It appears the consensus is that everyone who was on the scene at the time and knew her were all too high to have any idea of what was going on, not only in retrospect, but also at the time events occurred.
Weisman said something in a youtube vid of Ciao footage about this--something like "No one knew what they were talking about even when they were speaking", (paraphrase), the "If you remember the Sixties, then you weren't there" phenomenon.
That interview book with George Plimpton assisting---alot of people's info directly contradicted each other, if I remember correctly. But they captured the spirit of Edie well enough. There was some kindness there.
It's not so much the facts and figures being incorrect in this film that people mind--it's the whole spirit of the thing. As I've said before, there's a lack of understanding of basic human motivation, and the characters are cartoonlike. It posits reasons for events happening that are not the true reasons--it points fingers, victimizes, and blames. I don't believe that clawing viciousness was there, that hunger for fame--that's now, not the 1960's--I mean, it's patented now, but then it was just an experiment.
I really think the people involved in the whole New York scene of the 1960's were more capable of laughing at themselves and forgiving all the weird ego things that come up than the current generation gives them credit for. Too much Survivor and American Idol for us all, you know?
Anyway, George Hickenlooper's big cinematic claim to fame before this was dedicated to immortalizing Rodney-f*cking-Bingenheimer, which says alot. Not that there's anything wrong with Rodney-f*cking-Bingenheimer, but it tells me where the director is coming from in his own motivation. There's famous people, and there's fame whores. I ain't saying anything more about it. God bless 'em all.
Shocking!
