Author Topic: The Brown Bunny  (Read 56690 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #165 on: June 13, 2003, 11:12:10 AM »
0
Quote from: SoNowThen
Yes. But that being said, I don't want it to turn into porno. That's what porno is for. Some chick who can JUST fuck good on camera is not an actress. I wanna keep them in their own category.

I'm just saying, if you can serve the story (which, I know, is stupidly subjective) then you shouldn't be restricted. But then, I guess with that attitude, snuff films are okay...

Shit... I've painted myself into a corner...


As long as what's being done on camera isn't illegal... (sex is not; murder is). That would be the (reasonable) boundary.

Usually, things that are actually meant to be porn don't bother submitting themselves to the MPAA ratings process (I don't believe). They're more than proud to self-label "XXX" and know where the audience is. That's all pretty squared away.

What's not squared away are the kinds of films we're talking about: Films that contain maybe extreme sexual explicitness, without their sole purpose being to sexually arouse the viewer. Those are something our self-appointed movie monitors haven't quite wrapped their minds around yet. The current political climate can only make this problem much worse. The self-righteous moralizers are more culturally influential now than they have been for many years... so this problem will remain with us for many more years to come, I'm sure. Those people are ideologically incapable of anything even approaching a fine disinction.
""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.

bonanzataz

  • Electrician
  • *****
  • Posts: 2887
  • Respect: +13
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #166 on: June 13, 2003, 05:11:39 PM »
0
i'll see it and walk out after the blow job scene.  :-D
The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil’s rain we’ll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, ’cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, ’cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put ’em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put ’em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #167 on: June 13, 2003, 05:14:29 PM »
0
Quote from: bonanzataz
i'll see it and walk out after the blow job scene.  :-D


As will I.  :lol:  Good one.

Wouldn't be surprised if you see some walkouts well before that, if we can go by what we're getting through the reviewers and the media (which, of course, we really can't).
""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.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #168 on: June 13, 2003, 11:39:55 PM »
0
hey godardian, reply to this.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #169 on: June 14, 2003, 07:50:15 PM »
0
Godardian, though I admire the thought put into your analysis of what The Brown Bunny could be, I am going to have to say much of it is wrong headed in film art and will not likely be met in the Brown Bunny. First, consider Roger Ebert's summary of the worst parts of the movie:

"Imagine 90 tedious minutes of a man driving across America in a van. Imagine long shots through a windshield as it collects bug splats. Imagine not one but two scenes in which he stops for gas. Imagine a long shot on the Bonneville Salt Flats where he races his motorcycle until it disappears as a speck in the distance, followed by another shot in which a speck in the distance becomes his motorcycle. Imagine a film so unendurably boring that at one point, when he gets out of his van to change his shirt, there is applause."

It doesn't seem convential narrative is likely going to exist in this movie and it seems wrong to assume that everyone would attack the film on the basis of that sex scene. The is wrong place for that kind of fall out because all the critics and people attending want to see an art film or something provactive. Your cultural ideas would seem more welded to that of some PC group in America being the only ones to watch it and then reporting to everyone else on how it was. The next part proves this as Ebert talks about what he liked of the film:

"And then, after half the audience has walked out and those who remain stay because they will never again see a film so amateurish, narcissistic, self-indulgent and bloody-minded, imagine a scene where the hero's lost girl reappears, performs fellatio in a hard-core scene and then reveals the sad truth of their relationship."

"Of Chloe Sevigny, who plays the girlfriend, Daisy, it must be said that she brings a truth and vulnerability to her scene that exists on a level far above the movie it is in."

"If Gallo had thrown away all of the rest of the movie and made the Sevigny scene into a short film, he would have had something."

It seems the sex scene is not really in question of making it bad, but to how boring and tedious everything leading up to it was. You may not care for Ebert due to his opinion on some films and you thinking he was baseless in it, but that was only a few films. My favorite critic actually hated 2001: A Space Odyssey and I consider it the best movie ever made.

Also, you complain about general conventions of cinema but adding explicit sexuality never really breaks that. Sure, if it is backed with ideas and maturity, it could be something, but to signal them out is another story. Breaking the mold and pushing film idea exists is done in completely different ways.  My own opinion has been that explicit sexuality and nudity rarely adds anything to movies and generally goes against the nature of film as an art form. Specifically, because it puts the image on the screen and completely reveals it. Nothing more is to be gained from the image because everything is there. The idea is to hint at something more explicit but never show it. The details are left to the imagination of the viewer. It reminds me of a story where Salvador Dahli brought a painting to Sigmund Frued and said his attempt was to render a vision(s) held in a dream. Frued agreed he had done that, but also said there was nothing more to it. The ambiguilty is gone and the actress/actor and their mystique are reduced down to sexual bodies and revealing everything. You don't see their personas and impression, but their naked body. You've seen everything.

Even though I agree literature is closest to the movies, I think they are still on different road maps. Literature and writing is the art of information. Information can be presented and details of a situation explained, but they still never directly show the picture. They still leave images up to the viewer and in how they imagine the descriptions. Movies don't have that luxury and many times is the case where something is shown and that is there is to that image. Nothing is elluded to or could mean other things, but is just shown for it all can be.

This is not to say I don't think something explicity or of nudity should never be seen. Some movies do require it but generally, it doesn't because explicitness of something taboo really seems to act as its own advertiser a lot of the times in labeling the project controversial. Controversy, a lot of times in movies, is to make up for thoughtfulness, which lacks in the project.

~rougerum

godardian

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3733
  • Respect: +6
    • Trappings
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #170 on: June 14, 2003, 08:56:39 PM »
0
An erudite and interesting view.

I actually don't think I was complaining about narrative conventions in cinema at all; I just think that what will apparently be the interplay of different elements and different "genres" (the art film and pornographic films, despite the stereotypes, are generally very different types of films) will be very interesting to see. It could certainly be terrible, but I'm not going to just trust Ebert on that. I need to experience the framing, the colors, the sound, the tone, FEEL of the film myself before I'll believe it's "boring." I'm hoping for the best, as I always do, and anticipating what sound like they could be very worthwhile attempts.

Believe me, if I get there and watch the film and there's nothing more to it than some amateurish blowjob scene and I feel Gallo is just trying to be naughty and use sex for shock value, I'll be too angry to even yawn at how dull a concept that is, and I'll second Ebert's view. It's just not clear to me that that's necessarily going to be the case.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
My favorite critic actually hated 2001: A Space Odyssey and I consider it the best movie ever made.


Pauline Kael...??
""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.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4209
  • ...
  • Respect: +180
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #171 on: June 14, 2003, 09:13:18 PM »
0
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
Also, you complain about general conventions of cinema but adding explicit sexuality never really breaks that. Sure, if it is backed with ideas and maturity, it could be something, but to signal them out is another story. Breaking the mold and pushing film idea exists is done in completely different ways.  My own opinion has been that explicit sexuality and nudity rarely adds anything to movies and generally goes against the nature of film as an art form. Specifically, because it puts the image on the screen and completely reveals it. Nothing more is to be gained from the image because everything is there. The idea is to hint at something more explicit but never show it. The details are left to the imagination of the viewer. It reminds me of a story where Salvador Dahli brought a painting to Sigmund Frued and said his attempt was to render a vision(s) held in a dream. Frued agreed he had done that, but also said there was nothing more to it. The ambiguilty is gone and the actress/actor and their mystique are reduced down to sexual bodies and revealing everything. You don't see their personas and impression, but their naked body. You've seen everything.

I just wanted to say that this is one of the most brilliant assessments of sex and nudity in films I've see.  Well said.  :)

And yeah, Kael pretty much hated everything Kubrick, but I don't hold that against her.  Sometimes I think I should, but I don't.  :-D

bonanzataz

  • Electrician
  • *****
  • Posts: 2887
  • Respect: +13
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #172 on: June 15, 2003, 01:37:43 AM »
0
Quote from: Ebert
"Imagine 90 tedious minutes of a man driving across America in a van. Imagine long shots through a windshield as it collects bug splats. Imagine not one but two scenes in which he stops for gas. Imagine a long shot on the Bonneville Salt Flats where he races his motorcycle until it disappears as a speck in the distance, followed by another shot in which a speck in the distance becomes his motorcycle. Imagine a film so unendurably boring that at one point, when he gets out of his van to change his shirt, there is applause."


 :shock:

OK, so i'll wait until 90 or so minutes after showtime and THEN i'll go in for the blowjob scene and leave!
 :-D

 :lol:
The corpses all hang headless and limp bodies with no surprises and the blood drains down like devil’s rain we’ll bathe tonight I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls Demon I am and face I peel to see your skin turned inside out, ’cause gotta have you on my wall gotta have you on my wall, ’cause I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls collect the heads of little girls and put ’em on my wall hack the heads off little girls and put ’em on my wall I want your skulls I need your skulls I want your skulls I need your skulls

Gold Trumpet

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5767
  • Respect: +151
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #173 on: June 15, 2003, 12:24:20 PM »
0
The critic in question is Stanley Kauffman, who still holds firm on that opinion and even thinks 2001: A Space Odyssey to be the beginning of the end for the progress of film. Here are some of his recent comments on the matter, only from a few years back:

"Ingmar Bergman always says that the greatest subject of the movies is the human face. In recent years we've seen a growth in films that are not about faces and stories, but about technology. This trend started with Stanley Kubrick, with 2001, and it's accelerating. It is now possible to make an entire movie with machines, without really involving human stories at all."

I respect his opinion and agree somewhat the type of film 2001 was could bring upon so many spin offs of sorts that confuse the purpose of the movie, but just disagree with him on 2001 the movie itself. I think its the best ever. I don't mind he doesn't like it, because of the critics, he is the most thoughtful in seeing movies in their higher value of art.

Also, thank you, Onomatopoeia. That complement was worth trying to spell your name.

~rougerum

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4209
  • ...
  • Respect: +180
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #174 on: July 10, 2003, 02:30:13 PM »
0
I just had to dig this post up again because I was working on and thinking about a screenplay where GT's thoughts definitely applied to what I wanted to accomplish.  Specifically this:
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet
...It reminds me of a story where Salvador Dahli brought a painting to Sigmund Frued and said his attempt was to render a vision(s) held in a dream. Frued agreed he had done that, but also said there was nothing more to it...

I also wanted to say that this clues me in to why certain films work so well for some people.  Lynch was right: film is its own language, just like music, and that's why it can evoke such powerful emotions.  Mulholland Drive is the first film that comes to mind, but I would say that also, Amelie, Punch-Drunk Love, and Magnolia are so effective for some people because the director and the viewer on the same wavelength.  They are in tune with and trying to grasp at these same intangeable things that they may not be able to name, but they can at least get close.  And it's chilling.  That's the way it is with the archetypes of Mulholland Drive, and the raw emotions in Magnolia, the super-surreal atmosphere of Punch-Drunk Love, and the super-euphoric, happy, energitic drive that fuels Amelie.

Raikus

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1459
  • Banksy was here
  • Respect: 0
    • http://www.ideaity.com
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #175 on: August 11, 2003, 03:19:03 PM »
0
From the NY Post:

August 11, 2003 --  MOVIE critic Roger Ebert has cancer of the salivary gland and psychopath director Vincent Gallo seems to want credit for it. Though Ebert was but one of the legions of reviewers who felt Gallo's latest effort, "Brown Bunny," was one of the worst films ever, the hot-headed helmer told PAGE SIX at the time that he would "put an unremovable curse on [Ebert's] prostate" that would eventually give him cancer. Gallo's curse missed the mark, but he's gloating anyway. "Vincent just wanted to let you know that since he put a curse on Roger Ebert, he has gotten cancer," Gallo's unfortunate assistant called to inform us the other day.
Yes, to dance beneath the diamond sky with one hand waving free, silhouetted by the sea, circled by the circus sands, with all memory and fate driven deep beneath the waves, let me forget about today until tomorrow.

©brad

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4506
  • Respect: +218
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #176 on: August 11, 2003, 04:10:10 PM »
0
what a dickhead.

Sleuth

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 3468
  • dead comic genius
  • Respect: +8
    • http://www.conologue.com
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #177 on: August 11, 2003, 04:22:35 PM »
0
I think he's hilarious (and I like Ebert a lot)
I like to hug dogs

Cecil

  • Guest
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #178 on: August 11, 2003, 04:42:42 PM »
0
Quote from: ©brad
what a dickhead.


indeed

Quote from: tremolosloth
I think he's hilarious


indeed, indeed

lamas

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 290
  • Respect: 0
The Brown Bunny
« Reply #179 on: August 11, 2003, 10:50:07 PM »
0
Did anyone catch the Ebert and Roeper show this weekend?  Ebert took another shot at the brown bunny.  He questioned whether or not Gigli will be the worst film this year when we're still waiting for The Brown Bunny.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy