Trash

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.

I've read about the movie's low budget process and expected a low quality flim, but I was surprised by how good this movie is. It is so raw and the actors are so natural that it feels almost like a documentary (perhaps the actors are not so different from their characters, but none the less they are fascinating people).

The characters are strange and high most of the time, which makes the movie absolutely hilarious. This is a brilliant, unique film, thanks to Paul Morrissey and Andy Warhol's eccentric vision and their Superstars.

I became familiar with the Paul Morrissey-Joe Dallesandro trilogy by watching "Flesh". I loved it, but there were many flaws that could not be overlooked (i.e., forgettable acting, bad editing and sound, boring intervals in plot). I did expect better with "Trash" and it delivered more than I wished for.

Joe Dallesandro gives another fantastic performance as a junkie who will do anything for heroin. But unlike his appearance in "Flesh", Joe barely creates any sexual longing from the audience. The plotline is simple: Joe wants heroin, his girlfriend Holly wants welfare, and you get to see some strange characters and situations as they try to reach their goal(s). Morrissey produced several winning actors in "Flesh", one of which was Geri Miller as a ditzy but lovable stripper. Geri plays another ditzy but lovable stripper and is just as good, if not better, here. For those of you who remember hearing her conversation about choosing between plant juice or silicone for her breast implants, you can't help but wonder which she picked, for in a stripping sequence, Geri's breasts are noticeably larger. It is in this film that I noticed Morrissey's casting is similar to that of John Waters: Morrissey-Geri Miller; Waters-Cookie Mueller Morrissey-Jane Forth; Waters-Mary Vivian Pearce Morrissey-Andrea Feldman; Waters-Edith Massey (in the "where the hell did they come from?" category)

Candy Darling and Jackie Curtis are gone from the cast, but to take both of their places is Holly Woodlawn, who steals the film from absolutely everybody! She was supposed to have been nominated for an Oscar for her performance in this film, but because Holly is a transvestite, there was questioning as to which category? She is fabulous, better than any other Warhol star before or since, and is both hilarious and heartbreaking. Andrea Feldman is a wild, outrageous character actress and while her voice is annoying, her personality is interesting. Jane Forth, a 16-year-old actress, has an equally annoying voice, but her performance as a talkative rich snob is great. Other notable appearances include Johnny Putnam, who was Holly Woodlawn's 16-year-old boyfriend, as a teen looking for dope and Michael Sklar as the welfare officer. Diane Podlewski as Holly's pregnant sister and Bruce Pecheur as Jane's husband aren't as memorable.

"Trash" features better editing style, better sound quality, better improvised dialogue, better stylistic camerawork, great sets, and a MUCH better ensemble cast. I would recommend this film more than any other Morrissey film besides perhaps "Blood for Dracula". Highly recommended!

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.