I Shot Andy Warhol (1996)

Based on the true story of Valerie Solanas who was a 60s radical preaching hatred toward men in her "Scum" manifesto. She wrote a screenplay for a film that she wanted Andy Warhol to produce, but he continued to ignore her. So she shot him. This is Valerie's story.Dr. Dana Heller, professor of English at the Old Dominion University, argues that the film stages the conflict between Solanas and Warhol as less the result of gender politics – particularly because Solanas intended no connection between her writing and the shooting – than of the decline of print culture as represented by Solanas and the rise of new non-writing media as embodied by Warhol and the Pop art movement. In the screenplay, Harron and Minahan describe Solanas as "banging at an ancient typewriter" and the film frequently shows her typing, for which she is mocked by Warhol and other Factory regulars. Solanas' writing is set against the new technologies of reproduction championed by Warhol.The Andy Warhol in this film is nothing compared to the one played by David Bowie in "Basquiat". The voice and mannerisms are good, but Bowie just nails it. The film in general is excellent, though, and Lili Taylor was the perfect person for the role. What is she up to these days? It seems like she had a good run in the 1990s, playing off of John Cusack, and then disappeared.

A movie about Valerie Solanas, 1960s radical feminist who worked with the pop artist Andy Warhol and - you guessed it - tried to kill him. Sewer-mouthed tomboy who works as a whore and hates men and femininity, she writes SCUM manifesto - no, not her biography, albeit the name is apt, but militant feminist ramblings - and tries to do the murderous deed. (No, it is not really a spoiler, it is mentioned in the title.) Albeit suffering later from paranoia and mental illness, which is always a tragedy, her totally disgusting personality makes her anything but sympathetic. Not that other characters would be more interesting or likable. Blech.

An independent gem of a movie that proves once again that give a good actor some well-written dialogue and the support to take a few risks and you can make gold. Lili Taylor, working under the careful stewardship of Mary Hanlon, works hard to give a pitch perfect performance as the brilliant and deeply troubled Solanas. Her intelligence and humor and always evident, but for all her strutting arrogance, she conveys an uncertainty and vulnerability that foreshadows what is ultimately a painful and tragic descent into violence and paranoia.The evocation of the late 60's New York underground, and Warhol's Factory in particular, is brilliant, even more so when you consider the low budget and that Andy Warhol's Estate refused to allow any of the artists work to actually be duplicated for the movie. The pill-popping, light-show gazing, pretentiousness, promiscuity and vacuousness of the scene have not been this well portrayed since Midnight Cowboy.The supporting cast, without exception, are brilliant, inhabiting their characters completely with just a few lines, and the soundtrack perfectly sets the tone and period. While the narrative lags in spots and could have benefited with a little tightening in the editing room, I Shot Andy Warhol is still a wonderful testament to the ambitious possibilities of low-budget, independent film-making.

After seeing a fascinating documentary on Andy Warhol, it has become clear that Marry Harron's I Shot Andy Warhol is a great film. The film is ultimately a criticism of Andy Warhol's (played masterfully by Jared Harris) cold, chic art world where the only things that matter are money and fame. Valerie Solanas (Lili Taylor) wants to build a relationship (a business relationship and, more subtly, a personal relationship) with Andy. When Andy and his factory cohorts break all ties with her, she refuses to let the blood-sucking Andy get the best of her and shoots him. In a savagely poetic twist, she spoons becomes famous. The film is certainly flawed. First of all, while I like the way Harris is seen mainly in medium and long shots, giving him Warhol's lack of attainability, the Harron had to give her film that awful docudrama style (I suppose this is better than filming in that hyped-up, over-the-top style that young filmmakers like David Fincher are into). Secondly, when Harron tries to do something stylistically interesting, she fails. Thirdly, the film needs a better editor; there are many scenes (most involving Candy Darling) that take away from the narrative flow. It seems like nowadays most greatness and sloppiness often come in the same package; the best thing to do is to accept the mixed bag, especially with a film this sharp, smart, and touching. Why ignore greatness when it comes with sloppiness?