THE CAMERA EATS ITSELF
Hollywood Boulevard, Boogievision and Living in Oblivion
Three movies about making movies after money, sanity and ordinary workplace standards have left the set
By Don Overcast
There is a particular moment in the life of every motion picture when it stops being an idea and becomes a workplace accident.
Before that moment, the movie exists in the clean, oxygenated country of intention. Somebody has written a script. Somebody has imagined a performance. Somebody has convinced somebody else that money can be turned into light, movement and human faces thirty feet tall. There are meetings. There are promises. There may even be a folder.
Then the camera arrives.
The cable will not reach. The actor cannot cry. The generator is making a noise that sounds expensive. The location owner has changed his mind. A man nobody recognizes is standing behind the craft-services table eating all the grapes. The sun is disappearing. The film stock is running out. The producer wants nudity. The director wants truth. The crew wants lunch.
This is when cinema becomes cinema.
Not when the great artist receives inspiration, but when twelve exhausted people look at a practical catastrophe and agree to photograph it from another angle.
Hollywood Boulevard, Boogievision and Living in Oblivion form a psychotronic triple feature about that moment. They are movies about filmmaking, but not filmmaking as the immaculate manufacture of culture. They are about filmmaking as hustling, salvage, delusion, communal labor and temporary insanity. They take place beneath the official history of cinema, down where movies are assembled from borrowed props, leftover stock, damaged personalities and favors that cannot possibly be repaid.
Together, they trace a beautiful decline:
Filmmaking as exploitation adventure.
Filmmaking as outlaw transmission.
Filmmaking as nervous breakdown.
The first movie says that anything can become cinema.
The second suggests that certain people should probably be prevented from attempting it.
The third asks why anybody would voluntarily do this more than once.
And yet all three arrive at the same impossible conclusion:
The movie must be made.
I. HOLLYWOOD BOULEVARD: THE FACTORY THROWS ITSELF A PARTY
Hollywood Boulevard begins with the ancient American promise that has ruined and sustained Los Angeles in roughly equal measure: a young woman arrives in Hollywood hoping to become a star.
The machinery waiting for her is not the machinery she imagined.
There are no marble offices, immaculate soundstages or serious men patiently discussing art. There is a low-budget production company grinding out nurses, car crashes, jungle pictures and whatever else can be sold before the paint dries on the poster. The agent is Dick Miller. The personnel are lunatics. The workplace safety policy appears to be a rumor started by communists.
Directed by Joe Dante and Allan Arkush for Roger Corman’s New World Pictures, Hollywood Boulevard was itself constructed through precisely the kind of scavenging it celebrates. Dante and Arkush had worked in Corman’s editing rooms, and their first feature reused footage from other New World productions as part of its bargain-basement design. It is not merely a parody of exploitation filmmaking. It is exploitation filmmaking folding its own discarded scenery into a parade float.
That distinction matters.
A more expensive movie might have mocked this world from a safe distance. It could have reproduced the cheap sets with careful production design, hired famous actors to imitate obscure ones and spent millions creating a convincing illusion of poverty.
Hollywood Boulevard does not imitate the circus. It is a wagon in the circus.
The movie’s jokes have the friendly cruelty of people laughing at a workplace they know intimately. Everyone is ridiculous, but the ridicule is not directed downward. Dante and Arkush are not cultured visitors gawking at the primitives. They understand that the cheap movie studio is a damaged ecosystem with its own elaborate forms of intelligence.
A Corman production survives by refusing to recognize the difference between a limitation and a premise.
Do you have access to a Filipino jungle sequence from another movie? Then the new movie is going to the Philippines.
Do you have a car that can be destroyed? Write a car chase.
Do you have three actresses, two uniforms and a building available until sunset? Congratulations. You are no longer experiencing a production problem. You have discovered the second act.
This is the central joke of Hollywood Boulevard, but it is also the source of the movie’s affection. The people may be opportunists, incompetents and predators of varying severity, yet they are also folk artists working inside an industrial structure that has been stripped to its beams. There is no room for prestige. Nobody can afford the official method. They must improvise a cinema from whatever the day has failed to remove.
The film is filled with the sensation of adults being allowed to play because nobody important is watching.
That may be the purest freedom low-budget filmmaking offers. The lack of money is not romantic. Poverty is not a magical substance that automatically produces invention. Most of the time, insufficient resources merely make the work harder and the food worse.
But neglect can create a strange pocket of liberty.
The executives are not expecting greatness. The cultural gatekeepers are not preparing symposiums. The movie does not carry the unbearable burden of representing the future of the medium. It needs a title, a trailer, several marketable incidents and enough completed footage to become a physical object.
Inside those reduced expectations, personality can leak through every crack.
Dante’s later movies would remain crowded with marginal performers, discarded genres, pop-cultural debris and creatures escaping the systems designed to contain them. Arkush would carry the same love of music, performers and institutional disorder into Rock ’n’ Roll High School. In Hollywood Boulevard, those tendencies still feel less like signatures than contraband accidentally left in the print.
The movie does not announce a philosophy. It is too busy trying to finish the scene.
That is its philosophy.
Cinema is not the immaculate image projected at the premiere. Cinema is the chaotic series of compromises that somehow failed to kill the image before it reached the screen.
Hollywood Boulevard loves the movie business because it has seen the movie business with its pants around its ankles.
This is not worship. It is intimacy.
II. BOOGIEVISION: THE PIRATE STATION AFTER MIDNIGHT
If Hollywood Boulevard is a studio comedy made by people who know where the equipment is stored, Boogievision feels like the equipment has been stolen.
James Bryan’s 1977 film concerns a struggling independent filmmaker trying to seize an opportunity provided by his girlfriend’s producer father. Around that loose spine, Bryan packs sketches, parodies, fake advertisements, political burlesque, animation and deliberately disreputable comic interruptions. It belongs partly to the sketch-film territory occupied by The Groove Tube and The Kentucky Fried Movie, but its narrative about low-rent filmmaking makes the entire object feel less like a collection of skits than a production devouring its own footage.
The movie is not polished enough to conceal its impulses.
That is the attraction.
Every era produces comedy that imagines itself dangerous because it mentions sex, insults authority or places a respected cultural object beside a toilet. Most of it ages quickly. Rebellion becomes mannerism. Yesterday’s transgression starts resembling a novelty necktie found at an estate sale.
Boogievision certainly contains its share of humor that has crawled out of a damp 1970s basement carrying an expired membership card. Its idea of total freedom can be adolescent, grubby and cheerfully undiscriminating. It lunges at targets not because it has developed a coherent critique but because they happen to be within biting distance.
Yet this lack of discipline produces its own historical voltage.
The movie resembles a local television signal being interrupted by people who have spent all night drinking coffee, reading underground newspapers and arguing about whether civilization deserves to continue. It does not feel programmed. It feels transmitted.
The distinction between film and broadcast begins to rot.
Advertisements become sketches. Sketches become movie trailers. The movie within the movie interrupts the movie surrounding the movie. Political slogans, genre parodies and cheap erotic spectacle all enter the same collapsing media stream. You are no longer watching a production about a filmmaker. You are trapped inside the filmmaker’s damaged receiving equipment.
This makes Boogievision the wild card of the triple feature.
Hollywood Boulevard has a recognizable exploitation infrastructure. Even its madness reports for work. Scenes are shot, films are distributed and somebody eventually collects receipts.
Living in Oblivion, for all its disasters, belongs to a recognizable independent-film culture. Its characters have absorbed the language of artistic seriousness. They know what a meaningful close-up is supposed to look like. They have read interviews. They possess theories about motivation.
Boogievision occupies the illegal dumping ground between them.
It is not quite an exploitation-industry satire and not quite an independent-film lament. It is the fantasy that cinema can be seized by anybody with enough nerve, even when nerve is the only resource available.
The movie’s roughness becomes evidence.
You can feel the missing money. You can feel ideas being accepted because rejecting them would require the invention of replacements. You can feel scenes continuing after their original comic purpose has expired because the production has already rented the room.
But the defects are not external to the experience. They are the experience.
A polished satire of disreputable media must decide which side of the glass it occupies. It can parody trash, but it risks reassuring the viewer that this is cultured trash, carefully arranged by people who know better.
Boogievision offers no such protection.
It crawls directly into the dumpster and begins broadcasting.
This is why the film belongs in a psychotronic lineage more than a respectable comic one. Psychotronic cinema does not require conventional excellence. It requires presence. The movie must seem to have been made by particular people under particular pressures, using whatever peculiar energies could be captured before they evaporated.
The result may be ugly, uneven or embarrassing.
But it is not beige.
Boogievision is engagement without quality control. It is the opposite of content engineered to produce the correct amount of amusement at the correct interval. It does not guide the audience. It throws open a door and releases everything it has been keeping in the garage.
Some of it bites.
Some of it limps.
Some of it should probably not be touched without gloves.
But it is alive.
III. LIVING IN OBLIVION: THE MORNING AFTER THE REVOLUTION
By the time we reach Living in Oblivion, the outlaw dream has acquired a call sheet.
Tom DiCillo’s film follows an independent production across a succession of catastrophes involving malfunctioning equipment, unwanted noise, temperamental actors, crew resentment, romantic debris and the endless humiliation of trying to manufacture transcendence in a room full of people who need to use the bathroom.
Steve Buscemi plays director Nick Reve, a man whose authority exists only because everyone has temporarily agreed not to examine it too closely. Catherine Keener, Dermot Mulroney, James LeGros and the rest of the ensemble populate a filmmaking community in which every participant carries a private movie inside the movie being made. BFI credits DiCillo as writer-director and Buscemi, Keener and Mulroney among the principal cast.
DiCillo drew the film’s frustrations from his experiences making Johnny Suede. He later described Living in Oblivion as being about more than life on a set, extending its target to the entire independent production process. The comedy came not from detached cleverness but from accumulated anger, desperation and remembered foolishness.
That anger gives the movie its tenderness.
The film understands that independent cinema is filled with people performing versions of themselves. The director performs certainty. The actor performs vulnerability. The cinematographer performs indifference. The crew performs patience. Everyone is terrified that the production will discover how replaceable they are.
This is the great labor comedy hidden inside Living in Oblivion.
The movie is not really about artistic eccentricity. It is about a workplace in which everyone has been encouraged to interpret poor conditions as proof of devotion.
There is never enough time, money or sleep. The distinction between personal favor and professional obligation has been erased. People work because they believe in the film, because they love someone involved, because they hope the production will lead somewhere, or because leaving would mean admitting that the previous twelve hours accomplished nothing.
It is the gig economy with a light meter.
Yet the characters are not fools for caring.
That would make the film easy and cruel. DiCillo knows that the impossible promise of cinema is occasionally fulfilled. A performance suddenly becomes real. A light falls across a face in a way nobody planned. The camera records an emotion that did not exist during rehearsal. For thirty seconds, all the cable dragging, waiting, arguing and stale food acquire a purpose.
Then somebody walks into the shot.
Living in Oblivion recognizes artistic grace as a workplace event constantly threatened by workplace reality.
The movie’s structure repeatedly unsettles what we accept as real. Dreams open into waking life, only for waking life to reveal its own absurdity. The device is more than a clever representation of filmmaking chaos. It captures the psychological condition of a production.
A film set is already a dream maintained through administrative effort.
A wall is a room until the camera turns far enough to reveal that it ends. Night exists because the windows have been covered. Two actors repeat a private emotional catastrophe while fifteen people stand nearby moving equipment. Someone whispers for silence, and an entire temporary civilization holds its breath so a fictional moment can occur.
The director’s job is to protect the dream from evidence.
Nick cannot do it.
Every material object rebels. The microphone enters the frame. The smoke refuses to behave. The actors import their private crises into the scene. The crew members have ambitions of their own. Reality keeps appearing where it has not been cast.
The title is perfect because oblivion is both the filmmaker’s fear and desire.
Nick is terrified that the film will disappear. That all this work, embarrassment and pleading will produce nothing. No audience, no recognition, perhaps not even a finished print. The independent artist does not merely fear failure. He fears nonexistence.
At the same time, he longs to vanish into the work. To stop managing personalities and become absorbed in the image. To reach the state where there is no director, no exhausted crew and no humiliating financial arrangement. Only the movie.
But cinema will not let him forget the bodies required to manufacture it.
This is where Living in Oblivion becomes more generous than a simple industry satire. It repeatedly punctures artistic vanity, but it does not conclude that art is vanity. Nick is ridiculous. The actors are ridiculous. The crew is ridiculous.
The desire to make the film is not.
That distinction gives the comedy its ache.
IV. THREE AGES OF CHEAP CINEMA
Viewed together, the three films become an unofficial history of American low-budget filmmaking between the exhaustion of the old exploitation system and the institutional rise of independent cinema.
In Hollywood Boulevard, the production company is a factory operating by scavenger logic. Genres are merchandise, but the assembly line is porous enough for odd personalities to leave fingerprints on the product. The movie’s heroes are craftspeople, hustlers and performers who know that the picture is ridiculous but understand that ridiculous pictures still need to be made.
In Boogievision, the factory has broken apart. The filmmaker becomes a pirate broadcaster assembling a private version of mass media from jokes, obsessions and whatever footage can be held together. The industry is still visible, but primarily as something to parody, exploit or infiltrate.
By Living in Oblivion, independent film has developed its own professional mythology.
The artists no longer imagine themselves making disposable exploitation pictures. They are making personal cinema. Their ambitions are more refined, their language more serious and their suffering more self-aware.
The cables remain exactly as heavy.
That is the joke crossing all three movies.
The cultural status of the project changes. The physical labor does not.
A movie about nurses fighting jungle revolutionaries, a countercultural sketch-film eruption and a black-and-white independent drama all require people to arrive somewhere early, move objects, solve technical problems and endure personalities.
Cinema may be called art, trash, commerce, protest or personal expression.
At six in the morning, it is a job.
This does not diminish the art. It gives the art weight.
The official mythology of filmmaking concentrates power in the director, the star or the visionary producer. These movies keep revealing the crowd beyond the frame: editors, camera operators, sound people, performers, assistants and friends who agreed to help for reasons that may no longer make sense.
Every movie is haunted by the labor it has successfully concealed.
These three leave the ghosts visible.
V. THE RIGHT KIND OF FAILURE
There is a temptation to describe movies such as these as celebrations of failure.
They are not.
Failure ends the production.
These are celebrations of inadequate methods that somehow produce finished objects.
That is different.
The people in these films do not triumph by becoming more competent, better financed or properly integrated into the entertainment industry. They triumph by continuing after the sensible reasons to continue have disappeared.
This persistence is not automatically noble. Cinema contains plenty of tyrants who describe abuse as artistic necessity. The mythology of “getting the shot” has excused ruined bodies, stolen labor and behavior that would be recognized as monstrous in any ordinary workplace.
These films know that, too.
Their affection is never clean. The same environment that allows invention also enables exploitation. When budgets collapse, power does not disappear. It becomes informal, personal and harder to challenge. Everyone is family until somebody asks to be paid.
The psychotronic spirit lives inside that contradiction.
It loves movies without pretending the machinery is innocent.
It understands that art may emerge from bad systems without proving those systems were good. It can admire the strange flower without recommending the contaminated soil.
Hollywood Boulevard laughs because the exploitation machine is shameless.
Boogievision laughs because shame has ceased to function as a useful category.
Living in Oblivion laughs because shame is the only remaining renewable resource.
Together, they produce a comedy of impossible manufacture.
The camera is too expensive.
The location is unavailable.
The actors are unstable.
The script is unfinished.
The money is theoretical.
Action.
VI. THE MOVIE MUST BE MADE
The deepest pleasure of this triple feature is not merely watching filmmakers suffer.
It is watching a fragile collective object come into existence.
Movies are absurd undertakings. They require groups of people to coordinate technical labor around imaginary events. They are military operations organized in service of dreams. Their natural condition is collapse.
And still they appear.
A completed movie is evidence that reality briefly lost an argument.
That is what links the Corman backlot, James Bryan’s pirate broadcast and Tom DiCillo’s independent-film purgatory. None of them presents cinema as a perfect instrument controlled by a singular intelligence.
Cinema is a damaged communal machine.
Somebody knows how to operate the camera.
Somebody remembered an extension cord.
Somebody’s girlfriend knows a man with a warehouse.
Somebody can act.
Somebody believes he can act.
Somebody has brought sandwiches.
Somebody has misunderstood the entire project but arrived on time.
The machine stutters forward because no single person understands enough to recognize that it should not work.
That may be why movies about making movies so often become sentimental beneath their cynicism. The process is miserable, vain and financially irrational, but it requires a form of belief that modern life rarely permits.
For a few days or weeks, a group of people agrees that an imaginary event deserves physical reality.
They build the room.
They light the face.
They make the blood.
They wait for the sound to stop.
The camera rolls.
Later, perhaps much later, someone finds the result on a damaged tape, an out-of-print disc, a streaming service’s unlit corridor or the final surviving print at a psychotronic festival. The production’s immediate ambitions no longer matter. The reviews have yellowed. The money has vanished. The companies have changed names or disappeared.
But the movie remains.
Not immaculate.
Not respectable.
Not necessarily good.
Alive.
THE TRIPLE FEATURE
Hollywood Boulevard
We can make a movie out of anything.
Boogievision
We probably should not be allowed to make movies.
Living in Oblivion
Why did we ever decide to make a movie?
The answer is waiting in the projector booth, smoking beside the flammable stock:
Because the movie did not exist yet.
Comments
Post a Comment