Is deplorable cinema really important or influential? Are films that touch upon unconventional, even repulsive, topics and themes really able to aid in the greater advancement of art? As Susan Sontag states in her essay Against Interpretations, the importance of a body of work is less in its form or convention, and more within the core message of the artwork. Pink Flamingos, a 1972 film directed by John Waters is an exceptional example of this philosophy. An early installation of the Water’s filth cinema movement that swept the underground film scene of the 1970s and 1980s, this film stands out as a discernably filthy, disgusting, and extremely difficult watch for most audience members. However, this preceding reputation of the film is the object of Pink Flamingos, a film that was intended to disturb and disgust. In Pink Flamingos, the audience is given the opportunity to view life through a lens rejected and ignored in mainstream media, as the subversion of traditional film expectations is an excellent example of Sontag’s thesis that the form of the artwork is more valuable than the subject matter, and that we should not view art as a direct representation of reality through what is being depicted.
Pink Flamingos stars the infamous drag queen Divine, informally known as Babs Johnson, of Baltimore, throughout a myriad of unsavory and occasionally horrific events. Divine lives in a trailer home just outside the city, with her mother Edie, her friend Cotton and her son Crackers. After a local newspaper crowns Divine with the much desired and sought after title of “The Filthiest Person Alive”, she begins to receive scrutiny from her competition, Connie and Raymond Marble. Connie and Raymond are the proud facilitators of a baby trafficking ring, where they illegally sell babies to solely lesbian couples. This couple are strong believers that they are those actually deserving of the “Filthiest Alive” title, and will do anything to take the label from Divine, including sending her a package containing feces and a crude note. The two parties battle each other for the title of “Filthiest Alive” throughout the entirety of the film, with Divine consistently winning. The Marbles make several attempts to dethrone her, with actions such as calling the cops on Divine’s birthday party. When the officers arrive, Divine hacks them all to death with her newly gifted meat cleaver. As revenge, she and her family travel to the Marble’s house, lick all their furniture to curse the couple, and free the women kept imprisoned by Connie and Raymond. Ultimately, the couple finalizes the battle by burning Divine’s trailer to the ground, resulting in Divine ordering their public trial and execution. The film concludes with a local news report interview starring Divine as she explains her politics, claiming “filth is her life” and proceeding to eat real dog feces, cementing her claim to the title “The Filthiest Person Alive” at the end of the film.
Within Susan Sontag’s Against Interpretations, she thoroughly discusses the impact of dilution of art’s meaning that the attempt to interpret and categorize artwork can have. The overinterpretation of a work creates a deficit in one’s ability to contextualize the meaning of the art in regards to its content and the world represented within the body of work, not the world that the audience inhabits. Sontag states that “to interpret is to impoverish, to deplete the world—in order to set up a shadow world of “meanings.” It is to turn the world into this world” (Sontag 7). In substantiation of Sontag’s claim, the film Pink Flamingos was created with the overt intent to confuse and disgust its audience, not to placate and to be understood. The film follows a peculiar and absurd plotline, its method of storytelling showing stark differences from the other films of this era. The connection between the events of Pink Flamingos and Sontag’s Against Interpretations, shines quite clearly, as is apparent that the form of the storyline of this film is quite bizarre, seeming to hold no true meaning with its theatrical, repulsive plotline. Hence, this film deviates strongly from the traditional film model and topics of the 1970s and therefore is a subversion of the film art form, which allows it to stand as a significantly more influential body of work. If this film followed the palatable conventions agreed upon by society, its true message would be lost. The primary goal of Pink Flamingos is to repulse those who align with the ideals of normality within modern society, it is intentionally bizarre, unbelievable, and unrealistic, as all of those aspects give it the power of complete self expression. Along with Sontag’s sentiments regarding the harmful nature of the overanalyzation of artwork, claiming this behavior “violates art” (Sontag 7), to attempt to analyze Pink Flamingos through a conventional lens would be a deficiency to the film and Waters’ message of “poor taste” and filth as timeless and equally important with the art world.
In addition to a peculiar and unique plotline, this film showcases several of the taboo topics of the 1970s through a very satirical lens. Pink Flamingos does not treat the traits of the characters, such as sexual and gender identity, mental illness, or disability, or their experiences, such as assault, poverty, and death as the sole defining traits of each individual. Instead, the film focuses on the normality that these “taboos” possess for someone who identifies with any of the aforementioned traits. Although they are occasionally used as the punchline of a joke, it is not done in an overtly offensive or disrespectful way. The intent of Pink Flamingos is to satirize and make light of the daily scrutiny queer, impoverished, and disabled individuals face based on preconceived biases and stereotypes. These traits and events are not meant to amuse the audience, but through the shock value they have with an audience, it becomes an act reclaiming the narrative. They are not romanticized or sugar-coated for an audience, and instead aim to make viewers just as uncomfortable as these experiences could be for a real individual. This can be, and often is, read as an offensive act. This connects to Sontag’s argument for the idea that interpretation can be a suffocating practice, stating that in some “cultural contexts, it is reactionary, impertinent, cowardly, stifling” (Sontag 4). In the case of Pink Flamingos, for one to interpret this film in the context of our reality, would be stifling, as it would restrict the film to the confines and expectations of the audience’s world, which distills the film down to merely a body of work that showcases the extreme levels of vile individuals can achieve, rather than viewing the film as a liberating act regarding self expression.
In Sontag’s essay, she argues that oftentimes, art is interpreted far too literally, and it is a truth that it is “assumed that a work of art is its content”(Sontag 2). In essence, she makes note of the overarching trend of interpreters to derive the message of the artwork in a far too literal sense. Waters is not telling his audience that he condones running a baby trafficking scheme or eating dog feces, he is satirizing the misinformed impressions that individuals have on people who fall into the categories of Hollywood transgressions, either within poverty, queer, or experiencing a landscape far from what might be considered “desirable” to a general audience. To interpret this film through only its exact content would result in a complete misreading, enforcing Sontag’s claim that there is some danger within interpretation and taking the art’s form to be perceived as reality.
As one can expect, the film Pink Flamingos was met with initially scathing criticism, both from the general public and from film critics, yet this widespread response only strengthens its relation to Sontag’s Against Interpretation. When the film was initially released, many struggled to interpret the true message of the film. Did this film have any true meaning, or was it just an unserious video project, made by a gaggle of individuals “under the influence of marijuana” (Bell), lucky enough to gain some traction? However, the film’s tagline seems to be instigating this sort of confusion, literally advertising the film as “an exercise in poor taste”, confirming that this film’s intention is to be hated and loved by the right groups, respectively. The critics and general public were offended by the film’s depiction of mental illness and queerness in such a satirical way. However, for those who were part of the underground film scene, of the groups represented, and the general outcasts of an otherwise prudish society loved the film, and continue to do so in modern times. The response from critics regarding Pink Flamingos demonstrates another relation to Sontag’s Against Interpretations, through its refusal to make art a consistently comfortable experience, or be required to be explainable or conventional for it to unify individuals or have appeal. Sontag states that “interpretation makes art manageable, conformable” (Sontag 5), and through Pink Flamingos’ motive to be made in poor taste, it resists interpretation because it resists conformity to traditional film conventions, combatting ideas of purity culture and social normalities.
Pink Flamingos (1972) unabashedly showcases that there is no explicit formula or method for art, and that sometimes the subversion or rejection of the “rules” of art is what makes a body of work impactful and significant. Sometimes the best way to interpret a film is just to enjoy watching it and to allow yourself to visit a world that is unrelatable and unsatisfactory. If this does not change, one can fear that rise in the acceptance of purity culture and adherence to social norms will essentially destroy all of this sort of expression of self and identity, even if it is filthy. Ultimately, individuals should resist from attempting so painstakingly to make every artwork fit a specific narrative and reject the piece of work if it does not. Overanalyzing can result in death of enjoyment of a film, and a film like this is meant to be laughed at and enjoyed in its vulgarity.
References:
Bell, Keaton. “John Waters on ‘Pink Flamingos,’ Divine, and 50 Years of Filth.” Vogue, Vogue, 30 June 2022, www.vogue.com/article/john-waters-pink-flamingos-50-years-of-filth.
“Pink Flamingos.” Dreamland, 1972, Accessed 27 Oct. 2025.
Sontag, Susan. “Against Interpretation.” Against Interpretation, Picador, 1966, pp. 1-10.