Talk:Exploitation film

	This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Film: Filmmaking This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

I'm currently doing a thesis on exploitation films and I'm just wandering: Where did they really originate from? I know the old grindhouse clubs were stip joints which later became homes from showing these sorts of films, but they did not become synonymous with the genre until the 1960s, but who first distributed exploitation films? What was the first one? Were they a soely American invention (as opposed to the horror film which had its roots in late nineteenth century gothic literature)?

It would be great to get some answers, and plus it would really help add to the article's clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.89.146.210 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some historical material pointing out that the designation is more of an American thing, that what Americans call 'exploitation' may be 'transgressive art' to the Europeans. That makes the definition of 'the first one' tricky. After all, porn was invented shortly after the camera; but it would be good to know at what point cinema developed an underground. It's clear that they proliferated with the demise of the Hays Code, a topic that could use some expansions. The question of who distributed them is interesting and would be good for the article, but will probably take some digging to find out how the distribution system worked in the earlier days of cinema. Since major studios sometimes owned theater chains, and did not produce exploitation films, what theaters showed these, and who served them?

talk) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

I've recently made quite a lot of additions to the exploitation film page, and would appreciate a peer review. --Jahsonic 08:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is an exploitation film? It is not addressed in the article. Roman Soldier 04:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it's not? What's the first paragraph all about, then? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've revised the opening to more directly describe the subject in the first sentence.

I believe the words 'eschew' and 'prurient' are not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. Whoever wrote that sentence obviously just needs to be reassured that he or she is intelligent, yet, ironically, the very use of those words proves the opposite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.140.224.99 (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the merge of

Some B-movies are exploitation films but not all exploitation films are B-movies. A B-movie is a movie with acting, writing, directing and production values not quite up to par with A-movies, they are not necessarily designed to shock or titillate like exploitation films. Anthopos 21:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose that you're a filmmaker in the 1950s. You get someone who sold a few stories to the pulps back in the heyday of pulps to turn one of his old stories, a by-the-numbers crime-and-punishment story, into a film. You line up an old actor who used to pack them in the theatres, and a young would-be star who might actually be good if he can learn not to overact, and crank out the flick, directing it yourself to avoid paying someone else. That's a B-movie.

Now suppose you're another filmmaker in the 1950s. You open up your paper and read about Charles Starkweather's rampage across the Midwest. You get on the phone immediately to your one friend who works for a major studio; he assures you that the major studios would never dare risk such tastelessness as to rush out a film about a spree killer and his barely-pubescent girlfriend. You crow with delight to hear that you're not going to have competition; before the day is out you've lined up a hammy young actor who can snarl and wave a gun on cue, a girl who can't act to save her life but will bare her breasts if it means starring in a movie, and you've got a hack writer to churn out most of the script but you're writing in extra sex scenes to make sure they're lurid and scandalous -- after all, if your film gets banned in one town because it's so shocking, that means you're going to have huge crowds for it in the next town over, because everyone wants to see what they know they're not supposed to see. That's an exploitation film. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very well put, altho your definition of 1950s B-movies is better suited to 1970s (post-
  studio-era) B-movies. In the 50s, studios had A- and B-list directors under contract just like they had A- and B-list actors. --Tysto 04:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A B-movie, a matter of budget and quality, originally refered to products of the Hollywood studio system with low production costs, obviously as opposed to their A-movies. The heyday of the B-movie was 1935 through around 1960 when the studio system collapsed. Making these movies at a lower standard of quality served multiple purposes: training ground for directors and stars, 'filler' material for studio-owned theatres, smoothing out holes in the production schedules. Sometimes B-movies were accidentally successful, like Casablanca. In a looser sense 'B-movie' has been used to refer to any movie with substandard production values.

A Z-movie, a matter of budget and quality, is a less exact term for movies with extremely low production values. I've seen it used to refer to the output of Poverty Row or to independent producers, but never to the output of a major studio.

Exploitation film, a matter of content, refers to movies whose chief attraction is violent, prurient or other sensationalistic content. The heyday of exploitation film is probably from 1965 through now, but the category stretches back at least to the 1930s and

Does this help? --Lockley 01:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the conclusion I came to just now after seeing the merger on

B-movie, Paracinema, and Exploitation film). Since the consensus seems to be against a merger, I'm removing all merge tags and taking it off the proposed mergers list. | Klaw ¡digame! 20:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The article uses the Guinea Pig series as an example of snuff simulation, a "sub-sub-genre" og shock exploitation. While it can be argued that the second instalment of the Guinea Pig series, "Chiniku no hana" (aka "Flower of flesh and blood"), was essentially a snuff simulation, this does not apply to any of the other movies. Some seem to think that the first film, "Akuma no jikken" ("Devil's experiment")is a fake snuff; I dispute this because the girl victim, as far as I know, isn't actually shown being killed at all (though it might be argued that her death is implied, or that she might be dead in those scenes where she is shown dangling from a tree in a sack), so it can't be called a snuff simulation. As for the other movies, none of them contain anything that could be called snuff, allthough many of them are exploitative (and very comical). Thus I changed this in the article. Hope nobody minds. Mogura 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added an alternate link to the 2007 film

It is somewhat important but highly confusing. XdiabolicalX 00:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Grind House redirects here, I added this term also to the introductory section.

Um... the paragraph this closes just finished explaining that grindhouses were movie theaters. Troma is a studio. I think this sentence needs to be struck. Monkey Bounce 00:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My impression is that the "grindhouse" was an urban theater showing the kind of exploitation movies usually associated with the rural drive-in theaters: "B" or double-bill movies, plus the soft porn and "mondo" movies. After our local mall multi-plex took over booking "A" list single-bill first-run movies, our old grand theater downtown started showing second-run "A" movies and midnite movies like "Flesh Gordon" and "Groove Tube". We never had burlesque theaters. The explanations of the origin of the term "grindhouse" all strike me as after-the-fact surmise or speculation. When was the first use of the term and in what context?Naaman Brown (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Emily Booth on the dvd trailer compilation : 'Grindhouse: Trailer Classics' the term 'grindhouse' refers to the defunct 'bump n' grind' burlesque theatres on sleazy 42nd Street where these exploitation films were shown. The name referred to these venues - not the production process. Colin4C (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On www.grindhouse.com there is an explanation of the origin of the term grindhouse: Many of these inner-city theatres formerly featured burlesque shows which included "bump and grind" dancing, leading to the term "grindhouse. However, I don't know how reliable this source of information is! It could be used as a reference though. (131.211.109.244 (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks. Also one of the characters in the 1943 film Lady of Burlesque refers to the venue they are performing on 42nd Street at as a 'grindhouse'. Colin4C (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the article could explain why they are called "exploitation" films. Who or what is being "exploited", or am I missing the point entirely? I am probably not the only person confused by this term. — coelacan talk — 04:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to do some work on this article. The term is mostly about the subject matter. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article in the very first paragraph to immediately address these concerns while trying to maintain as much as possible the intent of the previous author.

The opening should now be more direct and economical and very specifically addresses what areas of the public psyche are being exploited. The previous was more equivocating about the term exploitation. Since it handles a lot very quickly, it tends to make portions of the following paragraph dealing with advertising and promotion redundant. And I have done nothing about that for fear of rewriting everything in my image of what it should say.* — 75.84.87.244 08:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed someone adjusted the advertising paragraph and shifted my list down. Very well done the opening is really shaping into a much better article than was there this morning. — 75.84.87.244 08:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite misunderstood the origin of the term "exploitation". Exploitation films were not called so because they "exploited" the audience's baser instincts, but because they relied on heavy promotion, or "exploitation", of the film's contents. "Exploitation" existed as a common show business term for promotion long before "explitation film". The show business bible Variety used it regularly, for example, in sentences like, "Heavy exploitation in opening week could bring out audience for this peculiar pic." — Walloon 14:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Subtle but important and educational distinction...just as it should be. — 75.84.87.244, 08:27, 27 April 2007) (UTC)

• Exploitation in movie terms seems to refer to the advertising and selling of the movie. With "The Beast with a Million Eyes" or "I Changed My Sex" the posters existed before the movies were even scripted, much less filmed. Of course, the movies exploited the public interest in the shocking or astounding subject matter as well. With most exploitation movies, the ads or trailers are more entertaining than the movies. It is a double-edged term.Naaman Brown (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "Shock exploitation" is a purely fictional "subgenre". The films listed fall into the actual subgenres of "Rape and revenge", "Pseudo-snuff", and "CATIII".

The term itself is redundant: most, if not all, exploitation is meant to be shocking.

Plus, "Pornochanchada" (I believe I spelled that right) is a subgenre of sexploitation, and I would go as far as arguing that "Chambara" is a subgenre of splatter films. These specific sub-subgenres shouldn't be listed as strictly subgenres of exploitation.

These are the subgenres I believe should have a small sgement written about them:

• Blaxploitation
• Cannibal films
• Mondo films
• Nazisploitation
• Nunsploitation
• Rape and revenge
• Sexploitation
• Splatter films
• Women in prison films
• Zombie films

...and these are the ones I believe should be listed under "other subgenres" -

• Bruceploitation (?)
• Dyxploitation (?)
• CATIII
• Giallo
• Hixploitation (?)
• Pinku eiga
• Pseudo-snuff

Helltopay27 01:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Chambara isn't a subgenre of exploitation, although some chambara films are exploitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambara http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Samurai_cinema#Exploitation.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.102.214 (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i added to the "grind house" section of this article stating that mark kermode believes the eponymous move Grindhouse to be not of the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.3.139 (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between B-Movie and Exploitation ? Is it about the genre or the times when it was made ? (unsig 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I Would say that the primary difference is in the content. A low-quality monster movie of the type currently made for the Sci-Fi Channel would be a B-movie. What takes it to the level of exploitation cinema is the addition of gratuitous violence, nudity, etc. Exploitation, though not universal, is generally applied to films from the 60s and 70s while B-movies are still made. 69.181.55.239 (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Quentin Tarantino not mentioned anywhere? Some high-budget and star actor movies have been mentioned as being exploitation movies, so that should not exclude him. In all other ways, his movies seem to define the genre, right from the early Three Stooges take-off on up. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.138 (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a good point, his films often pay blatant homage to many of the films listed here. However, Death Proof is mentioned in the article.
  talk) 01:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]