<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"Interesting weekend for fans of films by&amp;nbsp;Andy Warhol&amp;nbsp;\u2014 or is&amp;nbsp;Paul Morrissey? Or should we say \u201CAndy Warhol\u201D and \u201CPaul Morrissey\u201D?\u201CSan Diego Surf,\u201D the posthumous Warhol film premiered last year by the Warhol Museum, is showing once daily at the Museum of Modern Art through Monday (January 28); on Saturday (January 26), Film Forum is featuring a double bill of \u201CTrash\u201D (1970) and \u201CWomen in Revolt\u201D (1971) under the rubric \u201CProduced, written, cast, photographed, edited, and directed by Paul Morrissey.\u201DAs I reported in last Sunday\u2019s New York Times, the mildly interesting \u201CSan Diego Surf\u201D could also be characterized as \u201Cproduced, written, cast, photographed, edited, and directed\u201D by Morrissey. On the other hand, the far more significant \u201CWomen in Revolt\u201D is, according to research I did several years ago in connection with the show \u201CAndy Warhol: The Late Work,\u201D at the Museum Kunst Palast, D\u00FCsseldorf, almost certainly Warhol\u2019s movie \u2014 and, even more important, because it was his last. (\u201CTrash,\u201D which Morrissey will be introducing at 5:30 p.m. Saturday, is absolutely all Morrissey and, for me, his funniest and most trenchant movie.)While the attribution of \u201CSan Diego Surf\u201D to Warhol and \u201CWomen in Revolt\u201D to Morrissey arises out of a settlement made between Morrissey and the Warhol Foundation in the mid \u201990s, it might be said that the creation of both movies was over-determined by deranged feminist&amp;nbsp;Valerie Solanas\u2019s attempt on Warhol\u2019s life. \u201CSan Diego Surf\u201D had only just wrapped when Warhol was shot on June 4, 1968 and was consequently edited by Morrissey alone; \u201CWomen in Revolt,\u201D which went into production in March 1970 (soon after shooting was completed on \u201CTrash\u201D) was the first movie in which Warhol was involved following his recovery. Morrissey considered it a \u201Cbad idea,\u201D telling Warhol biographer&amp;nbsp;Victor Bockris that \u201CWomen in Revolt\u201D was intended as provocative payback \u2014 \u201Cone of the few things [Warhol] ever did as a deliberate challenge, a show of defiance.\u201D In fact, it\u2019s a comically clueless but clearly vindictive satire on the women\u2019s movement in which each of the three principles (all played by men in drag) can be seen as mocking Solanas.Although the stars \u2014 Jackie Curtis,&amp;nbsp;Candy Darling,&amp;nbsp;and&amp;nbsp;Holly Woodlawn \u2014 were all Morrissey discoveries, appearing in either \u201CFlesh,\u201D his first post-Warhol film, or \u201CTrash,\u201D his second, Warhol was, by all accounts, the man behind the largely static camera for \u201CWomen in Revolt.\u201D There was no script; the dialogue was entirely improvised. The editing is far more rudimentary than that of \u201CFlesh\u201D or \u201CTrash\u201D (0r \u201CSan Diego Surf\u201D). In its chaotic tableaux and laissez faire attitude, \u201CWomen in Revolt\u201D is a throwback to the quasi-narrative productions of 1967, if not earlier. There are more production and exhibition details in my catalog essay (if you can find it) but in its attitude, \u201CWomen in Revolt\u201D strongly suggests an exorcism. \u201CAfter Andy was shot he became really terrified of women,\u201D&amp;nbsp;Viva&amp;nbsp;told Bockris.\u201CWomen in Revolt\u201D really only makes sense as a Warhol film (or a Jackie Curtis vehicle) although, whatever he thought of it at the time, Morrissey has been more than happy to claim it. Be that as it may, if you see only one \u201CWarhol\u201D or \u201CMorrissey\u201D film this weekend, make it \u201CWomen in Revolt.\u201DRead more J. Hoberman in Movie Journal.&amp;nbsp;"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://www.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/860644/andy-warhol-and-paul-morrissey-make-movies-together?comment_sort=desc>