The Evil Cameraman (1990) User Reviews

Doesn't even scratch the surface of what Kern can do/has done

[StevePulaski · 4/10 · 18 May 2015]

The Evil Cameraman is the first short by Richard Kern that has ever disappointed me. There's enough here to warrant a longer effort by Kern (think thirty minutes or so), but it never even takes off after eleven minutes. It concerns the titular character (Kern himself), who is known for kidnapping models and tying him up in his basement in addition to making them perform tasks as part of their job that they don't want to do.

Right off the bat, this short lacks the kind of wit Kern's work usually bears. Rather than infusing some kind of idea, attractive aesthetic, interesting juxtaposition, or a sense of style, Kern conjures up a disjointed narrative for a short that really should begin after the four minute mark and continue from there. The ending of the brief project even puzzles, as the entire thing seems to have been edited out of order.

Kern is much more capable than what The Evil Cameraman settles for; it's the first disappointment in a collection of mostly superb shorts.

Starring: Richard Kern, Jap Anne, Ice Queen, Little Linda, and Jacqui O. Directed by: Richard Kern.

Enough

[tedg · 8 April 2005]

Okay, I've now seen three Kern projects, enough to say that the concept behind his conceptual vision isn't worth the effort. This is a worthy subject, clearly not original. The only thing he could have brought to his exploration was adventuresome women subjects. His "Sewing Circle" is about the most extreme, and it is nowhere extreme enough to cross the threshold he sets.

The violent nature of viewing, the exploitation of borrowed emotion — particularly sexual — needs some nuance to penetrate the multilayered shells we've built to prevent ourselves from acknowledging the problem. Mere sledgehammers won't do. Try "Peeping Tom" instead.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

s'nuff said

[F Gwynplaine MacIntyre · 1/10 · 22 March 2003]

We've most of us heard the rumours about 'snuff' movies: pornographic films in which the sex culminates in footage of a woman being murdered. Supposedly, such films actually exist ... and supposedly the 'snuff' sequences are genuine footage of actual murders. Certainly, there are faked snuff films in which the sex is genuine but the violence is staged.

The underground filmmaker Richard Kern dealt obsessively with sex and violence, often combining the two. 'The Evil Cameraman' is the closest Kern ever came to making a snuff movie ... or at least, the closest he ever did so for public viewing. The title of this film is (by Kern's standards) bland and unimaginative, but it turns out to be a good title: by being blandly descriptive, it lends a documentary flavour to the action which is about to follow.

Director/scriptwriter Kern plays the central role on-camera as an obsessed young man, rather like the protagonist in 'Peeping Tom', who needs to film his sexual homicides in order to be aroused by them. Here, he ties up and tortures four different women, allowing his camera to linger over the images of the women as they struggle, bound and frightened.

What keeps this movie from being offensive is the fact that all of the violence and imprisonment is so clearly (and badly) faked. I imagined the bound and gagged 'victims' stopping midway through the shooting schedule to have a tea-break, then getting back into their bondage to finish the movie.

I suppose that no filmmaker dares to make a faked snuff movie that looks genuinely convincing, as there might be some unpleasant legal questions. Movies like 'The Evil Cameraman' serve a useful purpose, as they provide an outlet for sexually-marginalised people who might otherwise seek out genuine snuff movies (or something worse). Still, I personally disliked this film. I'll rate it one point out of 10.

Not art

[Horst_In_Translation · 2/10 · 19 August 2015]

This video is a perfect example of why filmmaker Richard Kern is a fairly controversial figure. Or is it really. Because I see nothing controversial here. Just the failed attempt to be controversial. There is no art in these 12 minutes. It's pretty repulsive material, offensive to woman and not creative at all. I am fairly certain that this film is only somewhat appreciated because of the guy who made it and because he actually may have managed a creative approach in other works. However, in this film from pretty much exactly 25 years ago, he did not manage in my opinion. And what is up with the actresses names. Looks like they have not been in anything else, but they all sound like characters out of a porn movie. It's a really perverted film, even it even deserves the description "film".

When I first saw this, I assumed it was a film sch...

[Puppetmister · 18 August 2003]

When I first saw this, I assumed it was a film school short (now I see it's not) because of its look-at-me sensationalism and finger-painted handling of sexual politics and issues of voyeurism. Yet another hypocritical assertion that the camera is essentially a tool of violation and penetration, depending on the viewer's desire to see transgressive imagery while distancing itself from the plebeian viewers it wants to accuse of such desires by being hermetically sealed within an own upscale New York dance studio. Ironic misogyny is still misogyny.