Chelsea Girls

It was with both amazement and boredom that I viewed this 210-minute film at a college film society series.

At the end, I left with decidedly mixed emotions, which were close to frustration . . . what a waste, I thought.

What could have been truly a unique masterwork with proper editing turned out to be an uneven "rough draft" in search of some benevolent cutting shears.

Either Paul Morrissey and Andy Warhol didn't have an artistic eye, after all, or just didn't much care about creating a final polished artwork.

On the plus side was the use of two 35 mm. projectors showing two completely different scenarios side by side. It began with just one full size movie--then when the second projector started, words are inadequate to describe the excitement, thrill and rush of it all! What a concept! The viewer began to wonder about the relationship, if any, between the two stories; then dazzled by the mere experience of watching two different, full size movies simultaneously--and finally annoyed by the sheer length, redundancy and weightiness of the whole matter.

If Paul or Andy didn't have the ability to edit their work effectively, for godsake, why didn't they bring in someone who could? Didn't they realize that takes consistently great footage to support three hours and a half hours of sitting in one spot in a theater (or were they two spaced out to notice?).

"Chelsea Girls" ultimately remains a fatally flawed feature that one can get just as much reading about as viewing. A pity, for this was a tragically missed opportunity in cinematic history.

What do most people know Andy Warhol by? It's probably one of three things. His paintings of soup cans, his incredibly long films about literally nothing (like the 7 hour "Empire" starring...the Empire State Building), or his raw legacy as a pop-icon and as a star of counterculture in the '60s. Few people really know that his was a rather prolific film director. Well, not prolific in the standard sense (he never seemed particularly passionate about his cinematic accomplishments), but as far as output of films, he's ahead of many. Now Chelsea Girls is the second Warhol film I've seen (behind Vinyl) and I don't plan on seeing anymore, because Chelsea Girls seemed to be a statement of almost everything Warhol wanted to say.

Chelsea Girls is one of the most important films in a series of avant- garde movies in the 1960's. Besides Brakhage, Warhol is often considered to be the most influential and fresh experimental filmmaker of that time. But why? What makes some three-and-a-half-hour film about nothing so interesting, new, and yet still entertaining and interesting? It's the filming style and creativity of which it is portrayed.

The film is presented with two separate film reels at once, but with only one of the reel's audio. So it's basically like watching one and a half movies at once. Originally, it was the projectionist's choice of which soundtrack was used, but at this point it has become more standardized with the update of digital film.

There are a dozen, 33-minute reels, played two at once, making the film a total of three-and-a-half hours. All of the characters in the movie are those of Warhol's buddies; from dominatrices, to heroin dealers, to corrupt religious officials, to the underground rock star Nico herself.

Oftentimes I'm very intrigued by films showing impoverishment. I can't exactly pinpoint why; it's just something that interests me. Chelsea Girls shows the opposite by displaying some of the most despicable characters ever filmed in cinema, giving an effective "slice-of-life" of these money-obsessed Fellini-esque individuals.

While the second hour is a bit lacking as it ventures more into pointless surrealism when the rest of the film is focused more on the pure dramatic aspects of the characters, the first and third hours of Chelsea Girls are tragic, funny, entertaining, but also give insight and demonstrate brilliant chemistry from the entire ensemble. Additionally, if you ever get bored watching it, just let your eyes drift to the other screen for a while.

Many will talk about the themes of Chelsea Girls. A theory I've taken a liking to it's filmed like a party, where you can hear some people talking, and want to hear everyone and see what's going on, but you know it's impractical (as would be watching Chelsea Girls one reel at a time). I truly believe that the last set of reels, however, is the most important in the whole, non-structured movie. In it, we hear the audio from a corrupt "pope" as he beats a woman, rants, and talks about how "Bride of Frankenstein" is the greatest movie ever, while in the other reel, we simply watch Nico crying while assorted rave lights flash onto her.

This creates a mood of sadness, of weeping for this life, but also a sense of self-awareness. Is Warhol revealing his realizes the chivalry of his, and the cast's, antics? I believe so.

Chelsea Girls is certainly one of the most unique films ever made, and a landmark achievement and must-see for anyone interested in Warhol or experimental cinema.

Maddening but exquisite--one of the most beautiful of all American movies. The genius of Warhol as filmmaker was his stubborn insistence--conscious or otherwise--on bringing the principles of portraiture in painting to movies. Warhol understood that the power of the portrait is as psychological as it is technical, and his strategies for eliciting "acting" were as excruciating as they are potent. In his filmed "still lifes" of Edie Sedgwick and Henry Geldzahler he seemed to extract a spiritual radiance through duration and discomfort as if from a syringe, and in "Chelsea Girls" the concentrated sadism of his directing style produces similarly unpredictable, human, extravagant results. Shown with two projectors (one randomly producing sound, the other silent), the film shows three and a half hours of faces--superstars and hangers-on hung out to dry in front of an impassive and directionless camera that, after the maestro's fashion, silently encourages the "performers" to entertain. Some twist in the wind, others outdo all expectations; something palpably human, essential, unprojected is born of all of them. The film is hard going when seen in a theatre, but by the time Warhol gets to the transcendent, almost wordless rhapsody of the final garishly colored reels, the trek pays off like a sunburst.

You know when you let your mind drift--especially when under the influence of drugs or alcohol--and you think up some idea that sounds like it would be great? A typical non-genius would consider an idea like that later and think, "well, this sounded like a good idea then but it's just stupid now?" Thankfully, Warhol said to himself, "no, I'm a genius and therefore that was a good idea."

And what was this brilliant idea?

Film a bunch of drug users and couples in various rooms of a hotel then project two films at a time side-by-side, shifting the audio to switch focus.

Doesn't that sound amazingly fresh and cool?

Don't answer yet! You also get:

• randomly twitchy camera work

• quasi-purposeful film speed changes

• having the camera's point-of-interest fail to follow the viewer's desires

• racking the zoom

• sluggish response to bad focus after changing camera positions

• over- and under-exposure

Now how much would you pay?

With your average film you'd get three or four reels, but with this, you get _12 reels!_ Plus, you get sketchy instructions on when to do transitions and change projectors, putting _you in the driver seat!_

Operators are standing by.

In "arts and entertainment", films are usually viewed as being part of the entertainment side. Warhol moves them over to the arts side. This film, like others of Warhol's is "not watched, it's experienced". I think it's brilliant. But I wouldn't get nearly as much pleasure out of watching it if I didn't know who the stars were. So, I suggest you certainly read about the film and Warhol, before you watch this.