A Bucket Of Blood (1959) Directed by Roger Corman
Mill Creek DVD
THE FILMS
I don't get the beatniks. Maybe that's because I've only seen them in the movies. Were they all as goofy as they are in A Bucket Of Blood? Pretentious people singing portentous songs and spouting endless poetry that no one seems to understand but that they all seem to want to understand even if it all really means nothing. I guess it was an alternate way of living in the late 50s. And, most of what I know from late 50s normal life is from sitcoms so I may have no idea what I'm talking about. We also got invaded by aliens and attacked by a lot of giant bugs and such during that period. The Beatnik & The Bug?
A Bucket of Blood was called a "beatnik comedy". I wonder what that means? A comedy making fun of beatniks? Would everyone in 1959 have known exactly how the beatniks acted? ("Mildred, this sure is an acute dissection of beatnik culture." "They had it coming to them, Egbert.") Or was it a comedy meant for beatniks? Something they would watch to see themselves shown up in a charming fashion. ("Hieronymus, that film certainly showed up our foibles." "I feel humbled and proud of my ability to laugh at myself, Muskrat.")
Walter Paisley is a busboy at a beatnik cafe. He wants to be creative; he wants to be a beatnik. So, he does some very bad things with bodies and clay. And, he becomes a hit. And, he acts a bit like he's going to break into a calmer Jerry Lewis at times but never quite does. Burt Convy is in this. This was right around the time he recorded "The Monsters' Hop", which kicks ass.
Roger Corman films are things I appreciate more than I really enjoy. They're always better than I think they'll be but not great enough to love. When I watched It Conquered The World about a month ago, I was very surprised. That's a pretty solid movie. It has a decent pace, fine acting, good direction and moves steadily towards its ending. And, the monster is definitely very special. A Bucket Of Blood needed me to have no prior knowledge of the film. But, a few years ago, I'd read a synopsis...so, when I sat down to watch, I was anticipating every plot development I remembered. That was a mistake. This film has some side stuff going on but not as much as Little Shop Of Horrors. I found myself struggling to pay attention.
My fault. If I had gone in knowing nothing, I think I would have been entertained, wondering what the next "work of art" was going to be. And, I certainly wouldn't have guessed where it was going at the beginning. So, everyone, never read plot synopses ahead of time. Sometimes it's a bother. Sometimes all the film has is the plot.
I like Dick Miller but here I found him a little too noodly. I know that's how he was supposed to be but I've said my piece: A little too noodly.
I did like the strange current of gruesomeness that runs under this "comedy". It seems a bit much for 1959. But, maybe it was for the jaded beatnik?
Are there any beatniks reading this? If so, could you send me some literature on the World of Beatniks? Do I need to watch more Dobey Gillis?
In the end, I'm not 100% sure why I reviewed this. Poser beatniks will only let a nebbish into their clique when he's done something beautiful/terrible. I'm not sure why I wrote that last sentence. I don't think we'll be doing a Corman retrospective. I wish we had a Sister Site. They'd take care of that.
AUDIO AND VIDEO
A bit washed out. Not the best. I imagine there's a much nicer copy around somewhere.
EXTRAS
The "British" gal from Monstrosity is in it.
FINAL THOUGHTS
For Corman buffs, this one is an important and interesting part of his filmography. For non-buffs, it might be too darn slow.
I will close now with my favorite bit of Beatnik Poetry. I forget the author's name.
"The black bear sleeps in his little bear skin. He sleeps very warmly, I'm told. Last night, I slept in my little bare skin. And I caught a terrible cold."
Isn't that a beautiful story?
— Dan Budnik, 06.24.10 | 
|
