The Brown Bunny

[cron]

y'all made me sad.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

This 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.

[modage]

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.

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.  

No 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.  

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.

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.  

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.

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.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[modage]

you are going to LOVE Broken Flowers.

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

Then I guess I'll have to check it out.

[Weak2ndAct]

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.

[Pubrick]

Definitely one of the all-time classic dividers.

oh hell yeah, right up there with

[cron]

hahaha there used to be one of those here at home, now it's in the garbage

[72teeth]

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" ?

[Ghostboy]

No 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.

[soixante]

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.

[RegularKarate]

Am I the only one that LOVED Gerry and thought this film didn't quite work?

[matt35mm]

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.

[Alexandro]

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...