Whore (Puttana)

Uneducated prostitute Liz (Theresa Russell) works the L.A. streets. She is beaten up by one bad trick. She recalls various Johns. She married the local alcoholic hunk. They have a son together. She leaves her drunken husband with her son to her mother. As a waitress, she is introduced to prostitution.

Breaking down the fourth wall is an interesting style. The constant unceasing nature does wear thin after awhile especially with Russell's voice in this character. This is more of a monologue. The minimalist style is more due to the lack of budget. Director Ken Russell considers this his anti-'Pretty Woman'. He has certainly drop kicked Pretty Woman and raped her from behind. It is a fascinating take but not a completely successful one.

Russell's often cited, perfect retort to "Pretty Woman" deals with a Los Angeles streetwalker and her myriad of seedy misadventures as a woman of the night...and day. Based from a stage play, it pretty much works like that, but basically set outdoors.

Russell (Theresa, that is), directs monologues at the camera in between interaction with various figures in her life. Be it her Brooks Brothers pimp (who looks more like a yuppie banker) or a pair of dopey foreigners she co-mingles with. Odd that Russell (the director) would choose not one, but two men of far-away descent for the female Russell to play off of. The first being what seems to be a Jamaican (though played by African-American actor Fargas) for midnight chats, and a clichéd Arab who says cutesy things like "Will you be doing it without a rubber thing?".

Russell's story darts about in different fashions, from flashbacks to in-the-moment pick-ups from customers. At one point director Russell even cuts to the pimp cruising the streets and waxing philosophical to the camera as well. Those expecting something gratuitous to munch popcorn to need to look elsewhere. Whoring is not glamorized here, with gang rapes, slashed hookers, and hateful tricks full of salty language. Once in a while (director) Russell lightens things up with throwaway gags (no pun) including a comical caning and a shoe-fetish nutbar who even comes with a small script.

Physically, Russell is an effective choice for Liz, perhaps a little too pretty, but does sport a big butt and a few extra pounds. What distracts more is Russell's exceedingly uneven performance, one of the more mixed I've ever seen. Crossing an Elvira voice with a jr. high intellect, she captures your attention, though not always winningly. Part of the problem is the all-too-apparent dubbing of her voice for the street scenes. In order to remove the horns and whooshing of cars, her re-reading of lines is sometimes painful to listen to. Her quieter moments of pre-prostitution life work better, she being portrayed more as innocent and naive. Along with those scenes being shot indoors.

The film sometimes lapses into inappropriate satire or bawdiness, then will slug you with broken fingers and slashed throats. It doesn't always work, but holds your attention. Sort of a reworking of Russell's far superior 1984 work, "Crimes of Passion", with the same wise-assed hooker approach. Though that film was more straight-forward, and a had a three-character triangle of obsession, marital commentary, and redemption. Here the femme Russell is pretty much by herself, leading a more one-note lifestyle. Seek out "Crimes" for the better movie; seek out "Whore" for a gritty reality check.

I really enjoyed this film because of the acting of Ms.Russell. Though all the characters were painted with the usual overly broad strokes.

The only problem I basically had with this film, was that Ms. Russell's character was much too glamorous to be a *street whore*.

Her skin and make-up were flawless, she had nice teeth etc.. It sounds silly, but I notice these things when watching films. That was the most un-authentic part of this film, noticing how perfect she looked.

From viewing documentaries depicting real life prostitutes (HBO's series about hookers in the Bronx, those women were rough....missing teeth, barely literate etc) and other movies depicting the horrors of prostitution, we all know they usually don't look as good as Ms. Russell does in this film....unless they are call girls. Call girls aren't as abused as street hookers, they usually have a decent and comfortable place to be with their clients.

Most street whores have drug problems, even if they don't, that rough 'street life' certainly takes a toll on ones looks. I saw none of that in Theresa's character. She looked young and vibrant!

Nevertheless, she gave a great performance given the below par script she was given to work with.

I also enjoyed the 'Alfie' speaking-into-the-camera style and the anti-"Pretty Woman" message. Anyone who thinks prostitution is in any way 'glamourous', well, they need to read a bit more about the seedy demeaning aspects of that life. Then go back to school to get a decent education, so they can get a normal job. There are no free rides, pardon the pun, in that world.

Good performances all around. Though it would have been nice to see Antonio Vargas play a different character other than a wacky street person, at least he wasn't a pimp!

Ken Russell who made major films like WOMEN IN LOVE and THE DEVILS apparently burnt out by the time he got to TOMMY (bad ghoulash!!!), except for this sly, trembling, subtle and street piece with Theresa Russell (with able support from Jack Nance briefly) that bombed critically and ..duh..financially in the early 90's.

Totally under-rated and stylistic in a Bunuel sort of way, this walk down the boulevard..partly because of the casting of Ms. Russell (Nicholas Roeg's wife; still I believe), makes this almost realistic in David Lynch way without a million characters.

She talks to the audience (ala ALFIE) style, bad things happen, lonely Roy Orbison-type streets, and a crescendo that is totally unexpected. Ms. Russell is beyond the pale in this one and grabs you with silky, stuttering, and flexible grace as she draws you in to her tale of woe that you think you know the end to. . . . NOT! Find this one credible and bewildering piece of Americana and you may find a cul-de-sac to park it on.. if you like low-budget cool, hip, and demented cinema. Theresa Russell should have been nominated in '91, but you know how it goes. Oh well!

A prostitute named Liz (Theresa Russell) relates her life and times to the viewer. She's running away from her vicious pimp (Benjamin Mouton) who wants to kill her. Rasta (Antonio Fargas) pops up from time to time to inexplicably help her.

This was made in response to "Pretty Woman" (which actually made prostitution look glamorous). Director Ken Russell had trouble getting funding for this--no actress would take the role and the title alone scared away investors. Finally Theresa Russell (no relation) agreed to do it but he still had trouble getting funds. The movie was cheaply made and it shows in some of the sets. It also prevents Russell from any overindulgences (which are usually the highlights of his films). It comes off, cinematically, kind of muted.

The acting carries this. Theresa is a great actress--she pulls off the role showing the humor and pain in equal doses. Also she has quite a few long monologues which she pulls off without a hitch. Mouton is also good as her slimy pimp and it's always good to see Fargas in anything (although his character makes no sense).

The screenplay is great--it doesn't shy away from any of the realities of prostitution and is quite graphic. Nothing is really shown but the descriptions and sounds make it quite clear what's going on. It does fall apart at the end leaving a conclusion that was totally unbelievable. Some posters have complained that Russell is too glamorous to be a prostitute. That's true--but who wants to watch a movie with a real prostitute who aren't exactly attractive and are in terrible shape? Also there are a few cute references to earlier Russell films here--one movie theatre is playing "Lair of the White Worm" and another is playing a porno film starring China Blue (the character Kathleen Turner played in his "Crimes of Passion").

I saw this originally in 1991 in a theatre in it's NC-17 version. The one I saw on cable was R rated and dreadfully edited. The cuts are obvious and in one stupid moment a word is bleeped out (????). It still works as an R rated but try to find the uncut version. Good movie but the low budget hurts.