I went with my buddy Dave to see this film when it came out. I think I had seen a trailer for it somewhere and it looked intriguing. Mostly, Christina Ricci was the appeal for me. We really had no idea what to expect. I walked out of the theater after the movie and had a new top 5 movie on my list. The film is darkly comedic, with Gallo channeling Ozu, Welles and Capra, yes Frank Capra!Billy Brown is released from prison after taking the fall for a petty crime he didn't commit. He was forced to take the fall in exchange for defaulting on his payment for a bet he made with a bookie on a Buffalo Bill's game. As we follow him through his day after being released from jail, the audience is given some insight into his background from his ineffectual mother, his love of bowling to his obsession over a woman that was barely aware of his existence. Forced into his day of adventures is Christina Ricci, who is essentially kidnapped by Billy and falls into Stockholm Syndrome. The plot builds as Billy plans to get his revenge on Scott Wood, the QB responsible for losing the football game that cost Billy the $10,000 and landed him in jail. Roger Ebert hated The Brown Bunny, Vincent Gallo's follow up to his 1998 masterpiece, Buffalo '66. But what did Ebert have to say about this film? He actually gave it 3 stars! The movie is not for everyone but has so many redeeming qualities it's impossible to not find something to love. What other film has Ben Gazzara, Anjelica Huston, Rosanna Arquette, Jan-Michael Vincent AND Mickey Rourke?!
And now my original 2006 essay on the film:
Vincent Gallo’s
1998 feature length debut, Buffalo Buffalo
In Bordwell’s
article, “The Cinema as a Mod of Film Practice,” he states that the art film
defines itself explicitly against the classical narrative mode of cause and
effect linkage of events. Instead, art
films typically feature a looser linkage and a deeper study into what motivates
that loosening of cause and effect events. (Braudy 776) This idea is prevalent throughout Buffalo
A specific example
from the film that supports Bordwell’s idea would be when Billy finally ends up
at the dance studio where he tries to use their bathroom to relieve himself
after trying unsuccessfully for the first 10 minutes of the film to find
somewhere to go, while in the hallway, he borrows a quarter from Layla to use
the phone, who is on her way to the bathroom.
We then overhear his conversation with his mother explaining that he
just flew in for one day with his wife, who his parents have never met. She insists on Billy bringing his new wife to
the house to meet them. He reluctantly
agrees which results in him deciding to kidnap Layla as she comes back out of
the restroom. This is not the typical
cause and effect sequence that a regular narrative driven film would have. First, we are not sure what his true
intentions are with Layla. Is he going
to rape her, rob her and steal her car or what?
After all, Billy was just released from prison and we do not know what he
was in there for. There are several
minutes of uneasiness as we see and hear Billy treat Layla in a violent
way. This includes lines like Billy
telling Layla if she doesn’t do what he says he’ll take a bite of her cheek and
shit her out. Up to that point we are
led to believe that his intentions are of something unpleasant. It’s not until they arrive at his parent’s
house that Billy explains to Layla that he just plans on using her as his wife
to impress his parents. This form of
character interaction is right at home in an art film but would not fit into
the regular Hollywood narrative style.
Another example is
when Billy and Layla arrive at his parent’s home. The audience would expect the parents to be
happy to finally see their new daughter-in-law and son who has been away. This concept is immediately thrown out the
window when Billy’s father, Jimmy, answers the door and immediately yells to
his wife that her “son” is here. She
welcomes him and Layla in. The next
scene shows all four people sitting around a square table in silence. With the lack of sound and body language, we can
see that the situation is uncomfortable.
This goes against the traditional narrative notion where we would have
expected a family excited to see Billy and his new bride.
Bordwell states
that the art cinema motivates its narratives by two principles: realism and
authorial expressivity. Realism is
presented in real locations, complex psychological characteristics, real
problems and often sexual situations. (Braudy 776) In Buffalo Buffalo ,
New York
Bordwell notes the
difference between art film characters and mainstream cinema. While in Hollywood
films, the protagonist shoots directly for the target; in art films, the
protagonist often lacks a goal and slides passively from one situation to
another. (Braudy 776) This can be found in this film as the
character of Billy begins the movie with no real direction. His first goal seems to be reuniting with his
parents which has disastrous results. Billy
then moves toward the goal of murdering Scott Wood, the football player who
made him lose $10,000 on a bet. There is
no traditional Hollywood storyline following
Billy, the protagonist, on the usual story arch. Billy does exhibit his problems interacting
with his parents. When Billy and Layla
arrive at his parent’s home for dinner, he has a breakdown on the porch before
ringing the doorbell. We witness the flood
of negative emotion that seems to envelope him after returning home. This also ties into Bordwell’s concept of the
hero in art films typically being supersensitive individuals who are on the
edge of a breakdown. There is a
reoccurring realization of the anguish of ordinary living. This is further illustrated by several
flashbacks that Billy has to his childhood.
One flashback recalls when Billy ate chocolate and learned that he was
allergic which resulted in his face turning red and swelling. The other flashback is when Billy’s father
Jimmy kills his puppy Bingo in front of him after the puppy peed in the house
for the last time. These flashbacks
illustrate the inner turmoil of our protagonist.
In art films,
Bordwell also notes that violations of classical conceptions of space and time
are justified by the complex characters found in the films. These films often have plot manipulations of
the story order. Bazin, the man
considered the first major critic of art cinema also acknowledged the loose,
accidental narrative structure of art films and praised it. (Braudy 418) In Buffalo
‘66, we see an example of the classical conception of time when in the
middle of the film, at the start of the second act, we are taken back in time
and shown why Billy was placed in jail.
Unlike the earlier mentioned flashbacks, which were also shot in 16mm as
opposed to the 35mm of the rest of the film, the prison scene is shot in 35mm. During this section of film we learn that he
made his bad bet on Buffalo Bills winning the Super Bowl. A bet which he loses and as a result is
forced by his bookie to admit to a crime he didn’t commit. It is due to all of this that Billy creates
such contempt for Scott Wood, the player who lost the Super Bowl. Following this scene we are abruptly placed
back into the present. Since this
flashback is essential to the storyline, the audience is quick to forgive its
disruptive nature as we delve deeper into Billy’s world. Also, the childhood flashbacks are shot in a
home-movie style giving the audience the idea that these are Billy’s memories
which may not be completely reliable.
The prison flashback is played to appear much more factual since it was
filmed like the rest of this film.
As
mentioned earlier, Bordwell also notes the authorial expressivity found in art
cinema. He states that art films are the
work of expressive individuals. These
films often made by individuals who include autobiographical content to their
movies. This was true of Fellini, Truffaut
and in this case, Vincent Gallo. (Braudy 777)
The movie commonly referred to as a semi-autobiographical movie. Gallo himself denounces the idea that film
was even remotely autobiographical other the parents in the film being similar
to his own. He is afraid that people
will think he really did not really create the script and merely played himself
in the film. Gallo insists that he
really did write the screenplay and those performances in the movie were acted. The film was not intended to be some
re-enacted documentary of his life.
Following right in
line with Bordwell’s beliefs, Buffalo ‘66
is able takes advantage of its freedom that Hollywood
films do not. For example, in a sequence
taking place around a dinner table of a Hollywood film, the camera would either
be fixed at the end of the table with people sitting around the table facing
the camera and/or the director would present many close ups of peoples faces as
they engage in conversation. This film
turns that notion on its head. Billy,
Layla and his parents each sit on a side of the square dinner table. As the conversation ensues, the camera takes
the place of each person at the table so that no more than three characters are
ever seen at a time while they are sitting.
By filming the sequence in this way, the audience is an active
participant at the dinner table of this dysfunctional family. This clearly violates the classical
conception of the camera objectively filming the sequence and it works
brilliantly. It has been said that this
scene was Gallo’s homage to Yasujiro Ozu, the Japanese filmmaker who is known
for his static visual style.
In art films,
Bordwell states that authorial commentary is showcased by any breakdown of the
motivation of cinematic space and time by cause-effect logic. (Braudy 778)
These can be portrayed by things such as enigmas or the puzzle of deciphering
just who is telling the story, why the story is being told or what is is being
told in the film. This is not something
typically found in classic Hollywood cinema.
Gallo provides his
authorial commentary with a sort of flash forward. We follow Billy as he leaves Layla in the
motel and heads for the strip club that Scott Wood owns with the intent to kill
him. Billy makes one last phone call to
his only friend Goon to give him the combination to his bowling locker and says
goodbye. We then follow him in the club
which plays in slow motion. He then
finds Scott Wood and shoots him in the forehead and then turns the gun on
himself. This scene is played in a
series of frozen shots referred to as “bullet time,” “whereby the passage of time
is displayed as extremely slow or frozen moments in order to allow a viewer to
observe imperceptibly fast events.” (“bullet-time”) We then cut to Billy’s
parents at his graveside, with his mother listening to the latest Buffalo Bills
football game on a portable radio and his father sitting next to her,
complaining about the cold weather. The
two quickly get up and leave, seemingly unfazed over the death of their
son. Suddenly, we see that this was
Billy’s imagined version of the scenario.
He decides against killing Scott Wood and then walks out of the club and
goes back to Layla in the motel. This
sequence functions perfectly to stress Gallo’s authorial presence over the
film. He makes us believe we are seeing
the fate of the character when it is changed on us to the reality of the
situation. In addition, we are allowed
to share in Billy’s imagined consequences of his actions.
One thing that
Bordwell does not address in his theory but seems to be ever present in art
films of today is the use of lesser known music that was not created new for
the film. In Buffalo
Bordwell’s ideas
of art film are best culminated in this statement, “…we are to watch less for
the tale than the telling, that life lacks the neatness of art and this art knows it.” (Braudy 780) In Buffalo Hollywood
cinema.
Bibliography
Braudy, Leo and Marshall Cohen. Film Theory and Criticism, sixth edition. Oxford UP, 2004.
“bullet-time.” Wikipedia. 3 March 2006. 3 March 2006
“Independent Film.” Wikipedia.
6 March 2006. 11 March 2006
Kaufman, Anthony. “writing.” November 2001. 11 March 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment