Andy Warhol

[denti alligator]

I have that box, which is fine. The Warhol museum screenings are frustrating: they don't advertise which films are being shown when and they use a cheap DLP projector, which means (for me) there's a rainbow effect. [sigh]

[hearthesilence]

Two rare screenings of Blue Movie projected from a 16mm print at MoMA, part of their upcoming series "Queer and Uncensored." First screening has an intro by Ed Halter, second screening is in their bigger theater.

[hearthesilence]

Two rare screenings of Blue Movie projected from a 16mm print at MoMA, part of their upcoming series "Queer and Uncensored." First screening has an intro by Ed Halter, second screening is in their bigger theater.

Anyone else catch this? I'm not sure how many digital transfers are out there, but the only one I can find online looks awful, and I'm not sure I would've realized how completely off the color was if I hadn't caught one of the 16mm screenings.

Not surprisingly given both the content as well as Warhol's approach to filmmaking, there were some walkouts, but like the other Warhol films I've seen, it really needs to be experienced, particularly in a theater. Descriptions don't do it justice, what looks simple when summarized on paper ends up evoking a whole lot more as you're watching it, at least for me.

For a while, I thought this was groundbreaking simply for trying to portray regular sex with documentary aspirations if not in actual form. Circa 1969, think about how sex would have been portrayed up to that point - you weren't going to see much in a typical movie, and even if you could, it was going to be dramatized, glamorized or staged in some way to fit a narrative form. There's pornography, but pornography is still shaped by commercial aspirations (i.e. they were done mainly for titillation). So in this case, where the lead up is drawn out with talk and no apparent staging (and as we'll see later, a lot of non-sexual activity can follow it or interrupt it as well), it felt like Warhol wanted to make something that was anthropological. That idea started to go away when the film cut from talking to suddenly no talking and the two kissing and putting their hands all over each other. (FYI these shots are mostly long takes with periodic flash frame inserts.) Also the fact that it was staged became more and more obvious by things like interruptions, by both of them clearly reacting to what's likely direction spoken to them, and with some of the teasing it felt like a limit had been placed on them where they couldn't go further unless Warhol gave them the go ahead to do so.

Eventually they do have intercourse, and then they talk, and I knew ahead of time there would be a lot of talk about politics, including Vietnam, and this part became very demoralizing. They clearly filmed this in 1968 prior to the election, and they both mentioned their disgust and refusal to vote. With the benefit of a lot of hindsight, it's impossible not to play off the knowledge of what lies ahead with their comments. There's the damage and horrendous acts to come from the Nixon administration, but there's no getting around the fact that the Vietnam War had occured and escalated under a Democratic administration - what's revealed in the Pentagon Papers is only a few years away. Given the eventual destination of our current day climate, it made everything all the more bleak and depressing.

But eventually the film gives way to their tender relationship and the warm glow of the setting sun. (Prior to that, the film is milky and overexposed, with much of the color washed out from the intentional overexposure.) It even includes a tender blowjob punctuated by the humor that's present throughout the entire film. It's not graphic - by now the sun has gone down quite a bit (no pun intended) so we just see a dark silhouette - but it calls back to an early moment when she reveals how unappealing blowjobs are to her, and sure enough, she makes her displeasure known (albeit for other reasons) this time around, doing it in a way that cracks them both up. Basically, she does a sex act we know she doesn't care for, but again, it's not a graphic or demeaning display, it's one partner doing something for the other out of tender care. I haven't seen all of Warhol's films, but it's the first time I've seen one where, sexual content aside, you have something like a conventional romantic sunset. And something about the visuals - particularly how gorgeous the light looks on the film stock he used - that really reminds you this is happening at the tail end of the 1960s, or more precisely right before the counterculture was really going to sour (as they discussed, on the eve of Nixon's election, and as we know now, with Altamont over a year later). So what could be a corny cliché of a romantic sunset could be the corny symbolism of the sun setting on '60s idealism, but it didn't feel corny, it felt wistful and poignant. The rest of the film is basically their tender relationship, ending in a warm and amusing shower scene that even includes a hilarious "blowjob." Anyway, I imagine some people left because they find Warhol's long, deceptively directionless takes tedious and some because they were uncomfortable with the graphic parts, but I hope they get over that and see the film again because it's pretty great for what it shows about humanity in these two people.

[denti alligator]

Thanks for this write-up.

[hearthesilence]

You're welcome!