The Bonfire of the Vanities
Tags: revenge, comedy, satire

Plot synopsis:
New York City, 1985. Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) is a financial wünderkid who is about to earn a million dollars through a bonds scheme. His life looks perfect. His wife Judy (dark-haired Kim Cattrall) is a bit eccentric and posh, but she plays the perfect-mother-and-wife game to their only daughter Campbell (Kirsten Dunst). Unknown to his loyal wife, Sherman is having an affair with Maria Ruskin (Melanie Griffith). She's a Southern belle gold digger who enjoys using her sexual charms to get what she wants, and got married to a wealthy old man.However, all hell breaks loose one dark night when Sherman and Maria are going out. She's returning from an overseas business trip and while driving her back to her Manhattan apartment from New York's J.F.K. Airport, they take a wrong turn, exiting on the Long Island Expressway and the end up lost in a drug-filled "war zone" area of South Bronx. After finding a ramp leading back onto the expressway, they find the ramp blocked by debris. Against Maria's advice, Sherman gets out of the car to clear the debris from the ramp when he is approached by two black youths whom presumably are coming to rob him. Seeing the two thugs approaching Sherman, Maria gets behind the wheel of the car and drives off in a panic and runs over a teenager who happened to be passing by. Sherman begins to attack one of the black youths while the other one flees. Having cleared the ramp, Sherman returns to the car. Maria wants to leave the place as soon as possible, so they leave the wounded boy on the street. Sherman and Maria drive away and make it back to Manhattan where they swear not to report the incident to anyone.The black teenager who was run over, Henry Lamb (Patrick Malone), is found and taken to a nearby hospital, where he falls into a coma. Soon after, the investigation of Henry's accident begins. The hot-tempered local community leader, Reverend Beacon (John Hancock) threatens to create a "Bronx uprising" (a race riot) if the police don't find the "rich white man" who ran over an "innocent black teenager". The reasons for Beacon's involvement is that he merely wants to stir up popular feelings to cause unrest and tension by claiming that Henry's case is a case of institutional racism in America.Under severe pressure, NYPD Detectives Martin and Goldberg (Barton Heyman and Norman Parker) investigate all cars which look like the runaway car that was described by various witnesses to the accident. They finally check on Sherman, who refuses to let them see his car, and because of that, he pinpoints himself as a suspect. As a result he gets arrested. Sherman spends a long and demoralizing night in jail (where he presumably gets beaten and harassed by fellow detainees). At his courtroom arraignment the next morning, Sherman is so dehumanized from his experience that he can barely speak in court. Sherman's lawyer Tom Killian (Kevin Dunn) enters a not guilty plea on his behalf.The prosecutor, Jed Kramer (Saul Rubinek), is very interested in putting Sherman in jail to begin his political career with a strong aim at rich people, gaining the popular favor for himself. Against Kramer's protest, Sherman is released on bail pending a probable cause hearing to begin the following week.Meanwhile, Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis) is an always-drunk, good-for-nothing journalist who is forced to investigate the matter in order to ingratiate himself with his boss. Reverend Beacon is interested in stirring popular feelings as well, claiming that Henry's hit-and-run case is being used politically, as the Jewish district attorney Abe Weiss (F. Murray Abraham), who is the Bronx District Attorney seeking re-election, wants to ingratiate himself with the black community in the area. According to Judge Leonard White (Morgan Freeman), almost all of D.A. Weiss' prosecutions end up with black and Puerto Rican defendants going to prison and Weiss is seeking a white defendant for purposes of convincing the community that he is worth re-electing.Following Sherman's release on bail, Fallow follows him from the courthouse and onto a local subway train where he interacts with Sherman (without telling him that he is a journalist) to try to get him to open up with facts about the case. Sherman tells Fallow that he was there on that night but was not the one driving the car. Fallow is very surprised, but Sherman gets off the train before Fallow can ask him anymore questions.Sherman goes to Maria to plead with her to come forward in order to admit to driving the car that put the black teenager in the hospital, but she wants to be left out of the problem. She's married to a wealthy older man named Arthur Ruskin (Alan King), who allows her to have her freedom and plenty of money as a trophy wife. She sublets an apartment to her friend Caroline Heftshank (Beth Broderick), whom Fallow is currently dating. It's a rent-controlled flat, so Caroline and Maria are being investigated by the authorities in order to prove that Caroline doesn't live there. Maria has several mics (bugs) put around her flat.Fallow talks to Arthur Ruskin in at a luxurious restaurant about the Sherman case and about Maria's involvment with Sherman. They drink a lot, and Fallow tries to get some information from Maria's husband. Ruskin dies from a heart-attack on the spot, creating a commotion at the snobbish restaurant.Meanwhile, Henry's mother, Annie Lamb (Mary Alice) wants to go out and buy new clothes for herself. Suddenly, she looks more interested in making the most of the situation than to be with her son in hospital. Beacon accepts the idea. Annie sues the hospital because they're not giving proper care to Henry, who still remains in a coma. Reverend Beacon and Kramer meet with Mrs. Lamb where they try to persuade her to testify against Sherman as they work behind the scenes to frame Sherman for the hit-and-run to further advance their own careers... as well as look good in front of the TV news cameras.Elsewhere, Sherman, who used to consider himself a "master of the universe," now is without a job. In just one day, he gets fired because his employers do not want any bad publicity for their firm. That evening, he arrives home for a party he had forgotten about. Judy angrily tells him that she's leaving him and is taking their daughter with her because Judy also believes the biased news stories about him committing the hit-and-run. Just then, Sherman's landlord enters and wants him out of the building as soon as possible, because several black people are demonstrating outside the building, and they look like a lynch mob, which is bad publicity for the building and disturbs the wealthy tenants. Sherman suffers a nervous breakdown and he starts shooting a shotgun at the walls of the apartment. Everybody leaves in a panic.Kramer is trying to play both sides: he puts microphones on both Maria and Sherman, in order that the recording proves which one of them was driving the car at the moment of the hit-and-run. Sherman and Maria secretly meet at the funeral of Maria's husband, but she seems adamant to have sex. Sherman can't believe it, but as usual, he's weak with her and was going to fall for it. However, she rejects him when she feels the microphone hidden under his clothes.Sherman has lost everything, but at least his visiting father (Donald Moffat) backs him up somehow, telling him that he loves and will always support him while they are talking Sherman's now empty executive home.Meanwhile, Fallow, who used to be a downtrodden loser a few days ago, feels pity for Sherman, who is losing everything and can't even prove that he's innocent. In a restaurant gathering with some fellow newspaper-related people, Caroline approaches him, telling him that she's lost her flat because of Maria's inability to stay silent. The mic audio recordings have proved that Caroline didn't really live in the flat, subletting it with black money. Fallow talks to the guy who had put the microphones (Vito D'Ambrosio), and comes to know the truth. Fallow aquires the recordings and then gives them to Sherman.In court at Sherman's probable cause hearing, Judge Leonard White tries to control the proceedings, so that there are no political demonstrations. Maria is taken to the stand, where she lies by saying that Sherman was driving the car, acting as an all-innocent widow. Kramer had given her immunity in order to frame Sherman, also threatening her with falsely charging her with perjury if she does not testify against him. Without even telling his lawyer, Sherman plays the recording Fallow had given him. In it, Maria admits she was the one who had been driving Sherman's car that notorious evening, and also mocks her own late husband. She faints on the stand from this turn of events.It works. Judge White has to stop the proceedings when Kramer tries to snatch the mini-tape recorder out of Sherman's hands. Kramer and Sherman's lawyer, Killian, approach the bench because of the new evidence. Sherman lies by asserting that the tape is all his (making it admissible evidence and it is technically truthful since it refers only to the dummy tape he was holding and ignores the real tape that is hidden which is not his).The courtroom spectators go in an uproar, to which Judge White responds by launching a tirade, stating that they have no right to act self-righteous and smarmy, or above Sherman, considering Reverend Beacon claims to help disadvantaged black New Yorkers but actually engages in race baiting, or that the District Attorney Weiss pushed this case not in the interest of contempt from justice but in the public opinion, in order to appeal to voters from minorities, in order to further his political career, appealing to their desire to "get even". Judge White dismisses the case because of decency and truth, in which nobody is interested. Sherman is free to go.Through all of this, Fallow is watching everything while standing annoymously among a group of reporters. As a triumphant and relived Sherman leaves the courtroom with his lawyer, amind the black spectators who continue to yell and insult him, Fallow states in voice-over: "And that was the last time anyone saw or heard of Sherman McCoy". After this, Sherman left New York City and was never publicly seen or heard of again, presumably to live humbly in another state or even in another country in obscurity.In the final scene, set five years later in 1990, there is a large audience applauding Peter Fallow's premiere of his very first book titled Bonfire of the Vanities. Reverend Beacon, Jed Kramer, DA Weiss, Tom Killian, Judge White, Caroline, Annie Lamb, and the rest of people who had something to do with the case (except for Sherman McCoy) are in attendance. In a final voice-over, Fallow states that he never saw Sherman McCoy again, but quotes a well-known Bible verse from the Book of Mark, Chapter 8, Verse 36: "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, but lose his own soul?" Fallow says that Sherman lost everything to gain his soul. Fallow says of himself that he has gained everything but... (he doesn't finish the sentence. It's implied that he has sold his soul to the system in order to become successful).Fallow says that there are always compensations to selling one's soul for success. He stands up and takes an the award he's given concerning the book he wrote about Sherman's case.

Review: After giving us two excellent films - "The Untouchables" and "Casualties of War" director and auteur Brian De Palma tried to get the masters degree on major filmmaking with the very complex best-selling novel by Tom Wolfe.
After confessing that the director he admires in a most intimate way is Stanley Kubrick, Brian De Palma uses the witty Tom Wolfe novel as the story he needs to imitate one of his most admired masters.The result is an excessive but funny satire.
It is certainly underwritten, overacted and overdirected but, still, De Palma shows once again a great visual style and a wild sense of humour which makes us laugh several times.Perhaps, De Palma should have remembered that such a witty and complex story has to be told seriously with the apparent simplicity and hidden complexity he reached in "Casualties of War", without trying to underline with the direction that every scene is supposed to be funny.
Those strange camera angles taken from Kubrick nuclear satire do not work here and the characters are too exaggerated  -Jean Renoir said that each character has some reasons and here,if De Palma had tried harder not only to criticize but to understand them, it would have been a much more effective film- and being both a Kubrick and a De Palma fan, I think that Kubrick influence was not good at all here.
Moments like the initial shot, Alan King's speech, Clifton James,Donald Moffat or Andre Gregory performances -even the Morgan Freeman final scene, which De Palma did not like and is really good, reminding me of Capra, something extremely difficult in such a cynical decade- are not easy to forget.It is not often to find such a complex and interesting film.
This is something dramatists do to make some of their social opinions seem less controversial since they are being spouted by a man of colour in a white forum.)On par with His Girl Friday and The Sweet Smell of Success, and possessing an oddball universe Preston Sturges would've been proud of creating, this film is all the more powerful when you actually live in a world kind of like this (and I meet these kinds of people all the time - this is REAL!).PS - Half an hour was lopped off by the studio after disasterous preview screenings.
I read the novel after seeing the film, and I agree the book has some charms the movie doesn't catch, but Tom Hanks does a fine job as Sherman McCoy, the Wall Street whiz kid who suddenly decides to be a moral person and is caught up in the racial politics and journalistic mendacity of New York.
The Bonfire of the Vanities is, however, funny in parts, poignant in parts, and entertaining throughout.The protagonist is Sherman McCoy, a man whose one fatal flaw (an affair we know of from the beginning) leads to the downfall from his envious position as a "Master of the Universe."  Tom Hanks gives an excellent performance and shows real emotion in bringing this highly plausible character to life.
From the "assistant DA" looking for recognition to the "hymie racist" angling for the office of mayor to the "good reverend" looking for sympathy for his people (and a payday) to Fallow trying to save his career to McCoy's lawyer who has to patiently deal with his naive client who doesn't grasp that his life is insignificant to all those who somehow have generated a vested interest in his demise...I got the message, it didn't take me the 6 hours or two days (or however long it would take me to make time to read the book), and I had some fun..
It's been a long time since I read the book or saw the movie, but the casting in this film was all wrong.
Hanks is too likable to play any of the characters in this film, I had Bruce Willis pictured as Sherman McCoy more than the drunken yellow journalist, and Kim Cattrell, who plays Sherman's wife, doesn't look like the matronly 40 year old and barely tolerated wife of anybody in 1990.
so where did that rating come from?bruce willis was just fine in this character (a'la "nobody's fool"), tom hanks was his usual fine self, melanie griffith was excellent, morgan freeman very excellent, the supporting cast very supporting, the story line entertaining, good directing, excellent photography, it moved along nicely, and, of course, the morality component -- which is what it was all about in the first place.morgan freeman's speech alone is worth the price of admission.rent this movie and if you don't enjoy it, please rsvp that you will NOT be attending my next dinner parte'sometimes i think most of the folks who pen these tomes are either frustrated movie critics (comparing kubrick to you-name-him/her) or just frustrated homo sapiens.stuff a sock in it and get a life.
But it is Bruce Willis' performance that holds everything together and he really shines here - in fact his performance is quite compassionate at a certain point showing a side of him I did not think existed -although I'm a great fan of his comedy work especially Death Becomes Her - for the life of me I will never understand why this film bombed as loudly as it did - maybe it ruffled too many of those bleeding heart liberal feathers in LaLaLand!.
Murray Abraham, and Morgan Freeman are either totally wasted or given roles that are mere caricatures.There is enough topical material here for a truly great film satire, but it fails to come even close..
Bruce Willis is weak, Tom Hanks is somewhat flat as Sherman McCoy. De Palma was perhaps too ambitious to condense a large book into a slick film.
This movie, like Hollywood Shuffle, was way ahead of its time.Like most accurate and truthful books and films, they are rarely appreciated in their day because the brutal honesty and truthfulness of what they have to say is too painful to openly accept and admit.
Every character is interesting and well played.Tom Hanks is especially likable as Sherman McCoy. Morgan Freeman plays the judge with sarcasm and wit, entertaining in this minor role.
Well done De Palma and team for bringing Tom Wolfe's huge novel to the screen.Friday, April 19, 1991 - Knox District CentreGreat plot and characters one can really get involved with (and enjoy watching) make De Palma's film enjoyable a second time.
Murray Abraham, Tom Hanks, and Morgan Freeman) and all three give breathtaking actor performances.....anyone who cares for fine movie actor work cannot afford to miss this great movie.The direction by Brian DiPalma is brilliant, starting with the camera panorama sweeping across nighttime Manhattan from the top of the Chrysler Building with closeups of it's gargoyles, and ending with great elegant tuxedo and gowns for the ladies crowd scene of astonishing elegance and pomp made even greater by the background music (the music in this film is one of it's many great assets).DiPalma's used of "fish eye" lenses for closeups of three of the movie's lovable villains (the best movies always have lovable villains, at least the best comedies do) in the final courtroom scene is inspired.....Brian DiPalma is one of the great directors of the 20th century in USA major movies.The set decoration is especially notable.The late Lillian Gish (1893 - 1993, an iconic movie star who lived to her 100th year, was the star of D.
W Griffiths's "Birth Of A Nation" 1915 classic and later, at age 94, the star of "The Whales Of August" 1987 along with Bette Davis) opined during an interview seen in the documentary she was part of about the history of USA silent era movies (titled "Hollywood: The Silent Era" 1980 written and directed by Kevin Brownlow) that: "The movies of the silent era during the 1920's 'age of motion picture palaces on Broadway NYC and elsewhere' taught people good manners, elegance and good taste....those movies did a world of good, socially." People who want to see what good taste looks like, and how well mannered people trained and disciplined in good etiquette behave under pressure should see "Bonfire Of The Vanities" (1990) again and again and again.The set decorations tell the "good taste" story in wonderful (and expensive) detail, and the script showing well educated, well mannered people speaking up and speaking out tells the "good taste" story verbally.The irony is that this brilliant movie was widely accounted a failure by many associated with it.Academy Award Winner actor F.
The film suffers not merely from the miscasting of everyman Tom Hanks as an uncaring Yuppie, Kewpie-doll Melanie Griffith as a manipulative southern belle and Bruce Willis (?!) as the darling of New York's literati.
The characters are very thin and there seems to be no empathy for anyone in this movie and for a comedy or a satire there arent a lot of laughs either..Melanie Griffith had her breasts done during filming so a fun thing to do is to see if her boobs change size during different parts of the film..This will keep your mind off other things like the lack of script or humor..
And I've been through everything: De Palma's film; Wolfe's novel and Julie Salamon's amazing book about the making of the film, the excellent "The Devil's Candy" - the latter one makes me feel truly sorry about all the obstacles faced by the production and how the road to make a hit depends on people who know squat about movies (but somehow they're the ones with the money and power - which kinda reflects the movie's story itself about people who make nothing but gets loads of money for something).Aside from the obvious facts like adapting a masterful novel of epic proportions and turning into a 2-hour movie (impossible feat considering the many plot points, characters and enormous details), they didn't stand a chance with anything.
Disgraced journalist Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis) gets his golden ticket while covering the story of Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks), a great Wall Street trader involved in a hit-and-run accident that sent a black kid to the hospital.
Gargoyles-like characters enter the scene from lawyers, prosecutors to tycoons and figures of the high society and also some less fortunate ones who'll turn McCoy's life into a descent to hell and elevate an opportunist to a massive stardom.The film detractors who know the book aren't wrong when they say the film lacks in bite, Wolfe's eye for detail and descriptions couldn't be exactly translated specially his sarcastic tone about characters based on real figures and the cynicism about them.
But it's a funny film and I always get my fair share of laughter - Melanie Griffith is quite flawed but she pronounces Sherman's name exactly like Maria does in the book ("Shamann"); the scenes with Kevin Dunn as Hanks' lawyer are priceless just as Saul Rubinek as the district attorney.Despite the errors and difficulties, "The Bonfire of the Vanities" will find a little place in the spotlight for the ones who appreciate an interesting story filled with humor, drama and even minor tension.
It doesn't justify much of the money spent in its production, a lot could be reduced but De Palma managed to make a more than decent film, one that stays with you due to some good acting (Willis is hilarious and Hanks tries some dramatic chops for the first time); amazing cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond and Eric Schwab (assistant director who captured the two most beautiful images from the film - also the most difficult ones); the unusual angles filmed from above that give a uneasy sensation we're flying above those ruthless characters.
"The Bonfire Of The Vanities" is an underrated gem directed by Brian DePalma (Scarface), and featuring an all-star cast including Academy Award winners Tom Hanks (Big, Forrest Gump), Morgan Freeman (Driving Miss Daisy), F.
For Bonfire of the Vanities has a sumptuous cast list, and amongst the mis-casting (Hanks, Willis - there go your two main characters) and the simply bad (step forward Melanie Griffith), there was always going to be one who nailed down one of Wolfe's creations.
She was writing an article on the movie during pre-production, saw where things were headed, and stuck around to document it.For those who want to see how money and self-hypnosis can corrupt the film-making process it's a worthwhile, if sad, read.Wisely, Tom Wolfe refrained from commenting on the whole sordid pile of stink that his novel had become.
That's why so many people give this film low ratings.It isn't "Politically Correct".Hell it even has Geraldo Rivera in a few scenes promoting the Al Sharpton type character to further his Liberal Politics and news "career".How more true-to-Life can you get?Tom Hanks did a very decent job in his role as the sheep being fed to the hungry wolves to get the Ultra-Liberal District Atty.
First of all, to declare my colours, I am not a great fan of Tom Wolfe's writing style but I thoroughly enjoyed "Bonfire of the Vanities" and consider it one of the better American novels of the end of the 20th century.
(Check it out on Amazon; the book follows chronologically the film's production from the beginning to the end.) Since the movie is so bad, you're not going to enjoy watching it anyway.
But Tom Wolfe was probably compensated quite well for this one, so I'm supposing he isn't crying too hard.This movie reminds me of another great book that was sullied by Bruce Willis: Breakfast of Champions.
Sherman is unlikeable and weak-willed but in no way the 'master of the universe' that he dubs himself, more like a weedy kid.Melanie Griffiths does a good job of playing his mistress, dumb blonde Maria, but the character is entirely unlikeable (this is a pretty bad film as far as female parts go- there's nothing for either her or Kim Cattrell as Sherman's wife to work with), a whiny Southern gal.The plot is that Sherman and Maria take a wrong turn and end up in the Bronx, where Maria accidentally runs down a young black teenager.
Uproar in the community ensues (very quiet uproar as the black characters are kept firmly in the background) and opportunistic journalist Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis, again doing nothing remarkable with his role) sees a chance for a good story.There's lots of scenes where people are just standing around having not very interesting conversations- a sure fire way to kill a film with a running time of two hours.
Before I watched The Bonfire of the Vanities, I read Tom Wolfe's novel and Julie Salamon's The Devil's Candy which was about the making of the movie Maybe this colored my perception of the movie, but I think the movie stands in its own right, and didn't deserve the trashing by critics.
Asking nice guy Tom Hanks to portray an arrogant, insensitive Wall Street yuppie ruined by a hit-and-run accident in the Bronx was a bad enough decision, but rewriting characters just to accommodate Bruce Willis (a jaded English journalist?) and Morgan Freeman (a fiery Jewish judge?) renders most of Wolfe's intended satire meaningless.
It is a tremendous book, a razor-sharp satire and dark human tragic-comedy where everyone is unlikeable, and yet by a certain point the person who should be most unlikeable and unsympathetic, Sherman McCoy, the Wall-Street Bond Trader who is brought in on charges of reckless endangerment for his car running over a black honor student, ironically becomes a little more sympathetic (or just understandable and human, is perhaps the point).Seeing the movie with someone who hasn't read the book, however, is a valuable experience, and the friend I watched it with confirmed my own thoughts: the movie isn't so terrible as to completely throw on the heap of directorial toxic-sludge (it doesn't come close to, say, Godard's King Lear as a cinematic cluster-f***), and some of the performances are actually good or at least decent- SOME being a key word here- but it's also confused and baffling, and not very funny most of the time.
It's at least never boring; Tom Hanks, though just a few years shy young to play McCoy as written in the book, does have his moments where he gets to shine as an actor, and is even really funny a few times (my favorite scenes in the movie have him in it, one where he's interrogated by the detectives and bumbles it completely with the word 'routine', and the other when he unloads his twelve-gage rifle with total abandon around his bemused dinner guests, hilarious, perhaps, just seeing Hanks doing this).
Even if everything else worked great in Bonfire of the Vanities, Willis, his acting and the character as a whole, would make the film flawed on its own.
Reading a book is a waste of time when there is an excellent movie like this.
The complete failure of the film may be somewhat cruel and not wholly deserved, but De Palma goes for all-out comedy, failing to grasp Wolfe's subtle satire completely.Tom Hanks plays self-styled 'master of the universe' Sherman McCoy, a Wall Street broker who enjoys every material comfort that life can offer, living in his huge apartment with his ditsy wife Judy (Kim Cattrall).
Bruce Willis should have played Sherman McCoy. Tom Hanks would have done nicely as Peter Fallow.
The big name cast, which includes Tom Hanks, Melanie Griffith, Bruce Willis, and Morgan Freeman, does nothing special to keep the attention of the audience.
It's probably best that I never read the book; I'd probably be more at odds with the movie that way.As it is, "Bonfire of the Vanities" plays on its own like an unfinished work.
Inspired by but with a story and ending distinct from Tom Wolfe's novel by the same title  The Bonfire of the Vanities - fails to attain the heights scaled by the book.
I know that Brian DePalma has done better than this but remember many times a novel doesn't do well on the big screen The, Bonfire of the Vanities was an '80s story based on a Tom Wolfe bestseller so don't blame Brian he done as good a job possible the cast had plenty of talent and that's why this movie is interesting.