From https://www.grindhousedatabase.com/ images/Blood_Freak_poster.jpg |
Directors: Brad F. Grinter and Steve Hawkes
Screenplay: Brad F. Grinter and
Steve Hawkes
Cast: Steve Hawkes as Herschell;
Dana Cullivan as Ann; Heather Hughes as Angel
A Night of a Thousand Horror (Movies) #151
[Spoilers Throughout]
Synopsis: Herschell (Steve
Hawkes) is a God fearing, everyday Joe and former Vietnam vet who just
happens to be tempted by Ann (Dana
Cullivan), the beautiful pot smoker who is less interested in the Bible
than he or her sister Angel (Heather
Hughes) is. Her attempt to bring
Herschell closer to her, with a special extra addictive narcotic, backfires as
it mixes with an experimental chemical used at his new turkey factory job,
asked to eat a sample turkey. The result leads to him become a half-man,
half-turkey who has to feed on the blood of freshly lit up drug addicts.
"We live in a world subject to constant change. Every
second, of every minute, of every hour, changes take place. These changes are
perhaps invisible to us, because our level of awareness is limited..." If there was a statement
appropriate to borrow as the blog's mantra, co-director/co-writer Brad F. Grinter in his constant Greek
chorus narration within the film has material like this to work with. Even scrapping
the bottom of the barrel as I do here, it's either coincidence or a universal
thread that connects everything in art, where even z-grade material like Blood Freak speaks the same language of
debating one's rational perception of reality. Especially when F. Grinter himself, eventually on an
anti-drug and anti-chemical rant, having smoked throughout the filming of these
scenes, starts to cough his lungs out to such a violent extent he cannot
continue, the sort of legitimately uncomfortable moments most films would not
include in the final print but he must've been stuck with, his black tar lunged
retching adding to the strange circumstances of his conspiracy/environmental monologues.
The real weirdness to Blood Freak is not its reputation as a
bizarre Christian anti-drug splatter movie but really its whole existence and
what the director-screenwriters were trying to create here. These monologues,
honestly, are the only truly weird moments of Blood Freak because they feel like they're directly from its
co-creator's mind. The rest is far from the bizarre film I have read it to
be. You have to wait almost an hour for
any gore, and baring one gristly leg removal involving an amputee actor and a
prop table saw, most of it is generic neck slitting with the screaming looped
for so long one of my relatives asked what I was watching from the other room. The
anti-drug message is like any older (weirder) anti-drug films. And there's
barely any truly Christian message to the material. Yes, there's a half-turkey
man on his knees praying for salvation, there's not even scripture quotes and
only the outline of redemption through Christianity. In fact I have to consider
Blood Freak's reputation as a weird
film really only comes from sceptics and atheists mocking its contrived take on
faith.
That does need a tangent. Regardless
of my own faith, spiritually inclined Agnostic who has never had resentment to Christianity
as a belief system, I find especially reading some of the reviews of Blood Freak online really problematic
for how snarky they are, an elitism that is compounded by the fact I seriously
doubt anyone watched Blood Freak
until Something Weird Video released
it. Even a more infamous example of this type of seventies self produced
Christian cinema - those produced by Baptist
minister Estus Pirkle like If Footmen Tire, What Will Horses Do?
(1971) - feel like the odd sideshows you cannot argue a whole nation's or
whole world's Christian views on, like evaluating an entire zoo based on just
the howler monkeys. The kind of films which are frankly used to depict American
Christians like a sideshow freak show when its significantly more diverse than
this, from The Passion of the Christ
(2004) to Pacific International Entertainment releases, make some of these
reviews a glib view in dire need of more focused one or just accepting the bizarre
existence of a pro-Christian turkey-man premise that doesn't live up to that
sentence's promise. Holy Ghost People
(1967), a document of real American Christianity, this is not and its
suspect what made a monster splatter movie the right idea to convince people
off drugs. It's likely an excuse just to cash-in on the Christian productions
of the time. but for every Church that might've booked this to screen, there's
countless ones back in the seventies who'd looked at the distributor like they
were insane.
From http://www.agonybooth.com/wp-content /uploads/2016/05/splash_780-21-720x340.jpg |
It's far more interesting for me as an extreme example of American independent cinema of the period, one of the least defendable but still strangely sympathetic. It certainly was the case lead star/co-writer/co-director Steve Hawkes only contributed to the film for the money, paying off medical bills for a severe burn incident on a Spanish Tarzan film. F. Grinter I have no idea on in terms of his idea behind the film baring the fact he had Veronica Lake in her last role trying to preserve Hitler's body. Its real claim to fame is the failed decision to create a premise from three different areas of independent cinema from before and around its time. Anti-drug films were around at least from the thirties. Splatter films, which started in the sixties from Herschell Gordon Lewis, ironic considering main character is also called Herschell. And then the Christian film, which have been around in American cinema since the medium's beginning. This mix comes to us thanks to prolificacy of regional productions, still with us in the modern day, but with an advantage that you could still have celluloid film rather than cheap digital to film these oddities on back in the day. I've hesitated from speaking of the film in more detail yet as, to now use a cooking analogy, this is what happens when one uses stale ingredients and there's not even enough to reach the required weights needed for the final product. As a drug warning, it saddled against its turkey monster plot, adding absurdity before you get to the horrible image of Brad F. Grinter nearly dying from his coughing fit. The gore only comes into the last act, which is a long wait with the film's wooden acting and slow pace. The religious aspect is not that impactful unless just to be seen as a joke, which is not enough in itself and problematic as mentioned above.
With that last sentence in mind,
with all the failure that is Blood Freak,
left out in the Florida sun for too long, its compelling for me for the reason
I'm watching these American exploitation films now. Feeling more like a dated
exploitation movie dragged kicking and screaming into the seventies with bolted
on gore and flares, I've never been interested in gore or sleaze but how with these
films they're creators are clearly replicating the old Hollywood films of
yesteryear but with budgets smaller than even the poverty row features. Most of
them are the most threadbare of melodrama or old pulp genre if you examine them
closely, this one definitely the melodramatic here. There's humour in the papier-mâché turkey head Herschell
eventually ends up wearing but what's more compelling is how, even before he
starts grabbing people just after they've taken drugs (from weed to heroine) to
bleed out, Herschell is treated as a victim of a horrible accident. Ann
completely pushes Angel off to the side as she becomes his love interest, trying
to rehabilitate him, even having a dialogue sequence where she wonders whether she
would ever marry with him looking like this or how the children will look.
Whilst it follows a template of
redemption that's stereotypical, it also means compared to other anti-drug
films from before like Reefer Madness (1936)
and Alice in Acidland (1969) this is
so much more sympathetic, imagining Herschell as an already damaged war vet whose
medical prescription turned to illegal drugs, and Ann after her severe mistakes
redeeming herself, the pair becoming a happy couple. People will scoff with how
contrived it is, but consider how absurd and cruel Reefer Madness was for its characters just smoking pot, Blood Freak is surprisingly humane for
a contrived message movie. The fact Herschell's turkey man transformation is
revelled just to be a dream caused by the mixing of the wrong chemicals is
actually to the film's favour. Not only does it led to the only technically
well made and inspired moment - which unfortunately means an actual turkey's
head being lopped off off-camera, but with the surreal suggestion of Herschell
being killed and eaten for Thanksgiving - but it emphasises a sense of redemption.
When even this z-grade mess can have a heart it inexplicably brings out some
sincerity even to something as hopeless as this, as the creators could've
easily had a hellfire and brimstone ending. It begs the idea that such a folly
like Blood Freak probably is a better snapshot of its creators' minds than
anything remotely so-bad-it's-good, too sluggish and unrewarding expect for
this.
Abstract Spectrum: Psychotronic/Weird
Abstract Rating (High/Medium/Low/None): None
Personal Opinion:
If it sounds absurd to find slivers
of sincerity in pure exploitation, that's because Blood Freak is the type of American indie cinema where it's strange
creation forces one to think where it came from. Too normal to be truly strange,
next to other oddities dug up by the likes of Something Weird Video, but too weird in premise to have sanely been
show at churches. Instead - for a Christian splatter film not dogmatic enough,
nor gory enough - I found more reward in the film for being a bizarre
hodgepodge. For others who don't normally watch these films, just avoid.
From http://monsterhuntermoviereviews.com/wp-content /uploads/2014/03/Blood-Freak-3.jpg |
If you think only atheists think this is a weird film you're nuts. This thing makes NO sense. A man with a turkey head, why? Turkey snuff scenes? Looped screaming? Endless scenes of talking? The plot of minor league scientists creating a special solution that turns the guy into said turkey headed monster? Pure silliness.
ReplyDeleteThis review was from four years ago, which is a long time ago for me and with many changes transpiring in my writings. Looking through it, there are things I would immediately re-write and clarify even just glancing through it.
DeleteA lot of the film's build up in reputation influenced the review, so I was probably disappointed it was not as strange as it was supposedly was. In spite of it having, yes, a legitimately bizarre premise, back then it was probably coming from not finding scenes of endless talking that weird, or that I was expecting far weirder than this, to which I have over the years after still seen far stranger entities within just cult cinema. Premise is not enough sometimes for my own personal weird of bizarre, and Blood Freak was frankly a disappointment back when I covered it then.
Nowadays, if I was to revisit it, I would probably find the thing is bizarre regardless and emphasis that fact. Yes, a man who develops into a paper mâché headed turkey monster is legitimately weird. The atheist line in the review would also be jettisoned nowadays, but I would still keep in the comments that 1) this feels a weird contrivance to have the religious moments in the film, and 2) as much of this film's reputation when I learnt of it felt like mocking its contrived form of religious comment for cheap laughs. I would definitely make it a hell of a lot more graceful nowadays, and remove half the stuff for another review, of how people snarkily mock the curious Christian films from this era rather than dissect them, for a more appropriate choice of title. Something like If Footmen Tire, What Will Horses Do? (1971) would have been a much more appropriate choice and definitely an even weirder film than Blood Freak.