The film satirizes the Women's Liberation Movement, and alludes to Valerie Solanas and the SCUM Manifesto.[4] Holly and Jackie form a small group of "women's libbers." They convince Candy, a wealthy socialite who has an incestuous relationship with her brother, to join them at their meetings. The group needs Candy's membership to bring money and "glamour" to their cause.
Working titles for the film were P.I.G.S. (for "Politically Involved GirlS") and Sex, which could have been an homage to actress Mae West who was arrested for her play Sex in 1926.[5]
Bob Colacello, former editor of Warhol's Interview magazine, stated, "Although Paul didn't come out and say it, and Andy certainly would have denied it, Women in Revolt is essentially Andy's revenge on Valerie Solanas. PIGs was his answer to SCUM."[6]
Shooting began for Women in Revolt in the spring of 1970.[6] During production from 1970 to 1971, Jackie Curtis insisted that Warhol shoot the film, or she threatened to leave the project.[citation needed]
The film premiered as SexatGrauman's Chinese Theatre as part of the first Los Angeles International Film Exposition (Filmex) in Hollywood on November 6, 1971.[7][8]
The film was retitled Andy Warhol's Women when it opened at the Cinema Theater in Los Angeles on December 17, 1971.[9] It was renamed Women in Revolt by the time it opened at the Cine Malibu in New York City on February 16, 1972.[1]
Chuck Emerson wrote for the University of Redlands student publication, The Bulldog: "Sex is technically better than Warhol's previous epics … Everything is a joke, a put-on, there's no malice or cynicism in Warhol's intent. Sex, like most of Warhol's stuff, has a curious innocence in its blatant crudeness."[10]
Vincent CanbyofThe New York Times wrote, "'Women in Revolt' … is not as consistently funny (and awful) as 'Trash,' but a lot of it is as hilarious as it is dirty. The film carries no screenplay credit, so I have no idea who is responsible for the dialogue, which often is foolish and occasionally inspired in the way that good parodies must be."[1]
Jeanne Miller of the San Francisco Examiner called it a "trashy little stag film," and added Warhol's "performers are so grotesque, his technical skills so non-existent and his sensibilities' so vulgar that not an iota of amusement merges from this sordid farce."[11]
