Skip to main content

Kindly behove me no ill behoves!

The Bonfire of the Vanities
(1990)

(SPOILERS) It’s often the case that industry-shaking flops aren’t nearly the travesties they appeared to be before the dust had settled, and so it is with The Bonfire of the Vanities. The adaptation of Tom Wolfe’s ultra-cynical bestseller is still the largely toothless, apologetically broad-brush comedy – I’d hesitate to call it a satire in its reconfigured form – it was when first savaged by critics nearly thirty years ago, but taken for what it is, that is, removed from the long shadow of Wolfe’s novel, it’s actually fairly serviceable star-stuffed affair that doesn’t seem so woefully different to any number of rather blunt-edged comedies of the era.

Weiss: You mean we nail the WASP?
Kramer: To the wall.

When you consider that director Brian De Palma wanted variously Steve Martin and Chevy Chase for the lead character Sherman McCoy, that seems even more the case. He ended up with Tom Hanks. Who was, ironically, looking for his big break as a dramatic lead, as you’d actually lump his performance here – particularly in his validating comic centre piece, during which McCoy repeatedly fires off a shotgun in order to disperse guests from his luxury apartment – with pretty much every other of his preceding roles, rather than his post-Philadelphia “gravitas”. Hanks isn’t bad exactly (although it’s weird to think he was in his mid-30s, Bruce Willis just a year older, but looks about ten years younger), but he’s playing Tom Hanks as he was then, and thus he’s crucially entirely ill-suited to the confidence, bravado and oily yuppiedom of a "Master of the Universe" Wall Street trader.

He also, once he was on board, encapsulated the slippery slope of neutering the entire object of the exercise. Bonfire’s spiralling out of control production has been famously (or infamously) covered in The Devil’s Candy by Julie Salamon (the film critic for the Wall Street Journal). De Palma wanted to make it as another Dr. Strangelove, a “cartoony epic”, which sounds rather like another failure from the previous decade, Richard Brooks’ Wrong is Right aka The Man With the Deadly Lens, a Kubrickian satire that was very hit and miss, principally as a consequence of never quite finding its tone. With Hanks came the need to make Sherman McCoy sympathetic (to the extent that the Master of the Universe prevails at the end, in contrast to the book’s epilogue). As a Wall Street big shot whose world falls apart when he’s involved in a hit-and-run on a black teenager in Brooklyn, McCoy comes across more like Hugh Laurie’s Bertie Wooster let loose in the city, rather than someone of believable trading acumen.

Moore: But in my house, when a turd appears, we deal with it, we dispose of it, we flush it away. We don’t put it on the table and call it caviar.

Next up is Bruce Willis as washed-up souse journo Peter Fallow (he’s English in the novel – John Cleese turned the part down). The actor comes out of The Devil’s Candy particularly badly (but then, he comes out most movies he was making around this time particularly badly); Warners wanted a star for the part and prevailed over the director. Willis in Bonfire is pretty much giving us David Maddison with less zingers, but I’ll give him the credit that his narration actually works pretty well, and lends the picture a degree of coherence it desperately needs.

He also gets an amusing scene where Alan King (as Melanie Griffith’s husband) drops dead during a dinner anecdote. Notably, the scene is all about Willis’ bemused response. Generally in the picture, though, he looks like he’s just walked out of the costume department wearing the first thing he could find, rather than making any attempt to inhabit a character (I seem to recall that Bruce initially attempted an English accent, one that soon went by the wayside). Willis and Hanks have one scene together, and it confirms they aren’t really in the same movie stylistically, which in turn is different to the movie either of them should be in.

Judge White: You dare call me racist!

The casting of Morgan Freeman as Judge (yes) White created perhaps the most waves, though, given it went to the heart of Warners’ unease over the material and the potential for offence its satire of racial politics might provoke. So the Jewish judge presiding over Sherman’s case – based on a friend of Wolfe’s – a part initially offered to Walter Matthau, and then Alan Arkin when Matthau asked for $1m, went to a post-Driving Miss Daisy and Glory so-hot-right-now Freeman, paid the princely of $4m for four days work (for salary comparisons, Hanks and Willis took home $5m each). When it comes to the big speech calling for decency, it thus has the mollifying effect of someone with gravitas, bearing and moral rectitude, rather than being delivered by someone who is symbolic of a greater problem (the white guy issuing verdicts to the black populace).

All these performers are perfectly acceptable in their own right, but cumulatively they serve to make the movie very ordinary, very typical of anodyne, second-guessed Hollywood product, rather than standing out from the crowd. We aren’t so far from SNL performers’ ‘80s comedies, such as Trading Places, except that was really funny and pointedly cast; Bonfire’s so broad, you half expect The Blues Brothers to show up.

There’s also the part where De Palma’s rather out of his wheelhouse. His biggest critical advocate Pauline Kael, in one of her final published reviews, took Bonfire apart, albeit she was careful to state that the director “showed a genius for sophomoric comedy in his youth”. But that was twenty years prior, and his instincts here for a genre vehicle are about as sharp as they were in Wise Guys just half a decade earlier. He’s good at ghoulish laughs (look at anything where he casts John Lithgow, whom he retrospectively thought should have played McCoy), but his instincts are decidedly less honed in a “straight” comedy. Consequently, there are lots of exaggerated high and low angles. Because nothing says whacky like high and low angles.

He still manages to toss in a technically proficient tracking shot (during which Willis tucks into a whole salmon) as an opener, but it’s entirely less germane and impressive than the one old pal Scorsese incorporated into Goodfellas a few months before. And there’s a kind of hubris here. With The Untouchables, De Palma had a gasp of awards acclaim that had generally eluded him, mainly thanks to his historically unapologetic tendency to provoke and revel in “distasteful” themes and genres. He duly went to Nam, but with material (rape) and a star (Michael J Fox, popular, but not seriously respected – unfairly so) that ensured it wasn’t going to get the kind of attention reserved for Coppola or Stone or Kubrick. How about a bestselling novel, then? What could go wrong? Awards attention would be a fait accompli (the picture came out in the third week of December, tooled up for Oscar nominations, and received only Razzie recognition – Scorsese and Coppola films duly got nods, although history hasn’t been kind to Coppola’s).

The biggest problem with the film, as a result of the shotgun wedding of unsympathetic filmmakers, is ultimately less the blunting of the satire than the lack of any momentum. It’s as if, amidst all the distractions and problems besetting Bonfire, De Palma lost sight of the story he was telling. It flails about like Willis’ drunk act, lurching from scene to scene with a determined absence of finesse, its every error amplified by Dave Grusin’s insufferably overbearing score.

And yet, while I seem to be going that way, this piece isn’t intended as another hatchet job on a movie already entirely eviscerated by most who have encountered it. Like Ishtar, the legends of excess and, well, vanity, precede The Bonfire of the Vanities, but it’s actually quite watchable, moment to moment. You may not be persuaded to carewhere it’s going, but it’s largely a painless experience. Okay, aside from Melanie Griffith’s mistress. She seems to be essaying another in her run of trash hooker roles rather than a trophy wife, with her sub-Marilyn mis-phrasings – “Oh Sherman, you are so paranoidical” (De Palma wanted Uma Thurman, Hanks nixed her as too inexperienced, which is a bit rich given he was a dramatic lightweight at this point, and some would say still is).

Sherman: I want you to meet Aubrey Buffing.
Judy: Who?
Sherman: The poet. He’s on the short-list for the Nobel Prize. He has AIDS. You’ll love him!

But the picture is nevertheless littered with enjoyable supporting turns. Kim Cattrall nails the tone, where her better paid co-stars don’t, perfectly (apparently, she spent most of the shoot being tortured by De Palma over her weight). Saul Rubinek, in what was more of a third protagonist role in the book, offers precisely the needed unscrupulousness as prosecuting assistant DA Jed Kramer (while the movie would be a blot on the CV of most, it can be seen as the beginning of a period where Rubinek would impress in a series of juicy supporting turns, including Unforgiven and True Romance).

F Murray Abraham also knows this ought to be a satire as Rubinek’s boss Abe Weiss, concerned for his re-election prospects (“By November, they are going to be thinking of me as the first black District Attorney of Bronx County”). There’s also Robert Stephens – how can you stage a scene featuring Abraham and Stephens and not have them say anything to each other? – as Willis’ boss and in an entirely different class to him. Perhaps best of all is Andre Gregory as the marvellously named poet Aubrey Buffing, ranting apocalyptically at a party (it wouldn’t surprise me if Hanks felt guilty about his character’s concern on shaking hands with an AIDS victim and it factored in to his taking Philadelphia).

Peter: Whereas I, you see, who started with so little, gained everything... But what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses… Ah well. There are compensations.

I was also struck by how similar Hanks’ interrogation by cops, during which his overt guilty conscience and ineptitude lead to his digging himself a hole, is to William H Macy’s questioning by Frances McDormand in the later Best Picture Oscar-nominated Fargo. And in fairness, it’s the kind of scene Hanks excels at, relying on his instinctive comic timing.

Naturally, Michael Cristofer’s screenplay – the writer was previously responsible for Falling in Love and The Witches of Eastwick – has to transform the movie’s message into one of uplift, so Sherman loses everything but gains his soul, while Fallow signs off with a smirky irreverence as a vague nod to the novel, but not really. He might as well have tossed a cappuccino over his shoulder. Apparently, the test ending, in which the hit-and-run victim walked out of hospital without a scratch, indicating the whole thing was fabricated, didn’t test well (what, as opposed to everything else?) and was dropped, but I doubt its inclusion would have been either here or there.

So did anyone learn anything from The Bonfire of the Vanities? Well, Warner Bros steered clear of big book adaptations for a spell (until Interview with the Vampire, unless you include Memoirs of an Invisible Man). Hanks persevered with his serious thesp aspirations, to the tune of back-to-back Best Actor Oscars a few years later. Willis made Hudson Hawk, and then ironically forsook probably his biggest asset: that smirk. De Palma wrote and directed Raising Cain as a palate cleanser. And Morgan Freeman kept cashing the cheques for four days’ work.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

The Illumi-what-i?

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) (SPOILERS) In which Sam Raimi proves that he can stand proudly with the best – or worst – of them as a good little foot soldier of the woke apocalypse. You’d expect the wilfully anarchic – and Republican – Raimi to choke on the woke, but instead, he’s sucked it up, grinned and bore it. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is so slavishly a production-line Marvel movie, both in plotting and character, and in nu-Feige progressive sensibilities, there was no chance of Sam staggering out from beneath its suffocating demands with anything more than a few scraps of stylistic flourish intact.

This risotto is shmackin’, dude.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 1 (SPOILERS) I haven’t had cause, or the urge, to revisit earlier seasons of Stranger Things , but I’m fairly certain my (relatively) positive takes on the first two sequel seasons would adjust down somewhat if I did (a Soviet base under Hawkins? DUMB soft disclosure or not, it’s pretty dumb). In my Season Three review, I called the show “ Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways ” I fairly certain the Duffer’s weren’t reading, but it’s as if they decided, as a rebuke, that bloat was the only way to go for Season Four. Hence episodes approaching (or exceeding) twice the standard length. So while the other points – that it wouldn’t stray from its cosy identity and seasons tend to merge in the memory – hold fast, you can feel the ambition of an expansive canvas faltering at the hurdle of Stranger Things ’ essential, curated, nostalgia-appeal inconsequentiality.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Is this supposed to be me? It’s grotesque.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) (SPOILERS) I didn’t hold out much hope for The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent being more than moderately tolerable. Not so much because its relatively untested director and his co-writer are mostly known in the TV sphere (and not so much for anything anyone is raving about). Although, it has to be admitted, the finished movie flourishes a degree of digital flatness typical of small-screen productions (it’s fine, but nothing more). Rather, due to the already over-tapped meta-strain of celebs showing they’re good sports about themselves. When Spike Jonze did it with John Malkovich, it was weird and different. By the time we had JCVD , not so much. And both of them are pre-dated by Arnie in Last Action Hero (“ You brought me nothing but pain ” he is told by Jack Slater). Plus, it isn’t as if Tom Gormican and Kevin Etten have much in the way of an angle on Nic; the movie’s basically there to glorify “him”, give or take a few foibles, do

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

What’s so bad about being small? You’re not going to be small forever.

Innerspace (1987) There’s no doubt that Innerspace is a flawed movie. Joe Dante finds himself pulling in different directions, his instincts for comic subversion tempered by the need to play the romance plot straight. He tacitly acknowledges this on the DVD commentary for the film, where he notes Pauline Kael’s criticism that he was attempting to make a mainstream movie; and he was. But, as ever with Dante, it never quite turns out that way. Whereas his kids’ movies treat their protagonists earnestly, this doesn’t come so naturally with adults. I’m a bona fide devotee of Innerspace , but I can’t help but be conscious of its problems. For the most part Dante papers over the cracks; the movie hits certain keynotes of standard Hollywood prescription scripting. But his sensibility inevitably suffuses it. That, and human cartoon Martin Short (an ideal “leading man” for the director) ensure what is, at first glance just another “ Steven Spielberg Presents ” sci-fi/fantas

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Whacking. I'm hell at whacking.

Witness (1985) (SPOILERS) Witness saw the advent of a relatively brief period – just over half a decade –during which Harrison Ford was willing to use his star power in an attempt to branch out. The results were mixed, and abruptly concluded when his typically too late to go where Daniel Day Lewis, Dustin Hoffman and Robert De Niro had gone before (with at bare minimum Oscar-nominated results) – but not “ full retard ” – ended in derision with Regarding Henry . He retreated to the world of Tom Clancy, and it’s the point where his cachet began to crumble. There had always been a stolid quality beneath even his more colourful characters, but now it came to the fore. You can see something of that as John Book in Witness – despite his sole Oscar nom, it might be one of Ford’s least interesting performances of the 80s – but it scarcely matters, or that the screenplay (which won) is by turns nostalgic, reactionary, wistful and formulaic, as director Peter Weir, in his Hollywood debu

Get away from my burro!

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) (SPOILERS) The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is beloved by so many of the cinematic firmament’s luminaries – Stanley Kubrick, Sam Raimi, , Paul Thomas Anderson and who knows maybe also WS, Vince Gilligan, Spike Lee, Daniel Day Lewis; Oliver Stone was going to remake it – not to mention those anteriorly influential Stone Roses, that it seems foolhardy to suggest it isn’t quite all that. There’s no faulting the performances – a career best Humphrey Bogart, with director John Huston’s dad Walter stealing the movie from under him – but the greed-is-bad theme is laid on a little thick, just in case you were a bit too dim to get it yourself the first time, and Huston’s direction may be right there were it counts for the dramatics, but it’s a little too relaxed when it comes to showing the seams between Mexican location and studio.

If that small woman is small enough, she could fit behind a small tree.

Stranger Things Season 4: Volume 2 (SPOILERS) I can’t quite find it within myself to perform the rapturous somersaults that seem to be the prevailing response to this fourth run of the show. I’ve outlined some of my thematic issues in the Volume 1 review, largely borne out here, but the greater concern is one I’ve held since Season Two began – and this is the best run since Season One, at least as far my failing memory can account for – and that’s the purpose-built formula dictated by the Duffer Brothers. It’s there in each new Big Bad, obviously, even to the extent that this is the Big-Bad-who-binds-them-all (except the Upside Down was always there, right?) And it’s there with the resurgent emotional beats, partings, reunions and plaintively stirring music cues. I have to be really on board with a movie or show to embrace such flagrantly shameless manipulation, season after season, and I find myself increasingly immune.