"A Confederacy of Dunces"
C3LorneHop
ideal for directing an adaptation of J.K. Toole's 1980 Pulitzer-winning novel
"A Confederacy of Dunces." (For those of you who don't know, the novel is about
an extremely fat young man named Ignatius J. Reilly and the many bizarre
adventures he has in New Orleans, Louisiana, during the Kennedy
administration.)
I was skeptical that such a film could succeed. But now I think Burton
could pull it off, with a bit of modification. For one thing, he would proably
change the title. Most of his movies have people's names in them
("Beetlejuice," "Batman," etc.), so maybe he could title the movie "Ignatius J.
Reilly."
I really think Johnny Depp should play the role of Ignatius. He's played
the starring role in three Burton movies, so it follows that he should probably
come back for a fourth role. I picture his Ignatius as Johnny's Ed Wood
character (with a pencil mustache instead of the bushy one Ignatius had in the
book) wearing a rubber bodysuit like Eddie Murphy in the "Nutty Professor"
movies.
The novel would also have to be reworked to suit Burton's tastes. It is
too complex for Burton and has too many characters. Burton could simplify it by
making it another version of "Pee-Wee's Big Adventure": Ignatius is trying to
write in his Big Chief tablets at home but his overbearing mother keeps
annoying him. He walks down to the local bar for a Dr. Nut, where Myrna Minkoff
(Ignatius's girlfriend, sort of a Dottie to his Pee-Wee Herman) shows up and
tells him what a loser he is. Fed up with everything, Ignatius heads out and
has a series of misadventures: he watches a burlesque show at the Night of Joy
and is attacked by a cockatoo; he takes a job in a pants factory and ends up
encouraging the African-American employees to riot; he becomes a hot dog vendor
and eats all the hot dogs; he organizes a political party made up of
homosexuals, etc. Shadowing him throughout the entire movie is Patrolman
Mancuso (played by Danny DeVito), a neurotic police officer who is sure that
Ignatius is up to no good. Mancuso finally catches Ignatius and has him booked
on trumped-up charges, but Ignatius is rescued from his jail cell by Myrna and
the two of them escape to New York City.
Yes, this could be a great Burton film. A lot of the characters would have
to be cut down or even out, though. Lana Lee, Burma Jones, Mr. Gonzalez, Clyde
the hot dog man, and even Ignatius's mother would be considerably deemphasized,
and totally irrelevant characters like George or Miss Trixie could be
eliminated. Burton would also probably set the story in the new millennium
rather than the 1960s and would try to play up Ignatius's individuality much
more than Toole ever did.
But "Ignatius J. Reilly" could still be a wonderful, funny film. I hope
one of Burton's people reads the book and passes it on to him, because I would
really like to see him tackle this.
Anthrid
directly referring to any of his points. :)
I've been mulling the Confederacy of Dunces over and the more I think
about it the less it seems like a Tim Burton film. It seems like it might
be a better choice for someone like Terry Gilliam. It's simply too
complex a story and it's too easy to confuse the situations to make a
Burton film where the emphasis is more on style than narrative. While CoD
is by no means realistic (or at least I hope it's not because if it is,
I'm never going to New Orleans again :)), its stylization is entirely
different from Burton's usual precision of line. I see a lot more
comparisons between the novel and a movie like Brazil. The rushing
bureaucrats could easily be transformed into pants manufactorers, Sam's
mother's cocktail party could quite spendidly be transformed into the gay
political rally, and Aloysius's relationships with women are rather
similar to ones Gilliam has explored before. In terms of just the
physical look of the piece, CoD seems to fit more with the sophicated
dirtiness of Gilliam's films than Burton's clean elaborate detail.
--
Ant...@mindspring.com
"Paul was just not meant to be a Candy-Boy"
Basofam
Burton's tied up with POTA and God knows what else), I see it as being a return
to what Burton did before.
Burton's films were excellent for many years. "Beetlejuice," "Batman,"
"Edward Scissorhands"...it was all good. Then came "Batman Returns." Oh, it was
a good movie. But Burton sold out. He started to cast flavors of the month
(Danny DeVito as The Penguin...come on). He let McDonald's endorse the film. He
saturated the movie with tons of gratuitous action sequences. From a purely
objective standpoint, he dropped the ball and made "Returns" not as artful as
the original.
From that day on, Burton's never really been the same. I think his films
have gotten more and more commercial. It's almost as if he had to start
pandering to people to survive. I hated "Mars Attacks!" because it didn't seem
to fit Burton's style. Having a "cast of thousands" ruined the movie in my
book. It turned out to be Burton's most commercial film by far. And "Sleepy
Hollow," what about that? A great film, but did Tim really have to jump on Wes
Craven's bandwagon and jam the storyline with a lot of head-choppings?
Please...
"Ignatius J. Reilly" would be a good way for Burton to get back on his
feet. He's been denying himself long enough and he has to remember who he is.
Yes, I love his films, but he doesn't seem to be speaking through them anymore.
Instead, he lets others do the talking. With "Ignatius J. Reilly," he'd be able
to project his own voice. And instead of casting big-name actors, why not some
of his old regulars? I can definitely see Glenn Shadix as Mr. Gonzalez or Paul
Reubens as Dorian Greene, for example.
Even if Burton doesn't make "Ignatius J. Reilly," I think he needs to make
something like it. Burton's lost his way as a filmmaker, and he should go back
to basics. One of the chapters of Ken Hanke's biography was entitled, "Burton
Adrift and Anchored." I think he's adrift right now.
"Saturday Night Live"
zeet...@yahoo.com
film,
keep in mind it's based on a withdrawn trading card series fron the 1960's. Now
that's quirky. The opening sequence alone was worth the price of admission.
As for McDonalds toys for Batman Returns, Sheesh, it's Batman. There have ALWAYS
been toys for Batman as he's one of the most popular comic hereoes EVER. Tim
didn't LET them do it, it was a studio decision and not Tim's. I guess you could
saying doing ANY Batman's at all would be selling out.
As for Sleepy Hollow, what the hell? That's what the story's about,
head-choppings!
I think it's one of his best films. I was SO glad he didn't dumb it down and
censor it for the kiddies. I think you just want Tim to stick to his 1980's
formula and not grow and explore like an artist should. Leave him in Pee-Wee's
Playhouse, eh?
Then there's Nightmare Before Christmas. One of the greatest stop-motion animation
films ever made. A true masterpiece. Must be if they're bringing it into theaters
again.
How can you say that Tim's lacking these days after that? And finally, another
film you left out that blows your theories to hell. Ed Wood. Other than a growing
cult following, who considers Ed Wood (the film and the man) mainstream? Who? No
one. It won Martin Landau the Oscar, but that's about as mainstream as it got. A
critics darling, it did fair at the box office. That film is pure magic, so don't
give me (and everyone else) your whiney gripes that Tim has let you down or that
he's lost his creative spark. If he dissappoints you so much, then why are you
here? My suggestion to you is to never see another Burton film again.
Elizabeth McAuley
Basofam <bas...@aol.com> wrote:
>If "Ignatius J. Reilly" ever does get made (and I doubt it, seeing as how
>Burton's tied up with POTA and God knows what else), I see it as being a return
>to what Burton did before.
> Burton's films were excellent for many years. "Beetlejuice," "Batman,"
>"Edward Scissorhands"...it was all good. Then came "Batman Returns." Oh, it was
>a good movie. But Burton sold out.
And how exactly did Burton "sell-out"? He had more control over this film
than he did with the original Batman and it shows. No Prince songs
cluttering up the soundtrack. The themes are much more oriented toward
adult audiences than kids. In fact, the film inspired a nasty backlash
because it was considered too dark, violent and sexual for the age group
that *Warner Brothers* wanted to target.
>He started to cast flavors of the month
>(Danny DeVito as The Penguin...come on).
DeVito was cast because A) he is a talented actor with great range and
ability (I would hardly call him a flavor of the month), and B) He was the
actor in Hollywood who most closely resembels the comic book/tv character.
He would've been cast no matter who was directing the film.
And who else graced the cast? Michael Keaton (obviously), Michelle
Pfieffer - who was absolutely stunning as Catwoman, Christopher Walken,
Michael Gough. All of them established talents that brought a distinctive
performance in their respective roles.
>He let McDonald's endorse the film. He
No shit. Do you think he had any control over this? He may have been
powerful back then, but no way in hell was Warner Brothers going to drop
their deal with McDonalds no matter who was behind the camera. The first
Batman wasn't exactly undermarketed either. What's important is that
Burton kept the merchandising and commercials *off the screen* (Unlike
Batman Forever which opens with the McDonalds "drive through" line).
>saturated the movie with tons of gratuitous action sequences. From a purely
>objective standpoint, he dropped the ball and made "Returns" not as artful as
>the original.
I disagree. If anything Returns is much more artful than the original.
Burton had a stronger vision for the film and his explorations of the
various characters (Catwoman, Penguin, Batman) and their inherent anger
and pain is quite lovely, in a grotesque, Bosh-like way. Indeed "Returns"
is often criticized for being more Burton than Batman.
> From that day on, Burton's never really been the same. I think his films
>have gotten more and more commercial. It's almost as if he had to start
>pandering to people to survive. I
I don't see this at all. After "Returns" Burton did "Nightmare Before
Christmas" which was an idea he had developed back early in his career
with Disney. It was a glorious celebration of stop-motion and Elfman's
beautiful magic.
And what about Ed Wood? That was, in my opinion, his
finest film to date and his next most personal after "Edward
Scissorhands". How can you claim that Ed Wood is "pandering" to anyone? It
was made for $18 million and basically dumped by Disney when they realized
they wouldn't be getting Burton on a permanent basis.
> "Ignatius J. Reilly" would be a good way for Burton to get back on his
>feet. He's been denying himself long enough and he has to remember who he is.
>Yes, I love his films, but he doesn't seem to be speaking through them anymore.
>Instead, he lets others do the talking. With "Ignatius J. Reilly," he'd be able
>to project his own voice.
Burton's always projected his own voice. Even in, yes, Mars Attacks!
Sleepy Hollow itself went through a script polishing to bring it more
inline with Burton's sense of dark humor and make it less of a
"Terminator" type movie that it originally was.
>And instead of casting big-name actors, why not some
>of his old regulars?
Like Chirstopher Walken, Johnny Depp, Martin Landau, Jeffery Jones, and
Michael Gough? You know, I think I remember seeing them in some movie
recently...
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Liz McAuley * tp...@armory.com * http://www.omino.com/~tpau/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
zeet...@yahoo.com
C3LorneHop
>You're way out of your depth here. First off, while Mars Attacks! is his
>weakest
>film,
> keep in mind it's based on a withdrawn trading card series fron the 1960's.
>Now
>that's quirky.
Still, Burton sold out. "Mars Attacks!" is way more conventional than anything
Tim ever did. He even jumped on the retro-'70s bandwagon and put Jim Brown and
Pam Grier in the movie.
>Tim
>didn't LET them do it, it was a studio decision and not Tim's. I guess you
>could
>saying doing ANY Batman's at all would be selling out.
As I understand it, Tim was given total control of the "Returns" production. He
and Denise DiNovi could have put pressure on Warner Brothers and stopped them
from letting McDonald's put out the Happy Meals. Besides, there were no Happy
Meals for the 1989 film, just a tie-in with Taco Bell. Though I forget exactly
what they did...
>As for Sleepy Hollow, what the hell? That's what the story's about,
>head-choppings!
The original Washington Irving tale was NOT about head-choppings. The Headless
Horseman threw his pumpkin head at people. Didn't you see the Disney version?
Oh, and one more thing: contrary to what a later poster said, I have seen every
Burton movie except "Vincent" and "Frankenweenie."
zeet...@yahoo.com
C3LorneHop wrote:
> >
> >You're way out of your depth here. First off, while Mars Attacks! is his
> >weakest film, keep in mind it's based on a withdrawn trading card series fron
> the 1960's. Now that's quirky.
>
> Still, Burton sold out. "Mars Attacks!" is way more conventional than anything
> Tim ever did. He even jumped on the retro-'70s bandwagon and put Jim Brown and
> Pam Grier in the movie.
>
So what? Are you looking for proof of a sell out or what? I guess making ANY film
for a major studio would be considered a sell out to an independent film maker.
Again, what's your point?
>
> >Tim didn't LET them do it, it was a studio decision and not Tim's. I guess you
> >could saying doing ANY Batman's at all would be selling out.
>
> As I understand it, Tim was given total control of the "Returns" production. He
> and Denise DiNovi could have put pressure on Warner Brothers and stopped them
> from letting McDonald's put out the Happy Meals. Besides, there were no Happy
> Meals for the 1989 film, just a tie-in with Taco Bell. Though I forget exactly
> what they did...
>
That's absurd.
Again, total contol of the PRODUCTION. Not who sells hamburgers with bats on 'em
after the fact. That's all up to the marketing people. Since Batman continuously
has had new merchandise coming out since it's inception, what's the problem?
>
> >As for Sleepy Hollow, what the hell? That's what the story's about,
> >head-choppings!
>
> The original Washington Irving tale was NOT about head-choppings. The Headless
> Horseman threw his pumpkin head at people. Didn't you see the Disney version?
>
I guess Disney is gospel now. Ever heard of creative license?
So we have the weenies whining about head chopping gore. Yea that's a REAL
commercial sell out. I guess if there weren't any head choppings, it would have
been more accessible, meaning more commercial, meaning a sell out. How consistent.
So what does everyone want from Tim Burton anyway?
Tims gonna make films how he wants to and there ain't nothing anyone can do about
it.
Elizabeth McAuley
C3LorneHop <c3lor...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>You're way out of your depth here. First off, while Mars Attacks! is his
>>weakest
>>film,
>> keep in mind it's based on a withdrawn trading card series fron the 1960's.
>>Now
>>that's quirky.
>
>Still, Burton sold out. "Mars Attacks!" is way more conventional than anything
>Tim ever did. He even jumped on the retro-'70s bandwagon and put Jim Brown and
>Pam Grier in the movie.
Or - maybe, just maybe - he cast them for the same reason he cast Billy
Dee Williams in Batman, Vincent Price in Edward Scissorhands and
Christopher Lee in Sleepy Hollow. Because they were influence actors from
his childhood whom he respected and wanted to work with.
>
>>Tim
>>didn't LET them do it, it was a studio decision and not Tim's. I guess you
>>could
>>saying doing ANY Batman's at all would be selling out.
>
>As I understand it, Tim was given total control of the "Returns" production.
First off, Burton never had total control of the production. He had as
close to total control as he was ever going to get but that didn't mean he
didn't have to answer to and haggle with not only studio execs, but (in an
indirect way) the MPAA as well. Several of the more "harsh" scenes in
Returns were cut out due to their graphic nature. Burton's realistic and
didn't push for their inclusion, but he nearly lost his grand finale - the
Penguin, dying and bleeding rising out of the water - because it scared
the studio. The reason he didn't lose it was because the movie had no time
for a reshoot.
> He
>and Denise DiNovi could have put pressure on Warner Brothers and stopped them
>from letting McDonald's put out the Happy Meals.
You're incorrect in your assement of the power structure in Hollywood.
Burton and DiNovi could NOT have put pressure on WB because there was no
way that WB was going to lose a *multi-million* industry in and of itself
just because some weird director has moral (ah-haha) qualms about
marketing with McDonalds. Even if the two did put pressure on they
would've been ignored and if they continued to push probably would've
been fired. The marketing of Batman and the making of Batman are *two*
mostly seperate arenas (until the Batman Forver that is). I'm not saying
there's no overlap nor am I saying Burton didn't profit from it (I'm sure
his lawyers and agents got him a sweet deal). HOWEVER - Burton made the
movie *he* wanted to make and he kept the advertisments off the screen.
Indeed, Returns is not a sell-out, but the antithesis of that - one could
almost call it subversive. And *that's* why the "culture clash" (so to
speak) between the McDonalds consumeristic orgy and Returns dark,
disturbing spirit erupted.
>Besides, there were no Happy
>Meals for the 1989 film, just a tie-in with Taco Bell. Though I forget exactly
>what they did...
Oh jeez, same fucking difference. Batman '89 was still a heavily marketed
film - about on par I'd say with 1999's Episode I. You couldn't escape
it. The point being if you think Burton sold out on Returns because it was
heavily marketed, then he sold out on Batman '89 as well.
Burton has always been (and most likely will always be) a
commercial/studio director. He's not a John Waters or John Sayles. Indeed,
he himself once said in an interview - responding to the observation that
he doesn't care about money or budgets - that he does *care*. Specificaly,
he does want a return on the studio investments - both for his own sake
and out of a sense of responsibility. What makes Burton special, and
seperates him for *true* sell-outs, such as Schumacher was a couple years
ago, is that Burton makes unique films with a unique voice and with
something to say. Even Mars Attacks! (granted, his most "commercial" film)
is unmistakeably Burton. Indeed, it's no coincidence the film did far
better oversees (where such anti-american black humor is well received)
than it did stateside.
Anthrid
c3lor...@aol.com (C3LorneHop) wrote:
> Still, Burton sold out. "Mars Attacks!" is way more conventional than anything
> Tim ever did. He even jumped on the retro-'70s bandwagon and put Jim Brown and
> Pam Grier in the movie.
This sort of thing irks me because it implies both of those actors were in
the film purely for kitch value and not because they contribute to the
project at hand. Personally, I think both of these actors are solid and
talented, despite or perhaps because of, the fact that they worked mainly
in 1970s Black Exploitation films. Pam Grier, in particular, has got
such presense, style, and ability that she adds to any film and that she
could make a film like Foxy Brown watchable is a testament to her skill.
I mean, these are actors, not lava lamps. Give them some respect.
--
Ant...@mindspring.com
"Don't taunt the octopus!"
PMthruROTJ
Forvever is that Returns keeps it off the screen, while Forever has it right
in the opening scene. When I saw the Mcdonalds commercial with the drive in
joke, and then saw the film, I was shocked to see that scene was from the
film.
Elizabeth McAuley wrote in message <39f5c5c3$1...@news.ucsc.edu>...
>>>weakest
>>>film,
>>> keep in mind it's based on a withdrawn trading card series fron the
1960's.
>>>Now
>>>that's quirky.
>>
>>Still, Burton sold out. "Mars Attacks!" is way more conventional than
anything
>>Tim ever did. He even jumped on the retro-'70s bandwagon and put Jim Brown
and
>>Pam Grier in the movie.
>
>Dee Williams in Batman, Vincent Price in Edward Scissorhands and
>Christopher Lee in Sleepy Hollow. Because they were influence actors from
>his childhood whom he respected and wanted to work with.
>
>
>>
>>>didn't LET them do it, it was a studio decision and not Tim's. I guess
you
>>>could
>>>saying doing ANY Batman's at all would be selling out.
>>
>>As I understand it, Tim was given total control of the "Returns"
production.
>
>close to total control as he was ever going to get but that didn't mean he
>didn't have to answer to and haggle with not only studio execs, but (in an
>indirect way) the MPAA as well. Several of the more "harsh" scenes in
>Returns were cut out due to their graphic nature. Burton's realistic and
>didn't push for their inclusion, but he nearly lost his grand finale - the
>Penguin, dying and bleeding rising out of the water - because it scared
>the studio. The reason he didn't lose it was because the movie had no time
>for a reshoot.
>
>>and Denise DiNovi could have put pressure on Warner Brothers and stopped
them
>>from letting McDonald's put out the Happy Meals.
>
>Burton and DiNovi could NOT have put pressure on WB because there was no
>way that WB was going to lose a *multi-million* industry in and of itself
>just because some weird director has moral (ah-haha) qualms about
>marketing with McDonalds. Even if the two did put pressure on they
>would've been ignored and if they continued to push probably would've
>been fired. The marketing of Batman and the making of Batman are *two*
>mostly seperate arenas (until the Batman Forver that is). I'm not saying
>there's no overlap nor am I saying Burton didn't profit from it (I'm sure
>his lawyers and agents got him a sweet deal). HOWEVER - Burton made the
>movie *he* wanted to make and he kept the advertisments off the screen.
>Indeed, Returns is not a sell-out, but the antithesis of that - one could
>almost call it subversive. And *that's* why the "culture clash" (so to
>speak) between the McDonalds consumeristic orgy and Returns dark,
>disturbing spirit erupted.
>
>>Meals for the 1989 film, just a tie-in with Taco Bell. Though I forget
exactly
>>what they did...
>