From: k206027@smog.DKRZ-Hamburg.DE (ce)
Subject: Book Review: Cult Films, by Danny Peary
Followup-To: alt.cult-movies
Organization: Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum GmbH, Hamburg
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 11:57:31 GMT




		REVIEW: Cult Movies, by Danny Peary


I remember checking this book out of the public library back in 1984,
taking it home and devouring it cover to cover in a night. Back then it
was pretty exciting to find a serious work dedicated to analyzing the
films that had passed briefly through my semi-conscious mind during
midnight showings at the local revival house. 

Having recently purchased a copy for myself I proceeded to reread it
and review it here for your enjoyment/edification.

Cult Movies is an interesting read; full of information, anecdotes, serious
review. It covers a wide range of films touching upon most major film-genres.
Those purchasing this book and expecting to find synopsis' and reviews of
cheapie SF and slasher films will be disappointed. Peary's emphasis is on
"Art" films and movie classics like "Casablanca" or "The Searchers". In this
age of *Fast-food Video* people tend to forget the more classical definition
of Cult Movies which encompassed films which developed a devoted, basically
word-of-mouth following long after their initial release. These are not
films which get wide exposure in theatres (with some exceptions) but ones
that went on to develop their second-wind in art and revival houses.

Peary's style is dense and heavily analytical. You may, at times, feel as
if you're laying on Freud's couch while reading this book. Some of his
psychoanalytical takes are hilarious reading and veer off sharply into
the realm of Psych 101 and typical film critic babble. Other times he
is witty and insightful and writes with a lighter, more humorous touch.
The book, though entertaining, is problematic in several areas; Peary
tends to criticize films through an 80s moral filter and he seems to
borrow heavily from other sources of material.  For example: In his
review of the film "Sylvia Scarlett" he criticizes the movie for not
coming to terms with the feminist/lesbian overtones of the story. Well,
for films of the 1930s, it doesn't seem terribly suprising that the subjects
of homosexuality and feminism are not treated in a "modern" manner. 
As for plagiarism; in his review of "2001 Space Odyssey" he tries to impress
us with his masterful grasp of the plot and theme of the film. After reading
his "explanation" it's pretty obvious that he simply lifted it out of
Arthur C. Clarke's novelization of the film. Actually, plagiarism is too
strong a word to use here. Peary is just not terribly original in his
observations.

These complaints aside, this is a fine book which treats its subject matter
with seriousness. He is also not afraid to call a piece of trash a piece 
of trash no matter what its reputation might be among the faithful. Peary 
is not trying to win brownie points with "Harold and Maude" or "Texas
Chainsaw Massacre" fans here. Rather, he's trying to shed a little light
into that dark and shadowy world of the local art theatre round about 
2 AM when the "Rocky" clones have all gone home. The faint scent of pot wafts
up from the front row. The remaining patrons slump across their seats
half-asleep. The lights go down, the curtain parts and....  


*******************************************************************************
*  "Supernatural, perhaps...Baloney, perhaps not" - Bela Lugosi               *
*******************************************************************************
Matt Marchese	    The opinions expressed here are not those of my employer, *
Cray Research  	    my wife, my church, or myself...But they are the opinions *
DKRZ                of Elvis as revealved to me through the medium of my pet  *
Hamburg, Germany    hamster, Lee Harvey Oswald...                             *
*******************************************************************************