well, i finally watched it (1 Viewer)

but were hers (tomei's) really all that great or was it just because they were the only tits in the movie?

A great philosopher (George Washington Hayduke III from Ed Abbey's The Monkeywrench Gang) once said, "Cunt is cunt." Hmmmmmmmmmm ...
 

hank solo

Just practicin' steps and keepin' outta the fights
Reaper Crew
Moderator
Founding member
No Matt Dillon

5641_0062.jpg


(Now that's funny...)


And in character
 

mjp

Founding member
I think so. Clever and mocking, perhaps.

But don't take it too hard, everyone is mocked at one time or another around here. It comes with the territory, or goes with the territory...feel free to mock my use of jargon.
 

chronic

old and in the way
No, not really clever or mocking. Just kidding a bit with some weird free-association shit (Dillon-Damon-Diller) that came to mind. Okay, it was dumb, but if you took it personally... well, what can I say?
 
one of the most boring films i have ever seen-no risk -no humour totally un-Bukowski.Think they were trying hard to be PC (for a so called modern audience maybe)-also whoever made the film has obvoiusly not read a great deal of Bukowski becuase it was all so un-Bukowski.Bukowski shagged a load of bored women on the boat-where was that ! Also he would normally use a typewriter-not write in long hand. I am frankly ashamed of the film which made Barfly look like a classic.No soul-no spark-just boring and dull.
 

Black Swan

Abord the Yorikke!
Watched Factotum for a second time. I liked more this time. I actually liked Dillon, I thought that he did a good job at portraying Buk. I had sort of imagined Buk with a similar personality.Neater than in Barfly. I found Lilly Taylor to be very believable and lovable and Marisa Tomei stood out like a pinup from the forties. I loved the music. The film had a more contemporary feel. Perhaps a little too romantic.
The script in Barfly may be closer to the essence of Buk. But I found Rourke'walk ridiculous although his facial expressions were pretty good.
 
I guess I was the last person on earth to see the movie Factotum. I found it from the library couple of weeks ago...

Well, what can I say...If you think the book and the film are the same thing, you'll be disapointed. And If you consider it just as a film? I think that it was kinda boring. It's dificult to make a movie out of B's books, because there really isn't any clear story in them. It's just LIFE...I mean what was factotum all about? Did the main character learn anything? Was there any spiritual growth? Maybe, but was that the point of the book? (What am I trying to say here?)

Anyway, the film didn't work for me: way too slow. And way too much monologue! Funny at times, though - and I liked Dillon. But is this really a tribute or an offence to Buk? I don't think Buk would have liked the movie (well, he didn't really like Barfly either).

I was somewhat offended about some of the changes they made. And I think the movie at first made Chinaski (and in that way Bukowski to those who don't know anything about him) seem very hostile to Jan. It made him look like he was the one who was always mistreating the innocent little Jan, although I always got the feeling from Buks writing, that she was more wilder than him in many ways... But what do I know, huh? There was the bit in there, where he tells how Jan liked to fuck with just about anybody...so that balances things somewhat.

Then there was the odd little things...like "The Black Sparrow magazine that I admired...edited by John Martin". Is that supposed to be some kind of tribute to mr. Martin?

And what about the final scene: Chinaski sitting in a strip joint writing something. (Was that in the movie? At least there was a poster of the movie where he was WRITING in there.) Chinaski/Bukowski wouldn't ever have writen in such a place, because a) He had PAID to get in! He just went there to write? No, he went there to SEE THE SHOW. And b) Buk wasn't the kind of guy who wrote in cafés and shit...too many people, too much noise...

It didn't bother me so much that it was in present time. They didn't make such a big deal out of it.

And the music? It was not TERRIBLE, but once again...would this have been something Bukowski would have wanted? Would he have wanted somebody to make songs out of his poems? I think not. They were POEMS not LYRICS! And jazz? Why jazz? It's not right to fuck around with somebodys work like that after they are dead!

I can imagine Buk turning in his grave if he knew...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought it was ok. A lot of the humor in his work is hard to translate to film. Sorta like Elmore Leonard. Great books, lousy film interpretation.
 
I'm thinking that for someone who might not be too familiar with his work, or at least the book, the film version really won't make too much sense at all. I can almost hear some of them crying out, "where was the plot?" after seeing it. Whereas for those of us who've read and re-read the book several times over, it might leave some with an empty feeling because there was so much that was left out.
 
i'll never like matt dillon as much as rourke :D
watching factotum and then watching barfly was like eating cheese whiz, and then getting introduced to fine deli cheese. yum.
 
yeah, Barfly over Factotum. . . but, I did think Dillon was pretty good. I do,however, wish there was more depth in Factotum. Nonetheless, It is always exciting to see anything associated with Bukowski on the screen. Ive watched it several times and do own it on DVD.
 
I really enjoyed this movie myself. And as a student of film (once went to college but soon realized that a true artist needs only to be self taught) I truly enjoyed the armature of it... By this I mean it's style of imperfection truly did the film wonders.
 
i enjoyed it
but it would have been cool to see it more realistic
it seemed like buk in the suburbs
nice apartment, too clean etc.
but i like the film, it gets better with repeated viewings and dillion did a pretty good job
 
I watched the film last night. I have to say it didn't blow my mind like the book did. It was okay, but just lacked the energy and pace of the novel, and as much as I like Matt Dillon I didn't think he did an amazing job at playing Chinaski.

Saying all this, I still enjoyed it. The ending was well done and the photography was nice. I think I'll give it another watch soon...it'll probably grow on me a bit more I reckon. But overall the film had a very tired, weary feel that isn't so dominant in the book.
 

Rekrab

Usually wrong.
one of the most boring films i have ever seen-no risk -no humour totally un-Bukowski.Think they were trying hard to be PC (for a so called modern audience maybe)-also whoever made the film has obvoiusly not read a great deal of Bukowski becuase it was all so un-Bukowski.Bukowski shagged a load of bored women on the boat-where was that ! Also he would normally use a typewriter-not write in long hand. I am frankly ashamed of the film which made Barfly look like a classic.No soul-no spark-just boring and dull.

Exactly. Barfly is the best of the lot. By the way, Mickey Rourke is incredibly good in The Wrestler. And now he has the perfect beat to shit face to play the mature Bukowski, and the soul. I think he ought to have another look at Chinaski.
 
As I had predicted this is a grower!

I watched it two more times over the weekend and I really like it now. It has a subtle feel to it. It feels a little watered down when compared to the novel, but I kinda like the different perspective it gives. It captures the feeling of iscolation that Buk writes about and transfers this in a small, quiet but effective way. The photography is lovely and the scenes are all quite different and memorable. On second viewing it felt quite short compared to the first where I thought it dragged on.

It's by no means a perfect book to film interpretation, but they rarely are. To be honest it could just be the power of BUkowski's writing coming through that makes me like it a lot, but there is something quirky and nice in the way it is filmed and casted. It's very simple. Nothing much happens but the images stick in your brain long after.
 
I quite enjoyed the film but I think Dillon was too deadpan in his delivery. To be fair though I think it must be hard to make a film adaptation of any of Bukowski's work which compares favourably with the books.
I thought Barfly was a good effort though and I agree it would be interesting to see Rourke as an older Chinaski.
 
Yeah, I thought this at first. I kinda like it now though. Man I watched it for the 4th time last night, haha. It's one of those films that I can just put on in the background while I play my guitar. It has so many rewatchable scenes. The one where he spins round the midget at the pickle factory always cracks me up, as well as the scene when he goes back to his parents house and gets kicked out, and the constant scenes in the unemployment offices.

Actually when I think back to the film I think that Dillon's portrayal of Chinaski seems like it would fit the older Chinaski in Post Office better. I think the whole style of the film matches the feel of Post Office more than Factotum.

I have yet to see Barfly. I've seen the clips on Youtube. While it looks like a great film, it seems Micky Rourke's a acting seems a little too cartoonish and OTT. It's as if both Dillon and Rourke have gone for the two different extremes of Chinaski and not devoloped the middle ground enough.
 

bospress.net

www.bospress.net
I agree it would be interesting to see Rourke as an older Chinaski.


If Chinaski spent tens of thousands on plastic surgery to make himself look more inhuman than Michael Jackson and if Chinaski walked around with a little toy dog in his arm like he was Paris Hilton...

Bill
 
Actually, I think Jack Nicholson would be much better suited to play the older Chinaski than Rourke. Looks wise he is ugly enough, he's got the same monotonous slightly cocky slur in his accent and he has the similar attitude to Chinaksi. Actually thinking about it the young Nicholson would have been so damn good at playing Chinaski. i.e Nicholson in Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, One flew over the Cuckoonest, Chinatown etc. His characters in those films remind me of Chinaski quite a lot and once again that accent! it sounds a lot like Bukowski.

Ahhh if only.
 
I just watched factotum 2 nights ago. And I have to say I really like the book way better. Maybe it's the attention to detail in the book, i don't know. But I was thinking as I watched it that something was missing. And the end.... well it just seemed abrupt. Now I want to go and reread it again.
 
Finally watched Factotum last night. I didn't entirely dislike it, but then I was looking at it with a fair bit of knowledge about the subjects. I don't like Matt Dillon in the role, although for me it's more a case of miscasting than acting ability. He simply looks too scrubbed-up and healthy all of the time to be a convincing skid rower.

I think Lili Taylor is a doll and I liked her portrayal of Jan.

Story wise, I found myself concentrating more on trying to match places and events with Buk history than being "entertained". I don't think a "non-Buk" viewer would get much out of it at all, except perhaps a numb rear end for sitting through it. Bios and semi-bios can often suffer from being episodic in nature -- with no dramatic arc -- and this film is certainly episodic, but that is often the European way.

I don't think Buk would have liked it one little bit.
 
Actually, I think Jack Nicholson would be much better suited to play the older Chinaski than Rourke. Looks wise he is ugly enough, he's got the same monotonous slightly cocky slur in his accent and he has the similar attitude to Chinaksi. Actually thinking about it the young Nicholson would have been so damn good at playing Chinaski. i.e Nicholson in Easy Rider, Five Easy Pieces, One flew over the Cuckoonest, Chinatown etc. His characters in those films remind me of Chinaski quite a lot and once again that accent! it sounds a lot like Bukowski.

Ahhh if only.
I agree but you missed out The Last Detail.
 
[...] often suffer from being episodic in nature -- with no dramatic arc -- and this film is certainly episodic [...]

In THIS case the episodic character, the lack of drama, plot, etc, comes from the original model: 'Factotum' is an episodic book. That's why I'd never chosen this one to picturize a Buk-book. I'd shoot for 'Ham on Rye' or 'PO'.
 
Fair enough, then. I haven't read Factotum yet. Am currently reading Pulp, which is sounding more like a Hunter S Thompson plot -- sans mescaline -- by the page.

Hamer says on the DVD that he was interested in making Post Office but that the rights weren't available at that time and Factotum was his other choice.

I haven't read Post Office yet, either. I'm probably reading Buk in the wrong sequence.
 
There's no right or wrong sequence.
Just keep in mind, that 'Pulp' is Way different from all other Buk-novels when you start with them. All the others belong to a genre named 'autobiographic fiction', which means what it sounds like.

'Post Office', though somewhat episodic too, has much more plot/story/drama than 'Factotum' and I like it Way better.

The filming-rights for 'PO' are with Taylor Hackford, who once did the famous 'Bukowski'-documentary in the early 70s. But so far, it doesn't look like he's making something out of them.
 
Nonetheless, I'm beginning to think that I should get onto a chronological reading plan, which is what I would usually do with another author. So far my Buk sequence has been:

Barfly (movie)
Born Into This (on TV)
Women
Barfly (screenplay)
Factotum (movie)
The Bukowski Tapes (DVD)
Pulp

So, I'm jumping around a fair bit here.

I wonder if Hackford is intending to do anything with Post Office. Not much use to us his hanging onto the option if nothing is being developed, or there's no active intention of doing so.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top