Festival of Fear, Rue Morgue Podcast

Episode 079: THE GORE-MET VOL. II

on August 18, 2012 | 17 Comments

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

The Grumpy Quatrogenarian returns for the scandalous conclusion of his Rue Morgue Podcast interrogation!

On this episode, The Gore-Met comes clean on his various filmmaking exploits, the future of his column and even his infamous remarks in connection with our I Spit On Your Grave episode from last year.

And if you’re planning to hit the Festival of Fear this weekend, don’t miss the Gore-met’s panel which for my money is the hottest ticket of the weekend: Gore, Girls & Godforsaken Cinema featuring Last Chance Lance, Aaron Von Lupton and John Bowen! Bring your own booze. Vomit bags will be provided!

It’s happening on Friday @ 3 p.m. in Room 709. (If you’re planning to attend, make sure you let a friend know where you’re going!)

Also, check out the Gore-met’s YOUTUBE channel HERE and make sure you viddy his debut short, Zombie Dawn.

Francis Ford Coppola was wrong when he predicted that the ‘Mozart of cinema’ would be a fat farm girl from Iowa. What he meant was, the next ‘Mozart of cinema’ would be a lumbering gore-hound from North York and his name is The Gore-met!

Also, as discussed on this episode, you can read the Gore-Met’s previously unpublished email interview with the late Sage Stallone HERE.

And for the Gore-met’s LUDOVICO FILM series on Vigilante flicks, check out the website HERE.

Endure.

:- FDBK

To have one of your letters read on an upcoming edition of the Rue Morgue Podcast, send an email to letters @ ruemorgueradio.com.

To listen to the episode, use the embedded player or click HERE
(or ‘Right Click’ to save to your hard drive).
To subscribe in iTunes, use the following URL:

http://www.ruemorgueradio.com/RMpodcast/rss.xml.

Tags: gore-met

Responses to Episode 079: THE GORE-MET VOL. II

  1. Kyle Reese says:

    The link to this episode is to the first volume, not the 2nd. Just a heads up!

  2. Dr. Gangrene says:

    I listened to part two of this interview only to hear you take Gore-met to task for his Women in Horror Month comments. I almost turned it off several times, as it was a little boring, but am glad I suffered through to the end to hear his less than genuine explanation for the comments on Women in Horror Month. Nice excuse – it was all a joke – but I don’t buy it. Perhaps that is partly true but there was plenty of real sentiment mixed in there, too.

    But then, as one of the horror hosts he casually dismissed as only making a name on the back of other’s work I’m sure Gore-met will equally dismiss these comments. What an ass. I research, write, film, and produce my own segments to wrap around these movies. I work hard to make my own segments entertaining and informative, and feel I serve a real purpose helping keep some of these films and the folks who made them alive for the younger generation of viewers who watch my show. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve met people who told me they grew up watching my show and appreciate what I do.

    If horror hosts aren’t your cup of tea that’s cool but don’t act like you’re somehow better than the work we do. You yourself mentioned in this podcast that the same can be said for critics and that is very true. In fact a case can be made that in addition to seeking fame on the back of other’s work critics are more vile, often times throwing in personal insults along with analysis of the movie. I recently wrote a blog post about my own struggles as a film critic and identifying some of the worst offenders in this regard: http://drgangrene.blogspot.com/2012/06/blogs-and-loathing-movie-critics.html

    So many “critics” are just loudmouths with a keyboard spouting off opinions (and everyone has them). But critics somehow believe their opinions are more valid than the people who actually put in hard work creating the material they’re lambasting. But unlike the type critics I identified I won’t make any personal insults about Mr. Gore-met. I will say this, however – give me Elvira anytime over him. She’s a beautiful, talented woman who is appreciated worldwide for her own body of work as a writer, producer, and actress, not merely for riding other’s coat tails.

    • The Gore-met says:

      I do hope you realise that calling me an ass, and the diatribe you linked to (which I’m obviously supposed to see myself in), is far more insulting than any of the comments I made on the podcast that you have taken umbrage with. I don’t have issues with ‘horror hosts’, it’s not my thing and I expressed why.

      I’ve written hundreds and hundreds of reviews for Rue Morgue over the last 12 1/2 years, and I can count on one hand, with fingers left over, the negative ones I’ve submitted. I’ve always seen my position as that of cheerleader, and I’ve championed a lot of foreign, independent, and underground films and filmmakers in print. I don’t use the magazine as platform to attack people who work in this industry. There’s enough of that from without.

      See, I’m not in this to make a name for myself, I’m actually quite happy to remain in the background. I put myself out there – podcasts, panels, screenings – when called upon, not because I’m eager to promote myself. I also have rather thick skin and am not terribly concerned with people who disagree with my opinions, because that’s all they are – one person’s opinion. Take it or leave it, I don’t care, but I’m not going to worry about sugarcoating everything I say so I don’t offend anyone. That’s dishonest.

      • Dr. Gangrene says:

        You know, you’re right, I shouldn’t called you an ass. I did post a follow-up to Stuart’s post below stating that, but he hasn’t approved it yet. My apologies there. That diatribe you mentioned was written about my own struggling issues regarding critics and writing reviews. None of that was written about you, personally, and I can’t honestly say I’m familiar enough with your work to know what you’ve written about, so I’ll take your word for it. I’ve read a few of your columns but, as you mentioned, you’ve been at it a long time.

        I do agree with your remark about dishonesty, and that is the tough part about reviews. Where does sugar coating end and being brutally honest to the point of insult begin? Not talking about you here, just generally speaking, because many, many reviewers don’t seem to differentiate or see the need to. Have you seen the documentary Heckler? It’s on Netflix right now and is amazing. Jamie Kennedy confronts some critics who have written nasty, vile stuff and most of them could care less, simply smirk in his face as he reads back these vicious comments. Really interesting documentary.

  3. Feedback says:

    http://drgangrene.blogspot.com/2012/06/blogs-and-loathing-movie-critics.html

    I actually read that blog before. I’ll read it on an upcoming show to figure out which category either Lance or I belong to! ;)

    Thanks for posting your thoughts. I’ll read some of this on a future show and respond therein.

    However…there is one glaring inconsistency in this comment.

    You stated, “unlike the type critics I identified I won’t make any personal insults about Mr. Gore-met.”

    But earlier in the comment you remarked, “What an ass.”

    Now…is it just me or does that seem contradictory? ;)

  4. Dr Gangrene says:

    Ah, yeah, you got me there. That one just slipped out. I should have re-read before hitting that post comment button. As Gore-Met said about Elvira, I’m sure he’s a nice person. But Elvira’s done way more than simply promote herself on the back of others.

  5. ROBERT BLACK says:

    Stuart,Debra Hill was invited to that dinner party as was Gale Anne Hurd. During the last Women In Horror month I was expecting profiles of those women as well as Ida Lupino who directed horror films and TV shows in the 1950s. All we received is a whole lot of self promotion and mediocre material. No mention of underrated up and coming female directors like Amanda Gusack or Ursula Dabrowsky. A disingenuous movement is a dishonest one.You’re correct Stuart,it needs a lot of work.

    • Feedback says:

      I agree with you, Mr. Black. When the time rolls around next year, I’ll try to pick a subject worthy of celebrating, someone who actually stuck their neck out and sacrificed something to help pave the way for future generations of women in the horror biz.

      I’m open to suggestions.

  6. The Gore-met says:

    I was going to reply to Dr. Gangrene’s response to me, but then I saw that there’s also a blog post about this on his site, so I’m going to address that too. I’m posting this below to keep things neat.

    Regarding my nom de plume – I explained where it came from in the podcast. Yeah, it’s a stupid name inspired by a ’70′s cooking show, but it’s no more or no less stupid than any other joke pseudonym. Mocking it is a cheap shot.

    I made comments about Women in Horror Month prior to the portion you transcribed that prefaced that. Let me boil those down and perhaps explain them better.

    I am cynical about Women in Horror because it was invented by ‘women in horror’, and they did it to promote websites, books and whatever projects they’re working on. That’s fine, but let’s be real for a moment – unless I missed the memo, there is no international governing body of horror fandom that sanctions these kinds of honorariums. As someone who’s been in this business for a long time, I see an underlying agenda and have difficulty taking this seriously.

    I hardly fear women. I’ve been married for 13 years and have a 10-year-old daughter. I’ve worked with lots of women my entire time in the business in all different capacities, and I even have female fans. I can say with utmost confidence that I’ve never made any one of them uncomfortable with my presence.

    Equality is achieved through practise, not lip service. I don’t beat my wife, but I don’t wear a white ribbon to prove that. I don’t oppress women in this business, and I don’t wring my hands about how they are perceived to be treated, particularly when I don’t have first-hand knowledge of this happening. I’m not suggesting that it doesn’t, but I don’t know it as truth to rail against it. There’s a pig-in-a-poke aspect to this I’m not comfortable buying at the word of complete strangers and at the expense of my credibility.

    I worked in bars and liquor retailers 20 years ago, I have seen and interceded in hairy domestic violence situations that ended with police with guns drawn – and now that I think about it I even stood down a jealous ex-husband with a criminal record for assault back in the ’80′s – so it’s not as if I’m oblivious to how shitty men can be to be women.

    So, if we’re going to have a Women in Horror Month and support Slut Walks, which are ostensibly to protest a sexualised and misogynistic view of women by society that came out of a situation I felt the reaction to was over-blown, why are we defending that same depiction of women on marginal DVD releases? If we’re not supposed to look at women dressed provocatively as sexual objects, why are they that on a DVD introducing obscure horror movies? I didn’t say why this was insulting in the podcast – it plays into the stereotype of the horror fan as a sexless, socially awkward, pubescent nerd who physically pleasures himself to these kinds of movies. I’m not that, past jokes aside, and it bothers me that a DVD distributor would brazenly try to sell me a movie on the tits of the ‘host’.

    That last statement is an example of what I think being ‘brutally honest’ comprises, much like the following ones.

    Is Elvira’s popularity based on the reverence she has for the films she introduces and the information she imparts on the film during her time on screen, or is it her plunging neckline and nylon-clad legs? What about the women on these other DVDs? Why the confusing message regarding this?

    Let me adress another specific issue – Lianne Spiderbaby appeared on a Fright Bytes YouTube episode that had her in garters, stockings, and a bustier prattling off basic trivia about Cannibal Holocaust while reclining on a bed. I didn’t fantasise this, the clip was deleted after I commented on it. Is this acceptable as legitimate genre journalism? If so, I can save myself a lot of time and effort by jumping into my bed with nothing but a Speedo and my video camera.

    If we’re going to keep throwing this in my face, then let’s have answers to what I see as some irreconcilable hypocrisies.

    Speaking of ingenuousness, you threw out that I made a comment about strip joints stripped of any context. The first time I mentioned it was during a prank phone call by Lance. I quickly figured out what was going on and played into it for the benefit of the podcast. When I expanded on that later, I specifically said I hadn’t been to a strip joint in 20 years and couldn’t believe that anyone in their 40′s went to them to ogle women, and that I didn’t go there to do that. If my wife wasn’t upset by that, why were you?

    And as for the comment about swag, can you not recognise facetiousness when you hear it? Irreverence was a hallmark of the Caustic Critics segment of Rue Morgue Radio way before the 25 or so I was on, and I’m not the worst offender to taste to ever appear on that, so you’re ignoring that history by criticising me for playing off it.

    I’m honestly not upset by any of this, but it’s apparent you know little of my work for the magazine or Rue Morgue Radio and are off-base on much of your criticisms.

    • Dr. Gangrene says:

      >Regarding my nom de plume – I explained where it came from in the podcast.

      I actually like you’re name, truth be told. It would, honestly, make for a great horror host persona; I could see a whole show built around a cannibal cook, using a rating scale of “ingredients” in that evening’s films, kind of a Joe Bob Briggs scale of culinary film ingredients. Would make a clever character/show.

      >I am cynical about Women in Horror because it was invented by ‘women in horror’…

      Was it created for promotional reasons or as a celebration of women in the field of horror? If these women hadn’t created the event it never would have happened, and it does raise awareness of many worthy projects and creators. The field really isn’t level. I think like everything else, truth be told, there are positive and negative aspects to it. As I mentioned when I interviewed Stuart recently, I have shied away from interviewing women during WIH month because then it almost seems like I’m only interviewing them because of that event, which is insulting to say the least. In a way that almost achieves the opposite of their desired effect, I guess.

      >If we’re not supposed to look at women dressed provocatively as sexual objects, why are they that on a DVD introducing obscure horror movies?

      That goes back to Stuart’s mention of sexualized imagery of women, an interesting topic. A woman can, of course, use her sexuality to her advantage. Doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with that, and I don’t think they can be expected not to, truth be told – nor should they. I don’t see a problem with it – if they have it and want to flaunt it more power to them. Are they sexual objects? Of course not. It’s up to the viewer to decide how he or she interprets what they see. We can only hope as a culture people become more enlightened and realize just because a woman dresses or looks a certain way doesn’t mean they “want it.” I know you know this (and certainly am not accusing you of that), I’m just furthering the discussion here.

      >Is Elvira’s popularity based on the reverence she has for the films she introduces and the information she imparts on the film during her time on screen, or is it her plunging neckline and nylon-clad legs? What about the women on these other DVDs? Why the confusing message regarding this?

      It is her entire gimmick that is appealing – her charm, sense of humor, looks, corny jokes. She isn’t and has never been a host who imparts great insight and tidbits about the movies, she is simply entertaining. And that’s okay, lots of male hosts approach from that same angle too, simply having fun with it. Her T&A definitely work to her advantage, no doubt. But it can work both ways, too… I saw an underwear commercial on TV last night with David Beckham in it, the camera lingering over his body dressed only in a pair of boxer briefs. Well, more power to him – lol. Kind of the same thing as the Victoria’s Secret ads. I don’t care for either one, honestly, but whatever. Sex sells, plain and simple. Always has, always will.

      >Let me adress another specific issue – Lianne Spiderbaby appeared on a Fright Bytes YouTube episode that had her in garters, stockings, and a bustier prattling off basic trivia about Cannibal Holocaust while reclining on a bed. I didn’t fantasise this, the clip was deleted after I commented on it. Is this acceptable as legitimate genre journalism?

      I don’t know Lianne Spiderbaby, never met her, but I would hazard a guess that she probably regretted that video for whatever reason. I don’t think that is her usual schtick, from what I’ve seen. I haven’t seen that video so can’t really comment on it.

      >If so, I can save myself a lot of time and effort by jumping into my bed with nothing but a Speedo and my video camera.

      Now that would be interesting! 

      >And as for the comment about swag, can you not recognise facetiousness when you hear it?

      No I did not, but have to admit I enjoy free swag myself, what little I’ve gotten over the years. My point is horror hosts certainly aren’t simply riding off the hard work of others, any more than you write your column simply for free swag. That’s cool if horror hosts are not your thing, no problem there. Certainly ain’t for everybody.

  7. Nick English says:

    I think the Gore-Met’s position on women in horror is that he doesn’t have a position. He simply doesn’t give a shit. Which is fine if you’re willing to stand behind that. But he wilted under Feedback’s heat lamp and tried to argue that not having a position IS a position.

    Feedback, you should do political interviews. I’d love to see some of these hypocritical bastards try to stand up to you!

  8. Curtis says:

    I dug the “Dirty Harry” theme at the end. I enjoyed the “Women in Horror Month” episodes this year, and didn’t have a problem with people promoting their own projects. I tend to agree that women don’t need to be treated differently than men (not to put words in your mouth Gore-Met). I greatly enjoyed the interview, it probed alot of issues.

  9. Mike Tank says:

    I only had one problem with the opinions expressed on this episode:

    Tobe Hooper IS a God! ;)

  10. ZIMERMAAAAAAAAAN!!! says:

    Well, this conversation lost some weight…hmmm

  11. FDBK says:

    Yes, it did. And nothing that we can’t live without.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>