First Impressions (Biopic Edition)
Bound For Glory (1976, dir. Hal Ashby)
In an interview before he died, David Carradine, who plays radical folk singer Woody Guthrie in Bound For Glory, referred to Bound For Glory as the second best movie Hal Ashby ever made, only behind Ashby’s 1979 collaboration with Peter Sellers, Being There. For my money, Being There and Bound For Glory rank three and four, respectively, behind Harold And Maude, which despite the modern hipster re-appraisal (thanks, Wes Anderson) is as great as you think it is, and The Last Detail, which is the source of one of the great Jack Nicholson performances (note: I haven’t seen Ashby’s two other most celebrated films in Shampoo and Coming Home. Shampoo looks like it could be a lot of fun, but Coming Home reminds me of this).
Being There is a well-made film, but I think its satirical touches are a little broad and Sellers’ lauded performance only requires him to hit the same note over and over again. Bound For Glory’s issue is that it’s a biopic and, as a rule, I’m not a fan of biopics. Part of that is after being inundated with biopics throughout my life, you start to see the patterns that form and notice that these films all hit the same notes. The differences between a really good biopic (say, Milk) and a truly awful one (say, Ray) are miniscule. On top of that, I hate hate hate that the Academy Awards go out of their way to award actors who impersonate (and that’s really all it is) people from history. Seven out of the last 11 Best Actor and Best Actress winners were playing historical figures. It’s actually a worse trend than the “mentally challenged/terminal illness” Oscar award (aka the Tom Hanks Memorial Best Performance). True, some of these performances are impressive as these actors learn to inhabit these famous figures, but a part of the reason I love movies so much is because I love characters – new characters, not impressionists. Jeez, if Philip Seymour Hoffman’s best performance was as Truman Capote, then I can’t wait until Joe Piscopo and Darrell Hammond receive their respective lifetime achievement awards.
OK, but despite all my cynicism for the genre, Bound For Glory is a strong example of the genre. The first reason for that is the film focuses on a fraction of Guthrie’s life – limiting the “rise and fall” cliché’s that have sidetracked so many biopics before and since. Bound For Glory sees a restless Guthrie leave the Depression-era Oklahoma Dust Bowl for life in California, where he becomes a champion of the working class through his songs (like “This Land If Your Land”), gains a modicum of fame and departs for the east coast for something possibly even greater. Roll credits. We are spared his highest highs and his biggest bouts with notoriety, and while the crux of his career would make up the bulk of a typical biopic, the early years more than suffice for Bound Of Glory (the film does give us some of the requisite infidelity stuff, but even that is downplayed a significant degree). In Bound For Glory, we essentially see Guthrie find the inspiration for the rest of his career.
The second reason Bound For Glory work so well is Carrad…you thought I was going to talk about the performances, didn’t you? Yeah, they’re fine. Carradine embodies a sort of proto-hippy restless spirit really well and Ronnie Cox is great as Guthrie’s partner, Ozark Bule, but it’s actually the photography that makes Bound For Glory special. Haskell Wexler, whose credits up to that point included In The Heat Of The Night, The Conversation and One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, casts some of the most striking, perfectly framed images I’ve ever seen on film. From the stunning footage of a dust storm encroaching on the Guthrie’s hometown to some splendid footage atop a moving train, Wexler captures images that are frequently more fascinating and captivating than the film’s actual content. It’s one of the most gorgeous depictions of the Great Depression you’re likely to see and Guthrie is a worthy subject for a biopic, but… Not to deride the film, which is a sturdy piece of work, but it is a bit on the slow-moving, personality-less side. I can live with slow moving, but nothing about Bound For Glory really sparkles outside of the photography. As far as biopics go, it’s a great one, but in the end it’s just an exquisitely shot, emotionally distant genre picture.
Where The Buffalo Roam (1980, dir. Art Linson)
I used to say that I’ve never not enjoyed a Bill Murray film. That’s probably because I haven’t seen Larger Than Life or Garfield, but I have seen Osmosis Jones, a film I really had to search for reasons to praise (the live action stuff was fine thanks to Murray and Chris Elliott). I think what I meant to say was that I’ve never not enjoyed Bill Murray in a film. That sounds closer to the truth. Murray is always a gamer, even when the material is a dead end.
Where The Buffalo Roam, the semi-autobiographical film about gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson, is supposed to be one of those dead end films. When people talk about Murray in the 80s, literally everything else (including The Razor’s Edge – on my Bucket List) gets mentioned before Buffalo. Only Murray’s second starring role after his lovable turn in Meatballs, Where The Buffalo Roams sees Murray inhabit Thompson and Peter Boyle (inexplicably given top billing) playing Thompson’s lawyer/drug buddy/alter ego(?) Lazlo. Of course, seeing Where The Buffalo Roam in 2011 means I have to watch it through the filter of having already seen 1998’s Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas. Hell, not only are the two films about the same people, they depict the exact same events (Thompson and Lazlo get fucked up and dangerous while “reporting” for Sports Illustrated). On top of that, both Murray and Fear And Loathing’s Thompson stand-in, Johnny Depp, give nearly identical performances (such is the case with that whole impersonation thing that defines biopics). That’s not totally true, actually. Murray’s portrayal maintains a lot of early-Murray’s smartass charm while Depp’s performance falls in line pretty well with his manic performances in late-era Tim Burton films. Still, the performances share a whole lot in common.
That’s where the similarities end, however. While I’m hardly a huge fan of Fear And Loathing, its visually expansive, drug-induced aimlessness is light years beyond Buffalo’s visually flat, slobs vs. snobs-based aimlessness. Pretty much all of that comes down to directors. Terry Gilliam, a man with a visual flair that is only matched by his willingness to go bizarre, helmed Fear And Loathing, while Buffalo was directed by producer-extraordinaire Art Linson, whose only other directorial effort was a 1984 Chris Penn/Eric Stoltz teen romp called The Wild Life (decidedly not on my Bucket List). One’s a real deal auteur and the other directed a Chris Penn/Eric Stoltz teen romp called The Wild Life.
Fear And Loathing’s convoluted, manic senselessness can be explained away by the whole tone of the film, which goes big and weird, putting the audience right into the strange drug trip the characters are experiencing – it’s well in line with Gilliam’s entire oeuvre as well as Thompson’s original book. Buffalo, on the other hand, is presented like a flat, lowbrow comedy for fans of Meatballs. The film is made up of a series of vignettes from Thompson’s life – some of them are sorta kinda funny, some of them are sorta kinda just there. There’s no real dramatic tension to make up for the lack of truly comic highjinks; one scene just sort of shuffles to the next without any real momentum or purpose. It’s essentially just, “Hey, come watch Bill Murray and Peter Boyle give entertaining performances for no reason.” I enjoyed Where The Buffalo Roam to the extent that I enjoy watching Murray do anything. He’s funny here and his Thompson impression is great. If you’re as crazy about Murray as I am, then go ahead, knock your socks off – watch this one and cross it off your list. Still, you’d be better served catching up with some of Murray’s underrated gems like Quick Change or The Man Who Knew Too Little. Buffalo simply doesn’t give you anything outside of its lead performance.