The Infamous Feud Sparked by Roger Ebert's Theater Walkout

Article Summary

The 2003 Cannes Film Festival stirred up controversy by showcasing The Brown Bunny, a film that generated mixed reviews. This divisive reaction stemmed from several factors, including its fragmented storyline, inclusion of unsimulated sex scenes, and the director's self-centered approach.

Vincent Gallo, the director, has gained a reputation for his provocative behavior and statements, sparking conflicts with notable individuals such as Roger Ebert. Ebert notably labeled The Brown Bunny as the most dreadful film in the history of Cannes.

However, Ebert's perspective underwent a transformation after witnessing an edited version of the film. He commended the film's meaningful themes and exceptional performances, acknowledging its genuineness despite falling short of being a cinematic masterpiece.

In May 2003, at the Cannes Film Festival, opinions were divided on The Brown Bunny. Some people jeered, while others gave it a ten-minute standing ovation. It definitely made an impact, whether due to the director/writer/star's blatant egocentricity, the lack of a coherent narrative, or the unexpected unsimulated sex scene at the end. The controversial movie, which involved a director showing his own porn at Cannes, sparked conversations, one of which involved Roger Ebert. After walking out of the screening, Ebert famously declared it "the worst movie in the history of Cannes". While Ebert's critical declarations were not uncommon, little did he know that he had sparked the outrage of an artist who lacked tact and professional dignity.

Vincent Gallo is an intriguing character who must be seen to be believed. Prior to The Brown Bunny, he gained recognition for his well-received film, Buffalo '66, starring Christina Ricci. Gallo had dabbled in various artistic endeavors such as modeling, music, performance art, and even Grand Prix motorcycle racing, as stated on his website. He embodies the free-spirited artist that many aspire to be, but his carefree attitude comes with a complete disregard for social etiquette. Rather than being renowned for his talent as an actor or director, he has made a name for himself through controversial remarks and actions. According to his surreally captivating website, he claims to be "one of the most misunderstood, misquoted, misrepresented talents in the past 25 years". It seems as though his very existence is deliberately crafted to provoke and challenge others. Despite his immense ego and corrosive attitude, there is undeniable talent within him. If only he focused less on antagonizing people, they might have a chance to appreciate him as an artist and admire his work.

Image via Wellspring

The Brown Bunny is a motion picture from 2003 which falls under the genre of experimental road drama. Vincent Gallo is responsible for the writing, directing, producing, photographing, and editing aspects of the film. The cast includes Gallo himself as well as Chloë Sevigny. The movie revolves around the journey of a motorcyclist embarked on a cross-country drive, who is haunted by memories of their former lover.

Release Date May 21, 2003Director Vincent GalloCast Vincent Gallo, Chloe SevignyRuntime 119 Minutes

Vincent Gallo Feuded With Roger Ebert

Gallo has never hesitated to hurl incredibly offensive insults at public figures. He referred to Christina Ricci as an ungrateful individual with a drinking problem and claimed that Quentin Tarantino was constantly under the influence of drugs. However, his most vicious attacks were aimed at the person who had the audacity to label his film as "the worst film in the history of Cannes." Vincent Gallo cursed Roger Ebert's colon and hexed his prostate, publicly calling him a "fat pig" in the New York Post and comparing his physique to that of a slave-trader in the New York Observer. Gallo's disdain for Ebert, combined with the attention garnered by The Brown Bunny's reception on the film festival circuit, thrust him into the spotlight. Gallo took every opportunity to express his intense hatred for the critic.

Despite Gallo's aggressive approach, Ebert found the whole situation rather amusing. In his review, he wittily responded, "While it is true that I am overweight, one day I will be thin, and Gallo will still be the director of The Brown Bunny." Surprisingly, the two swiftly resolved their differences. During Gallo's appearance on Howard Stern's show, Ebert called in, and they had a lighthearted conversation about their previous exchanges. Ebert humorously remarked that Gallo's aim must have been off, as he had promised him colon cancer but ended up with salivary cancer instead. Ebert, in true fashion of a good critic, recognized the importance of being able to endure what he dished out. He harbored no ill feelings toward Gallo and even encouraged him to continue making movies.

What Is The Brown Bunny About?

Image via Wellspring

Bud Clay, played by Gallo, resembles Charles Manson with his disheveled appearance, sad eyes, and a hole in the back of his jeans. He travels to California on a motorbike that he keeps in his van, which we witness in real-time as he goes through the process of unlocking the door, setting up a ramp, getting in, wheeling the bike down the ramp, putting away the ramp, and closing the door. This repetitive pattern continues throughout the film, often causing irritation for viewers. The shots linger for longer than necessary, with Bud frequently staring blankly at people before responding.

The breakdown of the film can be summarized in a pie chart: 50% dashcam footage, 10% loading and unloading motorbikes, 5% traditional scenes, 20% unfocused and oddly framed close-ups of Bud (often cutting off his chin or nose), and occasional gas station visits or makeout sessions with women named after flowers.

The first 80 minutes of The Brown Bunny are incredibly boring. The lack of direction and poorly framed shots fail to convey any context or emotion. The film frequently shows actors from behind, obscuring their reactions, and often focuses on hair rather than faces. This lack of emotion, storytelling, and intrigue can be attributed to the cinematography and editing, both of which are credited to Gallo.

The Infamous Sex Scene in 'The Brown Bunny' Saves the Movie

Image via Wellspring

But then, an unexpected twist takes place: the infamous blowjob scene unfolds, unleashing a profound emotional impact on the audience. The only discernible narrative thread revolves around Bud's past relationship with a woman named Daisy (Chloe Sevigny). After finally reaching LA, Bud seeks out Daisy and she mysteriously enters his hotel room without a key, raising suspicions. Bud, emotionally numb, listens as she reminisces about their lost love and confesses her enduring feelings for him. Their intimacy becomes overwhelming for Bud, leading him to break down in tears. He recalls a traumatic memory of Daisy engaging in a sexual encounter with a group of men at a party, revealing her addiction to heroin and ultimately her fatal overdose that night. Lying beside Bud, Daisy reminds him that she died that night, choking on her own vomit. Suddenly, Bud finds himself alone in the hotel room, curled up in a fetal position on the bed. Daisy was never actually present; she was merely a figment of his depressive hallucination.

This particular scene is truly captivating. It is where Gallo's talent surpasses his ego, showcasing his ability to genuinely experience human emotions and effectively convey them on screen. Gallo fearlessly exposes his raw emotions, crying out in anguish without concern for his trembling voice or cracking under the weight of his monologue. He becomes a sobbing mess, demonstrating an intensity that he had hinted at subtly throughout the film. Perhaps he aims to create a sudden and forceful outburst of character, adding a climactic element to the movie.

The finale of The Brown Bunny captivates the audience with its combination of explicit acts and intense storytelling. Despite the controversy surrounding the scene, the portrayal of real sex is understated, providing insight into the tortured protagonist's psyche. This particular moment allows buried emotions to surface, overwhelming the lead character and leading to his emotional breakdown. The film justifies its use of unsimulated sex through its artistic style, framing, and narrative significance, distinguishing itself from pornography. According to Gallo, he intertwines pornographic symbols with themes of consequence, guilt, and grief. Chloe Sevigny describes the film as an art piece, comparable to an Andy Warhol movie. The Brown Bunny isn't intended for entertainment or commercial success; it serves as an artistic experiment, allowing viewers to interpret its message. While not the typical expectation of a moviegoer, the film appeals to arthouse enthusiasts who can appreciate its unconventional approach.

The Reworked Version of The Movie Impressed Ebert

Ebert was unimpressed with the majority of the movie due to its painfully slow and uninteresting pace. He was even more disappointed considering the version he watched at Cannes was 26 minutes longer and, according to accounts, even more tedious. However, Gallo claimed that the edits made after Cannes were not influenced by Ebert's criticism or anyone else's. He explained to Howard Stern that the Cannes version was a rough cut, and he continued to trim it both before and after the festival. In September 2004, Ebert reviewed the final 93-minute version of the film and had a significantly different opinion. He wrote, "It is often said that editing is the essence of cinema, and in the case of 'The Brown Bunny,' it is what saved it." Ebert highlighted the film's central themes of emotional longing and loneliness, as well as the strong performances. While it may not be considered the epitome of independent road movies, it finally showed some sincerity, which was what it aimed for.

Ebert resumed his writing and continued his battle with the cancer Gallo had generously bestowed upon him, while Gallo returned to his distant creator persona with sporadic artistic endeavors. This brief period of overlap in their professional paths would forever be remembered as one of the most entertaining, puzzling, and unforgettable chapters in their respective careers. It played a crucial role in establishing The Brown Bunny's reputation for controversy, self-indulgence, and biting criticisms. It was a rare occurrence for a film that Ebert despised to find its path to redemption, especially considering Gallo's unwavering confidence in his work and his acceptance that a superior version of the film was hidden within that footage. For those interested in art cinema and intrigued by critical feuds, watching this film may not be the worst way to spend 93 minutes, as long as one possesses an inexplicable fascination with dirty windshields.

Editor's P/S

1. Roger Ebert, a renowned film critic, caused a stir at the 2003 Cannes Film Festival when he walked out of the screening of "The Brown Bunny" and called it "the worst movie in the history of Cannes." This sparked a feud with the film's director, Vincent Gallo, who responded with a series of personal attacks and insults directed at Ebert.

2. Despite their initial disagreement, Ebert's perspective on the film changed after seeing an edited version, acknowledging its meaningful themes and performances. Gallo's behavior, on the other hand, remained contentious, with his public attacks on Ebert and other industry figures overshadowing his artistic endeavors. While Gallo's talent as an artist cannot be denied, his confrontational attitude and lack of professionalism have hindered his reputation and appreciation for his work.