How to Draw a Bunny (2002)

User Rating:

7.3/10   

Director:

John W. Walter

Genre:

Documentary

Plot:

Interviews with Christo, Chuck Close, Roy Lichtenstein, Judith Malin, James Rosenquist and others help to illuminate the life and work of Warhol contemporary Ray Johnson.

Plot Keywords:

Ray Johnson | Art | Artist | Chuck Close | Christo

Awards:

1 win & 2 nominations

Cast

Joseph Ialacci	...	Himself - former Sag Harbor Police Chief (as Chief Joseph Ialacci)
Richard Feigen	...	Himself
Frances Beatty	...	Herself - Richard L. Feigen & Co.
Mort Janklow	...	Himself (as Morton Janklow)
Janet Giffra	...	Herself - Johnson's cousin
Richard Lippold	...	Himself
Billy Name	...	Himself
Dorothy Lichtenstein	...	Herself
Christo	...	Himself
Jeanne-Claude	...	Herself
Malka Saffro	...	Herself
Eric Granros	...	Himself
Nick Maravell	...	Himself
Peter Schuyff	...	Himself
Buster Cleveland	...	Himself (as Buster Cleaveland)

Runtime:

90 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Sound Mix:

Mono

Company:

Elevator Pictures

Movie Connections:

Featured in The 2003 IFP Independent Spirit Awards (2003) (TV)

Soundtrack:

Jazz Rapide

Kinda interesting, I guess, but with an annoying soundtrack

The soundtrack is so annoying that I'm mainly just glad it's over. Wow. This has to be the most annoying soundtrack in a film ever. It's primarily this incredibly loud snare drum being pounded with paint brushes. It's a lot like 90 minutes of fingernails scraping against a chalkboard. A soundtrack is part of a movie, and, in this case, a large part of the movie. So, this movie is mostly annoying, and mostly because of the soundtrack.

As for the other aspects of the movie, while it appears that Ray Johnson, the subject of the film, was probably at least a somewhat interesting man, and possibly an interesting artist, I am inclined, for the most part, to adopt the position expressed in TheaterX's review entitled "How to Waste Your Money." This film just doesn't do a very good job of explaining what makes Ray Johnson interesting, and the film itself is mostly boring (except insofar as boredom is incompatible with being continually annoyed by an annoying soundtrack). All in all, this was a poorly done film.

I personally would've been interested to hear a psychiatrist's perspective on Ray Johnson, but there's nothing like that in the film. Not that this would have been necessarily the only way to make this film a good one--but it very well might have helped. The reason I say this is that Ray Johnson appears to have been more than just a little eccentric, and ended up committing suicide apparently without telling anyone why, so it's reasonable to suspect that there was an underlying brain disorder/disease that perhaps might explain the eccentricity, suicide, as well as, possibly, what some might call "excessive" creativity. That is just one thing which might have made the movie a little better.

One thing about this movie that was actually kind of disturbing is that it seems to be sort of taking the position, by allowing the view to be expressed by various associates of Ray Johnson to the near-exclusion of any other sort of view, that Ray Johnson's suicide was best viewed as just another piece of art by Ray Johnson--a piece of performance art. But that strikes me as a really silly and childish sort of rationalization, and it's really an unusual way to look at a suicide. By committing suicide the person becomes both a murderer as well as a murder victim all at the same time. I think exactly as highly of the idea of suicide-as-art as I think of the idea of murder-as-art. Suicide is, for the most part, just a mean thing to do to yourself and the people who like you. Art is, for the most part, a way of entertaining other people. The two things don't seem to have any kind of similarity, at least in my view. It's kind of a stupid way to look at suicide, and I really don't have much respect for anything said by anyone or anything who thinks this way about suicide, and that would include this film.

There really is way too much blathering in general from, as TheaterX puts it, "artsy-fartsy types," and for the most part it really doesn't help us get any closer to understanding Ray Johnson, even apart from this childish drivel about his suicide being his last work of art.

Ray Johnson may well be an interesting character, and I suspect most of the good reviews of this film here can be explained by people's enthusiasm about Ray Johnson himself and/or his art, rather than about this film per se. I'm not trying to say anything negative about Ray Johnson (other than to point out that he was, in fact, a murderer--he murdered himself). But this film is just bad.

But, really, I'd feel comfortable recommending that you not see this because of the soundtrack alone. I was so glad when this movie finally ended and I didn't have to hear that damn paint brush slamming that snare drum anymore. There has to be a book out there that does a much better and much less annoying job of documenting Ray Johnson's life and work for those who are interested.