[DreamsOfCandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by babydoll1125 I still wonder why the Warhol Museum doesn't put more of Andy's movies out on dvd...

I kinda answered that. In the early days, Andy never got signed releases from the people appearing in his films. This came back to haunt him after he released Chelsea Girls because it was one of the few profitable films Warhol released. Mary Wornov's mother sued Warhol when Chelsea Girls was released because Mary never signed a release and she didn't get paid to appear in the film. Warhol ended up having to pay the cast which is something he typically avoided doing.

The same thing would happen if the estate released any of the early films on DVD today. By law, someone can't film you, release it and make money off of it without your expressed permission. That's the point of the release - you sign away your rights to try to get future monies from the film (or whatever). I think Warhol's estate is worth something like $600 million, but I can't imagine the estate is generous enough to just release the films on DVD for free. Even if they did, they'd still likely run into trouble from someone.

You have to remember, a lot of what is featured in Andy's film is not....positive stuff. People shooting drugs, having sex, etc. If you're an ex-Factory star (or even a hanger on or whatever) and you're still alive, pushing 70 years old and living a nice quiet life, odds are pretty high you don't want some people watching you do stupid stuff you did 40 plus years ago when you were high on speed! Those films weren't intended for general release which is why a lot of people did the stuff they did - they never imagined anyone would see it 50 years later! That alone would probably cause a few people to sue to stop the release.

Like I said, most of the films are....around. I've seen the ones with Edie (Poor Little Rich Girl, Beauty #2, Kitchen) and they're interesting to a point because it's Edie all her glory but honestly, they're mostly terrible. I'm a huge Edie fan but even I wonder how those films brought her any kind of fame. I guess it doesn't help that I watched them sober!

[Boomer]

^ Makes sense...I had the chance to spend some time with some of the guys from (Insert name of VERY famous 60s band) and they said the same thing- they have businesses and grandkids- no interest in all of that popping up again!!:p I have seen many of the Edie films too (you have to search around...) and other than Edie, there isn't much of interest....So sad how short her time was- too hot not to cool down I guess, but there is such an amazing fascination about her- can't really explain it, but I still have her posters up and everything...

[Lupe]

facebook.com/onlyediesedgwick

[babydoll1125]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreamsOfCandy I kinda answered that. In the early days, Andy never got signed releases from the people appearing in his films. This came back to haunt him after he released Chelsea Girls because it was one of the few profitable films Warhol released. Mary Wornov's mother sued Warhol when Chelsea Girls was released because Mary never signed a release and she didn't get paid to appear in the film. Warhol ended up having to pay the cast which is something he typically avoided doing. The same thing would happen if the estate released any of the early films on DVD today. By law, someone can't film you, release it and make money off of it without your expressed permission. That's the point of the release - you sign away your rights to try to get future monies from the film (or whatever). I think Warhol's estate is worth something like $600 million, but I can't imagine the estate is generous enough to just release the films on DVD for free. Even if they did, they'd still likely run into trouble from someone. You have to remember, a lot of what is featured in Andy's film is not....positive stuff. People shooting drugs, having sex, etc. If you're an ex-Factory star (or even a hanger on or whatever) and you're still alive, pushing 70 years old and living a nice quiet life, odds are pretty high you don't want some people watching you do stupid stuff you did 40 plus years ago when you were high on speed! Those films weren't intended for general release which is why a lot of people did the stuff they did - they never imagined anyone would see it 50 years later! That alone would probably cause a few people to sue to stop the release. Like I said, most of the films are....around. I've seen the ones with Edie (Poor Little Rich Girl, Beauty #2, Kitchen) and they're interesting to a point because it's Edie all her glory but honestly, they're mostly terrible. I'm a huge Edie fan but even I wonder how those films brought her any kind of fame. I guess it doesn't help that I watched them sober!

That makes sense but most of his films i've seen don't have THAT many people in them and some are dead or if still alive could potentially sign a release. How is charging people to see films at the museum different from a dvd release. They have released several on dvd already so is the only thing stopping them from releasing the rest not having signed releases from the actors? I thought the museum may need them to lure people there with rare films. Once they're available on youtube or dvd no one would travel to see them. I just can't believe it all comes down to ex-junkie grandpas making a fuss.

[Boomer]

Re #48- Was that her grandmothers' address? Because that is smack dab in the highest end of the silk stocking district - it takes major bucks to play in that neighborhood!
Don't know about the films on DVD and all, but The Museum of Broadcasting in NYC had some problems making old shows available even for academic purposes, and a guy on YouTube who collects old (1950s) TV commercials and such has been sued over and over by long dead celebs grandkids for 'using their images' even though there is no profit involved, so I guess it is a legal minefield....

[babydoll1125]

I guess it's complicated! I'm just wondering where the line is drawn.

I don't think that's her grandmother's address. I think by the end of '65 she was in her own apartment.

[DreamsOfCandy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by babydoll1125 That makes sense but most of his films i've seen don't have THAT many people in them and some are dead or if still alive could potentially sign a release. How is charging people to see films at the museum different from a dvd release. They have released several on dvd already so is the only thing stopping them from releasing the rest not having signed releases from the actors? I thought the museum may need them to lure people there with rare films. Once they're available on youtube or dvd no one would travel to see them. I just can't believe it all comes down to ex-junkie grandpas making a fuss.

I didn't mean to imply that now older people that were in Warhol would sue if they came out because they don't want people seeing them doing questionable stuff. I just brought that up because it's one of the potential problems the estate could run into if they gave Warhol's films a broader release. It's one thing to run the movie for museum goers who have to go to one central place to see the film. It's quite another to release the film on Amazon or something and have people all over the world buy it and the estate makes a million dollars off the sale. People who are in the film are gonna want a cut and they would be well within their right to sue the estate if they didn't sign a release. If the film is playing at an art house or at his museum, the odds of someone suing are low because the audience is limited as is the profit.

I'm not saying this is gospel truth but the right issues along with the fact that the films were poorly shot/developed and have sound issues and aren't "fixable" are typically cited as reasons why the films aren't released on DVD. It's also been said that Warhol's estate isn't willing to give anyone distribution rights to his film to release them on home media. Personally, I think it's a mixture of all those reasons plus a bit of "who really wants to see these films" added in. I mean, are there loads of people who want to watch an eight hour movie of a guy sleeping or watch 24 hours of the Empire State building? Probably not.

[babydoll1125]

I'm more interested in the Edie and Nico movies than the earlier ones. Most of them don't seem to have a huge cast and aren't very long so it's too bad they can't release a box set of the films that aren't likely to cause any legal trouble.

[Boomer]

Yes, and other than the Sienna Miller movie, I would doubt Andy, Edie or The Factory are of very much interest in general to todays younger crowd, who don't know where it's at, Baby!! Speaking of sound, wouldn't you love to get a clear audio of Poor Little Rich Girl? I have always wondered what she is talking about in it...
Baby Doll did you know there is a fairly good copy of Nico Striptease on YouTube? (in about 10 parts, of course...)

[babydoll1125]

I have Strip Tease on dvd now! Mondo Macabro released it with subtitles and special features!

I'd love to see the Edie films restored and with special features...

[Lupe]

facebook.com/onlyediesedgwick

[ScarlettLover]

^that first one is really pretty!


ediesuperstar@Tumblr

[Zeitgeist]

I'm re-reading "Edie- American Girl" now - there is a fascination I cannot escape. There are often mentioned photos of the whole Sedgwick family which were taken originally for Life Magazine. Does anybody have this photoshoot?

[Lupe]

Does anyone know how the "Edie: Girl On Fire" documentary is coming along? Any updates? Does anyone speak to Mr. David Weisman? If so, I think Kickstarter or websites similar to Kickstarter would be a great idea to raise money.

[Zeitgeist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by babydoll1125 I guess it's complicated! I'm just wondering where the line is drawn. I don't think that's her grandmother's address. I think by the end of '65 she was in her own apartment.

Edie lived in her own apartment on 63rd Street in NY. Her grandmothe's apartment was at 71st and Park.