I must be blind, but I don't find this film that camp. I actually find it pretty brilliant, a tragedy based entirely around hubris of the worst kind, which uses Hollywood as the fount of a kind of hubris only it can create, separate from government or military or business hubris, but merely the ego of people who sell their identities as actors.
The performance from Stephen Boyd is strong and explosively riveting, but odd, and it's odd because his character Frankie Fain is written in a two-dimensional contradictory way with a lot of violence, but this is an unstable man at his core, a man with no other talent or education, given whatever tickles his fancy. It just doesn't seem possible that this rotten a human could actually be a success with enough charm to be a movie star. However, what's great at the same time about his outrageous rudeness is that it offers great opportunities for people to be hurt, horrified, and in some sick cases, attracted to his ugly decisiveness. It also offers a rare chance for people who aren't intimidated by Fain to openly mock and denigrate him to his face. Fain's character starts out so rude he almost ruins the free break he's getting from a talent scout, but then his rudeness comes across on film as unapologetic manliness, and this is a commodity Hollywood clearly sells, regardless of the man behind the mask. This character was clearly written by someone who was disgusted by some major actor, and is a ruthless direct attack on the hypocrisy of Hollywood stardom.
People mock Tony Bennett's performance here, and he's a bit stiff, but he plays his uncharismatic but devoted friend/servant well. The narration is boilerplate, but functional. Bennett brings the drama numerous times when he has to, especially at the end, and totally saves the film by providing the major sympathetic character, and his pipes sound great yelling instead of singing. Elke Sommer, is gorgeous as a golden foil to Fain's awful character, who also eventually loses faith in Fain at the end. Of course, they had to write that she had trepidation at first, and he manages to gather himself together long enough to woo and marry her, after which point, he treats her so poorly, it's a miracle she stays around at all. However, this is one of the stretchy parts of the plot. Jack Soo plays an excellent supporting role as Fain's live-in butler.
Once the film seems to be achieving a sort of plateau, it jumps up the script with a critical piece of good fortune Fain ruins by a corrupt escalation by Fain by a stealth manipulation of the Hollywood press that makes him even more loathsome. Only an insider could have written this plot twist. The twist is explored in all its horrors, as Fain is openly mocked by his formerly docile manager MIlton Berle, who really twists the knife as he dumps a broke Fain.
Sure, it's camp at times, but the dialog is incredible. Yes, there are some moments of overacting other than just Stephen Boyd, but he really nails a kind of shell of a man who becomes too famous and successful for his own good, someone who becomes famous not for being an artist with talent, but just a man who can be engaging just by being an unpleasant villain on film, as Berle says - playing himself.
Whatever it's faults, I think this film is a unique look into Hollywood, albeit a bit unrealistic in the creation of the Fain character, but completely realistic in how it portrays an empty suit of an actor who bounces around for brief success in a Hollywood system that uses and discards him, just as he does them.
At the end, you pity him even though he's an awful person, (which everyone explains in great gruesome detail) but you actually grow to hate some of the people who claimed to help him, but are really predators themselves. It's a real comment on the general emptiness of Hollywood, but also a very personal warning to anyone who lets their ambition ruin their lives.
The Oscar made me wonder how bitter the screenwriter was who penned it, but also made me really respect the way they pieced it all together, including their biting, rapid but precise dialogue.
I just don't think is really all that camp. The look may be camp because it was shot in 1966, but it looks great. The look and the colors just add to the entertainment value. It is not a 5 out of 10 star film. Def at least a 7.
The performance from Stephen Boyd is strong and explosively riveting, but odd, and it's odd because his character Frankie Fain is written in a two-dimensional contradictory way with a lot of violence, but this is an unstable man at his core, a man with no other talent or education, given whatever tickles his fancy. It just doesn't seem possible that this rotten a human could actually be a success with enough charm to be a movie star. However, what's great at the same time about his outrageous rudeness is that it offers great opportunities for people to be hurt, horrified, and in some sick cases, attracted to his ugly decisiveness. It also offers a rare chance for people who aren't intimidated by Fain to openly mock and denigrate him to his face. Fain's character starts out so rude he almost ruins the free break he's getting from a talent scout, but then his rudeness comes across on film as unapologetic manliness, and this is a commodity Hollywood clearly sells, regardless of the man behind the mask. This character was clearly written by someone who was disgusted by some major actor, and is a ruthless direct attack on the hypocrisy of Hollywood stardom.
People mock Tony Bennett's performance here, and he's a bit stiff, but he plays his uncharismatic but devoted friend/servant well. The narration is boilerplate, but functional. Bennett brings the drama numerous times when he has to, especially at the end, and totally saves the film by providing the major sympathetic character, and his pipes sound great yelling instead of singing. Elke Sommer, is gorgeous as a golden foil to Fain's awful character, who also eventually loses faith in Fain at the end. Of course, they had to write that she had trepidation at first, and he manages to gather himself together long enough to woo and marry her, after which point, he treats her so poorly, it's a miracle she stays around at all. However, this is one of the stretchy parts of the plot. Jack Soo plays an excellent supporting role as Fain's live-in butler.
Once the film seems to be achieving a sort of plateau, it jumps up the script with a critical piece of good fortune Fain ruins by a corrupt escalation by Fain by a stealth manipulation of the Hollywood press that makes him even more loathsome. Only an insider could have written this plot twist. The twist is explored in all its horrors, as Fain is openly mocked by his formerly docile manager MIlton Berle, who really twists the knife as he dumps a broke Fain.
Sure, it's camp at times, but the dialog is incredible. Yes, there are some moments of overacting other than just Stephen Boyd, but he really nails a kind of shell of a man who becomes too famous and successful for his own good, someone who becomes famous not for being an artist with talent, but just a man who can be engaging just by being an unpleasant villain on film, as Berle says - playing himself.
Whatever it's faults, I think this film is a unique look into Hollywood, albeit a bit unrealistic in the creation of the Fain character, but completely realistic in how it portrays an empty suit of an actor who bounces around for brief success in a Hollywood system that uses and discards him, just as he does them.
At the end, you pity him even though he's an awful person, (which everyone explains in great gruesome detail) but you actually grow to hate some of the people who claimed to help him, but are really predators themselves. It's a real comment on the general emptiness of Hollywood, but also a very personal warning to anyone who lets their ambition ruin their lives.
The Oscar made me wonder how bitter the screenwriter was who penned it, but also made me really respect the way they pieced it all together, including their biting, rapid but precise dialogue.
I just don't think is really all that camp. The look may be camp because it was shot in 1966, but it looks great. The look and the colors just add to the entertainment value. It is not a 5 out of 10 star film. Def at least a 7.