Wise Blood (1980)

Touches You

Absolutely the worst movie.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

... if I disliked it so much the first time why did I watch it again? I had to look up something about the story from which this film was adapted to get some things straight. Hazel Motes (Brad Dourif) is returning from the Korean War in the novel. This is never mentioned in the film. Since this film was made in 1979 and people seemed to be wearing the fashions of the 70's in the film, I assumed Hazel was returning from the Vietnam War. Plus when Hazel returns to his family homestead, finding it abandoned and in ruins, there is a headstone that says 1924 -...and the date of death is deliberately covered with weeds. I assumed this was one of Hazel's elders, so it would make sense that they set the film in the present (the 1970's, not the 1950's). But there is one other thing that really bothered me. I was a teenager in the 1970's in the south, and young people did not throw the N-word around like they did in this film. It was considered very backwards and rude among young people by then, although the older folks were a different story. Now back to the movie.The film keeps Hazel's motivations a complete mystery, although he seems to be on some kind of spiritual journey. Because the clothes he bought when he was picking civilian clothes make everyone assume he is a preacher, everybody asks him where he preaches and what he believes, so he is constantly saying he doesn't believe in anything. But it gets his mind on the subject. He notices that everywhere there are slogans about religion. A big neon sign flashes "Jesus cures". There is also a big rock with a Bible verse on it. So Hazel decides to start preaching about founding a "Church Without Christ", and strangely enough he gathers a crowd and even a competitor. He becomes fascinated with a blind preacher and moves into the same rooming house as him, but unfortunately the preacher's daughter becomes fascinated with Hazel.The problem is, Hazel never talks about what he really is after, and on top of that he is completely unlikeable. He never shows a shred of kindness or decency to anybody and may have possibly killed somebody, although that isn't clear, in part because Hazel seems to care so little that he MIGHT have killed this person. He drives away from the scene, unafraid that the guy might be dead and that the police might be after him. The one thing Hazel does believe in? This broken down Edsel that he bought for 250 dollars. He has to jump wire it to start it if it starts at all, water is literally pouring from the radiator, and the tires are bald. He answers everybody who calls it a hunk of junk with "This is a good car!". He has no doubts. He seems as silly and staunch in his belief in this car as he seems to feel others are in their belief in religion. Then one day it is proved that the car is indeed a hunk of junk, and then Hazel's life takes an unexplained turn for the much worse.If you can take a film with absolutely no likable characters, but that takes an unexpected turn at every junction, I'd recommend it. Just be prepared to be very confused and possibly offended.

So John Huston's "Wise Blood" is a cult adaptation of a cult novel, and has a very cult-y feel to it, as in offbeat and satirical.It's also a film with a lot of odd scenarios and very strange, earnest characters that try to reach out to the main character of Hazel Motes. Hazel has just returned from an unspecified war, and has a lot of foul baggage that he carries around from his days as the son of a manic preacher.People try to get to know this defiant, and sometimes irrational man, but the only thing he has on his mind is spreading the idea that people don't need Jesus to save them. The only problem is, he's living in a community where Jesus is the bedrock of every day life."Wise Blood" has a few faults though. Sometimes the characters border on downright irritating, and there seems to be a curious lack of momentum to the story. The filmmakers seemed to dryly interpret the source material, and figured the result would be able to stand on its own. But the viewer is quite often left in the dark to a lot of the events. One part of the climax has a character blinding himself with chemicals, and this should have been the most dramatic part of the story, but is instead almost glossed over so matter-o-factly that it only further alienates the viewer from understanding the character motivations.Believe me, it's a Weird film with a capital W. But from amongst it, the towering Brad Dourif shines in an attention-grabbing role, and he only shows his range and talent as a character actor. There are times when he becomes so fixated with fighting back against those he thinks are 'hypocrites' that he becomes almost frightening. The only problem is that the rest of the film is somewhat lackadaisical about its more disturbing content, and the lassez-faire attitude keeps the audience at arms length throughout.What it lacks in direct punch, "Wise Blood" makes up for as a twisted morality tale on the lengths that religious obsession and guilt will string those along, in this very dark comedy. A low 7 from me.

When novels are adapted by writers who know the book so well that they are unable to see past their familiarity to judgeif the screenplay stands on its own as a cohesive, compelling story with three acts and understandable character motivations, the result is something like John Huston's "Wise Blood." A movie so academically faithful to its source material that it fails miserably as a motion picture that makes any narrative sense.As a companion piece to Flannery O'Connor's novel, it is a fine visual representation of the characters and events recounted. As a stand alone film, it virtually makes no sense and things happen only because the book says so, not because the film gives them any organic reason to.I defy anyone who hasn't read the book to make any sense out of the character of Enoch Emory. Likewise the origins of the matrimonial feelings of the boarding house landlady. Both parts are well acted, but the writers leave in all the novel's "business" and are hamstrung at finding a way to convey the motivations behind them.The best things about the film are Brad Dourif and Amy Wright. Dourif especially works miracles with a character that is underwritten on the screen but vivid on the page. In fact, most of the cast works extremely hard to bring some humanity to their characters, but they are ill-served by a script that fails to understand the special considerations required of telling a story on film and telling one on the page. The screenwriter obviously held O'Connor in such awe that he was afraid to do any thinking on his own.

It's a great character study - in that, it explores what a person becomes if they are a "true idealist". The idea is that we all give up certain ideals every single day in exchange for making our lives more efficient and effective. Where the main character of this story is a solid, immobile foundation of ideals. We see how it slowly corrodes his life, his social connections and affects the people around him. Think about it this way: if you live in a city where you think the MTA charges too much for bus/train fare, but choose to utilize the service because the other options are too hard to follow through with each and everyday, you've essentially given up an ideal. The main character in this movie wouldn't do that, he would walk to his destination or learn to ride a bicycle or what have you. That is, at least, my understanding of this the lead character in this phenomenal movie.