Andy Warhol

Message

In Heaven · #1 Post by **In Heaven** » Sat May 21, 2005 4:31 pm

I recently came across Viynl (Andy Warhol's adaptation of A Clockwork Orange), and I was also seriously considering purchasing Raro's dvds of "The Chelsea Girls" or their four-pack of his silent films. Has anyone seen any of Andy Warhol's films? what were your thoughts..?

Nihonophile · #2 Post by **Nihonophile** » Sat May 21, 2005 9:18 pm

In Heaven wrote:I recently came across Viynl (Andy Warhol's adaptation of A Clockwork Orange), and I was also seriously considering purchasing Raro's dvds of "The Chelsea Girls" or their four-pack of his silent films. Has anyone seen any of Andy Warhol's films? what were your thoughts..?

I recently saw Vinyl as well. I loved it but the bootleg was a pretty degraded vhs copy. I'd consider getting all those warhol raro dvds if it wasnt for the hefty price ($80 + customs)

Chelsea Girls is supposedly one of his best and a benchmark in avant-garde film, although I haven't seen it. I do know it was dual projected and the special features are a pleasure. hope this helps.

Arcadean · #3 Post by **Arcadean** » Sun May 22, 2005 2:48 am

I've only seen one Andy Warhol film and that was Chelsea Girls. I hated it. Although I am not much of a fan of that type of film I still expected better.

In Heaven · #4 Post by **In Heaven** » Sun May 22, 2005 3:57 pm

Can you give more details? what did you dislike about it?

Arcadean · #5 Post by **Arcadean** » Sun May 22, 2005 4:32 pm

At first I thought the simultaneous projections were neat. That faded after about 5 minutes. Things went on and on for hours. Things that seemed tedious and acting that was horrendous. I was bored out of my mind by this. I'm almost never bored by movies. I even LIKE movies that many people consider slow and boring. There are maybe 3-4 wonderful scenes in the movie but there are too many bad ones for me to like it.

I do admire the experimentation but for me it didn't work. I have no idea if I just don't get Warhol films because that was the only one I had seen and it was supposed to be his best. I'll admit I had high expectations going into it. With that said I apologize for not elaborating before on my previous post. I'm not usually good at explaining why I like or dislike something but I hope I expressed my opinion decently enough to comprehend.

I'll end up giving other Warhol films a try eventually.

filmfan · #6 Post by **filmfan** » Tue May 24, 2005 4:07 am

It's one of those things that one either "likes it or doesn't like it"...like any other piece of Art that we may appreciate...like a painting hanging on a wall or a piece of sculpture, etc.

I had the opportunity A LONG TIME AGO to see "The Chelsea Girls" at a museum screening hosted by "Ondine" in it's 16MM film print version. To me, it was one of those art presentations that was more appropriate to the film...art museum setting, the host.... it was more in keeping with what it is in the first place...a piece of art to be appreciated.

Like "Un Chein Andelou" and Cocteau's classic films, William Burrough's cuttings, these Warhol film issues were the real reason I purchased a multi region player in the first place. To me, that they are available on DVD is just astounding. But then of course I also I have the "Man From UNCLE" movie collection too !

NoHayBanda · #7 Post by **NoHayBanda** » Tue May 24, 2005 10:33 am

I had the pleasure of projecting for an experimental and avant-garde cinema course at NYU, which gave me the opportunity to see a number of Warhol's films (borrowed from MOMA) including Chelsea Girls, Girl #2, Blow Job, and parts of Empire and Sleep. Projecting Chelsea Girls was a blast, even though I was exhausted after it was over. The list of instructions included in the can didn't leave much room to sit down.

They were certainly worth seeing, though everyone's reactions to the films were always pretty split. Yes, they are "like it or really don't" films. I'm still surprised they're not available here, but it's probably due to MOMA being so stingy with the prints. Morrissey's Flesh, Trash, Heat films are probably the closest things to a Warhol film we have released here.

vertovfan · #8 Post by **vertovfan** » Tue May 24, 2005 11:46 pm

I for one love The Chelsea Girls, especially the last several reels - Eric Emerson's psychedelic strip-tease, the Velvet Underground noise/music, the play of colored lights on Nico's face, the "Pope Ondine" sequence... somehow everything in that last section clicks for me, and it's just pure bliss. For me the Raro DVD was well worth the price, and the subtitles were an added bonus, very helpful with often muddy audio (the way it was shot, I'm sure).

filmfan · #9 Post by **filmfan** » Wed May 25, 2005 6:12 am

I would like to know what happened to all of those short film portraits that were shot on 16MM of every celebrity that entered The Factory in those early days...it must be some GREAT stuff !!!!!

denti alligator · #10 Post by **denti alligator** » Wed May 25, 2005 9:31 pm

filmfan wrote:I would like to know what happened to all of those short film portraits that were shot on 16MM of every celebrity that entered The Factory in those early days...it must be some GREAT stuff !!!!!

i saw many of these at MOMA a few tears ago.

filmfan · #11 Post by **filmfan** » Thu May 26, 2005 1:32 am

denti alligator wrote:
filmfan wrote:I would like to know what happened to all of those short film portraits that were shot on 16MM of every celebrity that entered The Factory in those early days...it must be some GREAT stuff !!!!!
i saw many of these at MOMA a few tears ago.

Please share your impressions of them...how many did you view, how were they presented who were the subjects of the film portraits, audio/video quality, length...etc. !!!

Thanks so much !

Mike

filmfan · #12 Post by **filmfan** » Fri May 27, 2005 11:06 am

Just picked up the Paul Morrissey film box...excellent quality transfers and it's nice to see these films again and available !

#13 Post by **zedz** » Sat May 28, 2005 8:41 pm

I've got the Raro DVD of the silent films, which I enjoyed, but you might be interested to know that they are all shown at normal speed. Whenever the films are projected (as films, not on the DVD) though, they are much slower because of the difference in frames per second between filming and projection. I always thought this was intentional, and the slowed down action is often mentioned in criticism of the films. However, the prints seem to have been obtained from whoever is handling the Warhol estate.

This doesn't apply to the sound films, though, which seem to be at the same speed they always were.

This sounds weird, like the projectionists etc. assumed that, even though the films were made in the 60s (and presumably shot at 24fps), they should be projected at so-called "silent speed" (16-18 fps) because they were silent. Was there ever any corroboration from the filmmakers that they were supposed to be projected at any speed other than 24fps?

(Of course, not even all films from the silent era are properly projected at 16-18 fps: this needs to be determined on a case by case basis, and some 20s films were indeed shot at 24. It can be devilishly hard to determine the correct projection speed for a film like The Seashell and the Clergyman, which includes so much action is sped up or slowed down for effect.)

fliggil · #14 Post by **fliggil** » Sun May 29, 2005 4:19 pm

the only Warhol film I've seen is Trash, I saw it in a film class this past spring and I really liked it, I didn't really enjoy it because theres a lot of drug and needle use, but it was unlike anything I've seen before, most of the people in my class hated it because of how unpleasing it is aesthetically, i say check it out if you can.

#15 Post by **zedz** » Sun May 29, 2005 6:28 pm

This sounds weird, like the projectionists etc. assumed that, even though the films were made in the 60s (and presumably shot at 24fps), they should be projected at so-called "silent speed" (16-18 fps) because they were silent. Was there ever any corroboration from the filmmakers that they were supposed to be projected at any speed other than 24fps?
The Raro booklet says that Warhol's silent films were supposed to be projected at 16 or 18 fps even though they were filmed at 24 fps, although the telecine they received from the Warhol Foundation was made at 24 fps.
When I first saw the films in the late 1980s they were projected at the slower speed, and in Wayne Koestenbaum's book on Warhol he discusses the effect of their projection at a slower speed. In my opinion, they're more interesting and effective when they're slower. It gives you more time to watch and think about what you're watching, even though it can also make it more boring, which I'm sure was just fine with Warhol.

But since these seem to be the "official" versions now, they're worth getting if you're intersted in seeing them, since I don't know of any other planned DVD release.

So they've consciously issued a DVD with the films presented at the wrong speed? Classy.

Michael · #16 Post by **Michael** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:51 am

I could use some convincing to shell out about 60 bucks for the Italian DVD of Chelsea Girls. I've seen some Morrissey's films (Trash, Heat, etc) which I think are okay but not something I'd want to include in my collection. I enjoyed his Flesh for Frankenstein a lot. Wonderfully kinky. Beautiful men. Now I watch it mainly for nostalgia - for one sweaty boring summer afternoon sneaking into a $.75 cinema to watch a film that was rated X and in 3-D. For a ten-year-old boy, that was really an experience!

So anyway, what is Chelsea Girls like?

neuro · #17 Post by **neuro** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 1:24 pm

Its probably the quintessential Warhol film, and arguably his most successful; that said, if you're looking for a more straightforward narrative (like Flesh for Frankenstein), you won't find it here. The "acting style" (if you can even call it that) is much more akin to Morrissey's trilogy; everything seems improvised or hilariously stilted. But unlike these aforementioned films, there's a certain experimental nature that demands the viewer's participation, specifically in its usage of split-screen - the film is 12 reels of film, projected two at a time simultaneously, one next to the other (a presentation which is preserved on the Raro DVD, although bootleg "unsplit" copies appear on eBay all the time). This allows for a democratic viewing experience; the viewer can concentrate on whatever he or she wants, or develop, however arbitrarily, relationships between the two conjoined reels. Plus, if you're a fan of the factory crowd, this film is basically a roll call of Warhol's "stock company" in all their drugged-out glory. Generally stated, this is a totally voyeuristic experience.

Knowing your tastes from past posts, Michael, I'd go for Women in Revolt next.

David Ehrenstein · #18 Post by **David Ehrenstein** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:19 am

You can find the interview I did with Andy at the old Silver factory back in 1965 in this book:

http://www.powells.com/biblio/61-078671364x-0

It was my first published article.

As I worked for the Filmmaker's Cinematheque in New York I got to see great numbers of Andy's films -- though scarcely all. Tons of them have never been shown to anyone.

The brief silent portrait films hail from 1963-64 for the most part. Though he continiued to make portraits (he made two during the course of my interview with him) in 1965 he bought an Auricon 16mmm sound camera. It was the sort of camera used to shoot newsreels. It had 35 minutes of film with sound recorded simultaneously. Thus he made films that consisted of two reels without cuts. Harlot, My Hustler, Screen Test, Vinyl, Horse (his first western) Beauty # 2, Poor Little Rich Girl and The Life of Juanita Castro are some of the features he made in 1965. The Chelsea Girls (1966) was a partial collaboration with Paul Morrissey. Though shot in 16mm and requiring dual projection (with recise instructions) it palyed art houses nationwide and was an enormous indie hit.

Then came his masterpiece**** (aka Four Stars) a 25 hour-long more-than-magnum opus shown only once in 1967. It was later disassembled into several separate films including Imitation of Christ, The Loves of Ondine and Tub Girls

The last film Andy made before he was shot by Valerie Solanis as San Diego Surf. It has never been shown.

Lonesome Cowboys, Flesh, Trash and Heat were produced by Andy but were written and directed by Paul Morrissey. After the shooting he withdrew from directing to become a producer "Like Walt Disney."

A catalogue raissonee of the portrait films has recently been published. It's quite interesting. According to Callie Angell, who has spent a great number of years cataloging the film collection for the Warhol museum, Andy did portraits of a great number of peopel, but shot portraits of his early 60's boyfriend Philip Fagin many, many times.
Fagin can also be seen in Harlot.

He was quite the babe.

orlik · #19 Post by **orlik** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 11:01 am

I first saw Chelsea Girls on Channel 4 (!!) when I was 15. This may be what turned me on to avant-garde cinema (or maybe just 'turned' me).

I watched it again a few years ago and still liked it - bear in mind, I'm someone who feels Jacques Rivette's Out 1 could have been a bit longer.

#20 Post by **Matt** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:35 pm

I've found this to be a pretty good resource for learning about Warhol's fimmaking activities. It's not 100% accurate, but it's pretty comprehensive.

Angell's complete catalogue raissonee (once it's finished) should be the definitive work on the films.

I can't believe how they're dragging their heels on releasing the films (any of them) on DVD in the US. I can buy a fucking officially licensed Warhol sleep mask, but can't see any of his movies without visiting either MoMA or the Warhol Museum.

David Ehrenstein · #21 Post by **David Ehrenstein** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 5:37 pm

They're tied up because the Warhol Foundation treats them as "works of art" on par with his paintings.This is terrible. Unless you were around to see them in the 60's precious few have any idea of what REAL Warhol films are like.

Betyou didn'tknow Edie Sedgewick's voice was deeper than kathleeen Turner's.

#22 Post by **Matt** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:00 pm

David Ehrenstein wrote:They're tied up because the Warhol Foundation treats them as "works of art" on par with his paintings.

But that's what I don't get. They have no problem licensing out images of his paintings for purses and paperweights, but they can't give Criterion a call and say, "Hey, can you do for Warhol what you did for Brakhage?"

David Ehrenstein · #23 Post by **David Ehrenstein** » Mon Aug 28, 2006 6:16 pm

Nope they can't.

They're also spooked that Paul will make a claim for certaintitles -- like Chelsea Girls and My Hustler -even though Chuck Wein slipped Paul a tab of acid the better to take over the entire production himself. (Paul nominally operated the camera -- just barely from all accounts.)

#24 Post by **Matt** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:23 pm

The new Ric Burns documentary on Warhol spends a significant amout of time (at least 30 minutes) on Warhol's filmmaking and includes brief clips from several (and at the right speed, too!), including Batman Dracula, which I've never seen. Not only am I very pleasantly surprised that the documentary treats the films as equals to the famous pop paintings of the early '60s, I'm very pleased that the analysis of the films by the interviewees (including collaborator Ronald Tavel) is spot-on.

I heartily recommend the documentary to anyone remotely interested in Warhol. It will be on DVD in late October. Yes, it's that same Ric Burns style of archival footage, talking heads, and actors reading quotations, but it's really quite illuminating.

David Ehrenstein · #25 Post by **David Ehrenstein** » Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:42 pm

It was pretty good overall. Historically quite accurate. But it totally missed Andy's camp humor. It explains how Pop overtook abstract expressionism, which was very serious and straight, but then it proceeds to treat Andy as a Great Artist in a very square way. There's no sense of Andy's delight in getting away with it.

Rather surprised they mentioned that Johns and Rauschenberg steered clear of Andy because he was too swish and they were very closeted (and still are.)

Outside of screenings for friends at the factor Batman/Dracula was never shown publically. So seeing that clip of Jack Smith and Tally Broiwn flashing their capes was quite a treat.

Great to see Ronnie Tavel was included. And Billy Linich (Name) was marvelously insightful.