A self-styled "urban guerrilla" in Greenwich Village is sent on various assignments across the country by a mysterious "commander."A self-styled "urban guerrilla" in Greenwich Village is sent on various assignments across the country by a mysterious "commander."A self-styled "urban guerrilla" in Greenwich Village is sent on various assignments across the country by a mysterious "commander."
O-Lan Jones
- Nixie
- (as O-Lan Shepard)
- …
Max Grodénchik
- Arnold
- (as Michael Grodenchik)
- …
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaEli Hollander had a particularly difficult time casting the role of Empty Fox. He attended powwows in search of the right person to hire for the role. Two names kept on coming up: Rolling Thunder (a star of Little Big Man (1970)) and Grandfather Semu Haute. Hollander set about calling Grandfather, who actually owned an early model mobile phone that he never answered. When Hollander finally contacted him about the script, the Native American non-actor said, "Interesting script, but I have two problems. One is the name Empty Fox, and two is the part where I pull out the whiskey." Hollander defended the name Empty Fox and offered to change the whiskey to Perrier. When Haute arrived on the set, he told Hollander that he could use the whiskey. Hollander liked the Perrier substitute better. The two argued and argued and ultimately it is the Perrier that Empty Fox pulls out and offers to Peter Coyote's character. Hollander also recalls how Granfather Semu Haute could not remember his lines and how he had to be constantly prompted throughout each of his scenes.
- Crazy creditsThe title appears on the screen in a long division problem. A "0" is the divisor and a "1" is the dividend. The quotient is the title "OUT". After the title appears onscreen, a character throws a stick of dynamite and people are seen running from left to right against a brick wall on which is written a number countdown from 10 to 0.
Featured review
Perhaps better after a quarter century
A number of years ago, I attended an exhibition at a renovated, cavernous railroad terminal which had been made into an exhibition and performance facility. There was a show which featured avant-garde art, films, and the "headliner" was Charlotte Moorman. At that time, probably in her mid- to late-30's, Ms. Moorman, a Julliard post-grad alum and concert cellist, had earlier made a name for herself by playing in a concert topless. She was briefly arrested for this and given probation. (I've always pictured how this must have actually been quite fascinating - since she was a "busty" lady, I imagined that she had to be very deft, and careful, in moving the bow across the strings to avoid injury to herself.)
She had then become described as a performer of the "mixed-media" genre, and as a performance artist. I swear, her performance that day was exactly as I describe (I'll certainly never forget it; my mouth wouldn't close until hours later).
First, she destroyed an in-tact piano. An assistant handed her a full-size sledge hammer, and she beat-the-hell out of the instrument (she swung the tool as deftly as Alan Ladd and Van Helfin swung their axes removing a stump early during "Shane"). Then, the assistant handed her a small, hand-held sledge, with which she pulverized the smaller components which her larger tool had dislodged from the instrument.
This accomplished, the assistant now brought her cello and a very large burlap sack. She was wearing a long dress, and proceeded to lie on the floor, crawl completely within the sack, and draw her cello into it. For about five or ten minutes, she wriggled, totally hidden within, stuck an arm out, drew it back in, and did likewise with a stockinged leg. Finally she played some notes (no more than 5 or 6), and you could see the movement of her bow and the outline of the instrument. What she played was not particularly tuneful. She then emerged from the sack, her assistant took same and the cello/bow, and she took a bow as if she had just completed a concerto. And, she did not crack even a semblance of a smile during any of these proceedings.
I'm not an exceptional storyteller, but I promise what I've just described will make more sense, and be more logical to your understanding, than this movie. Strangely, though, in its pretentious, vague, incomprehensible way, this duo-titled flick holds a weird sort of fascination - as did Ms. Moorman's performance. I advise viewing it, just so you can say you did. I'm not sure I'd give it 5 stars; I'd rate it 4-1/2, but since this site does not utilize "halves," let's call it a "4." And I think its fascination may be a bit greater now, than it would have been in an earlier viewing, since nearly a quarter century has elapsed since its filming.
She had then become described as a performer of the "mixed-media" genre, and as a performance artist. I swear, her performance that day was exactly as I describe (I'll certainly never forget it; my mouth wouldn't close until hours later).
First, she destroyed an in-tact piano. An assistant handed her a full-size sledge hammer, and she beat-the-hell out of the instrument (she swung the tool as deftly as Alan Ladd and Van Helfin swung their axes removing a stump early during "Shane"). Then, the assistant handed her a small, hand-held sledge, with which she pulverized the smaller components which her larger tool had dislodged from the instrument.
This accomplished, the assistant now brought her cello and a very large burlap sack. She was wearing a long dress, and proceeded to lie on the floor, crawl completely within the sack, and draw her cello into it. For about five or ten minutes, she wriggled, totally hidden within, stuck an arm out, drew it back in, and did likewise with a stockinged leg. Finally she played some notes (no more than 5 or 6), and you could see the movement of her bow and the outline of the instrument. What she played was not particularly tuneful. She then emerged from the sack, her assistant took same and the cello/bow, and she took a bow as if she had just completed a concerto. And, she did not crack even a semblance of a smile during any of these proceedings.
I'm not an exceptional storyteller, but I promise what I've just described will make more sense, and be more logical to your understanding, than this movie. Strangely, though, in its pretentious, vague, incomprehensible way, this duo-titled flick holds a weird sort of fascination - as did Ms. Moorman's performance. I advise viewing it, just so you can say you did. I'm not sure I'd give it 5 stars; I'd rate it 4-1/2, but since this site does not utilize "halves," let's call it a "4." And I think its fascination may be a bit greater now, than it would have been in an earlier viewing, since nearly a quarter century has elapsed since its filming.
helpful•45
- caa821
- Aug 12, 2006
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content