It’s about time I started an Ishtar appreciation thread.
When I was dating El Hubbo back in 1988, we lived in Germany. I hadn’t heard all of the reviews disparaging the movie, so when he and his brother suggested watching it, I had no preconceptions.
I loved it! I laughed my ass off! My theory is that the only people who can truly appreciate this movie are those who make up silly songs and replacement lyrics for popular songs all the time. My family does it, El Hubbo’s family does it.
Yes, the songs that Hoffman and Beatty sing are stupid. But have you listened to the lyrics of the songs you like? How about The Breakup Song (They Don’t Write 'em) by the Greg Kihn Band?
[ul]We had broken up for good just an hour before,
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.
And now I’m staring at the bodies as they’re dancing 'cross the floor.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.
And then the band slowed the tempo, and the music gets you down.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.
It was the same old song, with a melancholy sound.
Ah ah ah ah ah ah ah ah.[/ul]Pretty dumb. But what a song!
Hoffman and Beatty play songwriters who are forced to hawk their wares by singing their work. It’s hilarious because the songs are goofy and they can’t sing., but they’re so serious about it! And Hoffman and Beatty know they can’t sing.
Scenes that Stick Out:
[ul]Beatty writing lyrics in his head while driving the ice cream truck. Hilarious.
The part where Hoffman pretends he can speak Arabic. Classic.
When Beatty mistakes Isabelle Adjani for a boy. A hoot.[/ul]Any other Ishtar appreciators out there? Discussion of the inherent awfulness and/or worth are encouraged.
I have also frequently expressed my appreciation of Ishtar in this forum. It’s a sharp, dark comedy by one of America’s most original directors.
The major problem, I think, is that her style is ultra-realistic–she’s a leading member of the Cassavetes school–and Ishtar was, for example, photographed by Vittorio Storaro, Bertolucci’s cinematographer on The Last Emperor. In other words, I think the studio had VERY different expectations for the style of the film than did Ms. May.
She tends to work on the cheap, because she likes the raw, real look of a low-budget movie. The studio gave her a huge budget, and she had to work twice as hard to make it look, well, small and cheap; a clusterfuck all around.
In any case, if you’re willing to watch the movie without any of its critical context in mind, it’s well worth your time.
I love Ishtar. Love it. The reason it was panned was because it was marketed as an action movie. It’s not an action movie, it’s a comedy! It’s supposed to be a comedy.
Favorite song:
Telling the Truth is Dangerous Business (when you play an accordian in a rock 'n roll band)
Have to agree with Hoffman trying to speak arabic. The camel purchasing scene is also hilarious.
Okay, I’ll chime in. I never understood why it was so despised. May’s lyrics are hysterical – I mean fall on the floor hysterical, and Hoffman and Beatty singing them just pushes that up a notch.
Hoffman speaking faux Arabic and the camel scene are indeed two fo the most memorable moments.
Having said that I think what worked against it was the pacing (which wasn’t all it should have been) and the budget was just too big for what it was (an homage to the old Road to . . . . movies with Bing Crosby and Bob Hope (both of whom could actually sing).
I think time will be much more kind to Ishtar than the critics ever were (Remember that Stravinsky’s “Rite of Spring” was booed and sent people screaming from the theatre. Universally panned. Can you imagine how poor our concerts would be without that magnificent piece of music. I’m not saying Ishtar was magnificent, but if you just watch it and pay attention, it is wickedly, dry and funny.
Despite its legendary reputation, Ishtar is nothing like the worst movie of all time, nor anything like the biggest flop - Beatty’s recent Town and Country cost more and grossed less, for example.
Nor is Ishtar some misunderstood lost masterpiece. It’s a moderately amusing farce that rehashes the old Hope-Crosby Road To formula with a few twists to bring it up to date with the 1970s (Ishtar was released released in 1987 cough), namely some scheming by the CIA.
Given the talent involved, you’d expect something far better than 1985’s Spies Like Us, a Chevy Chase/Dan Ackroyd vehicle with a similar premise. Sadly, that’s not the case. They’re both thoroughly mundane comedies.
Still, Ishtar’s songs are very funny, and they’re the main reason why some people remember the movie so fondly.
I also agree that Ishtar is criminally underrated and have been making that point on the SDMB for years. The songs are uniformly hilarious (and you need to give a lot of credit to Paul Williams, who nailed them so perfectly). The film’s only issue is that it’s uneven. It’s not a bad movie, and parts of it are excellent.
The translation scene is a comedy classic. So is the entire film before they get to Ishtar. It flags and is just OK for most of the rest of its length, then hits another high point starting when they go get the camel. Sadly, the ending is a bit rushed and seems almost tacked on.
In addition to the songs mentioned, there’s also the hilariously appalling “I’m leaving you some love in my will.”
The big problem was that the film cost a lot ($55 million may be a drop in the bucket today, but it was the most expensive film made when it came out). Critics didn’t review the film; they reviewed its price tag (it didn’t help that it didn’t look expensive). Many went into it saying they knew it had to be bad, so they fulfilled their own expectations. (One bright spot: Newsday in New York understood what was happening and gave it a positive review when it came out).
What also is happening on the Internet is that people only seem to be able to critique a film in binary. The idea that a film can be like the curate’s egg* is completely beyond many people. It’s either great or it sucks; you don’t find many saying, “there are good things about it, but also some things that aren’t so good, but overall it’s worth seeing.”
Luckily, there seems to be a rediscovery of the film. I’ve seen some very well done review of it online, and more people are beginning to understand that, shorn of it’s reputation, it’s a fun little comedy.
*From an 19th Century cartoon in the British magazine “Punch.” A young minister is eating a egg. His boss says, “I’m afraid you’ve gotten a bad egg.” He replied, “Oh, no. Parts of it are excellent.”
I will have you know that I have never seen this movie. Quite honestly, the only thing I know about it is that is reputedly HORRIBLE.
But since I’ve read this thread, I’m interested. If Gazelle and the rest of you think it’s a good movie, I just may keep it in mind the next time I’m looking for a rental.
Yes, though the orginal review from back in the day is the one that convinced me that Jonathan Rosenbaum is off his rocker. (His argument came perilously close to saying, “This is the work of a great director, ergo it must be a great movie, all appearences nonwithstanding.”)