|
 dir. Jonathan Demme | 1986 | 114 min. written by E. Max Frye Starring Melanie Griffiths, Jeff Daniels and Ray Liotta Music by Laurie Anderson & John Cale, featuring songs by David Byrne Cinematography by Tak Fujimoto quote:A free-spirited woman “kidnaps” a yuppie for a weekend of adventure. But the fun quickly takes a dangerous turn when her ex-con husband shows up. "It's better to be a live dog than a dead lion." A film school student by the name of E. Max Frye, for the hell of it, wrote up a script for a counter-culture romantic comedy. The script started making it's rounds and a few producers--liking the odd-ball couple and the premise for their romance, the road trip set-up, the dark sense of humor, the murderous villain--saw it as an affordable project to shop around. It was submitted to Orion pictures, who decided it would be a good investment. The script made it into the hands of filmmaker Jonathan Demme, who had already worked up the ranks of Corman's studio and had directed nine films (including the cult hit concert film Stop Making Sense with his friend David Byrne), music videos and an episode of Columbo. Within 24 hours of getting the script, Demme was committed to directing the film. The screenwriter, Frye, was still a student when his film was in production. Something Wild is not your typical Rom-Com, at least not with how the sub-genre is defined to current audiences. The focus is on the odd couple--Charles, a milquetoast yuppie office-worker, gets playfully kidnapped by "Lulu", a New Wave wild child with a penchant for illegal pranks--but their romance is never a will-they-won't-they, or playful (possibly psychotic) game of cat-and-mouse. Instead, we go with these complete opposites on a road trip and watch as they learn about each other and push each others buttons, trying to find out who this stranger that they are enamored with actually is, and we wonder "How long can this last?" There is plenty to the film I'm leaving out for the first-time viewer. Romance is unpredictable, and the first time viewing of this film should reflect that. I'll say that those curious how a guy that would go on to make The Manchurian Candidate remake and Silence of the Lambs started out making a rom-com will find plenty to enjoy as the film goes on. Maybe this recommendation will help: Windows 98 posted:I know I am in the extreme minority but if I went to a movie I expected to be a romantic comedy and it turned into a horror I would be absolutely overflowing with joy. I love getting an experience I didn’t expect, if the film is good of course. I do agree it would make it a commercial flop for mainstream audiences. Franchescanado posted:You should absolutely watch Something Wild There is plenty more than just how this film stacks up as a romantic comedy. The music, for instance, is absolutely wonderful. John Cale is one of the two composers to the score. David Byrne's music is prominent (specifically his Rei Momo era, which I am a huge fan of), but there are musical cameos by Oingo Boingo and other new-wave bands, as well as actual cameos, such as The Feelies. There's also a couple of fun cameos, and a lot of blink-and-you'll-miss-it weirdness of the world of the film.  This film is in the Criterion Collection, but it is currently not up for streaming. Sorry. Previous MotM list Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 20:10 on Feb 4, 2019 |
#
¿
Feb 4, 2019 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
A Rule About Spoilers Since this is a discussion specific to this film, spoiler tags are not necessary. This film has plenty of twists and turns, but to make reading and writing about it easier, there is no need to hide any text. So, for those wanting to go in blind, you have been warned!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Here is David Thompson's essay on Something Wild for the Criterion Collection releasequote:Something Wild asks the eternal question “What makes us happy?” But the answer it proposes is far from easily arrived at. It’s a boy meets girl story, certainly, but one that goes much deeper with that narrative than most films do, and plays fast and loose with the classic oppositions of dramatic conflict. Good and bad are never black and white. The conformist could turn out to be more daring than the rebel. The sophistication of Manhattan may be the thinnest of veneers, while provincial life proves to be anything but dull or conventional. Something Wild (1986) keeps the audience guessing at every turn, as carefree, comic scenes can shift suddenly into menace and violence. Demme has said that, on first reading the script, “I had no idea where the story was going . . . but I wanted to go along with it. And every time I thought I had figured it out, it veered off in another direction.” 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I don't love this movie, but it does a nice job of rounding out the yuppie nightmare subgenre. The soundtrack is incredible. The avant-garde musician and filmmaker Laurie Anderson! I don't have a good reason for excluding her name. I saw John Cale and wrote that, couldn't remember Anderson's name, and her career didn't click for me. Which is a shame, because I'm a big fan of her album Mister Heartbreak, especially Sharkey's Day. Thank you for calling me out, because she deserves her credit, and her contribution is prominent in the latter half of the film as the daydream of new romance becomes a nightmare.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2019 13:21
|
|
|
I keep meaning to do an in depth write-up, but I'm glad everyone has been picking up on some small details. Namely, I like the evolving motif of handcuffs in the film, and the many references to religion and faith in the film. I think there's enough Americana iconography to write an entire essay for this film. The mention of communication through lying/misinformation is interesting, and worthy of a write-up. I am curious: What are some thoughts about the ending? Is Charlie and Lulu going to live happily ever after? For instance, the film presents Ray as unhinged, angry, sadistic and violent criminal. However, Audrey is just as much of a criminal--the narrative breaks from Charlie to show her manipulation and theft--but she explicitly never uses violence. Is Lulu--now in her Yuppie outfit--on the straight-and-narrow path? Or is Charlie, now having killed someone to protect himself and Lulu, more embracing of anarchy and not worried about the law? Or is it both, and now they will have to work to find a new common ground?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
Also, cross-post: Does anyone have a Movie of the Month thread they can have ready by the first week of March? Or should we just go ahead and steal how TBB does Book of the Month? People suggest films, I make a poll, everyone votes, I write the OP for the winner.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2019 20:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
X-Ray Pecs posted:I think it’s both, Charlie’s picked up on Lulu’s habits (making Ray pick up the tab) while also playing more straight and narrow in his regular/old life (paying the diner waitress), while Lulu is still pretty much her regular self, except dressed up nicer. How much does Lulu change over the film? It’s a lot more focused on Charlie’s tie-loosening, but there’s not much focus on Lulu straightening up. I don’t know if they’ll make it long term, but after hanging out with each other for a little bit and having a fling, they end by starting a relationship. Who knows if it will last, but it seems Lulu’s big change is a willingness to settle down. I think with Lulu--and this is my biggest problem with the film, honestly--is that we experience her change through how she interacts with Charlie. We can infer that Lulu has decided that she wanted to find a nice guy she could take home to her mom and to her high school reunion, so she can show everyone she is capable of living within societal laws (for lack of a better term). Charlie is her ticket to showing others she's had a "good life"--house in the suburbs, white picket fences, a traditional family, etc. She also decides to have her fun with Charlie by "corrupting him"--what she thinks is an affair, "teaching" him how to lie under pressure, and teaching him how to buck the system. She wants this because, even if she gets attached to Charlie (which she isn't planning on doing), he'll still have to go home to his family and she can avoid settling down or becoming a normie. Hence her being upset with the realization that Charlie was even lying to her about this relationship. Charlie isn't supposed to be a liar, she wanted to teach him to lie. He isn't supposed to be single, cuz she wants to remove herself if (and when) she catches feelings for her. It's all a defense. She isn't planning on Charlie's being able to keep up with her, or falling for him, or finding herself happy with describing her life as a suburban housewife with a loving husband. That's the biggest significance of Lulu and Charlie listening to Peaches play the harpsichord. She's falling in love with him and asking herself if this is what she really wants.  The real unanswered question is what Lulu's been up to after Ray's death. It's been a few weeks at most, but Lulu now has new clothes and a new vehicle. She obviously hasn't been accused of any crimes that she's committed during the film. That big wad of bills she had may have been enough to cover this--but we know for a fact that she lied about getting it in a divorce, and that it's most likely been from small thefts, like at the liquor store. In a way, this works for the film, since we, along with Charlie, are just relieved to see Lulu again (with another cosmetic change!) and not knowing where she's been, just like when we met her. I'm skimming over a lot here, but Lulu's character arc is there, but only through her interactions with Charlie, Peaches and Ray. We really only ever seen Lulu when she's robbing the liquor store or when she's watching Charlie talk to his son about his baseball game (while standing completely nude). She's feeling hurt from Charlie contacting his "real life" as far as she knows, so there's room to say we're seeing her emotionally exposed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2019 21:05
|
|