Talk:Factory Girl (2006 film)

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

Film: American C‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Danny Quinn[edit]

That's interesting. I could have sworn in the film itself people callhim Billy. I read several reviews in British publications that called him Billy as well. In fact I just checked, and the site you've linked to is one of the distributors of the film, not the official site. The official site is factorygirlmovie.net, which frustratingly refers to the character only as a "rock star". Hayden Christensen fan sites list 'Billy' as well, I think perhaps someone needs to check it on the actual film, perhaps using subtitles or something? Or would that be original research? 90.192.112.219 16:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The subtitles say "Billy."KXL 03:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox![edit]

There's 2 articles about the same thing! --Alexie 18:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synposis[edit]

Needs to be changed ASAP this is not a forum for a persons personal reactions to the movie.

A beautiful, wealthy young party girl drops out of Radcliffe in 1965 and heads to New York to become Holly Golightly. When she meets a hungry young, artist named Andy Warhol, he promises to make her the star she always wanted to be. And like a super nova she explodes on the New York scene only to find herself slowly lose grip on reality...

Is a blanced and accurate portayal of the plot, I cannot seem to edit the syposis so would somone please do it for me 212.2.181.186 23:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment is mine JayGannon 23:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Holmes[edit]

I wished that Katie Holmes played Edie. She would have done it better!(In my opinion) although I love this film... it's really tragic and deeply affected me. I wonder how accurate the relationship with Dylan is. Has Dylan ever commented on it?Interestedperson (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiction or Biopic?[edit]

This film is not a biopic, it is a fictionalized account of Edie Sedgwick's life. Dylan has commented on it by saying that he would sue if his name was used, because the script was so inaccurate that he wanted no part of it, but mainly because the script was pointing fingers at who was to blame for Edie's downfall, and he didn't want that responsibility. Because Warhol is dead, he got the blame in the movie. The truth of the matter is that Edie was sexually, physically, and psychologically abused by her Father, who was mentally ill and advised not to have children, he had eight children, and on his death bed he said "My children blame their problems on me, and I agree with them". Considering that 2 of his 3 sons committed suicide, Edie actually was a strong personality coming from an isolated, abusive upbringing. She was also very vulnerable, and had been in many mental institutions prior to ever coming to the Factory. In reality, Warhol, Dylan, and others exploited her, and Warhol, Dylan, and Vogue all "dropped" her during the Factory years. However, no one person is to blame for her downfall and to point out one person for the purpose of having a "villain" is oversimplifying the matter to the point of ridicule.

As for Billy Quinn, Dylan wouldn't allow his name to be used, and while Edie did have a very short relationship with Dylan and she did inspire Blond on Blond, particularly "Like a Rolling Stone" (not very kind, but truthful), her real relationship was with Bob Neuwirth, Bob Dylan's "right hand man". Neuwirth tried desperately to save Edie from the downward drug spiral that she was in, but he finally could take no more and left her. She was glad when he left because he was keeping her drugs from her, he called Warhol and said he couldn't take it anymore, could someone please come and take care of Edie. Some junkies from the Factory came over, and he left. After he left, they took her drugs and stole her designer originals, furs, and jewelry, and a few days later Neuwirth received a phone call that Edie was in a mental hospital, most likely due to the fact that she had run out of drugs and had no way to get any more. 
Her other relationship was with Paul America (from the movie "Ciao! Manhattan"), but this relationship was based mostly on sex and drugs, with no real emotional connection, by Edie's own admission.
Billy Quinn is a composite character that never existed except in the minds of the pathetic writers. The only meaningful romantic relationship that Edie had was with Bob Neuwirth. Bob Dylan and no one else alive who was at the Factory wanted their names in this movie because of the pathetic script, which if you read what Lou Reed (of the Velvet Underground) who knew Edie during this time said, he said that the script was "one of the most disgusting, foul things I've seen-by any illiterate retard-in a long time." He said it was amazing how low some people will go to write something to make money and "They're all a bunch of whores."
If you question the authenticity of the movie, just look at Beauty #2 where Edie throws the glass and then the ashtray at Chuck Wein in a lazy manner and then lays back down slowly with an attitude. She then tells Chuck that Gino is ignoring him, and Chuck says he wants a drink and she laughs at him because there is no more alcohol. Then Chuck FINALLY gets a rise out of her, and she says "Why would I ask 'What do you mean' if I knew what you meant? I DON'T know what you mean" almost yelling at him. At NO time does she lose her poise or look sad.
Somehow the movie used this time to have Edie exploited by Andy the voyeur and Chuck the instigator by having Edie (Sienna) break down and have a pathetic look on her face (which has NEVER at ANY time been caught on Edie's face, I doubt very much that she was capable of making that pathetic facial expression, it was not in her personality) and crying into the camera "Are we still shooting?". Basically saying turn the camera off, because Chuck broke her.
This is exemplifies some of the most important problems with this movie, that it varies from the truth even when there is readily available movie footage that expressly shows otherwise, that Edie was used and broken by these particular two people (making them the villains),  that Edie is portrayed as someone who could fall apart from being asked questions (she was vulnerable, but she wasn't neurotic to that extent, or in that way), and I could go on, but why? I think/hope that I have made my point.
The movie is not a biopic, it is fiction. A biopic requires some element of truth, and while there are elements of truth in the  movie, there are not enough elements of truth to classify it as a biopic. It is fiction.Jarileigh (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Monjack is credited as co-writer but this article doesn't mention it[edit]

There is some controversy regarding Simon Monjack's claim to be a co screenwriter on this film. Maybe his claim is undeserving and maybe it isn't. Either way, he was given credit and if there is reason not to give him credit now then the story ought to be told. If Monjack somehow forced the producers to give him credit when it was undeserved how was he able to apply such pressure? Was he involved at all? Did he write any of the material which was ultimately used? Simply leaving his name out of the picture doesn't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Factory Girl (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]