« ALERT! Please Help | Main | Actiontec DSL Webserver Fix »

So we (craig, meghan and I) just got back from an advance screening of Vincent Gallo's The Brown Bunny, the controversial new film that had audience members at Cannes (including Ebert) booing, walking out, cheering, etc. It officially opens in theaters in a few weeks. What was super cool about this screening was that Vincent Gallo was in attendance and did a very interesting Q&A sessions afterwards (the movie was at 7:30, so you can see how long it lasted).

Here are my thoughts on the film/evening (some minor spoilers ahead):
The film: as I said afterwards, "It's like he remade Aguirre, Wrath of God as a new American road movie, but without all the suspense." I got a few incredulous looks and questions on that one. "Yeah," I said, "A lot of long drawn-out scenes where nothing much happens and the main guy is really deep inside his own mind, sort of wacked out." Which is kind of what it is...

There are looong jerky shots of just driving, looking through a bug-splatted windscreen. Long shots of Gallo's face. Looong shots of more driving. No dialogue. Just tortured looks. And the climax (no pun intended)? The oral sex scene? Yup. Full on. Not quite so controversial as I expected. The scene that follows, however, is the one that got me.
Technically, this film sort of sucks. Out of focus scenes, very shaky camera work, lighting issues, low audio levels. But this is all part of his plan so can I really say it sucks?
But if I or anybody else made this film, it would never get shown. Because Gallo has a history and a mildly successful prior film (Buffalo 66), he can afford to take this risk, this approach with The Brown Bunny. It doesn't hurt that he's made money from real estate, either. He can afford to do it his way, and his way only. Which is good, really. That should be the goal of any artistic endeavor.
The thing I would hope that arises (again, no pun) out of this movie is that other filmmakers are inspired to make their own film, their own way. Real life, subtlety, nuances. I still think story is essential. Characters you feel something towards are good, too, and I really hope people don't just take their miniDV cameras out and record their road trips and then tag on a shocking scene at the end and call it a movie. That's no Aguirre... and it will get the wrath of me for wasting two hours of my life.
Ultimately, this movie is not a "great" movie, but, I would hope that like Figgis' Timecode, it will open doors to different approaches at narrative and structure.

The Q&A: very good, quite entertaining. Gallo's neuroses and mannerisms are very enthralling and he's got a lot of good ideas, good approaches, theories, standards. He's uniquely his own person. I could listen to him espouse on life, art, film, music, actresses, media, etc, for quite some time. He's got passion, he's got creativity, he's got opinions and he's got history. I like him.

---