Documentary film works to establish a “filmmaking practice, a cinematic tradition, and mode of audience reception” that is constantly progressing and lacks any evident boundaries (Nichols; 1997). In this way Andy Warhol saw the potential to exploit a new art form through the medium of film that centered on the cameras ability to observe everyday life. The notion that the original is more entertaining than the fictional and that the raw can be more powerful than the performed, allowed Warhol to explore an uncharted domain where life was presented how it is (or at least how it was in the factory). Although documentary film is considered non-fictional it still provides a specific message and an opinion in parallel with the facts depicted on the screen. By manipulating production strategies, content, and form Warhol produced films that did little to camouflage the creative conception of the problems and choices of his subjects. To comprehend the stylistic elements that help to classify Warhol’s films as documentary we must take a closer look at the techniques found throughout his work.
Andy Warhol was one underground cinematographer that continuously defied conventions in an attempt to demonstrate a world through film that evokes a consciousness unlike any other. Warhol’s film career began with his motionless movies such as “Sleep” and “Empire”, which were directly in line with the minimalist aesthetic that was emerging at the time (Hitchens; 1996). By bringing his motion pictures to a standstill he was able to manipulate the mind of the viewer, causing them to enter a trance-like state after becoming under-stimulated by the same inexpressive face or lethargic activity projected onto the screen for hours on end (James; 1989). The significance of these films is not found in the subject matter that they document, but in the freedom they elicit in the audiences’ minds while perceiving the repetitive and long lasting film reels. To illustrate this point, Mekas has described, “the uniqueness of the world presented… and the monumental thoroughness with which it is presented” when speaking of films such as “Empire” (James; 1989). The poverty of action in the events allows the motionless camera to confront what is being filmed directly, consequently creating a correspondence between the cameras fixed view of the object and the viewer of the films perspective. As Warhol’s radical technique of introducing stillness to movies created an anticlimactic effect, the spectator is left with the feeling that they have just experienced a form of documentation that literally transcends space and time.
When considering the mode of documentary film there has been a great deal of speculation regarding the filming techniques employed by Andy Warhol. Viewers become frustrated with the erratic zooming and unmethodical lighting, demonstrating how Warhol’s voyeuristic tendencies at times overpower any form of documentation that may have previously been implied. The camera often directs the audiences’ attention to details that hold no significant meaning and confuse the viewer, rather than reveal any plot or climax in the film. The utilization of techniques such as arbitrary zooms and strobe cutting can be recognized as a strategy for alienating both performers and spectators alike (James; 1989). The same can be said of the stationary camera as it directs the audiences’ curiosity towards what has been excluded from the screen (James; 1989). However the moving camera allows for a different form of rejection, one where the performer must demand attention from the unconcerned apparatus that can so unwittingly become distracted (James; 1989). Warhol’s compositional strategies at times will intentionally overpower the arbitrary subject matter at play, ultimately aiding in the discovery of the meaning behind his artistic style.
One of the strategies Warhol would utilize to supply his films with their erotic aura, was the voice-off or voice-over technique (Waugh; 1996). By separating the image and the sound he was able to create tension between the subject and the object (Waugh; 1996). As the performers would play out the narrative by remaining separate from one another they in turn would mirror the unstable relationship found between the individual and the actor playing a role (James; 1989). The division between the voice and the image can also be perceived as the author taking the stage dominating the subject through the viewers conflicting senses. When the auditory information is at odds with our visual understanding it is difficult to form a proper conception of the stars on the screen and the motive behind their actions (Waugh; 1996). However, this was only one of the ways that Warhol was able to put his audience in a divergent position and at the same time illustrate the power struggle that was characteristic of his erotic films. For instance, in the film “Lonesome Cowboys” the competition between the actors authority within the plot is accentuated by the implicit sexual conflict within and between many of the characters. The sex scene between Tom Hompertz and Viva is a prime example of image-sound and subject-object separation, Warhol would elicit the sensation of being aroused yet he would never fulfill any of the expectations he would provoke (Waugh; 1996). By eliminating everything that the audience would predict Warhol took control of the show reconfirming the power that he had to suggest the most unimaginable predicaments only to conclude with a literal form of anti-climax.
Warhol created a paradox between his closeted authority within the documentation process and the freedom emitted by his eccentric ‘stars’. He chose to neglect the use of editing and montage, permitting him to translate the idea of time into film, with each reel consisting of one single shot and shown as one unified whole. In contrast to the way that Warhol’s equation of real-time with ‘reel-time’ adds to the pragmatism of the cinematic experience (“Empire”, “Sleep”); twin and multiple screen projections (“The Chelsea Girls”) are pitted against one another and are forced to compete (James; 1989). Together these techniques demonstrate the way in which Warhol would manipulate the amount and form of sensory stimulation that entered into the viewers’ perception. In doing so he had the power to evoke the tranquility elicited by a permanent background piece or the anxiety that a twin-screen projection demanded from the spectator. Overall Andy Warhol’s experimental and innovative techniques aided in the rare artistic transformation of reality that he was so skilled at recreating.
While the ‘stars’ in Andy Warhol’s films appear to behave according to their own freewill their activities are often exaggerated with lengthy inconsequential pursuits. However, as Warhol developed a more extensive collection of films his performers became interesting and recognizable personalities. He wanted to document the untainted behaviors of his entourage and began experimenting with the performers verbal presence often creating conflict between what the audience would see and what they would hear. “The Chelsea Girls” would be a prime example of the struggle found in the viewer while attempting to watch two distinct scenes with the audio shifting between the projections in an unpredictable way (James; 1989). The verbal presence of the actors became central to the work that Warhol was creating as the amphetamine-driven superstars would often express themselves through their verbal outrage (Tyler, 1967). The conflict found between visual and verbal presence is unmistakable in “The Chelsea Girls” where Ondine redefines his role as the Pope accosting the spectators optical and auditory senses. When the woman in the confessional position (Pepper) verbally attacks Ondine stating, “I can’t confess to you because you’re such a phony” he meets her accusation with a distressingly real visual assault and slaps her across the face (James; 1989). We are directed towards the realism of the scene as we hear the uncomfortable filmmaker behind the camera exit the room only to leave the tape running, ultimately dismissing any chance of the same escape for the spectator. Warhol comments on the unsettling truth of the scene stating, “During the filming of Chelsea Girls, when Ondine slapped Pepper in his sequence as the Pope, it was so for real that I got upset and had to leave the room-but I made sure I left the camera running.” (Berlin & Bruce; 1986) Pepper’s misunderstanding of the duality between Ondine’s role and persona demonstrates the utter freedom of Warhol’s performers; it was the goal of the production to document a compilation of ‘real’ events built upon their personalities (James; 1989).
Instead of orchestrating his actors, Warhol would manipulate the scene with his camera, forcing the spectator to actively participate and use their imagination in order to piece together the story (or lack thereof) in any way that they saw fit. Warhol was then able to conceal parts of the performances and exaggerate others, leaving the audience with a feeling of impermanence while they wait for a clue to help them explain the nature of what has been depicted on the screen.
As Hollywood made a profit off of actors playing the roles of unconventional subjects and by depicting heterosexual ‘love-making’, Warhol saw no need to ‘fake’ what was so readily available in the personas of many of his stars (Waugh; 1996). As Warhol explains the choice for his uncommonly true to part characters he states, “I only wanted to find great people and let them be themselves and talk about what they usually talked about and I’d film them for a certain length of time and that would be the movie.”(James; 1989) In an attempt to break down the cinematic barrier between life and art he took interest in documenting people who were real and lived the lives of the roles he was attempting to recreate.
The uninhibited style of direction that Warhol speaks of worked well with subjects who were dreaming (“Sleep”) or made of concrete (“Empire”), however as his performers became aware of the cameras presence his documentary aesthetic took on a new form. He attempted to create an unhindered transcription of the unprecedented lives of his self proclaimed ‘Superstars’, allowing them to narrate their own stories with subtle instruction to carry on the persona they have already become known for (James; 1989). The enforced continuity between performances speaks directly to the self-consciousness of the performer who must construct an identity that shifts between true and false divulgences, fundamentally blurring the line between reality and the inevitable performance that the camera constitutes (James; 1989). This creates a limitation when considering the documentary aspect of Warhol’s films as he states, “The acquisition of my tape recorder really finished whatever emotional life I might have had, but I was glad to see it go. Nothing was ever a problem again, because a problem just meant a good tape, and when a problem transforms itself into a good tape it’s not a problem any more. An interesting problem was an interesting tape. Everybody knew that and performed for the tape. You couldn’t tell which problems were real and which problems were exaggerated for the tape. Better yet, the people telling you the problems couldn’t decide any more if they were really having the problems or if they were just performing.” (James; 1989) Due to the fact that the camera cannot hold a completely neutral position and brings with it the anxiety of being watched, it seldom captures a pure transcendence of truth in any situation documented in its presence.
Warhol was notorious for creating ‘stars’ out of ordinary people that he found compelling by simply documenting the obscene activities that consumed their lives. He played with the unknown characters of society that were characteristic of the underworld in a literal way. By casting real drug addicts, deviants, hustlers, models, and transgender personalities as the stars of his films, he was able to create the notion of realism in his spectators from the outset (Parker; 1967). He illustrates the significance of dismissing professional actors by stating, “I can only understand really amateur performers or really bad performers, because whatever they do never really comes off, so therefore it can’t be phony. But I can never understand really good, professional performers.” (Berlin & Bruce; 1986) The unstable relationship between what is in fact reality and what is a contrived image speaks directly to the Warhol’s devised interconnection between the subject, camera, and spectator. For instance in the film “Bike Boy” the camera is transformed into the role of the analyst who quietly observes the performers as they spout tedious monologues as if they are releasing all of their repressed insecurities through the recital of their past and present problems (Doyle; 2006). They attempt to convince the camera of their veracity but fall short when their own personality diverges with that of the ‘celebrity’ they are trying to impersonate. From a documentary perspective it is clear that the performers in Warhol’s films make them what they are, whether they display a raw transcription of their insecurities or a fabricated one, the end product (the film) still constitutes a creative treatment of the original scenes actuality.
In many of Warhol’s films the subject matter was his performers and his performers were his subject matter, the two interacted to a point of indistinguishable continuity. Through this assortment of characters Warhol was able to theatrically document outrageous themes and ridicule certain subjects (Finch). The film “Lonesome Cowboys” (1968) exposed homosexuality to commercial cinema at a time when it was still considered taboo. He challenged the myth of the all American courageous cowboy that so often appeared in Westerns and put an erotic spin on the subject matter (Finch). As Warhol leads the spectator through the surreal sequence of events taking place in “Lonesome Cowboys” he draws our attention towards the numerous categories that its subject matter could be classified under, but ultimately defies. The film dismisses the suggestion that it should be anything other than what it represents, corresponding to a form of “cinema direct” that aspires to make the spectator forget the medium in favor of what is put forth (Hitchens; 1996). Therefore Warhol has not failed to make a Western or a Pornographic film; he just simply couldn’t be bothered to pretend (Finch). Consequently it becomes easier to define the subject matter of the film according to everything that it is too impassive to be. The message can be found within the unclassifiable characters and the element of provocation that Warhol highlights but never fulfills with explicit sex (Finch). The freedom on the set of “Lonesome Cowboys” to, ‘be what you are’, created a documentary style that may in fact be flimsy but still directs attention towards the historical recording of events and shifting realities uninhibitedly unfolding in front of the viewer.
Some would say that the subject matter of Warhol’s erotic films are on the edge of what should be considered pornographic yet many of them lack any real sexual interaction all together. This was exactly the point that the explicit subject matter was meant to convey; the mere suggestion of the most erotic encounters can be more powerful then the act itself. Andy Warhol was skilled at camouflaging the intent of his films by making it difficult to see past the eccentric behaviors of his stars. Yet the fundamental intention still succeeds, as the viewer leaves with a sense of confusion regarding what is a real documentation and what is simply part of the show. The characters do not just ‘play a part’ instead they live this part and through innovative techniques they are able to demonstrate the reality of the situation in question. A prime example of this would be the film “Women in Revolt” although it seems to be far from what one would consider ‘documentary’ it does in one fashion or another illustrate the confusing reality of the 1960’s Women’s Movement (Yacowar; 1993). Warhol’s frivolous position towards the subject matter is blatantly depicted in the female impersonators cast to play the ‘revolting women’. Again we can see the connection between the subject and the subject matter that is typical of Warhol’s films. By casting transvestites as the oppressed women, he overturned the idea of liberating women from men to liberating men from their own anatomical confinements (Yacowar; 1993). Therefore the structure of the film becomes just as confusing as the subject matter at hand. It becomes clear that Warhol and his actors do not actively take on any one position, but merely present the issue in a disinterested yet morally objective manner (Yacowar; 1993). Warhol’s impartial attitude towards the issues he presents, permits the acceptance of the analogy found between his work and that of documentary film.
The discourse that surrounded Andy Warhol’s work demonstrates the active mechanism that was central to eliciting the notion of a rare documentary aesthetic. The realism of Warhol’s work is what shocks the audience as he takes us from one bizarre scenario to the next, directing our attention at one moment and allowing it to roam free at the next. He defied conventions and subsequently redefined the viewers’ notion of reality as an instable form of consciousness. However the overt explicitness and exploitative nature of his documentary style do not fully surface until the 1968 completion of the film “Blue Movie” (aka “Fuck”). Although the film is far from the conventional documentary focus of two animals mating, it ultimately demonstrates the complication of the same act between humans. It is difficult to argue against the assumption that the film is primarily pornographic as Andy Warhol himself has stated, “I’d always wanted to do a movie that was pure fucking, nothing else, the way Eat had been just eating and Sleep had been just sleeping. So in October ’68 I shot a movie of Viva having sex with Louis Waldon. I called it just Fuck.” (Berlin & Bruce; 1986) Nevertheless Warhol’s intention of documenting the ‘pure act of fucking’ elicited a much different response from his performers. Viva actively engages the camera and spectator by conversing about the pain and pleasure of acting in a porno while winking and smiling into the lens throughout the film (James; 1989). She exposes the medium in the same way that Warhol exploits her, ultimately transcending any barrier that may have existed between the scene and the apparatus. “Blue Movie” has been interpreted in a correspondingly conflicting way, judged as both a rejection of the medium, and a seemingly raw representation of the subject acting according to the unconcealed situation at hand (Hitchens; 1996). Viva may have acted differently if the camera was not present but it is precisely the cameras presence during such a private moment that makes her behavior interesting and real. Overall “Blue Movie” has been classified as pornographic because the performers engage in actual rather than feigned sexual intercourse however for the same reason it can be considered documentary demonstrating Warhol’s fascination with ordinary human activity.
Taking a closer examination of the various filming techniques, performers, and themes within Andy Warhol’s work helps to situate him as a unique type of documentary filmmaker. To comprehend this notion we must establish documentary film as the recording of original and raw situations presented to the public in a creative manner. Warhol would use his camera to manipulate the subject matter of his films, yet he would rarely exert control over his performers, allowing them the freedom to be whomever they chose. This independence revealed with it the entire context of the situation in question, ultimately creating a rare form of documentation that was directly in line with the underground subculture being exposed. Therefore Warhol’s stylistic elements paired with his perverse subject matter and uninhibited performers enabled him to establish an alternate form of reality that surpasses even the most compelling of documentary films.
Bibliography
David E. James. “Andy Warhol: The Producer as Author.” In Allegories of Cinema:
American Film in the Sixties. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989. 58-84.
Gloria Berlin and Bryan Bruce. “The Superstar Story.” CineAction! 7 (December 1986), 52-63.
Hitchens, Christopher. "The importance of being Andy: The Warhol's Worlds.." Critical Quarterly 38.1 (1996): 13. Film & Television Literature Index. EBSCO.
Jennifer Doyle. ““I Must Be Boring Someone”: Women in Warhol’s Films.” In Sex Objects: Art and the Dialectics of Desire. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2006, 71-96.
Mark Finch, “Rio Limpo” Lonesome Cowboys and Gay Cinema.” In Michael O’Pray (ed.). Andy Warhol Film Factory. London: British Film Institute, 112, 117.
Maurice Yacowar. The Films of Paul Morrissey. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 56-61.
Nichols, Bill. 'Foreword', in Barry Keith Grant and Jeannette Sloniowski (eds.) Documenting The Documentary: Close Readings of Documentary Film and Video. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1997.
Parker, Tyler. “Dragtime and Drugtime: Or, Film a’ la Warhol.” Evergreen Review 11 no. 46 (April 1967). 28-31, 87-88.
Thomas Waugh. “Cockteaser.” In Jennifer Doyle, Jonathan Flatley, and Jose Esteban Munoz (eds.). Pop Out: Queer Warhol. Durham: Duke University Press, 1996, 51-77.
No comments:
Post a Comment