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.
