{"id":6854,"date":"2011-08-16T02:23:04","date_gmt":"2011-08-16T06:23:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.regrettablesincerity.com\/?p=6854"},"modified":"2011-08-16T02:23:04","modified_gmt":"2011-08-16T06:23:04","slug":"la-grande-bouffe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/?p=6854","title":{"rendered":"La Grande Bouffe"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Here\u2019s the idea behind \u201cA Canadian, an American, a Lawyer, and an Elitist\u201d: Rhett\u2019s favorite movie is Meatballs 4<\/em>,\u00a0 Shawn has an unhealthy fixation on Resident Evil<\/em>, Richard scoffs at anything that isn\u2019t pretentious and hoity toity, and Adam is a prick who hates everything. We all watch far too many movies, and spend our time analyzing them. So we each watch the same movie, write our analysis of them, and then go to a chat room to discuss it, unaware of what the others have written. A warning: if you haven\u2019t seen the film we are discussing, it may not be best to read this article, because it is spoiler heavy.<\/strong><\/p>\n

As for La Grande Bouffe<\/em>, since these essays were written in 2005, we were using the long out-of-print version of the American DVD from Image Entertainment as a source,\u00a0 a disc which was unconfirmed with regard to its censorship status. The recent Koch Lorber release of the film has much better picture quality and runs the same length as the Image disc.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Analysis by a Canadian: Rhett Miller<\/strong><\/p>\n

If there is one thing that La Grande Bouffe<\/em> teaches us about the bourgeoisie, it is that they are indulgent.\u00a0 For over two hours, four idle riche eat and fuck, with permutations and combinations in between.\u00a0 Why do they do it?\u00a0 Initially it seems to be simply because they can, but later it revealed that they are doing it as a suicide pact.\u00a0 Why they wish to commit suicide the film is much less clear about, but considering how much the subject has been mined previously by Passolini, Fellini, Antonioni<\/span><\/a> and every other significant European director, let\u2019s just blame it on the breakdown of communication.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The movie begins sloppily (that\u2019s narratively, not edibly) as the four main bourgeois men speak of events we have no idea of or to characters we know even less of.\u00a0 Phillipe gets jacked off by his mother, Marcello piddles around in an airplane.\u00a0 There is little direction from the outset, other than that director Marco Ferreri wants to offend.\u00a0 When the group finally all get together in a luxurious mansion, the plot gets a little more absolute.\u00a0 They call up a few prostitutes, and then begin to eat.\u00a0 And eat.\u00a0 And eat.\u00a0 This movie made me sick, not because of the debauchery or offensive misogyny (although there are liberal doses of each), but because of all their horrendous eating habits.\u00a0 They eat and eat, from pizza to custard, but are never seen relieving themselves.\u00a0 One of them gets covered in shit, but it is not his own, and considering they are in the kitchen the entire time, it is of wonder whose fecal matter it actually is.\u00a0 But these guys make the glutton in Seven<\/em> look like Calista Flockhart, and watching them constantly eat made me feel bloated.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Of course, I am supposed to feel this way, because the film is a visceral attack upon the upper class, much in the same way Salo<\/em> is to fascists.\u00a0 Salo<\/em> offered a cooling distance though, Bouffe<\/em> thrusts us into the indulgences of the rich.\u00a0 The way the film melds food and sex is intriguing, positing both as empty pleasures.\u00a0 Ferreri ties the two concepts together early, when Phillipe\u2019s mom comments sexually how she enjoyed breast feeding her son, her feeding utters now sexual objects thrust in her son\u2019s face.\u00a0 The breasts are always an oral fixation throughout the film, but in different ways.\u00a0 Then, throughout the rest of the film, the men alternate between eating and molesting prostitutes, the two activities both serving their functions of idle pleasure.\u00a0 They rarely discuss themselves or their politics, using food and sex as topics to mask their isolation.\u00a0 They discuss all the fine points of food, but only because they have nothing else to talk about.\u00a0 The bourgeois in this film do not wish to know each other, but only to know their indulgence.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The metaphor for indulgence, if it was not made obvious by the endless scenes of eating, is solidified by an enjoyable mocking of Marlon Brando.\u00a0 As one of the men riffs on Brando\u2019s Don, Ferreri makes references to one of America\u2019s ultimate figures of personal indulgence.\u00a0 Because of his fame and money, Brando let his indulgences get the best of him, as his waistline went up nearly as many sizes as he had kids.\u00a0 Sex and food seemed to have consumed one of America\u2019s most legendary talents, and it was doing the same to the France bourgeoisie in La Grande Bouffe<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Ferreri uses Brando, food and sex all to highlight the destructive nature of rich indulgence, but never really takes it anywhere.\u00a0 The characters just continue to eat and eat, getting as bloated as the plot.\u00a0 Then they all die (one by farting, no less), and somehow this is supposed to be the ultimate attack on the upper class.\u00a0 The film offends, surely, but for what purpose?\u00a0 To prove that the bourgeoisie is corrupt?\u00a0 The concept has been done to death before and since, and in much greater detail and by much greater talents.\u00a0 It is as if Ferreri just followed in the footsteps of Fellini or Passolini, taking their themes but forgetting their character.\u00a0 None of the characters in this film are developed, they are all just archetypal embodiments of upper class evil.\u00a0 Ferreri would rather fart around (quite literally), rather than develop character, and in doing so, he tells us everything about the bourgeoisie we already know, only with more food, sex and flatulence.\u00a0 Thinking we\u2019d be interested in 135 minutes of motiveless gluttony is the film\u2019s ultimate indulgence.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Analysis by an American: Shawn <\/strong>McLoughlin<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a point in Marco Ferreri\u2019s La Grande Bouffe<\/em> where one of the characters does a silly imitation of Marlon Brando playing Vito Corleone in The Godfather<\/em>. This is about as amusing as the premise ever gets; and what a shame that fact is. With a premise that is little more than Salo<\/em> sans the violence there should be plenty more room for actual humor. But from how it is presented, there isn\u2019t much more than that one joke to laugh at.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>If not for the prologues, you wouldn\u2019t be able to tell the characters apart. There is no explanation for their motivation to binge as they do, though none is really needed. Worse though is how the characters have little individuality. Perhaps it is very American of me to expect to have characters that have personality. Still, I am of the belief that film exists to serve two purposes; to entertain, and to provoke. This film doesn\u2019t do either. All of this happens because the film is far too passive, and none of its characters once attempts to change that. If they get mad it\u2019s because another is not eating, or because he isn\u2019t dead yet, or because he shit his pants. After one of the characters hire prostitutes so they can get an interesting little orgy going on, they are soon forgotten and instead go back to the feast. There is one scene on a rooftop where a character is riding his bike around in a circle because it is tied to a post. This act of going around in circles is probably the best visual representation of how this film truly works.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The film is a satire to be sure, but whenever a satire continuously attacks the same target it becomes far too passive to hold, or even be worthy of, one\u2019s attention. The similar characters don\u2019t spend the entire<\/em> first hour of the film forcing fine foods down their throats, but they do it often enough that by half way through the audience had better get the message. It\u2019s about consumption. Alright, we get it. Did the filmmakers feel it was important to aim for the broadside of the barn for fear of not hitting it? It is about reveling in excess. Let\u2019s play with a fantastic car but never actually drive it. There are many words that could be used to describe this film, but no one would call it subtle.<\/p>\n

Peter Greenaway made a film in 1989 called The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover<\/em> which may have been inspired to some degree by this movie. It too was about excess of food and sex, in the bourgeois conventions. In fact it seems that European directors, in order to gain critical acclaim, are required to create at least one film that is an attack on bourgeois principles. But without the surreal landscapes that someone like Bunuel might have added to a film like this there is little visual interest. It would have been an ideal canvas for him to use. But perhaps the flatulence would have turned him off, and he would soon be handling sexual obsession to a more satisfactory degree with That Obscure Object of Desire<\/em> (which proved that having little is incredibly more interesting than having an excess of).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>There may have been something lost in cultural translation that I am missing, something that would make this much more profound. Whatever the case, the message that the film clearly conveys is beaten into the ground with far too much redundancy. Maybe the prostitutes realized this as well, and that is why they left less than forty minutes after they arrived. They had no interest in the men, and neither did I. If not for the sake of this discussion, I probably would have left along with them, sharing the same attitude. At any rate, by the end of the film I was on the same level as the four gentlemen. I felt stuffed, I had more than my fill, and I was ready to leave.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Analysis by a lawyer: Richard Stracke<\/strong><\/p>\n

Watching La Grande Bouffe<\/em> is an experience not unlike my first exposure to Pantera\u2019s Three Vulgar Videos From Hell<\/em>.\u00a0 One is a French film about a group of affluent men who decide to eat themselves to death. The second is a 3+ hour catalog of the excesses of a now defunct Texas metal band.\u00a0 While few would initially spot the similarities between these seemingly divergent groups, they (and the films that they inhabit) are at times nearly identical.\u00a0 Although I will expand on these thoughts, the bottom line is that both films, while frequently entertaining in the \u201cIs he really doing THAT?!?\u201d sort of way, they feel shallow and overly impressed with their scenes of debauchery.<\/p>\n

Bouffe begins by introducing the characters- a pilot, a chef, a television star and a judge. All suffer from various insecurities and enjoy a range of proclivities, but I never felt that I knew any of them.\u00a0 They are, from what we gather, bored with their lives and ready to end them in the most decadent way imaginable- an orgy of women and Fauchon prepared delicacies. We gather that they have gathered for smaller scale escapades, but this time they are going all the way.\u00a0 The film takes its time introducing the characters and that was the film\u2019s least satisfying bit. It may have been intentional. After all, most viewers are there to see how far these men with go.\u00a0 We\u2019re not so interested in the worlds that they have abandoned as the territory they will explore.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The pace picks up as the deliveries begin.\u00a0 For me, this was oh so exciting. Geese and venison. Pigs and ducks.\u00a0 All could be put to fine use in an adequately equipped kitchen.\u00a0 The plate settings and meals were no doubt exciting, but given the Fauchon pedigree, I was disappointed by the lack of focus on the preparation of the savoir-faire.\u00a0 There were moments in the kitchen, but the vast majority was devoted to ingesting the dishes.\u00a0 This does fit with the film\u2019s themes of excess and gluttony, but I hoped that some time would be spent on the fastidious preparation.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Once the dinners began, the film revealed its Pantera connections. For those who have yet to be blessed with the experience, the videos are shot on the cheap by a crew who follows the band around backstage. They stage eating contests, molest groupies and make fools of themselves.\u00a0 Deprived rednecks risk their health by gobbling sheet cakes and vile concoctions.\u00a0 Fortunately, the characters of Bouffe or more discerning, but the end result is the same. A group of grown, arguably successful men indulge their animal instincts in order to entertain an audience.\u00a0 Bouffe offers more of a social commentary that the band\u2019s work, but it is shallow at best. You know the shtick.\u00a0 They\u2019re sick of their empty lives, so rather than the typical midlife crisis, they take things all the way. Unfortunately, other than a few details about their previous lives, we are given no opportunity to understand why they must do what they do.\u00a0 Its unexplainable nature adds to the embarrassment and ultimately the pure physicality of the film\u2019s scenes, but it does not make for satisfying after the fact analysis.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The introduction of the whores (and a lone school teacher) adds a new layer to the film\u2019s excess. After all, lust and gluttony are not that far removed.\u00a0 Again, although the indulgence is entertaining, I couldn\u2019t gather much from it.\u00a0 The director does make it clear that even women as lowly as prostitutes do not approve of the men\u2019s plans.\u00a0 This could be read as an indictment of the ruling classes and their decadence, but this was shallow at best.\u00a0 Similarly, when the educator (another seemingly \u2018good\u2019 person) ended up staying in a place that disgusted fallen women, it could be read as an attack on the current French bourgeois educational system, but like everything else, it was only skin deep.<\/p>\n

As the male characters begin to die off, emotions are mixed. Should we feel distressed, disgusted or relieved? I never felt much of anything. The deaths were among the funniest bits of the film (second only to the Brando scene), but again, meant for shock rather than anything substantive.\u00a0 I adored Marcello<\/span><\/a>\u2019s dying look, the idea of a chef gorging himself on a pate trilogy while his fallen comrades looked on and the sexually battered judge collapsing after a breast cake and a complaint about second rate veal, but they are only instances of excess and attempts to shock the audience, nothing deeper.\u00a0 Had the film sharpened its razor a bit and made the attacks more pointed, it could have been much more than a parade of disgusting excesses. As it stands, it is worth seeing if you like such spectacles, but ultimately, I felt it failed to live up to its true Bunuelian potential.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Analysis by an elitist: Adam Lippe<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is a curious endeavor to try to make a viewer interested in the deliberately destructive behavior of insufferable, boorish people. Usually, when an audience is presented with such figures, like with Lina Wertmuller\u2019s Swept Away<\/em>, and Mariangela Melato\u2019s snobbish character, they can\u2019t help but wish for them to learn their lesson and get their comeuppance. To get a sense of perspective of the world that is being presented, or at least the point of view of the filmmakers, we have to see how everyone else reacts to being condescended to or looked down on. In the case of La Grande Bouffe<\/em>, Marco Ferreri only allows snippets of these men\u2019s lives, humorously all using the actor\u2019s given names as well, allowing us to draw our own parallels, and the only people who seem to object are the prostitutes, who aren\u2019t appalled at how they are treated, rather, how much the men are eating.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>This causes a bit of a disconnect since they aren\u2019t likable people and they don\u2019t act reasonably towards themselves or anyone else, but we aren\u2019t give any real point of view to take. They aren\u2019t comic slobs to laugh at, nor do they have any aristocratic dignity. They are overgrown children, but in a hairy, sweaty, creepy old man way, not in an innocent childlike way. The initial confusion about whether the judge is allowing his sister to \u201ctake care of him\u201d and not his housekeeper, because she wants to \u201ckeep it in the family show that he\u2019s never been allowed to grow up. Indeed, none of his behavior even resembles that of a person with any authority, or someone who has ever been in control of his own life, let alone someone else\u2019s (\u201chave you ever sent anyone to the guillotine?\u201d). Since we are never given any plausible explanation as to why these men are going about eating themselves to death, his appears to be closest to the surface. This is the one time he refuses all outside influence and can assert what he really wants. Of course, when he gets to his \u201cturn,\u201d after the other three men have taken advantage of his weaknesses by sleeping with Andrea, and he seems to take the least amount of pleasure out of the entire experience, Marcello enjoys sex and cars, Michel enjoys his eccentric clothing, Ugo, his cooking, all he can think of is how he let them down, because they are alone in heaven. He complains that Ugo\u2019s pate tastes terrible and even tries to get him to stop eating, betraying their pact in a rare bout of common sense, before eventually bowing to peer pressure.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Andrea seems equally susceptible to suggestion and fitting in. Her character is the one that makes the least sense. None of the men show any charm, yet she is swept out of her responsible, innocent world so quickly, so when Phillipe defends her sodomy at the hands of Marcello by saying \u201cshe does it out of goodness, not vice,\u201d it belies her enthusiasm in the situation, and in general. Since the story seems to be entirely allegorical, the rich and powerful eating themselves to death out of boredom (perhaps because they are tired of exploiting the poor?), whatever point Andrea represents is a mystery. Is it the suggestion that beneath every prim and proper schoolteacher is a horny vixen just waiting to be released once she eyes decadent lifestyles? Is she the prostitute replacement (she is the one who immediately mounts the flatulent and likely homosexual Michel), because she has no qualms about jumping from bed to bed and is willing to engage in the gluttonous overeating? Or will she go right back to her regular life, writing it off as a weekend of irresponsibility? It appears more that she was simply needed in order to feed the last victim, who required the most convincing.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Ferreri\u2019s conception falls apart because of her inclusion; she starts out as the most recognizably human and becomes the least, simply by proximity, not by being poisoned. But it isn\u2019t as if she is egged on, other than when Marcello wants to drive her around. Her crying when masturbating Ugo seems quite false compared to what else we have seen of her. Since the other four main characters don\u2019t develop any sympathy, nor interest (they are intentionally dull individuals), knowingly so, there is no drama in watching the inevitable and very little comedy. That leaves us with Andrea, who is more of a silly cipher as the movie progresses. If we cannot watch the film from her perspective, from the outside, or even the inside, we cannot connect at all.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>The Chat:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Rhett<\/strong> Did anyone time whether or not the scenes of dinner time flatulence were longer than those in the bathroom scene in Dumb & Dumber<\/em>?
\nAdam<\/strong> Far longer. There was one fart before Michel dies that goes on for 30 seconds.
\nRhett<\/strong> So would we be correct in saying this is the most flatulent film ever made?
\nRichard<\/strong> I thought about it, and like Adam mentioned, they seemed far longer than anything I’ve ever heard.
\nAdam<\/strong> I would have been impressed, if I thought they were real.
\nRhett<\/strong> When I saw those scenes I felt like I should be in a matinee theater with a bunch of laughing 8 year olds.
\nAdam<\/strong> Are they as long as in Blazing Saddles<\/em>?
\nRhett<\/strong> I believe the ones in Saddles had more amplitude, but less length
\nAdam<\/strong> and is this really the same audience? Because when I was 14 and saw Saddles<\/em>, I thought that was funny, but not at 18.
\nRichard<\/strong> Rhett- that feeling was part of the reason why my essay discussed the similarities between this film and Pantera’s 3 Vulgar Videos From Hell.<\/em>
\nAdam<\/strong> Certainly Bouffe<\/em> would have been out of interest range at 14.
\nRhett<\/strong> I have never been to Cannes, is that how old audiences are there too?
\nShawn<\/strong> Yes, but it was not flung with an intentional target.
\n\"\"<\/a>Rhett<\/strong> Yes, Dumb and Dumberer<\/a><\/em><\/span> seemed to rip off the “There’s Shit Everywhere!” scene
\nRichard<\/strong> As far as the flatulence, was it meant to be funny (ala Saddles<\/em>) or designed to disgust the usually bourgeois Picoli\/Marcelloaudience?
\nRhett<\/strong> Of course the latter.
\nAdam<\/strong> I thought of Ebert’s review of Napoleon Dynamite<\/em>. “I’m told the movie was greeted at Sundance with lots of laughter, but then Sundance audiences are concerned with being cool, and to sit through this film in depressed silence would not be cool, however urgently it might be appropriate.”\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>\u00a0And at Cannes, they are concerned with understanding a savage satire in the same way, when the reality is, I’m not sure there’s much beneath the surface in Bouffe<\/em>.
\nRhett<\/strong> As deep as Ferreri’s intentions were in those scenes they still came off as immature.
\nShawn<\/strong> I never felt particularly disgusted by the flatulence, I only felt bad for the film. Particularly when they make more than one use of it.
\nAdam<\/strong> Maybe he just wanted to do a reverse Bunuel film? Where the hosts don’t<\/em> want to leave the party. There\u2019s nothing really preventing them other than a nagging lack of eating accomplishment
\nShawn<\/strong> The film was so redundant, it could have been shown edited down to 30 minutes.
\nRhett<\/strong> Well, it seemed to have a visceral intent, and after thirty minutes I wasn’t really disgusted with it. <\/strong>But after seeing them eat for two hours, I more than felt the sickness Ferreri wanted me to feel towards bourgeois indulgence.
\nShawn<\/strong> I think Bunuel that he could have made the same material much more entertaining.
\nAdam<\/strong> He has.
\n\"\"<\/a>Richard<\/strong> The repetition really ate away at my disgust. I never felt any contempt for bourgeois society, simply embarrassed for the actors.
\nShawn<\/strong> I felt the exact same way, Richard.
\nAdam<\/strong> Is this the kind of movie that was scathing 30 years ago, but kind of exposed and tame now?
\nRhett<\/strong> Well, it was more a gut-level reaction, like I felt sick seeing them shove all that fat into their bodies.
\nAdam<\/strong> I thought it was kind of a cheat that they didn’t vomit.
\nRhett<\/strong> Or that they didn’t gain any weight.
\nRichard<\/strong> I think it could still be disgusting had it been sharpened a bit. It didn’t seem that the subject matter is no longer ripe. More that it just wasn’t used to full potential
\nAdam<\/strong> That’s a normal body reaction that only the blond hooker seemed to have. And that wasn’t from eating.
\nShawn<\/strong> I never felt sick, but I certainly was “full” by the end.
\nAdam<\/strong> I think it’s been trumped by Mr. Creosote from Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life<\/em>. That’s the same gag, brilliantly played in only 8 minutes.
\nShawn<\/strong> It does cover the same material, Adam. I am surprised that I didn’t make that connection myself. I also think the sketch works on a more disgusting level. It is much more graphic though.
\n\"\"<\/a>Rhett<\/strong> Did anyone notice the homage to Troll 2<\/a><\/em><\/span>? That large piece of ham covered with the green frosting.
\nRichard<\/strong> I wish he had done more with the fact that their display sickened even whores.\u00a0 He seemed to just let it go. I guess that’s in step with the over all shallowness
\nRhett<\/strong> There seemed to just be a lot of pot shots at the bourgeois without any real development. Like the opening bit with Phillipe and his mom.
\nAdam<\/strong> That was his caretaker. It isn’t clear at first who the woman is.
\nRichard<\/strong> I assumed she was a nanny of some sort.
\nAdam<\/strong> But she shows the picture of his dead parents. And then they say later that it was his caretaker
\nRhett<\/strong> It\u2019s like Ferreri finished the film and thought “how can I make the upper class even more repulsive?” <\/strong>\u00a0“Incest!”
\nRichard<\/strong> I never knew why they were disgusted with their lives. It seemed to rely on stock ennui.
\nShawn<\/strong> All of that opening material didn’t seem to match with the core of the film though.
\nRhett<\/strong> Nothing about the characters was really clear. The caretaker assumed a motherly role and it became perverted.
\n\"\"<\/a>Shawn<\/strong> But I wanted to mention that I found this comment in a Netflix review… \u201cThis movie is not the one I saw in 1973. It has been cut and edited so that there is NO explanation for the characters motives and actions. Also some of the culinary scenes have been removed.”
\nRhett<\/strong> That would make sense, since the beginning doesn’t seem to have any order or logic at all.
\nShawn<\/strong> I couldn’t find any “alternate versions” or anything though.
\nRichard<\/strong> Very interesting. I was disappointed in the lack of cool cooking scenes (and character development). Especially because Fauchon supposedly did the food.
\nRhett<\/strong> It seems like without character development it is just Ferreri telling us that the bourgeois are bad, which is something we’ve been told in much greater detail in many better films.
\nShawn<\/strong> And to a more entertaining resolve too.
\nRhett<\/strong> It would have been cool if the end credits theme was played using a whoopee cushion.
\nShawn<\/strong> Discreet<\/em> Charm, That Obscure Object of Desire<\/em>. I even think that The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover<\/em>, which had to have been inspired by this, was much better.
\nRichard<\/strong> you mean you didn’t love Marcello\u2019s dying pose? That was a highlight for me. Of course, it was uber-embarrassing.
\nRhett<\/strong> I was just in awe that someone actually farted themselves to death.
\nShawn<\/strong> But there was more involved in Cook<\/em> than this as well. I got as bored as the whores.
\n\"\"<\/a>Rhett<\/strong> It would have been great if Phillipe stopped time and Marcello pissed on the food.
\nAdam<\/strong> It would have been better if Phillipe was Zack Morris\u2026 Would that make Marcello = Slater?
\nRhett<\/strong> Haha\u2026 One thing that I was sad ended up going nowhere was the whole marriage to Andrea.
\nShawn<\/strong> What would have been better is if they actually had sex with the food.
\nRhett<\/strong> Since the marriage seemed to be akin to land ownership; in that once a shared good becomes a private one a commune is destroyed.
\nShawn<\/strong> Because even though it was obvious, it would have been appropriate.
\nRichard<\/strong> Yeah. that character was the only one with much outside interest (the caretaker bit).\u00a0 As it turned out, Andrea was just another pawn in the shock game.
\nAdam<\/strong> You took the marriage thing seriously? It seemed more of a joke on her <\/strong>that she happened to understand.
\nRhett<\/strong> He seemed to be pretty serious about it
\nAdam<\/strong> She didn’t seem hurt when he keeled over but he knows he’s going to die, and it’s meaningless.
\nRichard<\/strong> I thought it was some way that he was coming to terms with his past
\n\"\"<\/a>Rhett<\/strong> Very sad that Marcello would walk on his turf.
\nRichard<\/strong> So, maybe serious for him but a joke to her?
\nAdam<\/strong> Her character made so little sense that it doesn’t really matter.
\nRhett<\/strong> She seemed to be sad when he died.
\nShawn<\/strong> Well he did seem inwardly upset when she started sleeping with others.
\nRhett<\/strong> Like initial shock <\/strong>at least, <\/strong>before pushing him away.
\nAdam<\/strong> She jumps on cock with such frequency and little prodding; it was a shock that she wasn’t one of the whores.
\nRichard<\/strong> HA!
\nRhett<\/strong> She also makes a fine pastry dish.
\nAdam<\/strong> What are we supposed to understand about her?
\nRhett<\/strong> Her fine bottom contours making for an expertly crafted pizza.
\nRichard<\/strong> Her character was another lost opportunity in that she was a supposed upstanding citizen who was in fact filthier than whores.\u00a0 A better filmmaker could have gone far with that.
\nShawn<\/strong> As a heterosexual American male of the 18-29 demographic, I wanted more lesbianism. Particularly since I was teased with it.
\n\"\"<\/a>Adam<\/strong> Why did she turn to debauchery so quickly? There she was sucking on Phillipe without any effort.
\nRhett<\/strong> The allure of the rich?
\nAdam<\/strong> And then screaming about how wet she was for Michel, as he suffers through his farting, even though he was obviously gay.
\nRhett<\/strong> There are many masculine men who partake in ballet. Homophobe.
\nShawn<\/strong> Haha.
\nAdam<\/strong> And makes out with dead friends?
\nRichard<\/strong> What about his little nipple revealing tight shirt? Pink, I believe.
\nRhett<\/strong> That was cute. :-*
\nAdam<\/strong> Yes, all of that made the intention obvious.
\nShawn<\/strong> [Damon Wayans]HATED IT![\/Damon Wayans]
\nRhett<\/strong> Do you all feel that Marcello killed himself because of his impotence?
\nAdam<\/strong> Can one really commit suicide that way? Freezing yourself to death?
\nRhett<\/strong> And what did the car and his traveling aspirations have to do with the story?
\nRichard<\/strong> Nothing that I could gather. And, getting back to having a gay character… Another waste. They never explored how being closeted or whatnot led to his dissatisfaction.
\nAdam<\/strong> He got as far as the gates, unlike anyone else. <\/strong>It seemed intentional that Ferreri doesn’t show them driving any further than the gates. As if they got 40 feet, but then turned around.
\nShawn<\/strong> I find the feeding less likely than the eating. But my theory about Marcello is that he was too stuffed and couldn’t move and that is why he was stuck in the car.
\n\"\"<\/a><\/strong>Rhett<\/strong> It seemed like there were a lot of attempts at metaphor, but since the whole thing was so poorly developed, it was ambiguous at best.
\nRichard<\/strong> Would hinting at all that have been shocking in early 70s Europe?
\nRhett<\/strong> Like what of the scene with Marcello simultaneously groping Andrea and the statue?
\nRichard<\/strong> That was a low budget lesbian scene. <\/strong>Why use 3 actors when 2 and a statue will do?
\nRhett<\/strong> The statue would never get soft, either.
\nShawn<\/strong> If I believed that, it would be brilliant. I don’t believe I could eat and be jerked off at the same time. Too much of a sensory overload.
\nAdam<\/strong> We already had the fake lesbian scene with the kiss earlier <\/strong>but he wasn’t taking any pleasure in any of it. It was like duty. They all slowly lose their sensitivity to each of their 5 senses.
\nRhett<\/strong> They all died in different ways, which is funny since they all set out to die by eating\u2026 <\/strong>one by freezing, one by ejaculation, one by farting, and the final by eating.
\nAdam<\/strong> The last three really died because of eating.
\nRichard<\/strong> Didn’t the chef just eat too much of that pate?
\nRhett<\/strong> Phillipe dies by eating two breast-shaped mounds, just as his life began sucking on his caretaker’s titties.
\n\"\"<\/a>Adam<\/strong> I hope they realized how little sense that makes. Just because you suck on titties, doesn’t mean milk comes out. <\/strong>Trust me, I’ve tried.
\nRichard<\/strong> Since there are 4 of us and 4 of them, maybe we can determine who is best aligned with each character
\nShawn<\/strong> I was the blonde prostitute. Because if not for the article\/chat, I would have left after the first hour.
\nRhett<\/strong> Since the 4 characters are supposed to be representative of the bourgeoisie, why are all their names just the actors’ names
\nAdam<\/strong> A little wink to their success and riches?
\nRhett<\/strong> Are they saying that they themselves are indulgent like Marlon Brando?
\nAdam <\/strong>Because all 4 actors had substantial careers in Europe.
\nRhett<\/strong> Andrea was also her first name in real life.
\nAdam<\/strong> And only in her mid 20’s.
\nShawn<\/strong> I thought it was a brilliant homage to The Blair Witch Project<\/a><\/em><\/span>. Reverse-homage.
\nRichard<\/strong> I assumed it was along those lines. Also, to make the audience wonder if Marcello et. al really<\/em> lived like that. It had a pseudo documentary feel <\/strong>not that they accomplished that level of believability
\nAdam<\/strong> Did anyone else think it would have been more interesting had they started eating each other, starting with the hookers?
\nRichard<\/strong> I was hoping they would eat Marcello
\nShawn<\/strong> Like in Brian Yuzna\u2019s Society<\/em>.
\n\"\"<\/a>Rhett<\/strong> Adam, when I read the synopsis on IMDB that is what I thought was going to happen. “A group of men hire some prostitutes and go to a villa in the countryside. There, they engage in group sex and resolve to eat themselves to death.” That would have been much more interesting had they eaten themselves.
\nRichard<\/strong> I thought cannibalism would fit in at some point.
\nShawn<\/strong> That happens in The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover<\/em>, Adam.
\nAdam<\/strong> Yes, I’ve seen Cook, Thief<\/em>, and that\u2019s why it works much better.
\nShawn<\/strong> I didn’t really think Bouffe<\/em> earned it’s X\/Nc-17 rating.
\nRhett<\/strong> There was a fair bit of tit for 1973.
\nAdam<\/strong> And some vagina. <\/strong>And poo.
\nShawn<\/strong> But it was no Salo<\/em>
\nRhett<\/strong> But it was before Salo<\/em>
\nShawn<\/strong> Then again, I don’t know if the ratings board really knew what to do with it anyway.
\nAdam<\/strong> It would have been an X for the themes and decadence anyway. <\/strong>Remember, Midnight Cowboy was an X <\/strong>and <\/strong>that would barely be an R now. \u00a0Rated R for “all that cowboy crap.”
\nShawn<\/strong> Ha, that is true. <\/strong>Can we come up with other films involving food and sex to better result?
\n\"\"<\/a>Adam<\/strong> \u00a0You mentioned Cook, Thief<\/em>.
\nShawn<\/strong> 9 1\/2 Weeks<\/em>.
\nAdam<\/strong> Belle Epoque, Like Water For Chocolate, Eat Drink, Man Woman<\/em>\u2026
\nRhett<\/strong> Those Girls Gone Wild<\/em> videos where they cover themselves in whip cream.
\nShawn<\/strong> Rhett wins.
\nRhett<\/strong> Fatality.
\nAdam<\/strong> Jamon Jamon<\/em>, if just for the croissant Penelope Cruz nipple sucking scene.
\nShawn<\/strong> Flawless victory.\u00a0It’s too bad this film lacks its own “croissant” scene.
\nAdam<\/strong> I think of La Grande Bouffe<\/em> as a similar style failure as 2002\u2019s Teddy Bear’s Picnic<\/em> which was directed by Harry Shearer and had the Chris Guest feel and cast to it. It\u2019s <\/strong>about rich people who go off and bond while they act silly. <\/strong>A total disaster of a movie and without any POV.
\nShawn<\/strong> I actually remember seeing a trailer for that. And I haven’t even thought about it, or seen reference to it, since seeing it. Perhaps the thought of paying to see Morgan Fairchild and Alan Thicke made me want to strangle myself.
\n\"\"<\/a>Adam<\/strong> In terms of La Grande Bouffe<\/em>, I learned that I really want a bike that goes around in circles.
\nShawn<\/strong> Much like the movie itself.
\nAdam<\/strong> What would be the explanation for the excessive repetition and length anyway?
\nRhett<\/strong> Just to allow all the stuff to shock with its excess.
\nRichard<\/strong> Probably meant to make us angrier with bourgeois indulgence.\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>
\nShawn<\/strong> I learned that prostitutes can not behave when presented with a large luxurious cake.
\nRichard <\/strong>Who was the movie made for? The people who would normally love T+A and flatulence wouldn’t set foot in a foreign film.
\nRhett<\/strong> Well, the farting seemed to be dubbed into English.
\nRichard <\/strong>Most discerning viewers would be bored.
\nRhett<\/strong> It was made for\u2026 Cannes.
\nShawn<\/strong> I learned that school teachers fuck like rabbits.
\nAdam<\/strong> Don’t you wonder where she got all those clothes? She brought them with her for the weekend? Just enough for her nipples to pop out of each one.
\nShawn<\/strong> Is it was\/is at all common in Europe to take your class on a field trip to some random guy\u2019s house?
\nRhett<\/strong> Next stop, Polanski<\/span><\/a>‘s!
\n\"\"<\/a>Shawn<\/strong> Shawn’s note to all future movie directors… I want more celluloid and less cellulite\u2026 Thanks.
\nAdam<\/strong> If they have some strange type of tree in the front yard <\/strong>though, weren’t they in the middle of nowhere? Where was this school, exactly?
\nRhett<\/strong> Answer: who cares?
\nShawn<\/strong> Makes you wonder if they weren’t home if the fat teacher would still be back at school on Monday.
\nShawn<\/strong> Nobody ever thinks of the kids. Tragic, really. <\/strong>\u00a0Adam – for the record you could see the neighboring buildings all the time. They really weren’t in the middle of nowhere.
\nAdam<\/strong> Dammit, Rhett, I need logic in my allegorical films about gluttonous rich people\u2026 I’ve forgotten, is there anything on the cook before he arrives on the property? I don’t remember any, but the movie kind of made me drowsy.
\nRichard<\/strong> Not that I recall.
\nRhett<\/strong> I had to stop watching it because I had just eaten supper and at the half way point I thought I was going to explode Big Trouble in Little China<\/em> style.
\nAdam<\/strong> I was actually eating chips during it.
\nRhett<\/strong> You are more of a man than I.
\nAdam<\/strong> none of the food looked disgusting. <\/strong>In fact, it looked good.
\nShawn<\/strong> The “Andrea” plate I could have lived without.
\nAdam<\/strong> The speed clam eating was probably the exception.
\n\"\"<\/a>Richard<\/strong> Yes. I would have eaten almost all of the food. I was eating ice cream while watching. Andrea is definitely the exception.
\nRhett<\/strong> Seeing Andrea eat that greasy drumstick is something I could have done without.
\nShawn<\/strong> Seeing Andrea I could have done without.
\nRhett<\/strong> I do not eat butter, sauce or anything fatty in content, so my repulsion is more of a reflection of my eating habits than anything else
\nShawn<\/strong> I was reminded of Salo<\/em> when one of the characters was screaming “MANGE, MANGE, MANGE!” over and over.
\nRhett<\/strong> <—Proud Nilbog<\/span><\/a> resident.<\/strong>
\nRichard<\/strong> I take it you are not a foie gras fan.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Here\u2019s the idea behind \u201cA Canadian, an American, a Lawyer, and an Elitist\u201d: Rhett\u2019s favorite movie is Meatballs 4,\u00a0 Shawn has an unhealthy fixation on Resident Evil, Richard scoffs at anything that isn\u2019t pretentious and hoity toity, and Adam is a prick who hates everything. We all watch far too many movies, and spend our […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,12],"tags":[8088,5188,8098,8082,8087,2975,6639,2936,8102,3505,275,8089,666,8085,585,8105,8093,3496,390,4591,8106,8103,277,8094,2603,2885,8095,8092,3009,4170,8077,8099,216,349,630,8078,3884,6453,8083,8097,8084,5007,96,5703,356,8104,513,8080,8101,5863,6693,8086,348,6796,520,2145,6694,8090,2133,4813,3482,8096,8100,8091,8076,8079,4068,5259,8081,496,2039],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6854"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6854"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6854\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6854"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6854"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/regrettablesincerity.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6854"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}