Hurry Down Doomsday (The Bugs are Taking Over)
Bug / Dustin Rowles
I’m not usually one to incorporate man-on-the-street opinions, but since everyone else in my hippie community (and the world at large, no doubt) but myself and one other fella were watching Pirates and the Caribbean today, I must quote my fellow theater-goer, if only because he so succinctly summed up my feelings about Bug (besides, in the legal world, he’d probably warrant an excited utterance to the hearsay exception). As the two of us were leaving the screening, this perfect stranger turned to me and so eloquently expressed what I imagine will take me around a 800 words here to needlessly refine. He simply said:
“That was weird.”
Or, to put it in the words of my old man, after sitting through one of his favorite Troma flicks (if anything, my father instilled in me a healthy endurance): “Duuuuusty, that was one motherfucking trip, son.” And how right he’d be, were he to share that sentiment after sitting through Bug (Ted Logan might also throw in a “Woah!”). I’d have a difficult time otherwise telling you whether Bug was either good or bad, but it was certainly an experience. An interminably long, slow-winding, suffocating descent into tripped-out paranoia. Indeed, Bug is either a hypochondriac’s worst nightmare or wettest dream — it’s hard to say which, but it’s most certainly not summer escapist fare.
Brought to you by director William Friedkin, helming his first decent film since The Exorcist, and made on a meager $4 million budget (none of which, mind you, was wasted on bugs), Bug begins and ends in the same dilapidated motel room (though there are a couple of brief forays outside of it). Ashley Judd, doing her best Juliette Lewis from Kalifornia impression (“Adele, put up ‘dat titty”) plays Agnes White, a white-trash Oklahoman who waits tables at the local small-town lesbian bar (who knew such a thing existed in Oklahoma?). She’s a lonely soul; she smokes 47 cartons of Camels (unfiltered, no doubt) a day and endures the harassment that comes along with once being married to a wife-beating ex-con, recently let out of prison (Harry Connick, doing that creepy thing he did so well in the otherwise tepid Copycat).
Early in the film, she meets Peter Evans (Michael Shannon), a bit of a mild-mannered stray mutt, part Buddhist, part conspiracy theorist, and all out shit-kicking wackjob. The two of them bond over their own miseries; Agnes, a kidnapped child, and Peter a conspiratorial belief that the army is controlling him through electronic-signal transmitting aphids that live under his skin — you know, the usual stuff. And, of course, it’s damn near love at first site for those crazy kids, as they immediately consummate their relationship over cigarettes and the exchange of bodily fluids.
Naturally, the morning after, Peter finds his first insect — sure, it’s invisible to you and I, but in Peter’s mind, this little bed bug is wreaking havoc on his life. And thus begins the plunge into Friedkin’s creepy-crawly hell. Peter convinces the easily persuaded, insanely co-dependent Agnes that the room has been infested, and they spend the rest of the film trying to rid both the room and themselves of those destructive, blood-sucking little critters, going so far as to give the motel room a lovely aluminum foil and fly-paper makeover (Ty Pennington has nothing on Peter Evans).
Based on the off-Broadway play written (and adapted for the screen) by Tracy Letts, Bug does, at times, have a certain stagy feel to it, as though the lines were being delivered on a cheap set in a small auditorium. The acting, too, is wildly overwrought, but I suspect it was intentionally done for effect and, at least on me, it worked. Michael Shannon is absolutely fantastic, morphing from an easy-going weirdo into Brad Pitt’s Twelve Monkeys’ character, only considerably more psychotic and delusional, while Judd effectively plays against type, delivering an almost-but-not-quite laughable neurotically-charged performance.
It’d be easy enough, too, to read a certain political subtext into the film (the destruction that resulted from the non-existent WMDs in Iraq), but I chose to see Bug in a different way, as a not-so-subtle satire on government conspiracy theories. In fact, there are moments in the film that might’ve been otherwise hilarious if not for the grim, despairing nature of it all (in a certain context, I suspect, the same could be said of Linda Blair projectile spewing split-pea soup in The Exorcist). It’s not, either, the bloody horror flick that the advertisements portend — the terror of Bug is more psychological in nature, which is not to suggest that it doesn’t have its fair share of blood. Indeed, there is probably little else as cringe-inducingly horrific as watching a man stare into a mirror and pull out his own molars with a pair of pliers, a scene that had both me and my fellow movie-goer pressed into the backs of our seats, as if trying to escape the projector screen.
Still, Bugs is an awfully hard sell on a Memorial Day weekend, when most of you would probably rather watch Johnny Depp’s swordplay and Keira Knightley play the xylophone on her clavicle, but if you’re aiming for a trip into delusional paranoia, Bug will do the trick. And man alive: It is weird.
Dustin Rowles is the publisher of Pajiba. He lives with his wife in Ithaca, New York. You may email him, or leave a comment below.
American Idol Takes Back | | Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End |
Comments
Hoooo-rayyyy, we thought you'd abandoned us for the weekend!
Would it be fair to say that Ashley has stopped doing formulaic tripe and took a part in something adventurous?
Posted by: socalledonlycousins at May 25, 2007 3:21 PM
It sounds like I should avoid watching this movie on drugs. Or maybe with more drugs than normal. I can't decide which now.
Probably more.
Posted by: alex at May 25, 2007 4:01 PM
Sounds great. Friedkin is the man. And, you are wrong: "His first decent film since The Exorcist"? To Live and Die in LA was a five star movie. You either haven't seen it, or didn't like it?! In either case, you suck.
Posted by: Daniel G. Titus at May 25, 2007 4:09 PM
So you liked it? I can't tell.
The one thing I hate in reviews of films adapted from plays is the "It feels like a play" argument that gets tossed around far too easily, as if a play is somehow inferior to a film. Because clearly, Shakespeare wrote crap like Romeo and Juliet and Richard III while Hollywood consistently produces gold like Shrek the Third and Norbit. Nice to see that this review mentions how the stagey elements and "overwrought" (I'll be seeing it tomorrow, but judging by how I normally react to play to film translations, I'll see nothing overdone or exaggerated about the performances) performances were an intentional decision used to good effect.
Posted by: Robert at May 25, 2007 4:16 PM
Oh, man. I'm tempted to give it a shot, except I'm a total wuss and probably will see PotC 3 this weekend. I have no shame.
And Robert, for the most part, I don't think anyone really means to insinuate that plays are inferior to film when they say that at all. Stage acting and film acting are just different. On stage, you have to project everything to the very back of a room, but on film with a camera shoved in people's faces, subtlety best conveys things. That's all. I don't think that anyone ever really means that one is better than the other, just that what works in one doesn't always work in the other, sometimes quite obviously. It's all about translating from one to another.
Posted by: annie at May 25, 2007 4:30 PM
So, I work for a theatre company, and we considered doing Bug a couple seasons ago, so I read it for my boss and I to discuss (before it got the axe).
When I saw the preview for this, I barely recognized it as the same concept.
I am, therefore, terribly glad to hear that it's not the torture-porn gorefest advertised, and that it kept the freaky-deaky psychological shite I loved so much about the play.
I might even enjoy it - if I can make it through the molar thing. I had carefully put that out of my memory until just now...
Posted by: Tammy at May 25, 2007 4:31 PM
D-Tit: fucking love William Peterson in that movie, and Willem Dafoe is always more fun as a creepy bad guy. I just watched that the other night on Encore or something. But take it easy on the Duster, dude.
Robert: My perception is that people make the "stagey" comment because the two media don't cross-pollinate that well, not because plays are inferior. Attending a play in person, where there's rarely not a sense of watching someone act, is just such a different experience from seeing a film, where the production is usually designed to immerse one in a simulation of real-life. For whatever reason, watching a video or film of a play being put on is usually not that enjoyable, at least for me, though watching a play live can be really powerful and moving.
Posted by: socalledonlycousins at May 25, 2007 4:36 PM
I saw Bug twice at the Barrow Street Theater in NYC with Michael Shannon and the superb Shannon Cochran as Agnes. I'm so glad Michael Shannon got to stay on as Peter, but though we all understand the box office decision to cast Ashely Judd, who I rather like, you just shoulda seen Shannon Cochran deliver the "I'm the SUPER-MOTHER!!!" monologue.
It REALLY works as a play. The show was hearbreaking, and scary, AND hilarious, which just works better live.
Posted by: annienanners at May 25, 2007 5:08 PM
I remember seeing the trailer for this maybe like 6 months ago, and just the trailer creeped me out of my jockeys. Harry Connick Jr does play the creepy role relatively well (strange from a lounge singer) and its good to see Ashley Judd back from chick-flick Hell. Considering my penchant for weirdness in my movies (like The Science of Sleep) I'm gonna have to make sure I catch this one.
Posted by: Rich at May 25, 2007 5:12 PM
I hear you all on the stagey isn't necessarily an insult, especially around these parts (thank God for Pajiba), but it is used a lot to try and put down a film just because it came from a play. It was tossed around a whole lot with last years film version of The History Boys, which was very nicely adapted for the screen by going well beyond the capabilities of a stage production; same thing happened with The Producers (ok, I see the staging comment there, nothing too new was done with it) and Closer (where reviewers consistently complained that everything from staging to dialogue to performances was far too stagey).
It just comes across sometimes as film being perceived better than theater, since for a lot of critics and film goers, if it started out as a play, it wasn't meant to be a film. Which isn't always the case.
Posted by: Robert at May 25, 2007 7:22 PM
The Terminix banner ad at the bottom of this review was very reassuring.
Posted by: Seth Brundle at May 25, 2007 7:43 PM
Robert -
Of course film is superior to the stage. That's because the theater is pretentious and bor-ing. Stop whining and go complain about "stagy" references on mytweedjacket.com or masterthespian.org. ACTING!
Posted by: Mike at May 25, 2007 9:05 PM
Ok, Mike, I snorked gin out my nose over "mytweedjacket.com," and that fucking stings.
Posted by: socalledonlycousins at May 25, 2007 9:19 PM
'Sounds great. Friedkin is the man. And, you are wrong: "His first decent film since The Exorcist"? To Live and Die in LA was a five star movie. You either haven't seen it, or didn't like it?! In either case, you suck.'
yeah, Dustin, come on...you SUCK.
geez...friedkin's body of work has been so, well, SOLID since "The Exorcist" that i can't BELIEVE you somehow insinuated that he hasn't had a decent flick since 1973.
actually, KIDDING, of course, because "To Live and Die in L.A." was pretty decent but to be honest, "Sorcerer" was his best movie post-"Exorcist". so Daniel G. is a douchebag (oh yeah, and he 'SUCKS'!!) for getting worked up over a Wang Chung-scored decent-but-not-great mid-80's cop flick, but forgetting the tense, "Wages of Fear" tribute/remake that really showed Friedkin has directing chops.
and come on, Dustin, what's with the pussiness towards removing molars? i do it daily and it doesn't faze me. you have really lost your edge. maybe i was wrong about Daniel G.--perhaps with you overlooking "Sorcerer" and your aversion to tooth extraction, perhaps you do, in fact, SUCK. (!!!!)
(just kidding, of course).
long live pajiba.
seacrest out (of the closet).
Posted by: idiot dentist at May 26, 2007 3:28 AM
oh, and Dustin...I have to call you out on your misquote from "Kalifornia":
it's actually..."Put your titty up, Adele."
sorry to call you out, but titty quotes must be accurate.
Posted by: idiot dentist at May 26, 2007 3:30 AM
Until I read this review, I was fairly certain that this movie involved crystal meth, simply because all the action shown in the trailers/previews involved extremely paranoid and yell-y people screaming at each other in a hotel room covered in tin foil. And, after reading this review, I'd have to say that this movie still might function as a drug-free commentary on the inherent craziness of that particular drug. Paranoia, strangers, foil covered hotels, we've all been there..... right?
But I will definetly be checking this one out regardless. Movies that leave me with a "huh" feeling are by far my favorite movies.
Posted by: Dickless Joe at May 26, 2007 11:23 AM
"...besides, in the legal world, he'd probably warrant an excited utterance to the hearsay exception "
Thanks Dusty. I was trying to get away from bar review for Memorial Day weekend. Who knew I'd be smacked in the face with Evidence on a casual visit to Pajiba?
Posted by: katiekate at May 26, 2007 12:54 PM
So, I just saw the film, and I take back what I said about the whole stagey issue - the performances, except for Ashley Judd, really were. I bought them because I was raised in theater, I live for it. And actually, the stage style really matched up well with Friedkin's direction, so I'm going to say it was deliberately used for effect. It was sort of distancing and attention-grabbing at the same time, which really brought in the focus towards what was happening rather than what was being said or done.
It makes more sense in the film. Easily the best I've seen all year, and will probably be in my top 10 at the very least.
Posted by: Robert at May 26, 2007 5:17 PM
I was ambivalent about seeing this movie based on the trailer. So many shitty horror flicks have decent trailers. When I saw it I made a mental note to wait for the review on this site before I made a decision to see it. It sounds like a great movie for a horror fan like myself. I'll probably wait until it comes out on DVD though. Watching a movie in my dark house out in the dark farmland where I live is much creepier than watching it in a movie theater where I know nothing can get me because of all the other people around. Oh, did I really type that? My crazy is showing. ;-)
Posted by: stardust savant at May 26, 2007 6:05 PM
Girl three rows below me, speaking for everyone in the theater as we filed out... "I can't believe I sat through that."
I can envision why it may have worked on stage, but without the distance, seeing bug boy do his best A Scanner Darkly freakout was just absurd and barely watchable.
Posted by: wooderson at May 28, 2007 5:44 PM
This had to be the WORST MOVIE EVER!! Do not go watch it. Save your money and do not waste your time. Nothing else to say. I am still in shock on how bad this movie really was. Thanks!
Posted by: Patricio R at May 28, 2007 11:02 PM
did not expect this at all. now i am intrigued. the only way to settle this is to actually see this movie. damn it all to hell...
Posted by: david at May 29, 2007 12:14 PM
Saw this on stage a few years ago and found it creepy but well-done. (Kudos to the actors for being fearlessly nude much of the time; they were not especially young.) The characters struck me as quite plausible; the woman reminded me a lot of someone I knew who'd had a hard upbringing and a couple of abusive marriages. And of course there are plenty of paranoid nutcases wandering around who can be charming and intriguing at first.
Posted by: DCgirl at May 29, 2007 3:44 PM
KatieKate - which bar exam? You poor thing. When I'm facing my darkest hours at work, I often think to myself "Well, at least I'll never have to take the bar exam again."
You'll pass.
Posted by: Samantha T at May 29, 2007 5:28 PM
Worst fucking movie of all time.
Posted by: Stacey at June 1, 2007 12:19 AM
Best horror film since The Descent.
In an age of throwaway torture porn its a pleasure to see a horror movie that engages the mind as well as viscera. The paranoia is palpable, the conspiracy labyrinth, the acting gutsy and approriately excessive. If this has influence on the genre comparable to The Exorcist then we may expect great improvements in the months to come. Highly recommended.
Posted by: chris at June 12, 2007 12:29 PM
