The Reeling Film Festival is in its last days, but there's still time to catch what's sure to be one of the most fascinating movies in the program. Quearborn & Perversion, a new documentary by Columbia College alum Ron Pajak, tells stories of lesbian/gay Chicago life spanning the years 1924-1974. It's surely a beautiful irony of history: what is today the epicenter of the Viagra Triangle was, in the 50's, the epicenter of gay life; thus the nickname for the intersection of Dearborn/Division. The screening is 8:00 tomorrow night at the Chicago History Museum. Advance tickets are recommended so call (773) 293-1447.
For many years, the movies of Andy Warhol have largely been a lot like gay Republicans: much talked about, rarely seen. Thankfully, that's finally changing (the Warhol part). Facets is presenting a full week of Andy's films, ranging from early silent shorts like 1964's Haircut to 1967's feature-length I, A Man (which features an eerie scene featuring Valerie Solanas, the woman who would try to assassinate Warhol the following year). Contrary to what most people might think, these are not the kind of experimental movies where nothing happens and the camera is nailed to floor. They're actually very deadpan comedies for the most part, teasing the audience's expectations (the infamous Blow Job consists entirely of a close up of a young man's face while he's getting a ...) and turning stereotypes inside out (Lonesome Cowboys features lots of drag). There's also The Velvet Underground and Nico, Warhol's 1965 document of a band rehearsal interrupted by a police raid. Facets' program also includes a panel discussion and screenings of two new documentaries, Superstar in a Housedress and Beautiful Darling. It'll be a rare chance to see amazing work which has influenced everyone from Gus van Sant and Todd Haynes to mumblecore auteur Andrew Bujalski. Full schedule here.
still image from Blow Job via Telegraph



Warhol is definitely one of the great filmmakers, but I'm surprised to read your description of his films as "deadpan comedies". Beautiful, cruel, sensual, cool, subversive - yes (and intensely so). Perhaps absurd at times, and occasionally humorous. But "deadpan comedy"? I don't see it.
In fact, many of his films *are* of the camera-nailed-to-floor variety (specifically his early, silent works, e.g., "Eat", "Kiss," "Couch") -- which isn't to say those films are boring, but they're not exactly action-packed. As Fred Camper says of "Sleep":
I have not seen the two films you use as examples, "Blow Job" and "Lonesome Cowboys," but I'd be curious to hear more about the films you've seen and why you call them "deadpan comedies". I don't want to discourage anyone from going to see these films, but I don't think people should expect anything along the lines of Buster Keaton or Aki Kaurismaki.
Yeah, people should definitely not expect anything like Buster Keaton or Kaurismaki ... Warhol's "jokes" and "gags" function completely apart from narrative, and they don't "build" either. In my view they're more more of the laugh-because-you're-uncomfortable variety. He takes his choice of limited components to such extremes of endurance and repetition that you (or should I say I) can't help but laugh. It's a really weird sense of humor, which as you point out is tangled up in beauty, cruelty, sensuality, and even boredom; but who would want Warhol any other way? href="http://www.notcoming.com/reviews/blow_job/">An essay on "Blow Job" I really like sums it up better than I can.