That's Exploitainment by Pia Santaklaus

I much enjoyed the Cinematheque presentation you made today entitled THAT’S EXPLOITATION. Informative and well curated. You obviously did a lot of research and managed to collect a very interesting bunch of film snippets, sound bites, slides and other quirky and impressive memorabilia. The talk seemed quite extensive and I imagine after the 2 full hours allocated for the presentation you had to cut your talk short. It isn’t surprising, as this is a very big subject and 2 hours can barely do it justice; nevertheless, you managed to fit in a lot of good information, and you did it in a clear and ordered way. I would have loved to have seen and heard all the rest of the program you’d prepared but had to limit.

You credited film historian Eric Shaefer’s book BOLD! DARING! SHOCKING! TRUE! as the major resource for today’s presentation. I aim to see if I can get a copy of that book to find out more for myself.

Permit me to share a few of my own thoughts on the subject of exploitation films:

I imagine that during the 1930s, 40s & 50s the often-present, ever-growing industry of smaller film companies and initiatives who made these non-Hollywood pictures did satisfy a definite gap in the market. One might see the energetic makers of these so-called exploitation films as the rebellious, independent, misunderstood or misrepresented little brothers of the bigger brother we call Hollywood.

Their influence was felt not only by all society, but Hollywood also. Their drive and ability to make quick, profitable films would have been secretly admired by parts of the perhaps less resourceful Hollywood. Their ‘hijacking’ of cinemas, distribution routes, audiences and related structures would have irked the Hollywood machine which would have preferred to own a monopoly over the industry. In all, the so-called exploitation market took some customers and profits away from the Hollywood machine in what I see as a ‘David and Goliath’ struggle; the giant Hollywood could not successfully quash or regulate the effective smaller rebel element.

When one considers that much of history has been written by the ruling powers, one might get some idea as to how the smaller, so-called exploitation industry (that often challenged and ignored the Hollywood path), were labelled with such a derogatory moniker.

To say that the so-called exploitation films are any more exploitative than many Hollywood films through the years is simply wrong.

One cannot assume that an audience is any more exploited by the so-called exploitation films than the audience of bigger budget mainstream Hollywood films. The audience has a choice whether or not to see films from either camp and in fact often demand such entertainments.
One cannot assume that the cast and crew of the so-called exploitation films are more exploited than those of Hollywood films. Clearly the Hollywood machine has a history of chewing up and spitting out (exploiting) many, many directors, actors, actresses, technicians and other employees. The relative term ‘exploitation’ negates itself in this scenario. One cannot single out audiences or makers of either film camp as being any more or less exploited than the other.

If nothing else, the smaller size of the so-called exploitation film crews would ensure smaller overheads and more control, and in this way, they might produce a less exploitative, more guaranteed, truer, clearer, less-compromised individual vision; something many Hollywood heads, being beaten at their own game, may have envied and deeply resented. Almost certainly, parts of Hollywood would have felt exploited by the perhaps piratical element of the so-called exploitation mob.

It is most likely that Hollywood initiatives developed the slanderous phrase of ‘exploitation’ in order to lead a wave of negative energy against their competition, the so-called exploitation groups. This tactic however, does seem hypocritical, as the makers of the so-called exploitation films were in many ways only following in the steps of big brother Hollywood, but on a smaller, cheaper, scale. Both provided product that had an audience, both shepherded their audiences into cinemas and ultimately, at the end of the day, they both tried to make money, some more than others. Hollywood accusingly calling their little prodigal brothers ‘exploiters’ is a lot like the pot calling the kettle black, or the raven chiding blackness. The criticism is unfair as the term might just as easily apply to the accusers.

I would offer that the so-called “exploitation films” deserve a more appropriate relabelling; something more befitting and approachable to market them with. I suggest ‘exploration films’, ‘calculation films’, ‘resolution films’, ‘challenge films’, ‘feeler films’, ‘questy films’, ‘dodge films’, ‘grapple films’ or any other name more suitable for these enduring, influential pieces that have been so wrongly given the negatively suggestive name ‘exploitation’.

Brett, thanks again for the fine effort.

Pia Santaklaus