Empire

I saw EMPIRE at the Whitney some time circa the early 90's. I watched the first 90 minutes of it, which I thought was an appropriate feature length. The film is silent, which makes it difficult to watch in a theater. It's easy to get distracted by the sounds of viewers shifting in their seats, or the talking among the blue-haired ladies who had no idea what they walked into. The film works (at least the first 90 minutes) because the Empire State Building goes from dusk to night, so there is a change slowly occurring on the screen. The film is mesmerizing, and I don't think I have ever looked up at the Empire State Building since without thinking about this film. There is something captivating about staring at it's fixed image, flickering on screen at 16 frames per second (which is what it was shot at, and a projector at the Whitney was modified to run at that frame rate). I wouldn't sit through 8 hours of it, but it's worth viewing for the experience of seeing this rare film.

Andy Warhol made many movies that are meant to be watched. VINYL, LONESOME COWBOYS, WOMEN IN REVOLT, THE CHELSEA GIRLS are all masterpieces of avant-garde, minimalist cinema. On the other hand, he made many movies that were never meant to be watched, but only looked at. SLEEP, **** (FOUR STARS), EAT, COUCH and, of course EMPIRE.

Anyone who attempts to watch EMPIRE from start to finish (nearly five hours in length when viewed at the correct speed) is missing the point. Just as with much of Warhol's work, the art is that the piece exists, not necessarily the piece itself.

I had a teacher in film school who bragged about having watched EMPIRE in its entirety. I have often wondered what Warhol would have said to that. My guess is, "What a waste of time." EMPIRE is simply a moving still life. Instead of spending eight hours painting the Empire State Building, Warhol photographed it for eight hours, at a fast camera speed so when played at normal projection speed, the image is actually slowed down. The film was intended to be projected on a wall during gallery shows, so that people could stop and look at it the same way they would a painting. It was not meant to be watched like a regular movie. Yet countless underground and art film aficionados have done just that, as though they are accomplishing something.

The fact that people find this movie so fascinating and have written and pondered so much about it is a testament to Warhol's genius. Aside from being a phenomenally imaginative and intelligent artist, Warhol was one of the world's greatest satirists, in that he led much of the world, and particularly America, to become a parody of itself, without even realizing it. That was, in many ways, his greatest work of art.

Now, we have paparazzi inundating us with images of famous people who are viewed by the public as demi-gods, simply for being famous. We have people paying outrageous amounts of money to be walking billboards for companies such as Tommy Hilfiger, Nike and Ambercrombie and Fitch.

And many people still think EMPIRE is a deep, meaningful masterwork of cinema.

It's a five hour long static shot of the Empire State Building. Nothing more. And Warhol is still laughing his ass off at all the people who've read more into it than that.

Because a star rating would be meaningless for this film, I have not given it one.

This film is just bad. I would rather watch an opera by Karlheinz Stockhausen than this crap ever again. A lot of people say that this film is unique and special because nobody has ever made a film like it before... I wonder why?! When I think of revolutionary, artistic films that are unique in that nobody has done anything like them before, some titles come to mind such as Metropolis, Nosferatu, Star Wars, the Monty Python films, even the Harry Potter series has more merit than this. "Art" during this period was just awful. It was just stupid and awful. And it only became popular because of one thing: money. As an artist myself, I don't support this pretentious crap and it actually makes me angry that the art industry was taken over by stupid crap like this. Absolutely useless film. Not even going to comment on the fact that the most interesting thing that happens is the moment when you see Warhol's reflection. This is not art, this is bollocks.

If the razzies were around in the 1960s, this would be my vote for worst picture.If anyone has heard of the video game desert bus, you had to drive a bus for 8 hours.This is the movie version of that piece of trash. Don't trust any reviews that say this is a masterpiece unless you want to spend 8 hours of staring at the empire state building.To put it clearly, here are some examples of a masterpiece: Pulp Fiction The Shawshank Redemption Die Hard Forrest Gump(Or any best picture winner other than the English patient) The original Super Mario Bros. Toy Story Back To The Future E.T The Dark Knight Saving Private Ryan What Is not A Masterpiece: An 8 hour shot of the empire state building Overall, this film should not exist, and it maybe the worst movie ever made! It isn't as frustrating and painful to watch as movie 43, or as irritating as Scary Movie 5, or as disgusting as A Serbian Film. But in terms of enjoyability/film-making in general. This is an all time low. 1/10

Warhol's Empire (1964), a static shot of the Empire state building that begins in day and ends at night. (climaxing when the lights turn on the building, eight hours later!!) The film itself is a re-examination of the way we view cinema, and it's been called the longest establishing shot that denies the viewer everything else.