← Back to Reviews
in
OK, get ready for a review unlike anything you've ever read on my board. This is a movie that is ans isn't meant to be watched, a satirization of art and one of the most unfunny and least insulting things on Earth.
Andy Warhol is mostly known for his "art," but he also took part in the mockery thereof, in his short-lived "anti-film" scene is a notable part of that mockery. One of these pieces is a 6 hour recording slowed down to eight hours, taking only one shot of the Empire State Building and watching the sky change to night, This is literally it. There are film scholars who write theory after theory concerning this movie, but most don't fall for it. Others say that Warhol's just being a pretentious bitch and this movie doesn't qualify as art just because it's "unique" and "freedom of speech." Not every new artistic idea is a good one. The delivery of the idea is what matters, and not the delivery itself.
Keep in mind, Warhol stated that the purpose of the movie was to see time go by, but I don't think he was being honest with the critics. You'll find out why I believe he was mocking criticism at the end of this review.
So, yes. I watched an eight-hour movie, but over three days. Since this movie was pretty much for stargazers and cloud watchers, I did what I'd normally do if I was watching the sky: listen to some music albums. I know the movie has no audio, so listening to a few albums while watching this is no different to me than watching any other movie with the background noise of the ceiling fan or dogs barking. It's not like I'm pairing the memory of the albums with the movie; separating the two are easy as hell. And I won't tolerate a purist telling me I have to watch it without any background sound. This is an ANTI-FILM, so I won't treat it like a normal film.
Nevetheless, I will still judge by my typical criteria:
1. What is the purpose of this film?
2. Does it succeed at its purpose?
3. What did it sacrifice to meet this goal?
4. Were the sacrifices made up for?
The purpose is to mock us with the ever-controversial subject of "statement." Warhol was indeed making a criticism against the critics and the art hounds.
The movie does in fact succeed. We can tell who the art hounds and fanatics are through online reviews.
The sacrifice is FILMMAKING.
But the ability to tell the phonies from the free thinkers through this movie's reputation doesn't mean this is a successful movie. In fact, the purpose of this movie was to be practically unwatchable. I'll admit that this purpose is not fully lived up to as the sky-changing scenes are a little bit soothing.
And at that, I risk being subject to mockery at the hands of Andy Warhol's ghost when I say that there is a glimmer of potential that he wasted: the charm of watching the sky. And why do I say that? Simple. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WATCH THE CLOUDS PASS. There are people who watch the stars. The movie isn't just filming the Empire State Building, but the surrounding areas. There are a couple other buildings, passing helicopters, and of course, the sky. For the first hour and forty-five minutes, the sky changes to some pretty nice looking black-and-white imagery from afternoon to night. But once it strikes night, it's completely black. And it stays that way for six hours. So if the purpose was to see time go by, shouldn't he have chosen an earlier time of the day so the sky wouldn't be ****ing black for six hours? He's smart enough to know that.
I'm sorry, but making a movie that's only supposed to be a prank against the snobs and getting away with it doesn't make you a genius. It means you did a niche thing for niche people, and only a few people are going to understand the true motives unless someone figures it out and that someone's commentary becomes a popular "theory." So Warhol wasted time and preserved something with his name attached to it, and has a private laugh with himself. That is the purpose of Empire.
So do I feel pranked? No. Because I never took this movie seriously to begin with. I only watched it because I saw a couple shorter (much shorter) movies by Warhol, and figured this was popular enough with the diehards to watch. But I never expected this to be a serious piece of art.
So after three days of this, I can safely say that Warhol could've made the joke or purpose a lot more clear if he did a little more with it, and by that I mean less black sky and more statement. But the problem is that the movie is so against the idea of criticism that it caves in on itself, because 99.99999% of the human race is not going to watch this kind of movie. A statement should be more public than that. So if he planned on saying something to the people, from a popularity perspective he did a crappy job. So this movie almost completely fails at its purpose. All it has is a scene where a cloud forms and deteriorates shortly before we get to six hours of blackness. But at least I can say "challenge completed."
Maybe Chelsea Girls and Poor Little Rich Girl will be better...
= 0.5/100. Yes, a half of one point for the cloud scene.
Andy Warhol's Directorial Score (0 Good vs. 4 Bad)
Vinyl: 0
Eat: 0
Empire: 0.5
Kiss: 30
Average Score: 7.625 / 4
Andy Warhol is currently #9 on my worst directors list, right between Larry Buchanan (8) and Ted V. Mikels (10).
Empire
(1965) - Directed by Andy Warhol
--------------------------------------------
Drama / Thriller
-------------------------------------------------
(1965) - Directed by Andy Warhol
--------------------------------------------
Drama / Thriller
-------------------------------------------------
Andy Warhol is mostly known for his "art," but he also took part in the mockery thereof, in his short-lived "anti-film" scene is a notable part of that mockery. One of these pieces is a 6 hour recording slowed down to eight hours, taking only one shot of the Empire State Building and watching the sky change to night, This is literally it. There are film scholars who write theory after theory concerning this movie, but most don't fall for it. Others say that Warhol's just being a pretentious bitch and this movie doesn't qualify as art just because it's "unique" and "freedom of speech." Not every new artistic idea is a good one. The delivery of the idea is what matters, and not the delivery itself.
Keep in mind, Warhol stated that the purpose of the movie was to see time go by, but I don't think he was being honest with the critics. You'll find out why I believe he was mocking criticism at the end of this review.
So, yes. I watched an eight-hour movie, but over three days. Since this movie was pretty much for stargazers and cloud watchers, I did what I'd normally do if I was watching the sky: listen to some music albums. I know the movie has no audio, so listening to a few albums while watching this is no different to me than watching any other movie with the background noise of the ceiling fan or dogs barking. It's not like I'm pairing the memory of the albums with the movie; separating the two are easy as hell. And I won't tolerate a purist telling me I have to watch it without any background sound. This is an ANTI-FILM, so I won't treat it like a normal film.
Nevetheless, I will still judge by my typical criteria:
1. What is the purpose of this film?
2. Does it succeed at its purpose?
3. What did it sacrifice to meet this goal?
4. Were the sacrifices made up for?
The purpose is to mock us with the ever-controversial subject of "statement." Warhol was indeed making a criticism against the critics and the art hounds.
The movie does in fact succeed. We can tell who the art hounds and fanatics are through online reviews.
The sacrifice is FILMMAKING.
But the ability to tell the phonies from the free thinkers through this movie's reputation doesn't mean this is a successful movie. In fact, the purpose of this movie was to be practically unwatchable. I'll admit that this purpose is not fully lived up to as the sky-changing scenes are a little bit soothing.
And at that, I risk being subject to mockery at the hands of Andy Warhol's ghost when I say that there is a glimmer of potential that he wasted: the charm of watching the sky. And why do I say that? Simple. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WATCH THE CLOUDS PASS. There are people who watch the stars. The movie isn't just filming the Empire State Building, but the surrounding areas. There are a couple other buildings, passing helicopters, and of course, the sky. For the first hour and forty-five minutes, the sky changes to some pretty nice looking black-and-white imagery from afternoon to night. But once it strikes night, it's completely black. And it stays that way for six hours. So if the purpose was to see time go by, shouldn't he have chosen an earlier time of the day so the sky wouldn't be ****ing black for six hours? He's smart enough to know that.
I'm sorry, but making a movie that's only supposed to be a prank against the snobs and getting away with it doesn't make you a genius. It means you did a niche thing for niche people, and only a few people are going to understand the true motives unless someone figures it out and that someone's commentary becomes a popular "theory." So Warhol wasted time and preserved something with his name attached to it, and has a private laugh with himself. That is the purpose of Empire.
So do I feel pranked? No. Because I never took this movie seriously to begin with. I only watched it because I saw a couple shorter (much shorter) movies by Warhol, and figured this was popular enough with the diehards to watch. But I never expected this to be a serious piece of art.
So after three days of this, I can safely say that Warhol could've made the joke or purpose a lot more clear if he did a little more with it, and by that I mean less black sky and more statement. But the problem is that the movie is so against the idea of criticism that it caves in on itself, because 99.99999% of the human race is not going to watch this kind of movie. A statement should be more public than that. So if he planned on saying something to the people, from a popularity perspective he did a crappy job. So this movie almost completely fails at its purpose. All it has is a scene where a cloud forms and deteriorates shortly before we get to six hours of blackness. But at least I can say "challenge completed."
Maybe Chelsea Girls and Poor Little Rich Girl will be better...
= 0.5/100. Yes, a half of one point for the cloud scene.
Andy Warhol's Directorial Score (0 Good vs. 4 Bad)
Vinyl: 0
Eat: 0
Empire: 0.5
Kiss: 30
Average Score: 7.625 / 4
Andy Warhol is currently #9 on my worst directors list, right between Larry Buchanan (8) and Ted V. Mikels (10).