Making Mischief: The Cult Films of Pete Walker
Making a bold claim for sex and horror director Peter
Walker as one of Britain's great unsung film-makers,
Steve Chibnall's Making Mischief: The Cult Films of Peter Walker follows the basic
pattern established by David Pirie's seminal A
Heritage of Horror in using a combination of auteur
and social-historical context – the "mirror for
England" argument, as it were – to make its case.
In the main it works. One can find little to argue
with in Chibnall's assertion that Walker deserves to be seen as an auteur:
His films are technically competent, if declining to
indulge in grandstanding displays of technique for
its own sake that might have won him more (temporary) recognition in the manner of, say, Ken Russell. They evince a distinctive personality
and worldview regardless of whether his writer was
Murray Smith, David McGillivray or Alfred Shaughnessy
(though to be sure it could also be argued that often
the writer would work a sense of what would suit the
director's sensibilities). Specifically, there is a
recurrent interest in theatricality and artifice; a
healthy scepticism towards received and expert wisdom,
and a near-obsessive return to the theme of the past
haunting the future, with Chibnall relating these to Walker's
personal biography as the illigitimate son of a stage
performer whose experience of Catholic orphanages
turned him against organised religion.
Nothing too surprising, perhaps, but nevertheless a
core of inner meaning that seems to have slipped under
the radar of the film-critical establishments of the
time. Certainly no-one granted The Flesh and Blood
Show – a film that Chibnall identifies as a cult
classic waiting to be rediscovered and whose
self-reflexive strategies he compares favourably to
those of later work by Dennis Potter – the Brechtian
honorific. Nor was Cool it Carol seen as a spiritual
cousin to critical favourite Godard's My Life to Live, Contempt and Two
or Three Things I Know About Her despite it's not
dissimilar explorations of the commodification of
sexuality and the omnipresence of prostitution as a
metaphor/metonym for contemporary life.
The problem,
one feels, is that the conservative businessman Walker
was on a different wavelength from the critical
radicals deciding what was hot and not, with the
messages of his films too ambiguous, neither obviously
for nor against the young beneficiaries of the 1960s
social revolutions nor the old reactionary
establishment that they were clearly responding to.
Thus, for instance, Frightmare and Schizo question the
value of psychiatric treatment in a manner reminiscent
of R D Laing's anti-psychiatry but also play upon
knee-jerk fears, as with the tag line for the latter:
"It's when the left hand doesn't know who the right hand is killing." (It's maybe also commentworthy that the usual tendencies for left and right to be ascribed negative and positive characteristics – surely the greatest coup the political right ever produced was simply to be called such – are reversed in Walker's formulation here.)
So far, so good. Less successful is Chibnall's attempt
to situate Walker in relation to arguably the most
spectacular – as in Cultural Studies' "spectacular
youth cultures" – manifestation of Britain's
1970s decline, punk. Here we must note that, like Russ
Meyer, Walker's attempts to make a film with the Sex
Pistols came to naught, the clash of personalities and
cultures apparently too great. Thus, one wonders
whether Walker might be better understood as the
British equivalent of Meyer rather than an exemplar of
a proto-punk sensibility. After all Walker like the
American started his career in sexploitation then
moved into more violent and outre territory.
Nevertheless he too maintained a certain cautiousness
in terms of how far he was willing to go – it is
noticeable, for instance, that none of Walkers films
were ever banned as "video nasties", in
contradistinction to James Kenelm Clarke's Expose. (Kenelm Clarke got into the exploitation game after making a TV documentary about Walker among others.)
Likewise, while Meyer got out of the film-making
business when it became clear audience wanted hardcore
porn rather than his cartoonish softcore, Walker quit
film-making after 1983's House of Long Shadows – a
surprisingly old-style entry for someone who had made
their name with films like Frightmare, starring as it
did Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee and Vincent Price.
This criticism aside, Making Mischief is an engaging
and informative study of Walker's work and the
changing social and industrial contexts in which it
was produced. Especially commendable is the sense of
dialogue between the writer and his subject, with each
chapter being concluded by interview excerpts from
Walker to confirm – and in some cases graciously
refute – the claims made for his work and its enduring
values.
If I didn't quite come away from the book with a fresh
perspective on the two Walker films I've seen – House
of Whipcord and Schizo – I have nevertheless become
more enthused to check out not only the other horrors,
but also some of the sexploitation entries as well.
And that, ultimately, is the proof for me that Chibnall's
study, like its subject, succeeds.
Copyright © K H Brown 2002-2005
Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 votes) |
3759 views |
Previous |
Next |
Text-only
Best prices on Making Mischief: The Cult Films of Pete Walker | Print |
Email page
|