Gas! -Or- It Became Necessary to Destroy the World in Order to Save It.

This is the film that Roger Corman says was his final straw with AIP. After mildly editing WILD ANGELS and THE TRIP, their virtual elimination of "God" and the obliteration of the original ending led him to form New World Pictures.

Seeing this film at the American Cinemateque in a striking new print shows both its virtues as a one-of-a-kind (well, at least for anybody BUT Corman!) oddity as well as a failed attempt at counter-culture comedy. It's hard to see how even the original Director's Cut (if it exists at all) would really be that much of an improvement. What is on the screen is still probably about 90% of what Corman shot, and it's a scattershot affair. The Cinematography and Music stand out, as well as bits of the acting, particularly by Elaine Giftos.

Roger Corman spoke after the Cinemateque screening.

Corman said that he hadn't seen the movie since its release in 1970. It was edited before its theatrical release by AIP. Most significantly was the almost complete elimination of the voice of "God". Corman speculated that since AIP had gone public (stock market) around that time, that they were concerned that the "Jewish comic"-type voice would be considered sacriligious! Then, AIP cut the most elaborate shot in the entire film. The original ending! Elaine Giftos and Robert Corff were to "walk off into the sunset in the most cliched ending possible." This was shot in a big panaroma shot "with marching bands and the whole cast included." Corman said that it STILL bothers him that as released, the film "has no ending."

Roger Corman's Gas-s-s-s, his final film as director for AIP, is dated (and probably even was for the period it got released), but somehow it's almost part of its charm. It's an irreverent comedy about a noxious gas that wipes out everybody- at least in the US much as we can figure- who's over the age of 25. Party-time! In what appears to be, in the premise, as a slight twist on Corman's own Last Woman on Earth, it's an epic of low-budget proportions, a rampant fiasco of kids in hippie-wear (or not as case turns out) and the Darwinian struggles that take place as the roughnecks, jocks and bikers-on-country-clubs face off against those darn 'commie-anarchists'. Certainly a good premise indeed, at least for those who love the exploitation fare of the period (myself counted, even as I'm from after that era).

While it might be one of Corman's (intentionally) funnier pictures, there's a nagging feeling that something's not totally there. It is cheap, it is slapdash, it's episodic. The problem, as with some of Corman's other movies, is that a little more effort would make something even more interesting. If there was, for example, another snappy and sharp writer alongside George Armitage, who could whip the script into a tight and awesome shape, it could even be one of the great exploitation films. As it stands, it's merely OK overall. Luckily the good tries to outweigh the bad, which is that there are some really, actually clever one-liners ("Hey, we all have our own inconsistencies, that doesn't stop the revolution," to "Drop that chloride, you commie anarchist!") and seeing the biker country-clubbers and the God lightning bolt climax.

Best of all is to see a running-gag in-joke for Corman- probably more than one, actually. The first is more obvious, and laugh-out-loud, which is a biker Edgar Allen Poe, who just shows up here and there like some sage wise-man (who is, of course, not over 25) with his wife and occasional raven on his shoulder spouting garbled quotes. The second is a little more subtle, which seems to be a play on his film the Trip, as in the psychedelic-type scenes (i.e. dancing to Country Joe and the Fish) with the camera zooming in and out fast, lots of hand-held, etc). Corman's gone through this all before, so it has to be questioned: how much of this is tongue in cheek, and how much is just almost shoddy film-making? Can't be sure. At least there was consistent chuckling to be had, especially at seeing a young Bud Cort in a cowboy hat, and, of all people, Talia Shire!

I think if you are into the sixties kind of thing, as I am, you are obligated to waste about 80 minutes of your life watching this barely watchable trainwreck. The saving graces of this oddity include a surprisingly apt social commentary on sixties values along with a number of relatively well known actors caught in early (and embarrassing) footage. It's as if the producers of Laugh-In sat down and decided to write a full length film, covering all the high points (and more) of the issues between the flower children and the establishment, then put it in the hands of a couple of hippies and gave them about a $10,000 budget to complete it. Hardly a classic, but in its own way it does capture how truly strange that time was, the silliness, the over-idealism, and the uptightness of the establishment. Clearly not for everyone.

Impossible to say how Roger Corman's attempt at a loose kaleidoscopic comedy-satire in the Richard Lester vein would have turned out had not American International Pictures re-edited it against his wishes. He left the studio after 15 years with them after this.

The script is decidedly weak, a common Corman failing, full of potentially intriguing, half-formed ideas that are never realised. Meanwhile the cast of unknowns never get any real chance to build up their characters into anything sympathetic or likable. It's as if the director isn't really interested in them.

It's an adequately stylish, and zippy enough production. But like much of Corman's later stuff for AIP, it also has an air of opportunism about it, riding the post-Easy Rider youth-counterculture boom while having only an outsider's empathy with it (Corman was 44 when he made this).

Still, if nothing else he does get a chance to say an ironic farewell to Edgar Allan Poe (the author of Corman's earlier celebrated cult film series), who here appears in period dress riding a Harley Davidson with a stuffed raven on his shoulder!

A gas is let loose upon the world that kills anyone over twenty-five years old.

Coming from Roger Corman, I wanted to like this, but it never seemed coherent and I think not enough thought was put into a plot or story arc. There are things I enjoyed, such as the permit guy with the whip and how this was an alternate version of "Logan's Run" (this film came out after the novel but before the film, so whether or not there was an influence, I have no idea).

There was a problem in that almost no one was under 18. This seemed to be teenagers and young adults cutting loose, but who was watching all the infants?