Sleep (1964) User Reviews

I'm sorry, but I fell asleep, when watching this documentary from Andy Warhol. It's so boring.

[ironhorse_iv · 3/10 · 24 January 2019]

As a pop culture commercial artist, Andy Warhol has work, in a variety of media outlets. Ranging from painting, music, photography, drawing, filmmaking and sculpture; he has mass produce anything that can be deem as artwork, through a factory-like assembly line. However, not everything from him was well made. Some of these so-called works, are unimpressive and laziness slap together. Don't get me wrong, I love his works with Marilyn Monroe's portrait & his Campbell soup cans; nevertheless, anybody with some eyes can see, that they pretty much, just stenciling copies of previous works from other artists, with minor adjustments, such as different text, color, & shades. Because of that, I think, he's a bit overrated. I don't think, he is the greatest artist that ever live. He's mediocre, at best and he knew it. Warhol's business philosophy for art, was never, about making anything new, complex and grand new to gain sentiment. Instead, it was finding simple, cheap familiar images, and nixing those works, just enough for pretentious art buyers to see value in it, once more. Warhol was only there to play the system & make money. In truth, many critics find Warhol's work as parodies of the growing commercialism around the 20th century. He really did like trolling his audience; into thinking that there is more value in a piece, than it honestly has. One such example is his 1963's documentary 'Sleep'. Influenced by a dance performance by choreographer Yvonne Rainer in which one of the dances in the solo section called 'Terrain' had a small portion of somebody sleeping. 'Sleep' consisting of long take footage of John Giorno, his lover at the time, sleeping for five hours and 20 minutes. The film was one of Warhol's first experiments with filmmaking & no surprised to everybody, it had a troublesome production, even with the simple premise. First off, much of the original footage had to be reshoot, a month later, due to the limitations of his 16mm Bolex camera forcing the film to jump every 20 seconds as Andy rewind it. Secondly, Warhol didn't know, what to do with the short amount of footage, so he just looped together a few shots, in order to give the illusion of a continuous sleeping experience. Sadly, it made for a highly repetitive watch, as badly edited cuts are very noticeable. Thirdly, of 500 people who attended the premiere in Los Angeles, only 50 people stayed, until the end. Most of them, became restless and asked for their money, back. One person try to start a lynch mob, when the theater refused! Even the projectionist fell asleep at certain points of the evening. While, it might sound like Warhol's film was not successful. Deep inside of Andy's crazy mind, he was having the time of his life. This was probably the goal, the whole time. He wanted to see the funny reactions! It was the funny punchline of a very unfunny joke. Warhol would later use this technique with his magnum opus 1965's eight-hour-long motion picture 'Empire'. Talk about really trolling the audience. That movie is hard to watch. Anyways, Warhol's uniquely counterintuitive approach to film, and his willingness to provoke negative and confused reactions from audiences is something that future artists like Andy Kaufman would do, later in their own careers. Regardless of that, the movie does have some value for those, interested in watching it. One such example is the film has been used in sleep studies with those, involved with Polysomnography (PSG). It has been used for decades to diagnose and evaluate the severity of sleep-disorders like apnea, excessive snoring, problems staying awake and narcolepsy. Another cool thing about this film is seeing the rapid eye movement or REM at work. You can see all five stages here. Techniques of neurosurgery, chemical injection, electroencephalography, positron emission tomography, and reports of dreamers upon waking, have all been used to study this phase of sleep. Other than that, the movie is not much to look at. John Giorno is not quite sleeping beauty. His attractive levels is pretty damn low, so I doubt anybody with a sleeping fetish would get their kicks. Maybe if the film had its original performer, sex symbol, Brigitte Bardot to star in this. It might had been a little more successful, but I really doubt it. Even extreme perverts would probably get sick of this movie after an hour, watching it. In the end, "Sleep' is one film, not worth waking up to go see. I wouldn't mind, it staying in deep hibernation. Let this Andy Warhol's film stay dormant.

I may be crazy but I like it

[Ferenc-2 · 8/10 · 29 April 1999]

This movie can take you to a completely different world. I've seen it in an empty cinema (Andy Warhol's exhibition in Vienna), with my girlfriend and our friend. He was the only one who didn't fall asleep there. I slept for a while not because it was boring but because I was tired from watching Andy Warhol's Empire (8 hours). It was really one of the most peaceful and clear movies I've ever seen. Watching all the small movements of the sleeping body (John Giorno), the shadows on it and all the details was a nice game that took 5 hours 21 minutes. At the beginning of the show a guy came in and fell asleep in the cinema. His loud snoring was the best soundtrack you can imagine.

Utterly Pretentious Manure

[SaviorComplex · 2 November 2002]

This is why Andy Warhol is famous. Because he creates the most useless, vapid, meaningless pieces of "art" imaginable. But, people are so scared to admit that they don't like it or see what's so "powerful" about it. So, they rave about it so as not to seem unhip or unperceptive.

The Emperor has no clothes.

I feel sorry for the mindless fanboys that call this a work of art.

It's strange how such a strangely amazing film goes unheard

[Lotus-6 · 10/10 · 24 June 1999]

"I like doing movies because they're easier than painting." Andy Warhol

Andy Warhol is one of the finest artistic minds that we have ever & will ever witness. It was more than just the replications in "Dypitche", Andy illustrated ourselves to ourselves (which is a very hard thing to do. It goes much deeper than that...

Andy had a skill I can only hope I will learn with even half of his grace. He was able to make anything seem interesting if not only by his very eccentricity than by his appreciation at noticing other's beauty. None of which was explained greater than when he constructed this well known private film. It seems that it is most well known in fact for its not being well known. It is infamous for playing in uncrowded theaters to merely a group of 2 or 3 art students.

But that was the part of it that is interesting. It is not only a strange piece that goes well with many of his other pieces but it is an obscure marvel in itself. It's several hours of a man sleeping & that is it. It is a great film to watch for the thrill of it. Give it a try. If you can find a copy or a showing i emplore you, give it a try. You'll most likely regret it, but you only live once.

Exhilarating Film!!!

[meyermiles · 10/10 · 20 March 2021]

This exhilarating film had me on the edge of my seat. Climaxed when he adjusted his left leg! Credit to Andy Warhol for creating such an amusing film.

The Semiotics of Andy Warhol

[hasosch · 6 July 2009]

The act of sleeping is not art - at least not for the one who is actually sleeping. But if this subjective process has an observer, it gets objective. The subject of the observer turns the subjective process of sleeping into an objective one. Moreover, this objectification works only because the observer is capable of observing. Observing is a form of interpretation, because we cannot perceive our world without using the filters of our senses. So, what we see when we watch a sleeping person (or a person sleeping, which is not the same), is by no means what he is actually doing, since our senses belong to us, and we cannot see with the eyes of the sleeper.

However, interpretation transforms the objective process (the former subjective process from the perspective of the sleeper) into a sign process. Since as observers we cannot perceive our world without our senses, these senses turn objects into signs. According to Sign Theory (Semiotics) of Charles Sanders Peirce, objects of arts are signs and the sign class of objects of arts hangs together with every other sign class, so that the semiotic universe is connected. Now, if by observing we interpret and by interpreting we transform an object into a sign, it follows that this sign class must be connected with the sign class that is reserved for artistic objects. From that, it follows by logic that also the process of sleeping is a form of art - qua sign processes. Actually, it even follows that everything that we observe is a form of art and that we live not primarily in a physical, but in an artistic universe. Andy Warhol's movies with such - at first sight - banal titles like "Haircut", "Blow Job", "Chelsea Girls " or "Sleep" (1963) are testimonies of a theory of semiotics which is far away from being banal.