Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator

Honestly? Only if you really like dusty archives or have a weird obsession with how people in the 30s thought 'normal' life was bizarre. If you are looking for a story, you will hate it. If you like random trivia thrown at you in rapid-fire bursts, you might actually get a kick out of it. 🧐
It’s like clicking on the 'random article' button on Wikipedia for twenty minutes straight. You get a little bit of Reno divorce drama, then suddenly you are looking at a muscular woman named Jo Ann Anderson, and then—boom—you are learning about an inland port in Phoenix.
There is no rhyme or reason to it. It just sort of happens.
The whole thing feels like it belongs in the same dusty shelf as Buddy's Theatre. It has that same grainy, 'we needed to fill a timeslot' energy. It is not trying to be high art, and that is why I kind of liked it.
The segment on backyard gold mining is the highlight for me. There is something inherently funny about watching people dig holes in their own lawns looking for riches. It is a very human kind of desperation, captured in black and white.
The pacing is all over the place. One minute you are deep in a legal discussion about divorces, the next, you are watching a circus-style act. It gives you whiplash. 😵
It is definitely not as polished as Pett and Pott: A Fairy Story of the Suburbs, but it has more soul in its pinky finger than most modern documentaries. Sometimes you just want to see a weird lady flex her biceps for no apparent reason, you know?
Don't look for a lesson here. There isn't one. It’s just a window into a past that was just as weird and obsessed with trivial things as we are today. It’s a short, messy, and frankly kind of hypnotic little piece of cinema.
Worth a watch if you have twenty minutes and zero expectations. Otherwise, maybe skip it. 🤷♂️
Year
1936
IMDb Rating
—

Editorial
Deciphering the legacy of transgressive cult cinema.
Community
Log in to comment.