Il male di Andy Warhol

"Bad" was one of the most offensive, hilarious and brilliantly written films I saw in the 70's. Carroll Baker puts forth an incredibly bland, sarcastic performance as a housewife with a clan of hit women on the side (hey, a woman's gotta pay the bills). My only misgiving about the film was Perry King never made a very good Joe Dallesandro, and I got the feeling while I was watching it Warhol and Johnson were doing everything they could to replicate him. The saddest thing about this film is that after waiting for years for it to show up on DVD, it's finally been presented in such poor, dismal quality that it's almost not worth watching. Why would a company called CheezyFlicks release this, and release it in such poor shape? This needs a better release, as well as a remaster, so it can really be appreciated. What they've done to this classic film is a real shame.

"Andy Warhol's Bad" is probably one of my top ten favorite comedies. Imagine a John Waters movie and make it ten times more offensive! Great stuff! This is quite a turn from director Paul Morrissey's underground improvisation opuses, but isn't a bad change.

Carroll Baker is great as Hazel Aiken, a lady who runs an electrolysis clinic in her home and a murder-for-hire business on the side, utilizing only female killers (save for new employee Perry King). Baker is fabulous and reminded me of Kathleen Turner in "Serial Mom", just without the constant happiness. Susan Tyrell is great as Hazel's daughter-in-law Mary, who spends her life residing in Hazel's house caring for her baby. Always looking frumpy and whiny, Tyrell is hilarious! I see now why John Waters seeked her out for a part in "Cry-Baby"! Perry King is a painfully obvious Joe Dallesandro replacement. Reportedly Dallesandro turned down the part for work in Europe, which unfortunately didn't lead to anything that helped his career. He would have been perfect here and would have acted with/had another sex scene with one-time girlfriend Stefania Casini (they had worked together in "Blood for Dracula"). Casini's Italian accent is thankfully left intact and is very sexy as a redheaded assassin. Also making an appearance is early Warhol regular Brigid Polk as Estelle, a bitchy fat lady who wants cop Lawrence Tierney's dog killed for something he said about her weight! Jane Forth is almost unrecognizable as a screaming passerby who is splattered with blood when a woman throws her baby out the window! As you can tell from these examples, "Andy Warhol's Bad" is not for everyone. For those with a very broad taste in humor and those not easily offended.

It beggars the imagination to see that so many contributors feel the need to cover plot points even though a high percentage of said commenters have already amply traveled that territory.

When I saw this in 1977 it was an exhilarating example of what freedom of expression was all about. Defying every convention of "normal" films it featured individuals who did not feel the need to follow the rules, the standard behaviors, of either society or film conventions.

Yep, sociopathy. OK so we outgrew that.

Its depiction of selfishness, depravity, and disregard for norms of social behavior hasn't aged well. Sort of curdled. But if you want to see what American culture in the 70s was boiling down to this is the movie for you. And it is hilarious if you can get into the dead pan delivery and the absurd behavior. You would need a 70s mindset to do that and I'm not sure there's much of that in supply anymore.

"Bad" speaks to those of us who like to voyeuristically revel in wickedness for its own sake. This film is filled with abuse that good people everywhere proclaim they are incapable of fathoming. It is the realm of sick people with evil imaginations that prey on the weak, homely, helpless. However, because it is cinema, "Bad" should be viewed with a discerning mind. It is very funny at times to watch human folly in all its excesses. This film takes "bad" human behaviour to the extreme. It is camp that very much resonates in the same spirit as "Pink Flamingos" and "Meet the Feebles". This film will upset those who take themselves far too seriously. Without a sense of humour, the prospective viewer will be lost in a self-righteous fever.

Although Andy Warhol's association with this movie was merely nominal, the late Jed Johnson and his screenplay writers produced, (whether consciously or not hardly matters), one of the truly subversive masterpieces of American cinema. It is a more devastating critique of capitalism than any film ever produced by the so-called communist countries, and it forces us to face so many different issues, and ask ourselves just what we have collectively allowed our society to become. (Britain, by the way, is rapidly catching up in this respect; we usually trail the US by about five years in such matters!). It is too, one of the most strangely MORAL films, peopled, (with one exception), with characters so hideous, or selfish, or self-seeking, or ruthless, or just plain cruel, that empathy is thin on the ground, and yet the exception, (the docile, trusting, slightly naive, and conventionally "plain" and "square" Mary; was that name deliberately chosen for its symbolic value I wonder?), emerges as the true survivor, whose basic humane values are so cogently reflected in her closing line of the film, "Looks aren't everything". All the values that we are brainwashed into believing are "sharp", "hip" or "cool" are turned on their head, and even more amazingly, one of the ultimate messages that this remarkable film delivers, edges very close to an anarchist philosophy, that meaningful change and revolution has first to start with the individual, and that conventional "values" are hollow and riddled with hypocrisy if those espousing them are secretly pursuing hidden agendas of their own. (Step forward all the various "gate" participants of the last few decades..!). Certainly not a film for the squeamish, (how could the American ratings board or any caring parent allow children to watch such a movie?), but a film which I am sure the passage of time will show to be one of the most important American films ever. It really is that good! Technical credits are all outstanding too, (a brilliant score by the late Mike Bloomfield which fits the sleazy overall mood like a glove), and a performance from Carroll Baker that is worthy of an award. Approach this film with an open mind and some lateral thinking, and you too might discover that it is an unexpected revelation. A masterpiece!