I Shot Andy Warhol

1996 "You only get one shot at fame."
6.6| 1h43m| R| en| More Info
Released: 01 May 1996 Released
Producted By: Samuel Goldwyn Company
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Based on the true story of Valerie Solanas who was a 1960s 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.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Samuel Goldwyn Company

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Lawbolisted Powerful
Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense
AutCuddly Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,
Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.
Lechuguilla If you shoot someone whom others consider "important" I suppose some filmmaker will want to make a movie about you. I can think of no other reason why anyone would want to make a film about Valerie Solanas (Lili Taylor), the spunky, chain-smoking, foul-mouthed, self-centered, lesbian feminist who, in the summer of 1968, shot Andy Warhol (Jared Harris). Warhol was a New York City painter/artist ... or something ... and guru of all things avant-garde, who attracted the chic and the trendy to his New York City "Factory", the center of counterculture pop art.In the film Solanas, who harbors an enormous grudge against men, comes across initially as assertive and resourceful. She makes a living hustling the streets: "Pardon me sir, you got 15 cents? Pardon me sir ..." On the rooftop of a high-rise she types her S.C.U.M. "manifesto", outlining her complaints against the male species.But whereas Solanas is passionate about her cause, Warhol is a study in emotional detachment and indifference. He, and those in his orbit, sees Solanas more as a hanger-on. At one point, Solanas shows Warhol her typed manifesto. Warhol flips through it and responds in a deadpan manner: "Did you type this yourself? I'm so impressed. You should come type for us." Marvelous.The film's best element is the acting. Lili Taylor is terrific. She really gets into the Solanas persona. Jared Harris also gives a splendid performance. The film's tone teeters between seriousness and tongue-in-cheek humor. Costumes, prod design, music, and lighting are all credible.For modern day feminists, "I Shot Andy Warhol" probably is required viewing. For others, the film offers a cinematic study into the mindset of a quirky, sincere, but ultimately self-deceptive and delusional young woman who got her fifteen minutes of fame by carrying her political cause a little too far.
fedor8 "I Shot Andy Warhol"... And what a loss it would have been, too, to the world of TRUE ART if she had succeeded in murdering him. A giant. A genius. Or maybe just a hyped-up talentless little autistic freak. The movie title could also be misinterpreted to be about one of Andy's many gay lovers. "I Shot My Load Right Into Andy Warhol's Apathetic Face".As for Valerie S., this woman clearly could not have had a high level of intelligence, while the opposite has been suggested here, rather groundlessly. And as far as being a genius, as some people consider her to be, she was just as much a genius as Warhol. (Look, Warhol seems to have been a nice guy, but everything he did was pure b******t-orama.) That she was molested by her father I do not accept as a fact, as this excuse has been so over-used in the recent decades to the extent that it has lost all believability - which just serves to harm the real victims.The funniest moment in the film (or rather, the only funny moment) was at the very end in the epilogue; here I am informed that Valerie's manifesto is today considered a feminist classic! Funny that, but I was banking on the fact that it must today be considered as funny (or sad) as any other extreme left-wing or right-wing piece of writing, and is hence dismissed even by ardent feminists as irrelevant ravings of a pathetic lunatic. But, as it turns out, I have once again underestimated the tinniness of a modern feminist's brain. Valerie's manifesto seems to be merely a laughable and hateful series of emotionally-induced hallucinations of one woman's twisted view of the world, based solely on her hatred of men. (And if you see how ugly this dog really looked, you'd partly understand why.) It seems to have been enough for her to learn about the chromosome difference between men and women to start arriving to bizarrely idiotic conclusions. A really intelligent person presents their case with logic and facts, not with silly generalizations and theories that have as much of a scientific basis as the infamous babblings of Hitler's and Stalin's medical and biology scientists, with their ideology-driven b******t research. A highly intelligent person in her place - insane or not - would first ask themselves why they hate men so much. She simply hated them, without analyzing herself. How do I know that? Well, she seems to treat everything else with superficiality; judging from this film - and there are plenty of quotes from her junk writings to form a relatively clear picture of her. Her only way of approaching any idea or concept was to disregard all facts, but instead go full steam ahead with emotion, and emotional thinking is the most essential ingredient in arriving to irrational and absurd conclusions.Ironically, with her unceasing emotionalism and lack of logic she was in fact only giving more support to all the male chauvinists of this world who consider women to be emotional and illogical, while she was trying to prove the opposite - that it is men who are inferior. But whether it's men or women, one thing is for sure: the most inferior species of people on this planet are fanatics, radicals and other morons who view the world in black and white terms. And I am not talking about politicians who oversimplify to achieve their goals without actually believing in the ideologies they are selling themselves - I am talking about the real believers, the low-life losers like Valerie S.; pitiful and bitter sods whose intensity of their beliefs should never be mistaken for genius.Perhaps the chauvinists are right; it does seem that women have a surplus of illogicality and emotionalist thinking; after all, it's no coincidence that the late 20th century feminist movement is one that exceeds in stupidity more then any other contemporary movement I can think of - except maybe the Green movement and PETA. But, the again, they are also run by women; there you have it.Anyway... The film is interesting mainly due to Taylor's convincing performance, and the dialog is interesting enough.If you're interested in reading my extensive satire on modern/abstract art, "Picasso", contact me by e-mail.
vmbicu The movie without doubt was great, but why do they call Andy Warhol a genius, did he invent something or discover something outstanding? I ask this because in our society or the Art world, someone will take simple dog feces from the street, freshly 'produced' and create a design on canvas with it and this person will be labeled for life, a genius! This kind of thing makes me wonder, for I can see people use regular paint that is used on canvas paintings and paint their faces and body with it. How many will also take freshly produced dog feces and paint their faces and body with it?!As for the movie, I only have one question, how is it that this girl walks over to Andy Warhol, fires one shot misses or just wounds Andy, and the other two that were there just do nothing! I mean this is a girl they know, petite and according to the movie, she just stood rigid with the gun pointed to Andy. Then when she fires a shot closer to Andy and he falls, she slowly walks to him, points the gun to his chest and shoots. You think there was no time for two guys to rush her and pin her petite body down and wrestle the gun away? After all, Andy was revered as a genius? What other opinions are there on this? Or did the director of the movie take some liberties to show the frame of her mind when she shot Andy Warhol?
cultfilmfan I Shot Andy Warhol, is based on the true life story of Valerie Solanas, who was a female radical in the 60's and was a lesbian and very against men. She wrote a play and came to New York, with a friend of hers who is a drag queen named Candy Darling to meet Andy Warhol. Valerie, gives Andy Warhol's company (called the factor) her play and soon she comes back and talks to Andy about it and Andy gets her to star in a couple of movies that he directs. Soon, Valerie gets a place and meets a publisher who inspires her to write a novel about her revolution and he plans to publish it. But soon Valerie starts to get paranoid and thinks that Andy Warhol, has to much impact on her life and thinks that he and the book publisher are setting her up so she plans to make herself famous by shooting him. Andy Warhol survived the shooting but died several years later due to complications and Valerie, was sent to a mental hospital and was homeless for quite awhile until she died of pneumonia. Her book SCUM Manifesto, is now published all over the world. Winner of the award for Best Art Direction at The Gijon International Film Festival, The Golden Space Needle Award for Best Actress (Lili Taylor, who plays Valerie Solanas) at The Seattle International Film Festival, The Best Actress Award at The Stockholm Film Festival and the special recognition for Lili Taylor at The Sundance Film Festival. I Shot Andy Warhol, has good direction, a good script, good performances from everybody involved, good original music, good cinematography and good production design. I Shot Andy Warhol, is a fascinating character study and a very interesting film. It shows the many different stages in a time of Valerie's life and it is compelling and played very well by Lili Taylor and all of the other actors. Also being a fan of Andy Warhol, I found the scenes with his factory and underground lifestyles with his films and art to be really interesting as well. This film shows a lot of different lifestyles and gives these characters interesting personalities and gives them good character development. The film is also a good looking film and looks like it probably would have back then. A very entertaining and fascinating look at an interesting person who you might not know of and of someone you do know of.