‘Serial Mom’: The movie that gave John Waters the worst experience of his career
“I don’t like rules of any kind,” John Waters once said. “And I seek people who break rules with happiness – and not bringing pain to themselves”. This mentality carried through to his filmography. The Baltimore-born creative now renowned as one of the most successful—albeit controversial—auteurs in the film industry, largely due to his unique ability to infuse a satirical twist into various genres.
His body of work famously includes cult classics like Multiple Maniacs, Pink Flamingos, and Hairspray, among many others. Each of these films highlights Waters’ unique style, seamlessly blending dark humour with biting social commentary, solidifying his status as a singular voice in cinema. Above all, this seems to be the world he truly loves—it’s hard to imagine the moustachioed maestro in any other profession. However, his journey hasn’t always been one of rule-breaking and joy.
Like several creative artists in the industry, Waters carried a traumatic experience behind the scenes of one of his most popular films. The movie in question is Serial Mom, a picture starring Kathleen Turner as the titular character and Sam Waterston as her husband. The film has since been praised as a clever spoof of the “true crime” stories that were prevalent in the media at the time, serving as a satirical commentary on the criticism of conservatism that Ronald Reagan propagated during the 1980s. Despite its dark humour, the feature reflects deeper societal issues, making it a standout in Waters’ filmography.
Now widely considered a cult classic, Serial Mom had more than a few issues during post-production, which elicited a string of troubling memories for Waters. During an interview with Filmmaker, Waters recalls the subsequent turmoil between him and Savoy Pictures, detailing it as “the worst experience I had with a studio”.
As is well known, test screenings have always played a crucial role in shaping films, and Serial Mom was no exception. After several viewings, Waters claimed that the studio insisted on adding a narrator and altering the ending to have Turner’s character convicted. They wanted Waters to shoot both versions and test them during numerous screenings.
However, Waters stood his ground, refusing to alter the film and staying true to his vision—one rich in meaning. In the end, the film was released in its original, unedited form, though the battle left its mark. This personal creative victory was in part credited to public gossip columnist Liz Smith, who published an article defending Serial Mom’s plotline. Smith, reportedly close to Turner, used her influence to craft a supportive piece, which played a key role in swaying the decision to preserve Waters’ original vision.
While Waters acknowledged that Serial Mom did not achieve financial success at the box office due to lingering concerns from the studios, he also pointed out the shifting attitudes of the studios that gained ownership of the film over time. Its eventual re-release, with the story still intact, gave Waters the impression that “somebody” appreciated it. This suggests that Waters found more relief in the fact that his creative vision for Serial Mom endured over time rather than being uplifted by it, especially after the bruising experience with heavy-handed executives.
The incident also highlights the issue of female characterisation, given that the studios’ demands aligned with what was perpetuated for women during this period—being virginal and innocent was the norm. When refused, it must lead to punishment. Beverly Sutphin uprooted all of these norms and, as a result, has been regarded as one of the most morally complex characters of all time. Typically, the studio wanted to simplify her arc to keep in line with traditions.
Of course, this subject also underlines the debate of monetary profit vs creative agency that directors still suffer with mainstream studios. While Waters managed to resist conventional ideals for Serial Mom, quite often, other films, when changed or edited according to the studio’s preference, have aged poorly in subsequent eras. They are, in effect, compromised and dated.
It begs the question of whether unbridled artistic passion can be more than just entertainment when not having to be filtered by the conventions demanded by Hollywood studios. Waters did mention the threat he received from the studio of being blacklisted as a director, but he took the risk anyway. So, while Serial Mom failed to bring the profits that the studio needed, it does continue to make a mark in the zeitgeist of popular culture. And it serves as a bold lesson to would-be directors about staying true to the story.
