“That’s the problem with drinking, I thought, as I poured myself a drink. If something bad happens you drink in an attempt to forget; if something good happens you drink in order to celebrate; and if nothing happens you drink to make something happen.” – Charles Bukowski (Women)
Charles Bukowski with Mickey Rourke (from michelle77.tumblr.com)
Drinking is a problem. Not for those who drink, though. I’m not a fan of the great Bukowski, but I do appreciate him a lot, so I’m about to write about two movies based on his work. One of them is Barfly, with Mickey Rourke and Faye Dunaway. The other one, as far as I know, is Factotum with Matt Dillon as Hank Chinaski, and Lili Taylor as Jan. Instead of being based on one novel in particular, these two were based on a mix of novels by Bukowski, as the action is of no great importance. I said I’m not a fan of Charles Bukowski because I don’t see credibility behind Hank or Henry Chinaski’s actions. The two movies, especially Factotum (the one with Dillon playing Bukowski) give him a kind of funny and talented “rebel without a cause” aura. The novels offer more roughness to the character, and here is the part where I don’t think I sympathize with him. He was a rebel without motivation. I’ve seen better.
So why all the success and admiration from all over the bohemian world? Perhaps because it was considered inoffensive, an attitude and lifestyle model destined not to be take seriously. However, it was quite offensive according to the brainwashing standards of the typical American lifestyle. It lacked in “American Dreaminess” and went against the interests of the people and institutions that Bukowski rebelled against.
Matt Dillon in "Factotum" (from imdb)
“Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must lead.” – This is Barfly’s tagline. It’s a film I’ve seen a long time ago, when I was still a Mickey Rourke fan. I still think he has talent, but he’s no great actor. It’s a matter of taste, of course, just like with Bukowski himself. Rourke offered a brilliant performance in The Wrestler, a film which – as I’ve said at least once before – could have won him an Oscar (The Wrestler could have won more Academy Awards in other departments, had it been directed by someone other than Aronofsky). Again, this is a strictly personal opinion. I’m also sure this wasn’t a very favourable conjuncture for Rourke, with all his abusive behaviour (see also: Charlie Sheen).
So the “Academy”, who chose to invite Beyonce to be a member and secretly vote for awards, also chose to “punish” him. It wasn’t an objective decision, it was politics (although I may be subjective myself, since I’m bashing a decision I don’t like by calling it “politics” and “lacking in objectivity”). I do believe in pure judgement, though, so I don’t agree with mass manipulation by momentary trends.
In France, live (from Google)
Matt Dillon played the character of Bukowski the way Bukowski was seen by society at the time: by being “the laureate of the lowlife”, as he’s been named by a certain Elite publication (the same publication that awarded Mark Zuckerberg “Man of the Year”). His character is not a very funny guy, has bad taste in women, drinks frequently and always proves unreliable, although he’s “right”, in his way. You see, in a society where you may allow yourself to behave like Chinaski, you may even live under the illusion that the said society is free. There are many “free” places in this world, places where you can’t afford to go home after 12 hours of hard work, since the bus ticket costs way too much, and where choosing to eat a sandwich or some fast food implies that you have to find your “happiness” in the 250ml bottle of Coca-Cola that comes after the meal.
Charles Bukowski wrote and published over sixty books, so I don’t know how he could’ve managed to avoid fame even if he’d have chosen to do so. I remember that over seventeen years ago, he was famous for drinking his wine bottles in a live talk show. After that, people started to associate him with the “funny guy” in Barfly. By appearing to be an old drunken bum, he was largely ignored by the street-lunatics, cops and hoods. Bukowski was able to go on with writing the way he wanted precisely because he was so easily dismissed.
“It was an ingenious guise were it not for the fact that it wasn’t an act, he really was a drunken old bum.” – a quote from Darran Anderson. I totally agree.
If you liked what you read (and for that I humbly thank you for your patience), subscribe to this blog by Email! Follow this blog on Twitter, and on Facebook! For a joyous day, check out my pins on Pinterest or my grams on Instagram 😄. I hope you like this blog so much that you think it’s time to take a step further by becoming yourself a blogger; in order to do that have the kindness to read the Own Your Website offer I have prepared for you! You won’t regret. Thanks for passing by 😄 Speak your mind, don’t be shy!
Copyright © 2011 Rodolfo Grimaldi Blog – Charles Bukowski
Rich, that is an overly simplistic view, mirroring the overly simplistic view that drinking makes you a better writer. Like with most of these things, the truth lies in the middle. Drinking can, especially in moderation, open up your thinking in ways that allow you to write with less inhibition. It can also get sloppy. That’s why Hemingway said, “Write drunk, edit sober.”
As for Bukowski in general, well I certainly understand people not liking him. But if you really dig into his work you find some amazing lines, some great dialogue and a humorous and consistent worldview. It’s not for everyone, but for those who like him he’s huge, and there are plenty in that category.
An entirely different view on alcoholism :). It’s clear that for Bukowski it was creative. An interesting man with a bit of luck. Or maybe we are the lucky ones, because we had this opportunity to heard of him. I’m not so sure. Thanks for passing by :).
Bukowski’s writing seems to give support to those who think alcoholics who write (Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald) are better authors. But Fitzgerald’s Last Tycoon was unfinished and if he wasn’t a drunk he could have gone on to write more novels. Alcohol is a depressant that wakes you to an inchoate mind incapable of producing art, at least until noon. Glorifying a descent into alcoholism as an art form has little to commend. Instead of reading Bukowski you need to go to skid row and watch all those destroyed lives.
You’re perfectly right, Rich. Thanks,my friend, 🙂 .
You’re so modest, you may put whatever link you like to promote you better, you may put your Twitter name where you have the box for it, by the way, your last post will be spotted near your “hyper” name, and so on, but this will happen only when you pay attention, not when I edit. And you may have a “gravatar” as well, 🙂 , and so on…