Skip to main content

Well, I heard you. Fraggle-Stick car. Fine.

Bad Santa
(2003)

(SPOILERS) Full disclosure: I haven’t seen Bad Santa: The Director’s Cut. I suppose I should, in a show of solidarity for unsullied visions, regard it as the definitive version, particularly considering the wanton meddling, interference and upset Harvey Weinstein has caused filmmakers over the years. But the sad fact is, director’s cuts aren’t always the best version, and producer power sometimes – sometimes – can be a positive rather than negative influence. I’d doubtless watch the Director’s Cut if it was on hand, but I’ve been very happy with both versions of Bad Santa I have seen, and feel no urgent need for an additional take tipping more towards Terry Zwigoff’s favoured misanthropy over the life-affirming strains imposed on the original release.

But there’s also a full disclosure part two. The version I own is Badder Santa, the extended cut, and I haven’t visited the original release since it was in cinemas. Again, however, this isn’t really the negative some have made out. Sure, the added Florida episode could happily have remained on the cutting room floor, but otherwise, the picture doesn’t feel like it’s had extraneous material inserted to diminishing effect.

Bad Santa’s genesis is one of nigh-on infallible filmmakers (the Coen brothers) taking their idea to a couple of occasionally inspired screenwriters (Glenn Ficarra and Jon Requa, most obviously so with I Love You, Phillip Morris): “We wrote a really crass script, then the Coen brothers added a bunch of crass jokes”. The New York Times piece suggests disagreements between the brothers and Zwigoff on casting – in particular of Tony Cox as criminal associate and Santa’s elf Marcus Skidmore, and Brett Kelly as horrifically named Thurman Merman – and even though most of their opinions are related by Bob Weinstein, and when Zwigoff refers to the producers (the Coens we exec producers) he most likely means Bob and Harvey, he also confirmed that Joel and Ethan didn’t want Cox (“They said that they couldn’t see the guy being black”).

Certainly, the response to the test screenings – reshoots – was pure Harvey and Bob. These came courtesy of Todd Phillips now an “auteur” in his own right thanks to Joker. Bob takes the view “we put in a little heart” by adding scenes regarding Thurman’s Advent calendar and teaching Thurman how to box. The latter of which, I could happily lose, the former I rather like. The Coens, according to Zwigoff, hated it (“Well you tried to make this film into American Pie. It’s a piece of shit now”). Zwigoff admits, however “A lot of what they shot they tested and it didn’t work so they got rid of it anyway. Then I got to work to push it closer to my original version. It was damage control at that point”.

The main surprise for me was that Zwigoff’s version didn’t have Willie (Thornton) die at the end, since Bad Santa’s denouement seems set up for exactly that kind of sour note (and I’d wondered about it ever since its original release, knowing there had been frictions). Mostly when I watch Bad Santa, though, I’m too mirthfully engaged to speculate whether a darker version would be a better one; the death of Gin (Bernie Mac) is nasty enough as it is, without Zwigoff’s preferred added twistedness. Thornton meanwhile – who admits to getting hammered on the shoot, which Zwigoff understandably found something of an ordeal – is absolutely magnificent in the role of “an eating, drinking, shitting, fucking Santa Claus”, and I can’t imagine the Coens’ choice of (the unavailable) James Gandolfini would have achieved the level of dyspeptic levity he does.

And yes, I like the way Willie thaws in the face of the twin influences of the kid and Sue (Lauren Graham). It isn’t as if he ends the movie singing Joy to the World. His interaction with Kelly, who is an amazing combination of the tremulously sensitive and unreadable, is both hilarious and touching (his response to "Because you went to the bathroom on mommy's dishes?"might be the moment of the movie). Thurman responds to Willie’s sustained hostility with endless questions about his Santa duties (“Things are all fucked up at the North Pole” Willie explains of his stay at Thurman’s house) and only reveals quite late on that he knows full well Willie isn’t Santa. And the catharsis of Willie beating up the bully is both genuine and perverse (really believing his act of violence means he might have turned a corner in life).

Willie’s back and forth with Marcus is equally funny, just much more caustic (“Your soul is dogshit. Every single thing about you is fucking ugly” tirades the elf at one point). Cox manages to steal scenes wholesale from Bernie Mac’s “lousy, leather-faced, frog-eyed motherfucker”, no small order, but Mac’s onto a loser generally here (and was allegedly even more so in cloning centres), having to share scenes with John Ritter. Who, in his last role, gives an all-time great turn as Bob Chipeska (“He’s not going to say fuck stick in front of the children, is he?”), queasily shrinking from any sensitive language or subjects in the most pungent manner.

If Bad Santa really was like American Pie, it wouldn’t have the longevity it does. Yes, it’s very crude, and very dirty, but it’s the waft of redeemable nihilism that ensures it stands apart. That, and it’s very creative in how very crude and very dirty it is.


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.