Andy Warhol's epic freak-out to end all freak-outs is somehow both snail-paced & fascinating at the same time. The film consists of little more than straightforward head shots (on split screens; a classic late '60s touch) of a slew of Warhol's self-created "superstars" babbling, whining, cursing, & shrieking. As a film director, Warhol didn't have much talent beyond that of the average wedding videographer, but CHELSEA GIRLS (all 3-plus hours of it) is an entertaining time capsule of '60s pop culture and a chance to see a lot of now semi-legends (Ondine, Nico) in their prime. If you do not have the chance to see this on a large screen, much will be lost. Despite it's awkwardness, this is surely Warhol's masterpiece.
16 Reviews
two screens, one truth...
fidel-210 May 1999
For four odd hours Warhol, using the double-screen technique, declares war against every sensory logic we have grown used to in the movies. Sometimes, the movie just doesn't move. Sometime it does, but at an odd speed. Even if you get used to following two overlapping narratives, some in color while others in B&W, the length of the film might finally get to you. But if you endure - your perception of the art of motion pictures is in for a ride! Depicting the lives of underground characters known from Lou Reed and Velvet Underground songs, this movie is not only cinematic beauty at its extreme, but also a fascinating documentation of an era in which modernist art reached its climax. A must!
It's a intolerable to watch! It's experimental avant garde!--It's both!
Jayce4 November 2001
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:
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.
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.
remarkable
Chris_Docker22 September 2007
There's two film experiences this year that standout as arresting for me in the way that they changed my perception of cinema. One was Bela Tarr's masterwork, The Man From London. Tarr uses settings as powerful players, almost like characters. It challenged the way I approached watching film, the visual experience. The other evening I went to a special showing of Andy Warhol's Chelsea Girls. This is not a film one could call 'polished' in any sense of the word. But it opened up so many ideas in my head. I felt as if I had had a three-hour masterclass in the techniques of film, particularly the ways film is manipulated to alter what goes on in the minds of the viewer.
I'll try to tell you why I found it so mesmerising. Then you can decide for yourself whether to watch it.
The screening was sold out. I should explain that the cinema had borrowed the rare print from the Museum of Modern Art in New York. They installed two 16mm projectors side by side. The film comes as 12 separate reels it's a sort of soap opera of the lives of some of Warhol's people that lived at the Chelsea Hotel in the 60's. Although the running order has now become more or less accepted, the original instructions were that the projectionist should choose the sequence and the sound levels for each. Additionally, two projectors are used simultaneously, projecting different reels on opposite sides of the screen.
The effect is a bit like being at a party where you can choose which conversation to tune in to. But sometimes you are just left with one person for a few minutes. You can almost ignore one section for a bit. But then, when something interesting happens, you already have the background gossip on it that you've followed with one ear. Your tangential interest has been aroused. When people hear the film described, the think, "How can you follow two things at once?" But this is what we do all the time. Every minute of our lives. We just alter the emphasis.
There's not much in the way of narrative. But we develop our own kind of narrative as we link up individuals from different reels. Often they are shown in a different light sometimes literally. Everyone, as in many of Warhol's films, plays themselves or rather a dramatised persona of themselves. An attractive vamp from one black-and-white reel turns out to be a quick-witted transgendered woman when we hear her with the sound turned up in another. Both reels are in black and white but with different co-actors. When we see her in a third reel, in colour, some of the mystery that black-and-white lent has drained away. She seems more human and less mysterious. We make our internal narrative, choosing which reel is a 'flashback.' Which is the 'true' person. I think of how the classic 'vamp' is portrayed in movies, the fetishisation of femininity. And how unconscious we are of cinematic technique.
Frequently camera also makes self-conscious zooms. Almost as if the cameraman had noticed, "Oh look, isn't THAT interesting!" Was it interesting before, or is it interesting because we have seen it through the eyes of someone who sees what is fascinating about it? They are insignificant details. Yet, when we focus on them, they seem to encapsulate the mood of the scene, or reveal something new about what is happening. At other times, the camera just seems to fidget. We become aware of it as a 'character' (a bit like Bela Tarr's cityscapes).
This probably comes easier if you can see why (Warhol's) screenprints and sculptures are interesting, have endured, and been so influential. Anyone can call a painting of a soup-can trite. Fewer can explain why Warhol's 'soup cans' sold for so much money - or are still taken very seriously by art establishments. If you can find the essence of something that everyone likes but takes for granted. We look at things without seeing them. So if you can make people stop. And really look. Really see. Suddenly you've shown them something about themselves. It wasn't really anything about soup or depicting Marilyn Monroe's head in garish colours. "They see all of me but they don't see anything," intones a drug-crazed young man into a flexible mirror. His self-absorption reminds me of how I am compositing each character from their different 'reels'.
Of course, we also know this movie was banned. Is that shocking enough to keep you in your seat for three hours? Without graphic violence, graphic sex or the usual commercial chicanery? Probably not. If you're new to Warhol's art you might want to get hold of a primer first (I recommend 'The Philosophy of Andy Warhol' available in Penguin: it doesn't 'explain' Warhol but it can help you get inside his head.) If you see this film looking for all the things he's refusing to give you then you probably won't get much out of it.
Of course, if this were a real soap opera, scenes of mild bondage, catfights, sexual confessions and so on would be 'dramatised' to make them larger than life. Chelsea Girls doesn't have to go to such lengths. It already is 'real life'. Weird people, druggie drop-outs and the sort of folk that probably 'infested' Times Square before the big clean up. But their interesting essences are distilled by a great artist yet just not in the way you might expect.
I got the feeling at times that you could have given Andy Warhol a camera that came free with the cornflakes and he would have made great art with it.
(This is a greatly shortened version of something I wrote for Eyeforfilm)
I'll try to tell you why I found it so mesmerising. Then you can decide for yourself whether to watch it.
The screening was sold out. I should explain that the cinema had borrowed the rare print from the Museum of Modern Art in New York. They installed two 16mm projectors side by side. The film comes as 12 separate reels it's a sort of soap opera of the lives of some of Warhol's people that lived at the Chelsea Hotel in the 60's. Although the running order has now become more or less accepted, the original instructions were that the projectionist should choose the sequence and the sound levels for each. Additionally, two projectors are used simultaneously, projecting different reels on opposite sides of the screen.
The effect is a bit like being at a party where you can choose which conversation to tune in to. But sometimes you are just left with one person for a few minutes. You can almost ignore one section for a bit. But then, when something interesting happens, you already have the background gossip on it that you've followed with one ear. Your tangential interest has been aroused. When people hear the film described, the think, "How can you follow two things at once?" But this is what we do all the time. Every minute of our lives. We just alter the emphasis.
There's not much in the way of narrative. But we develop our own kind of narrative as we link up individuals from different reels. Often they are shown in a different light sometimes literally. Everyone, as in many of Warhol's films, plays themselves or rather a dramatised persona of themselves. An attractive vamp from one black-and-white reel turns out to be a quick-witted transgendered woman when we hear her with the sound turned up in another. Both reels are in black and white but with different co-actors. When we see her in a third reel, in colour, some of the mystery that black-and-white lent has drained away. She seems more human and less mysterious. We make our internal narrative, choosing which reel is a 'flashback.' Which is the 'true' person. I think of how the classic 'vamp' is portrayed in movies, the fetishisation of femininity. And how unconscious we are of cinematic technique.
Frequently camera also makes self-conscious zooms. Almost as if the cameraman had noticed, "Oh look, isn't THAT interesting!" Was it interesting before, or is it interesting because we have seen it through the eyes of someone who sees what is fascinating about it? They are insignificant details. Yet, when we focus on them, they seem to encapsulate the mood of the scene, or reveal something new about what is happening. At other times, the camera just seems to fidget. We become aware of it as a 'character' (a bit like Bela Tarr's cityscapes).
This probably comes easier if you can see why (Warhol's) screenprints and sculptures are interesting, have endured, and been so influential. Anyone can call a painting of a soup-can trite. Fewer can explain why Warhol's 'soup cans' sold for so much money - or are still taken very seriously by art establishments. If you can find the essence of something that everyone likes but takes for granted. We look at things without seeing them. So if you can make people stop. And really look. Really see. Suddenly you've shown them something about themselves. It wasn't really anything about soup or depicting Marilyn Monroe's head in garish colours. "They see all of me but they don't see anything," intones a drug-crazed young man into a flexible mirror. His self-absorption reminds me of how I am compositing each character from their different 'reels'.
Of course, we also know this movie was banned. Is that shocking enough to keep you in your seat for three hours? Without graphic violence, graphic sex or the usual commercial chicanery? Probably not. If you're new to Warhol's art you might want to get hold of a primer first (I recommend 'The Philosophy of Andy Warhol' available in Penguin: it doesn't 'explain' Warhol but it can help you get inside his head.) If you see this film looking for all the things he's refusing to give you then you probably won't get much out of it.
Of course, if this were a real soap opera, scenes of mild bondage, catfights, sexual confessions and so on would be 'dramatised' to make them larger than life. Chelsea Girls doesn't have to go to such lengths. It already is 'real life'. Weird people, druggie drop-outs and the sort of folk that probably 'infested' Times Square before the big clean up. But their interesting essences are distilled by a great artist yet just not in the way you might expect.
I got the feeling at times that you could have given Andy Warhol a camera that came free with the cornflakes and he would have made great art with it.
(This is a greatly shortened version of something I wrote for Eyeforfilm)
Chelsea Girls review
couirey2 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Andy Warhol's 1966 underground classic Chelsea Girls is a hipster's practical joke, on par with elementary school playground antics of "made you look." Since there's little to no story to speak of (inhabitants in a hotel during Chelsea of the '60s), omnipresenting the layout provides more information.
The setup is dual 16mm projectors screening primarily completely separate rooms and situations. The movie starts out with Nico in her kitchen with her son (presumably) and another guy. At some point, on screen left, Ondine on a chair/coach with a woman and thus begins a 3 and half hour movie experience you won't soon forget nor get over. As one reel ends, another begins. From what I read online, the sequence was left to the discretion of the theater, so one could argue seeing once is not the same experience as seeing again. Although regardless of sequencing, I don't see my opinion changing greatly.
Rene Ricard, who stars in the film, though I didn't recognize him while watching, hosted the film at Anthology Film Archives. He started discussing it shortly after the 7:30PM mark, but when asked to take advantage of the mic, he refused and continued sitting on the other side of the screen, which presented a minor problem for listening to him. Any coughs, sneezes, laughs or other interruptions, interfered with deciphering what was said. His backstory regarding the creation of the film and it's people was more rewarding than the picture itself. Some of the seats had name notes attached for reserved seating. I thought I saw one say Julian Schnabel and from the other reserves, they all seemed to know each other as they engaged before showtime. Lou Reed entered during Ricard's introduction.
In a well structured film, scenes are like dominoes, one setting up the next. Structure is Warhol's least concern. Neither are any of the other filmmaker techniques. The sound throughout the film is deplorable and mostly unintelligible. Some sequences are more understandable than others, but aside for Mary Woronov saying "Shut up!" repeatedly and Ondine outraged at being called a "phony", the majority of dialogue is lost. The lighting is either over or under exposed. The sets are marginal. The film is mostly b&w, but there are some color segments. The camera-work was an experiment in itself with all the focusing/unfocusing and zooming in and out. Whoever was working the camera, Andy or Paul Morrissey, I would completely believe it was their first day with the equipment and were literally asking themselves "what does this do?" during shooting. The Velvet Underground provided music accompaniment during segments.
But does any of that matter? Warhol's work speaks for himself. He obviously could care less about any of those above factors. He was interested in personalities. It's been argued his greatest accomplishment wasn't any film or painting he ever did, but the hype he created around himself. The people he surrounded himself with. If you have interesting enough people, it really doesn't matter what they do or how they are presented. He associated himself with some very provocative characters, i.e. Jackie Curtis, one of my favorites of Warhol's scene. Women In Revolt is a much more compelling film for her.
The movie fails because not everyone is interesting enough to stand the test of time when the viewer isn't on the inside. Because the movie is like a big inside joke. If you know who these people are, especially so I imagine if you personally had a relationship with them while alive, this makes for an enjoyable home movie memento. From that perspective, I completely get the allure. As an outsider, in the last hour plus, I kept hoping the end of a reel would not be the start of another. Sometimes it works, i.e. Nico (in color) at the end. She isn't saying or doing anything, it's just a closeup of her. She is interesting enough without anything going on. The fault of other segments are their stars, like the guy talking about sweat: I wanted to take a hammer to my head while he rambled on.
The film becomes a challenge as to how long you can stand it and will you exit prematurely. The presentation had a healthy turnout, with close to a sold out show. The film went beyond the time allotment, not helped due to screening malfunctions. After a few unintended hiccups, the film was stopped for 10 or so minutes to correct the power supply issue. Lou Reed seemed to start the trend of audience members leaving early and left shortly after the first Nico reel. During the course of the movie, many followed, specifically those with reserved seats, which I found humorous, since I imagined many of these people had some artistic relationship to those on screen. By the official end of the movie, there were less than 12 people left, including myself and it was midnight. The last 10 minutes or so was ambient music playing with nothing on screen.
Other than bragging rights about how "I saw this in a theater", I can't stress enough that this film is purely for those obsessed with either Warhol or his screen Droogs. If this movie was uncovered by space aliens or future humans with zero knowledge of Andy Warhol or his troupe, it wouldn't get a second thought. The prestige lies in the hype. There is definitely a new audience for this movie: It's called the "you didn't get it" crowd. It's garbage for garbage's sake landfill fodder you are more than welcome to swim in.
Arguably, Chelsea Girls predates reality TV by decades. On that account, it's very interesting to watch. Making people be themselves in forced situations and just do. By all means, honor Warhol with being a man ahead of his time. I'd rather be in a league with Orson Welles' legacy, ahead of his time for technical prowess and ingenuity; Rather than Warhol for tedious self-indulgent bunk.
The setup is dual 16mm projectors screening primarily completely separate rooms and situations. The movie starts out with Nico in her kitchen with her son (presumably) and another guy. At some point, on screen left, Ondine on a chair/coach with a woman and thus begins a 3 and half hour movie experience you won't soon forget nor get over. As one reel ends, another begins. From what I read online, the sequence was left to the discretion of the theater, so one could argue seeing once is not the same experience as seeing again. Although regardless of sequencing, I don't see my opinion changing greatly.
Rene Ricard, who stars in the film, though I didn't recognize him while watching, hosted the film at Anthology Film Archives. He started discussing it shortly after the 7:30PM mark, but when asked to take advantage of the mic, he refused and continued sitting on the other side of the screen, which presented a minor problem for listening to him. Any coughs, sneezes, laughs or other interruptions, interfered with deciphering what was said. His backstory regarding the creation of the film and it's people was more rewarding than the picture itself. Some of the seats had name notes attached for reserved seating. I thought I saw one say Julian Schnabel and from the other reserves, they all seemed to know each other as they engaged before showtime. Lou Reed entered during Ricard's introduction.
In a well structured film, scenes are like dominoes, one setting up the next. Structure is Warhol's least concern. Neither are any of the other filmmaker techniques. The sound throughout the film is deplorable and mostly unintelligible. Some sequences are more understandable than others, but aside for Mary Woronov saying "Shut up!" repeatedly and Ondine outraged at being called a "phony", the majority of dialogue is lost. The lighting is either over or under exposed. The sets are marginal. The film is mostly b&w, but there are some color segments. The camera-work was an experiment in itself with all the focusing/unfocusing and zooming in and out. Whoever was working the camera, Andy or Paul Morrissey, I would completely believe it was their first day with the equipment and were literally asking themselves "what does this do?" during shooting. The Velvet Underground provided music accompaniment during segments.
But does any of that matter? Warhol's work speaks for himself. He obviously could care less about any of those above factors. He was interested in personalities. It's been argued his greatest accomplishment wasn't any film or painting he ever did, but the hype he created around himself. The people he surrounded himself with. If you have interesting enough people, it really doesn't matter what they do or how they are presented. He associated himself with some very provocative characters, i.e. Jackie Curtis, one of my favorites of Warhol's scene. Women In Revolt is a much more compelling film for her.
The movie fails because not everyone is interesting enough to stand the test of time when the viewer isn't on the inside. Because the movie is like a big inside joke. If you know who these people are, especially so I imagine if you personally had a relationship with them while alive, this makes for an enjoyable home movie memento. From that perspective, I completely get the allure. As an outsider, in the last hour plus, I kept hoping the end of a reel would not be the start of another. Sometimes it works, i.e. Nico (in color) at the end. She isn't saying or doing anything, it's just a closeup of her. She is interesting enough without anything going on. The fault of other segments are their stars, like the guy talking about sweat: I wanted to take a hammer to my head while he rambled on.
The film becomes a challenge as to how long you can stand it and will you exit prematurely. The presentation had a healthy turnout, with close to a sold out show. The film went beyond the time allotment, not helped due to screening malfunctions. After a few unintended hiccups, the film was stopped for 10 or so minutes to correct the power supply issue. Lou Reed seemed to start the trend of audience members leaving early and left shortly after the first Nico reel. During the course of the movie, many followed, specifically those with reserved seats, which I found humorous, since I imagined many of these people had some artistic relationship to those on screen. By the official end of the movie, there were less than 12 people left, including myself and it was midnight. The last 10 minutes or so was ambient music playing with nothing on screen.
Other than bragging rights about how "I saw this in a theater", I can't stress enough that this film is purely for those obsessed with either Warhol or his screen Droogs. If this movie was uncovered by space aliens or future humans with zero knowledge of Andy Warhol or his troupe, it wouldn't get a second thought. The prestige lies in the hype. There is definitely a new audience for this movie: It's called the "you didn't get it" crowd. It's garbage for garbage's sake landfill fodder you are more than welcome to swim in.
Arguably, Chelsea Girls predates reality TV by decades. On that account, it's very interesting to watch. Making people be themselves in forced situations and just do. By all means, honor Warhol with being a man ahead of his time. I'd rather be in a league with Orson Welles' legacy, ahead of his time for technical prowess and ingenuity; Rather than Warhol for tedious self-indulgent bunk.
This film should be commercially released!
nd_4@hot4 June 1999
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.
Andy Warhol's Home Movie
tiekbane10 October 2015
This is not a movie. It's an exercise in self indulgence. Whoever made this must have thought these people were interesting with interesting things to say and that everybody in the world would be interested in hearing them say it. Well, these people were not interesting and they had nothing interesting to say. At one low point, some lady injects something into some guys' butt and then her own butt and then answers the phone and conducts a lengthy conversation! The film is very poorly made, like the producers just found a camera and began learning how to use it. Many times, the camera zooms close up, the film blurs, scenes go light and dark. They didn't edit out anything, just let the camera roll. Finally, the sound quality is so bad that half the dialogue is unintelligible. I bet nobody in 49 years has actually sat through the whole 4 hours in one viewing. At least their next project, Flesh, had some nudity. Don't waste your time with Chelsea Girls.
Brilliant
pugcharlie-boy26 July 2006
The Chelsea Girls is a film so unique , so frighteningly funny and real that it is in a category by itself. The actors who perform can barely act yet slowly expose their souls in front of Warhol's neutral camera. Any person interested in American art and film has to see this film which is a milestone of twentieth century art. It is more an experience than an entertainment and an experience you will never forget. Warhol, as an artist and filmmaker, set a tone and style that has been adapted by other filmmakers such as the innovative use of split screen (Carrie, Dressed to Kill, as examples). The frightening truth surfaces in each reel of 16mm film in "Chelsea Girls." In an age of Aquarius and the peace movement, "Chelsea Girls" proved to be a wild descent into the hell of damaged souls. One of the most important pieces of Pop Art to be seen.
Arthouse Shmarthouse
arfdawg-16 March 2024
This movie is unwatchable. And any one who tells you differently or actually professes to like it is out of their mind -- if they have one.
More than three hours of absolutely nothing.
In fact since it's a split screen, it's more than six hours of absolutely nothing but bad film-making. It's not art. It's a waste of time.
Compounding the boredom, quite a lot of it is silent, making it even more tedious to watch. These are not interesting people. They are boring self absorbed morons.
The movie gets it title from it's location -- the Chelsea Hotel, only you never get to see the hotel as all the scenes are in close up.
Would have been way more interesting to see what the hotel looked like in the 60's.
More than three hours of absolutely nothing.
In fact since it's a split screen, it's more than six hours of absolutely nothing but bad film-making. It's not art. It's a waste of time.
Compounding the boredom, quite a lot of it is silent, making it even more tedious to watch. These are not interesting people. They are boring self absorbed morons.
The movie gets it title from it's location -- the Chelsea Hotel, only you never get to see the hotel as all the scenes are in close up.
Would have been way more interesting to see what the hotel looked like in the 60's.
"Everything is pretty."
matt-20117 February 1999
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.
Unique and New
Catrician5 May 2013
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.
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.
The god-like genius of Warhol
cwitt10 September 2000
In my mind, along with Blow Job, Warhol's greatest film. Here as in all his films he accomplishes a zen like genius: slowing down our perception in order to speed it up. As always he shows cinema as what it truly as - voyeurism. Astounding in every sense, this is a film that every cineaste should see. On my first viewing shortly after Warhol died, in my teens, I found that subconsciously this style was a huge influence onme though I didn't realize it til years later. It engages our sense fully, 100% of the time. He deprives us of so many things in order to enrich our experience and expand it as well. A film impossible to describe - if I wrote 1000 words I'd not get any closer. See it by all means whenever you get the chance.
O Editor, Where Art Thou?
harry-769 October 2003
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.
Frankly speaking.
Artemis-922 June 2003
As a fiction movie, it's nothing. As a documentary on a way-of-life, it's crap. As Art, of any kind, it's crap. As an angry, personal statement, it's overlong. As a collection of friends put together in a basement that happens to be a few derelict, crowded hotel rooms, it's a poor joke. As existentialism philosophy, it's below zero. This is one of a handful films that kicked me out of the theater before the end - and Gosh, have I seen bad stuff in my life of thousands of film viewing... (I resisted up to the first colour-reel, if you're suspecting I left early. I managed up to the first 140 minutes or so.) Frankly, and sincerely yours truly - take my advice: if you want to know something about Warhol, don't waste your time trying to locate this film.
One of Warhol's Most Interesting
big8jacob1237 August 2005
This is definitely an interesting film as directed by Paul Morrissey, who was told what to direct.Brigid Polk was especially funny as the duchess. I am told they were all on speed, and were almost arrested as the hotel Switchboard listened to the duchess make deals. Warhol exploited people and that is fine if you like to be exploited. WHich everyone in the film was. Later when Edie Sedgwick tried to break away and have her footage cut out and refused to make movies anymore, she was banned from the studio when Warhol was profiting very well from the movies. When Mary Woronov tried to break away she was thrown down a flight of stairs, when she asked for profits from the movies. Warhol was a sadistic "artist" talented or not who exploited people. Later when Edie was had finally broke away from him he said"I wish I could film her committing suicide". WHat a great friend. I wish Edie were still alive and he was so she could smack him in the head
always ..warhol
kasper-39 December 1998
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
