Blow Job (1963) User Reviews

Another one from The Factory

[Ferenc-2 · 5/10 · 29 April 1999]

This is not an attack as Empire, nor a nice impression as Sleep, but just a short joke. There is quite a lot of action in the face and it takes only 36 minutes. You will probably forget it as soon as it finishes.

Now rinse

[ANGRYPILLS · 4/10 · 19 September 2001]

I dare say a lot of art students thought they would be in for some hot porno when they went to see this. Andy Warhol,Coca-Cola,Macdonalds all the same thing on art sending up life again.Could be messier Warhola was the ultimate used car salesman.

Now, really, I don't have to convince you to see a film called Blow Job, do I?

[sfried · 1 December 2001]

Warhol's films had a lot in common with porn in that, no matter the subject, they tended to be exercises in repetition. If you are the type to find a certain fetishistic beauty in such a visual process, then you might enjoy this. Warhol was also quite the visual stylist. Despite the popular perception, he was a fairly hands on director. I've seen his editing and lighting notes and know from speaking with people that knew him that he took a keen interest in how all of his work looked. By the way, for those who care to know, the guy doing the blowing is Willard Maas.

One last word: If you really do want to see a spectacular depiction of oral sex, I'd recommend Blowjob Fantasies Volume XI.

A stopped camera focusing on a young man's face while he receives oral sex.

[gilsonbicudo · 1/10 · 31 October 2010]

The idea by itself is interesting: an attempt to catch a man's facial expressions and emotions (maybe thoughts?) while receiving oral sex. But it fails to deliver.

The result was simply a very boring movie, which drags itself along over 27 minutes. Trying to find innuendos, enlightening messages, eroticism or any deeper concept behind the scene requires an enormous dose of imagination.

The receiving "actor" is cute, but mostly bland, seeming incapable of expressing a consistent sense of pleasure, remorse, satisfaction or whatsoever.

A total waste of time. I wouldn't recommend it at all.

Superfluous

[davelee · 1/10 · 15 October 1998]

Like all of Warhol's works, one does not need to see this film to understand all of it. It works better as an idea rather than a product, while lacking the boldness of, say, Duchamp's Fountain.

Is it art?

[Horst_In_Translation · 2/10 · 19 October 2015]

I am not too familiar with Andy Warhol's works, but I know that he is considered among the most creative artists of the 20th century. What I (and many others) did not know is that he was also a truly prolific filmmaker, made almost 100 movies during the 1960s. "Blow Job" is one of his most known works. It is a black-and-white, silent film, which was definitely not common anymore during that era, so it must have been a creative choice rather than a necessity. The film runs for 35 minutes according to the title page, but the version I saw only ran for 27. And that's a good thing as this is a truly boring movie. We basically see a young guy getting head from an older guy and only see the young man's face for the entirety of the movie. This may have been a good watch at 2 minutes, but at considerably over 20, it's nothing but boredom. Not recommended. It's not controversial, it's just uninteresting.

Slow motion replay

[cwitt · 10/10 · 10 September 2000]

An astonishing film in very sense. Warhol was far more zen-like than he'd ever know. In my opinion one of the most sexy films ever. It doesn't matter who's giving the blow job, once you get used to the tempo of the film you're forced to focus on the most minute details - the man's face. He deprives in order to enrich. He wants to make you work, guess - he succeeds. It's mini-maximalism an amazing. See it whenever you can. Why can't the Warhol foundation release these on video?!?!

where the art?

[evildead-9 · 8 April 1999]

I saw this in an art house theatre and when the feature was over comments could be heard like "such artistic talent" etc.

Well I love Warhol's paintings, him being my favourite artist, but found that this film was frankly boring. I could see no logic as to why this should be a film and not a painting where it would work much better. It does not hold your attention for more than 2 minutes.

To be honest.. boring tripe. Avoid at all costs. Go to a gallery and see his real art... superb. The only great Warhol film I've actually seen is Harlot, not listed in the imdb.

This film is more important than most people think it is

[Rodrigo_Amaro · 10/10 · 2 January 2011]

Andy Warhol, the pop artist that said that everyone would be famous for 15 minutes gives to actor DeVeren Bookwalter nothing more than 35 minutes of fame in a short and experimental film called "Blow Job" where his character facial expressions are the only thing shown on screen while he's receiving oral sex from a stranger off screen (since it's a Warhol work we can assure that is another guy who's doing the act and in the IMDb's credits the name of Willard Maas is credited as 'the giver').

It's a single shot with Bookwalter's head, while getting a blow job. He smiles, looks at the camera, lights a cigarette, seems to talk for a few moments (there's no sound, we can't hear a thing) and he enjoys the whole long act. This simple description sounds boring but the film, surprisingly, is not.

It's a daring work of the 1960's and I believe is the responsible for most films including a sex scene without being too graphic, we've just have the sense that something is happening. If today we have that classic facial expression of a guy receiving oral sex, lifting his head in pleasure, being showed in countless films is because of this little classic.

It might be a boring film for many viewers without nothing much too show? Yes, it can be. It can make you think about other things, or even in the behind the scenes of the film, after all there always be people who want to know if the sexual act happened or the actor was really good with his acting. And Bookwalter's acting is great, I mean, can you imagine portraying one single movement throughout a whole film? He was able to use a lot of his expressions (thankful to his good looks too), putting back his head, moving on and on, making subtle movements with his hand, and all these little changes makes his acting pretty good.

Exciting, interesting, a little bit gloomy among many other things, here's a great film directed by Andy Warhol. 10/10

a masterpiece

[mowgli_07 · 10/10 · 29 January 2006]

i noticed a comment said that the film was "bad". because they couldn't see the meaning behind it. Perhaps they didn't see the true meaning of subversive cinema? Andy Warhol films always challenge the viewer, and of course they can be viewed in different ways.

didn't Robbe-Ggrillet say: "Around us, defying the noisy pack of our animistic or protective adjectives, things are there... any meaning we impose om them reduces them to the role of tools. Let them lose their pseudo-mystery, their suspect interiority, the 'romantic' heart of things." the film "Blowjob" is daring in its subject matter and its technique. as we study the face, mesmerised, we feel the pain of passion, the on -off tease of lust, the quickening tempo, the orgasm, the sad somehow empty afterglow. the camera does not move. cant you see that the act reflected, exists for itself; there is no meaning.

Warhol Shorts

[Michael_Elliott · 26 February 2008]

Blow Job (1963)

BOMB (out of 4)

Andy Warhol's directorial debut is a forty-minute movie showing the facial expressions of a guy getting a blow job. Um, yeah. To say this thing was boring would be the understatement of a lifetime. I'm sure this film only made sense to Warhol and God only knows what state of mind he was in. I know this film has it share of fans but I'd certainly love to hear from them.

Kiss (1963)

BOMB (out of 4)

Andy Warhol directed this film, which runs fifty-minutes and features various couples kissing for 3 1/2 minutes each. Man and woman, woman and woman and man and man. Once again, who in the hell would want to watch this?

Empire (1964)

BOMB (out of 4)

Andy Warhol is back again and this time he's got a camera set up shooting the top of the Empire State Building. I watched a 60-minute excerpt of this film, which originally ran a shocking eight hours. Can you imagine watching an eight hour film of nothing but the top of a building? This 60-minute version had me on the verge of suicide so....

Mario Banana 1 (1964)

1/2 (out of 4)

Mario Banana 2 (1964)

1/2 (out of 4)

Andy Warhol directed these two films, which show a man in drag (or an incredibly ugly woman) sucking and eating a banana. Part 2 of the film features the same footage in B&W. The only reason I didn't give these two a BOMB rating is because they thankfully only run three minutes each.

Nicely referenced in Buffy Season 5

[rlkenney · 22 October 2004]

Nicely referenced in Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 5, from Episode 96, "Intervention," it is one of the more wicked of Joss Whedon's famous pop culture references. Spike has Warren make a Buffybot for him to play with, since the real Buffy is still more interested in staking him than falling for him. Writer Jane Espenson uses "Blow Job" in a transitional scene that lasts only seconds in Act II. Many of Warhol's films were mandatory when I was in film school, and Blow Job was my favorite for sheer audacity. I think Bill Viola's The Passions video installations at the Getty Museum last year come closest to doing seriously what Warhol did to shock. Both artists take facial expressions and show them apart from the motivating circumstances, changing the viewer's reference point. Wonderful, and Whedon's use of it is delicious.