R. Crumb later told Zwigoff that he hated the film. Why? And why would he be so cold-hearted as to tell him?
"I really do have love to give. I just dont know where to put it."
[deleted]
ironic
"I really do have love to give. I just dont know where to put it."
[deleted]
he didn't hate this movie he hated Fritz the cat done by bakshi
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Was the Fritz movie really that bad? Havn't seen it.
life's ill
R. Crumb later told Zwigoff that he hated the film. Why?
And why would he be so cold-hearted as to tell him?
I think you are right about that. Crumb has always struggled with self-loathing (as the title of one of his own comics done with his wife suggests), so watching a movie about himself couldn't be comfortable. And yes, one of the amazing facets of Crumb is his inability to be anything but totally honest, whether he likes it or not.
>>And why would he be so cold-hearted as to tell him?
I'm amazed that anyone could watch this movie and ask that question.
~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.
In the Crumb commentary by Harvey Pekar, he explains that Crumb didn't think that anyone would give a damn about a film featuring him. Because of this, he allowed the Director, Terry Zwigoff, and his camera crew total access - expecting nothing would come of it.
Once the film came out, he was freaked out by the attention that it and he received, even in France where he lives.
That's why he hated the film. He probably feels slightly different about it now, 10 years later.
i love this movie
shareCrumb didn't hate this film, the movie made him hate himself.
Picasso was an abuser of women: do we disregard his contributions to art? Of course not. Just because you are gifted with an incredible talent doesn't automatically make you a perfect human being.
Take the art for what it's worth. Use the lessons of his life to make YOU a better person, and discard the rest.
[deleted]
Who forced you to watch the movie? If you were really that disgusted and infuriated by it, why not shut it off? That's far more practical than waiting for nuclear holocaust. Furthermore, why do you spend so much time trashing the film instead of letting your painful memories subside? Ya know, it looks like you've been on these boards for about half a year, talking about how much you hate Crumb and (rather arrogantly) putting down those who disagree with you. Chill out. Also, despite your much-flaunted intelligence (ruminating on the proper capitalization of e.e. cummings' name, quoting Shakespeare, et cetera) your attack on the film is fairly paltry. You explain how much you hate the movie (in great detail) but fail to point out any reasons why, other than that Crumb says "Ya know" a lot, that the characters were unlikable (as if that precludes the quality of the film itself), and that "David Lynch is the Devil." Did you think the direction poor? Is your hatred primarily for the subject? If so, what about his work or personality bothers you? Honestly, I'm just trying to get a sense of WHY you had such a violent reaction to this movie. Feel free to explain yourself.
share[deleted]
1. Sarcasm can be a two-way street.
2. Since I haven't seen the deleted post, I'll have to take you word for it when it comes to how extreme they were. But yours were pretty agressive given the relatively innocuous text of what you were responding to.
3. My point was that often you stoop to playing semantics rather than countering their arguments. It's an easy out.
4. "rather than launch into a preachy sermon about my posts" Cry me a river. My opinion of the film was fairly positive. I do enjoy Crumb's work (though I'm not a big fan of self-consciously "dirty" underground comix in general), more the earlier sixties art which wasn't as highlighted in the film, but if you don't, that's fine (still think your initial reaction was over-the-top). As for the film, I enjoyed the presentation and the insights on Crumb. Though the filmmaker was Crumb's friend it was not an overly hagiographic portrait; for one thing, he came off as a real *beep* in that conversation with the ex-girlfriend. Documentaries require interesting subjects, which Crumb and his siblings provide in spades. Basically, I enjoyed it and you didn't. I respect your opinion, it's just that I was turned off by your exaggerated response and condescending replies to other posters.
P.S. I'm glad you consider your intelligence obvious.
"I stated at the outset of my post/review that I thought the movie was not entertaining, not educational and not thought provoking. My objection is not so much with the directing (though I see nothing earth shattering about it), but rather with the subject. Again, I find Crumb’s work to be valueless. It doesn’t move me in any way, as art should."
Who says that art should do anything? That's your opinion and others don't share it. Anyway, I think the art is totally irrelevant to the movie. You can watch it and hate the art or feel nothing for it, and still enjoy the movie. The movie is totally unique and original, unprecedented in depth and candor. If you can just ignore two words (ya know) at the front of a few sentences, you might even like it more. Why must movies be entertaining, educational, or thought-provoking? Can we not enjoy movies that are mindless, or challenging, or shocking? Some people like dark humor. Apparently, you don't. That's fine. But why wallow in what you don't like? The sane response is to focus on what you do like.
"Again, as I stated in another post, this is my opinion of the film. Keep in mind that anything anyone ever has to say about art is, by its very nature, an opinion. It’s subjective rather than objective. If you have an opposing view, or opinion, please feel free to post it. Tell me what you like about it so much rather than launch into a preachy sermon about my posts."
I feel your posts are without merit. You missed the point of the film, something that should have been obvious from reading reviews about it, or listening to the first sentences Crumb speaks. Maybe you have a closet full of Adidas shirts and 49ers hats. Maybe you don't want to see the truth of this film. Maybe it hits a nerve and makes you see yourself or the world in a way you don't want to see it. That's your choice. I think you can learn a lot from this film, even beyond the director's obvious moral. If you don't find it rewarding, so much the worse for you. I've seen CRUMB three times and it's one of my favorites. I hate most other documentaries, because they are stale, boring, fake, and pretentious. This does not try to apologize for anything or make you feel sorry for anyone. It shows us Crumb and his family and lets us make our own decisions.
[deleted]
[Maybe I don't need your nickel dime analysis - which is, in this context - valueless. Once again - someone can't keep it to the film and has to make it]personal. How typical."
On the contrary, if you had seen the film, you would know that my comments were relevant. I guess you haven't seen it, then. I am not analyzing you at all. I'm just throwing out some possibilities for why the movie might offend you or make you dislike it. You've never given any real reasons yourself.
[In your posts you call me a pathetic loser, dumb, inferred my life is not enjoyable or satisfying, continually make comments about 'my closet', and even questioned my sanity.]
The comments about your closet were a reference to the film, and someone else's posts. Your failure to make that connection suggests that you have not seen the film and/or paid attention to it and/or read the threads you were involved in. I've never called you anything. I said you "acted like" a loser, when you bitch and moan about some movie. That isn't equivalent to saying you are a loser, in general. Saying that actions are dumb doesn't mean the person is dumb. Learn to tell the difference between criticizing the deed and the doer.
[Is this what you mean by "Try judging films based on their actual substance"?]
Yes, it is. Obviously, you failed to note the connection to the film, where R. Crumb talks about the people wearing "advertising on their clothes." The movie has a lot of things that would offend certain people. I was trying to find out why you didn't like the film. Just saying so has no value for anybody, but you. I don't care what you like. I want to get the reasons. Maybe I agree with some, but like it for other things. Maybe I like it for the reasons you don't.
[I didn't like the film - at all. You did - a lot. Okay?]
And pointing that out adds no value to me or you or anybody else. OK? Learn to discuss things by offering substance or just shut up and go away. Give us some detail about what you didn't like. And don't say "everything." That's bull. If you can't articulate what you liked/disliked, don't expect us to care.
[It's rather funny at times, sad at others, to watch people react to a post that doesn't agree with their own view of a film. See if you can reply without making it personal and without resorting to all the meaningless personal hyperbole.]
See if you can actually give us any reasons why you didn't like the film. Just saying you didn't adds nothing. It wasn't "meaningless personal hyperbole." It seems you would have known what I was referring to, if you had seen the movie. You haven't added any substance at all. Who cares what you like or dislike? if you can't give significant reasons, you're wasting our time.
[deleted]
"I did not shut it off because I watch films in their entirety, otherwise I cannot fully appreciate how good or bad, the film actually is."
That's not a valid response. You need to learn to turn off things which you find consistently annoying or unwatchable. Cut your losses and move on. I loved every minute of this film. There's not a single scene that I would take out. Indeed, I wish Terry Zwigoff had given us some deleted scenes. Neither DVD release has any deleted footage. The only bonus features are a trailer (on the first DVD), and a commentary (on the second). Nothing to really sink your teeth into.
[deleted]
[In order to give a movie a fair shake - I watch the entire film. Two hours isn't going to make or break my life.]
You should still have some standards. I've turned off movies that didn't grab me. I've forced myself to sit through movies, because I paid for them. In retrospect, I should have cut my losses and turned them off or walked out. What is gained by forcing yourself to watch, except the right to criticize? I mostly turn off crap that annoys me. Why do you need to waste two hours of your life on something you hate? Why do you NEED to give every movie a fair shake?
[Besides - if I hadn't watched the entire film, how would I be able to engage you fine people in dialogue? The truth is if I hadn't watched the entire film, THEN my comments would not be valid.]
Maybe you haven't watched the entire movie. There's no way you can prove that to anybody, one way or another. You're the only one who knows whether you have seen the movie and given it a fair shake. So, why do you need to give every movie its chance, just because you started it? If it doesn't appeal to you, turn it off or walk out. The money you lose by not finishing a movie is nothing compared to the life you lose by watching something unpleasant or boring. No movies are going to appeal to everybody. If you didn't like it, it wasn't meant for you.
[deleted]
"The only thing I agree with Crumb on is that the movie bearing his name SUCKS"
I have to agree with you. I don't understand what the fuss was about. We studied this film in film class and I don't get how it valued my education. The subject was not only dull, but offensive. He was a sexist, racist, incestual pervert who drew cartoons (poorly in my opinion). I don't understand where the fanfare came from. One student in my class felt this was the funniest film he had ever seen...I am still trying to see where there was any humour in this film.
Certainly it is not for everyone.
share
Have you ever heard the term "art reflects life"? Crumb's artwork exposed the seamy side of our civilization -- including things people refuse to think about much less talk about or look at pictures of.
I don't see Crumb as a KKK or rapist or murderer or any of the stuff one could expect from the acts seen on the pages of his works -- however I DO see that stuff in our own society. His work is great because it is like a "magic mirror" to look at so much stuff we have been failing to face in ourselves and/or our society -- the racism, the consumerism, sexism, etc. And no, he's not a saint and has some personal problems that others would consider absolutely crippling -- and which WERE absolutely crippling for both of his own brothers who grew up in the same environment with a tyrant for a father, etc.
Looking at him and his life and his art work is something to see more than it is something to judge or like or dislike, for me. It has only been recently that I have been realizing just how prevalent for instance incest is in many families, passed down from generation to generation -- and evily, sometimes both mother and father sexually abuse their own children. Do we ever talk about that in our society? No, we really don't. Is it a problem? Yes, it really is. Who knows -- maybe Crumb and his brothers were traumatized sexually as children in ways they don't even remember. But I don't need to know that. It's not even any of my business. If their parents were in the top levels of our government then it would be our business. But look at some of the pedophile scandals that have touched Congress and even implicated the White House. See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6364552887741036877&q=%22mind+control%22
"I don't understand what the fuss was about. We studied this film in film class and I don't get how it valued my education. The subject was not only dull, but offensive."
What you find offensive says more about you than anything else. Some people find nudity offensive. That just shows their own hang-ups about the body, it does not prove that the body is somehow dirty or offensive in itself.
"He was a sexist, racist, incestual pervert..."
You have no proof that he was sexist, racist, or incestuous. Drawing cartoons doesn't mean that's how he actually felt or behaved. Look up the words satire, irony, sarcasm, parody, etc. You are spouting off about things way beyond your depth here.
"...who drew cartoons (poorly in my opinion). I don't understand where the fan fare came from."
He was a fantastic artist. Surely you can appreciate his portraits, if nothing else. If not, then you have lost whatever credibility you had. Just ask any art teacher to look at his work and say that it was poorly drawn. It was incredibly detailed and gritty. Naturally, some was exaggerated, but that's the point. You can't say it's bad, just because it's unrealistic or ugly. Let's see you create drawings that others want to buy and hang in museums.
"One student in my class felt this was the funniest film he had ever seen...I am still trying to see where there was any humour in this film."
It's black comedy. Crumb was totally honest and spoke his mind. Such behavior's unknown to most people, who live in sublimation and denial. He articulated his views and they were quite often right, IMO. Maybe you don't want to see what he reveals through his work, because it would burst your reality bubble.
"Charles should have killed himself years earlier and spared himself a life like that. He probably committed suicide after screening an advance copy of this film..."
And with that, any credibility you might have had goes out the window.
[deleted]
Att: johnjms
Re: your extensive post count
Having a lot to say doesn't make you 'credible', johnjms.
I'm fairly new to these boards, and I am here because I'm interested in what others have to say, but when someone like yourself talks 'trash' (as in, flippant remarks about a unhappy person who took their own life) it makes me less likely to respect your opinion about anything else.
[deleted]
"Very well. Thanks for joining the discussion."
And thanks for your response.
While you might not like this film, I'm pretty sure there will be others that we will share an appreciation for. I still look forward to reading your comments and recommendations.
Re: 'Crumb' - I confess that when I first saw it many years ago, I didn't like it either. It wasn't until many years later that I watched it again and saw it from a much different perspective. It has since become a personal favorite of mine.
I don't know if that's ever happened to you, but there are films that I saw as a kid that I hated because I just wasn't ready for them. 'A Clockwork Orange' would be one example.
David Lynch didn't produce CRUMB. He didn't have anything to do with its making. He just agreed to put his name on the front of it. Zwigoff asked him for $50,000 to get the film developed, but he found someone else before Lynch accepted. I do not like ERASERHEAD, but CRUMB is one of my favorite documentaries. It's so real and honest. You rarely see anything like this from Hollywood.
If you "hated every second" of CRUMB, why didn't you turn it off? Why are you on this board bitching and moaning about how you didn't like it? Each movie appeals to different people. Find the ones that appeal to you and shut up about the ones that don't. Your life will be more enjoyable and satisfying that way.
I didn't even notice Crumb saying "ya know" all the time, because like most I am able to filter out stuff like that. You wallow in it and complain about. I think you should judge films based on their actual substance. Picking apart how someone talks is dumb. I know several people who open sentences with "ya know", and often say "or something." That doesn't mean they're annoying or idiots. It is just how people talk nowadays. Be aware of yourself and in control.
You should have known right away whether you would like this film. Crumb's first lines were something like: "If I go for a while without drawing, I become really depressed and suicidal. Of course sometimes I'm suicidal even when I'm drawing." That kind of sums up the whole movie and its message, I think. I also agree with the sentiments Crumb expresses about Americans. Maybe you don't like it, because of those things. Any 49ers hats in your closet? To each his own.
wow, I guess you wanted "Star Wars" or something trite like that huh?
shareWhen I sit down to watch a film, I expect to either be entertained, educated, or be exposed to a thought provoking set of circumstances. This film achieved none of these objectives. I suppose CRUMB was supposed to fill objective number three – and be thought provoking. The only thought I had is `Why the hell am I wasting my time watching this `genius'? If R Crumb is a genius, well -- as he annoyingly starts most of his thoughts throughout the entire film -- `ya
(blah, blah, blah - verbal diahrhea followed by know-nothing restrictions on what a film can be)
by - johnjms on Mon Nov 8 2004 16:43:14
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're a thoughtless tit.
[deleted]
I love this film. You obviously didn't grow up in the 60's or have a clue of what the counter culture was about.
shareAnd to that, he also didn't like how it made his life so depressing. It wasn't a very happy movie so, i can see why he didn't like it. Only really interviewing his two mentally disabled brothers and unaware mother.
I could have swore that he liked this film and hated the BBC one. I dont know?
I don't think anyone is going to be happy about their personal life being made public. That is why this film is so enjoyable. How in the HELL! did Zwigoff talk Crumb into letting him document his life?
"too busy stayin' alive" Richard Ashcroft
[deleted]
Thank you "Fellini". That is why the film is touching. I would have never given any thought about Harry Crumb until I saw this documentary. I wish more films were made about the outcasts of Americana.
"too busy stayin' alive" Richard Ashcroft
(by dane youssef)
"HARRY" CRUMB?!?
You mean the title character in that John Candy movie?
By the way, ROBERT Crumb did NOT hate this movie. He respected it. He admired it.
He said in a comic that it embarassed him, and it did somewhat--but he was exagerating.
He thought it was "very well-made."
He was quoted as saying, "Well, it's... me. It's about my life. It's all about me. My family and my work. It's like asking if you like yourself. I'm not an impartial judge or anything like that."
Director Terry Zwigoff still credits "Crumb" for saving his life. As does Harvey Pekar.
danessf@yahoo.com
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=58175682
[deleted]
(by dane youssef)
From Pekar himself, in his movie and as a forword in one of his anthology collections. It was about the collaboration between him and Crumb. The two met when Crumb was living in Philadelphia. He eventually left and move to San Francisco to join the whole "Underground comic scene." Crumb went on about how much he hated Cleaveland and even a friend he knew who commited suicide there. How it was almost heroic that Harvey would still live there.
Pekar can write an interesting story, but he can't draw at all. R. Crumb was a friend and fellow record collector of Harvey Pekar's. He did artwork for Pekar's early comics (and later on).
The "underground cartoonists" (most of them) did artwork for Pekar's "American Splendor" comic books at Crumb's request. Pekar would have had a hell of a time finding an artist for his work considering that he was a file clerk who simply wrote comic books on the side which almost no one read.
They were praised highly by the critics (who nowdays praise just about anything new and unusual), but he never made any serious money. He had his comics adapted to the stage and even was on Letterman a few times, too. The chemistry was great and was even asked to come back a few times. But he still never made enough money that he could afford to live off his art and quit his day job.
"The book sales (of Harvey's stuff) barely coverted the printing fees." ---R. Crumb
This is one of the reasons I was so grateful that Pekar got an "American Splendor" movie made. Not only has his books managed to become more available elsewhere in mainstream comic book stores, but Harvey may leave a legacy behind after all. Harvey just may get remembered. I was praying for him.
Weren't you?
danessf@yahoo.com
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=58175682
I dislike it greatly when anybody boes an a preformer, or even a film. I suggest that they would just leave and let the others enjoy what they have not. I do understand your need to post on the message boards, and have a rant or 2 about it for *beep* and giggles. But this seems obsessive and bizare to me. You shouldn't be wasting so much time on this.
shareabyoussef - you posted the following:
Crumb went on about how much he hated Philly and even a friend he knew who commited suicide there. How it was almost heroic that Harvey would still live there.
Pekar lived in Ohio his whole life (still does) so do your homework before hitting the keyboard.
In what comic did he talk about his reactions to the movie? I'm writing a paper about people viewing documentaries about themselves. Thanks!
shareZwigoff, the director threatened to kill himself if Crumb backed out.
That's a myth, at least according to Roger Ebert, who interviewed Zwigoff for the new DVD release.
I think Crumb didn't like this documentary because it showed him the rather disturbing reality. I'm sure the image he used to have of his family wasn't all that bad. He was trying to laugh those problems away in the documentary. The only sensible thing to do really, if he didn't, he would have gone into a depression himself.
In other words, the things Crumb disliked or was uncomfortable with are the very things that make the movie so fascinating.
shareI don't think that's Roger Ebert's voice on the new DVD release. I think it's a bad joke by Terry Zwigoff. The guy didn't sound a bit like Roger Ebert. Totally different speech patterns and accent. If that guy was Roger Ebert, he must have had the flu and been smoking pot at the time.
share[deleted]
Ok, let's bury this once and for all:
Crumb DIDN'T hate this film. Listen to the new commentary.
__________
It's a sad day for America when spellcheck doesn't think "Kubrick" is a word.
[deleted]
Oh, brother...for the Crumb over analyzer /hater of the film due to boredom, it's probably because he/she didn't grow up during said times. These WERE strange/oppressive days, FOLKS! Revealing thoughts/feelings/etc. such as Crumb's left you open to attack and over analysis. Close Encounters a 5 and Doc Hollywood??? Ha Ha Ha...
share[deleted]