The Brown Bunny

Matthew Beals · September 22, 2004

I absolutely have to know what other DPs feel about this film. Personally, I completely appreciated this film for its willingness to take risks in its cinematography. Some may call it "risks" and others may call it "bad cinematography" seeing as a consistent aesthetic of this film was to have mis-framed and soft to out-of-focus shots. And I don't mean mis-framed in the hip way that music videos and commercials employ, I mean just plain bad framing. It really made me feel HORRIBLY uncomfortable to see many of the shots. And seeing as the subject matter largely had to do with discomfort, distance and sadness, it worked for me.

The whole film isn't like this. It consistently combines these shots with very wide, basic, frontal minimilist framing. And it has takes lasting minutes long that force you into either hypnosis or boredom...which I love as well (big tarkovsky fan).

So has anyone seen this? Or have you all just trusted the critics that have bashed it into all hell?!

James Visiano · September 22, 2004

I read that Super Balters were the lenses used in the film. They were formated to fit the Aaton camera body, the film was shot in super-16mm. What do Super Balters have that Cooke S4's and Zeiss Ultra Primes don't have? I also read that the camera was sent back to Aaton to make it quieter and the Barry Lyndon zoom lens was used on the shoot; I saw the package on sale on ebay a while back.

"I designed an equipment package specifically for the film and purchased everything. The entire package including one motorcycle and my crew had to fit in the black van, which was the picture car. Therefore size and weight of the equipment was a concern. I chose Aaton cameras in the super 16 format. One XTR Prod and one Aminima. I owned two sound recorders?a Nagra D digital recorder and a Nagra 4STC analog recorder. Both had the Aaton timecode system installed. I had converted an old set of Mitchell lenses made by Bausch and Lomb to Pl mount type, which would work with the Aaton cameras. I had a large assortment of Cooke zoom lenses and a very special Angeniuex large throw zoom . I shot with all Kodak stock. I had a very minimal lighting package and only used it in the interior of the motel. Everything else was natural light.

I shot for a total of about 18 days spread out over 2 months. I used an excellent lab in California named Fotokem to do all my processing. My only mistake was renting the Avid because I required it for such a long period of time I could have simply owned it. The process for doing the Super 16 to 35 millimeter was new. In fact, it is the reason that the film was shown unfinished at the Cannes film festival. The plan was to shoot in Super 16mm and to use a new non-linear digital intermediate process to generate the 35 mm negative. I was to use the new British system called an IQ that would include scanning at 2K and staying in 2K nonlinear algorithm digital form, work on all the color corrections and effects and then output to 35 mm negative stock.

The problem was that in late March, I was notified that the proprietary software required to operate the system was not yet ready and would not be ready until nearly September. This created a dilemma. You see, I was required under contract to deliver the finished film in July 2003. With the equipment not available until September, the earliest I could possibly deliver would be late October. The financiers made it clear that an extension of my delivery date was unacceptable. I had to accept doing a traditional 16 mm to 35 mm optical blowup or a 1K linear digital intermediate. Both those options were not part of my plan and had already been deemed in my mind unacceptable."

http://www.gawker.com/topic/vincent-gallos...ebay-014723.php

Mitch Gross · September 23, 2004

I remember reading that eBay listing as well. It was...entertaining. Very Vincent Gallo is the only way to describe it.

The Super Baltars are not bad lenses, but they are a very old technology and can easily flare, have poorer resolution and edge to edge shapness, chromatic abberation, contrast and other such measurements of image quality compared to newer optics. They were the common lens of choice during the 50s and 60s and sat on the front of many a Mitchell camera. I'm assuming that Gallo bought his Aatons used (at least the XTRprod) and sent them to Aaton in France for a tune up. Any machine can be tweaked over time to keep it at its best. I always enjoy when someone purports to have the "secret" for hacking a piece of gear to make it some much better. As if Aaton wouldn't ship their cameras running the best they could in the first place.

I can't comment on the cinematography of the film because I just can't bring myself to go see it. I liken it to a line a director I know uses to turn down projects offer him, "I only have so many films in me; yours isn't one of them."

Greg Gross · September 23, 2004

How about that Cooke S4/i,180mm?

Close focus 4'3"

Cooke video,S4HD, 8-46mm

Greg Gross, Professional Photographer

Student cinematographer

Sam Wells · September 23, 2004

How about new Cooke S4 9.5mm & 12mm for S16, how about them Yankees, how about that second mortgage :D

-Sam

DavidSloan · September 25, 2004

Well I saw the film...I'm not going to post what I really think about it because that would not be appropriate. Let's just say I left the theater with a sour mug.

I completely disagree with your view of the long takes. Tarkovsky, Hou Hsiao Hsien, Bela Tarr, Akerman, Gus Van Sant, Janckos etc...do not bore me, or even hypnotize me...they fully engage me. Gallo's long takes weren't boring either. they were just laughable. The guy is pretty Fcuking far from Tarkovsky! He's a geniunely nice guy (met him on several occasions), and Buffalo 66 is still a nice film, he's not a master of cinema though, sorry.

Sergei Levy · October 1, 2004

How did this poop cost $10 million?

Having seen the horrible "rough cut" at Cannes, I was suprised to see a different film emerge. Different, but not good.

Cinematography was very 70. Like Cassavetes with a anxiety disorder and a concussion.

DavidSloan · October 10, 2004

What really annoys me about crap like this, is that it gives all "art films" a bad name, to those who have no idea what art films are. I mean poop like this reinforces the view that a lot of people have that artistic films are pretentious, very grainy garbage.

On the other hand, people who don't know anything about art films, but think they do, hail this film as some sort of masterpiece and place side by side with genius directors like Tarkovsky or Carax. Nonsense!

Sergei Levy · October 12, 2004

Here's my favority Vincent Gallo quote:

"A vacation should be sitting in bed eating chips and dips, watching TV, and being massaged and blown by a robot - that's a vacation."

This guy's F***ing nuts.

Matt Pacini · October 12, 2004

Oh, let's all be honest here.

The only reason anybody wants to watch this film, is to see Chloe give a BJ onscreen.

How does this guy continue to get work?

I mean, doing anything?

Go to his website and see the utter contemp he treats anyone who may be a fan.

I've never met him, he might be a nice guy, but if that's the case, he's cleverly crafted a personna that is exactly the opposite.

I don't know, maybe it's working for him...

Matt Pacini

Bill DiPietra · October 15, 2004

Oh, let's all be honest here.
The only reason anybody wants to watch this film, is to see Chloe give a BJ onscreen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is really all I've heard in connection with this film. What is it about?

Matt Pacini · October 22, 2004

All I know about it is that Gallo acted & directed it (I think wrote it also), Roger Ebert said it was the worst movie he'd ever seen, Gallo responded by saying something about hoping he died of a heart attack or something like that, and that it's about Gallo's character driving cross country to race motorcycles or something, and that Chloe Sevigny blows him onscreen in something like a 5 minute scene.

As far as I can guess, and from what I've heard about the film, there's no reason anybody "really" wants to see it except to see her oral talents, so let's all stop acting like we're interested in the cinematography and just be honest about our testosterone induced mania, OK?

har har!

Matt Pacini

Landon D. Parks · October 23, 2004

Roger Ebert said it was the worst movie he'd ever seen, Gallo responded by saying something about hoping he died of a heart attack or something like that

This goes to show that he is not capable of takinf rejection. If Roger said it was bed, then it was.

He should accept that and move on, but replying with a comment like "I hope he has a heart attack" over having his film rated bad goes to show that he is rude for sure. :unsure:

Mitch Gross · October 23, 2004

The most interesting aspect of the Gallo-Ebert battle was that Gallo was forced to screen a roughcut at Cannes because the optical printing of the finished edit was not going to be ready in time. This was the overly long version that Ebert poorly reviewed. But when the movie was eventually released this summer some 14 months later, Ebert dutifully watched it again even after Gallo had made his viscious statements. Amazingly enough, Ebert gave the new cut of the film a POSITIVE review, heralding what good editing can do to find the voice of an artist. I don't know if Gallo was gracious enough to make a positive comment back.

Saul Pincus · October 23, 2004

The most interesting aspect of the Gallo-Ebert battle was that Gallo was forced to screen a roughcut at Cannes because the optical printing of the finished edit was not going to be ready in time. This was the overly long version that Ebert poorly reviewed. But when the movie was eventually released this summer some 14 months later, Ebert dutifully watched it again even after Gallo had made his viscious statements. Amazingly enough, Ebert gave the new cut of the film a POSITIVE review, heralding what good editing can do to find the voice of an artist. I don't know if Gallo was gracious enough to make a positive comment back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To promote the release, I believe Gallo actually did an interview with Ebert (where, as I understand it, they at least publicly buried the hatchet) this past summer.

As an actor, Gallo's quite compelling. I edited a feature starring him, Jennifer Tilly (and others) a few years ago in which he shared most of his scenes with Tilly. The dailies were always a blast, improvised and full of inventiveness. And his approach to "finding" the scene through repetition and adjustment of performance as the camera rolls really works for him.

Saul Pincus