Mary’s a friend of mine. Yes she played Hanoi Hannah. She and Paul Bertal were a teriffic comedy team. Among her Hollywood films she was most recently in Joe Dante’s “Looney Tunes Back in Action” where she played Steve Martin;s love interest. Mary and I recently did an appearance at Beyond Baroque here in L.A. where we talked about Jack Smith with the filmmaker who made the excellent documentary “Jack Smith and the Destruction of Atlantis.”
Viva’s in “Midnight Cowboy” but not Paul.
Andy Warhol was great for giving pop culture something edgy and punk rock in the 1960s, along with Jim Morrison and The Doors. The Velvet Underground would have never seen the light of day had it not been for Warhol. I don’t know what it was about the guy that made him such a flourescent-bulb fly trap for the hipsters of the late 60s and early 70s, but it worked. I agree with the aforementioned that the idea of his art, and not the art itself is what Warhol was all about. Ideas alone can sometime retain greatness. As for his films, I would recommend to anyone the one that everyone seems to have forgotten about, “Bad.”
That’s cool David. I would have loved to be in the Factory scene. I’m not sure if I could have handled all the hard drugs, but I think it would have been a very exciting place and time. I’ve always thought Andy would be disappointed that his Museum isn’t in New York. He never wanted to look back at where he came from. (Except for remaining close with his mother.)
I just remember the Hanoi Hannah scene from Chelsea Girls where she’s coaching this spaced-out chick to say the lines, “Your mother is coming up the walk, you’re very happy to see her” or something like that, over and over again, and she’s just towering above her and really giving her a hard time. It’s so perversely amusing.
David, could you give us some kind of summary of what [4 stars] is like, for those of us who will probably never get to see it?
It consists of literally everyhting he shotin 1967. The films “Imitation of Christ,” “Tub Girls” and “The Loves of Ondine” are part of it. Whereas "The Chelsea Girls projected two 16mm films alongside one another, * feature sperimporsed projections. Plus it’s all in color.
It ends with thirty minute shot of the sun setting on Fire Island with Nico, just offscreen talking and singing to the sun.
Sounds beautiful.
I caught the Andy Warhol exhibition (“other voices, other rooms”) at the Hayward in London recently.
They projected about 15 of his silent black and white films all at once throughout a cavernous viewing room interspersed with cloud-like lounges. There was never a better way to appreciate his film work. A heavenly sensory experience.
The simplicity of someone stirring in their sleep beneath rumpled sheets or a closeup of eyes, just staring back out at you, makes for powerful viewing but requires patience and quietude. You almost want play it on your wall-mounted plasma like a piece of art – sombre eyes just blinking at you occasionally – so that you can appreciate it blissfully in passing rather than watching it for 3 hours waiting for something to happen.
I’d definitely love to see it on Criterion. I intend to collect some of his work anyway and it would be fantastic to have some expert commentary.
That’s really the ideal way to see these particular Warhols. They’re like moiving paintings.Ideal for installations that can be viewed casually. “The Chelsea Girls,” on the other hand requires that you sit down and watch it like any other movie.
Has anyone seen the new screen tests dvd with the music added to it by some folk/pop group? They’re performing in Boston in March but I’m very skeptical.
Hi there sorry to interupt your discussion but i’m actually writing my dissertation on Andy Warhol’s films so find your knowledge and debate very interesting! I study theatre and performance and i am very interested in looking at his films from a theatrical outlook as a lot of them could be classed as improvisational theatre as Warhol himself points out, the line between real and acting is very hard to distinguish. I was just woundering if (especially you David) you could give me your thoughts on a few things. In his films such as trash, flesh and heat, why are they so badly acted, (perhaps there not in your opninon!) all of them seem as if they are on drugs, why did Andy let this happen if that is so? And also his ‘superstars’, because of his obsession with celebrities, fame, glamour etc, do you think his aim was to make these people celebrities and then destroy them for personal reasons because a lot of his films show the actors being very degraded and used. Sorry to seem anti Warhol i’m definately not i’m just trying to understand his methods and films.
Thank you!
Eclipse Series: WARHOL SHORTS. I’m sure they can pull it off. Morrisey’s Flesh for Frankenstein and Blood for Dracula were among Criterion’s early releases, so why the fuck not? Years ago I saw Chelsea Girls in a theatre back2back with Blue Movie and a short about Lana Turner, with some guy in drag. Oh brother!
“Trash,” “Flesh” and “Heart” are Paul’s films, not Andy’s. And I don’t think they’re badly acted at all given the kind of performing style Paul was insterested in — theatrical and over-the-top (ie. Sylvia Miles, Holly Woodlawn)) set aloingside a steaming stud (ie. Joe.)
Andy’s films featured real people “being themselves” which worked in the context that said “selves” created. That is to say people who were ‘on stage" in life at all times: Edie, Ondine, Gerard Malanga, Taylor Mead et. al. Here you’ll find such films as “The Chlsea Girls,” “Beauty #2,” “My Hustler,” “Horse,” “Vinyl.”
It’s also important, I think, to consider that warhol is playing with assumptions of narrative as well as surfaces insofar as behavior, language, action are all presenting external signs that we read and respond to. I mention this especially in terms of the screen tests but also with figures who are acting (the activity of) acting. Also, in terms of Duchamp (ad the question of context, particularly institutional context), what happens to behavior when it is put on film? How do we respond to it differently than we otherwise would? How and why do expectations change? This is the sort of thing Warhol does with the Brillo boxes as well.
David, that’s how I feel about them. Those people weren’t actors, they were interesting personalities. There’s basically 4 different types of people in Warhol movies:
neurotic straight girls (typified by Edie, but also Andrea Feldman and others)
“dumb-lug” studly straight guys (Gino Persicchio, the blond guy in My Hustler, and later indelibly, Joe Dallesandro)
gay men, usually flamboyant (Rene Ricard, Taylor Mead, Ondine)
drag queens (Candy Darling, Jackie Curtis, Holly Woodlawn)
The idea was to see how all these people interacted with each other. Warhol films sometimes feature women/gay men/drag queens fighting over a straight guy, for instance. I think the subjects of the films were basically taken from day to day life at the Factory, with everyone sort of “playing himself or herself.”
These performers acted the same way when they were out drinking at Max’s Kansas City. Andrea Feldman was known as a great natural comedienne; she would jump up on the bar, say “It’s showtime!” and do a 15-second stripper flash, to everyone’s entertainment.
I don’t think Andy destroyed anyone. He was very laissez-faire. He didn’t try to control people. A lot of the people around him were junkies and very self-destructive. He himself went through a speed addiction and was nearly shot to death, so he was as much a victim of the total freedom he created as anybody.
@DAVID E-
Man, which movie is this scene from? – Paul Bartel( I think ) and his girlfriend were talking to a counselor chick to have their welfare benefits extended. Things were goin’ well until the chick commented on the girlfriend’s shoes. He then tried to convince his girl, who’s now having a hissy fit to just give the counselor the damn shoes so she can extend their welfare. A fight ensued and the welfare got canned.
Yeah, I know it’s a silly inquiry but I just thought you might remember ’cause it was hilarious…
I remember. It’s from Trash, and it’s Holly Woodlawn and Joe Dallesandro. Joe says, “Just give him the fuckin shoes.” “These are my shoes!” Holly says.
Sorry, David.
@ Richard D, Yes I just saw the show entitled “13 most beautiful, songs for andy warhol” this weekend as a matter of fact. It’s worth the admission price, the selection of screen tests are very good, yet the music and showmanship was lacking in some areas. PM me if you have any more questions about it.
@JUSTINB – Right that’s Joe. Ha-ha that scene was a real howler. Thanks man!
You’re welcome. Yeah thats a great one.
I’m a Salvador Dali type of person. I don’t get what the big deal is with Warhol’s paintings. I’d give a film he was involoved in a try though.
Yes the scene’s from “Trash.” and the actor who played the Welfare investigator who wants Holly’s shoes is Michael Sklar. He was also featured in “L’Amour” wiht Jane Forth, Donna Jordan, Patti D’Arbanville, Karl Lagerfeld (yes, you read that right) and Max Delys.
Allen Grey
I recommend David’s interview—and I’ll Be A Mirror in general. Also worth seeking out is Stephen Koch’s book Stargazer on Warhol as filmmaker.