Trash

When Andy Warhol approached Paul Morrisey about making a film dealing with drugs,Morrisey thought right away of making it as anti drug a film as possible. The proof in the proverbial pudding is 'Trash',which started out being called Drug Trash,but was shortened at the last minute by Morrisey & Warhol,themselves. This is a film that one could look at as being either a dark drama,or even darker comedy dealing with the various persons who use/abuse Heroin. Joe Dellisandro is a young junkie trying to keep one step ahead of his addiction (and usually failing). It also chronicles the various low lives that weave & bob in and out of his existence. It has some of the ugliest scenes of Heroin use that I've seen,outside of some of the footage that could be seen on a weekly basis on the series 'Intervention'. Toss in wall to wall male & female full frontal nudity,rampant sexual romping & various other droppings, and you have yourself a film that could easily scare one away from even considering trying Heroin,or any other self injecting drug. This film does,however have a grainy,kitchen sink,"do it yourself" (or D.I.Y.)look that does give the smarmy going's on a requisite,dingy look that really works (it was originally filmed on 16mm film stock & blown up to 35mm for distribution--i.e.the early John Waters' films,such as 'Pink Flamingos,and all of the other pre-Polyester films) Originally slapped with an 'X' rating by the MPAA,this film serves up the above mentioned drug abuse (with some truly ugly scenes of shooting up Heroin),nudity,actual on screen sexuality (including an on screen rape), a scene involving masturbation with a beer bottle,and lots & lots of profanity

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.

Morrissey has said that he wanted to show how drug addicts are really nothing more than trash, which I guess would make this film little more than a 60s "Reefer Madness." Fortunately, he is enough of a filmmaker to let himself (and us) be surprised by the insanely goofy, and sometimes just insane, performances of the people in front of his camera.

Dallesandro is very photogenic, and seems to really be trying to shape and stay in a character. Andrea Feldman is simply crazy, with her flat expression, drawling monotone, and probably pathological rhyming speech, but she does manage to rip out some of the film's funniest lines. Jane Forth doesn't have a lot of control (she seems to be struggling not to laugh while dragging the naked, O.D.ing Joe around her apartment), but her story about Danny DiVito and the tank is not to be missed. Holly Woodlawn is every bit as good as you have heard. As screwed up and drug-addled as she may have been (and, fortunately, no longer seems to be), Woodlawn is a natural actor with a broad range and a raging intelligence.

Finally, the film, though out of focus at points and probably shot with terrible equipment, is surprising beautiful. Morrissey's later, and weaker, "Spike of Bensonhurst" shows that this is no accident. He really does have an eye, and he shows in "Trash" that he has a willingness to let the performances speak for themselves, even if he has no ability to shape those performances.

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 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.