The Brown Bunny

Started by meatwad, May 09, 2003, 07:49:32 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 25
User actions

godardian

#75
June 02, 2003, 12:51:12 PM
From today's Salon:

Vincent Gallo won't shut up. And he'd like us to know that he is not sorry for foisting the apparently horrible flick "Brown Bunny" on Cannes audiences the other week. And he's not sorry about that graphic oral sex scene he included of himself with Chloe Sevigny. And he says he never expressed any regret over making the movie, as was reported in the British magazine Screen International and subsequently repeated by Roger Ebert (and this column, too). "I like the movie. I had 100 percent creative and financial control of it and if I didn't like it, I would have changed it," Gallo now says. "The only thing I'm sorry about is putting a curse on Roger Ebert's colon. If a fat pig like Roger Ebert doesn't like my movie, then I'm sorry for him." Does Gallo have any regrets? "I'm sorry I'm not gay or Jewish, so I don't have a special interest group of journalists that support me."


Ouch. He's rivalling Michael Ovitz's retarded "gay mafia" remarks with that last bit. He sounds like the political conservatives, who now totally dominate the American mainstream media, whining about the "liberal media." Pretty infantile.

Still, it's just Gallo talking out of his ass again, and it doesn't change my desire to see the film. And apparently, he wasn't as "sorry" as people made out.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Sleuth

#76
June 02, 2003, 12:59:35 PM
Haha whoa, that's risky
I like to hug dogs

children with angels

#77
June 02, 2003, 01:02:46 PM
Yay! Exactly as I hoped... I was really worried when I heard all this stuff about him apologising: I was afraid I might not to get to see any more films by the guy. I may not agree with pretty much any of his views and methods of expressing himself - he is obviously a fairly detestable person in a lot of ways - but it seems that only in his art does he manage to transcend this: I didn't want him to lose that, and I didn't want to lose any possible future movies. This makes me happy...
"Should I bring my own chains?"
"We always do..."

http://www.alternatetakes.co.uk/
http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/

godardian

#78
June 02, 2003, 01:15:34 PM
I'm glad he's not bowing and scraping, too. He could be a little less stupid with the things he says, but I'm glad that he didn't apologize for the film. That just looks too weak, and it's too soon for him to have a real opinion, anyways. Filmmakers get more objective much, much later in their careers; they can't be quite as objective upon a film's release, and they certainly shouldn't react right away to the initial reaction on the parts of the public or the press.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Satcho9

#79
June 02, 2003, 05:03:54 PM
I have a whole new respect for Mr. Gallo now.

Cecil

#80
June 02, 2003, 05:06:32 PM
i thought this whole "vowing to never make another film again" thing was kinda fishy. he would do that after hed make a masterpiece ("I stopped painting in 1990 at the peak of my success just to deny people my beautiful paintings. And I did it out of spite.") but not because people hated his movie. i think that would be a reason for him to make another one.

SoNowThen

#81
June 02, 2003, 05:49:12 PM
Quote from: godardianFrom today's Salon:

Vincent Gallo won't shut up. And he'd like us to know that he is not sorry for foisting the apparently horrible flick "Brown Bunny" on Cannes audiences the other week. And he's not sorry about that graphic oral sex scene he included of himself with Chloe Sevigny. And he says he never expressed any regret over making the movie, as was reported in the British magazine Screen International and subsequently repeated by Roger Ebert (and this column, too). "I like the movie. I had 100 percent creative and financial control of it and if I didn't like it, I would have changed it," Gallo now says. "The only thing I'm sorry about is putting a curse on Roger Ebert's colon. If a fat pig like Roger Ebert doesn't like my movie, then I'm sorry for him." Does Gallo have any regrets? "I'm sorry I'm not gay or Jewish, so I don't have a special interest group of journalists that support me."


Ouch. He's rivalling Michael Ovitz's retarded "gay mafia" remarks with that last bit. He sounds like the political conservatives, who now totally dominate the American mainstream media, whining about the "liberal media." Pretty infantile.

Still, it's just Gallo talking out of his ass again, and it doesn't change my desire to see the film. And apparently, he wasn't as "sorry" as people made out.

Not wanting to start anything, but I read that last line and howled. Really, he's right. If he was either of those things, he WOULD have a cadre of minority crusaders to defend him.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Gold Trumpet

#82
June 02, 2003, 06:38:18 PM
I think the story here is that in Cannes, he had everyone on him about how bad his film is and he caved in and agreed to just be rid of all the pressure and stress. To think that so many entertainment outlets, and not including just the few he named got everything he said is wrong is pretty unbelievable considering how serious that business is and how big that story was in a very public place with a lot of people able to talk. Gallo just saw his audience there and fell down to his knees to plead mercy and when he got back, he got with his crowd and more importantly, away from the Cannes crowd so he can say he liked the film and take pot shots at the guys that didn't. My opinion of this guy has sunk even lower because that is very low.

~rougerum

EL__SCORCHO

#83
June 02, 2003, 07:46:57 PM
I think Gallo probably had to much too drink and just came out in the open when he told someone his movie sucks and he's sorry for it. Then he saw how stupid his apology made him look and is now talking it back. What a coward.

Cecil

#84
June 02, 2003, 08:18:39 PM
you guys are acting as if none of you have ever gotten so pissed you stormed off saying youll "never do this again" or "never speak to so and so again." if a bunch of people would start boooing my film at cannes... well, id probably burst out laughing going "haha fuck you all" but anyway, you get the picture.

ono

#85
June 02, 2003, 08:32:00 PM
Eh, well, if this is the image Gallo chooses to show to the public, he can take it, I'll leave it.  I realize it's probably an "image," possibly for shock value, but it's rather unnecessary.  Buffalo '66 was one of the most visually original films I had seen in a while.  It's just a shame Gallo's personality (or lack thereof) falls so short in quality.

godardian

#86
June 02, 2003, 10:40:49 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen
Quote from: godardianFrom today's Salon:

Vincent Gallo won't shut up. And he'd like us to know that he is not sorry for foisting the apparently horrible flick "Brown Bunny" on Cannes audiences the other week. And he's not sorry about that graphic oral sex scene he included of himself with Chloe Sevigny. And he says he never expressed any regret over making the movie, as was reported in the British magazine Screen International and subsequently repeated by Roger Ebert (and this column, too). "I like the movie. I had 100 percent creative and financial control of it and if I didn't like it, I would have changed it," Gallo now says. "The only thing I'm sorry about is putting a curse on Roger Ebert's colon. If a fat pig like Roger Ebert doesn't like my movie, then I'm sorry for him." Does Gallo have any regrets? "I'm sorry I'm not gay or Jewish, so I don't have a special interest group of journalists that support me."


Ouch. He's rivalling Michael Ovitz's retarded "gay mafia" remarks with that last bit. He sounds like the political conservatives, who now totally dominate the American mainstream media, whining about the "liberal media." Pretty infantile.

Still, it's just Gallo talking out of his ass again, and it doesn't change my desire to see the film. And apparently, he wasn't as "sorry" as people made out.

Not wanting to start anything, but I read that last line and howled. Really, he's right. If he was either of those things, he WOULD have a cadre of minority crusaders to defend him.

I happen to think that the phrase "liberal media" should be in the dictionary under "red herring." Especially these days. All mainstream media is well to the right of center. I mean, I doubt Gallo is a Nazi- like I said, I think he's just talking out of his ass- but one of the most effective tactics the Nazis used against the Jews was to exaggerate their power and influence to a ridiculous extreme so that people would believe they were being subverted and taken over by this "powerful elite," when in reality they truly were an oppressed minority. It's all just sound-byte propaganda would be meaningless if it wasn't becoming so pervasive.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Bud_Clay

#87
June 03, 2003, 01:48:08 AM
Quote from: GhostboyA few French critics, always more receptive to
intellectual navel-gazers, gave Gallo's film the
thumbs up -- but a dispirited Gallo said that was
"almost like salt in the wound."

I cannot even imagine an individual with the opinions and disgusting arrogance that Gallo posseses being capable of making a half-way decent film, or music for that matter....I have always enjoyed Buffalo '66 and his musical capabilities.  I've been shocked to read the horribly idiotic things he says....does he even have any idols at all? he seems to have nothing positive to say about any director living or dead.  Maybe he really did just have a terrible past as a child-getting beat by his alcoholic father...as most rightwing, conservative bible thumpers did.  Although to the best of my knowledge he doesnt spend much energy in any religion, he still talks like a terribly ignorant moron, incapable of anything intelligent or emotionally stimulating.

And if this is true that there is a scene in The Brown Bunny where he has an explicit blow job on camera this completely makes no sense for him to be a conservative.  Really it makes no sense for anyone interested in the arts at all to be a conservative.

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#88
June 03, 2003, 01:54:57 AM
Quote from: Bill Maplewood
Quote from: GhostboyA few French critics, always  Really it makes no sense for anyone interested in the arts at all to be a conservative.

the dumbest thing i have ever read posted here and that is saying a lot

but coming from a guy who's online persona is a salute to a child molester  i am not that shocked

p.s the guy who created this site is a conservative, and he has a lot more interesting ideas and theroys about cinema then you would ever spew out

what does the fuck being conservative have to do with art

not all conservatives are nuts much like im sure some democrats are not all liberal freaks

im a conservative and i am against censorship

AlguienEstolamiPantalones

#89
June 03, 2003, 02:00:06 AM
first of all i will say this about gallo , of course his films will suck

how different are they then bullshit preteniouse college art films that no on will ever want to see

gallo has preteniouse taste's  and no talent and he has my atitude

and my attiutde with out my great taste and talent, well then that just aint right

see i can be cocky because im so fucking cool , i rock

but if i had gallos taste in films and shit well then i would keep my mouth shut

he acts like he is the only guy who has seen godrad films and he is holding the torch for good cinema
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 25
User actions