Andy Milligan?

[Scott]

I've read so many good things about Andy Milligan that I searched for DVD's on the IMDB and I couldn't find anything available. How are you people finding his films and viewing them?

[Avowed Cultural Snob]

I must respectfully disagree with the alarmingly growing consensus hailing Milligan as a "genius" and an "artist" since the movies I have seen-The Rats are Coming! The Werewolves are Here! Guru-the Mad Monk, Torture Dungeon and The Man With Two Heads-do not reveal an artist at all, but an untalented yet enthusiastic amateur.  As bad as the movies of say, Joel Schumacher and Michael Bay might be, at least they are professionally made; you cannot say of the atrociously acted, written, and directed movies of Milligan. The production values are bargain-basement, on the level of a first-year student film, and Milligan's cinematography is absolutely miserable. Worse yet, in spite of all their gore and peversion, Milligan's films are BORING. They are like a very bad cross between a Dogma 69 film and an H.G. Lewis movie.  Yes, Milligan has his fans, many of them and they have every right to defend Milligan as filmmaker, and some of them, such as the gentleman who responded to my post below, are able to do so very well and intelligently.  And yet,  I feel that we must distinguish true art from hackwork, and divide a clear line between the Mozarts and the Salieris. Milligan, alas, was a Salieri of the lowest order.

[Scott]

You crack me up Mr. Snob. You play your role well and give yourself away by actually knowing and actually having seen all of Milligans films, and yet I have never seen or found even one. How is this Mr. Snob? I'm not dis-agreeing with you about the director because I honestly haven't seen any of his work. To Judge them, but you seem to come back for more. Entertainment is the key word when viewing "bad" films Mr. Snob.

[Chris K.]

Andy Milligan's only film available film on DVD is THE BODY BENEATH which is HIS BEST film that he ever made. Milligan is talented no doubt about it. Mr. Snob feels that making a good film has to be big budegt. I must confess that it does not work that way at all. Most big budget professional films really suck (GONE IN 60 SECONDS with Nicolas Cage, remake of PSYCHO, etc. come to mind). Mr. Snob has also forgotten that it was Milligan's distributors Jerry Balsam, William Mishkin, and Lew Mishkin who screwed up the man's films and advertised them as sexploitation films even though they were not of that genre at all!

Milligan was trying to make movies to show you don't need $300 million to make an entertaining feature or big actors. Other filmmakers have done this before such as George A. Romero's NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, Sam Rami's THE EVIL DEAD, and even Peter Jackson's BAD TASTE. And Milligan had his due.

I am glad that finally Milligan now has a bio on his life and we can finally see what he has gone through and suffered in order to get out there. Hell, I wish I could have done the things that Andy Milligan did when he made is films! At lest he had some money to spend on a budget for a film, I don't.

Regardless on what Mr. Snob says (he sure does have a hatred for Milligan, but then I hate Steven Speilberg so we have our own hate for others), Andy Milligan was weird, unique, one-of-a-kind filmmaker who had the balls to make something and continue up until his death of AIDS.

If you want to hear more on my thoughs of Andy Milligan, e-mail me or go to the earlier post on Milligan that was started by Avowed Cultural Snob.

[Abby]

Provided you are 18 (and if you're watching Andy movies, you should be), there are two interviews and one lengthy article about Andy here:

Andy Extravaganza

[A.C. Snob]

Mr. Snob feels that
> making a good film has to be big budegt.
That's not what I meant at all.  I did note that Bay and Schumacher make awful movies, but that it is not the budget which matters to me. What matters to me is that they are PROFESSIONALY made, which is to say that some care actually goes into the product, and has nothing to do with the money or the studio. It is possible to make a professional film on the lowest of budgets, as filmmakers from Edgar Ulmer to Roger Corman to (in their struggling artist years) Richard Linklater and Robert Rodriguez. Milligan, alas, did not behave professionally, his direction was limited to barking at actors "just do it babe!" and in spite of the fact that did everything, from costumes to art direction to cinematography, he did not appear to put much care into any of them, as personal as they may have been.

I must confess that
> it does not work that way at all. Most big budget
> professional films really suck (GONE IN 60 SECONDS with
> Nicolas Cage, remake of PSYCHO, etc. come to mind).

Most movies do, regardless of the money which goes into them, alas. Remember Sturgeon's Law.

 Mr. Snob
> has also forgotten that it was Milligan's distributors Jerry
> Balsam, William Mishkin, and Lew Mishkin who screwed up the
> man's films and advertised them as sexploitation films even
> though they were not of that genre at all!

Can you give us some examples of the editing jobs that the Mishkins (who were indeed crooks; their practice of burning movies and selling their silver content was disgraceful) imposed upon Milligan's movies? I am not trying to put you on the defensive, I am genuinely curious to know how they interfered. It seems to me that any amount of interference wouldn't really matter, because the scenes themselves were clumsily shot to begin with, and no amount of re-cutting and pick-ups would have helped. And while Milligan's early films were not "nudies" they certainly did qualify as exploitation, and the Mishkin's practice of playing up or fabricating the sexual undertones of films was common practice. As far as I know, Milligan's later horror films were advertised AS horror films, although they failed to deliver the promised thrills (few movies do live up to their ad campaigns).



I don't hate Milligan, or anyone else, and in fact, I have great sympathy for the man. He died a horrible, painful death which NO ONE should have to suffer from, and in spite of the publicity surrounding McDonough's biography, there are accounts of his kindness as well. I just don't like his movies, and feel that we should not overrate them . I don't hate Bay or Schumacher either, although their movies also send me screaming to the exits.

 Andy Milligan was weird, unique,
> one-of-a-kind filmmaker who had the balls to make something
> and continue up until his death of AIDS.
>
We agree with something. As Bill Warren said when defending Ed Wood from the Golden Turkey crowd, at least Wood MADE movies. But I feel that in the end, we must separate the artist from his oeuvre, and judge the latter on its aesthetic merits, not our sympathies for the creator. Milligan's films are intriguing to read about, but, for me at least, unpleasant and tedious viewing experiences.

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to sayit"
-Voltaire.

[A.C. Snob]

I choose my name to be ironic :-) I saw Rats and Two Heads years ago ON TV; heavily edited, no doubt, but much gruesome content remained (the decapitation in the latter film, for instance). I saw Rats again, along with Guru and Torture Dungeon, with friends who were part of a bad film club in university, but they were NOT the worst films we ever saw. We also sat through Crazy Fat Ethel II, Psycho from Texas, and Scream of the Demon Lover.

[Chris K.]

Here are some best examples of "Mishkin Editing" in Andy Milligan features. Please keep in mind that these are some small examples.

LIZ (1963): Andy Milligan's first film, and can you believe it's a drama film. LIZ featured NO NUDITY whatsoever. Milligan was able to give LIZ a limited release and make some of his money back. William Mishkin came into the scene and told Milligan that he will release the film IF HE ADDED NUDITY in the film. Milligan shot some new sequences of the leading lady running around topless. Mishkin then took LIZ and released it as THE PROMISCUOUS SEX and advertised it as a "sexploitation" flick even though their was no original intentions of sex at all!

THE NAKED WITCH (1964): Andy Milligan's first horror flick. I must note that in 1961, Texan filmmaker Larry Buchanan made a horror film called THE NAKED WITCH and both Buchanan and Milligan's films have been mixed up! In any case, Milligan's film ran 60 minutes and Mishkin gave Milligan $7,500 to expand the running time. After that, the film was later re-issued in 1967 as THE NAKED TEMPTRESS and had some footage of orgys and other B.S. added in by Mishkin.

BLOODTHIRSTY BUTCHERS (1970): This film contained a GORY scene of a victim getting his innards pulled out. This scene was cut by Mishkin either for rating problems or he was just sickened by it. However, publicity photos of this particular sequence missing were released. Some other gory shots were cut as well.

THE MAN WITH TWO HEADS (1972): The original title was DR. JEKYLL AND MR. BLOOD, but Mishkin changed the title to THE MAN WITH TWO HEADS in order to cash-in on the two features THE INCREDIBLE TWO-HEADED TRANSPLANT and THE THING WITH TWO HEAD (yeah William, these movies were real hits). Plus some additional violence (the S&M party scene) was cut.

THE RATS ARE COMING! THE WEREWOLVES ARE HERE! (1972): Would you believe that this was originally title THE CURSE OF THE FULL MOON and that it ran 75 minutes! When finished, Mishkin told Milligan to add some new scenes involving rats so as to cash-in on WILLARD (1970). Milligan did so and the title was changed as well as running 92 minutes TOO LONG!

SEEDS (1968): Not produced by Mishkin, but by Allen and Rosilly Bazzini. Later re-released in the 1970's, it was cut and had BAD porno footage added in not by Milligan but by the distributor and re-titled SEEDS OF SIN (huh?). Something Weird Video has found the 35mm negative of SEEDS OF SIN, but cannot find the uncut print of SEEDS.


These are the best examples I can give at this time. I feel Milligan did the best he could and I like his "Just do it, babe" style so the actors can just BE THEMSELVES and not go over the top.

Oh well, we have our own thoughts about this guy. I like him and I wish I met him while Mr. Snob likes the guy but hates his movies. Everybody is entitled to their opinion. I accept that.

I hope this info is helpful on the "Mishkin Editing" discussion. And if I sounded like a real ass to my earlier comment Mr. Snob, that's just me talking like always.

[A.C. Snob]

Chris K. wrote:
>
>
> THE NAKED WITCH (1964): Andy Milligan's first horror flick. I
> must note that in 1961, Texan filmmaker Larry Buchanan made a
> horror film called THE NAKED WITCH and both Buchanan and
> Milligan's films have been mixed up! In any case, Milligan's
> film ran 60 minutes and Mishkin gave Milligan $7,500 to
> expand the running time. After that, the film was later
> re-issued in 1967 as THE NAKED TEMPTRESS and had some footage
> of orgys and other B.S. added in by Mishkin.

I believe this movie is lost, although Buchanan's film has been found. Michael Weldon, however, in the Psychotronic Video Encyclopaedia reviews this one and the DEFINITELY lost The Degenerates. Weldon is an enthusiastic writer but a lamentably poor historian.

>
> THE RATS ARE COMING! THE WEREWOLVES ARE HERE! (1972): Would
> you believe that this was originally title THE CURSE OF THE
> FULL MOON and that it ran 75 minutes! When finished, Mishkin
> told Milligan to add some new scenes involving rats so as to
> cash-in on WILLARD (1970). Milligan did so and the title was
> changed as well as running 92 minutes TOO LONG!
>
I've heard of this one, but the way I heard it, the movie was originally just 63 minutes long, before the rats scenes were added-I assume that was Mishkin B.S., try to overstate the "necessity" of including the rats scenes, as 75 minutes was about the normal running time for an exploitation film those days.


>
> I hope this info is helpful on the "Mishkin Editing"
> discussion. And if I sounded like a real ass to my earlier
> comment Mr. Snob, that's just me talking like always.

You didn't come off that way at all. I respect the passion with which you defend your favorite films and filmmakers, and you do so very well. I'm impressed with the extent of your knowledge.