Loved the book, read it 3x. If you love a book, you tend to stay away from a movie adaption because with the rare exception, you will just be disappointed. As such, I stayed away from the film version of Bonfire when it was released and, listening to this podcast, boy am I glad I did!
You were wise. I tried to watch it again after series started and couldn't make it even a quarter of the way through. The long-take opening scene is supposed to be satirical and is just unpleasant....like the rest of the movie.
The only other writer Hunter S.Thompson compared himself to was Tom Wolfe.They both worked in "Gonzo Terrain". Nobody does spatial set-ups like Brian DePalma,almost Operatic:)I screened BOTV a year ago,and I liked it,but I believe Heaven's Gate is an unbridled masterpiece&wish I could watch Marlon Brando's 5 hour cut of One Eyed Jacks:)All You Nice Folks at TCM,Always Be Well:)
Tom Hanks was way too cute and cuddly in the role. he showed the potential to be slimey - manipulative sensitivity and gaslighting his wife were a start. I wish they would have pushed him further.
This movie didn't stand a chance the moment the producer decided he identified with Sherman McCoy and wanted him to be "likeable" and "redeemed" from the minor mishap of leaving a man to (almost) die on the street. And that De Palma saw no problem with this is his one failing. If he had been allowed to do this movie as uncompromising as Scarface the verdict would probably have been very different.
The dumb-downed Hollywood version of BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES turned out to be a pretty entertaining American comedy. Melanie Griffith hilariously turned it into a sort of SEVEN YEAR ITCH for the 1990's. I'd rate it higher than corny crowd pleasers like RAIN MAN or DRIVING MISS DAISY any day of the week.
For me if I were to do this movie, I would've picked John Lithgow to play Sherman McCoy. For Peter Fallow, it's a toss-up between Michael Caine, John Cleese, or Richard E. Grant. And I would have picked Alan Arkin to play the judge. It was badly miscast right from the get-go. Looking forward to the next episode as they enter production in the Bronx.
@@MR2spyder100 Alan Arkin would've been perfect to play the Judge. But for Morgan Freeman to be the judge, the clock begins ticking before production began. I agreed with him in this episode that Salamon interviewed with him about Hanks and Willis not being in the movie. I would've gone for Nicolette Sheridan or Helena Bonham Carter to play Maria. I imagine having Handmade Films make the film only in Great Britain and be in the 007 studio to make it look like New York. It would be independent. For Freeman to be right in the middle between making the movie and doing Taming of the Shrew, that becomes a big crunch. Can't wait for Episode 3, and we're only just begun.
YES!! Alan Arkin! Why don't movie producers consult us, the movie watching public, who WE "see" as the characters? Putting aside the logistical nightmare, many of us have brilliant suggestions that may have saved some expensive projects even with problem scripts.
If you love this movie check out the podcast The Plot Thickens - the Devil’s Candy about the making & casting of this film, The Bonfire of the Vanities. It’s excellent!
Me personally, I think he would have been great. However set in the context of 1990 after the box office and critical disappointment of The Razor's Edge along with his successes in Ghostbusters I & II along with Scrooged I think it would have been seen as "stunt casting" at the time.
I love this podcast and look forward to hearing the whole series. I do hope, though, that some of the later episodes will include a more modern appraisal of Wolfe's book and will also re-evaluate the reception the film got on its release. The received wisdom in 1990 was that Wolfe's book was a brilliant, incisive satire and the film failed - both financially and critically - because it deviated too strongly from the novel. In 2021, it's fair to see the book as a crude and overwrought racial satire. Adapting that book into a film with the same strident tone would have likely also resulted in a similar level of box-office failure. The coverage of the film's release at the time (including Julie Salamon's 1991 book, which forms the basis of this podcast) didn't engage with this at all. Salamon touches on the racial dynamics here but there's still more to discuss (and she is pretty generous to Wolfe, maybe more than necessary). The film does not work, for sure, but the softening which DePalma and the writer did to some of the book's more racist caricatures makes it play better when viewed today. The book was a short-lived sensation and it reads very differently today than it did in 1987. It's important to grapple with that in a 7-part podcast devoted to its film adaptation. These first two episodes play more like audiobook versions of The Devil's Candy. The casting and production anecdotes are engaging (and the snippets of audio from the contemporary tapes are fun to hear) but so far everything in these two episodes is nothing that wasn't in Salamon's thirty year old book. A fresh perspective would be welcome.
Casting was the crux. Hanks could not do the sociopathy of 80s Wall Street. Although hyperbolic, Christian Bale in "American Psycho" was more realistic than Hanks. He was too young, as was Uma, who certainly was closer to Wolfe's X-ray women than Melanie the volupté. Great in "Working Girl," and a few other things, but you always wondered if casting directors sought a louche variation of Tippi Hedren. Smarmy Bruce Willis was a horrible choice by DePalma, whose criticism of "Lolita" was way off base. If George Sanders was unavailable for Humbert's narration, James Mason was the next best choice, and magnificent (by Nabokov's account). Ms. Salamon's podcast reminds us that Hollywood is full of miserable human beings. It might have been the coke, the money, the same MBAs who went to school with Wall Street traders. There was a time when stars were tasteful and gracious. This podcast brings back the zeitgeist of the Reagan years that made us what we are today.
Loved the book, read it 3x. If you love a book, you tend to stay away from a movie adaption because with the rare exception, you will just be disappointed. As such, I stayed away from the film version of Bonfire when it was released and, listening to this podcast, boy am I glad I did!
You were wise. I tried to watch it again after series started and couldn't make it even a quarter of the way through. The long-take opening scene is supposed to be satirical and is just unpleasant....like the rest of the movie.
The only other writer Hunter S.Thompson compared himself to was Tom Wolfe.They both worked in "Gonzo Terrain".
Nobody does spatial set-ups like Brian DePalma,almost Operatic:)I screened BOTV a year ago,and I liked it,but I believe Heaven's Gate is an unbridled masterpiece&wish I could watch Marlon Brando's 5 hour cut of One Eyed Jacks:)All You Nice Folks at TCM,Always Be Well:)
Tom Hanks was way too cute and cuddly in the role. he showed the potential to be slimey - manipulative sensitivity and gaslighting his wife were a start. I wish they would have pushed him further.
Christian Bale maybe as Sherman McCoy?
Episode 2! 🔥
LOVE THIS SERIES!!!!
But not season 2
This movie didn't stand a chance the moment the producer decided he identified with Sherman McCoy and wanted him to be "likeable" and "redeemed" from the minor mishap of leaving a man to (almost) die on the street. And that De Palma saw no problem with this is his one failing. If he had been allowed to do this movie as uncompromising as Scarface the verdict would probably have been very different.
The dumb-downed Hollywood version of BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES turned out to be a pretty entertaining American comedy. Melanie Griffith hilariously turned it into a sort of SEVEN YEAR ITCH for the 1990's. I'd rate it higher than corny crowd pleasers like RAIN MAN or DRIVING MISS DAISY any day of the week.
For me if I were to do this movie, I would've picked John Lithgow to play Sherman McCoy. For Peter Fallow, it's a toss-up between Michael Caine, John Cleese, or Richard E. Grant. And I would have picked Alan Arkin to play the judge.
It was badly miscast right from the get-go. Looking forward to the next episode as they enter production in the Bronx.
Totally agree with Peter Fallow being badly miscast! And Tom Hanks just didn't have that Ivy League/East Coast aristocrat vibe.
@@MR2spyder100 Alan Arkin would've been perfect to play the Judge. But for Morgan Freeman to be the judge, the clock begins ticking before production began. I agreed with him in this episode that Salamon interviewed with him about Hanks and Willis not being in the movie.
I would've gone for Nicolette Sheridan or Helena Bonham Carter to play Maria. I imagine having Handmade Films make the film only in Great Britain and be in the 007 studio to make it look like New York. It would be independent.
For Freeman to be right in the middle between making the movie and doing Taming of the Shrew, that becomes a big crunch. Can't wait for Episode 3, and we're only just begun.
YES!! Alan Arkin! Why don't movie producers consult us, the movie watching public, who WE "see" as the characters? Putting aside the logistical nightmare, many of us have brilliant suggestions that may have saved some expensive projects even with problem scripts.
Mike Nichols reportedly wanted to cast Steve Martin as McCoy, but WB rejected the idea.
John Cleese turned down the Peter Fallow role. It was rumored that Sean Connery also rejected the part.
If you love this movie check out the podcast The Plot Thickens - the Devil’s Candy about the making & casting of this film, The Bonfire of the Vanities. It’s excellent!
SO GOOD
On my first viewing and knowing very little about the book, I thought Bonfires of the Vanity was a parody! It was truly awful.
>podcast about a De Palma film
>seldom any De Palma in the podcast
Great
I wonder if Bill Murray would had been better.
Me personally, I think he would have been great. However set in the context of 1990 after the box office and critical disappointment of The Razor's Edge along with his successes in Ghostbusters I & II along with Scrooged I think it would have been seen as "stunt casting" at the time.
@@FIREBRAND38 True as well I saw the movie Monday and it was very horrible not funny whatsoever very controversial for it's time no wonder it failed.
@@Thespeedrap And then in the 2000 Hamlet we got to see Bill Murray as Polonius ua-cam.com/video/sXS2esgBvxQ/v-deo.html
Yes, definitely. Bill Murray has a wide range. And nasty is highlighted.
Hi
I love this podcast and look forward to hearing the whole series.
I do hope, though, that some of the later episodes will include a more modern appraisal of Wolfe's book and will also re-evaluate the reception the film got on its release. The received wisdom in 1990 was that Wolfe's book was a brilliant, incisive satire and the film failed - both financially and critically - because it deviated too strongly from the novel. In 2021, it's fair to see the book as a crude and overwrought racial satire. Adapting that book into a film with the same strident tone would have likely also resulted in a similar level of box-office failure. The coverage of the film's release at the time (including Julie Salamon's 1991 book, which forms the basis of this podcast) didn't engage with this at all. Salamon touches on the racial dynamics here but there's still more to discuss (and she is pretty generous to Wolfe, maybe more than necessary). The film does not work, for sure, but the softening which DePalma and the writer did to some of the book's more racist caricatures makes it play better when viewed today.
The book was a short-lived sensation and it reads very differently today than it did in 1987. It's important to grapple with that in a 7-part podcast devoted to its film adaptation. These first two episodes play more like audiobook versions of The Devil's Candy. The casting and production anecdotes are engaging (and the snippets of audio from the contemporary tapes are fun to hear) but so far everything in these two episodes is nothing that wasn't in Salamon's thirty year old book. A fresh perspective would be welcome.
Are you effin kidding with this format? Could you have made it any harder to listen too? I gave up after a few attempts.
Casting was the crux. Hanks could not do the sociopathy of 80s Wall Street. Although hyperbolic, Christian Bale in "American Psycho" was more realistic than Hanks. He was too young, as was Uma, who certainly was closer to Wolfe's X-ray women than Melanie the volupté. Great in "Working Girl," and a few other things, but you always wondered if casting directors sought a louche variation of Tippi Hedren. Smarmy Bruce Willis was a horrible choice by DePalma, whose criticism of "Lolita" was way off base. If George Sanders was unavailable for Humbert's narration, James Mason was the next best choice, and magnificent (by Nabokov's account). Ms. Salamon's podcast reminds us that Hollywood is full of miserable human beings. It might have been the coke, the money, the same MBAs who went to school with Wall Street traders. There was a time when stars were tasteful and gracious. This podcast brings back the zeitgeist of the Reagan years that made us what we are today.