The Brown Bunny

I wasn't sure what to expect from Vincent Gallo's newest, and most controversial, film.  I'm a little ambivalent about "Buffalo '66."  Though I appreciate his minimalist style, to me the film just tried to be too cool without any real substance.

I say that, but the performances in that film (including Gallo's himself) are very natural, with a lot of depth.  Gallo, Christina Ricci and Angelica Huston's performances do have a way of drawing you in.

Yeah, I guess you could say that, going into "The Brown Bunny", I was a bit conflicted.

Those of you who have heard of the film know about the most controversial part of the film, which I'll talk about later, and if you've heard of the controversy, then you probably kept tabs on the film as it went through the festival circuit.  For those who haven't, a good summary by Roger Ebert (who was intimately involved in the buzz surrounding it at Cannes) is contained in his review of the theatrical release of the film. The hullabaloo is also spelled out in Ebert's film festival diaries (and, looking back, what a great festival that was: "The Brown Bunny", "Mystic River", "The Fog of War" and "Elephant" all premiered there) but here's the long and short of it:

"The Brown Bunny" premieres and has a truly disastrous screening.  It is cut very long, people laugh at the screen and walk out... it completely bombs.  Roger Ebert, in the lobby, tells a reporter that it is the worst film in the history of the festival.  The next day, Gallo responds at a press junket by calling Ebert a fat pig.  Ebert, trying to be witty, tells another reporter that he may be fat, but he can go on a diet, but Vincent Gallo will always be the director of "The Brown Bunny."  Hilarity ensues.

Months later, the theatrical release all but stalls out, shown mostly in art houses, and then goes away.

But, apparently, a funny thing happened by the time the film hit the theatres: He'd also hit an editing room.  The theatrical release had over 26 minutes cut from the film, and this cut is universally praised, even by Ebert himself.

So, on to my thoughts. (spoilers ahead).

Bud Clay is a motorcycle racer, who travels around the country in a black van from race to race.  With long (looooooooooong) shots (including one which focuses on Bud's ear, tipping us off that we are being drawn into his head), we get pulled into his lonely world.

Gallo paints this world as if Bud is just one of those people who wander through their life with no home.  The world is fully of these roamers.  There are many reasons why these people are trapped in this life.  Some of them have jobs which require them to be constantly on the road (like Bud), some of them are hookers, some of them are simply transients. Gallo creates a world where we begin to understand the fraternity and connection that these roamers feel for each other.

In an early scene, Bud goes to a convenience store and has a small conversation (all conversations with Bud are small) with the female clerk.  She is already considering leaving with him before he even approaches (a great performance by the clerk), and Bud asks her if she wants to go to California with him.  She hesitates, but agrees.  They leave the store, and he takes her to her house to pick up some things.

In the car, outside the house, there is a scene of great tenderness as he strokes her cheek, and then sends her inside.  He waits for a moment, and then drives off.  He is sparing her the life that he is resigned to.

I won't spell out all the stops he makes (though I could - there aren't many in this sparse film), but there is one amazing, and unspoken scene when Bud sees a woman at a truck stop (played by Cheryl Tiegs), and they have a quiet and touching moment together that is so right for the film that it is instantly understood.

We don't know what circumstances have led Bud to his life on the road until late in the film, in a much talked about scene with Chloe Sevigny.  Yes, Sevigny ACTUALLY gives Gallo a blow job to completion (if it wasn't completed, then it is incredibly edited) that is visible on film.  Yes, it is jarring, even when you know it is coming.  But there's something about the whole scene that really works.  The reasons why she is there, I'll leave to those who haven't seen the film, but this is one of those scenes that walks that fine line between exploitation and art.  It is certainly worth debating, which was probably its intent anyway.

I don't know.  I'm kind of ambivalent about this film too.  It is really a very moving little film, and I think the explicit moments in the film sort of work, even if it is trying a bit to hard to have a Dirk Diggler moment.  Gallo remains in a strange realm of today's filmmakers: He's not good, per say, but he doesn't have to be to make his film interesting.  I normally applaud filmmakers like this, and I want to applaud Gallo too, but two films in, I'm not sure if I can.  His style wants to tell an important story, and I'm just not sure if he's written the right story yet.

Comments

[Amber]

Yes, it is jarring, even when you know it is coming.

No pun intended.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Anyway... I'm not sure why a blowjob would fall under the category of exploitation, simply for being. If it is forced or coerced, then obviously; but that goes for pretty much anything that is forced or coerced, sexual or not. I don't know if that's the case with this scene. I guess I'm just interested to know more about what you meant when you said, "this is one of those scenes that walks that fine line between exploitation and art."

[Dylan]

It's a good question, Amber. Sorry I wasn't more clear. Perhaps it would have been better if it'd said "this is one of those scenes that walks that fine line between gratuitousness and art."

To me, actually showing the blow job doesn't really add to the story. There is nothing appreciably insightful to either of the characters (even though I think the scene is well acted and subtle).

But I gotta say, I've been thinking about it since I wrote my review today, and there's something else at play here under the surface. I am trying to imagine the circumstances surrounding Gallo approaching Sevigny about doing this scene.

A person has to wonder if they are being asked to do this simply because the director wants to get his dick sucked on camera, and viewers are forced to think about this while it is going on. That vibe, taken in the context of a scene where a guy is imagining his now dead former lover, who he has lived his life believing had spurned him by cheating on him, and forcing her to blow him... well... the layers and nuance really do a number on us.

But, again, we can't really know if Gallo intended this, or if he really did just want to get his dick sucked by a celebrity on camera, and so you never really know if it is art or if it is, really and truly, exploitation.

I guess this is one of those cases when you need to think of the art as coming (no pun intended) from the result and not the intent.

[Dylan]

Also, since I mentioned the Dirk Diggler moment, it brings up an interesting comparison.

Gallo could have told this story effectively without the blow job. The blow job makes it more "edgy" and controversial, but by putting the blow job into the film, the movie becomes about the blow job.

Boogie Nights, however, is different. While it's true that the movie is the Marky Mark's giant organ, the film wouldn't have been the same without it. The is precisely because the film is already about a star and his giant dick.

[aldahlia]

Does that mean that high pitched little Gallo is enourmously endowed? *Marvels*

[blueballs]

I just saw this waste of celluloid that is a called a film. It sucked worse than how Michigan played against SC. I rented it so I could honestly tell people that if they want to see the worst film ever made, go see The Brown Bunny. And to show you how stupid Gallo is, the fuktard is trying to sell his own sperm for $50k. What woman would want to buy that retards sperm? So they can have a baby who can grow up to be a retard like the sperm donor?

[Dylan]

I'm not sure, but I think that Blueballs has a strong opinion about The Brown Bunny.