Blood of the Poet 1932 / The Brown Bunny 2003

I've seen Jean Cocteau's seminal film before but I was too dazed & delighted by the camp and absurdity to understand the meanings, but this recent watch was a really emotional education on the history of film grammar's development in surrealist montage. Silent film demanded more profoundly visual language to exceed its limits and also elevate its trappings. No shock that Cocteau's passionate experimental narrative is a post-Marx, proto-postmodern manifesto of Surrealism's social mystic mission to create a political status quo of equality and intellectual honesty. Its more than the typical propaganda film or empty whimsy or technical masturbation we got then and still get now. This a lyrical expression of existentialism for the poet turned auteur director.

Brown Bunny I have seen multiple times and I have a soft spot for it, but it is closer to egocentric masturbation. Vincent Gallo is a learned classical-style director but he can't get beyond his own endless self-reflection to say anything about the world. This is his tribute to Italian NeoRealism but missing all of the resonating substance beyond the Self. His rightwing politics are never explicitly referenced and thus more present in their highlighted absence.

Its not terrible. Its flawlessly directed but the loose script could've been even more loose if it had more powerful moments. There are many great technical directors and clever auteurs like this, but they tend to swing towards a more exploitative commercialist Libertarian view of film capitalism. They don't want help for themselves OR OTHERS but aren't totally socially conservative or fiscally liberal. They are your democratic republicans, "moderates". Opposed to corporately global NeoLiberalism violently, but also global Marxism simply for Nationalist or capitalist reasons.

But are they pure filmmakers? American indie directors like Jerry Lewis, Dennis Hopper, Troma, David Lynch, Russ Meyer, Scorsese, John Waters all started as Middle American conservatives who became more urban and liberal but muted their political radicalism maybe until it was too late. And thus their early work or even later work focus solely on exploiting the current situation instead of making progressive statements about wide subjects. (* I can't say that for Waters, Lynch and maybe recent Troma but...)  Conservative directors are focused only on personal subjects, selfish reflections and by default engage in a white nationalist patriarchy that their elder artists were against in the early 20th century. And so their art is often a stale copy, a remodernist painting of a true classic. Thats the Brown Bunny.

And this moderate, middle-of-the-road, non-committal statement of moral ambiguity and emotional grayness is the desired effect, a kind of racist stereotyping by Gallo. The title alludes to Gallo's isolated identity as a minority in a white political party and a member of a mixed blood race he has unhappy connection to. He sticks to mediocrity out of self-identifying, not recognizing the oppression of structuralism's false binaries. The film is thus a mix of classical and jazz tones, primitivism and futurism, disgust with white skin and comfort in it. This is racial self-hatred, shame, guilt and dysmorphia is so apparent and yet still not totally self-aware. There's a kitsch to this. Gallo follows in the long line of Latin directors exploring this unexamined, whitewashed and often demonized racial identity of "not being white enough", but he fears to confront it with anger, dread or revolution. Just fear and resolution.

Because of the commercial artist nature of the film industry, its attracted many talent producers who are capitalists first and artists second. They simply became unleashed independent voices when their commercial careers fizzled. That lends them better philosophy and craft than Hollywood puppet filmmakers, but they aren't totally opposed to the system and try to avoid conflict. Gallo made this film as a protest for his lack of Hollywood offers after the immediate cult success of Buffalo 66. But its a parody of his own narcissism, but still a textured and well-crafted one.

Gallo's Brown Bunny owes itself to many European, Asian and American filmmakers who opposed the apolitical theater he creates with their influences. Its the lazy postmodernism that De Palma and Tarantino often delve into, but they usually have something to say politically or socially beyond the wallpapering of references and gags. Gallo's message is just misanthropic rejection, hate and lack of empathy. He's a damaged man and thats what he wants to show. But does he work through it in his art? Does he arrive at any answers on-screen? Like the similar career of Crispin Glover, this a lot of provocative navel-gazing that is almost exhilarating and has some manufactured beauty, but its too derivative of better work. Its not a time-waster and in many ways I prefer The Brown Bunny to most films. But no one should be shocked this film was badly reviewed and may slip into obscurity. With his sensitivity, intelligence and skill, I hope Gallo finishes his directorial career with a real masterpiece that shows maturity and moral responsibility he performed in Buffalo 66.

The Room 2003

I don't find The Disaster Artist at all interesting because the appeal of The Room is not just its inept technical components, but the magically absurdist logic of the universe it creates as a "bad movie". Its cool to explain to casual fans what goes or doesn't go into its poor editing, non existent production value, amateur acting and a repetitive but earnest script. But they already know. Tommy Wiseau is a bizarre aging foreign hipster who spent his life savings on a film without having any proper craft to pull it off. Yet he succeeds because its not craft that determines how great a director is. Wiseau had a vision, he assembled people good enough to pull it off, he stuck to his version of the truth and fans totally loved it. It is a heartwarming meta-story, but its also cruel and morbid to reduce he and his film to a punchline. Maybe The Disaster Artist acknowledges his unique talents as its title suggests, but it still categorizes him as an accidental success. Wrong.

Properly contextualize the pieces of truth that The Room gives you. I think the film is so rewatchable and popular because there is a dark and sincere emotional core. Between the 4 awkward sex scenes put to cheesy RnB (3 of which occur in the first 30 minutes) and the many times Greg Sestero explains Tommy is his "best friend", there's a depressing tale of heartbreak, drug abuse, criminal mistakes, a failed marriage, suicide, depression, abuse and more. This film is Wiseau's confessional - part of his shadowy origin that has become part of the experience of The Room. It has a mythology and language that has inspired as much decoding and wonder as the films of David Lynch.

Nothing wrong with laughing at the quirkiness or horrible ADR or bizarre use of green screen, but don't underestimate what this film says. One point of contention I have with so-called fans is the supposed pointlessness of the subplots like Claudette's cancer diagnosis, the Chris-R scene, the characters playing football in tuxedo's.

Early in the film, Tommy has the line, "Denny, don't plan too much. It may not come out right!"

This is the sad, obsessive code of this narrative. If you use this as the overarching theme of The Room, it plays with a bittersweet logic, like a Crayola colored version of a Russian tragic novel. The most logical theory we are left to make is that this is an Americanized version of Wiseau's past and Denny's story is his: https://www.reddit.com/r/FanTheories/comments/1kp8df/the_character_denny_in_the_room_is_a/?st=jb5vfws9&sh=a4674eda

 Even with (or because of) its bad acting, high school drama atmosphere and so on... The Room evokes that dark period in many people's young lives when love fails them and they lose it all. It shows the ignorance, youth and spoils of the film's white hipster audience when they only ridicule this attempt at art. And on a plot level, the film never loses momentum and each scene plays beautifully despite its shortcomings because the story is personal to the filmmaker.

And much of the film's shittiness lies not with Wiseau's performance as actor or director. Notice that the Line Producer, the person who sees each stage of production to completion for the producer, is Greg Sestero who is the film's worst critic and sold the rights to this exploitative new film. Sestero's only other claim to fame is playing Andre Toulon in "Retro Puppet Master" and he brings that same air of detached, cynical hucksterism to the acting and the production of The Room. And again, much of The Room's awkwardness comes from its editing and ADR, possibly to set up the film as a comedy. Also, Wiseau's A.D. claims to have directed the camera and actors, so isn't he bragging that he's responsible for the film's terrible staging and line reading? Wiseau's role is the classic producer who assigns probably too much freedom to his crew. His stroke of genius was casting himself and using his own life as basis for the script. His overwhelming emotion and visible scarring mixes with the amateurism and absurdity to create low budget cinematic poetry.

And it is art. Made by a true outsider, a true original and a true maverick who spread a message that has become kind of generational. It fits with the bleak and absurd post-9/11 age in ways that are obscure but obvious. The creative choices by Wiseau weren't intentionally funny or weird, but that only serves the authenticity. If it all were the same but an ironic performance by a pretentious cynical star, would it be as intriguing? I don't think so. And this is one of the most authentic, independent and personal films of the young 21st century. I respect it wholeheartedly and I hope it receives a better appreciation someday.