Trash

I've read about the movie's low budget process and expected a low quality flim, but I was surprised by how good this movie is. It is so raw and the actors are so natural that it feels almost like a documentary (perhaps the actors are not so different from their characters, but none the less they are fascinating people).

The characters are strange and high most of the time, which makes the movie absolutely hilarious. This is a brilliant, unique film, thanks to Paul Morrissey and Andy Warhol's eccentric vision and their Superstars.

After Flesh, this is the second of the Flesh-Trash-Heat trilogy of the Joe Dallessandro-Andy Warhol-Paul Morrissey collaboration. This is much more pacier than Flesh, and it has more solid conversation although obviously the actors have again been left on their own to improvise. The context is much more specifically set than Flesh again (thanks to better editing I guess), and the mood is darker and gloomier.

The transvestite Holly Woodlawn is truly grand as the lost and desperate girlfriend who is helplessly in love with the impotent drug addict Joe.

Trash is also more critical about the state of the American nation in the 60's.

Trash is a classic. It is a film that could only have been made in the early '70's. It captures people, locations and scenarios that existed then. I haven't seen this film in 20 years so viewing the DVD was a revelation. This type of guerilla filmmaking is less about a script and more about capturing a moment. I can't imagine these actors sitting around rehearsing scripted lines.It feels more like they were given a situation and then created the dialogue on the spot. I love this movie for this reason. One thing about this trilogy (Flesh/Heat/Trash) is that you feel like your watching documentaries not movies. The fact that these films really have no beginning or ending lends itself to this definition. I'm always anticipating meeting the characters in these films. They may not be individuals that I would want to know , (ie.neurotics, psychotics, junkies, poseurs, losers and the like.) But they are the environment in which the main characters are forced to reside. John Waters' films of this era were similar but have a more scripted sensation to them. We will never see the likes of this type of filmmaking again. It is an era unto itself. It's obvious that the late 70's/early '80's films of R. Kern or Nick Zedd were influenced by Morrissey and Waters but they are pale imitations. See this film. At times it can be banal and boring and insane but so is life.

After viewing Trash a second time I have to say that if Joe Dallesandro had not been in this film I doubt people would want to sit through it more than once. Maybe, but most likely not.

The film isn't bad but the acting is amateurish just enough to be distracting. The film is gritty, grimy and has a.... well, a trashy feel to it. Even Joe's fingernails in close-ups are dirty. But he is beautiful to behold. Young men today would give anything to have that body and let's be honest here, the camera loves his nude physique and we see a lot of it here. Full frontal male nudity.

It's hard not to become involved in the film because these people are desperate. They are barely able to survive. Somehow they manage to hold their heads up high and demand respect from other people even though they are living at the bottom of the barrel and very much need the welfare payments they are seeking.

The delivery of the dialog is out of place at times and it's hard to figure out how the actors went from point A to point B. Still, it is interesting to watch and Joe definitely looks good on screen.

It's a shame some people consider this and it's companion pieces to be Andy Warhol films when they really have very little relation at all to the Warhol style and Warhol himself had nothing to do with them. The credit goes to Morrisey and his superstar weirdos. What's even more shocking is that these films are considered to be such works of intellectual art when this movie at least is unashamed pure comedy and not much else. A very funny comedy at times granted, but not a great intelectual work, though it has some social relevance of course. The final scene with the social worker is one of the best comedy scenes in movies, or would be if it weren't for the amateurness of the actor playing the social worker. On the minus, you do have to wonder about the ethics of Morrisey since this film is also, to a small degree, a freak show.