Il male di Andy Warhol

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.

If you're not sure what irony is, imagine a housewife in Queens running a legitimate electrolysis shop while also running an illegitimate "murder for hire" operation. But Hazel Aiken's real pet peeves are using off color references (toilet talk) in her kitchen or after deliberately scattering broken glass, sets up her male boarder to walk barefoot through it, threatening him if he gets blood droplets on her rug. Orchestrating the murders of auto mechanics, babies and dogs is just part of a days work. Carroll Baker is perfect is the self-absorbed Hazel Aiken who prefers using women to carry out these dastardly deeds. It is only after she breaks from tradition and hires L.T (Perry King) as her newest recruit, do things go astray. Every job is bungled. Hazel's homely, depressed and poor daughter-in-law (Susan Tyrrell) is the only soul with a conscience in this dark but funny flick. Of all the "underground" Wahhol movies, this would be considered closest to "ground level". It also stars Brigid Berlin (then Brigid Polk), Cyrinda Foxe, Mary Boylan, Stefania Casini, Charles McGregor and a list of lesser known "Warhol" affiliates. It's a "must see" for those who appreciate the offbeat.

"Andy Warhol's Bad" concerns a rapacious middle-age housewife in NYC who runs an electrolysis business and a murder-for-hire (with only female employees) business out of her home. There are various subplots, involving her hired assassins, their clients, and her mentally dull daughter-in-law who lives with her (and whom she cruelly exploits). Although often considered "camp", a la the films of John Waters, "Bad" is in reality more of a satire in the vein of "Gulliver's Travels". The critique is presents of contemporary, capitalist values in American society is right on target, so that the thoroughly unrealistic plot seems all too real. Even more, this film has perhaps the funniest, most original dialogue of any film ever made - you'll never forget the dangerously paranoid Brigid Polk (a.k.a., Brigid Berlin) and the two amoral sisters she hires to kill a dog. The acting, by both pros and Warhol superstars, is excellent. It even manages to successfully pull off the few moments of poignancy that are allowed in the bleak world it depicts (the assault on the dog and his owner, the final epiphany of L.T. when his empathy prevents him from killing an autistic child and his subsequent confrontation with Hazel). This is not a film for most people - it is far too pessimistic, brutal and graphic - but if you can stomach that, it is more than worth your while to see.

I've only watched a few of Warhol's films but BAD now joins FLESH FOR FRANKENSTEIN (1973) and BLOOD FOR Dracula (1974) in being the most interesting examples of his work (so far, anyway), if still not exactly good cinema!

Tacky in presentation and patchy in effect, the film is tasteless enough to keep one watching - sometimes incredulously - till the very end; Mike Bloomfield's pounding score helps, too. Carroll Baker seems comfortable enough with her unusual (to say the least!) role - though she had cut her teeth in Italian cult films during the previous decade. The rest of the cast is eclectic, if not especially rewarding: Perry King, Susan Tyrrell (playing a simple-minded ugly duckling who's been left stranded with a child suffering with Down's Syndrome!), Stefania Casini and Lawrence Tierney. The first three appear as temporary residents in Baker's house - a hair-removing business indulging in criminal activities on the side! - while Tierney is one of their victims (or, rather, its master as the target was actually his dog!). Baker utilizes several colorful killers for her alternately anarchic and murderous jobs: King is a wastrel, while Casini (who comes off best, despite struggling with the English dialogue) is a tough foreign broad, for instance; among others, there is also a memorable sister act - one of whom is a pyromaniac.

Among the film's most hilarious - or, should I say, horrifying - sequences: a young one-armed man reacting passively to Casini's killing of the mechanic responsible for his disability; a journalist reporting a fire in a cinema, which left 14 people killed, saying that one should thank God that the film being shown was a Hispanic release with limited appeal - as, otherwise, the number of victims would have been far greater!; and, particularly, three scenes involving violence perpetrated on children: a jaw-dropping yet hysterical one where a distraught mother callously throws her crying toddler out the window of a tall building, splashing bystanders with its blood (the baby itself is then voyeuristically shown splattered on the pavement)!!; another in which King punches a retarded boy several times - and even throws him across the room - in order to make sure of his condition, but still can't bring himself to 'execute' him; and the end sequence when Baker's body is discovered by Tyrell who, in her amazement, lets go of the baby (which comes tumbling down to the floor).

One last thing; "Leonard Maltin's Film Guide" erroneously lists this as having been made in 1971 - but that's quite impossible since, at one point, Tyrrell's character is asked what was the last film she watched and the reply comes that it was "that Watergate thing" (alluding obviously to ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN [1976])!

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!