So my plans for Bukowski's birthday, reading War All The Time and having a Heineken, digressed into watching Barfly and drinking MGD. I recently bought the Barfly DVD and was watching the short documentary feature on the making of Barfly. As I did so, I was quite surprised to see BUK being interviewed on the set, next to Mickey Rourke in character, talking about how much he liked what Rourke was doing with and adding to the character of Chinaski. I have always read that BUK was somewhat unhappy with Rourke's portrayal, especially with the way Rourke appeared dirty and unkept. Does anyone have any insight on this? Could this have been becuase BUK had not yet seen the final cut? Was he just being complimentary? What do you think?
Bukowski and Barfly (The Movie)
- Thread starter skbruce
- Start date
mjp
Founding member
He was promoting the movie. Most people involved in a film promote it whether they think the film is great or crap. In fact, most name actors are contractually obligated to promote their films.
If Bukowski had a financial interest in the film doing well (I don't know if that's the case or not), he would want to see it succeed, whatever his opinion of the finished product was.
Even without a financial interest, he was invested in the production since he wrote the screenplay. There was a lot made of that fact in the press at the time, because it is unheard of for a director to shoot a screenplay exactly as the writer wrote it. Schroeder would actually consult Bukowski any time a line was changed. That may be the only time in Hollywood history that has happened. Writers are usually ranked somewhere between the craft service people and the honey wagon (portable toilet) driver as far as their "importance" in the movie making food chain.
He also wrote a glowing press release about the movie (http://bukowski.net/misc/bukowskimisc018.php), but later said and wrote that he did not care for it. His actual opinion was probably somewhere between not caring for it and considering it to be "a piece of shit," as Linda has characterized it.
If Bukowski had a financial interest in the film doing well (I don't know if that's the case or not), he would want to see it succeed, whatever his opinion of the finished product was.
Even without a financial interest, he was invested in the production since he wrote the screenplay. There was a lot made of that fact in the press at the time, because it is unheard of for a director to shoot a screenplay exactly as the writer wrote it. Schroeder would actually consult Bukowski any time a line was changed. That may be the only time in Hollywood history that has happened. Writers are usually ranked somewhere between the craft service people and the honey wagon (portable toilet) driver as far as their "importance" in the movie making food chain.
He also wrote a glowing press release about the movie (http://bukowski.net/misc/bukowskimisc018.php), but later said and wrote that he did not care for it. His actual opinion was probably somewhere between not caring for it and considering it to be "a piece of shit," as Linda has characterized it.
Thanks MJP, I don't typically take the promotional side into account, but it certainly makes sense. The press release was interesting, I have not read that before and I was unaware of the type of control BUK had over changes(though I think something similar was mentioned in the featurette).
I guess all that being said, I will just have to consider BUK's attitude toward the movie something akin to his soured friendships; Enjoyed and Engaging at first, then rejected and despised later.
I guess all that being said, I will just have to consider BUK's attitude toward the movie something akin to his soured friendships; Enjoyed and Engaging at first, then rejected and despised later.
Well wadayaknow...
Over at IMDB, reading reviews of Factotum (they ether love it or loath it) I found the following tidbit:
"Oddly, the movie was preceded by a trailer for "Barfly," apparently soon to be rereleased under the aegis of Francis Ford Cappola -- the colors were awful, the picture fuzzy, cogent argument to see a movie while it's still fresh, in the theater"
I for one would love to see it on the big screen again.
Over at IMDB, reading reviews of Factotum (they ether love it or loath it) I found the following tidbit:
"Oddly, the movie was preceded by a trailer for "Barfly," apparently soon to be rereleased under the aegis of Francis Ford Cappola -- the colors were awful, the picture fuzzy, cogent argument to see a movie while it's still fresh, in the theater"
I for one would love to see it on the big screen again.
It's well known, that Sean Penn was in the pipeline. But there were personal animosities standing againt that.
You are so definitely right on that!
(oh, - OFF-TOPIC - here, but necessary :
I JUST realized, theres an older member ('ESMoist') having the same Avatar as I do! Haven't seen this before - sorry! - thinking of another one tomorrow ...
Bukfan
"The law is wrong; I am right"
I just love that avatar! How did you remove the background? And change the color?
Ah ! - Though now we're getting REALLY off-topic here, I'll tellya:
You need some software to work on pics, (esp. able to create 'GIF'-pictures).
I'd guess, ANY pic-program can handle this these days (I'm working with 'Corel' now - but, as said, I think every-one will do!)
Creating GIFs you need to reduce to 256 colors or less, which is stupid for regular photographs but makes sense for drawings, b/w-pics or any sharp-edged-things like 'sayings/words' etc.
Then - saving your pic in GIF-format, you usually are ASKED if-and-which-color of the palette you'd like to be 'TRANSPARENT' (you can only have ONE color for this !) - now you simply chose - that's it!
(o.k., in most cases you'd have to decide BEFORE, what should be transparent, so you'll chose a color that does NOT occure in the real pic. These are thoughts important for other sorts of pics than the simple drawing you asked for of course - but now you know EVERYTHING important about it. - have FUN !)
You need some software to work on pics, (esp. able to create 'GIF'-pictures).
I'd guess, ANY pic-program can handle this these days (I'm working with 'Corel' now - but, as said, I think every-one will do!)
Creating GIFs you need to reduce to 256 colors or less, which is stupid for regular photographs but makes sense for drawings, b/w-pics or any sharp-edged-things like 'sayings/words' etc.
Then - saving your pic in GIF-format, you usually are ASKED if-and-which-color of the palette you'd like to be 'TRANSPARENT' (you can only have ONE color for this !) - now you simply chose - that's it!
(o.k., in most cases you'd have to decide BEFORE, what should be transparent, so you'll chose a color that does NOT occure in the real pic. These are thoughts important for other sorts of pics than the simple drawing you asked for of course - but now you know EVERYTHING important about it. - have FUN !)
Well now, film has evolved over the years. I saw Barfly in the "thea-aters" and I liked it. Really liked it. Remarked to my then wife, that I could "smell" the joint. Haven't seen it since it was released.
Unfortunately I don't see as much film as I'd like, or should. But, the next representation of bar culture that really stuck with me was "Tree's Lounge"...I mean Jackie and Stan (Suzanne Shepard & Rockets Red Glare) this really hit home for me, and fleshed out the true barfly that I'd grown up with and come to know.
And as an aside, how about Rourke as "Jan The Actress" in Animal Factory?
Am I drifting off topic here...time for another visit with Sir Veza...
Unfortunately I don't see as much film as I'd like, or should. But, the next representation of bar culture that really stuck with me was "Tree's Lounge"...I mean Jackie and Stan (Suzanne Shepard & Rockets Red Glare) this really hit home for me, and fleshed out the true barfly that I'd grown up with and come to know.
And as an aside, how about Rourke as "Jan The Actress" in Animal Factory?
Am I drifting off topic here...time for another visit with Sir Veza...
Granted...I saw the movie the first time before I knew who Bukowski was, but it was Mickey's performance that brought me my love of Bukowski. The first time I heard Buk's real voice and speaking cadence, I thought, "what a wonderful characature Mickey pulled off." Yes, it was overplayed, but over played wonderfullty in my opinion. I continue to love the movie and Rourk's portrayal, for what it is, to this day.
I know some forum members disagree, and some will say Bukowski hated Rourke and thought Barfly was a piece of shit, but my opinion for the record (once again) I love Rourke's performance and think Barfly is great. The tone of the movie is near perfect.
I have previously thought the problems with Hamer's film of Factotum were due mostly to the limited budget and time - he says he "shot it in 24 days." However, having recently learned that Schroeder completed the filming for Barfly in just 34 days and considering that the budget was also quite small I think its obvious that Barfly benefits heavily from a superior script. Bukowski's direct involvement creates a special quality. Factotum (the film) is almost completely without humour. Even worse, its almost without life. The novel remains one of my favourites, but the film. . . a massive disappointment.
I have previously thought the problems with Hamer's film of Factotum were due mostly to the limited budget and time - he says he "shot it in 24 days." However, having recently learned that Schroeder completed the filming for Barfly in just 34 days and considering that the budget was also quite small I think its obvious that Barfly benefits heavily from a superior script. Bukowski's direct involvement creates a special quality. Factotum (the film) is almost completely without humour. Even worse, its almost without life. The novel remains one of my favourites, but the film. . . a massive disappointment.
Barfly is still one of my favorite movies. All I had at the time to compare it to was Buk's poetry, which, for me at least, was hard to come by.
The bizarre thing about Rourke in that time period is that in his next 3 or 4 movies he seemed to play that same character. The difference, for instance, between 'Year of the Dragon' and Barfly and his next 3 or 4 movies was staggering. In Year of the Dragon he looks like a normal person. In the movies after (and including) Barfly, he always appeared as a kind of hunched over character with weird facial features and mannerisms. I've long wondered about that. What happened to his face?
Anyhow, I had a copy of Barfly on beta (taped, not bought - and boy does that date me), and now I have it on DVD. As I said, it's still one of my favorite movies, whether the Buk approved or not.
Ghostwind
The bizarre thing about Rourke in that time period is that in his next 3 or 4 movies he seemed to play that same character. The difference, for instance, between 'Year of the Dragon' and Barfly and his next 3 or 4 movies was staggering. In Year of the Dragon he looks like a normal person. In the movies after (and including) Barfly, he always appeared as a kind of hunched over character with weird facial features and mannerisms. I've long wondered about that. What happened to his face?
Anyhow, I had a copy of Barfly on beta (taped, not bought - and boy does that date me), and now I have it on DVD. As I said, it's still one of my favorite movies, whether the Buk approved or not.
Ghostwind
Black Swan
Abord the Yorikke!
Just got a VHS copy of Barfly in English from my video store for $10.00.
I had seen it twice already.
They never rent it so I ask them if I could buy it. I had tried ebay with no luck.
I love the movie and love Rourke as well, just can't dig the way he walks.
Did Buk walk anything like that?
They was a tv show about it.
I had seen it twice already.
They never rent it so I ask them if I could buy it. I had tried ebay with no luck.
I love the movie and love Rourke as well, just can't dig the way he walks.
Did Buk walk anything like that?
What happened to his face???? Everything happened to his face. He is second after Michael Jackson for the highest number of cosmetic alterations.
They was a tv show about it.
bospress.net
www.bospress.net
Yeah, he is a mess. Does not look like himself anymore. It is very bizarre....
Bill
Bill
Black Swan
Abord the Yorikke!
I suppose that fame can really get to your head distorting your sense of self.
I used to love Rourke as an artist but something went wrong in the lab.
I used to love Rourke as an artist but something went wrong in the lab.
