This past weekend, I went to see the film Factory Girl, not because I like Sienna Miller, or not because I was that interested in the whole Andy Warhol thing. Mostly it was because it seemed like a pretty good way to waste just over 90 minutes of my Sunday afternoon...
I must say that even though I was a child in the 60's & 70's, I was familiar with Warhol's work even though I was never really a huge fan. He seemed to be more about hype than producing anything truely substantial. In a way, he just personified what the media was about to become in the next 30 years - slanted, self-important and obsessed with wealth & fame. And because of this, it seemed that many of the population of the world have become the same.
I was not surprised that the story of Edie Sedgwick was embellished and that the film did not accurately reflect the life of this troubled woman. There seems to be all sorts of controversies swirling around it such as Edie's supposed relationship with Bob Dylan and other such unproved ideas. Still, the acting was great and I must say that I can never get enough of Guy Pearce (who played Andy Warhol in all of his annoyingness.)
What I did come away with was that it is so easy to get caught up in things that distract one from their path in life. Fame, money, and love seem to be the most distracting especially if they are all-consuming and passionately pursued. And, coming from someone so easily distracted by many things, I just felt the loss of abandoning one's dreams for someone or something that virtually leeches the desire.
Whether it was true or not, the Warhol character in the film seemed to take this muse he'd latched onto and used her up. It seemed from the perspective of the writers that this great, famous artist often took the ideas of those he surrounded himself with and made them his own. When he was finished, he simply spit them out much like they were the flavour of the week. In short, he was a dickhead of the biggest kind...
It appears, though, that it was all dramatized to make the film although it appears that it did truly reflect the leech-like qualities of Andy Warhol. I left the theatre wanting to believe it. After all, wasn't he just famous for hanging out with the rich & famous? No substance just a hanger-on.
Anyway, it didn't cause any life-changing epiphanies for me, it just made me think that life is to short to waste one's creativity and naivety. It's something that I should remember more often...
I must say that even though I was a child in the 60's & 70's, I was familiar with Warhol's work even though I was never really a huge fan. He seemed to be more about hype than producing anything truely substantial. In a way, he just personified what the media was about to become in the next 30 years - slanted, self-important and obsessed with wealth & fame. And because of this, it seemed that many of the population of the world have become the same.
I was not surprised that the story of Edie Sedgwick was embellished and that the film did not accurately reflect the life of this troubled woman. There seems to be all sorts of controversies swirling around it such as Edie's supposed relationship with Bob Dylan and other such unproved ideas. Still, the acting was great and I must say that I can never get enough of Guy Pearce (who played Andy Warhol in all of his annoyingness.)
What I did come away with was that it is so easy to get caught up in things that distract one from their path in life. Fame, money, and love seem to be the most distracting especially if they are all-consuming and passionately pursued. And, coming from someone so easily distracted by many things, I just felt the loss of abandoning one's dreams for someone or something that virtually leeches the desire.
Whether it was true or not, the Warhol character in the film seemed to take this muse he'd latched onto and used her up. It seemed from the perspective of the writers that this great, famous artist often took the ideas of those he surrounded himself with and made them his own. When he was finished, he simply spit them out much like they were the flavour of the week. In short, he was a dickhead of the biggest kind...
It appears, though, that it was all dramatized to make the film although it appears that it did truly reflect the leech-like qualities of Andy Warhol. I left the theatre wanting to believe it. After all, wasn't he just famous for hanging out with the rich & famous? No substance just a hanger-on.
Anyway, it didn't cause any life-changing epiphanies for me, it just made me think that life is to short to waste one's creativity and naivety. It's something that I should remember more often...
2 Comments:
Warhol just never did anything for me. Nothing remotely. I don't know why. I think his 'art' to be a bit of a farce. So with that said, I would never go see the film. He just seemed so self-absorbed, but then again, I could be wrong. Some people put him on a pedestal, and they're simply doing it cuz other people were doing the same.
People are like sheeps, and Warhol was just a great sheep herder. And oh really, Guy Pearce? Kool. I like him!
Okay, so I wrote this huge comment and it disappeared. So here is the condensed version...
I must say even though he may have been a herder, he was mostly a sheep himself.
I also think that to call what he produced "art" was pushing the limit of acceptable artforms. It wasn't. He copied things. He didn't improve them he just straight copied them.
Nevertheless, I thought the film a great reminder of that. He "created" fascination in the famous because he wanted to be famous. A hanger-on if you will. Perhaps he is a big reason that people cling on to every single move that Paris Hilton makes. The obsession with all things famous.
He was an instigator of that kind of behaviour. He was in no way original. And, I think that in the long run, it's kind of ironic that the infamy lived on but his body is now dust. The only thing that lives on are a collection of mediocre graphic art and a reputation. He's just an icon of mediocrity!
Post a Comment
<< Home