Alan Rudolph’s 1999
adaptation of Kurt Vonnegut Jr.’s 1973 novel Breakfast of Champions is the cinematic equivalent of a stand-up
comedian trying so hard to be funny only to bomb spectacularly on-stage. If
it’s possible for a film to exude flop sweat then this one does. And yet, it is
not some impersonal Hollywood film churned out by committee. It is a passion
project decades in the making and funded by its leading man, Bruce Willis, out
of his own pocket. The film was a brave attempt by the movie star to show that
he had some range as an actor, but he took a book that was widely regarded as unfilmable
and made something that alienated Vonnegut’s fans and confused everyone else. Breakfast of Champions played the film
festival circuit only to be given a brief theatrical release on a few screens
before being relegated to obscurity on home video. Perhaps this misguided mess
of a film deserves this kind of fate but it is a fascinating trainwreck
nonetheless.
In a nod to the crude
illustrations that appear sporadically throughout the novel, the opening
credits also feature them while Martin Denny’s exotic lounge music plays on the
soundtrack. We meet successful car salesman Dwayne Hoover (Bruce Willis) with a
gun in his mouth but he doesn’t pull the trigger because he’s called to
breakfast. He talks briefly with his suicidal, television-obsessed wife Celia
(Barbara Hershey) and heads off to work in Midland City. Dwayne is a man barely
keeping it together. He suffers from an identity crisis but has to also deal
with Hawaiian Week at his car dealership. As if he didn’t have enough problems
to deal with, Dwayne is having an affair with Francine (Glenne Headly), a
co-worker at the dealership. Harry Le Sabre (Nick Nolte) is the sales manager
at Dwayne’s dealership and likes to wear women’s clothing. He is paranoid that
his boss will find out about his kinky habit.
Meanwhile, Eliot Rosewater
(Ken Campbell), of the Rosewater Foundation, writes a fan letter to obscure
pulp fiction author Kilgore Trout (Albert Finney), who has written 200 novels
and 2000 short stories for sleazy men magazines. He has been invited to the
Midlands City Arts Festival with a $1000 check to cover expenses and the
promise of becoming famous. Breakfast of
Champions alternates between Dwayne’s unraveling mind and Trout’s
ruminations on life and his writing as he travels to the Arts Festival.
Is it any wonder Dwayne has
no idea who he is when he’s constantly surrounded by images of himself, be it
the omnipresent car advertisements on T.V., or his employees that surprise him
one morning at work all wearing Dwayne Hoover masks (which resembles a low-tech
version of the multiple Malkovichs in Being
John Malkovich). Bruce Willis does a good job playing a man rapidly coming
apart at the seams, but we never get an idea of why. Very little motivation is
provided and so one assumes that Dwayne simply woke up one day on the brink of
sanity. He starts off trying to blow his own brains out and goes downhill from
there. Eventually, he comes to the realization that the only way to get out of
his existential funk is talking to someone from another planet. Enter: Kilgore
Trout.
Nick Nolte is hilarious and
easily the best thing about this film as the unhinged Harry Le Sabre. He’s
almost as far gone as Dwayne and the film plays out like a race to see who’s
going to snap their cap first. Nolte and Willis also seem to be locked into a
battle of wills to see who can deliver the most fearless performance devoid of
any kind of vanity. It’s close, but I give Nolte the win by a hair. If I took
anything away from this film it was the unforgettable image of Nolte running
across a car lot yelling, “Maui!” while wearing a red lingerie. The scenes
between the two actors are the best parts of the film, especially the one where
an increasingly nervous Harry tries to explain to Dwayne why he is a
cross-dresser.
Albert Finney is largely
wasted in this film as early on Trout carries on a meaningless conversation
with his pet budgie named Bill. The veteran actor spends most of his
screen-time playing the cantankerous Trout who rambles on endlessly in rather
cryptic fashion. The rest of the cast doesn’t fair much better with their
one-note supporting characters but they all gamely do their best with the
material they’re given.
Filmmaker Alan Rudolph had
been trying to make a film version of Breakfast
of Champions shortly after it was published in 1973 and actually wrote a
screenplay in 1975, but its unconventional satire of small-town American life
was largely plotless and a hard sell to movie studios. After working with actor
Nick Nolte on Afterglow (1997),
Rudolph convinced him to sign on and then used his name to attract financing,
but still couldn’t drum up any interest.
In 1993, Bruce Willis and
Rudolph had tried to make the film together, but problems with scheduling,
financing or scripting prevented it from going ahead. Finally, after making Mercury Rising (1998), Willis’ brother
told him, “Every action sequence in that movie was derivative of at least three
films you’ve already done.” The actor decided that he needed to “do some movies
without a gun in my hand,” or, as he put it, a chance to “work a little acting
into my career now and then.” His production company bought the rights to
Vonnegut’s book and provided the reported $10-12 million budget. As Nolte said
jokingly, “Knowing Bruce, he probably presold it in Europe first.”
Willis was drawn to playing
Dwayne Hoover because the character did “the scariest thing that any human
being could: take the hard look inside.” Getting the film self-financed
afforded Rudolph complete creative freedom – something he would not have had
with a studio. It also allowed Willis to own the negative to a film he starred
in. Once the star-studded cast was in place, Touchstone Pictures agreed to
distribute it. Filming took place over six weeks in Twin Falls, Idaho in
February 1998.
During the editing stage,
Rudolph felt that Breakfast of Champions
had a chance at being a box office success, especially with the cast he had
assembled. After announcing a spring 1999 release, the studio changed their
mind and gave it a very limited release in the fall. In retrospect, Rudolph was
glad that it took so long to get the film made “because what once was a dark
satire has now become an honest reflection of American culture that’s
accelerating into collective madness.”
Not
surprisingly, the knives came out when critics review Breakfast of Champions. In his review for The New York Times, Stephen Holden wrote, “In many ways, Breakfast of Champions is an incoherent
mess. But it never compromises its zany vision of the country as a demented
junkyard wonderland in which we are all strangers groping for a hand to guide
us through the looking glass into an unsullied tropical paradise of eternal
bliss.” Entertainment Weekly, on the
other hand, gave it an “F” rating and Owen Gleiberman wrote, “Rudolph, in an act of insane folly, seems to think that what
matters is the story. The result could almost be his version of a Robert
Altman disaster – a movie so unhinged it practically dares you not to hate it.”
The Los Angeles Times’ Kevin Thomas
wrote, “As it is, Breakfast of
Champions is too in-your-face, too heavily satirical in its look, and its
ideas not as fresh as they should be. For the film to have grabbed us from the
start, Rudolph needed to make a sharper differentiation between the everyday
world his people live in and the vivid world of their tormented imaginations.”
In her review for the Village Voice,
Amy Taubin felt that the film, “suffers from a saccharine ending, but that's
hardly its worst problem. Another middle-aged male-crisis opus, it begins on a
note of total migraine-inducing hysteria, which continues unabated throughout.”
Understandably bitter with
the way Breakfast of Champions was
received by critics and audiences, Rudolph chalked up his film’s commercial
failure to American film critics “who still have the power to destroy a little
movie, and who used that power to blast the hell out of Breakfast,” and also the way Disney, who owns Touchstone Pictures,
released it: “In such a derisory fashion that no one knew it existed.”
With its heightened, stylized
performances from a star-studded cast and a hallucinatory look, it makes one
think that Rudolph saw Terry Gilliam’s adaptation of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) – another book with an
unfilmable reputation – and decided to apply the same aesthetic to Breakfast of Champions, but it just
doesn’t work because the source material is so different. Rudolph employs all
kinds of zany graphics in an attempt to give us a look inside of Dwayne’s mind.
As with someone of his caliber of filmmaking, Breakfast of Champions looks great, complete with atmospheric
cinematography and rich set design that helps immerse us in this very stylized
world.
Maybe Rudolph was inspired by
his mentor Robert Altman’s absurdist ode to flight, Brewster McCloud (1970), but the end result is more like the teen
comedy misfire O.C. and Stiggs
(1984). The main problem with Breakfast
of Champions is that it makes no sense to anyone who hasn’t read Vonnegut’s
novel. It is an impenetrable collection of highlights from the book and yet I
find myself admiring Rudolph and company’s chutzpah for making such a blatantly
uncommercial film. Not since Gus Van Sant’s failed adaptation of another
unfilmable novel, Even Cowgirls Get the
Blues (1993), has a film squandered such talent. Like the aforementioned
film, Breakfast of Champions is
populated with an impressive cast as big names like Willis and Nolte who are
supported by Barbara Hershey, Buck Henry and Owen Wilson in small roles. One
feels that this film was more fun to make then it is to watch. I can’t totally
hate it though, because it does feel like everyone’s heart is in the right
place. You have to give Rudolph and co. an A for effort, but that’s about all
you can do. This is for fans of indecipherable adaptations of iconic novels.
All others need not apply.
SOURCES
Lieberman, Paul. “Keeping it
Fresh with a Vengeance.” Los Angeles Times. October 10, 1999.
Stein, Ruthe. “Nolte Charms
at Renovated Film Center.” San Francisco Chronicle. April 19, 1999. Pg.
C1.
Wallace, Amy. “A Die-Hard
Dreamer.” Los Angeles Times. October 9, 1998.
Yakir, Dan. “After 20 years, Breakfast is Served.” BPI
Entertainment News Wire. September 15, 1999.
Can we all agree that the best adaptation of an unfilmable book was Adaptation? Even if we can't I'll pretend we did.
ReplyDeleteBreakfast of Champions will always be one of my favorite Vonnegut books, primarily because it was so different from anything else that I had ever read, and it was responsible for opening my mind up to new kinds of stories. It was meta-, it was post-modern, it wasn't formatted like a traditional novel (i.e., the drawings inserted throughout), and up until then I didn't know that a novel could be something different than, well, a traditional novel.
ReplyDeleteSo I was absolutely thrilled when I found this, years and years later, on VHS. I hadn't even known that Breakfast of Champions had been turned into a movie. I purchased it post-haste and rushed home to watch it.
I was sorely disappointed. It felt, to me, as if someone had adapted the synopsis of the book--or perhaps the Cliff Notes--but not the book itself. Does that make any sense?
I always admire when someone tries to film the unfilmable, such as Fear & Loathing, which you mentioned in your review and Adaptation, which Matthew Connors mentioned in the comment above, but it's always a shame when it fails because it means there is a less chance of someone who could get it right getting the opportunity to do it.
For me, the reason the true spirit of this book proves so difficult to capture is because the author of the book (Vonnegut) is such an integral part of the equation, that when you switch mediums that integral part becomes lost. The only way around this would be to switch out "author" with "director" (or, perhaps, "screenwriter"), but Vonnegut neither wrote or directed this film, so that would ring false, and replacing the character of Vonnegut with the character of Alan Rudolph would be tragic.
The number one unfilmable book that I would like to see filmed (hopefully successfully) before I die would be House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski. I don't know how it could be done...but that's the reason I'm not the one doing it. ;-)
Sorry to ramble on for so long. Your reviews tend to get a whole essay out of me. Keep up the great work on your blog.
--J/Metro
It's a tough one. I loved the book so much that I really wanted the film to be good too, but of course there's no way the things that made the book great (Vonnegut's voice) could really come across. Glad they gave it a try though. There's always "Slaughterhouse Five" and "Mother Night" though.
ReplyDeleteAny movie starring Bruce Willis as a car salesman sounds good to me. Too bad it did not live up to its potential.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Connors:
ReplyDeleteHeh. Yeah, I would go with that.
Jonny Metro:
Great comments as always! I couldn't agree more. Rudolph and co. tried but one gets the feeling that they didn't quite "get it" and it shows in the final product. Or, maybe there were compromises that were made. Good call on Vonnegut's voice missing from the film. It is such a personal book that translating that into a film can be tricky.
I have not read HOUSE OF LEAVES. You would recommend?
Brent Allard:
Thanks for stopping by. Agreed on SLAUGHTERHOUSE and MOTHER NIGHT - both fine adaptations, IMO.
J.D.: I recommend HOUSE OF LEAVES to everyone...though I openly admit that not everybody is going to like it. Stacked narratives, hidden messages, footnotes galore (referencing other works both real and imagined), shape-shifting texts, an unreliable narrator...pretty much every metafictional/postmodern trick you can think of is jammed between the two covers. It's a bit much for some people, but it entertains and amazes me each and every time I read it, which is about once a year.
DeleteIf you do ever read it, I'd love to hear your thoughts. I'm fairly certain we could spin yarns and exchange theories about it for hours--or whatever the internet equivalent of time is.
--J/Metro
Jonny Metro:
DeleteShape-shifting texts sounds intriguing. What is the plot (if any) for HOUSE OF LEAVES?
Jonny Metro:
DeleteLike Henry, I am curious about this novel. I will have to track it down and check it out. It sounds like something up my alley.
Have you read any Thomas Pynchon? Talk about unfilmable books. Alto, should be interesting to see what Paul Thomas Anderson does with INHERENT VICE.
Another book that I would have thought unfilmable is “Ulysses” by James Joyce but Joseph Strick made a film of it in 1967. He also made the controversial film “Interview with My Lai Veterans” which contained interviews with soldiers who were present at the Vietnam War incident where villagers were massacred and raped.
DeleteHenry:
DeleteI haven't heard of INTERVIEW WITH MY LAI VETERANS, but I have heard of ULYSSES. Never seen the film but now I'm curious to check out both.
Henry & J.D.: In HOUSE OF LEAVES, a young man named Johnny Truant inherits a scholarly discourse written by a blind man named Zampano, the subject of which is a documentary film entitled THE NAVIDSON RECORD. The documentary follows famed photojournalist Will Navidson and his family as they discover that their house is larger on the inside than on the outside. A lot larger. Like minotaur/labyrinth large. The odd thing is that Johnny Truant can find no evidence that such a film exists, yet the deeper he gets into the text, the more that the fantasy seems to creep into his reality, and while the Navidson family story is going on in the foreground, Johnny Truant's story is taking place in the background, by way of footnotes (some of which go on for pages).
ReplyDeleteSo it's basically this: Mark Z. Danielewski writing a story about Johnny Truant who is reading a story by Zampano about an imaginary film by Will Navidson. There are a lot of narratives going on at the same time. On one level, it's sort of a post modern haunted house story, while on another level it's a schizophrenic art project.
If you click HERE, you can see an example of what I mean by shape-shifting text.
Another example of this can be found in THE RAW SHARK TEXTS by Steven Hall. At one point, the story drops away and it turns into a flipbook that depicts a Great White (composed of words) swimming closer and closer towards the reader. Click HERE for an example of that...then imagine him growing larger and more detailed with every turn of the page.
Regarding Pynchon, I've read very little by him, which I'm rather ashamed of. However I just recently loaded a number of his books onto my Kindle Fire, so I'll be correcting that oversight very soon.
I'm loving these discussions, man. Glad to have somebody I can ramble to who doesn't look at me like I'm crazy.
--J/Metro
Thanks for the run-down on HOUSE OF LEAVES. I'm sold. Will definitely be checking that book out based on your sterling recommendation.
DeleteI think you'll dig Pynchon. He's amazing but intensely dense prose. Alto, INHERENT VICE is a fun read. Can't wait to see Paul Thomas Anderson tackle it soon.
Looking at the photo of Nick Nolte above with his hand in the red stocking, it's clear that he's come a long way since Dallas North Forty.
ReplyDelete