Ebert says "Worst film in history of Cannes" -- THE BROWN BUNNY (1 Viewer)

[Rich Malloy]

Ever see "Highway to Hell"... I mean, uh, "Road to Perdition"?

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

I've been following some dispatches from Cannes, and the opinions there have not been as thunderingly bad as what's been coming out in the mainstream entertainment coverage. So who knows if it is or isn't as bad as purported. (FWIW, I recall the buzz on Gerry being pretty terrible, and I'd place it at the top of this year's films.)

Here's one alternative opinion on The Brown Bunny, from Mike D'Angelo's website:

Neither the self-indulgent cataclysm some claim nor the eclectic masterpiece I'd been hoping for. First hour or so is surpassingly lovely -- mostly just shots of Gallo as he drives cross-country, listening to old Gordon Lightfoot songs and looking haunted and sad; once you realize it's not a narrative film (and that becomes clear pretty quickly), it's not difficult to settle into its mood of frustrated enervation, especially if you've ever lost somebody you'd hoped to spend the rest of your life with. But just as one can only endure the anguish of a heartbroken pal for so long before seeking out less solipsistic company -- no matter how empathetic one might be -- eventually one longs for Gallo to vary the monotonous rhythm a little bit, make contact with something outside of his own sense of loss. (Apparently Manohla Dargis has compared the film to Two-Lane Blacktop, but try to imagine Two-Lane Blacktop minus Warren Oates. Or even Dennis Wilson.) And when the time finally comes for an emotional epiphany -- well, let's just say that Ms. Sevigny isn't the only thing that commences sucking. (Speaking of which: is it gratuitous? Yes. Is it a dream come true for yours truly? Also yes. I'm not proud.) Brave and honorable, but also increasingly tiresome and, in the end, embarrassingly maudlin. The quintessential breakup movie, really, for better and worse.

 

[Prentice Cotham]

Wasn't it rumored that Gallo had actual sex with the actress during the scene in Abel Ferrara's The Funeral? I think Ferrara confirmed it, but Gallo denied it.

I also heard Gallo is already working on a new movie combining Buffalo 66 and Brown Bunny. Apparently Gallo will give Scott Norwood a blowjob but the moneyshot is going to go wide right.

 

[Tommy Ceez]

let's just say that Ms. Sevigny isn't the only thing that commences sucking. (Speaking of which: is it gratuitous? Yes. Is it a dream come true for yours truly? Also yes. I'm not proud.)

That deserved to be printed again.

 

[Kevin M]

theres no such thing as bad fellatio

I don't know about that Doc. Teeth Teeth Teeth.

Or even worse, a high gag reflex.

 

[Tim Raffey]

I don't know why everyone's so suprised by the reported actual sex in the picture. Gallo and Sevigny both belong to a certain American film underground that would rather be associated with the whole 'art house' thing than Hollywood; and speaking of the art-house--those things are filled with sex these days.

I guess, trying to put it into a cultural perspective, it's no more shocking than the first American actress who showed her boobies on film when nudity came back to the cinema after the Hayes code gave it the boots--which, according to my impression, was following a European trend as well.

...It reminded me of the heart-wrenching scene from Mike Leigh's masterpiece 'Naked,'...Gallo's color motif is also deliberately... let me put this succinctly... 'cigarette stain.'...

Incidentally, if I recall correctly, Gallo fired Naked D.P. (that's Director of Photography--even in this thread) Dick Pope and hired Lance Acord because Pope was opposed to either shooting on reversal stock, or using the bleach bypass process--I forget which.

 

[Ricardo C]

(that's Director of Photography--even in this thread)

 

[JonZ]

Ken Park,Irreversible now this.

ok, Im DYING to see Chloe take a shot in the mouth but does anyone expect these films to be released uncut?

 

[Joseph Young]

Incidentally, if I recall correctly, Gallo fired Naked D.P. (that's Director of Photography--even in this thread)

But seriously, that's interesting that Pope was responsible for both Naked and initially on a Gallo film. If I had an ounce of filmmaking talent (which i don't, obviously) I wouldn't work with Gallo to save my career.

Incidentally, Pope was the cinematographer for Dark City. Not to be confused with Tim Pope, who directed Jean Coceteau-esque videos for The Cure and Peter Murphy, among others.

~j

 

[Terry St]

This isn't about toleration or suppressing speech. It's about what I like to see in a movie review. And I don't like to see political comment, unless perhaps the movie is inherently political.

Like it or lump it, the setting always has some effect on the event. When I watch a film from the past, I always look at the year it was made in order to obtain some sense of what was going on in the world when it was made. What events were fresh in the director's mind when he made the film? What was fresh in the audiences minds when they first saw it? Ebert is a competent film historian, or so it would seem from listening to commentary tracks like the one he recorded for Citizen Kane. As such, he probably views films as an integral part of the world we live in rather than some isolated escapist retreat. By bringing real-world events into his reviews, he connects films to the events of their day. As such, his reviews, while they may displease some escapists, become more valuable to future historians because they supply context. Perhaps Ebert realizes this.

--------------

As for fellatio in film... I'm all for it, but I'm still waiting for the "feelie" flicks Aldous Huxley promised us.

 

[Tommy Ceez]

I'm still waiting for the "feelie" flicks Aldous Huxley promised us

It all depends on what end of the oral this 'feelie' would portray.

 

[Joseph Young]

As such, he probably views films as an integral part of the world we live in rather than some isolated escapist retreat. By bringing real-world events into his reviews, he connects films to the events of their day. As such, his reviews, while they may displease some escapists, become more valuable to future historians because they supply context.

[rant]Great[/rant] comment, Terry. I agree with this entirely. Even if a particular film is not fashioned with a current event in mind, it is not unheard of for a critical voice to add subtext and significance to art by relating it to current events. And for being subjective and having an opinion (in this case, a disparaging one of big brother rummy), he is just that... a critic.

Looks like this thread is split right down the middle: those who want to see the money shot, and those who want desperately to see the money shot. How much you want to bet that the eventual "Brown Bunny" DVD thread will exceed 10 pages?

~j

 

[BrettB]

How much you want to bet that the eventual "Brown Bunny" DVD thread will exceed 10 pages?

But the majority of it will consist of people debating whether or not it's been edited; "I saw it in the theater and [insert joke here]".

 

[Lew Crippen]

I doubt that Donald Rumsfeld will want to see this film, but it could prove enormously valuable to him.

Ever since the publication of the book, In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam, McNamara is on record questioning our (and his) involvement in Vietnam, why it happened and how good, thoughtful, patriotic men made the decisions that led to our involvement in the war. Quite a self-critical analysis. He raises issues which ought to be carefully considered by all senior leaders of our country. It is appropriate to mention Rumsfeld specifically as he now has the post under Bush that McNamara held under JFK and LBJ.

It will be interesting to see if this documentary raises as interesting discussions as Bowling for Columbine.

 

[Robin Warren]

Ok 3 pages but no one asked. Spit or swallow?

 

[Joseph Young]

the political comment was made on the documentary about Robert McMamara, For of War

Indeed it was.

~j

 

[Holadem]

OK, 4 pages and no links?! I am dying over here!

--
Holadem

 

[Joseph Young]

Holadem, this page is the closest we'll get for a little while. (Check out the pics on the lower right of the page.)

~j

 

[Dan Rudolph]

THe French started this things where you put hardcore sex in movies, btu make them boring and/or depressing. Now, it's infected the US. It must be contained somehow.

Frankly, I'm considering renting this, but just to see Ms. Sevigny.

 

[Ashley Seymour]

As such, he probably views films as an integral part of the world we live in rather than some isolated escapist retreat. By bringing real-world events into his reviews, he connects films to the events of their day. As such, his reviews, while they may displease some escapists, become more valuable to future historians because they supply context.

Ok, I get it. Ebert is to film reviews as Oliver Stone is to making historical movies.