Also, its important to note that B films were bought before even being screened to theatres, so therefore the "quality" of the film went unseen. This clearly presented yet another unique opportunity for B filmmakers to make their films more how they wanted.
Most at the time regarded the B features as the "lower half" of the double feature package and critics called these films trashy and unimportant as compared to their A-feature counterparts. Indeed, the qualities of the films were hardly considered by serious film critics until many years later.
These critics included Manny Farber, Todd McCarthy, and Charles Flynn. They all spoke on behalf of the b-film saying that these movies were interesting works of art that reflected the entire process of making films in a Hollywood studio system (Jacobs, pg. 152).
The mainstream Hollywood movies produced in the studio system at the time were and have continued to maintain large budgets, special effects, and the drawing power of stars, some critics would say at the cost of creative freedom. With the great power of monetary resources to make movies, comes great responsibility to deliver a good that will recoup the monetary investment made by the studio. While most A movies consisted of following a pattern of professionalism in its production, the B films were opposite in nature.
The quick natured spirit of making B movies meant a more improvisational story telling approach. Many times, the plots of B-films were far fetched, and the dialogue seemed almost improvised at times. This could be a source of much entertaining and spontaneous dialogue.
So how was it that these A-film features were regarded as superior works of art? It seemed that B films were simply less concerned with gaining critical respect.
This often times lent the filmmakers a certain air of freedom where "anything goes". Despite the freewheeling nature of making a B movie, there still rose many sub genres within the category of B-film.
It wasn't until the 1970s that many French film critics began to wonder if the B-filmmakers and lower budget filmmakers were not in fact more auteurs than their respected A-film counterparts. In 1952, critic Manny Farber recognized in Blame the Audience that B films were often times less pretentious and more spontaneous and fun. Freed from economic constraints the box-office success was not the main priority (Taves, pg. 45).
The B-film had a unique position to live down, in that the delivery, setting, and context of these films helped to continue the idea that it was merely "an extra attraction" not capable of standing on its own as a piece of work. The question arises: who exactly should decide whether a film is part of "high culture" or "low culture" or in this case an A or B film?
When Grindhouse came along last year, it rocked the movie industry the way Punk Rock rocked the music industry. By creating two-kick ass, bad films free of pretension, Quentin Tarentino and Robert Rodriguez shook up the stale, spineless movie industry much in the way punk rock rocked the music industry in the late 70's. They turned to the past for inspiration. I'll be a past that many had forgotten ever existed.
As a movie fan the thing I dislike the most about movies today is the extreme attention paid to production and detail. My favorite films all have one thing in common, it's apparent that the director had unadulterated fun while making the film. To me that's the only way. Where the director can capture spontaneity by having that little boy spirit, grabbing life by the horns, and directing it. Here's to the B movie and Grindhouse.