On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 19:56:50 GMT, mjello <non.compos@ment.is> wrote:
>It's not exactly what you're talking about, but "sleazy" was part of my
>vocabulary decades ago and it meant cheap, disreputable, sordid, shabby,
>etc., i.e., it had nothing to do with salacity or eroticism. Hotels could
>be sleazy. Some characters were sleazy. Movies were not sleazy, but they
>might be about sleazy characters in sleazy hotels.
Maybe a page out of 42nd street? The kind of movies that were shown
in 'sleazy' venues?
In Toronto we only had one theatre that showed the true 42nd sleaze
and all the other players were probably what would now be considered
as "Review Cinemas" in that they had four or five films showing in
continuous loops. Of those films one was usually a reasonable
offering, ie: I saw Logans Run four or five months after its initial
release, and then subsequently sleazier films followed the main
feature. The theatres were sleazy and most of the films were
exploitation so I suppose both media and venue fit your definition of
sleazy.
However your definition is correct in that 'sleazemovie' does not
exist. The films that initiated the grandfather group of sleazemovies
were exploitation/grindhouse. But as I indicated earlier that genre
is fast and quickly becoming an empty well as fewer and fewer original
material is available. So maybe for the group to continue existing it
needs to encompass more?
Ultimately people can post Donald Duck cartoons if they want as there
is no remedy for off-topic posting but it would probably not be the
worst thing to have some sort of guidelines.
|
|