I want to get the vhs(it has an rad cover), the dvd is probably just as good but the cover is so damn lame.
[quote=“me”]
I want to get the vhs(it has an rad cover), the dvd is probably just as good but the cover is so damn lame.
[/quote]
Yea, i hear you the dvd cover is terrible. i would advise getting the vhs anyway, the picture quality of the film is terrible, in a good way, looks like it was thrown in a basement for a while. The dvd quality from what i hear is pretty much a direct vhs transfer, which i personally cannot stand.
Aren’t most of the movies mentioned just classic drive-in fare, or H’wood trying to cash in on the Xploitation market. I definitely don’t consider Deliverance to be part of this genre, as it painted too nice a portrait of most of the locals(the 2 rapists and the kid with the banjo being the exception). Ditto with the Walking Tall films. It could also be argued that any grindhouse and Z-grades would fall into this genre, because they were usually made and marketed for rural areas.
Hixplo to me is:
Child Bride
2000 Maniacs
The Pig Keeper’s Daughter
Country Cuzzins
Shanty Tramp
Mud Honey
Year of the Yahoo
Poor White Trash
The Farmer’s Other Daughter
Texas Chainsaw Massacre
Moonshine Mountain
Scum of the Earth
This Stuff’ll Kill Ya
and any film that features a cameo appearance by Col. Harlan Sanders.
Deliverance is def Hixploitation, Walking Tall films are too. So is White Lightning, Gator etc.
Hixploitation: Crime-Horror-Sexploitation-Comedy Films Exploiting the ourageous aspects of rural southerners. Inbred hillbillies, moonshiners, deranged psychos etc.
All these films are ones that played in the Drive-Ins/Grindhouses and had Exploitation type campaigns with them. Youd go see a Double Feature: A big studio film (Deliverance) and a lower budget one (Scum of The Earth) with it.
Not all Exploitation cinema was from low budget independent studios, alot of the big studios put out exploitation films. Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox, MGM.
Theres two tiers to exploitation cinema; The lower budget films and the big studio films. What really made most of them exploitation films was the over the top, flashy, colorful marketing campaigns.
Oh yeah, Hells Bloody Devils has a cameo by Col Sanders and its not a Hixploitation film.
You should come over to The Deuce, we can really talk exploitation cinema! 
[quote=“PutneySwope”]
Deliverance is def Hixploitation, Walking Tall films are too. So is White Lightning, Gator etc.
Hixploitation: Crime-Horror-Sexploitation-Comedy Films Exploiting the ourageous aspects of rural southerners. Inbred hillbillies, moonshiners, deranged psychos etc.
All these films are ones that played in the Drive-Ins/Grindhouses and had Exploitation type campaigns with them. Youd go see a Double Feature: A big studio film (Deliverance) and a lower budget one (Scum of The Earth) with it.
Not all Exploitation cinema was from low budget independent studios, alot of the big studios put out exploitation films. Warner Brothers, 20th Century Fox, MGM.
Theres two tiers to exploitation cinema; The lower budget films and the big studio films. What really made most of them exploitation films was the over the top, flashy, colorful marketing campaigns.
Oh yeah, Hells Bloody Devils has a cameo by Col Sanders and its not a Hixploitation film.
[/quote]
Any kind of xplo, IMO, has low-grade production values, and is usually sent straight to the toolies, and if seriously reviewed, usually comes back DOA. Hardly the case with Deliverance(hailed as Boorman’s masterpiece), many of the Reynolds actioners, or the WT trilogy(at least the 1st one). As far as what played at drive-ins and inner city theatres, you could probably find instances where My Fair Lady and Ben Hur played those venues.
In the WT trilogy, the locals weren’t behaving in any bizarre manner, the bad guys were a “Big City” syndicate using the locals. Also, Buford(what a name) was friends with local blacks, hardly the classic hixplo stance for a white character in these films. By your logic, films like Prime Cut, Southern Comfort or Next of Kin could fall into the genre, because they featured rurals against city people. Kind of like saying all Italian films are Fellini-esque, because they have Italians in them.
I disagree on the “any Xploitation has low grade production values” statement. I dont think thats true. If the film and its ad campaigns exploited the contents of the film, it was an exploitation film. That means Deliverance, Walking Tall, White Lightning, Texas Chainsaw were all exploitation films because their ad campaigns exploited the rural southern aspects of the movies.
Vanishing Point and Dirty Mary Crazy Larry were both made by bigger studios and theyre considered exploitation films too.
Im not sure about Prime Cut, Ive seen the film but I dont know if that had an exploitation type campaign or just a more straight ahead one.
But if a film and its ad campaign exploits southerners, then its a hixploitation film in my book. Regardless of whether its a bigger budget film or not. RoadHouse was a bigger budget film from 1989 starring Patrick Swayze and Id even call that a Hixploitation film. If it had been made 15 years earlier it wouldve fit perfectly next to White Lightning on a double bill.
I know all about how Grindhouses and Drive Ins played all kinds of movies. Ive been through that discussion before. But theres a difference between films like Coffy and Cabaret. One is an exploitation film, one is a musical. For example: If youre going to a From Dusk Til Dawn Shock Show, you know youre not going to see My Fair Lady and those kinds of films.
I have a book about Exploitation Posters and Deliverance is in there next to White Lightning. So would you say that book is incorrect? Id hope the authors knew what was exploitation and what wasnt.
You need to look at the posters/trailers for the films again. Thats a good way to judge if they are actually exploitation films. Have you seen some of the posters for Walking Tall? If those arent exploitation posters I dont know what is.
[quote=“PutneySwope”]
If the film and its ad campaigns exploited southerners, then its a hixploitation film in my book. Regardless of whether its a bigger budget film or not. RoadHouse was a bigger budget film from 1989 starring Patrick Swayze and Id even call that a Hixploitation film.
Prime Cut Ive seen, I suppose it could be considered a hixploitation-crime film in some ways. Same with Southern Comfort, a hixploitation-action thriller. Its not just about the content of the movies, its about how the films were marketed towards audiences. Were they using outrageous exploitative campaigns or just straight ahead average ad campaigns?
I know all about how Grindhouses and Drive Ins played all kinds of movies. Ive been through that discussion before. But theres a difference between films like Coffy and Cabaret. One is an exploitation film, one is a musical.
I have a book about Exploitation Posters and Deliverance is in there next to White Lightning. So would you say that book is incorrect?
[/quote]
I have a book, too, that says all humankind derived from 2 people in a garden, that an old man built a big boat and saved all the species of animals in the world from extinction, etc…etc.
There haven’t been that many books written about exploitation, so an even handed(or definitive) assessment of the genre has not really been presented. If your author included those films, he did so to pad the book IMO.
All(or most) films use “outrageous exploitative campaigns”. Just watch the trailers at YouTube, and you’ll see explosive claims made about just about any film. It’s the nature of marketing- making something sound more interesting than it really is. I didn’t find Roadhouse to be particularly southern, at all. It was set in an off-beat bar out in nowhere. The bad guy was Ben Gazzara(you can’t get more urban than him). Would you call Dukes of Hazzard hixplo, remakesplo, or Simpsonsplo(mmm, yummy). Beverly Hillbilly’s was exploiting hicks, but it would fall more into the category of satire(or lame humor). There have been thousands of films situated in the south, that even used negative stereotypes, but I don’t think they’d make this genre. Gone with the Wind, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Lil Abner etc. Using an area of the country, as a setting, does not instantly qualify it for a genre.
How dare you call Coffy a musical! ;D
“There haven’t been that many books written about exploitation, so an even handed(or definitive) assessment of the genre has not really been presented. If your author included those films, he did so to pad the book IMO.”
There hasnt? You must not look at Amazon very often. Theres 100s of books about exploitation/cult cinema out there. Cmon dawg, your credibility just went down to ZERO with that statement!
I see you want to get extremely analytical about this subject.
In that mindset I can also see that ALL cinema is really exploitation cinema, what film isnt an exploited product? But for me and most film fans I talk to, we look at 70s films like Deliverance, White Lightning, Walking Tall, Macon County Line as all belonging to the Hixploitation genre. The films had exploitation poster campaigns, cool colorful radio spots, TV spots. Played on double bills at drive ins/grindhouses with other hick flicks of the era etc. Thats just how we consider them classic exploitation cinema. It might be un PC to a brainiac like you, but thats how we categorize them.
Roadhouse is definitely a Hick flick to me. Yes Id call Dukes of Hazard a modern Hixploitation film. Remakesploitation is a bit much. Im not going to take that seriously.
Beverly Hillbillies could be seen as a satirical hixploitation sit com I guess. But now we’re kind of going off the topic of classic exploitation cinema.
A book you can check out on this subject:
Hick Flicks
“This comprehensive study of the hixploitation genre is the first of its kind. Chapters are divided into three major topics. Part One deals with “good ol’ boys,” from redneck sheriffs, to moonshiners, to honky-tonk heroes and beyond. Part Two explores road movies, featuring back-road racers, truckers and everything in between. Part Three, “In the Woods,” covers movies about all manner of beasts—some of them human—populating the swamps and woodlands of rural America. Film stills are included, and an afterword examines both the decline and metamorphosis of the genre. A filmography, bibliography and index accompany the text.”
In closing, the concepts are already created in my world. It is what it is. And so it shall forever be! 
[quote=“Dstryed_Btch”]I definitely don’t consider Deliverance to be part of this genre, as it painted too nice a portrait of most of the locals(the 2 rapists and the kid with the banjo being the exception). Ditto with the Walking Tall films.[/quote]
Hick Flicks: The Rise and Fall of Redneck Cinema (Pete already beat me to this)
From the Author: “I was inspired to write this book when I went to see a special screening of Deliverance in the backwoods of the Central Texas hill country a couple of years ago,”
“It hit me that there were hundreds of these rural, Southern-flavored movies in the 1970s, from little-known drive-in flicks to popular hits like Smokey and the Bandit.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
filmfodder.com Walking Tall review
Excerpt:
"Director Herschell Gordon Lewis’ 1964 “Moonshine Mountain” gave birth to a whole new type of action film—“hixploitation.” This subgenre typically has wild-eyed hillbillies and corrupt cops reeking havoc over “normal” citizens unfortunate enough to step into shine swillin’ country. John Boorman’s 1972 “Deliverance” legitimized hixploitation and brought it to the mainstream. Phil Karlson’s 1973 film, “Walking Tall,” brought us deeper into the nightmare world of the Deep South with non-corruptible sheriff Buford Pusser (Joe Don Baker) continually getting his ass whooped by the praetorian local yokels.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snobsite, Film Snob Excerpts & Definitions
Hixploitation Definition
Hixploitation. Curious seventies –SPLOITATION subgenre in which Hollywood devoted an inordinate amount of attention to the redneck, yee-haw South, resulting in a spate of films about car chases, vigilante justice, road trips, and backwoods terror. Tracing its roots to John Boorman’s hillbilly-hell opus Deliverance (1972) and the vengeance-in-Tennessee tale Walking Tall (1973), hixploitation blossomed with The Klansman (1974), in which Alabama sheriff Lee Marvin presided over residents O.J. Simpson and Richard Burton, Citizen’s Band (1977), SAM PECKINPAH’s timely capitalization on the CB and truckin’ crazes, Convoy (1978), in which Kris Kristofferson’s trucker outsmarted Ernest Borgnine’s fat cop, and Clint Eastwood’s massively successful orangutan movies, Every Which Way But Loose (1978) and Any Which Way You Can (1980). The apotheosis of the hixploitation movement was Smokey and the Bandit (1977), the directorial debut of Tennessee-born veteran stuntman Hal Needham, who actually cast Mel Tillis, Foster Brooks, and Ruth Buzzi for unironic effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, my point isn’t that Pete is flat out right or anything like that and don’t get me wrong - I don’t think there is any correct side to this situation. The “Hixploitation” subgenre is one that to my knowledge is fairly new in categorization. These films all shared similarities in their initial runs, but truthfully I had not heart the term until just the past few years (don’t kill me if I’m wrong, maybe it’s just due to the lack of discussion about the films - but it’s fairly new to me at least). I kind of hate categorizing films like this, because it even happens with the Blaxploitation genre and many others. There are going to be films that stand out from the pack as being drastically different from the rest of the films categorized in the genre. Look at the painfully boring Blackenstein compared to Blacula. The non-linear and completely weird Sweet Sweetback’s Badasssss Song compared to the typically linear Shaft. The serious tone and cinematic delivery of J.D.'s Revenge up against the silly antics of Dolemite. Genre’s are meant for categorizing films that people love, but I agree, no one can agree on all of these things.
Right now, Pete with his site is actually doing very good in helping to cement these genres and the films that belong to them. A quick search of hixploitation on google turns up with the Deuce on the first page, not bad. He and others such as Scott von Doviak the author of that above book are giving names to faces. However, what makes Doviak, Pete or my opinion any more legitimate than others? Nothing, so it’s entirely your right to disagree with the inclusion of those films or even in the categorization of any film bearing that title. However, Pete is not wrong in that such films appear to be by and large considered a part of this subgenre.
Now, just my two cents guys, don’t hang me!
According to the Wiki-
"Exploitation film is a type of film that eschews the expense of quality productions in favor of making films inexpensively, attracting viewers by exciting their more prurient interests. “Exploitation” is a term in the movie industry meaning promotion or advertising. Exploitation films rely heavily on the lurid advertising of their content rather than the intrinsic quality of the film.
Exploitation films may feature forbidden sex, wanton violence, drug use, nudity, freaks, gore, the bizarre, destruction, rebellion and mayhem. Such films have existed since the earliest days of moviemaking, but they were popularized in the 1960s with the general relaxing of cinematic taboos in the U.S. and Europe. Since the 1990s, this genre has also received attention from academic circles, where it is sometimes called paracinema.
Ephraim Katz, author of The Film Encyclopedia, has defined exploitation as:
Films made with little or no attention to quality or artistic merit but with an eye to a quick profit, usually via high-pressure sales and promotion techniques emphasizing some sensational aspect of the product[citation needed]
Exploitation films often exploited events that occurred in the news and were in the short term public consciousness that a major film studio may avoid due to the length of time of producing a major film. For example Child Bride (1935) addressed a problem of older men marrying very young women in the Ozarks. Other issues such as drug use in films like Reefer Madness (1936) attracted an audience that a major film studio would avoid to keep their mainstream and respectable reputations. Several war films were made about the Winter War in Finland, the Korean War and the Vietnam War before the major studios showed interest. When Orson Welles’ Mercury Theatre Halloween 1938 radio production of The War of the Worlds shocked many Americans and made news, Universal Pictures edited their serial Flash Gordon’s Trip to Mars into a short feature called Mars Attacks the World for release in November of that year.
Some Poverty Row lower budget B movies often exploit major studio projects due to fact that the rapid production schedule of making their films can take advantage of the publicity of the major studio to get an audience for their film and leave the slower bigger budgeted competitor to suffer reduced admissions at the box office. For example Edward L. Alperson produced William Cameron Menzies’ Invaders from Mars to beat Paramount Pictures prestigious George Pal’s version of The War of the Worlds into the cinemas. Pal’s The Time Machine was also beaten to the cinemas by Robert Clarke’s Edgar G. Ulmer film Beyond the Time Barrier (1960). As a result, many major studios, producers, and stars keep their projects secret."
I have always regarded exploitation(of any genre or subgenre) to be films without any redeeming social value- ie porn(in it’s many flavors), racial condescension, sexist, even anti- communist films. They are designed to elicit the primordial emotion, not the logical thought.
Hardly something you could say about Deliverance. It’s very title suggests redemption of it’s main characters- a trial by ordeal. As do the Walking Talls. And, in a roundabout way, Burt Reynolds irritating style of snubbing his nose at authority, suggests a higher purpose to his salad day films of the 70s. And the quality of production, does not even compare to the films I list. You see the money here.
As with trailers, posters are no accurate barometer of a film’s content. Almost any poster from a Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, Arnold Schwartzenegger, etc. film can be misinterpreted as exploitative. Even Bird, Rider on the Rain and Kindergarten Cop.
And reviewers are subjective at best. Just recently, I read a piece lumping Ken Russel’s The Devils into the Nunsploitation genre(yes, there’s even a category for that). In fact, this may be one of the first times I’ve ever heard any of his films lumped into a genre- all his work is so unique, it can only be called Russillian(or whatever word you care to conjure).
I perused the Blaxplo thread, and see that Jim Brown’s films are often brought up. To me, this is another flaw. Jim Brown pretty much was groomed to be a Hollywood star, a sort of macho, less- preachy version of Sidney Poitier. He only slummed in Blaxplo towards the end of his starring career, and usually in the glossier high production efforts. The real stars of Blaxplo, were the up-and-comers, who didn’t really have a shot at H’wood stardom. Pam Grier being a perfect example.
That rule applied, even more so, to hixplo, as most of the casts were complete nobodies…who remained that way. Even if the films became legendary. I guess, if you were to cite examples of stars of the genre, they’d probably be Gunnar Hanson, Camille Keaton, Charles Napier, Ed Begley Sr., and Lorna Maitland, for starters.
I will grant you, you do have some valid points, Putney, but I still think some of the afore-mentioned films are erroneously categorized here. They simply were TOO GOOD to be in here.
By the way, Pantsman, hixplo came along waaaaaay before Moonshine Mountain, at least back to Child Bride, and probably many years before that, in some stag reel or such.
[quote=“Dstryed_Btch”]By the way, Pantsman, hixplo came along waaaaaay before Moonshine Mountain, at least back to Child Bride, and probably many years before that, in some stag reel or such.[/quote]Take note that the quote in question is not attributed to me, but from filmfodder.com. I’m no expert on the genre nor do I pretend to be, I’m just pointing out that most who use the term hixploitation consider Deliverance to be a film within this subgenre.
Although you make a valid point that many films considered to be “exploitation” films, don’t live up to the wikipedia/dictionary definition of the word: it is not unfair that they be tagged along with their brethren in my opinion. Since Wikipedia is no more a reputable source than anyone else, and the only people who really make the call for what belongs in the subgenres within the exploitation genre are those who categorize with, list and use the term. J.D.'s Revenge, while being a lot more accomplished than many other films of a similar nature and far from being simple smut or an attempt at it - still remains a film made in the seventies, featuring an all-black cast with a genre-themed story and set in the urban environment. It is blaxploitation. I’ve heard some actors from the decade disapproving of the term due to the fact that no one was being exploited and they were being given jobs that they normally wouldn’t have - but it is simply a turn of phrase and a way to better categorize a series of films from a certain era that all shared certain similarities.
If someone came up to me on the board and said The Naked Gun was a blaxploitation film due to OJ Simpson being involved - of course I would disagree. Why? Because it shares no attributes similar to any of the films made within the era that the term is generally meant to describe. Unlike Pete, I personally see blaxploitation/hixploitation/brucesploitation/etc. as being earmarked as being a part of a certain time and although films featuring an all black cast can be made today and even be low budget and action oriented; they were not a part of that period. I’m Gonna Git You Sucka is often categorized as being blaxploitation and I won’t argue it, but it is a modern sendup of the genre more than an actual addition to the list of films. Soul Plane however, just keep it away. Too modern, too comedy oriented, not at all independent, no heart, etc. Hixploitation in my opinion belongs to a time period where the South was under the microscope in cinema, with Deliverance showing the horror side of the subgenre and films like Walking Tall showing the more heroic attributes. Still, only my opinion, no matter how varied from others it might be - it still is in keeping with the traditional view of such a genre as exemplified by the previous quotes.
I was discussing an issue on a b-movie film board I visit occasionally where someone became a little hostile due to the use of the term “bad-movie” in reference to a film that they love. I explained that if anyone really disliked the films we wouldn’t be here discussing them. Wikipedia is a site that can be edited by anyone, and although that means little I know that I and many of my fellow film-geeks out there would never attest to a definition that refers to such a great genre as “Films made with little or no attention to quality or artistic merit”. Even Godmonster of Indian Flats made an attempt at creating an artistic environment, even if it was a massive failure - there was an attempt from the filmmakers. If you pick up a book on exploitation today, what films are going to be found in there? Is it going to be solely The Pig Fucking Movie (wait no, that’s arthouse), Psycho: The Snuff Reels or Guinea Pig: Flowers of Flesh & Blood? No, because the definition of the genre isn’t so strict as that with 99% of the fans who don’t simply look at the word “Exploitation” and assume that’s a bad thing, you know? Exploitation in film terms can mean various things, but I never consider it to be a negative. I like explosions, low budget action, shocking content, horror films, cannibals, gore and splatter - but fitting into one genre isn’t defined by having all of these things.
If I looked at film like that, the only films I would feel worthy of being branded with the term exploitation might be the works of Sady Baby 
To summarize, as much as we want films to raise above any label we might disagree with - if the majority of people out there are going to refer to Deliverance as Hixploitation; it will be written that way no matter how much we disagree. The term “exploitation cinema” in my eyes, and I’m sure many others, brings up visions of fast cars, bloody death scenes, dirt roads and lots of action. I have never considered genre as being indicative of how good a film can or cannot be. Horror films can change the cinematic landscape, exploitation films can open doors and martial arts films can become visual poetry. I certainly won’t get upset when someone refers to Bruce Lee Strikes Back From the Grave as Brucesploitation; when in fact it has nothing to do with the man Bruce Lee. 
Pantsman–
Exploitation films have not been strictly relegated to low budgets in decades; there are low budget exploitation films and there are big budget exploitation films.
The major studios swallowed up the indie exploitation studios and their marketing schemes to the point where they almost blur now. To discern many of the big budget exploitation films these days, it all depends on the subgenre bracket it falls into. In the book Quentin Tarantino Interviews, QT even mentions how much exploitation marketing has secreted itself into the mainstream, using the poster for Air Force One as an example.
I found your classification of exploitation films quite… limiting. Where are the revenge films? Or the rape and revenge films for that matter?
Just by marketing Bruce Lee Fights Back from the Grave as Bruceploitation, MAKES IT Bruceploitation, whether the bulk of the plot was about Bruce, a Bruce imitator, or not.
Dstryed_Btch:
You posted a good portion of the definition/history of the exploitation film, but didn’t really get to the meat of it. Actually, the majority of that history can be found on the page for the B movie on Wikipedia.
Many people, Ephraim Katz included, look(ed) down on exploitation films. Thus his outlook on them.
Didn’t all the hicks in Deliverance frown on these city boys encroaching on their land? Two of them acted on their prejudice, of course. And just for the sake of argument, let’s say it’s not hixploitation… wouldn’t it still work as rape and revenge?
You say some of these films were just TOO GOOD to be slipped into such a category. Today, I’d say almost 75% of the movies coming out of the major studios are big budgeted films with B-themes or B-genres. Maybe 15% of that number, maybe a little bit more, are big budget exploitation films.
Jim Brown was and will always be a major staple of blaxploitation. Three the Hard Way, Take a Hard Ride, and One Down, Two to Go prove that. There have been many actors who have been able to move freely between exploitation films and more serious studio fare, and it never stopped Jim Brown from reuniting with the blaxploitation greats for Larry Cohen’s Original Gangstas.
Earlier, you mentioned the Bible sarcastically. You actually made a good point, even if it was backhanded, and even if you intended it to be or not. If you want to study Christianity, odds are you’d start with the Bible. If you want to study the history of exploitation cinema, you’d be reading the titles Putney already supplied.
[quote=“moviemike”]
Pantsman–
Exploitation films have not been strictly relegated to low budgets in decades; there are low budget exploitation films and there are big budget exploitation films.
The major studios swallowed up the indie exploitation studios and their marketing schemes to the point where they almost blur now. To discern many of the big budget exploitation films these days, it all depends on the subgenre bracket it falls into. In the book Quentin Tarantino Interviews, QT even mentions how much exploitation marketing has secreted itself into the mainstream, using the poster for Air Force One as an example.
I found your classification of exploitation films quite… limiting. Where are the revenge films? Or the rape and revenge films for that matter?
Just by marketing Bruce Lee Fights Back from the Grave as Bruceploitation, MAKES IT Bruceploitation, whether the bulk of the plot was about Bruce, a Bruce imitator, or not. [/quote]
I think you must have misunderstood much of what I was trying to get at, but it’s so late who knows if even I know what I’m trying to say at this point 
Big budget exploitation, well, that’s probably another issue at this point. The genres I was speaking on, blaxploitation, hixploitation, etc. were films I generally see as being a part of a time and an era. Others may disagree, but I personally find it hard to classify newer Friday-esque films as being “Blaxploitation”. Now, something like Scrapbook I could likely classify as rape/revenge, but maybe it’s my own hangup because I don’t see that genre as being as expansive and consuming of a particular fashion/style/place as I do the Blaxpo’s.
I also didn’t list out any group of subgenres or anything, I’m aware of many variations of exploitation out there. Revenge/rape and revenge, nunsploitation, nazisploitation, hixploitation, sexploitation, blaxploitation, brucesploitation, gore/splatter, necro, etc. - I was simply speaking on select categories.
Also, what I meant in my Bruce Lee Fights Back comment was simply that the film itself doesn’t even feature a character portraying Bruce. The people that dubbed it added in Bruce Lee-isms in the dubbing, created an opening intro that has nothing to do with the story, etc. - but believe me, I most certainly do find it suitable for the subgenre, in fact it’s one of my favorites ;D
If Deliverance and Walking Tall are not considered as Hixploitation then nothing really can qualify as an hixploataion. Both films are classics in my book.
Great conversation. Its really interesting for me to read peoples thoughts on this subject.
As far as me being an authority on exploitation cinema, I dont claim to hold some masters degree on it. Im still learning myself. I was born in the mid 70s. Ive never been to a Grindhouse. But I think I have a pretty good understanding of the basics of these films. Im sure theres certain titles that might not be considered authentic exploitation films, but I think the majority of the films featured on The Deuce should be there. Theres always going to be a few that are up for question Im sure.
Dstryd: I think where you’re misunderstanding lies is with good and bad movies. Not all exploitation films are bad B-movies. As Ive said, the way these films were marketed were a big reason why they are considered exploitation films at all. Deliverance definitely isnt a low budget, trashy film, its a true film classic, but its also considered a Hixploitation genre film because the films ad campaigns and the film itself exploits the rural south. Its def not as over the top as other exploitation films of course, but it still belongs in that category.
Actually alot of Blaxploitation films werent total low budget movies either. Shaft? That was a MGM studio film. Superfly? A smaller budgeted Warner Brothers film that knocked The Godfather out of the top spot back in 1972. Those def werent below the radar like alot of the other expoloitation films that you’d see in the drive-ins on triple bills. But they are still considered of the Blaxploitation genre. You could use the same example for Deliverance and Hixploitation.
Pants: I was really just pointing out that modern films like Dukes of Hazard are in the tradition of the older hixploitation films, but its really not a legitimate film from that era. You could def connect it to the film that inspired the TV series: Moonrunners, which was a 70s hixploitation film though.
About Blaxploitation: I always saw those films as from a specific era. Approx 1971-1977. I’m Gonna Git You Sucka I wouldnt call Blaxploitation, but its definitely a comical satire of those films for sure. But does it belong in the Blaxploitation category? No. Its like Jackie Brown. Thats partly a homage to Blaxploitation films, but it doesnt belong next to Foxy Brown. It belongs in the modern crime film category.
Brucesploitation: Any 70s-early 80s martial arts film starring Bruce Li, Bruce Le, Dragon Lee etc and/or with a film title exploiting Bruce Lee’s name would pretty much qualify I think. Id even put Death pf Bruce Lee in there which has no bruce lookalikes and stars Ron Van Clief just because the film is exploiting Bruce Lee.
I apologize, Big Clint(Pantsman), I should have included the quote, so there would be no inference that it was attributable to you. As for the Wiki definition that I included, it was meant to give a general proportion to this discussion, not a chiseled in stone definition of the genre. I don’t agree with it’s definition 100%, and the Wiki is obviously, no more than a generic source of information, with vague boundaries and, sometimes, questionable interpretations of it’s subjects. But what can you expect from a source that can be edited by just about anyone on the net. But, in a way, the Wiki could be put on the same playing field as the hundreds of books Putney says are available about the xplo genre. They each represent a particular author’s viewpoint, and it is doubtful that any two books agree completely with each others content. I’m sure some of them agree with each of our viewpoints on the genre’s mentioned.
Which brings me to the subject of established parameters for the genre(exploitation) and it’s sub-genre’s.
Time Frames
First thing would be to establish some kind of time frame for these films. A reasonable cut-off date IMO would be the mid to late 80’s, as the death knell of inner city theatres and rural drive-ins was almost complete. And the rise of home video and suburban multiplexes fairly eliminated the true experience of exploitation film. Part of the joys of grindhouse would have to include that mysterious puddle you stepped or sat in, the wino sleeping in a dark corner and the distinct possibility that you might not make it out of the theatre alive. Something you will never experience again, in today’s antiseptic world. .
A starting point, would have to be when films got sound, as there is no way to completely tell the quality of a silent film, if you are denied the experience of hearing the actors talk. And, although there are tons of exploitation films from the silent era, many are probably lost, or in such bad shape, as to be totally uniewable. Without being able to actually watch them, they are of little value for discussion.
Quality
Which brings us to the subject of large studio versus independent takes on the genre, the
grade of actors involved, the general production values, and the film maker’s intentions. When
I referred to xplo as “bad moviesâ€
The Bleedovers
Personally, my favorite explos are Mondos, which at there basest definition, would be classified as docs. Of course, also, going by that definition, Ecco and Sadismo would be lumped together with Hearts and Minds and March of the Penguins. Likewise with any other exploitation sub-genre:
Porgy and Bess – is it hixplo(a rural setting), blaxplo(an all-black cast) or a musical?
Dark of the Sun – blaxplo(it starred Jim Brown) with sensationalist advertising and plot- but with a mostly white cast. Hmm?
No Country for Old Men – hixplo? Well, there were cowboy hats worn, and the setting was Southern.
Blazing Saddles – hixplo or blaxplo? And it was made in the right era.
Cool Hand Luke – hixplo? Southern settings and stereotypes.
The Defiant Ones – hixplo or blaxplo? Southern settings and stereotypes, but with a strong black hero.
Race movies – they all were formulaic, low budget all-black productions – but exhibited none of the strengths of blaxplo.
100 Rifles – hixplo or blaxplo? Anyone who has ever seen the promotional stills from this, knows that it was sold on the pretext of Raquel Welch being humped by a black guy(Jim Brown again). Even tho everybody’s favorite redneck, Burt Reynolds is present for that duty. Or is it just a plain old western in bad taste?
Westerns – rural settings, Southerners(or country folk) and formula. And often with sensationalist story-telling. Hixplo?
I’m sure there are hundreds of other examples of films that bleed over into other genres. There are just too many ways to miscategorize films, unless some type of border is universally established.
And by the way, Putney, I never met a “Bâ€
Deliverance is NOT an exploitation movie. It actually has a very deep plot if you take the time to watch it. My interpretation is that the old ways are washed away by the flooding of the valey making a new beginning. It is a catharsis theme.
Cool hand Luke is NOT an exploitation movie either.
[quote=“Dstryed_Btch”]
The Bleedovers
Personally, my favorite explos are Mondos, which at there basest definition, would be classified as docs. Of course, also, going by that definition, Ecco and Sadismo would be lumped together with Hearts and Minds and March of the Penguins. Likewise with any other exploitation sub-genre:
Porgy and Bess – is it hixplo(a rural setting), blaxplo(an all-black cast) or a musical?
Dark of the Sun – blaxplo(it starred Jim Brown) with sensationalist advertising and plot- but with a mostly white cast. Hmm?
No Country for Old Men – hixplo? Well, there were cowboy hats worn, and the setting was Southern.
Blazing Saddles – hixplo or blaxplo? And it was made in the right era.
Cool Hand Luke – hixplo? Southern settings and stereotypes.
The Defiant Ones – hixplo or blaxplo? Southern settings and stereotypes, but with a strong black hero.
Race movies – they all were formulaic, low budget all-black productions – but exhibited none of the strengths of blaxplo.
100 Rifles – hixplo or blaxplo? Anyone who has ever seen the promotional stills from this, knows that it was sold on the pretext of Raquel Welch being humped by a black guy(Jim Brown again). Even tho everybody’s favorite redneck, Burt Reynolds is present for that duty. Or is it just a plain old western in bad taste?
Westerns – rural settings, Southerners(or country folk) and formula. And often with sensationalist story-telling. Hixplo?
I’m sure there are hundreds of other examples of films that bleed over into other genres. There are just too many ways to miscategorize films, unless some type of border is universally established.
And by the way, Putney, I never met a “Bâ€
[quote=“Dstryed_Btch”]
I apologize, Big Clint(Pantsman), I should have included the quote, so there would be no inference that it was attributable to you. As for the Wiki definition that I included, it was meant to give a general proportion to this discussion, not a chiseled in stone definition of the genre. I don’t agree with it’s definition 100%, and the Wiki is obviously, no more than a generic source of information, with vague boundaries and, sometimes, questionable interpretations of it’s subjects. But what can you expect from a source that can be edited by just about anyone on the net. But, in a way, the Wiki could be put on the same playing field as the hundreds of books Putney says are available about the xplo genre. They each represent a particular author’s viewpoint, and it is doubtful that any two books agree completely with each others content. I’m sure some of them agree with each of our viewpoints on the genre’s mentioned.
Which brings me to the subject of established parameters for the genre(exploitation) and it’s sub-genre’s.
Time Frames
First thing would be to establish some kind of time frame for these films. A reasonable cut-off date IMO would be the mid to late 80’s, as the death knell of inner city theatres and rural drive-ins was almost complete. And the rise of home video and suburban multiplexes fairly eliminated the true experience of exploitation film. Part of the joys of grindhouse would have to include that mysterious puddle you stepped or sat in, the wino sleeping in a dark corner and the distinct possibility that you might not make it out of the theatre alive. Something you will never experience again, in today’s antiseptic world…
[cut down for quote time][/quote]
Very well stated post Big Clint though? ;D Always nice to see healthy cinematic discussions on any forum.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. While a film like Deliverance to me doesn’t speak for itself loud and proud as an “exploitation” film; I can certainly see why most (well, those who use the term) would classify it in the hixploitation subgenre. There’s the graphic rape sequence, the over the top portrayal of the deep south as a frightening place, etc. Although not at all a fun film like some hixploitation flicks out there, and also standing out for being brilliantly crafted and brought to life - I have seen some go so far as to call it a horror flick. So, for me, it’s understandable for it to be in the hixploitation subgenre. Although it’s all about personal preference you know, and if you choose not to refer to it in that manner; I don’t see it as right or wrong. I do think it’s great that you stood up and explained yourself in such a way though, so congrats!
As for favorite subgenre… I guess anything euro-cult does it for me. Cannibals, zombies, westerns, crime… the Italians did it and they may very well have done it best when they were on top! I’m getting close to completing my Italian cannibal film subgenre, so maybe that would be my pick.