Interview with Herschell Gordon Lewis -- The "Godfather of Gore"

by Brandon Kosters

The following interview was originally conducted in 2011. I am publishing this for the first time here on October 31st, 2025. Happy Halloween!

               Affectionately known as the “Godfather of Gore,” Herschell Gordon Lewis repulsed audiences throughout the sixties with exploitation films such as Blood Feast, The Gore Gore Girls, and Two Thousand Maniacs to name just a few.

Lewis also enticed movie-goers with clever gimmicks, such as distributing vomit bags at screenings, or having a nurse on call in the lobby of the theater, lest a viewer die of fright.

He is known quite well internationally for his copywriting, and his many writings on copywriting. It stands to reason. In examining both his film work, and the campaigns for the film work, it is clear that his chief motivation was generating money. The films, made inexpensively, using animal parts from butcher shops as props, and featuring amateur actors (at least one of whom was a Playboy bunny/centerfold) who were paid very little for their contributions to the films.

Lewis talks about his latest film “The Uh-Oh Show”, and the future of independent film distribution.

Brandon Kosters: Now the last time we spoke, you were about to begin production of “Grimm Fairy Tales.”

Herschell Gordon Lewis: Mm-hmm.

BK: What became of that?

HGL: It became retitled “The Uh-Oh Show!,” and I’ll tell you why we retitled it. I began to get communications from publications in the motion picture industry asking me if this movie where a live action re-enactment of the original Grimm Brothers German fairytales from 500 years. Well, that was not the intention at all.

So, having had that experience, I simply retitled the movie “The Uh-Oh Show!,” because the plot-line of this revolves around a quiz show, which is called “Uh-Oh!” and that’s the reason for the title. So “Grim Fairy Tales” does exist … The movie’s done. We’re discussing deals with distributors, and as you can imagine, that kind of discussion can take weeks or months, and often when you’ve made a connection like that, you have two unhappy parties to such an agreement. But that’s where it is.

BK: Was this shot in 35 mm?

HGL: No. We shot digitally on the new cameras which are called RED. The difference, truly Brandon, is startling. I admit to you, I’m a late conversion to digital shooting. Before we shot this, we had some test footage, which we shot both in 35 mm color, and on the RED camera, and projected the comparative images on a big screen, because it’s unfair to look at it on a TV set, or certainly on a computer monitor, in which, inevitably, the digital will look better. Here we were with a big theatrical screen, and the digital looked better. And that convinced me. So we had two of these cameras. They’re giant cameras, by the way.  The benefit is, by having two digital cameras, two RED cameras, we were able to condense shooting time substantially, as opposed to having one big camera, then we’d have to come back for close-ups, and hope they action matched. For a production, I really think this is the future of motion pictures. Five years from now, 35 mm color will be something of a historical artifact. 

BK: Now is this your first time behind the camera since The Wizard of Gore (1970)?

HGL: I wasn’t really behind the camera here. I wrote it and I directed it. I had a camera man, and he had an associate who acted both as assistant camera man and as operator of the second camera when we used the cameras together. I wasn’t really behind the camera, except to look through the lens to make sure the shot was as planned. You will find some publicity shots of me behind that camera. But in this instance, no, I was not the cinematographer. I was simply the director.

BK: With the earlier work, the work done through the ‘60s up until 1970, where you more involved with the cinematography …

HGL: Oh sure! Quite regularly, I was director and cameraman. And one reason for that was it was because it was my camera. I owned this big old Mitchell camera, and a Mitchell camera at that time was something like the Rolls Royce automobiles where at that time. They no longer are, and Mitchell has long since given way to Panavision. The regular procedure we had, it was expected that I would be on the camera, so I could direct it and look at the action at the same time, and for me it made sense because whenever I would experiment by having somebody else on the camera, the results where not as I had anticipated. So it was a safety measure for me too, especially operating with the limited budgets we had.

BK: Right. Now, in terms of the sort of niche markets you had in the ‘60s with the exploitation films, are you trying to tap into a similar market today with a film such as this?

HGL: No, I’m trying to popularize. The difference between “The Uh-Oh Show!” and the classic “splatter film”, I’m sure you know that terminology. We just called them “gorey movies,”  but they are now called “splatter films.” I noticed in, I think it was this week’s paper another version of Scream opened up with a fairly good representation in the theaters. And my opinion is that these movies have become derivative. It’s the same movie being shot over and over again. I wanted to break that pattern. “The Uh-Oh Show!” combines the elements of gore with high good humor, and the intention is to bring people into the theater, or for that matter, into their own living room to look at a movie that typically, the non-gore addict in the past would not look at. And the way we do that … if I were to cut your arm off at the shoulder, chances are you would go into shock and die quickly from loss of blood. Not in “The Uh-Oh Show!,” you’d be irritated. And then they’d come over and be like “Hey! You wanna come over next? We’ve got all these prizes for you!” and you’d say “Ohhh, get my arm back on...” “Yeah! We’ll get your arm back on.” There’s a scene in there, in fact one of the very first scenes. There’s this rather attractive girl, and [the game show host] says “Alright Janet! If you get the questions right, you get a billion dollars cash, a Mercedes Benz 600, a villa in the Co dejour ,a trip around the world, and if you get it wrong …” and then the entire audience says “Uh-Oh!” “You ready? Yeah, I’m ready!” and he says “Here is your first question. What was President Woodrow Wilson’s first name?” And she senses something is wrong, and can’t figure out what it might be. He says “Come on! The clock is ticking. What was Woodrow Wilson’s first name?” and she says “Uuuuuhh … uhhhh … Woodrow?” and the audience says “Uuhh- Ooohh!” and he says “too bad, Woodrow WIlson’s real first name was Thomas. So you didn’t get it right, so it’s time for ‘Radial Saw Rex!’” And Radial Saw Rex is this gigantic guy with a great big radio saw, and he comes strutting out. We have this big spinning wheel, and the wheel is labeled with various body parts.  They spin this wheel, and it comes out “left arm.” Ok. So off she goes to the board, and here comes Radial Saw Rex and he just cuts that left arm off. So then she’s holding her left arm in her right arm, just looking bewildered by the whole thing. And he says “You wanna come back? We’ve got these prizes for you?” She says “Will you put it back on?” and he says “Yeah, we’ll put it back on.” “OK, I’ll come back next week.” The next thing we see is a fellow in a filthy workman’s outfit with a hammer and a great big spike, and he is nailing this shriveled black arm onto her shoulder. And she says “hey, wait a minute!” She says “that’s not my arm, and you’re putting it on backwards.” He says “Hey, lady. This ain’t the Mayo Clinic.” I have sat in screenings on this thing, and the audience, thank goodness, which is not the typical gore audience, they get convulsed by that. They’ve been hoping for something light-hearted, and that’s the nature of “The Uh-Oh Show!” The show becomes so popular, that the network demands another show, in prime time. Of course the “Uh-Oh!” show is in fringe time. They want a prime-time show. And this lunatic producer come sup with the idea of doing remakes of the fairy-tales they way they should have been told. So here come Hansel and Gretel and this wicked old woman, and she’s got them all bound and tied up and so on. And so, she tears the heart out of Hansel and as she does, he looks over to Gretel, and he says “Gretel, you know my heart will always belong to you.” And they rub noses. And the witch says “No it doesn’t!” It belongs to me right now!” and she says “Next, you stupid bitch.” And she goes after Gretel and starts tearing her pieces out, and she goes “You’ve got a lot of guts …”

And then Herschell politely excuses himself to answer another telephone call. He returns a moment later with the same gusto.

HGL: That was my beloved spouse [Margot].I had to take that call … So, as she’s tearing Gretel to pieces … no one acts as though there’s pain. Gretel says “I really don’t understand this. With all the money we contribute to the AARP,” and the woman says “I’m not a member” and Gretel says “Well I’ll pay your dues.” And at once, we get laughter, and this is from tough audiences. That’s the story of what was “Grim Fairy Tales” ...

BK: So this is interesting, this commentary about people being ritualistically tortured on game shows and to me it seems to say something about the degree to which viewing audiences have become kind of … desensitized to what would have been really shocking and transgressive in the ‘60s. I’m wondering what you think about the fact that so many elements of those films, the early “splatter” or “gore” films, have been integrated into mainstream cinema.

HGL: I blame the whole thing on the news, because you look at a news cast today, and half the newscast are bodies lying in the street. Sometimes they’re covered with plastic, sometimes they aren’t. So, yes, people are totally desensitized, but I certainly don’t take either credit or responsibility for that. We were always a niche. It’s now become mainstream. And that’s why I think that the prospect for “The Uh-Oh Show!” is a fairly strong one.

BK: So how do you go about ...it seems like you’re trying to make it more humorous. How does your approach now differ from the approach of others who’ve derived influence from the work?

HGL: My approach differs on a very basic level. Ohh, you brought me a lot of action! There’s someone at the door. Just a minute...Our daughter...So, the difference between what I am doing here, sorry, repeat your question would you please?

BK: What would you say about how the work you’re doing now differs from the work of contemporary filmmakers who …

HGL: Oh, I can answer this one. They run on tracks. I do not intend to run on tracks. As I say, I sometimes get the feeling looking at the product, it’s the same movie, over, and over, and over again. They’ve never been able to say that about the crap that I turn out. Now, I’m trying to blend two kinds of movie-goers or movie watchers into one single unit, and that’s the intention, without going overboard on budget. I look at some of the stuff that’s rated, for example, PG-13. I would never have dared put stuff like that in my earlier movies! So whether it’s a matter of increasing sophistication of audiences, or whether it’s a matter of increasing insensitivity of audiences, all I’m doing is moving it to a different plateau. 

BK: Now one thing we’ve talked about in the past is the commercial motivation for exploitation. And I’m wondering now, some years down the line, now that you’re established within a couple of careers, is the motivation different for you? Is artistry more a factor then the commercial factor.

HGL: No. Not at all. I pity those who look at this as an art form. This is a business. We talk about business, and they, at once, become auteurs, and they don’t make movies, they give birth, and you try to suggest a change, or a criticism. “You’re attacking my child!” I’ve never taken that posture. I never intend to. It’s a business. And as we were shooting this one, I welcomed suggestions from anybody who was on the set, whether it was a cast member, or a crew member, or somebody’s relative, because you never know where an idea is coming from and if you reject outside ideas, it’s a suggestion that your own idea is locked in cement and it makes it much more likely that what you turn out represents you, rather than something people will pay to go to see.

BK: What I’ve been thinking about a lot is the promotional work for your films. The copy and the posters, the other gimmicks. And as much as I adore your films, it seems to me like the real thrust of the creativity was in that side of things, in the promotional part ...

HGL: You’re very perceptive. That was the intention. I felt that any schmuck could raise a camera. I still feel that way. I don’t feel that any schmuck can sell a movie. Especially a movie that costs one fragment of what the typical major company movie costs to make. Here comes another “Pirates of the Caribbean.” Here comes Johnny Depp who gets what, $40-50 million for being in the movie, and they spend three times that just exploiting the movie. Here I come with a piece of snub nothing. How do I compete  in that open market place? And it is an open market place. It’s especially difficult now that so much product is being released directly to DVD. The competition is brutal. How do you survive? You survive by giving a specific group of potential viewers or audiences what they might be looking for, and about which they might say to somebody else, “Hey! You’ve got to see this.” That to me is more than showmanship. That’s simply good business. 

BK: I’m really interested in your work, or the work of someone like William Castle, who were trying to reinvigorate the theatrical experience, in response to television. And today these issues are coming up again with things being released directly to DVD, or with Netflix, or with more and more people having more and more means of watching something at home. 

HGL: Mm-hmm.

BK: I’m wondering what you think of the fact that things like 3-D are coming up again, and if you’ve had any ideas or impulses regarding what could be done today to reinvigorate  the experience of going to a theater.

HGL: Well, what might be done is having someone think, if he or she makes a movie, will this entertain, who will it entertain, and will the number of people it entertains be enough to cut to justify what I’ve spent on it. if I spend more, am I going to have more people who say “Yes, this entertains me.” It’s an equation. People don’t seem to look at it that way. They really don’t. And I have dealt with actors, and I’ve talked with other people  who make movies, and they just take such a subjective point of view toward it, that their objectivity is lost all together. We have, as you and I agree, I think, a grotesquely competitive marketplace here. And it’s not just the stuff that we churn out, and it’s not just that here is Netflix that now, aside from the mail, they will give you a streaming movie, and you can get it anyplace, and they’ve driven Blockbuster to the wall. How is that Blockbuster which was dominant for so many years is no longer even a consideration, if it were to be reinvented? It’s not there. It’s gone beyond it’s worth in the marketplace. It’s too instantaneous. What we should do, in making movies of this type, and entertainment  of any sort, because here are television shows backed by network people who have years of experience in exposing their product to the public, and they don’t know what they’re doing. They’re guessing. I don’t think guesswork is a factor anymore. It’s a factor only if you combine guesswork with unlimited budget, and turn ‘em both lose. The result is gonna hurt somebody. That might sound obtruse.

BK: If you’re a kid today picking up a camera, and you’re interested in finding some kind of niche … It just seems like so much of what you and other older exploitation filmmakers did has crept it’s way into Hollywood. I’m wondering, what’s the next thing? What’s the new niche? Do you have any thoughts or musings about what it would mean today … If you were to try to penetrate into the market now, starting from scratch, do you have any idea what that would mean?

HGL: Well, I have an idea but you see an idea unexecuted is strictly an idea. And my ideas are no better than anyone elses. I’ve been sitting now ever since well before we even started shooting “The Uh-Oh Show!” … I have a script called “Mr. Bruce and the Gore Machine.” And I feel that fits perfectly into what you and I are talking about right now. Can I get a producer interested in that movie? No I can’t. And I’ve got a track record in this business. So imagine what it means if, let’s say Joe Blow decides to make a movie. How does he finance that movie? He gets all his friends to invest a few thousand dollars each. He gets a camera, not a big RED digital, but a digital camera of some sort. Anybody today can shoot a movie, because they see stuff on television that somebody shot with his phone. So [they say] “Oh, well heck! If he can do that, my gosh! I’ve got this Sony thing here. I can certainly shoot a movie.” So the expectation exceeds the capability, in every case, and it again becomes a circumstance in which people regard themselves as competitors simply because they can aim a camera. I’ll go back to my original statement to you: “Any schmuck can aim a camera.” I proved that 45 years ago. So go beyond that. You say to yourself “once I have something that I can show, to whom shall I show it? What will the reaction of that person be? How do I get that person to look at it in the first place?” If the answer to those questions seems logical, and realistic, then go ahead and make your movie. But I don’t think people ask that question. They don’t ask that question out in California. Why should they ask it in Paducah, Kentucky?

BK: How much marquee value do you think you have? Are you trying to distribute through major theaters?

HGL: On the new movie?

BK: Yeah.

HGL: Well I am pleased to tell you, Brandon, I am not involved in distribution on this. I wrote it and I directed it, but the producer of this movie is handling distribution. And one of the arguments we’re having, by the way, is he wants to go directly to DVD. Why does he want to go directly to DVD? Because he feels, first of all, that at this moment, and it’s still largely true, [although] it’s not universally true, that he would have to transfer the digital to 35 mm color. Big. Deal. First of all, the technique is certainly well proved on all these movies that have computer generated imagery. The computer imagery on the aliens or whatever. That’s all done in the computer and that’s digital. And the then transfer that to film. But more and more and more theaters don’t have two big heavy cans of film coming in on Friday. They delete what the have, and they get their new movie by satellite. That is the future. Certainly I’m guessing, but it certainly can’t be much more than that, within the next five years, that’s the way we’re going to be looking at movies. To get a playing time in theaters is tough. The majors come in. They will pay for the advertisements, which I won’t. They will lock up a contract for six weeks to get a movie like “Battle of Los Angeles” or whatever that opens strong and then dies. That’s classic, because it opened strong because of all the hype behind it. Can an independent match the hype. No! Harry Potter opening in 1,700 theaters on the same day. That means 1,700 prints or 1,700 digital images of some sort, plus clearing playing time with theaters. It’s a matter of negotiation with the big chains. The AMCs and so on. Can we do that? No. As an independent I can’t do that. And I don’t think that I could ever get Paramount or Metro or Fox to handle my movies on a national basis. They’re not so intended. 

BK: Right.

HGL: That’s the dilemma on whose horns we are impaled.