The Bonfire of the Vanities

I liked it but it was messy. I'm a Melanie Griffith fan even though she sucks in so many movies. I don't mind cunty Bruce Willis, either.

The book was extraordinary and captured the 80's under Reagan so well. The movie was panned before I got a chance to see it. I'd love to watch just to see what they got right/wrong.

It has a great AIDS joke but I won't spoil it for anyone.

The 80s was a terrible time for film. That capitalist Alex P. Keaton, greed is good doomed this country's young generation of the 80s.

There were too many names in the cast. No character developments and the movie felt slow. Whereas the book was a real page turner.

Melanie Griffith and Bruce Willis were really miscast. Her character is not Southern in the book, and she can't do a Southern accent anyway. Willis's character is based on Anthony Haden-Guest and is supposed to be a little weasel of a man.

Willis was such an asshole in the Eighties--the success of "Moonlighting" went straight to his head. He became a real shit to people on all the sets of his movies and unbelievably controlling.

It was awful. Hanks was disastrously miscast as a WASPy douche Master of the Universe. It should have been William Hurt.

HBO should do a miniseries remake.

Bruce thought he could sing. After reading all the gossip, it sounded like Bruce was just another coke freak surrounded by an army of brown-nosing agents.

Tom Wolfe's books feel like a Polo factory outlet - klassy and casually fancy! He also writes as if he'd like people of color to understand that he understands them. Fuck him.

R7 called it. When I read the book, I imagined William Hurt. If they couldn't get, they should have cast someone who could pull off playing a real WASP.

One of the best books of the eighties. One of the worse films of the eighties. Tom Hanks is a nebish.

The trouble with the book is that all the characters are so flat. Tom Wolfe wanted to write like Thackeray, but Thackeray excelled at multi-dimensional characters--Wolfe couldn't manage that.

It's not that bad. It's just not that good.

Bill Hurt is/was a great casting decision. I saw him interviewed last week. He's lost his looks but he's still smart as they come.

He's also one of the biggest assholes alive, r13. He is practically unhireable because he cannot take direction or work with other people.

When I read the book, or read half of the book, I pictured Jeff Daniels in the leading role. He could play a man who looks like a hero on a surface, but is a weasel underneath (no offense to weasels intended).

I stopped reading the book halfway through, as I hated every single person in it. Still, decades later, I can still remember a lot of the book, it must have been better than I realized at the time.

I though she was Southern in the book as well?

One think that's bad about the film is that almost the entire film has been looped so all of the dialogue sounds canned, making the film seem even phonier.

Here's the airplane landing scene that still has the technical part of the movie crowd creaming their jeans. All the Bruce Willis stuff in the book was hysterical. Especially how De Palma had to tell him to stop spraying his bald spots black because it was fucking up the lighting.

What about the airplane landing was significant?

Wondering the same thing myself.

It infamously cost an absolute fortune to film--they had to find out the exact time a Concorde would land as the sun set, and it cost something like $80K for just that ten second shot (keep in mind this was back in 1990). And it adds nothing to the story.

I love Wolfe's novel and remember when it was serialized in Rolling Stone for what seemed like forever and nobody seemed to care.

Another one of those, like, yes, "Mommie Dearest" where the tone is all wrong from the start. That long obvious "Touch of Evil" tracking shot added nothing. And it wasn't just that the people were "flawed", they were evil cartoon characters as presented. It's a true Headache Movie. And God knows Morgan Freeman comes across as a lazy asshole actor in that book too (Melanie just comes across as a neurotic mess). Skip the movie, skip the book, read "Devil's Candy" instead (or, at least, first).

Another overrated American opus.

"And it wasn't just that the people were "flawed", they were evil cartoon characters as presented."

That is a problem in the book as well, and why stopped reading it halfway through. Everyone is a caricature of some New York type, and even though it was clear that they were all due for a major Karmic whupping, I didn't want to spend enough time with them to see their fall.

People who have to deal with assholes like that must have loved the book, but I'm out here on the fringes of Flyover country and I value my peace of mind.

R23 the book or the film? The film is not overrated.

I've heard that, too, r14. But I wonder if that's true. Hurt was in that movie in which the train hit movie personnel (and killed one). Hurt was lying on a gurney and I kept thinking, if he's so headstrong, why did he put up with something that was so dangerous?

Hurt finessed beating on that deaf actress after she told about it, the press confronted him, and he merely said he was sorry, leaving them no where to go with the story.

I remember enjoying the novel, even recommending it, but I can't remember anything else about it now except for " Whaddaya Whaddaya "

That's right, I read the serialised story in Rolling Stone and it was just dire, although I thought the British journalist was slightly interesting. At least that character made sense. The rest was just a train wreck. The serial had some differences from the book, right?

The plane landing cost well over 100K to make. It was in length about two minutes worth of footage. Only seconds were used. It was filmed by the second director who was in his twenties. The film HAD to have a plane landing and De Palma assigned it to the kid and said make it interesting or you'll never work again because De Palma didn't want a landing scene.

So in his mind the second director had this vision of NYC as a jewel box. Wanting to catch the concord landing just as the sun was setting over the skyline. The entire footage shows a lot more. It had to literally be planned down to the last second. If anything was off it would have been missed. I say it's a nice shot but it really is something film buffs and those in the business see as the epitome of directing a technical shot. Still.

Even Spielberg gaped when he saw it. Saying something like it made him feel old. So I guess you have to be in the business to completely get the near impossibility of the shot. People like us I guess just consider it a pretty few seconds of footage.

Then it's kind of ruined by cutting directly to Melanie, her tits, frazzled hair, and cheap looking fur.

Griffith's character was supposed to be an absolute stunner who was 23. Griffith was...not.

Everyone wanted Uma but Melanie was considered a hot property at the time and she was kind he foisted on them. It was odd casting especially, since Cattrall as the wife, at the time was a lot more stunning.

Jeff Daniels has zilch sex appeal and William Hurt had done Body Heat a few years earlier. Hurt might be an asshole but that's never stopped him from getting work on a regular basis for his entire career.

"All these old ladies. Why they keep giving me these old hags to film?" - the DP. Really.

What they needed was a young Robert Redford. Unfortunately he had already been unavailable for years.

I have to say though by the end of the book I loved De Palma.

I don't get the Bruce Willis hate. He was sex on stick in his own assholey way. He reminded me of some friends, always from NJ, Long Island or the boroughs of New York. Sarcastic, smarmy, sexy, flirty, clever, egotistical assholes. One of them became a journalist and was just like Bruce Willis but yeah the character was British in the book. He was straight too but drunk fucked me once. Hot.

Walked out of the movie after about a half hour. My cousin was actually an extra during the shooting in L.A. and said Tom Hanks seemed lost and nervous most of the time, Melanie Griffith was high maintenance and that Bruce Willis was an absolute asshole, acting like he owned the place.

Hanks was no fool, he knew how hideously miscast he was.

I remember when the film came out, it was a huge flop. A colossal failure, probably one of the biggest since "Heaven's Gate" 10 years earlier.

People forget that before becoming one of the biggest box-office stars of the '90s, Hanks started off the decade with two major flops - this film and "Joe Versus the Volcano".

Griffith was hot property at the time, coming off "Working Girl" but she could never recreate the magic of that film and when Hollywood tried to put her in leading roles instead of capitalizing on her offbeat presence, used to great effect in "Body Double" and "Something Wild" her career hit the skids.

Willis was mostly flopping at this point too aside from the Die Hard movies. "Hudson Hawk" was still to come...

De Palma was able to work again unlike Michael Cimino.

They should remake it with Armie Hammer, Margot Robbie & Oscar Isaac as the three leads.

I'm glad Melanie's career survived long enough for her to make Shining Through a couple of years later. Talk about miscasts. It is arguably one of the worst and most unintentionally funny movies ever made.

Worse than "A Stranger Among Us"?

[quote]It was awful. Hanks was disastrously miscast as a WASPy douche Master of the Universe. It should have been William Hurt.

[quote]HBO should do a miniseries remake.

Oh, please, for the love of God, someone do this! I need this job!

[quote] I don't get the Bruce Willis hate. He was sex on stick in his own assholey way. He reminded me of some friends, always from NJ, Long Island or the boroughs of New York. Sarcastic, smarmy, sexy, flirty, clever, egotistical assholes. One of them became a journalist and was just like Bruce Willis but yeah the character was British in the book. He was straight too but drunk fucked me once. Hot.

Well, you just answered your own opening question. You fucked a guy like that and it was hot so you like the type; most of us haven't and don;t want to.

Worse than "A Stranger Among Us? OH yes. Oh my yes. Melanie as a nanny/spy in NAZI Germany. Trying to save Michael Douglas portraying a late 20's soldier(turkey neck and all). When they wanted to prove Melanie was fluent she spoke English with a, and I must use quotes, "German" accent. It really was just the worst movie I've ever seen.

"I know the codes, I know the network, I know the whole operation"

Shining Through is a major guilty pleasure. Melanie Griffith takes on the Nazis! Interestingly, Liam Neeson plays a Nazi, a full year before Schindler's List.

Oh God. I remember watching Shining Through in the theater. Douglas and Griffith running down the train track to make it across the border. Melanie. . so....so....so tired....she just doesn't know if she can make the 20 feet. The whole theater, those who stayed anyway, was laughing.

Was "Shining Through" the one where Melanie tries to convince Michael Douglas to sample her strudel? Or was that "Milk Money"?

The book was brilliant. It absolutely shredded the Greed Is Good (and the PC media manipulation) ethos of the 80s, which by the way, was the real pull in the book, not any of the people in it. The voice was devastatingly sure of itself, catty and so funny, and the 80s were so ripe for skewering, i couldnt stop reading. It was delicious.

But the movie was SO MISCAST, i didnt even bother watching it. Tom Hanks (Mr Sweet Guy from "Big") as The Master of the Universe wall street trader? Youve got to be kidding me. Melanie Griffith? Did the casting director ever get hired again? Did the filmmakers even read the book, or just buy it?

Or do filmmakers read a book like that and just think, ok we need a hot babe, and a somewhat likeable waspy type for the wall street trader . . . I know! Melanie tits Griffith, and, and, and, I know! Tom Hanks! That's the ticket!

I'm curious whether there are consequences in H'wood for so thoroughly fucking up a terrific property such as Bonfire was for its time? Do these people just cash their checks and go on to the next gig?

I don't think some of you have adequately described the book's success. I can recall reading that heavy book on the subway - and looking up to see at least 17 people (I counted) reading the same book. Today I look up from the Times and the same amount of people are playing games on their phones.

Back to the film. I recall Michelle Pfeiffer being talked about for the lead role, but Melanie was hotter at the time, so that was it.

Tom knew he was miscast and as I recall he either fired his team or switched talent agencies after the film flopped. It seemed desperate st the time, but of course Tom was very smart and continues to have an incredible, enviable career.

By far, THE most egregious casting was Morgan Freeman - the judge was a New York Jew, in every sense of the word. Morgan Freeman was absolutely the wrong, pandering choice.

Kim Catrell received the film's only positive reviews, but it would take Sex And The City to bring her considerable success.

.......One final shout out to JOE VS THE VOLCANO, which was a major flop but over time has become a "cult" film, it has its fans today.

Time has not been as kind to the film of Bonfire.

Time wasn't kind to the film when it came out. It was released in late December of 1990. Despite being only three years after the novel, the world had already changed. There was a recession going on, we were only weeks away from the first Gulf War and a story about 80s greed suddenly seemed inconsequential.

r51 it depends what they do. You'll get put in 'director jail' if you directed it. The screenwriter would probably come out unscathed because the industry has so little respect for its writers. You're seen as someone who doesn't really contribute to the project's success, unless the above the line talents demand ridiculous rewrites. Then it's your fault.

As an actor, if you were decent on set, you blame your agent, or the process ("the parts of the script I saw were great; I don't know what happened; I did it to work with this director...", etc.) and you'll probably get another gig, or at worst have to take a quirky co star role in your next movie to get back into the industry's good graces.

Thanks r54. What about the casting director? I guess it doesn't affect them that much cuz they have no control over who accepts.

Although now I think about it, it probably doesn't matter who was cast in this movie, because there' s really no way to get that narrator's voice onto the screen. Making the judge black showed that the filmmakers were using the book as an outline only, not trying to bring the book to the screen.

But you know, that would still be okay if the movie were good in its own right. The casting, though, was a warning that the movie was going to be a big El Stink-o.

After reading The Devil's Candy the biggest thing I came away with was why, unless you are a high paid star or directory, you would want anything to do with these people.

I am surprised so many people have something to day about this forgotten bomb.

Great casting, R41.

William Hurt instead of Tom Hanks

Jeremy Irons instead of Bruce Willis

Sherilyn Fenn instead of Melanie Griffith

Eli Wallach instead of Morgan Freeman

A lot of real New York Social Diary types to play the "x-rays" and their husbands

Sidney Lumet instead of Brian DePalma

That might have worked.

By far the funniest part of the book is Melanie Griffith's tits. The schedule called for her to shoot a couple of weeks, then she had a few weeks off, then she returned for the last weeks. During her break she got her tits inflated to ridiculous proportions. Panic on the set as everyone realized her tits would be out of continuity for the whole movie.

Mike Nichols should have directed the film. He had the requisite talent, brains and sense of humor. And his films were mostly all brilliantly cast without resorting to the predictable choices.

Amazing novel. Horrible film.

The film is terrible, but "The Devil's Candy" is considered one of the greatest books about Hollywood ever written.

Does the casting director have any control over which high-powered lead actors are hired? Or is that all settled by the producers, directors, and big-ass agents?

Maybe the casting director gets no blame, because the decision was made over their head, while they spend weeks on the gruntwork of casting all the supporting and bit actors.

No, casting directors at this level of film are not credited with luring in the names. Just the underlings. Read that "Devil's Candy" book for lots of of funny stories, they had a real Jewish judge from some district in the Bronx I think and he wanted to play the judge but then suddenly it was Morgan Freeman who showed up completely unprepared and read his role. And the unknown girl in the tiny part of a socialite's daughter got stage fright and fucked up take after take in tears and cost the production. Talk about an actor having true power!

P.S. Any guesses as to why Rita Wilson got her role? She just happened to be in town.

Pretty much everyone was cast by corporate. De Palma was allowed to test others but each time he was overruled or "convinced". Like the Jewish judge blew everyone away but he wasn't allowed to cast him. Uma blew everyone, except Hanks, away so he wasn't allowed to cast her. After the judge he wanted Walter Matthau for the judge but he was too expensive. So they got Morgan Freeman who ended up costing them more anyway. The only actor who comes away with any dignity is Kim Cattrall.

Another hysterical part of Devil's Candy was the description of the press junket before release. Read Devil's Candy. I bought it as a Datalounge recommendation. It normally isn't my type of book. I bought it anyway and read it in two days. The book about the movie would make a better book. At least you'll never look at Bruce Willis in the same way again. I now have some sympathy for Cybill.

Excellent book, horrific film version. Missed the whole point of the book.

It really killed me though how they had the actors testing for the part of the judge watch the real judge's performance over and over.

Wasn't Christopher Hitchens the prototype for the Bruce Willis character? Or was it Anthony Haden-Guest?

Willis came off more like AJ Benza, if anyone remembers him!

[quote]Willis came off more like AJ Benza, if anyone remembers him!

We're still trying to forget.

I always had the impression that Tom Hanks' insistence that he had no comedic chemistry with Uma, had more to do with Rita Wilson's not wanting to chance Tom fucking Uma. Griffith, on the other hand, had just had a baby.

'Devil's Candy' really is worth reading, and Shining Through is a funny rotten tomato. The dialogue is so full of cliches you can speak along with it.

R70 is so right about the cliches. See Melanie in a Shining Through clip for yourself. Jesus fucking H.

Bruce is an asshole!

The book is shallow and was wildly overrated at the time. Tom Wolfe wasn't, and still isn't, a novelist. He's a journalist and has very good observational skills as a result, but he doesn't know how to develop a character or tell a story. Every character gets exactly one defining trait (if they're white; if they're black they don't even get that) and every time you see the character they are exhibiting that one trait. The journalist was a drunk, so he's drunk all the time in the book. At the time, they were looking for another big, great American novel and Bonfire of the Vanities was as close as they could find in the 80s. I remember reading it and being underwhelmed to the point of anger; I felt duped.

The only thing disappointing about the novel of Bonfire of the Vanities for me was the ending which just seemed to peter out as if Wolfe had lost interest. I felt the same way about his A Man in Full....glorious writing, then.....petered out.

R74 just spoke my thoughts. Great novels both (especially A MAN IN FULL) and then he just sort of stopped writing them.

I avoid any movie that has Bruce Willis in the cast. Amazing how he turned a smirk into a career.

R74 and R75 beat me to it. Great starts, if a little bombastic and then really ridiculous non-endings.

A MAN IN FULL was being developed as a mini-series by HBO but it doesn't appear to have ever been green lit. What a shame.

r77 in fairness, how much of that is on the editor? That's a standard problem type in editing. Unless he had one of those 'society editors' who go on long liquid lunches and gossip, s/he should've put the screws to him.

Blaming the editor or the author doesn't change the finished product, the novel we read.

Well, one could blame the editor for not being harder on Wolfe, though I guess authors of a certain standing like King, Grisham, Irving and Tartt are too big to ever listen to an editor's criticisms. Shame, as all of their later works could be so much better.

I loved "I Am Charlotte Simmons" (bad sex writing award and all). Now that would make an interesting movie.

Bump. I adore Tom Wolfe's books. Bonfire and Charlotte Simmons are my favorites, though A Man in Full is pretty good. I got to meet him in 2000, at a party at Windows on the World, of all places.

I was thinking about Anthony Haden-Guest, supposedly the inspiration for Peter Fallow. WHET him?

Still a bastard, r83 . . .

He’s 82 now , imagine.

I really liked the novel but the movie was a complete shitshow, starting with some of the worst miscasting in the entire movie history and only getting worse from there... Tom Hanks as a Knickerbocker from a wealthy family? Bruce Willis as a cunning expat Brit journalist?? Melanie Griffith as a Southern gold digging vixen??

I wanted William Hurt as Sherman McCoy so bad. I still picture him every time I dip into the book. I don’t know who I would’ve cast for the vixen, but in the book she was a sultry brunette. I sort of picture Isabella Rossellini, with a southern accent. I think Mike Nichols would have been a good director.

They really need to do a miniseries of it. It’s the role Armie Hammer was born to play. Richard Grant or someone of that ilk for Peter.

Bad misfire of a film, but entertaining to watch.

I'll watch it anytime over Lincoln or There Will Be Blood.

And with all the good English actors out there, you mean to tell me they couldn’t get someone better to play Peter fallow?

And with all the good English actors out there, you mean to tell me they couldn’t get someone better to play Peter fallow?

When I was reading the book, I always imagined Fallow to look like, say, Simon Baker.

For those who came here looking for the original bonfire of the vanities, I wanted to point out that you can see the exact spot Savonarola was hanged and burned ending the bonfires in the Piazza Della Signoria in Florence, Italy. You can also go visit his monk’s cell in San Marco Museum, both are chilling.

It's on TCM right now.

I rather enjoyed the film's portrayals of Al Sharpton and Geraldo Rivera.

I don't think it's horrible but it's kind of all over the place and cannot find the right tone, though it's supposed to be a comedy. I think Hanks was miscast, Willis just phones it in and the supporting cast is better.

Maybe Hanks was uncomfortable with the role because it hit too close to home.

Chet Hanks is fighting with some skank he used to do. In retaliation she has released tweets from Chet iexcusing his abuse of herwith this observation about his parents --

"𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑦 𝑚𝑜𝑚 𝑑𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑜𝑙 𝑚𝑦 𝑑𝑎𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑦 𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑒 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 ℎ𝑒 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 𝑠𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑖𝑡. 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑛 𝐼 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝐼'𝑚 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑏𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑚𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑡 𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑎 𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑚𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑠 𝑚𝑒 𝑓𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑙𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝐼'𝑚 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 ℎ𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑒𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑚𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐼'𝑚 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑤ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝐼 ℎ𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑦 𝑓𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟."

Much like Melanie did to Hank in the movie.

I can see Rita in leather with a riding crop and Tom on his knees,

On TCM this afternoon. Also the subject of TCM's latest podcast.