MovieChat Forums > Putney Swope (1969) Discussion > Downey's Commentary

Downey's Commentary

posted 17 years ago by MuzikNFilm
8 replies | jump to latest

I recently watched this movie again with the commentary by Robert Downey Sr. and I have to say that every time a scene or shot or line of dialogue that I had questions about, Mr. Downey either ignores them or is absolutely silent. Most of the time he is talking about where he met some of the people and forgets to comment on the strange and puzzling features in this film.

I will be posting quite a few moments from this film that I have questions about. Hopefully someone can answer or talk about them. The director sure didn't. In fact, at the end of the movie he says he is glad it's over, that it really wasn't as bad as he thought or remembered it to be.

If we love this movie from just a couple viewings, why doesn't the director of it appreciate it as much as we do? Or why DIDN'T he, then?

He doesn't say a word about:

Aspect Ratio it was fimed in. It says 1:78
but when the titles run at beginning it is
full screen 1:33.

"How many syllables, Mario?" repeatedly

Freezing the frame on the secratary and the Mouse trap
prototype.

The crazy asian guy lighting firecrackers. Who is he?

The guy who is sitting on the toilet making cracks about
the blonde guy he wants to tap. Who is THIS guy and
where did he come from? He steals the scene with his
improv dialogue.

There is a black man with a very funny voice. It is his
real voice and I have never heard a black guy talk like
that in a movie. He is told to replace the label
and call it Victrola Cola. Not a word about him, though.

The scene where Putney rips the poster down.

The Boorman 6 girl is got ta have soul!

I never understood the joke of the car flipping over.
I realize the PHYSICALITY of the joke, but am I missing
something?

No commentary about the only white employee, the one who asks
for a raise. He had a big part.

There are also some jokes that obviously are timely. But
we get no explanation of them.

These are only the sections that I can remember right now.
I wasn't expecting much, but still not too thrilled with his commentary.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MuzikNFilm 17 years ago

No, sorry, he doesn't talk about any of those things mentioned in my post. He talks about the man they got to play "Wing Sony" (the businessman WITH the guy lighting firecrackers). I admit, he talks a lot about key people in the film and can't cover everything we want him to, but I was just giving a true opinion and you came back with false facts. I have been aware of who those kids in the pimple ad were, since I first saw the film in 1979. I had just opened in "Hair" the musical and recognized their faces and voices from the show. I was amazed at their cute little pimple "spot" and still think it is one of the highlights of this movie.
If you din't know already, there is a big issue with aspect ratio and the way that a director wants his film represented. A lot of directors care about this issue and have mentioned it in their commentaries.
Is there anything else you would help to "clear up" for me? It would be greatly appreciated.

"We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams."

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gabe-stranahan 17 years ago

Does it really matter? The film is completely avant garde. I don't think it really needs explaining. If it takes you by surprise, or if it's not completely clear, the effect was probably intended

[–] rylos-3 16 years ago

Here's the explanation: these things don't make sense to you because they were senseless. I saw this movie when it first came out (to acclaim) and didn't get it at all. I watched it again last night, with great focus, and now I know that it wasn't just me being too young to appreciate it lo those many years ago. It's a disorganized, poorly produced mess. You can barely understand a word anyone says. It's impossible to follow the dialog. And whoever thought that making the President a munchkin was doing way more weed than the entire rest of the group. It's more than ironic that the voice of the protagonist was dubbed by a white guy.

Sorry, I know you like it, but this is just an awful movie.

[–] shroomn 16 years ago

Yea. Agree with rylos. But, in unfortunate unfairness to the OP, aren't those questions answered already? They never made sense and culminate into any sense even at a base common sense level.

Like Rylos says, this thing is a mess from top to bottom. The radical nature is what is so interesting. I cannot imagine the amount of drugs utilized for this film.

A nicety from the film has to be the Boogie Nights scene which was so obviously influenced by the asian firecracker man. Why not have it be a crazed young Asian man-whore?

This film is amazing though in its historical context for what it THOUGHT it was doing.

[–] flanger216 13 years ago

It's dada. If it makes sense, you aren't doing it right.

The aspect-ratio change is strange, though. My bet says, it was shot for a 1.66:1 ratio (very common for 16mm blow-ups), but modern releases crop it further to 1.78:1 to accommodate our fancy widescreen TVs. Which is too bad, because it mucks up most of the framings. Anyway, then they would've open-matted the credits sequence, because otherwise parts of the text would've been cut off.

[–] gut-6 14 years ago

Here's my take on some of the things you mention:

"How many syllables, Mario?" repeatedly

He thinks Mario is trying to play Charades. He doesn't realise Mario is dying/dead, so he keeps releating the phrase.

The guy who is sitting on the toilet making cracks about
the blonde guy he wants to tap. Who is THIS guy and
where did he come from? He steals the scene with his
improv dialogue.

Isn't he the Arab (Fargas)?

The Boorman 6 girl is got ta have soul!

Putney, the "advertising genius" is looking for an angle for the Bormann Six ad, but his wife has all the ideas. She offers up the jive banality that the Bormann Six girl has to have soul. Putney passes on this banality to his equally useless assistant, who presents it to the staffers as if it is the Theory of Relativity and the Ten Commandments combined. He can do no more than repeat this useless banality endlessly, as if repeating himself emphasises the point or adds to its usefulness. Also, re the "Bormann Six", I see this as a satire of Dustin Hofmann's then-current appearance in TV adverts for the Volkswagen. People at the time noted the ploy/irony of a famously Jewish actor being used to sell a famously Nazi-designed car.

I never understood the joke of the car flipping over.
I realize the PHYSICALITY of the joke, but am I missing
something?

This was a reference to Ralph Nader's then-current campaign against unsafely designed vehicles. The joke is that the Bormann Six is a known vehicular death trap, yet they actually include this information in the ad by making the car flip over.

No commentary about the only white employee, the one who asks
for a raise. He had a big part.

He is the token white, playing the subordinate token role that Swope once played. The racial tables have turned only to mirror the previous situation.

There are also some jokes that obviously are timely. But
we get no explanation of them.

I think the Presidential adviser with the strong German accent is a reference to Kissinger, but Downey makes him a Nazi instead of a Jew.