Is this good satire?

Is this good satire?

Attached: 1657666922894.jpg (960x1440, 343.57K)

It's not good and it's not satire
John waters just wanted to make a disgusting film

It’s pure trash that only fags like Jay Bauman like

Yeah, I fucking hated it.
At first I thought it was sending up anti-gay hysteria so the premise was that the drag queen was actually quite innocent and harmless while the heterosexual couple across the road are complete degenerates and imprisoning people.
But then the drag queen starts sucking his "son"s cock? And then he murders the couple.

I don't really get it. It's just shock value smut. Why is it hailed as a cult classic?

It's utterly repulsive, so unless it's satire of the good and normal, and was only made as a cautionary tale of what not to bring into being, I don't think it has any right to exist.

>Like the underground films from which Waters drew inspiration, which provided a source of community for pre-Stonewall queer people, the film has been widely celebrated by the LGBT community[22] and has been described as "early gay agitprop filmmaking".[4] This, coupled with its unanimous popularity among queer theorists, has led to the film being considered "the most important queer film of all time".[23]
Just like you and me, bigot.

Heavy Filtration

>unless it's satire of the good and normal, and was only made as a cautionary tale of what not to bring into being
I unironically think it could be a bit of this. It's almost like John Waters is saying "you wanna see something fucked up? this is what gay culture is"

No, I actually sat through it. It's a disgusting shock movie made by a sick and twisted faggot.

Daring auter my ass.

Weird, if I were gay, I definitely would not want this shit associated with me, never mind heralded as the ultimate cinematic masterpiece of my people. I know homos who are actually cool people, and I'm sure if I showed them this garbage, they'd be repulsed and never think of it as 'theirs'.

It's deliberately edgy, retard. John Waters even says as much in the docu that's included with most editions of the film made after like 1995 and plays immediately after the credits roll.

>no mention of the ending where divine eats literal dog shit hot out of its asshole
>no mention of the extended anal prolapse scene at the party


Divine also sought to play up the edginess of the film because its intertwined with her drag career. I didn't even like the movie - it's annoying! - drag culture is gay and annoying! but you got fucking filtered.

You don't watch the movie, you just witness it.

nigga the thing you are railing against is honest about what it is

>"early gay agitprop filmmaking"

John waters made this movie with like $200 and the intent was to shock people. "ultimate cinematic masterpiece of my people"

>he thinks people moderate their taste based on whether it's embarrassing to their idpol groups

this is why fags get your goat so easily and so often, you are deliberately missing the point!

>no mention of the ending where divine eats literal dog shit hot out of its asshole
Didn't think it was worth mentioning.
>no mention of the extended anal prolapse scene at the party
I actually repressed that lol

The most shocking scene for me though is when two people fuck while pressing a live chicken between them.

This. I like that the movie exists because film needs some trash that you can hold up as an example. It doesn't work with Guinea Pig and shit like that where it's far too niche and unknown and it's clearly fetish material. So while Pink Flamingo is a bad movie and a bad example of shock, trash, and satire, I like that it can be THE example of that stuff for discussions and history and shit.

Also, totally unrelated question, but what did they do with the chicken they killed? Did they eat it after or just throw it out?

But I do not like being shocked unless there is reason behind it like, say, the rape scene in Priscilla Queen of the Desert.

Waters said that the cast ate it afterwards but I think he was just saying that to make a point.

>the rape scene in Priscilla Queen of the Desert.
There's a rape scene in that movie? What the fuck is wrong with Australians?

It's a satire, but not a critique (the two aren't always connected), about the bad taste that people developed during the economic boom of the '60s in any branch of modern culture.

Attempted. It's been forever since I've seen it, but I don't believe any clothes came off. I think the guy was saved while the other guy was just starting to take his belt off. But it's a very important scene, especially with the whiplash from how lighthearted the movie was just before.

Just reminded me of how there's a really intense attempted rape scene in Dumb and Dumber which is another road trip comedy movie that came out in 1994.