MovieChat Forums > The Brown Bunny (2003) Discussion > Is it necessary

Is it necessary

posted 15 years ago by Last_Entrance
9 replies | jump to latest

Ok, I haven't seen the film, although the idea of it interests me.
However, is the final blow job scene (which I have heard probably too much about) really necessary to the whole idea film... or is it just a poor effort to be as leftfield, experimental and 'arthouse' as possible? If so then doesn't that devalue the whole film... or is the whole film just a mess anyway!

(By the way, an impartial answer would be nice... would rather not hear an answer from a bored hater...!)

Cheers,
Charlie

"The task of art today is to bring chaos into order." - Theodor Adorno

[–] Mr_Ectoplasma 15 years ago

Well, I love the film, and I don't think it was entirely unnecessary- it was daring and risky, and the film could have still worked without it, but the scene definitely brought things to a different level. If anything, it was definitely not included in the film for the purpose of eroticism in the least. I HATE, HATE, HATE when people try and deem this film as "pornography", because it is entirely devoid of everything that makes pornography erotic. Do you know the entire story of the film, Last Entrance? I don't want to spoil it for you, but if you are already aware of the 'twist' and all (or don't mind being 'spoiled'), I'd be glad to explain my take on it and how it works in the context of the film. It's just a little difficult to explain without giving away the final twist of the plot.

"They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself."
- Andy Warhol

[–] fpelot 15 years ago

daring and risky? are u kidding?it was drivel from someone who obviously couldnt come up with a good enough plot to write more then 25 minutes of dialogue.he isnt edgy. he's a hack. this was a huell howser program with 25 minutes of badly written,acted and directed scenes interspersed throughout.he threw in the oral sex because he realized how bad the rest was. but all it managed to do was point out how he shouldnt be making movies.

[–] hodie 15 years ago

Can't porn that isn't erotic just be bad porn?

Don's going to fix it. He knows what that nut means to Utz and what Utz means to us.

[–] Pestarzt 14 years ago

I think sexscenes in films are totally unnecessary in general. I'm not prude or anything, I have nothing against porn but I think a good film doesn't need that kind of intimacy to show what the director wants it to show.

I think this scene killed the ending a bit. I was still thinking about it when they were talking about what had happened and so the really important scene got kinda queued and loses intensity.

I like his work but Gallo sometimes seems to be overmotivated.

[–] rooprect 14 years ago

Showing Gallo's wanker maybe could've been avoided with different camera angles, but I think an explicit BJ was necessary in one form or another. It's hard to explain without spoiling it, but the whole way the scene is handled is symbolic to the character's psychology. The fact that she cannot talk (because she has Polish sausage shoved down her throat) is relevant, as is Gallo's cathartic interrogation of her at the same time.

In one of the few times that I agree with Roger Ebert, he explains why the BJ is not gratuitous and talks about how that the scene was important. BTW Ebert revised his review and gave this movie a thumbs up after Gallo cut 20 mins of footage.

[–] jay_r_leo 14 years ago

I have very mixed feelings about Vincent Gallo as he portrays himself via the media - his infamous hate-filled diatribe against other filmmakers, particularly Sofia Coppola, was so insensitive, poorly argued and self-righteous that it made me very, very sceptical about his ability to make a good film, but this film is good. I thought (maddeningly, at times) it was really quite brilliant and the oral sex at the end fits perfectly - it's an adult film, about adult themes, made by adults for adults. Watch it and then decide for yourselves - that's part of the joy of adulthood!

SPOLIERS AHEAD>>>>>>STOP!

It is intensley poignant, challenging and harrowing. For the life of me I can't see what is so much worse about watching Chloe Sevigny suck a man's c**k compared to the scene where she is gang raped. And as far as emotional torment goes, isn't it more voyeuristic to spend the WHOLE film spectating on Bud's misery, his absolute and unadultrated trauma? If we are made to feel uncomfortable by the sight of a woman giving real head but we have no problem with staged scenes of sexual abuse and suffering then more fool us. And there's nothing, NOTHING in any way erotic about that blow job, so in that sense I tip my hat to Mr Gallo - he managed to recreate life and make me reappraise it.

Geez, a donkey that doesn't want to be recognised? Something interesting is gonna happen here...

[–] p_hall94 14 years ago

Well, I feel that the fellatio scene was a bit unnecessary actually but that's just me. I think that just a tender love-making scene would have conveyed just as much of an impact if not more. A tender love-making scene would have made it much more intimate and showed more emotion, however, Bud was mad at Daisy as he kept telling her he hated her and didn't want to be with her anymore so maybe, perhaps, in Gallo's mind a BJ was less intimate and alot less caring. Afterwards he called her a "whore" so what I am trying to say is that Gallo probably thought the BJ went better with the emotional storyline here in that he hated Daisy at this point and love-making would be more tender and show more love than a BJ would. I have changed my own mind here since the beginning of my response and think that the BJ scene was in fact necessary BUT I don't think they had to show the actual thingie, I mean, we knew what she was doing, we didn't have to see the dong!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GrammarMatters 14 years ago

Roger Ebert said it was necessary.