Starring Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis, Melanie Griffith, and Morgan Freeman
Directed by Brian DePalma
-The Bonfire of the Vanities tells the story of Sherman McCoy, a Wall Street tycoon who, upon driving his mistress home from the airport, becomes involved in a hit-and-run with two African-American teenagers. Fleeing the scene, Sherman quickly sees his life begin to unravel as a down-on-his-luck reporter named Peter Fallow uncovers the incident which soon spirals into a media frenzy.
I begin this post by stating that I know how odd a choice The Bonfire of the Vanities is to make as a recommendation. I am aware of the film's reputation and all of its shortcomings and how the combination of big stars, meddling producers, and an uneven script have all conspired to make The Bonfire of the Vanities one of the most notable disasters in movie history. Yet I feel that there is more to this film than most people have perceived over the years. The origin of the film is of course the famous novel by Tom Wolfe of the same name. The book was widely regarded as a hilarious satire of New York's upper class and is now considered to be one of the most telling literary works of the 1980s. Its only natural then that Hollywood would want to capitalize on such a hot property by adapting it. The result was a film which decided to forgo the many ingredients which had made the novel so biting and powerful and instead opted to follow the traditional conventions of the Hollywood blockbuster. Audiences, most of whom had read the book, were disappointed as were the critics who found the film repetitive and obvious. The Bonfire of the Vanities has since gone down in history as a bona fide disaster.
Yet looking at the film without having read the book, The Bonfire of the Vanities succeeds on a variety of differing levels. First off, there is the level of comedy on display throughout the film, which, granted is not revolutionary by any means, seldom misses a beat. This is due in large part to the much controversial cast. While no one was necessarily in favor of casting Tom Hanks as the slimy Wall Street tycoon, Bruce Willis as the alcoholic journalist, or Melanie Griffith as the high society southern belle, the cast ably delivers the comedic touches the film nees while lending thier star power to roles that cast them against type. Despite this, one wonders how the film would have woked had the original choices (William Hurt, John Cleese, and Michelle Pfeiffer) been cast instead. The biggest surprise of all is Hanks who in my opinion gives quite an admirable performance as someone who is not necessarily a villain, but definitley not likeable. Hanks somehow plays Sherman McCoy as slimy while still making the audience side with him.
Almost as controversial as the casting choices, was the selection of DePalma as the director, who had been known for directing thrillers up to that point. Yet the director imbeds his trademark touches including high overhead angles and extended tracking shots (such as the brilliantly filmed opening in the world trade center) to make the film his own. Moreover, the film's criticism of society is one which DePalma has been known to tackle in the past and could be what potentially led him to helming the project.
It is that said criticism that is at the heart of the film which takes a very upfront attack on two societies; the callous upper-class who live on Park Avenue and the opportunistic lower class who live in the Bronx. While the contrasting attitudes and lifestyles of the two are distinctly presented, the script eventually shows them all as money-hungry, fame-seeking, status-attaining and morally vacuous. One of the problems many people had with the film was the fact that it presented its subjects as cartoons rather than characters due to the heightened nature in which they are presented. While this claim is just, one could also make the case that the exaggerated nature of the characters only adds to the satirical element of the film and keeps it from abandoning its comedic roots.
There is also the minor argument that The Bonfire of the Vanities was slightly ahead of its time. Made too soon after the 80s had ended the film's subject matter was simply too fresh to lend itself to a probing expose. Also, the depiction of the media as a powerful and driving force and outrageous scenes such as Hanks running around his penthouse apartment during a dinner party scaring off guests with a shotgun (my favorite scene) seems much more acceptable in today's cinematic world than in the early 90s.
The less than subtle nature also seemed to be a frustrating point with audiences who found the film's messages to be too blatant and 'in your face' in comparison w/the book. While I agree that the message of the film is not subtle by any means, the method of presenting the film's core themes is nothing new. In fact, this style of storytelling recalls the films of Frank Capra such as You Can't Take it With You and Pocketful of Miracles where messages of kindness and loyalty toward humanity were considered gospel and were hammered into the audiences minds from the beginning in more than obvious ways. Withthat in mind, it might be easier to look at The Bonfire of the Vanities as less like a failed literary adaptation and more like a modern day Capra film with a decidedly darker twist. Many of the key themes of the aforementioned films such as misplaced values and the emphasis on class distinctions are on view here and Freeman's grand speech about justice could easily have been taken out of one of Capra's own films verbatim.
In his review of the film, critic Roger Ebert stated that he was unsure of who this movie was for since no one who had read the book would appreciate it. In Ebert's comment lies the answer; the film is indeed better suited for individuals who haven't read the Tom Wolfe novel, as well as fans of the stars and director who can each consider the film as an interesting footnote in thier careers. In the end, The Bonfire of the Vanities is undenaibly flawed. But within those flaws is a film brimming with dark comedy, light satire and a timeless commentary on society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8svDYfWi2c
-the trailer of the film sets the tone in terms of the comedy and overall nature of the story...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luui7KGzciY&feature=related
-the film's opening sequence which takes place in the world trade center shows us that this is a DePalma film and that his technique is adaptable to comedy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3mufsIKsis
-F. Murray Abraham's first scene shows how the film treats racial and class politics with a decidedly, humourous edge...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si55h9-MP_4
-as stated earlier, Morgan Freeman's speech is right out of a Capra film in that its virtually shoved down the audience's throats. The accompanying music only adds to this. Yet the scene should not be discarded, mainly due to DePalma's interesting angles which sees Freeman towering overhead and various characters are given tight close-ups in accordance with their part in the events...
No comments:
Post a Comment