Factotum (movie) (2 Viewers)

I still think it's a pretty bad flick... down there with Barfly... I simply couldn't believe my eyes when I saw Dillon scribbling notes -a poem?- in a public place -was it a bar? Unfuckingbelievable!
 
So basically I just proved you don't know what you are talking about. Maybe you should try watching the film? Ha.
All you proved is that you enjoyed it, that doesn't mean everyone else has to consider it one of the best films ever made. These things are subjective. To you it's the best film ever made. That doesn't mean the people who think it's crap are wrong. Some people think Citizen Kane is crap. I think Matt Dillon said that once...

;)
 
Matt Dillon is definitely not getting an OSCAR nomination for his portrayal as BUk, ridiculous! He was better as Pony-Boy in Rumle Fish, or Tex... whatever that movie was... Actually I'd take re-watching THE OUTSIDERS over FACTOTUM any day!
 
Bernstein, certainly the film takes on some great themes as you suggest (working life, relationships, striving for artistic expression), after all, these are the themes BUK writes about in his books. I don't agree with you about the battling against addiction. It seems the addiction in BUK's work is not necessarily unwanted. What I meant by culturally was simply that the film did not produce alot of interest and noise. There were enough people to sustain an average run in many smaller theaters throughout larger cities in the US, but it didn't make any kind of large impact into the bigger culture of film goers the way a film like Darren Arnofski's "Pi" or Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs" did. My point being that if "Factotum" was one of the "best films ever made", one would hope that it would resonate somehow with some majority of people somewhere.

Academically, I would suggest the technical degree of the film was rather messy. Hamer was certainly influenced by Gus Van Sant's work circa "Drugstore Cowboy" and "My Own Private Idaho", (some scenes are very similar to scenes in those films), however he doesn't have the same photogenic sense that Van Sant has. In addition, in many of the scenes, Hamer tends to opt for artificial, noir-like lighting which to me is so annoying it's almost comical. I suppose I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, "Factotum" is not technically Hitchcock's "Rope" or the Cohen's "Blood Simple", which it doesn't need to be to be an average film based on a novel by Charles Bukowski. But I would certainly expect the film to reach some degree of success in this arena if it were to be considered one of the "best films ever made".

Critically, the reviews have been mixed and as a film based on Bukowski's work, it's been hailed by the critics as quite good. However, it has not been singled out as an exceptional film by any other means. If I ever hear the name Kristin Asbjornson again, I think I'll break out into an uncontrollable fit of laughter (see previous posts from Bukliveson ), but really her "voice" only bookends the film, it's not featured throughout. I don't know if I agree about the acting, Marisa Tomei is far from a convincing drunk and Liliy Taylor seems to play different aspects of the same character in a lot of the roles she's cast in. But in the end, the lack luster ensemble really does not add up to one of the "best film ever made"

I suppose I would buy the DVD(not the soundtrack) and watch it occasionally, but in the end, it's nothing special aside from the fact it's a film based on the work of an author I really like. I'm glad it really resonated for you, but again, I don't think that's enough to make it count as one of the "best films ever made".

I think you said it best when you said "I just proved you don't know what you are talking about.[/quote]". If you feel you've got to prove anything about the film to anyone, there's a good chance the film hasn't done that itself. In this case, I would also suggest it's a good indication that perhaps the film is a little less than stellar in the grand scheme of things.

However, if "Factotum" for you is the be all, end all of films, then I guess I would say go forth and enjoy! I don't necessarily agree, but on the other hand, I suppose it's better than worshiping "Harry Potter" or "Lord Of The Rings"....:D
 
Bruce,

I did not say that this film was the be all and end all. Certainly it is not my number one film of all time (that being a toss between Casablanca and Kiss Me Deadly.) Moreover I did not suggest that in order for the film to be a success culturally it needed to be a 'hit' with some kind of herd-like majority audience. Stupid people unfortunately outnumber intelligent people and in this respect most hollywood films that gross big at the box office tend to pander to the base tastes of the morasse of uneducated dullards that flock to cinemas to see anything their favourite TV networks recommend. Buk is an acquired taste. Many people would be unable to grasp the sense of painful bleakness and the plight of the despairing poet, forced to work menial, dead-end jobs in order to subsist as an artist. Thus, the fact that Factotum was not popular with a majority is prolly testament to its success as an original work in its own right.

If you liked the novel in its original historical context and feel aggrieved about the setting being updated to contemporary LA then I feel you have a problem with being closed minded and unwilling to accept a fresh new perspective that introduces Buk's themes and concerns to a new generation. Even in today's world people are doing all kinds of jobs just to make ends meet. Dillon plays the role with grace and imparts dignity and self-possession onto Chinaski in a way that modern fans would more readily identify with. The beat generation may baulk at the modernisation of their hero but we are now living in the 21st century and this film proves the need to address issues Buk wrote about that are still relevant today. In this sense it achieves a certain success, way better than Barfly. You mentioned Blood Simple. Factotum is better than Blood Simple too. The aims of the Coen's were to bring freshness and originality to the noir/private detective genre. It failed.

And what is wrong with Kristin Asbjornsen? Her music is great and it appears throughout the film, serving to enhance the grimness, despair, and loss that Chinaski suffers through the course of the narrative. The music is apt and sensitive.

Now, go watch it again then tell me what you think...:)
 
And what is wrong with Kristin Asbjornsen?
She became a running joke when a minion from the record company that put out the soundtrack started posting creepy spam in here, like, "I loved that soundtrack featuring the smokey voice of Kristin Asbjornsen. I'm going to buy it tomorrow! Here's a link to their web site!"
 
LOL! I guess that guy was just a lonely, misguided publicity merchant canvassing for a promotion! Anyway, but that's not a reflection of Kristin or her work. I still insist that her music was a great contribution to the film and very appropriate.:cool:
 
You mentioned Blood Simple. Factotum is better than Blood Simple too. The aims of the Coen's were to bring freshness and originality to the noir/private detective genre. It failed.

Bernstein,

I think you may have missed something in your viewing of Blood Simple to consider it a failure, so you may want to consider watching it again and checking out what these chaps have to say about it: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blood_simple/

Also, I did get a chance to see Factotum a second time and I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. But that's alright. The next time I see you at a bar, I'll be glad to buy you a drink, or at least a domestic beer anyway.....:D
 
The beat generation may baulk at the modernisation of their hero but we are now living in the 21st century and this film proves the need to address issues Buk wrote about that are still relevant today. In this sense it achieves a certain success...

Not sure if I'm following you here, but I think you are suggesting that BUK is a hero of the 'beat generation'(*gasp:eek:*)? If so, you may want to check out or post to this thread: https://bukowskiforum.com/showthread.php?t=216&highlight=beat
 
I have seen a pirate copy of "Factotum" and I love it. Ok, it's not an action-packed movie, but since when is life action-packed? This is a much better realized film of Bukowski's vision. Matt Dillon's performance is low-key the same way Bukowski seemed to be low-key most of the time. True, there is no Hollywood in this movie, and hurrah for that!!! Hollywood so rarely produces anything of value that you could burn it down and lose nothing. I get the same feeling watching this as when I watch Jim Jarmusch films. They are simple, un-pretentious, with moments of pain and humor, sometimes intertwined. THis tells the story of a man fed up with working, a man going from shit job to shit job, at best treated like a novelty by his employers. He finds women along the way, themselves damaged and messed up in some way (though Marisa Tomei... oh god, please come to me) If you want something more than what this movie has to offer, go watch your Hollywood movies and become brain-dead as you want.
 
I haven't seen it yet. i've read it along with all his novels and a good deal of his poetry. I love the fact that most can't or won't relate to his work. fuck the crowd and their sheep-like tendancies. I don't need the radio to tell me who to listen to. but sometimes, late into the beer and whiskey, I can almost hear it, feel it, and bring it out. let the crowds have grisham and leave me and my drunken thoughts to my bukowski. banish the naysayers or don't, they mean little to me
 
Completely unwatchable film...Matt Dillon doing a cornball Buk impersonation. Impersonating isn't acting.
 
Hey Richard;
Welcome to the Forum, you can introduce yourself in the New blood section.
I for one am a fan of Matt Dillon but I can see your point. I still think he did a better job than Mickey Rouke, and that could get my ass kicked.
Read the forum and grow.
 
*cough* i don't see a very bright future...

yeh, whatever "roni". You a kraut, R? Or is Germany just your "imaginary" location?


GKHL, as far as Matt Dillon goes, I like him...but I don't feel he had the chops to pull off Chinaski (and any actor should remember they're playing Chinaski-NOT Bukowski).

That being said...I liked Drugstore Cowboy okay.


Oh, and the "Dick Wagons" double entendre wasn't intentional, but...it works...kinda. My full name is Richard Wagons Schroder.
 
Richard? is that you? Dick Schroder didn't I sell cars with you?
Hey well welcome to the forum at least we know you have some fight in you. Be nice "Roni" is a good guy who is really from Germany and I think he is somewhat of a resident expert on the great Bukowski. I think an apology to him would be in order and recomended. As for me, I don't matter. I shouldn't make fun of your name it's just that we see lots of spammers in here trying to make our- well you know.
Tell us about yourself besides about Matt Dillion.
 
I introduced myself in the New Blood section, if you'd like to read it. As far as "Roni" goes, he made a snide comment about me when I had a perfectly valid point. So, whether "Roni" is a popular member of this forum or not, I'll be damned and/or banned before I'll apologize.

There's nothing less interesting or more lightweight than a snide internet cowboy...especially one who names himself after rice-dinner-in-a-box.
 
I introduced myself in the New Blood section, if you'd like to read it.
Yes, you Did. - By Now!

As far as "Roni" goes, he made a snide comment about me when I had a perfectly valid point. So, whether "Roni" is a popular member of this forum or not, I'll be damned and/or banned before I'll apologize.
There's nothing less interesting or more lightweight than a snide internet cowboy...especially one who names himself after rice-dinner-in-a-box.

wow! what a 'hello'! thanks!


ok, I'll be honest for a moment - I am the LEAST person who 'sets anyone straight' just because of being new and innocent.

But there Are a LOT of persons, who start here, posting harsh oppininons in ANY post but the 'new blood'-one, where they should do for a START - Especially when they're not only one-time-members but intend to stay here. Now, YOUR 'introduction' here WAS one of these posts.

So, I don't WANT you to apologize, anyhow.
I don't Need you to apologize - just, please, prove me wrong (from your very first post that is!) - and I'll be FINE as Hell!


p.s.:
yes, I AM a kraut. I especially like Sauerkraut with Bratwurst and mustard. And No, I'm Not named after some rice-fast-food.

p.p.s.:
and you definitely will NOT be abandoned here because of ANYTHING you say about me!
Definitely Not! - Feel FREE to say Anything!
really!
 
Fair enough.I am not here to post negative things for attention because daddy didn't give me enough hugs or whatever. I just want to have some laughs and make a few comments here and there...nothing special.
 
I'm taking a plunge on the Factotum movie soon. Bought it at Blockbuster today (previously viewed DVD, a mere $9.95) along with The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill. I saw the film-maker of the latter in discussion at the Beat Museum last year but I've yet to ever see the full documentary until this evening.
 
Rodger, if The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill is about the birds that escaped from a pet store shipment in N.Y.? It is a very good science story about survival and adaptability. Kind of like Factotum. ;)
 
These are the parrots of San Francisco but otherwise, yes, the same story. The NY parrots adapted as well as the S.F. birds and they are mentioned at the end of the film. An excellent little piece, though slightly overbaked.

Now, on to Factotum ... I watched the first half last night and was greatly impressed, I have to say. I was initially disappointed that the film had been modernized but then the set and production design kicked into full gear. All of the interiors are retro and period, cloaking the film in a weird sort of time warp, Chinaski as a man living in a time that is not his own. That, frankly, was a brilliant and unexpected touch. As for Dillon's perfromance, I like the understatement he brings to his interpretation. So what if he's not the growling, bombastic Bukowski/Chinaski we know and love? This is Dillon's interpretation and it works for me. I'll watch the remainder of the film this evening.
 
Okay, I finished watching the film last night and I have to say that I vastly enjoyed it. No, it's not a literal adaptation of the book in any regard; in fact, one huge chunk of the book that I can think of never made it to the screen. There are also elements from two or three other Bukowski stories in the screenplay, as well as one (or was it two?) poems.

This is an attempt to examine the Bukowski persona, to look at him beyond broad caricature, the anti-Barfly, if you will. On that level alone the film works tremendously well. Dillon's Chinaski is a troubled fellow. You see it etched on his face in every frame he is in. All he wants to do is write but worldly demands -- like love, lust, paying the rent -- keep standing in his way.

I will definitely watch it again.
 
It's an ok movie. When I watched it at the cinema for the first time, I was disappointed. It was too slow. But later on when I bought the DVD and watched it again, I saw it in a different light. I think it's actually quite good considering it's a low budget movie made in a few weeks. Dillon is a much more believable Chinaski than Mickey Rourke. I like Barfly but Rourke was too much of a Chinaski caricature in some scenes (other scenes were great). Factotum and Barfly is apples and oranges. You can't really compare them. Different approaches altogether.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is an attempt to examine the Bukowski persona, to look at him beyond broad caricature, the anti-Barfly, if you will.
Good point Carver. Undoubtedly the director must have had Barfly in the back of his head when making Factotum. It would be interesting hearing what Barbet Schroeder makes of it.
I think both films have their merits.
 
But if you saddled the director of Factotum with Mickey Rourke, you would have a completely different movie. And if Dillon was in Barfly, you'd have a completely different movie.

The director sets the scene, but whether the story ends up being believable or farce is mainly up to the actors. Barfly had a couple of hams and prima donnas as the stars. Factotum had actors. But Barfly is great as over-the-top farce.
 
It's really a shame that Rourke flamed out -- much of it his own doing. He truly is a gifted actor.

But you're right, Michael, and the point has been made here already: comparing the two movies really is an apples and oranges affair. Both Bent Hammer and Barbet Schroeder are talented but totally different directors. BTW, I just ordered Born Into This. Never saw it before and I'm looking forward to it.
 
BTW, I just ordered Born Into This. Never saw it before and I'm looking forward to it.

It's great! You won't be sorry that you ordered it. It's about 2 hours long plus it has a lot of bonus material, such as the last footage of Buk reading some poems etc.etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Factotum, left me with the same feeling I felt after I saw the 'Ask the Dust' the films were ok but the books were better, usually I find it's the other way round especially when I think of the adaptations of 'Fight Club', 'Trainspotting', 'The Thin Red Line' and 'American Psycho' that were better then the reading experience.
 
The Thin Red Line was an excellent film, though I did not think so the first time I viewed it. Had to see it twice to fully appreciate it.
 
Bukowski HATED "Barfly". He thought it was a prime example of hollywood's superficial stupidity. He hated Rourke's performance, and the fact that he didn't take time to learn the character. His cocky boisterousness. "The kid didn't get it." And the way that he was picking up good-looking women, rather than the damaged goods we know him for...

A good documentary which hits on this is Bukowski: Born Into This.

Nobody will ever know what he would've said about "Factotum", but I felt that it did a MUCH better job at capturing "the darkness" & "the solitude", to say the least...
 
I absolutely agree. Barfly sucked. Factotum stayed far truer to Bukowski, and did a far better job at capturing that dirty quality that we all love him for.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top