Home
sign up| features / film interview |
 content by: editor |
 factotum interviews
 to access audio and video on collective you need real player.Matt Dillon, perfectly cast as a hopeless drifter. Matt Dillon may not at first glance seem like the obvious choice to play Charles Bukowski’s alter ego, Henry Chinaski, in Bent Hamer’s Factotum. Bukowski is all about the underworld, the grimy side of life, a man living on the poverty line. Dillon used to play these roles as a teenager, but for a long time now he’s played on his image as a dumb movie star in There’s Something About Mary and One Night At McCool’s.  Look back, though, at his work in Rumble Fish, Drugstore Cowboy, To Die For and his directorial debut, City Of Ghosts, and it becomes clear that Dillon is a far better and more cerebral actor than he’s ever given credit for. Even director Bent Hamer had to think again: “If someone had told me that Matt Dillon would play him [Chinaski], I would have said no way… I was thinking about a young Matt Dillon, which I really love, and he did a lot of good films in this teen genre. So I tried to get back to the old Matt and the sensibility that he has in his old movies. He has a lot of humour. I think that was the key, we have to find the references that are similar to Bukowski.”  And Dillon turns out to be an excellent Bukowski. He doesn’t attempt mimicry, but looks for the essence of a man who puts his writing above having a life mollified by surface pleasures. Dillon says, “I’m such a different physical type, and I knew this would not be the type of film where we’d be looking to do a lot of external prosthetics to make me look like Bukowski or anything like that. Bukowski wasn’t interested in external beauty and I don’t think he was interested in the material world. To live this life he had, he made sacrifices. For me, what was important was to capture the essence of who this guy was.” And in doing so, he’s also managed to change the perception of Matt Dillon, the actor.
Kaleem Aftab
Factotum, on national release 18 November 05.
 comments
Read members' comments related to this film.
comment by rowan
Nov 23, 2005
...about before they click on it)
comment by raspin
Nov 23, 2005
I must disagree. If they were doing "Ham On Rye" then maybe. In that book Chinaski suffers terribly with his disfigurement. But in this book there is no mention of his scarring. And Bukowski was disfigured but not necessarily ugly. The two are not synonymous. Dillon's resemblance is one of general facial structure, but more importantly facial expression and manner. Dillon did a fine job. I found him convincing and good to look at. I feel that if they'd chosen an actor who was very unattractive it would have taken attention away from the important element of his behaviour, which is really what this book was about - not how he looked.
comment by whitney
Nov 23, 2005
I don't know, I'm not convinced. I like Matt Dillon and all, but Bukowski (and alter-ego Henry) are ugly and suffer from skin conditions, etc. Matt Dillon is well, Matt Dillon. He's a great actor, but he's still nice to look at.
comment by raspin
Nov 22, 2005
The choice of Matt Dillon was a stroke of genius. The similarity to Bukowski was striking, which seemed an impossibility when you look at Dillon's career. To see unadulterated Chinaski on the big screen is a real pleasure. This has all the potential to be a classic. Long live Bukowski! Oops.
|
 |
related info
 useful links
note: The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
books  books and comics archive Author interviews and reviews from 2002 to 2008. |
send to a friend
lff 05
access 1000s of articles
