Badmovies.org Forum

...and I was digusted. I was expecting a comedy, like John Waters' other film A Dirty Shame. I'm surprised how the hell did Pink Flamingos get past the MPAA, when it's clearly not a movie, it's a porn. After watching this, I feel like I did something bad, and fear of anyone finding out I ever watched this crap. Why would anyone even want the title of the filthiest person? Why not live a normal life like everyone else?

I love this movie.

Hey, not everyone lives a normal life, whatever "normal" is perceived to be.  :smile:

I don't mind this film. I think it's good that stuff like this gets made, otherwise things would be mighty boring and there would be no talking points within the movie world. If you think about it, it's harder now to explore alot of taboo subjects or find niches in the market as it's all been done.

At the end of they day, if you don't like this film, don't watch it. Some things are made just to shock, that's their job and to elicit a response that gains attention whether something is classy, quality or plain trash.

What if it's on at the beginning of the day? :bouncegiggle:

Pink Flamingos is trashy and vulgar but John Waters went for trashy when he made it. The big theme in it was how Divine and her "family"  were suppose to be the filthiest people in America. that was a sure fire warning knowing how John Waters did films in his early days that the film was going to be offensive to many.  I laughed and kept going WTH most of the time when I first seen it. It is a good bad movie but it is also obscene at times.
As far as making it past the MPAA, it didn't. The film originally had a X rating when released in 1972, since the rating system changed it now has a NC-17 rating.
Just a word of advice, if this film offended to you, I would also avoid Doris Wishman films. She is like the female Ed Wood of films but specialized in the genre of sexploitation films.

But how don't you consider the actors or even John Waters a bunch of sickos? How can someone "act" having sex with a chicken, getting a BJ from a fat transsexual or eating dog poop and not be considered a weirdo?

I don't have a problem with the nudity or sex in the film, but with the perverse sexual acts portrayed. I feel like I'm a sick weirdo for watching it, and I'm ashamed to tell anyone I saw a movie like that. I also think there should be shocking movies, but this was just too much, and I can't believe that a movie like this gained so much fame and attention, or even that the director went on to become a famous celebrity with such movies as Crybaby and Haispray.

I'd really like to see other peoples' opinion on this movie and not just "I liked this". Please give your thought :wink:

Its not my cup of tea but I don't consider the actors or Waters a bunch of sickos   :teddyr: 

It was a unique and entertaining movie.  I liked the craziness and weirdness

It's because I have an attitude of long as it's not involving me or hurting anyone, I could care less what people do. I might not approve of what someone else does but if it's what they are into, I'm not being forced to participate in it, or hurting anyone, then why should I care. Granted prior to seeing the movie I was aware of people encountering in acts of beastiality, sex with trannies, sex with their own family members(remember Divine was suppose to be the guy's mom she/he gave the hummer to), and even known people who into doing things with crap like in the film. So while seeing it on film did make me go WTH at times, it also didn't phase me because I can go find people like that in my own town.

This is a definite skull in my book; a lot of the memorable moments are memorable because they are disgusting and/or revolting.  I've never wanted to see a man manhandling a chicken between him and his screaming partner.  Ditto on Divine doing that to her "son" out of nowhere.  Oh, and the dog-crap eating moment was just uncalled for.  

I cannot disagree that the movie is art, when art is defined as a creative work that causes a viewer to experience feelings and emotions.  However, I prefer not to experience that sort of thing.

This is actually the only movie my parents won't let me watch, and I've seen some nasty sh!t.  I've seen a few other John Waters films (Polyester and Hairspray), but not this.  I kinda want to see it, but just out of curiosity.

Maybe I'll try watching it anyway.  I dunno.

LOL, I'm also 16-years-old and I watched it. And how the hell do your parents know anything about it, unless they've seen it themselves?
Shouldn't movies like this have some warnings or something? What if you went to the theater with your gf/bf to see this? What's worse than anything is that I bought the DVD for cheap, and now I have to keep it hidden away from my collection so no other soul knows it exists.

Actually the first time I seen it was in the middle of the night on IFC here in the US. Had it not been for the NC-17 rating and the various info shown with it as to the content shown at the start of the film, I would of been caught off guard for some of this as well.
I know the DVD version I have seen here in the US has a warning of explicit and graphic material contained in the film.
In 1972, people did go to the theaters and seen this playing. It was around the end of the "free love" movement so films which got an X rating would at times get played in a theater but usually at midnight. And it wasn't in adult theaters, regular theaters like the ones which you would go to today. Just a lot looser standards then.
Also don't think you are in the minority of people who were offended and/or disgusted by this film. Most people react in the same way you did that have seen this film that I have mentioned it to.
As for parents not letting their teenagers watch it, can't say I blame them. I have three daughters and only one is over 18. I won't let the younger two watch this film. I won't volunteer it for my idlest to watch despite her being an adult now but I can't stop her from viewing it on her own.

My dad owns it on DVD.  I had asked him about it and he said I'm not allowed.  But I'm OK with that, my parents are pretty good about me watching stuff.  So far this is the only time (in recent years) that I've been denied watching something.  There were a few times when I was younger, but I've watched all those movies since then.

Another thing, my dad owns a lot of movies.  Most he's just bought at a thrift store without even thinking about it.  He said that he won't watch Pink Flamingos again (though he has seen it twice; once before and once since he bought it).

I'm not too worried.  One movie I can't see, and it sounds pretty nasty too.  I may watch it sometime in the near-future.  But until then...  :drink:

Did your dad ever say why you shoudn't watch it, or why he doesn't want to watch it ever again? :drink:

He said it was extremely disgusting, and that he wouldn't want me to sit through it.

As your peer, I'm also advising you not to watch it, unless your interested in perversion. It really is disgusting, and the editing is terrible. :teddyr:

I have not seen it and dont care for it... unless somebody talks about a scene that may peek my interest... Which I doubt because it seem that the story is about eating dog poop, sex with chickens and Divine...

I have only seen one John Waters film, Hairspray. And I didn't like it.
At all.
I know it's blasphemy, but whatever. It had to be said.
Anyway, I don't plan on watching Pink flamingos. Ever.
I can take almost anything when it comes to blood and gore, but s**t eating and transvestites? No thanks.

I understand how you feel, vukxfiles.  There are three or four images from that movie I wish I could erase from my mind forever.  There were a few things that I liked about it (the line, "Oh, dear, someone has sent me a bowel movement" earned a chuckle), but they weren't enough to make me like the film overall.

I think what PINK FLAMINGOS is, is dada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada)---"anti-art."  From the Wikipedia article I linked: "...everything that art stood for, Dada was to represent the opposite. Where art was concerned with traditional aesthetics, Dada ignored aesthetics. If art was to appeal to sensibilities, Dada was intended to offend. Through their rejection of traditional culture and aesthetics the Dadaists hoped to destroy traditional culture and aesthetics."  That sounds like the PINK FLAMINGOS manifesto to me.

I don't really know how I feel about the movie.  In a way, it's utter crap; in another way, I'm sort of glad that something like this exists, although one movie was enough.  Now that I've seen PINK FLAMINGOS I don't have to watch SALUGHTERED VOMIT DOLLS or anything else of that nature.  PINK FLAMINGOS won't be topped in the disgusting category, why bother?  Most importantly, I think that Waters had the right to make the film (other than the chicken scene).   

I like Waters' followup FEMALE TROUBLE better.  It was a more traditional film, and the shocking stuff was all dramatized, not real life geekery.  Still a pretty nihilistic and depressing film, though. 

"Get past"?  They gave it an X, later changed to an NC-17.  They don't have a higher rating, so that's about all they can do.   :smile:  If a current hard-core porn film was submitted to the MPAA, it'd face the same treatment. 

I'm just curious, how did you know enough about John Waters and such to get a hold of Pink Flamingoes, yet not know what the film is like?  It's not an easy film to find.  At least, I've never seen it in the normal local video stores.  I know enough about the content that I've never sought it out..  I'll probably see it eventually, though.  I feel like I'm destined to see it.

On another note, I think John Waters would be rather proud to be called a sicko.

I like John Waters quite a bit. He's a smart, funny guy, and actually very knowledgeable about the world of film. I remember hearing some quote where he stated, "You have to have very good taste to have very bad taste." (Obviously not a direct citation.)

I highly recommend his spoken word movie "This Filthy World," where he talks about his experiences growing up and ending up making some of the most perverse movies ever made. Very entertaining.

That being said, I don't like his movies. Yes, they were made for pure shock value, and, yes, you are supposed to feel dirty and disgusted by watching them. I wouldn't go as far as to proclaim them "dada," although I can see how they can be viewed as such. I don't think Waters had anything so high class in mind. I would put them more into the category of dada's angrier younger brother, punk.

See, Waters literally made these movies on shoestring budgets with his friends. It was his version of a counter-cultural reaction to growing up gay in Baltimore, MD, in the early '70s. Dreary, I imagine, with none of the feel-goodies left over from '60s burnouts. The deliberate choice was made to be in as shockingly bad taste and disgusting as possible. It was either a weird cultural fluke or a societal zeitgeist (the two don't seem to be often separated) that catapulted his bizarre backyard experiments into a national underground phenomenon. "Pink Flamingos" was instrumental to the beginning of the rise of "midnight movies."

I gather this is one of the first of these types of movies you have been exposed to. The disgust is warranted, and not misplaced. I remember watching "Tetsuo, the Iron Man" at about the same age and being completely weirded out. It was too much for me. But you have to remember that these types of movies were extremist experiments, and they served a valuable function of expanding what films were allowed to talk about. Waters' weirdo films (and yes, they are weirdo films) paved the way for the more realist films of the '70s. Without his perverse explorations, and along with the success of the out-and-out porno "Deep Throat," we may not have seen such luminaries as Scorsese and Coppola making the movies they made.

Of course, that's endlessly debatable. You might even debate whether that was a good thing at all. But I'm glad somebody did it. I'm glad people are still doing it. Almost every release put out by Troma studios is an extension of what Waters was doing back in the early '70s. If we didn't have that anarchistic tearing down of all good taste, I think the world of film would be lessened.

But to reiterate, much as I like John Waters, I don't like watching his films. I do not think they are very good beyond the shock value. For that matter, I don't think he became much more accomplished with his later films. Sorry, John. I also think most films released by Troma are garbage. For every "Toxic Avenger" (the first, not the sequels), there are a hundred other films which are scatological garbage. At the same time, films such as the sophomoric "Faces of Death" were released, possibly the only thing that could have one-upped John Waters in bad taste.

But without Waters' guerrilla efforts, would we have ever seen the glory of such films as Peter Jackson's "Dead Alive?" Conversely, there is nothing in Waters' early films that is not now available on broadcast television in one form or another. Like I said, once you open the floodgates, both the good and the bad are released.

As a last aside, to show how much popular culture has changed since this movie has been released, I saw the "Pink Flamingos" DVD for sale at the grocery store. Food or "Pink Flamingos?" Your call.

Mofo Rising and Rev. Powell....

I think you guys are giving John Waters too much credit.... Pink Flamingos is an Exploitation Film and made in 1972... This is very important to note, because we are in the time when Hyppies Smoke a lot of pot, Heavy Metal is taking shape and Andy Warhol is making films... Also and most important... Theaters were accepting adult movies... (PG, R and X has a market) therefore filmmakers were open to experiment freely with their ideas like a music maker were experimenting with music (especially since they didnt feel bound by the limits of 45's and the Radio)... So a movie like Pink Flamingo is likely to be made.

Troma has been producing films many years before "Toxic Avenger" a the only reason why the series does exist is the power of renting movies from your home (the VHS rental store).


I would give credit to Blood Feast and Night of the Living Dead for Peter Jackson's "Dead Alive" a million times before I would even suggest John Waters... actually I would believe it was Herschell Gordon Lewis movies that opened John Waters mind into making Pink Flamingos... Hmmmmm... I think I would give Herschell Gordon Lewis credit for Troma films too... (wow and I dont even think Herschell Gordon Lewis is a good director)

Dadaism as Anti-filmmaking... it would assume Plan 9 from Outter Space would be a form of Dada since the movie broke many standards in traditional filmmaking...


:)

I (sort of) saw it many years ago with my roomate when she had a John Waters-a-thon.  We watched this movie, Desperate Living, and something else..   At one time or another before watching it she had described a lot of the scenes to me so I knew better and sat on the couch doing arts and crafts and not looking at the TV too much. 

 

This is the movie that convinced me to move to Baltimore.

PLAN 9 is not dada, it is bulldada (http://www.allwords.com/word-bulldada.html)... meaning accidental dada.

Adn I still believe PINK FLAMINGOS meets the definition of Dada.  That's not giving Waters too much credit, because I don't give the original Dadaists much credit.  They were the originators of the shock art that's plagued us for the last century. 

hehe... bulldada...I never head of bulldada before but I do agree, Ed Wood did what he "thought" was right.

That's one thing I've noticed even in my own lifetime.  Since the inception of DVD, it seems, a lot more weird and obscure films are fairly widely available.  That's a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.  I'm still amazed you saw Pink Flamingos at a grocery store, though...  The only store I've ever seen it was at a specialty shop.

And as an added comment . . . I do own the anniversary addition with deleted scenes and comments about each one by John Waters.  One scene involves Edith Massey in her crib undergoing an "egg humiliation."  I wonder what it's like inside the mind of John Waters . . .

"Bulldada" is a pretty cool way to explain the appeal of "so-bad-it's-good" films.  It comes from the Church of the Subgenius.  [img=http://www.subgenius.com/pam1/pamphlet_p8.html]http://Here's some more[/img] on the idea (warning: high craziness and impenetrability ahead).

I agree, its too gratuitous for me.   But more power to him for making it.

I just watched this. The first time since seeing at a midnight showing back in the late 70s.

This movie is so f**ked up. There's nothing good in it. The acting is atrocious, the cameraman must have been wasted. The dialogue was about as p**s poor as you can get. The music was decent but kept cutting out. Yet, it was a joy to watch. Give the audience something they haven't seen and they'll shower you with praise (if they appreciate the art).

Every bad movie lover should have this on their shelf.

What's most incredible about Pink Flamingos is the fact it was shot in 72. Most of you weren't around then, but things were nothing like they are today. Which makes this picture even more incredible.

Welcome to the demented mind of John Waters. Once you go in, you can never go back. Your eyes will never unsee what they have seen. The talking butthole is now forever etched in your mind. Hehehe. This movie IS sick, and your a sicko for watching it. Your not alone though, millions of people love this stuff. It WAS funny, though, wasn't it? Not even a little. I actually found most of the lewdness in the film to be so absurd, that there was no way I took it seriously, which is where most people go wrong when "disgusted" by Waters earlier work. But come on, you knew where this was going when you picked this movie out, didn't you? Well, I actually think your just trying to troll us here, and if not, this least I can say is stay away from any more of his early stuff. Especially Multiple Maniacs. Demented forever, Demented for Life.

LOL, no I'm not trolling anyone. I already knew what I had in store, but I never knew that the scenes were so explicit. For example, I've read that there's a scene with 2 people having sex with a chicken. I thought it was a rubber chicken, and never even expected the "sex" to be as explicit as it was. I've read that Divine gives a blowjob to a guy, but I never expected it to be shown directly like in a porn film. These are the main reasons why I was offended, even if I knew what I would see.

Not much of a "blow job" I'd say.  PINK FLAMINGOS was intended to shock, and it does.  I looked at it long ago, at least 25 years.  And yes, I found some of it funny, bits of it unforgivable, all of it absurd, and am not sorry to have looked at the thing, but don't need to ever again. 

Oh, I most CERTIANLY concider them weirdos, and that why i LOVE this movie! Because its WEIRD! its SICK! Its a film that does things that ive never seen on screen or ANYWHERE ELSE! It stands out. I cant say that I laughed at any point, but i did however catch myself staring at the screen with mouth agape at a few points. I watched it by myself, but  i think if I ever watched it with a room of pals, wed ALL havre a good laugh.

And you really shouldnt be ahamed of yourself. Theres no shame in the relm of b-movies. On the contrary! Im PROUD to be a fan of these bizaro fliks! Dont be so hard on youself. Buck up, chap!

I thought it was entertaining.  all the weird characters going around.  it was like an off beat comedy

It is because this film goes for the throat in shock that I love it. Divine is by far one of the most memorable characters in the history of cinema. In fact, the only thing I had a real problem with was gaping into another man's rectum at her party and of course the fact that a chicken was killed due to near bestiality. They escaped animal cruelty charges by later consuming the chicken, but still unnecessary for an innocent creature to die in such a manner.

Despite my pair of concerns, I wouldn't change a thing.