Xixax Film Forum

I think this looks genius. Buffalo 66 was a great film. Without Christina Ricci, it may lack a little, but it's getting some good buzz




//www.thestate22.com

people are making a big deal about the sex in the movie

do you have any information besides what's on imdb and the cannes site?  a couple of those shots on the cannes site look BEAUTIFUL

From The New York Observer covering the Tribeca Film Festival:

And there was actress Chloë Sevigny, in a short black dress and black heels, matter-of-factly discussing her adventurous upcoming role in Vincent Gallo’s new film, The Brown Bunny.

At the Vanity Fair Oscar party, Mr. Gallo—who has long identified himself as a Republican—had told us that his film, which he directed and stars in, was going to be the most sexually explicit American film ever made. Mr. Gallo didn’t explain why, but a recent item in Page Six reported that the film, which will screen at Cannes, features an explicit oral sex scene.

And so when we spotted Ms. Sevigny talking to restaurateur Brian McNally, we asked her if Mr. Gallo’s claim was true.

"Probably," she said with a smile. "I haven’t seen the movie yet. But, she added: "The sex is not gratuitous."

Was the sex simulated or actual, we asked her.

"Ea-sy," Mr. McNally told me.

But Ms. Sevigny didn’t even flinch. "I did the deed," she said. "We dated a long time ago," she explained, referring to her and Mr. Gallo. "So been there, done that."

Quote from: MacGuffinFrom The New York Observer covering the Tribeca Film Festival:

And there was actress Chloë Sevigny, in a short black dress and black heels, matter-of-factly discussing her adventurous upcoming role in Vincent Gallo's new film, The Brown Bunny.

At the Vanity Fair Oscar party, Mr. Gallo—who has long identified himself as a Republican—had told us that his film, which he directed and stars in, was going to be the most sexually explicit American film ever made. Mr. Gallo didn't explain why, but a recent item in Page Six reported that the film, which will screen at Cannes, features an explicit oral sex scene.

And so when we spotted Ms. Sevigny talking to restaurateur Brian McNally, we asked her if Mr. Gallo's claim was true.

"Probably," she said with a smile. "I haven't seen the movie yet. But, she added: "The sex is not gratuitous."

Was the sex simulated or actual, we asked her.

"Ea-sy," Mr. McNally told me.

But Ms. Sevigny didn't even flinch. "I did the deed," she said. "We dated a long time ago," she explained, referring to her and Mr. Gallo. "So been there, done that."

can we in some way get katie holmes to hire chloes agent

Quote from: MacGuffingoing to be the most sexually explicit American film ever made

I think John Cameron Mitchell is going to one-up him on this.

This is definitely my most anticipated Cannes film this year...just looking at how awesome Buffalo 66 is. I thought you had a link to the trailer or something at the bottom of your post there at first glance!

Anyway, I hope the whole sex thing isn't just some gimmick, that could wreck the whole movie.

Cannes profile; includes some photos and dialogue excerpts:

http://www.festival-cannes.org/films/fiche_film.php?langue=6002&id_film=4081368

Film Review: the Brown Bunny
By Kirk Honeycutt
CANNES (Hollywood Reporter) - In "The Brown Bunny," Vincent Gallo puts the "self" into "self-indulgent."

In his second feature as a director, Gallo acts as writer, director, producer, star, cinematographer, production designer and editor. Thus, the failure is all his.

Seldom has any Competition film at Cannes been treated to such a hostile reception as "The Brown Bunny" at its press screening. But the problem for those of us who detest the film is that Gallo may acquire the cache of the misunderstood artist.

A whiff of scandal, owning to its angry rejection here and Gallo letting fellow actor Chloe Sevigny perform graphic oral sex on him during the film's last half-hour, may encourage its celebration by those who feel the need to rescue films and artists who have been marginalized.

No one should rescue a film of such crude technique and thundering banality. Nevertheless, Gallo, an actor whose 1998 debut film as a director, "Buffalo 66," had its moments despite a rambling narrative, will no doubt attract admirers for this film from the same crowd that once applauded an Andy Warhol movie about a man sleeping.

What encourages this is the fact that Gallo had a good film idea -- just one he executed about as poorly as possible. Gallo plays a professional motorcycle racer who, after losing an East Coast race, crosses the country in his truck for a race in California.

The first three-quarters of the movie detail the mind-numbing minutiae of the journey. We watch Gallo shower, go the bathroom, brush his teeth, lie in bed -- and those are just the highlights.

In between lie really boring moments. At one point, when he gets out of his truck to slip on a sweater, the audience applauded this much-needed bit of action. Too bad Gallo didn't take on one added task on the picture, that of window-washer, as one tires of looking at the road through the bug-splattered windshield.

Three separate encounters with women en route imply that Gallo is haunted by the memory of a woman he once loved and lost. Once while lying in bed, he dreams of this woman, which is our only glimpse of Sevigny until the climactic sequence. Gallo finally makes it to Los Angeles.

After two unsuccessful attempts to connect with Sevigny, she suddenly appears in his hotel room for a confrontation that will explain everything. Had this scene not been so badly written and staged, it might have packed dramatic punch because the back story proves more intriguing than anything else in the movie.

The film then winds up in a stupefyingly trite ending, which undercuts the one almost-effective scene in the movie.

Gallo's camerawork and editing are deliberately primitive in his all-too-successful attempt to create the monotony of a cross-country journey.

I'll probably love it.

Interesting reactions.  Can't say I'm surprised, and I definitely can't wait to see this thing.   :-D

http://www.festival-cannes.org/journal/index.php?langue=6002&jour=21

I believe that will take you to a video segment you can watch either on realplayer or windows media that has "highlights" of the day, mainly The Brown Bunny and The Barbarian Invasions.  I recommend watching it...Chloe and Gallo hold a press conference, and it's priceless watching Gallo do Winona Ryder impressions, lol.  No clips from the film though, which was somewhat of a letdown..

I adore that interview! It was nice to see Gallo looking kinda happy too: he didn't yell at one person...! Not even that annoying English guy who seemed to be trying to provoke him into giving one of his trademark outbursts. And Chloe's sitting there just getting more and "oh my God, oh my god, Vinnie, what the are you DOING...?" as he talks about Winona (watch her face when he mentions the "tablets"...)

I'm looking forward to this film so much. I was a little concerned when I heard reports of Gallo bragging about how it was going to be the most sexually explicit US movie ever - I thought might have kind of lost it after the sweetness of Buffalo 66... But to hear him talk about it reassured me somewhat. It sounds like it'll be be a little out of place within the rest of the movie (and it happens near the end. Kind of like Audition...!) - but hey, I guess it was only a matter of time before Vincent wanted to show the world his huge member he keeps talking about...

More of the same, this time from Ebert....

CANNES, France--Coming up for air like an exhausted swimmer, the Cannes Film Festival produced two splendid films on Wednesday morning, after a week of the most dismal entries in memory. Denys Arcand's "The Barbarian Invasion," from Quebec, and Errol Morris' documentary "The Fog of War," about Robert McNamara, are in their different ways both masterpieces about old men who find a kind of wisdom.

But that is not the headline. The news is that on Tuesday night, Cannes showed a film so shockingly bad that it created a scandal here on the Riviera not because of sex, violence or politics, but simply because of its awfulness.

Those who saw Vincent Gallo's "The Brown Bunny" have been gathering ever since, with hushed voices and sad smiles, to discuss how wretched it was. Those who missed it hope to get tickets, for no other film has inspired such discussion. "The worst film in the history of the festival," I told a TV crew posted outside the theater. I have not seen every film in the history of the festival, yet I feel my judgment will stand.

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.

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 Vincent Gallo, the film's star, writer, producer, director, editor and only begetter, it can be said that this talented actor must have been out of his mind to (a) make this film and (b) allow it to be seen. 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. That this film was admitted into Cannes as an Official Selection is inexplicable. By no standard, through no lens, in any interpretation, does it qualify for Cannes. The quip is: This is the most anti-American film at Cannes, because it is so anti-American to show it as an example of American filmmaking.

Quote from: GhostboyMore of the same, this time from Ebert....

CANNES, France--Coming up for air like an exhausted swimmer, the Cannes Film Festival produced two splendid films on Wednesday morning, after a week of the most dismal entries in memory. Denys Arcand's "The Barbarian Invasion," from Quebec,

I'll reserve judgment on the Gallo film (I don't always trust Ebert), but seeing something new and supposedly good from Arcand is exciting to me. I adore his Decline of the American Empire, from 1986, dislike the play-turned-into-a-movie he did with Thomas Gibson in the early 90s, haven't seen Jesus of Montreal. Anyone else here seen any of his films?

i just read Ebert's article.  haha!  the worst film in the history of Cannes, and he admittedly hasn't seen every film.

:-D

It keeps getting worse.

CANNES, France (Reuters) - Outlandish U.S. director
Vincent Gallo is so hurt by the scathing reaction to
his film "The Brown Bunny" that he has vowed to quit.
"I'll never make another movie again. I mean it,"
Gallo told Reuters, after his road movie had a
disastrous reception at the Cannes film festival and
he was booed at a press conference.
"Being booed at was not much fun. It's really not very
nice that people are so nasty. I'm very disappointed,"
he said in the early hours of Friday at the
star-studded amfAR AIDS fundraiser.
Gallo, going through what he says is the worst week in
his life, has also apologized to those who financed
the film.
"It is a disaster of a film and it was a waste of
time. I apologize to the financiers, but it was never
my intention to make a pretentious film, a
self-indulgent film, a useless film, an unengaging
film," he said. Critics guffawed openly at the
screening of "The Brown Bunny," which Gallo wrote,
directed, produced and starred in, and groaned at the
highly graphic oral sex scene at the end.
Many found the long driving scenes, punctuated only by
the hero stopping to pee or brush his teeth,
interminable and monotonous. Most found the symbolism
of a toy rabbit plain daft.
Industry rag Screen International has ranked the film
the worst of the 20 films competing for this year's
Palme d'Or.
"Vincent Gallo's monumental folly has already become a
defining moment in Cannes history. Awestruck future
generations will ask: Were you there the night they
screened The Brown Bunny?" one of the magazine's
critics wrote on Friday. A clearly depressed Gallo
said he had hardly been able to face his friends since
Cannes critics, bored by what they say is a miserable
harvest of films, started laying into his movie.
"If my film is not comprehensible to people then I
have failed in my purpose. I am disappointed that once
again, what I like is unpopular. I can only apologize
to the people who feel they have wasted their time,"
he said.
A 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 hope they release this, on dvd at least. I really like Gallo, and even if it's a piece of shit, I still wanna own it. I don't care.

Can't help wondering if Gallo is secretly pleased... he seems very Warholian and/or punk rock in his reactions, here. I'm going from the "salt in the wounds" thing. I actually think that the French-intellectual thumbs-up means that maybe there is something to "get" that most people aren't. I'm still willing to give it a chance.

Also wonder if this means straight-to-video, or what. I wonder if anyone will actually distribute the thing, now.

will this destroy choles career?


because from what i gather the shot is her sucking his dick


by the way we only saw the gift to see katie holmes tits, the brown bunny will have the same apeal

but i dunno , chloe has not been cute since 96

Is this true? Katie Holmes topless in a movie? I need to rent this.

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManwill this destroy choles career?


because from what i gather the shot is her sucking his dick


by the way we only saw the gift to see katie holmes tits, the brown bunny will have the same apeal

but i dunno , chloe has not been cute since 96

Speak for yourself about both Chloe (she's still cute) and The Gift (I saw it for Cate Blanchett, Giovanni Ribisi, and Sam Raimi, and really liked it).

Quote from: SoNowThenIs this true? Katie Holmes topless in a movie? I need to rent this.

Do rent it, but the nudity is actually quite creepy and unlikely to turn you on.

*SPOILER*

You don't see her naked until it's already "too late," if you know what I mean.

Hmm, I'm just kinda surprised that she'd actually do that. But I stopped renting movies for the actress nudity when I was in high school.

Still, Katie Holmes...

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: SoNowThenIs this true? Katie Holmes topless in a movie? I need to rent this.

Do rent it, but the nudity is actually quite creepy and unlikely to turn you on.

*SPOILER*

You don't see her naked until it's already "too late," if you know what I mean.

WHAT ???????? Are you saying that the only nudity in the film is shots of her dead

and no its not creepy, how about that sceane where she takes off her top

well granted you do find breasts creepy

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: SoNowThenIs this true? Katie Holmes topless in a movie? I need to rent this.

Do rent it, but the nudity is actually quite creepy and unlikely to turn you on.

*SPOILER*

You don't see her naked until it's already "too late," if you know what I mean.

WHAT ???????? Are you saying that the only nudity in the film is shots of her dead

and no its not creepy, how about that sceane where she takes off her top

well granted you do find breasts creepy

I only remember the corpse scene.

And it's a rather small-minded assumption on your part that I find breasts "creepy," which I most certainly do not.

well you do like the taste of men ass

and that much we can agree on.


and good luck trying to connect my choice of humor to type of movies and books i read .

by the way, if all you remember is the corpse scene does that not say something about you, you said you liked the movie and yet you seem to not to remember the whole thing or key moments

katie holmes, was not just a corpse and yeah she was pretty fucking hot in the movie

like the scene where she is making out with gary cole

DIGRESSION!!!!

Okay, that was my best Catcher In The Rye impression.

Seriously though, back to Brown Bunny...

Quote from: SoNowThenDIGRESSION!!!!

Okay, that was my best Catcher In The Rye impression.

Seriously though, back to Brown Bunny...

this film sounds like a nightmare

and this may shot down my cool points but in the end of the day i would rather watch " meet the parents" then something like this

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan

by the way, if all you remember is the corpse scene does that not say something about you

Yes. It says that nudity of any sort does not constitute a "key moment" for me, but a character becoming a corpse does.  :roll:

This sequeways nicely (lest I commit another digression...) into my sincere doubt that this supposedly scandalous oral sex in Brown Bunny is really going to be the most memorable bit.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan

by the way, if all you remember is the corpse scene does that not say something about you

Yes. It says that nudity of any sort does not constitute a "key moment" for me, but a character becoming a corpse does.  :roll:

This sequeways nicely (lest I commit another digression...) into my sincere doubt that this supposedly scandalous oral sex in Brown Bunny is really going to be the most memorable bit.

WHAT ???????????????? are you saying that the blowjob scene in brown bunny is not going to be the most well known scene in that movie

i will go so far as to say that is the only thing people will say about this movie

thats the only thing people so far have said about it, and mind you these  are people in canne

and by the way katie holmes sexulaity is key to the gift, and the tease scene with greg kinear is very important to the plot, thats why he kills her

Yeah, I certainly hope you're right. It's like when people came out of Magnolia and all they wanted to do was talk about whether or not they hated the frogs. I guess they missed the other 3 hours of the film. It's a shame that one shocking thing can make dolts overlook absolutely everything else about a movie. Sigh.

Quote from: SoNowThenYeah, I certainly hope you're right. It's like when people came out of Magnolia and all they wanted to do was talk about whether or not they hated the frogs. I guess they missed the other 3 hours of the film. It's a shame that one shocking thing can make dolts overlook absolutely everything else about a movie. Sigh.

the reason why the frogs is not the key issue to magnolia is that it has three hours to back it up

this film may have nothing to back it up

and well pta is a film maker and not just some guy who is trying ti inflate his image by telling us how cool he is

which is what gallo is

he is not trying to contribute to cinema

all he wants to do is tell us how cool he is and how un cool everyone else is

i do that shit all the time, because i fucking rock

but i have the goods to back it up

say have you ever seen me Mambo ?????

Here's what Ebert recently posted on his site, apparently even Gallo thinks it sucks:


May 25, 2003

Advertisement








CANNES, France--The Affair of the Brown Bunny, one of the most astonishing episodes in the history of the Cannes Film Festival, took another turn Friday when director Vincent Gallo apologized for his film and said, "It is a disaster and a waste of time."

Gallo's "Brown Bunny," which screened as one of three American entries in the official competition, was the lowest-rated film in the history of Screen International, the British trade paper that tabulates votes of a panel of critics. It was booed and laughed at during its screenings, there were countless walkouts, and its inclusion as an official selection called into question the judgment, even the sanity, of the programmers. That several French critics liked it was, Gallo said, "almost like salt in the wound."

The film consists of an unendurable 90 minutes of uneventful banality, as Gallo's character travels cross-country toward a motorcycle race in California, followed by a hard-core sex scene in which he imagines he receives fellatio from his lost love, played by Chloe Sevigny. Let it be said that Sevigny, who reportedly cried during the screening, is heroic in the way she finds conviction and truth in her character, in the midst of the general catastrophe. Many minutes of the earlier scenes consist of such shots as a windshield gradually accumulating dead bugs.

Gallo is talented as an actor, and his first film as a director, "Buffalo 66" (1998), was so quirky and free-spirited you not only forgave its eccentricities but cherished them. Nothing in his previous career would predict the disaster of "Brown Bunny."

"I accept what the critics say," Gallo told Screen International, whose panel gave the bunny its record low rating. "If no one wants to see it, they are right. I apologize to the financiers of the film, but I must assure you it was never my intention to make a pretentious film, a self-indulgent film, a useless film, an unengaging film."

"L'Affaire Brown Bunny" has generated so much publicity, as the low point of a dismal year at Cannes, that it may actually find French distribution; there may be a cachet attached to seeing such a universally derided film. Some French critics specialize in defending the indefensible, to show that they alone can understand a rejected work; their explications of "Brown Bunny" may be--indeed, must inevitably be--more entertaining than the film.

Gallo might be expected to leave town quickly after the bunny debacle, but he is also an actor in Peter Greenaway's "The Tulse Luper Suitcases: The Moab Story," which plays in the official competition here over the weekend. That means he will be expected to march once again up the red carpet and into the Palais--where, he said, the "Brown Bunny" screening was "the worst feeling I ever had in my life."

Roger Ebert



I think Gallo's acting like a pussy putting his own film down like this. Had the movie been given a warm reception, he wouldnt have said these things. Seems pretty chickenshit to me.

Maybe he knew it was horrible all along and wanted people to suffer through it. Kinda Kaufmanesque.

Hah, if Kaufman was in this situation, he would be touting the film as the greatest since Citizen Kane and calling all people who hated the film some crude things. To make things even more grandstanding, he would invite the few french critics who liked it to lunch and televise it as his next comedic special.

~rougerum

That's true, good point! It's kind of weird that he would completely turn on the film all because other people didn't like it.

If everyone in the world turned on Burger King and said it is terrible, I'd stick by it. I know some prick who saw Punch-Drunk Love and hated it, but then when he got home and read the positive reviews, he completely changed his opinion.

My Prediction is that now that it's been labeled the worst film in the History of Cannes, there will be people who decide everyone was missing something and go on to talk about how wonderful it is, just making shit up.

It's pretty rare that a film that is panned hard-core by almost every critic, including the filmmaker is ever really good.

I may rent the dvd and fast forward through a lot of the shit... some people will go and say "it's important to watch it all, to soak in the mood of the banality... it really capture the everyday dullness" to which I will reply "I can be bored on my own, thank you, I don't need to be told what that's like".

I still really want to watch it though, even if it is the biggest follow-up disappointment ever after the wonderfulness of Buffalo (the highest ranking for me so far is Panic Room). I have a sneaky suspicion though that what people are calling boring I will think is fucking hilarious... Kind of Beckett-like... Could be wrong - I don't want to sound like one of those people RK so rightly predicts will come out of the woodwork. I just have a suspicion I'm gonna like it...

Damn, the guy who just won the Camera de Or at Cannes said, "Vincent Gallo, dont give up".

Are people pitying him now?



I just wanna see Chloe Sevigny giving a blowjob. Hope they dont cut that out on dvd.

I don't know if it's pity. I bet a lot of people just really root for him.

I wonder if The Brown Bunny is REALLY that bad. From what I've read (AICN had a pretty detailed review), I think I know exactly what the movie will be like. It won't be great, but it doesn't sound like the worst film of Cannes ever. I think a lot of critics are just disgruntled because the selection isn't as good as past years.

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManwell you do like the taste of men ass

and that much we can agree on.

I frequently visit a board that has posts like these?

Quote from: GhostboyI don't know if it's pity. I bet a lot of people just really root for him.

I wonder if The Brown Bunny is REALLY that bad. From what I've read (AICN had a pretty detailed review), I think I know exactly what the movie will be like. It won't be great, but it doesn't sound like the worst film of Cannes ever. I think a lot of critics are just disgruntled because the selection isn't as good as past years.

It's just possible that the film community worldwide hates Gallo as much as the domestic one does, and that could have a lot to do with its horrible reception.

It's too bad that now it seems none of us can see it with our own eyes given the debacle at Cannes... but I'm still going to try.

I think there's a very good chance of seeing The Brown Bunny.  It's garnered great attention, and if a film grabs a lot of attention, there will be a demand.  Doesn't matter if it's good or bad.

Quote from: SoNowThen*SPOILER*

You don't see her naked until it's already "too late," if you know what I mean.

That's not entirely true.  There's also the confrontation between her and Greg Kinnear's character where she's topless.  Yes.  But *ahem* The Gift was a good movie despite Katie Holmes' toplessness.  That was just a pleasant bonus.  ;)

As for The Brown Bunny, it's one of those trainwreck things, that people will want to see to say they've seen it.  I haven't seen Pink Flamingos myself, but I've heard descriptions, and read Ebert's review, saying how the trailer was just of people's reactions to the movie itself, and I'm sure there are more movies along those same lines.  Could name some, but you get the idea.

I'd just recently heard of Gallo, and want to see Buffalo '66, but I've gotta say I feel bad for the guy, him making a misstep like that, and hope he isn't serious about that "stopping making movies" thing, although I can understand how being booed would be a blow -- that is, if he was serious.

I'm kind of worried. Gallo's a depressive - I'm surpised he hasn't committed suicide yet actually, and I really really hope this event doesn't push him over the edge somehow - I could see it happen... Hopefully he'll fight back soon with ridiculous Gallo venom, defending his movie as the greatest film since Citizen Kane (a title previously held by Buffalo 66 in his mind). I feel so sorry for the guy. I don't know how audiences can be so cruel... The Cannes audience seems to be the most vocal, conservative audience a filmmaker can possibly have: you constantly hear of walkouts in screenings - what is that shit...?! These people are supposed to be film-lovers! I never walk out of a film even if I hate it - I don't think you can really make your mind on a movie till the end - and I certainly would never vocalize my opinion out loud - not even if (in fact: especially if) the director was there...

I liked Buffalo 66 enough, I'll see anything else Gallo does.  At least he's trying something different.  I remember a lot of critics dumped on Gummo, called it boring and self-indulgent, but I loved it.

didnt the people at cannes boo fear and loathing?

Sometimes movies that get hostile initial reactions go on to become classics.  Rare, but it happens.  Maybe Brown Bunny is so far ahead of its time, and over the head of critics, that it will take 10 years to appreciate it.  Taxi Driver was panned by a number of critics upon its initial release.  So was Clockwork Orange.  The critical reacton to Full Metal Jacket on first release was mostly negative, now it's considered a classic (I remember Ebert gave it a thumbs down originally).  In 1979, Apocalypse Now was considered a disappointment, while Kramer vs. Kramer was acclaimed as an instant classic.  Now, which film is considered a classic? Conversely, The Turning Point and Julia got great reviews across the board when they came out in 1977, now does anyone even remember either one of them?

In other words, time will tell...

if gallo himself has admitted that the film is a piece of shit, i think it's safe to let go of notions that it will miraculously become great over time. i'll watch it for sevigny, but i don't expect much.

In early 1979, China Syndrome and Norma Rae got rave reviews.  One critic said that China Syndrome was the thriller of the decade.  These films got better reviews than Apocalypse Now.  So here we are in 2003, does anyone know or care about China Syndrome or Norma Rae?

yeah, that movie's gotta be crap. I'd still watch it too, cuz sometimes I like to look at crap

Yeah, I just can't possibly understand why Gallo would call his own film a piece of crap after critics gave their opinion of it.  Half of what he says in interviews seems like it's said just to get anyone to take notice.  I still want to see the movie very badly.  Those still shots look pretty impressive to me.

Like I said, he's a depressive. I think he's only called his own movie a piece of shit becasue the initial reaction to it has been so bad (it has been seriously fucking bad) that it's made him depressed and made him want to give himself a hard time over it too. I think (/hope) soon we'll see Gallo bouncing back to his own arrogant self claiming that no one understands true art anymore and asking how can his movie get panned when some piece of shit by a no-talent hack like Paul Thomas Anderson gets lauded at Cannes the previous year.

I think a lot of you are overlooking the possibility that Brown Bunny might just in fact be a piece of shit.

Sounds like Gallo wanted an on screen blowjob from a starlet at the cost of his investors, and when that fell through, got his ex to fill in.

heres an interview with gallo at cannes (well theres like 8 1/2 minutes of arcand first, then gallo) http://www.festival-cannes.org/video/video.asx?uid=69612

he says in it that hes never moved by his own films, that hes bored to death. so i guess he "cant tell" if his own film would suck or not. then he talks about winona

Quote from: RaikusI think a lot of you are overlooking the possibility that Brown Bunny might just in fact be a piece of shit.

It is possible, but it's not guaranteed just because it's disowned by its creator and some loud critical voices.

All this hype is tiresome and useless... none of us have seen the film yet. I'm just as fascinated by all the back and forth and celebrity and glamorous debauchery of the whole Cannes mess, but I still have to see the movie with my own eyes and faculties to know what it is and how I feel about it.

I still want to see this film too. Sounds like something I would like (not for the oral sex.. well, maybe, but I enjoy long boring movies where nothing happens). I liked that Gerry, and that got horrible remarks from Sundance.

It's time to jump on the bandwagon and go to McDonalds, though, right?  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:

Quote from: cecil b. dementedheres an interview with gallo at cannes (well theres like 8 1/2 minutes of arcand first, then gallo) http://www.festival-cannes.org/video/video.asx?uid=69612

he says in it that hes never moved by his own films, that hes bored to death. so i guess he "cant tell" if his own film would suck or not. then he talks about winona

Watching this made me much more excited for Arcand's film than for Gallo's (I'm predisposed to that anyway), but still... not what I expected at all. Gallo was very light-hearted and actually fairly sincere in his answers, I thought. He was really no more vicious than Jon Stewart is on The Daily Show. Was this interview before the big stink about how supposedly terrible the film is?

And seeing Sevigny reminded me of another good reason to give Brown Bunny a try: She's really a captivating presence, and I also happen to think she's a damn fine actor. I'll go see it if it ever opens.

Quote from: MrBurgerKingI still want to see this film too. Sounds like something I would like (not for the oral sex.. well, maybe, but I enjoy long boring movies where nothing happens). I liked that Gerry, and that got horrible remarks from Sundance.

It's time to jump on the bandwagon and go to McDonalds, though, right?  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:

Seriously, what's your obsession with fast-food?  Do you make yourself laugh with these retarded comments you make?

Quote from: lamas

Quote from: MrBurgerKingI still want to see this film too. Sounds like something I would like (not for the oral sex.. well, maybe, but I enjoy long boring movies where nothing happens). I liked that Gerry, and that got horrible remarks from Sundance.

It's time to jump on the bandwagon and go to McDonalds, though, right?  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:

Seriously, what's your obsession with fast-food?  Do you make yourself laugh with these retarded comments you make?

I think I struck some kind of nerve.. Are you some kind of McDonalds regular? Are you that trailer trash I see through the window stuffing big macs down their kids' faces every morning? And I don't know what "fast-food" obsession you're particularly referring to.

Quote from: lamas
Seriously, what's your obsession with fast-food?  Do you make yourself laugh with these retarded comments you make?

Aw, lay off. This whole board basks in the Warholian glow of MBK's posts.

Quote from: godardianWarholian glow

nice.

as for the interview being pre or post critical mess, i have no idea

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: lamas
Seriously, what's your obsession with fast-food?  Do you make yourself laugh with these retarded comments you make?

Aw, lay off. This whole board basks in the Warholian glow of MBK's posts.

one of the times i agree with you

and i will point out i was the first one to stand up for him and i dug his art

OK, I'll play along.  Did you see that guest on Jimmy Kimmel about a month ago who eats 2 Big Macs everyday?  He keeps track and has eaten something like 10,000 Big Macs.  How do you feel about that MrBurgerKing?

Sevigny Defends Gallo

The Brown Bunny star Chloe Sevigny has come out in defense of ridiculed co-star Vincent Gallo. Sevigny, who performs fellatio on the maverick filmmaker in an incredible ten minute scene in the film, says she had absolute faith in Gallo and does not regret being part of the panned project. Last week Gallo faced a barrage of criticism and scorn after a screening of the film and has vowed never to make another movie again. He also apologized to all those who had invested time and money in it. But Sevigny insists it was Gallo who convinced her to agree to such a demanding role. She says, "I was always committed to the project on the strength of Vincent alone. I have faith in his aesthetic, so I knew it wouldn't be gratuitous or anything."

it's so disappointing that this movie was so hated. i was kind of looking forward to it.

i actually want to see it more than ever

Quote from: MacGuffinSevigny Defends Gallo

The Brown Bunny star Chloe Sevigny has come out in defense of ridiculed co-star Vincent Gallo. Sevigny, who performs fellatio on the maverick filmmaker in an incredible ten minute scene in the film, says she had absolute faith in Gallo and does not regret being part of the panned project. Last week Gallo faced a barrage of criticism and scorn after a screening of the film and has vowed never to make another movie again. He also apologized to all those who had invested time and money in it. But Sevigny insists it was Gallo who convinced her to agree to such a demanding role. She says, "I was always committed to the project on the strength of Vincent alone. I have faith in his aesthetic, so I knew it wouldn't be gratuitous or anything."

Good 'ol Chloe. I know she seems sort of trendy or whatever, but she's also quite a good actress and seems like a very decent person with a lot of integrity. I like 'er.

And I'm definitely not writing the film off.

Quote from: MrBurgerKingI still want to see this film too. Sounds like something I would like (not for the oral sex.. well, maybe, but I enjoy long boring movies where nothing happens). I liked that Gerry, and that got horrible remarks from Sundance.

It's time to jump on the bandwagon and go to McDonalds, though, right?  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll: :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:  :roll:

Everytime MrBurgerKing posts, I can't help but think of this:

Quote from: picolasnot too sure about favourites yet, but i'm a fan of the Chris Woods.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guestlife.com%2Fvancouver%2Fimages%2Farts4.jpg&hash=bba4626d8e57d84c3090550b134aab1a3fab7d1e)

pic, whenever chris says 'shut up' after saying that he's sorry are you as internally shocked as you appear to be externally?  always wondered

Quote from: sphinxpic, whenever chris says 'shut up' after saying that he's sorry are you as internally shocked as you appear to be externally?  always wondered

chris doesn't shock me.

he's an idiot.



are the boards really an appropriate venue for as such?

yeah, it doesn't really matter

but he's such a hilarious idiot!

i know what ur talkin about.  :shock:

Quote from: Pi know what ur talkin about.  :shock:

if you did, i would die---i would actually physically die

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.

Haha whoa, that's risky

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...

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.

I have a whole new respect for Mr. Gallo now.

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.

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 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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManthe 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 100

of course you're a conservative...only a conservative would be enough of an idiot to think im saluting a child molester.  keep it up einstein.

what does this have to do with art?  well considering that art has been expressing the corrupt authority that has tortured people in their society ever since it's creation has a fucking lot to do with conservatism.  are you that much of a fucking moron you have no idea your beliefs stray along with others that the government should be able to have control over this?  That is what it means to be a conservative.  I don;t care if you are a rightwinger or a leftwinger you are in the same zone all the historical figures who corrupted their own society were that caused much human suffering. Get that through your thick head you imbecile.

keep it up ? is that a threat ?

go ahead and explain your pic and name combo then

ive already went to great lengths explaining why i thought happiness helped some people  justify having fucked up ideas

i said that , that film humanizes a monster

by the way this country would of went down in flaimes years ago had it not been for conservatives

if we had p.c freaks in office we would of been weak and this country would of been taken over by some fucking mad men

you think bush is bad ??????? try bin laden or hitler those are real fucked up people

i just disagree with godardian as does george bush, bin laden would of had godardian put to death

so keep being a douche, and remember this your view will never be taken seriouse by our goverment

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMankeep it up ? is that a threat ?

go ahead and explain your pic and name combo then

ive already went to great lengths explaining why i thought happiness helped some people  justify having fucked up ideas

i said that , that film humanizes a monster

Jesus....ever hear of the word Satire?

i hope your choice of persona is is ironic and meant to be black comedy

but not to be a dick but where is this humor, i never see you cracking jokes

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManby the way this country would of went down in flaimes years ago had it not been for conservatives

if we had p.c freaks in office we would of been weak and this country would of been taken over by some fucking mad men

you think bush is bad ??????? try bin laden or hitler those are real fucked up people

i just disagree with godardian as does george bush

you say that like he's in your room.

You're a fine example of what i'm talking about.  Ignorance so thick you've little hope of understanding what you are supporting.  I'm afraid you're not the first to give me the luxurious 2 choices between Bush or Bin Laden.  That's like saying would you like to eat 6 month old chicken or horse shit?  That's great the only reason you can find for supporting such an idiot is because he's not as bad as Bin Laden.

moron i am not giving you a choice i am saying that if someone like you meant anything in this world

someone like bin laden would come and knock our block  off

good thing for us people with your view have zero power in this world

thank god for george bush

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManbut not to be a dick but where is this humor, i never see you cracking jokes

why crack jokes when there's you?

if supporting a oil billionare helps keep p.c freaks from gaining any kind of power in this world

i will vote again and again for republicans

i love it when  ultra liberal people are opressed

i think its wrong to opress someone for race reasons or sex reasons

but p.c liberal losers are another story , and they should have zero say in the world


rock on

Quote from: Bill Maplewood

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManbut not to be a dick but where is this humor, i never see you cracking jokes

why crack jokes when there's you?

yeah i guess i am here to crack on people like you, and i will

but that does not go far at all to back up your claime that your support of a child molester is meant all in good humor

and if it is , well then wait to go yeah real funny whats next making fun of kids with cancer

maybe bill mapplewood can come over your house and drill in you the but and then that would be funny

but you might like it

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManmoron i am not giving you a choice i am saying that if someone like you meant anything in this world

someone like bin laden would come and knock our block  off

good thing for us people with your view have zero power in this world

thank god for george bush

Yes...surely we are safe thanks to dubya.  thanks to him we are free from terrorism and bin laden is no more....wait, didnt we go after saddam? uh oh....forgot someone didnt we?...oh they're all the same right, santa?

yes thank god for bush....no actually, thank jesus for him.

your point makes no sense douche bag sure were not safe but are better then afganasthan circa 2001

yes we are

are we better off then the world would be under hitler ??

yes

and thank strong non p.c people from letting those bastards gain power

losers like you were telling the world that we should

" talk to mr bin laden and see why he is so mad"

Yeah right fuck him

all you are doing is spewing cliches


but agin it makes me sooooooo happy that nobody in any place of power that matters in this goverment has views like yours

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManif supporting a oil billionare helps keep p.c freaks from gaining any kind of power in this world

i will vote again and again for republicans

i love it when  ultra liberal people are opressed

i think its wrong to opress someone for race reasons or sex reasons

but p.c liberal losers are another story , and they should have zero say in the world


rock on

well awesome dude...you're gonna support the destruction of this planet and add to totalitarian power & greed because of your distaste for people who are anal about racially incorrect terms.. you sir are a ridiculous human being of no good to the human race or this planet we all must live on.  

surprise, surprise..

thank god thank jesus thank mother nature thank charles darwin thank the big boom theroy thank the cast of sanford and son thank whoever created this world

for the fact that p.c freaks have no power in this world and i have a smug look on my face

fuck you , your opinions mean nothing

you got mad at me because i called a film gay, and yet you get upset because i call you on the fact that you are using child molestation for your own fun

you say its a joke i sense its deeper then that

yeah i am the bad guy uh huh

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackMan

maybe bill mapplewood can come over your house and drill in you the but and then that would be funny

but you might like it

uh oh...maybe i might! maybe im gay! maybe id like it if a guy tried to have sex with me!  you idiot

Quote from: Bill Maplewood

Quote from: bill maplewood

maybe id like it if a guy tried to have sex with me!

yes, yes you would

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManthank god thank jesus thank mother nature thank charles darwin thank the big boom theroy thank the cast of sanford and son thank whoever created this world

for the fact that p.c freaks have no power in this world and i have a smug look on my face

fuck you , your opinions mean nothing

yes...thank god old cowardice, ignorant men with nothing but greed in life are in charge. thank the lord huh?  my opinions mean nothing? hey that sounds familiar....why dont you CENSOR me?

for the record just to show you how un creative a person you are

i am pro choice,

i am against censorship 100% and would fight for the rights of art i find offensive

i support affirmitive action

and yet i am a conservative, because i feel that our goverment should be strong and never show weakness

p.s yes i support the right for happiness to exsist but i also think it is one of the most irresponcible films ever made, and i have the right to show my distaste for it , but i do not have the right for you to not see it

tell our p.c freak friends to remember this when they try and censor eminem

eminem who never tried to make a child molester look like a " not to bad guy he just needs to work on his issues"

Quote from: Bill Maplewood

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManthank god thank jesus thank mother nature thank charles darwin thank the big boom theroy thank the cast of sanford and son thank whoever created this world

for the fact that p.c freaks have no power in this world and i have a smug look on my face

fuck you , your opinions mean nothing

yes...thank god old cowardice, ignorant men with nothing but greed in life are in charge. thank the lord huh?  my opinions mean nothing? hey that sounds familiar....why dont you CENSOR me?

censor you never, just show the world who you are and what you stand for and let them decide

the sad thing about internet dicussion is that a fight can only be taken this far.

lets make a circle

hey how did brett ratner get in this ??

ok you i got a problem with your pta fixation ........... get over it and then i have a problem with that family man movie, my woman made me watch it and now i want my money back.......... ::waves fist:: gimmie my 7 bucks now

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManyour point makes no sense douche bag sure were not safe but are better then afganasthan circa 2001

yes we are

are we better off then the world would be under hitler ??

yes

and thank strong non p.c people from letting those bastards gain power

losers like you were telling the world that we should

" talk to mr bin laden and see why he is so mad"

Yeah right fuck him

all you are doing is spewing cliches


but agin it makes me sooooooo happy that nobody in any place of power that matters in this goverment has views like yours

this is about the last of all the talking to you im going to do....i dont like shooting dead animals.

people who are in favor of supporting political correctness are known to be democrats.. that has nothing to do with whether they are liberals or not though.. you can be a republican liberal, although it is incredibly rare its something that is possible to believe in.  if the worst thing you can come up with that is wrong with the democratic party is their supporting of political correctness than why dont you take a look at what the repubicans believe in.. giving money to the rich, censorship, religion based ethics adapted into society and their forced beliefs, brainwashing, greed, organized thinking, business propaganda, laws on sexual acts. i bet you're in favor of gay marriage and sex being illegal.  basically its stumbling upon facism.  yeah..thank god those p.c. freaks arent in control.

Quote from: brett ratner actuallyLook at how he relates to this little boy. That's the type of moment I want between you and the little girl

he's a very nice boy

all extreme is bad , extreme right and extreme left

in a perfect world both would be not a issue to deal with

the world is not perfect

and in the end i would rather have a hardcord republican then a hardcore democrat


a hardcore p.c freak would let us get taken over by a real scumbag

and i know people like you want to call george bush hitler

but he is no hitler, and the real hitler was a very bad man

a man whos evil you could never imagine, and that reason is people like george bush help rid the earth of this shit

you think you are being opressed under bush go ask somone who lived under the taliban

you and me would not be allowed to have this debate if we did nor would we know how

Quote from: Phil Marlowe

Quote from: brett ratner actuallyLook at how he relates to this little boy. That's the type of moment I want between you and the little girl

he's a very nice boy

ohh brett how could you, i know you want to win over film snobs, but wasnt casting psh enough ?

ohh for shame and to think you got to fuck rebeca gayheart in her prime , ohh for shame

you make me ill, somewhere jackie chan is crying

shure but

Quote from: our paycheck$92,930,005 (USA) (1 December 2002)

not to break character but i dug what you wrote about people being jelouce of ratner because he gets to make films and all they do is bitch

right on

ok back in character

what the fuck were you thinking casting tea leoni as a love interest ???

p.s is it true that you were so shocked that you got rebecca gayheart that afterwords you would ask yourself if you can sniff your own fingers ???

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManwhat the fuck were you thinking casting tea leoni as a love interest ???

Quote from: brett ratnerHer father suffered from skin cancer

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManp.s is it true that you were so shocked that you got rebecca gayheart that afterwords you would ask yourself if you can sniff your own fingers ???

Quote from: bret ratnermy...fingers? what? i don... respect my authority.*sctratchs beard* i heard beyonce.

Quote from: Phil Marlowerespect my authority.*.

yes sir

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManall extreme is bad , extreme right and extreme left

in a perfect world both would be not a issue to deal with

the world is not perfect

and in the end i would rather have a hardcord republican then a hardcore democrat


a hardcore p.c freak would let us get taken over by a real scumbag

and i know people like you want to call george bush hitler

but he is no hitler, and the real hitler was a very bad man

a man whos evil you could never imagine, and that reason is people like george bush help rid the earth of this shit

you think you are being opressed under bush go ask somone who lived under the taliban

you and me would not be allowed to have this debate if we did nor would we know how

Yet again, your limited, binary thinking renders you incapable of really holding up your end of a discussion/argument. It all degenerates into easy category vs. easy category: Conservative/liberal, p.c./non-p.c., cool/uncool, positive/negative.

P.C. is just a stupid sound-byte buzzword; the actual idea hardly exists in the world today, other than on an ever-shrinking number of college campuses and as a red herring in the minds of people who identify as conservative and, because of the defensiveness from which their views spring, always have and always will feel under siege and beleaguered by people who don't share their values, and have nostalgia for things (like so-called "traditional family values" and American infallibility) that never existed in the first place.

You're constantly insisting that "people like (insert whoever you're disputing with today)" have no power in the world." Well, the city and region I live in (Seattle, Pacific NW) are very, very anti-war and progressive, socially and economically. Sure, we feel the effects of Bush here (the economy's shit, for one thing), but in the world I live in every day, anti-Bush values are lived, celebrated, and reflected by our representatives and in the lawbooks. And that's true everywhere. If you're only talking about the power to force a war, then Bush does have power, but it certainly doesn't mean nobody else has any influence on the way things are run in their communities or to try to change the course of things on a national level. You do, indeed, sound like a fucking fascist when you go on about that.

You're as provincial as they come, but you're a loud, loud ranter and screamer who seems to believe belligerence and pettiness is the way to convince people you're right. You're this message board's very own Rush Limbaugh.

I'm totally jumping into this with no prior reading, but here goes:

when Santa says that living under Bush is much better than living under taliban, you gotta agree there. We are very fortunate to be in north america where we are at the very least not subject to death squads when we voice our opinions. And every board needs their Rush Limbaugh.

I don't really care either way, but it's nice to have someone else take all the heat for being a "right wing facist". Usually that's what people accuse me of.  :) :)

Quote from: SoNowThenI'm totally jumping into this with no prior reading, but here goes:

when Santa says that living under Bush is much better than living under taliban, you gotta agree there. We are very fortunate to be in north america where we are at the very least not subject to death squads when we voice our opinions.

I totally agree, but I think my approach to being a North American is one of gratitude and feeling fortunate. I think Bush and his ilk are more about entitlement, as if we all "deserved" to be born privileged North Americans, and it's not just random, and we might not just as easily have been born poor in a war-torn country. Certainly, he's not as bad as the Taliban. I do think some of his views are barbaric, but I don't think he would ever try to go about enforcing them the way the Taliban did. I never said he was that bad. I just said that Santa seems to lack the basic skills of articulation to back up all the hasty, disproportionate claims he's always making.

There aren't death squads, but the powers that be find other ways to try to shut dissenters up... it would take a lot, a whole lot, for it ever to get Taliban-bad here, but remember McCarthyism? That was only two generations ago, in a similarly fear-ridden, us-or-them milieu.

Edit:  It's also helpful to remember that the Taliban was armed by a very popular Republican administration.

Re: McCarthy.
Very true. Happily, things seemed to turn around pretty well over that whole thing, and like you said, just two generations later people are already realizing all the shit that went down.

I just wanted to put my two cents in, anyway. I had no real intelligent point to make.

But really, we need another McCarthy soon, so we can blacklist Susan Sarandon. Just for the fact that she annoys me. Basically I should just be allowed to say who gets to work in movies. I think I would like that. You'd see a lot more Monica Bellucci, and a lot less Rebecca Pigeon. Yeah, I can see it now...

This just might be the next Donnie Darko thread (or did the God thread already take that title?)

imdb:
Vincent Gallo, who was derided at Cannes by numerous critics for his road movie The Brown Bunny, has denied that he ever apologized for the movie and called film critic Roger Ebert "a fat pig" for writing that he did. The "apology" was included in a number of other reports filed from Cannes during last month's festival. "I never apologized for anything in my life," Gallo said Monday. This week's Village Voice, in an article by Mark Peranson, backs Gallo, observing that his remarks at a news conference in Cannes were taken out of context as he "sank into ironic self-hatred." Gallo's actual remarks were: "This is a place where merchandise or tangible objects are brought and sold to be marketed as entertainment throughout the world. ... I made one of these things that's supposed to entertain people. To criticize a movie because it's unsuccessful in that purpose, I accept that. They're right. If no one wants to see the movie then it's a disastrous film and a waste of time. And I apologize to the financiers." Peranson points out that "with all this publicity, you can't say nobody wants to see The Brown Bunny."

EBert's site:
But was Gallo actually misquoted?

"Absolutely insane stuff from Gallo," editor Colin Brown assured me. "Not only is everything we wrote in Cannes exactly as he spewed out, word for word, it was all recorded on audio tape." He added, "It makes me wonder whether this is not all some great marketing ploy on his part. I have actually come across people who say 'Brown Bunny' is top of their list of films they most want to see out of Cannes this year."

From http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-ebert04.html

Quote from: Roger EbertDuring a scene where Gallo shares a bicycle with a young woman, I became so nostalgic for "Butch Cassidy" that I softly sang "Raindrops Keep Fallin' on My Head." I stopped after six words when my wife jabbed me in the ribs. I was overheard by a writer for Hollywood Reporter, who included it in his coverage about how badly the film was received, and that is another reason Gallo has put the heebie-jeebie on my colon and prostate. I am not too worried. I had a colonoscopy once, and they let me watch it on TV. It was more entertaining than "The Brown Bunny."

Let it be known now and forevermore that this is why I LOVE Ebert.  :-D

Quote from: godardianP.C. is just a stupid sound-byte buzzword; the actual idea hardly exists in the world today, other than on an ever-shrinking number of college campuses and as a red herring in the minds of people who identify as conservative and, because of the defensiveness from which their views spring, always have and always will feel under siege and beleaguered by people who don't share their values, and have nostalgia for things (like so-called "traditional family values" and American infallibility) that never existed in the first place.

Thank you thank you thank you.

Santa... if by PC you mean saying "Native American" instead of "Indian" ... then live with it. All Native Americans deserve to be called Native Americans, for obvious reasons. If you're complaining about people saying "African American" instead of "Black" or "person" instead of "man"... then I would say the same thing. These are basics of respect that our society has neglected.

I will admit that PC becomes "evil" when it becomes censorship, but you should have no complaints about people who go out of their way to irrigate years of racism, sexism, and ignorance out of their everyday language.

Quote from: SoNowThenwhen Santa says that living under Bush is much better than living under taliban, you gotta agree there.

But most people who were oppressed under the Taliban knew that they were being oppressed...

wait.  i just thought of something.  what is the PC term for black people who live in other countries?

Quote from: themodernage02wait.  i just thought of something.  what is the PC term for black people who live in other countries?

Just replace American with the other country. African Japanese, African Mongolian, African Italian, African Russian, African Indian, and African African.

What do they call a whopper in japan?

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI will admit that PC becomes "evil" when it becomes censorship

...

then why censor my posts ??? which you just did , should the bad not go with the great

its not all nice and kind sometimes things get rough, why should anyone tamper with history

in years from now people will want to read what i said here , before i become the worlds most famous mambo judo master

I don't find the ebert quote funny because he will never be skinny. At such an old age it's almost impossible to shed all those pounds. At least Churchill said it right because he will actually sober up the next morning.

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManthen why censor my posts ??? which you just did , should the bad not go with the great

I'm impressed that you knew it was me.

Why did I remove your post? It was a personal attack.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: SantaClauseWasA BlackManthen why censor my posts ??? which you just did , should the bad not go with the great

I'm impressed that you knew it was me.

Why did I remove your post? It was a personal attack.

of course it was you, but that is not a slam on you

some people found it very funny

Quote from: RaikusI think a lot of you are overlooking the possibility that Brown Bunny might just in fact be a piece of shit.

.

this is one of the best posts i ever read here , it says it all with out saying too much

this reminds me of the fact that the pta short couch went over ten pages of people disecting the fuck out of it and its meaning

its a short skit he made with his friend GET THE FUCK OVER IT

And this film is shit i am sure, going by what i know about gallos work and the reviews i have read

ebert would of loved to have loved this film, he has no ax to grind

that brown bunny vs. ebert's colonoscopy quote is goddamn hilarious.

on a side note, why is Ebert's right side of his mouth droopy?  i know it's been like that for a long time, but i never did quite find out why.  i know he's had some operations in the past, but it looks as if he's had a mini stroke?  anyone know?

wow, wow, wow!  I can't wait to see it!!!!  I hate Ebert!!!!  I want to see the film on just the grounds that he hated it!!!!!  I think?  
I could sit through a motorcycle in the desert scene........
The way he describes the movie does sound a bit autobiographical if you put it in the context of De Gallo's thoughts.  What would a person racing across a desert on a motorcycle alone think about....
Is there at least narration?

Quote from: pixelnixelwow, wow, wow!  I can't wait to see it!!!!  I hate Ebert!!!!  I want to see the film on just the grounds that he hated it!!!!!  I think?  
I could sit through a motorcycle in the desert scene........
The way he describes the movie does sound a bit autobiographical if you put it in the context of De Gallo's thoughts.  What would a person racing across a desert on a motorcycle alone think about....
Is there at least narration?

I'm no Ebert fan, either, but I think entirely independently of him; I won't go to a film because he recommends it, or in reaction to a strongly negative opinion on his part. I just try not to let his influence extend to me when it comes to my movie choices.

"I had a colonoscopy once, and they let me watch it on TV. It was more entertaining than "The Brown Bunny."  "

thats pretty fucking funny

All I can find on the web is that the film is "currently seeking distribution in the US." Still. There have to be companies willing to distribute this after all the publicity...

I don't mind if some people here don't like Ebert or will see a film in spite of his opion and likely love it, but come on, this is not a film that Ebert is really heading in being the guy who hated it. Just about everyone hated it and Ebert's last column on it was to prove such. I think Ebert is fantastic, myself, but I am disagreeing with him more and more on a lot of things and sometimes think he is completely wrong on a subject. But all critics are once in a while. I'm not going to read any critic who will pander to my interests only.

Also, Gallo now proves himself to be a complete joke and Andy Kaufman may have to be sent in to give any understanding to the mess publicity he is giving, or he may be the most cowardly and mean spirited filmmaker out there now.

~rougerum

Quote from: The Gold Trumpethe may be the most cowardly and mean spirited filmmaker out there now.

~rougerum

i take it you have yet to see the film " snowdogs"

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't mind if some people here don't like Ebert or will see a film in spite of his opion and likely love it, but come on, this is not a film that Ebert is really heading in being the guy who hated it. Just about everyone hated it and Ebert's last column on it was to prove such. I think Ebert is fantastic, myself, but I am disagreeing with him more and more on a lot of things and sometimes think he is completely wrong on a subject. But all critics are once in a while. I'm not going to read any critic who will pander to my interests only.

Also, Gallo now proves himself to be a complete joke and Andy Kaufman may have to be sent in to give any understanding to the mess publicity he is giving, or he may be the most cowardly and mean spirited filmmaker out there now.

~rougerum

He can obviously be a cowardly and mean-spirited person, but as a filmmaker, I think he takes quite a tender, vulnerable, and sympathetic view (to judge from Buffalo '66). Maybe he saves all his best impulses for his art...

It helps to remember that a lot of great artists are passive-aggressive assholes in real life. It's a vocation that breeds overwhelming insecurity, and that's some people's way of dealing with it.

Quote from: godardian

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI don't mind if some people here don't like Ebert or will see a film in spite of his opion and likely love it, but come on, this is not a film that Ebert is really heading in being the guy who hated it. Just about everyone hated it and Ebert's last column on it was to prove such. I think Ebert is fantastic, myself, but I am disagreeing with him more and more on a lot of things and sometimes think he is completely wrong on a subject. But all critics are once in a while. I'm not going to read any critic who will pander to my interests only.

Also, Gallo now proves himself to be a complete joke and Andy Kaufman may have to be sent in to give any understanding to the mess publicity he is giving, or he may be the most cowardly and mean spirited filmmaker out there now.

~rougerum

He can obviously be a cowardly and mean-spirited person, but as a filmmaker, I think he takes quite a tender, vulnerable, and sympathetic view (to judge from Buffalo '66). Maybe he saves all his best impulses for his art...

It helps to remember that a lot of great artists are passive-aggressive assholes in real life. It's a vocation that breeds overwhelming insecurity, and that's some people's way of dealing with it.

ohh so he can make fun of gays and i cant, ohh this sucks i tells you

thats it, im gonna make my own buffalo 66 :: gets jan micheal vincent on the phone::

Godardian, you're talking to the wrong crowd here on trying to prove his redeemability through his movie Buffalo 66, which in my mind, was a talentless movie that aspired to be many things but proved to be only the sufferable rantics of someone I couldn't stand.

What you said about his real life attitude does apply to many great artists indeed and to the most impactful of the 20 century, Adolph Hitler. A close friend (if such a thing for him) and biographer once said the only way you can understand Hitler is to look at him through the eyes of a failed artist. He tried painting, failed but with dictator, provided an immense imagination in bringing about details for German society in the military uninforms, ideas for future German buildings and of course, the Volkswagen. Thing is, the work doesn't over shadow the person and in my eyes, same holds true for Gallo. Also, all the artists that were pricks were still pricks. Their work holds a different identity.

~rougerum

Quote from: godardian

I'm no Ebert fan

One of the few things I disagree with you on, Godardian. Anyway, I bet if nothing else that the movie will get some sort of overseas release and we'll be able to pick up imports (three cheers for awesome video stores that carry import DVDs!). I'm surprised that that guy Ebert quote was surprised that this is one of the most anticipated movies to come from Cannes....it's definitely received more press than anything else. And I do think that Gallo's ridiculously lame comments are entirely part of his act. Maybe his real self has been consumed by his public persona, but either way, he's done a good job at making himself the center of attention.

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI think Ebert is fantastic, myself, but I am disagreeing with him more and more on a lot of things and sometimes think he is completely wrong on a subject. But all critics are once in a while.

Sorry, but am I the only guy here who finds that quote funny? Since critics look at films from a subjective POV, I find it funny to think they're all wrong from time to time...

About the Brown Bunny - Now before people lash out on me: No, I have not seen the fucking film... but I agree with Raikus that this film could be an utter pile of shit. So Chloe Sevigny sucks Gallo's cock. *clap*clap* I'm certain people will view this waste of film and demand their 2 hours back.
It's sad how people are going to support Gallo by renting the film in video stores just to see some explicit sex scenes. It's just going to influence more Brown Bunnys. And isn't that what we need right now? More critically panned films getting huge buzz and more popularity for shitty films... Ah, sorry, but I have to rant sometimes.
- Cinephile

Quote from: Cinephile

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI think Ebert is fantastic, myself, but I am disagreeing with him more and more on a lot of things and sometimes think he is completely wrong on a subject. But all critics are once in a while.

Sorry, but am I the only guy here who finds that quote funny? Since critics look at films from a subjective POV, I find it funny to think they're all wrong from time to time...

About the Brown Bunny - Now before people lash out on me: No, I have not seen the fucking film... but I agree with Raikus that this film could be an utter pile of shit. So Chloe Sevigny sucks Gallo's cock. *clap*clap* I'm certain people will view this waste of film and demand their 2 hours back.
It's sad how people are going to support Gallo by renting the film in video stores just to see some explicit sex scenes. It's just going to influence more Brown Bunnys. And isn't that what we need right now? More critically panned films getting huge buzz and more popularity for shitty films... Ah, sorry, but I have to rant sometimes.
- Cinephile

I still say we can be certain of nothing until we see the film. Of COURSE the media's going to glom onto anything sensationalistic. Just because of their puerility, it's too sheep-like to just assume that the film itself amounts to nothing more than one scene of oral sex (just as it would be sheep-like to assume it's going to be great because everyone's talking about it). I don't buy into any of these likely distortions. I'll wait 'til I can tap directly into the source and form my own opinion.

yes but if this in anyway encourages other hot young actresses trying to come across as being deep by being in bad art films into sucking dick on film

then i say , god bless you vince gallo

so far both katie holmes and christina ricchi have gotten topless for bad art films, thank god for bad art,  gallo just kicked it up a notch

watch as michele williams follows suit and blows eric stoltz , in a james toback film

then eddie kaye thomas eats out natasha leone in a abel ferara film , well nobody wants to see that , kinda fugley ya know

funny....

Vincent Gallo's Brown Bunny was almost universally panned by the critics, but it was the talk of Cannes this year, in part for the graphic 15 minute long blowjob scene with Gallo and Chloe Sevigny. AVN Hall of Famer Ron Jeremy, who was actually consulted by Gallo in preparation for the scene, thinks that regardless of the artistic merit of the film, Brown Bunny will serve as an important historical note — the first time mainstream actors have performed in a full-blown sex scene.
Ron Jeremy met Gallo at the wrap party for Spun a year ago, and was asked advice for the oral scene. Gallo wanted to know how to prepare so that he could ensure "Peter North" size money shot.

"I told him to hold back. Don't have sex for a couple of days. And when you are actually doing it, stop. If you get close, stop. Go eat a sandwich. Use your finger on her. That's the real way to do it," Jeremy told AVN.com, after appearing at a promotional event in Chicago.

Jeremy isn't sure if his advice was followed, but he does know that Brown Bunny has a graphic money shot at the end of the 15-minute blowjob.

What makes this even more notable is that these aren't C-list actors. Chloe Sevigny was nominated for an Oscar for her supporting role as Lana Tisdel in Boys Don't Cry. Vince Gallo directed and starred in the cult classic Buffalo '66.

"This could seriously change the faces of adult. Gallo says he won't release it without that hardcore scene in the end. If they won't take it in the arthouse theatres, he'll just put it out of DVD and VHS," said an enthused Jeremy. "If he can do this, it could open up doors for everyone in adult. It'll open up doors for adult performers getting mainstream roles.

"There could be a day in Hollywood where doing a hardcore scene will be no big deal, just part of the acting process. You'll see the Screen Actors Guild sending people down to AIM to get tested," he added.

That is actually very interesting. It brings us back to the question: Are people "acting" when they're having sex in front of the camera? Is it a legitimate form of acting? Will the lines between pornography and mainsteam film finally be blurred? Is that a good or bad thing? Could be either, probably, depending on who you're talking about and in what kinds of films.

Right, Ron. Right.  :wink:

I don't necessarily see Peter North and Nicole Kidman sharing a marquee any time soon.

sure, but he could serve as the "technical adviser" behind the scenes if she decides to do the next Gallo flick.

Quote from: RaikusRight, Ron. Right.  :wink:

I don't necessarily see Peter North and Nicole Kidman sharing a marquee any time soon.

but wow i would actully sit through moulon rough if they did

I could only abide Moulin Rouge again if it had a different director. I thought the stars were fine, but Luhrmann has to go, IMO. Maybe V. Gallo should've directed it.

Quote from: godardianI could only abide Moulin Rouge again if it had a different director. I thought the stars were fine, but Luhrmann has to go, IMO. Maybe V. Gallo should've directed it.

i wonder if vince would of kept in the part where they sing " i was made for loving you" by kiss

"Okay, this is a dance about us Spanning Time. We Span Time in this dance -- don't touch me..."

lol, that would be a GREAT musical...

ok, so ebert is a good guy, and I probably won't see Brown bunny because of the whole universal "panning" or canning, however, and everyone has a but.... I still don't like Ebert, I always used his judgements to reflect "devils advocate" in my head.  I'm sure thats ok, since there is room for rent up there, and Ebert should have no problem sitting down and debating between the space my ears confine.  If he leaves the door open, I don't know where I will go......

ok lets just put the fact that i am a porn lovin bastard aside

can you guys tell me as fans of art that there is no curiosity on your part to see the blow job scene

i mean lets keep it real, a oscar nominated almost mainstream actress


she knew what she was doing, gallo knew what he was doing

and she has very creative people around her, this is not a pam and tommy thing

say what you will, this is art

this is groundbreaking, and your telling me you guys have zero interest in this

godardian, saying no would be rather non godardian on your part

since he was the guy that gave us black panthers eating out white girls pussys

but i fear now that i have pointed this out your answer will change ohh well

Obviously, only a very sexually repressed person would be desperate enough to sit through a universally panned 2-hour Vince Gallo film merely to see a celebrity blow job. That would just be a pathetic waste of that person's time. Don't they know about porn?

Since I'm relatively unrepressed, though, I'm interested to see what comes before that blow job, the context in which it occurs. I'm interested in exploring it as an artistic and/or erotic choice. I'm interested to see how something many might consider pornographic will work in a narrative feature film.

Susan Sontag writes, in her wonderful essay The Pornographic Imagination:

"One notable feature of Histoire de le'Oleil and, to a lesser extent, The Image, considered as works of art, is their evident interest in more systematic or rigorous kinds of ending which still remain within the terms of the pornographic imagination- not seduced by the solutions of a more realistic or less abstract fiction. Their solution, considered very generally, is to construct a narrative that is, from the beginning, more rigorously controlled, less spontaneous and lavishly descriptive."

Though she's speaking mostly of pornographic literature (she would be the first to claim film's closest cultural counterpart is the novel,  however), this immediately brought The Brown Bunny to mind.

On deeper thought, though, what it really evokes is the proportion in which people seem to have reacted to it. Since I'm sure the culture-vultures who have picked away the body of The Brown Bunny, leaving just the ending for us to focus on, would've squawked just as loudly if there were any other such noticeable sexual content, this probably couldn't be applied very directly to it; from what we know, it apparently does not use the same "rigorously controlled, less spontaneous and lavishly descriptive" rule throughout. From the limited information we have about the film, we must deduce that, though it does follow a sort of sexual journey, (this points us back to an idea that all narratives are sexual in structure, with their foreshadowings and climaxes), the only explicitly sexual part- what many will think of as "pornographic" simply because of its explicit nature, regardless of whether they're actually aroused by it- takes place at the end. This is rule-breaking in a way much more important than the idea that some people will be shocked and bewildered by the sex act itself; it will likely represent an extreme breaking with its own hermetic system. This could leave audiences feeling elated, transcendent; it could also leave them feeling betrayed and scornful.

I'm guessing we'll find that Gallo is utilizing a sort of hybrid narrative of his own devise, and for his own singular purposes. As an artist who began in a more tactile and MUCH less narrative medium, he probably enjoys the application of the "wrong" level of camera revelation, as a contrast to the rest of the film's tone, just as a painter would experiment with "wrong," clashing colors and textures. It's safe to say that, regardless of the quality of the film itself, at least part of its goal is likely to play with and subvert narrative truisms, to find out just how far we can see our characters go while still remaining characters in the traditional sense (I predict that the concept of character will be infinitely more valued by this film than in any genuinely pornographic endeavor- porn only needs the idea of character. It has much different aspirations and rules; it need never convince us in the way that non-porn fictional narrative must). Gallo may very well be introducing us to an entirely different kind of "experimental" cinema.

It could easily be a total artistic failure, as so many have said, but I'm actually looking forward to seeing how he's mixed things up, what the actual detail and technique and style of it is. For example, is the rest of the film shot and edited in a much more conventional sense, only to suddenly switch to the camera setups and editing tropes of hardcore porn during the sexually explicit scene at the end? Will Gallo focus on the "reality" of it, that, "Look, we're really doing this! In real life!" or will they still seem to be acting? Porn actors are often referred to as "models;" they're required to do very little acting. The Brown Bunny at least purports to contain, for the bulk of its running time, acting to convince us that the people we see are not who they are in real life. Will the "acting" extend to the notorious scene at the end, or will that all go away, too? It forces us to question what kind of mediating force "acting" is when it comes to doing certain things for the camera.

It's too bad Camille Paglia has been so quiet and generally away from the public eye for... well, years now. It would be extremely interesting to know if her championing of this kind of more graphic sexual content could ever dovetail with her despondence over and hatred of most of the contemporary film scene. She's quite curmudgeonly on the subject, and refuses to see most things on the big screen; I wonder if this would get her out of the house? It would be too bad if we were denied the interpretations of our culture's more distinctive minds because they dismiss the film out of hand as a stunt unworthy of consideration. [/i]

Um, I didn't really read everything that's been said lately, but this is my thoughts about Brown Bunny: I wanted to see it way before I knew what was in it, because I enjoyed Buffalo 66 so much (which I think is true of most people here). Now that I've found out about the whole hardcore thing, I think that's interesting, but I certainly hope it doesn't take away from the rest of the flick. That being said, I have my own take on hardcore in regular films: I've always told friends that I wish "x" was an acceptable rating for a film for one reason. And that is, if I decide, for whatever purpose, to have blowjob in my movie, I hate being restricted to having to show an angle to cheat the fact that there is no action actually happening. What if I wanna show it straight up? With the money shot? I should be able to, if I think that cheating the angle makes the scene seem fake and takes the audience out of the story (which it does most times) -- unless taking them out of the story is the point. So, uh, I guess I'm pretty excited about the whole thing here. Go Vince Gallo.

Quote from: SoNowThenUm, I didn't really read everything that's been said lately, but this is my thoughts about Brown Bunny: I wanted to see it way before I knew what was in it, because I enjoyed Buffalo 66 so much (which I think is true of most people here). Now that I've found out about the whole hardcore thing, I think that's interesting, but I certainly hope it doesn't take away from the rest of the flick. That being said, I have my own take on hardcore in regular films: I've always told friends that I wish "x" was an acceptable rating for a film for one reason. And that is, if I decide, for whatever purpose, to have blowjob in my movie, I hate being restricted to having to show an angle to cheat the fact that there is no action actually happening. What if I wanna show it straight up? With the money shot? I should be able to, if I think that cheating the angle makes the scene seem fake and takes the audience out of the story (which it does most times) -- unless taking them out of the story is the point. So, uh, I guess I'm pretty excited about the whole thing here. Go Vince Gallo.

Exactly. The childish, giggly attitude the cultural powers that be in our country have towards sex is an embarrassment. We have got to find a way to keep an "X" type rating from being a scarlet letter to the loony Puritanical streak we still have in America. NC-17 hasn't cut it.

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...

Quote from: SoNowThenYes. 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.

i'll see it and walk out after the blow job scene.  :-D

Quote from: bonanzatazi'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).

hey godardian, reply to this.

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

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 TrumpetMy favorite critic actually hated 2001: A Space Odyssey and I consider it the best movie ever made.

Pauline Kael...??

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAlso, 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

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 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

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.

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.

what a dickhead.

I think he's hilarious (and I like Ebert a lot)

Quote from: ©bradwhat a dickhead.

indeed

Quote from: tremoloslothI think he's hilarious

indeed, indeed

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.

He takes several similar potshots at it right here: http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert10.html

Off topic, but underneath those pot shots, you can find some more bizarre happenings:

QuoteQ. In your "Pirates of the Caribbean" review, you mentioned that I was opening a pirate store. We actually opened the store 14 months ago. It's doing well, too. Pays the rent on our nonprofit space, oddly enough. Only in San Francisco. We sell about 100 eye patches a week. We sell hooks, striped socks, treasure chests in all sizes, lard, planks (by the foot), peglegs (sized to fit)--anything you could want, though we don't sell cannonballs anymore. Our supplier was good, but they kill you on the shipping.

Dave Eggers, San Francisco


A. I have bookmarked your store at www.826valencia.org/store/ and in the future will use you for all my pirate needs. I also could also act as an independent supplier of parrot jokes.

Dave Eggers is a strange, wonderful man.

Meanwhile, Ebert and Gallo probably have a thing going on. Money is probably involved. This is just a scam to generate as much Brown Bunny related hype as possbile.

that's some shitty hype

From Entertainment Weekly's Suprise of the Week:
'THE BROWN BUNNY'
Despite scathing reviews at Cannes, Vincent Gallo's bizarro flick will play at this year's Toronto International Film Festival. Here's hoping the Canadians top Roger Ebert's "worst film" remark.

Quote from: poserthat's some shitty hype

Quote from: poserFrom Entertainment Weekly's Suprise of the Week:
'THE BROWN BUNNY'
Despite scathing reviews at Cannes, Vincent Gallo's bizarro flick will play at this year's Toronto International Film Festival. Here's hoping the Canadians top Roger Ebert's "worst film" remark.

That's some shitty hype that's working...

People love to see a trainwreck. On one hand the publicity is good because more people will see the film. On the other, it probably would be best for Gallo's professional career if the "hype" faded away.

I read in the NY Post today that The Brown Bunny has been altered with the sex scene intact, and will be shown in altered form at Toronto.

http://www.galloappreciation.com/media/trailerbb.html

just making sure that everyone sees the trailer.

i think it's a pretty cool trailer.

that's not saying anything for the film though. It could still suck

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drowninginbrown.com%2Fimages%2Fbbcv-lg.jpg&hash=01347c9e5a8055ddefe80f038b13880b25c1f39c)
http://www.drowninginbrown.com/images/bbcv2-lg.jpg
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drowninginbrown.com%2Fimages%2Fbbcd-lg.jpg&hash=6490427343f0e54e6041dbf59e623ab65c9f31ab)

That could very well be the most tasteless cover I've ever seen.  It'll sell.  Hehe.

Wow. It seems that Chloe giving head is all this movie is known for other than being extraordinarily bad.

Still, I'll probably give it a chance when it hits Sundance Channel.

The Brown Bunny Redux is being released today on France and Switzerland.
Redux because it's the new montage:  it now includes Gallo's testicles and has 20 minutes less .

This week's edition of the French magazine Les Inrockuptibles includes Vincent Gallo and Jim Jarmusch on the cover.

That's it.

The French magazine Les cahiers du cinéma gave The Brown Bunny some very positive reviews. BB even figures on the front page. I think they adored it.

Will we ever see this?

On dvd?

Yeah, get those region free DVD players ready.

It'll probably be out later this year, judging by the amount of time it took Dogville to hit DVD in Europe.

Yeah, all the french are crazy about it.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.viapresse.com%2FVAN2%2Fcouv%2Fvan270%2F37801293054040589001.jpg&hash=b5f3851282fbca12fe5e83b705e13ccef09d325e)

I predict a French DVD by September.

I can't wait.  :roll:

Gallo's Tamed 'Bunny' Hops Set for U.S. Release

CANNES (Hollywood Reporter) - Actor/director Vincent Gallo's "Brown Bunny," which was jeered at Cannes last year, will finally be released in U.S. theaters in late August.

However, the version that will be screened is much different than the one that played here last year -- which Gallo subsequently contended was a rough version.

This "Bunny" is the one that subsequently hopped to the Toronto Film Festival last fall to a far less incendiary reception. It has been picked up by indie distributor Wellspring, which will release it in New York and Los Angeles, and on home video next year.

"Bunny" follows a road trip by a motorcycle racer obsessed with a past relationship, and included an onscreen fellatio scene between its stars, Gallo and Chloe Sevigny. It became the center of a media maelstrom when Gallo took on unenthusiastic critics with his customary vitriol.

"Like all great art, we expect (the film) to be hotly debated and discussed for many years to come," Wellspring distribution head Ryan Werner said in Cannes Thursday. "It is the rare film that I think will grow in esteem over time and serve as an inspiration to young filmmakers around the world."

Wellspring is currently in U.S. theaters with French director Andre Techine's latest effort "Strayed," starring Emmanuelle Beart.

Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

So any word on what the new cut will be like, or if this thing is going to extend beyond NY/LA?

This Indiewire article (http://www.indiewire.com/onthescene/onthescene_040521cann.html) goes a little bit further in answering both of those questions.

Quote from: meatwadThe Brown Bunny

Quote from: meatwadRelease

:-D

Trailer here...

http://www.cinemovies.fr/cinetv/cinetv3.php?IDfilm=1982&IDBA=2961&typba=quicktime&run=haute%20res.

I don't know how the movie's gonna be, but that trailer is awesome.

Yep, that trailer is definitely great.  Gallo is talented, too, no doubt.  At the very least, he knows how to tap into sentimentality and is an artful soul.  And that, at least, makes for a film with potential.  Shades of Buffalo '66 are evident, even from this small clip.  I'm betting Ebert's dead wrong in his assessment of the film.  At least, I'm hoping so.  This seems like it could be another Gerry.

the trailer was posted 5 months ago, on the previous page.

as for it's "coolness", it's nothing more than a music video. from what i heard the film doesn't employ this technique. perhaps his new cut is all like this and runs at half the original running time and relies completely on a moody song of his. yay for image-salvaging, calculated marketing.

Quote from: ono.bot.opoeiaI'm betting Ebert's dead wrong in his assessment of the film. At least, I'm hoping so.

it's an amazing film. you seem to appreciate Gallo, so i don't think it will disappoint you.

Very few trailers aren't just music videos.  And trailers are marketing.  You know that as well as anyone, what with your hatred of them and all.

Quote from: ono.bot.opoeiaVery few trailers aren't just music videos.  And trailers are marketing.  You know that as well as anyone, what with your hatred of them and all.

that isn't true, most trailers hav sum narration and a score, quick cuts and sum cliffhanger ending that has nothing to do with the movie.

this one was slightly unconventional due to absence of cuts, two random clips played simultaneously, and one song. if i remember correctly Garden State did the same thing by butchering a Postal Service song. at least Gallo used his own to evoke a mood that might resemble the final product, i'll grant him that.

my hatred for trailers stems from ppl's reactions, evident in this thread as in any, that a stupid commercial could change ur idea of a final product. it's purely an american thing. as i've observed before, no other place cares so much about commercial advertising. admiring a trailer has nothing to do with the movie. and if ppl acknowledge that, why does everyone still care so much? it makes no sense.

teaser posters usually hav much more to do with the movie than trailers do.

Quote from: Pubrickat least Gallo used his own to evoke a mood that might resemble the final product, i'll grant him that.

it isn't his , it's  Jackson C. Frank's Milk & Honey  , later to be covered by Nick Drake.

i see. then he drops down to the level of zach braff.

nah...  that Postal Service song may be the most misplaced thing i've witnessed.

Few points:

* Great films usually have great trailers.  Three that pop to mind immediately, although almost too obvious, are American Beauty, Eyes Wide Shut, and Magnolia (very much a music-video-esque ordeal).  Though many trailers are misleading, it is easy to smell a rat, and sense something is amiss when a trailer is vague or misleading, instead of hinting at what you're really gonna get.

* My impression of this film hasn't changed because of the trailer.  I have always been interested, much in the same way I'd be interested in a film in a similar vein like The Dreamers.  The bad buzz has only made people more curious, and having been made aware of this trailer now, my interest has been piqued even more.  I never had a negative predisposition towards this movie, despite what Ebert or any other critic has said.

* This uber-elite "you-stupid-American" tone is tired, and blanket statements like these are never justified.  Trailers are an artform in and of themselves.  It is incredibly interesting to see an idea compressed into two minutes -- an idea that is supposed to fill two hours.  Oftentimes it represents what may have been (i.e. what the director was striving for but couldn't quite get), but the few times it delivers what will be, in a dramatic film that actually reaches for something great, you know you are in for a treat, and that only heightens the anticipation.

I have high hopes for it too.

Quote from: ono.bot.opoeiaThis uber-elite "you-stupid-American" tone is tired

Why didn't Pubrick tell me he's part of the uber-elite?

Of course his tone is condescending, but it's not like he's trying to start a nationalistic war. It's more Hollywood than it is Americanism. Commercialism is hardly isolated to this country... Rupert Murdoch, for example, is from Australia.

yes what i meant was any reasonably americanized society. if hollywood is a better word for it, substitute that in.

Quote from: ono.bot.opoeiaTrailers are an artform

Quote from: ono.bot.opoeiatrailers are marketing.

so we can deduce that marketing ppl are artists.

i guess that's where our opinion differs, i don't use the "A" term lightly.

Your knack for twisting people's words never ceases to amaze.

Just a question, though: why can't trailers be both art and marketing?  As far as I see it, they are.  Same for posters and cover art and the like.  Reminds me of some thread around here where Ghostboy and modage had something good to say.

Quote from: ono.bot.opoeiaYour knack for twisting people's words never ceases to amaze.

Explain, then, how your thoughts were taken out of context and correct us with what you really meant.

Not taken out of context.  Just used in a way that makes P seem superior yet again.  Rather than debate, he took two different things I said and juxtaposed them to fit his purpose, rather than interjecting a thought of his own.  Again, it's just very tired.  Like that whole "A" word comment.  Like art is some holy grail.  Sure, that's one opinion.  Not right or wrong, though.  Art is too pervasive to be given such gravity.  And as for the art vs. marketing debate, I just don't think there is any.  The art of a trailer is just what I explained earlier: that one can take two hours and compress it in to two minutes.  If it's successful, it's something great, even if it is used as a marketing tool to get butts in seats.

........if i may butt in about this trailer issue......

ono, "great films have great trailers".i agree but what  makes them great is the originality of those films trailers............personally , i think the greatest trailer of all time is actaully the requiem for a dream teaser........that motherphucker is the reason why i would sell my body for a camera........and i dont want to put words into Pubricks mouth but i think hes talking about fake/trendy trailers.....and i agree with his points...i just hope i am correct in his context

Then I'll give him that.  I can definitely understand/relate to that.

It's late, though.  So as Barry and the Mattress Man say, "That's that."

haha, seriously ono, relax.

we're arguing about trailers as purely marketing, then u go calling them an artform. so it's a logical deduction that u just called marketing ppl artisits. i was happy to conclude the debate on that major difference of opinion. i just don't think of marketing assholes as artists, what's wrong with that.

the craft of condensing two hours into 2 minutes is a dubious skill at best. what ur referring to is best exemplified in the ART of music videos, where actual original ideas can be communicated in a revolutionary way. when someone brings out a collection of trailers by acclaimed marketing ppl, a la "directors label", and it is regarded by most cognitively-functioning ppl as more than another collection of "world's greatest commercials", u may hav a point.. and i may shoot myself.

the task assigned to trailers today is hardly worth applauding. when marketing ppl "condense" the premise, conflict, and climax of a story they are simply following a formula meant to reach the largest possible audience on opening weekend. is that not true? trailers are only useful for the period before a film is released, once it is seen by a few idiots especially after a few years, word of mouth and the opinions of ppl u trust is what makes u want to see a movie. they are the most tedious aspect of the filmmaking process, and the only time they are ever worth remembering is when a director himself imbues sum spark to the trail of crap as in the case of Eyes Wide Shut (or even better, the shining).. which he does only because he has to. if he doesn't, no one will.

and don't get me started on non-gondry music videos that include clips from movies. oy!

I'm sticking with Ono on this one.  The mere fact that the two of you are debating whether trailers are indeed artforms argues that it IS an artform.  I'll (admittedly) use the tired adage: It's open to interpretation.

Quote from: ono.bot.opoeiaNot taken out of context.  Just used in a way that makes P seem superior yet again.  Rather than debate, he took two different things I said and juxtaposed them to fit his purpose, rather than interjecting a thought of his own.  Again, it's just very tired.

I do that all the time. He picked apart your argument a little and made a logical connection. How is that illegitimate?

Quote from: coffeebeetleThe mere fact that the two of you are debating whether trailers are indeed artforms argues that it IS an artform.

Can you expand on that, please?

Are you saying that anything that's interpreted is art? There are very dry logical interpretations (like... finding your car keys) that are probably not art forms. Art loses meaning if it can be anything. Defining art definitively as "anything interpreted" is just as arrogant as saying "this is art and this isn't," because criteria for personal connection to art and appreciation for art is by definition subjective.

Quote from: Pubrickwhat ur referring to is best exemplified in the ART of music videos, where actual original ideas can be communicated in a revolutionary way.

I think that's really the question. What is the idea behind the trailer? "See this movie"?

Quote from: Pubrickthe only time they are ever worth remembering is when a director himself imbues sum spark to the trail of crap as in the case of Eyes Wide Shut (or even better, the shining).. which he does only because he has to. if he doesn't, no one will.

If the filmmaker does have the pure intention of making an innocent little preview that's as decommercialized as the medium allows, how relevent is motive if the resulting idea is apparently independent of the trailer system?

Okay..okay....stop talking!

Well obviously it wouldn't be relevent.  But it would lean more toward's the director's vision, perhaps garnering more "respect".

By the way, I find this argument very interesting.  And now I'll

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.xanga.com%2Fbigpileofkyle%2F456486116211l.jpg&hash=9a31f7a791884544d761c02a93ea74ada051eb2b)

I didn't hear anything (edit--whoops, meant for Insomniac's statement)...

anyways, it's an interesting debate...

not really.

yeah, i see what you mean

Quote from: ono.bot.opoeiaThis seems like it could be another Gerry.

lets hope not.  :roll:

as far as the trailer changing peoples minds about the movie, how can it not?  if a movie you've read about has a good premise and interesting people involved and you see a few minutes of hte film, (supposedly showcasing the films strengths and trying to get people interested), and hte acting is terrible and it looks like 100 other movies, how can you not be affected?  conversely, how can you not be drawn in by a great trailer?

Quote from: themodernage02

Quote from: ono.bot.opoeiaThis seems like it could be another Gerry.

lets hope not.  :roll:

If it's even half the movie Gerry was, I'll be overjoyed.  :wink:

Anyway, as an editor and someone who takes a great deal of pride in cutting trailers for other people's films, I will concur with anyone who suggests trailers are an art unto themselves. I may not be expressing my own personal artistic intentions when I cut a trailer for someone else (I do when it's for my own work), but I am using my artistic skill to make something that is engaging, provocative, intriguing. I'm trying to sell the film as best I can, but the way to do that is to make a trailer that people want to watch. My favorite trailers -- most Kubrick trailers, Dark City, American Beauty -- make me want to watch them for their own merits.

I think all advertising, when you look past its inherent capitalistic intentions, has the opportunity to be great art as well. There are some commercials that, as Kubrick said, tell stories better than films.

Finally, I like The Brown Bunny trailer, more than the Buffalo 66 trailer, which I felt gave away too much.

Quote from: GhostboyFinally, I like The Brown Bunny trailer, more than the Buffalo 66 trailer, which I felt gave away too much.

Well, this is a perfect trailer for this movie, but after you see the movie, you'll realize that your previous statement is wrong.

Wow... way to go

we didn't know it was spoiled... now we do... congratulations.

What the fuck? I didn't spoil shit. Don't be a jerk.

Fellow Los Angelinos and those who happen to be in the area at the time:

A Two Week run at The Nuart in West L.A. - Friday, August 27 - Thursday, September 9

Last year, Vincent Gallo's unfinished film was perhaps the most controversial ever screened at the Cannes Film Festival. The finished film became a hit at the Toronto Film Festival and won the prestigious International Critic's Prize at the Viennale. Gallo's visual poem to a lost American tells the story of Bud Clay (Gallo), a man so haunted by the loss of his true love, Daisy (Chloe Sevigny), that he travels across the country desperately trying to forget her. Building to a notorious climax, the film presents one of the frankest portrayals of male sexuality ever seen in American cinema.

Vincent Gallo in person Fri. & Sat., Sept. 3 & 4 at 7:30 and 10pm (schedule permitting)

Fri. Sept. 3 also screens with the Uncut X-Rated version of Wild At Heart at Midnight.

i think i will have to go see that

Turning to shock value to promote 'The Brown Bunny'
The billboard for Vincent Gallo's latest film is raising eyebrows on the Sunset Strip. Source: Los Angeles Times

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2004-08%2F13676578.jpg&hash=1d798cc82872c73bdb63130c2a4d12af29304bb0)

Rising above Sunset Boulevard, half a block west of Crescent Heights Boulevard, one movie's billboard stands in marked contrast to the glossy studio advertising surrounding it. Minimalist and provocative like the film it promotes, the sign features an explicit black-and-white image that appears to show Chloë Sevigny performing oral sex on director and costar Vincent Gallo. At the bottom is a simple message: "In color. X. Adults only."

Controversy is nothing new to Gallo's "The Brown Bunny," an unfinished version of which elicited boos at the 2003 Cannes Film Festival. Film critic Roger Ebert called it the worst picture ever to be screened at the event. Dismissing the possibility it could land a distributor, Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum wrote: "No one in America will ever see a frame of this film."

That quote now opens the "teaser" trailer for the movie, the tale of an emotionally fragile motorcycle racer traveling cross-country in search of true love, set to open in New York and Los Angeles on Aug. 27.

Taking a page from the playbook of Miramax Films chief Harvey Weinstein ("Dogma," "Priest" and "Kids," and more recently "Fahrenheit 9/11") and Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," the Gallo contingent is banking on the notion that controversy translates into box office.

In spite of what's taking place in the billboard scene, which Gallo says wasn't shot with "smoke and mirrors," the 42-year-old denies that his billboard design is the act of a provocateur. His aim, Gallo contends, is to legitimize the film, diffusing charges of gratuitous sexuality by calling up "iconic references" to sophisticated, X-rated fare such as Bernardo Bertolucci's "Last Tango in Paris" and John Schlesinger's "Midnight Cowboy." Gallo says the X rating, which the Motion Picture Assn. of America replaced with the NC-17 label in 1990, is his own marketing device to suggest that the movie is for grown-ups, rather than pornographic.

"People regard 'Brown Bunny' as a freaky, self-indulgent home movie," the writer-director (1998s "Buffalo '66") said on the phone from Chicago — one of six cities he'll hit on a road trip to promote the movie ending next week in Los Angeles. "By publicizing it on Sunset, I'm positioning it as a controversial mainstream movie, an event, rather than pretentious avant-garde. The billboard was designed for sophisticated people who'd understand the aesthetic, the fact that there's subtext and complexity. I guess I forgot about your everyday person — the old man in a Mercedes a friend of mine saw put his hand over his mouth and mime, 'Oh, my God!' "

Liza Burnett, who heads the film division of public relations firm Dan Klores Communications, says: "We all decided to embrace the controversy instead of running away from it."

Thus far, no formal protests have been filed. Dan Goldberg, vice president of marketing and publicity for the film's New York-based distributor, Wellspring, says Regency Outdoor Advertising, which owns the billboard space, asked no questions about content. A spokeswoman for the company says they've rejected certain subject matter on occasion — and that this was a "judgment call."

Screened to a somewhat more favorable reception at the Toronto Film Festival last September, the film will go out unrated — an option because Wellspring is not a signatory of the MPAA, which requires movies released by its members to carry a rating. Although essentially the same conceptually as the version shown at Cannes, the current film is 26 minutes shorter and has a new ending. Gallo says that he agreed to present the shorter version at Cannes only because of a deal he cut with the producers.

Sex isn't the point of "The Brown Bunny," a film about intimacy and relationships, maintains Ryan Werner, head of theatrical distribution for Wellspring. His company acquired the movie a year after Cannes. The Landmark chain, he says, has been particularly supportive, booking the movie for a two-week run at the Nuart in Los Angeles and a prime art house in Manhattan. On Sept. 3, "Bunny" is set to expand to Boston, Chicago and San Francisco, and could be playing in the top 15 markets by the following week.

Cannes was the first hurdle, Werner says. Getting critics into the movie is the second.

"This is the biggest marketing challenge we've faced," said the executive, whose company is about to release "Tarnation," winner of the best documentary award at the Los Angeles Film Festival. "I can't think of a single movie with a sex scene like this, featuring known actors. Still, this year the studios have released a number of NC-17 movies [prohibiting anyone 17 and younger from attending], including 'Young Adam' and 'The Dreamers.' I'd like to think Hollywood is growing up a bit, but it's always a roll of the dice."

The film's release coincides with the Republican National Convention in New York, which Gallo, a devout supporter of President Bush, plans to attend. Although some might question his association with the party's "family values" stance, the director sets things straight. "The right-wing people I know are more tolerant than the left-wing commies you find at Cannes. After all, what do I reveal that Calvin Klein doesn't — more suggestively — on the billboard across the street?"

Vincent Gallo's a Republican worth loving.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.indiewire.com%2Feug%2Farchives%2Fimages%2F2sht-bw-final.jpg&hash=2d23204acaa04370cc77fbf541f1ba959c130971)

Also, a good article in The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/movies/04BILL.html) about the same thing, and Indiwire reports minutely on Ebert and Gallo making up. (http://blogs.indiewire.com/eug/archives/001261.html)

When will I be able to see this film??

I've been hearing about it forever, and is this going to take around a year to hit DVD's?

Quote from: Walrus, KookookajoobWhen will I be able to see this film??

Check out the official site, www.brownbunny.net, which details the release schedule and the theaters across America that will be showing the film.

I'm booked the morning of September 10th.

Hmm.  It actually opens relatively near me in August.  Too bad I'm not that compelled to watch this movie.  The trailer calls it "the most controversial American movie ever made" when there's nothing controversial about it at all.  All the controversy that was stirred up LAST YEAR was over how crap this movie was.  The re-cut movie's reception has only been a little better.

You have to admit that that's a particularly stupid thing to say, that it's the most controversial American movie ever made.  Controversy is when the whole world gets all riled up and agrues about it.  It's being released in the same year as The Passion of the Christ and Fahrenhiet 9/11, so that makes it an especially obviously stupid thing to say.

I mean, if the reviews were good, I'd watch it no matter how big of a lie it has in the trailer, but the only controversy that this movie rung up was over how terrible it is.  I dunno why anyone would want to watch this movie, except to witness a train wreck.

I wouldn't even be pissed off if the distributor weren't trying to sell it as a somehow "important and controversial" movie.  As if when Schwarzbaum said that "no one in America will ever see a frame of this movie," she meant that there was something shocking or dangerous about it.  She meant that it sucked.  And distributing a movie with a quote about how it would never get distribution proves NOTHING.  Maybe Schwarzbaum meant that no one SHOULD ever see a frame of this movie.

I didn't mean to write this much, but that "controversial" part of the trailer just pissed me off.  The whole thing is false.

But you know what?  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe the movie is fantastic, okay?  A wonderful, sensitive, and romantic look at the lonely life of a drifter etc... but it's still not anywhere near being the most controversial American movie ever made.  And the poster, regardless of Mr. Gallo's intentions, makes it look like nothing BUT a porno.

good job quoting a critic from Entertainment Weekly

I think the trailer uses that quote, actually. If it were a Quicktime trailer, I could attest to that. I think it's great -- reminds me of the Lost Highway poster that proudly put 'Two Thumbs Down' at the top.

Yes, that quotation opens the trailer, which is why I used it.

I'd also dig it if they used a "two thumbs down" type thing, but my point is that I feel that they used the quotation to suggest that the movie is important and contains some "dangerous" ideas or something.  That's not the same as admitting that someone thought your movie sucked.

Also, it's not fair to use the reviews from what the filmmakers now claim to be an essentially different movie.  THEREFORE, Schwarzbaum wasn't wrong: No One in America will see the crappy version of The Brown Bunny that she reviewed in Cannes.  How does that quotation mean anything at all now that Gallo has re-edited the movie?

I know how much a movie can change by being re-edited.  So it's quite false to take the negative "buzz" and "controversy" from your crappy "workprint" and use it for a different version of the movie.

30 minutes is a lot to cut out of a movie.  If Lost in Translation had a 10 minute "real-time" scene of Bill Murray washing his van, people would hate the damn thing.  You could easily put that in a movie to piss people off and then change it, and then use the buzz from the previous cut of the movie to sell your current cut, which doesn't contain the "controversial" material in question.  So like I said before, it's false.

Movie Ad Backfires
Source: Los Angeles Times

Director Vincent Gallo's embrace of controversy to drum up publicity for his film, "The Brown Bunny," paid off -- but it also appeared to have backfired.

A billboard promoting Gallo's controversial movie was taken down Thursday after several newspapers, including The Times, ran stories about the sign. (MacGuffin's note: See previous page for billboard image)

Positioned at Sunset and Crescent Heights boulevards, it featured an explicit image in which actress Chloe Sevigny appeared to be performing oral sex on Gallo, her director and co-star.

Wellspring Media, the film's distributor, was caught off guard by the move, a representative of the company said. A spokeswoman for Regency Outdoor Advertising declined to say why the sign was pullled.

The film about a motorcycle racer searching for true love will debut Aug. 27 in New York and L.A.

Quote from: matt35mmI know how much a movie can change by being re-edited.

Good Example: Once Upon a Time in America

Excellent post by the way.

A very good (and positive) review (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18144) from AICN. I've read a handful of early reviews so far, and the word is generally good.

Sex and the cinema is a risky proposition
By Gregg Kilday (Hollywood Reporter)

Contrary to popular belief, sex doesn't necessarily sell. While movies ads are usually rife with the promise of romance and sensuality, the rare film that frankly delves into explicit sexuality does so at its own risk.

Next Friday that truism will be tested once again when Wellspring Media dares to release Vincent Gallo's "The Brown Bunny" in New York and Los Angeles.

"Bunny," which premiered at the 2003 Festival de Cannes, should get plenty of press -- even if its boxoffice potential is unproven. At Cannes, the art house exercise arrived on a wave of titillation because it features an explicit sex scene between Gallo and Chloe Sevigny. But what earned it some of the loudest critical razzberries the fest has ever seen was the protracted plot, or lack of same, that leads up to the movie's climactic moment.

Playing a professional motorcycle racer, Gallo spends most of the film in a cross-country road trip that seemed to include every stop to gas up his truck in excruciating detail. (And, yes, the film also includes shots of a literal brown bunny, as Gallo has confessed he is partial to the furry creatures.) The film was subsequently trimmed by 25 minutes for the Toronto Film Festival last fall, and its critical reception improved.

Speaking with reporters in Cannes, Gallo defended the sex scene, insisting: "I didn't include the sex scene to be controversial. I included it because I'm interested in the subject matter. It's a very complex scene. You never see how people actually look when in deep intimacy in contrast to what's happening emotionally or see how people act out dark pathologies."

Now, arguably, if movies are meant to reflect the human condition, there's no reason why forthright sexuality should be off-limits. But in reality, there's something about sex on screen that throws filmmakers, critics and audiences for a loop.

It's as if real sex -- as opposed to the more common, simulated variety -- violates the suspension of disbelief that surrounds most movies.

Even in the most convincing and suspenseful action scene, there's a part of the viewer that knows the actors -- with the possible exception of Jackie Chan -- aren't really at risk.

But let an actor drop his trousers, and there's no faking it. And so the media turns downright silly, as happened earlier this summer when it couldn't stop talking about the fact that a full frontal shot of Colin Farrell apparently proved so distracting it had to be trimmed from "A Home at the End of the World."

But it's not just the easily distracted media that can't cope -- even serious-minded directors seem to lose their compass when they dive into the realm of the senses.

French director Catherine Breillat recruited Italian porn star Rocco Siffredi to strut his stuff in her 1999 X-rated "Romance," but the result proved so lugubrious it seemed to be warning folks off sex altogether. Michael Winterbottom documents a couple's sexual liaison in clinical detail in "Nine Songs," which is set to play the Toronto Film Festival, but advance word from Cannes, where it was peddled at the Marche, hasn't been encouraging. John Cameron Mitchell, who directed "Hedwig and the Angry Inch," is currently workshopping a project titled "Shortbus," designed to revolve around explicit sex scenes, but so far hasn't found the financing to mount the film.

As for the eccentric Gallo, he shouldn't be faulted for challenging our limited cultural mores. And Sevigny herself could even be applauded for, effectively, doing her own stunts. The debate surrounding "Brown Bunny" shouldn't be about the seriousness of its intent. The question is really about the quality of its execution.

There's also a pretty good New York times article that I assume will be in today's paper.  Gallo says some great things.

Quote from: SalGallo says some great things.

what, like "vote bush"?

i'll wait to see his dick before i finalise my judgment of him.

Quote from: Pubrick

Quote from: SalGallo says some great things.

what, like "vote bush"?

i'll wait to see his dick before i finalise my judgment of him.

Tee-hee.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0330099/fullcredits

:shock:

Good interview with VG at Aintitcoolnews.com

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=18202

Sevigny Explains Graphic Scene in New Film

Actress Chloe Sevigny says a notoriously graphic sex scene in "The Brown Bunny," which opens Friday in New York and Los Angeles, will make "more sense" after audiences see it for themselves.

"I knew people would not understand it," Sevigny told The Associated Press. "It's a shame people write so many things when they haven't seen it. When you see the film, it makes more sense. It's an art film. It should be playing in museums. It's like an Andy Warhol movie."

The explicit oral-sex scene, which has garnered all sorts of attention since the movie's premiere, occurs between Sevigny and Vincent Gallo, who also wrote, directed and edited the film. Gallo shot the scene using remote cameras while he and Sevigny were alone in the room.

"This particular scene is the most complex, it's the most evolved thing that I've ever done in my life," Gallo said at a news conference during the 2003 Cannes Film Festival.

Sevigny, 29, has an eclectic acting resume that includes "Kids," "Boys Don't Cry" and "American Psycho." She can next be seen in the HBO drama series "Big Love" and Woody Allen's "Melinda and Melinda," scheduled for release next year.

"I've always made films that are sort of avant-garde-y or whatever you call it," she told the AP last week at the opening of the Hard Rock Cafe inside Foxwoods Resort and Casino in Mashantucket, Conn.

she totally does not understand avant-garde.

Quote from: Chloe Sevigny said not"I've always made films that are sort of avant-garde-y or whatever you call it,"

Well, she's right, that is what you call a lot of the films she's been in before.  Well, specifically, julien donkey-boy.  But yeah, from what I've read of The Brown Bunny, it doesn't seem to be too avant-garde.  At least, it's not like this is the FIRST film to have a blowjob in it.

A fresh symbol on rotten tomatoes with the critics so far... :wink:

Gallo Withdraws Magazine Article After Cover Fight

Vincent Gallo has been accused of pulling a three-page essay he penned for a publication at the last minute - due to the magazine's refusal to place a self- portrait on the cover. The Village Voice's editor-in-chief Don Furst refused to run the actor's full-page photo self-portrait on the front page - which led to Gallo's withdrawal of his written editorial. Voice publicity director Jessica Bellucci tells gossip site Pagesix.Com, "We all thought it was a terrific piece, and we're sorry we're not running it. When he got wind that we wanted to use another image for the cover, he got all bent out of shape and pulled the whole thing." Gallo fumes the "egocentric and out-of-control" Furst sabotaged the project. He says, "I don't regret writing the essay or taking the pictures. But for the Voice to call a gossip column and cry victim is outrageous. They owe me a long apology and flowers. The Voice f***** me, plain and simple."

Los Angeles Times review:

'The Brown Bunny'
Vincent Gallo's new film was preceded by criticism -- and indeed the road trip runs on fumes. By Carina Chocano

At this late stage, it's impossible to separate Vincent Gallo's second film, "The Brown Bunny," from the snits, scandals and flights of weirdness it's engendered since last year, when a rough cut shown at Cannes prompted Roger Ebert to pronounce it the festival's worst. This is good news for the makers and distributors of "The Brown Bunny," which is not a movie that wants to be judged solely on its merits qua movie.

If "The Brown Bunny" were a painting, it would be a blue rhombus hanging on a wall at the Pompidou Center. Gallo's notoriety and Whack-a-Mole fits of pique give it context and dimension. Whether he intended for "The Brown Bunny" to be viewed as part of a much larger conceptual piece all along (He repeatedly claims not to be an artist, by which we can only assume that he doesn't want us thinking about his intentions at all), the tears, the apologies, the hex on Ebert's bowels and the Sunset Strip billboard that followed featuring Gallo and co-star Chloë Sevigny in flagrante fellatio have all but ensured that it will.
 
How much you enjoy the experience will depend on your take on Gallo. If you think he's a brilliant, satirical cut-up, then "The Brown Bunny" is an elaborate and successful art prank. If you think he's a pretentious, self-obsessed, tedious weirdo, then "The Brown Bunny" will back you up 100%. What I can say unequivocally is that if "The Brown Bunny" had been directed by an unknown first-time director, you and I wouldn't be here right now. (But we are, and if the point had been to draw attention to this fact, then it would have been nicely put.)

Gallo plays a Grand Prix motorcycle racer named Bud Clay who is haunted by his past. I know this because it's right there in the production notes. Upon finishing a race in New Hampshire (actually, "finishing" is a strong word. He drives the motorcycle around the track for at least 10 minutes), Bud loads his bike into his van, stops at a gas station, fills his tank, tries to persuade a snaggletoothed gas station attendant named Violet to come with him and heads west.

Along the way, he visits the house in which his ex-girlfriend Daisy (Sevigny) grew up. Daisy's parents are still there, and they're still taking care of their daughter's pet bunny. Bud, however, doesn't ring any bells, even though he grew up right next door. That's because Daisy's parents are about 85 years old and don't appear to be in full possession of their faculties. We've hitherto seen Daisy only in brief, silent flashbacks — but she doesn't look a day over 25. If some sort of in vitro miracle took place here, it's never explained, neither is the astounding longevity of the bunny, though we do learn later that the average lifespan of his species is cruelly brief.

But what's math in the face of pain?

Gallo, who wrote and directed, features himself in every scene of the film; snuffling into his sleeve, driving sadly and failing to connect with the various bits of human flotsam he encounters on the road. At a rest stop, Bud meets Lilly (Cheryl Tiegs), a woman whose wardrobe says "I date truckers" but whose eyes say something even sadder. In Reno, he picks up a hooker named Rose. (She's wearing a name necklace, as was Violet. In fact, every woman Bud meets wears an identifying accessory, like a beloved pet.)

It's not much to look at (I had a pen in my hand, and it was all I could do not to update my to-do list), but "The Brown Bunny" has a certain lingering quality; maybe it's the feeling of repetition, or the hypnotic powers of the open road. Gallo served as his own one-man crew, and the thought of him spending days on end alone in his car with a rolling camera, plunged like a doughnut in scalding black despair, is fun to imagine, in a bleak, existentialist way.

A linear road movie in which silence and vastness and motion are meant to represent alienation and captivity, "The Brown Bunny" is part of a well-established tradition. It owes a debt — I'd say at least 50 bucks — to Monte Hellman's "Two-Lane Blacktop," plus 10 more or so to "Easy Rider." Although Gallo insists in ornery interview after ornery interview that he is not influenced by other films, the influence of certain contemplative European directors of the 1960s is apparent. Very little happens, but what does is felt deeply. He barely spares us the mundane details of road-tripping, but he consistently forgets to squeegee his windshield. His world is viewed through a grisly bug holocaust.

As for the scene featured in the billboard: Well, it's not exactly sextacular. (Although, to be fair, it beats watching Bud fill his tank.) In the production notes, the scene is described as "one of the frankest portrayals of male sexuality ever seen in American cinema," and I believe it. It frankly points out that even sex can be kind of boring sometimes. On the other hand, the sheer in-your-face weirdness of watching two well-known actors engage in real as opposed to pretend sex is something, though. Especially since to watch the things actors do to each other in standard studio potboilers is to be reminded of the things Julia Child used to do to chickens.

I hope I'm not giving too much away by revealing that "The Brown Bunny" concludes with an M. Night Shyamalan-type twist, only about $60 million cheaper. I love a surprise ending as much as the next person, but I tend to find them less satisfying after 92 minutes of mute despair. I never expected "The Brown Bunny" to close with a big finish, let alone two, and days later I still can't decide if I feel grateful or cheated.

Anyway, you can't blame Gallo for trying, no matter how clumsy the pass, to entice viewers to come along for the ride with a little something extra. Bud made nothing but clumsy passes from New Hampshire to California, and the man got results. Then again, those flower-ladies were easy. All it took to get young Violet in the van was a tremulous, high-pitched, "Please? Please come with me? Please?" Most of us require a little more convincing.


MPAA rating: Unrated. No one under 18 admitted.

Times guidelines: Unsuitable for most attention spans. Explicit (and we mean explicit) sex.

Vincent Gallo... Bud Clay
Chloë Sevigny... Daisy
Cheryl Tiegs... Lilly
Elizabeth Blake...Rose
Anna Vareschi...Violet
Mary Morasky...Mrs. Lemon

A Wellspring Release. Written, directed, edited and Produced by Vincent Gallo. Director of photography Vincent Gallo. Running time is 92 minutes. In limited release.

summary of Gallo interview on Howard Stern taken from www.marksfriggin.com

Director/Actor Vincent Gallo Comes In. 08/26/04. 7:25am
After the commercials Howard had the edited version of the Tom Brokaw news report where they fixed the bukakke reference. They had his report with the corrected city name of Buchalki in there. Howard replayed the original live version as well to compare the two.
Howard got a letter from someone who told him that his name is on some kind of prayer calendar. He is the focus of tens of thousands of people who pray for him every day. They were asking Howard to appear at this event where they would pray for him in person. Howard read through the letter and said that they gave him a number to call if he wanted to find out more. Howard said they may just have to make that call later on.

Howard said this guy Vincent Gallo once prayed for someone to get cancer and it worked. There were some other things that he quickly mentioned before Vincent came in and cursed on the air. Howard told him he can't use that word on the air and warned him about certain other words as well. Howard and Vincent went on to talk about an interview that Vincent did one time with the NY Times. They were supposed to let him see the final product and use a picture they supplied. The woman, that Vincent called a witch, made some changes so he ended up wishing cancer on her. Howard said that actually worked when he wished cancer on Roger Ebert and he ended up getting cancer. Gallo said that Ebert is a nice guy and it's nice to see him on a better diet now. Vincent called Ebert a fat pig after he got a bad review on a movie and then wished cancer upon him. On the Ebert and Roeper show they bashed this movie of his ''The Brown Bunny'' and really bashed it. Even Vincent said some stuff about the movie not being all that good. Vincent said he actually talked about how he made the movie for himself and it was kind of self indulgent.

Vincent Gallo got so upset with Roger Ebert about the things he said that he wished cancer upon him. Vincent said that many things that he has wished for, both good and bad, have actually come through. Vincent also went off on this guy up in Buffalo who calls himself Sandy Beach who has given him bad reviews.

Roger Ebert was on the phone to talk to Vincent about this whole cancer thing. Ebert said that he heard that Vincent has bad aim because he was trying to give him colon cancer but missed and gave him prostate cancer instead. Vincent and Roger have made up since the whole cancer thing but Vincent still dislikes the review he got from Roeper. It was a line about the movie being like a steaming pile of excrement is what got to him. Ebert said that he did see ''The Brown Bunny'' in 2003 and it was the worst film he'd seen at the time. Vincent has edited it since then and cut out 26 minutes of the movie. Ebert said he didn't miss one minute of it.

Howard asked Vincent what he thinks is the worst movie ever made. He heard that Vincent has even bad mouthed Robert De Niro. Vincent told Howard that he has inspired many bad actors and that's what he has said. He said Ed Norton is one of those clones. They were all over the place talking about other actors like Leonardo DiCaprio who Vincent once called the best looking chick around.

Roger told Howard that Vincent's comments about him really didn't bother him all that much. He knows that there are other actors out there who feel that way. Sean Penn once wrote him a letter defending one of his performances and he appreciated getting the letter from him because he was letting him know how he felt without just calling him names. Roger said you can see their review of Vincent's new movie on Ebert and Roeper this weekend. Howard let him go after that and got back to Vincent.

Howard talked to Vincent about how he likes feeling alone and won't get married. Howard believes that he doesn't really like women all that much although he does get laid a lot. There's a lot of controversy about his new movie because he has Chloe Sevigny giving him real oral in a sex scene. Howard just wanted to know if it was good oral. There were a few delay hits during this discussion so we missed out on some of it. Vincent did say that they did more than one take for the sex scene though.

Howard read through some of the notes he had about Vincent about how he screwed up his back so bad that he has trouble sleeping and has screwed up some relationships with some friends of his. He is friends with Johnny Ramone and kind of screwed up his relationship with him. Johnny is sick now and Vincent feels bad about that but he just didn't have enough time to spend with the guy.

Howard brought up some other names like Christina Ricci. Vincent has said some stuff about her being drunk on the set and how much better she was when she wasn't drunk. Vincent also said she was like a puppet and she did what he said when he made the movie ''Buffalo 66'' with her. He even called her the C-word. Vincent said she had a miserable publicist who wanted her to promote another film at the time instead of his movie. Vincent called James Cameron a pig at some point but even Vincent didn't remember doing that. He once called Quentin Tarantino an asshole. He motioned with his fingers that Tarantino smokes weed and said he does it all day and night.

Howard read that Vincent once made out with Darryl Hannah. Vincent said that was about all they did. He thinks she's really pretty but a little too tall for him. He also dated Paris Hilton. He said that she's the greatest and she's very sexual. He made a movie with her about 5 years ago and she looked great at the time. He said that she's the sweetest girl of all time in his opinion. Howard wondered why he didn't stay with her. Vincent said he just wasn't in love with her.

Howard asked Vincent about where he lives because he read that he refuses to leave the 300 square foot apartment he lives in now. Vincent said he owns about $7 million worth of real estate and lives in this 300 square foot apartment because he's been there so long. Howard wanted to get political with Vincent. He asked him about George W and why he's backing his administration. Vincent said there are some bright people in his administration but Howard couldn't believe that he was saying that.

Howard gave Vincent a plug for his movie ''The Brown Bunny'' that opens this weekend. Vincent told people to vote for Bush this November but Howard said that he wants people to vote for Kerry. The two of them differ on that stuff. Howard only spent a few seconds on that and then took some phone calls. A woman from Buffalo called in and got Vincent so pissed at her that he wouldn't stop with the S-word. Howard and Artie had to yell at him to stop. The delay was hit a couple of times during that. Howard asked Vincent about living up in Buffalo and about his parents who live up there.

Gary came in and told Howard that Vincent was a chronic masturbator when he was younger. Vincent said that he was actually arrested for that at one time when he was caught outside beating off. He tried to explain to Howard about what he did back then but the delay hits were coming left and right so we didn't hear much of this conversation. Vincent told the story about how he was caught by the cops beating off and how his father beat him for 9 days after that. He was told that he ruined the family so he was no longer allowed to be happy. After all of that Vincent never whacked off to any women out in public again. He said his mother never looked at him the same way again after that though.

Mariann from Brooklyn called in and said she doesn't know much about Vincent but she does kind of like him after reading about him. She was wondering what was up with him picking Cheryl Tiegs for his movie. He said making out with her was one of the highlights of his life. The guys also talked about Angelica Houston and how horrible she was.

Howard let a few more callers through. A couple of people had some nice things to say about Vincent. There were also a couple of people who don't like the guy and let him know. One guy told Howard to ask Vincent about Christina Ricci peeing on the set of the movie. Vincent said it wasn't on the set, it was at a restaurant in the middle of the floor. Vincent said that he heard from the crew members and the restaurant owner that she had done that but he didn't see it first hand.

Howard had Vincent go off on a few people that he hates. He had a whole list of about 10 people that he hates. He went off on all of these reporters and some other people calling them names. Vincent was also talking about a reporter from Page Six who he may just curse with cancer. He said it feels great to get that stuff out there and he would love to have a radio show where he could do that every day. Howard has wished cancer upon people in the past and has gotten into trouble with that. Most recently he wished cancer upon Lowry Mays and it seems to be working. Howard told Vincent that he can call in anytime he wants to wish cancer upon someone. He then started to wrap up the segment and gave Vincent a plug for his movie ''The Brown Bunny'' again. The movie opens this weekend and you get to see Vincent getting oral from Chloe Sevigny. Howard went to break after that.

Roger Ebert just gave The Brown Bunny a thumbs up on Ebert & Roeper :shock:

Who'd a thunk it...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpod-six.net%2Fsl_bizarroquinn.jpg&hash=91168899fc8962e206e1659f673d643ff008253d)
"Bizzaro, I love you. Bizzaro."

Quote from: InsomniacRoger Ebert just gave The Brown Bunny a thumbs up on Ebert & Roeper :shock:

Who'd a thunk it...

He gave the re-edited version a thumbs up.

Gallo Upset Over Poster Controversy

Movie star Vincent Gallo is upset his controversial poster for new movie The Brown Bunny has been stripped down from its Sunset Boulevard, Hollywood, billboard - because he thought it was "beautiful." The huge promotional poster, which depicted a scene near the end of the picture in which Gallo's character has oral sex performed on him by Chloe Sevigny's character, was deemed offensive by many complaining motorists. Gallo, who also directed the controversial film, says, "I'm extremely disappointed. I just wanted to make what I thought would be the most beautiful billboard in the world. I used very extreme, bold composition and font and imagery because I felt that it related to the aesthetic sensibility of the film. Unfortunately, the billboard was reduced to something that it really wasn't."

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/sho-sunday-gallo29.html

This (Roger Ebert's interview with Gallo) is the only thing that's actually made me want to see the movie.  Gallo comes off as a nice guy for once, and intelligently explains why Cannes happened, and why we should bother to see this one.

God knows why it took THIS long for this information to come out (the specifics of Cannes and what he cut from that version).  I still think it was wrong to advertise the movie using quotes that were garnered from the Cannes version ("No one in America will ever see a frame of this movie."  "The most controversial American movie of the year.") to build hype for this cut of the film, because this cut isn't controversial and this movie WILL be seen by Americans (it's still true that we won't see the Cannes cut).  But the controversy is pretty much gone because critics are now generally in favor of the movie and the BJ isn't as controversial as it is simply noteworthy.  I haven't really heard anyone say a word against that scene...

Anyway, good interview, and I'd give this a rental now after reading that.

Quote from: matt35mmGallo comes off as a nice guy for once, and intelligently explains why Cannes happened, and why we should bother to see this one.

Intelligent except for this:

"Film has a purpose. It's not art. Real art is an esoteric thing done by somebody without purpose in mind. I've done that in my life and I'm not doing that making movies. I'm an entertainer. I love all movies. I don't divide them up into art films, indie films."[/list:u]

Unless , of course, you disagree with the idea that Film is an Art.

You have to understand that by saying "Real art is an esoteric thing done by somebody without purpose in mind," he's really just advertising his own music.

Best film of the year so far for me.  I'll write more later, but for now I'll just say that The Brown Bunny completely blew me away.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Intelligent except for this:

"Film has a purpose. It's not art. Real art is an esoteric thing done by somebody without purpose in mind. I've done that in my life and I'm not doing that making movies. I'm an entertainer. I love all movies. I don't divide them up into art films, indie films."[/list:u]

In a way, that reminds me of that PTA quote about how when he was writing PDL, all he thought about was whether audiences would like it.

Anyway, I saw The Brown Bunny this morning and it's really great. Not the best film of the year for me, for a reason that I won't divulge until others have seen it. Suffice to say, Gallo shows things at the end I wish he hadn't (and I'm not talking about the sex scene, which has such a slow and intimate buildup that by the time it happens it feels pretty natural, although no less depressing), but I think it's something pretty special. I'm looking forward to seeing it again.

It's not boring at all -- it felt a lot shorter than 90 minutes. But this is coming from someone who was thrilled by Gerry, so take that as you will. If you're like Matt35mm and are predisposed against the film, you probably won't like it. If you don't like Gallo from what you already know about him, you definitely won't like it.

Full review forthcoming.

So glad that you two have liked it. That beautiful trailer completely hooked me and still leaves me desperately wanting to take the journey. I'm pessimistically awaiting the UK release date. As far as I can tell it hasn't even been submitted to the BBFC yet, which is a shame because I bet they'd be pretty easy-going with it.

Quote from: GhostboyBut this is coming from someone who was thrilled by Gerry, so take that as you will. If you're like Matt35mm and are predisposed against the film, you probably won't like it.

Well, I did say that I'm definitely much more interested in seeing it after reading the Ebert interview, which is the only piece on Gallo or the movie that made it seem like a movie worth watching.  I'll prolly rent it.

Plus, I totally dug Gerry, so I really wasn't worried about the slowness of The Brown Bunny.

It sounds like I probably WILL like the final cut of The Brown Bunny, but I still think that I would HATE the Cannes cut--but that was a rough cut, which is explained very clearly in the interview, and for the first time, I was able to understand what this whole mess was about and how it came to be.  I personally have learned from experience the results of showing people a rough cut of a movie, and how icky that whole process is.  Or how you have to sometimes tack on an ending just to preview it for an audience, and that sort of thing.

So I think there was a good lesson learned here:  Neither Gallo or I should ever show a rough cut of a movie to a public audience again.

i am going to see this movie, but GB why did you have to bring up GERRY!??!

Just for you, my friend, just for you. :wink:

"The Brown Bunny" Climaxes Atop the BOT
Source: indieWIRE

"The Brown Bunny" hopped atop the iW: BOT (indieWire: Box Office Tracker) as ranked on a per screen average basis apparently vindicating, at least initially, a film that was notoriously panned in Cannes of 2003, culminating in a now infamous exchange between its director Vincent Gallo and critic Roger Ebert. Fifteen months later, the two made up, while the feature won converts in pre-launch screenings, and grossed $50,601 on three screens ($16,867 per screen average) amid new controversy that garnered additional media interest after a sexually "explicit" billboard promoting the film went up on the corner of Sunset Blvd. and Crescent Heights in Los Angeles earlier this month.

"We were very happy. We had a lot going against us and our team worked pretty much around the clock for the last few months," commented Wellspring head of distribution, Ryan Werner to indieWIRE yesterday. "Vincent [Gallo] was involved every step of the way, and we were happy it paid off. The Sunshine (in New York) alone did $36,475 over the three-day weekend." Werner went on to say that "it's no secret we played up the controversy," but he commented that he was "happy" a number of critics ended up supporting the film. "Despite all the build-up, we knew in the end the film would have to speak for itself. We were really happy that Roger Ebert also reversed his opinion over the weekend giving the film 'Thumbs Up.'"

Werner also credited the film's performance to a large Gallo fan-base that has grown since the release of his acclaimed "Buffalo '66" in 1998, and what he described as "the real connection between Gallo and people that have shared the experiences he presented in his character" in "Buffalo." "A lot of people wrongly assume that it was just the hipsters that came... [but] it's a bigger array of people than [one] would expect." Gallo's appearance on Howard Stern, and his recent book-signing and two concerts (which he played with Sean Lennon) also raised the film's profile in New York. He will be in Los Angeles for events this week.

Wellspring will open "The Brown Bunny" in Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago this coming weekend, followed by a wider roll-out the following weekend. "We aren't going to open this too wide anywhere," concluded Werner, adding, "We want to keep it in the right theaters and make it an event." He also said he expected the film to be "pretty controversial" anywhere it opens.

i saw this at the landmark sunshine cinema's yesterday here in new york. people started to make weird noises at certain parts of the movie. and with about 20 seconds left in the film, a small asian man wearing a yellow hard hat sat down in the front row and started eating a bannana. as everybody left, he stayed

Quote from: meatwadand with about 20 seconds left in the film, a small asian man wearing a yellow hard hat sat down in the front row and started eating a bannana. as everybody left, he stayed

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanFreudian.

Ebert said:

QuoteTo my shame, I did, but softly and briefly, before my wife dug her elbow into my side.

Not that it matters... but I thought Ebert was gay.  :?:

not all hollywood people are gay. duh.

he got married a little more than 10 years ago, to a chicago attorney.  lemme find a picture.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.criticdoctor.com%2FResources%2Febertfest%2F2002%2Fchaz.JPG&hash=0af79304d3763ac225345ba6f047e67d11c672b7)

she's the one with the flowers on the right.

he likes his women like i like my coffee. sweet.

you like your coffee sweet?  that's gross.

Quote from: ©bradhe likes his women like i like my coffee. sweet.

covered in bees!

Quote from: ©bradnot all hollywood people are gay. duh.

Dude, I don't care how Hollywood you think he is.  I thought he was gay.

Quote from: ©bradnot all hollywood people are gay. duh.

But all Chicagans are.

I thing we're treading into questionable territory here. Let's abandon ship before the homosexuality/wife/"thumbs up" jokes start, eh?

Quote from: ThrindleEbert said:

QuoteTo my shame, I did, but softly and briefly, before my wife dug her elbow into my side.

Not that it matters... but I thought Ebert was gay.  :?:

He may not be gay, but he sure does like lesbians ... and, well, just nekkid women in general.

Pfft.  I don't know about you, but, I HATE lesbians.

Quote from: PwaybloePfft.  I don't know about you, but, I HATE lesbians.

Yeah... like as if it was not hard enough to get some decent chicks, lesbians make it even harder by reducing you possibilities of choice. However, it is hot to watch two women making love. Ebert is definatelly not alone on that

Saw it a second time because Vincent Gallo was attending, bitches.  Still don't want to write anything "official" about the movie but it, like I imagined, is only better with a second viewing.  I really love this film.  Anyway, some stuff about tonight...by the way I haven't read any of the interviews or anything like that so if some of this stuff is repeated in the articles/interviews posted prior, I don't care.

- lots of bitches there that wanted to fuck Gallo... one that was sitting next to me basically passed out during the movie until Gallo pulls his dick out, whereupon many gasps and nudges were heard

- Vincent Gallo hates Wes Anderson (or so I think), and has a mutual friend with him.  Vincent was giving him shit throughout the entire Q & A, first referring to him by his name, followed with "Wes Anderson's friend."  The rest of the night he was known as "Wes' best friend."

- Vincent Gallo announced wholeheartedly that he will never make another movie.

- Apparently, The Brown Bunny started out as a scam to take money from Japanese financiers and get rich.  He said he wrote a 110-page contract in which he established a "broad creative power" that pretty much made him invincible.  He said it was so thorough and elaborate that he could give them a meatball, and that not only would they have to take it, they would have to put it up on a cinema screen for a week in three countries.

- He did, in fact, cum.  Where remains a mystery, but once you've seen the film you'll have a pretty good idea as to the location onto which he came.

- After Gallo was asked, "Did you cum?" he want on for a good five minutes about the nature of the sexuality in the film, capping off a perfect evening.  He's extremely intelligent and very articulate, though he did something I usually don't like directors doing -- this occasion isn't an exception -- and that is explain his movie in a very definitive way.  Afterwards some guy asked him what he should tell his friends to expect from the film (pretty stupid seeing as how he had just come out of it) and Gallo laid it down in black and white, saying that it was a "philosphical" film and not a personal one.

- To make a perfect ending better, Vincent discusses his little feud with our friend Ebert, and basically says everything that Ebert wrote in his article -- okay I lied, I just read THAT one -- and was very lighthearted about the whole situation.  He ends by saying, "This is what Ebert and that half-a-man Roeper said about me to my relatives in Buffalo" and walks up the aisle as the lights dim and curtain opens.  "Ebert & Roeper" is projected onto the screen and everyone laughs at Ebert's review of the film and their mutual criticism of his character.

- A girl flew down from Berkeley to see Vincent Gallo tonight.  I don't know whether to call her dedicated or just stupid, as she was one of the bitches I described in the first "-".  Actually she was one of the two girls sitting next to me... what some girls will do to see dick.

An awesome night... Gallo isn't nearly as egocentric or asshole-ish as he comes off as being.  Fascinating listening to him talk and he's got a great sense of humor.  Really bizarre mannerisms to go along with everything.  And I have to admit that he's incredibly attractive... I'm not gay but I'll admit if a guy's hot or not if necessary, and this is one of those cases....I'm sure I just lost points with some of you.  After the screening Gallo took the time to take pictures, sign autographs, and talk to a bunch of people.  He also checked my friend out.

Everyone, go watch this film.  Whether you react to it with adoration of contempt is a coin toss, but it's a film that demands to be seen in a theater and is worth every red cent.

I think the most fascinating thing about Gallo is the fact that like with his paintings, he's said he's going to stop making films and deprive people of them.  He is good at what he does, so it is a loss, because he has so much potential.  Still can't wait to see this film.

Quote from: samsongAnd I have to admit that he's incredibly attractive... I'm not gay but I'll admit if a guy's hot or not if necessary, and this is one of those cases....I'm sure I just lost points with some of you.

Everytime I try to say something like that, I end up making a bizarre freudian slip.

Anyway, my own review is here. (//www.road-dog-productions.com/brownbunny.html)

I saw Buffalo '66 tonight and dug it.  I think it was the perfect movie to come along at the perfect time in the whole Indie Film world, which is why it's so popular with the Indie Spirit people.  It's actually a good movie, though.

By the way, is it clear by now that I really don't have anything against Gallo (except that he comes off as a jerk in interviews a lot) or the current final cut of The Brown Bunny?  What I am against is using controversial buzz from a rough cut to sell a different cut.  Editing makes too big of a difference and this sounds like an essentially different film now, so comments about the Cannes Brown Bunny simply don't apply anymore--but those comments ARE in the trailer for this final cut of The Brown Bunny.  That was my only problem.

I was definitely skeptical about even this cut of The Brown Bunny, but I was always open to the idea that it could be a good movie now.  At this point, having seen Buffalo '66 and reading a bunch of Gallo interviews, I predict that I would like, but not love, The Brown Bunny.  Plus, I totally sympathize with Gallo in the crap that he's had to deal with from showing a rough cut.  I guess I can't blame him that much about trying to spin it to his advantage.

Holy crap.  I can't believe I read through 17 f*ing pages of discussion before someone actually saw this film!  I saw this last night at the Ken in San Diego. (A great theater by the way.)  I really did like it, but on a very personal level.  The way the world looks through Bud's bug-splattered windshield is exactly how I remember the world looking on insanely long road trips as a kid.  The problem that I really have with this film is that for this one very interesting film we will no doubt be seeing a dozen terribly shitty films imitating it.  Not a criticism of the film, more of the pathetic copycatting of so many indie filmmakers today. (One of which I admittedly am from time to time.)

i don't know much about DVD's, can somebody tell me if this will play in a normal DVD player

http://us.yesasia.com/en/PrdDept.aspx/pid-1003823805/code-w/section-videos/

Quote from: meatwadi don't know much about DVD's, can somebody tell me if this will play in a normal DVD player

http://us.yesasia.com/en/PrdDept.aspx/pid-1003823805/code-w/section-videos/

if you have an all region dvd player, yes.

If your DVD player is not specifically Region-2 or Region Free, which, if you bought it in the U.S. at a consumer electronics store such as Best Buy or Good Guys, it is probably not, then this DVD will not play in your player.

EDIT: Fuck, that sentence got convoluted.

Quote from: Ghostboy
Suffice to say, Gallo shows things at the end I wish he hadn't (and I'm not talking about the sex scene

Like what?

Quote from: samsong
- lots of women there that wanted to fuck Gallo... one that was sitting next to me basically passed out during the movie until Gallo pulls his dick out, whereupon many gasps and nudges were heard

Before I write my own review of this film, I'd like to say that this was true of my audience, too. The woman sitting next to me actually said out loud, "Come on, show me more of that fucking cock, Vincent" at one point during that scene.

SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS, SPOILERS.[/i][/u]

Now. "The Brown Bunny" is unlike any film I've seen in my life. It is beautiful, monotinous, gloomy, disturbing, and, in the end, incredibly moving. In fact, so moving I can add this film to my list of movies that actually make my body ache. I am, of course, referring to the final scene, and not the blowjob, which is depressing too, but Vincent's performance. My new friend and I agreed that the film's little flaws are completely redeemed by the last scene. Vincent Gallo's acting is very good throughout. Bud is nothing like Billy. I was very impressed. The music is lovely and some of the cinematography is gorgeous. (i.e., a fantasy scene of him kissing Chloe.) It is also extremely interesting and never boring. I did not have the urge to sing "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" once during this movie.

I thought one of the strangest parts was the scene where he sits at the table with the sad woman and then makes out with her. And then stands up and leaves. It was so bizarre and yet so wonderful and complicated -- and certainly like nothing I've seen in a film before.

I also enjoyed the way the film began. I love the way he starts off his movies.

There's a scene of Bud talking to Daisy's parents that reminded me of the scenes in Billy's parents' house from Buffalo '66. Especially the look on the father's face.  Aside from this, the look of the film is very different, as well as the story and the characters.

I was kind of looking forward to a shot of a black speck increasing in size and eventually becoming Bud on his motorcycle, but he cut it out, I suppose.

Anyway, one of the five best films of the year, so far, for me. It truly captures the pain of loss.

PS -- funny thing happened. An older couple was sitting a few rows down. As the fellatio scene began, the lady stood up and walked out of the theater. She signaled for her husband to come with her. (They were both in their 70s, I believe.) But he just sat there and watched it without her.

Quote from: samsong- Vincent Gallo announced wholeheartedly that he will never make another movie.

that's what they all say.

Gallo Gets his Groove On
Filmmaker Vincent Gallo, who owns more than 20,000 CD’s and records, sits down with columnist Todd Gilchrist to discuss his latest esoteric soundtrack. Source: FilmStew.com

Last month Vincent Gallo’s controversial film The Brown Bunny finally found its way into theaters, surrounded by the bleating of naysaying critics and the declaration that the only thing worse than its infamous sex scene was the film itself.

Ironically, in the midst of all of the defamatory comments and thorough dismissals given to the film as a whole, most audiences neglected to acknowledge that it possessed one of the most haunting and resonant soundtracks in recent memory; more intriguing is the fact that Gallo did not in fact perform his own score, as in films past, but has created instead an indelible pastiche of ‘60s folk music and original compositions to evoke and enhance the loneliness and introspection captured on screen.

“I’m not coming to create comfort for myself,” Gallo egregiously understates, particularly given his recent and very public excoriation. “I don’t purposely make things hard on myself, but I don’t purposefully make things easy on myself.”

With The Brown Bunny, Gallo ultimately did make one element of the process easier on himself by enlisting Red Hot Chili Peppers guitarist John Frusciante to compose a modest score to accompany his images, and then collected a number of tunes from the likes of Gordon Lightfoot, Jeff Alexander and Jackson C. Frank. The disc, which is currently only available as a Japanese import, provides his viewers with another text to pore over in their deconstruction of the profoundly complex and frequently raw film, and in many ways reveals its purpose - which, as some have claimed - was not to document Gallo getting a hummer from Chloe Sevigny.

As a matter of historical record, Gallo has always performed the scores for his films, even as far back as his independent collaborations in the late 1970’s with the likes of Jean-Michel Basquiat. Most of this music was compiled in 2002 on the Warp Records compilation Recordings of Music For Film, and includes the tracks he did for the most visible of his film efforts, Buffalo ‘66, as well as his series of independent projects that as far as I know never saw significant release.

Exhaustively annotated with background information detailing the filmmaker’s repeated struggles to finish each picture, much less retain control of the final product, the collection is a wonderful companion piece to his equally challenging and obtuse films, and provides much insight into Gallo’s dedication to bygone recording techniques, equipment and expression of his singular vision.

Curiously, although Gallo assembles the tracks by film, they are not in chronological or any other discernible sense of order. His music for 1982'sThe Way It Is, which is described in the liner notes as, ‘Best chronicle of New York City’s Lower East Side circa 1982,’ contains a number of guitar-laden cues, was recorded in eccentric fashion in Gallo’s Elizabeth Street apartment, and feels as fresh as if it were written yesterday; even then, the obtuse writer-director-composer seems to have embraced the sense of longing that pervades his more recent film work.

On tracks like “Her Smell Theme” and “The Way It Is Waltz,” his use of disparate instruments, including bass, clarinet, Mellotron, drums, marimba, saxophone and piano follow in the avant-garde footsteps of ambient music pioneers like Brian Eno, but create a moody, evocative tone that one can only expect might have surpassed the emotional weight of the accompanying film. Stranded alone on this disc, however, it serves the same purpose as, say, Aphex Twin’s Selected Ambient Works Volume Two, and generates a mood in between implacable tones and undefined, irresistible melodies.

Gallo, who spoke to Keeping Score prior to the theatrical release of The Brown Bunny, says he doesn’t enjoy revealing his influences (‘Ask those questions to Quentin,’ he rejoins), but finds inspiration in a certain kinds of aesthetic continuity rather than from a particular record or artist. “I’ve got twenty-some-thousand records,” he says. “I have a really weird range of records, very bizarre, difficult to listen to records, but the things that I like in everything that I like is that there’s a certain musical, melodic nature to everything. There’s a certain sweetness or sentimentality or prettiness to everything I like.”

“I’m more interested in a point of view, and I’m real sensitive to things,” he continues. “Not in a stylistic way, but in an aesthetic way; aesthetic and style are two different things. I’m always attracted to aesthetics, and aesthetics transcend. They can be extremely modern, they can be extremely primitive, but they all have something that appeals to me.”

His predilection for beauty is fully evidenced by the recordings he makes, which despite their eclecticism are never difficult to listen to or sound abrasive. Still, Gallo says that he prefers to find that balance between the salty and the sweet that his unspoken forebears discovered while creating their own works: “Even if I’m listening to avant-garde records, I like the passages that are the sweetest. I especially like them coming off of more difficult passages because they’re moving.”

Buffalo ‘66 is an entity unto itself, not simply because it is the most recognized of Gallo’s films, but because it contains the single greatest cinematic incorporation of prog-rock in the history of the movies. The filmmaker contributed eight original cues for the actual score of the film, but it’s his use of Yes’ “Heart of the Sunrise” (itself a manifestation of that hard-soft combination he clearly favors) that stands out long after the movie has finished, particularly given its use during the climactic strip-club sequence.

Seldom has such a perfect synthesis of sound and imagery been achieved in film screen as with that moment.

Unfortunately, to get the full soundtrack for Buffalo ‘66, including the Yes, King Crimson and Stan Getz songs, one must pick up its individual release rather than the aforementioned Gallo comp, but it’s an investment well worth the money; the counterpoint of original and independently-recorded songs contributes much of the film’s dual sense of intensity and intimacy. “Part of myself is to put myself in a corner and to figure ways out, because it aids in my mind’s ability to reason and problem solve and think things through,” he says of both his film and musical efforts, perhaps suggesting more than he probably realizes about himself.

If one isn’t satiated by these compilations and footnotes to his great cinematic accomplishments, his 2001 album When makes for a more cohesive collection of songwriting, even if “cohesive” for Gallo means his trademark eccentricities applied distinctly to one rather than multiple disciplines (that is, to evoke mood rather than accompany imagery or support visual continuity). Opening with a song called “I Wrote This Song For the Girl Paris Hilton”, the disc quickly establishes that it carries over the same themes of his work - emotional alienation, desperate loneliness, obsession with beautiful women - that run rampant in his films.

Here, tape loops make many of the same accomplishments they did before, but liberated from any kind of film text, their rhythmic repetition is oddly freeing, and generates a series of deeply moving passages that, like he explains above, juxtapose hard and soft elements in such deliberate quantities that the overall piece becomes riveting. Following his ode to Paris, “When,” the title track, reveals the guiding principle of Gallo’s relationships, at least on screen – ‘When you come near to me/ I go away; what is not clear for me/ I go away’ - while most remarkably, the vocal performance upends and at the same time perfectly captures what you would expect from Gallo’s sensitive-poet persona.

Transforming his medium of choice, be it film music or photography, seems to be Gallo’s raison d’être, and his motivation for enduring so many hardships in the name of artistic achievement. But he says that he is merely following in a tradition established many years ago, and which unfortunately far too many talented people never quite learned.

“The Beatles could have never imagined in 1966 what they did in 1969,” he explains, relating a particularly potent example. “They needed to let things go through themselves, they needed to be in the moment to experience those things. At a certain point in their profound success they decided not to collaborate any more, not to compromise with one another, not to share passion with one another, not to be intimidated by other people, not to make themselves available, not to go out, not to read things and get out there. And they withdrew a little bit into this safer environment, and their future work was reflective of that.”

Describing why it is that his music and films ultimately seem to invert the audience’s expectations, much less his own, Gallo says that it’s only when you go beyond yourself that something truly great can be accomplished. “You have these incredible doubts and fears and you take incredible risks, publicly, socially and in your work, but what you accomplish can be remarkable,” he says.

“It’s very hard to accomplish remarkable things when you feel like you’re in control of them, when you pander to them, when you don’t have doubt, when you don’t have fear, when you don’t move out side of yourself. When you don’t blow your own mind.”

I saw it last night and I really, really liked it. I don't understand how people could have booed this movie at cannes. I thought the music was great, Vincent Gallo was really interesting to watch, and the photography was beautiful. I definitely reccomend this movie to anyone who is even the slightest fan of Buffalo 66.

Quote from: samsong- Vincent Gallo hates Wes Anderson (or so I think)

I remember reading an interview with him where he said, "I'll leave people like Wes Anderson and Spike Jonze to play to their audiences," or something along those lines.

Spoilers possible, duh.

I saw this tonight.  Gallo's cock is real, and it's spectacular.  That out of the way, the movie was real, but it wasn't spectacular.  Still, it was incredibly admirable.  The journey Gallo and the viewer go on is worth it for the final fifteen minutes or so in that lonely hotel room.

I was really taken by the structure of the film, the symbolism therein.  These women he meets on his journey are flowers: Violet, Lilly, and Rose.  He's missing Daisy, and this is is search to find her.  Brown bunny: the bunny left behind, the bunny bought, and the bunny vomited up from ingesting too much of a good thing.  And Bud did take in too much of a good thing and now can't seem to get it out of his system.  Things always tend to happen in threes, and this film is no exception.  The rhythm people come to expect, the symmetry of films, is often expressed in threes.

Ultimately this film comes down to a sort of swan song, a sort of way of coping with loss that is universal.  It loses some of its impact because of the immense build up for this "oh, I see" revelation, but I was legitimately moved by it, which speaks at least a little bit for its power.  This is one of those films like Gerry or Songs from the Second Floor, or maybe to a lesser extent Gummo, julien-donkey boy, or Morvern Callar.  It's important because it strives to be more than a conventional film, but it succeeds in doing so, ironically enough, in doing so little.  This minimalist approach is the most admirable thing of all.

well, contrary to wantopia, I thought this movie was horrible.  And I came in with positive expectations despite what is almost unanimous agreement that the movie blows.  I based that on my viewing of Buffalo '66, which this movie has some stylistic resemblance to, and for that I was grateful.  I think B'66 is one of the best independent films made out of the 90's.  

That said, this film is Gallo as if he just got out of film school.  Wantopia thought the "symbolism" was powerful.  I found it trite.  Gallo isn't fooling me with naming the girls after flowers.  It feels like the sort of thing you'd find in a student film.  So does the driving.  It's like Gallo was too afraid to actually make a film here, and took dramatic opportunities and flushed them out to favor some kind of consistent tone he was going for.  An example is the prostitute sequence, where he finally picks one up and then doesn't fuck her!  Already done before, Gallo.  And done better.  Which is a shame, too, because I find Gallo a constantly engaging onscreen presence.  He's interesting to follow, and this movie didn't take the initiative to give us anything.  

The final blowjob scene...it's like the movie, conceptually, began there.  And then Gallo had to figure out a way to legitimize it for audiences.  And he fails totally.  I don't buy his grief, because it just comes too late in the picture.  Seeing his cock certainly didn't add anything, and in some respects its own significance was undermined by what we discover at the end.  Which makes the cock a gimmick, which makes seeing the movie a gimmick.  And he uses music horribly.  They're included when we need to feel something because nothing's happening.  I guess the idea is, the songs all have a nostalgiac, pastoral quality to them that are expressive of memory and remembrance.  Since there's no context assigned to what's on the road, it's just driving, and it's boring.  It just doesn't work the way Gallo thought it might.  

Awful film.  One of the worst I've ever seen.

okay, i don't care what any of you say, i don't think sal liked it very much.

Any word yet on the DVD release? Videoeta has it marked for March.

Quote from: Small Town LonerAny word yet on the DVD release?

I went to DVDaficionado.com and the region 2 release of The Brown Bunny is coming out December 3rd, 2004. It is a japanese studio called kinetique that is releasing it.

Quote from: SiliasRuby

Quote from: Small Town LonerAny word yet on the DVD release?

I went to DVDaficionado.com and the region 2 release of The Brown Bunny is coming out December 3rd, 2004. It is a japanese studio called kinetique that is releasing it.

I think they fronted the money for it too.

Alright...I finally saw this movie. It took me a really long time but I had to get the dvd off ebay (since Gallo has refused so far to have a proper dvd release for the USA). It was really terrific. It was beautifully done and certainly interesting all the way through. The ending really did take me by surprise and it gave me new insight into the main character and what the movie was really about. I loved the look, the music and Gallo's performance (which might have been over-looked). The sex scene itself has made too many headlines and didn't need to be made into such a huge deal. Of course if the movie didn't have that scene, it probably would've been rated PG, as opposed to X. I highly suggest every moviegoer on here sees it as soon as they can.

Quote from: Small Town LonerI highly suggest every moviegoer on here sees it as soon as they can.

will you loan me your copy?  i'll pay the shipping.

Wow, this'll be a good review to read.  I'm betting to you it'll make Gerry look like a masterpiece of cinema.  Still, check it out, maybe you'll actually enjoy it.

The Brown Bunny:  Special Edition DVD includes an hour long discussion between director Vince Gallo and critic Roger Ebert about the film's artistic significance.  Also, Michael Medved joins Gallo on the commentary track.  My favorite line is when Medved says, "Vincent, is that your real cock?  I'm impressed."

Quote from: soixanteThe Brown Bunny:  Special Edition DVD

this has been released?

yeah, in japan. you can get them on ebay.

when did you come back?

Quote from: bonanzatazwhen did you come back?

i didnt. the old cecil is dead. im a new version (actually, more accurately, the old cecil was more of a beta)

Sony has announced the release of The Brown Bunny: Superbit. It will street on 8/16.

how long does it normally take before we know what extras the dvd will have?  i want a commentary!!!

Finally. I've been wanting to see it again lately. I guess it's Superbit status means no extra features. It'd be wonderful if Roger Ebert and Gallo did a commentary track together.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.geocities.com%2Fbonanzataz%2Fbunny.jpg&hash=5c1c5feba70d5e829e7b341a092cafeb5ad72fcd)

GROUP COMMENTARY!

Chloe: wow, vincent, i don't remember your cock being that hard when we were shooting this.
Vincent: Yeah. Big cock, Chloe. Big hard cock, that's what I got, you wanna make somethin' of it?
Chloe: No, Vincent, I didn't MEAN anything by it, but... you know. Big hard cock... that i'mm sucking on.
Ebert: I wish you had more cum in this movie. You missed the big money shot. WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!

Geez, Columbia takes a barebones disc, adds a DTS track to it, and suddenly its "Superbit."

awesome.

20 Minute Vincent Gallo Discussion (32 MB MPG) (http://blogumentary.org/video/vincentgallo.MPG)
Hidden camera, so it's mainly an audio listen.
Source: Blogumentary (http://blogumentary.typepad.com/chuck/2004/08/vincent_gallos_.html)


-


(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chloesevigny.com%2Fchloe_pictures%2Fchloe_pictures_2%2FTheBrownBunnybillbaord.jpg&hash=a66337fbd9f3919c69fde0370362bbea91ee1b3e)

Source: About.com

His Adults Only Film Prompts an Adults Only Discussion

After verifying no one present at this roundtable interview session with reporters was advertising themselves as working for one paper or media outlet while secretly working for another, filmmaker Vincent Gallo got down to the business of discussing his latest film, "The Brown Bunny."

In this interview, Gallo talks at length about taking the film to Cannes, changes that were made to the final cut, the sex scene, and "The Brown Bunny" billboard that he designed for Sunset Blvd., which was taken down less than a week after it went up because of the reaction by some to the advertisment's graphic content.

INTERVIEW WITH VINCENT GALLO:

Is this a different film from the one screened at Cannes?
No, the biggest differences of the movie are as follows: I put a six minute song at the end over black to sort of DJ the crowd out of the theater, to sort of control even the end of the film – meaning the exit of the film. I forgot that people stay and they do these things, but I wanted to control the mood after people digested the film with a song, with a piece of music.

And then I took off about a four minute credit off the beginning of the film, which was the sort of people involved – Kinetique, Wild Bunch, a couple more names. I was trying to sort of settle the audience. I felt that at festivals people – at the big festivals – they really pay attention to the beginning so I put [something] very provocative. You know, the 'University for the Development and Theory of So and So Presents' and I put a big focus thing and a gate thing, because I wanted to make sure everything was perfect, then the film starts.

You took all that down?
All that down. So that's nine minutes of this 25 minute thing. So we're talking about, really, another 15 minutes because I'll tell you, it really was... I really cut about 15 minutes out of the actual movie. And here's what the 15 minutes were: In March when I agreed to go to the Cannes Film Festival, the film was incomplete. It was even incomplete in its shooting. I hadn't shot the last scene of the film, which needed to be shot in late April because the film wasn't supposed to be delivered in January. I had to shoot the last scene in April because it involved a racing scene at Willow Springs Raceway where I was going to go to a race, meet a couple of girls at the racetrack, drive around the track in 1st place at the race, and then deliberately drive off the track into a wall and of course kill myself. Because in the Vincent Gallo world, you have to begin with suicide and then you find a way out of it later on. And that's what I did with "Buffalo 66." Same thing. So I was planning on shooting the scene in April and I needed... To get more time to finish the film, which I needed for reasons I that won't bore you with – they were technical reasons – to do the 16 mm blow up to 35 mm, I wanted to do it non-linear. Digitally but non-linear. The machine hadn't been ever used before and it wasn't ready. Fotokem said it would be ready in April, they changed their minds and said it would be ready in September. So to get that extra time from the Japanese financiers, which was an immediate "No," I negotiated this thing where I would present the film to Cannes. And just by presenting the film to Cannes, they had to give me the six months. If Cannes took the film, I would show it. If they didn't, no problem, I still got the six months.

For some bizarre reason, Thierry Fremaux accepted the film in this extremely – now, by the time it went to Cannes it was much closer to being finished, but the version that I showed Thierry didn't even have the last 40 minutes. I mean, it was just rough sketches of the film. When Thierry said that he was serious about putting the film in Cannes, could I show him at least those last 40 minutes – could I rough them in and show him... The film didn't have to be finished, could I just show him a complete film, I immediately did something that turned out to be the greatest thing because I was stuck on how I would edit that last sequence. I'd been pounding away at the last sequence. And I just roughed through it and then I took sequences that were going to be used for flashbacks – a sort of tumbling van, a bunny in the road, different things that made this ending, this abstract ending of the film. I sent it to Thierry and he calls me up two weeks – three weeks before they were officially supposed to announce films that were being accepted because he knows that for me to complete it now to go to print, he has to tell me early. He leaves a message on my message, "This is Thierry Fremaux. Congratulations, you've been accepted into competition at Cannes." Which is everything that I've dreamed about my whole life up until the day that they rejected "Buffalo 66."

Now the concept of the film festival, I had a whole different perception. The last thing that I wanted was the sickest moment in my life because I was... This is what I said: I'm editing in my house and I checked my messages because the phone had rang a couple times on my cell phone. And I checked my messages and, "Hello, this is Thierry Fremaux. Congratulations..." And I go, "F**k, f**k," and I had an immediate nervous breakdown because I had made this deal with the Japanese and I knew... And I wasn't nervous about showing the film, I was nervous about the amount of work – not being creatively nervous – about the amount of work that I would have to now put towards now creating an unfinished film. I had to do a fake mix off the edit, I had to finish these final editing tweaks, I had to generate credits, I had to put music down, I had to generate a print, I had to color correct the print. It really took me about three weeks, and it took me out of my place.

The good news was I was able to get the financiers to pay for that, and I was able to do some experimentations that would later aid me to complete the film. Things with the mix, I knew for sure the difference between linear and non-linear was a big difference, and now I'd done this blow up from digi-beta and it just looked awful. I hated it. And I was able to see how certain dissolves would play out and I was able to see my six reels put together for the first time.

When you make a film, you can't sit there and watch your film from beginning to end because the phone rings, you want to change something, you take notes – you can't do it. The only way to do it is to organize a screening somewhere for anybody. And you watch it and because there's other people there, you stay quiet. You don't do anything and you feel any doubts you have enhance themselves, anything you like enhances itself. You don't really care what people think. People hated the first screening of "Buffalo 66," or they loved one time a screening when I thought there was still problems with the film. But whatever it does, it brings it out of you. It really does... Most filmmakers do that 100 times. With "Buffalo 66," I went from the rough-cut to the finished film in a few days of editing. I did the same thing with "Brown Bunny." Just a few days of seeing exactly what was wrong.

To answer the question, finally, I cut out a sequence between Utah and Colorado that was about another 7 minutes longer of driving. So from when he gets up in that motel and drives, till he gets into the night and into Bonneville in the morning, there was about 7 more minutes of just landscape and pulling over and putting his sweater on, and washing the car. And when you saw it in the reel on its own, it played beautifully. I will release that reel as a film, as a methodical film of somebody on a journey. It's just beautiful, it just feels so real. In the film, I felt that it distracted from the film's continuity. The film's continuity sort of stalled there for a moment, so I cut that 7 minutes out.

The racing scene used to be another three or four laps longer and I physically couldn't make it shorter for Cannes because I needed this digital technique later on. I needed a higher resolution scan because one of my cameras – if you notice at the opening of the race, there's edge fogging. There's flaring on the edge of the film, sort of distorted film. Then when the bike comes around the first curve, the camera switches to another angle and it stays on that angle the whole time. That's because my camera broke. The side camera broke, that's why it's flaring like that in the first shot of the movie. So I had to use one camera for that whole race. And the way that I made the 15 lap race into an 8 lap race for Cannes, then eventually to a 4 lap race for the final movie, was by high-res scanning and moving in and doing a sort of seamless jump cut. So the race was 4 minutes longer. The Utah scene was 7 minutes, and then there was... I cut one other thing. Oh, the end. I cut off the end. I cut out the fake, ridiculous end.

Do you think it's a better movie?
There's one cut of "Buffalo 66" that's 18 seconds longer. I almost locked picture, then I just made one more pass through the film and took out 18 seconds. I can't bear the 18 second longer version of the film. I can't bear it. It's gloomy, it kills me. It's like a million pins poking me. However, if you saw the 20 minute longer version of "Buffalo 66," you would have basically the same reaction to the movie. Some people might argue that there was more there that you'd have missed. If you saw the released version, there would be things that you'd miss. I think that the finished version of "Brown Bunny" is exactly what I wanted it to be. If I go back and look at the rough cut, it would seem... It would irritate me on some level. Unfortunately, once people get to see it that way, they always tell you what they missed.

If people are only focused on the controversial issues surrounding this movie, especially on the graphic sexual issues, what are they missing?
They're missing what children miss when they're in a car traveling to a place they want to go. They're missing the experience of getting there. They're missing all the beautiful things that are happening on their way there, and they're missing the continuity of what the entire trip as a whole means to them. So they're missing things the way adolescents miss things. If you look at that film without prejudice or hearsay or, even worse, suspicion about why it was made and what my intentions were to make it, then you become unaware of the multi-complex innuendos, narrations, aesthetics, and sensibilities, and concepts, and nuances, and melodramas that happen along the way.

I'm more attracted to the first part of the film than I am the last part of the film. The last part of the film works juxtaposed against the first part of the film, but it's a more conventional... It becomes slightly more conventional. The part of the film that really engages me, the most beautiful scene in the movie to me is the scene between Cheryl Tiegs and I. I think what people miss if they put focus on the part of the film that they deem exploitive or titillating, they miss the film as a whole. And they certainly misinterpret the scene that encompasses them.

You had that scene blown up on a billboard on Sunset Blvd. That's a conscious choice in marketing the film and the marketing campaign of 'the most controversial American film ever made,' it's going to define the movie. People can't help but go into the movie thinking about that.
Well, I'll respond to that simply by saying I've made six posters for the movie. I've done all the synopsis, all the trailers, everything. And the line 'controversy' had nothing to do with the sex, it had to do with Lisa Schwarzbaum and people saying it was the worst movie ever made. It wasn't an address to sexuality.

All the other pamphlets and formatting and imagery and text that I presented about the movie is highly intellectualized, highly conceptual, extremely discreet, and extremely conceptual in its aesthetics - in direct relationship to the film itself. The billboard on Sunset Blvd. was a much more broad concept for me. I designed it, I choose it, I paid for it. Okay. It happens in these ways: First of all, it's the dream of my life since I'm a teenager to have a billboard on Sunset Blvd. because when I'm in LA I don't watch TV, I don't read the newspaper, I don't listen to the radio. I only know about contemporary culture by broad advertisements. But I felt, first of all just as a person, it was a dream sort of to be able to have a billboard and to be able to pick what it was. That said, the billboard itself whatever boldness it has, whatever appeal it had, the intentions were that the appeal would be aesthetic and intellectual. I mean, the only people who would respond to that billboard in a way where they really understood the sensibility of that billboard would be people who were evolved on some level. That was not a mainstream provocateur. I mean, across the street you'd have a Calvin Klein ad where the girl is fisting the boy and her boob is out, and she's dripping. Mine is in black and white – you can't really see anything. There's no boobs, there's no nipples, there's nothing. It's done in a blown out half-tone. The whole billboard has no corporate names, it has no quotes from festivals. It has nothing. It's done in a style or a tradition of classic adult cinema and the reference is that this film is A) an event – that those actors are substantial. And the purpose was to take away the marginal perception of the film. If people think that this is an art film, it's offensive to me. They think it's a self-indulgent, narcissistic film with a sex act. It's offensive to me.

I was trying to give imagery that would relate to the other corporate advertisements to suggest that the film had a corporate element, or that it was... Certainly that it was not marginal and it was not 'artistic' in the classic sense. It was bigger than that. It transcended the Sundance Film Festival, or just the American film with the European ending – or something like that. I didn't want anything like that and I didn't want the hearsay to continue without addressing it. I wanted to show that the film was provocative, that it was in this tradition of adult cinema – "Last Tango," "Midnight Cowboy," whatever. But I wanted to do it on my own terms. I wanted to use provocative images that were beautiful, dramatic, aesthetic, clearly outside of mainstream eroticism.

That billboard was taken from a still from the only version of the film that was censored for the Japanese market only. And that particular still was used in a film that could play to 12 year-old children and up. So what was suggestive and provocative about that billboard was the boldness of the black and white, the gigantic white space, the huge font, and the huge area that said "In Color – X Adults Only." It was done clearly to up the ante on a creative level, not up the ante on a provocative level.

Why did you make the second half of the movie, if it's the first half that's more where you were going?
I didn't say that I was going for the first half. You said that. I said that the second half and the first half work together well. The first half is more reflective of my...a stronger reflection of my sensibility. But the film as a whole works juxtaposed together. That's what I said.

I guess the question is why does it have to go there?
Why don't you just get to the point and just say why did I use sex in the movie? Why ask it in a vague way? Why don't you just ask me the same dumb question? You saw the film.

I was trying to ask it in the artistic context.
I'm not an artist. I mean, why ask me in the artistic context? I'm not an artist. I have never said once here today that I was an artist. I've not given you the impression that I feel entitled as an artist, or that I'm doing things purposely to be avant-garde or to be marginal.

I'm moving toward love and hope and beauty. I'm always doing things that I'm assuming are beautiful and that a lot of people will find beautiful. I'm disappointed and surprised when people don't find my idea of beauty beautiful. I'm surprised, basically surprised.

I'm not shooting for marginal levels. I'm not shooting to do marginal work. And I'm not motivated by provocative reactions. I mean, to make a movie takes years. I don't know what you do with your time and how hard you work on your work, but I don't think you'd sit there and write for three and a half years and give up your house and your career and your money and you'd go bald and go gray and have your prostate blow up, just to provoke people. I think you'd have to be motivated by things that were really part of your interest, what you found beautiful. And to respond to the sex scene to somebody who's seen the movie in that way, just blows my mind.

I'm using traditional iconic images. Pornography is the ability for somebody to have enhanced sexual pleasure or sexual fantasy free from responsibility, guilt, insecurity, consequence, etc. etc. What I've done is taken those icons of pornography and juxtaposed them against responsibility, insecurity, resentment, hate, greed, mourning - together. There's no way to separate them in my film. There's no way to look at that scene and be titillated or sexually aroused. People who get off on pornography are revolted just by the kissing scenes because they can't take the level of intimacy and complex issues surrounding intimacy in that film. The graphic images are used to enhance those sequences.

It's like none of the things that I've ever done in my life have been self-glorifying – ever. Everything that I do is for personal sacrifice. I sleep on a miserably uncomfortable horrible bed because it looks good. For 25 f***ing years I sleep on that horrible bed with that Amish quilt because it looks good. I do everything in my life because I believe... I don't give a f*** about my body, about myself, about my face, about my reputation, about anything to do with my career. I put the focus on things that I think are important and beautiful. And they transcend me. And my work is much more interesting than me.

To call that film narcissistic or self-indulgent because I multi-task? Do you think it's fun to work without an assistant? Do you think it's fun to work without support, a production office? To sit there in a f***ing van with three guys, driving through the desert? A van packed with camera equipment that I have to unload every day, that I have to fix every day, that I have to reload into the van because God forbid one of them should lift one f***ing case on the film? Do you think that was self-indulgent?

Matthew McConaughey does 600 pushups before he does his shirtless scene. I haven't even worked with a f***ing make-up person in films. You think I made myself look great? Do you think it's fun to show your c*** in a film for ten billion to scrutinize for eternity? Do you think I get off on that? I was interested in the film for the purpose of the film, and I moved past my insecurities, my self-doubt, my self-hate, my incredible privacy that I value. I pushed that aside to achieve the goals that I had in the movie. And I think they're very clear in the film. I think if you see that film, it's clear that my intentions were to create disturbing effects around intimacies – both metaphysical and personal intimacies with this character's life.

Do I have a big ego? Yes, because I think I know what's the most beautiful. Am I difficult to work with? Yes, I'm an a**hole. I'm screaming at everybody all the time. Am I controlling? Yes. Am I a narcissist? Please, I don't even have a f***ing mirror in my house. Give me a break, give me a break. Narcissist?

I didn't call you a narcissist.
No, but that's what is said all the time and that's what's meant when people ask me why I need the sex scene. I don't need the sex scene in the film, because I didn't need to make the film. But that film includes that sex scene. That film as a whole includes that sex scene. It's not a separate part. It's not a choice. Does Robert Redford wear the mustache in "Butch Cassidy," or doesn't he? That's a choice. This film exists as a whole. I don't compartmentalize the movie like that.

The whole scene involves hyper-intimacy, hyper-focus. You can barely hear them talk sometimes. They're barely whispering. You're constantly left feeling that you're left watching something that you shouldn't be watching, because you're not supposed to watch sexuality, really, in a sense. Because you're supposed to fill your mind with sexuality when you're having sex. My character in "The Brown Bunny" cannot fill his mind with sexuality. He cannot because he's filled with fear, grief, anger, and resentment, and that's a very unusual portrayal of male sexuality. I've never seen it before. It's not influenced by "Two Lane Blacktop" or some other stupid movie because it had a car in it. It's insight that I felt that I had into pathological behavior that I think is common now.

People are extremely compulsive-addictive in the way that they get together. They act out in these ways in grief that I think are extreme. My character seems like a sociopath in this film but he's very ordinary, and his experience is very ordinary. And I'm sorry that there's so much focus at arriving at this scene. It was not my intention. I didn't think that people would go see the movie and be so enthusiastic to see a blow job that they would ignore a whole film. I didn't want the film ever to be presented that way because I thought we would just release it in another quieter way. Once it blew up...

I made that billboard on Sunset Blvd. I thought that billboard was the most beautiful billboard I'd ever seen in my life. I thought it was unique billboard in the fact that it wasn't done in the conventional protocol of advertising where a whole bunch of people come in and put their name, and you have to make everybody happy in the film. It was just nice to see something where one person was able to create a more stark, bold billboard. I'm disappointed that I never actually got to see it in person. Very disappointed because they f***ing took it down before I got here.

You never saw it?
No. I was in New York when the billboard went up.

Who took it down?
Regency. The people at Regency, without saying anything. And the publicist had said to me that the controversy had started coming around the billboard. I thought people would freak out at the billboard – I didn't see it as a smut thing – I thought they would freak out by the style. I'm always in my own...I'm thinking, "Wow, this is so beautiful. I mean, look it. No company names, just this big thing. I hope other actors and directors get off this billing block and this crap. It's so great to see graphic design without all these things that you have to pander to."

And then, you know, the publicist calls me, "The New York Times saw the billboard and they want to talk to you about it." I'm like, "Oh no." And I said to her, I said, "Listen. Let's not talk to anybody because they're going to wind up taking it down." "Oh no, they can't take it down because you have a contract." I said, "I'm just afraid they're going to take it down. Please, I want to get to LA. I want to see my billboard. I want to see my billboard before it gets taken down." Then when I was in Chicago, going from Chicago to Minneapolis, somebody calls me and says, "Your billboard's down." I found out the billboard had been taken down without any explanation. There [were] no riots. You couldn't see anything.

Look at advertisements now. Look at CK, look at Gucci, I mean, please! People like porn and eroticism. They don't like black and white duotones. They want to see clean, healthy, young flesh. Do you think if you were a porno connoisseur that billboard would have turned you on? There wasn't enough there. It looked like a romance novel cover more than anything else. There was clear hints of sexuality. The postures were clearly dramatic and clearly intimate. It was suggestive that the film was sophisticated in another way. And that's all. That was the point.

The people who responded to it the most, the people who called me up who have the most evolved taste of my friends, liked that more than anything that I've ever done. But they didn't like it in that way. They liked the boldness of it. They liked the whole odd nature.

Quote from: Vincent GalloI'm not an artist. I mean, why ask me in the artistic context? I'm not an artist. I have never said once here today that I was an artist. I've not given you the impression that I feel entitled as an artist, or that I'm doing things purposely to be avant-garde or to be marginal.

I'm moving toward love and hope and beauty. I'm always doing things that I'm assuming are beautiful and that a lot of people will find beautiful. I'm disappointed and surprised when people don't find my idea of beauty beautiful. I'm surprised, basically surprised.

I love Gallo, but he is so full of shit.

no more or less than everyone else

Quote from: Walrus...

Quote from: Vincent GalloI'm not an artist. I mean, why ask me in the artistic context? I'm not an artist. I have never said once here today that I was an artist. I've not given you the impression that I feel entitled as an artist, or that I'm doing things purposely to be avant-garde or to be marginal.

I'm moving toward love and hope and beauty. I'm always doing things that I'm assuming are beautiful and that a lot of people will find beautiful. I'm disappointed and surprised when people don't find my idea of beauty beautiful. I'm surprised, basically surprised.

I love Gallo, but he is so full of shit.

Elaborate, please.

Well, first off, he keeps saying how he's not an artists, he just tried to convey his emotions in a way other people will find entertaining and if they don't, then he feels insulted... Isn't that every artist? I mean, usually an artist makes their work, and is satisfied with creating, but if no one likes it, or a very select few likes it, most artists don't shrug it off and say "Happens."  Eventually we all reach that point, but at first we're pretty bitter, or at least confused as to why no one liked it, since it make perfect sense to us.

Buffalo '66 and Brown Bunny were pretty stylized, and were very good films.  Why does he have to establish this facade and say he's not an artist?

Quote from: flagpolespecialwonder what the artwork will look like.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers4%2Fbrownbunnysuperbitdvd.jpg&hash=675d2f439ca06c84ed067b83752c6ec27430129d)

Quote from: WalrusWell, first off, he keeps saying how he's not an artists, he just tried to convey his emotions in a way other people will find entertaining and if they don't, then he feels insulted... Isn't that every artist? I mean, usually an artist makes their work, and is satisfied with creating, but if no one likes it, or a very select few likes it, most artists don't shrug it off and say "Happens."  Eventually we all reach that point, but at first we're pretty bitter, or at least confused as to why no one liked it, since it make perfect sense to us.

Buffalo '66 and Brown Bunny were pretty stylized, and were very good films.  Why does he have to establish this facade and say he's not an artist?

I don't neccessarily agree with this evaluation.


From what I've read of Gallo (which is far from extensive) I don't get the same sense that you do regarding his demeanor of self-image and his work.

From what I've read Gallo has stated that he doesn't regard himself as a "film director". I haven't heard him disregard the label of an artist.

I think by denouncing the label of a "film director" he is simply saying that most people's ideas and perception of a director is not what he embodies. Further more film is not his only expressive pursuit.

He is not a student of cinema, he does not actively stay educated with film work or movements, he is not well versed in the theories or traditions of cinema. Rather he is concerned with using film or movies, if you will, as a tool to express and moreso explore images and textures that HE is intersted in.

I don't get the sense that he contemptous or inescure about what others think. he seem to have a very blunt and pragmatic response to negative opinions of his film. He clearly states that he explores stories or tones or ideas that interest him. He accepts and understands that the way in which he executes those said stories may very well leave some viewers stranded. Especially viewers that go into the film with expectations of form or structure; i.e mainstream movie conventions that Gallo himself is not concerened with.

If viewers go into a film with expectations that are not met and in return lead to a dissapointing experience, that is accepted and understood to be realtive to one's experience. Just as with any art.

Maybe I should read more of his interviews and what not...

Best movie of 2005. I'm probably getting it the day the DVD gets released here.

Quote from: stitchmark.Best movie of 2005.

I hope you're not serious.

Perhaps he lives in Brazil.

the dvd's gonna suck ass if it's just the movie and the movie alone.
it'll actually make me angry.

Yeah, i hope it includes blowjob bloopers!!!

"My Eye!" :wink:

Quote from: stitchmark.Best movie of 2005.

i could agree with him.  maybe.

Quote from: Myxomatosis

Quote from: stitchmark.Best movie of 2005.

I hope you're not serious.

Why wouldn't I be?

Quote from: noyesthe dvd's gonna suck ass if it's just the movie and the movie alone.
it'll actually make me angry.

Aw, is it really? Fuck.

Quote from: stitchmark.

Quote from: Myxomatosis

Quote from: stitchmark.Best movie of 2005.

I hope you're not serious.

Why wouldn't I be?

Because, unless you live in Brazil, The Brown Bunny was released in 2004.

Quote from: Hedwig

Quote from: stitchmark.

Quote from: Myxomatosis

Quote from: stitchmark.Best movie of 2005.

I hope you're not serious.

Why wouldn't I be?

Because, unless you live in Brazil, The Brown Bunny was released in 2004.

Oh shit, my bad. Sorry. I ment 2004. Wow, I feel like an idiot.

of any year this decade, really...

i plan on buying this soon when it comes out b/c this an aelexander were two of the worst reviewed films of the past year and when i got alexander i tought it was damn good..so, i figured i give this a shot.....but my question is:

i know that gallo gets his cocked sucked by chloe...but does he give her a facial or does she swallow ...or do they cut away before he releases.....thnaks..

Swallow, he puts it back in his pants pretty abruptly and i don't remember seeing any cum, so...yeah :yabbse-lipsrsealed:

It's a pretty awful blowjob. It was still good though.

Quote from: StefenIt's a pretty awful blowjob. It was still good though.

yeah Gallo said his idea was to make it a very disturbing scene and not be stimulating or even erotic in any way. there was a point behind the whole scene.

spoils/////


-elephant and gerry were just as boring if not more boring then this...i liked this one better than both
-i liked the music
-yeah, that dick sukign thing was like my porno shit
-i liked the ending...it packed/resonated more of a punch than alo tof films that i have seen

sorry, for the shitty review

yeah a lot of this was really amateurish and not really good and then the last 20 minutes were really intriguing.  but perhaps thats a side effect of extreme boredom and nothing happening is when ANYthing happens, you sit up and take notice.  other than that, this film could've been a great 30 minute short.  had they taken the first hour and 10 minutes and condensed it into 10 minutes and then let the end play as it did, yeah that could've been something.  but you know, it was mostly a waste of time.  and seems like gallo moved backwards from buffalo almost de-evolved.  whatever.

Quote from: Finnyeah Gallo said his idea was to make it a very disturbing scene and not be stimulating or even erotic in any way.

i would say he failed.  the scene starts off not-erotic, becomes erotic and then becomes un-erotic again.  just like real life.

This movie blew my mind.

I thought it'd be hard to top Buffalo '66, and I was right.  The two films weren't that closely related at all.  They had similar moods, but wouldn't be compared if not for the director/writer/producer/star/editor Vincent Gallo.

SPOILERS


I could see how this would be seen as boring... but this movie was so true to what it was about.  The long car rides were perfect to me.  They helped enforce the loneliness and time to think about something too much. I love how each of the girls he met up with had a theme among them to somehow help Bud connect them in his mind... sort of a revenge on Daisy and yet surviving her memory through them.

I also really liked the fact that he rode a motorcycle, but kept it in a van and drove the van.  I could be reading too far into it, but it seemed like he had something that he could use, but held it inside what he decided to use, almost as some sort of facade, which incidentally confined him to some sort of progressive movement.  Instead of freely riding his bike, he was holed up in a car and used that instead.  So when he decided to get his bike out and ride it in the salt flats, it was like a moment of liberation.

The blowjob was longer than expected, but quickly deglamourized.  I love the relationship he had with Daisy (though it may have just been in his head) how he wouldn't reply unless he felt like it, and was very introverted, but when she went down on him he got really mean and kept asking about the guys she fucked and how she's a whore, and immediately after he finished, he was even colder than before.  

I also loved the ending completely.  The whole movie was Bud alone, serene, and then the story hits you all at once and shows his reactions.  It just seemed so great to show how he held it all in and then let it all out in one moment, and again repressed it all out.

Quote from: Brown WalrusThis movie blew my mind.

amateur/bad acting and camerawork
threadbare 'story' to guide 70 aimless minutes until reveal of plot device
real blowjob

which blew your mind?

Quote from: petey'all made me sad.

Quote from: modage

Quote from: Brown WalrusThis movie blew my mind.

amateur/bad acting and camerawork
threadbare 'story' to guide 70 aimless minutes until reveal of plot device
real blowjob

which blew your mind?

Bad acting and camerawork?  First off, I'd have to doubt you'd seen anything like what happened to Bud Clay in the movie.  To me, the camerawork was unconventional and turned out beautiful.  The movie itself is raw because it's pure emotion.  The camera moves like it's hand held, as if you're there.  This helps because a lot of the movie requires you to be there.  This movie is more like the display of real situations, rather than focusing on cinematic aesthetics, which in turn, turned out even more cinematic... a very original approach, in my opinion.  

The shots behind his head or when people obstructed the view didn't come off as pretentious to me, but more real.  There was never a point in the movie when anything was confusing, or someone prevented you from seeing what was happening.  The kissing was heard, the movements were real, you knew they were happening, and yet... you didn't need to see it. No other camerawork could've captured the emotions like this.

And about the 70 minutes leading up to the "plot device..." The driving was Bud's solitude, his loneliness.  Everytime he "cheated" on Daisy, it was harder for him.  He actively picked up Violet, it was more mutual with Lilly and he had second thoughts about Rose, and didn't even kiss her.  This drive gave him time to think.  Which again, we feel, but don't see or hear.  

The real blowjob was instrumental to the movie, too.  It was graphic, intense, gritty.  It's how he began to look at love after such a long drive, so much time to think made him look at sex as a bleak device of relieving aggression.

Quote from: Brown WalrusTo me, the camerawork was unconventional and turned out beautiful.  The movie itself is raw because it's pure emotion.  The camera moves like it's hand held, as if you're there.  This helps because a lot of the movie requires you to be there.  This movie is more like the display of real situations, rather than focusing on cinematic aesthetics, which in turn, turned out even more cinematic... a very original approach, in my opinion.

does it sound like bullshit when you say this cause it reads like you're making excuses for Gallo here.  so bad acting makes it more real?  there is nothing 'original' about this movie that wasnt original 35 years ago.  thats the problem with movies like this.  they're trying to recapture something that might've been really original for its time by imitating a style of movie from the past.  i don't think he has added anything signifigant here.  

Quote from: Brown WalrusNo other camerawork could've captured the emotions like this.

seriously, do you believe yourself?  you cant make a realistic movie about loneliness with good camerawork?  this could've been a very boring reality show called Gallo Across America.  

Quote from: Brown WalrusAnd about the 70 minutes leading up to the "plot device..." The driving was Bud's solitude, his loneliness.  Everytime he "cheated" on Daisy, it was harder for him.  He actively picked up Violet, it was more mutual with Lilly and he had second thoughts about Rose, and didn't even kiss her.  This drive gave him time to think.  Which again, we feel, but don't see or hear.

was it neccesary to experience this in real time?  is it not possible to infuse these interactions with any interesting elements or life?  atleast chloe's scene had a bit of drama after all that.  the movie would've been worse had there been more interesting elements?  it HAD to be tedious to be good?  plus, its funny you've actually remembered/written their names as if they were actual characters instead of plot devices to show bud's refusal to 'cheat'.  they couldn't have been more 2D than if they were drawn by hand.  

Quote from: Brown WalrusThe real blowjob was instrumental to the movie, too.  It was graphic, intense, gritty.  It's how he began to look at love after such a long drive, so much time to think made him look at sex as a bleak device of relieving aggression.

don't give Gallo so much credit.  the movie is a few insert shots away from hipster porn.  had he added a few sex scenes with all the girls he met along the way he could show it in art houses and porno theatres.  and i still havent heard a good reason for the real blowjob.  you're telling me the scene wouldn't have worked just the same if it had been 'acted' and shot from behind?  sitting through an hour of gallo driving isnt good storytelling.  if he couldnt figure out a more interesting way to show loneliness and isolation he really doesnt deserve the praise your trying to heap on him.  perhaps Gallo should've left in the 20 minutes of him washing his car so you can look further into how that relates to the story as well.  at what point does it become giving him too much credit?  YES, an idea was there, but NO it wasn't executed very well.  like i said, perhaps had it been edited down to 30 minutes he could've had something good as the end of the movie did seem to spring to life, but if the ONLY way to get there was to suffer with Gallo through the tedious 70 minutes?  i dont think so.

Quotedoes it sound like bullshit when you say this cause it reads like you're making excuses for Gallo here. so bad acting makes it more real? there is nothing 'original' about this movie that wasnt original 35 years ago. thats the problem with movies like this. they're trying to recapture something that might've been really original for its time by imitating a style of movie from the past. i don't think he has added anything signifigant here.

I know it's not original that holding the camera to add real time is done, but I guess I was thinking in terms of some of the shots.  Very obstructed, not completely visible, but not in a horrible way.  I didn't perfectly answer to your "bad acting" call originally.  So I will now.  I didn't find the actign to be bad.  Maybe a bit sterile, but it fit.  These are the characters Gallo uses for his films to set the tones.  As we see, the girls names being flowers, people who are generally quiet, Gallo uses characters in a bit of a static way to show it's more about the situations, rather than the development of the characters, as if it were an exploitation film.  That's not an excuse, that's just what's important to Gallo.  He wants to convey a message more than personal change.  However, we do see a lot of getting in touch with Bud through the car ride that we become sympathetic, and in a sense, more receptive to want to find out why he acts so sporadically... so in love with a woman that he cheats on her, and doesn't respond to her when she talks to him, etc.

Quoteseriously, do you believe yourself? you cant make a realistic movie about loneliness with good camerawork? this could've been a very boring reality show called Gallo Across America.

I didn't say that you can't make a good movie about loneliness with good camerawork, but this movie was perfect the way it was filmed.  The camera moved, we moved with it. In this film, it really pulled the audience into the movie, as Bud never stopped thinking, the camera doesn't sit still.

Quotewas it neccesary to experience this in real time? is it not possible to infuse these interactions with any interesting elements or life? atleast chloe's scene had a bit of drama after all that. the movie would've been worse had there been more interesting elements? it HAD to be tedious to be good? plus, its funny you've actually remembered/written their names as if they were actual characters instead of plot devices to show bud's refusal to 'cheat'. they couldn't have been more 2D than if they were drawn by hand.

The movie had a build up, time for Bud to think.  It was very quiet, very reserved, much like Bud.  It was lonely, and then when he confronts Daisy, he's more verbal, he recounts the story to himself, we finally see what he's thinking, and we see why it forced him to be so quiet.  We experience his trauma and see what caused him to be so solemn.  

The movie was a bit unconventional in the sense that it spent so much time providing insight into Bud's life, without saying a word, and then saying it all in one block.  If you tried to do detective work throughout the movie, you'd get bored.  You're not supposed to be able to assume the movie, you're supposed to feel the atmosphere, so when it happens, you're more understanding of it, it hits you harder.

Quotedon't give Gallo so much credit. the movie is a few insert shots away from hipster porn. had he added a few sex scenes with all the girls he met along the way he could show it in art houses and porno theatres. and i still havent heard a good reason for the real blowjob. you're telling me the scene wouldn't have worked just the same if it had been 'acted' and shot from behind? sitting through an hour of gallo driving isnt good storytelling. if he couldnt figure out a more interesting way to show loneliness and isolation he really doesnt deserve the praise your trying to heap on him. perhaps Gallo should've left in the 20 minutes of him washing his car so you can look further into how that relates to the story as well. at what point does it become giving him too much credit? YES, an idea was there, but NO it wasn't executed very well. like i said, perhaps had it been edited down to 30 minutes he could've had something good as the end of the movie did seem to spring to life, but if the ONLY way to get there was to suffer with Gallo through the tedious 70 minutes? i dont think so.

I disagree that it wasn't executed well.  In 30 minutes, we would've lost a lot of the isolation.  The point of being alone is that it isn't so easy to end.  It isn't over when you want it to be.  It went on for 70 minutes because it will get uncomfortable and you will have to deal with it.  Like watching an unglamorous blowjob.  You just hope it'll end soon because you're not getting anything out of it but uncomfortable, when in fact, it's a very powerful moment for Bud.

So it doesn't make it a bad movie that you found it boring as hell.  This film is very true to absolute lonliness.  If you've ever been on a really long drive alone, or had to deal with a similar situation, you'd be able to relate.  The fact that you can't relate shouldn't detract from the quality of the film, just your experience of it.

you are going to LOVE Broken Flowers.

Then I guess I'll have to check it out.

I just saw this and loved it.  That being said, I can totally understand why someone would hate it.  

Definitely one of the all-time classic dividers.

Quote from: Weak2ndActDefinitely one of the all-time classic dividers.

oh hell yeah, right up there with

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.petrusgallery.net%2FRoom%2520Dividers%2FWood%2520Divider.jpg&hash=11c3d3354f69df706baae7cac9967b43bce0842f)

hahaha there used to be one of those here at home, now it's in the garbage

Just finished it and loved it. Like most, i thought the last 20 minutes were best and i did like all the driving around as well... not as good as '66 but it was good all 'n all...

liked:
The look of it all
Music
Violet

disliked:
Dialogue audio *gave up and watched it with subtitles
Lily

Won:
that even in a fantasy with the one true love of his life, it was still just an ugly little blowjob and not earthshaking "love-making" with roses, slo-mo and all that other hollywood jive...





Is the phrase "All in All" or "All and All" ?

Quote from: modage

Quote from: Brown WalrusNo other camerawork could've captured the emotions like this.

seriously, do you believe yourself?  you cant make a realistic movie about loneliness with good camerawork?  this could've been a very boring reality show called Gallo Across America.  

He's right, the camer work is amazing in this movie. The first time I saw it in the theaters, they projected it in a straight 1:33:1 ratio, so that it didn't completely fill the screen, and it was just wonderful.

The thing that sticks in my mind the most about this film is everything but the last twenty minutes. Not that I really have a problem with the last twenty minutes...but it really strikes me as amazing how Gallo earns the right to that ending by spending the first hour of the film the way he does.

Finally saw Brown Bunny.  It is in the vein of Gerry and Elephant.  Lots of movement through space.  It was an exercise in minimalism.  I love the shot in which he drives his motorcycle in the desert toward the horizon, and the motorcycle seems to float in a mirage.

I found the film's contemplative pace mesmerizing.  I felt the final scene with Chloe was the least interesting, because everything was finally explained.

I loved the way Gallo framed the shots.  He did all sorts of daring things with the cinematography.

The scene with Cheryl Tiegs was mesmerizing.  

This film reminded me of a Hemingway short story, Big Two-Hearted River, in which a World War I veteran goes fishing and camping, and the entire story focuses on all the minute details of the woods, the river, and fishing, and the trauma of war is never mentioned, just implied.

Am I the only one that LOVED Gerry and thought this film didn't quite work?

I just saw this with a group in a weekly movie night thing.

Having followed the buzz on the film when it premiered at Cannes, even after knowing that it was re-cut, I didn't expect to like it.  That said, I was the only one in the group that liked it.  Everybody else hated it.  They thought it was a joke or something.

Although not perfect, it was surprisingly effective, and deserved a larger release.  The ending worked for me.  The way the dialogue was done in the end felt real to me, which I think was key for its resonance.

I think the cinematography worked in the context of the film.  It can be called amatuerish, and true, it was not done with all that much skill (although the ideas behind the shots were good, with things like focusing on the background instead of him and certain framing choices).  I don't think this film would've worked as well with "better" cinematography, for this cinematography benefitted the texture of this movie.

It worked on a very personal level.  If one doesn't make a personal connection with what's on screen, it gives you little else to enjoy.  That's part of what would justafiably frustrate many viewers, because then it really it just a movie where a dude drives around and get a blowjob at the end, with bizarre moments along the way.  So yes, easy to see why it can be hated, and I felt surprisingly connected to it.

This was insanely boring....

I haven't seen Gerry but Elephant wasn't like this. The only other time I felt so annoyed by a "contemplative" pace like this was with "L'Humanité", another piece of shit pretending to be interesting with long, never ending takes of air.

This is the kind of movie you can watch, feel sleepy, fight it for a while, finnally give in to it, wake up and discover you're still watching the same shot. And it just doesn't do it for me....

Some said back a few pages and is right about how this is nothing new or "different"...it was new maybe 40 years ago, and now is just a bore...

And is not bad acting as much as it is lazy acting:

"you don't love me"
"yes i do"
"no you don't"
"yes, i've always loved you"
"you're lying"
"it's true"
"you don't love me"
"yes baby"

i mean please...this is what happens when you put two amateur actors to improvise...Gallo gets way too much credit...

Quote from: Alexandro
"you don't love me"
"yes i do"
"no you don't"
"yes, i've always loved you"
"you're lying"
"it's true"
"you don't love me"
"yes baby"

i mean please...this is what happens when you put two amateur actors to improvise...Gallo gets way too much credit...

I don't think that was improvised.  It felt very specific to me.

Alexandro, I'd have to disagree with that piece of dialogue you chose being bad.

It was that kind of moment when Bud just needed to vent, and Daisy was the kind of person to just listen and walk him through it.  He'll say whatever he wants, and she'll do her best to let him know he's loved, she was trying to help him feel better.

That scene felt very real, very honest to me.

Quote from: matt35mmHaving followed the buzz on the film when it premiered at Cannes, even after knowing that it was re-cut, I didn't expect to like it.  That said,

Quote from: modagea lot of this was really amateurish

Quote from: Hedwigbut

Quote from: w a l r u sturned out beautiful.

Quote from: matt35mmI think the cinematography worked in the context of the film.  It can be called amatuerish, and true, it was not done with all that much skill (although the ideas behind the shots were good, with things like focusing on the background instead of him and certain framing choices).  I don't think this film would've worked as well with "better" cinematography, for this cinematography benefitted the texture of this movie.

Quote from: modagethe movie is a few insert shots away from hipster porn

Quote from: Ghostboybut it really strikes me as amazing how Gallo earns the right to that ending by spending the first hour of the film the way he does.

Quote from: matt35mmI felt surprisingly connected to it

Quote from: Hedwigbut

Quote from: Weak2ndActI can totally understand why someone would hate it.

^^^William Burroughs reviews a film on Xixax.

Paxton and Sevigny Furious During Interview

Actors Bill Paxton and Chloe Sevigny "went ballistic" on Wednesday after the actress was asked about an explicit sex scene from a previous film on a daytime TV talk show. The two were appearing on US chat show The View to promote their new HBO series Big Love, about a polygamous husband and his three wives. One of The View's co-hosts, Joy Behar, brought up an infamous scene from independent film The Brown Bunny, where Sevigny orally pleasures co-star Vincent Gallo. Sources on set say Paxton and Sevigny masked their fury from viewers but "went ballistic" off camera, with Paxton reportedly vowing never to appear on the show again. Sevigny has frequently discussed the controversial scene, but Paxton didn't want her to have to relive it on the sedate daytime talk show. The View spokesman Karl Nilsson says, "Co-host Joy Behar is known for her good-natured candor, as well as her humor, and meant no disrespect." Viewers on the US east coast watched live as the cast squirmed in their seats, but all talk of the incident was cut out of the west coast broadcast, which aired later. Nilsson refused to say who requested that the conversation regarding The Brown Bunny be edited out.

hahah, stupid bitches.

remember to post the link of the clip when it appears, anyone. the tiff, not the scene in question.

Good, it's about time someone put those bitches in their place.  Star Jones is fucking sickening, the little Republican should be shot, and Joy Behar is not funny.  GRRRR.

I need to see a clip of this!

^^haha, you're feisty one.  :shock:

I saw Wanda Skyes on Conan once talking about her interview on "The View" .. Conan asked her what she thought and in classic Skyes form she responded, "Them some yakety bitches."  :?

GALLO GIVES OUR MAN HARD TIME
Source: New York Post

September 14, 2007 -- MADMAN artist Vincent Gallo has issued a profanity-filled rant against Post critic Frank Scheck - and his family - after Scheck suggested the actor used a prosthetic during his explicit oral-sex scene with Chloe Sevigny in the 2003 movie bomb "The Brown Bunny."

"Tell that hack to convince his mother, sister or wife to let me give it to her . . . and then she can report back to little Frank if she thought [it was fake]," Gallo raged to Page Six.

In "Dudes Get Nude on Film" in Wednesday's Post, Scheck described how Viggo Mortensen reveals the full monty in his new flick, "Eastern Promises," and notes that Richard Gere, Kevin Bacon, Harvey Keitel and Ewan MacGregor have bared it all in the past. He then details how some actors fake it and how Sevigny is graphically shown servicing "an appendage that may or may not have belonged to her co-star and director, Vincent Gallo."

Gallo ranted in an e-mail: " 'The Brown Bunny' is an ultra-low-budget film. With that in mind, the expense to create a prosthetic that could pass on film would be well out of the film's budget, and so far no one has come close to making such a thing pass as real . . . For example, Mark Wahlberg's rubber [organ in 'Boogie Nights'] was far from realistic and was only seen for a few seconds. If one wasn't blinded by jealousy, it would be easy to tell [my] scene was real. Chloe Sevigny herself has publicly said the scene involved us performing real sex.

"Why then does Scheck promote doubt about the scene's authentic nature? I speculate it's because Mr. Scheck most likely has a very small, ugly penis and needs to believe that only in make-believe does anyone have one like mine!"

Scheck said he was amused by Gallo's ravings and suggested the actor might be defensive because of his shortcomings. "Methinks Mr. Gallo doth protest too much," Scheck cracked. "That's about as much of a d***-waving match as I'm willing to get into."

Gallo is well known for his off-the-wall insults. He once called critic Roger Ebert a "fat pig with the physique of a slave trader" and wished cancer on him for a bad review. Ebert eventually did come down with the disease.

Quote from: MacGuffin on September 17, 2007, 02:01:43 AM
Gallo is well known for his off-the-wall insults. He once called critic Roger Ebert a "fat pig with the physique of a slave trader" and wished cancer on him for a bad review. Ebert eventually did come down with the disease.

The NY Post is suggesting that Gallo has evil powers.

Quote from: MacGuffin on September 17, 2007, 02:01:43 AM
"Tell that hack to convince his mother, sister or wife to let me give it to her . . . and then she can report back to little Frank if she thought [it was fake]," Gallo raged to Page Six.

When you're almost fifty years old and you're this insecure about what people think about your prick, you know you're an actor.  Thank the lord there are still artists out there who will say shit like this to the press.  I'm looking at you, Mr. Kinski!