Re-release of "Pink Flamingos:" An Interview With John Waters

After 25 years, New Line Cinema is re-releasing Pink Flamingos, the film that earned director John Waters the title "The Prince of Puke," for depicting sex with chickens, fellatio performed by a mother on her son, a pre-op transsexual flasher, and Divine, Waters' trademark 300-pound drag queen, eating shit. Interviewed at his house in Baltimore ("...it actually looks like the abode of a normal person--if you don't count the electric chair in the ground-floor hallway, Patricia Hearst's glasses framed in a bathroom, and the portrait of child murderer Gertrude Baniszewski and shelves of books about serial killers, sexual deviance, and mental illness in the guest room), Waters discusses his cinematic influences ranging from Ingmar Bergmann to Andy Warhol, critiques "right-wing terrorist" outfitting ("Camouflage is hardly new as a fashion terrorist accessory."), and examines the somewhat frightening possibility that America has caught up with his humor.Pink Flamingo, the film that earned director John Waters the title "the Prince of Puke," is back after 25 years, being given the loving rerelease treatment by its original distributor, New Line Cinema. As an added bonus upon its reemergence into the light, it has a hilarious no-smoking message at the beginning, featuring Waters taunting the audience by enjoying a cigarette and doing a nasty French inhale, and at the end, 13-plus minutes of scenes that were cut from the original. Once billed by Waters as "an exercise in poor taste," Pink Flamingos is clearly not quite in the same category as other films being rereleased this year, such as The Godfather or The Graduate. A quarter of a century after its Baltimore premiere, this homegrown entertainment is still one of the more shocking and putrid cinema atrocities around. Telling the story of two families competing for the title of "the filthiest people alive," it includes scenes of sex with chickens, a man who makes his anus appear to "sing," fellatio performed by a mother on her son, a pre-op transsexual flasher, and of course the infamous final scene of 300-pound drag queen Divine performing an act of coprophagy (that's shit-eating to you and me--and yes, it's real).Although you might expect Waters' house to be a brightly painted kitsch-o-rama, a tour of it reveals that it actually looks like the abode of a normal person--if you don't count the electric chair in the ground-floor hallway, Patricia Hearst's glasses framed in a bathroom, and the portrait of child murderer Gertrude Baniszewski and shelves of books about serial killers, sexual deviance, and mental illness in the guest room. Seated on a red velvet couch in the living room, Waters looks as dapper as always, in a plaid jacket, a light-blue shirt buttoned up to the top, and dark slacks. His trademark pencil-line mustache sits atop his upper lip like a thin rime of graphite shavings. Waters settles in to discuss the movie Variety called "one of the most vile, stupid and repulsive films ever made."Q: I must confess that I saw Pink Flamingos for the first time the other day, and it literally made me sick to my stomach.JW: The ending you mean? I'm really used to that. I can watch that unflinching and see only surrealism. But I understand even the people in the lab when we did it this time were like, "Oh, God!" But they all laughed. It's not the kind of nauseating that you would get from Faces of Death or movies that show real violence. To me, that's much more vomit-inducing--not fake violence but real violence when you see things on the news that to me are much more troubling than somebody eating shit, something that was done as a joyous joke. I know it would be hard to explain this to a marketing person, but at the time that was my version of an upbeat ending. And I think it is. People leave the theater laughing. Q: What were some of the cinematic influences on this film?JW: There were three things that came together that heavily influenced especially my earlier films. The New York/L.A. underground movie scene, which only lasted about three years--Kenneth Anger, the Kuchar brothers, Andy Warhol, Jack Smith. At the same time, I was influenced by Russ Meyer and all exploitation movies. Maryland was like the capital of exploitation movies--they tested them here. I'd hook school and see three movies a day for 45 cents. And then the artiest movies--Ingmar Bergmann and all the art movies that I miss that we don't have anymore. All three of them put together--nobody every put them together, really--those were my influences.Pink Flamingos was an exploitation film for art theaters, which maybe hadn't quite happened. Q: How did you come up with the idea of chicken fucking? JW: I'm basically frightened of chickens. Do you like them? They're stupid, they come at you and peck you. You can't pet a chicken or take it for a walk, it won't get your newspaper for you. All you can do is eat it--or fuck it [laughs], I guess, in that world.Q: What was Divine's character about? JW: Divine in the movie was in some kind of way supposed to be radical, certainly a joke on radical politics. She had a new look. I think that new look still today can be felt. I'm blowing my own trumpet, which I don't ever like to do, but I'm also trying to blow Divine's trumpet for him. He was a was a drag queen who in some ways changed the way drag was thought of. He wasn't square.You know, drag queens, if you look back on the history of drag queens, were very middle class in what they wanted to be; their values were just like their mothers'. They wanted to be the cliche of a beauty queen. And Divine challenged them and made fun of them and was almost a terrorist against drag queens: "This is ridiculous. Let's think up a new kind of thing."Q: Why do you think this was your breakthrough movie? JW: It obviously hit some kind of nerve. It was at a time that was the end of the hippie era but prepunk. And I think, to be honest, many, many people saw Pink Flamingos stoned, plain and simple. That is part of the appeal. It was a pothead movie. And it had to do with the times, there was a cultural war then that there certainly is not now. There were two sides to everything. There was so much political trouble. There were riots all the time. Part of my social life was going to riots, you know? Like parties. You'd say, like, "Which city should we go to this week?" which would make my parents so insane. Q: Can you describe the period when you made the movie?JW: Certainly it was made in a very volatile time--1972 was really crazy. It was still the 60s but the most radical part of the 60s--the Weathermen, all that kind of stuff was very much in the news. Terrorism was very much in the news. But not right-wing terrorism like today--left wing. It's come certainly full circle in the 25 years. To be honest, I think the Weathermen had a lot more style than Timothy McVeigh. I mean, right-wing terrorists do not interest me that much. They all dress the same. They've never come up with a new fashion look. They still just look like out-of-work Marines. Camouflage is hardly new as a fashion terrorist accessory. Q: You dedicated the film to the Manson women. Can you explain why?JW: I went to the Manson trial, and it was a very big influence on me because we wanted to scare the world too, but in a very different way, obviously. I came home and wrote Pink Flamingos. I dedicated the movie not to the Manson family but to Sadie, Katie, and Les--the women. Not Manson. The people that interested me were the people that came from a background similar to mine. Manson was in jail his whole life. The girls were from suburban homes. It was a flippant, punk gesture before there was punk. It was done at a very, very different time and I have changed about that very, very much. It's something from the times that's hard to translate today. Later people put Manson on T-shirts for the same reason I made my dedication: it was the ultimate anti-establishment thing. When I knew more about it I realized the incredibly complicated psychological thing that went on there and looked at it in a different way.I have become friends with Leslie Van Houten [one of Manson's followers]. I have visited her in prison for 15 years. I seriously believe she is rehabilitated. The prison does, most everybody does. I believe she should be let out. And I worked seriously to get her out. I don't say that for shock value. I am serious about it. One day I hope she's here at my Christmas party. I think she will be.Q: You were always fascinated by serial killers, crime, tabloid journalism, even car crashes. Is America catching up with you?JW: I think that our humor veered toward each other a long time ago. I got a little less angry, and the two did meet in a fairly good way.Q: Many people say your influence has been to show budding filmmakers you can just pick up a camera and do it. What made you think you could just do it? JW: My mother says this is terrible to say, but LSD. Well . . . I had confidence anyway. I was ambitious. I always was lucky enough to know what I wanted to do very, very early. I was a puppeteer at children's birthday parties when I was 12 years old. And my parents, even though they were horrified by these films, they encouraged it. It was very loving. I didn't realize it at the time--I was an arrogant teenager. Here were these movies that were against everything they had ever taught me to believe in and they were scared. But yet wise enough to know that at least I was heading in some direction. If I didn't make movies and had all those thoughts what would I do with those thoughts? I think they realized they had better encourage it rather than have me do it in real life. [laughs]Q: How does it feel for your movie to be rereleased with all these "classics," like Star Wars and The Godfather?JW: I think that is funny. It's luck that it came out so it's almost like it's satirizing that. I feel sorry for the movies that are going to be rereleased after Pink Flamingos.So I find it delightful. I would have never ever predicted I would be talking about this movie 25 years later. And I don't know what's going to happen. I don't know how it's going to be received.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

Close
alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.