Is this not the greatest cult film ever - Wise Blood (1980) Discussion

[–] rytsy 19 years ago

I saw Wise Blood in the 80's. It still haunts me though I can't remember much about it. It's a shame you can't get it on DVD.

reply

[–] Loomis_Orange 19 years ago

It is on DVD. Just hop around eBay has it.

Huston screwed this movie up! Flannery O'Connor never meant for people to consider Haze Motes' "affliction" to be seen as "psychologically trauma" from his childhood. O'Connor was a believer and Huston, from what I've read, had no feeling whatsoever about God. If anything he was anti-God. A Humanist. In lies the complete and utter misunderstanding of what the book is about and why she wrote it. We see no revelation taking place when the Policeman pushes Hazel's car over edge. We never see Hazel's eyes and what's happening when the cop says "Was you going somewheres" and Haze's simple, almost silent. answer of "No" and what that "No" meant

Huston treats God in this movie like the enemy all the way through, Hazel did not. Haze ran from God. Ran from his affliction like Jonah ran from God. Hazel ended up like Jonah. Jonah didn't want to fulfil his mission because he was scared and in spiritual pain. He thought he could run away from his calling. He was cast off the ship he was escaping God on and was swallowed by a whale. In the belly of the beast is where he could no longer run and when you're looking your stark reality in the face, you stop running, look up to God and give in. Hazel, at the moment very moment looking over the country vista he detested, knew his Old Jesus that died on Calvary's Tree was real and never would there be a new jesus with no strings attached. He had to pay. Haze went from screaming "I Am Clean" back to "I Have To Pay"

((((( O'Connor was a devout Catholic. I am Protestant. She understood both sides because she grew up with both sides. I learned from her the Catholic mentality. It's not my mentality to afflict physically. Protestants affict themselves spiritually ... well they used to anyway.))))

We miss Mrs Flood's coming transformation as she pin points the light in Hazel's eyes as he dies. The book at the very end literally tries to turn our own eyes inward and upon our spiritual man. The movie, altho dialogue as kept intact, is a complete failure in the spiritual sense and without the spiritual aspect the book is full of nothing but very mean degenerated unlikable fools. The movie succeeds in making that which is spiritual, physical and in turn makes the film about mean degenerated unlikable fools.

reply

[–] PinkCoral 19 years ago

Thank you so much for posting that. As I've read different things about the film, I've thought, "That's not what Flannery O'Connor meant at all." I'm a huge fan of the book, but have yet to see the movie. By the way, I'm Catholic--the whole physical torture for penance thing isn't so obvious anymore, it was more a part of the ancient saint's lifestyle. However, through stories of the saints, physical suffering has become ritualized and glorified so that I would say guilt and suffering are still present in the Catholic mentality (especially with that big crucifix we put so much emphasis on!).

reply

[–] patchworkcat 18 years ago

I like both, for different reasons. It's true there are areas of the film which digress, change or twist elements of the original story but then the same thing happened with the Shining and with countless other book-to-film translations. On it's own merits of imagery and atmosphere, I love this film.
It's a bonus for me (and makes me a little "biased" in my view of it) that it has Harry Dean Stanton in it and, my personal favourite actor of all time, Brad Dourif =D .

reply

[–] Demarates 18 years ago

Recorded it on BBC and watched it this weekend. Maybe I was expecting too much, because I was not impressed by it. I was actually glad when it was finally over. The characters seem so completely alien that it is hard to sympathize with any of them or even care about what happened to them.

What is this movie all about, according to you ?

Trece para siempre.

reply

[–] BwlBoy 14 years ago

Demarates you're not alone. I thought it was desperately disappointing and found no rhyme nor reason to any aspect of it. It's one of those puzzling films that has garnered praise but for reasons that are beyond my comprehension. I guess this is why it's being called a cult film.

reply

[–] MStultz72 18 years ago

Flannery O'Connor was a Catholic, but not a Catholic novelist. Or even a Protestant one. John Huston is not anti-God, though he may be a humanist. If her stuff for its literary merit, you'll see Miss O'Connor was a Christian Humanist too. Oh yeah, and she's more anti-God/God than anyone. That's the paradox, chinaman...

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thePharoah90086 15 years ago

Many Christians don't HAVE "a Sense of Humor" ... Example: ... umm , how about 2,000 Years of War/Murder/Torture , Etc.

reply

[–] BrerRabid 15 years ago

Nice attempt at trying to start a flame war. Your statement is ludicrous.

Aren't we supposed to be discussing a film? Instead, you try to denigrate.
Go away.

reply

[–] Dondi0 9 years ago

He didn't "screw it up" he adapted it. An adaptation is an interpretation. It is not the novel, it is the film of the novel.

Your reading is uncannily similar to Pamela Delory's critique http://jsr.fsu.edu/wblood.htm, and makes me think that you've more than likely read it. Ironically though, whereas she posits, correctly IMO, that they are two equally valid texts, you seem to wish to utilise the deliberate shift in perspective that the film takes as a stick with which to beat Huston. Why is this?

I personally found Huston's take on O'Connor's novel to be more 'true'. The idea that connection in the physical trumps connecting with the corporeal is a better fit for my secular humanism. It may not be a fit for others, but it is Huston's take.

You state that the "movie succeeds in making that which is spiritual, physical and in turn makes the film about mean degenerated unlikable fools" whereas I would say that the movie presents many lonely characters looking for human connection who end up lost to the emptiness of the supposedly spiritual.

Haze's quest is all wrong from the outset; everything he needed was all around him all along via the lonely souls he encountered, but he couldn't see it due to his dogmatic selfishness. The guy who gave him a lift, the woman on the train, Enoch, Sabbath, the mechanic who fixed his car for free, Mrs Flood, even Ned Beatty's character, could've been possibly improved by the company they kept.

As Belinda Carlisle sang; Heaven is a place on earth. In fact, heaven is earth.It's all we have so we should take better care of it and its inhabitants.

Anyway, interesting movie that sometimes jarred aesthetically, narratively and tonally (probably intentionally). For some reason I feel it would've worked better in B&W and made just after the book itself was written. The 70s setting gave it a stagey feel that I didn't dig.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rjferrisjr 18 years ago

There, there

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 18 years ago

What Flannery meant is irrelevant to the filmic version; that version is its own reward.

Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.

reply

[–] jimbenben 18 years ago

I saw this movie in a theater when it first came out in 1979, And, I hated it. Just hated it. BUT...it has stayed with me over the years like no other film. The haunting weirdness of its story and characters. The film's images are so memorable, including the disturbing ending as Hazel descends into his own personal religious penitence. I've often wondered how and where this film disappeared. I've never seen it since anywhere, but it has had a staying power with me and I admire it greatly in my memory.

reply

[–] georgiaxmusic 18 years ago

I saw this years ago and it stayed with me as well. It first piqued my interest in Flannery O'Connor. The bulk of the film was shot in my home-town, so it has always been close to my heart. I loved it and would love to see it again. Sure, it was thematically different from the book, but that's a director's perogative (sp?) isn't it? Look at Kubrik's interpretation of The Shining. An excellent film with an excellent cast but different from the original book.

What we need is someone to come in and remake Wise Blood and be more faithful to the original story. Then we'll have both versions and the nay-sayers can shut the heck up.

"Shake hands with Gonga!"

reply

[–] teejay6682 18 years ago

i just saw it and thought it was a great film. easily brad douriff's best role. harry dean stanton and all the other less famous other players were great as well. hard to believe this film isn't more well known.

reply

[–] fleazaneezer 17 years ago

A remake would be the worst possible thing to ever happen to this film. No other cast, especially of modern actors, could do it justice like the actors in the original did.

I read the book first, but I had planned on seeing it since I am a Brad Dourif fan. Flannery's description of Hazel is like describing Brad Dourif--except for the pecan colored eyes, but otherwise perfect. Harry Dean Stanton was superb, and Enoch and Sabbath's actors were dead on. Can anyone imagine a remake nowadays?

I am Catholic, but not devout, although I do know about penance and the religion quite a bit. I thought the book was excellent, and I think I got the message and understood everything fairly well, too. I think the movie did it justice, and that this is basically the best book to movie translation that I've ever seen, since most are disappointing, or only able to appreciate if viewed as two separate entities. This is not one of those movies, though, and even though the movie left out some things and changed things around a little, it wasn't enough to make me hate it. Maybe I am biased for liking Brad Dourif -- but I thought the movie as a whole was great, not just him, and that the story translated well. I do see now where this belief that the religious message was skewed somewhat, but I don't think it was to the degree as stated earlier.

reply

[–] chibilute 16 years ago

I don't know. I haven't seen the film, but I watched some clips on youtube after I read (and loved) the book. Haze wasn't portrayed as I imagined, or as I thought he should've been portrayed. I pictured Haze very quiet and reserved, and it seems Dourif was yelling and getting excited. Though it was an appropriate scene to do so, I just felt like every one was acting.. I didn't believe it. The actors seemed to be doing a tug of war for attention. Eh. But still, I haven't seen it.

Every time I read a good book I always think of making it into a film, and after hearing that it was already a film, I decided it wouldn't be a great idea... but, I don't know.

I do also think that movie versions and book versions should be different and shouldn't be compared, but I also acknowledge that that mindset is extremely difficult to have, seeing as when one reads any book they have their own vision and books have their own subtleties and charms that film doesn't.

reply

[–] obiwankowalski 16 years ago

This movie is playing on the Starz/Showtime package I have on my Fios. I never read the book, but I saw this movie once back in the early 80's. I remember being struck by the Hazel's intensity and the over-all oddness of the story. 25 years later I have all of a sudden seen it about 7 more times. I love it, it plays as a pitch black comedy. There's a whole gang of quote-able lines in the film and when Dourif smashes that shrunken body and throws it out the window I can't help but guffaw every time. It sorta loses steam after the car goes in the lake, perhaps I am just not so familiar with Huston's entire body of work, but this seems more like a John Waters film than from someone who gave us "Treasure of Sierra Madre" and "The African Queen".

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] teejay6682 16 years ago

i love brad dourif in this film and harry dean stanton is good as always too. i love all the actors huston cast in smaller parts who seems like they are just those characters. huston did a lot of interesting little films during this late era of his such as this one, fat city and the life and times of judge roy bean.

reply

[–] tylerrabbit 16 years ago

I saw this film for the first time just after reading the book, and have read the book and seen the film again since then. I have to disagree with what's been said about Houston's interpretation, I think it's extremely close. it feels a little weird because of the era difference but the scenes and dialogue are, for the most part, straight out of the book. I know now that O'Connor was religious but when I read the book, I thought it was making fun of Southern Fundamentalism while examining humankind's longing for spirituality, and in many ways the book and the film still feel this way to me.

reply

[–] ondine_ur 15 years ago

I agree with tylerrabbit. I saw this film several years ago and it left a strong impression on me. Years later I dug it up on ebay and finally got round to reading the book. I thought it stayed true to the book.

someone on page 1 wrote: "Haze went from screaming "I Am Clean" back to "I Have To Pay" "

I think the film did show that and that he was never clean or free as he thought.

Whilst it could be seen as making fun of fundamentalism I see it more as Hazel's personal struggle with his own beliefs, his upbringing etc.

------------------------------------
I didn't mean to call you a meatloaf.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] whitekracker-1 16 years ago

Just a side note in regards to religion, this town, macon, has the highest number of churches per capita, at least last I heard and certainly was back when this was filmed. I can't hardly go two blocks in any direction without running into one. It also has a very large catholic presence, St. Joseph's being one of the largest and most prominent buildings downtown, something some people find odd in the "baptist" south. May have something to do with them choosing it as the location, as well as O'connor's home being 40 miles east, the road signs to Milledgeville in the opening sequence were no doubt a nod to that.

reply

[–] thePharoah90086 15 years ago

This Film deserved Academy Awards ... since THAT didn't-happen , It at-least deserves to be shown on the "Midnight Matinee" Circuit.

reply

[–] sakulin 15 years ago

Truly a great movie and one of my all time favorites that really captures life in the South. I was educated in Mississippi and now live in Alabama and can easily relate to the freaks in this depiction of the South. Have been to Macon several times and recognize the locations where it was shot. One favorite scene is the indignant little boy at Slates car lot. This movie is a classic and as memorable as Last Night at the Alamo.

reply

[–] jaykaybuck 15 years ago

I saw this great film at an Art House in Scarsdale. I was in the lobby waiting for someone and surveying the other movie goers. Some people are so pretentious. An elderly couple with glasses as thick as coke bottles came out and Becky says to her husband, "Marvin, what was it all about?" He didn't answer. Just so they could yell everyone at The Shul they saw it.
Buck35