three-dimensional. I wrote the ‘victims’ in Hatchet in a humorous way and it was
Hatchet’s sense of humour that really won over the crowds. That experience can
never be replicated on DVD at home, no matter how many rowdy, gore-loving
friends you cram into your living room. Nothing about Hatchet was found in the
editing room as the budget limitations meant that I could rarely get more than
a few takes. In fact, Hatchet’s running time is technically under 80 minutes if you
don’t include the credits – that’s how lean the script and the shoot had to be.
The trend in independently-produced horror cinema since the success of
The Blair Witch Project

(1999) has been to utilize lo-fi production methods,
or to approach the genre from a psychological perspective, yet
Hatchet
is
an unapologetic throwback to the studio-financed body-count horror films
of the 1980s. What do you particularly like about that period of horror
cinema, and to what extent do you think Hatchet imbues that material with
an independent sensibility?
In my opinion, the lo-fi production gimmick only works if it is a story point. The
Blair Witch Project was a brilliantly innovative piece of storytelling that spawned
a whole new genre of ‘found footage’ films but, more often than not, the lo-fi
thing is a cop out. You’ll hear film-makers give a laundry list of why they chose
to shoot a film with low-fi gear but the truth is really that they just couldn’t get
a bigger budget together. When I wrote Hatchet, I merely wrote the type of
movie that I grew up on and wanted to see again. The goal was never to make
the 80s’ ‘slasher’ formula hip again but to remind people what horror used to be
like and give people that theatrical communal experience of laughing, cheering,
and screaming together. The independent sensibility really comes down to the
script and the fact that I was making a movie that brought the old formula back
in a modern way. No Hollywood studio would have ever touched a movie that’s
got comedy in one scene and then a woman having her head torn off in the
next. We had a very limited budget, but we also had a lot of good people and
close friends that cashed in every favour they had. One of the best things about
Hatchet is that, when you watch it, you can almost feel the crew scrambling
around, covered in fake blood, doing whatever they could to get it done.
Industry Spotlight 15
Despite support from critics, particularly Harry Knowles of Ain’t it Cool
News,
Hatchet
grossed a disappointing $155,873 domestically before finding

a wider audience on DVD. Do you think the genre has become dominated by
the Hollywood majors to the point that even commercially-orientated inde-
pendent productions have trouble breaking through theatrically?
Something to keep in mind is that Hatchet opened on only 80 screens and
through Anchor Bay, a distributor that, up until then, had only been a DVD
catalogue company. The person in charge at the time seemed to feel that, with
the buzz, audiences would just ‘find’ it, but most people had no idea it was out,
or they lived two states away from a theatre playing it. In fact, unless you were
a frequent reader of the horror websites, there was no way of knowing the film
existed. A great example is how in San Diego there wasn’t even a poster or a
listing on the marquee of the theatre that was playing Hatchet. It was essentially
an experiment to see if online buzz and my MySpace page alone could open a
movie, and it was devastating to watch it go down like that. Yet, when Hatchet
opened, it actually did surprisingly well. Shows sold out [in] Los Angeles,
Baltimore, Boston, Austin, and New York. In fact, Hatchet grossed $17,000 on
one screen in Los Angeles alone, beating the studio film 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
that weekend. At the end of the day, though, the only horror films that are really
shining at the box office have outrageous budgets behind their campaigns and
usually sport pre-packaged titles that bring even the most passive fans out in
droves. A tiny film like Hatchet had no chance of standing up to the remake of
Halloween (2007). At the end of the day, though, the fact that Hatchet went from
passion project to a theatrical run was something to be grateful for and, on DVD,
it has been a monster hit for Anchor Bay. It is far and away the biggest success
they’ve ever had with an original genre title and a sequel is now in the works. So,
while some may consider $155,000 on 80 unadvertised screens disappointing,
for everyone who was actually involved it was really quite a feat.
Courtesy of AireScope Pictures.
16 American Independent
Directory of World Cinema
Hatchet

was swiftly followed by
Spiral
(2007), the story of a socially-awkward
telemarketing agent haunted by his past which was marketed as a horror
film, but plays more successful as a dark character study. How challenging
was it to shift from a gross-out horror film to something more psychological?
Spiral was shot before Hatchet had finished post-production. Joel David Moore
and I had such an exceptional time working together on Hatchet that we just didn’t
want it to end, so when he showed me his script for Spiral, it was a no-brainer to
sign on. What I loved about it was that, although it was a small arthouse film, it was
a project where I could flex a completely different creative and artistic side of myself.
Knowing how Hollywood works, I knew that Hatchet was going to define me around
town and I didn’t want to be put in that ‘box’. Shifting gears was really not difficult
at all, though having the film come out right on Hatchet’s heels was a bit scary. At
Fantasia in Montreal that summer, Hatchet played on Friday night to an 800 seat
sold-out crowd that was on their feet cheering, and then Spiral played the next night
to a crowd of 100. When I introduced the film, and looked out at the fans in their
Hatchet T-shirts, all I remember thinking was, ‘Oh no, they’re gonna hate this.’ But
many said they liked Spiral more than Hatchet. For me, Spiral is the movie that much
better illustrates what I am made of as a director.
You co-directed Spiral with Joel Moore, who also played the lead role. How did
you collaborate, and do you think that this is a working method that would be
more characteristic of an independent production than a studio feature?
Co-directing with Joel Moore really couldn’t have gone better. When he first
asked me to come onboard, it was because he was already wearing the hat of
producer, writer, and lead actor, and he wanted to make sure that nothing fell
through the cracks. We sat down and created a bible of shot lists and visual con-
cepts so that there was never the chance of not seeing eye-to-eye when making
decisions on set. Once we began production, I took on the role of ‘leader’,
though Joel was still involved with every choice. Co-directing is not something I

would encourage, although I had a great experience doing it. Joel is one of my
closest friends, and there was complete trust on both sides. It would be naïve to
think that it would always work that way. Most of the cases I’ve heard of usually
involve a first-time director who could not be removed from directing their own
script but was forced to agree to have an experienced director come onboard in
order to secure financing. No one ever wants to admit it, but it happens a lot.
Your other professional activities have ranged from stand-up comedy to
fronting the heavy metal band Haddonfield. Do these activities complement
each other in some way, or do they represent distinctly different outlets for
your creativity?
I suppose it all comes down to that childhood thing of wanting to entertain and
the fact that I needed the attention and that rush of adrenaline. The first time I did
stand-up it was simply to prove to myself that I could do it. It’s the scariest thing in
the world, and any stand-up who tells you that they are comfortable up there is a
liar. But I conquered my fear, did it for a few years as a hobby, and learned whatever
I could about timing, word choice, and how to get the reactions I want. There’s just
something in performing live that really feels good. The instant gratification of hear-
ing a large crowd laugh at a joke, or the relaxed high I get after screaming myself
into the stage with a band. Film-making is the only thing I consider a professional
activity though. I’m not serious or good enough at any of the other pastimes to
make a good living at them. I guess I never outgrew the whole ‘Hey, Mom look at
me’ thing. And thankfully, I also have a mother who never outgrew wanting to look.
John Berra
Directory of World Cinema
Interview with Wayne Kramer
Although born in Johannesburg-Kew, South Africa, the writer-director Wayne
Kramer always aspired to work in the American film industry, and has succeeded
in establishing a career within the independent sector. After toiling away as a
screenwriter for many years, and suffering the setback of struggling to complete
a directorial debut which never saw the light of day, Kramer finally enjoyed critical

success with The Cooler (2003), a dark comedy set in Las Vegas which show-
cased superb performances from William H Macy as a perpetually-unlucky former
gambler in debt to Alec Baldwin’s volatile yet strangely-loyal casino boss. Kramer
followed his breakthrough with Running Scared (2006), a violent crime thriller that
was released by New Line Cinema and became a cult sensation on DVD. This
interview was conducted following the release of Crossing Over (2009), Kramer’s
controversial immigration drama which, despite coaxing Hollywood superstar
Harrison Ford into a rare excursion into independent territory, was effectively
discarded by financier and distributor, The Weinstein Company. Although the
studio-sanctioned version of Crossing Over that was eventually released deviates
dramatically from Kramer’s original vision, it remains a brave attempt to tackle a
difficult issue within the confines of narrative cinema. Kramer discussed his career
to date and elaborated on the behind-the-scenes battles of Crossing Over.
The Cooler
(2003) is often referred to as your directorial debut but, accord-
ing to IMDB, your first directing credit is actually
Blazeland
(1992), which
apparently deals with a dead rock star returning from the grave to promote
a new band. What has happened to this movie?
Technically, The Cooler is actually my directorial debut since Blazeland was
never completed and no one has seen the film – and I’d like to keep it that way!
Blazeland was an absolute nightmare from beginning to end; an investor who
thought I might amount to something decided to invest about a hundred grand
Courtesy of Wayne Kramer.
18 American Independent
Directory of World Cinema
in a low-budget feature. It was about a Jim-Morrison-type rock star whose vocal
chords are severed by windshield glass during a car wreck and he loses the abil-
ity to sing. His manager and his groupies plot his comeback from the rock star’s

gothic mansion. They’ve been convinced by a crackpot scientist that, if they can
find the right vocal chord match for the rock star’s voice, he can perform the
world’s first vocal-chord transplant. So, this crazy group keeps luring wannabe
bands to the mansion and offing them, until they find the right candidates for
his transplant. I was completely inexperienced with regards to production and
I brought onboard a very sweet guy named Russell Droullard to produce the
film for me – neglecting the fact that he had zero experience, other than having
been a production assistant. It only got worse from there. We hired a DP based
on his having shot one documentary – the result of which was that the entire
first week of photography turned out over-exposed and out of focus. We had to
reshoot, as well as hire an entirely new crew. We had rented a warehouse down
in Fullerton, Orange County and were shooting there without any permits. Of
course, the police turned up within a week or two and suddenly we were paying
out of our eyeballs for permits and insurance and everything else that goes with
that. I was broke and homeless and living off production catering.
Did you complete
Blazeland
and does it still exist in any form?
I spent the next two years saving every cent I could and begging and borrowing
money from my family to complete production – which I did for $7,000. During that
time, I had gone down on hands and knees and begged a post-production house
in LA to let me rent an editing room. Since I was homeless, I basically slept in the
cutting room for about three months – until they got wise to me and told me to
rent an apartment or lose the cutting room, which I was barely paying for in the first
place. As far out on a limb as I was, I remember my cutting-room experience quite
fondly. Oliver Stone had ten editing rooms down the hall from me and was cutting
The Doors, which was really cool. Anyway, after I finished cutting the new footage
together, I tried to find a distributor. One day, some fly-by-night producer turned
me onto this so-called distributor operating out of Orlando, Florida – who, if I had
done my homework, I would have found out was a thief and a fraud and was already

being sued by a dozen film-makers and investors. He managed to convince me to
release the negative to him and that he would finish posting the film in Florida and
provide us with home-video distribution. Two years later, the guy still had not deliv-
ered the film – and wouldn’t even show us what he had done! Russell and I spent
thousands of dollars on lawyers and eventually a private investigator to track this guy
down. When his wife realized a PI was sniffing around, she contacted us and offered
to ship the negative back to the lab. We agreed, and that’s the last I saw of the film.
I seriously doubt that the lab has kept the negative all these years. All that exists of
Blazeland is a work print in my garage.
What kind of career path did you take between the
Blazeland
experience
and
The Cooler
?
I always intended to use screenwriting as a means to arrive at a directing career
so, all throughout that period, I was writing away. I was also doing any job I
could to survive. Finally, I was able to sell a script I wrote called Mindhunters to
20th Century Fox. For the first time in my life I had made some real money and
had a small cushion to make the right choices for myself. I had wanted to direct
Mindhunters, but I was essentially told that, if I tried to attach myself, the deal
would fall apart, so I took the money and walked away. Fox put the project into
turnaround about a year later and Intermedia bought it from them and set it up
with Dimension Films. They brought on about ten different writers. At no point did
Industry Spotlight 19
Directory of World Cinema
they ever come back to me and say, ‘have another shot at it.’ They turned it from a
taut suspense thriller into a full-on action film and there are plot holes that you can
drive ten trucks through. Nothing makes sense – the characters are all supposed
to be the best of the best in the FBI Academy and every one of them makes the

stupidest decisions. People mistakenly think I wrote Mindhunters after The Cooler
but it was written in 1997 and shot in 2002. Dimension kept it on the shelf for
about two and a half years. The money and residuals have been good over the
years, so I don’t entirely regret the experience.
Did you have a particular interest in, or experience of, Las Vegas before you
wrote and directed
The Cooler
? The film presents a fairly balanced view
of the city in that it revels in some of the glamour and nostalgia associated
with the Strip, yet does not shy away from the tragedy and violence that
occurs there on a daily basis, especially around the casino business.
I always had more of a cinematic interest in Vegas than a hardcore gambler’s
interest. I loved the Fellini-esque world of downtown Las Vegas – the section
that attracted the more old school, hard luck cases than the Strip. I’ve always
been a sucker for film noir and damaged-character studies and the seedy, yet
glamorous world of Vegas really spoke to me. To me, the film was always more
about the interaction of the characters – the weird triangle of relationships – than
any real fascination with gambling, other than the superstitious nature of the
entire enterprise that lent itself perfectly to telling an old-fashioned love story
with a contemporary, high-concept spin. The project came about when my friend
Frank Hannah pitched the idea to me. I fell in love with it immediately and asked
him if he wanted to write it with me – and I would do everything in my power to
get it made. Frank is the real deal when it comes to gambling. He is obsessed
with the world and makes religious trips to Vegas to hit the tables. He basically
served as our technical director on the film. Right from Frank’s first pitch, I knew I
could write those characters and put flesh on their bones.
There was some controversy over the scene in which Alec Baldwin’s old-
school casino boss kicks a ‘pregnant’ woman in the stomach. Although it is
made clear that he knows that she is faking her pregnancy, some viewers
found it hard to get past the brutality of the moment. Were there any par-

ticular challenges to executing or editing that scene, and were your worried
that it might repel members of the audience who had been enjoying the
usual love story?
Right from the moment that we wrote that scene in the script, I knew it was going
to blow people’s minds. The challenge was how to pull it off and milk it just long
enough before the reveal, without having the audience rushing from the theatre.
We literally had to time the editing so that if someone got up to leave the theatre,
he/she would hear a gasp from the audience before they could get to the door –
and would realize that it was a fake pregnancy. And true to our calculations, there
were always some audience members who couldn’t handle it and decided to
walk out until they heard laughter or clapping from the rest of the audience. They
always returned sheepishly to their seats. Alec Baldwin tells the story that when he
first read the script, he got to that scene and threw it down, declaring there was
no way he was doing this movie. When his agent called him to see what his reac-
tion was, he told his agent he’s not going to do a movie where he kicks a pregnant
woman in the stomach. His agent asked him if he read the rest of the scene. Alec
told him he hadn’t bothered. His agent told him to finish reading it. I guess that
from that moment Alec was pulled into it.
20 American Independent
Directory of World Cinema
Alec Baldwin once quipped that the budget for chewing gum on the set of
Michael Bay’s
Pearl Harbour
(2001) was equivalent to the entire cost of
The
Cooler
. How did you manage to deliver such a stylish first feature, with a
cast of well-known actors, on such a limited budget and schedule?
With regards to the actors, we were able to attract them due to the material –
and most of them wanted to work with William H Macy. Everybody loves Bill and

he proved to be a big talent magnet. He was the first to come onto the film – we
wrote it for him, but it took him a long time to come around. He was tired of
playing ‘lovable losers’ and was looking to do more studio films. But producer
Ed Pressman and I dogged Bill and his agent on a weekly basis, and wore them
down. I think Bill recognized the potential of doing the role and basically said, ‘If
I’m going to never play another loser again, let me at least play the Super Hero
of losers.’ I knew that I didn’t have a great resumé when it came to directing
before The Cooler so I meticulously storyboarded the entire film to be able to
show the producers my vision for it. We were also helped enormously by the
location. Our line producer, Elliot Rosenblatt, found a casino in Reno, Nevada,
that was undergoing renovations and made a deal with them for us to shoot,
and house our cast and crew in the hotel, while they were tearing the place up.
You made the crime thriller
Running Scared
for New Line Cinema. However,
the film was shot on location in Prague to keep the costs down. When you
are dealing with adult material that is often violent and potentially divisive,
are than any significant differences between working with a Hollywood
studio or an independent financier?
Running Scared was as much an independent film as The Cooler. We were
completely independently financed, and only sold the film to New Line in the
homestretch of post-production. Once New Line got involved, I feared that they
would inflict huge changes upon the film in terms of toning down the content.
But Toby Emmerich and Bob Shaye were very respectful of what the film was,
and I ended up only having to tweak a few moments for pacing issues. With
regard to the budget and having to shoot the film in Prague, there was just no
other way to make the film with the limited budget we had. It would have cost
us twice as much to shoot the film in New Jersey, where it’s actually set. We did
shoot about a week in New Jersey and it cost a fortune – but I insisted on get-
ting those shots to tie the film together. I didn’t think a film set in New Jersey

could be effectively pulled off by shooting in Prague, but Toby Corbett, who
has worked on all my films, designed some great sets and found the appropri-
ate locations. But it wasn’t without its immense challenges and we spent a lot of
time keeping Prague out of our field of view.
Running Scared
is an extremely violent film, yet it received the R rating
when submitted to the MPAA, whereas
The Cooler
was slapped with an
NC-17 due to a few seconds of pubic hair. Do you see this as a reflection of
American society’s acceptance of violence as opposed to its almost puritani-
cal attitude towards sex?
I definitely agree that the MPAA is way more lenient when it comes to violence
versus sexual situations. But if you’ll recall, there were some pretty explicit full-
frontal shots in the strip club and the MPAA had no problem with them. I had
always feared that the MPAA might rate us NC-17 on The Cooler but I would have
thought it was for the first sex scene, where Maria Bello puts her hands on Billy
Macy’s goods after they’ve just had sex. I never imagined it would have been for
a two-second glimpse of pubic hair. Their explanation was that Macy’s head was
right next to her pubic hair and that was a no-no – as in they slam you for nudity
Industry Spotlight 21
only when seen in context of performing a sexual act, rather than just strippers
cavorting in a nightclub. The burden on receiving an NC-17 was that we had
already completely finished the film and had already screened at a number of fes-
tivals. Usually, as in the case of Running Scared, you present the MPAA with a work
in progress and try to gauge if you’re going to have any rating’s issues, so that
you can address them without having to re-open the film once it’s already been
mixed and the negative has been cut or, as is more likely these days, once the film
has already gone through the digital intermediate process. We had to reopen the
offending reel in The Cooler, which cost Lions Gate quite a bit of money.

Your most recent feature,
Crossing Over
, deals with the issue of immigra-
tion in the USA. As you became a naturalized US citizen in 2000, how much
of your own experiences are reflected in the film, and was the naturaliza-
tion process simply a professional necessity for you, as it is for the Alice
Eve character in
Crossing Over
, or did it hold deeper meaning and personal
significance?
I pretty much identified with all the immigrant characters because, having been
through the bureaucracy of legalization, I know how challenging – and arbitrary – it
is. More specifically, as an artist trying to make his mark in the United States, it’s
so important that you have access to working and raising financing in America.
Speaking for myself, I always wanted to live in America and I always wanted to be
an American. I grew up on American culture and felt spiritually connected to the
country and the opportunities that it promised, or should I say, advertised, to the
rest of the world. I have come close to achieving the ‘American dream’ and have the
privilege of making films that get seen all around the world, as opposed to being
just a ‘South African’ film-maker whose work is perceived as ‘foreign’. My attitude
was always: why be a big fish in a small pond when you can be a big fish in the
biggest pond. I applied for naturalization the first day I became eligible because it
Courtesy of Wayne Kramer.
22 American Independent
Directory of World Cinema
was something I very much wanted and as an immigrant it’s the smart thing to do.
I only travel on my US passport and don’t maintain a South African one at all. In
fact, when I travel to South Africa I use my US passport and they stamp me in with
a tourist visa – which is pretty surreal. My intent with Crossing Over was to make a
movie that wasn’t trying to solve America’s immigration problems but to give an

honest portrayal of the diversity in the immigrant struggle to achieve legalization or
naturalization – and the differences in each immigrant’s struggle.
Your original cut reportedly featured a story strand involving Sean Penn
which book-ended the film. Can you explain more about how these scenes
function alongside the other narrative elements, and has removing this
footage significantly altered the overall impact of
Crossing Over
?
For me, this was the most damaging cut that Harvey Weinstein made to the film
and the one I can least live with. The film originally opened with Sean Penn, play-
ing a border patrol agent, driving his truck through a heavy storm on the eve of
the Mexican holiday, Day of the Dead. A young Mexican woman steps in front of
his truck, causing him to swerve into a ravine and total his truck. When he comes
around, he finds her standing there at his window. He climbs out of the truck and
detains her. They both end up having to share the back of the totalled border
patrol truck because the rain is coming through the shattered front windshield.
He warms to her over the course of the night and they end up showing photos
of their respective families. It appears that she has a young son who is waiting for
her in Los Angeles. She keeps telling him, ‘You’re the one who’s going to help me
cross over.’ He keeps insisting he’s a border patrol agent and he has a job to do.
She just smiles at him and appears to fall asleep. He realizes that she’s not going
anywhere in the storm and drifts off to sleep as well. On screen it then said: One
week earlier. So now, the audience knows that whatever transpired in the border
patrol truck between Penn and Braga was happening one week later. Toward the
end of the film, when the timeline has caught up with the events in the prologue,
we find Sean Penn waking up the next morning to find Mireya missing from the
back of the truck. He climbs the ravine looking for her, but she’s nowhere around
and he just assumes he’s been played. He returns to the truck and slumps down,
exhausted, against the back wheel, where he notices a piece of blanket sticking
up from under the tire. He starts digging at it, revealing a decomposed human

arm. The big reveal is that Mireya is buried underneath his truck and it was her
ghost that he encountered the previous night on the Day of the Dead (where it’s
mythologized that the dead get to commune with the living). The storyline breaks
with the tone of the rest of the film and adds a metaphysical component – and a
transcendent quality to a sad storyline, which I felt was badly needed.
What were the circumstances surrounding the excising of the Sean Penn
footage?
Sean Penn wanted to be cut out of the film due to political issues with the honour
killing storyline. I’m hesitant to even call it an ‘honour killing’ storyline because
the incident that takes place in the finished film is more a crime of passion than a
traditional honour killing. The National Iranian American Council lobbied Penn to
insist on changes to the film, which we were already in the process of making per
Cliff Curtis’ input and, if that couldn’t be achieved, to disassociate himself from
the project. This was after Penn had committed to a more extreme version of the
script that featured a genuine honour killing. The NIAC’s position was that honour
killings do not happen frequently in Iran and they managed to convince Sean that
was the case, contrary to the many accounts that I researched on the internet –
many of them quite recent. None of the changes ultimately satisfied Sean, who is
Industry Spotlight 23
Directory of World Cinema
very heavily invested in Iranian politics; he’s written for the San Francisco Chronicle
about Iran and believed that the United States was on the verge of bombing
Iran and didn’t want to ‘villainize the Iranian people’ in these tense times, so he
insisted on having his scenes cut from the film. No matter what Sean’s attitude
and position was, the ultimate decision was Harvey Weinstein’s. Penn had signed
a contract to appear in the film and had no legal position to dictate his removal.
Harvey chose to cut Sean because he opted to preserve his professional rela-
tionship with Sean over the good of the film. Once it became publicly-known
that Sean had been cut out of the film – with only rumours and internet gossip
to account for why – the film was seen as damaged goods by critics, bloggers

and discerning moviegoers alike. Especially since it had been announced as an
awards-season candidate and then bumped out of contention two years in a row.
Although there are perhaps more financing avenues available to independent
film-makers today, the main obstacle for anyone working outside the system,
or on its industrial margins, seems to be that of distribution. In the case of
Crossing Over
, it seems bizarre that a film starring Harrison Ford would
be released on just nine screens with a minimal publicity push, and never
expanded beyond forty-two screens before being sent to DVD. When com-
panies like TWC keep films on the shelf for extended periods before granting
them, does this create the sense that the films are ‘damaged goods’?
Absolutely. A film has a limited shelf-life and it’s getting worse in terms of internet
trackers and fan sites. If a film is announced for release and doesn’t meet that
release date, the chatter immediately starts up and the word starts to filter out
that there’s something wrong with the film. Weinstein is habitually oblivious to that
factor and announces and cancels film-distribution dates indiscriminately. What
galls me about the treatment of Crossing Over is that Harvey beat me up con-
stantly to get the cut he wanted – a cut that I warned him would not be critically
well received. They got pretty negative reviews and I guess that convinced Harvey
to just throw Crossing Over out there and see if anyone turned up. I thought the
trailer was a rip-off of Crash; they should have marketed the film as a Harrison
Ford political thriller and used more provocative moments in the trailer.
You recently set up your own group on the social-networking website
Facebook to interact with your audience and to discuss your work along-
side other related interests. What motivated you to do this, and do you
think that more film-makers should be making themselves available to their
audiences through cyberspace?
I’m really new at the Facebook thing. I get the sense that a good number of
people have enjoyed my films, but I’m not sure they assign any identity to the
film-maker behind them. I feel I need to build my audience – which allows me

to get the films I want to make into production – and have them turn up to
support my work when it opens theatrically. Most of my success has happened
on DVD. From some of the numbers I’ve been quoted, I think The Cooler and
Running Scared have done really well on DVD, so I feel good about that. But
my films have never opened well theatrically and I need to make some effort on
my own to change that – because I’ve stopped relying on the distributor to get
the word out. I questioned whether I wanted to engage about Crossing Over on
Facebook, but it’s been such a dispiriting experience for me that I feel com-
pelled to let the world know how I feel about it. I’m not sure if that helps or hurts
me, but the book is far from closed on this one.
John Berra
24 American Independent
Directory of World Cinema
CULTURAL CROSSOVER
JOHN WATERS AND
BALTIMORE
Pecker, Polar Entertainment
Cultural Crossover 25
Directory of World Cinema
From his earliest short black-and-white underground pieces made in the 1960s,
to the multi-million dollar features that followed Hairspray (1988), John Waters
used his hometown of Baltimore, Maryland, as the quirky, sometimes charming,
and often bizarre, setting for his films. The portrait of Baltimore that emerges from
Waters’ twisted scripts may not always be flattering, but Baltimoreans have come to
accept Waters’ vision, and are now as devoted to the director as he is to the city.
There is clearly a contradiction evident in Baltimore’s two most popular nick-
names. On the one hand it is Mobtown, on the other, Charm City. For Waters the
contradiction is easily resolved. Baltimore’s reputation as a rough-and-tumble
port city replete with violence and corruption is the key to its charm. When Bal-
timore leads the nation in per-capita murder rate, teen pregnancy, incidence of

sexually-transmitted diseases, or other dubious distinctions that might embarrass
civic leaders and promoters of tourism, Baltimore’s best-known film-maker sees it
as a source of great pride. In his autobiographical first book, Shock Value (2005),
Waters writes, ‘Baltimoreans (or Balti-morons, as they sometimes are called)
shouldn’t hang their heads in shame when they hear Baltimore referred to as the
Armpit of the Nation, or Bumberg. Be proud! Think of it as Trashtown, U.S.A.,
the sleaziest City on Earth, the Hairdo Capital of the World.’
Even Waters had to learn to appreciate Baltimore’s rough charm, however.
As an aspiring film-maker coming of age in the early 1960s, Waters was drawn
to New York where avant-garde film-makers like the Kuchar brothers, Kenneth
Anger and Jack Smith were beginning to get attention in arthouse theatres for
making films that Susan Sontag and other cultural critics categorized as ‘camp’.
Waters was clearly attracted by camp’s ability to transform the discarded refuse
of mainstream culture into art but, for him, New York was a city with too much
good taste to really be a capital of bad taste. For genuine bad taste, one had
to go to Baltimore. Fortuitously expelled from New York University’s film pro-
gramme in his first semester for smoking marijuana, Waters never regretted his
lack of academic credentials. He returned to Baltimore with the goal of becom-
ing a successful film-maker, and started an ensemble group with friends and
neighbours, a loose collection of Baltimore’s hippie outcasts, that operated from
a bedroom in his parents’ house, which he called Dreamland Studios.
Dreamland could certainly never match Hollywood for glamour but, in a camp
spirit of glorifying bad taste, Waters fashioned a ‘trash aesthetic’ to compete with
Hollywood spectacle. It was a strategy that took full advantage of Baltimore’s dubi-
ous attributes. In Shock Value, Waters writes, ‘You can look far and wide, but you’ll
never discover a stranger city with such extreme style’. Although Waters’ early
films, Hag in a Black Leather Jacket (1964), Roman Candles (1966), and Eat Your
Makeup (1968), show the influence of New York’s underground, Waters began
employing the ‘trash aesthetic’ as a way to promote the made-in-Baltimore aspect
of his films. Publicity flyers for Roman Candles described it as a ‘trash epic’. Waters

went even further with his first feature-length film, calling it Mondo Trasho (1969).
It starred Divine, the actor most closely associated with Waters’ early films. Born,
Harris Glenn Milstead, Divine was a 300-pound female impersonator whose mas-
sive wigs and radical make-up perfectly reflected Baltimore’s extreme style.
In the 1970s, Waters pushed bad taste to its limits, taking trash to the level of
filth by devising increasingly-outrageous stunts for Divine and the Dreamlanders
to perform onscreen. Drug usage, nudity, crime and perversion were common
in Waters’ films, but his fail-safe method for creating cinematic controversy was
to mix deviant sexuality with religious devotion. Divine, whose name Waters
specifically chose for its religious connotations, was Dreamland’s exemplar of a
holy hell-raiser. Waters was raised Catholic in one of the most Catholic cities in
the United States. Baltimore, home of the first American diocese, with the first