The Film Roger Ebert Thought Didn’t Deserve To Be Called a Movie (original) (raw)
Updated Mar 31, 2024, 8:15 PM EDT
Matthew is a features writer for Collider currently based in Manchester. In his spare time he likes to read, write, obsess over Batman and complain about his Wordle score.
Summary
- Pink Flamingos is a polarizing film, once deemed by critics as repulsive, but now celebrated as bold and daring.
- The film, a celebration of individuality and outsider art, mocks conventional society and traditional values with its transgressive take on culture, sexuality, and gender.
- Roger Ebert disliked Pink Flamingos, refusing to give it a star rating and declaring it not worthy of being called a movie, but he still admired John Waters as a filmmaker.
In December 1973, Variety magazine published a review of the latest film by Baltimore native John Waters. The evaluation lasted for three paragraphs, but it was the end of paragraph two that left the biggest impression: “One of the most vile, stupid and repulsive films ever made.” Jump forward to December 2022, and the same publication was ranking it as one of the 100 greatest movies ever made, lauding it as “one of the funniest, most audacious and scandalously compelling films ever made.” The work in question is Pink Flamingos, and such polarizing responses have followed it its entire life. It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to deduce why. There are few films quite as distinct as Pink Flamingos — a 90-minute celebration of individuality that was primed to become a cult favorite from the moment it was conceived. In certain communities, this renegade energy cements Pink Flamingos as one of the supreme works of outsider art, but likeminded praise was not shared by Roger Ebert. Indeed, the famous critic thought so poorly of it that he refused to award it a star rating, before stating that it wasn’t worthy of being called a movie. Talk about being plain-spoken.
Release Date
March 17, 1972
Runtime
107 Minutes
Director
John Waters
Notorious Baltimore criminal and underground figure Divine goes up against a sleazy married couple who make a passionate attempt to humiliate her and seize her tabloid-given title as "The Filthiest Person Alive."
What Is 'Pink Flamingos' About?
For those curious about what crimes John Waters must have committed for Ebert to justify a put-down that even Tom Green avoided, a brief overview of Pink Flamingos is required. The story follows the salacious exploits of drag queen Babs “Divine” Johnson (Divine, playing a heavily fictionalized version of himself), a criminal living in the outskirts of Maryland with her equally bizarre family: Mother Edie (Edith Massey), son Crackers (Danny Mills), and girlfriend Cotton (Mary Vivian Pearce). One day, they learn that Divine has been named "the filthiest person alive" by the press, although celebrations are cut short by rivals Connie and Raymond Marble (Mink Stole and David Lochary), who are keen to inherit the title for themselves. Thus, the stage is set for the most vulgar 90 minutes you’ll ever see in a wide release, including (but certainly not limited to): incest, animal cruelty, and Divine doing something very indecent to a dog’s excrement during the infamous final scene (to put it in the mildest possible terms). “An exercise in poor taste,” as the original poster declared. At least no one could accuse Pink Flamingos of false advertising.
If your first experience of Pink Flamingos was the above synopsis, there’s a good chance your opinion has already been decided. That’s perfectly legit. Early John Waters is an acquired flavor, and not just because of the non-existent production values that make them look like one of your dad’s home movies. Pink Flamingos — like its companions in the “Trash Trilogy,” Female Trouble and Desperate Living — is repugnant, but purposefully so. Like its protagonists, this is a film that exists on the fringes, mocking conventional society and traditional values with a transgressive take on culture, sexuality, and gender. Divine and her irrelevant family do not reject their lifestyle, they embrace it, lending the film a sense of anarchistic joy that also contains a serious message about being true to oneself (no wonder it has gained a passionate fanbase in the LGBTQ+ community). Perhaps most importantly, Pink Flamingos remembers the virtue of having fun. The quantity of hilarious one-liners would make Norm Macdonald jealous, and ensures that Waters avoids the fatal error of other gross-out comedies past and present. This won’t be enough to sell everyone (or indeed most people) on the film, but for those willing to accept the madness, Pink Flamingos can easily become an unapologetic favorite.
Why Did Roger Ebert Dislike 'Pink Flamingos'?
However, it’s clear that Roger Ebert did not display such eagerness. For starters, he appeared reluctant to even watch it. He proclaimed in the opening of his review of the film, "'Pink Flamingos' has been restored for its 25th anniversary revival, and with any luck at all that means I won't have to see it again for another 25 years," (a clearly defined thesis statement if ever there was one). The rest of his article continues in a similar vein, with Ebert often comparing it to a carnival sideshow that someone only watches so they can brag about having done so rather than for any genuine entertainment. The graphic content was a major source of tension. While Ebert concedes that the sheer commitment behind Pink Flamingos is somewhat praiseworthy, the realization that these set pieces aren’t simulated sees him describing the film as having “a weird kind of documentary stature.” He confirms this viewpoint with the review's closing line: “**It should be considered not as a film but as a fact, or perhaps as an object.**” One can imagine Waters wearing that quote as a badge of honor.
In some respects, Ebert’s opinion on Pink Flamingos was expected. Despite his reputation as America’s best-loved critic, Ebert was never short of detractors. Accusations of snobbiness toward certain genres or a tendency to write deliberately contrarian reviews depending on how the cultural winds were blowing have often been thrown in his direction, and while these are largely unfounded (no truthful critic would ever have a track record that unflinchingly adheres to the wider consensus), there is some validity to this perception. It wasn’t uncommon for Ebert to denounce films that brushed against the boundaries of acceptability regardless of how much the cinephile community was embracing them. Blue Velvet and A Clockwork Orange are two of the most egregious examples — both heralded as among the greatest films ever made, and both the subject of utter disdain from the Chicago Sun-Times journalist (the former striking a nerve so vehemently that he followed it up with a separate article just to reiterate his dislike). Other films operating on a similar wavelength also received a legendary Ebert slap-down, making his verdict on Pink Flamingos consistent with his known preferences.
Related
Roger Ebert Hated This Keanu Reeves Movie
If Ebert had his way, the film would have been sent to the hell it depicted.
But even when considering this, his hatred against Pink Flamingos was unique. The dreaded zero-star rating made only sporadic appearances throughout his 46 years as a critic, with Ebert using it to critique films that he considered to have no redeeming qualities. Prominent examples included Caligula and Freddy Got Fingered, with his reviews for these films reiterating the central question that underpinned his analytical work — what is this film’s purpose? Ebert was quick to dismiss films that he perceived as having no motivation beyond senseless imagery, particularly when said imagery is in service of a morally dubious plot. His zero-star review of 2003’s The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is a good illustration of this mindset. Pink Flamingos isn't fully comparable in this respect (it toys with a variety of themes, but nihilism isn't one of them), but the general reasoning is the same — a niche film for a niche audience that anyone outside of its bubble will fail to understand. When viewing the film through that lens, it's easy to see why Ebert would eschew a rating for a film he openly forfeits understanding. As for his comments that it's not even a film... well, some of its content does feel closer to what you'd see in a performance art exhibit than a motion picture, but such is the way in idiosyncratic art. Where would such art be if it didn't break the formula?
Roger Ebert Grew To Admire John Waters
Roger Ebert may have loathed Pink Flamingos, but he did not loath John Waters. The Pulitzer Prize-winning critic gave his iconic “thumbs up” to later Waters films like Hairspray and Cry-Baby, both of which saw the director making a successful transition to mainstream cinema with only minimal adjustments to his trademark style. Ebert acknowledged this in his Pink Flamingos review when he described Waters as a “charming man” with a “bemused take on pop culture,” both passing comments that hold great significance. Roger Ebert is the people’s critic, and part of this admiration stems from his consummate professionalism. Even when faced with a film he considered artistically and morally inept, Ebert was careful to critique the art and not the artist — nor would he let previous interactions with said artist’s work impact his appraisal of their latest release. These, alongside worshiping at the altar of honesty, are the true test of a good reviewer. Pink Flamingos would never have been Ebert’s choice for a sleepover movie — especially since he didn’t even consider it a film — but that’s fine. No critic should like everything. That Ebert stood by his opinion despite it fast becoming a minority opinion is why he’s still one of the best.
Pink Flamingos is available to stream on the Internet Archive in the U.S.