▽ FACTORY GIRL

My research into the New York factory scene of the 1960’s, initiated by my reading of POPism, lead me to the recent picture Factory Girl (2006), directed by George Hickenlooper. This picture regards the life of Warhol superstar Edie Sedgwick and pays heed to her involvement within the New York factory scene of the 1960’s, as well as her relationship with Andy Warhol. Having acquired Warhol’s account of the 60’s within POPism, I was enthusiastic to hear it from Sedgwick’s perspective also even though it would be clearly questionable with regards to accuracy, as it is after all, a dramatised cinematic depiction.  Ever since I had become familiar with the 1960’s New York factory scene, Sedgwick has always been a figure of fascination for me. I, just like everyone else, was initially struck by her magnificent physical beauty and unique style, but it was her charisma, magnetic persona and troubled life that intrigued me the most. However, aside from her beauty and charisma the picture also reminds us that she was in fact an artist. This was quite a commendable attribute of the film considering her artistic practice is hardly ever regarded consequential to all the attention and focus that is put onto her beauty, style and troubled life.  Sienna Miller, who imparts an absolutely fantastic performance within this picture, plays Sedgwick. Everything from her voice to her facial expressions and gestures are uncannily identical to Sedgwick’s. Miller’s performance was that outstanding that I dare say there were times when I almost forgot I was not watching the real Sedgwick. Guy Pearce’s portrayal of Warhol was, on the other hand, equally as outstanding and absolutely hysterical – it had me laughing the whole way through. However,  whilst Pearce’s portrayal was very much akin to the stereotypical Warhol that many are familiar with, I do not think it sympathised much with the real Warhol – the shy, down-to-earth man that hid behind the superficial, deadpan persona. I wholeheartedly believe that Warhol was not as frivolous and superficial in reality as many thought he was and therefore I felt quite sad at the fact that this film presents him in a rather negative light. The strange, deadpan character was not the true Warhol, it was simply a character that he played; he ingeniously imitated the kind of art that he was making and the typical attitude that modern, consumer-driven America was governed by. I was quite disappointed that those behind this film obviously had not realised this.

The main problem that I had with this picture was that it somewhat demonised Warhol, portraying him as spiteful and cold towards others. It is even as though it places some degree of blame on him for Sedgwick’s decline, which I believe is extremely inaccurate. From reading POPism Iknow that Warhol did worry about Sedgwick and did want to help her, but there was simply nothing he could do – she would not have listened to him.  I understand that certain things have to be dramatised in films, but as a fan of Warhol, seeing such an unfair portrayal of him upset me a little and tainted my overall opinion of the picture. It is simply a crying shame that Warhol, a figure who was profoundly pivotal to the development of post-modern art, is depicted in such a negative light. I also did not enjoy the far-from-accurate feud between Warhol and Bob Dylan, who fight for Sedgwick’s affections. Dylan is laughably depicted as the knight in shining armour, who attempts to save Sedgwick from the fraudulent factory scene and supposedly malicious intentions of Warhol. To play on the ‘damsel in distress being rescued by a knight in shining armour’ theme seemed a bit of a corny cliché to be quite honest, and made me question the credibility of the film.

However, one thing I would commend the film on is that it does not attempt to romanticise the debauched factory scene or shy away from the true-to-life details such as the overt degree of sex, alcohol and drugs that took place there.  The cinematography was yet another laudable attribute. I particularly liked how real footage from the 1960’s is embedded into the picture. The soundtrack is also worth mentioning seeing as it creates the perfect audio backdrop, effectively helping to capture the exciting, vivacious zeitgeist of the 60’s.  After acquiring a more accurate depiction of the Warhol factory through my reading of POPism, I felt Factory Girl was something of a let down really. It was as though Hickenlooper felt as though he had to dramatise and make up pretend scenarios in order to maintain the viewer’s interests. Through the invention of pretend scenarios like a feud between Warhol and Dylan, the picture loses credibility for people who have a bit of background knowledge and are looking for some denotation of non-fictional accuracy. In my opinion, it was unnecessary to make up situations to further dramatise the story, as Sedgwick’s life had just enough drama to make a number of films already. Making a picture on Sedgwick was certainly an ambitious thing to do considering her life was already like one to begin with, but in all honesty it was solely Miller’s performance that prevented me from being entirely opposed to this picture.