MCN Blogs
Kim Voynar

By Kim Voynar

Book Review: Crazy 4 Cult: It’s Not Just for L.A. Anymore

Shannon Bonatakis

If you live in LA, perhaps you’re familiar with the annual Crazy 4 Cult art show at Gallery 1988, wherein numerous very talented artists celebrate the magic and mystery of cult movies by creating some amazingly diverse art. From time to time, I get sent stuff to check out; when I like it and think it’s cool, I’ll write about it, and if I don’t, well, I don’t. In this instance, I was pretty blown away by both the content of this book, Gallery 1988’s Crazy4Cult Cult Movie Art, and by the quality of how the art within its covers is presented. If you’re into cult movies or collecting cult movie art or memorabilia, you are gonna dig the hell out of this book.

Shepard Fairey

Now I will warn you going in, if you think you’re going to sit down and flip through all 173 pages of art in this book in one sitting, you’ve got another think coming. There’s a LOT of art in this book, and much of it is intricately detailed and varied, and it’s almost overwhelming if you try to churn through the whole thing all at once. So be careful, you could hurt yourself.

Take your time, imbibe the adult beverage of your choice, and enjoy perusing its pages at your leisure. Or enjoy it with a few cult-movie-loving friends — preferably the kind of friends who won’t spill their beer all over it, because it’s a nice book and you want to keep it that way. And really, you shouldn’t be hanging out with the kind of people who would spill their beer all over an art book anyhow.

Marcus Schafer

P.S. The book includes an intro by Kevin Smith, whose movies have been featured in abundance in art work at the show. Also, we learn in the intro that Kevin Smith might or might not annually masturbate while thinking about guys. That’s a mental picture I personally did not need, but since it’s now burned into my brain, I figured I’d pass it on and share with the group. You’re welcome.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon