well, i finally watched it (1 Viewer)

My wife and I watched factotum tonight. Her friends didn't think much of it. and they were buk fans. i don't think they've had enough exposure to his material. i find it amusing when someone criticizes his work. most of the time they haven't read much of what has been written, and if they have, then how pompous does one have to be to think their opinion counts for much to begin with. i didn't expect matt dillon to be chinaski anymore than mickey rourke was. but the few seemed to like the sensationalizing of barfly, while factotum was far more subdued. i had to tell my wife when there were actual parts drawn from the book and explain why it didn't take place in the forties. after we watched it, i pulled up the bukowski tapes and let her watch several chapters of that. and i dig hearing him spout. but the writing is what has always struck a chord with me. i don't care about the hype or groupies or critics. i like the words
 
I saw the film also. I am new to Buk and found the film fascinating. He reminded me of the characters, I or my friends accumulated, back in the 70's while going to HS. These were people who if you did give them the time of day would enlighten you immensely. Most people would see through them on the street because they did not call attention to themselves. The living ghosts I guess. You can see this strange played out in films like CRUMB, GHOST WORLD, and AMERICAN SPLENDOR. People with reserved and mild intelligence telling you straight with a half smile.

I am adding Buk's work to my keen keep-an-eye.
 

reasonknot

Founding member
in factotum i noticed
that the "era" film makers
didn't care enough to make the
postal drop boxes fit the time.
instead using the modern emblem
drop boxes of today.

decent movie though even without
dylan getting to into buks w.c.fields drawl.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
I thought the film makers shot it in the present day. the cars were new. I could be wrong.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
They did shoot it in the present day! I know many people don't like that and the fact that you did'nt see Chinaski travelling the country. The book takes place in the forties,but since it was a low budget movie they couldn't afford to let it look like the forties, so they had to settle for the present day and cut out all cross-country travels...Maybe not a great movie, but an ok movie all the same, I think...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
I saw it for the first time last night and thought it was a boring piece of crap. Lousy script, dead in the water, very dull. Painful to watch. I was embarassed to be a Buk fan; I didn't want anyone thinking: "Ah, so THIS is what Bukowski is like." They needed a story. Really badly. Nice photography. Good music. I liked some of the actors. They were trying hard to make something of nothing. How they got the details meant nothing to me because the movie had huge problems in that it doesn't engage the viewer -- at least not this one. So glad I rented and didn't buy this one. It makes BARFLY, which I give a "B" grade, seem like classic genius filmmaking. My wife's one word critique: "lifeless." I agree. I could not have cared less about the characters. That it was based on a Bukowski book meant nothing. It's not a good movie. Sorry, because I know some of you here love it. Guess I'm hard to please when it comes to film.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
Hi,
It is worth seeing, at least to make your mind up. That being said, I was not too into it. Still, I'm so obsessive about Bukowksi that I do own a copy....

Bill
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
I wanted to like it. I was all pumped up for it, but it just wasn't working for me. Bored from the start. I may have to buy a cheap used copy someday, just for reference.
 

mjp

Founding member
I was indifferent to it, which is about the worst reaction you can have to any kind of art. At least love and hate have something behind them. I just didn't care.

One positive thing that I will say is all of the actors are far, far better at playing drunks than the hammy "Foster Brooks" school of acting that was on display in Barfly.
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
well, you all are crazy, but that's ok. I rather you crazy.
and i hate to sound like a broken record, but if you haven't seen Crazy Love, see it. trust me. forget I liked Factotum and trust me.
tell you what, come over to my place. I own a copy and just got a new LCD tv.
I'll order pizza, we'll drink, maybe a pillow fight...what? uh....
anyway, I promise when i get drunk I WON'T read you my poetry.
tho, zoom man keep your fingers off my non-bukowski first editions, and henry chinaski, I'll be frisking you for cd's when you leave. fair warning.
deal?
 

hoochmonkey9

Art should be its own hammer.
Moderator
Founding member
One positive thing that I will say is all of the actors are far, far better at playing drunks than the hammy "Foster Brooks" school of acting that was on display in Barfly.

ah, Foster Brooks. I loved the "Dean Martin Celebrity Roast" when I was a kid. Brooks was often a guest.
I had no idea what they were talking about or laughing at, but it seemed like the best thing ever. corny and not that funny now, I know, but they really made it seem very sexy to be an adult. now I know the truth...adults laugh at any old fucking thing when they're drunk. or pretending to be drunk. nothing sexy about that. rarely, anyway.
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Okay, to add to my confusion, I rewatched a few chapters of Factotum today before turning in the rental, and liked it a bit more. No longer a piece of crap. Now I say, it's just okay. Very slow, and almost nothing happens, but some scenes I appreciate for what they are (which is almost nothing), although they still go nowhere taken together.

One petty complaint: Dillon is too handsome to be convincing as Chinaski. Where are the pock marks, the scars, the fleshy veined nose? Also, when he's "drunk" he looks stone sober to me. And he seems to be "trying" to sound like Bukowski, rather than being Chinaski. I like most of the other actors, but Dillon isn't cutting it for me.

Funny, when I first saw Barfly, I didn't care for it much, either. Many years later, I watched it again, and liked it much more. Maybe I just expect too damned much. Bukowski is holy ground for me, and I haven't found a film yet that really does Buk justice. Or am I just an impossible to please fan?
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
David, have you watched the belgian movie Crazy Love/Love is a dog from hell ? Maybe you would like that interpretation of Buk better. As for Factotum, I was disapointed first time I saw it. Later, when I watched it at home on dvd I liked it much better. Maybe it's one of those movies you have to watch a couple of times to like. It sure was slow, but there's not much of a plot in the book either. Yes, maybe Dillon is too handsome to play Buk/Chinaski but where are you gonna find an actor with pockmarks, scars and a fleshy veined nose. I don't think the actor necessarily have to be Buk/Chinaski's spitting image as long as he fills the part (although it helps).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sure you're right, REKRAB, there wasn't any Bukowski to be seen on screen so far, that has it. Except the true one. He set the mark so high, there'll NEVER be any Bukowski like him.
So, having this in mind, I think Dillon has done a fair job.

You're sure as hell right on the movie, having a problem in NOT having a PLOT.
That's the main problem, that's also the reason, why it's so slow (besides the director is from North-Europe and may be influenced by Aki Kaurismaki).
And you and BUKFAN are exactly right, that this (also) comes from the novel itself. It's a novel of many single episodes and so is the movie. (I hadn't chosen that one anyway - of the novels it's the weakest I think.)

When I first saw the movie, I was indifferent (like mjp) and THUS very dissapointed (like rekrap). So was my first reaction to BARFLY in the 80s.
In both cases I needed to watch more often and (re-)read the literary basis to enjoy it a little more. I then started to ask myself: how would I do it, when filming this? And though I found a great lot of things that I had done different, I must admit, the movies (both) as a whole are well done. (not more or less.) It's not easy to do a proper movie on a Bukowski-basis.

So I still prefer watching the 'Bukowski-Tapes' over and over. As I said, they star the very best Bukowski-actor ever.

Still I'm hoping for a picturization of 'Women' starring Jack Nicholson.



 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
Jack Nicholson as the older Bukowski? Now that I can see! He has the style, the swagger, the balls to pull it off.

On Dillion, I heard they gave him a chin piece to make him look more like Buk, so why not the pock marks?

Why is it so far most or all of the films have been by European filmmakers? They are appreciative of Bukowski's writings, but I really don't think they get it -- it being Buk or America. Something is always off in these films. I haven't seen Crazy Love -- gotta track that one down.
 
hehe ,thats right,i also think that jack could be a good bukowski .
I liked the writer he played in "Besser gehts nicht"(As Good as it Gets).
Quite some lovely madness.
 

HenryChinaski

Founding member
yeah, the fact that it was shot in present day downgrades the movie a lot. they just didnt capture the book. a lot of the cliche bukowskiisms are there but the damned thing just doesnt cut it. the first time I watched it, I liked it a lot. the second time i watched it, I still liked it. but about the fourth or fifth time, it just seemed shitty. I'm one of these people who can watch a movie a zillion times and never grow tired of it so this was a shock. I havent seen it in a long time though. I downloaded it before it was released in the states and then inundated my brain with it. not a good idea. maybe though, when I buy it and watch it, it'll be brand new again. I hope...

probably, I'd say the best scene is the crab scene. thats by far my favorite part of the book so I was glad when they left that in the film.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Too bad they did'nt keep the deleted scenes in the movie though...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ROC

It is what it is
So.... not very good and too short?! :)

I have the DVD and will be watching it next week.
My wife will going overseas for 5 weeks, so you are all invited to my place for a Factotum, drinking, smoking and behaving badly party.

PS- don't nobody touch my books!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I liked it. It captured enough of the general Bukowski atmosphere for me, if not certain characters or works. And I got to see Marisa Tomei's tits and Lilli Taylor in her underwear, so how could that be bad?
 
I thought so, but maybe not; what did I miss? Cuz if it's Lili Taylor's, I'll go borrow it again. (Speaking of whom, I first saw her in Household Saints, so that's where that crush started.)
 

ROC

It is what it is
I've read all the posts re Factotum so I was fully expecting warm turds.

That may explain why I had a really good time watching it.
3-4 laugh-out-loud moments. Some scenes really captured Buks sense of ennui/pathos.
And I thought a good job was done overall sticking to a Buk-like feel.

As much as one can in such a "corrupted' medium.

I found the duplicated Barfly scenes interesting too.

My only real disappointment was the sudden ending but, on reflection, that's how Buk ends a lot of his writing.

Just so.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Erik

If u don't know the poetry u don't know Bukowski
Founding member
Ahh, the version with the deleted intercourse scene, only available in Scandinavia...
You're joking of course, or did they really remove this scene in "the home of the prudes" version?
 
Roc, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Your judgements are absolutely right.
(maybe one needs to have lower expectations to get more out of it. Could also be the reason why some people like this or 'Barfly' more when watching the 3rd time after they didn't get much out of it the first times.)
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
You're joking of course, or did they really remove this scene in "the home of the prudes" version?

Yes, I'm joking...:D ...but it's a scary thought that it could have been true...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I started to watch Factotum, but having recently come across Born Into This and getting a full dose of the real Bukowski on film, I don't think Matt Dillon did him justice. Bukowski (especially in the later years) had such a unique intensity in his eyes; Dillon's vacant stare paled in comparison--and I do realize his portrayal was of a younger Bukowski.

Maybe I have to come back to it sometime in the future to get through the entire movie.
 
Ahh, the version with the deleted intercourse scene, only available in Scandinavia...

In the one I rented, there's a sex scene with Tomei and Dillon that was short. In this Scandinavian version, is this scene longer, or is there a different scene? My version was pretty nice, anyway, and you can see pictures at the Celebrity Movie Archive site.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
I was just joking! Did'nt you read my reply to Erik a few posts back? I thought it was obvious that I was kidding. The only deleted scenes I know of, are the ones on the dvd (bonus material). But of course it was a possibility with a special Scandinavian version since the director Bent Hamer is norwegian...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just now I did, so consider me straightened out. Sorry for the lapse into obtuseness. Or obtusity. By the way, in that extra documentary, I liked the shirt someone was wearing that said "Get Bent."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This movie was A GIGANTIC PIECE OF SHIT.
The story ONLY makes sense when set in the 1940s, and, aside from not even bothering to follow the plot of the novel, all of the voice-overs were from MUCH later Bukowski work.
 

Bukfan

"The law is wrong; I am right"
Just now I did, so consider me straightened out. Sorry for the lapse into obtuseness. Or obtusity. By the way, in that extra documentary, I liked the shirt someone was wearing that said "Get Bent."

I don't remember the "get bent" shirt, but I think Hamer should have left the deleted scenes in the movie. Especially the bar scene where Hank is with the girls and one of them say that Pierre (the guy with the boat) has died and that it may be her fault because she poured water in his vodka and he never used water in his vodka. Not only a very funny scene but also the natural ending of the Pierre episode. Strange that Hamer chosed to pull that scene...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree about the deleted scenes, and the one I liked was when the hat blew off Pierre's head and the girl ran and got it. I don't know all the reasons producers and directors choose scenes, but maybe the movie had to be shorter and they had to cut things they didn't want to.
I'm just glad they left Marisa's tits in the picture, I tell you what.
 
ah, the breastLoop.
Try looking girls in the eyes too, now and then.
They could start to thing you are narrow-minded, well, depends on the girl.
Just my experience.
 
I know you're right, I need plenty of work, don't we all?
But you reminded me of this:
Where is the best place for a woman to hide money from a man?
Her forehead.
 
now gentlemen - a women doesn't mind a gaze now and then. 'tis good for the ego. but were hers (tomei's) really all that great or was it just because they were the only tits in the movie?

i found the film intriguing...it hooked me in the moment, but was easily forgotten once over. having never read the actual novel (i know, i know...*boo, hiss*), i didn't have much to compare it to. i am a fan of dillon and think that he has the capacity and passion for roles such as this, but that does not necessarily mean he has a knack for it. i loved lily taylor - fucking brilliant. overall, not bad. i may need to watch it a few more times to pick it apart a bit more (i spent the $17 on it...might as well...)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top