Flesh (1968)

Lack of good storyline.

Instant Favorite.

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Expected more

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.

Snap, crackle, pop! The jarring sound of every change in camera angle. And that's not to mention the white flashes and the clipped endings to almost every spoken sentence. What on earth were they up to in the editing room? Or could it be that this approach was intentional? Surely not. What purpose could it serve? Despite all its technical short-comings, this is an interesting film depicting a day in the life of Joe, a hustler, determined to earn $200 for his wife's pregnant girl friend. Joe Dallesandro is outstanding as the easy-going, passive, laid-back young man who is willing to let the other person do most of the talking while he listens with a faraway look in his eyes.The story is meagre and sketchy, documenting the uncertain life led by a man who relies on casual street sex to support his young wife and baby. One thing is certain, Joe is uninhibited when it comes to disrobing for sex or posing for an artist. Understandably so, for he has a handsome face and and equally handsome body.There is a scene in the film that is remarkably effective. There is no sound, no dialogue. Joe stark naked is crouching on the floor feeding crumbs of cake to his little baby. There is a beautiful serenity and tenderness captured in these quiet moments.Another scene of amusing interest is the one in which Joe desperately seeks a loan of $100 from a gym friend, coming to the point of asking in a very circuitous approach.Joe tries to look interested but is hesitant in his conversation when an artist gives him a non-stop resume of Greek and Roman art. It's a preliminary to another occasion when Joe divests himself of his clothes and poses as the discus thrower in true classical style.At the end of the film we gain the impression that we have got to know Joe pretty well. After all he has uncovered more than his soul.

Technically abominable (with audible "pops" between scenes)and awesomely amateurish, "Flesh" requires a lot of patience to sit through and will probably turn off most viewers; but the dialogue rings amazingly true and Joe Dallesandro, who exposes his body in almost every scene, also gives an utterly convincing performance. A curio, to be sure, but the more polished "Trash", made two years later, is a definite step forward. I suggest you watch that instead. (*1/2)

I was a junior in high school when "Flesh" hit the big screens, but had the good fortune to see it at midnight movie houses in NYC just two years later.Flesh is the first part of a so-called "trilogy" of films, featuring Joe Dallesandro, as an object of desire. It bears the "Warhol" name, but is more the work of Paul Morissey. Essentially the story concerns itself with the exploits surrounding one day in the life of a street-wise male hustler (played by Joe Dallesandro). Joe is young, beautiful, and a bit naive... but he manages to bring home the bacon to his wife, for reasons which should not be explained to appreciate the film fully.Of special note to film buffs is that this film (along with the remaining two of the trilogy), had no script, per se. Warhol's superstars were given simply a premise... and the words and actions which the viewer sees are quite natural (even at times ridiculous or non-sensical). But all in all it works... "Rolling Stone" noted in its review that the film was better than "Midnight Cowboy", a film of the same year, more polished by Hollywood (An Academy Award winner for Best Film) , with big name talent (I equally admire the film)... but FLESH, being improvised, was somehow more gut wrenching and realistic, without the need for complex sub-plots and any "cause de celebre" .. or for that matter any cause at all!The film grossed more than $3 million dollars and was an absolute sensation, particularly in the German market (which, ironically, thought they were given a "censored version" of the film because of the post-editing....see note below).Curiously, the film is very much "cut and paste" with "pops". "clicks", "flashes", and dialogue literally cut off mid-sentence. It is almost as if Warhol/Morissey are stating a simple truth that it is a "day in the life" of a superstar, snippets for your voyeuristic tendencies. Far better than earlier Warhol works of 8 hours of sleeping, and the statue of liberty as a 20+ hour movie.FLESH, in my opinion, is the first of the Warhol films that actually is digestible (given a wide pallette) and Warhol's/the Factory's first legitimate response to the Hollywood phenomenon of "stardom".As the first of a "trilogy", it portrays a young, desirable male icon, naive, sought after, responding to invitations to please his family. Subsequent films would show the "same character" with a differing set of values. (See "Trash" and "Heat")