Christmas on Earth (1963) User Reviews

A Warhol-era "Happening"

[purplehayes76 · 6/10 · 1 February 2007]

Creating Christmas ON EARTH when only 18 years old, during the tail-end of Hayes Code sexual repression, and as a member of Andy Warhol's Factory, Rubin's film has earned its space in film history. Rubin originally wanted to title the film C**KS AND C**TS, which gives you a sense of the pure explicit nature Rubin sought to capture on film.

It is an art film with a 60s rock-and-roll and Motown soundtrack (no dialogue), intended to be viewed as a "happening," its accompaniment was originally performed live by the Velvet Underground.

The film seeks to create ambiguity by superimposing close-up images of male and female genitalia over images of a woman painted black, a relatively inactive orgy, and a pair of male lovers embracing and having sex.

It is explicit without always being sexual (yet always confrontational).

Technically it uses tinted frames (red and green used frequently), mixed in with black and white, and a sort of "picture in picture" effect via the dual projection presentation.

Visual motifs (as you would imagine in a dialogue-less art film) abound. "Mirroring" is used often, with the graphic presentation of a black-painted face with white made-up lips and eyes interchanged with the black painted female body with white breasts and stomach. Holes (aka orifices) are often layered in the shots, as to create a sense of ambiguity of what you are viewing.

Obviously, not a film for everyone. But if you like underground video, are curious about Warhol-era art, 60s culture, feminist film, or queer depictions, worth checking out if you can catch a screening.

psychadellic soft core 'bores' audiences

[moon_otter · 3/10 · 3 November 2003]

First off I want to say I felt this movie was total trash and I saw it as tripped out porn rather than experimental film in any analytical sense. The overall tone is that of sexual ambiguity and possibly may exhibit overtones of racial ambiguity and/or blurring all of these lines. The two main figures in the first two thirds of the film are in full body paint with various physical features illuminated by contrasting paint colors. The woman is covered in black with white circles around her breasts and stomach as well as highlighting various features of her face. The man is covered in white, with black streaks across his chest and face and black covering his genitalia entirely. These two in juxtaposition almost comes off as a mockery of tribal rituals, especially when they are rhythmically undulating in a close proximity to each other, this is the only point in the film i found at all interesting.

A series of superimposed shots, due to two reels, progresses for the early part of the film saying nothing, and existing as trippy genitalia in 'motion' exhibit. I almost found something appalling about the consistent and heightened representations of flaccidity in the early part of the film but i must say the later erect circus was not highly flattering either. One thing I found interesting in the film is that alongside using the painted stomach and breasts of the woman as a sort of cartoon character, the genitalia become characters as well. In my opinion this film only exists as art because one, the editing style, and two, the way the human body is used as a moving canvas. I will give Barbara credit for that one! One thing i noted during the viewing of this film was that it was either made as a retort to the soft-core porin industry, or as a statement of rebellion against well-composed images, sensibility, and popular culture.

The only theme apparent to me in Christmas, is that of ambiguous identity. This is accomplished through body makeup, 'unassigned' genitalia, superimposition of 'man' and 'woman' imagery atop one another (which can be seen as a disconnected coitus), and also by the gay soft core at the end of the film. The man on man action that concludes the film is the most obscure and unexplained part to me. For one it seems completely unnatached to the rest of the film stylistically. In no way did this film offend me, I just found it pointless and not particularly creative in any way, at least not in a sense that i would care to indulge or sympathize with.