Dr Frankenstein Teaches an Art Class:Adamson, Burroughs & Tarantino

The connection between Al Adamson's fragmented, cobbled-together films like *Dracula vs. Frankenstein*, William S. Burroughs' "cut-up" novels, and Quentin Tarantino's magpie remix cinema lies in their shared rejection of linear storytelling and their embrace of bricolage as a creative method. Each of these works embodies postmodern principles, particularly the subversion of traditional narrative structures and the use of pastiche to create something simultaneously new and referential.

### 1. **Al Adamson's Patchwork Cinema**

Adamson's films often feel disjointed and improvised, with scenes awkwardly stitched together to meet the demands of exploitation markets. For instance, *Dracula vs. Frankenstein* combines horror, psychedelia, and 1970s grindhouse aesthetics in a way that feels both chaotic and surreal. This chopped-together nature reflects a lack of concern for narrative coherence, instead prioritizing mood, visual spectacle, and audience expectations. Adamson’s films are an assemblage of influences, exploiting genre tropes with a gleeful disregard for their original context.

### 2. **Burroughs' Cut-Up Method**

Burroughs' novels, such as *The Soft Machine* and *Naked Lunch*, employ a cut-up technique that involves literally slicing up and rearranging texts to disrupt traditional syntax and meaning. This method produces a fractured, collage-like narrative that reflects the fragmented nature of modern consciousness. Like Adamson’s films, Burroughs’ work challenges linearity, inviting the audience to piece together meaning from disparate fragments. The cut-up method, while chaotic, creates a sense of unexpected connections and new juxtapositions, much like Adamson's stitching of mismatched scenes into a loose whole.

### 3. **Tarantino's Remix Aesthetic**

Tarantino’s cinema, such as *Pulp Fiction* and *Kill Bill*, operates as a magpie collection of influences, remixing elements from exploitation films, spaghetti Westerns, kung fu cinema, and more. Like Adamson, Tarantino revels in genre tropes, but with a self-aware, stylized polish. His films often eschew linear storytelling in favor of a fragmented, non-chronological approach. This postmodern bricolage is more deliberate than Adamson’s, but it similarly prioritizes aesthetic over narrative coherence, treating film history as a playground for reinvention.

### **Shared Postmodern Themes**

- **Fragmentation:** All three creators reject seamless narrative structures in favor of chaotic, disjointed forms that reflect the fragmented nature of modern media and identity.

- **Pastiche and Intertextuality:** Adamson, Burroughs, and Tarantino all borrow heavily from existing works, reassembling them in ways that comment on or celebrate their source material.

- **Disruption of Authority:** By breaking traditional rules of storytelling, they subvert the notion of a singular, authoritative voice in art. Instead, they embrace multiplicity, randomness, and the active role of the audience in constructing meaning.

### **Conclusion**

Adamson's exploitation cinema, Burroughs’ cut-up novels, and Tarantino’s remix films each embody postmodern aesthetics through their use of bricolage and fragmentation. While their methods and intentions differ—Adamson’s improvisational chaos, Burroughs’ experimental literary rebellion, and Tarantino’s reverent remixing—they collectively challenge notions of originality, coherence, and linearity, creating works that are simultaneously disorienting and exhilarating. These artists exemplify the postmodern ethos of embracing cultural detritus to construct something that feels both nostalgic and transgressive.