AlexaMasi

For anyone interested, this movie was discussed in the context of horror on another of my favorite movie podcasts - The Faculty of Horror. It's discussed on an early episode (I think one of the first ones in the feed) but it's a great discussion!

I was sure I was gonna go with Blue Velvet, but after listening I actually changed my vote to Eraserhead. I definitely fell into the trap of Blue Velvet being more accessible, so I felt there was more to unpack. But Eraserhead offers a lot that overlaps with little else, especially in context of what's already in the canon.

This is maybe the only episode of the show so far where the choice could go either way and I'll still be happy. As many have admitted, both movies could easily fit into the canon. This said, I'm choosing to vote BOOGIE NIGHTS. I agree with probably 90% of Amy/Devin's notes on the film so I won't reiterate those points - but I do find it interesting that this movie really solidified what it means for someone to argue for an element of "fun" in the Canon, especially coming off the heels of the RE-ANIMATOR debate. The fun in BOOGIE NIGHTS transcends what it seemed like most people were pointing to as the fun of RE-ANIMATOR. Not to rehash the whole genre-film discussion, but it seems like the fun of RE-ANIMATOR is facilitated best and reaches its most positive crystallization when it is discussed and debated and ultimately revered by communities who are truly invested in understanding and studying the context of the genre, its history, etc. The more niche the conversation gets, and the more well-versed its participants are, the more fun the conversation gets (in my experience, at least). On the other hand, the fun of BOOGIE NIGHTS takes something that is already very masterfully executed in many respects and makes the movie more expansive in who it can reach and resonate with. The fun of a genre film sort of does the opposite, which for me drives it further from canon-material in certain senses. I also really agree with the notion that BOOGIE NIGHTS is actually a better representation of PTA's body of work than THERE WILL BE BLOOD on the whole. If the Canon acts almost as the ultimate survey course in film (which of course others may not feel that the canon could or should do this), BOOGIE NIGHTS is the movie that I think would inspire people to discover more from PTA and immediately bring them closer to understanding his style, ways of storytelling and developing characters, and other idiosyncratic components that in my mind make him one of the greatest filmmakers of his generation.

I'm actually pretty inclined to believe that Horror, in its broadest strokes, is quite mainstream. The subset of the genre and especially the specific temporal context RE-ANIMATOR occupies is more niche to me though. As you state, you don't consider yourself much of a horror fan. To my mind, that factor might actually make it easier for you want to put RE-ANIMATOR in the canon for all that is does accomplish. But, I think my point was that for anyone who is deeper into the genre probably has their own "indulgence" choice to swap it out for, for better or worse. As a horror fan, it is a groundbreaking moment when you watch something campy or seemingly pejorative or low-brow, as much of horror is deemed, and find such depth and rehabilitative qualities within it. Devin obviously found this in RE-ANIMATOR, but I think a lot of that is honestly somewhat coincidence, the serendipity of time and place (which Amy sort of points out). RE-ANIMATOR is worthy of such a realization, but I think this status makes it fun for other specifically horror fans, and perhaps even more niche subsets of those fans, to argue about which movie did that for them. Many of them accomplish the same things. Few of them would probably be worth throwing into the capital "C" Canon because they do not do enough to transcend this more narrowed (yet still awesome and rewarding and dear to my heart) conversation.

I guess I'm considering this a "soft no". Interestingly, this has been one of my favorite episodes of the Canon thus far, and I agreed with a lot of points from both sides. I think I may have actually enjoyed the conversation much more than I did the actual movie. On the one hand, this means that the movie has some significant repeat-value and fosters a healthy depth for the conversation surrounding it. On the other, I feel that all of the good elements of the pro-RE-ANIMATOR arguments were directly tied to the very reason FOR this episode--as indulgence. I feel that many horror and especially gore fans can all claim a somewhat more obscure or otherwise pejorative film that hits many of Devin's points. For me, Herschell Gordan Lewis' movies changed my perspective on gore at a crucial age and made me a much more dedicated horror fan. However, I'd be hard pressed to find apt opportunities to recommend RE-ANIMATOR or something like THE WIZARD OF GORE. I don't think they are canon material - rather they belong to the communities that indulge them, and are specifically coming from a more niche taste to indulge in the conversations surrounding them. For this reason, it made for a great episode no doubt. But the movie, on its own in my opinion, does not inherently bring that level of wonder, enthusiasm, depth, or influence.