mondo cinema and beyond 1960s — 1980s
neither/nor
foreword
neither/nor is True/False’s annual investigation of cinema that muddles the borders between fiction and documentary. It exists because history has largely ignored nonfiction cinema’s rich tradition of experimentation and formal ingenuity (for proof of this collective ignorance, consult all the high-profile articles suggesting we’re now in some newfangled ‘golden age of documentary’).
Just a few weeks after last year’s edition, which
focused on creative Polish nonfiction cinema of the late 20th century, we received a startling proposal in our inbox. Te formidable critic Nick Pinkerton asked us to consider an area of cinema that we had heretofore ignored: the Mondo movie, which is perhaps better known by its reductive moniker, ‘the shockumentary.’
When we read the first sentence of his pitch, we immediately thought of Faces of Death, the repugnant, formless snuff footage compilation that functioned as a rite of passage for many Gen X teenagers. But as Nick points out, many imaginative, gifted artists worked under the Mondo umbrella, and they found dextrous ways to fulfill the genre’s raison d’être —serving humanity’s desire for shocking and/or exotic material—while also lucidly delving into complicated, important subject matter, such as colonialism, gun control and mortality.
Tese filmmakers were regularly let down by their
distributors, who butchered the movies, retitled them and then promoted the work in inflammatory, racist and sexist ways. In his superlative essay, Nick explores this frequently maligned and misunderstood genre’s political origins and then analyzes several standout films. He persuasively argues for their continued relevance.
Tese days, in a bid to make an impact, philanthropists pump millions of dollars into jejune social issue documentaries that draw from the polite, dubious language of advertising. In Nick’s series, we find films approaching the same topics using the harsher, but more honest language of nonfiction cinema. Tey speak bluntly and intensely. Tey wade into dangerous territory and don’t let us, or themselves, off the hook. Tey rattle us and force a conversation. Tey’re problematic, and that’s not a problem.
It’s time to reclaim this shunned corner of film
history. We’re grateful to Nick for rolling up his sleeves, digging through the slag pile and schooling us on these idiosyncratic gems.
—chris boeckmann editor
3
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
