Multiple Maniacs (1970)

 

Midway through his 1970 tour de "farce" Multiple Maniacs, John Waters -- the filmmaker who gave the term "bad taste" a bad name and made millions doing it -- stages a fantasy passage that juxtaposes the crucifixion with a sexual encounter in a church pew.

The scene features Waters' regular cast members Divine and Mink Stole and is clearly meant to push every button an audience member might have about religion, especially Catholicism, and sex, especially that between members of the same sex, in this case two women -- which itself is being parodied because Divine (1945-1988) was an out gay man who almost always appeared in drag in Waters' pictures.

The producer/director/writer/editor no doubt called up a bunch of his friends in Baltimore and asked them if they would like to be in a movie. He couldn't pay them but he might be able to scrounge up some money for cans of tuna and Wonder bread and maybe some pot and coke. They'd have to be cool with profanity and nudity and some political commentary. The "maniacs" who said "yes" are the main cast members.

David Lochary, Mary Vivian Pearce, Edith Massey and Rick Morrow are among the Waters regulars appearing as sideshow "freaks" who perform acts of gross indecency -- licking telephones? -- for the neighborhood squares, who gather in the tents and watch transfixed, carping at the "perverts." At the end of the show, Divine robs the audience of their valuables, and she and the "freaks" skip town with the loot. On to their next caper.

But Madam Divine, a narcissistic diva, is showing signs of paranoia and growing penchant for violence. Rather than just stealing from the suckers, she now wants to kill them. She's going mad and everyone around her is in danger. Eventually, Divine snaps and turns into a remorseless marauder.

Yes, it's absurd, or is it?

To cavil about the film's amateurish quality -- no budget for sets and props or to pay actors who could deliver a professional reading of their lines -- might be missing the point. Or, maybe the fact this picture -- one of Waters' early features -- IS so cheap and bizarre and gross IS the point. Its existence was and is a comment on cultural and cinematic norms, and that, children, seems to be Waters' intention here.