Why Waters is Worthy.

I have chosen the works of filmmaker John Waters, specifically his 1972 midnight cult film Pink Flamingos as the main centre of focus for my essay. From what I have researched thus far, I have gathered numerous amount of arguments aimed in the direction that John Waters’ films are of a primitive sleazy nature, Pink Flamingos being the most notorious. Although crude and obviously made with low production value, John Waters’ films also correlates to many of the theories of nineteenth century dramatic theorist Antonin Artaud. In my Essay I will argue that the films of John Waters, specifically Pink Flamingos, can be comparatively related to the theories of the acclaimed and respected avant-garde theorist Antonin Artaud, specifically in his ideals within the theatre of cruelty. Through this argument I will rectify the works of John Waters as being more than just lowest common denominator sleaze films and rather as examples of Artaud’s theories of ‘true expression’ in effect. I will not argue Artaud’s theories themselves but rather compare their public reception to that of the films by John Waters, specifically Pink Flamingos. This correlation will reinforce the reason, and my thesis, as to why Pink Flamingos, and John Waters, should be considered worthy of discernment within the respectable art community

 I will begin by highlighting the key principles within Artaud’s Theatre of Cruelty. In his book Avant Garde Theatre: 1892-1992, English Professor Christopher Innes articulates Artaud’s driving theoretical direction towards “pre-rational, primitive levels of the mind” through the aim of “total immersion of the spectator in the stage action, establishing ‘direct communication’ by a level of physical involvement that acts ‘directly and profoundly upon the sensibility through the organs’, and creates a receptive state in which ‘all the senses interpenetrate’”, and through this articulation a basic understanding of Artaud’s theories are born (51-52).  Artaud’s Theatre and Cruelty, written in 1933 in his book Le theatre et son double, speaks of this “direct violent action that theatre must have” in order to adhere to this ‘total immersion of the spectator’ and ‘interpenetration of the senses’ that Innes comments on (25). Artaud’s concepts call not only for a vigilant re-sensitization of the Parisian theatres in the 30’s, as to the time in which these ideals were written, but to theatre as a whole, claiming that it “restricts itself to probing the intimacy of a few puppets, thereby transforming the audience into “Peeping Toms” (25).  Through the use of undisclosed violence and shock that he felt was capable of exercising the spectator’s emotional limits, Artaud felt that pairing theatre with cruelty would therefore create a new form of theatre “aimed at the whole anatomy” which he calls “total theatre” (27).  He envisioned this as a “believable reality” that “contained [itself] in all true feelings, [in] the heart and senses” (26). Marvin Carlson, in his book, Theories of the Theatre, astutely discerns Artaud’s vision as “a theatre that would change a man not socially but psychologically, by setting free the dark latent forces festering in the individual soul” (392). Although, I feel I must add, Artaud’s ideals lie deeply and directly within the theatre medium, his concepts of ‘shock’ revitalizing the senses on a primitive and subconscious level can be represented through various forms such as, I argue, cinema.

I will now discuss the reception of Artaud and his revolutionary new form of theatre to the mass audience. The plays that classified themselves within the theatre of cruelty, such as The Mysteries of Love, Break of Noon, A Dream Play, and The Cenci, all lacked in both a financial and appreciative support, initially (Innes, 87). During the time of which these plays where in production, Artaud’s finalized vision of his theatre of cruelty had just been released to the mass public, and although extremely interested in the ideas of true expression of the body and psyche through theatre, both the critics and audiences alike felt that these plays did little justice to the theory. The commonly held criticism of Artaud’s stage work was “that he ignored the question of the audience, and worked for psycho-social effects without considering exactly who would be affected” (Innes, 88). Artaud response to this was to pinpoint his audience by social class, and through this heightened precision, the exact responses he insisted in his plays would be met. This tactic birthed for Artaud, what I argue, a distinct audience that resembles what we are now more aware of as a subjective following, or a cult following.  Through this grew a wider appreciation for the stage works of Artaud, in relation to his theories within the theatre of cruelty, subjecting Artaud and his theories to renowned respectability within the art community.

John Waters was born in Baltimore, Maryland (the notable setting for all of his films) on the 22^nd of April, 1946. Waters’ first began making films on an 8mm camera with his high school friend Glen Milstead, who first began his running pseudo-persona motif of Divine. In an article written by Jancee Dunn, Waters states in that the most notable influences for his early films as a teenager were in direct relation to the diverse friendships that he made in high school (Dunn, np).  This became the basis of defiance that Waters has been deemed notable for in the broad cannon of his works. Waters’ films were first shown in church halls in the sixty that Waters, himself, rented out. From there a cult following was born, aiding Waters enough to be able to campaign his films by hitchhiking from town to town, beyond the reaches of his home in Baltimore. Through this tactic, Waters became aware of the social classes that his films were aimed towards, which allowed a greater reception of his work and the continuation of his campaigns. In an interview with Conan O’Brian in 2000, Waters comments on these early campaigns stating that he used to “hitchhike” to go from town to town and that because of this, he had to decide carefully which towns to visit where the reception to his films would be the most positive. In the interview Waters says, “He would go to whatever city that just had a riot and hand out fliers” understanding that through these cities’ rebellious attitudes, they could relate to his films. And although Waters claimed a cult following for his films, still wide majorities of the less tolerable art community deny Waters and his works a spot of respectability. To this very day critics alike hail Pink Flamingos as being one of the vilest and disturbing films.  After the 25^th anniversary revival, from its 1972 release, and the new DVD, Variety claims Pink Flamingo’s to be “One of the most vile, stupid and repulsive films to date.” (Dunn qt. Variety). Roger Ebert comments on the protagonist Divine, within the film, stating that she is a “cross between a showgirl, dominatrix and [a] bozo” (Ebert).  What doesn’t seem present within these critiques is the direct compatibility of Artaud’s trajectory from maintaining a cult following of his theories to wide appreciation. Waters’ following, although his films are now more renowned, still remain only a cult following, which I argue, is unjustifiable.

            Now, I will discuss John Water’s film Pink Flamingos. As emphasized on the front sleeve, John Water’s 1972 midnight cult film perversely ordains itself as “an exercise in bad taste” using bodacious depictions of gratuitous violence and sexuality to shock and emotionally maim the spectator.  And it is here where we have our first clue of difference between that of a ‘shock for shock’s sake’ artist, and a ‘shock for reason’ artist that I claim John Waters to be. Being an ‘exercise’, as John Waters claims this film is, I argue this to be the primary beacon of division between Pink Flamingos amongst other equally shocking and perverse films of the time. For Waters to acknowledge his film as an ‘exercise’ gives us, the spectator, a justifiable reason to even approach this film with a curious erudite regard.  The term ‘exercise’ in and of itself proclaims an inherent relationship with that of the spectator watching the film and no longer are we as an audience mere observers, but rather crucial components to the film. Plus, being that it is not only an ‘exercise’, but an ‘exercise in bad taste’, the spectator response becomes the primary focus of the film, rather then the subject matter shown on the screen. I will elaborate on this: having Waters claim Pink Flamingos to be ‘an exercise of bad taste’ infers that the atrocities shown within the film are merely exercises on the emotional and psychological state of the audience, and, through these emotions, aimed at creating a distinct response, which is the main goal of the film. This ideal correlates greatly with Artaud’s concepts of “total immersion of the spectator” which I stated earlier. Having Pink Flamingos be not about what the audience witnesses, but about how the audience responds through the depiction of shocking imagery, links to Artaud’s insistence of the interpenetration of the spectator’s senses through the use of whatever chosen medium.

            Next, I would like to specifically highlight Waters’ choice of cast and characters used within Pink Flamingos, specifically Divine. Within all of his films, Waters presents to us a cast of fantastic reprobates whom he has eloquently named ‘Dreamlanders’, the most notable being the overweight cross-dressing diva, Glen Milstead (aka Divine). Also present in Waters’ film Pink Flamingos are actors Edith Massey, David Lochary, Mink Stole, Danny Mills, and Cookie Mueller, who all have a reputation made through their distinct low-culture careers. This troop became a distinct and devout necessity for each and every one of Waters’ early films. I argue that the use of the real reprobate to represent the reprobate on the screen (as oppose to the respectable actor playing the part) adds an aspect of reality that directly correlates to Artaud’s ‘believable reality’ in relation to the psychological shock Artaud insisted on giving the spectator. I argue as well that the distinct choice to use only reprobates on the screen is a direct statement of anti-society and anti-culture that unites both the thematic beliefs of Waters and Artaud’s principles. Evidence of this is made clear by George Wellworth, in his book The Theatre of Protest and Paradox: “Artaud perceived men as basically barbaric, that the thick protective wall of urbane, civilized behavior they have acquired through centuries of hiding from psychological self-realization is easily crumbled by a forceful appeal to irrational emotion” (16). The use of the reprobate on the screen is this ‘forceful appeal’ and infers a social commentary to the spectator, subjecting them only to crude delinquency, and allowing nothing moral or ethical to be registered. The lack of the morally astute protagonist that the spectator can justifiably relate to throughout the course of the film, further rectifies Waters’ claim to ‘exercising ‘ the emotional and psychological state of his audience. As if Waters is asking the spectator directly: ‘how much of this distressing material can you retain before you start to relate to the characters as you do with other films?’ Specifically in Pink Flamingos, Waters gives as the atrocious protagonist of Babs Johnson played by 300 pound, transvestite, Glen Milstead’s pseudo-persona Divine.  In the most controversial scene of the film, Waters presents Divine to the spectator acting out a very vile, (and very real), depiction of coprophagy of a small dogs feces.  Apart from the mere shock and disgust that generates from the audience, the act witnessed on the screen, as well as the characters themselves, exemplifies “the spectacle” that Innes refers to in “the Artaudian formula: Primitivism – Ritual – Cruelty – Spectacle” (60). Through the spectacle of the reprobate, (Divine by definition is a spectacle unto herself) Waters demands a psychological shift in gear from his audience, and through the depiction of extreme gratuity demonstrates the “setting free of the spectators dark latent forces festering in the individual soul” as mentioned earlier by Carlson (392).

Quite interestingly, Artaud’s views of cinema are revealed within Innes’ book stating that Artaud turned from cinema of sound because of the commercialized aspects of the medium and its ability to turn “art and artists into ‘commodities’” (78). Artaud claimed that true expression in cinema did not lie within the story but rather what the camera allows the spectator to focus on, no matter how insignificant the image might be and through this focusing a metamorphosis occurs (78).  A direct comparison can be related to Waters’ views of his film, Pink Flamingos, where in the interview with Dunn states: “It was done to commit a crime, to commit a joke terrorist act against culture” (Dunn, np). The simple fact that Waters’ films have no actual story, or that the stories are to ludicrous to even care for, maintains that Waters’ primary goal lies within the directly between the spectators response to what the medium is showing them.

Therefore, I conclude with the following: I find it rather perplexing, if not bizarre that the careers of two artists can play out quiet similarly; both claim shock as a means of psychological growth; both viewed the spectators response as more important than the work itself; both aimed their sites to particular social classes to gain an initial following, etc, and yet the artist approval rate remains astoundingly different for both. As of now, Artaud is cited as an avant-garde theorist of drama equal to those of other prominent dramatic theorist including Brecht (Carlson, 392). As of now, Waters film Pink Flamingos is deemed as one of the most despicable films of its era from critics alike. My question, accumulated from the statements aforementioned is why? I restate that through this comparative look at avant-garde dramatic theorist Antonin Artaud and avant-garde filmmaker John Waters, and his film Pink Flamingos, we can conclusively enable John Waters as discernable within the respectable art community.