MovieChat Forums > Brando (2008) Discussion > Really Disappointing Fluff-umentary

Really Disappointing Fluff-umentary

posted 17 years ago by dalitatt
7 replies | jump to latest

This is a horribly disappointing 3-hour Brando fluff piece. The only interesting stories come from George Englund and Cloris Leachman (who both look incredible for 81!) but the rest is just "Brando was brilliant," "Brando was a god," "Brando changed acting forever," "Look at Brando pet that cat!" A bunch of puffed-up aging actors with their pretentious light-as-air ideas about nothing.

(Why does Al Pacino look like an old woman now...fake teeth, fake wig, fake tan, facelift???)

There are interesting stories to be told about Brando, I'm sure, but this film is too busy bowing at Brando's bare feet to really examine any of them. His abandoned island university? Barely mentioned. His fluid bisexuality? Completely ignored. Where is the real, complicated man?

This film is destined to be a filler bonus piece on some future DVD box set, and even then you should skip it.

[–] dalecooper1990 17 years ago

Wow, that's really too bad to hear. I was out at my folks' place visiting this week, and read about the doc. on my way there. I was hoping they had TCM, but they didn't. Sounds like I didn't miss much, although I'm into Brando enough I'm sure I would have enjoyed it anyway. Anyway, too bad. Peter Manso's biography is really fantastic, but a definitive documentary still needs to be done.

[–] fundaquayman 17 years ago

To each his own -- I really enjoyed it and felt it was far from your typical E! Entertainment tabloid-mentary. I look at it this way - the documentary is about his work, the way he worked, and the influence he had on others as told through those who've worked with him or were inspired by him... and they did a damn good job by those accounts. As to his sexual preference, I guess I'm baffled as to how that is actually related to his body of works - to me, that's not as important as the topic being discussed - Brando as an actor. The doc goes deep enough to discuss the problems he had through those who worked with him, but then they also talk about how that was his way of working -- whether you appreciate that or not, that's what this documentary is about. The bottomline is, you can go for the National Enquirer type treatment to a documentary, and I'm sure there're plenty if you look back at the 6 months after he passed away. Yet if you're looking for something that takes a look at his work, and Brando as an actor, then this is probably the best and most comprehensive work that's ever been done on him.

kudos to TCM for producing this documentary... at a day-and-age where reality tabloid garbage dominates our tv space, this is a much needed and refreshing look at one of the most influential actors in Hollywood history.

If "sexual preference" gets your kicks, I guess you should look elsewhere... but I wouldn't expect anything less from the folks at TCM... bravo

[–] JoeLon 16 years ago

There's a long section on the documentary about Brando's womanizing. Isn't that for people to get their kicks about "sexual preference". It's fine to be uncomfortable with bisexuality, but let's not act like the movie was all about his work.

[–] jsimpso1 17 years ago

It was more a tribute than a documentary. I thought that some of it was a bit over the top. I mean along the lines of "And after Marlon cured all known diseases" kind of over the top.

And what's with the thoroughly dessicated (and still annoying) Jane Fonda wearing a red, white and blue cowboy hat? Who cares what she thinks?

The chronology kept jumping back and forth as well.

Sacheen Littlefeather's little anecdote about John Wayne having to be physically restrained sounds like an Urban Legend in the making. Has she really seen how John Wayne treated Indians in his movies?

Yup, Fluff-umentary sounds right to me.

[–] fundaquayman 17 years ago

Sacheen Littlefeather's little anecdote about John Wayne having to be physically restrained sounds like an Urban Legend in the making. Has she really seen how John Wayne treated Indians in his movies?

But the documentary and Sacheen's soundbite doesn't try to allude to John Wayne's treatment of Indians in the movies, does it? Whatever really took place, only those present would know. Her soundbite has no more value than anyone else's on the documentary, but it does provide her take on what went on that evening, and the controversy spun from it.

I think your view is very biased with your stamp of "fluff-umentary" for the Brando doc -- all documentaries take a stand, and this wasn't meant to be judged like a 60 MINUTES piece. Whether you like Brando or not, and whether you liked the tribute or not, it is still a documentary every sense of the word -- and probably the most comprehensive one ever produced on the subject.

btw, I'm not particularly fond of Jane Fonda and her soundbites, but your "WHO CARES WHAT SHE THINKS?" further shows you seem to be just looking for something to complain about. Maybe this just wasn't a documentary you'd enjoy because Brando is not an actor whose work you're interested in to begin with?

[–] jsimpso1 17 years ago

No, I'm interested in Brando, but to paraphrase Jonathan Hemlock in the Eiger Sanction: The only thing that I want to hear from Jane Fonda is that she has a terminal disease and lacks the guts to kill herself.

I enjoyed large sections of this film. I thought that Johnny Depp's anecdotes were very good.

I mentioned the John Wayne thing because a lot of people reference his name when the subject of the movie's treatment of Indians come up, whether they actually watched any of his movies or not.

If you read the first post by the way, it wasn't MY stamp of Fluff-umentary but I agreed with it.

I still think that documentaries can (and should) provide a balanced portrait of someone. Note the revelations of creative editing and outright lying by Michael Moore to maintain the "stand" in his documentaries.

A tribute takes the "stand" that we'll just gloss over any bad parts.

[–] fr_sonny 16 years ago

i loved this doc. of course i love brando. it's far from perfect, but very worthwhile and i recommend it to anyone at all interested in brando and any of the films he made.

i found both jane fonda and george englund boring. i quite liked duvall and ellen adler. but the best is always brando, in interviews and anything not already available elsewhere on video or audio.

i was hoping there would be more on the dvd release but apparently not.

some of his kids were involved in this, so it's no surprise that it's not goin into every rumor or much detail about his 'mistakes' and bad choices and interviewing people who hate his guts or think he sucked as an actor.

but if and when there's a doc about what a pain in the ass, sadist, immature, sex and food addict he was, i'd check it out.