Ordinary Madness vs. Barfly (1 Viewer)

thanks, hank solo. I thought so. Tales is dreadful. Crazy Love is a very good movie.
... he writes letters praising Rourke and his Chinaski. [...] I've seen later interviews where he states the opposite.
But this seems quite normal for Bukowski, to like someone or something and then change his mind later.
That's true Han, and would make an interesting new thread (e.g. Buk on Hem!)...
But tonight, I'll try to stick to the topic :-))
Reading through this whole thread, was like a hot/cold shower. So many different, yet true things said ...
Now here's my [extensive] contribution:

On Buk's thoughts about BARFLY:
Yes, there are lauds from him, esp short after the movie came out. This may confirm the mentioned intention to support it (which IS an important issue in movie-biz). Also in 'Hollywood', I remember a passage, where he watches the movie (or early proofs), sees the scene, when Rourke walks into his cheap room, turns on the radio, Mozart on it, and shadow-boxes, and his (Buk's) comment on the scene is something like:
That was me! It was like being in that cheap room again!
Later he was talking it down a little.
What mjp quotes in that interview by Mike Watt goes absolutely one way with what Buk says in the documentary 'I'm still here' (made for his 70th birthday, as posted elsewhere here). He complains, that Rourke had his hair hang down into his face etc. (I somewhat have problems with this complaint, since I can't imagine a bum, an alcoholic, a SUIZIDE-candidate [!] - concerning about his HAIRDO! but this is just personal opinion.)

now, My thoughts about BARFLY:
When I first saw it end of the 80s, I dismissed it. What really fucked me was Rourke walking like an ape (esp. the scene in the streets with the barking dog in the car). Also I was disappointed with the whole thing for reasons, I couldn't name then.
But when I later read the screenplay (which unfortunately is Not available in German language), I understood something about it's intention. A great read btw! No Buk-fan should miss this one!
Reading the screenplay and automatically asking myself, HOW would I transfere this to the screen, made me think twice. It is a well done movie. (not more or less.)
It simply is not easy to make a better one out of the play. I sure couldn't do it. But you need to know the master of it, to get to that understanding.

and here's Buk's thoughts about ORDINARY MADNESS:
From the letters we know, he first liked the director as well as the main character. (but didn't know anything about Ornela Muti, the female actor, who was a Sex-symbol then in Europe.) Even after drinking with them he didn't complain.
But when the movie came out, he immediately dismissed it!
He didn't like it AT ALL!

my thoughts about ORDINARY MADNESS:
Not only Buk hated this movie - nearly Everybody I know does!
So I offer another unpopular opinion tonight, saying: it's no big shot, yes, but it's o.k. done!
Haven't seen it for years but think I still can stick to the opinion, that it wasn't SO bad, as anyone uses to claim.
What one should consider, judging this movie is:
(a) it was the very first major picture based on Buk - that's Never easy!
(b) it was shot at a time, when Barbet Schroeder wasn't able to find ANYBODY to produce his movie!
The time was different and maybe filmbusiness wasn't ready for this author. Imagine Hollywood making a Bukowski-movie in the very early 80s! (even out of the Buk-screenplay) - Please!
(c) it is no good argument to claim, Gazarra was to 'cute' for the role. (They said the same about Dillon - EVEN BEFORE we've seen Anything of 'factotum'.) It's not a matter of beauty! And besides - Buk wasn't that ugly! sorry.
(d) subtract the ridiculous start of the movie and the pseudo-romantic end, just take the 'Most beautiful woman in town'-story! It's not THAT bad done. Maybe they just tried to put too many different stories in it. (I could also live without their version of the 'rape'-story, though it's funny in a way.)

As far as I know, Buk seemed to like CRAZY LOVE.
A little mystery to me, as I wasn't even able to watch the whole thing. I forced myself through the first episode and even started with the second. But, sorry. Couldn't bear this crap.
No offence! Ev'rybody's entitled to have his/her own taste ...

After this: what do you think (re-think)?
None of the motion pictures captured essence of his work, or idea(?). None of the rehashed interviews either. Are all his stories true, or phantasy? Who cares. He wrote few things that attracted and affected each of us in a different way. That's what matters the most. Rest of it, like movies, interviews, readings etc... Is just entertaining icing on the cake, (and money).
Consider them 'guilty pleasures,' enjoyable at the moment. Author communicating to you, and you interpreting him of the pages is all what counts.
that was probably Brother Schenker.

Ah, could be, thanks. I looked him up and notice he hasn't posted since January. And no external links on his profile. Anyhow, whoever it was, I was just really intrigued with that piece I got hold of last year and was sorry to lose it (the machine I had at the time gave up the ghost).
I can't believe that ben gazzara was so bad in 'tales...' I just watched 'the killing of a chinese bookie' again last night, and he is incredible. well, it is one of my favourite films by my favourite director. cassavetes really does it for me...
but gazzarra was so bad in 'tales..." christ, I can't stress that enough.
I blame the director.
k, back to my wine and maybe the 'chinese bookie' bonus features. god bless the Criterion Collection...
Ah, could be, thanks. I looked him up and notice he hasn't posted since January. And no external links on his profile. Anyhow, whoever it was, I was just really intrigued with that piece I got hold of last year and was sorry to lose it (the machine I had at the time gave up the ghost).

The Vomit Factory. ... Alexander T. Newport

You got it at LuLu.com
No Longer available.

Mr 1:15? Can you hear us?
Your friends want you...

Users who are viewing this thread