Chelsea Girls

It must be said upfront: as a conventional "movie", this is terrible. The split-screen is a gimmick, the camerawork is annoying, scenes go on way too long and there's huge sections without sound (at least on the DVD). This is not entertainment, there's no message, and there's probably not much thought put into it. Still, a thought-provoking work that gives you something to chew on... even if it is essentially just a bunch of junkies/freaks/actors/artists fucking around with a camera.

That segment "Eric Says All" looks like a self-parody.

Don’t bother.

I need a cigarette.

Boring, poorly made, lazy, and if that wasn't enough, nearly three and a half hours long. One of my least favorite movie experiences. Proof that originality doesn't equal any sort of quality. It's unlike anything I've ever seen, but there's a good reason for that. I know Warhol did weird stuff, and I went in skeptical, but even my low expectations were not even close to met. I think Roger Ebert said it best when he said Warhol has nothing to say here and no technique to say it with.

A very challenging and draining film, I enjoyed large segments of it, some were funny others were interesting, but was kind of bored through others. The split screen and varying audio, along with some of the shooting techniques Warhol uses, really make you think about how one chooses what to focus on. It really is more about what you're willing to put into it, and by the end I'll admit I stopped caring much.

Viewed March 17, 2018.

# 413

364

"...a group of, um, spreedfreaks with Warhol's then-boyfriend Billy Name..." http://illusionpodcast.blogspot.com/2014/08/episode-27-andy-warhol-saved-from.html

397

#393