"Hold Me While I'm Naked" is maybe the most known movie by the late George Kuchar who left us a gigantic body of work. He made this in his early 20s, but he wasn't new to movie-making at all at this point despite his young age. He already directed roughly 15 films before that. He also acts in this film, which he did occasionally, and his sister (?) Stella plays in this one as well. Basically, it is about an actress who struggles with being naked too frequently during the scenes she shoots for her new film. That's all I understood. I guess there was more, but it was too subtle for me I guess. In any case, this is a fairly experimental movie with strong use of colors, especially bright ones. I did not think it was an entire weak 14 minutes, but as a whole I found it rather uninteresting and do not feel the need to watch it again anytime soon. Not recommended.
7 Reviews
Hold Me While I'm Naked
jboothmillard28 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I thought it a bit odd that the 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die book included more short films than I originally thought, I can understand the ones from the beginning of the 20th century, but there are more onwards, some only 15-30 minutes long, and this was one of them I found. Basically this short film sees a depressed independent director (George Kuchar) face a rebellion of sorts and becomes awkward to his leading actress (Donna Kerness) when he asks her to be naked in his new film, she is fed up having to appear naked in almost every scene. The director becomes jealous of seeing the actress with her boyfriend when they make love during a steamy session in the shower, so there is partial nudity and sex scenes. This short film according to a film festival showing is essentially a very direct and subtle, very sad and funny look at nothing more or less than sexual frustration and aloneness. Also starring Stella Kuchar, Andrea Lunin, Hope Morris, Steve Packard and Gina Zuckerman. I cannot really classify this film or give it a genre, there is no story or plot to speak of as such, the director made over 200 films in his career that were apparently popular and acclaimed, this is apparently the one most well known and regarded of them, it is camp and trashy, probably knowingly, and it is certainly strange, but in a way there's something about it that keeps you watching, maybe it's a so bad it's good kind of thing, a weird but unusually interesting underground short film. Worth watching, at least once!
truly a unique bird, for good and befuddling results
Quinoa198412 December 2016
I first heard of George Kuchar thanks to the WTF interview with Todd Solondz. Maron was trying to get something out of Solondz as far as what he was/is influenced by as far as other filmmakers - Solondz was trying to keep to just saying he's influenced by, uh, life and not much else - but he finally mentioned that he's a fan of George Kuchar's films. So when I looked him up this seemed to be the most prominent (or the one people watched the most - hey, boobs on youtube right?), and I was looking forward something that would likely be transgressive and satirical and... I got that, but it's... as other people have said, out *there*. It may be so out there as a piece of experimental cinema that I had to watch it twice to get something out of it (originally this rating was lower, but giving it another shot I saw a little more there).
What is this? Supposedly a semi-autobiographical collage by Kuchar, who is out to explode the form of cinema while also detailing how a movie he was trying to make fell apart due to an actress being mad about being nude all the time. Hold Me While I'm Taken may be what happened in Kuchar's life... in a sense. But it's so locked inside the filmmaker's head that when it doesn't involve characters talking - there's a one minute or more stretch where it's a walking close-up shot of what I assume is Kuchar's movie double walking around uh... just walking - it is simply all over the place.
Now, this place does happen to be involving a lot of nudity (or suggested at some points), and I think the strongest thing here is how Kuchar frames his shots. There's a real eye here and that was what I especially liked seeing it a second time in a row, how he got his "characters" in shots, with unusual compositions and how his camera moves but also how it takes in framing devices (when we see a couple starting to make love it's through a glass door where things are obfuscated, and the music on soundtrack is "Here Comes the Bride.? The whole tone here is a meta comment on itself, about how filmmakers burning with passion can get sidelined. I... wish I could get at more of what it was trying to do, outside of the imagery of a reel of film lying on the floor, or yet another woman disrobing and getting into the shower and... yeah, it's a steady stream of consciousness that doesn't have much of a foot in reality. It's all about the PLAY of filmmaking and sexing and doing sexing for filmmaking, and that part is fine. I just wish I could've got more into the rhythm of the whole piece; there's a point where the movie almost stops to indulge a magnificent orchestral score that builds and builds over images of... stuff.
File this under 'a lot of people LOVE this, and... it wasn't for me, nice boobs aside.'
What is this? Supposedly a semi-autobiographical collage by Kuchar, who is out to explode the form of cinema while also detailing how a movie he was trying to make fell apart due to an actress being mad about being nude all the time. Hold Me While I'm Taken may be what happened in Kuchar's life... in a sense. But it's so locked inside the filmmaker's head that when it doesn't involve characters talking - there's a one minute or more stretch where it's a walking close-up shot of what I assume is Kuchar's movie double walking around uh... just walking - it is simply all over the place.
Now, this place does happen to be involving a lot of nudity (or suggested at some points), and I think the strongest thing here is how Kuchar frames his shots. There's a real eye here and that was what I especially liked seeing it a second time in a row, how he got his "characters" in shots, with unusual compositions and how his camera moves but also how it takes in framing devices (when we see a couple starting to make love it's through a glass door where things are obfuscated, and the music on soundtrack is "Here Comes the Bride.? The whole tone here is a meta comment on itself, about how filmmakers burning with passion can get sidelined. I... wish I could get at more of what it was trying to do, outside of the imagery of a reel of film lying on the floor, or yet another woman disrobing and getting into the shower and... yeah, it's a steady stream of consciousness that doesn't have much of a foot in reality. It's all about the PLAY of filmmaking and sexing and doing sexing for filmmaking, and that part is fine. I just wish I could've got more into the rhythm of the whole piece; there's a point where the movie almost stops to indulge a magnificent orchestral score that builds and builds over images of... stuff.
File this under 'a lot of people LOVE this, and... it wasn't for me, nice boobs aside.'
As highbrow as Brakhage, as homespun as Philly cheese steak
nunculus27 November 1999
A dash of the furious Pop threnody of Kenneth Anger, a lick of the hieroglyphic camp of Jack Smith--and throw it all together with the bridge-and-tunnel amateurism of Kevin Smith. The result is tastier, and more apt to insinuate itself in the memory, than the vast majority of acknowledged sixties "avant" classics.
Everyone gets something different out of this movie.
Boba_Fett113811 June 2011
It's hard to judge and rate this movie really, since it isn't one that features a plot and is not a typical movie in any way. It's an '60's underground, no-budget, artistic movie, like for instance Kenneth Anger and Andy Warhol also used to make.
You can basically interpret this movie any way you want to, since the director George Kuchar also leaves this pretty much open to your own interpretation. It's not a movie with a plot but also not one with any clear themes in it. I think this movie is showcasing all of the struggles Kuchar went through being a film-maker. The difficulties of getting a movie off the ground, waiting for that one right phone call and finding the right actors for the roles, the right directing approach, the right make-up. Perhaps he with this movie tried to vent out some of his frustrations with the whole film-making scene. But that's just my interpretation of it all.
It's a nicely shot film, with some good editing and of course unusual and special camera-work and angles. This isn't anything you are accustomed to seeing, which doesn't make this movie easy to watch but fascinating nevertheless.
Not the best and definitely not the most accessible genre example out there but it's still well worth a watch if you're into these sort of underground artistic movies from the '60's.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
You can basically interpret this movie any way you want to, since the director George Kuchar also leaves this pretty much open to your own interpretation. It's not a movie with a plot but also not one with any clear themes in it. I think this movie is showcasing all of the struggles Kuchar went through being a film-maker. The difficulties of getting a movie off the ground, waiting for that one right phone call and finding the right actors for the roles, the right directing approach, the right make-up. Perhaps he with this movie tried to vent out some of his frustrations with the whole film-making scene. But that's just my interpretation of it all.
It's a nicely shot film, with some good editing and of course unusual and special camera-work and angles. This isn't anything you are accustomed to seeing, which doesn't make this movie easy to watch but fascinating nevertheless.
Not the best and definitely not the most accessible genre example out there but it's still well worth a watch if you're into these sort of underground artistic movies from the '60's.
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
my interpretation
mrdonleone7 November 2009
Warning: Spoilers
There isn't a real storyline in this film, actually, there are many scenes of the life of one lonely guy. My interpretation of these scenes together, is that the movie director in this movie is slowly going insane. we witness his imagination when he can't get the actress he wants, we see him fantasizing about her taking a shower. still, we see him using his toilet. what does this mean? I guess, it means he has wild fantasies about peeing on his actress and that she loves this treatment. it's really weird, this movie, but what other things should I be thinking when I see the actress having sex in the shower, the protagonist with his toilet and the shower head with water coming out of it, as it were an erection at its highest point. I know this may sound strange, but this is a fantastic movie, especially because of the extreme colors in it.
Kuchar hits big
Douglass2924 April 2003
I would have to disagree, I don't believe it is like Stan Brakhage what so ever. The Kuchar Brothers had a great impact on cinema in the 1960's, and "HOLD ME WHILE I'M NAKED" was a great success in the avant-garde film department. The film is magnicicent in it's own sense. It has all of the elements which make a perfect movie. Cinematography is terrific, and the dialouge is great. What makes this film extra special is the fact that George Kuchar, went back over and recorded his voice, as everyone's. One of the greatest avant-garde filmmakers of our time, i would have to say, but the line between Brakhage is big enough to jump over. In my opinion, if yuo are an aspiring filmmaker, see this film. Don't just watch it once, but several times. It holds more than what is in the frame.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
