With any art form comes inevitable public frenzy. Film is definitely not exempt. Every year, a handful of films come out that spark discussion among film circles and the general public for how simply outrageous they are, whether it be for controversy or innovation, at times both. However, there's a third subcategory of outrageous films that remains a curious part of pop culture and the relationship between film and audience.
In 2013, the channel Syfy released a TV movie titled "Sharknado". The premise is as silly as the title: a water spout (not a tornado) sucks up a number of sharks and sends them flying over a Los Angeles, wreaking all sorts of havoc. The acting is hammy, the effects terrible and the story beyond laughable. So how did it come to be so popular? Was it a stroke of dumb luck? Or was it planned all along?
The answer happens to be a bit of both.
Not An Unusual Gem
Syfy produces a number of B-grade sci-fi movies every year (such as "Sharktopus", "Pirahnaconda" and "Dinocroc"). So, "Sharknado" becoming the one breakout hit out of all of them did happen to be because of luck. The reason why will probably remain unknown - perhaps “Sharknado” is the catchier moniker, or maybe the concept of a natural disaster crossed with an animal with a bad reputation is better than an animal with a bad reputation crossed with another animal with a bad reputation.
Then of course comes the big question - how did "Sharknado" get to be so big? How could something so awful become so popular? And that’s precisely it.
To the general public, movies of this magnitude of awfulness aren’t commonly witnessed. People ask one another, “Just how was a movie like this made?” so many times that the movies becomes well-known just for how bad it is.
What people don’t realize, however, is that by marveling over its mediocrity, and then its ensuing sequels (the fourth one was released at the end of July this year), they have fulfilled the purpose of movies like "Sharknado" existing.
The Reason for Atrocity
A large number of films in existence fall under the exploitation film umbrella. All that is required to be labeled an exploitation film is that the movie exploits a controversial subject, specific market or audience, or common trend, sometimes in order to make a profit. Exploitation films cover a wide spectrum of subgenres, the most well known being slasher films. The possibilities, however, are endless - Naziplotation, sexploitation and even nunspolitation are just a few of the categories of exploitation films.
Because of it, most exploitation movies are poorly made but have ridiculous sounding titles or subject matter to gain attention. This isn’t a new trend, however. The existence of exploitation films is about as long as the existence of film itself -- one of the most well known and oldest exploitation films is a 1936 movie about the dangers of recreational marijuana usage entitled "Reefer Madness".
Many exploitation films manage to draw in cult followings because of the low quality filmmaking that went into them. In the 80s and 90s, the TV show "Mystery Science Theater 3000" drew attention to these same films by poking fun at them. "Mystery Science Theater 3000" boosted public awareness and fan bases for the movies shown (such as "Manos: The Hands of Fate" and "Santa Claus Conquers The Martians") while managing to garner a cult following itself.
The enjoyment of exploitation films is ironic in nature; something that clearly should not be enjoyed becomes a quasi-religion for some individuals. And so is the case with "Sharknado" -- or so it appears.
Exploiting Exploitation
It didn’t take long for exploitation films to become self aware. The TV movies of Syfy are a perfect example of it. No more is exploitation chained down to simpleminded cash grabs or genuine ignorance. Because it has become popular to enjoy exploitation films, the next step for exploitation filmmakers is to exploit exploitation films.
Wait, what?
What separates "Sharknado" and other Syfy movies is how painfully aware they are of the fact that they’re awful movies. After all, Syfy makes multiple movies like this every year, and it’s because they’re cheap and easy to make, and to the average person who doesn’t expose their self to exploitation films on the daily, it’s an utter enigma as to how these movies are made.
The unaware public immediately ate "Sharknado" up, which only signaled for the filmmakers to make more "Sharknado" films, all for the profit. The question of How are they still making these movies when they’re terrible? is the greatest asset to the series’ profit. These filmmakers know all too well that the public wants unbelievably bad movies, and so they make them as believably unbelievable as possible.
Sharknado Shame?
To the pretentious exploitation film fans (who doesn’t love a dose of irony regarding ironic enjoyment?), movies like "Sharknado" are avoided because the incognizant, preposterous nature of many exploitation films has been replaced by the cold presence of greed preying on an unsuspecting audience. However, the argument can be made too that the essence of exploitation films has always partly been that, and so it makes complete sense to enjoy it, or that "Sharknado"’s self awareness is comedic and tongue-in-cheek in nature, avaricious intentions aside.
Regardless of opposing opinions on the matter, one thing remains certain -- Fin chainsawing a shark in half was one of the best scenes in cinematic history. So much that it was repeated again in the first sequel.
