Buffalo '66: Huh?!? -- AND Spotting Bad Films
A. Sears
Ricci's performance, I finally got around to giving it a rental.
Frankly, I didn't see what was supposed to be so good about it -- the
characters were flat and not very believable, the story made no sense,
the direction was amateurish, and the dialogue was largely forgettable
except for a couple of high points. In short, I thought that the film
represented nearly every pitfall of independent filmmaking -
self-indulgence, pretentiousness, bad writing, lines that sounded like
they were thought up on the set right before the take, etc., etc.
What am I missing here? Can anyone that thought B66 was a good movie
please enlighten me as to why it got so much praise? Was I not looking
for what made it good, or does the emperor simply have no clothes?
Anyway, my impression of Buffalo '66 did have one side benefit: it gave
me one more rule to add to my list of "Signs That A Film Is Likely To Be
Extremely Bad". That rule is, Vanity Projects: Films where the
Director, Producer, and Star are the Same Person; and it covers such
travesties as _The Horse Whisperer_ and most of Kevin Costner's
filmography.
Other rules of thumb on my list include "Films Based on a Book With the
Book Author's Name in the Film's Title" (which covers _Bram Stoker's
Dracula_, _William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet_, _Mary Shelley's
Frankenstein_, etc.); and "Films Starring Cast Members of _Friends_
Other Than Lisa Kudrow" (I had to modify this rule after seeing _The
Opposite of Sex_; I may have to scrap it entirely if _Office Space_ is
any good). I'd be curious to see what other good rules of thumb people
can come up with.
Franknseus
>Christina
>Ricci's performance, I finally got around to giving it a rental.
>
>Frankly, I didn't see what was supposed to be so good about it -- the
>characters were flat and not very believable, the story made no sense,
>the direction was amateurish, and the dialogue was largely forgettable
>except for a couple of high points. In short, I thought that the film
>represented nearly every pitfall of independent filmmaking -
>self-indulgence, pretentiousness, bad writing, lines that sounded like
>they were thought up on the set right before the take, etc., etc.
>
>What am I missing here? Can anyone that thought B66 was a good movie
>please enlighten me as to why it got so much praise? Was I not looking
>for what made it good, or does the emperor simply have no clothes?
I am in the same boat you are. I rented the movie last week after having
heard a lot of praise for it for a long time (but not really paying attention
to specifics, since I hadn't seen the movie yet).
But I think my reaction to the movie is somewhere in between yours and the
people who loved it. There were aspects of the film that I really liked, while
there were other things that prevented me from really loving it.
I was really getting into the film early on, during Gallo's quest to take a
piss, but I was taken out of the film something fierce when I got to the scene
where Gallo, Ricci and the parents are talking at the table. Gallo cuts from
one side of the table to the other (rebelliously violating the 180 degree rule,
I guess) and has the character who should have the back of their head facing
the camera disappear each time. The amazing disappearing heads really confused
me; it honestly took me about a minute or two to figure out that this was
supposed to be a fluid conversation and not a montage showing bits of different
conversations taking place at the table throughout the day.
I also thought that Angelica Huston was really horrible in this scene. I
didn't recognize her, which should count for something, but her performance was
so unbelievable that I assumed she was Gallo's real life mother in her first
attempt at acting.
I'm also not sure what to think of the love story. It seems to me that you
are supposed to be genuinely touched, that Billy is redeemed by the love of a
good woman or something along those lines. But as much as I liked the cuteness
of that final scene with the heart cookies, I couldn't really buy it as a happy
ending. Gallo's acting is really good, and he has made me truly believe in this
whiny asshole character, and I know that given his personality as well as the
circumstances of the kidnapping, Ricci would have to be an incredibly fucked up
person to have any interest in him. The relationship is obviously doomed, and
even if it weren't, the Ricci character's severe emotional problems are nothing
to be happy about. (If indeed it's supposed to be a happy ending - I'm sure
someone will argue that it's not.)
I also thought Ricci's performance was overrated. I suspect that all the
praise may have had to do more with liking Ricci in general than with the
specific performance, but I don't know. I didn't think she was bad, but I
thought she seemed more like she was acting and reading lines than she does in
most of her movies. (I thought she was more believable in 200 Cigarettes, even
though she was doing a heavy accent, and I also liked her better in The
Opposite of Sex.)
What I appreciated about the film included Gallo's acting. I haven't seen him
in other roles and I can't really imagine that he'd be able to play any other
kind of character. But he was perfect as this whiny sleazeball, and I
appreciated his naturalistic dialogue. He's a funny character, although totally
unlikable. Physically he is perfect for the role as well. When he is fresh out
of the bath, he still looks filthy.
I also liked a lot of the over-the-top artsy flourishes. Some of the split
screen stuff doesn't quite work, but some of it does. I especially liked the
spinning freeze frame thing with the frozen-in-time blood sprays. (I bet Dario
Argento would have done that if he'd thought of it first.)
And I really liked the character of Goon. The "friendship" between Billy and
Goon and just the naturalistic slobbishness of the character were so accurate
and depressing that they made me uncomfortable. It kind of reminds me of
cartoonists like Daniel Clowes and Chris Ware who are really good at depicting
pathetic, disgusting lifestyles. The way that they kept mentioning that he had
sent Billy raisins when he was in prison - it was funny, partly because it is
so different from the usual "You busted me out of the joint, I owe you one"
attitude of movies and partly because it's just so god damned sad that raisins
would be a big deal.
I'm glad I saw it. I wish it worked all the way through as well as it does at
parts. But I will be interested to see other people's responses to your post.
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
--
Bucketheadland Visitor Information Center
http://www.bucketheadland.com/visitorcenter/
Erik Gregersen
>
>Anyway, my impression of Buffalo '66 did have one side benefit: it gave
>me one more rule to add to my list of "Signs That A Film Is Likely To Be
>Extremely Bad". That rule is, Vanity Projects: Films where the
>Director, Producer, and Star are the Same Person; and it covers such
>travesties as _The Horse Whisperer_ and most of Kevin Costner's
>filmography.
You might want to discard this rule since it would eliminate many of
the films of Orson Welles, Charlie Chaplin and Clint Eastwood. Also,
even if you relaxed the producer part, the rule would still judge
against the films of Buster Keaton, Woody Allen, Jackie Chan and
Takeshi Kitano, among others.
Erik Gregersen
e...@astro.caltech.edu
http://astro.caltech.edu/~emg
The last good movie I've seen: Dune
seagle
A. Sears <sra...@ten.tenew> wrote in article
<36D91629...@wenet.net>...
> OK, after all the hype about _Buffalo '66_, and especially Christina
> Ricci's performance, I finally got around to giving it a rental.
>
> Frankly, I didn't see what was supposed to be so good about it -- the
> characters were flat and not very believable, the story made no sense,
> the direction was amateurish, and the dialogue was largely forgettable
> except for a couple of high points. In short, I thought that the film
> represented nearly every pitfall of independent filmmaking -
> self-indulgence, pretentiousness, bad writing, lines that sounded like
> they were thought up on the set right before the take, etc., etc.
>
> What am I missing here? Can anyone that thought B66 was a good movie
> please enlighten me as to why it got so much praise? Was I not looking
> for what made it good, or does the emperor simply have no clothes?
>
> Anyway, my impression of Buffalo '66 did have one side benefit: it gave
> me one more rule to add to my list of "Signs That A Film Is Likely To Be
> Extremely Bad". That rule is, Vanity Projects: Films where the
> Director, Producer, and Star are the Same Person; and it covers such
> travesties as _The Horse Whisperer_ and most of Kevin Costner's
> filmography.
>
BuggynKino
>Book Author's Name in the Film's Title" (which covers _Bram Stoker's
>Dracula_, _William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet_, _Mary Shelley's
>Frankenstein_, etc.)
I guess you didn't much care for "Mario Puzo's The Godfather"
-Jesse Mason
Literal Mind at Large
YodaIsPhat
DANNY KIM
You mention that the film seems amateurish, flat, that it was poorly
written, that the shooting wasn't clean, violation of the 180 axis...
That's what was so great about it, the simplicity, the unconventional use
of techniques that Godard and mavericks of the independents choose to use
because it creates that subtle tick that makes the film seems slightly
disturbing. From the first scene, there is this tension where Billy is
running around, looking for a bathroom, but turned away everywhere...I
thought it was a statement on how there were fewer places of comfort in
modern society, just to do simple things like use the restroom, it seems
too much to ask when it is entirely in the attitude of the owners. The
table scene in particular was very disconcerting, he didn't place all four
characters at the table during the discussion...instead placing the
speaking character directly in front of us or in a two shot with another
character ie. Lola and Billy's mother...
I thought the neurotic personality of Billy made every scene tense, in
diners, bowling alleys, just when they are trying to do normal things,
Billy flips constantly. And at the root of his neurosis, is the simple
but life changing moment where the Bills' kicker missed a field goal...
I guess I just found Buffalo 66 to be a sigh of relief from the truly
neurotically composed films that are cut so clean, warm and fuzzy. Don't
get me wrong, I love well made films like Remains of the Day but sometimes
I feel like looking at surreal or abstract art, not just landscape
paintings all the time.
So and so wrote blah blah:
>OK, after all the hype about _Buffalo '66_, and especially
>Christina
>Ricci's performance, I finally got around to giving it a rental.
>
>Frankly, I didn't see what was supposed to be so good about it -- the
>characters were flat and not very believable, the story made no sense,
>the direction was amateurish, and the dialogue was largely forgettable
>except for a couple of high points. In short, I thought that the film
>represented nearly every pitfall of independent filmmaking -
>self-indulgence, pretentiousness, bad writing, lines that sounded like
>they were thought up on the set right before the take, etc., etc.
>
>What am I missing here? Can anyone that thought B66 was a good movie
>please enlighten me as to why it got so much praise? Was I not looking
>for what made it good, or does the emperor simply have no clothes?
--
@-paul van dyk_plastic angel_underworld_front 242_union jack_man w/noname-$
>-->Danny Kim-d...@nevada.edu_My Website:http://www.sonic.net/~psinex<--<
%-hooverphonic_hook_fluid_time unlimited_moloko_wash_deviant_whoop!_xcabs-#
"You would have to kill me and prop me up in the seat of my car with a
smiley face painted on my face to get me to go near Hollywood."
-Philip K. Dick
Franknseus
>table scene in particular was very disconcerting, he didn't place all four
>characters at the table during the discussion...instead placing the
>speaking character directly in front of us or in a two shot with another
>character ie. Lola and Billy's mother...
I agree with pretty much everything positive you said about the film, but
still, the table scene just didn't work at all for me and really tore me out of
a film that until that point I was completely wrapped up in. I mentioned the
180 degree rule not because I believe it should be followed but because I have
a feeling that Gallo was deliberately violating it to show that it could be
done. But he failed to illustrate that it can work (which has already been done
in other films, I'm sure). I didn't feel disconcerted in a good or interesting
way. I just didn't know what was going on, what was being conveyed through
these edits, and then when I figured it out I was tremendously distracted by
the disappearing and reappearing actors. It wasn't disturbing, it was
embarrassing, like I was watching a bad home video that me and some friends had
put together in high school. It is every bit as much a failure of the language
of film as an incomprehensible Michael Bay action sequence.
Peace Electric
Note: My server has gone haywire and I've lost dozens (hundreds?) of
newsgroup posts. So I'm a little bit out of it and I'm not exactly
sure who said what to whom and where it was said. Bear with me.
DANNY KIM wrote:
> [...] From the first scene, there is this tension where Billy is
> running around, looking for a bathroom, but turned away
> everywhere...I thought it was a statement on how there were fewer
> places of comfort in modern society, just to do simple things like
> use the restroom, [...]
That was definitely my take on the sequence, and the entire film in
general. As soon as the movie opens we're completely lost in this
desolate, cold world. We're attached to some guy just out of prison, he
desperately needs to take a piss, and there's absolutely nowhere for us
to go. The feeling of anxiety and the fear of being dislocated and cut
off from the rest off society in these opening scenes (as well as the
rest of the film) was extremely powerful. The movie makes me feel like
a confused homeless person in a new city, wandering in and out of
different buildings, desperately trying to find some place to sit down
and relax, but always finding that there's nowhere to go. That there's
no safe haven.
And then I think Bryan wrote:
> [...] The amazing disappearing heads really confused me; it honestly
> took me about a minute or two to figure out that this was supposed to
> be a fluid conversation and not a montage showing bits of different
> conversations taking place at the table throughout the day.
Well, in a way, the conversation *is* more of a montage than a fluid
conversation. Every character exists in their own little world, not
really paying that much attention to each other, and their interaction
is choppy and confused and awkward and unnerving -- just like Gallo's
technique. I think the sequence works perfectly fine, and that it's
these screwy, surreal touches that make the film pulse. Without them
you'd just have, I don't know, some kind of tedious Cassavetes-like
acting exercise.
> I also thought that Angelica Huston was really horrible in this
> scene. I didn't recognize her, which should count for something, but
> her performance was so unbelievable that I assumed she was Gallo's
> real life mother in her first attempt at acting.
But isn't she supposed to be unbelievable? She's a caricature as seen
from Billy's perspective. It's kind of like when Roald Dahl turns an
adult (as seen from a kid's point of view) into a distorted grotesque;
it's that same idea.
> [...] Gallo's acting is really good, and he has made me truly believe
> in this whiny asshole character, and I know that given his
> personality as well as the circumstances of the kidnapping, Ricci
> would have to be an incredibly fucked up person to have any interest
> in him.
I think it's obvious that Layla has emotional problems. When we first
see her in the dance studio she seems depressed and alone, isolated and
lost in the same way that Billy is. I don't think she has anything
going for her; I don't think she has a happy life. Sure she goes to
ballerina lessons and has her own car, but aside from that does she
have anything of value? Does she have a good home life or a caring
circle of friends or a pleasant and fulfilling job? Most likely not.
Most likely she's in the same boat as Billy, floundering through this
bleak modern world, wasting her days away doing nothing of importance.
> The relationship is obviously doomed,
I don't think it is -- at least not in the world we're presented with.
You see, my take on the romance is that Billy and Layla are basically
dealing with the exact same feelings of loss and despair, and that it's
precisely because of this that they find each other and make a
connection. They're really the only things that can provide each other
with happiness in this not-at-all-accurate-but-still-vividly-realized
world.
> and even if it weren't, the Ricci character's severe emotional
> problems are nothing to be happy about. (If indeed it's supposed to
> be a happy ending - I'm sure someone will argue that it's not.)
It is a happy ending -- not despite Layla's emotional problems, but
*because* of them. It's her emotional dissatisfaction, her empty and
hollow reaction to the world she's existing in, that allows her to fall
in love with Billy, a guy who shares those exact same feelings. We're
supposed to be overjoyed that these two people were able to find
someone and connect with someone that they can actually relate to.
> What I appreciated about the film included Gallo's acting. I haven't
> seen him in other roles and I can't really imagine that he'd be able
> to play any other kind of character. [...]
Normally he plays the same kind of character, although he's really good
in 'Arizona Dream' starring Johnny Depp, where he plays a sort of
uptight businessman. He looks completely different in the role too.
--
peacel
pea...@sk.sympatico.ca
"Man, I couldn't believe we were making it. I would have paid them to
let me do it. ... Until now I'd always thought that 'How to Get Ahead
in Advertising' was the darkest movie ever made. And this movie may
just be that dark, that fucking sick."
-John Cusack on 'Being John Malkovich'
Peace Electric
> [...] It is every bit as much a failure of the language of film as an
> incomprehensible Michael Bay action sequence.
Even if you didn't like it, you have to admit that Bay is worse because
not only is he unintentionally confusing, his technique doesn't seem to
be based on what's actually happening in the movie. He'll swoop his
camera even if there's nothing swoop-worthy. He cuts fast when there's
no reason to. He goes into slow-mo seemingly at random. His technique
is never organic to the film.
At least Gallo had an emotional reason for making the diner scene so
disorienting.
Clark-Nova
>still, the table scene just didn't work at all for me and really tore me
out of
>a film that until that point I was completely wrapped up in. I mentioned
the
>180 degree rule not because I believe it should be followed but because I
have
>a feeling that Gallo was deliberately violating it to show that it could be
>done. But he failed to illustrate that it can work (which has already been
done
>in other films, I'm sure).
The lighting also didn't match, from shot to shot. That really threw me off.
K
Peace Electric
> (Or maybe the formatting of the video made it different from the
> theatrical version, I haven't really investigated the aspect ratio.)
That is something I thought about. I haven't seen the film on video
so I have no idea what it looks like, but I didn't have any trouble
following the sequence in the theater. Of course, for the first few
seconds I was thrown off (I also, like you, thought it was a montage
taking place over a long period of time), but after a very short while
I figured out what Gallo was doing.
But it's possible that the pan'n'scanning (if there is any) ruins the
scene by cutting out important information on the sides. Or something,
I don't know.
Franknseus
>> incomprehensible Michael Bay action sequence.
>
>Even if you didn't like it, you have to admit that Bay is worse because
>not only is he unintentionally confusing, his technique doesn't seem to
>be based on what's actually happening in the movie. He'll swoop his
>camera even if there's nothing swoop-worthy. He cuts fast when there's
>no reason to. He goes into slow-mo seemingly at random. His technique
>is never organic to the film.
>
>At least Gallo had an emotional reason for making the diner scene so
>disorienting.
Hmmm. I don't know... what's the reason? I'm open to the idea, but it really
seems to me like he just did a sloppy job in that part because he's not a
seasoned filmmaker. What was the reason for having the actor whose back should
be to the camera disappear each time? It seems to me that the reason is that
actor would be blocking the camera's view and Gallo didn't think you would
notice. But he needed to have the camera up closer so it would seem like a POV
shot or something.
(Or maybe the formatting of the video made it different from the theatrical
version, I haven't really investigated the aspect ratio.)
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
Mike D'Angelo
[in response to Peacel's]
:>At least Gallo had an emotional reason for making the diner scene so
:>disorienting.
:
: Hmmm. I don't know... what's the reason? I'm open to the idea, but it
: really seems to me like he just did a sloppy job in that part because
: he's not a seasoned filmmaker. What was the reason for having the actor
: whose back should be to the camera disappear each time? It seems to me
: that the reason is that actor would be blocking the camera's view and
: Gallo didn't think you would notice.
Even if Gallo were that stupid, his experienced cinematographer (and,
indeed, his actors, who he says were nonplussed by his strategy) would've
clued him in. I asked him about it at the Q&A when the picture screened
at last year's New Directors/New Films, and he said more or less what
Peacel has said: it was intended to disorient the audience, so that we'd
feel the same vertiginous sensation that Billy is feeling at that point
(not that Gallo used the word "vertiginous," but I didn't record his
remarks, so I can't quote him verbatim). Spike Lee plays a similar trick
in a key scene in MO' BETTER BLUES (and an even weirder one in CROOKLYN,
in which he shoots an entire lengthy sequence through an anamorphic lens
and then projects it flat; one NY theater had to put up a sign assuring
patrons that this was not a projection error).
It's fine if it didn't work for you (I loved it, personally), but there's
no doubt that it was intentional.
Mike "Gallo's humor" D'Angelo
-The Man Who Viewed Too Much-
http://www.panix.com/~dangelo