Flesh (1968) Director: Paul Morrissey **1/2outof**** Review After just reading "The Andy Warhol Diaries", I then proceeded to seek out his films, and apparently all he did was fund this and raise its publicity. So I shall leave out my interest in Warhol for the sake of this review. I watched this twice just to see how I really felt (the first time I felt nothing towards it). I felt the second time that the movie has an indistinct quality that makes you want to keep watching, I can't deny that. The movie is virtually plot less and really is a camera put on actors while they most likely improvise most of their lines. At least it really felt that way.
The movie is choppily edited, the lighting is murky, the film is grainy, and the sound is horrendous. The actors are the main joy in this movie (well actually only a few). Seeing Joe, Geri, the awesome Candy, and funny Jackie all hanging out and talking was the main highlight for me. I found Candy simply endearing, and the characters were all comfortable together (like Joe nonchalantly putting his arm over Jackie) and it made it an effortless watch.
From reading some IMDb reviews about this, it seems that a lot of the stuff went over my head in this movie, as I rarely picked up on of the undercurrents of deeper meanings. Nothing really clicked, it wasn't that I didn't get it, I mean mostly it was people standing around and talking, what's the "meaning" towards that? The scenes of ambient design were the films main flaw. Too much of nothing, I know this is underground art house stuff, but seeing long shots of people sleeping, simply staring, or stretches of no plot or dialog is extremely hard to sit through for me. If I want art, I'll watch Argento or David Lynch. The "art" here was curiously out of my grasp. More just like a flimsy documentary (as maybe that's what it really is). So investment in visual design is out of luck for me. Still, the movie has a compelling current about it.
From the plot I picked up, it's basically Joe trying to make 200 dollars to save up for his girlfriend's lesbian lover's abortion. We get to see him wake up and then the film ends with him sleeping. So basically a day in the life of Joe, the hustler and the people he encounters.
As expected with a Morrissey/Warhol/Dallesendro production, I expected nudity and got it. The movie loves Joe's body, but from my perspective, the male and female nudity was somewhat clinical to make it fully erotic. Usually full frontal nudity will make people uncomfortable for some reason, but I watched this with 3 teens and none of them were annoyed by it, signs of a good approach or self confident teens? Some people will write this off as art house porn, but there's something about it that wasn't raunchy like most porn's tend to be. It didn't come off as art either. So I'm not sure what I would label this as. Is it simply underground or experimental film making? I first discovered Warhol at the age of 13, were I watched Mary Harron's "I Shot Andy Warhol", the movie was a pure gem, and quite authentic, from the research I did about the factory. I'd prefer watching that movie countless times then the actually Warhol deals. All these movies are somewhat forgettable, but that's' just my opinion. Obviously this will appeal to the real purists (who probably were aghast when reading my preference to Warhol) and not for someone born right before Warhol passed away. Still, I gave it a chance and still found it quite original in places.
Praise must go to Candy Darling. She had me sold, she seemed so nice and warm, a easy going person, and it's a shame she passed away. She was simply awesome! I also found Joe's performance quite interesting, he seemed naive, sardonic, and withdrawn all at the same time, his facial acting really told me what he was thinking (or not thinking) all the time.
The movie didn't change my world, and definitely is more Morrissey's work then Warhol. So take it in stride and see if you like it. On to Heat and Trash I go.
The movie is choppily edited, the lighting is murky, the film is grainy, and the sound is horrendous. The actors are the main joy in this movie (well actually only a few). Seeing Joe, Geri, the awesome Candy, and funny Jackie all hanging out and talking was the main highlight for me. I found Candy simply endearing, and the characters were all comfortable together (like Joe nonchalantly putting his arm over Jackie) and it made it an effortless watch.
From reading some IMDb reviews about this, it seems that a lot of the stuff went over my head in this movie, as I rarely picked up on of the undercurrents of deeper meanings. Nothing really clicked, it wasn't that I didn't get it, I mean mostly it was people standing around and talking, what's the "meaning" towards that? The scenes of ambient design were the films main flaw. Too much of nothing, I know this is underground art house stuff, but seeing long shots of people sleeping, simply staring, or stretches of no plot or dialog is extremely hard to sit through for me. If I want art, I'll watch Argento or David Lynch. The "art" here was curiously out of my grasp. More just like a flimsy documentary (as maybe that's what it really is). So investment in visual design is out of luck for me. Still, the movie has a compelling current about it.
From the plot I picked up, it's basically Joe trying to make 200 dollars to save up for his girlfriend's lesbian lover's abortion. We get to see him wake up and then the film ends with him sleeping. So basically a day in the life of Joe, the hustler and the people he encounters.
As expected with a Morrissey/Warhol/Dallesendro production, I expected nudity and got it. The movie loves Joe's body, but from my perspective, the male and female nudity was somewhat clinical to make it fully erotic. Usually full frontal nudity will make people uncomfortable for some reason, but I watched this with 3 teens and none of them were annoyed by it, signs of a good approach or self confident teens? Some people will write this off as art house porn, but there's something about it that wasn't raunchy like most porn's tend to be. It didn't come off as art either. So I'm not sure what I would label this as. Is it simply underground or experimental film making? I first discovered Warhol at the age of 13, were I watched Mary Harron's "I Shot Andy Warhol", the movie was a pure gem, and quite authentic, from the research I did about the factory. I'd prefer watching that movie countless times then the actually Warhol deals. All these movies are somewhat forgettable, but that's' just my opinion. Obviously this will appeal to the real purists (who probably were aghast when reading my preference to Warhol) and not for someone born right before Warhol passed away. Still, I gave it a chance and still found it quite original in places.
Praise must go to Candy Darling. She had me sold, she seemed so nice and warm, a easy going person, and it's a shame she passed away. She was simply awesome! I also found Joe's performance quite interesting, he seemed naive, sardonic, and withdrawn all at the same time, his facial acting really told me what he was thinking (or not thinking) all the time.
The movie didn't change my world, and definitely is more Morrissey's work then Warhol. So take it in stride and see if you like it. On to Heat and Trash I go.