 You have to admire Vincent Gallo, especially as a director. After the critical success of Buffalo '66, Gallo could have easily taken the well-traveled indie route, directing the kind of hipster fare that would fill seats at the Angelika. Instead, he waited five years and created a near-solo project that is going to alienate (and aggravate) many people. It's no secret that Filmbrain is a fan of Gallo's work. Though he finds Gallo's politics repugnant, and his bile-ridden scorn towards just about everybody in the film industry more than a bit immature, his work as an actor and director has been consistently fascinating. Claire Denis, who has used him in four of her films, really knows how to bring out the best in him as an actor. In 2001's Trouble Every Day, she drew our attention to his hair -- both his untamed black locks and the three-day stubble on his face -- and it become an integral part of his character. It's the same thing in The Brown Bunny, where Gallo, again playing a character not at peace, allows his disheveled physical presence to speak volumes, thanks to the many extreme close-ups of his head. ("Never mind that Filmbrain, just talk about the blowjob!") Gallo plays Bud Clay, a motorcycle racer who, like Buffalo '66's Billy Brown (what's with Gallo and brown?) clearly has "issues". Early on in the film he tries to convince a young woman he's just met to travel across country with him, and this could easily be Billy post-Layla. However, it doesn't take long to realize that Bud is even more damaged than Billy, and that he is a man of very few words. Bud has run-ins with various women on his cross-country journey, all of whom are named after flowers, appear to be emotionally bruised, and who seem to share an irresistible attraction to him. We know very little about Bud -- all we know in fact is that he's in love with Daisy (Chloë Sevigny), with whom he hopes to reconcile once he reaches Los Angeles. In one of the film's more interesting scenes, Bud has a very awkward visit with Daisy's parents, and it almost mirrors the dinner scene in Buffalo '66. Though he doesn't shoot it Ozu style (using 360 degree space) the gestures, character placement, and dialog is strangely similar -- particularly with the father in the scene, whose physical position at the table is identical to how Ben Gazzara sat in B66. So, what does the rest of the film consist of? Driving. In a van. Lots of it. Gallo mounted two cameras in the van, which allowed him to shoot those scenes without assistance. (In fact, there are only a few scenes in the film that required another cameraman.) We alternate between close-ups of his profile (which continue to get more and more extreme until we get intimate with his pores) and shots through the bug-splattered windshield. If it wasn't for the Gordon Lightfoot and Jackson C. Frank songs on the soundtrack you might think you were watching a Kiarostami film. The entire look (and sound design) of the film is astounding. Gallo has truly captured a 70's feel -- think Monte Hellman or John Cassavetes -- that will appeal to fans of that era. The camerawork during the opening scene (a motorcycle race, filmed from high up in the stands) along with the continual cutting in and out of the sound of the race -- is magnificent. (Gallo utilized a new Super 16 to 35-millimeter transfer process that is gorgeous.) He uses interesting framing throughout -- either having characters off to one side of the frame, or cutting off half their faces, and it's very effective. The question remains though -- is The Brown Bunny any good? ("Hey, Filmbrain, this is the fifth paragraph and you still haven't mentioned the blowjob!") It's a tough question to answer. From early on it's clear that Bud is running from ghosts, and Filmbrain was immediately interested in learning who or what they are, and why he interacts the way he does with women. This made the journey, long as it is, worthwhile. Filmbrain had no problem with the driving scenes, nor did he ever find it dull. (Keep in mind this is coming from someone who happily watched Satantango three times.) The final twenty minutes, which finds Bud back in Los Angeles with Daisy, is a more than satisfactory payoff (no, not the blowjob) for everything that has led up to it. The only thing that detracts from the dénouement is Gallo's performance, which though meant to be tragic, just isn't strong enough, and resulted in more than a few titters from the audience. As for "the scene that everybody wants to see", there's nothing erotic or thrilling about it -- it's actually quite depressing, especially in light of what follows. Filmbrain can't help wondering if the emotional impact of the Daisy scene would be lessened if the act was simulated, but there's little point in doing so -- Gallo made the film he intended to, and without any compromises. The scene does not come off as pretentious (like virtually every Catherine Breillat film) nor does it draw unnecessary attention to itself -- the scene is about much more than simply Chloë fellating Vincent. The critical reaction to the film has been very interesting. After the initial bashing at Cannes (when the film was thirty minutes longer) and the now infamous war-of-words between Gallo and Roger Ebert, some more positive reviews started to appear, especially in Europe. One French critic described the film as pure, unadulterated narcissism, and he meant it as a compliment. Critic Mark Pearson got it right when he said "...its narcissism stems more from a paranoid distrust of others than an overweening egotism." Gallo clearly loved this project, and there's so much of him in it (too much, for some). Filmbrain strongly disagrees with those (like Aaron Out of Focus) who claim that Gallo set out to antagonize his audience, or that he metaphorically has the audience blowing him at the end -- nothing could be further from the truth. Though Filmbrain loathes using the term, this truly is an "art" film. At the 2003 Cannes awards ceremony, one of the prizewinners, in his acceptance speech, told Vincent Gallo not to worry about the audience reaction, and that he should continue making brave films such as this. The Brown Bunny isn't a masterpiece, nor is it even a great film, but it is a powerful, hypnotic, haunting, and yes, brave piece that is as much about cinema as it is about Vincent Gallo, and easily one of the best films of 2004. The comments to this entry are closed. 
Recent Posts
Blogs of Distinction
Blog Stuff
|
As much I have been looking forward to seeing The Brown Bunny, I must admit that I am very uneasy about the prospect of seeing it with an audience of hipster doofuses who can't appreciate any art (film, music, etc.) that isn't covered in a thick layer of cynicism and/or irony. The idea of a theater packed with East Village trust-fund kids goofing on Gallo's character while waiting for the already infamous blow job scene has me contemplating waiting for a video release. Which is a shame as I am a huge fan of Buffalo '66 and the American films of the early 70's that Gallo so obviously adores. Oh well, I can always take some small consolation in that it is playing at the Sunshine and not the Angelika.
Posted by: Sal C. | 2004.08.16 at 11:50 AM
Beautifully (and accurately) stated Sal -- my thoughts exactly. I'm happy that I saw it with an audience of "professionals".
Posted by: Filmbrain | 2004.08.16 at 12:03 PM
Wow, FilmBrain. Your article, full of praise, has given me more of an inclination to see this when it starts on Friday. Originally, my top intention in seeing this was to not be left out of the loop. I have been following Vincent Gallo, his work and his rants for several years now and always considered him overtly narcissistic and beyond an acquired taste. But due to your article, I now will enter the theatre with different expectations, and will view it with a mind as open as possible.
Posted by: Ed | 2004.08.16 at 02:15 PM
I still think that most people will hate it, but I'm really glad you're going to give it a chance. Please be sure to let me know what you think about it.
Posted by: Filmbrain | 2004.08.16 at 03:16 PM
As much as I respect your opinion, Filmbrain, I just can't back this. Vincent Gallo is the epitome of the pretentious, art-for-art's-sake crowd that puts my teeth on edge.
Perhaps I'll get around to seeing this once it comes out on video, but there's no way I'm going to sit through it in the theater. The thought makes me feel physically ill.
Posted by: Marleigh | 2004.08.16 at 08:02 PM
Obviously, you know I think you're high. And it didn't take more than you starting the whole thing by saying "You have to admire ..." Obviously we will continue to disagree because your contention that his pretentions couldn't be "further from the truth" (in respect to the audience blowing him, etc.) I still contend are exactly what he's doing. In fact, I am not surprised by your positive view of the film, but I am surprised by your lack of providing any argument other than that you weren't bored by the boring driving scenes (which really have nothing to do with the story that you apparently admire so much) or that anything that has been criticized is basically not true. Calling something an "art" film does not in fact make it one. Art takes artistry, and Gallo has little of it in his directing. I still believe that for someone who dislikes his "talents" as much as I do, I wrote a very balanced judgment of this film, and he did do some interesting things, especially in the end. And I agree that the blow-job scene wasn't gratuitous or sexy, but rather depressing. However, what was he saying by having the sequence in there? I'm not arguing simulated vs. real? I mean what was the purpose? I don't want to write the reasons why I think no positive argument could be valid because it will give away elements of the ending which I found to be one of the few truly interesting and well-done elements of the film. But if you can give me one good reason for the scene that fits in with the rest of the movie including the denouement, I will be surprised.
The most I'll give Gallo is that some of his technical elements during the first hour are "interesting." To call any of them "magnificent" is absurd and is actually denigrating the visual stylings of those filmmakers who actually do create something "magnificent." You and I could mount two cameras inside a van and shoot the highway while we drive using no additional lighting. It's not all that hard to deliberately misframe just about every shot to show what's off with the world or this character.
I'm not going to go over everything wrong with this film -- you posted a link to my thoughts on it so people can go there if they wish. I suppose our biggest disagreement on Gallo is that what you seemingly find original, artistic and interesting, I personally found unoriginal, blatant, dull and mostly a waste of time. While I agree that Gallo's performance is week, so is everyone's in this film, but I blame most of that on Gallo's empty and insipid writing. The dialogue, like the first hour's worth of situations with the exception of the scene you describe at the parents', is completely absurd.
And to Sal C. re your comment, I'm not sure why Filmbrain is agreeing with what you say. "The Brown Bunny" is ultimately an utterly cynical AND ironic film. Since you seem to have some bias against EV hipsters (of which I am not one) thinking they will only like films with cynicism and irony, they should therefore LOVE this film. Again, completely explaining that point would give away one of the few positive elements of the film in my view, but the explanation within the film of the title itself is at worst ironic and this film's concept of true love lasting is at best cynical. And Filmbrain, if you disagree with that (which is not a positive nor negative criticism) than I am seriously worried about your mental well-being.
Posted by: Aaron | 2004.08.17 at 01:18 AM
Aaron-
I will check back in after seeing the film, but given Gallo's track record I have a hard time believing that he is anything less than 100% sincere in everything he does.
One more thought to keep in mind while watching the film - Gallo has compared it in interviews to a minimalist painting. In fact, he claims his main visual inspiration was the artist Robert Ryman who worked almost exclusively in white paint. The point I'm trying to make is that people will go to a museum and become engrossed in a painting without expecting it to be exciting or tell them a story or (even) entertain them. If it connects with you aesthetically or emotionally on some level that's all that matters. What's wrong with a film that tries to do just that? If it didn't connect with you, that's fine (you obviously didn't enjoy it's "aesthetic" and I can appreciate that), but I can't get with people who hate a film because it doesn't meet their expectations that all movies must have strong narratives, believable, sympathetic characters, interesting plots, etc. A great many of my favorite films barely hold together as narratives (McCabe & Mrs. Miller, Bad Lieutenant, 2001: A Space Odyssey). It's just not something I think should be demanded of every film.
Posted by: Sal C. | 2004.08.17 at 08:53 AM
Sal C --
Actually, I take issue with what I consider to be your flawed premise. All three of the films you mention may have a similar minimalist aesthetic, but the reason they work as films (at least McCabe and 2001) is because they actually do COMPLETELY hold together as narratives, even if they're not traditional. There is nothing wrong with appreciating a film on an aesthetic or emotional level, but there always MUST be a "why"? There is nothing subtle about Gallo's "why" in this film; the problem is, it doesn't hold together, and much of the film is just repetitive filler. The scenes where we get back to the "narrative" that does exist (and in fact, the pleasant surprise of the film is that there is, in fact, an interesting yet simple little story in there) lack any realism (not a problem in itself) and are simply overmanipulated emotion rather than believable raw emotion, which is what he's obviously going for. His moment with Cheryl Tiegs (which I'm certain Filmbrain must have loved) is just utterly absurd and annoying and completely feeds into the argument I discuss in my post regarding Gallo's arrogance, his conscious or unconscious belief that he is a gift to all women, and the utter misogynism that is the common theme of both his films, heightened in this one with the blow-job scene, which is neither offensive nor sexy.
The only thing that should be "demanded" of every film is that the film prove interesting in some way. Gallo's exercise in extreme self-indulgence does, as I have mentioned before, prove somewhat interesting, particularly if you separate its last third and one or maybe two scenes from the beginning. But the overall exercise is just another big failure, in my book. If this film was a true "art film" like Filmbrain describes it to be, than the entire point of his story (because he really is trying to tell one) wouldn't be utilizing such blatant 3rd grade metaphors and he would be conscious of the unhealthy narcissistic subtext. And maybe he is, but that only makes it worse. To me, the obsessive and sad love story that exists within "The Brown Bunny" is ultimately destroyed by what lies underneath everything when one connects the dots
Posted by: Aaron | 2004.08.17 at 09:16 AM
Wow -- where to begin. . .
Aaron - I don't know if there's any argument I, or anybody else, could provide to "prove" Gallo's intentions. At the same time, it's equally impossible to provide an argument to the contrary. What it boils down to is what one expects and looks for in a film. I certainly wouldn't want every film to be like The Brown Bunny, but I'm happy when a good film like that comes around. How do you feel in general about films that are less plot-driven or even entirely without a plot? Do you expect or demand character's motivations and actions to reflect reality? I don't (at least not all the time).
You see the driving scenes as pointless and boring. I seem them as necessary. The point (if I understand it correctly) is that the journey itself is equally as important as the destination.
Yes, calling something art doesn't necessarily make it so, but this is an argument that stems back to cave paintings.
I don't wish to discuss the purpose of the blowjob scene here out of respect for those that haven't seen it. But I will say that his behavior and his words right afterwards bring a power to the scene that perhaps justifies its presence.
Saying that you or I could mount cameras in a van is like looking at one of Frank Stella's black canvases and saying "I could do that".
As for Gallo's sincerity -- I strongly disagree. Look at what Grambo wrote about the discussion with Gallo after the film -- sounds pretty sincere to me.
I will argue to my death that the film - flawed or not - is not ironic. Not in the slightest. True, he may take a cynical view towards true love lasting, but if you know anything about his personal life (and the epic tale of his ex-girlfriend) that's hardly surprising. But he's no Po-Mo hipster.
Posted by: Filmbrain | 2004.08.17 at 12:20 PM
Filmbrain:
Obviously you're right that it is impossible to argue his specific intent, and my decision to try to state it is obviously an observation and opinion rather than a simple fact. However, I have yet to hear any substantive argument to even open the door to something contrary.
You ask if everything must reflect reality. It depends on what you mean by reality. MY reality or the world we live in? No. But the reality created by the film? Sure. However if the reality created by the film is in fact different than our lived reality, there still needs to be some time in because otherwise it is not speaking to our world and any sort of universal truth, and if a film is not doing that in some way -- through a clear narrative or not -- in my book, it is worthless. The only reality Gallo creates for himself in "The Brown Bunny" is that he can get any woman to make out with him, with or without speaking to her, and that he has full control over his "ideal" woman, so that she begs him and blows him ... and even to a degree the things he feels guilty for. (I don't want to say too much.)
Of course you understand the point correctly because there isn't anything so deep about what lies on the surface -- the journey as important as the destination -- but so what? Why are all three driving scenes and the salt flat scene necessary? What do they tell us about his journey? That it's long? That America is flat? What is the purpose of the mundane, which fills the vast majority of this movie from the driving scenes to the tune-up of his bike in the shop.
I would almost agree with you about the blow-job -- and you're right ... we'll need to find some time to throw down about this so that it doesn't "ruin" the film for others -- except for the fact that the only way it can truly mean anything positive is if you separate it from the rest of the film, particularly his encounters with the other three women; which is why I've always stated that the third act is the only worthwhile part of the movie.
And I disagree vehemently with your comment that mounting camera's is the same thing as the black canvas especially since in doing so you are simply saying that his driving sequences are art when they really are nothing more than videologues. I will give Gallo credit where it's due; even if I don't like the end result all pieced together, he does do some visually interesting things throughout the movie, particularly with the framing.
And obviously, I would argue that the film is most definitely on some level ironic. And really, if it's not, it's even worse than I currently believe it to be. I think Gallo sincerely believes he lives on some separate plane from the rest of us with an understanding that he wants to impart on us even when it's obvious. His form of "sincerity" does not necessarily negate irony, much as it certainly allows for cynicism.
As for the overall quality of the movie, you yourself mention its flaws and that it's not "a masterpiece, nor is it even a great film." Yet you still consider it one of the year's best? That makes no sense other than to say that this has been the worst year for movies maybe ever (a point to which I would heartily disagree). Brave filmmaking -- whether that description qualifies here or not -- does not make a film a good film. In fact, I have seen many brave attempts at great ideas that simply fail. To me, at least, they don't get extra credit just because they tried. Certainly not when there are attempts made that try and succeed.
I would actually be fascinated to see what could happen to "The Brown Bunny" if Gallo were NOT so intent on doing everything himself and if he consulted people with other opinions. That doesn't need to dilute his vision. But what would have happened had the film had more substance; more grounding. What would have happened had the first hour been constructed in a different way, to show a similar journey and profile his pain and depression without being so blah? And without every last metaphor being a 75 pound anvil falling from the sky. You might have had a tremendously fascinating and engrossing movie rather than a film that leaves one searching for a way to defend his choices as, Well, it's art, and art doesn't always have to tell a story. Every positive comment on this movie tells what it doesn't have to do; OK, but what DOES it do?
Damn ... I forgot that this wasn't MY blog. Sorry 'bout that! :-)
Posted by: Aaron | 2004.08.17 at 04:46 PM
I'm going to kick in here with a clarification about minimalist painting. To quote: "In fact, he claims his main visual inspiration was the artist Robert Ryman who worked almost exclusively in white paint. The point I'm trying to make is that people will go to a museum and become engrossed in a painting without expecting it to be exciting or tell them a story or (even) entertain them. If it connects with you aesthetically or emotionally on some level that's all that matters."
The point of minimalist painting—making it, not viewing it—was a divorce from the medium. Minimalism was about exploring artistic space, reducing art to its fundamental components and seeing how far it could be taken while still, technically, being called art. Robert Ryman did work exclusively in white paint, but it was white paint on varying surfaces and with visible hardware; the use of visible hardware was important because it was there to stress the "painting-ness" of his painting, as the canvas itself did not announce itself as a painting as such. Artists like Serra, Judd, Smith and Smithson did the same things—though it is useful to note that most minimalists were sculptors, not painters. There is a reason minimalism was more successful in space than on it, which is that it is primarily an experiment in temporality and the experience of "art" as an abstract concept, not an end of itself.
I should note here that I don't like minimalism, which goes a long way to explaining why I don't like Gallo.
Posted by: Marleigh | 2004.08.17 at 05:11 PM
You think you smart or something marleigh? Youd on't haev to fucking explain minimalism - and what a sorry attempt you did at it!
gallo is the best thing that happened since cassavetes died.
anyone who thinks otherwise - tap me when u see me and i'll fucking punch your indifferent face.
Posted by: Kristian | 2004.08.18 at 08:24 AM
Saw a media screening of Brown Bunny last night-- it may just be the best film I wouldn't recommend to anyone this year. And that is a compliment.
Posted by: Aaron the Cinephiliac | 2004.08.18 at 11:13 AM
Saw a media screening of Brown Bunny last night-- it may just be the best film I wouldn't recommend to anyone this year. And that is a compliment.
Posted by: Aaron the Cinephiliac | 2004.08.18 at 11:13 AM
Actually Kristian, I know I'm smart. I also use proper punctuation and I can spell.
I also don't feel it necessary to threaten people who disagree with me. But different strokes, I suppose.
My point in discussing—or, as you said, "explaining"—minimalism was to point out Ryman's use of visible hardware and the use of space, as I think those two points address what Gallo is referencing when he says he is inspired by minimalism.
Posted by: Marleigh | 2004.08.18 at 01:50 PM
wow i totally get you now
Posted by: kristian | 2004.08.19 at 07:29 AM
filmbrain, just discovered your blog today. absolutely love it. as a fan of kiarostami's "the wind will carry us," antonioni's "l'avventura" & "la notte" i've been very much curious to watch Vincent Gallo's film because of its minimalism and attempt at photographing the "inner life." i am very much for movies that break new grounds, style- and content-wise. will definitely watch it as soon as i get back to the states. provided it'll be playing in victorian ol' boston. mmm...
Posted by: girl with a movie camera | 2004.08.30 at 10:01 AM
Girl With a Movie Camera --
Thanks for the kind words. If you do manage to catch Brown Bunny, I'd love to know what you think, given your other cinematic interests.
Posted by: Filmbrain | 2004.09.08 at 11:47 AM
So, I finally saw the film (in Brooklyn, not the LES) and I was very impressed. Gallo is a real craftsman. He manged to make a film that is beautiful to look at (and listen to) for very little money. He should be applauded for caring when so many low-budget film makers don't seem to give a shit about what their films look/sound like.
At just a little over 90 minutes I loved the flow of the film from scene to scene and was never bored despite the fact that very, very, very little actually happens. The movie is slight; it has exactly one thing to say. Knowing a little bit about Gallo and his personal attitude towards drugs and alcohol going into the screening certainly helped me appreciate the ending more than if I had gone in knowing nothing about the man. I'm trying to say that when the film was over I felt perfectly satisfied to have spent an hour and a half examing one aspect of this one man's life.
Posted by: Sal C. | 2004.09.09 at 09:50 AM
Christ. Can I find a pic or video of the deed anywhere?
Posted by: ed | 2004.09.13 at 03:02 AM