To consider Vincent A. Albarano’s look at SOV horror movies, Aesthetic Deviations: A Critical View of American Shot-on-Video Horror, 1984-1994, knowing what it’s not is the best starting point. As he makes clear from the outset, the paperback is neither a review guide nor a work of reference; by no means is it complete, restricted to a 10-year period.
The book’s subtitle wasn’t assembled for SEO purposes; Albarano has written a work of true scholarship, conceived as a thesis, which accounts for the use of words like “pugnacity,” “egalitarian” and “simulacrum.” It just so happens to study, in part, a horny ventriloquist’s dummy that looks like Rick James. (If your reluctance needs further calming, remember this one unassailable fact: Guys, it’s published by Headpress, K?)
After a brief history lesson on SOV’s start with such slashers as Blood Cult and Sledgehammer, Albarano combs through an overlooked, often spurned subgenre of “cinematic undesirables” in which “subtext is removed from the equation,” he writes. “They stick with the viewer despite their every wrong move. As a fan of these films, I’ve been puzzled by their very existence as much as I’m transfixed by their unique operations.”
Works from such backyard-and-basement moguls as Charles Pinion, J.R. Bookwalter, Carl J. Sukenick, Todd Cook and occasional punching bag Todd Sheets are examined. Other than the sheer range of titles covered, from the obvious to the unexpected, what I like most about Aesthetic Deviations is the author’s honesty; while he’s a fan of SOV, that doesn’t translate to slavish hyperbole. Instead, he’s unafraid to highlight both the uniqueness and misogyny of Chester N. Turner’s Black Devil Doll From Hell, praise the bravery of the Polonia Brothers’ Splatter Farm as he questions its anal-trauma fixation, or call out Gary P. Cohen’s Video Violence for reveling in the very thing it purports to vilify.
Although I didn’t realize until a footnote mentioned it, I’d read earlier drafts of two chapters in 2020, through Albarano’s one-shot zine on the topic, When Renting Is Not Enough (worth tracking down if you’d rather dip your toe before taking the full plunge). I’ll admit being skeptical of such a serious look at movies that “gain points,” per Stephen Thrower, “for being truly incoherent.” Yet like that lone issue of Albarano’s zine, the book that’s grown out of it is intelligent, thorough and, if you’ll grant it patience to make its case, accessible. —Rod Lott
I thought that both the book and this review were well written but promotion for the book was deceptive. It promises insight into many independent films from the nineties but he tended to lingudor on only three or four filmmakers. Almost 90 pages anslizi g Todd Sheets, JR Bookwsalter. There were many other films and filmmakers not covered that might have been just as relevant to cover. Or at least a comprehensive list of titles to do one’s own research on,
It was deja. U seeing reprints of several newspaper / magazine advertisements from original source material. Fairly obvious that he had used those publications as research for this book. But? Oddly didn’t give those publications the credit they deserved for documenting a very unique art form that would have gone unnoticed / become extinct.
Would have liked to have read more about James Stanger’s publication ‘Independent Video. He deserved more credit than given in Aesthetic Deviations.
Over all the book was an intesting psychological look into wild land of films reveling against tradition of big studio productions. Curious to see how the author will approach his next book.
Edward, regarding your wish the publications had been given more credit, Albarano rights (and writes!) that wrong with this blog post at Headpress: https://headpress.com/blog/2023/08/07/sov-inside-and-out-an-aesthetic-deviations-primer/
Also, I’m sure you already have Richard Mogg’s Analog Nightmares: The Shot On Video Horror Films of 1982-1995 book in your possession, but in case not, that’s the single most SOV-comprehensive list I’ve encountered.
Lastly, thanks for reading!