Wild 90 - 1968
Directed by Norman Mailer
Starring Norman Mailer, Buzz Farbar & Mickey Knox
It helps to know straight off the bat what Wild 90 is about and what it was meant to be to gain some understanding of what happened and why it's what it is. It started as an acting exercise - three friends pretending to be gangsters. Buzz Farbar, Mickey Knox and Norman Mailer had so much fun, and so much funny banter came out that it was decided on the spot to make a film of the three of them doing just this. By the time these three were at their location - a bare, sparsely furnished room with D.A. Pennebaker set to record them on camera, they were drunk and must have been in a completely different headspace with the pressure on. What we get is 82 minutes of improv that stinks - and just to rub salt in, the sound recording is atrocious. A lot of the time, these guys are just interrupting each other or all talking at once - but even when they do get some clean air, you can hardly make out what they're trying to say. As the film continues, Mailer becomes far too drunk to be understood in any case.
There's no story so the banter just goes nowhere. Mailer spends much of the time grunting and trying desperately to project some kind of primal masculinity. He breaks things and bangs things. He's playing "The Prince" and is the hardest to understand clearly. Nothing he says is clever, and most of what he thinks up is painfully inane. But he's not alone in that department. Buzz Farbar is playing "Cameo" and spends an inordinate amount of his time playing around with a switchblade knife. He seems to be the lowest in the pecking order, and so most of the insults are aimed at him. Mickey Knox plays "Twenty Years", which is possibly the worst or best (I can't tell) name for a character I've ever heard. I can't remember much about him, because my most vivid memory of sitting through this embarrassing improv is Mailer's barking and grunting. Throughout the film these three get various visitors, but these people can't end the pain, and just get sucked into the flailing act which never really gets going.
Yes - embarrassment. It's palpable throughout the entire "performance", and it makes one wonder just why this wasn't scrapped. Perhaps Norman Mailer's ego wouldn't permit an admission of failure, so this had to play out to it's inevitable end. Pennebaker was the one who tried to persuade him to just forget it - the sound glitch was reason enough to not release it, but Mailer insisted. The film received overwhelmingly negative reviews - the only positive notice coming from Mailer himself in Esquire. To sit through and watch it makes for a very painful 82 minutes - the last 10 of which had me counting down on the 'time remaining' counter so I could blissfully be released. If I was forced to say something positive about it, I'd say that it accurately reflects what being sequestered in a room of testosterone-fueled and drunk gangsters for 21 days would be like. We get a very ugly reflection of their world, with the constant need they have to assert their manliness and physical superiority over each other. It's not long before we hate all three characters and wish to be as far away from them as we can possibly be.
The way the three (and others) are filmed, by Pennebaker, isn't overly awful, and serves it's purpose. He stayed very mobile, and was able to adapt to his actors' unpredictable movements and actions. We get sawn-off shotguns, machine guns and pistols as props, along with a cornocopia of various booze bottles - most of which have been emptied. It's bare minimum kind of stuff, but it's there. The only thing that isn't is the ability of our three main performers to think up anything that's worth hearing. Everything they say feels forced - and nobody has even one small moment of inspiration. Buzz Farbar would later recount the fact that the three of them had been very ingenious and funny when doing their gangster thing at a restaurant in New York, but that in the film this wasn't the case. I'm willing to let this film have a little more leeway, for I've seen some arthouse films in my day that can frustrate and cause pain - most notably from Yoko Ono. It was a failed experiment, but experiment is what it is, and the end result was full of obscenity and posturing. This would probably be what three real gangsters are actually like - especially inebriated. They'd be just as stupid and incoherent. It's just that watching Norman Mailer and two of his friends be stupid and incoherent is no fun.
__________________
Remember - everything has an ending except hope, and sausages - they have two.
Latest Review : Goldeneye (1995)