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.
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.