Mr. Floppy 09.14.08: Bonfire of the Vanities

Posted by Peter Bielik on 09.14.2008

Better than the 8th flavor of Magnum.

Oh my, how the time flies by when the sun is shining and so on and so forth.


In the last installment of Mr. Floppy (20 years ago) a reader named Michael Weyer suggested I should write about Bonfire of the Vanities. And wouldn't you know it he had a pretty good idea. I planned to write about this film on numerous occasions, but my attention always swung to something different. And even though I had other potential candidates, I decided to get this film finally out of the way so I can once again sleep happily in the night.

Before I get onto its case though, I want to make some comments on this year's summer season which is now officially over.

First things first- The Dark Knight. After quite some time, this is a movie that deserves every dollar it makes (OK, Iron Man was pretty good too). Who would have guessed that The Dark Knight would be the year's highest grossing movie? I fully expected the returning Indiana Jones to comfortably sit at the top of 2008's top grossing films, but that's obviously not going to happen. Maybe the fact that the new Jones was largely pointless and not on par with the original trilogy helped, but it's still an astonishing achievement.

Comic book films have been treated (and received) with more respect ever since Bryan Singer lay his hands on X-Men way back in 2000, but The Dark Knight raised the bar even higher. Definitely as far as the acting is concerned. I think after Heath Ledger delivered his scintillating performance (and Aaron Eckhart as well, even though he was shamefully overlooked), a lot of marquee stars (and great actors) are going to be very interested in future comic book films. You won't see me complaining.

Almost a billion worldwide, the year's most successful film, the biggest success ever in its own genre (raise your hand and slap your nutsack if you thought this could surpass Spider-Man's numbers), third place on IMDB Top 250 and I think we can also expect some success come Oscar night. I really am wholeheartedly happy for Christopher Nolan and co., plus after a long time we got to see something that'll be etched in history. Reinventing and revolutionizing a whole genre happens only once in a very long time (The Exorcist, Silence of the Lambs), so go out and celebrate.

I'm very curious how are the critics and public going to react to the upcoming comic book adaptations. Watchmen and X-Men Origins: Wolverine are going to have a difficult time next year- they're inevitably going to be compared to The Dark Knight, the new measuring stick for this genre. Hopefully the upcoming comic book films will answer the challenge by providing us with amazing entertainment on par with Nolan's opus. Do you hear me Zack Snyder? You have the best source material ever and a chance of a lifetime- don't screw this up.

Apart from TDK's enormous success, the summer season also brought a healthy collection of flops and since that's the name of my game, let's take a closer look.

The failure of Clooney's Leatherheads (Budget:. $58 million; Worldwide gross: cca $40 million) wasn't very surprising. I'm sure it's a pretty harmless comedy flick, but the time period in which it takes place probably did more harm than good. To an average moviegoer 1920s are probably as interesting as the fifth re-run of Meego starring Bronson Pinchot and Clooney has never been a big draw outside of the Oscean films. So- an expected flop. The film's mixed qualities didn't have that much of an effect on the earnings, as Eddie Murphy's Norbit earned big bucks, but quality was nowhere to be seen.

And with this, I fluently get to Murphy who once again embarrassed himself with Meet Dave (Budget: $60 million, WW Gross: cca $24 million). I haven't seen the film, but by all accounts it's once again a very fine piece of filmmaking. Truth be told, I don't understand why Murphy continues to participate in crap like this. His name value is strong enough for him to pick a lot better projects. Or are these kind the only scripts he receives nowadays? Or maybe he has some sort of fetish about playing multiple roles. I hope it's not only because of the money he gets, because by now he's filthy rich and doesn't need this kind of shit anymore. Hopefully, he can deliver something decent once again.

Then we have Speed Racer (Budget: $120 million; WW Gross: cca $89 million), which I commented on at the time of its release, but I'm still sorry for Wachowski brothers. This film's failure probably means that experiments requiring large budgets are dead for some time. Hopefully the film catches a second breath on Blu-Ray and DVD.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (Budget: $200 million; WW Gross: cca$417 million) wasn't an all-out flop, but I'm sure the numbers are extremely disappointing for the studio. As far as I'm concerned, they got what they deserved. I already made it clear I don't like fantasy, but even this genre can provide very good entertainment (I liked Stardust quite a lot). The new Narnia is absurdly dull, uneventful and boring considering it cost fuckin' $200 million. I think someone deserves a slap in the face for wasting so much money with such ludicrous results. That cash could have found much better use- for example to buy me a new house on the beach somewhere in California. Or a trip to the moon. Or whatever. A major disappointment.

Adam Sandler also had a considerably weak showing with You Don't Mess with the Zohan (Budget: $90 million; WW Gross: cca $129 million). The film barely crawled over a hundred in US which certainly wasn't a problem for Sandler before. However, his films did have a declining tendency in the last couple of years, so maybe this isn't that big of a surprise. Is the Sandler era coming to an end? I like his comedies and I actually liked Zohan (even though it's basically a crazy comedy for big money- I haven't seen Sandler do a humor this absurd in a long time, if ever) so I hope he can once again succeed. Maybe try to play an idiot once again? Just a thought.

And on we continue as this summer was a very healthy one, flop-wise. I actually didn't read about this film as a disappointment that much, but the fact is that The Incredible Hulk (Budget: $150 million; WW Gross: cca $244 million) cost more than his predecessor and grossed almost exactly the same amount. I don't think that's what the producers wanted. I think it was a mistake to do this film in the first place. People still remember Ang Lee's Hulk and that must be one of the main reasons why they hesitated with seeing the second one. Opening weekend was fine, but the big week to week drops proved that people didn't care for the new Hulk and word of mouth probably wasn't strong either. And keep in mind the film was probably helped by its marginal association with Iron Man (the TV spots were clever). A uselessly rushed restart- they should have waited couple more years. The same fate awaits Superman if Warner Bros. aren't VERY careful.


Next we have Mike Myers, who graced us with Love Guru (Budget: $62 million; WW Gross: cca $38 million) in June. This movie shows Myers is losing contact with reality, has no ideas left, or both. Seriously, Love Guru is simply a piece of shit for which I would be ashamed of if I was in Myers' place. Unfunny, forced, lumpy and the main character incredibly irritating and not funny in the slightest. Another Austin Powers announced? Go right ahead, but my faith in Myers as a comic is shaken to say the least. When Justin Timberlake in his underpants is the funniest thing about your movie, you have a problem.
But here he is, his star shining bright.



To cap things off, I'll say I'm sorry for Hellboy 2: The Golden Army, but the film suffered mainly from a badly timed release- one week before The Dark Knight which just absolutely killed Del Toro's film. A shame.

Oh and Vin Diesel. Few years ago, he refused to act in the sequel to The Fast and The Furious. Next year, we'll see him return in the series' fourth installment. Need I say more? I'm looking forward to him praising the great story and script which brought him back on board in the promo materials while keeping a straight face. Good luck with resurrecting your career, Vin (I mean it- I would actually like to see Riddick one more time).

A long intro, but when summer provides so many delicious flops, it's hard to resist. I'm just a human after all.





Year of the cock-up: 1990

Budget: $47,000,000

Domestic gross: $15,691,192

Foreign gross: N/A

Worldwide gross: N/A (less than the budget)


So Bonfire of the Vanities. Right off the bat, I have to admit I haven't seen this film. It's been on TV quite a few times in the past, but I wasn't interested then. In the last couple of years- I don't think it's been on even one single time (in my country at least). So it's actually hard to get this and I don't feel like downloading the film. I don't have a good reason for that- it's just one of those things.
I've read the original novel by Tom Wolfe however and it really is a brilliantly written story. Very intelligent, very funny, compelling and definitely one of the best satires of the last 20 years. The book itself is very meaty, but the material itself is so good it shouldn't have been a problem to make a good movie out of it. But once again we learn the truth that there is no material good enough to escape without harm from a greedy studio and a few colliding egos.

Warner Bros. bought the rights to the acclaimed novel and decided to hold nothing back. This was to be an obvious box-office hit and also a potential candidate for many awards. Brian De Palma, whose career is in the dumpster nowadays, was still a pretty requisite director at the end of the 80's. He enjoyed great success (deservingly so) with Scarface and The Untouchables. Unfortunately, the producers overlooked the mixed qualities of his films outside of the gangster genre. De Palma received one million dollars only for not working on anything else while doing Bonfire of the Vanities. Generous guys, those Warner Bros. folks.

After having their director, the time came for the studio to pick good (and well-known) actors that were a necessity for a movie like this and then sit back and wait for the masterpiece to be created. And in the casting is where the producers shot themselves in the foot.

Firstly, here's a brief outline of the plot, so it's easier to understand who's who and why it didn't work.

Financial shark Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) sees his life unravel when his mistress Maria Ruskin (Melanie Griffith) hits a black boy with his car. When a loser journalist Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis) enflames public opinion with a series of distorted tabloid articles on the accident, the case is seized upon by opportunists like Reverend Bacon and mayoral candidate D.A. Abe Weiss. Weiss recognizes the press coverage stemming from the incident inherent in prosecuting the callow Sherman.

So here we go, one by one. The role of an alcoholic journalist Peter Fallow, who slanders Sherman to help his own career was offered to both Jack Nicholson and John Cleese (Fallow was English in the novel) by Brian De Palma, but both turned down the role. When De Palma was unable to deliver an actor, the studio forced the director to cast Bruce Willis (who had starred in the successful 1988 film Die Hard) as Fallow instead. I didn't mention Die Hard by coincidence, because the studio wanted Willis simply to draw the crowds in, obviously blind to the fact that all of Willis' films that ventured outside of the action genre were failures (Sixth Sense was a long distance from here). His fee was $5 million, $4 million more than top-billed Tom Hanks. This is symptomatic for all big flops- throwing money away.

Tom Hanks was chosen to play the lead as he was considered "likeable" by the producers and would dampen the negativity of the character he would play, Sherman McCoy, thus hopefully improving the movie's commercial chances. The casting of Hanks was widely criticized at the time as he was considered a light comedian (wow, that really was a LONG time ago). Though he had recently received an Oscar nomination for Big he had yet to prove himself as a dramatic actor. Hanks hoped this would be his chance to prove himself in drama, but he would have to wait until Philadelphia to make his mark as a "serious" actor.

Melanie Griffith was cast as Sherman's love affair Maria Ruskin. Nothing against her, she still looked considerably good at the time, but I still think a young lover of a Wall Street investor who's making millions should have been more sexy and more, you know, young. These criticisms were also heard at the time of her casting and maybe that was also the reason why Griffith after merely three weeks of shooting went and surgically enhanced her chest, which she unapologetically stuffed right in De Palma's face upon her return. Bonfire of the Vanities? Appropriate.

The role of the judge was initially offered to Walter Mathau, but he, showing his modesty, wanted one million dollars for his services. So the producers kindly told him to go…explore other ventures and cast Alan Arkin for reasonable $150 000. Arkin didn't rejoice from his new mortgage money too long however, because he was replaced by Morgan Freeman when the studio decided to change the judge's ethnicity from Jewish to African-American in order to moderate criticism of the film's racial politics. And the punchline? Freemen got more than a million for his part. That's how you cut your costs my friends. When someone wants a million, send him on his way and give more money to someone else. But I have to mention Freeman was at the time a fresh recipient of an Academy Award nomination for his performance in Driving Miss Daisy so his stock was probably higher than Mathau's.

I've already mentioned Melanie Griffith and her tits and now it's time for another member of the cast whose body proved to be somewhat of a problem. Cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond was already pretty disgruntled by Griffith's idiotic stunt, but what caused him to sweat even more was Bruce Willis' continually expanding bald spot. Reportedly, the sun and lighting equipment reflected tremendously from Willis' head right into the camera and so the lighting of Willis' scenes became quite a pain in the ass. And to spice things up even more, Willis, whose star was just beginning to shine, was exercising very prima donna-like manners and was therefore largely disliked by most of the cast and crew. In one notorious instance, during the filming of one scene in which Willis was with Alan King, Willis challenged the crew to make the whole scene move along faster, allegedly because it was very hot on the set. De Palma eventually had to take him aside and explain to him who the director is, but that only damaged his relationship with Willis.

The studio wasn't thrilled with the troublesome shooting process, because more than $40 million for a satirical dramedy was a lot of money back in 1990. At one point, Warner Bros. president Terry Semel becomes so agitated by the spiraling costs that he demanded that De Palma pay any cost overruns for a scene budgeted at $75,000.

All these complications and bad decisions resulted in a film that can be best described as a failed opportunity and wasted potential. De Palma, as usually, provided many technically precisely and impressively delivered scenes (the Steadicam tracking shot of Bruce Willis entering the World Trade Center lasts for 4 minutes and 50 seconds), but it did him no good when cutting the shot material with the miscast actors.

The film itself was a critical and commercial flop when it was first released. The film cost an estimated $47 million to make, but initially grossed just over $15 million at the U.S. box office. The awards were also nowhere to be seen and this entire fiasco was so interesting that the controversies surrounding the film would be detailed in a book called The Devil's Candy, written by Julie Salamon (not an easily affected journalist, but a consummate pro from The Wall Street Journal). The question of why good people make bad movies has been answered very persuasively in this book. Well, that's what the people who've read the book said anyway. The book is reportedly very interesting and informative, but unfortunately I'm unable to acquire it by any means. So if some of you are interested in more information about this film's creation, take this article as a mere sample and go buy the book.





The more I write about these movie failures, the more I find out it's quite hard to put the blame on one person. After all- who goes and intentionally makes a bad movie? Is it Brian De Palma's fault? He's not a bad director IMHO (I even liked Femme Fatale), but very inadequate considering the material. The same applies for the actors- Tom Hanks wasn't a proven dramatic actor back then (and still lacked a bit in that department), ditto Bruce Willis, Melanie Griffith was older than needed…Regardless of the problematic shoot, none of them fit their part, which is a big problem since they were the core of the story.

This entire film can be seen as a series of bad choices. Simply put- the entire crew from director to actors just didn't click together. Like I wrote in the beginning, I haven't seen the film, but by all accounts it's nothing to write home about. But then again, it's also not the worst movie ever (or even the worst in the careers of all involved). Basically, it's just an average film that comes off a lot worse if you've read the book. Since I like the book a lot, I think I'm going to pass on this one. I don't need to see everything to be happy.

But I still have a floppy award to give someone. I think objectively, the best way is to blame this financial fiasco on the studio. Warner Bros. made a classic mistake- they smelled a literary sensation, quickly bought the rights, filled the film with famous faces, got a known director to direct and didn't even stop to think if these people were right for the material and the story. Greed, ladies and gentlemen- nothing more, nothing less.

So, Warners, you have caused this yourselves so here you have it- Mr. Floppy is yours. You wanted an award, you got one. A small consolation prize I know, but you take what you can get.

But don't be sad-- learn from your own guy. He knows how to get things done. Hopefully you know which one I mean. :-)



Not the most creative image, but I think that's better than just a logo of WB with a dick on it. But then again, maybe it's not.

Ah, fuck it. And why hold back? Let's put two there.



Yes, that's better. I feel much more proud of myself now.

OK, that's all I have. Hopefully all of you enjoy your time back in school. I know I will. Or are some married guys still coming here? If so, then I hope you enjoy whatever it is you do. And a better question- are girls actually visiting sites like this or is it really a sausage parade just like I think? Not that there's anything wrong with that- I don't want to be politically incorrect. ;-)

- Peter