The One-sided Beef between Paul Schrader and Roger Corman: What Exactly Happened?

The era of the New Hollywood filmmakers is still not over yet. They're still in the spotlight: in the main competition of this year's Cannes Film Festival, two New Hollywood legends bring their new works to the Croisette: Francis Ford Coppola with his Megalopolis, and Paul Schrader with his Oh, Canada.

However, in recent years, New Hollywood filmmakers have frequently been involved in heated debates. For example, Martin Scorsese's debates with Marvel filmmakers and fans have lasted for three or four years. Recently, Paul Schrader has ignited another argument, only he's firing at a filmmaker of his generation who doesn't have a chance to fire back anymore.

Schrader's target is the newly deceased legendary Hollywood director and producer Roger Corman, who specialized in making B-movies and in scouting new talent. His B-movie workshop, AIP (American International Pictures), has fed Hollywood an array of Class-A talents including names like Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, James Cameron, Jonathan Demme, Jack Nicholson, Ron Howard, Peter Bogdanovich, Dennis Hopper, Robert De Niro.

But Schrader clearly has something against Corman. In his Facebook post, Schrader wrote:

“ROGER CORMAN. Let's not too sentimental about Corman. Even in my exploitational extremes I couldn't interest Corman in my scripts. Rolling Thunder began at AIP but moved on to 20th. Roger wouldn't touch Blue Collar even with (Richard) Pryor. As soon as they could Coppola, Scorsese and Demme all moved away from AIP. Roger was better at hyping his rep than at making good films or supporting good filmmakers. ”

It seems Schrader was still hurt by Corman's ignoring of his scripts in the 1970s. Even though at that time Schrader had become a famous Hollywood screenwriter with the success of The Yakuza and Taxi Driver, he still couldn't resist holding a grudge for almost fifty years, against a famous producer who didn't like his scripts.

So do Schrader's words make any sense?

His words are not without foundation. Roger Corman's prominence in Hollywood is not due to the quality of his work per se, but mostly to the fact that he had been the early mentor for a series of great filmmakers. Most of the movies he produced were cheap and sensational, with sensual stimulation as their principal goal, and he had no desire whatsoever to make more respected films. He once said, “The most satisfying thing for me is to make a movie that costs a few hundred thousand dollars and ends up making a few million. As for movies costing millions or even tens of millions of dollars, they're too risky and not at all cost-effective for me.”

Corman claimed he “Made A Hundred Movies In Hollywood And Never Lost A Dime,” but he got his stage fright when he had the chance to make millions of dollars for one film. In 1968, actors and filmmakers Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda, who were planning to make Easy Rider, offered the film to Corman for production, but Corman passed up the opportunity because he thought the film cost too much. Easy Rider was eventually produced by the Pando Company, costing $400,000 and grossing $60 million worldwide. Corman failed to make a big fortune, and also lost the chance to leave a landmark masterpiece in film history.

Another point of Schrader's is also valid: once a talented filmmaker graduates from the "Corman Film School", he never returns. For example, after making Dementia 13 for Corman, Francis Ford Coppola decided to start his own company, American Zoetrope, to produce independently and not rely on outside investment.

Martin Scorsese is another example supporting Schrader's argument. After making Boxcar Bertha for Corman, Scorsese showed the film to his mentor and friend John Cassavetes, who scolded him, “Marty, you've spent an entire year making this piece of shit, why don't you make something you're interested in? “

The rest is history: Scorsese made his first masterpiece, Mean Streets, a year later, thus started his path to greatness.

Yet Schrader is also hugely biased. Although those who graduated from the “Corman Film School” would never go back to B-movies, their respect for Corman continued throughout their careers: Coppola cast Corman as a senator confronting Michael Corleone in The Godfather Part II; Jonathan Demme also cast Roger Corman numerous times in his films Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia, and Rachel Gets Married, as supporting characters.

In the 2011 biographical documentary Corman's World: Exploits Of A Hollywood Rebel, a slew of big-name Hollywood talents sat in front of the camera to offer their praise and gratitude for Corman: Peter Bogdanovich, Jonathan Demme, Robert De Niro, Peter Fonda, Ron Howard, Jack Nicholson, Martin Scorsese and Quentin Tarantino. Corman's industry connections and industry stature are evident.

So why do all these filmmakers revere Corman so much? Scorsese's words for Corman are exemplary. The Roger Corman experience gave him the confidence and discipline to make films:

"I was able then to direct 'Boxcar Bertha' for Roger Corman and it was very important to do that in 24 days because what Corman gave I was able then to direct 'Boxcar Bertha' for Roger Corman and it was very important to do that in 24 days because what Corman gave us is the discipline of how to make a film. 24 days shooting - six days a week - six in the morning to 10 at night or whenever it is. You can design your shots, rehearse your actors, and get it on film. You have locomotives? That's your problem. Do the hardest shots first. It kind of was very important for me to do the exploitation film for Corman. "

And Coppola's words of remembrance for Corman shared similar sentiments to Scorsese's:

"Today I grieve the passing of Roger Corman. He was my first boss, task-master, teacher, mentor, and role model. He was born in Detroit, MI, as I was, in April on He was born in Detroit, MI, as I was, in April on the 5th, two days and 13 years before me. There is nothing about the practical matter of making movies I didn't learn by being his assistant. "

Obviously, the experience of working with Corman was a valuable asset to these filmmakers. They learned how to make movies efficiently and inexpensively, how to come up with optimal solutions with limited resources, and how to develop their imaginations in a way that was not bound by the confines of the situation. Without Roger Corman, there might not have been films like Taxi Driver, and Coppola wouldn't have asserted himself in the numerous battles with Paramount executives to make The Godfather.

Perhaps in the end, Schrader is only angry because he missed a highly valuable opportunity to work with Corman.

So let's end this article by quoting Scorsese again:

"I admired Roger, I loved him, I loved the pictures he directed (especially the Poe adaptations) and the spirit of his filmmaking. and I will always be I admired Roger, I loved him, I loved the pictures he directed (especially the Poe adaptations) and the spirit of his filmmaking. And I will always be grateful for the opportunity he gave me, and the education. I will always be proud to say that I graduated from the school of Roger Corman."