The Slave Trader vs. the Bunny
God I love Vincent Gallo. Brown Bunny Cannes screening flops in a flareout of booing. Gallo apologizes: calls his film “a disaster and a waste of time.” Ebert calls it “the worst movie in the history of the Cannes Film Festival.” Gallo calls Ebert a “fat pig” with “the physique of a slave-trader.” Ebert: “It is true that I am fat, but one day I will be thin, and he will still be the director of ‘The Brown Bunny.’” Nonetheless, like y, I won’t miss this film for the world.
I love how personally Gallo takes everything. Filmmaking should be personal like this. I’m sick of people who act like they can hate Kevin Smith films, but have no problem with Kevin Smith. Kevin Smith is the fucking problem, people!
Likewise film critics – I think you said Gallo was cliched, but I thought the way he defended Buffalo 66 was as hilarious as it was reasonable: “You know how hard I worked on this how much thought I put in it and how easy it is for you to go home and spend five lazy minutes trashing the shit out of me you fucking faggots?!”
My prediction: the penetrating depth of Gallo’s “the physique of a slave-trader” remark will land, like a scud, in time, and burrow its way deeply enough into Ebert’s malnourished psyche that it will plant a small wound there – a wound that – had it arrived some fifty odd years earlier – might have enabled him to create something meaningful, freeing him from his life of four paragraph film raves for the genius of Forrest Gump and Kalifornia, and the genius of their ilk.
On the other hand, twenty years down the road, anyone doubt Gallo will have secured for himself the reputation of legendary auteur? Anyone doubt Brown Bunny will have recouped its losses and become one of the most notorious in his oeuvre?
As usual, any form of irony that isn’t underscored by James Horner and telegraphed home with an extreme close-up is all lost on The Pig.
Also, what’s with this whole “One day I’ll be skinny…” thing? Does Ebert believe this? Isn’t he like 60 by now? Does he believe anything he says?!
Did Ebert really say that? He just ripped that burn off of Winston Churchill, after Lady Astor accused him of being drunk he told her: “and you madam, are ugly, but I’ll be sober in the morning.” It works because the effects of drinking do wear off. Ebert’s: “One day I’ll be thin” is a pretty feeble defense. He’s been fat his whole life, he’s 61. Is he really going to crash diet now? Will he slide into his seventies a svelt silver fox? Doubtful. We’re not talking about a twenty pound spare tire, he’s a bonafide fatty. And all the guy does is sit on his ass and watch movie after movie after movie. He needs exercise post-haste, and he’s not getting it in his job, and he’s a very high-profile crtic, meaning he probably works all the time. Chances are he’ll never be thin, at least not until he’s dead and buried and worms gorge themselves on his pale flesh until they die from overeating and then new worms come along and eat and eat and eat and feed the next ten generations of their offspring, and then, after several years of rotting corpsebert, chemical reactions finally reduce the tissue into organic elements that the earth can digest.
He could prove us wrong I suppose, but ultimately it’s a lame comeback. Advantage: Gallo.
Easy on my boy Ebert. Believe it or not, I’m a big fan, not so much for his reviews but for his a) film preservation work b) opposition to digital projection in its present state c) ideas about DVD commentary tracks d) commentary track for Citizen Kane. Keep in mind also that you are defending a film you haven’t seen. Are you that sure after one good film that Gallo can do no wrong? Don’t you think a frothing hothead such as he could easily pants up a movie beyond repair?
Gallo’s comments you cite aren’t reasonable. Every film, even Yongary the Korean-Localized City-Stomping Giant Monster Ripoff Movie, takes a lot of work, which bears no relation to its quality. But I think he deploys Dylanesque bullshit at every turn, knowing the sheer entertainment value of his rants will get him press – otherwise I wouldn’t stand for the casual homophobia & fat-hatin’. “Physique of a slave trader” is a masterwork of associative slander, and it’s a great joke, but as a rebuttal to criticism it’s pure trash.
On seeing King’s comment, I’d like to score the play to Ebert, but these two aren’t even playing the same game.
D, thanks for using the word “pants” in a sentence. I’d forgotten about its application as a cuss. As in, “Brown Bunny is such a pants film”. Marvellous.
I’m impressed with King for picking up on Rog’s Churchillian reposte. Next thing old Ebert will be saying is, “I’ve taken more out of film reviewing than film reviewing has taken out of me” although on that score he’d be dead on: it’s hard “taking out” weight whilst sitting stationary in a movie theatre.
I’m with Jerms – thanks King, for the history.
D – the very idea of Roger Ebert talking about Citizen Kane makes me want to wretch repeatedly until I’m dead, and I can’t understand how anyone could feel any different.
“The worst movie in the history of the Cannes Film Festival”?!
I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was trying to help Gallo, but I know too much of his taste, his undiscerning passion for all things Hanksian, and his inane inability to depart with his ‘Tom Cruise is our greatest Living Actor’ thesis. As I’ve said from the beginning, Brown Bunny could suck. I know I haven’t seen it, and shouldn’t speak. Yet, to say the obvious, the worst movie ever to be entered at Cannes is some forgettable piece of shit that didn’t offend, divide, or enlighten anyone. Anyone who doesn’t grasp this is dubious at best claiming they’re a ‘critic,’ no? If your standards are exclusively geared around remaining in the majority, your place should be on Röeper and Roëper, where you can influence the Academy to vote for Sandra Bullock and Morgan Freeman and possibly even – through the weight of your considerable sway – get them to team up for a thriller. If you go to France, and something offends your sensibilities and you’re willing to be that insultingly dismissive about it, you get what’s coming to you. There should be no mercy.
About this “unreasonable” “Dylanesque bullshit”? To me, that’s a term that applies to everything between the years of ’78 (or whenever it was he hooked up with Dire Straits) until about 2001 (or whenever it was he started making music again.) Everything else is as far from BS as you can get, no? Like, isn’t it the straight goods that if you want to forge a career on esoteric meditations you have to play the game on the largest scale possible, generating as much press as The Good Lord will allow? What’s BS to me is listening to artists act like they aren’t hurt by the things critics say. I always think if you’re not hurt, there’s something wrong. (Or, you’re movie’s made you so rich you can’t feel anything anymore.)
In my books there is only one game, Ebert and Gallo are playing it, and Ebert’s a LOSER.
I can’t understand how anyone could feel any different.
Mmm-hmm. Once again, I like Ebert against all odds, after hating him for years for mostly the same reasons you hate him. I loathe Forest Gump as much as the next guy, but seriously that commentary track is great. I admire your ability to not only judge things you haven’t experienced, but also to rail against those who have experienced them and disagree. Short answer: you watch it, then we’ll talk.
Maybe you’re misunderstanding me: I love Dylanesque bullshit and would pull the same myself, no question. And bullshit in the epistemological sense, i.e. the purpose of bullshit is not to deceive but to look like you’re telling the truth – this was the subject of a (forgive me) first year film assignment, take the essay “on bullshit” and apply it to Dylan’s behaviour in “Don’t Look Back.” So bullshit in a non-perjorative sense. But to call something of that nature reasonable, i.e. based on reason, is mistaken. For sure “the worst movie in the history of Cannes” is an exaggeration, but nonetheless the jist of it is that a critic gave Gallo a bad review and Gallo responded by calling him fat and equating him with a slave trader. Which I find funny and I love, as per my opening line, but I don’t feel anything in the whole sleazy story reflects badly on Ebert.
And Freeman belongs with Judd! They’re the chicken n’ ribs of cinema, as the man says, right King?
“But to call something of that nature reasonable, i.e. based on reason, is mistaken.”
But why? If controversy sells, and you want to be a filmmaker, and you know if you don’t “act controversial” it means your movie won’t get half the press… It only seems “reasonable” to follow through on this logic, no?
And I must say, I too admire my ability to judge Ebert for hating something I’ve yet to see. My feeling is Roger hasn’t actually seen a movie in his life. He’s openly attempted to destroy the careers of a few of the more interesting filmmakers of his time, and I’m at the point where – it’s sort of like activists being thrown in jail – they may have been behaving badly, but I can see no reason to let up on the shitbags with the mustard gas.
“Shit bags with mustard gas” – this makes no sense. Maybe I meant “powers that be”. At any rate, I really don’t mean to be sounding so argumentative about all this (I’m just getting into the spirit of things.) All hail Brown Bunny!
And peace out, yo!
The statements themselves are not reasonable, nor do they as a body form anything reasonable – he called his own movie a waste of time, then denied he said it. When Murch finds himself spouting gibberish in a church at 4am he has a reason for doing it, yet what he says is still gibberish.
Openly attempted to destroy careers? Please “unpack.”
The fastest way to “unpack” is to ask you, seriously, to check out “The Noam Chomsky Ralph Nader and Marshall McLuhan of film critics.” Eh? Eh? I think you’d love it. I also think it would clear up a lot. Ray Carney’s got a lot to say about the state of contemporary film criticism, and I’ve been thoroughly swayed by his writing. It’s great shit. Hell, even Ebert’s championed the guy! (I almost don’t want to mention he had no choice in this, as Carney was wiping the floor with his ass – making him look laughably out-of-step with the times – while filmmakers of the day [say, Harmony Korine,] were praising Carney as the authority on modern cinema.)
I could go through Carney’s books and pull out the more egregious Ebertisms from over the years but (un)forunately there’s no index of names, and anyway, as you could probably guess, my problems with Ebert aren’t actually problems with Ebert. It’s all just me – the fact I don’t see any reason to let up on the guy for loving Minority Report so much (I’m sorry but – Wha?). Or the fact it took him 20 years to grasp Cassavetes, then he revised his views so it would appear he was a fan all along (many have been guilty of this). Or for failing to do jack when it comes to championing – or even mentioning – Caveh Zahedi or any of the dozens of other filmmakers listed in the closing pages of Carney’s Adventures In Insecurity who are breathing new life into the form, and who he could help “make” with a single positive review.
This last point is weak, I know. I mean, why would Ebert use his platform to force health-food down people’s throats when he can continue dining out on the kind of colon-clogging crap he’s spent his career taking seriously? Why would he? A related question: Why would I like him? Seriously? I’m sure he’s a fine enough guy – but this is true of so many.
Ray Romano for instance – way better guy than most of us will ever be. He’s probably given hundreds of thousands to charity already, and if I ever met him I’m sure he’d be respectful and polite and smart and maybe even (though I can’t stress how much I doubt this) funny. His show is rank though, the values of his show are rank, and I see no fun in trying to make my mind think nice things about him.
I won’t let you make me either!
Regardless of where I end up on Brown Bunny – I can’t get behind the whole “Roger Ebert’s actually a really cool guy” thing. My heart’s just not in it, and for this I can offer no apology.
This debate is fantastic. It’s about opinion and it’s about criticism, and everyone’s engaged in an open criticism of each other’s opinions about these topics.
y’s comment “My heart’s just not in it” says it all. You listen to what your heart tells you and then you go with it. Unless you’re swayed by the opinions of others because your own inner critic challenges what you believe.
I guess Ebert just has a popular voice. His minority-report loving sensibility is in tune with enough readers and viewers that it carries weight. But that’s why the business of criticism is so retarded. I guess you sort of identify with who a person is, and then follow their advice, or you trust that they are an “expert” and maybe know something that you don’t , so you follow their advice. At the end of the day though, if Ebert tells me a movie sucks, and my friends tell me it’s good, then fuck Ebert. Or vice-versa. The thing that isn’t really fair about his line of work is that he’s trapped in a thums up or down system. I never actually watch Ebert & Roeper, nor do I read his column, so I’m like, is it Good or Bad? That’s it. There’s no middle ground. And what does that mean, like good or bad in terms of dollar value? Then I gotta figure out what $10 is worth to me versus having a cinematic experience which, even when it’s bad, can often be good. There’s hundreds of movies that have twenty minutes of filmic ingenuity and the rest you’d hate on morphine.
Anyhow, I only wanted to comment on Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd. I do think they belong together, of course, and yes, the chicken n’ ribs of cinema sounds about right. I don’t know who the “man” who said that is D, but I assume it’s either you or Roger. And with a high-protein food reference involved it could go either way. Although, Ebert has already called Vin Diesel the hot pork sandwich of American Cinema, and doesn’t he call Cruise his little Tomburger and Fries?
Trivia question: of Siskel, Ebert and Roeper, which one was gay?
All of the above.
I’d like to address more questions than this, but it will have to wait for the inevitable sobreity.
Oh, c’mon D, commenting while drunk is the best!
To King’s question, it’s a toughy but here goes: Siskel tried to pick up my aunt once like twenty years ago so it couldn’t be him. And I recall Ebert stating that there were too many sex scenes where men were having sex with women up against walls and had anyone actually tried this? and – he had – he said, and he didn’t think it should keep on happening in movies. (Which makes him hetero too in my books.)
And that leaves Roeper.
I think Roeper is asexual. I imagine he makes the same confused expression whether looking at a naked woman or man…So I’m thinking it was a trick question. Right? Eh? I am right?
Besides gay-guessing, this conversation now centers around Ebert’s ability to review film, which is besides the point. When speaking of the battle between Gallo and Ebert, what did Ebert do wrong? Does anyone really fault him for panning the film, which is by all accounts dreadful? Also, please note that I never defended Ebert’s film reviewing skills – far from it. Minority Report can eat a warm dick. It’s his other work that I appreciate, but like I say it’s completely beside the point and I have no interest in defending him.*
Mr. Carney – well looky here the term bullshit comes up again, but in a context I find completely unappealing: “You will never again be able to watch a film by someone like Lynch, Allen, Tarrantino or the Coens, without an incessant, blinking ‘bullshit’ light going off in your head.” I’m taking a gander through some of his blurbs and while I enjoy the accessible, tuff-talking style and admire his cojones for going up against Citizen Kane, I can’t really agree with him. Kane as kitsch? Come on. Look what else he hates: Psycho, Godfather, 2001.
Yeah right I’ll read this guy. Sounds like form-hating art-fetishist snobbery of the highest order.
Well to tell you the truth y, I’m willing to try a book of his (I can’t judge based on blurbs alone), but has he written anything good that’s not about Cassavetes? As you know I find Cassavetes unwatchable.
King – I think either Grohaus or Jost came up with that chicken n’ ribs line, although it might have been Les.
*But I can’t help myself: you can’t blame someone for not championing, can you? I’ve never heard of Caveh Zahedi: am I doing something wrong?
“Besides gay-guessing, this conversation now centers around Ebert’s ability to review film, which is besides the point.”
What is the point at this point? Initially, 1) I love Gallo, [agree] 2) I’ll see Brown Bunny, [agree] 3) Ebert can’t make a come back to save his life [agree]. Got me thinking about artists, controversy, the willingness to wound and stir shit up, which we also agreed on, but for the fact my comments were rash – I misspelled “your” – made little sense, meant every word, and quickly found my hands tied as I couldn’t actually say anything about Brown Bunny without having seen it. Worse still, having never passed through a transcendental Russ Meyer phase (in spite of, ahem, watching 3 of his films), I’d never determined it was sufficiently worth my time to nuance my views on Roger Ebert. As a result, his film preservation work and ideas about digital projection had never hampered my ability to have fun at the expense of his opinions. I mentioned Carney not because he’s a better example of what a film-writer should be (as I know you don’t care for Ebert’s reviews), but because I was being pressed to recall Ebertisms written about in Carney books. I’ll never bad-mouth The Eeb-Man again [while at d/blog] – and I am sorry if I led us off topic, though I don’t see how any of this is beside the point.
“You will never again be able to watch a film by someone like Lynch, Allen, Tarrantino or the Coens, without an incessant, blinking ‘bullshit’ light going off in your head.”
I put as much stock in this as I do 2 Fast 2 Furious being “The Thrill Ride of the Summer” (until I know enough to care who Steven Schuldt is). I could lay into Carney for putting the quote on his site, but it’s another matter, as I like Ray Carney for his writing, while apparently having reservations about his approach to self-promotion. But on the other hand, what about that Brakhage quote? “You are brilliant at showing the disaster that has fallen on the whole educational system with its gaga admiration of these emotional manipulators and their little sob stories. You are the world’s greatest at puncturing the pomposity of these puff-pockets. What moves me is not only that you nail the problem in such detail – but that you then say what ought to be done. It’s a catharsis and a release to read you.” And we both like Brakhage, don’t we?
“Kane as kitsch? Come on. Look what else he hates: Psycho, Godfather, 2001.”
“Come on”? There are already enough books out there praising the above mentioned films to create another ring around the planet of Saturn, and Carney simply does not ‘hate’ them – the books or the movies – he just has the audacity to contextualize them differently. For what it’s worth, I love the artists you’re being protective of, and it doesn’t interfere with my ability to appreciate where Carney’s coming from.
“… has he written anything good that’s not about Cassavetes? As you know I find Cassavetes unwatchable.”
1) What you found unwatchable, D, (Faces’ first twenty minutes,) was too much for Carney also. He walked out probably right around the point you turned off your tv, despising what he’d seen, and he returned the next day only because he wanted to be a responsible film critic who knew of what he spoke. If Cassavetes could somehow accurately be represented by the first twenty minutes of Faces I’d probably understand why you pay the Wackowski brothers more respect than you do a man who moved mountains in his lifetime, and left behind a body of work that influenced American Independent Cinema beyond recognition. 2) Carney’s written books on Vittorio De Sica, Carl Dreyer, and Mike Leigh. Eh? Eh? (The Mike Leigh book includes an essay on Naked, but is unfortunately mostly about his seventies films, many of which prove difficult to find.)
*But I can’t help myself: you can’t blame someone for not championing, can you? I’ve never heard of Caveh Zahedi: am I doing something wrong?
I don’t think less of anyone for not championing someone they haven’t heard of, no. The difference between you and Ebert (in this instance) is he’s seen Caveh Zahedi films and you haven’t. If he’d paid them any mind, maybe you would have. Who knows, maybe you’d even have liked them.
And look, I already said the point was weak!
Dude, I completely forgot that Ebert co-wrote Beyond the valley of the Dolls. Shame on me, but that’s just another notch on Ebert’s belt – what a fucking script! I know you’re just bringing it up to attack my boy Meyer since I dissed Cassy, right back atcha man!
I agree we’ve run out of things to bitch about here, with one exception: 3. Ebert’s comeback was just fine and he conducted himself perfectly in this altercation (from the information we have). I’m sure he knew he was paraphrasing Winnie. This is why I take issue with prolonged harping on his ability to review, which I had never brought up and didn’t factor into the topic at all, although I don’t have a problem with discussion meandering off topic, just thought it was a little unfair in this case. As it would be, for example, if I posted something about how the fat kid painted something really pretty, but then all everyone wants to comment about is how fat he is.
As for Carney… well, having read an essay in its entirety I take back my offer about reading a book of his. I’ve already started a meticulous rant about the assumptions made in said essay, and when I polish it I’ll post it… here’s hoping we still hang out afterwards. Much of what you say there is right: I was using a quote by someone else, and in the passage I refer to he’s not so much hating on classic films as resenting their position in the canon. My point will still stand, I can tell you that much, on the shoulders of new evidence. I love a polemicist, but you have to have a purpose to it, as McLuhan did. Carney’s purpose seems to be to champion independent, difficult art cinema with a personal vision that speaks to the soul – and I have severe problems with the terms independent, difficult, art, personal vision, and soul. I know I’m straw-manning it here but the real deal will have to wait.
More importantly, sir, you’re right to taunt me for not watching Faces all the way through while I sit through not one but two Matrix movies. So I pledge to view in its entirety the Cassy film of your choosing. You, in return, will view Citizen Kane with Ebert’s commentary activated. I’m tempted to add repeat viewings of BVD but hey, I’ll take it easy. The victor of this competition will be the man who enjoys his torture. A tie is possible.
Although my tastes run to the formal and genre-based, I’ll have you know I’m a huge fan of My Dinner With Andre, as well as all the Dogme movies I’ve seen, so it’s not completely unlikely I’ll actually win our new competition. I wasn’t conspiring against Cassy, just that I was full of loathing after half an hour. It was a creature feature to me: actors run amok, trampling everything in their path, including cinema. I very rarely stop watching a movie partway through…. But I digress. Peace out, and such.
I know, I know – aren’t we done yet? I wasn’t going to… but why not?
I completely forgot that Ebert co-wrote Beyond the valley of the Dolls.
Bullshit!
I know you’re just bringing it up to attack my boy Meyer since I dissed Cassy, right back atcha man!
I was bringing it up to explain why a smarty-pants would go to such mind-boggling extremes to defend the likes of Sir Roger Ebert. My use of the word “transcendental” was absolutely sincere – I can’t match your enthusiasm for Meyer, but I wouldn’t have watched 3 of his films if I didn’t find him interesting.
Ebert’s comeback was just fine and he conducted himself perfectly in this altercation (from the information we have).
“Perfectly”? From the moment I read it, “one day I’ll be thin” felt like it missed the point of everything. Probably better not to dignify Gallo with a response.
This is why I take issue with prolonged harping on his ability to review, which I had never brought up and didn’t factor into the topic at all…
I factor Ebert’s reviewing skills into the equation for fun. It is different from the fun one might feel pissing at a fat kid for being fat, while ignoring his pretty painting – which I would think of as no fun at all. No, it is the fun of actually bothering to write about my issues with a cultural icon who I disagree with left, right and center about everything. He’s called Brown Bunny the “worst movie ever…”, and if you combine that with the broader issue of his taste, it’s easy to grasp why Gallo would fly off the handle… Ebert was beggin’ for it!
If, on the other hand, you wish to argue that by reducing Chloe Sovigny to porn star, Gallo was the one picking the fight with Ebert from the beginning, you’ll hear no argument from me.
Now, To the matter of competition number 2…
I will watch Kane with Ebert’s comment track activated, and though I won’t be able to do much to suspend my disbelief (as Ebert will be talking,) I will do my best to keep an open mind. I’ll trust you to do the same when your formalist taste and editing background prevent you from the luxury of ignoring a violated axis or the occasional moment of soft focus in a Cassy-flick. You should know that it’s not being done to drive you crazy. Those movies were shot for nothing. While I’ll patiently await your de-bunking-of-Carney to know why you object to the term “Independent”, in the case of Cassy – who punched Stanley Kramer in the face – it just means he had a hard time getting money from studios. He was not ‘dependent’ upon them. Most of his movies are financed through his work as an actor, with the occasional European playboy throwing him dough along the way. As a result, they’re made on shoe-string budgets, shot mostly in his house or the houses of his pals, who crewed and acted and cooked and whatever else. They tend to look more like low-budget documentaries than features. Because I understand this is distressing for you, I’ll recommend Love Streams. It’s his last film, by which time he was able to afford things like lights and such, (though, God bless him, the mortgage on his house was the same when he died as it was when he moved in).
Love Streams isn’t anywhere to be found in our only-so-so city, but I’ll ask around and see if I can’t find a copy from one of my buddies…
At the outset, I must say about all of this I’d prefer to watch anything more than Ebert talking through a movie I’ve seen ten times, but if this is truly analogous to you’re feelings about Cassevetes, then it’s what Imagone do…
Let the torture begin!
Sheesh, again with this “your” word! Damn you “your” I’ll kick your ass one of these days – if it’s the last thing I ever do!!!
Can’t get hold of Love Streams unfortunately. So I’ll go with A Woman Under The Influence. You should be able to find it at any semi-decent video store (it received Oscar attention), and you should also have no trouble hating it from start to finish. I, on the other hand, will be awe-struck by the Ebert-Kane combo, and will happily eat crow for what I’ve said above for ever and ever, amen! Yes D, I’m talking to you– I will win our second competition if it’s the second-last thing I ever do!!!
*The Most Sinister Laugh Of All Time*
Seriously, I forgot all about Ebert and BVD. Another reason for me to be considered an honourary pothead.
I’ve got no hangup about production value, so you know – all Meyer’s flicks were shot on the cheap (except BVD and 7 Minutes), and like I say I’m a fan of dogme. Loving form more in the sense of siding with a three-minute pop song over a 9-minute prog jam. In the sense that I love formal experimentation, when motivated. What I don’t like is people dismissing formalism, as if ideas can magically transmit themselves through the ether, as if ideas can be removed from the utterances that shape them.
You are indeed going to hate the Ebert commentary, as it’s almost pure formalism, with plenty of details about frame composition etc. etc.
Oh, and fuck the axis! What has it done for us lately? – In fact I recently realized that everyone can relax even if they do worship the axis. (Except stuff that finishes on film and can’t afford the odd optical.) Why, you ask? It’s insanely easy to mirror a video clip on any of today’s editing programs, so you can fix the axis in post!
Incidentally, I happened upon the bullshit essay I was referring to above: on bullshit.
Hotdog piece found (under “interviews”) here holds this account:
Vincent Gallo wouldn’t make a good politician – he’s too sincere and reckless. In this case, the press could be accused of opportunism at worst, but later there was no mitigation for their actions. At the end of Cannes, everyone from Roger Ebert to the Guardian, reported that Gallo had apparently apologised for his film, calling it “a disaster and a waste of time”. No such thing. He did “apologise”, but his words were misleadingly ripped out of context, by a Screen International journalist, at Gallo’s only international interview (a roundtable that I was also present at). “This is a place where merchandise or tangible objects are brought and sold to be marketed as entertainment throughout the world,” Gallo said. “I made one of these things that’s supposed to entertain people. To criticise a movie because it’s unsuccessful in that purpose, I accept that. I think they’re right. If no one wants to see the movie then it’s a disastrous film and was a waste of time. And I apologise to the financiers, but I assure you my intention was to never make a pretentious film, a self-indulgent film, a useless and non-compelling film.” Ebert – who Gallo later in the press blasted as a ‘fat pig’ – had been caught feeding on second-hand slop that another journalist had served up in his trough.
Nice site, quite funny.
I have a question? What is the name of the song that is used by Gallo on the trailer for Buffalo’66. Is it a song by him? Or another artist?….that’s all