Bob Dylan Tries to Halt Factory Girl Movie

[seahorseinstripe]

if Sienna wasn't in it, i'd love to watch this movie....her acting is just bad.

soooo with u!
i really don't care about her!

 

[kanita]

I'm pretty sure this movie is bad (Oscar chances ) If Bob Dylan really cared for Edie, I can see how this would upset him, it is always a bit 'wrong' to do a biopic about someone, who has no say in it.

 

[iluvjeisa]

I agree it is irresponsible to make crappy fictional movies about real people that may negatively impact those who are quite real and alive, but it's certainly not illegal. Though I read that Interview-style biography of Edie years ago as a teenager, I never felt any iconic adolescent appeal toward her. Why idolize a voiceless, tragic female famous for her breeding and her looks? Her story is she didn't live long enough to have a story. There's no one to blame for that--perhaps except herself. Why tell glamorous lies?

Lordy, girls, if you want to idolize a dead pretty face, try Anais Nin or Colette or somebody with a voice who had a clear story to tell and a lived a full lifetime to tell it.

Why would beauty be less admirable than brains/artistic ability? Besides, I think that the unknown has it's allure, and that's why the people with untold stories have an irresistable appeal. It's in the mystery. The more you find out, the less interesting it is.

It's like, if you listened to songs when you were really young, and didn't really hear what the lyrics were....and you hear the same song years later and realize how trite the lyrics were when you had it built up to something far more interesting, and mysterious.

 

[Salvatore]

Sienna Miller? When did she become an actress?
However, this movie sounds interesting! I think I'd like to see if/when it comes out.

 

[Liberty Bell]

Edie didn't commit suicide I don't think. Wasn't it ruled accidental/unsure?

It was absolutely not suicide, just overindulgence in vodka and Doradin, a central nervous depressant. She fell asleep and smothered.

 

[mellowdrama]

Why would beauty be less admirable than brains/artistic ability?

Because although beauty, like brains and artistic talent, is a gift that can be taken away--time and practice seem to enhance the later while diminish the former. Because you don't have to do anything with beauty to make use of it, and it doesn't need to be exercised, honed, practiced, or revised: though magazine editors would have you believe otherwise, you can fall out of bed beautiful without any effort. Because brains/artistic talent do not wordlesslessly announce themselves when entering a space, but rather is something that needs to be proven and demonstrated again and again. Because someone can be thick as two short planks and still be thought to possess beauty, but someone can be genius and be seen as ugly, and we reward the former and ignore the latter.

But, really, you can have beauty and brains/talent and still not have any sense at all. Edie's life demonstrates that well enough. We'll all go and spend our $12 and put on our black tights and eyeliner, regardless, and Bob Dylan will start getting weird-*** fanmail addressed to "Danny Quinn".

 

[SiennaInLondon]

^Wonderful posts as always Mellow. I can't see the appeal of Edie either. Why should Dylan have to suffer the implications of this movie's allegations when they can be removed? He is not the god some people think he is but his is a concrete career built on a genuine talent.

Mind you, I doubt this silly picture will dent his image whatsoever. I hope it sinks without a trace.

 

[SiennaInLondon]

Why would beauty be less admirable than brains/artistic ability? Besides, I think that the unknown has it's allure, and that's why the people with untold stories have an irresistable appeal. It's in the mystery. The more you find out, the less interesting it is.

It's like, if you listened to songs when you were really young, and didn't really hear what the lyrics were....and you hear the same song years later and realize how trite the lyrics were when you had it built up to something far more interesting, and mysterious.

I think you partly answer your own question ILuvJeisa. What is the point of something that is only appealing on the surface and deathly dull otherwise? Only the young or those who don't approach music in a studied way, will make the mistake of overlooking lyrics for a catchy harmony. The holy grail in music, in people, in literature, in whatever, is the depth which can provide the attractive surface with longevity.

But then the obsession with quick fixes is the problem with modernity. Everyone is marching towards their graves with fleeting loves and souless desires. We don't take the time to know the entire work of an artist or the things that influenced him, we just buy the Greatest Hits. It is such a Greatest Hits world. Ugh.

Which is why I think Factory Girl may do well if it looks pretty enough.

 

[KhaoticKharma]

This just fuels ticket sales and intrest...

 

[mellowdrama]

This just fuels ticket sales and intrest...

Agreed. I wouldn't doubt if it were purely a PR stunt. I still have better uses for my twelve dollars.

 

[iluvjeisa]

Because although beauty, like brains and artistic talent, is a gift that can be taken away--time and practice seem to enhance the later while diminish the former.

No. A person can be brilliant in a field without much practise - it comes to them more easily because of innate ability. And I would argue that most people's concept of beauty is very much based on effort.

Because you don't have to do anything with beauty to make use of it, and it doesn't need to be exercised, honed, practiced, or revised: though magazine editors would have you believe otherwise, you can fall out of bed beautiful without any effort.

Actually, some people can try with all their might to become mathematical wunderkinder....but they will fail, because of a lack of innate ability. Just like the person with an asymmetric face and bad metabolism will fail at being beautiful nevermind how much they try.

Because brains/artistic talent do not wordlesslessly announce themselves when entering a space, but rather is something that needs to be proven and demonstrated again and again.

Not really. Some scientists just do one great thing in their lives and live on that one achievement. Neither does artistic ability have to be reproduced again and again. An artist's new work is always compared to their best work, just like a beauty is always compared to her looks in her prime.

Because someone can be thick as two short planks and still be thought to possess beauty, but someone can be genius and be seen as ugly, and we reward the former and ignore the latter.

Yeah, someone who is beautiful is beautiful, and someone who is a genius is a genius. We who - I definitely reward the latter by being duly impressed, I can tell you that much.

But, really, you can have beauty and brains/talent and still not have any sense at all. Edie's life demonstrates that well enough.

She had a seed of beauty in her, and a great deal of charm. But this woman worked for her iconic imagery. It was WORK. It's an artist behind that make-up, and from what I have heard, it was Edie herself who determined what would best suit her....to me it's the work of an artist, using herself as a canvas. Yeah, she was pretty sick, but so was Schopenhauer. She's a typical example of innate beauty and an artistic personality that could enhance that beauty and take part in making the beauty iconic.

The thing about beauty that sets it apart from most other largely innate qualities, is of course its rather passive nature in combination with that it is about the person in itself rather than the creation of something separate from the person, which leads to that it doesn't command respect. It relies solely on other people's appreciation/infatuation, with no real golden standard in place.

Anyway, it seems pretty weird that Bob Dylan would be so concerned about this - it was still her decision, and he wasn't there when she was hospitalized for eating disorders at age 13 (was it?). Basically, even if he might have contributed in some way....she had problems before he arrived on the scene.

 

[VainJane]

Anyway, it seems pretty weird that Bob Dylan would be so concerned about this - it was still her decision, and he wasn't there when she was hospitalized for eating disorders at age 13 (was it?). Basically, even if he might have contributed in some way....she had problems before he arrived on the scene.

I know...maybe the movie doesn't show all that though? We know how movies love to twist the facts around and claim to depict what really happened...and some people believe them.

 

[SiennaInLondon]

In response to ILuvJeisa, I think you are severely underestimating the work of great scientists, even if they have "just [done] one great thing in their lives and live on that one achievement". Even completing a degree and getting a good grade is more impressive than any sort of beauty... and should be. Do you honestly think that beauty should command 'respect'? Doesn't that seem a little absurd?

Not really. Some scientists just do one great thing in their lives and live on that one achievement. Neither does artistic ability have to be reproduced again and again. An artist's new work is always compared to their best work, just like a beauty is always compared to her looks in her prime.

I don't quite understand the point being made here but who judges an artist on a sole work? I know that I only judge people for their BODY of work. And a sole science achievement can involve years of study. I can hardly say that about beauty.

She had a seed of beauty in her, and a great deal of charm. But this woman worked for her iconic imagery. It was WORK. It's an artist behind that make-up, and from what I have heard, it was Edie herself who determined what would best suit her....to me it's the work of an artist, using herself as a canvas. Yeah, she was pretty sick, but so was Schopenhauer. She's a typical example of innate beauty and an artistic personality that could enhance that beauty and take part in making the beauty iconic.

Every second person has charm of some sort. What they don't have is a pretty face (well apparently she had a pretty face... I fail to see it), a trust fund and a hip haircut. If work involves taking a bunch of heroin and sitting aroudn in pretty clothes, sign me up. This is the real world, not some airy fairy movie. The people I admire most do not have absurd live fast, die young mottos, they are brave and face each day and create a body of work. And SCHOPENHAUER?!? What does he have to do with anything. He died at a ripe old age of old age as far as I know. A random philosopher will not Edie an icon make.

The thing about beauty that sets it apart from most other largely innate qualities, is of course its rather passive nature in combination with that it is about the person in itself rather than the creation of something separate from the person, which leads to that it doesn't command respect. It relies solely on other people's appreciation/infatuation, with no real golden standard in place.

There are golden standards in beauty. Attractiveness is a different story. However, even if someone is beautiful, no questions asked, Christy Turlington say, why is that a useful quality? To paraphrase Bob Dylan (he was talking about fans and their applause, not about beauty!), 'you can't eat it for breakfast, you can't sleep with it'. Science, literature, art, maths, create things of purpose. That is where the difference lies.

Anyway, it seems pretty weird that Bob Dylan would be so concerned about this - it was still her decision, and he wasn't there when she was hospitalized for eating disorders at age 13 (was it?). Basically, even if he might have contributed in some way....she had problems before he arrived on the scene.

I am with Vain Jane on this one.

Don't get me wrong, I admire beauty as much as you do, but to negate the work involved in 'genius', really doesn't do a world obsessed with the superficial any favours. The more people who think like that, the more we are going into a very scary age. On second thoughts, I don't admire beauty. I want to look like Turlington because every human being wants an easy path... it is a weakness yes, because instead of working for recognition, you want it handed to you. And I get awed by natural beauty of a face, a body, a mountain, a bubbling brook... but there is humility in that because you are respecting god, or nature, or chaos, or whatever you believe created that. It is not turning the beautiful thing into a false idol in itself.

 

[Dylan.]

^I don't think it was deliberate suicide, as in with a note. As someone who's both been in a downward spiral and had friends and lovers cut me out of their lives, as well as later having been the healthy-minded one cutting ties with dysfunctional people--I would never blame anyone for cutting me out when I was at my worst, nor would I allow anyone to guilt trip me when I didn't let myself get absorbed in their negativity and self-destruction. I'm just grateful my private life doesn't intrigue millions of people.

i agree.
ima big dylan fan and after all the biographies and books i've read up on him i can say he was a huge douchebag back in the 60s
he's not the kinda person edie needed back then, none of those people were...it was a combination of horrible things for edie but dylan and neuwirth only pushed her further downward. and if i were dylan i wouldn't wanna be reminded of that

 

[mellowdrama]

If you've got a half hour or so, here's a great youtube link to found footage of Ciao Manhattan with director David Weisman giving some wonderful commentary of some of the happenings of the time. He's got the only existent 35mm footage of Max's Kansas City, a naked beaded Allen Ginsberg wandering around Fort Lee, New Jersey, Uma Thurman's mum, and a glamorously wrecked Edie crawling on the rocks in the Be-In in Central Park, spring 1967.

There's more of an egalitarian looseness and drugged dirty craziness to the time that all the rehash seems to lack. This Factory Girl film seems to posit a meaning and centralized power and significance to events that really was not there. I mean, everyone was babbling and tweaked and reactive and full of sh*t, shiny-eyed and occult. Now it's all millions and billions of fashionable market-researched widgets. We tell you what it means before you buy it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxmFQAX-LPE

As for Beauty vs. genius/talent, I think the real difference is... people want to see Beauty sullied and diminished, secretly or otherwise. We know beauty is powerful, but we don't respect it. There's some special "Into the mud, scum queen!" thrill involved in seeing Beauty fail.

If anything, perhaps what we could learn from the whole doomed Superstar theme is to create our own fabulous salons, even it's all been done and there's nothing new under the sun. Ten of us with $12 apiece could throw a more interesting house party than going to see some crap movie about a time none of us remember, anyway. The guacamole dip you could make with $120 would be scandalous.

 

[iluvjeisa]

I work as a scientist, with scientists. I have a scientific degree. Perhaps being around PhDs all the time makes me feel that it's less impressive? I know that it's just the way some people are - they use compulsive behaviour to intellectual ends - persuing something till it's done. For the most part, they're just born with the ability to focus much of their intellect on one problem. Even Nobel laurates, for the most part, just come around with the right idea and the right amount of money at the right time. A scientist who gets a publication in Nature or Science can live on that for years and years. It's just a fact.

And no, I just don't think there is a standard for beauty except some crude ideas about symmetry - there are different beauty types that different people adhere to.

I don't really think that beauty should command respect - but to me it's the difference between beauty and other "gifts". I don't feel tremendous respect for the people who just roll out of bed drop dead gorgeous, just like I don't feel much respect for a parotting scientist who can't see the big picture, but I do feel respect for people who I consider immensely beautiful, both with their physical appearance and the vibe them emanate. Just like I admire scientists who are both knowledgeable, great writers and visionaries.

I only know of one single scientist who has all these abilities - him I admire. I've just met a handful of people who has the kind of beauty I'm talking about. It's very rare, I'm not just talking about the prettiest girl in class here.

Anyway, I'm pretty interested in watching the movie now that Dylan thinks it's something to reckon with and Lou Reed calls it foul. WoW, now that's a PR machine!

 

[susie_bubble]

Ignoring all the juicy discussion about beauty and intelligence, thank you Dylan for halting what quite possibly will be the biggest turkey of the year..... seriously....this film has turkey written all over it.......
'improvement for Oscars' - please....... let's not but actually seeing what the Academy has been picking out the last few years, I might not keel over in surprise if this gets in the running.

 

[Jeta]

To my understanding Dylan's biggest fear is that the movie implies he (or the Danny Quinn character) is responsible for Edie's death. A movie critic who saw it already, says this isn't the case:

HE to Dylan: You're worrying about next to nothing. In the version of Factory Girl I saw, the "Danny Quinn" character (Hayden Christensen) is obviously you through and through -- same hair, same speech patterns, a brown suede (or leather) jacket that strongly resembles the one you wore on the cover of Blonde on Blonde...the whole shot. And yes, Quinn has an affair or close alliance of some kind with Edie Sedgwick (Sienna Miller). And yes, when he disappears out of her life she gets upset and starts to fall apart. But she's mostly frazzled because Andy Warhol (Guy Pearce) has thrown her over for Nico, i.e., the model and Velvet Underground singer.

Here's the thing: before "Danny" bids farewell, he warns Sedgwick that she's being used by Warhol and that he's not a friend, and that she should get back to her love of sculpture and invest in herself rather than just hang with Warhol's Factory crowd, whom he regards as a band of cutthroat scenesters and poseurs. In short, you come off as a fairly compassionate and tender friend of Sedgwick's, and hardly the cause of her suicide, which happened a good four or five years after the mid '60s New York period depicted in the film.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/archives/2006/12/post_101.php


I have no idea how his legal options are regarding the obvious resemblance between this "fictional" character and him since it's fairly obvious who Hayden is supposed to portray.

 

[iluvjeisa]

^Yeah, makes sense. Maybe Dylan just really dislikes the flick and does anything he can to stop it. I never thought Sienna had an ounce of the Edie flair anyway.

 

[SiennaInLondon]

i agree.
ima big dylan fan and after all the biographies and books i've read up on him i can say he was a huge douchebag back in the 60s
he's not the kinda person edie needed back then, none of those people were...it was a combination of horrible things for edie but dylan and neuwirth only pushed her further downward. and if i were dylan i wouldn't wanna be reminded of that

YES! I agree. I definately do not get nice person vibes from Bob Dylan. He is no Bruce Springsteen. I am perpetually listening to his interviews and things on my ipod (the Webermann tapes are absolute GOLD!) and he seems very neurotic, contrary and crabby in general.

And he was very very apolitical. Other than one or two songs, most famously Hurricane, he did not engage in anything. He was not a supporter of the anti-Vietnam movement at all. The fact that he is so associated with the protest generation frustrates me because there are people who did far more for civil rights that he did. He does not deserve the label.