criterionforum.org

Well, he is being an asshole, that's kind of what he does

med wrote:So, "asshole" is meant affectionately?

Asshole takes on all sorts of various subtleties when Gallos involved. I generally enjoy when he's poking at people in the press and doing 'outrageous' things that are in the end harmless, but there's just no reason for not letting fans see the work. If it wasn't finished sure. Maybe even if it got bludgeoned at festivals ala Brown Bunny. You can hate that film all you want but I'm sure you can at least admit the photography is beautiful with that seventies grain you just never see anymore. Promises Written in Water was treated with respect. So now it's like he's saying, "See I told you so I'm a good filmmaker and no one can see it."

Alan Smithee wrote:I didn't say we have a right to see his movie. If a person is talented and people have supported him financially through his work his entire life and they want to see his newest film and he doesn't want to show it, he's an asshole. That is all.

edit: Don't take this as an angry rant. I really don't care that much about this film, I'd just like to see it.

I find this notion of entitlement rather worrying, as though once a person decides to enter the public arena they are no longer entitled to keep anything to themselves. If someone has an idea for a film, or a storyboard, or an incomplete cut, or a complete one, and then pulls the plug on it, what difference does it make how far along it was? (Was Kubrick an asshole for never finishing Napoleon?) Perhaps he thinks the film is flawed and doesn't want to be associated with it. What then gives you the right to dig through his trash? Haven't you ever done anything and then thought better of it?

This discussion makes the title all the more hilarious.

Alan Smithee wrote:I generally enjoy when he's poking at people in the press and doing 'outrageous' things that are in the end harmless, but there's just no reason for not letting fans see the work.

To me, this reads like "I find his antics charming until they affect me, at which point, he's just gone too far."

I really do like his first two features a lot and would love to see this one, but I have no clue what goes through his mind. You ideally create a work or a film to share with the world, otherwise why would you work in such a medium as cinema that's so populist based? It really is an art form for the masses in a lot of ways. I can understand that they're are those art filmmakers who would prefer their stuff to be appreciated in a museum (which still doesn't make since to me) or just have problems getting their films screened, but it seems a bit silly to do this. Especially for a figure like Gallo who has a tremendous following.

And I don't think it's like how Swo said. He seems very proud of this work and the shorts he made along with it, but his claim is that he just made it for the people involved in it and the two festival screenings were done as a favor. It just seems to be a continuation of his persona. I still don't actually think he's the asshole, crazed man he tries to make himself out to be.

swo17 wrote:I find this notion of entitlement rather worrying, as though once a person decides to enter the public arena they are no longer entitled to keep anything to themselves. If someone has an idea for a film, or a storyboard, or an incomplete cut, or a complete one, and then pulls the plug on it, what difference does it make how far along it was? (Was Kubrick an asshole for never finishing Napoleon?) Perhaps he thinks the film is flawed and doesn't want to be associated with it. What then gives you the right to dig through his trash? Haven't you ever done anything and then thought better of it?

On the other hand- didn't Kafka leave instructions to have his unpublished work (which is to say, the vast majority of his work) burnt unread upon his death? I would argue that the world is infinitely better off because that instruction was ignored. I'm honestly not terribly concerned about an artist's right to self destruction.

Not allowing the film to be shown/released is one way to generate conversation and keep a certain level of interest going. Finally to be released this year are the Beach Boys' original SMILE sessions. When Brian Wilson pulled the plug on the almost-completed album back in '67, it was treated as a temporary disappointment in the press. 40-odd years later, SMILE is the most famous unreleased pop album ever (enough so that Wilson could release a re-recorded solo version of the album in 2004 to great sales and acclaim and there was still marketplace interest in having the original '66/'67 sessions issued). This notoriety was almost exclusively generated by inaccessibility.

Does Mr. Gallo think that PROMISES... will eventually become legendary by being unseen? This could be his plan.

He probably just enjoys not showing it.

I would say save your ire for studios who are sitting on films, or releasing terrible versions of films they "own". And if you are so desperate for Vincent Gallo stuff, you can buy his sperm or his leather jacket on his website. Obviously there is an element of humor to all this.

Zot! wrote:I would say save your ire for studios who are sitting on films, or releasing terrible versions of films they "own". And if you are so desperate for Vincent Gallo stuff, you can buy his sperm or his leather jacket on his website. Obviously there is an element of humor to all this.

Don't forget his naked photos of Gaspar Noe.

Roger Ryan wrote:Not allowing the film to be shown/released is one way to generate conversation and keep a certain level of interest going. Finally to be released this year are the Beach Boys' original SMILE sessions. When Brian Wilson pulled the plug on the almost-completed album back in '67, it was treated as a temporary disappointment in the press. 40-odd years later, SMILE is the most famous unreleased pop album ever (enough so that Wilson could release a re-recorded solo version of the album in 2004 to great sales and acclaim and there was still marketplace interest in having the original '66/'67 sessions issued). This notoriety was almost exclusively generated by inaccessibility.

Does Mr. Gallo think that PROMISES... will eventually become legendary by being unseen? This could be his plan.

Damn. Now I have 'Late Greats' by Wilco on infinite loop in my head....

The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:Anyways, I took my chances and e-mailed Gallo about the possibilities of ever getting to see this film. A short e-mail was responded with a short response:

Vincent Gallo wrote:I enjoy not showing it

I am shocked that nobody has yet made the quip that it is a shame Gallo did not say the same thing about his genitalia!

matrixschmatrix wrote:

swo17 wrote:I find this notion of entitlement rather worrying, as though once a person decides to enter the public arena they are no longer entitled to keep anything to themselves. If someone has an idea for a film, or a storyboard, or an incomplete cut, or a complete one, and then pulls the plug on it, what difference does it make how far along it was? (Was Kubrick an asshole for never finishing Napoleon?) Perhaps he thinks the film is flawed and doesn't want to be associated with it. What then gives you the right to dig through his trash? Haven't you ever done anything and then thought better of it?

On the other hand- didn't Kafka leave instructions to have his unpublished work (which is to say, the vast majority of his work) burnt unread upon his death? I would argue that the world is infinitely better off because that instruction was ignored. I'm honestly not terribly concerned about an artist's right to self destruction.

Apropos of nothing, I've just spend a day in a lecture involving the workings of the Mental Capacity Act - while this is about healthcare, perhaps one of the principles of the act is applicable here too:

Unwise decisions – people have the right to make decisions that others might regard as unwise or eccentric. You cannot treat someone as lacking capacity for this reason.

At the same time, I do think once something is placed in the public sphere (something which affects the society, even in a small way) that the public should be provided with certain, for the lack of a better term, 'access rights' (however by that I do not mean piracy, although lack of conventional access can cause that as an unintended consequence). For example I would argue against works being taken out of print or modified out of the final release or original version in a classical censorship or 'George Lucas' manipulaton manner which, while many might not consider such modifications or withholdings as particularly important, strikes me as a kind of unthinking attempt at historical revisionism and denial of a specific item's contribution to a particular cultural moment involving attempts to iron out all the flaws or eccentric choices that may be on display, and which may give a work its particular character.

But the difference between that and the Kafka or this new Gallo film is that those Kafka works or the Gallo had not yet been placed in the public sphere to have a (positive or negative) impact on the culture - the creator has not wished to have their works pass into the public sphere yet, or never did wish them to be. While it would certainly be interesting to see works that have been withheld in such a manner, one cannot entirely dismiss the creator's wishes at this point.

Of course, as Roger Ryan suggests, there is always that possibility that this particular situation could just be a cynical attempt to create a buzz around the film... :-k

How the hell did you get his email in the first place? i too have some questions for the man...

It's on his website.

swo17 wrote:I find this notion of entitlement rather worrying, as though once a person decides to enter the public arena they are no longer entitled to keep anything to themselves. If someone has an idea for a film, or a storyboard, or an incomplete cut, or a complete one, and then pulls the plug on it, what difference does it make how far along it was? (Was Kubrick an asshole for never finishing Napoleon?) Perhaps he thinks the film is flawed and doesn't want to be associated with it. What then gives you the right to dig through his trash? Haven't you ever done anything and then thought better of it?

As I've said, it's mostly his attitude about this that irks me. The fuck you he seems to be saying to everyone. No I don't think he is obligated to show it if he doesn't want to. No one is digging through anyones trash. This is a film that has played two festivals to decent reviews and he has said he's quite proud of it. That said, films are not made by one man. What do the other people involved think? I'm sure the dp would like his work seen. If the main actress didn't want her work seen she wouldn't have demanded two festival screenings.

Brian C wrote:

Alan Smithee wrote:I generally enjoy when he's poking at people in the press and doing 'outrageous' things that are in the end harmless, but there's just no reason for not letting fans see the work.

To me, this reads like "I find his antics charming until they affect me, at which point, he's just gone too far."

I'm not going to say that's too far off. The press have taken shots at him for 15 years, fans have never done anything to him accept give him the financial freedom to do seemingly whatever he wants.

I'm really not that offended by this, but yes it is interesting to bring up the topic of whether someone is obligated to release their work. If you make good work and people want to see it then yes to a degree I believe you should allow it to be seen.

I'm sure many of you love The Passenger. Isn't the world a better place with The Passenger in release rather than Jack Nicholson sitting on it?

Alan Smithee wrote:I'm sure many of you love The Passenger. Isn't the world a better place with The Passenger in release rather than Jack Nicholson sitting on it?

Why did Jack want to sit on it?

He didn't/ doesn't. That was just an example of an if.

Oh.

Anyway, apparently this isn't the first time Gallo has pulled this trick:

Wikipedia wrote:Gallo is
known for his outspoken views and
generally sarcastic nature , once
stating : "I stopped painting in 1990 at
the peak of my success just to deny
people my beautiful paintings ; and I
did it out of spite ."

Alan Smithee wrote:What do the other people involved think? I'm sure the dp would like his work seen. If the main actress didn't want her work seen she wouldn't have demanded two festival screenings.

Starring
Vincent Gallo

Produced by
Vincent Gallo

Cinematography by
Vincent Gallo

Film Editing by
Vincent Gallo

Production Design by
Vincent Gallo (uncredited)

Art Direction by
Vincent Gallo (uncredited)

Set Decoration by
Vincent Gallo (uncredited)

Costume Design by
Vincent Gallo

Makeup Department
Vincent Gallo .... makeup artist (uncredited)

Art Department
Vincent Gallo .... set designer

Never to be seen again.

Gallo may want you to think those are the credits but they aren't.Masanobu Takayanagi Is credited as dp for one. There were also makeup artists, production people, and a cast of ten.

Jack Nicholson did sit on the passenger for twenty years. He simultaneously didnt like the studio cut and wanted to own a film the way one owns a painting. One big difference with this is you may own a Picasso but anyone can see a reproduction in a book. The passenger was pretty much gone for all that time. CinemaScope has a good article on it.

Alan Smithee wrote:Jack Nicholson did sit on the passenger for twenty years. He simultaneously didnt like the studio cut and wanted to own a film the way one owns a painting. One big difference with this is you may own a Picasso but anyone can see a reproduction in a book. The passenger was pretty much gone for all that time. CinemaScope has a good article on it.

(Off-topic!) I don't know which twenty years these were, but I managed to see The Passenger a number of times during the 80s and 90s. It was certainly far easier to see (for me) than most of Antonioni's films from the fifties, for example.

http://www.cinema-scope.com/cs24/spo_ko ... senger.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I apologize if it wasn't exactly twenty years.

Those restrictions must have hit the US much more than the rest of the world. Between '86 (when Nicholson apparently acquired world-wide rights) and 2000 I saw the film on VHS, TV broadcast and (admittedly well-worn) 35mm.