How to Draw a Bunny (2002) User Reviews

interesting but not overly revelatory

[Buddy-51 · 7/10 · 12 March 2005]

"How to Draw a Bunny" is a documentary about Raymond Johnson, an eccentric modern artist (isn't that a redundancy?), whose suicide by drowning in early 1995 was thought by many to have been his final and most grandiose act of "performance art." Famous for his trademark "bunny" signature, Johnson made his name primarily as a producer of abstract paintings and collages built on iconic images from the pop culture world around him.

The film provides a generous sampling of Johnson's work, along with interviews with counterculture friends and supporters who often seem more bizarre and "out there" than Johnson himself reportedly was - although in the few video clips we see of Johnson, he really does seem to be operating in his own little different-drummer world. However, one of the problems with choosing Johnson as the subject of a documentary is that he was so innately reticent about himself that it was hard even for people who were close to him to get to know who he really was. Interviewee after interviewee makes this point about him, and yet these were the people who actually knew him! How much more difficult is it for us then - who didn't know him at all or knew him strictly through the work of his we saw and admired - to find out who he was. Thus, right from the get-go, the film faces self-imposed limits on just how revelatory it can end up being. In a similar way, despite all the words uttered about the works themselves by the people being interviewed, the film offers us surprisingly little analysis of the artwork's underlying significance and "meaning." As one of the women interviewed tells us, she never really understood what Raymond was trying to say through his works; she just enjoyed the thrill of experiencing them. And, perhaps, that is the best way to approach "How to Draw a Bunny" itself. Don't go into it expecting a deep and profound examination of all that it is showing us; just enjoy the artwork for its own intrinsic value and sake. That's probably the way Johnson would have wanted it anyway.

Watch the deleted scenes

[ab1081 · 8/10 · 2 June 2006]

This movie is absolutely worth watching and anyone who disagrees missed the point entirely. Although not everyone is going to really enjoy this movie because it's a hard point to realize. When I first saw this I wasn't really amazed. A friend of mine thought it was fantastic and so maybe that built it up too much. But I watched it again by myself and was really amazed at how this person had chosen to finish their life. The deleted scenes/interview at the end were also what really blew me away because the stories/reflections about Ray Johnson all describing somebody that was pushing those around him to think about the world in a completely new way. In particular I recommend the mural scene.

Solid Documentary, Maybe Not the Best Introduction

[gavin6942 · 6/10 · 9 June 2010]

"How to Draw a Bunny" is a documentary on Ray Johnson, known as the most famous artist you've never heard of. And rightfully so: despite being a fixture of the New York art scene and having such notable friends as Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein, Johnson never achieved the widespread acclaim with his collage work. Perhaps this film will slowly change that, years after his death.

I entered this film not knowing Ray Johnson or his work, which I think worked largely to my disadvantage. Generally, I like to watch documentaries on topics I am at least casually familiar with, to enter with a decent grasp of what will be explored. Going in blind provides an overload of information, and puts me in a position where I do not know what the angle might be. A Warhol documentary, for example, would have been more accessible, as I don't really much about him beyond the most basic information.

Ray Johnson as a person I think I like. The performances they showed were nothing special and his spoken word parts were not overly interesting, but he had quirks I really appreciated and think I would have admired him. As an artist, I am torn. While clearly talented, I do not know that his style suits my taste. Oddly, I enjoy both Warhol and Lichtenstein -- pop art is my guilty pleasure -- but Johnson is unlike either of them.

Perhaps most interesting was the story of his death. I don't want to give anything away, but this event is possibly what capped Johnson as a memorable artist. The coincidences, the mystery... it's all so strange and intriguing. I wish they would have gone into more detail on this part of his life...

Drawing your own conclusions

[Zingarese · 2 October 2004]

Well not really, its all pretty much drawn out for you. This film is a very solid documentary about Ray Johnson an underground artist from NY, that never grew in popularity as his peers from the scene. The film presupposes that the "mysterious death" was not "mysterious" at all but in fact was really something that could be considered his final performance. The film is extremely linear in that sense. We get a quick summary of his childhood, we get a quick peek at the NY scene, and we get hints throughout the film how he loved the idea of messages in a bottle, or things associated with water and floating. So yes, you pretty quickly build up a theory he committed suicide and that it was a performance. The film is so absolute that their is not even a hint of doubt in anyone interviewed that his death was an accident or foul play, that the idea of this film being about solving his death, is misleading. (Which I personally was annoyed at because I misjudged what the jacket description considered the arch of the film, not the directors fault, but I was still tossed by that for a minute).

The true arch of the film is also a bit shallow, "Who was Ray Johnson?" This question is answered in the first lines of the film. Friends, Gallery owners and even mailmen knew a little bit of him, but when pondering the question, everyone realizes no one really knew who the man really was. After reiterating this point again and again, we finally come to the closest realization (From I believe Billy Name) when he says, "To try and separate the man and the art is impossible when talking about Ray Johnson". Not a direct quote, but something to that effect. Ray was art, and what he did was not a creation of art but art itself. This of course then concludes the big question, "Was his death a performance?" This answer again is pretty self explanatory.

This film is a good look at an artist and does a good job at detailing a man's life, but in relation to the elements that surrounded this man, we are left a bit shallow. We interview famous people from the art world, but the film never dives deeply into the art scene, or for that matter anything.

There is nothing wrong with a film that stays directly on its subject and this film exceedingly does that well, but if you wanted to learn more about the art scene, this is a good film to pick up AFTER you have learned about the scene from other sources. This film only allows you to put faces to all the artists you have heard or read about before.

I do recommend this film on the basis that you get a strong solid film, but do not be misled to feel that this film is revelatory in any such way.

Completely Bizarre, Completely Riveting Documentary

[adri1968 · 9/10 · 9 January 2006]

I had no idea what this documentary was about going in, but a week after watching it, the movie and the artist at its core, Ray Johnson, still haunt me. This is a movie about a person who really had no real life or essence except his art and his ideals. People in his life tell stories about him to try to piece together who he really was and what his life was all about. I don't know that there's ever been an artist or person like Ray Johnson. The curator of his art show says she feels totally "manipulated" by him. Like he left clues so she would know exactly what to do. After you see the film, you may feel as I do, that the film makers made exactly the film Ray Johnson would have wanted. Very spooky in parts, and utterly fascinating. It's practically a who's who of the pop art world.

Great film

[twogriffin · 10/10 · 8 November 2006]

It is obvious his suicide was planned and it was a work of art. It seems so. I had to watch this film for a abnormal psych class and i'm supposed to determine the diagnosis for this guy, this is something that Ray Johnson himself would probably love, because he's see it as a game, and he was constantly playing games, loving playing games, always living in a game.. i guess, from seeing the film. When he was younger I don't know if he was like this, he seemed to develop this was of being after being in the art game? for a while. He is a very lovable character, a real character.. "a pure spirit," "incorruptable".. according to one of his former lovers and artist friend of many years. It seems no one really knew him well in the film except for this one man. I guess if you want to get to know Ray Johnson, you can talk to him. But, mostly you can refer to the messages in his art. Like the message in a bottle and then a body in the water.. it can tell a story.

What is so remarkable to me is that he is willing to die for this to be his life.. you reap what you sow seems a banal comment to make on this.. he was .. art. so he died as a part.

playing a part.

another deadly da da ist joke.

when he set up his house as a studio highly organized work space

Ignore the "artsy fartsy" reviewer

[bmoore-13 · 9/10 · 11 January 2007]

Any reviewer who reviews a movie about an artist and uses the term "artsy fartsy" shouldn't be trusted--except, of course, by those who find such a term enlightening. I am not particularly artistic, but I respect artistic people, those who see things differently-- perhaps idealistically, as engaged with the rest of nature and humanity, through a psychological/sociological/political/etc. prism that uniquely underscores the basis of things. (It is very hard to define what art "does"!) At any rate, Ray Johnson is one such person, and How to Draw a Bunny is one such film. The movie, at least temporarily, lifts the viewer out of the mundane world of tabloidization and banal politics and consumerism, shakes him (or her) up, rearranges him, however slightly, in his view of himself and the world.

In this way, this film, like all good art, works something like magic. The viewer doesn't necessarily feel "better" about the world, but the visual abilities have changed for the better, thus improving one's sense of those things that actually matter in life (as opposed to those that don't, such as points of view that use clichés such as "artsy fartsy.") I'm not sure Johnson is exactly likable. Were he my acquaintance, I might feel more dismayed than friendly toward the guy. But I like the way he sees things and helps me see things. The film, well shot and superbly edited, is actually framed as a sort of mystery: why and how did Johnson die? We don't get a complete answer, but the journey is fascinating. This film would, by the way, make a good companion piece with the Andy Goldsworthy movie. Both are about unconventional nonconformists who do things their way, with fascinating results.

A True Glimpse Of Art In Motion

[jmotil · 10/10 · 11 March 2006]

This is the story of Ray Johnson, a contemporary artist who's work reaches back from the 1940's till the time of his death in 1995. Johnson was at the forefront of performance art and created correspondence art along with Fluxus in the 1960's. There are many who contend that correspondence art was a precursor to the internet philosophically. His performance art pieces were essentially koans or Buddhist exercises in illustrating zen. How To Draw A Bunny is also about Ray Johnson the work of art, as his life itself was one great performance piece who's details were only connected posthumously. Fascinating both as a portrait of an artist and an era in modern art, the film is a must-see for anyone with an open mind and an interest in the path.

A Well Done Movie About An Important Artist

[stellar808 · 10/10 · 2 December 2006]

As mentioned in the movie, Ray Johnson may have been, "The most famous artist that you've never heard of." I've seen a large collection of his work first hand, in fact, as I've learned it could have been the largest show of his work prior to his death. Johnson, among may other things, was about duality, in the review prior to mine, the reviewer gave the film a poor review. If one is not inclined to enjoy or understand the subtleties of conceptual art, then by all means this is not the DVD for you. However, Johnson occupies a position in the art of the 50's and 60's that is important and this film shows his relevance as detailed by other "greats" of the day. Nothing was ever at face value in Johnson or his work. Each piece presents layers of meanings through images that continue to give. I wholeheartedly recommend this film. There is a great deal of "extra" content. For the searcher looking from answers about his art, this is the best place to begin. For the working "Mail Artist" is revered as the documentary of the artist who "started it all". Enigmatic, yes...but Johnson made himself his own work of art. This movie reveals more about him in a short period of time than any other source. Two great books are also available about his life and work. I gave this a full TEN stars. I have watched it repeatedly and and will view it many other times. Very well put together with an interesting soundtrack.

Kinda interesting, I guess, but with an annoying soundtrack

[youaresquishy · 2/10 · 24 June 2007]

The soundtrack is so annoying that I'm mainly just glad it's over. Wow. This has to be the most annoying soundtrack in a film ever. It's primarily this incredibly loud snare drum being pounded with paint brushes. It's a lot like 90 minutes of fingernails scraping against a chalkboard. A soundtrack is part of a movie, and, in this case, a large part of the movie. So, this movie is mostly annoying, and mostly because of the soundtrack.

As for the other aspects of the movie, while it appears that Ray Johnson, the subject of the film, was probably at least a somewhat interesting man, and possibly an interesting artist, I am inclined, for the most part, to adopt the position expressed in TheaterX's review entitled "How to Waste Your Money." This film just doesn't do a very good job of explaining what makes Ray Johnson interesting, and the film itself is mostly boring (except insofar as boredom is incompatible with being continually annoyed by an annoying soundtrack). All in all, this was a poorly done film.

I personally would've been interested to hear a psychiatrist's perspective on Ray Johnson, but there's nothing like that in the film. Not that this would have been necessarily the only way to make this film a good one--but it very well might have helped. The reason I say this is that Ray Johnson appears to have been more than just a little eccentric, and ended up committing suicide apparently without telling anyone why, so it's reasonable to suspect that there was an underlying brain disorder/disease that perhaps might explain the eccentricity, suicide, as well as, possibly, what some might call "excessive" creativity. That is just one thing which might have made the movie a little better.

One thing about this movie that was actually kind of disturbing is that it seems to be sort of taking the position, by allowing the view to be expressed by various associates of Ray Johnson to the near-exclusion of any other sort of view, that Ray Johnson's suicide was best viewed as just another piece of art by Ray Johnson--a piece of performance art. But that strikes me as a really silly and childish sort of rationalization, and it's really an unusual way to look at a suicide. By committing suicide the person becomes both a murderer as well as a murder victim all at the same time. I think exactly as highly of the idea of suicide-as-art as I think of the idea of murder-as-art. Suicide is, for the most part, just a mean thing to do to yourself and the people who like you. Art is, for the most part, a way of entertaining other people. The two things don't seem to have any kind of similarity, at least in my view. It's kind of a stupid way to look at suicide, and I really don't have much respect for anything said by anyone or anything who thinks this way about suicide, and that would include this film.

There really is way too much blathering in general from, as TheaterX puts it, "artsy-fartsy types," and for the most part it really doesn't help us get any closer to understanding Ray Johnson, even apart from this childish drivel about his suicide being his last work of art.

Ray Johnson may well be an interesting character, and I suspect most of the good reviews of this film here can be explained by people's enthusiasm about Ray Johnson himself and/or his art, rather than about this film per se. I'm not trying to say anything negative about Ray Johnson (other than to point out that he was, in fact, a murderer--he murdered himself). But this film is just bad.

But, really, I'd feel comfortable recommending that you not see this because of the soundtrack alone. I was so glad when this movie finally ended and I didn't have to hear that damn paint brush slamming that snare drum anymore. There has to be a book out there that does a much better and much less annoying job of documenting Ray Johnson's life and work for those who are interested.

that sounds too much like what they really are

[ericm4 · 10/10 · 15 July 2006]

I can imagine someone unsympathetic to this this particular scene of artists viewing this film about Ray Johnson and finding it slightly self-absorbed and immature, however, I enjoyed watching it.

The opening of the film runs like a prime time local news investigative report, right before the weather segment. As the film progressed, I found my mind sinking deeper into the story of this guy that I had initially never heard of. The music changed from straight ahead brush work by drummer Max Roach to more ambient music, somewhat across between Bill Frissel and John Cage as one was confronted with photographs of both the artist and his work.

Johnson, in photographs of his youth, contains a look of intense, loving, and innocent obsession, the realization of which is brought home towards the end of the film.

His work is a kaleidescope of colors and ideas, as varied as it is numerous. His method of putting his work out may appeal to an anarchist mentality as does the entire film which is also appreciated for its disclosure of beauty that one may not have known about otherwise, which is a shame. Overall, the subject sticks in one's mind more than the film itself, which I suppose is a credit to its craft. It is very fortunate that this film has been made and is readily available in many rental stores. I recommend taking advantage of it.

Funny, Sad, Fascinating Film

[mojoan · 9 October 2005]

Although I am an artist, I hadn't ever even heard of Ray Johnson until I stumbled upon this movie on the Sundance Channel. What a treat. It's interviews with people who "knew" Johnson - I don't think anybody really knew him.

He was very eccentric, e.g., if he was mad at you and you called him, he'd put the phone down without hanging up and go about his business - the caller could hear him moving around in the background. After some time - always varying - he'd pick up the phone, say "hello" and things would go on as if nothing had ever happened.

He really invented "mail art", sending collages to friends. He made up cost lists for his paintings, offering reductions if he cut part of the drawing/painting out.

I loved this film.

An artist as art; death as a disappearing act

[labronk · 9/10 · 1 January 2007]

This documentary provides a much different angle on the presentation of subject, and this is what makes it exciting. That we cannot ever know Johnson, especially in light of the fact that he has committed suicide, makes the entire exercise all the more intriguing. Interview after interview evinces an all-too-rare character study of someone who simply did not want to be known. The art of this concealment builds to an exhilaratingly creepy conclusion that will be familiar to anyone who has been affected by suicide. How can we think we know someone who commits this unthinkable act? The segments regarding Johnson's rope-a-dope art dealings and coyness about capital is worth the price of admission alone. His influence is everywhere in the art world to this day, and yet few will remember him.

Yawn

[Cosmoeticadotcom · 4/10 · 11 September 2008]

Henry Darger. That is the name that hovers behind this 2002 documentary film, How To Draw A Bunny, by John Walter, which won the Special Jury Prize at the 2002 Sundance Film Festival, and details the life and wannabe legend of minor pop artist Ray Johnson (1927-1995). For those not in the know, Henry Darger was a hermit who, upon his death in the early 1970s, became a bit of a sensation when some bad artistes found and published excerpts from his lifelong continuing novel, with collages, about a make believe planet where naked girls with penises battled aliens who did not believe in Jesus Christ. The man's writing is uniformly terrible but, of course, the bad artistes that championed his work did so with such zeal that more mainstream and high profile artists, like singer-songwriter Natalie Merchant and poet John Ashbery, latched on to his brief flame of recognition by mentioning Darger in mediocre works of theirs.

Naturally, Dargermania faded, for the truth is there was a very good reason Darger's fame was fleet. His work- both literarily and visually, sucked. This film tries to similarly hagiographize Johnson, by linking him with much better artists like Andy Warhol and Roy Lichtenstein, who is one of many interviewees. Yet, like Darger, the bulk of Johnson's work was bad, really bad. Unlike Darger, however, Johnson- whose early 1995 suicide is treated as a mystery even if it seems utterly predictable given the man's narcissistic nature, actually had some artistic talent early on, even through some intriguing silhouette portraits. Of course, it dried up and Johnson went into collage- ala Darger, which even the most jaded of visual artists will be the first to admit is the genre that frauds inevitably turn to. Why? Because one can simply toss a bunch of random 'found' things together, claim it art by fiat, and a bunch of clueless acolytes and sycophants, who merely 'like' the artist personally, and know little of the creative process and art, will later rhapsodize about his 'pushing of boundaries', or other such banal nonsense. Naturally, when that artist leaps off into creative nihility or bankruptcy he cannot push boundaries, for to do so one must be within the art form.

In this regard, Johnson is well in line with frauds such as Jackson Pollock and the Abstract Expressionists, the LANGUAGE poets, and dozens of other earlier –isms and Schools, which tried to substitute creative bankruptcy with hipster posing of one sort or another. When the Johnson acolytes speak reverently of his suicide off a bridge as a piece of performance art they verge on self-parody. If Walter really wanted to focus on an artist of worth who jumped off a bridge, would not the poet and critic Weldon Kees, whose death truly is a mystery, have been a much better subject?…. Yet, it would take a great filmmaker to make such a trite life interesting. Johnson's idea of wit includes apothegms like, 'Keir Dullea, gone tomorrow,' and his idea of 'art' includes Xeroxed grotesques of bunnies with his artsy pals' names on them, and collages called moticos- which lack any of the inventiveness or savvy of contemporaries like Warhol or Lichtenstein. Johnson's idea of 'political commentary' is images of celebrities as famous as James Dean and Elvis Presley, and as bizarre as Shelley Duvall- yet all adorned with Lucky Strike cigaret logos. The older he got the more seemingly demented and deluded he got. This is evidenced by such acts as letting a gullible acolyte videotape him doing nothing for several years, or dropping sixty foot long hot dogs over Riker's Island from a helicopter, or Magic Marking a cardboard box, then hopping about it on one foot while beating it with a belt. Of course, in the end, that old cliché- the death obsession, got to him, as it does so many wannabe artists who really masque their mental ills with their pretensions.

Still, his gay lover and friends, like artist Jean-Claude (wife of Christo- the noted 'wrapper') ask such queries as why his work was not 'recognized' with a straight face, even as she and the others all speak of how 'nice' and 'honest' a guy he was because they simply have no way to realistically declaim his 'work' as having any real artistic value. Praising the person when speaking of an artist is always a giveaway as to the artist's lack of talent and accomplishment, much as is talking of the artist's 'intent', rather than 'accomplishment'. In this sense, Johnson was actually closer to a pre-Keith Haring Haring than a Henry Darger, much less an Andy Warhol- who, despite his persona, was an artist of- if not the first rank, certainly the second. Johnson was merely a mental case with some vague creative impulses, who never quite got his mental act together.

The fact is, as mentioned earlier, that one cannot truly push an art's boundaries if one leaps wholly outside of it, and one's work has no real nor direct relation to its claimed art form. True originality comes only from within, and the multifarious ways that great artists use and reuse existing forms in new ways to achieve their ends. Simply put, Ray Johnson was neither good nor original. All that he did in his 'art' was done before and better by others. That the same can be said of his documentarian's film may be a small synchronicity, but that's all it is. What it is not is art.

Good subject bad film

[fairchildqua · 3/10 · 27 May 2017]

This is a doc about a fascinating character and there is no way a story about him wouldn't be interesting and worth a watch so definitely watch this movie with many caveats The soundtrack is from hell- I believed it was created to torture prisoners at Guantanamo Bau There are. No revelations just a really strange thing the director did- he kind of made his suicide like a work of his art very very controlling and interpretative and not documentary but ego driven and self driven Go see it for sure but not what it could have been in the right hands

all hype and NO real meaning here...pass!

[yentrog31 · 1/10 · 21 November 2008]

see "yawns" review first of all ....I usually like this kind of arty movie/doc most of the time cause I like history.Information of any kind is learning and ART.Having said that this was trash.....as I watched this story unfold I kept saying this guy is garbage....he makes collages..he has no artistic talent himself so he uses/fuses other stuff and glues it on boards..wow great talent.....it was crap..Im sorry he died a suicide death but a mysterious death does not make a great artist..esp one who took brand names and a gallon of glue and a gay lifestyle and his friends say he was misunderstood..I think the artist himself knew what HE was all about..a life of crap art and he knew he had no talent himself....let this one pass.

Limited audience biopic.

[estreet-eva · 4/10 · 6 December 2011]

To the extent anything about abstract artist Ray Johnson lends itself to the description "straight-forward", "How to Draw a Bunny" is a straight-forward documentary about the man's life. The films spends some time on building mystery over Johnson's eventual suicide at 62 but the mystery turns out to be a little less surprising than the ending of "Titanic". Otherwise the documentary traces Johnson's life from childhood through the growth of his reputation in the abstract art community presenting mostly unknown contemporaries with the exception of Christo and his wife Jean-Claude. These friends, fellow artists and others can give little insight into understanding Johnson's remote collages or his unusual behavior. Ultimately, whether you enjoy the film depends on whether you find an interest in Johnson 's art and life which limits the audience for the film severely.